Thursday, February 07, 2008

UFO Hunters Review - an Embarrassment to UFOlogy

By Charlette LeFevre and Philip Lipson
Seattle UFO Paranormal Group

Charlette LeFevre (Sml)Philip Lipson(Sml)     If one thought UFO Hunters on the History Channel defined UFO researchers, rest assured they do not.

Aside from a basic recounting of the story of the Maury Island Incident, the first show of this series is about how four guys can do a shallow job of not only research but investigating. But perhaps that was their intent, to disinform by embarrassing themselves and the field of UFOlogy.

The best that can be said about the new UFO Hunters show on the Maury Island sighting was that they used interesting fonts and had a few decent graphics.

The spokesmen for the show, Bill Birnes and his geek gang basically got overly excited by trivial matters such as diving into the frigid waters of Puget Sound to collect ordinary rocks, and finding airplane parts that had already been found and reported upon six months earlier by the Seattle UFO/Paranormal Group.

What they neglected could fill volumes. There was hardly a mention of Kenneth Arnold whose sighting over Mt. Rainier is when media coined the term “flying saucer” and his investigation of the the Maury Island incident. There was also no mention of Fred Crisman, a key character and witness to the case who had a notorious background in CIA matters and had been linked to the Kennedy Assassination.

Unfortunately, the “UFO Hunters seemed to focus on a “gee-whiz” approach, pretty much neglecting the importance of the story which had featured the first appearance of the Men in Black, involved one of the first disinformation campaigns by the military and a mysterious informant to the local papers and much more. There was no mention of the work of Maury Island researcher Kenn Thomas and no interviews with any persons who have historically studied the case.

If they were going for ratings, they failed there too. A few reenactments would have helped. But understand obviously the show was about them, not the history and obviously this was low budget.

Instead we get to hear Pat Uskert’s complain about his dive into the cold water’s of Puget Sound for a futile look for slag along the miles and miles of Maury Island’s shores. His dedication though is steadfast as he states the importance of the case and that “No stone should go unturned”. I can only imagine Bill Birnes yelling at Pat to keep looking until he comes up with something!

One diver, with no information or indication where the slag is, no sonar data as reference, sifting through the rocks with his hands. What are the chances he would find evidence of slag that may or may not have been dumped sixty years ago? But behold, Pat surfaces with a quarter size black rock for the crew!

Easily mistaken for evidence we later see Ted “Mr. MIT” Acworth stating this is only igneous rock as he casually tosses the rock from hand to hand. No chemical spectrometer lab testing needed for this sample! No siree!

Its nice to know fine upstanding graduates of our finest Universities using their utmost skills in making such academic assessments.

I am left to consider if Ted is making a slight dig at Pat. Perhaps but
it is possible that Pat Uskert is still diving in Puget Sound as he “..overturns every stone”.

If you knew nothing about Maury Island, and were half asleep by the TV, they might have finished the job for you, along with providing a couple scenic pictures of Puget Sound.

Not surprising, the show failed on many levels. There was little information, no entertainment, and boring participants who they themselves did not seem to enjoy their roles. But I guess after hearing Bill Birnes bark so much, I guess I too would be annoyed.

Our recommendation is check any case first hand with material in books and on the internet - it will be vastly more rewarding.


  1. Hello
    perhaps we are thinking along the same lines. i just posted "A Failure To Organize and Communicate" on my own site ( Intangible Materiality) and our two posts were in the same heading on The Anomalist site. The point of this being I could not agree with you more.
    Best Regards
    Bruce D

  2. "Alien Hunter" is "Ghost Hunters" without "TAPS"

    Joe Capp
    UFO Media Matters

  3. Appalled over the absurdity of last nights program. It was mildly tweaked just enough, which I sensed created a form of disinformation. What a waste of an hour.

  4. Predictable sure, but given these guys are reaching for something novel, I'm confident that they'll bang out the kinks as they go along. It remains they're trying to make assessable the in-assessable even if the common denominator _is_ a little low.

    It's certainly not an easy job trying to address the single most important affair in human history and _not_ be laughed off the stage, right?

    Bravery in opposition's face counts for something and even failing, they made the attempt, eh?

