James Fox -- July 1, 2012

[SPX]

This video does nothing to explain the mile-wide pitch black triangles silently flying directly over people's houses (ahem - the "alleged" mile-wide pitch black triangles).

I think the article he linked up is worth reading and at least has some evidence I was not familiar with (and probably a lot of other people aren't familiar with). But like I said, I do still have questions.

 

[SPX]

Well, thanks for considering the other side, SPX.

I try to. Now I'll comfortably sit back down on the fence.

At the end of the day, the truth is that I know that I don't know.

 

[dyingsun]

Lance just doesn't stop, does he.

 

[dyingsun]

You better keep on 'doing' it.

 

[SPX]

I'm happy to try to answer any specific questions, if I can.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

I can't respond to remarks like Apocolyto's above, that says that the video says NOTHING about the first event. That is exactly what the first part of the video addresses: the V formation of planes that overflew the region and was video taped. It's interesting that the witnesses saw the supposed mile wide craft (but neglected to photograph it) at the same time they apparently missed the huge V formation of planes (which they don't mention).

Well that does show that at least something V-shaped--and identifiable--was in the air. And that is significant.

However, I'm still not sure that so many people would've lost their minds over some planes in formation 19,000 feet in the air, and that this mass of people would take what we see in the Procter video and invent all kinds of fantastic details like I talked about in my earlier post. I mean, to me, that's like seeing someone in vaguely unusual clothing walking down the street and subconsciously creating a story in your mind--which you believe--about a guy in medieval garb with a giant sword walking down Main Street. I mean, I've certainly never done that. Have you ever done that? Do you KNOW anyone that's ever done that? Or anything like that?

But like I said, it's good food for thought. For what it's worth, I forwarded the link to the article to my dad, who is also interested in the UFO question.

 

[nameless]

Anyone mapped the correlation between Chemtrails and their build up and the Phoenix are UFO sightings?

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Okay, I know this thread is slowly dying but I watched the latest episode of Chasing UFO's last night and have some stuff to vent. First off I've noticed that a lot of these "paranormal drama" programs are using those stupid portrait cameras people have been ranting about. Of course this is nothing more than a ratings ploy based on simple psychology. The studies into facial recognition of fear are clear; it's scarier to see the expression of someone being afraid than to see what they're actually afraid of, but I'm fed up with that particular aspect of these shows.

Second off I went to a LOT of the locations they visited in this particular episode and one of the presentations I was able to sit in on was the Travis Walton story, put on my Mr. Walton himself. I have to say they cut a LOT of his story out, and I'm sure it was for time but I felt they slighted him a little bit on that.

Third off the whole "getting the truck stuck" on the dirt road was pointless to the episode. If you're going to have filler BS like that tell the whole Travis Walton experience instead.

A lot of people on the forums have discuss what would make a good UFO (or paranormal) program to begin with. We know Lance wouldn't accept anything but most people more open about it come to agree on a few items. I think Mr. Fox should take some notes....

1. Focus more on the evidence and key witnesses instead of the investigators themselves.
2. Use logic and intelligence when searching for evidence, i.e. don't search for trace evidence in the middle of the frakking night.
3. Have all the evidence analyzed by professionals in the lab.
4. Don't do Roswell.
5. Concentrate on the most recent reports and sightings, and have stats. on what's occurring month-by-month. For instance are there really fewer abduction reports and greater sightings reports so far for 2012? Discuss.

In general these points emphasize critical thinking and scientific review of recent activity more than entertainment and fear-factor value. Such "low hanging fruit" as it's called can be genuinely insulting to those of us who take this type of research a bit more serious.
My two pennies.
J.

 

[SPX]

A lot of people on the forums have discuss what would make a good UFO (or paranormal) program to begin with

Minus some apparently questionable ethical decisions--i.e. Chris O'Brien's experience--am I the only one who thought that UFO Hunters was actually really good? It had interesting hosts, a good balance of perspectives (the true believer, the middle of the road guy, and the skeptic), high production values, and they covered some good cases that I was unfamiliar with.

