Unacknowledged

{{title-italics}}
[[File:Unacknowledged.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Lens flare? What is this, a J.J. Abrams film?]]
{{film}}
{{ufology}}
'''''Unacknowledged: An Exposé of the World's Greatest Secret''''' is a 2017 [[Schlockumentary|"documentary"]] film starring Steven Greer of the Disclosure Project,<ref>[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6400614/ Unacknowledged] ''IMDb''</ref> which claims to show "evidence of [[extraterrestrial]] contact, including top-secret testimonials, documents and never-before-seen [[UFO]] footage."<ref>[https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/unacknowledged Unacknowledged] ''Rotten Tomatoes''</ref> In reality, the movie is an hour-and-forty-minute long [[Gish Gallop]] of [[non-sequitur]] claims, [[quote mining]], and [[deceit]] with the occasional interesting historical fact thrown in, all set to ''very'' dramatic music. 

Although it isn't particularly hard to dissect the outlandish claims made in it, the incoherent rapid fire nature of the exposition and the [[Conspiracy theory#Self-sealer|self-sealing nature of the arguments]] presented can overwhelm a viewer who isn't familiar with the topic. In addition, the pre-emptive [[poisoning the well|poisoning of the well]] against pretty much ''everyone'' who disagrees with the film sets up a convenient [[escape hatch]] for the true believers; if their arguments starts going south, one can simply accuse the interlocutors of being on [[shill gambit|somebody's payroll]].

It's pretty well made, though. And [[Damning with faint praise|kinda]] entertaining, actually.

==''Unacknowledged'' analysed: A Comedy in Three Acts==
In the following article, specific moments where [[Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence|grandiose claims]] are made will be analysed in depth. However, there are certain things that pop up over and over again, and pointing them out every time they crop up would get rather repetitive. So let's just deal with them once, here, for the sake of convenience.

===A note on quotes===
The first thing to keep in mind is that this film is a quote soup. Random quotes of famous people are given, often with no context or source, making it difficult to track down where they came from. But there is no need to, really. A random quote of a random famous person does not, in isolation, prove any of the things that are claimed in this film. Some famous (and presumably very intelligent) people believe that aliens are real, sure; but quite a few of these people might also believe that the [[Christian]] [[God]] is real, yet their word alone does not make it so.{{refn|group=note|Conversely, if you do believe in the Christian God, would the quote of a random famous [[atheist]] declaring their lack of faith be sufficient to dissuade you? It shouldn't.}} In addition, quotes can be made up. This one, for instance:
{{cquote|The nations of the world will have to unite, for the next war will be an interplanetary war. The nations of the earth must someday make a common front against attack by people from other planets.}}

Given in the movie at <u>'''1:22:10'''</u> and attributed to General [[Douglas MacArthur]] in 1955 is a popular quote that occasionally does the rounds on the internet, but appears to be completely fake.<ref>[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/macarthur-planets-war/ Did General Douglas MacArthur Predict an Interplanetary War?] ''Snopes'' 17 August 2005</ref>

===Interview editing===
The second thing to keep in mind is the way footage of people has been edited. Often the clip of a person saying something will be played with absolutely no context. What was the question asked? What topic is the person talking about? Did they give longer answers that were subsequently chopped up like the infamous interview where [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8uM0zOBuSw Homer Simpson admits to "grabbing her sweet can?"] An example of suspicious editing occurs at <u>'''50:27 - 50:37'''</u>, where Jonathan Weygandt (Lance Corporal, US Marine Corps) says:
{{cquote|They were like, look man… we're gonna take you off in a helicopter and just kick your ass out, out in the jungle, and… you know, "we're just gonna end you" and all this.}}
What was the question asked by the interviewer? Did Weygandt give any caveats with his answer or contradict himself later in his testimony? There's no way to tell. Now contrast this with Richard Doty's clip at <u>'''1:24:00 - 1:24:35'''</u>:
{{cquote|'''Greer:''' Have you been exposed to, or did you come across in your career or you network, the false I&W or the deceptive indications or warning projects related to this?<br>
'''Doty:''' Yes.}}
In this particular clip the audience knows exactly what the interviewer asked before the answer was given, thus making it a transparent piece of exposition. No one can accuse anyone of quote mining when the whole clip is played like this. Granted, doing this for ''everyone'' in the film would have increased the running time exponentially, so this is not an accusation that anything untoward ''has'' happened, but rather a reminder that the person who has access to the editing room has control over the narrative presented to the viewer.

===Random experts saying random things===
Lastly, a number of fairly high ranking, well-educated people make appearances to give their support for some of the things said in this film. Expertise is something to be respected, and merely [[hand-wave|hand waving]] away their claims would be rather flippant… were it not for the fact that some of these people have very bad track records when it comes to the [[paranormal]]. An example of such a man would be Dr. {{wpl|Harold E. Puthoff||,}} who appears at <u>'''1:09:40'''</u>. Puthoff is ''not'' a fake doctor. He has a Ph.D. in electrical [[engineering]] from Stanford. He also, unfortunately, has a history with the [[Church of Scientology]] and once claimed that [[Uri Geller]] has real [[psychic]] powers. Everyone is susceptible to acting irrationally. It's just human nature. One might have obtained the [[Donald Trump|highest office in the land]] or won the most [[Nobel disease|prestigious prize in academia]], but that [[appeal to authority|doesn't mean everything they say is objective truth]]. 

Now hit "play", dang it. We've got a movie to watch.

==Act I: An Embarrassment Of Riches==
In which a man who has been studying UFO phenomena for three decades presents "overwhelming evidence"&nbsp;- consisting of [[anecdotes]], blurry recordings and stock film footage.
 
===A crash at Roswell, New Mexico===
<u>'''8:20 - 11:50 minutes into the film:'''</u> Within the space of three minutes five elderly gents (one a mortician and four who claim to be former members of the Armed Forces) speak of the mysterious [[Roswell]] crash. [[FBI]] documents, alien bodies, strange unearthly tech, goodness! There is a lot to unpack here and it's presented pretty chaotically, but replaying the segment a couple of times will allow us to wade through the info dump and summarise what claims are being made.

