Alternative 3 (1977)

Alternative 3 (1977)

(Science Report: Alternative 3)

An audacious and convincing fictitious documentary-style sci-fi film

Developed by David Ambrose, Christopher Miles
Written by David Ambrose
Directed by Christopher Miles
Producers: John Rosenberg (producer); John Woolf
(executive producer); Bob Bell (associate producer)
Cinematographers: Richard Crafter, Ian Craig
Editor: Michael O'Halloran
Casting Director: Jenia Reissar
Production Designer: Terry Ackland-Snow
Composer: Brian Eno
Production company: Anglia Television
Running time: 52 minutes
Intended release April 1 1977
Released: 20 June 1977

Cast

Tim Brinton as himself / Narrator
Gregory Munroe as Colin Benson
Carol Hazell as Katherine White
Shane Rimmer as Bob Grodin
Richard Marner as Dr. Carl Gerstein
Norman Chancer as Charles Welbourne
Ivor Roberts as George Pendlebury
Alice Wade Mrs. Pendlebury
David Baxt as Harry
Phoebe Nicholls as Harry's Girlfriend
Anthony Roye as Robert Hendry
Patsy Trench as Dr. Ann Clarke
Jonathan Hieatt-Smith as Young Man in Laboratory

Movie Clip

World ecological collapse!

The mother of all conspiracies!

The disappearance of scientists!

A tape containing a secret radio message

from an unmanned Mars probe !

What exactly will a group of investigative reporters uncover?

Read on for more......

(Spoilers Follow Below.....)

Part One

Unanswered Questions

“It's not knowing that's the worst.

I mean, how can

people just vanish off the face

of the earth?"

Let us venture back to 20 June 1977 to a time we today condescendingly and patronizingly refer to as having been a ‘simpler’ and more ‘innocent’ age. We begin with an investigative journalism show, an edition of Anglia Television’s Science Report that was broadcast on ITV. The show’s host, British news anchor Tim Brinton, informed the audience about a British "Brain Drain" which had been the subject of an initial report. That report had then led to an investigation into actual missing scientists who apparently had inexplicably disappeared off the face of the earth!

In the original report, an interview conducted by reporter Colin Benson with solar energy specialist Ann Clarke was abruptly brought to a halt when she informed him that she was going away. After that, Ann had not been seen again. Other similar mysterious disappearances occurred involving senior lecturer in mathematics at St Andrews University, Robert Patterson as well as Brian Pendlebury, former Royal Air Force pilot and electronics expert who worked in ‘special projects.’ 

Then there was Sir William Ballantine, a radio astronomer from Jodrell Bank, who had died in a car accident before he could give an account of a videotape recording from the radio telescope that he had previously sent to a news editor friend of his. When played back, the tape appeared to contain only static…...Also, the evidence at the site of the car accident provided no clues for anyone to arrive at a conclusion as to the cause. Apart from the three cases of mysterious disappearances, there were 21 other similar instances.

“Lost in mysterious circumstances,

sudden and inexplicable

disappearance without trace.”

Most disturbing was an outdoor rather clandestine and ethically questionable interview conducted with an American potential whistle blower from NASA by the name of Harry. He indicated that he needed to talk with reporters about something important but appeared to be extremely fearful, nervous and constantly on alert. When the news crew arrived 24 hours later at the place where Harry was staying, he was found to be incoherent, seemingly deranged and violent, possibly high on something. He was in no state to tell anyone his story. It may be of no surprise now that this was the last anyone saw of that mysterious young American.

“Scientists began to suspect that

the balance of the Earth's ecology

was far more delicately poised

than they'd yet realized.”

Tim Brinton went on to outline to his audience a litany of unprecedented global climactic and geological upheavals and disturbances that were taking place: “The great world drought of that summer...unequalled in recorded history;” Europe's productive dairy country “reduced to a dust bowl;” Cattle having to be “fed next winter's fodder”; Britain’s “parched fields and poor crops;” Out of control forest fires in France; Dried up
reservoirs and areas “which had barely 20 days supply of water left”; The River Thames “reduced to its lowest level in living memory”; Water restrictions in Australia; Northern India “in the grip of the worst heatwave for over 50 years;” Increasing desertification in Africa; “Unparalleled earthquakes” in China and the Middle East; Volcanic eruptions and shifting land masses in the Caribbean, central Europe and the Balkans…

All this a good half century before our own time, but just consider how much it resonates with us here in the 21st Century. And yet to point out such disturbing occurrences as these both back then and even now one might very well be labelled as baingan alarmist who is merely catastrophising what are merely normal geological and climactic processes. As Brinton pointed out, back then there was “a growing sense of unease” and a feeling that what people were “experiencing was unnatural, and that the Earth's climate was moving towards a radical change.” Sound familiar? Are we not also today experiencing a similar sense of unease over what scientific consensus deems to be global climate change with our world in the grip of climactic upheaval? If this is all true, then the same question remains both 50 years ago and now: what do we do about it?

