The History Channel....UFO Hunters....what do we think??

ah yes I did see that, and I didnt even put it together! You should start a thread on that... do you have a clip??

[edit on 20-3-2008 by Jeff Riff]

Ill try to find the clip.and explain what i see

So did anyone else see this last night??? We have debunked the drone craft so many times.... Springer I would love to hear why they aired the program last night.

I live in Bakersfield, which is where they say one of the pics was taken....never seen anything like it.

Here is the video from the show!

Coming next on UFO Hunters...... Strange objects over Tahiti




thats the direction we are going folks....

I just watched the DVR recording from last night and I have been following the series. Unfortunately, I have to agree with most of the other posters that the series is not very well made. One thing I will say is that they bring up cases that are not normally covered by documentaries. I think that is part of their strategy.

I didn't hear anything about Bob Lazar, which someone posted earlier. Did I miss that? If you are going to do a documentary on reverse engineering, you have to include Bob Lazar. I didn't see anything about Col. Corso either. How could you leave that out?

Overall I give the series a C rating. Just about average for MSM.

My 2 sense.

Mr. Burns and "ufo" magazine are very suspect in my book...

Take caution when watching anything associated with either...

IMHO...

Originally posted by coastlinekid
Mr. Burns and "ufo" magazine are very suspect in my book...

Take caution when watching anything associated with either...

IMHO...

I agree...that little worm drives me up the wall. UFO hunters is not a show that I will watch...I tried a couple times and everything they've come up with is pretty much garbage. It has a hunt for Bigfoot feel about it, a lot of cool stories but, in the end, nothing to show for it.

Originally posted by Springer
I know why the episode was produced and aired and it's sad. I'll leave it at that.
Springer...

I have seen other posters warned by mods for this type of "baiting".

Could you elaborate for us plebs? Just a little. Pleeeeeeeeze?

As someone who got "busted" for eating Oreos in my 4th grade because
I didn't have enough to "share" with the rest of the class. I have always been annoyed when other's don't comply with rules. But secretly, I harbor
a "Let them get their own darned cookies" attitude. So I will understand if you cannot divulge the "why" part.

regards......kk

Just my opinion:
I think the show is far to interested in creating sensational sound bytes that can be used as teasers for the show when in truth, what they find is much to do about nothing.

The skeptic is a hard-over skeptic and unyielding and unwilling to consider the possibility that something might be unexplainable and therefore possibly a UFO, etc.

The believers seem to be willing to take anything (and I do mean anything) at initial, face value and immediately place "evidence" into the "proof" category.

It's a shame really. I want to like the show but I find the producers are trying too hard to follow the "Ghost Hunters" formula. It would be a much better if they found their own style, IMO.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Greetings Jeff, et al,

The History channel is spending time and money investigating something that we spend so much of our time talking about on here, and they are going to produce pictures of this and talk about it for half an hour??

Don't get me wrong, I think the show has a lot of potential, but please! Don't waste our time, and dont insult our intelligence. They showed none of the vids that are spewed all over youtube, they just showed a few pics and basically said that they cannot say hoax or not.....

People what do we think of this? Why even watch the show when it seem like this site is lightyears ahead with 1/1000th of the budget....

Important to note that the credit (if one chooses to call it that) goes to "Motion Picture Production Inc" (MPPI) who is the executive producers of this particular show.

As far as the "History Channel" is concerned "their offerings re Ufology" is as varied as the quality of the "independent executive producer's" work they air, some superb, and others pure flapdoodle!

"UFO Hunters" (the name) was originated by Duane Tudhal & John Greenwald in one of their productions of "UFO Files." Sadly this series by the same name hasn't come close to their work.

Unlike a documentary, or even Sci-Fi's version of "UFO Hunters" this effort was about "making a show" first and research second; for example Sci-Fi's show was about an investigative group that had been together for a couple of years, and individually had been involved in research and investigation for much longer. Moreover, whether Sci-Fi picks up the show as a series or not, that group is and will continue to be involved in research, unlike Birnes' crew.

I have often said that doing research with a camera crew in tow is like "mixing oil & water"; researchers don't care about ratings, budgets, dead lines and appeasing corporate bulls, most care about the facts, and exposing them.

Like you, I'm trying to remain optimistic in regards to the show improving; however, with every new show aired, that sentiment is continually fading, as evidenced by Wednesday's broadcast--the Isaac/Caret snafu should have never seen the airways, at least not in the vein of "sober research."

