"Hangar-1" premiere on 'Presidential UFOs'

Taking a cue from the Ancient Aliens folks, the funnest thing to do is make a drinking game of it. Whenever the narrator makes a statement that starts with some variation of "Is it possible...?" or "Could it be...?" take a shot. See if you can make it to the first commercial break without passing out.

Jchristopher5
I have trouble believing that anyone could mistake Venus for a UFO.

I think it is analogous to the weather balloon, and swamp gas. Just another excuse, guys like Jim Oberg, use to discredit any and all sightings.

Jim, are there any legit UFO sightings? Anywhere? Ever?

edit on 7-3-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

I actually saw this happen first hand about 1 year ago in Florida. I was there for a wedding and one night I was outside and someone pointed up at the sky and said "What is THAT". I said It was probably Venus but he insisted that it was moving. It did look that way but the moon was near by and made a good reference point add confirmed it wasn't moving.

Blue Shift
Taking a cue from the Ancient Aliens folks, the funnest thing to do is make a drinking game of it. Whenever the narrator makes a statement that starts with some variation of "Is it possible...?" or "Could it be...?" take a shot. See if you can make it to the first commercial break without passing out.

No, for this one, you need to take a drink for every "reports suggest," "anonymous witness" and "numerous sources."

Jchristopher5
.....

Jim, are there any legit UFO sightings? Anywhere? Ever?

Sorry I missed this part.

I feel there are things to learn -- about the Universe, about ourselves, about human institutions, about things we have no clue of -- lurking in the collective UFO experience. It's one reason I applaud the chroniclers and the diggers.

We keep discovering new stimuli, new ways of human perception and misperception, new stuff.

It's not easy. The noise and fireworks can be deafening, blinding, distracting.

Nobody else wants to take the trouble with such a frustrating subject. But there is a cadre of askers and seekers hereabouts who have certainly helped ME see things clearer and SAY things clearer, and I hope I've reciprocated -- and will continue to.

Those are the kinds of dreams too big to be broken.

reply to post by JimOberg

We keep discovering new stimuli, new ways of human perception and misperception, new stuff.

And this is really much more exciting than aliens. It really is. People have to understand that once we get a handle on this human perception stuff, then we can really understand what we are looking at. I cant emphasize enough to put down the ufo books and pick up one on perception. Be introspective.

New teaser for Hangar 1:

I've watched this show and I just have to make a comment. Not about any "evidence" contained within the show but the show itself.

I am appalled by the format of American documentaries. They are chopped up into fragments so adverts can be shown. After each ad break the producers must think that Americans have the attention spans of goldfish because they continually reiterate what they have shown before. The result is about 10 minutes of video which is shown over and over again.

Unwatchable.

reply to post by PheonixReborn

I am appalled by the format of American documentaries.

Hint: It isn't a documentary.

I enjoy this show. Any show about UFOs is a good thing. And my favorite ufologist, Richard Dolan is also on it. Win/win

Vrill
Any show about UFOs is a good thing.

Never watched Chasing UFO's, I guess.

"Hangar 1" will be returning for a second season, with a larger cast and expanding from 8 to 12 episodes. The first season was filled with speculative and undocumented material, some sourced from tabloids and internet forums.

Here's an article that looks at the problem in the show's dramatic recreations, focusing on a single example:

The narration states, "A secret policy was adopted that stated that any information on the matter of extraterrestrials was a matter of National security and therefore classified." They show and quote from a document, Mandate 0463:

"under no circumstances are the general public or public press to learn of the existence of these entities, the official government policy is that such creatures do not exist."

The problem is, it's a phony.

Hangar 1, MUFON and Mandate 0463

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
I have trouble believing that anyone could mistake Venus for a UFO.

Really? It's probably one of the most common source of UFO reports and that has been found in study after study by both independent UFO investigation groups like NICAP, MUFON, BUFORA, etc as well as official investigations like Blue Book.

Most people are simply not familiar with the night sky and even pilots have been fooled by Venus.

Venus can look spectacular and large when it is low on the horizon:



Look at the time lapse video below as well:



Jupiter also gets misidentified as "looking strange" and "like a UFO"

I think it is analogous to the weather balloon,

Ahem......remember this ATS thread: War in Space?

And the reporters who couldn't identify a weather balloon exploding? And the clueless "meteorologist" who didn't know what "astronomical phenomena" meant?

and swamp gas.

And of course satellites....





Most of which can look VERY strange to the average person who knows very little about such things, just out for a walk.

The latter of which can be predicted based on the satellite's orbit and hucksters (James Gilliland, Steven Greer, Prophet Yahwey) often use this fact to lead people who know nothing about Iridium flares off to some 'mysterious' area to see UFOs on demand for a not so small fee.

Just another excuse, guys like Jim Oberg, use to discredit any and all sightings.

Science is a way we prevent ourselves from fooling ourselves. Otherwise lightning would remain a force of some mysterious god, as would fire, wind and rain.

The first place your mind goes when faced with something uncommon or unknown is "aliens".

The first place a scientific mind goes when something uncommon or unknown is nature. The second place is questioning whether there is a mistake somewhere.