“There were three alternatives for discussion.

First two were crazy…..third

alternative-maybe not so crazy.”

At the height of the drought in Britain, the Science Report team conducted an interview at Cambridge University with physicist, Dr Carl Gerstein who it was hoped might provide the “beginnings of an answer” to the strange puzzle that was emerging. What he had been proposing and what became apparent will no doubt strike a familiar cord with modern audiences and set minds wondering as to why the world had not acted sooner once the evidence began to mount concerning what was happening to the earth’s climate and what the end result might be if we didn’t act.

Gerstein’s theories, when he first put them forward 20 years previously, had been “almost universally dismissed” and he was labelled (you guessed it) an “alarmist” and “a pessimist.” But by the late 1960s, events occurred that would vindicate him. There was evidence that our planet was “trapped wi

Much earlier than Gerstein had predicted, the greenhouse effect had begun to take hold with “a thickening of the outer atmosphere due to the eight-fold increase in the carbon dioxide levels.” The consequence of this was a denser atmosphere resulting in “extreme variations of temperature” ranging from “intense heat to equally unprecedented cold.” Concern then turned to a “frightening discovery” - a future consisting of an “unavoidable ice age.”

Even though Gerstein’s ideas were at last being taken seriously' by 1957 at the Huntsville, Alabama Conference, by then it was too late. Politicians came running expecting the scientists to perform miracles by reversing the course of nature and when they couldn’t, they were blamed for not acting earlier. When the scientists had asked the politicians to act on their advice, they were blocked by them. Inaction and a lot of squabbling was the end result of it all.

Finally, three alternatives to the global dilemma were put up for discussion. The first two were deemed to be crazy, but the third alternative, not so much apparently. Gerstein however, refused to say anything further about…..alternative three.

Part Two

Pieces of the Jigsaw

“More pieces of this

strange pattern continued to fit into place”

In Part two of the televised investigative report, pieces of the puzzle surrounding the so-called "Alternative 3" started to slot into place.
The next piece of the puzzle came in the form of an interview with former astronaut Bob Grodin, filmed in secret at a location in New England. Then and now images of Grodin showed his obvious physical deterioration in the few years since his first moonwalk. It seemed that “more than one of the men who were part of that first Apollo program, found it difficult to readjust to a life back on Earth,” but no one more so than Grodin. But why? Had psychological factors been responsible for “changes in personality, the instability, the breakdown of former relationships? What exactly was the nature of those psychological factors?

A satellite interview was arranged with Bob Grodin in Boston, Massachusetts at which he showed no reluctance to discuss the breakdown he suffered after his return from space. However, when asked about the suggestion that he and all the others involved in the Apollo program might’ve been in possession of more information than
they’d been allowed to admit publicly, Grodin became aggressive, agitated and defensive accusing Brinton of trying to “screw” him.

Right at that point technical problems with the equipment rather conveniently brought the interview to a halt. A switch had apparently and inexplicably been flipped by someone “neither in London nor in Boston, but in the satellite connecting the two.”

It was then up to intrepid reporter, Colin Benson and his trusty camera operator to hot foot across the Atlantic posing as tourists with the mission to interview Grodin at his remote bungalow and bring back the results on 8mm film.

After three hours of alcoholic lubrication of both his memory and mouth, Grodin divulged at that interview that Ballantine had showed up at NASA rather excited and bearing a tape he had made which was then placed in a NASA decoder. A suggestion was made that Ballantine may have been killed because of what had been discovered on that tape.

A visibly agitated and inebriated Grodin went on to suggest that the space program as presented to the public was nothing more than a smoke screen designed to cover up what was really going on. Even the astronauts weren’t informed about what was going on.

Grodin went on to refute the publicly stated nature of the space program by questioning the need for “all that crap out in Florida to get two guys up there on a bicycle.” Rather, it was all part of “a good PR story” designed to “keep you bums happy.”

“Fear, suspicion, unanswered questions, possible murder?

What are we dealing with?"

