James Fox -- July 1, 2012

[trainedobserver]

I have no qualms with him getting paid fantastic amounts of money to market a game. I honestly wish someone would offer me gobs of money to market a game, or a book, or a potted plant, or pretty much anything.

Put my name on that list as well. I am available to receive fantastic gobs of money at a moments notice.

 

[wwkirk]

Nat Geo’s Chasing UFOs: Two of the Stars Say the Show was Hijacked

 

[Chuck Garabedian]

Good article wwkirk. Brings for more depth to the quotes given by James and Ben from the show. Looks like things are not going well there. What an unfortunate situation

 

[SPX]

And if anyone cares, the show is getting record ratings for National Geographic channel, about twice what their other shows are getting.

That's interesting. Wasn't there some discussion on the show the other day about how the show wasn't even in the top 100? Does that mean that NatGeo programs are never in the top 100?

Personally, while I find the show to be quite flawed, I have continued to watch it. I don't think it's as good of a show as UFO Hunters was, but right now it's all we got, and hopefully season 2 will indeed be better.

 

[SPX]

No amount of video, pictures, or witness testimony will persuade the scientific community to take the UFO phenomenon seriously. I decided many years ago; that I was not going to try and convince the world that UFOs exist.

I at least agree that without a "smoking gun" a lot of people will just refuse to take the subject seriously. So unless we get something more substantial than we already have (anecdotal evidence mostly, with some radar evidence and photos/videos that can't really be substantiated), there probably just won't be a wide scale breakthrough.

I think at this point it's obvious that, without the aforementioned smoking gun, it's just going to be a field for those few of us who are interested. And at the end of the day, I'm not even sure that bothers me very much. It gets to be our own little thing.

A lot of people seem to think that if millions of dollars was suddenly poured into research that we would figure everything out within a few years. Really? Why? We won't really know until E.T. (if E.T. is really visiting us) reveals itself and opens up a dialogue.

 

[SPX]

Then, about a week or so ago, his interviews about the upcoming alien invasion became a bit more sinister. It became clear he had a story to tell but wasn't going to tell the whole story. Finally, it turned out that all of this ominous talk was really nothing more than hype about an upcoming Play Station game that involves shooting aliens, all dressed up in the guise of being actual journalism. He's since taken the twist that playing this game will actually help people fight real aliens, should they land.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I honestly think that this is kind of funny. It's yet another episode in a long line of viral marketing. It's happened before. It's no big deal. The fact that the truth was revealed in a relatively quick timeframe makes it pretty innocuous in my eyes.

I wouldn't let something like this crush your faith in Nick Pope (or anyone else for that matter). Let the dude make some money.

 

[SPX]

I feel for James and appreciate his indie work.

I think there's something to this right here.

"Out of the Blue" was as independent as it gets and, in my opinion at least, it was the best thing he's done so far.

"I Know What I Saw" was solid, but it was obvious that he was working hand-in-hand with The History Channel and the whole film had a very History Channel kind of feel to it.

Now we have UFO Chasers, which is almost exclusively out of his control, and we see what has happened. It seems like the key here is to get back to doing "smaller," independently financed documentaries.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I think there's something to this right here.

"Out of the Blue" was as independent as it gets and, in my opinion at least, it was the best thing he's done so far.

"I Know What I Saw" was solid, but it was obvious that he was working hand-in-hand with The History Channel and the whole film had a very History Channel kind of feel to it.

Now we have UFO Chasers, which is almost exclusively out of his control, and we see what has happened. It seems like the key here is to get back to doing "smaller," independently financed documentaries.

I don't think History Channel had anything to do with the making of I Know What I Saw. He shopped it around a lot of places before they bought the rights to it. In fact, he had wanted it to play in theaters.

Fox sure is taking a lot of flak for Chasing UFOs. Now I'm hearing he's gonna' leave the show (Provided there is a second season) unless he gets a producer role so he can have more control.

But I think some people are overestimating the quality of Out of the Blue, I Know What I Saw, or even the latest documentary that Leslie Kean was involved in (At the moment the title or the network it aired on escapes me). Sure, they were better than a lot of the outright junk that is out there but all three had serious flaws; chief among them being over-exuberance with mass sightings like Phoenix and Stephenville. Cases like those impressed me a while ago but I've grown beyond that. It's about the quality of the sightings and witnesses, not the numbers. Terry Proctor's video of the Phoenix triangle renders the more sensational witness testimony null and void but inexplicably Fox and Kean fail to acknowledge its importance or even its existence time and time again. On Kean's documentary audio of a conspiracy-themed and anonymous phone call was deemed worthy of inclusion. But somehow Proctor's video was not? Plllleeeaaaassse!!! How can people heap so much praise on it in the face of that? Fox has made sure to not include Proctor's video in anything he is involved in as well despite going on about Phoenix endlessly.

