'UFO HUNTERS' on The History Channel
Smallscreen News
By M&C Smallscreen Jan 29, 2008, 3:59 GMT
Talkback
Add your comment (no registration required)
page: 1
WOW!!!! You completely and much more elegantly hit the nail on the head about this episode then I did in my sorry attempt in the History Channel forum about the show. I am SO glad to read your comments as they are incredibly exactly my feelings. I was very excited about this show and found myself very dissapointed. With the exception of the one true scientist with the PHD, I found the other guys to be a little too 'sketchy' and really reaching for facts that just didn't exist. To base the whole resarch argument on some speculative material was pretty poor. They should have really tried alot harder to find hard core evidence like some sort of remnants of this so called 'slag' and less on the entertainment factor and purely speculative conclusion. Excellent post!
Sean Thomas (AKA: the Skeptical Believer)
I was very pleased with the interviews they did in Hooper Colorado, UFOwatchtower, San Luis Valley, Colorado. love to see more done we all at the tower love to see more on TV about the valley, Judy has done wonders with the tower, and also Christopher O Brian his four books are highly recomemended for reading .
Some improvement in episode 2, but patterns are emerging. First, the evidence at hand now suggests the UFO Hunters don't attach much significance to the opinion of their scientist. Granted a few seconds near the end of the USO episode, he offered a devastating synopsis of what the objective evidence actually revealed. Apparently no one heard him and the tendency to persist with magical thinking continued until the show (mercifully) ended.
A fundamental problem dogging this show is that absence of proof and proof of absence are two entirely different things. At least this time they had some idea of what they hoped to find. But not being able to locate the downed aircraft despite some valiant and well-reasoned attempts is one thing. Taking that as some sort of evidence that USOs have removed the wreckage is sheer logical folly unsupported by any hard data. At this point one can only assert with certainty that the team did not find their target, not that the wreckage is gone. That outcome could be something as simple as not looking in the right place. Given that the team accepted the premise that wreckage might shift position over time, the possibility the searches did not cover the right area should have been given more weight. Leaping to a fanciful USO hypothesis, they forgot to include other, equally valid, explanations for not finding the wreckage like a team of U. S. Navy Seals arrived by dark of night in a submarine and hauled the plane off to Area 51, or the Loch Ness monster ate it.
All things considered, it was probably for the best that the wreckage was not found. That spared us the torture of being subjected to 'explanations' as to what a broken windshield or intact seat belts revealed about the aliens piloting the putative USO. If they shot the plane down, it is hard to believe any aliens would then take pains to rescue the pilot. But lacking hard evidence, I must admit that no one can prove the existence nor stipulate the intentions of such entities.
As in the first episode, the team did not really undertake a systematic examination of the existing evidence. Or if they did, they did not see fit to bring up the published facts. The National Transportation Safety Board investigated this plane crash and a synopsis is available to the public (ID - LAX80FA041). That account differs quite substantially from the witness testimony presented on the show. Allowing for the fact that the witness suffered a terrible loss in that accident and not wanting to belittle anyone who would come forward with their stories, it still should have been possible to convey to the viewers that the legal records do not conform or even corroborate the testimony we saw. This is a crucial point since at the end, the only evidence remains these witness accounts and our faith in their complete accuracy.
I urge the UFO Hunters to remember the logical device of Occam's razor which reminds us, no matter how much we want something to be true, not to multiply our hypotheses to delude ourselves what we want to be is what we actually see. Rationalizing a failure to recover wreckage as evidence for sinister alien intervention is an example of taking things far beyond the logical limits. Those who fail to apply Occam's razor themselves run the risk of seeing their logic cut to ribbons by others.
Tyler Kokjohn
Once again, complete disappointment.....and once again, an EXCELLENT post summarizing the shortcomings of the episode, and show in whole.
Sean Thomas (AKA: the Skeptical Believer)
Hi-we just posted a great giveaway contest-free to enter for UFO HUNTERS, we never give out or share emails with anyone. I just posted it-please visit our competitions page or look at the headline story-link is in it.
Episode 3 featured the strongest showing to date for the UFO Hunters team scientist, Dr. Ted Acworth. He managed to clarify a working hypothesis, attempted to conduct controlled experiments, offered evidence-based interpretations while noting technical limitations of procedures and engaged in only minimal flights of fancy. Altogether a solid bit of work.
