New History Channel Clip of Dolan, Vallee, & Paul Hynek

By | January 13, 2019

https://www.history.com/shows/project-blue-book/season-1/episode-1/project-blue-book-declassified-the-gorman-dogfight?playlist_slug=project-blue-book-season-1-declassified

The History Channel created a nice clip of Jacques Vallee, Paul Hynek, and myself for the first episode of the Project Blue Book series. This is expanded from the previous one we uploaded here. The History Channel does include ads, so if you use an AdBlocker on your browser, you might find that you need to disable it for that page.

Hope you enjoy!

5 thoughts on “New History Channel Clip of Dolan, Vallee, & Paul Hynek

  1. AvatarCarolyn Padgett

    They have repeated the first episode of Project Blue Book a few times and yesterday we finally saw you between the commercials….it was quite lengthy not just a tiny snippet. 🙂

  2. AvatarFranc

    My problems with the TV show version of events….ok, so they had to have Hynek running around like Mulder to make it all more exciting. Fiar enough. My problems are:
    1) If Hynek was so important to debunking a phenomena which the US government at the time considered to be have a higher classification than the A-bomb, then why was Hynek´s house not under counter-surveillance and easy prey for a covert method of entry buy a Soviet agent to bug the house in the second episode?
    2) The pseudo lesbian / bi-sexual relationship between the blond Sov agent and Hynek´s wife, with Hynek´s wife taking them to a gay / reefer joint club. This would have been picked up straight away by US counter-surveillane operatives. If Hynek´s wife had known of an underground bar which gay people frequented and where reefer (in those days considered like meth or heroin is today) was smoked, then US counter intel would have been all ove this.
    3) Why do they (producers, directors, scrip writers) always these days have to sex up TV? The simmering almost subliminal lesbian sexual relationship between Hynek´s wife and the blond Sov agent. I have loads of gay friends and ask them and myself: why are they putting gays (the vast majority males) in every single TV show script these days? Fair enough where you were dealing with Alan Parsons and the Ordo Templi Orientis of Crowley, whcih dabbbled in all kinds of sex magick, including the homosexual; but today´s shows are like the 70`s, where every show had to have token member of an ehtnic minority just to be PC. Don´t get my wrong, I love attractive women, just wish they would sex up the story less and concentrate on the issue at hand.

    1. Richard DolanRichard Dolan Post author

      Totally agree with all of these points. 100%. The sexing up and especially making it LGBTQetc “friendly”, as if it’s necessary to make the world of 65 years ago look just like today (through a Hollywood lens) is so overt, so ham-fisted. It just makes me feel like they are bludgeoning me with social engineering every time I watch a new thing on TV, and this show is no different in that regard.

      1. AvatarFranc

        At least in Strange Angel they had the scene where the gay bar gets raided by the cops who are just horrible homophobic thugs – which many were in those days – and the gays are treated brutally with the one gay bloke standing up to the cops. It is just the total sexing up of everything these days, straight or LBGTQ, that completely does my head in. It is like they are trying to appeal to every single possible sexual appetite and cram it all in wherever they can and whenever they can. At least in Spartucus, 1960, they were more subtle and poetic about it, with Laurence Olivier´s character talking to his slave, played by Tony Curtis, about “Oysters and snails…”
        Do you eat oysters?
        When I have them, master.
        Do you eat snails?
        No, master.
        Do you consider the eating of oysters to be moral…and the eating ofsnails to be immoral?
        No, master. Ofcourse not.
        It is all a matter oftaste, isn’t it?
        Yes, master.
        And taste is not the same as appetite…and therefore not a question of morals, is it?
        It could be argued so, master.
        That will do. My robe, Antoninus.. My taste includes… both snails and oysters.
        ———————————————————————————————————————–
        But that level of sophisitcated dialogue and treatment of the subject comes from Stanley Kubrick. Genius bit of script against all the victorian-era moralising of the day through its subtle approach – even though it could be argued, the scene is highly homoerotic as both are in the baths and barely clothed lol. Of course, the Romans and Greeks and other civilisations of the day had a completely different attitude to sexuality.

Leave a Reply