And what's so impressive about Stephenville? All I've seen is vague accounts of lights in the sky, radar returns that could be just about ANYTHING, and some fuzzy video I could duplicate by filming a lamppost. Big deal. There is that one guy talking about viewing an enormous saucer through his rifle scope. But if it was so big and so distinct why didn't anyone else see it? During the Paracast interview Fox mentioned a cop telling him he and other policeman saw it as well but what confirmation do we have of that? Did he check to make sure he was really a police officer? Did he go to the police station to verify that other officers had seen it? If not it could have just been some nut flashing a badge he bought at a novelty shop.

And I haven't watched these documentaries in a while but I kinda-sorta remember Jim Penniston (Rendlesham) being given much more credit than he deserves. There's a lot of problems there, inconsistencies and embellishments-over-time galore. But you wouldn't know it if these documentaries, the supposedly "good" ones, were all you had to go on.

When you heap praise on anything positive you can think of and sweep the negative under the rug (Or the reverse) you come off as an advocate rather than someone openminded. And that isn't good for anyone.

 

[boomerang]

Back to square one:

It's not a matter of being or not being a true believer in anything. It's curiosity driven by hundreds of eyewitness reports by credible people of seemingly incredible things. One such report means nothing. Thousands of reports that are demonstrably artifact are likewise meaningless. But hundreds (or thousands) of credible high strangeness reports (given for whatever reason) constitute signal rising above levels of psychological noise. Even if this phenomenon is no more than sociological , it begs explanation.

 

[Voyager]

I more or less agree, Boomerang. The problem is that the idea of hundreds or thousands of "good" reports may be mythical.

Collections of the "best" or "top ten" reports reveal that even the best reports are, at best, problematic. In Paul Kimball's Best Evidence, for instance, I think a good case can be made for prosaic explanations for most of the cases. These prosaic explanations could be wrong, of course but shouldn't the best stuff be more resilient?

If we then venture out into the lights in the sky type cases (which make up vast bulk of all sightings) we are in an area that is so replete with wild witness unreliability that it is almost worthless for any purpose. Except that for which UFO believers use it: the assertion that 50,000,000 saucer fans can't be wrong!

The curiosity part is innocent, I agree. The overstating of the importance of the existing data and using the quantity not quality argument is specious and unscientific. Which are two great words to describe the work of Fox and Kean (and most any UFO researcher).

Best,

Lance

Most of what I have observed in the so-called field of Ufology is disappointing. I am curious: Is it your contention that aerial phenomenon under intelligent control do not exist, or is your gripe with the quality of research, and integrity of the researchers? I am trying to understand what motivates you to expend so much energy criticizing what is happening in the media in regard to UFOs.

 

[paul reddington]

the thing is lance you could see something that changes your world view in regard to seeing something totally inexplicable but a skeptic would quickly round on you as to what you accentually saw and scoff at your version of events. over here a BBC Radio 5 live's sports reporter Mike Sewell saw in clear view a classic large disc shaped craft 15 to 20 miles away from london stanstead airport heading toward him then bank and hover over a field for a two to three minutes. he described flashing lights around it with two panels of soft white lights underneath it. this guy is a straight up no nonsense well known UK sports reporter who was left shell-shocked at what he saw which was around 4.15 AM and yes its just a witness testimony but you have to admit there is at least something whatever it is to the phenomenon. i got interested in this from an early age as a fascination rather than believing or seeing anything but had a very brief sighting on an early summer evening when the sky was still light in which a light which at first i though was a commercial airline but there was no tail lights but just a steady sharp white light that within a second of watching it did a full 180 turn in a sharp axis turn and blinked out a few moments later. as a keen aircraft enthusiast from my early teens i knew this was no airliner and the sharp turnabout it did is beyond our capabilities that we know of and it was a quick steady turn. here in the midlands in the UK theres being intermittent sightings of delta shaped craft the past few years which i believe are mostly high end military drone craft possibly the BAE systems Taranis stealth drone but im still looking for the one unequivocal evidence like so many others that will make people sit up and say "shit there real" even though most of us are already certain there is a reality to this.

 

[Kieran]

Personally speaking, i think it is a single source that's behind it all and causing the real genuine UFO phenomenon to appear. Some believe the US military is behind it all, and some truly believe its aliens, and some believe its us who've been creating this phenomenon. But i truly believe this, that 98 per cent of it our current knowledge of UFO's is total garbage, and this is why the skeptics , have a hard time believing the genuine 2% is the real deal.

What i hope for is the phenomenon will display itself one day, were it can no longer be denied by all. The debate can then progress beyond the silly nonsense that goes on now, whos right and who isn't ( is my argument better than your your argument) Obviously i believe the UFO phenomenon exists and have a certain point of view. But i like to see us grow not remain were we are currently.

Seeing what the visitors look like doesn't matter to me, to be honest, most of human society probably isn't ready for that type of introduction just yet. I like if the phenomenon, stuck around for a bit longer, a daytime sighting preferably, everyone sees it on TV and photographed. And left for good until another future time. Of course this could be a just pipe dream happening , as we don't know what level of intelligence is behind the UFO phenomenon. But it be nice if it did happen. Seeing technology, we have no way of creating, will clearly ignite debate were it came from and all without any answers offhand. But it least it will jump human beings ahead to a different level of understanding. I think humans can handle technology unknowns, but seeing other creatures not like ourselfs maybe be a bit too much to handle just yet.

