Discovery Channel Program Exercises

December 10, 2022

Discovery Channel Program Exercises

Order Number	636738393092
Type of Project	ESSAY
Writer Level	PHD VERIFIED
Format	APA
Academic Sources	10
Page Count	3-12 PAGES

Instructions/Descriptions

Discovery Channel Program Exercises

[Order Now]

Discovery, Channel, Program, Exercises

Parts 1 & 2: Two sources and my inference:

I have chosen to research Garry Wood and Dr. Monica Grady for this assignment.

Source 1: Garry Wood is an ambulance driver in Edinburgh, Scotland

Source 2: Dr. Monica Grady is a meteorite specialist

Screenshots of Garry Wood search results:

Upon viewing the list of options, there are not any of the sources that jump out to me as reliable or sources to be trusted. I did note that there are a few that clearly state in the name that they are sources of investigation, therefore leading me to believe that they are more trustworthy than others.

Ufocasebook.com and beamsinvestigations.com are two that, based on the name, lead me to believe that instead of leaning directly to any certain conclusion, they base their investigation in a direction to seek answers, not claim they have hard core facts.

They are not stories written to entertain necessarily or be printed in newspapers and magazines. The presentation of the topic from this perspective does intrigue me, most likely because I do not feel like I have to immediately trust their words, but rather be open-minded enough to hear what they have to say, lending me the option of believing it myself or not. Based on their investigations, they have put together these files, what one chooses to do with the information is a personal choice.

There were not any of the sources that appeared to present a biased perspective, which really surprised me. When it comes to this topic, there seems to be a lot of controversy over what is fact or real versus what is fiction or for entertainment. However, in this search, I see repetition in certain facts but none of them seem to rebuke that the event ever took place or cast out that any of the sources claiming to have information as being wrong or untruthful.

There are sites that were unfamiliar to me, such as: morbidology.com, dailyrecord.co.uk, and scotsman.com. I view the names and immediately have questions running through my mind. Deciphering which ones are credible and which ones are purely for entertainment will require further investigation.

Two of the sources that I considered as being more reliable: Ufocasebook.com and beamsinvestigations.org.

Ufocasebook.com is one of the first results that came up and has a case report written by Brian Allan. This suggests to me that Allan has no reservation from being recognized or credited for his work. When I searched his name, I had to refine the results to get to the information that I was seeking. This leads me to believe that his information, credible or not, is not sought by many, but rather people specifically interested in ghostly or extraterrestrial activity.

Allan does have a variety of books that have been published on extraterrestrial activity, as well as other topics (mystical, religious and poltergeist themed) that are now available for purchase via Amazon. He is a Sub-Editor for Phenomena Magazine and has been interested in a wide variety of mysterious and abnormal events for as long as he can remember. He has a foreword in the piece, as well as list of thanks to those that assisted in creating his case report. He seems to be knowledgeable on this topic and remains within reasonable perimeters when explaining the basis for his beliefs.

The other source I believed to be reliable was beamsinvestigations.org. The author is not clearly specified. Instead, at the top of the page you are welcomed to B.E.A.M.S. (British Earth and Aerial Mysteries Society) This group was founded in 1991 and consists of field investigators and active reporters. According to their page, they “factually gather, study and disseminate evidence relating to Earth Mysteries.” Kenneth John Parsons and Hilary Porter are the founders of this group. Here is the information I found when searching for Parsons:

The validity of his credentials is not clear to me based on these searches, as they seemed to lead me right back to beamsinvestigations.com page.

The first source that I thought would be biased, if any, was morbidology.com. The name threw me off a bit, which encouraged me to first research why that name was chosen. There was not really a direct meaning, but I was able to find that the logo has “Morbid Curiosities & Oddities” written on it. There is also a Facebook page, as well as a Podcast. In their description, they state the focus is “to provide a daily dose for all your unusual and unorthodox interests.” The focus is obscure and bizarre stories happening all over the globe. I do believe that some of their work is based on some facts, with parts for pure entertainment intertwined.

Denying that their work is complete nonsense would make me a fool. They have 87,361 followers on their Facebook page, with a plethora of stories on unsolved mysteries. I could have easily been sidetracked because the topics they cover are appealing and almost yearn to be read. This is a reason for me to believe that even though their stories may be entertaining, that does not make this group credible in writing about the case with Garry Wood. Perhaps a translation of a few of the facts and details from other sites, but not authentic by any means. Emily Thompson was the writer of the piece with the A70 case. Here are the screenshots of what I found:

Thompson writes on many topics including unsolved murders, true crime cases and occasionally on sci-fi and fantasy. She did study film and animation, loves videos games and coffee shops. She is from northern California originally, but now lives in Washington. The information I found on her made me believe that even while her writing may be entertaining, I should stay on guard as far as her work on the case with Garry Wood goes. There were no comments on the article written, so I am not sure if that is because no one else is reading it, or rather deciding not to fight the truth of the matter.

The other source that I predicted would be biased is scotsman.com. There is not a specific author, but rather states it is a Scotsman Report. This may be the situation when a team puts together bits of information from various sources themselves, with no need for credit to one specific person. This also leads me to believe that what they are writing is based on others’ investigations and interviews, not their own.