{{sbs|title=1|The Claim:|The Rebuttal:}}
{{sbs|1=
'''Claim 1:''' A flying craft of some sort crashed in Roswell.
'''Claim 2:''' An FBI agent sent a document to [[J. Edgar Hoover]] concerning this event.<BR>
'''Claim 3:''' This craft was NOT made on planet earth.<BR>
'''Claim 4:''' There were alien bodies inside the craft.<BR>
'''Claim 5:''' The US Air Force conducted classified investigations on the alien tech and bodies they were able to recover after the crash.
|2=
Something ''did'' crash in 1947 in Roswell, New Mexico and the US Air Force ''was'' heavily involved in the whole incident. Some of the information from the time ''was'' classified TOP SECRET&nbsp;- these claims are all true. But it ''wasn't'' aliens.
[[File:Mogul_balloon_train_USAF_1995.png|thumb|center|250px|{{wpl|Project Mogul}} weather balloons&nbsp;- imagine seeing ''that'' in the sky in the late 1940s!]]
In the early days of the [[Cold War]], the [[United States]] (at the time the ''only'' nation on earth with [[nuclear bomb]]s) was afraid that the [[Soviet Union]] was developing its own nuclear arsenal. To find out if their suspicions were correct, they started spying on them; and since the borders of the USSR were closed, the US had to resort to aerial surveillance.<ref>[https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/ufo/report_af_roswell.pdf REPORT OF AIR FORCE RESEARCH REGARDING THE "ROSWELL INCIDENT" July 1994] ''nsa.gov''</ref>{{refn|group=note|Eagle eyed readers might have noticed that the memo cuts off abruptly because, apparently, the NSA is capable of spying on everyone but are incapable of using a frickin' photocopier. The full memo can be found between pages 26 and 49 of this [https://media.defense.gov/2010/Dec/01/2001329893/-1/-1/0/roswell-2.pdf 994 page behemoth called "The Roswell Report"]. Lots of other cool stuff in there, for people interested in this subject. (Though as you can tell from the way the pdf is formatted the Air Force is ALSO too stupid to use a photocopier properly.)}} The idea of using stealthy high-altitude balloons equipped with surveillance equipment was floated shortly after [[World War II]] ended. That's how Project Mogul was born.
<BR>
In the summer of 1947, one of these experimental weather balloons crashed on a ranch owned by W. W. Brazel. It must have been an unusual sight for him, this contraption made of tape, wood and material similar to [[aluminum]] foil that fell from the sky. Once he had alerted the authorities to what he found the soldiers rolled up to collect their crashed spy balloon, but not before the media was whipped into a frenzy over the mysterious incident.<ref>[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/in-1947-high-altitude-balloon-crash-landed-roswell-aliens-never-left-180963917/ In 1947, A High-Altitude Balloon Crash Landed in Roswell. The Aliens Never Left] ''Smithsonian Magazine'' 5 July 2017</ref> There were no reports at the time of bodies of any sort, even amongst the most sensationalist of small town tabloids&nbsp;- such [[myth]]s only started in the late 1970s after the publication of ufology books. Reports of strange bodies being seen at crash sites in the subsequent years near Air Force Bases is understandable though, and has a simple explanation: the Air Force was testing safety equipment for their cutting-edge fighter jets by chucking crash test dummies from great heights.<ref>[https://skepticalinquirer.org/2017/12/the-roswell-incident-at-70-facts-not-myths/ The Roswell Incident at 70: Facts, Not Myths] ''Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 41 (No. 6)'' November/December 2017</ref> The sight of tight-lipped soldiers dragging strange, blank-eyed humanoid creatures out of burning wreckage probably did little to dispel rumours of a cover up, but was, in fact, pretty mundane stuff.{{refn|group=note|You didn't ''really'' think they tested experimental ejection seats with live human pilots, did you?}}
<BR>
But, what of the FBI document that Greer briefly flashes on screen? Is it real? Well… yes! It actually is. It really was written by an FBI field agent, and it is freely accessible on the FBI website.<ref>[https://vault.fbi.gov/hottel_guy/Guy%20Hottel%20Part%201%20of%201/view FBI Records: The Vault - Guy Hottel Part 1 of 1] ''fbi.gov''</ref> Not that it's proof of anything, unfortunately, seeing how it was written in 1950 (three years after Roswell) and that Agent Hottel didn't see any of the supposed "saucer" shaped aircraft himself. He merely reported that he met someone who claimed to have seen them. Such outlandish claims are par for the course in this line of work&nbsp;- it's quite telling that there are no follow-up documents, presumably because everyone at headquarters was too busy laughing to spend more money and effort looking into the story.<ref>[https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/ufos-and-the-guy-hottel-memo UFOs And The Guy Hottel Memo] ''fbi.gov'' 25 March 2013</ref>
}}

===Buzz Aldrin and his monolith===
<u>'''17:40 - 18 minutes into the film:'''</u> In this twenty second clip (taken from a longer C-SPAN interview) {{wpl|Apollo 11}} astronaut [[Buzz Aldrin]] is talking about an alien monolith on the moon of Mars… or is he? A longer version of the clip can be watched below:
<center>
{{#ev:youtube|bDIXvpjnRws}}
</center>
This is the type of video editing trick that truly makes a person's blood boil and brings the makers of this film from "slightly misguided and naïve" territory into "outright [[liar]]s" territory.

