I think it would be fantastic if UFOs were the product of alien intelligences, even the cattle-mutilating, anal-probing variety. At least we'd know we're not alone in the universe, though the neighbors are weirdos.
But they're not.
If UFOs are aliens, why are they so poor at hiding? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't put lights on my craft and fly around if I didn't want to be seen. If they want to be seen, why the relative skulking about? Why don't they give us a Close Encounters of the Third Kind-ending over a major metropolitan area?
Funny I saw the ad for this show and then later that night, I saw my first flyin' Chinese lantern. Those lanterns do look weird; my kids freaked out until it was close enough to be clearly seen. As it passed overhead my daughter said "Oh, its one of those things from Tangled," and returned to her coloring book.
'That was tops! Who's not good at math? I was all, "Four!"' - Finn, Adventure Time.
And it's not just here. It's a GLOBAL problem; the vast majority of scientists and intellectuals exhibit most of these attitudes on a very regular basis. If the general public seem to be losing interest in scientific and intellectual pursuits, it is a problem scientists and intellectuals have, not the general public's, and created it themselves. To change that, scientists and intellectuals can start being *A LOT* nicer to the laypeople, and quit acting like snobs.
You mean because we prefer to have our information confirmed by scientific means and evidence? That's not being a snob, that's called being accurate. Science is after all a tool for determining the accuracy of information.
And poor education is very much the general public's problem.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
The only one who seems to have an attitude in this thread is you. Other people were discussing the TV show, you are making it personal. Do not accuse other members of rude behavior, particularly when it isn't true. People can question the scientific accuracy of TV, that's what we do around here. If you would like to disprove what they are saying, then show some evidence (but if you are advocating that UFOs are ETs, you better do that in the CT forum).
If you think someone is being rude, Report the post.
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)
All moderation in purple - The rules
I have been a member of the National Geographic Society for 35 years (not even close to Trebuchet's tenure), and can say with full honesty that I have learned something from every edition of their magazine. I also used to love the National Geographic TV specials. They were some of the best-produced documentaries on the air.
I'm sorry, but a bunch of people scurrying around in the dark looking afraid, and claiming to hear noises doesn't interest me when presented as a documentary. If this qualifies me as a snob, the NGS has nobody to blame but themselves. They have spoiled me with high quality material.
Last night, while looking for information about something unrelated, I came across this podcast transcript, which I think addresses the issue of substandard NG channel programing very well. They talk to the NGS CEO and the head of the channel, who flat-out admit that the content of the channel and of the magazine are not the same.
What I would like to know is if the content is so different, then why have the channel at all? Why not some other name?
Maybe they should go back to National Geographic specials and skip the channel. This is just a watering down of what they are, and even thier good (expensive) shows probably suffer from advertising credibility.
I have NatGeo at home, and I rarely watch it because it looks like a rehash of so many other channels.
When they just had the specials and those first few bars of the them song played, you knew you were in for something good.
For some reason, I thought I remembered it sounding more like Holst's Jupiter.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
so I looked it up. The 2:00 mark was a "aha" moment. The Right Stuff. I guess I'll be looking for good soundtrack.
Perhaps you remember some orchestrated version. I purposely used the show version since that's what I remember hearing.
Here's an orchestrated version that sounds a little more like Holst. There are a few passages that sound somewhat similar.
What's interesting about the particular picture you chose for the second link is that line on the bottom. It goes along with what I was thinking. Create a good show and show it on other channels. Scrap trying to make a whole channel.
I think that everyone who has tried to create a "channel" has learned that it is really hard to come up with good programming 24 hours a day, especially when you try to limit the scope (i.e. cartoon, food, science fiction, etc.)
It's probably worth repeating the NatGeo channel is 2/3 owned by Fox, not the NGS. But the society should be more careful about how they let other folks use their name.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.
But; They try to make it up by grabbing unrelated market share which just saturates the market so nobody can make money.
They all try thier own programming when a lot of it could be substituted by old shows. Is a <channel> production really cheaper than finding some old syndicated programming? Do we really have to see a marathon of one show every week?
Do reality shows really have a re-run potential?
I remember the Discovery Channel in pre-Mythbuster days. There was a program on Earth Lights and an interview with Mr. Persinger there--the asteroid program "Three Minutes to Impact" was shortened and had added information.
I'd like to see PBS allowed to sell NOVA to Nat'l Geo. There was a Nat'l Geo Explorer program--back when it was hosted by Boyd Matson I believe, that dealt with the controversy of over 160 extra-judicial homicides done to save the rhino population. This was aired in the 1990s, and quickly forgotten
Television shows are made to make money, not to dispense truth. That is the bottom line. I refuse to own or watch a television anymore.
It didn't hurt that it was composed by Elmer Bernstein, also responsible for The Great Escape, The Magnificent 7, Stripes, and Ghostbusters soundtracks.
Last nights episode was almost certainly based on a missile or some type of solid motor test where the solid broke free of its mount (unseen) or was released from a plane.
There have even been saucer-like missiles:
Well; duh. It was seen at a military test facility.Convinced the truth about the video and all the other sightings in New Mexico are linked to the military,
Let's see, a craft that supposedly can travel at incredible speeds, turn on a dime and disappear in a blink. Good luck chasing it. No wonder it's a disaster.While there, Ryder catches glimpse of a strange light in the sky. As it rounds the mountain she gives chase and comes within inches of disaster
So why isn't it hitting the news, and instead comes out in some "drama" some extended period of time after its discovery?During an investigation that goes well into the night the team uncovers evidence that could change everything we know about Roswell, the military and even what we believe about life in the universe.
I hadn't seen the show, but I spent about 4 hours yesterday with the TV tuned to NatGeo (I was listening to some shows while doing other things around the house.) Every commercial break: "On the next episode of Chasing UFOs! The best case yet! The man whose abduction had the most witnesses! They even based a movie off of it! 'Fire in the Sky!' ..." etc etc.
Just confirmed my hunch that this is a show I have absolutely no reason to watch.
I think I'm going to write a letter (on paper, in an envelope, with a real US Postage stamp) to the NGS and point out how much this cheapens the brand they've spent 124 years building. Alexander Graham Bell and Gilbert Grosvener, the two men most responsible for making the society and magazine what they are today, must be spinning in their graves.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.