How disappointing! I was looking forward to this series from the history channel, I have enjoyed their past efforts with UFO files and thought this new series would be a really good production and enjoyable for believers and skeptics to watch.

Well, what happens when you get the 'editor' of UFO magazine and some wannabe investigators and scientist....amateur hour, thats' what. Tonights' episode on so-called 'USO's was the most inept and stupid show on UFO's ever done by this network and at this point they might want to re-tool the program or do us all a favor and scrap this waste of time.

Not to go into all the dubious plot details about a supposed plane crash caused by an ET tractor beam, but the show was about trying to find the wreckage of this purported incident that occurred 30 years ago. This occurred off the shore of Catalina Island, apparently an area with high currents, narrow sea lanes, and very deep gorges. The 'team' couldn't find this aircraft, why not? It is a mystery, and in fact, one plausible 'theory' was that the USO came back and carried the airplane to its' underwater base to hide the evidence of the crash.

!!!!!!????????!!!!!!!!

Are you ***SNIP*** kidding me?!?!?! Lets' all just make wild speculations, call them theories, and since you can't prove me wrong I am every bit as right as you are. I think Sasquatch swam out and ate the dam* thing!! Prove me wrong. Whats' that, you can't? Well then I now have a theory as to what happened to the airplane and since there is no evidence to dispute my claim it is equally viable with something crazy like ocean currents carrying it away, or seismic activity, or the airplane sliding into a deep gorge, or just having the wrong coordinates of the original crash.

I had hoped that we would get a show that would attempt to revisit sensational, legitimate UFO encounters and try to scientifically analyze them and reach some sort of consensus amongst the group as to what happened ( the Zamora case would be a good start). Instead, we get this show with these dorks in a UFO club house- we are supposed to believe that the UFO hunters have an observatory for an office- who run out and waste tons of time and accomplish absolutely nothing. Why would they need an observatory anyway, it is not like they would use something like a telescope or any other sort of scientific instrument in the process of investigating this phenomenon. They wouldn't even know what end of the telescope to look in.

Do yourself a favor and find another productive use of your time. I sure will.

That is really one vacuous explanation on their part.

Too say the least.

It was rather boring and I was expecting more

yeah once again, im highly disappointed. im losing faith in this show that had huge potential.

And yet they still try and debunk scientific and skeptical enquiry for daring to suggest such ungodly things like physical evidence and falsifiable theory... Ah well, KB, you made laugh so karma for you

was anybody else impressed by their use of 2 completely pointless science experiments to prove things we all learned in 7th grade?


...

Christ you know what since all of you think of yourselves as experts maybe you should make your own show and send it to the history channel. They already had a guy from M.I.T working one one of the cases and you still find something to complain about.

christ maybe you should actually pay attention to the show and realize this guy from MIT didnt prove anything that the public doesnt already know. funny how his degree doesnt really matter except for dramatic effect right?


edit: bad grammar

I want to sue History Channel for my 60 minutes back. They have no real stories because there is no real proof. All the people saying its real, wheres the proof? I used to believe in this stuff, and still looking for true proof, but every day I get more discouraged when I get beratted by rabid believers with no real proof or "proof" that is so amaturish that it can't be considered anything good but for a good chuckle.

***SNIP*** I did pay attention thank you and found it interesting

you didn't know that gravity pulls objects down and that an emp can interfer with an engine? The MIT guy is a quack.

Funny how you guys always say you want proof, But if any of it looks tangible you just seem to shrug it off.

I'm not some r******. Of course i know gravity pulls everything down . But why does that mean that i shouldn't find the show interesting? Some of you guys really need to lighten up

Are you serious? WHAT PROOF? The show was 60 minutes of absolutly nothing. The show had 30 seconds of a nifty story by a guy how had a plane crash and a concussion with hypothermia and possibly oxygen deprived. If thats the proof that you are talking about, then seriously, how can I rebuttle with logic on that?

I'm not talking just about the show brother. What i'm talking about is if there's any video evidence such as the lights over arizone that had multiple witnesses who stated that the craft was over a mile wide and was stationary. But itr was automatically military helicopters, or a weather balloon, or a blimp, or flares. My point is why even ask for eveidence when you're not even going to take a sighting like that seriously?

well because those explanations are quite plausible. The arizona lights were absolutely flares. Ask any bomber pilot on procedures and what flares look like. Then if you look at bright objects in the night sky that are brighter than stars, then stars would not be able to seen as the case with those lights giving the illusion of a massive object blocking starlight from being seen. Plus all you saw was lights, and not any real tangible object. Trust me I really want so much to believe but there just hasn't been anything that has been even close to solid proof.

