UFO Hunters

[Michael L.]

Actually, the dowsing at Stonehenge is tied into my biggest problem with the show. I absolutely hate the convoluted experiments they include. Only in the Texas sighting episode did it make any sense at all to include the experiment, then the next week they were back with nonsense about testing EMP pulses by electrocuting a computer. It was very Mythbusters, only with less motivation. At Stonehenge, they were on to something. I hate dowsing because it is so easy to fake... I have used in my magic acts for years (pendulum and rods). Still, the blindfolded dowsing results were rather shocking. Unfortunately, the impromptu rig they then put the rods should have been the first of several tests. They did not in anyway explain why there was a blindfolded reaction, only that some direct human contact was necessary, and they abandoned it? No sense at all...

They need to try to stick to very recent flaps and drop the Mr. Wizard aspects of the show.

 

[TClaeys]

They have made some interesting revelations: the Renedlsham lighthouse beam being blocked in the direction of the base, the tests with blindfolded dowsing to name two.

Can we perhaps change the topic to how you would make the show better rather than the problems with the current show? How would you guys change the show? Where would you seek evidence? What would you have them investigate?

Agreed. There have been a few interesting moments in the hours of footage. The Rendlesham lighthouse stuff was interesting although I still wonder if reflections could be part of it. Perhaps illumination from surrounding fog or something?? Interesting data nonetheless.

Now, how to make it better and basically palatable on any reasonable level.
1. Get rid of Birnes. He is too biased that it makes the show ridiculous. And therefore makes any reasonable effort to "investigate" a complete mockery of serious ufology.
2. Explain to the viewers that ET is not the only conclusion. Hoaxes, mis-identifications, multiverse explanations, crypto, earthlights, military or commercial, experimental aircraft, experimental psychological testing among others can all fit into this subject. Stop pushing the ETH as the only viable conclusion. (Again Birnes)
3. Stop the unrelated science experiments. Experiments are fine, but it seems UFO Hunters is trying to look scientific by the mere association of experiments on the show.
4. Try to recreate purported hoaxes. String up some ballons and candles. If possible turn on the Rendlesham lighthouse at night and look from the vantage points. (Why couldn't they do this?) Look at f-15's at night(Stephenville). Perhaps this might help reveal a better understanding.
5. Use the time on the show in a useful manner. How many times do they break from commercial only to return and show a few minutes of what they JUST SHOWED. This is just stupid in my opinion.
6. Interview more often, tough questions, high credibility people. The more the public sees that people besides cranks and weirdos(Hawking's remarks) see these things, the more awareness we may see from the general public. Perhaps witnesses from sightings including Phoenix, Hudson valley, etc.
7. Contrast the US consensus of it's views on UFO's (they don't exist) with Britain, France, and other countries where people actually study the data and publish reports. Also show that we actaully do look at these UFO reports and we do have some indications that there may be some truth to it. Can't remember the documents, but I think of Greenwalds site. Janap. 1976 Iran CIA involvement, etc.

I know some of this is just "scrap the show and start over". and perhaps that would be beneficial, but just offering some thoughts on the problems and how to overcome them. Biases play a large part of the show and that seems to be the biggest hurdle because it limits both the approach and the conclusions.

 

[Miah]

Last night's episode was the first show worth watching, that was a true UFO mystery!

They did a damn good job of proving that this was not conventional aircraft or weather phenomenon. This was a true UFO incident.

They didn't even bring in Doc Brown Jr. to show us more pretty lights this time!

 

[Michael L.]

Since they constantly rebroadcast the show, which one do you mean? Was it the most recent new one about the '65 incident near/around Edwards AFB? I started to watch it but then opted for cartoons (that cat just can't catch that mouse!). I still have it on my DVR, though. The fact that they, from the beginning blurbs, seemed to have newly available information like the transcripts from the air traffic control towers seemed promising, but again, the allure of the cat and the mouse got me.

 

[Poi]

I watch this thread for shows worth watching, though I never seem to catch them as reruns. Hopefully, I will. So please do reference the topic of the shows! Helps to sift through the garbage.

I can't really fault Birnes so much. I did, when my initial disappointment in the show was so great, but he's got to be a victim of how producers package a show too. His ridiculous statements as to "we got proof!" when the investigators have none whatsoever, are probably staged to show some investigations in a bad light. Helps the masses sleep at night, which is a phenomenon already attested to by producers at SciFi. (I think it was SciFi.)

That wouldn't negate their letting slip the truly questionable just to keep an audience interested or even informed. In Birnes' case, maybe he's just working with what he has available to him in order to produce some gems hiding amongst the litter. Or I'm just trying to justify, who knows.

