MUFON's Hanger 1: Two Critical Reviews

[Pararescueman]

There is zero difference in the Paracast and any other UFO program, it is strictly entertainment pure and simple. If you are using the paracast as a barometer to measure what is ufo fact and ufo fiction , that is a best laughable. It is all the same, different method of delivery.
Using actors to play UFO researchers is not a crime. One could argue that most of the characters in the ufo field are acting like researchers.
When in recent memory has the Paracast hosts challenged a guest with tough questions? They guests get airtime to pitch stories with very little in the way of hard questions.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

There is zero difference in the Paracast and any other UFO program, it is strictly entertainment pure and simple. If you are using the paracast as a barometer to measure what is ufo fact and ufo fiction , that is a best laughable. It is all the same, different method of delivery.

Total BS, we are different.

When in recent memory has the Paracast hosts challenged a guest with tough questions? They guests [sic] get airtime to pitch stories with very little in the way of hard questions.

Again, total BS. Listen to this week's upcoming show w/ Matty Beckerman. I pin him to the wall on several occasions. Austin: I can see why we don't see you around here very often. You seem bitter, jaded and disillusioned. Why don't you come on as a guest and we'll see who asks the tough questions and what the answers will be. It's easy taking pot-shots when you ain't in the hot seat attempting to pull information out of a variety of guests. I know, we make it look easy, but I'd like to see how YOU would approach hosting a show of this type every week, i.e., getting guests and not scaring off other potential guests etc. You sure seem judgmental for someone who has never attempted to feed us questions for an upcoming show. It's nice and cozy sitting back smugly in your armchair—firing off pot shots from a place of anonymity, isn't it? Darth Maul indeed. Your anonymous avatar speaks volumes.

 

[Pararescueman]

Any time you want to meet man to man tough guy let me know.
Yes your show is total bs.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Any time you want to meet man to man tough guy let me know.
Yes your show is total bs.

Man-to-man? Tough guy? Naw, dude, not my style, but this devolved approach to difference sounds as if it may be your style. If you really think our "show is total BS" why do you listen? Why sit back and whine? Why don't you help change it and get involved instead of being an anonymous USAF macho man (?) Consider your reply please.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Any time you want to meet man to man tough guy let me know.
Yes your show is total bs.

oh brother.

 

[Pararescueman]

As I said earlier, anytime man to man, maybe you could enlighten me? I am TDY a lot.

I think your show has had a notable drop off, and there is little if any doubt certain personalities of the show get a free pass.

You speak to me about anonymity, why should I get involved when certain threads are deleted because they paint a certain host in a bad light??? Funny how that works, truth starts to come out and pow, deleted. Truth starting come out?Why is the truth so dangerous to the Paracast unless someone has something to hide? I have screen shots of deleted threads btw. (These do not involve you directly)

Shows your maturity level to start using terms like jaded, disillusioned, etc. If you think your show is basically nothing more than entertainment you are the one that is disillusioned sir.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

So Austin: Who would you suggest we get on the show so we can ask all those tough questions? I have my short list and every one of them has declined. Maybe our reputation precedes us? I'll not bother PMing you a list of decliners that I'd love to carve a new one. That leaves us with people promoting something and our friends. When was the last time you asked a friend a hard, probing, antagonistic question about what they are passionate about in front of an audience of thousands? Yeah, I know, it's hard, but I do ask those questions... that's why we're still friends.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

As I said earlier, anytime man to man, maybe you could enlighten me? I am TDY a lot.

I think your show has had a notable drop off, and there is little if any doubt certain personalities of the show get a free pass.

You speak to me about anonymity, why should I get involved when certain threads are deleted because they paint a certain host in a bad light??? Funny how that works, truth starts to come out and pow, deleted. Truth starting come out?Why is the truth so dangerous to the Paracast unless someone has something to hide? I have screen shots of deleted threads btw. (These do not involve you directly)

Shows your maturity level to start using terms like jaded, disillusioned, etc. If you think your show is basically nothing more than entertainment you are the one that is disillusioned sir.

You're gone man on a charge of stupidity! I don't feel the need to explain anything more to you.

 

[Sentry]

I was wondering about this myself, but how do you know that MUFON has not investigated these cases? Most of these cases are well-known. I would assume that several of MUFON's investigators would have looked into them over time.