I actually saw an episode yesterday on H2--the first time I've seen the show in a few years--and I was reminded of how good it was. UFO Chasers, in my opinion, is a very pale imitation. And I do mean imitation. It's obvious they took the same basic template and tailored it (poorly) to their network.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

I can say that I enjoyed UFO Hunters and was sorry to see it end - though my reasons for enjoying it may well be different than yours.

Mostly, I just saw it as entertainment though occasionally something would be presented that would truly catch my interest. They gave stories which I was usually unfamiliar, though they weren't exactly objective in their presentation and certainly made a few stretches with the facts. Still, there were some episodes I genuinely liked. I think what worked about it was that they were able to make UFO phenomena easily accessible to those who had an interest but didn't know where to begin or were otherwise discouraged from actively researching this. The truth is that there's a large market that's simply starving for anything regarding the paranormal and UFO Hunters filled that need. I'd like to see something more intelligent fill that void and would love it if Gene Steinberg or Chris O'Brien could get a real program on the air. So much for wishful thinking. I can rarely find a reason to watch TV these days as even the channels I once loved have decided to dumb down their programming to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Apocalypto]

I can't respond to remarks like Apocolyto's above, that says that the video says NOTHING about the first event.

Best,

Lance

I didn't say that. I said it "does nothing" to explain it. The skeptical issues that are raised are nothing new, and are as inconclusive today as they were 10-15 years ago.

Let's confirm what we have here. What we have here is a video of a mere 5 minutes and 12 seconds, melodramatically titled "Destroying the 1997 Phoenix Lights UFO case". It is soundtracked, of course, with the requisite freaky, dramatic synthy music. Now, the bulk of this very short and - quite frankly featherbrained 5 minute video - deals with the flare portion of the case.

Based on the witness commentary and descriptions in re to the Phoenix Lights events, this video is a drop in the bucket. Hundreds, possibly thousands of people saw the large black triangle/V-shaped craft. The bulk of the witnesses live right next to Luke AFB and most of them probably know the difference between a formation of airplanes and something much different.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I can say that I enjoyed UFO Hunters and was sorry to see it end - though my reasons for enjoying it may well be different than yours.

Mostly, I just saw it as entertainment though occasionally something would be presented that would truly catch my interest. They gave stories which I was usually unfamiliar, though they weren't exactly objective in their presentation and certainly made a few stretches with the facts. Still, there were some episodes I genuinely liked. I think what worked about it was that they were able to make UFO phenomena easily accessible to those who had an interest but didn't know where to begin or were otherwise discouraged from actively researching this. The truth is that there's a large market that's simply starving for anything regarding the paranormal and UFO Hunters filled that need. I'd like to see something more intelligent fill that void and would love it if Gene Steinberg or Chris O'Brien could get a real program on the air. So much for wishful thinking. I can rarely find a reason to watch TV these days as even the channels I once loved have decided to dumb down their programming to the lowest common denominator.

I really don't see myself being in front of the camera on a TV show, though I suppose I could do voiceovers and production.

But it's not as if a TV show of that sort is often even worth the effort. So many compromises, so little pay.

 

[SPX]

Mostly, I just saw it as entertainment though occasionally something would be presented that would truly catch my interest

It's important to remember that television IS an entertainment business. If you don't get viewers, you don't survive. So they are going to make the show in as entertaining of way as possible.

I actually am thankful for this. When I was a kid I remember watching stuff on PBS and hating it because it was so boring. The information was good, but the presentation was just so stale and uninteresting. As a consequence, despite the educational opportunities, it was never long before I changed the channel.

Sandanfire asked, "What would make for a good UFO program?" Well it can't be boring. The information not only has to be good but it also has to be spiced up a little. It has to pull me in.

I thought that with UFO Hunters, beneath the facade of entertainment, there was actually some good work being done. It was about the best you could expect from a one-hour-with-commercials format.

I used to make it a point to watch it every week. It was a mini-event for me. When I heard about UFO Chasers I was hoping it might be a good replacement and something worth resurrecting that ritual for. And I've watched every episode, but so far I'm just not really feeling it.

