The definitive investigation on the UFO phenomenon narrated by Peter Coyote.The definitive investigation on the UFO phenomenon narrated by Peter Coyote.The definitive investigation on the UFO phenomenon narrated by Peter Coyote.
Peter Coyote
- Narrator
- (voice)
John Samford
- Self - General, U.S. Air Force
- (archive footage)
Marc Bailey
- Himsel - News Anchor, KNXV-TV Phoenix
- (archive footage)
Robin Sewell
- Self - News Anchor, KNXV-TV Phoenix
- (archive footage)
Paul Joncich
- Self - TV Reporter
- (archive footage)
Featured reviews
If you want to see evidence of the US Deep State, this doc brings out a lot of it. Basic message is even the guys who have top security clearance can't tell you who to go see. The government denies that any agency has been assigned to investigate the existence of UFOs, or EBE's, or anything else.
Very informative Doc. 9/10.
Very informative Doc. 9/10.
There are a lot of really hokey UFO documentaries out there, but this is the best I've seen at trying to tell it straight. It doesn't make wild claims, and relies instead on real people talking, photos and footage, and documentary evidence to give a good overview of what we know (and don't know) so far. The reality is that there is a lot we just don't know.
What it doesn't do is put forward a few 'non-alien' possibilities for the 'unidentified' in UFO. What if the more convincing cases are actually earth-bound? To its credit, the documentary simply makes a case for 'disclosure'... something, no doubt, many of us would like to see from our governments.
Let's face it, there are questions to be answered and they need to be answered openly and honestly. Perhaps that is the big bug-bear in the room. "We know it's not ETs, but we really don't want to tell you nasty truth." OK... that's a stupid "what if" that UFO documentaries typically rely on. Let's face it, if invasion day ever does come, let's hope they are benevolent conquerors.
What it doesn't do is put forward a few 'non-alien' possibilities for the 'unidentified' in UFO. What if the more convincing cases are actually earth-bound? To its credit, the documentary simply makes a case for 'disclosure'... something, no doubt, many of us would like to see from our governments.
Let's face it, there are questions to be answered and they need to be answered openly and honestly. Perhaps that is the big bug-bear in the room. "We know it's not ETs, but we really don't want to tell you nasty truth." OK... that's a stupid "what if" that UFO documentaries typically rely on. Let's face it, if invasion day ever does come, let's hope they are benevolent conquerors.
Some years ago, at Malman Air Force Base in the Dakotas, a strange circular "craft" hovered over the entrance gate, frightening the guards posted there. They called the officer in charge of the anti-missile field, a Lieutenant Colonel named Salas. At the same time, Salas was informed that about twenty of his ABMs had shut down simultaneously, although the circuits were independent and contained built-in redundancies. The object zipped away and power to the missiles was restored.
Salas reported the incident and was debriefed and told that he could say nothing about what had happened. Later, when the relevant documents were declassified, Salas managed to obtain copies. The conclusion of the Air Force was that there was no threat to national security. Salas comments to the interviewer: "If shutting down twenty ABMs isn't a threat to national security, I don't know what is." That's just one of many similar incidents described in this rather thorough documentary. There are simply too many to be easily dismissed. They must be taken seriously. At least it relieves us of the necessity of calling an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel in charge of launching ABMs a liar or a lunatic. Instead, we deny what happened and rid our consciousness of it.
The human mind is a curious organ. It searches desperately for simple answers when faced with puzzles. If you ask most people which city is farther west -- Los Angeles or Bakersfield, you generally get the wrong answer, even from Californians. The shape and coastline of the state are irregular. But the mind simplifies the state's contours into a straight rectangle, north and south, with right angles. In this model, Los Angeles, on the coast, must be farther west than Bakersfield, which is in the lower center of the rectangle. Only Los Angeles is not farther west.
The same dynamics of oversimplification seem to be at work in interpreting the UFO phenomena. "They're all hoaxes or misidentified aircraft." The fact is that most of them are -- about 95% of sightings can be explained away as mundane events. It's the remaining 5% that are troublesome. What interests me, as a behavioral scientist, as much as anything else is the extent to which humans are willing to bend their perceptions and the interpretations of them in order to preserve a kind of mental homeostasis. The famous Rendelsham sightings in England have been dismissed as flashing lighthouse beams seen through a forest. Fine, except that two or three US Air Force investigators were able to walk around the object, touching it, describing it in their notebooks. and commenting about it in their tape recorders.