When I raised this question on Robert Sheaffer's blog (linked in Chris' OP), a MUFON official responded:
Terry Montgomery GroffMarch 13, 2014 at 3:03 PM
"No, MUFON claims these programs are based on files in a real storage area in Cincinnati, Ohio that they call Hanger 1. Everything in the program does indeed have associated files in storage including information on Presidential encounters."

In the first episode, it was a collection of UFO stories relating to Presidents. These stories preceded MUFON, and if they did any additional investigation, it was not mentioned, they merely repeated the legends. As the show purports to be about MUFON investigations, that is at least a little misleading, because having a folder of UFO clippings does not equal an investigation. I've spoken to a MUFON state director and he admits the shortcomings of the program and assures me that later episodes will feature cases that MUFON has investigated.

Like who?

A partial list of discredited sources used in Hangar 1: Bob Lazar, Meade Lane, Philip Corso, MJ-12, Phil Schneider.
There are even more unsubstantiated sources such as the Barstow CA 2009 crash retrieval which was based on a second-hand story posted on a internet message board. the Jackie Gleason story is from a National Enquirer story of a second-hand account. I don't know the source of the JFK story about him being murdered over disclosure, but that has to go in the rumor pile, too.

Oh, is that right?

Dwight Equitz is a high school teacher that does some acting on the side, most often "voice acting" and narration. On "Hangar 1," he portrays a UFO researcher."
See his blog for discussion of some of his voice work: EQUITZ.COM

My objections to the show could mostly be fixed by them just changing the opening. Stop saying theses are cases investigated by MUFON. Admit that what they are discussing is UFO rumors and legends.

 

[Burnt State]

Perhaps we need a sticky re: tough questions for guests vs. entertainment as this issue is one we return to over and over, roll me over in a barrel over niagra falls, please.

So as not to be nauseatingly repetitive this is also an opportunity to talk about the idea of who can speak with authority about UFO's.

Sentry has it right - the show is about entertainment by and large, with differing guests getting different approaches. And we have established many times that maintaining a weekly guest roster means you can't get out the scalpel every week to filet them. If the listeners want to complete some minor research and explore their own issues - well then that's what the question bank's for. It's the best way for friends of hosts to get a little more grilling. After all, you can't make it your prime directive to rip new ones for people you work with outside the show. It's a courtesy thing. But nothing stops us from taking Robbert Van der BLT to task with well scripted questions, right?

As to moving forward in paranormal and Ufological studies I think it's mostly about the quality of the guest, the seriousness with which they approach the topic and what they are bringing to the table. With some guests we get some gleaning into possibilities, but rarely anything more than that. After all, as we've heard related on the show recently many times, who can actually speak with authority about UFO's? Only guests fully immersed in the field critically, historically and very seriously offer much insight IMHO. And does anyone even have a handle on the subject at all, really? It's slippery stuff - always has been.

Rutkowski is one of those guys who has made it a serious quest, and while we had a great show with him, you'd need another two or three hours to get into more critical, insightful talk to start to crack open his own opinions and what he's learned.

I see the Paracast as a historical event. Over the years it has provided a brilliant history of ufology often with the actual, real live participants in the field. It's also roamed over many subjects, with some not so serious or credible guests, and we've had some good spicy laughs with wildy unbelievable tales. It's a stone soup, with many different recipes. Take it or leave it, but complaining about a free service on a topic with no real possibility of conclusions does not move the pursuit any further at all. Might as well yell at the sun for coming up each morning. A better use of energy, I've discovered, is to ask better questions and hope that they spin on the air. (though still wish we coud have heard Rutkowski's take on recent debunking of the Yukon mothership - perhaps next time...)

 

[Sentry]

Tim Printy's SUNlite takes a look at the first six episodes of Hangar 1:
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite6_3.pdf
A sample:
"In a desperate attempt to promote just about any UFO crash, the MUFONites presented the April 17, 1897 Aurora, Texas as a factual event. The program pointed towards two witnesses, who were in their 80s and 90s when interviewed in the 1970s. They repeated the story about a crashing UFO and dead alien body that was buried in the local cemetery. That grave had a head stone with a UFO on it. When investigators tried to get permission to exhume the body, their request was rejected. However, shortly after this, the body and gravestone were mysteriously removed.