The team revisited the Betty and Barney Hill alien abduction case and came up with some physical evidence for analysis. Subjecting fragments from the dress Betty wore the night of the encounter, one with a mysterious pink powder and a control piece that appeared (by eye) to be clean to infrared (IR) spectrographic analysis, protein and lipid were detected. No differences in spectra between the control and experimental fragments were discernable. As noted by Dr. Acworth, the results were inconclusive in that they revealed no evidence for any material of extraterrestrial origin. Given the age of the dress and uncertainty as to how it was stored over the last forty-six years or so at the time it was examined, this failure to detect novel molecules can be rationalized. Since the team maintains this case represents the best evidence existing in all alien abduction cases, given the failure to discover anything conclusive with IR, it is puzzling that other biochemical methods were not deployed. IR is a powerful tool, but not a very discerning one. Confronted with complex samples such as these - literally loaded with keratin and other molecules from Betty, Barney, and all the myriad biological materials that surrounded them - a method that might be challenged to reliably distinguish molasses from used crankcase oil would probably fail to reveal the alien molecular needle in the haystack. More precise methods exist to analyze proteins and lipids, but the team did not apply them. Even then, the results could well have been the same.
Alternative explanations for the pink powder and general condition of the dress remain viable but the team looks to have quit probing a little early. For example, maybe the pink material is really aluminum chlorohydrate antiperspirant stained with some of the dye used in the fabric - a readily testable hypothesis. Examination of the fabric did reveal damage, but since it is on such a scale that a microscope is needed to see it, this seems more consistent with wear than a struggle. No one indicated an age or use history of the dress. Maybe that should have been considered.
Moving on, the team addressed instance of foreign object implantation in Tim Cullen and another case without strong connection to a UFO. The team was taken with a fluoroscopy video that showed an embedded object move in concert with a surgical instrument. Unfortunately, seeing a foreign body embedded in soft tissue apparently move in response to pressure is not novel nor does it reveal the object has any rapid independent motion. Soft tissue is deformable. Probably most of us can recall trying to remove a stubborn sliver and how evasive and frustrating those things can be.
Assuming this object actually did plow through living tissue, who controls it and exactly where are they? If on some planet far, far away, how could they make the thing respond to a surgical probe in real time? Try this scenario and calculation – if the controlling intelligence is on Mars, they are at the absolute minimum 35 million miles away from the Earth. Traveling at the speed of light, a command to move would require just over 3 minutes to span that distance. In order to evade the hemostat coming after it, that command would have had to been issued over three minutes before the event occurred. Let’s leave untouched how they knew in advance just which way to move. Simple, you say, the device is autonomous. Then packed in this tiny package we have a sensing mechanism (this thing has more eyes than a potato), computing device and power supply sufficient to generate enough force (don’t ask how} to drive it through living tissue. The device must not only sense proximity of things like a hemostat, it seems it must be quite discriminating and must also recognize intent. If it responds to magnetic fields, it should have gone wild if the bearer ever came near such a thing. Looking at some web sites I find Tim Cullen was a cement contractor. So, did the device(s) begin migrating whenever he picked up some rebar?
But it gets worse. On removal from the body the behavior of these objects always seem to change mysteriously and previously alert, mobile and evasive devices become … inactive. Wouldn’t physical extraction from a site in which the “device” had been ensconced for years constitute an emergency condition and necessitate rapid locomotion out of harm’s way? Why would a mobile object ever allow itself to be removed from the body? Does it just get tired? By the way, how did it move what with the nerves and all attached to it? And why does a transmitter stop signaling? Simple, it was told not to work the team intern offers. Maybe it is because when you had the thing in controlled conditions and could rigorously test it without extraneous signal contamination, it becomes obvious it is not a transmitter. What is happening is not hypothesis building and testing, it is excuse making to avoid admitting that the square peg of inconvenient facts is being hammered into the round hole of the favored alien origin belief.
Once again, the team’s apparent perfunctory consideration of existing data led to missed investigatory opportunities. First, looking at a website, I find that Time Cullen suffered a terrible car accident before his incident. Accidents and occupational factors are well known risk factors for foreign body implantation and maybe that has some bearing on what Tim had in him. Also, the description of objects removed from Tim need some further vetting. I see one place where a “melon seed implant” is described, but elsewhere in the same article it is stipulated the object is 7 cm by 4 cm. That was clearly one big melon. This thing had “proceptors” connecting to nerves and sounds pretty impressive. So where is it? His doctor was right there and he purportedly has a whole collection of similar objects. The team should have been all over that one because they overlooked a critical opportunity to clarify, confirm and compare numerous objects for commonalities. Again, witnesses like Tim and Jeff need not ever be subjected to hostile cross-examinations. But it is still feasible to acknowledge the critical gaps and apparent contradictions in the data for the viewers and undertake a vigorous effort to seek the disposition of all existing evidence.