Still, when bad shows air and Birnes is claiming bogus proof of bonafide ufos, his science guy and the red-head look like deer caught in the headlights. Birnes claims proof and those two look dubious at best. Kind of funny.

 

[Ron Collins]

Last night's episode was the first show worth watching, that was a true UFO mystery!

They did a damn good job of proving that this was not conventional aircraft or weather phenomenon. This was a true UFO incident.

They didn't even bring in Doc Brown Jr. to show us more pretty lights this time!

The best one yet, though it still earns a “B-“ in my book. No BS in bills office, and not Alien-Human hybrids. They all managed to keep Birnes in check for the episode.

The incident itself is awesome. I wish I could read the transcripts for myself. I have read on a different forum that somebody thinks it was a clear case of a fire balloon prank and that somehow the only guy that was not fooled was the half asleep lieutenant. This is the main reason I want to read the 5 or 6 hours of transcription on the incident. How could all of these professionals be fooled? Hw is it that there was so much evidence and so little action taken.

It is a fascinating case, not only from a UFO standpoint, but from a military readiness and alert status standpoint. The thing that is just amazing to me is the complacent attitude the military has towards anomalous things invading airspace. We hear this time and time again in reports from the military. I mean, really, what does it actually take for us to scramble a fighter and take a look? Perhaps it is the aftereffects of the post-911 security paranoia, but I just assumed that if something was someplace it shouldn’t be without communication or identification the military would be quick to respond. However counterintuitive, it seems that the military really isn’t that interested in it until it shows overt malicious intent or by its position relative to other aircraft, may cause a safety concern. I wonder why. I am certainly not a military decision maker, but from a logic standpoint you would think that in this situation more than a few flags should be raised. I guess I expected the military to be more proactive and not so passive in these situations.

 

[dorkbot]

Despite my harsh criticism of past episodes I will give credit to the "Code Red" episode on the Edwards AFB incident. Overall I think they did a good job of presenting the case and addressing any major concerns as to whether or not this could have been misidentification. If you didn't see it yet the episode presented the major substantive elements of the case:

-Multiple eyewitnesses from qualified military observers at Edwards AFG of seven anomalous objects flying over the base.
-Observation through binoculars
-simultaneous radar contacts from multiple military radar sites at different geographic locations
-pursuit of the objects to 40,000 feet by military jet
-original tower conversation audio between the tower controller, various radar site operators, the Foreign Technology Division "UFO Officer", and the interceptor pilot during pursuit.
-original radar images showing the multiple targets
-a letter from the interceptor pilot to his wife regarding the incident
-the official report on the incident which seems to contain some major distortions as to what actually occurred as evidenced by audio tapes and the eyewitness testimony.

Some questions that occurred to me:
1. This audio recording seems fairly unique. I'm not directly aware of any official military recordings quite this sensational. The incident report was stated to have been classified for "30 years" which would have made declassification around 1995. Were the audio tapes declassified at the same time? Is anyone aware of any official military audio recordings that top this? Can anyone provide further info on how this collection of audio recordings was obtained? This seems to be a solid level above the kind of stuff that is usually declassified. You can find a partial transcript of the tapes here. [section 3.8.2]

2. The episode seemed to state that Captain John D. Balent, the officer that wrote the official incident report was also the base "UFO Officer" but on the audio tapes the UFO Officer is repeatedly referred to as a Lieutenant. Did I misinterpret this?

3. The episode did not address whether or not the eyewitnesses were sworn to secrecy after the incident and if so, by whom.

4. Given that the incident occurred for something like 4+ hours it is not clear if any photo or film was taken or attempted to be taken or if any other instruments or sensors were used besides radar. If there were, what happened to them?

5. Birnes seems to have a relationship with Bill Scott of Aviation Week. Scott is the guy who wrote extensively on Aurora speculation and is also the guy who never showed up in the Reverse Engineering episode:

Reverse Engineering – airs 3/19
"Aviation expert Bill Scott has photos of the Nellis object and knows what it is."

I guess this isn't so much a question but if he is willing to go on UFO Hunters can we get him interviewed on the Paracast?

Given the disparity of the official report that attributes the sighting to "weather balloons" this would certainly seem to lend weight to the idea that there was a protocol in place that seemed designed to insure that nothing extraordinary ever got inserted into the official paper chain. This seemed to occur at the very beginning of where documentation would be expected to start in the form of the official incident report. I mention this because it seems at odds with the declassified existence of the audio recordings.

 

[Michael L.]

I am watching the most recent episode- on UFOs and NASA- right now on my DVR. Wow! This is not a bad episode at all. The experiment guy's section (what is his name.. John Tindel or something?) was actually A) relevant and B) debunked a video that I kind of expected at least some members of the cast to be all excited about. Color me amazed!

This show might just be turning around!