The truth is that this was all a hoax that was exposed long ago. Kevin Randle referred to it as the UFO crash story 'that won’t die'. Nobody even has a photograph showing this mysterious gravestone with the UFO on it. The continued promotion of such a case indicates that MUFON is more interested in story telling than scientific evidence."

Nice piece, examines the alleged sources and claims in detail.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

It's not as if they couldn't find real cases to cover.

 

[SPX]

I've never heard that the Aurora case has been definitively proven to be a hoax. Then again, some people's idea of "proof" may be flimsier than mine.

 

[boomerang]

I've never heard that the Aurora case has been definitively proven to be a hoax. Then again, some people's idea of "proof" may be flimsier than mine.

Trust me--it's most likely the product of prairie boredom and over active imaginations.

 

[SPX]

Trust me--it's most likely the product of prairie boredom and over active imaginations.

I suspect that is the case but I'm the type who recognizes when the jury is still out . . . if the verdict is most likely to come back against the defendant.

 

[Kayleen]

Okay first of all, to all the skeptics here, what are even doing here? If you don't have anything to contribute shoo. And to all those who keep complaining this show isn't awesome enough for you, there is a limit to how much people can say on national TV.
People think! If just saying something about UFOs could get you into serious trouble, these guys doing the show are really risking it. And nobody wants to risk something too extremely. Listen to them say their stuff on the show, not everything may be true but just hear them out. Listen to the subtle ways they use double meanings. You cant just go all out a blurt something so secretive and important to the whole world! If they did that then the show wouldn't even run on TV! I don't know about you guys but this show is like a foundation. The give you all these pieces of evidence, and you are supposed to look them up if you really want to know the real deal. Compare sources be a historian! This is something interesting and all this show is doing is putting fourth theories and ideas. It's your job to dig in further cause no one's going to tell you the whole story. Not ever.
So quit whining and do something about it. I've been reading the forums here for a long time and i really think we should be more mature than this. I'm not trying to be harsh, just asking you guys to think in a different perspective.

 

[Bananas]

This show is as credible as Ancient Aliens, and just as full of completely made up SHIT. It's entertainment for dummies, just like the ghost hunting shows who have been shown again and again to just fake stuff and use failed actors to pretend nonsense.

You will never see anything real on TV.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Tim Printy's SUNlite takes a look at the first six episodes of Hangar 1:
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite6_3.pdf
A sample:
"In a desperate attempt to promote just about any UFO crash, the MUFONites presented the April 17, 1897 Aurora, Texas as a factual event. The program pointed towards two witnesses, who were in their 80s and 90s when interviewed in the 1970s. They repeated the story about a crashing UFO and dead alien body that was buried in the local cemetery. That grave had a head stone with a UFO on it. When investigators tried to get permission to exhume the body, their request was rejected. However, shortly after this, the body and gravestone were mysteriously removed.

The truth is that this was all a hoax that was exposed long ago. Kevin Randle referred to it as the UFO crash story 'that won’t die'. Nobody even has a photograph showing this mysterious gravestone with the UFO on it. The continued promotion of such a case indicates that MUFON is more interested in story telling than scientific evidence."

Nice piece, examines the alleged sources and claims in detail.

Printy never fails to ignore the obvious.

Andrews is pretty clear when he writes, "I believe there are lots of UFO's. I am also tending to "believe" they are of 2 categories: A: manmade UFOs B. extraterrestrial UFOs." Rich responds: "Yes, I'm a believer in both categories." How you can challenge such unambiguous documentation is beyond me.

Here is the original Andrews letter to Rich:

Now the more famous response from Rich:

 

[Sentry]

Frank, I'm missing something here. In the letter, all I see is that Ben Rich admits an interest in UFOs.
The Hangar 1 show has a voice actor performing something Rich was alleged to have said.
Check this clip at 23:30

Then Dolan, Schratt and Ventre repeat hearsay, all based on Harzan's story.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Frank, I'm missing something here. In the letter, all I see is that Ben Rich admits an interest in UFOs.
The Hangar 1 show has a voice actor performing something Rich was alleged to have said.
Check this clip at 23:30

Then Dolan, Schratt and Ventre repeat hearsay, all based on Harzan's story.

Rich writes he's a "believer in both categories." To be properly clear on what that means, you do need to see the Andrews letter as well. I'm not defending the Hangar 1 show but Printy does the same sloppy things to suit his agenda.