{{sbs|title=1|The Claim:|The Rebuttal:}}
{{sbs|1=
'''Aldrin''': "We should go boldly where man has not gone before. Fly by the [[comets]], visit [[asteroid]]s, visit the moon of [[Mars]]. There is a monolith there, a very unusual structure on this little potato shaped object that goes around Mars once in seven hours. When people find out about that they are going to say: who put that there? Who put that there?" 
[[File:Monolith55103h-crop.jpg|thumb|center|250px|Not quite as exciting as it sounds, is it?]]
|2=
Aldrin answers his own question in the interview, although this bit is ''conveniently'' missing from the movie:
'''Aldrin''': "Well, the Universe put it there. If you choose, [[God]] put it there."<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDIXvpjnRws C-SPAN: Buzz Aldrin Reveals Existence of Monolith on Mars Moon] from the [[YouTube]] channel ''C-SPAN'' 22 July 2009</ref>
<BR>
The monolith in question is the one on Phobos, the larger of Mars' two moons. The boulder is about 85 meters in diameter and is probably ejecta from the impact that caused the formation of Stickney Crater.<ref>[https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA04746 PIA04746: Boulders on Phobos] ''Photojournal - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory'' 17 September 2003</ref> Note that a "monolith" is a term used in [[geology]] to describe a massive, upright piece of stone&nbsp;- it's not talking about the machine from ''2001: A Space Odyssey''. 
[[File:Zuma_Rock.jpg|thumb|center|250px|{{wpl|Zuma Rock}} is an example of a monolith on our planet&nbsp;- although ours are created by tectonics and erosion, unlike the one on Phobos.]]
}}

===Nukes in space===
[[File:Starfish5.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Ooooh, pretty lights!]]
<u>'''21 - 23 minutes into the film'''</u>: Two gentlemen (captioned as Col. Ross Dedrickson and Lt. Robert Jacobs, both formerly of the US Air Force) claim to have been present at {{wpl|Vandenberg Air Force Base}} when a missile was shot out of the sky by a laser beam fired from an [[unidentified flying object]]. Dedrickson then makes the claim that this was done by aliens, who were actively sabotaging human nuclear tests.

{{sbs|title=1|The Claim:|The Rebuttal:}}
{{sbs|1=
'''Dedrickson''': "The idea of any explosion in space by any Earth government was not acceptable to the extra terrestrials, and that has been demonstrated over and over."
'''Greer''': "How was that demonstrated?"
'''Dedrickson''': "By the destruction of any nuclear weapon sent into space."
|2=
What about Operation {{wpl|Starfish Prime}} then? The well-documented 1962 nuclear test conducted by the United States, in space? The one that made headlines all over the world?<ref>[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/going-nuclear-over-the-pacific-24428997/ Going Nuclear Over the Pacific] ''Smithsonian Magazine'' 15 August 2012</ref> The one that created spectacular aurora in the sky, and was photographed by people in [[Hawaii]] who held bomb watching parties on the roofs of their houses?<ref>[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/why-the-us-once-set-off-a-nuclear-bomb-in-space-called-starfish-prime Why the U.S. once set off a nuclear bomb in space] ''National Geographic Magazine'' 15 July 2021</ref>
<BR>
Starfish Prime is a well known example of a nuke going off in space, but it's not the only one. The United states sent quite a few nuclear weapons into space during the early years of the Cold War&nbsp;- as did the Soviet Union.<ref>[https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2010/07/01/128170775/a-very-scary-light-show-exploding-h-bombs-in-space A Very Scary Light Show: Exploding H-Bombs In Space] ''NPR'' 1 July 2010</ref>
}}

===Was Carl Sagan silenced by the CIA?===
[[File:Carl_Sagan_Planetary_Society.JPG|thumb|right|150px|Carl Sagan is spinning so fast in his grave right now we might just be able to generate some free energy.]]
<u>'''26:50 - 27:20 minutes into the film'''</u>: The late [[Carl Sagan]] makes an appearance through short excerpts from his 1980 TV show, ''Cosmos.'' A quote of his is then briefly shown on the screen:{{cquote|It now seems quite clear that Earth is not the only inhabited planet.}}
while Greer makes the assertion that Sagan was pro-UFO… before the [[Men in black|spooks]] got to him.
{{sbs|title=1|The Claim:|The Rebuttal:}}
{{sbs|1=
'''Greer''': "The question is, who are people like Carl Sagan? And before him, Professor Donald Menzel? It turns out that Sagan, in his early career, actually spoke and wrote about UFOs in a way that was affirmative, that was legitimate. After, he was threatened by the intelligence community and blackmailed. He then began to [[debunk]] the issue."
|2=
This is a rather disappointing and low effort debunk, because Greer hasn't offered any [[evidence]] for his claim. Zero, nada, zilch. Not even a token blurry document, briefly flashing across the screen with "TOP SECRET" in big red letters stamped across the face of it, nor a clip of a random pensioner saying something like, "It was me! I threatened Carl Sagan!" One can only assume that Greer has absolutely NO proof to back up his claim, because if he did he would have shown it to the audience.
<BR>
The [[burden of proof]] lies with those who make the assertions. It's not somebody else's responsibility to prove that something ''didn't'' happen and [[Logical razor#Hitchens.27 razor|all that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence]]. As for the out of context Sagan quote, what exactly is that supposed to prove? In what way does saying "The universe is a big place so it would be surprising if we were alone" equate to "Aliens have visited Earth and the intelligence community killed [[Marilyn Monroe]] because she was about to reveal it to the public?" The former is a rather reasonable take given the vastness of space and the awe-inspiring number of [[stars]] and [[planet]]s floating in it. The second, on the other hand…
}}

===The body that is not of human origin===
<u>'''27:30 minutes into the film'''</u>: A tiny skeleton is shown very, very briefly on screen. One might think that he should ''surely'' spend some time on this&nbsp;- wouldn't this be his biggest piece of evidence by far? In fairness to the man, his previous project, {{wpl|Sirius (2013 film)|''Sirius''|,}} dedicated more screen time to the specimen in question, so it's understandable that he flew past it. He would just be repeating what he already said in his previous film. Well, that, and he also happens to know that the body is ''not'' an alien's.