UFOs are a complicated question mark in our scientific lore. The film deals pretty even-handedly with the issue. The nearest civilization must be so far away that even traveling at the speed of light, it would take hundreds of years for them to reach earth. But that objection is what scientists call "theory dependent." It's true only if Einstein's general theory of relativity is entirely true and subject to no modifications. That's what people thought about Newtonian physics until Einstein came along and upset THAT applecart. Newton and his pals had explained everything. There was nothing left to learn. The expert commentators still hold with Einstein but they're bright guys and allow the possibility of space being warped to such an extent that it might be possible to jump quickly from one place and time to another.
Scientists are usually careful about making unwarranted assumptions. These physicists and engineers mainly avoid doing so. But the casual observers constantly use the words "craft" and "space ship" and "flying saucer" to describe what they've seen. As a sort of scientist myself, I wouldn't go that far. I wouldn't even call them "objects." I'd use the word "things" because we don't know that they're solid; we don't know they're from out space either -- maybe they're some new form of matter, like plasma. Maybe they're thought impulses in the mind of God. Nobody knows.
The least that can be said about the film is that it fascinates, and for good reason. There is no doubt any longer that something is up, and we have absolutely no idea of what that "something" is.
Salas reported the incident and was debriefed and told that he could say nothing about what had happened. Later, when the relevant documents were declassified, Salas managed to obtain copies. The conclusion of the Air Force was that there was no threat to national security. Salas comments to the interviewer: "If shutting down twenty ABMs isn't a threat to national security, I don't know what is." That's just one of many similar incidents described in this rather thorough documentary. There are simply too many to be easily dismissed. They must be taken seriously. At least it relieves us of the necessity of calling an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel in charge of launching ABMs a liar or a lunatic. Instead, we deny what happened and rid our consciousness of it.
The human mind is a curious organ. It searches desperately for simple answers when faced with puzzles. If you ask most people which city is farther west -- Los Angeles or Bakersfield, you generally get the wrong answer, even from Californians. The shape and coastline of the state are irregular. But the mind simplifies the state's contours into a straight rectangle, north and south, with right angles. In this model, Los Angeles, on the coast, must be farther west than Bakersfield, which is in the lower center of the rectangle. Only Los Angeles is not farther west.
The same dynamics of oversimplification seem to be at work in interpreting the UFO phenomena. "They're all hoaxes or misidentified aircraft." The fact is that most of them are -- about 95% of sightings can be explained away as mundane events. It's the remaining 5% that are troublesome. What interests me, as a behavioral scientist, as much as anything else is the extent to which humans are willing to bend their perceptions and the interpretations of them in order to preserve a kind of mental homeostasis. The famous Rendelsham sightings in England have been dismissed as flashing lighthouse beams seen through a forest. Fine, except that two or three US Air Force investigators were able to walk around the object, touching it, describing it in their notebooks. and commenting about it in their tape recorders.
UFOs are a complicated question mark in our scientific lore. The film deals pretty even-handedly with the issue. The nearest civilization must be so far away that even traveling at the speed of light, it would take hundreds of years for them to reach earth. But that objection is what scientists call "theory dependent." It's true only if Einstein's general theory of relativity is entirely true and subject to no modifications. That's what people thought about Newtonian physics until Einstein came along and upset THAT applecart. Newton and his pals had explained everything. There was nothing left to learn. The expert commentators still hold with Einstein but they're bright guys and allow the possibility of space being warped to such an extent that it might be possible to jump quickly from one place and time to another.
Scientists are usually careful about making unwarranted assumptions. These physicists and engineers mainly avoid doing so. But the casual observers constantly use the words "craft" and "space ship" and "flying saucer" to describe what they've seen. As a sort of scientist myself, I wouldn't go that far. I wouldn't even call them "objects." I'd use the word "things" because we don't know that they're solid; we don't know they're from out space either -- maybe they're some new form of matter, like plasma. Maybe they're thought impulses in the mind of God. Nobody knows.
The least that can be said about the film is that it fascinates, and for good reason. There is no doubt any longer that something is up, and we have absolutely no idea of what that "something" is.
Did you know
- TriviaIn 2004, in an Advocacy Initiative effort spearheaded by the Sci-Fi Channel and President Clinton's Chief of Staff, John Podesta, copies of Out of the Blue were given to 435 members of Congress with the hope that it might lead to the disclosure of what the U.S. Government actually knows about UFOs.
- Quotes
former president, Jimmy Carter: I saw one, but I don't know where. It just disappeared.
- ConnectionsEdited into Peter Jennings Reporting: UFOs - Seeing Is Believing (2005)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official sites
- Languages
- Also known as
- Out of the Blue: The Definitive Investigation of the UFO Phenomenon
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour 47 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content