Jim, are there any legit UFO sightings? Anywhere? Ever?

If by legit you mean something which remains unidentified after plenty of thorough investigation and has both high strangeness and high credibility of witnesses, those cases are rare.

What is more common and what even most scientifically minded UFOlogy studies bear out is that 90-95% of UFO sightings DO have fairly mundane explanations and that does include things like weather balloons, methane gas, lightning phenomena and misidentification of planets, stars, planes and spacecraft as something more mysterious than reality.

Most credible UFO studies were done during times (50s-80s) when people were more open to the fact that what they saw was UNIDENTIFIED and UFO did NOT automatically mean alien.

These days almost no one likes to admit they've been fooled so often people will insist that what they saw could not possibly be what it really was.

originally posted by: draknoir2


Never watched Chasing UFO's, I guess.

Agree, I couldnt finish watching the episode, embarrassing really. BUT some of the Hangar 1 shows have been even worse, it really was a mixed bag the first season, the Presidents and space fleet episodes were nothing more than wild speculation.

Season 2 opener was a winner, covering UFO sightings in the Vietnam and Korean wars, hopefully they keep it up (Not holding my breath though, 2 of the commentators were out there, that rant at the end really wasnt necessary was it?)

a reply to: 111DPKING111

I've enjoyed Close Encounters [the Science Channel series]. Not as ridiculous as some of the other shows.

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: 111DPKING111

I've enjoyed Close Encounters [the Science Channel series]. Not as ridiculous as some of the other shows.

I didnt think so at first, they occasionally show the oddball single witness case, but it is by best series going by far.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

I once mistook Venus for a UFO. It was an Awesome clear night when i was out fishing. But like a Super moon, it was a Super Venus, and its trajectory was coming directly over me, and was moving rapidly...it was So vivid and bright, i thought it was going to Abduct me as it passed over...Scared the Crap out of me...Too much Coffee, not enough Sleep...Lol

2 more new Hangar 1 episodes

Lets go over the good episode first..

Star People - one of their best episodes. Covers native american relationship with UFOs. Case numbers can be looked up here (Odd imo how short they can be).

Case 61815
Apache reservation - Dulce, NM 1980
Alan Tafoya, who is featured on the show so we get to hear this first hand, was with cousin riding bikes and his cousin points out a large cigar shaped UFO (football field in length) over his aunt Henrietta's(sp?) farmhouse. Alan runs to his house to get his Father who then also observes the craft. Getting a pair of binoculars, they are able to see humanoid silhouettes in a window on it.

Great case with multiple witnesses of a daylight UFO, EXCEPT the online db contains 0 follow up information. No mention of anyone going to his father, cousin, or surrounding houses to confirm the siting. Alan seems genuine enough, but MUFON I assume gives the case numbers so you can go online to get more detailed info, but there is none. There is a short bio of Alan as well as the other narrators of the show at the bottom of the Star People link.

Case 23660
Navajo AZ 2010, rancher who has married a navajo girl spots a cigar ufo and says he actually hit it with his shotgun ! (this isnt in the online db so I guess we are left to assume it isnt maintained very well) Several sightings over the course of days.

Case 15210
Navajo AZ 2009, grandfather and young girl witness a UFO land right in front of their ranch. They observer 4 or so aliens get out and check out the area with light pointers. Grandfather seems familiar with them and goes out to chat with them.

Again, no follow up information in the db. Like how many times has Grandfather talked to these aliens? What did he say? What did they say? What were they looking for? Whats strange is this is a a fairly recent case, and I really must assume there hasnt been any follow up because thats the kind of info you would want to put on TV.


2nd episode
"The Far side of the Moon" - total joke
Apolla landing, Neil Armstrong on medical channel for 2 minutes - no evidence.

Ingo Swann is requested to remote view the moon. Interesting but when you think about it, what was gained? Axelrod perhaps suspects bases, but wanted confirmation maybe?

As odd and unconvincing as this part was, it has nothing on the Richard Cramer's mars base story. Even if it was true, which I seriously doubt, why oh why do you waste air time on this account with virtually no corroboration whatsoever.

One can only assume that some people at MUFON really take the story seriously to give it this kind of air time. Why? I have no idea.

As you can see from the Star People link, it also includes a few minutes going over the Yakama orbs. Hynek was asked to come in and study the phenomenon, the show focuses in on a sighting involving a pear shaped light.

From Hyneks studies of this case, he coined the term Nocturnal Lights.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

As you can see from the Star People link, it also includes a few minutes going over the Yakama orbs. Hynek was asked to come in and study the phenomenon, the show focuses in on a sighting involving a pear shaped light.

You mean Yakima? I don't know where Yakama is.
In any case, Hynek is a shill. In the truest sense.

a reply to: Phage

Yes Yakima. Most people speak highly of Hynek, certainly the research I have read from him is better than most. Im guessing you have some particular event or speech in mind though, perhaps the swamp gas explanation?

IMO this was one of the lesser points of the show, its hard for me to get excited by moving lights. Perhaps a UFO has the stealth to limit itself to be seen as only a singular light. Whatever the case, for a phenomena that occurs as often as they claim, its odd they couldnt come to a formal conclusion.