{{sbs|title=1|The Claim:|The Rebuttal:}}
{{sbs|1=
'''Greer''': "We have an enormous amount of photo and video evidence, and physical evidence. And, in our last project, brought out an actual body that is, most likely, not of human origin."
|2=
The {{wpl|Atacama skeleton}} was dug up in Chile in 2003. One might be forgiven for assuming it is from outer space&nbsp;- it is undeniably a strange looking corpse. But there could be other explanations too... a mummy, perhaps? Some sort of prehistoric humanoid? Turns out the answer is a lot more boring than that.
<BR>
Ata, as she has been named by the scientists studying her, is unquestionably a human, from this very planet.<ref>[https://www.science.org/content/article/bizarre-6-inch-skeleton-shown-be-human Bizarre 6-Inch Skeleton Shown to Be Human] ''Science'' 3 May 2013</ref> By using x-rays, mass spectrometry and whole-[[genome]] sequencing.<ref>{{oa}} Bhattacharya S, Li J, Sockell A, Kan MJ, Bava FA, Chen SC, Ávila-Arcos MC, Ji X, Smith E, Asadi NB, Lachman RS, Lam HYK, Bustamante CD, Butte AJ, Nolan GP. [https://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2018/03/21/gr.223693.117.full.pdf Whole-genome sequencing of Atacama skeleton shows novel mutations linked with dysplasia.] Genome Res. 2018 Apr;28(4):423-431. doi: 10.1101/gr.223693.117. Epub 2018 Mar 22. PMID: 29567674; PMCID: PMC5880234.</ref>{{refn|group=note|Although this paper was authored by real scientists and published in a peer reviewed journal, it's somewhat problematic. Shortly after it was published, a response was penned by a number of academics in the ''International Journal of Paleopathology'' who criticised the methodology, interpretation of the results, and the ethics surrounding Ata, pointing out that the claim that she was some sort of wonder specimen full of weird mutations was unfounded, and that the whole experiment was probably illegal. The conclusion of their paper read as follows: "Close collaboration with [[archaeologist]]s and/or palaeopathologists is a vital part of informed scientific research on human remains from the past. A nuanced understanding of skeletal biological processes and environmental context is essential for accurate scientific interpretation and for acting as a check on the ethics and legality of such research. Unfortunately, there was no scientific rationale to undertake genomic analyses of Ata because the skeleton is normal, the identified genetic mutations are possibly coincidental, and none of them are known to be strongly associated with skeletal dysplasias that would affect the [[phenotype]] at this young age. We caution [[DNA]] researchers about getting involved in cases that lack clear context and legality, or where the remains have resided in private collections. In the case of Ata, costly and time-consuming scientific testing using whole genome techniques was unnecessary and unethical."<ref>{{oa}} Halcrow SE, Killgrove K, Robbins Schug G, Knapp M, Huffer D, Arriaza B, Jungers W, Gunter J. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1879981718300548 On engagement with anthropology: A critical evaluation of skeletal and developmental abnormalities in the Atacama preterm baby and issues of forensic and bioarchaeological research ethics. Response to Bhattacharya et al. "Whole-genome sequencing of Atacama skeleton shows novel mutations linked with dysplasia" in Genome Research, 2018, 28: 423-431.] Doi: 10.1101/gr.223693.117. Int J Paleopathol. 2018 Sep;22:97-100. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpp.2018.06.007. Epub 2018 Jul 17. PMID: 30025270.</ref>}} we actually know quite a lot about her. She was born 40 years ago, suffered from a number of birth defects (hence the strange appearance) and was stillborn.<ref>[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/chile-mummy-ata-alien-dna Tiny Mummy’s ‘Alien’ Appearance Finally Explained] ''National Geographic'' 22 March 2018</ref>
}}

==Act II: Down The Rabbit Hole==
[[File:Monroe_1953_publicity.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Killed by her own government!!!{{lie}}]]
In which the real lack of transparency and accountability in US politics drives people to fake conspiracy theories.