Back in London, reporter Katherine White conducted an interview with Professor G. Gordon Brordbent, author of a major study of US-Soviet diplomacy since the 1950s. Broadbent was of the opinion that “the celebrated US-Soviet space docking was an ‘isolated exercise’ as advertised, possibly “paving the way for more to come.” However, as to the “broader issues of Soviet-US cooperation,” what he found difficult to understand was how had peace been maintained for 25 years. “The balance of nuclear power” was an insufficient explanation in the face of “too many imbalances, especially when you put it in the perspective of history.” Instead, there had to be an as yet an “unknown factor” operating behind East-West diplomacy, namely “a massive but covered operation in space.”

Science may have held the key to the nature of such an operation and its feasibility. First there is “the colossal power needed to pull clear from the Earth's gravitational field” and place “two men on a mission on the surface of the moon.” As was pointed out in an interview with Charles Welbourne, “such immense power did not have to be chiefly consumed in merely getting into space, but could start from space.” In order to achieve space travel on any scale, it would be via “extraterrestrial launching” such as from a space platform orbiting the Earth….or the moon.” For that to be achieved there would need to be some kind of “international cooperation.” (Is this from 50 years ago at all starting to sound somewhat familiar?)

On the surface we appear to be left with proposals for Russian and American Skylabs with personnel living and working in them for several months at a time. The question is “what are they all doing?” (Should we be asking the same questions about our own International Space Station and other proposed manned missions or just accept NASA’s PR about how practically nothing on Earth could possibly exist without the achievements of space research?)

There was also the obvious working relationship between US and Soviet scientists and technicians despite this being labeled as merely being “diplomatic courtesies.” And yet remarkably it seemed as if the by the late 1960s, the Russians had simply dropped out of the space race to the moon and stopped trying while by the late 1970s Cape Canaveral had been virtually abandoned with “the most ambitious project in the
history of mankind” seeming to be over. It all just didn’t seem to be adding up!

As Brinton continued the report, his investigations seemed to suggest that the Russians and Americans had been cooperating on a massive space program. Why? It was starting to emerge that a highly select group of humans needed to leave the Earth so the species could continue, The Science Report suggested that Mars may be that destination.

The Soviets and Americans had been cooperating in a covert project to start a colony on Mars. Alternative 3 was the option chosen with the aim of saving the human race should Earth collapse. The brain drain was a selection of people to staff the colony.

“What, you mean go to some other planet?”

“I mean, get the hell off this one”

The report continues with video evidence of a recorded sighting in 1972 of a Russian Vostok orbiting the moon despite the fact that their craft were not intended to reach the moon’s surface. The impression gained was that it was just par for the course! While on the far side of the moon, “the side hidden from us here on Earth” Brinton pointed out a “remarkable grouping of American and Soviet landings” and asked if it was a “mere coincidence?”

In another interview with Dr. Carl Gerstein, the professor finally explained what ‘alternative 3’ would actually involve. The first alternative was the drastic reduction of the human population on Earth. The second alternative was the construction of vast underground shelters to house government officials and a cross section of the population until the climate on earth had stabilized. Alternative 3 “was a much more limited option…. an attempt to ensure that at least some of the human race survived the consequences. How? By means of “a kind of space travel, which had only appeared in scientific fiction so far.”

It clear that what was being proposed was a vast undertaking to gather a highly select group of humans and have them leave the Earth before its collapse so our species could continue. This audacious plan was to involve both the Soviets and the Americans collaborating...no, colluding in a covert project to start a colony on another planet in order to save the human race. The brain drain referred to earlier as part of the original report was in fact a selection process of individuals deemed to be suitable for inclusion in the proposed colony.

The people selected would include “a balance of the sciences and the arts” or put simply all aspects of human culture. All those who had disappeared were in good health and all were under the age 55. The question was, where exactly was the new colony to be located? Where had all those people who had disappeared gone? Evidence was needed.

In the televised report our starting point was a mystery here on Earth and from here we have been taken to the moon and from there we were led to the planet…...Mars. By why Mars? According to all the available evidence, Mars was “supposedly dead” and appeared judging from Viking 2 photographs of the Martian surface, “to offer little prospect of survival.” Charles Wilborn interviewed by Colin Benson however, cast doubt on this evidence by questioning why the Americans had spent so much money in putting the probe on the surface of Mars, only to equip it with a camera that only focused up to 100 meters….. “the average size of a large film studio.” (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Say no more!)

Had Mars always been a “barren, inhospitable planet, inimical to the survival of any form of life” as we had been led to believe? Suppose life had existed on Mars, The planet Mars, being no stranger to dust storms and clouds of dust “varying in density at different times,” experienced on one particular occasion a dust storm cloud thickening “to a degree never previously observed.” This had been recorded in 1961. It was observed that when the dust clouds eventually cleared, the following remarkable changes were noted: Polar ice caps had substantially decreased in size, while around the equatorial regions, a broad band of darker coloring, possibly vegetation had appeared.