They gave stories which I was usually unfamiliar. . .

Yeah, this is one of the things that I liked about the show the most. They covered a lot of the classic cases, but they also covered a lot of stuff I was totally unfamiliar with. And we all know that the UFO field is one that suffers from a terrible case of the same ol', same ol'.

So to get a show that was actually talking about some lesser known material was a godsend to me.

. . . though they weren't exactly objective in their presentation and certainly made a few stretches with the facts

The show obviously did lean more toward the believer's side of things, but like I said before, there was a good panel of hosts--the believer, the middle-of-the-road guy (who leaned toward believer but was always reasonable), and the skeptic.

If we want to get into specifics, well, Bill Birnes is obviously a cartoon character and, to be honest, I'm not even sure that guy should be allowed to walk around in the world without supervision. But if anything, his over-the-top shenanigans always provided much appreciated comic value.

Pat Uskert, I thought, was awesome. It was obvious that he probably had an "I Want To Believe" poster tacked up on his office wall at home, but he was generally pretty moderate and reasonable, asked good questions about the evidence, and had an engaging personality.

On the skeptical side, I thought Ted Acworth was great. He was skeptical, and open-minded, and always did his job. His replacement in the third season, Kevin Cook, was also solid.

Still, there were some episodes I genuinely liked. I think what worked about it was that they were able to make UFO phenomena easily accessible to those who had an interest but didn't know where to begin or were otherwise discouraged from actively researching this

Yes, I mean it was a show for the uninitiated. And honestly, that makes all the sense in the world, since that is the vast majority of the viewership.

If anyone will ever make a show for the truth UFO buff, it's going to be something small and independent, and probably only available over the Internet.

I can rarely find a reason to watch TV these days as even the channels I once loved have decided to dumb down their programming to the lowest common denominator.

Isn't that the truth? I recently got cable again after like 2 1/2 years of not having it and it really can be difficult to find much on TV.

Even my go-to channels like the History Channel have lost a lot of their appeal. I don't mind some reality programming, but when you're the History Channel and that's basically all you have then that is a problem. I miss the kind of stuff that they used to broadcast. Just recently, I was given three reminders of it: an old History Channel production about Abraham Lincoln that's on Netflix, a show on the Military Channel about the Nazi's and their connection to the occult, and a show on PBS called History Detectives.

As you can see, if you want old school History Channel kind of programming . . . you need to watch something other than the History Channel. That's unfortunate.

 

[SPX]

But it's not as if a TV show of that sort is often even worth the effort. So many compromises, so little pay.

You'd have to do it for the love. Make it on a shoestring, produce it yourself so that you have total control, and then release it online.

Maybe do one episode a month, advertise it heavily on the show, and charge us all some modest amount to watch it. Then roll those funds into the next episode.

 

[SPX]

While we're on the subject of UFO shows. . .

Ancient Aliens, anyone?

 

[RenaissanceLady]

If we want to get into specifics, well, Bill Birnes is obviously a cartoon character and, to be honest, I'm not even sure that guy should be allowed to walk around in the world without supervision.

You know, I've wondered about that too. He's the guy I'd be helping across the street and I suspect he'd be muttering the whole time.

Yes, I mean it was a show for the uninitiated. And honestly, that makes all the sense in the world, since that is the vast majority of the viewership.

If anyone will ever make a show for the truth UFO buff, it's going to be something small and independent, and probably only available over the Internet.

This is part of the problem. Any news about any topic has been merged so thoroughly with entertainment that it isn't "news" anymore and certainly isn't objective. This is, unfortunately, a direct result of giving the masses exactly what they want. Opinionated and biased news gets the highest ratings because it serves to reinforce what their target market already believes without offering any inconvenient challenges to those notions.

Isn't that the truth? I recently got cable again after like 2 1/2 years of not having it and it really can be difficult to find much on TV.

