"I Know What I Saw" airs October 4 on the History Channel

Originally posted by impaired
I just saw this, and I honestly think it was pulled of very nicely.

I don't understand how a skeptic can watch this and still have a problem believing.

There are too many credible people explaining the same thing, and that's what I liked about how this show was put together.

All of these people can NOT be lying...

And is this disclosure? Of course not - come on. Disclosure would be the MSM saying, "We are not alone because the White House (or something similar) says so".

I think Nick Pope said it the best. There is Disclosure with a capital "D" and there's disclosure with a lowercase "d". I think we're getting the lowercase "d", but obviously some countries (......) are seriously dragging their feet.

And even the lowercase "d" is still not full disclosure in my eyes. Releasing UFO docs is one thing, but releasing docs about actual ET CONTACT is disclosure, IMHO. Am I right here?


[edit on 10/5/2009 by impaired]

this is as close to a full disclosure as we are ever going to get.

those were very credible witnesses telling us what they saw.

do you really need someone at a desk in D.C. to tell you UFO's are real?

to understand why they are reluctant to come out with a full blown admission to "UFO's Are Real" you have to put yourselves in their shoes.

once you tell people yes those are Real, it is a very slippery slope from there.

sure some will be able to Handle the truth but what about the simple folk?

what would happen when you tell those living in the bible belt that yes, those are Alien Crafts and the people who fly them are thousands if not millions of years more advanced than us.

they can fly through our airspace at will, they can take whomever they want and experiment on them, and your Government can not stop them and No amount of praying can stop them because we are not..........

The Top of the Food Chain anymore!

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Stevo_Devo]

The more I brood on this, what I'm finding particularly dismaying about the film is how Fox used the Cooper story to deceive his own father, by not revealing to him the manifold problems with Cooper's story (as documented on the Internet). Then he bragged in the narration about how impressed -- i.e., easy to fool by his own son -- his father was. Tacky!

Originally posted by JimOberg
The more I brood on this, what I'm finding particularly dismaying about the film is how Fox used the Cooper story to deceive his own father, by not revealing to him the manifold problems with Cooper's story (as documented on the Internet). Then he bragged in the narration about how impressed -- i.e., easy to fool by his own son -- his father was. Tacky!

Oh please. His father called him crazy for choosing his career path. What JF did is no different that telling his father he is, for instance, a janitorial engineer as opposed to actually being the garbage man. His father grew up admiring Gordon Cooper and then believed Gordon's story about his alleged UFO sighting. You make it sound like he purposely tried to deceive his father. I don't think that was his intent at all.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by draknoir2
reply to post by JimOberg

 

What did you think of the other cases? The one that interests me is the JAL 1628 encounter over Alaska.

Are there ANY cases that you find interesting?

Indeed, yes. I find THAT case -- and the missile base incidents -- HIGHLY interesting and I have no evidence to offer supporting any prosaic explanations.

There's stuff happening out there that deserves closer investigation, and jumping to the 'UFO explanation' may short circuit genuine inquiries -- which may be to the liking of those behind some of those activities.

Life's like that.

I did some research on that JAL1628 case and a pilot also posted in the thread and helped me look at some possibilities from a pilot's perspective.

I found what may be a photo of the "giant spaceship" on an infrared satellite photo which may be a source for some of the radar returns, evidence of a temperature inversion in the area, and likely light source. You can read my thoughts here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

While I don't claim to have solved that case, I think it is evidence worth reviewing before drawing any conclusions about alien visitation.

I also find the missile cases most interesting and have no explanation for those.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur



Lenticular cloud? Looks perfectly round.

reply to post by draknoir2
Yes I know, it looks round for a cloud. Some people think that might be a photo of the 30 mile wide "mothership" that the mile wide ship the captain saw came from. I'm not one of those people but it's an interesting photo, I agree.

If you follow the physicsforums link of that photo, they also show a daytime photo of what they think is the same cloud but due to the time difference I'm not sure it is the same one, but if it is, it's not so round in that daylight photo.

Regarding Gordon Cooper, yes I felt pretty silly for believing his story about the landing and claims of no photographic evidence, when I researched it further and learned what the photographer had to say, and even found photos online of what they photographed.

It pays to look into these cases yourself rather than just believe what somebody tells you about them.

Originally posted by JimOberg
The more I brood on this, what I'm finding particularly dismaying about the film is how Fox used the Cooper story to deceive his own father, by not revealing to him the manifold problems with Cooper's story (as documented on the Internet). Then he bragged in the narration about how impressed -- i.e., easy to fool by his own son -- his father was. Tacky!

Cooper has been dead five years and the interviews looked like like they were filmed well before that. If I'm accurate on that, then the interviews pre-date the internet, at least as we know it now. I think maybe you're letting a small quibble overshadow what was really a pretty fine documentary.