A really wild-sounding theory had also been advanced suggesting that the dust storms nay have been caused by a nuclear explosion delivered from Earth by means of a a rocket with a nuclear payload launched by the Russians after a failed initial first attempt!

What about some incontrovertible evidence for all of this you might ask? Well, Brinton ended the science show report with the result of a very recent meeting between reporter Catherine White and the girlfriend of our mysterious potential whistle-blower, Harry. Catherine was given a printed circuit by the by the extremely agitated young lady who said it was from Harry. It was to be used in conjunction with the “jukebox” devise referred to earlier when playing back the Ballentine tape.

It was that very tape that Brinton played for the television audience and it consisted of “an authentic record of the first and secret, landing by…...a joint American and Soviet unmanned probe on the Martian surface on 22nd May, 1962. Even more astounding was when the camera focused on an unknown life-form moving under the surface of the ground. As far back as 1962, human beings were on Mars and there was proof of extraterrestrial life!

Life form under Martian surface - not dog turds!

Had we witnessed a cover-up “maintained by the active

cooperation of governments?”

Have we been lied to about the true conditions on Mars?

Is there a conspiracy to cover up a secret operation of human survival?

Is that operation the “alternative 3?” scenario?

Has a human colony already been established on Mars?

Are preparations still ongoing for transportation from earth to the moon followed by transit from the moon to Mars?

By laying bare this mother of all conspiracies, Science Report opened up a “challenge to those who do know, to tell us the truth.” Well, not only about the film’s scenario but also about other important aspects life that affect all of us but which those in authority are reluctant to divulge to us.

Points of Interest

As a young adult back in 1977, I do recall the “Alternative 3” Science Report broadcast. There was some build-up of expectations involving an announcement from an actor whose face I remember well but whose name escapes me. I don’t remember having taken the mockumentary seriously as being fact, but I was drawn in by the then novelty concept of a simulcast involving various countries as well as its very convincing style of presentation. There was also the quite natural sneaky inner hope that something of the subject matter would prove be true like a feeling of “if only” or “I knew it all along – the bastards!” But it was plain to see that the real merit of this presentation was in its worth as as an effective piece of fictionalized entertainment.

In Melbourne, Australia where I watched Alternative 3, the Victorian capital city was referred to in the broadcast during the rundown of the global climate crisis. A description was given as to how Melbourne's Yarra River had been reduced to a polluted trickle and desperate efforts were being made to save rare trees in the Royal Botanic Gardens. Actually, I recall a period of drought from the time when that happened and strong water restrictions had to be instituted for all households and we were being encouraged to “shower with a friend!”

“TV TERROR!”

Just as in the famous (or infamous) Orson Wells’ radio production of War of the Worlds in the 1930s, many viewers in Melbourne were reported to have missed the fact that Alternative 3 was a mockumentary despite the fact that the closing credits listed cast members and actors, along with the presence of a timestamp for "April 1st, 1977" which can be distinctly seen at the end. It is probably a tribute to the film that it caused a measure of confusion and mild panic with angry viewers contacting television networks trying to determine if what was being depicted was actually happening. However, I don’t really remember all that much in the way of an explosion of fear, panic and consternation among the populace at that time.

Alternative 3 was intended as an April Fools' Day hoax but due to British television industrial action and labor strikes, the broadcast was delayed. It eventually went to air on Monday, June 20, 1977 and was distributed globally, allowing it to be broadcast simultaneously in several international markets including Australia (where I watched it), New Zealand, Iceland and Canada.

At the time (as occurs now) conspiracy theories popped up everywhere and Alternative 3 certainly played its part in fostering all kinds of conspiracies and conspiracy groups with its convincing and rather novel fictional portrayal of the mother of all conspiracies. Alternative 3 was never re-aired on broadcast television due to the public backlash.

The world of 1977 was largely an analogue one without the internet, smart phone technology, artificial intelligence and so on. (It did however have Disco, Glam and Punk rock music which probably explains a few things!) Some people might revert to the old cliche that it was a less sophisticated simpler and innocent time and that people would have been more open to the spread and belief in urban legends and conspiracies such as the belief that Alternative 3 was in fact a leaked government document disguised as a hoax.