 

[Muadib]

In reference to the Sewell sighting: What a shame, 2 minutes is a long time. No video? In 2011?

In reference to your sighting: you may be right but I can tell you that we get reports all the time from witnesses describing the same sort of thing you described (light in sky) which is subsequently shown to be something prosaic (Venus, airplanes. etc.). I realize you may be sure that you could never be fooled, but experience tells me that this is not a solid position.

Best,

Lance

Considering it was 4:15 am I doubt there were tons of people around with video cameras ready to go, if you're talking about maybe a smartphone camera or something, have you ever tried to film with one at night? Completely worthless imo. Not saying there's really something to this sighting, just pointing out that the odds of someone having something that would be able to film a totally unexpected sighting in the black of night at 4:15 am are slim to nil.

 

[paul reddington]

regarding sewells sighting i dont know why he could not have recorded it but remember he rang in to the station while on his way there to work and spoke to his work colleagues live on air shortly after it happened. this guy risked a hell of a lot in doing this and the thing is he was not ridiculed because of his character and he has a straight to the point personality which made people think he saw something odd. as for my sighting venus was on the otherside of the evening sky from my perspective and while prosaic it maybe im accustomed to regular flights since i live in an active flight corridor and my keen interest in aircraft from an early age it was not an airliner due to lack of any tail lights flashing the intensity of the white light and the speed and 180 degree mounover it made. its the one and only thing that i have seen that really puzzled me. i see satellites shooting stars etc quite regularly and while no expert i do know a bit about the sky since astronomy was a passion when younger more so than aircraft and the ufo phenomenon. i cant give you 100 percent certainty of what it was or was not but it perked my interest into what it really was and wanting answers. regards paul ps kudos to your work regarding Mr Imbrogno lance, my only wish was that you had found him out before i purchased the kindle version of his book with allen hynek lol : (

 

[Voyager]

Hi,

As a skeptic, I would say that the actual evidence falls far short of showing that UFOs are anything other than prosaic.

I am interested in the topic for its historical, pop cultural, and scientific qualities.

Lance

So you are not biased and could remain neutral if asked to look at evidence? I must applaud you efforts to derail Philip Imbrogno. What is your opinion of Dr. Stephen Greer?

 

[Voyager]

I think everyone is biased. The goal of anyone seeking the truth is to try to have an open mind but after looking at tons of supposed evidence, I have to admit that I am more than a little jaded on the topic.

If I were making a list of horrible people, Greer would certainly take his place amongst other disgusting, lying, effete, scumbags. Does that answer your question?

Best,

Lance

Yes it does, thanks for responding to my questions.

 

[boomerang]

Lance, we may agree in principle but not in practice. I find large and historically persistent numbers of witnesses, defined by accepted social and psychological criteria as credible and often exceptionally so, publicly claiming life changing experience of the surreal (often to their potential detriment) to rise above the merely whimsical.

When it comes to acclaimed social status, size does make a difference. Why would on-screen testimony of high strangeness woo-woo by Gordon Cooper, Fife Symington, Salas, et al, not leave us in a state of justified cognitive dissonance? And, I will again add to this list a personal acquaintance, a retired Air Force Colonel whose credentials I know to be genuine. Human mythology has matured into the science of critical thinking, and these people have experienced events that do not comport with it.

Is the alternative to label many of our most responsible individuals as the victims of some latent compulsion to confabulate nonsense? This would constitute a mystery almost as baffling as ufos.

 

[SPX]

Indeed one of those cases has been shown to have been based on a faked photo.

I assume you're talking about the Belgian triangle photo. If so, at least as of the last I heard, the extent of proving the photo was fake was some dude saying he was the one who faked it. I'm not sure who the guy is, or what his motivation is for saying that he did it, but unless he can replicate it then I don't think that's very much reason to jump to the conclusion that the photo is indeed a hoax.

But let me ask you: When you heard that someone said they had faked the photo did you immediately say "well that settles that!" or did you do your due diligence and investigate further?

 

[SPX]

In reference to the Sewell sighting: What a shame, 2 minutes is a long time. No video? In 2011?

Of course if he had gotten video everyone would be saying it's CGI.

Also, considering the fact that it was dark, it would probably just show up as an overexposed ball of light since this video would almost definitely be taken on a phone.

Lastly, even in 2012 a lot of people still don't have phones that can take video, and who carries a full-sized video camera around with them?

 

[SPX]

Lance, we may agree in principle but not in practice. I find large and historically persistent numbers of witnesses, defined by accepted social and psychological criteria as credible and often exceptionally so, publicly claiming life changing experience of the surreal (often to their potential detriment) to rise above the merely whimsical.

Agreed.

People often want to dismiss anecdotal evidence, but I'll put it this way:

If one person said they saw a spaceship land in Central Park, then it's probably BS. But if a thousand independent witnesses said the same thing then that's a pretty good indication that something strange happened.