Even my go-to channels like the History Channel have lost a lot of their appeal. I don't mind some reality programming, but when you're the History Channel and that's basically all you have then that is a problem. I miss the kind of stuff that they used to broadcast. Just recently, I was given three reminders of it: an old History Channel production about Abraham Lincoln that's on Netflix, a show on the Military Channel about the Nazi's and their connection to the occult, and a show on PBS called History Detectives.

As you can see, if you want old school History Channel kind of programming . . . you need to watch something other than the History Channel. That's unfortunate.

Yes, History Channel had traditionally been the channel I'd always watch and was usually the main reason I had cable/dish. I can't find anything like the type of programming they once had.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

While we're on the subject of UFO shows. . .

Ancient Aliens, anyone?

The Greek guy with the crazy hair just annoys the living heck out of me. Just because something is a complex unknown doesn't mean aliens were involved. I watch the program only very occasionally and then only if I'm just too mentally wiped to do something useful. Sometimes I have it on in the background when I'm grooming the dog. That's pretty much it.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

@Regarding the 'explanation' of Phoenix in the video: I'm just not buying it. There were too many people who would not mistake multiple aircraft for a single low-flying, large, black object. Yes there were flares dropped by I do think it was done in response to the first reports.

You can't fool all of the people all of the time!

Such a large craft could possibly have been detected by NRO, Nasa or military sources. The USAF could have had enough notice to consider dropping flares in a row. Or the flares could just be their own, perfectly legit, part of a totally independent event..

I cannot buy the fact that so many people - and remember, Phoenix was alive with rumour and report - all mistook the mundane for a large, black craft.

People seeking answers from the Military totally got the runaround from the Air Force, who change their story a la' Roswell. There is no need for the Air Force to hide a legal exercise if seen by many of the public. Why would they?

This case is unique if the reported number of people who saw it is anywhere near true. I was not there and therefore cannot say it is true but things like this would happen all the time if the Air Force was to be believe?

 

[Sean Elifritz]

The Travis Walton episode was pretty amusing. Minutes spent on a vehicle stuck in the mud and Rider stuck in a tree. What does that have to do with UFOs? The night investigation was especially funny in this one. The event took place in 1975. That's 37 years ago! Do they really think the abductors might still be hanging around? Props to Travis for not doing the night investigation (I'd bet a dollar that they asked him). I was groaning at the thought of him bumbling around in the dark with them in that ridiculous gear... but it didn't happen.

 

[SPX]

This is part of the problem. Any news about any topic has been merged so thoroughly with entertainment that it isn't "news" anymore and certainly isn't objective. This is, unfortunately, a direct result of giving the masses exactly what they want. Opinionated and biased news gets the highest ratings because it serves to reinforce what their target market already believes without offering any inconvenient challenges to those notions.

Well I certainly think that you can be factual, while also being entertaining. The fact that television producers sometimes feel the need to misrepresent the truth to get ratings is an independent problem.

I can't find anything like the type of programming they once had.

If you have Netflix, some of their older stuff is on there. And the Military Channel is kind of like what the History Channel used to be, only everything is military related.

 

[SPX]

The Travis Walton episode was pretty amusing. Minutes spent on a vehicle stuck in the mud and Rider stuck in a tree. What does that have to do with UFOs?

I thought the Travis Walton episode was okay, but yeah, there is just too much superfluous stuff to make the investigations seem exciting or eventful. Most of the investigations are a waste of time anyway. With UFO Hunters, I at least felt that their investigations and experiments had some purpose. But here it just seems like investigation for investigation's sake.

I also feel that Fox probably does his best work behind the camera. I thought that "Out of Blue" and "I Know What I Saw" were both very good. But as a participant? I just don't think it works.

And Erin Ryder's purpose seems basically be to stand around, look cute, and occasionally go "WTF was that?!"

The real star, in my opinion, is Ben. He has a likeable personality and seems genuine in both his knowledge and approach. He also seems a lot less willing to play the game of running around and looking scared in night vision.

Maybe I'm being too hard on the cast. Maybe if Fox or someone like him had total control of the show the results would be superior and everyone involved, by extension, would come off a lot better to the viewer.