"Chasing UFOs" on NatGeo

[Trebuchet]

I stumbled across this show, and after watching just a few minutes of it, I am reconsidering my membership in the National Geographic Society.
I hope my dues aren't funding this trash.

Me too. I've been a member for well over 50 years. Hopefully the trash is funding the society, not the other way around. But it's still trash.

[SkepticJ]

Sheesh, you guys are such snobs.

Why, because we don't believe in something just because it makes us feel good?

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?

[Noclevername]

Sheesh, you guys are such snobs.

Why do you say that?

[Solfe]

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.

[PlutonianEmpire]

Why do you say that?

Dissing things you guys don't agree with, holier-than-thou attitude, blatant rudeness, name-calling, judgemental attitudes, condescendingness, etc.

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.

[Noclevername]

Dissing things you guys don't agree with, holier-than-thou attitude, blatant rudeness, name-calling, judgemental attitudes, condescendingness, etc.

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.

[Ara Pacis]

Dissing things you guys don't agree with, holier-than-thou attitude, blatant rudeness, name-calling, judgemental attitudes, condescendingness, etc.

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.

Have you seen the snobbery of the anti-science crowd?

[PlutonianEmpire]

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.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm well aware of the need for confirmation via scientific means and methods. That need is not the problem. The problem is the apparent superiority complex. "I'm right, you're wrong, and you're a worthless idiot for being wrong."-type of attitude towards those you disagree with. Also, see below:

Have you seen the snobbery of the anti-science crowd?

Yes, I have, and it only contributes to the problem. It's a vicious cycle. Both sides are snobs to each other. I don't know if it's a "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"-type thing, but I know the snobbery just goes back and forth, back and forth, back and forth for perhaps eternity. And since there's no end to it, and is out of my control, I guess it's not my right to speak up against the whole thing. :/

[Swift]

The problem is the apparent superiority complex. "I'm right, you're wrong, and you're a worthless idiot for being wrong."-type of attitude towards those you disagree with. Also, see below:

Dissing things you guys don't agree with, holier-than-thou attitude, blatant rudeness, name-calling, judgemental attitudes, condescendingness, etc.

PlutonianEmpire,

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.

[Extravoice]

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.

[SkepticJ]

Dissing things you guys don't agree with, holier-than-thou attitude, blatant rudeness, name-calling, judgemental attitudes, condescendingness, etc.

That sounds like people in general.

[KaiYeves]

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.

[tnjrp]

I think it would be fantastic if UFOs were the product of alien intelligences, even the cattle-mutilating, anal-probing variety

I'm not quite convinced I would be very happy with that... Although it would shut up the mouths of "the older civilizations are always bening" crowd right quick - there's always a silver lining

[NEOWatcher]

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.

I think the interviewer was being nice.
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.

[Ara Pacis]

For some reason, I thought I remembered it sounding more like Holst's Jupiter.

[NEOWatcher]

For some reason, I thought I remembered it sounding more like Holst's Jupiter.

I wasn't familiar with that (at least by name), 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.

[Extravoice]

Just to drive the point all the way home, the people who bring you this, can't possibly be the same ones who brought you this.

ETA: You don't really need to click on the second link. You probably already know the photo I have linked.

[NEOWatcher]

ETA: You don't really need to click on the second link. You probably already know the photo I have linked.

That first link looks like a B-movie poster.

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.

[Extravoice]

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.)

[Trebuchet]

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.

[NEOWatcher]

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.)

I think that is self-evident.
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?

[publiusr]

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

[otakenji]

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.

[KaiYeves]

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.

"Do do do DO do do-do-do-do-do..." Ohhhhhh yes.

Just those bars get me so excited... and I'm ten years old again watching Robert Ballard look for shipwrecks on the bottom of the Black Sea.

[Gemini]

It didn't hurt that it was composed by Elmer Bernstein, also responsible for The Great Escape, The Magnificent 7, Stripes, and Ghostbusters soundtracks.

[publiusr]

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.
http://tvblogs.nationalgeographic.co...-landing-zone/
http://www.huliq.com/3257/chasing-uf...o-landing-zone

There have even been saucer-like missiles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pye_Wacket

[NEOWatcher]

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.

Convinced the truth about the video and all the other sightings in New Mexico are linked to the military,

Well; duh. It was seen at a military test facility.

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

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.

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.

So why isn't it hitting the news, and instead comes out in some "drama" some extended period of time after its discovery?

[KaiYeves]

So why isn't it hitting the news, and instead comes out in some "drama" some extended period of time after its discovery?

This was why I never got very excited about this sort of show-- even when I was younger, I knew that if they'd really discovered anything that big, I would have heard about it elsewhere.

[Fazor]

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.

[Trebuchet]

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.