As far as the show goes, its a flop and its an insult to portray it as something that has some real answers as the history channel has been doing. But they are selling comercial time and I can't blame them for doing business.

Well i agree with some of that, But lets say it was a daytime sighting instead of night. You know yourself that even if it was a craft that was over two miles long in width or diameter and was as clear as day the die hard skeptics would still say it was venus, or a weather balloon.

I wouldn't. IF that ever happened. But it hasn't and until then its still unproven

Wow! A lot of invective here. I understand Kugleblitz's frustration. This is the problem with modern reportage about these things: concision (make room for commercials at all costs!) and 2) don't piss off the advertizers, who are interested in middle of the road, mildly interested viewers who want something shallow, not deep. I think the investigators were on C2C last night talking with G. Noory about their effort, and one could immediately sense that they were hesitant to say they were "enthusiasts" for the "alien visitor" hypothesis. They were trying to be objective and yet not wanting to dis-enfranchise themselves from the interest of the "true believers". They did say at one point, they were sorry to hear about much of their research ending up on the "editing room floor" and hoped that later this material that was rejected would show up in, I suppose, an "editors cut" type of larger format, such as a DVD that would, of course, be for sale.

You have to have some sympathy for investigators who have both to please producers, advertisors and attempt to get somewhere in revealing something about this obviously vast subject. It is vast and it is more than a simple genre about "flying craft from elsewhere". I think it is much too early to come down so hard on a first episode of a new program. Remember, what we say here is being monitored by the number crunchers, and that will have an effect on the ultimate out-put. No doubt, the best is being saved for a part of the season of most import to producers, when the most viewers get into the show. And that will obviously not be the very first show. I'm looking forward to how these guys treat the Kechsburg incident, which is without doubt the most viable area for fruitful research, since so many of the observers were relatively young when observing it, and with many outside sources which seem to support the idea it has international implications of technology development and political motives for keeping it secret. Much progress has taken place since Stan Gordon produced the first in depth report about this incident in Pennsylvania. We can best judge this program by what it leaves out, than what it provided as the first episode. I personally feel the guys involved as the front men for investigation are sincere and ungullible. They may turn out to be badly used by the History Channel in the end, or not. We won't really know for a little while yet. I think it better to wait and see, and remember, they may be like lambs amongst snakes, rather than snakes amongst lambs, as is implied by the prior posts.

why does everything have to be a conspericy? First it was military, then the government, now its producers and advertisers. Why can't it be that there is not much to these stories, and that nothing is of relevance. I will continue watching the program of course, hoping to find something that will change my position. Its just now turning out to be more for comedic value than a show of importance.

People,
this thread is littered with bad language and attempts to get around the language filters. A reminder to all of you that you agreed to abide by the rules of this site when you joined. Thosr rules include the following:

This rule inclures the use of shorthand profanities, especially as the rules all contain this:

No more please, if you can't post in a polite manner then maybe you shouldn't post at all. Thank you.

In these cases, belief is more "important" than reason.

I was expecting more, not less. They spent a whole hour discussing one UFO incident when there are so many videos and eye-witnesses everyday for them to examine. The only highlight was the computer graphic of the UFO, which they repeated it over and over.
They wasted time in showing us a boat, a sea floor, a gorge! Why? A waste of 40 minutes that could of been used for the next investigation. Just get to the point that you couldn't find the plane and move on. I felt like I was watching 'Jacque Custeau -underwater adventure.'

Sign me up friend!!!


My apologies to the powers that be on my use of hypothetical profanity. I guess I can't use my patented F followed by a *.

you have to understand this from an ecological-niche point of view...


Commercial TV channels sell ads to generate income.

Advertisers prefer gullible, believe-anything-they're-told viewers

Consequently, what kinds of content attract those kinds of viewers?

Create shows with this content, and charge high fees to advertisers.

Make money.

