It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I Know What I Saw - airs again this Friday - watch it with your family!

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
"I Know What I Saw" - by James Fox airs again this Friday November 27 at 8am and again at 2pm eastern time (check your listings) on the History Channel.

********************************************************

If you are spending Thanksgiving with family and friends, try to watch it with them. If any of your family members are in the military (or have been), have them watch it with you and get their opinions. You never know what your grandfather or uncle might tell you! Then you can post their stories here on ATS.


[edit on 24-11-2009 by ufo reality]




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ufo reality
 


There's very few programs I will watch on television, and none of them are on the "History" Channel. It's really nothing but pure entertainment, and in those terms, I'd rather watch Comedy Central.

There's far better sources for information and thought-provoking ideas than the Ice-Road Trucker channel.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Watch it if you never seen any other documentary about ufo. If you like the subject and seen a bunch of them, don't waist your time it's only a old recap of everything we already know with old footage.. specially Pheonix Light which is 12 yrs old!



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I saw it when it first aired. Most of it was soberly done, if relentlessly one-sided. He frequently indicated that the stories had no possible prosaic explanations and never even referred to, much less tried to refute, skeptical research that had been done over the years for many of them.

The sequence that really creeped me out was when he had Gordon Cooper talking to his Dad, and bragged how Cooper's story was the account that finally really convinced his Dad that there was something to the UFO phenomenon. This is a 10-year-old tape.

But to play with his Dad's head the way he did, he had to mislead and misinform his own father, for the sake of a dramatic screen reaction. He stated -- falsely -- that no prosaic explanation had ever been offered for Cooper's account of his 1957 Edwards AFB 'sighting' of a landed disk, and he stated -- again falsely -- that the films of the object had 'never been seen again'.

Now, he doesn't have to AGREE with the research I've done and published since the 1980s on this case, that has been all over the Internet since the mid-1990s (and that Cooper himself had copies of, and used info from, in his own autobiography). The case file can be argued and debated.

But to say that such work had never been done at all, ever, by anyone, and that the film vanished (when it is and always has been available in the Blue Book microfilm archives), in order to get a dramatic 'conversion' of his own father to the 'UFO believer' orientation -- well, like I said, it really creeped me out.

Watch that segment and see if you agree.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Now THAT's what I'd call Disclosure, not Obama or Sarkozy telling it in your face...



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Edit: I thought it said Jamie Fox not James Fox.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by calstorm]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


But that's the whole point of "mockumentaries" such as this one, they have to be one-sided! They are made primarily for believers for if a documentary was made with a balanced presentation it would not garner the attention that the program under discussion did. No one wants to have their bubble burst. It is far easier to believe fantasies than the truth. When a person has an experience, all they can do is repeat it to others (if there were no co-experiencers to compare with) and chances are that the experience will be colored to a certain extent and it might pick up steam, constantly being added to or changed somewhat. Seeing and hearing people talk about their UFO experiences is really boring. This is the kind of experience that one must have in order to have any impact on one.

When I watch such programs, usually against my better judgement, I have to put up with the fundamental b.s. hoping that there might be something new that I haven't seen before to make my "sacrificing" of my time worthwhile. Never happens and I end up promising myself that I will never watch another History Channel-type production because they rarely deal with real history.

Then while watching people talk about what they believe, never supported by anything except some awful night footage (rarely any quality daytime footage), I get to thinking why don't organizations such as CSI (formerly CSICOP) produce a documentary with prosaic explanations. But then I also think that CSI would swing towards the other extreme because they would never promote the reality of UFOs, shooting themselves in the foot if they were to do so.

I hate to be negative but I don't think that we will ever be treated to a balanced presentation as long as it is nothing but talking heads. There have been quite a few documentaries where good UFO footage has been presented and I'd rather watch those any day than programs where all you see are people pointing here and there and describing something that can best be appreciated with footage instead of words.

But, presently, there does not seem to be any new outstanding footage of something that is new. It's all been seen, over and over.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Isnt November 27 suppose to be the day of official disclosure from President Obama?



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I didn't know my Grandfather had a close encounter with a UFO until I watched a UFO show with him and he told me about it. My point is you never know....watch this with your family if you can

Nothing in this documentary I hadn't already seen or knew about. But it was good none the less.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
I saw it when it first aired. Most of it was soberly done, if relentlessly one-sided. He frequently indicated that the stories had no possible prosaic explanations and never even referred to, much less tried to refute, skeptical research that had been done over the years for many of them.


I thought it covered a few very interesting incidents - incidents which a lot of debunkers rarely want to address.


The Tehran case is a good example:


Teletext report sent to the Pentagon:




I know you concede that there are UFO cases which remain completely unexplained but does it not intrigue you as to what these objects actualy are?

Cases like the Portage County incident, the Coyne incident and the RB-47 incident are all truly puzzling (to name but a few) - perhaps the only thing they have in common is that debunkers are reluctant to ever address them, why do you think that is?

I think films like 'I know what I saw' do a good job of reminding the general public that the UFO subject is a very real one (and not just a lot of silly nonsense). I also think there are some incidents out there which leave cynics with one hell of a lot of explaining to do.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
No one wants to have their bubble burst. It is far easier to believe fantasies than the truth.


Yes it works both ways - many of the Bluebook explanations appear completely spurious yet some cynics just lap it up because that is what they want to beleive.

USAF "force fit" debunks.


Likewise with the Condon report -there have been some 'extremely serious' questions raised regarding the committee's agenda and objectivity but most debunkers don't want to know as their conclusions reinforce their prejudice.




"The opposite conclusion could have been drawn from The Condon Report's content, namely, that a phenomenon with such a high ratio of unexplained cases (about 30 percent) should arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study."
"From a scientific and engineering standpoint, it is unacceptable to simply ignore substantial numbers of unexplained observations."

Ronald D Story - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics UFO Subcommittee -New York: Doubleday, 1980





"Probably the most striking discrepancy in the Colorado report, however, was between its contents and conclusions. Condon had concluded that science could gain nothing from studying UFOs. Yet, the report ended up with a near 30 percent unexplained rate, and a core of cases that came within a hair's breadth of being conclusive evidence for the reality of alien technology – cases which, under the most rigorous analysis, appeared to be the result of extraordinary craft in the skies."

Richard M. Dolan

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
There's very few programs I will watch on television, and none of them are on the "History" Channel.



This is quite a good History Channel documentary:


Black Box Secrets:
www.guba.com...



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I thought the part with Gordon Cooper was great. It was a nice touch. I like how honest and blunt Cooper is.




top topics



 
3

log in

join