===But what does Marilyn Monroe have to do with all of this?===
<u>'''52:10 - 54:00 minutes into the film'''</u>: Greer claims to know a [[Freemason]] who let him in on a little secret&nbsp;- that the glamourous [[Hollywood]] star Marilyn Monroe didn't, in fact die of an overdose&nbsp;- but was ''silenced'' by the [[deep state]] for threatening to air their dirty laundry.
{{sbs|title=1|The Claim:|The Rebuttal:}}
{{sbs|1=
'''Greer''': "He said, do you know why they killed Marilyn?"
[Black and White footage of the late Marilyn Monroe]<BR>
'''Greer''': "And I said, well, I didn't&nbsp;- until I got this document. It's a virtual death warrant, because she was found a couple of days later. 3 August 1962: Wiretap of telephone conversations between reporter Dorothy Kilgallen, who was looking into Roswell and other UFO issues, and her close friend Howard Rothberg, from wiretap of telephone conversation of Marilyn Monroe and Attorney General [[Robert F. Kennedy|Bobby Kennedy]]. Rothberg discussed the apparent comeback of the subject with Killgalen and the break up with the Kennedys&nbsp;- this is referring to the fact that Monroe had been having an affair with not one but both Kennedy brothers and it was becoming conspicuous so they broke it off. Rothberg indicated in so many words that she had secrets to tell, no doubt arising from her trists with President [[John F. Kennedy]] and the Attorney General. One such secret mentions the visit of the President at a secret Air Base for the purpose of inspecting things from outer space. Now, this is 1962. Killgalen said if the story is true it would be a terrible embarrassment for Jack and his plans to have [[NASA]] put men on the [[moon]]."<BR>
[Footage of JFK giving a speech]<BR>
'''Greer''': "The subject repeatedly called the Attorney General and complained about the way she was being ignored by the President and his brother. Subject threatened to hold a press conference and would tell all. It's a tragic situation because, she was an actress, she didn't understand the National Security State and the viciousness of those who want to keep these sorts of secrets." 
|2=
Monroe was found dead in her home in August 1962. The autopsy revealed that she had a lethal amount of barbiturates in her body—she also had a history of psychiatric problems and previous [[suicide]] attempts. She died by her own hands, that much is certain. No evidence of foul play. The ''only'' thing the LAPD couldn't answer about her death is if it was deliberate suicide or an accidental overdose.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20160310055232/http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1962/08/18/page/1/article/marilyn-monroe-ruled-probable-suicide-victim Marilyn Monroe ruled 'probable suicide' victim] ''Chicago Tribune'' 18 August 1962 (Archived from the [http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1962/08/18/page/1/article/marilyn-monroe-ruled-probable-suicide-victim/ original] on 10 March 2016)</ref> Not that this was good enough for the people with too much time on their hands, of course; rumours of murder kept being flung out about with no rhyme or reason, to the point where the LAPD opened up the case again in 1982, just to try to please all the nay-sayers. Once again, no evidence of foul play was found.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/29/us/los-angeles-inquiry-on-marilyn-monroe-rules-out-murder.html Los Angeles inquiry on Marilyn Monroe rules out murder] ''The New York Times'' 29 December 1982</ref>
<BR>
What the movie ''does'' get right is that she was of interest to the FBI, though not because of anything to do with aliens. [[McCarthyism|They suspected her of being a communist]],<ref>[https://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/marilyn-monroe-fbi-files-reveal-communist-leaning-acquaintances-085570 Monroe’s communist ties probed] ''Politico'' 28 December 2012</ref> because the FBI suspected practically ''everyone'' of being communist back then. The declassified FBI documents on her are proof that the United States was a deeply [[paranoid]] country, where people who had a passing interest in [[Marxism]] or [[social justice]] were constantly spied upon and branded as "Reds". It was certainly a gross violation of her [[privacy]], but not a proof of illicit affairs, secret alien bases or covered-up assassinations.<ref>[https://vault.fbi.gov/Marilyn%20Monroe/marilyn-monroe-re-processed-2012/view FBI Records: The Vault - Marilyn Monroe Re-Processed 2012] ''fbi.gov''</ref> In fact the FBI itself seems to have been somewhat interested in whether or not there was any truth to the conspiracy theories surrounding her. In 1995 they contacted the [[CIA]], requesting information about the document that Greer makes a big song and dance about. Did the CIA really have wiretaps on these people's phones without the Bureau being told about it? It would have been a pretty big breach, if true. Alas, the document claiming that Monroe was threatening a tell-all press conference is a forgery.<ref>[https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10338-10005.pdf Document 104-10338-10005] ''archives.gov''</ref>{{refn|group=note|In fairness to Greer here, ''it is'' a fairly convincing fake and whoever made it went to great lengths to get the formatting correct, so it's actually understandable that he considers it genuine. Where the forger slipped up was in the contents. As the CIA reviewer Barry Harrelson noted: "While the format resembles a "reports" form used in the 1960's, the substantive information and presentation is foreign to normal presentation and collection efforts. Also, the control stamps and other administrative items are not typical of CIA reports written during the 1960's."}} 
}}

===The mainstream media (which frequently makes the government look bad) is bought and paid for by the government===
<u>'''54:30 - 1:02:45 minutes into the film'''</u>: What hope do our fearless heroes have, when the odds are so stacked against them? The damn media-opoly is [[Galileo gambit|out to destroy the good name of everyone involved in bringing the truth to the public]] because the CIA wants to keep its [[Free energy suppression|secret stash of cool alien tech and free energy all to themselves]]!

Need proof? Just watch this banned ''Saturday Night Live'' cartoon!
<center>
{{youtube|nh6Hf5_ZYPI}}
</center>
Catchy tunes don't lie.
{{sbs|title=1|The Claim:|The Rebuttal:}}
{{sbs|1=
'''Claim 1''': The deep state has infiltrated the mainstream media and controls the narrative around UFOs.
'''Claim 2''': They use this control to pillory everyone who speaks positively about UFOs, ruining their credibility.
<BR>
'''Claim 3''': There is a CIA document that proves this [[hypothesis]] (Greer reads extracts from it while pages are being shown on screen).
<BR>
'''Claim 4''': Everyone thinks that the United States has a free press, a [[democratic]] process and an uncorrupted scientific establishment, but this is all false.
<BR>
'''Claim 5''': Science communicators who debunk UFO sightings are complicit in this culture of secrecy.
|2=
It's unclear how that ''TV Funhouse'' cartoon proves the first claim, since it doesn't say anything about the government controlling the mainstream media. It talks about private, corporate interests owning the biggest players in the US media landscape.{{refn|group=note|Which ain't wrong, to be fair.}} It's also a bit untrue to call it banned; it was aired on 14 March 1998 on NBC during ''Saturday Night Live'' and it also made it onto a compilation DVD released in 2006. If the deep state wanted to ban it, why the heck was it allowed to air in the first place? What ''is'' true, however, is that it was never shown on reruns; the segment was replaced by a musical performance. The creator of the cartoon, Robert Smigel, stated that NBC pulled it because they thought it was unfunny—which is about what he expected. He was surprised they even let him make it in the first place.<ref>[https://uproxx.com/tv/robert-smigel-tv-funhouse-banned-sketch-conspiracy-theory-rock/ Robert Smigel Set The Record Straight On The Story Of A ‘Kinda Banned’ Sketch From ‘SNL’s ‘TV Funhouse’] ''Uproxx'' 29 November 2022</ref>
<br>
Secondly, if the government is so in charge of the press, why does it allow them to frequently publish scathing pieces where cases of corruption and incompetency are revealed to the public? Why did the US government not stop the Associated Press from publishing an article that revealed Senator [[Kyrsten Sinema]] was bought and paid for by Wall Street?<ref>[https://apnews.com/article/sinema-took-wall-street-money-while-killing-tax-on-investors-0c07f73ba6db92f87fa33f1aad8dbeac Sinema took Wall Street money while killing tax on investors] ''Associate Press News'' 14 August 2022</ref> Why didn't the [[Pentagon]] stop NBC from telling the nation that its faulty intelligence led them to [[Afghanistan War|killing innocent civilians in Afghanistan]]?<ref>[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/u-s-drone-strike-kabul-mistakenly-killed-civilians-not-terrorists-n1279476 U.S. drone strike in Kabul mistakenly killed civilians, not terrorists, Pentagon says] ''NBC News'' 17 September 2021</ref> Seems like a pretty big oversight.
<br>