I am very very disappointed in this show they could have done way better IMO this show had way more potential

Yes, They spend very little for the show and make big profits from the commercials. Corporations don't take shows like this seriously and watch them go from boom to bust in one season.

Not even history channel can prove the existence of UFO's, I doubt they ever will until they invade us lol

Honestly I wish the History Channel would not buy/fund shows like this. This stuff is nonsense! The UFO in last weeks' show (The UFO Before Roswell) has been ADMITTED to be a hoax by the guys who first reported it - but you don't hear any of that on the show. The UFO Hunters conveniently ignore that bit of info. Heck, I wouldn't mind their complete lack of skepticism if they at least told ALL the facts of these cases, but they don't, which leads me to suspect that these guys know perfectlky well that their show is a swindle. This week's show (USOs) is just wild speculation based on the report of a guy who was disoriented and concussed and yet they treat it as gospel.

Good first point, it proves that they'll do whatever to make money then, History channel's still very good and reliable when it comes to "History" lol.. does anyone remember that channel, "Infinite"? or was it "Infinito"? it had some Real good alien documentaries.

I had an encounter over the Catalina Island area, but it didn't involve a UFO.

As I was on final approach to the airport and a Cherokee 140 cut me off so I had to modify my approach. I was flying a Cherokee Arrow 200, which belonged to an Air Force Aero Club and I figured that the aircraft was flown by a student pilot who was not aware of proper airport entry procedures especially since he was also flying against downwind traffic and shaking up other pilots as well, which was like driving the wrong way on a one-way street.

I have never encountered anything unusual in the area nor was I made aware of any UFO activity is the area from other pilots at that time. The program on the Catalina incident to me personally, was a disappointment, and I hope there are improvements in the future.



The Lonnie Zamora case was very interesting.

http://www.cufon.org/contributors/chrisl/socorro.htm

http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm

I would like the History Channel to cover more on the Zamora case.

Why they keep with old stories? And why no one think of going into nasa and make a special with the people who work there, scientists, pilots, astronauts. Or go behind new sightings like the stephenville and others.

I guess that was my point: concision/advertisor objectives, etc. all makes such shows pretty much a waste of time. Now it sounds like I'm pushing the documentarists out there, but there is more in your local video store, supposing it is better than "Blockbuster" or some other mega-corporation video outlet, and you have to actually READ stuff. I guess my hesitancy to judge a show like "UFO hunters" is because I can appreciate the hurdles of writers out there with deeper motives than just making a buck, yet who still have to make a living. And they choose to make a living doing their own research for such outlets. The question is: do they sacrifice their principles for that buck in doing so. It seems from this line of posts, that they have succeeded in only disappointing people, and I'm sure they will be smarting for that. You can then go to your local produced channels of amateurs making "shows" and sit all night listening to "junk" and maybe in a blue-moon find some significant datum. Believe me, as a writer/researcher, I know the frustration and have nothing but contempt for the standard faire of commercial tv. The free-market documentaries out there can be very good, but they rarely get shown on tv. So maybe we should stop grousing about the poverty of tv, whether cable or regular, and see that to get the truth, you have to go out there and investigate stuff first hand. It's a lot more gratifying and maybe you can even make your own documentary and post it to You-tube, and make a living to boot! If you don't like the dish served up, don't eat it. I know you know that. Maybe the idiots serving us the slop will read the posts and decide to get deep. I'd think a show with only 2 commercials would do better than a show with a commercial every 10 minutes. Customer satisfaction or NO VIEWING ! Who's with me?!!!?

I've seen bits and pieces of this show, but not the whole thing, because frankly, it ticked me off to the extent I couldn't stomach it. For instance, last night's episode dealt with...I don't know, but what I saw dealt with the SR-71 spyplane. They had the unmitigated gall to not imply, but state out and out that Kelly Johnson had the inspiration for the SR-71 from his own UFO sighting! A UFO that looked like a crescent, and then, if that wasn't enough, said the SR-71 somewhat resembled what Johnson saw! Ridiculous.

The late Ben Rich, director of Lockheed's Skunk Works after Johnson, wrote a book entitled, appropriately enough, Skunk Works. Chapter 9 is called "Faster Than A Speeding Bullet" and details how the SR-71 came about. A great read, and damned inspirational, because it showcases perseverance against the odds-both technical and political. I recommend it, and guess what? No UFO needed!