    Finally, Birnes' bark reminds me of an impassioned John Garfield! [g]. Sincerely, I'm encouraged by his energy and in support. Moreover, I have high hopes for the program.

    Read on!
    >> AVG Blog --
    >>> U F O M a g a z i n e --

  5. I don't blame Birnes at all. For not being an full fledged actor he does a fantastic job. He's a go getter kinda guy. I think the whole story should have been pitched about the time they realized that they would never find the plane. I will be kind and not respond regarding the plane's owner.
    I think it was unfortunate that the History Channel wasted a lot of time on nothing. There are just too many productive sightings out there that they could have utilized instead.

  6. There is nobody on the actual show that has any control over how History Channel edits the final product. There is tons of stuff left on the editing room floor. I am not sure why certain people think Bill has control over the entire show, but they are wrong.

    HC made a big mistake last night wasting 30 minutes on diving for a plane that was never found. I have no idea who at HC made that decision or why, but I assure you that it wasn't anyone on the show.

  7. Greetings To All!

    Thank you for taking time to make comment.

    Alfred, although I'm not as optimistic as you are, "the show will go on" (at least for the moment), and I pray it will improve.

    To be clear, (re my disappointment) I'm not referring to the "campyness" of the show, nor the format where “Chief Birnes” leads his cast of characters into the depths of mystifying UFO cases; quite frankly I expected as much; nevertheless, what I do take issue with is “what is represented as research.”

    The errors in the “premier show” were numerous, and the final segment quite frankly was false and misleading in regards to the case in question; there were major omissions pertinent to the case, like the fact that there was a major investigation into the cause of the crash of D & B’s B-25, as well as a summation done by the Air Force immediately after the accident; moreover, there were two “eyewitnesses” to the event who survived . . . one whom I interviewed. To try and pin a “UFO related” “cause to the plane crash, while ignoring the facts I thought was despicable—this “kind” of research, or “lack of is” to be expected from debunkers.

    Additionally, the antics performed in the lab may have had the 8-year-olds glued to the set, but confirming that a piece of wreckage was exposed to extreme heat when we know it came from a freshly fueled plane that impacted the ground from 10, 000 ft and exploded quite frankly “isn’t news” and is redundant to be polite.

    Furthermore performing an experiment on a piece of “metallic slag” in order to prove it could be ignited under certain circumstances, while not having, nor offering one shred of evidence that anything similar was on the plane is nonsensical; it’s akin to demonstrating how a stick of dynamite explodes, and saying if this happened on the plane it would have crashed.

    Leslie makes a good point in regards to the “final product” which is why 5 minutes after I watched the premier I fired off an e-mail to the show’s producer, and expressed my disappointment.

    Sci-Fi’s version was far superior in my view . . .


  8. I agree with Lesley, she could not have said it better.

  9. Hey guys, I'm new to this site and came across it because I was looking to see what people were saying about the new show "UFO Hunters".

    Just my opinion but I think the show is great! I've been researching (not a professional ufologist but I think I know more about ufo's than the average's a great obsession.
    What I really like about the show is that it's not to deep into the ufo research and this insures it won't get canceled after 1 season. Like it or not, viewers (the masses) are not ready for the insight that 90% of the people and even the writters of this blog have into the extraterrestrial life.

    This show is ahead of the masses and is opening the door to what we already know...the truth! Each of us should embrace this show and support it any way we can. This blog reminds me of the democratic party. Fighting and tearing each other down will only hurt the cause!

  10. Never mind the cia having to do any disinformation, Natgeo has done it all for them. This will set true investigations of the ufo back years. This show has done more harm than any gov. disinformation campaign could ever do, not to mention the loss of viewers such as myself and my family

  11. And to add, no one I have spoke with thinks this sticker of a program will last more than one season, Thank God


Dear Contributor,

Your comments are greatly appreciated, and coveted; however, blatant mis-use of this site's bandwidth will not be tolerated (e.g., SPAM etc).

Additionally, healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published, nor will "anonymous" criticisms. Please keep your arguments "to the issues" and present them with civility and proper decorum. -FW


Mutual UFO Network Logo