Next, that CIA document that is presented with such great fanfare ''does not say'' that the CIA has clandestinely infiltrated the media and academic circles so they can pull on everyone's puppet strings. It's literally about the CIA's (at the time) new openness policy, talking about the need to improve the agency's public image by declassifying more documents, creating a more inclusive and diverse workforce and making agency resources available to civilians who request them.<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0005524009.pdf TASK FORCE REPORT ON GREATER CIA OPENNESS 20 December 1991] ''cia.gov''</ref> Saying that one has access to the phone numbers of media companies and universities is not the same as claiming to control them, nor is the act of making yourself available for comment and opinion to members of the public. The internal memo ends with some puff piece published in a university magazine featuring a female CIA agent. It's not a proof of insidious UFO cover-ups, but that probably would have made the movie a lot more boring.
<br>
The [[straw man|straw manning]] of the average American citizen as this [[Credulity|naïve believer]] of everything that is fed to them is borderline offensive. Greer's claim that "everyone thinks we have a free press" holds no water. In 2016 (the year this film was being made) a Gallup poll showed that the vast majority of Americans had no trust in the news stories the media presented to them. Only 32% said they were confident that what was being reported was reliable information.<ref>[https://news.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low] ''Gallup'' 14 September 2016</ref> For the international community's view one might turn to Reporters Without Borders, who have consistently criticised the media landscape of the United States. In their "Press Freedom Index" the US only ranks in the 40s out 180 countries.<ref>[https://rsf.org/en/country/united-states Americas - United States] ''Reporters sans Frontières''</ref> "Everyone thinks we have a democratic process where all these sorts of sensitive issues will be handled legally" is also a claim without merit. Decades of wars and corruption scandals have taken their toll on the American public. There has been a significant downward trend in trust since 1964 according to the Pew Research Center, which has tracked public trust in the federal government since 1958. In the current decade only about 16-20% would claim to believe that their government is doing the right thing.<ref>[https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/public-trust-in-government-1958-2023/ Public Trust in Government: 1958-2023] ''Pew Research Center'' 19 September 2023</ref> As for the claim about the public trusting the scientific establishment: if that really was the case then websites like this wouldn't have to exist. There would be no [[Young Earth creationism|young earth creationists]] or [[anti-vaxxers]] in a world where everyone just took scientists at their word.
}}

==Act III: The Lost Century==
In which the makers of this film have run out of ideas and proceed to steal the plot of {{wpl|Watchmen|''Watchmen''|.}}

===Stanley Meyer's water powered car (also, some free energy nonsense)===
<u>'''1:13:30 - 1:15:00 into the film'''</u>: The movie has made a jarring turn, pretty much abandoning all the UFO stuff to talk about [[Free energy (pseudoscience)|free energy]] instead. According to Greer, Big Oil, in collusion with Big Government, has conspired to deprive average people of free energy, thereby forcing them to consume [[fossil fuels]]. Innocent inventors like Stanley Meyer were caught in the crossfire.
<center>
{{#ev:youtube|a74uarqap2E}}
</center>
{{sbs|title=1|The Claim:|The Rebuttal:}}
{{sbs|1=
'''Greer''': "And this is what happened to a lot of the huge breakthrough technologies, like Stan Meyer, who had a [[Water powered car|car running on water]]."
[Cut to old news report on Stanley Meyer]<BR>
'''Ryan:''' "A local inventor has discovered a way, hear this: to use ''water'' to run your car.<BR>
'''Hogan:''' "It's a major breakthrough that will no doubt make motorists happy and as Ralph Robinson explains, the Pentagon is also showing lots of interest in this project.<BR>
'''Greer:''' "A lot of people don't realise that Stan Meyer had a toroidal, a doughnut shaped object, that put out many times more energy than you had to put into it, because it was tapping into this [[Zero-point energy|zero point quantum vacuum energy field]]. That had a national security order on it before he even got it to patent. It was seized and shut down."
|2=
The conspiracy theories about Meyer did not start with this film, though the claim about the "toroidal" - an infinite energy doughnut which this man somehow made in his workshop&nbsp;- seems to be a new addition to the myth that Greer [[PIDOOMA|pulled directly out of his ass]]. Meyer did indeed claim to have invented a water-powered car and his patents are in the [[public domain]].<ref>[https://patents.google.com/patent/US5149407 US5149407A - Process and apparatus for the production of fuel gas and the enhanced release of thermal energy from such gas] ''Google Patents''</ref> The invention has a bit of a problem, in that the laws of [[physics]] stop one getting something from nothing. An internal combustion engine CAN run on the gases obtained from splitting water, but not on the water ''itself'', since water is not combustible.{{fact|joke}} In order for electrolysis to occur you need energy, so this contraption uses energy, to split water, to get the engine to run… sounds fishy. So fishy in fact that it's not surprising to learn that Meyer was dragged to court ''twice'' by investors he defrauded. He lost both cases.<ref>[https://eu.dispatch.com/story/news/2007/07/08/the-car-that-ran-on/987361007/ The car that ran on water] ''The Columbus Dispatch'' 8 July 2007</ref> There is no reason to believe that any of his inventions worked, or that he possessed the secret to free energy, or that the Pentagon had him killed&nbsp;- none whatsoever.<ref>[https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jun/03/facebook-posts/no-stanley-meyer-was-not-assassinated-pentagon/ No, Stanley Meyer was not assassinated by the Pentagon] ''PolitiFact'' 25 May 2021</ref>
}}