Additionally, their premiere episode was a disgrace to Ufology IMHO; how this show, particularly the premiere which heralds "sober investigation" and "scientific research" could examine the crash (Brown & Davidson's B-25) and it's cause and "omit" the several month investigation done by the Air Force, and it's conclusion, which included the "sworn declarations" of the two survivors, one of which I interviewed is beyond me. (My review can be read here.)

Same can be said about the previous week's episode about another "FLIR video case (Florida); how can one discuss "FLIR video" without mentioning the "Campeche oil well fires" and video? Particularly when Bruce (Maccabee) was on the show

The pattern suggests that "actual research and evidence" takes a backseat to sensationalism, and the overwhelming desire to "paint everything with a UFO brush" regardless of what the evidence points to.

Ufology, or more accurately "the perception" of it from the public's point of view is not in the best light as it is, it certainly doesn't need
fallacious ostentatious displays such as this.

Cheers,
Frank

Springers post alludes to very ineteresting things about the scenes behind the scenes. Its as political and dog eat dog with all the players Mufon, sci fi, and history channel, and their owners even with mixed ownerships, vying for dibs, including Earthfiles (one of my studies) and c2c connections., on a matter which has basicall been resolved here at ATS. The missing piece being who. , without disparaging other ufo events, the way a debunker wants to deny all. Thats not our style. And many others have reached the same conclusion. I have a commentary here which I thought was well put and encapsulates the type of thing we ascribe to here.
with objectivety, in a highly emotional subject at times ,being the guiding light or principle.
this is from dr.dil of ufo-blogs speaking at the ufo casebook forums..

quote
""
...Those are just a couple of the more widely recognised examples, but all of which makes it puzzling as to why Carrion/Mufon specifically draw parallels between Kecksburg and the Drones rather than any/all of the other cases as it doesn’t appear to be an exact match to any. And it can’t be because of the alleged crash as surely Roswell would be the natural comparison to make as it’s already strongly etched into the psyche of modern culture, and if the UFO-Hunters series is aimed at the general public, which is certainly as it appears then Roswell would also be the most relevant and thus most effective comparison. a full post is at the link.
ufocasebook.conforums.com...

Is there something we don’t know about?

Or is it merely some vague lead or an early hunch (as I suspect) by Carrion, and one which he refuses to give up on?

And again in the recent UFO-Hunters show Carrion brought up the Kecksburg connection and his final conclusion (or, “Top of his list”) of the Drones being disinformation was added towards the end of the show as an almost, “Throwaway” comment.

The UFO-Hunters also consulted Dr. Bruce Maccabee, Ph.D. who (taken from his website), “Is an optical physicist employed by the U.S. Navy, and a noted contemporary UFO investigator specializing in technical analysis and photo analysis of UFO cases.”

I wonder if Mufon alerted the UFO-Hunters to the fact that Bruce Maccabee had extensively studied the earlier images and has previously declared the images a hoax. (This was when Maccabee was consulted by Mufon in a professional capacity as to his opinion on the authenticity of the images). If this titbit was divulged then surely it’s unfairly biased to knowingly consult a pro-hoax advocate on what he already believes to be a hoax? If this was known by the UFO-Hunters team then surely this should have been mentioned before allowing Maccabee to present his opinion to camera? And if it wasn’t known then I feel it raises even more difficult questions of why Mufon didn’t disclose this knowledge.

It’s a verified fact that Maccabee was consulted for analysis by Mufon, Carrion recently confirmed that Maccabee’s analysis had occurred and his views would be included in the upcoming Mufon report on the Drone. I feel this should have been mentioned rather than Maccabee appearing surprised when seeing the, “Progression” of the Drone structure as though for the first time. Also Maccabee only comments on how the Drone is aerodynamically challenged, surely he should be commenting on the authenticity of the images? Especially when you consider that he, “Specializes in technical analysis and photo analysis of UFO cases” and is a primary Mufon consultant on such.

Apparently Dr. Bruce Maccabee first looked at the images months ago (at the 60th Roswell anniversary) and along with three other image analysts independently declared them a hoax, the persons performing the additional analysis were another Mufon image expert, Mr. Jeff Sainio and two experts outside of Mufon but involved in the, “Special effects industry.”

My point is why wasn’t this mentioned?

Or more importantly whose omission was it?

unquote..

my summary would be its to keep the myth running, why? ask the Earthfiles people who have worked with bill birnes in the past.

its also the season for the reason, that start off around febuary peaks around june july, almost Like a pregnancy..
in fact the stock market follows the ufo charts. even..odd the ETS are into stocks, viewership, and hits. How do we get a piece of the action, or are we the action?