One of the sources that was unfamiliar to me is thesun.co.uk. Indra Warns wrote the piece OUT OF THIS WORLD: Strangest Claims of Alien Abduction-including the man that vanished for five days and it was published on September 21, 2017. This is written for The Sun, which claims to be the news website of the year. There is nothing in this piece that proves to me that it is reliable, nor does it have anything that automatically leads me to disbelief. This was a piece written, based on information from other sources and relays details that I have already encountered in other sites. The difference is that for this piece, there were no investigators or case studies. No professionals or interviews with the subjects themselves.

Based on my research, Garry Wood had an experience that really did not have much to do with his credibility as an ambulance driver, but more to do with his reliability and honesty when relaying the information on what happened back on August 17,1992. His story and the details have never changed, which leads me to believe that what he said happened is indeed true. I am not really one to speculate much on this subject, as I do not want to be the next one abducted.

He was not only able to recount the majority of what happened, but also give specific details in how the aliens looked, as well as their aircraft, which was picked up on a radar from a nearby airport at the time that the said incident was taking place. Whether or not he is credible or should be trusted is a tough one to decipher. If I was him and had this experience, I would want someone to believe me.

Source 2: Dr. Monica Grady, a meteorite specialist

There are sources that I would consider credible such as dur.ac.uk (a Durham University page), the conversation.com and meteoriteidentification.com. I do not believe that there is any reason for a University to lie about one’s credibility. There seems to be plenty of proof that she has the credentials to write and speak of meteorites in any capacity.

Deskarati.com is a source that I believe will present a biased view. The article does not have an author that will properly identify himself, but rather a username.

A source that is unfamiliar to me is Wikipedia, but it does seem to offer some information that I will be seeking on Dr. Grady. I will be approaching this source with caution but believe that it is definitely one worth checking out.

A source that I would have deemed as reliable is dur.ac.uk, yet upon searching for the author, I realize that there is not a specific person that has written these words. It is, however, published by Professor Monica Grady Publications. At this point, I am not sure whether the information is accurate or not. I could start a page and write an article about myself, claiming to have all kinds of credentials too. Until further investigation has been done, I am not sure whether this source is true and written more like a biography, or just complete nonsense.

Meteoriteidentification.com was the second source that I thought would be reliable. The name sounds so scientific and her name is in it. At a second glance, I realize that this a site that offers to test suspected meteorites for the general public. It also reconfirms Dr. Grady as working in the Minerology Department at the Natural History Museum in the U.K. Then, I find this:

Deskarati.com is the source that I would have considered to be from a biased perspective. As I began to research further, I realized that even if the author of the piece wanted to only be known or recognized as Deskarati, this did not make the information in his article untrue necessarily. The angle from which he is approaching leads me to believe that he is trying to understand if we really are special here on Earth. Whether or not he is credible does not matter to me at this point because his article lacks facts, further research or a more personal interview. I have no reason to say that he is wrong or even that his article is wrong in any way. It lacks what I am looking for as far as answers go.

The source that was unfamiliar to me was Wikipedia. There is no set author for this page, because anyone can edit it. Although I want to be able to believe any of the information on it, I am extremely cautious since the information could come from multiple people, from all over. Some may not even know anything about Dr. Grady but go on there and write whatever they please. I was impressed by the list of references that were available for this entry. The Natural History Museum and the Smithsonian are two sources that I have always known of and have thought them to be credible resources for valuable information.

Based on my research for Dr. Monica Grady, I do believe that she is credible in her field. She has not really hidden her name and over the course of my research, I did not find any article or person that was set on saying that she is a scammer. I would hope that I would never see her write a book on child development or anything because that is not her area of expertise. She is writing and teaching on Space Science, specializing in meteorites, which is what she has been to school for.

I have to bear in mind that I have not seen her diplomas or pictures of graduations for that matter, but what can be seen is all of her public appearances and interaction with the press to raise awareness. She seems to be very compassionate about space studies and if the list on Wikipedia is accurate, has worked hard for years to get to where she is at. Wikipedia was not the only source that listed her history with Space studies or her course of studies before Wikipedia even existed.

For me to say that I really had concrete feelings on either of these “experts” would be a lie. I am a very skeptical person as it is, so this assignment has only made me more aware that if I want to present credible sources and information, I need to really pay attention to where I am getting my information from. The web is great if you are looking for quick information but does not seem to be very trustworthy. I know that in my life, there have been a few incidents that would be considered unbelievable and if you looked up my name, I don’t even know what to tell you would pop up.

But if I was to write my story or tell it to a person, I would go crazy if the idea of fabrication or validity even arose. I think that we all would like our stories to be considered authentic and true, but unfortunately, some that have told some outlandish tales have made it hard to believe everything you hear. My story is not to sell or entertain, this is real. I will not say that I do or do not believe Garry Wood’s story, I am just thankful it was not my experience. Same with Dr. Monica Grady. Who would I be to say whether or not she has earned her title and status? I hope that they live in peace despite all the speculation surrounding their names.

Professional Plagiarism Free Paper in APA/MLA/Harvard/Turabian Format, Instant Delivery, High Quality Submissions, 100% Unique, Turnitin Report Attached

Discovery Channel Program Exercises

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.