===Fun Fact Time<sup>TM</sup>: The Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods and decades of Middle East shenanigans===
<u>'''1:20:00 - 1:21:15 into the film'''</u>: Within the space of one minute and fifteen seconds the movie takes decades of US foreign policy to town in a rant that threatens to put [[Noam Chomsky]] out of business. We start off with the [[Vietnam War]], during which (in 1964) the US alleged that their ships were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin&nbsp;- a watershed moment which led to the escalation of the conflict, resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties and billions of dollars wasted. The Gulf of Tonkin incident consisted of one real and one fictitious event within a period of two days. On August 2, a skirmish occurred in the gulf between US and North Vietnamese forces within North Vietnamese territorial waters; this event did not lead to escalation. The second event on August 4 was fabricated by the [[National Security Agency]], and was used as an excuse for escalation of the war.<ref>{{wpa|Gulf of Tonkin incident}}</ref>

The best conspiracy theories have an element of truth to them; that's what makes them compelling. The idea that the US government is hiding aliens from the public is rather far fetched, but the idea that the US military would plan a fake event and use it as an excuse to swing into action is somewhat more believable. As Sheehan points out there is historical precedent. {{wpl|Operation Northwoods}} was, as the documentary claims, a ''real'' proposal by the US Department of Defense to stage a [[false flag]] attack that could:{{cquote|…place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of [[Cuba]] and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.<ref>[https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba (13 March 1962)] ''The George Washington University National Security Archive''</ref>}} The plans in this memo were turned down by the Kennedy administration, but the fact that this sort of thing was seriously considered is mind-boggling.

Well, it ''would'' be mind boggling if the [[Iraq War]] wasn't fought on the pretext of a tin-pot dictator's imaginary arsenal of nukes.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/07/usa.iraq1 There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq] ''The Guardian'' 7 October 2004</ref> And if the [[Afghanistan War]] hadn't been two decades worth of spectacular failures built upon verifiable falsehoods.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/ At War With The Truth: U.S. officials constantly said they were making progress. They were not, and they knew it, an exclusive Post investigation found.] ''The Washington Post'' 9 December 2019</ref>

All this stuff is getting kind of boring though… can we get back to the fun stuff? Like, eh… flying [[pyramid]]s maybe?

===I was promised flying pyramids and all I got was this lousy drawing===
<u>'''1:26:05 - 1:27:10 into the film'''</u>: Now we're talking! Never mind all that criticism of US foreign policy, there are more urgent matters at hand. Right now "Military Aerospace Historian" Michael Schratt{{refn|group=note|An impressive title, but one that appears to be self-awarded. A quick search of the man appears to shows no qualification in the field of history from a reputable third level institution, [https://www.collegeofpsychicstudies.co.uk/about-us/our-consultants/michael-schratt/ though he does seem to be involved with "The College of Psychic Studies" in some capacity.] Probably all the qualification one needs to star in a flick like this.}} is explaining to the viewers how the Air Force is going to smear the friendly aliens using their arsenal of mundane objects which they (somehow) turned into aircraft!
<center><gallery widths=150px heights=150px>
File:Boomerang.jpg|The boomerangs…
File:Saucer_with_yellow_and_white_design.jpg|…the saucers…
File:Four_cigars.jpg|…the cigars…
File:Harvard_food_pyramid.png|…the pyramids…
File:Basic_right_triangle_cba.png|…and the triangles!
</gallery></center> 
{{sbs|title=1|The Claim:|The Rebuttal:}}
{{sbs|1=
'''Schratt''': "They could pull it off. They could definitely pull it off. Right now they have the technology to mimic the form, fit and function of extra-terrestrial UFOs. They have the technology. Absolutely. It's seamless and you can never tell the difference."<BR>
[Whips out an artist's rendition of a boomerang shaped aircraft]<BR>
'''Schratt''': "If they do have a false flag invasion they're gonna use one of these, this is the "Hudson Belly Boomerang," this is 1982 to 1989. Over 25,000 eyewitnesses reported this craft. They can use the saucers, the cigars, the pyramids and the triangles as a united coalition&nbsp;- and that's how they're gonna do it."<BR>
[Digital drawing of a floating pyramid]<BR>
'''Schratt''': "We're talking about 150 to 172 feet across for the wingspan, which is the identical wingspan of the {{wpl|B-2}} stealth bombers. So the question we need to ask is, was some of that 22.4 billion used on the B-2 poured into this program? It's the exact same time frame. When they power up, and when they accelerate, it looks like a spark off a grinding wheel. And you can never know the difference."
|2=
The US Air Force has super advanced technology that would look outlandish to the untrained eye? Well, that ''would'' make sense, they do get an awful lot of funding and hire a lot of top-class engineers. Since the people in this film seem to believe that Meyer, an independent hobbyist inventor with little funding, could build water powered cars, believing that the US Air Force with its billions in funding, army of scientists and decades of experience could build cutting edge aircraft is a pretty reasonable belief. ''So reasonable'', in fact, one wonders how this segment got left in the movie.
<BR>
<u>Because the problem with Schratt's little monologue here is that he essentially debunks the rest of the film.</u> Scattered throughout this motion picture are grainy snippets of footage featuring randomly moving lights, accompanied by anecdotal evidence from people unable to explain the things they have seen. And then Schratt just goes ahead and says it out loud:
{{cquote|It's seamless and you can never tell the difference.}}
What's more reasonable to believe? That the US Air Force, through trial, error, blood, sweat and tears have developed cutting edge, top secret aircraft,<ref>[https://theconversation.com/what-is-most-likely-going-on-in-area-51-a-national-security-historian-explains-why-you-wont-find-aliens-there-203494 What is most likely going on in Area 51? A national security historian explains why you won’t find aliens there] ''The Conversation'' 14 August 2023</ref> and that people have glimpsed these cutting edge, top secret aircraft, manoeuvring at high speeds in hitherto unseen ways and then mistaken them for aliens?<ref>[https://www.businessinsider.com/ufo-sightings-mistakes-real-objects-2018-11?r=US&IR=T 10 flying objects people have mistaken for alien spaceships] ''Business Insider'' 18 December 2018</ref> Or that people were seeing alien spacecraft, which the US armed forces then reverse engineered, and that every sighting of unexplainable lights in the sky is a genuine alien spaceship (or a military airplane, since according to Schratt, one can't tell the difference)? How is it possible that the statement "you can't tell the difference" is accepted by the experts in this film? That's ''literally admitting'' that the people who claimed to have seen real ETs (including Greer himself, in his childhood) probably just saw experimental aircraft! Make it make sense!
<BR>
Also, why is there real footage of the B-2 Spirit and the {{wpl|F-117 Nighthawk}} but only CGI illustrations of the flying pyramids? Maybe it's because the Spirit and the Nighthawk are real airplanes and the flying pyramids are made up [[bullshit]], that's maybe why.
}}