Overall, Dr. Acworth did a creditable job of well-founded data interpretation and succeeded in keeping the conclusions honest. Rigor held briefly until the ultimate abduction story was revealed at the end of the show. When Bill declared the message in all this was that they had not found one thing to disprove the extraterrestrial explanation, the ordinary rules of evidence and proof simply vanished. The burden of proof is a heavy one, and the onus to make a case fell squarely on the UFO Hunters. Amassing a body of inconclusive evidence that proved nothing, the team then declared the alien abduction hypothesis is still viable. Such tortured logic now places this idea squarely on an equal footing with any unfounded conjecture or fantasy.
Move over, Seinfeld. There’s a new show about nothing.
A very interesting comment was made on a subesquent episode: 'Military vs. UFOs:
(This episode covered the January 1980 sighting near Rendlesham Forest and the Bentwaters Air Force Base and included a dramatic audio recording of the event made by USAF Colonel Charles Halt.)
The comment made by eyewitness Colonel Halt should have been jumped on by the team. He reported that the object sighted appeard to be 'dripping molten metal'. This is EXACTY the observation made in Washington State and is supposedly what killed the dog on the boat.
How many other eyewittnesses have observed this???
rh
As always...hype! Real investigation, guys! I do enjoy the show, but I am amazed that the REAL questions are avoided, but of course, it is television.
On this episode, the most obvious is the least to these 'investigators'. Trekking into the wilderness in search of the plane wreckage and diving into the bay, especially after 60 years have lapsed can almost guarantee that nothing substancial will be found, but should allow for speculation and inconclusive results.
Some REAL questions would be: 1.)Where is the boat that was hit by the slag and what kind of damage was done? THAT is where the transference of the elements should be found. The boat is a smoking gun. 2.)Dahl's son was injured, but how? He had a broken arm that was the result of the event supposedly. What was the characteristics of the injury if it was caused by the slag? 3.)The dog was killed, but how? Did he get hit with the slag? Did he die from some type of exposure?
Like I said, AS ALWAYS!
page: 1
Latest Headlines in Smallscreen
- 1. Neil Patrick Harris confirmed as 61st Emmy host
- 2. SYTYCD features Rowland and House DJ David Guetta on July 9 show
- 3. MTV.com features All Time Low; “Weightless,” will debut on July 6th on MTV
- 4. Katie Holmes makes Nigel Lythgoe Dizzy with dance
- 5. American 'X-Factor' to feature Cheryl Cole?
Tyler KokjohnJan 31st, 2008 - 17:13:06
The UFO Hunters premise sounded great - experts subjecting the evidence to exhaustive scrutiny to uncover the facts. The show started off on a promising note - an investigation of an incident that took place just before Kenneth Arnold's flying saucers report and the now famous Roswell incident. Then we got to the reality show part which revealed a weak and flawed approach to investigation that no amount of impressive scientific equipment could hide.
On June 21, 1947, Harold Dahl reported white-hot fragments falling from an unidentified aircraft struck the water and a beach in Puget Sound, injuring his son and killing his dog. Air Force intelligence officers collected most of the wreckage, but the plane carrying them and presumably the items they gathered crashed after takeoff. An intriguing story that holds the promise of physical evidence of a UFO. The team heads right out to Puget Sound and gathers evidence.
That's when I felt sorry for the poor guy diving in the cold water looking for... what? What did the items that hit Harold Dahl's boat look like? Was there any description anywhere in the news reports or any place that presumably the investigators would glean for information before going on an expedition? So, how would anyone know if they had found something? So, over sixty years later, we saw this guy wander about, scrape up some sand and pick up a rock hoping there is some connection to the Dahl incident. Let's not even ask precisely how the team decided that this particular area in the Sound was the actual point in which UFO debris came to earth. The final results speak for themselves.
Doing far better when it came to locating the B-25 crash site, the team took advantage of local authorities and looked over the area. Found a bunch of debris, but again without a search criterion at hand and just ambling about, did not come up with anything looking UFO-like. Rolled out the ground penetrating radar, but had to finally admit it was useless. Looked cool and high-tech though.
Perhaps behind the scenes there was more, but what was in evidence was not a systematic analysis and investigation but a haphazard approach across the board. Worse, the team attempts to link events like the subsequent Air Force investigation team plane crash and Roswell incident to the Dahl report. The kindest way to describe such extrapolations is to say they may well represent what some want to believe, but they stretch the hard evidence well past any credible limits.
As a scientist, I found the UFO hunters fundamental approach was not systematic and as a consequence their evidence gathering was extraordinarliy weak. Undermined at the outset and dogged by questionable logic, few actual facts were uncovered.
Tyler Kokjohn, Ph.D.
Midwestern University
Report this comment