Conspiracies and conspiracy theories did abound back then what with the very recent history of the Vietnam War, Watergate, the hoax moon landing belief and the release of such films as Capricorn One in 1977. So yes, there was a lot of distrust of officialdom and the authorities and the time was ripe for a certain susceptibility to the spread of conspiracy theories. And yet, despite our own modern delusion concerning our imagined level of sophistication, countless conspiracies theories are peddled throughout social media, on the internet and other forms of media and publications. What is even more shocking is just how many stupid and gullible people are prepared to believe such conspiracy theories. Consider for instance ‘Flat Earthers,’ believers in the New World Order and Illuminati and ludicrous imaginings about the causes, nature and treatment of the Covid-19 virus. Often such beliefs are based on the ideological and political stance of the individuals and groups concerned whereby their rational and critical faculties are simply set aside in favor of whatever they wish to believe is true and whatever validates that. There's probably little point in trying to argue with those who are firmly convinced that the government is planning to enslave the population, and that warnings about global warming is merely a cover for imposing tyranny. Imagine if the producers of Alternative 3 had access to the kind of technology we take for granted today such deep fakes, artificial intelligence manipulation of speech and images, mis and dis-information and so on. Look, let’s face it: a fair proportion of the human race are gullible idiots no matter what era they happen to find themselves in. If there are those who still maintain that Alternative 3 is real, jsut think how their numbers would be added to if the producers of the film had access to modern day manipulative technology!

Even if you haven’t seen Alternative, 3 I’m pretty sure most of you would realise that this apparent “documentary” is in fact a piece of science fiction. Apart from that vibe, you couldn’t help but notice the end credits listing the actors who played the show’s reporters and the scientists that were interviewed. If you didn’t, then there’s the 1 April date. If you still didn’t then there’s no hope for you – life on earth will come to an end except for the select few who as a result of a giant conspiracy will set up shop on Mars and save the human race. Hurrah!

Just consider for a moment how next to impossible it would be to cover up such a gargantuan enterprise as the one depicted in the film or even the faking of the manned-moon landings of the Apollo era. Vast amounts of financial and human resources would be required not to mention the maintaining of secrecy among many thousands of personnel over many years. Such a level of government and military conspiracy and collusion in would require meticulous logistical planning. Do we see this in evidence during the ordinary course of government and bureaucratic policy making and implementation? More often than not, Captain Chaos tends to reign supreme as he displays extraordinary levels of ineptitude and incompetence! 

Science Report was invented by a screenwriter named David Ambrose. Initially he had been trying to write about people going missing, then one idea led to another resulting in a mock-documentary about people disappearing to Mars, as part of a conspiracy to save the human raec from extinction as a result of pollution-induced global warming. Added to this would be a story involving investigative journalism, secrecy and the dangers associated with disclosure.

Having Brinton in the role as anchorman gave the presentation a sense of authenticity. He had been warned not to take on such a role considering he was trying to become a Conservative MP. Brinton ignored them and went on to win his election.

Production designer Terry Ackland-Snow, who had worked on Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, created the illusion of a life form moving under the Martian surface by dragging a nail under sand. Also included in this scene was actual footage from Nasa along with fake astronaut voice-overs.

In 1978 a journalist called Leslie Watkins authored a novel based on the program. Added to the original premise were attempts at brainwashing or ‘adjusting’ humans to turn them into slaves as well as suggesting that the claim the documentary was a hoax was a cover story, an idea some conspiracy theorists would have been happy to run with.

Now I’m not going to have a go at the Evangelical Christians’ belief in the Rapture whereby the chosen few suddenly vanish, leaving everyone else behind to meet their fate. Sure, it has a certain similarity to part of Alternative 3's plot. But just assume for a moment that humanity was facing its doom and a project was put into place to save some of the human race by transporting them to another planet. We are after all told often enough that humanity’s destiny is in space and one day our species will have to leave our planet to live elsewhere. This is one of the justifications used to sell the idea of continued human exploration of space. This raises the question of who exactly would be chosen for such an enterprise? Based on what criteria? Who would be left behind? So far and into the foreseeable future, entry into space and taking up residence on another planet is not going to be open to any average Joe schmuck. You can be sure it will be based on certain skill sets, power, influence, wealth, connections, post code – the elite ‘chosen few’ which dear reader will probably not include you or your descendants. As for me, I’m just a cantankerous old Boomer so I’ll be stuck here till my toes curl up! At least I'll expire knowing that Alternative 3 was a very clever bit of film fakery and that human beings had indeed landed on the moon. Whether they mange to get back there and beyond to Mars, well.....

Full Film

WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE

Classic 1950s sci-fi that deals with the end of the world and humanity's efforts to survive.)

You'll also find some films with similar scenarios in both of my FREE eBooks:

Big Fat Book of Sc-Fi Films of the 1950s

Sci-Films of the Swingin' '60s

©Chris Christopoulos