I would be both remiss and irresponsible If I were to not remind and encourage everyone reading both vetted and new to email Linda both eartfiles,com and unknown country, as they are both intertwined, and demand release of the pictures, as they are not hers anyway, and Ty B sent them as "Steph" sent his for public viewing, not for hoarding. She can do that without releasing personal info.
Unless you thrive on "neverending stories", and there are such people,
Be clear, the time for politeness with these people and this charade has ended. Tell her..release the 12 original "hard" Ty B photos and what comprised her analyses and the result or she is finished .

Other than that prepare for more rabbit chases between now and the 4th of July.
Have a great Easter!






[edit on 22-3-2008 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 22-3-2008 by Sys_Config]

These shows drive me nuts, I can't help but watch them, but I always know the outcome ahead of time, or I've already seen what they're showing before.

I always hold out hope that they might offer some new insight, or conclusion. But the end of the show always comes and they always leave it up to us to decide. "The answer is out there" "We may never know the truth"

Just once I want to hear Jay and Grant say: This place is not haunted and no you're not 'sensitive.'

Just once I want to see one of the 100's of monster hunting shows say: At least we came all the way out here and found the truth: The super lizard monkey man does NOT exist.

Just once I want a UFO show to tell us what they really feel sometime: We really don't care that the arm-chair experts we talked to say it can't possibly be , that 'UFO' was .

Of all of these shows, 90% of the time they leave you hanging and shouldn't bother. It's the other 10% I'm more interested in. I want to hear about the things you really can't come up with a rational explanation for, and that tiny fraction that you might even call proof.

90% of the UFO community believes this horrible fake to be what it is. IMO, that should've been enough to convince the UFO hunters this case wasn't even worth their time.

They are irresponsible, to say the least.

Naw, cheap hoax or not, its interesting.

Don't fear your (or anyone elses) brains are gonna fall out, if it gets even a few new folks looking into it I say it was worth it. Worth it to who? Worth it to all of YOU here. Smart folks will look deeper, and who might they come to to do that?

What? You want it taken off the air, cuz it doesn't meet your high standerds? Where is YOUR mainstrean documentary with international attention??

Remember the futurerama episode where Bender becomes too popular on "All My Circiuts"? Remember the 4 execu-bots and thier attitudes about wether they should keep Bender on air? This is just like the fem-bot said "HMMM, interesting,.... but will it get them off thier tractors?". The next one rolls dice, looks at them and proclaims "Game shows are IN!!" At least the execu-bots at history channel thought this UFO hunters would get us off our tractors, and the dice came up UFOs, lmao!

And again I say it was a million times better than haveing to re-hash roswell yet AGAIN! Like Roswell was a good case in anyway? Old folks don't keep up as well I geuss.

I agree with HellHound63S. Shows like UFO Hunters will get people interested. The more people we have thinking "hey, something strange is going on," the more likely we are to find something. There will be more people looking and less people to think we're crazy. :lol

The one thing I don't like is when they show false information. The 2nd half of the alien abduction show was a little messed up. That Dr. Leir guy said the meter said something.... when the meter wasn't even capable of detecting something that high! I don't know if maybe he read it wrong, but I didn't like that once I figured out the error. If it was a genuine implant they found, then false information will only turn attention away to something else. Thankfully, I think that episode was the only one with such a huge screw up.

Good Day GreyFox, et al,

Originally posted by GrayFox
I agree with HellHound63S. Shows like UFO Hunters will get people interested. The more people we have thinking "hey, something strange is going on," the more likely we are to find something. There will be more people looking and less people to think we're crazy. :lol

I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree; Ufology's worst enemy is ignorance; this particular show only perpetuates that.

I keep holding my breath for it to improve, and it only gets worse. Again, I have to remind my fellow forumerions, this show was not created to research Ufology, or monitor those who do; it was created "for the show!" The producers are keenly aware of the public's interest in Ufology, as well as the success of other shows like "Ghost Hunters."

Although the show boasts sober research, and scientific investigation, it's weekly offerings prove otherwise. In this instance, sober research and scientific investigation are just false props to keep their numbers healthy.

The only benefit I see with "UFO Hunters" is that some of the "UFO Files" shows often follow it, highlighting some of the work by producer, Duane Tudahl.

The old adage that "any publicity is 'good' publicity" does not apply to Ufology.

Respectfully,
Frank






[edit on 30-3-2008 by Frank Warren]

UFO Hunters would be better off making fewer shows, but with more quality. To have a group investigate however, is a great plus. But more time spent would give them more crediblity because thier conclusions and information would be improved.