Overlords of the UFO (1976) (part 3 of 14)
Then we get a National Enquirer headline: “ARIZONA MAN CAPTURED BY A FLYING SAUCER”. I’m sorry, but when you’re referencing the Enquirer not once but twice in your documentary, that’s a really bad sign. And it was a much worse sign back in the ’70s than it is now. Nowadays, they just run goofy celebrity stories, which might be pretty trashy, but are nowhere near the level of sleaziness achieved by the 1970s Bigfoot/UFO/JFK conspiracy-hound Enquirer. For you young’ins out there, just imagine this doc is instead making lots of references to The Weekly World News (In print for thirty years, and still can’t afford color ink!).
As expected, the voiceover here is totally unrelated to the Enquirer headline. The host explains how “military jets, people, and military automobiles full of people” have been abducted by UFOs, and how the military is helpless to stop them. “Where is the origin of the UFOs?” We cut to a drawing of a spaceman that was published in something called “UFO Quebec” (which I guess is a magazine or newspaper). It’s supposedly a sketch of a “UFO humanoid crewman” holding up a drawing of a star system “in the vicinity of Zeta Reticuli“. But honestly, guys, I think this sketch was originally meant to be tongue in cheek. I mean, the alien is wearing a sports jacket, for god’s sake.
The host insists Zeta Reticuli is “many light years away”. Sure, you could say that. Just like you could say “Marlon Brando was many pounds overweight”. I should note that Zeta Reticuli is pretty famous in UFO circles because of the Betty and Barney Hill abduction story, which was made into the movie The UFO Incident with James Earl Jones (and was probably the world’s most famous abduction story until Communion came along). The host barely mentions the Hills’ story, then asks, “Is it truth, or is it a cover-up story?” What? What would the Hills be “covering up” with their story? I mean, if their cover-up is this outlandish, I don’t think I want to know what the real story is.