PBS' NOVA: "ABDUCTED BY ALIENS?"
Airdate: February 27, 1996, 9:00 p.m.

by Glen Boyd

For those of you who missed it, the latest media attempt at seriously addressing the subject of UFO-related phenomena took place on PBS, February 27 with the broadcast of its acclaimed, fact-based science series, "NOVA." The subject of this installment, "Abducted by Aliens?", promised an objective look at the alien-abduction phenomenon while adhering to the traditionally high and objective standards for which this excellent series has become known.

Prior to it's airing, however, there was some cause for skepticism with regard to its objectivity from the UFO research community. Abduction researcher, Budd Hopkins, posted messages through email and several Internet newsgroups raising questions as to NOVA's objectivity. Without quoting directly, the crux of Hopkin's comments centered on the stated promise of an objective airing of the alien-abduction phenomenon not being delivered in the final product -- inference being that the NOVA piece, in it's final, edited form, constituted not only a debunking of the abduction-phenomenon itself but possibly a direct attack on Hopkins and fellow abduction researcher, Dr. John Mack of Harvard (both of whom actively participated in the program... presumedly with assurances of objectivity in reporting).

Upon viewing the NOVA program, my own conclusions are that Hopkin's protests are justified. The NOVA "Abducted by Aliens?" does raise legitimate questions as to the actual objectivity of abduction researchers... and of Hopkins and Mack in particular. However, in addressing its concerns of these researcher's predisposition toward "belief" in the phenomenon; NOVA, in the course of its own investigation, abandons the same standards of objectivity which it accuses (sometimes subtly, at other times with borderline hostility) Hopkins and Mack of failing to live up to.

The program begins with an overview of the abduction phenomenon, recounting the first historically-documented abduction case -- that of Betty and Barney Hill in New Hampshire in 1961. From there, it goes to a Hopkins abduction support group and begins to subtly chip away at the crediblity of the abduction scenario with the narrator commenting about Hopkins having "no formal psychological training" and the purported tracking devices and other evidence "which have never been recovered." Then, about 20 minutes into the program, all pretense at objectivity on NOVA's part vanishes as their cameras follow Hopkins to the home of a prospective abduction case in Florida with NOVA's objective being the search for a "more earthly explanation."

Interspersed between the usual comments of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence offered up by the likes of Carl Sagan -- who, it must be noted, also has "no formal psychological training" -- the narrator continues chipping away at Hopkins credibility, increasing the tone for what promises to be a definitive, debunking climax. Segments are shown where the Florida couple's children are shown photographs of everything from Batman to a classic "Communion" alien, and Hopkins does indeed appear to lead them with questions as to the "good" or "evil" nature of the alien, asking the oldest child to "make up a story" about the alien. However, just when it seems the NOVA report may be onto something, classic debunking enters the picture with the off-camera narrator intoning something about children pausing at aliens and how "to Budd Hopkins this is compelling evidence."

From there, NOVA sharpens what looks to be an increasingly one-sided debunkers knife -- one completely familiar to a UFO community used to swamp gas and weather balloon tales. The familiar scenario of a 1950s government investigating "stories" of unidentified flying objects with most turning out to be hoaxes are retold... as is the story of Hollywood providing the answer in films like "The Day The Earth Stood Still."

In a particularly incredible segment, the Betty and Barney Hill story is explained away as the result of an "Outer Limits" television episode featuring telepathic aliens which, NOVA claims, aired days prior to the Hill encounter. The fact that Betty Hill drew elaborate, later-proved-accurate, star maps under hypnosis is, of course, completely omitted from NOVA's "investigation."

And it gets better. Instead of giving Mack and Hopkins any chance for rebuttals, we see an abductee from Hopkin's group making drawings similiar to the alien images shown in the "Blockbuster" (NOVA narrator's emphasis) film of Whitley Streiber's book, "Communion"; or hear accounts of alien sexual encounters compared to stories of nuns being raped by Incubi; or listen to the usual accounts of abduction reports increasing following the release of movies like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." No rebuttals allowed as NOVA's claims to objectivity and credibility get tossed clean out the window.

The final blow is struck with the recounting of Donna Bassett's alledged "infiltration" of John Mack's abduction investigations. This is the climax towards which NOVA's "objective investigation" of alien abduction builds from the beginning -- at first subtly then with an increased taste for "experiencer" blood. Bassett claims she faked her hypnotic sessions in which visions of meetings with Nikita Khrushchev and John F. Kennedy are recounted to appeal, in Bassett's words, to John Mack "the peace activist." Mack maintains Bassett is a "true experiencer" who simply cannot come to terms with it.

If shining a critical light on the alien-abduction phenomenon is the aim of NOVA's "Abducted by UFO's?" it almost succeeds when it raises some legitimate doubts about the objectivity of the phenom's most noted researchers.

However, to cast doubt on those researching the phenomenon does not necessarily cast doubt on the phenomenon itself. And, when NOVA fails to operate under the same stringent standards of objectivity and "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence" it demands of its subjects, this program is revealed to be every bit the hatchet-job Hopkin's impassioned pre-air Internet posts suggested.

To quote one of the program's interviewees from the scientific community:

"Many prefer these fantastical stories to the more prosaic explanations offered by practical science."

Fine. And I prefer the same objectivity in reporting demanded by NOVA of its subjects. Next?