new UFO series

[ufoscan]

I just found out about a new UFO TV series on Discovery called "Close Encounters"

It's 13-part and was produced in Toronto Canada.

From the looks of it, it mainly rehashes older classic cases with new special effects.

I have watched two episodes so far and it appears to be a more serious production than that other recent one that was discussed lately. They present two cases per episode.

Here is the description:

http://www.discovery....aspx?aid=57083

Here are excerpts on YT (Oh no ! Nick Pope is in that one too !!!)

[media=]

[/media]

And you can go watch the four first episodes right now on the Discovery channel website. The following address is for Canadian viewers - so it's likely it won't play if you are outside Canada.

http://watch.discove...al/#clip1064705

If someone has a link for the US version, please post it.

[scowl]

Or as I call it, "UFOlogy's Greatest Hits" since all of the recent UFO cases have been weak.

[coolguy]

I like these shows were they go back study old UFO cases

[Antilles]

I'm beginning to suspect that Nick Pope would show up at the opening of a supermarket.....

[ufoscan]

I'm beginning to suspect that Nick Pope would show up at the opening of a supermarket.....

Don't worry about Nick Pope. I think he'll show up in only one episode on a UK case (probably Rendlesham...)

They added two new episodes yesterday so that's six one-hour episodes so far - each dealing with two cases... (and no Nick Pope in sight !)

I like the generally serious tone of the show and the fact they focus mainly on sighting cases. No abduction stuff.

[dr no]

Don't worry about Nick Pope. I think he'll show up in only one episode on a UK case (probably Rendlesham...)

They added two new episodes yesterday so that's six one-hour episodes so far - each dealing with two cases... (and no Nick Pope in sight !)

I like the generally serious tone of the show and the fact they focus mainly on sighting cases. No abduction stuff.

Is there any attempt at potential rational explanations for what happened or do they just present dramatisations of the incidents?

[ufoscan]

Is there any attempt at potential rational explanations for what happened or do they just present dramatisations of the incidents?

In some cases they do offer alternative explanations, but most of the cases are pretty hard to explain rationally unless one assumes they are lying, imagining things or grossly misinterpreting what they saw. I have read some criticism of the series especially in regards the Yukon UFO incident where some feel that the rocket re-entry hypothesis was not emphasized enough (or at all...)

The thing is that each episode lasts 22 minutes so each case is given only 11 minutes - not much time to elaborate on all the details of a case. I think the goal of the show is mainly to provide an overview of various close range sighting reports and anyone is free to delve deeper into the cases that interest them.

[scowl]

In some cases they do offer alternative explanations, but most of the cases are pretty hard to explain rationally unless one assumes they are lying, imagining things or grossly misinterpreting what they saw.

Or we're not hearing the complete story. I've found some famous cases I read about as a kid in UFO books had left out discrediting details that made the cases a lot less exciting.

[Jacques Terreur]

I'm beginning to suspect that Nick Pope would show up at the opening of a supermarket.....

"having worked for the ministry of defense for many years, i am no stranger of cutting ropessuch as this with big, big scissors..."

[ufoscan]

Or we're not hearing the complete story. I've found some famous cases I read about as a kid in UFO books had left out discrediting details that made the cases a lot less exciting.

Yes. That often happens. I think that's the case with the Yukon Incident where the rocket re-entry certainly does appear to match some of the witnesses' descriptions. But then each case would really need a two-hour show to get into all the details. Hopefully, it will encourage people to research those cases further - something which is pretty easy to do nowadays.

[scowl]

Yes. That often happens. I think that's the case with the Yukon Incident where the rocket re-entry certainly does appear to match some of the witnesses' descriptions. But then each case would really need a two-hour show to get into all the details.

Nah. I've had some of my favorite UFO cases from thirty years ago destroyed in less than ten minutes.

Hopefully, it will encourage people to research those cases further - something which is pretty easy to do nowadays.

With one exception, the shows I've seen have not encouraged independent research. They would rather leave the viewers with a sense of awe instead of sense of doubt.

How I miss Fact or Faked! Even when they got it wrong they gave you enough details to make your own conclusion.

[Occult1]

It is coming up on Discovery Science in the United States but no release date as yet.

The format is too short I believe. 2 cases are covered in a 30 minutes episodes that are played back-to-back. So 4 cases in one hour basically.

Ufologists that have worked on these cases are asked to describe them and there is a narration. At the end of each episode further developpements or each cases are provided.

A critic here:

See: http://badufos.blogs...encounters.html

Edited February 4, 2014 by sam_comm

[scowl]

A critic here:

See: http://badufos.blogs...encounters.html

If you believe the numbers in the show, 950,000 UFOs are reported but later identified every year. What is this massive operation that manages to field a million reports every year and then positively identifies 950,000 of them? This is the man power equal to a federal department.

Ugh, the first "greatest hit" is the Yukon UFO. Sorry James Oberg. You're going to be wrong again. Just give up and admit it was an alien spacecraft!

It sounds like they're going to focus on recent reports and assume no one will bother to Google them. I'll totally freak if they do the California Drones.

[ufoscan]

Nah. I've had some of my favorite UFO cases from thirty years ago destroyed in less than ten minutes.

I'd be curious to know which cases these are !

With one exception, the shows I've seen have not encouraged independent research. They would rather leave the viewers with a sense of awe instead of sense of doubt.

A sense of awe is not a bad thing. Reminds us that we are tiny specks in a vast universe !

Obviously, the show is meant to convey that not all cases can be explained but it's also not directly suggesting that the ET hypothesis is the only explanation. As for "encouraging research", I would think this would be the viewer's initiative. It sure had that effect on me as I went and reviewed my files on the Yukon case, for example, after watching that episode and reading Sheaffer's article.

How I miss Fact or Faked! Even when they got it wrong they gave you enough details to make your own conclusion.

As a photographer myself, I have done a lot of my own "fact or faked". Back in the nineties, I did a series of local conferences on the history of UFO photographs - demonstrating how pretty much all the clear ones were hoaxes...

[ufoscan]

The format is too short I believe. 2 cases are covered in a 30 minutes episodes that are played back-to-back.

It actually works out pretty well. What you have to keep in mind is that the show has greater likelihood to be picked up in a half hour version than as a full-hour show. Also, producing these shows costs quite a lot of money so keeping them down to 30 minutes (22 minutes of actual show) helps limit costs.

A critic here:

See: http://badufos.blogs...encounters.html

Yes, I read all of it a few days ago including all the comments. Although I agree with many of their points, the general position seems to be that UFOs cannot exist therefore any description that does not match what can be rationally explained should be swept under the rug...

[ufoscan]

Ugh, the first "greatest hit" is the Yukon UFO. Sorry James Oberg. You're going to be wrong again. Just give up and admit it was an alien spacecraft!

I wish he were, but after watching that episode and reading the comments on bad UFOs, I went back to listen to some of the other original witness testimony I had on file and those sounded consistent with a rocket re-entry. Not to say that this explains away the entire incident but certainly it does suggest that some of the sightings may have a rational explanation. Keep in mind there were 30 witnesses over several areas. It's not as if everyone had observed the same thing at the same time.

So far as I can tell, only a few people appear to claim that they saw an object at close range as large as "three football fields".

It's not a bad idea to review the case as presented by the original investigator:

http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22index.htm

Probably the reason why the Yukon incident was the subject of the premiere is because it occurred in the Canadian North and it's become somewhat of a legend.