Feb 01 2008
|
|
UFO Hunters
Billy Cox reviews the premier episodes of the shows with the same name. That’s right: UFO Hunters - one that is the brainchild of the History Channel and the other being the Sci-Fi Channel’s new project. That the two shows aired on the same night, as doubtless you know, only adds to the high-strangeness. Mind you, UFOs and high-strangeness go hand-in-glove, so that’s not really a big issue.
Cox offers his thoughts and comments and tells us which one (and why), in his opinion, came out on top.
This entry was posted
on Friday, February 1st, 2008 at 3:27 pm and is filed under Alien Encounters, Breaking News, Close Encounters, Crash Sites, Evidence, Eyewitness Accounts, Media Appearances, Reviews, The Redfern Files, UFO Sightings, UFOlogists, UFOlogy. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- UFO Hunters Does Underground Alien Bases »
- Radio UFO »
- UFO News »
- Mexico: A 1974 UFO Crash »
- Binnall-UFOs »
- UFOs Over Turkey? »
- Madness »
- UFO News Again »
- Bigfoot Press Conference Report »
- Alien Worlds: Issue 2 »
|
February 1st, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Couldn’t any of the networks come up with a different name? I dunno… UFO Detectives, UFO Seekers, for instance? Or is this a case of a clash of big egos?
Doesn’t this confussion make your TIVO act like it was on a Y2K rampant?
February 1st, 2008 at 6:21 pm
First of all I would have to ask if there is even a big enough potential viewership to even warrant this competition. Or is this to drum up the punters?
I prefered the Sci-Fi show as it was a new case and I didn’t really see what the History Channel was going to achieve with looking back into the Maury Island case. And I noticed that there was no refernce made to a certain Mr. Fred Crisman being involved… was there…?
Hmmmmmmm!!
February 1st, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I have crappy cable & don’t get sci-fi, but I do get history channel. I thought it was good, but more than anything, I was just excited to have a non-re-run UFO show to watch.
There were some fairly obvious & transparent set-ups…the whole “he gave it to some guy named ‘Kenneth Arnold..” conversation was silly. The preview for next week seems to have them finding an undersea base. Lots of provocative editing going on it seems.
On a side note, they are now calling it a show “based on our hit documentary.”
February 1st, 2008 at 11:11 pm
My favorite part was: “Boy Wonder, to the Batmobile!”
February 1st, 2008 at 11:39 pm
I love UFO documentaries. I haven’t seen the Sci-Fi one yet, but the History Channel version was beyond stupid…the Maury Island case? Comeon, diving to the bottom of the lake like he’d find something, give me a break…it seems like they’re trying to create a nerdy version of “Friends” with a UFO theme…I hope they come up with some better and more recent cases…how about the recent Texas sightings or the O’Hare case from 2006….I want to see good case histories, not goofball stuff…
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:10 am
OK, I just watched the History channel program on Maury Island. What a geek fest! Of course, what am I doing up this late making a comment about it.
It focussed only on the crash of Davidson and Brown’s plane and testing newly found pieces of the wreckage. The purpose was to test this idea that the Maury slag caused the fire leading to the crash. This approach leaves out just about everything that’s historically interesting about the case. It’s more likely, for instance, that Crisman sabotaged the plane. No mention of Crisman, though.
Bill Birnes remarks to the contrary, it was just speculation with some backyard wannabe “scientists” proving some geek point. Dwight Schrute meets Dale Gribble. It looks like they examined my book (it had the Eisenhower-Arnold photo I ran, which has no real relation to the case), but obviously not enought to form meaningful questions.
Isn’t Birnes the one who claims copyright now for the term “UFO”?
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I watched, sort of, the History Channel show in preference to the Skiffy Channel show.
It did seem they concentrated on epiphenomenal issues, and paid no attention to what would’ve seemed to me the really salient questions in the case. At least they could’ve examined more of the actual details of the sighting itself, and tried to establish what actually happened.
For example, did they make any attempt to find hospital records of the kid’s alleged broken arm getting set? Sure, it’s a long shot at 60 years on. If they’re actually investigating, aren’t they getting paid to try?
Also it strikes me that if one were looking for an unconventional explanation for the plane crash, wouldn’t sabotage be a more likely candidate than spontaneous combustion of the supposed UFO parts? (Please notice I don’t advocate the sabotage model.)
Also I often despair of History Channel’s slipshod approach to things such as fact checking and language. Did I mishear or did their announcer several times say they were looking into the idea that the crashed bomber was “carrying a UFO”?
And the UFO shows collectively can stop any old time now using “UFO” as a synonym for “alien spacecraft.” What part of “unidentified” don’t they understand?
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I was hoping somebody would dig up the dog.
And no one’s ever corroborated the kid’s broken arm story-who was the Doc? Didn’t these people have ‘any friends’ ?
Seems to me Crisman mighta-been ‘in cahoots’ with Palmer behind
the scenes ( spy-boy and wanna be scifi writer…
(wonder if Palmer’s correspondence /letters have been saved–sure Crisman
was using a pen-name…bet there’s a connection)
What about the guys who bailed out? Don’t they have a clue as to what/
where the fire started…what about ‘em,where’d they go…
Anyway, seems strange to me Arnold was given the ’stuff’ that should have
gone to next of kin?
It’s a wild story all the way around, and points to a ‘crash set-up’
like Roswell >making the Soviets think we got one ….
maybe a group of ’stir-crazy greys’ in scout ships ‘joy ridin’ on cactus juice’ got outta line and had a traffic accident….teenagers always gettin’ into trouble.
m
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I’ve watched them both. Birnes’s show was an absurdity. A five minute dive by one guy for “samples”? Oxidized aluminum from an aircraft that has been sitting in a ravine for 50 years? Wow! That really is suspicious.
On the other hand I was actually pleasantly surprised by the SciFi show. I think their underwater exploration was a waste of money but they are doing a service just by going around and interviewing real witnesses of recent cases and making them widely available.
Filming and presenting these witness interviews is perhaps the best thing these shows can do as they may act as encouragement for other people to go on the record.
The SciFi show wins hands down.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Listen NY-SPI doesn’t exist, didn’t you think it was funny how their office was in a hotel/motel room? How can any legitimacy be given to the phenomenon when those claiming to be legitimate are not?! These NY-SPI guys are like a bunch of geriatric scooby doo clowns, who actually do more harm than good to the UFO world. I couldn’t believe some of the conclusions that this fraudulent investigators group came up with. UFO reality can be intriguing, but this was for the birds.