===Hollywood is priming humanity for an alien invasion===
<u>'''1:29:30 - 1:30:30 into the film'''</u>: The myriad details of this sinister false flag operation are finally coming together—the US government, due to its need to be in a state of perpetual war, will use "back engineered alien reproduction vehicles to stage an [[Alien invasion|invasion from outer space]]." This will presumably allow the US government to declare martial law and take away people's individual freedoms. In order to make sure the public panics when they see the alien spacecraft, society needs to be brainwashed into hating and fearing our friendly interstellar neighbors. Then, once the public is sufficiently duped into hating the ETs, they will hand over their liberty to the corrupt politicians like [[sheep]]. One of the prime vehicles for disseminating these opinions are Hollywood movies where aliens are vilified. 
<center>
{{#ev:youtube|vjFG-4Ge668}}
</center>
{{sbs|title=1|The Claim:|The Rebuttal:}}
{{sbs|1=
'''Greer''': "And then it makes it out through the movie industry, and the UFO lore, the internet, what have you... and it starts creating this spectre of a threat."
[Iconic scene of Sigourney Weaver from ''Aliens (1986)'', in the power loader getting ready to fight the xenomorph]: "Get away from her you BITCH!"
<BR>[Scene from  the TV show ''I Love Lucy (1954)'']: "Hmm, pardon me. Are... are, you, from, Mars?"
<BR>[Gory scene from the alien abduction film ''Fire in the Sky (1993)'', showing an alien cutting into somebody's face]
<BR>[More ''I Love Lucy'']<BR>[Scene of the White House being blown up by aliens in ''Independence Day (1996)'']
[Scene from the ''War of the Worlds (2005)'' depicting an alien [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dERZjJ9anbc FIRIN' HIZ LAZER!]]
|2=
If Hollywood has been tasked with making sure that humanity hates aliens then their paymasters need to have a serious chat with them. Cause you don't do that by making stuff like, uh... {{wpl|E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial|''E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial''|.}} You know, that movie with the friendly little alien? Where the shady US government are depicted as the bad guys? The one that's ONE OF THE HIGHEST GROSSING FILMS OF ALL FRICKIN' TIME!!!<ref>[https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0083866/ E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)] ''Box Office Mojo''</ref><BR>
The idea that Hollywood is conspiring with the "shadow state" to make humans hate aliens is ''ludicrous'' because all one needs to do to counter that argument is rattle off some movies where the aliens are depicted as benevolent, empathetic creatures that one would wanna hang out with—and there is a ''load'' of them, many of them iconic blockbusters.<ref>[https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/friendly-alien-invasion-films 10 friendly alien invasion films that will have you welcoming our bug-eyed overlords] ''BBC Science Focus'' 2 July 2020</ref> In fact, in 1982, the year ''both'' ''E.T.'' and ''The Thing'' were released (within weeks of each other!) the movie where the scary shape shifting alien hunts down the humans performed abysmally compared to the movie where a little boy makes friends with someone from outer space.<ref>[https://www.bfi.org.uk/lists/10-great-films-about-aliens-visiting-earth 10 great films about aliens visiting Earth] ''British Film Institute'' 21 August 2014</ref>
<BR>
But this idea is so phenomenally stupid we'll keep going: What about ''[[Star Trek]]''? ''[[Fun:Star Wars|Star Wars]]''? ''Guardians of the Galaxy''? ''Men In Black''? ''Super 8''? ''Captain Marvel''? ''Avatar''? ''The Fifth Element''? ''The Green Lantern''? ''Transformers''? ''2001: A Space Odyssey'? For the gamers in the audience&nbsp;- ever play Mass Effect? The game where you date '''sexy''' aliens?! Supposedly the idea of the alien menace is spreading like wildfire through the World Wide Web, except nobody noticed, 'cause everyone was too busy ''thirsting'' for their shipmates!<ref>[https://old.reddit.com/r/masseffect/comments/nx624n/kudos_to_bioware_for_making_aliens_so_irresistible/ Kudos to BioWare for Making Aliens So Irresistible] ''Reddit'' 11 June 2021</ref>{{refn|group=note|Thane for life, btw.}}
<BR>
Get outta here Mr. Greer. Just… just leave.
}}

==In conclusion==

A load of [[Baloney Detection Kit|baloney]].
 [[Truthiness|All true]], all of it, the aliens, the false flags, the whole lot. [[RationalWiki]] is controlled and funded by [[Fun:George Soros|George Soros]] and therefore can not be trusted!!!

==See also==
*[[Ancient aliens]] - With how convoluted this film is you'd think they'd mention them ''at least'' once.
*''[[The Men Who Stare at Goats]]'' - Not only is the CIA hiding aliens from us, they are also staring at our [[goats]]!
==External links==
*[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6400614/ ''Unacknowledged'' on IMDb]

==Notes==
{{reflist|2|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Conspiracy theories]]
[[Category:Films]]
[[Category:Schlockumentaries]]
[[Category:Side-by-side articles]]

Categories: Conspiracy theories, Films, Schlockumentaries, Side-by-side articles