On the whole I have to say I liked the film quite a bit. There's a bit of historical background, but it covers the "modern era" of UFOs pretty well. The big cases of recent years are here and Fox got big names to comment. Yes, it's a piece of advocacy work, but I don't have any problem with that.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by draknoir2

 

Regarding Gordon Cooper, yes I felt pretty silly for believing his story about the landing and claims of no photographic evidence, when I researched it further and learned what the photographer had to say, and even found photos online of what they photographed.

Do you happen to have a link?

reply to post by draknoir2


Edit (I found the links I couldn't find when I posted initially):

Here's one link: In Search of Gordon Cooper's UFOs

See "The Second Hunt" section. That talks about where you can find the photos, but I also found them online from this link:

www.nicap.org...

And here are links to the photos, there are 4 of them:

www.nicap.org...

I know everyone is suspicious about the old "weather balloon" explanation, but in this case it seems like a possibility from those photos.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Skeptics and debunkers will not like this documentary as it is very one sided. That is the purpose of the film maker. I also want to emphasize that no smoking gun or anything new is learned in this film.

I did enjoy it, but knew before I saw it that no light would be shed on this subject. Otherwise, I would have given a poor review.

Do we learn that UFOs are ET in nature? No. We do see that normal people do have experiences with phenomena they cannot identify.

I also would of had much less Nick Pope. He seems to be a sensationalist and tries to say anything unsolved must be ET in nature.

The french woman pissed me off, when asked if someone said he saw a UFO what she thought and said that they probably hallucinated and saw something that wasn't there, in this day and age how can ppl so stupid and closed minded still exist...

reply to post by spartan1337


Some people are just 'that' ignorant.

If I see a red corvette pass by me on the road....that's what I saw, a red corvette pass by me. I know what I saw. I didn't hallucinate, and neither have the millions of people who have seen silent UFOs (some very large) hover directly over them. It's what they saw. We discover new species of animal and plant life all the time here on Earth. Just because you've never seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The evidence is overlooked and ignorance rules the day for most people when it comes to UFOs.

reply to post by ufo reality


You're absolutely right. Hallucinations don't exist.

reply to post by kidflash2008


I think the fact that it was a prime time documentary and not a news bulletin or emergency broadcast would be a pretty clear indication that there won't be any kind of proof to be seen in it. Not that it wasn't a good documentary, I liked it (and I'm a pretty hardcore skeptic), but documentaries aren't made for people who surf UFO boards looking at all the latest evidence, they're made to inform people who aren't as knowledgeable on the subject.

Do people really expect any kind of proof to come from a documentary? That statement surprises me.

sadly... i didnt see anything in the show, that i couldnt read here.. or see in any episode of ufo hunters.. or anywhere else on the net

suppose i was hoping obama would be shown, with a grey sitting on his lap

Originally posted by hisshadowsuppose i was hoping obama would be shown, with a grey sitting on his lap

Mod Edit - Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 5-10-2009 by elevatedone]

Originally posted by hammster

Originally posted by JimOberg
The more I brood on this, what I'm finding particularly dismaying about the film is how Fox used the Cooper story to deceive his own father, by not revealing to him the manifold problems with Cooper's story (as documented on the Internet). Then he bragged in the narration about how impressed -- i.e., easy to fool by his own son -- his father was. Tacky!

Oh please. His father called him crazy for choosing his career path. What JF did is no different that telling his father he is, for instance, a janitorial engineer as opposed to actually being the garbage man. His father grew up admiring Gordon Cooper and then believed Gordon's story about his alleged UFO sighting. You make it sound like he purposely tried to deceive his father. I don't think that was his intent at all.

What then was his purpose in withholding from his father the documented problems with credibility of Cooper's 'tricycle landing gear' story, or his egregiously false statement that the pictures 'vanished never to be seen again'? If you can lie to your own father, you can lie to anyone.

I have only seen bits and pieces of this show over the past 5 years or so, so this afternoon going to watch the whole program and post comments later. For those interested it airs on History 2 channel at 3:00pm Pacific Standard Time today.

reply to post by data5091


I have seen the show before and thought it was well done. There was some interesting discussion around the Phoenix lights that wasn't about flares. The people interviewed during that segment seemed believable when discussing the huge triangle.

reply to post by ufo reality


Another show with a title that is misleading and only to draw in ratings...

I can pretty much be assured that not ONE of the witnesses that "saw" something KNOWS what they saw.

Otherwise it could be identified....and labelled correctly.


So it should be "I don't know what I saw but I saw something!!"

still thought it was nice being able to put some faces to the stories I have heard about. maybe some of the incidents that were talked about may be explainable or were not et craft, but IMO most of the ufo incidents talked about cannot be explained away and possibly were extraterrestrial in nature. You simply cannot call all of these people liars or say they were delusional or had any kind of mental issues. They saw things that may not be from our world.