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.

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

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?

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”?

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.”

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!!

Doesn’t this confussion make your TIVO act like it was on a Y2K rampant?