In this special ufologists use cutting-edge technology to investigate claims of UFO sightings and otherworldly experiences. Co-founders Oliver Kemenczky and Ted Davis of the New York Strange Phenomena Investigators (NY-SPI), along with researcher/investigator Dennis Anderson, will investigate, review and reveal their findings after each investigation.
Watch it Saturday, December 13th at 10:00 PM (ET) and let us know what you think.
Many viewers are bound to question if the UFO cases and investigations chronicled by "NY-SPI Investigates" are real or staged. The amazing truth is that all of the data, video, and evidence collected and presented in this show are indeed factually real. The shocking, emotional witness interviews were live and disturbingly genuine. Viewer discretion is advised during the second half-hour of the show, as some of the Carteret UFO case footage is very intense and unsettling.
You can read more about these investigations on the NY-SPI website under the "Case Comments" menu selection.
Like the bias of deciding the data has been misinterpreted before you've even seen the show? I think that's called an a priori assumption. Remember, a good UFO researcher is a skeptic. The person who discredits the field and the work without looking into anything is the "true believer"!
Originally posted by thegreggman: Like the bias of deciding the data has been misinterpreted before you've even seen the show? I think that's called an a priori assumption. Remember, a good UFO researcher is a skeptic. The person who discredits the field and the work without looking into anything is the "true believer"!
Yes, I was simply making the distinction between "factually real" and "UFOs are real" (which they are, by definition since people fail to identify mundane things all the time...the debate is the result of a small minority of people disagreeing with what the sightings actually are and an even smaller group blatantly lying/distorting/editing about experiences both their own and of others). I have no stake one way or the other but just do not like to see statements made that might lead the uninformed reader/viewer to make an assessment that is incorrect. However, that being said, I have yet to see a show about UFOs where the "UFO researcher" was anything but enthusiastic about how the case being presented had to be true. BTW, I have looked into it and found no evidence to support and a lot of evidence to refute most of the claims out there.
The field would be well served to be a little more "open" about the actual percentage of cases that are truly not able to be explained (to the standard of a reasonable person, not someone like that crackpot magazine publisher with the sunglasses on UFO Hunters who thinks everything is evidence of aliens and their spacecraft) versus those that are reported and turn out to be misidentifications and outright frauds. Cherry picking cases for presentation without giving some perspective on how they fit into a bigger picture is probably the second most common departure from the very scientific method UFO researchers engage in (besides the making of public statements not supported by the evidence at hand as a result of flawed assessment of eyewitness statements).
Indy, many of your points are on target. About 95% of all reported UFO sightings are misidentifcations, but my bet is that most educated UFO researchers are aware of that. I think you may this NY-SPI team and their investigation methodology. If you check out their bios on this website, you will see that they are all real researchers that bring their own specialized qualifications to the show. They seem scientific and through, and hopefully do not jump to conclusions. I find it interesting that NY-SPI team member Denise Petty is actually a private investigator by profession.
If you check the NY-SPIwebsite out, you can also read their behind-the-scene comments about the cases covered in this show. Interesting stuff. As I was trying to say above, I think you may like this NY-SPI team and their methodology.
Indy, It's not cherry picking. As NYSPI Guy said, it's estimated that 95% of all UFO reports are misidentifications. Any good UFO investigator knows that and will say it openly. I actually caught the NYSPI team on the radio the other night and they did say that most reports are misidentifications of common events. So investigators will focus on solid cases. The ones with numerous witnesses, photo or video evidence, and possibly radar or landing evidence.
But at least we finally agree on one thing, the crackpot magazine publisher has to go! He is a complete waste of time for real scientific UFO investigations. He's not a real investigator nor is he representative of the UFO field. All the good ufo investigators will agree that this guy is a cook conspiracy nut.
Lying/distorting/editing the evidence? That's funny because it's my experience that ALL UFO debunkers do one or more of the following: A) ignore the evidence B) distort the evidence C) are unaware of the evidence (OK, I borrowed this from Dave Jacobs).
Yes, there are a lot of crackpot "researchers" in the ufo field, but there are many good ones doing things from a scientific perspective. And they would agree with much of your argument.
It's a shame the entire field of UFO research is often dismissed because of crackpot investigators. If I see one more T.V. segment or special about UFOs which appears to take the topic seriously at first-then ends with a lame, mocking comment by some glib reporter about "little green men" or a statement like "Whether they are delusions of troubled individuals, or simply projections of our collective unconscious, UFOs will always continue to fascinate us"-I will scream. Uh, what about another possibility?? That something is really happening and we should find out what it is? Thank God for NY-SPI. Finally a show that seems like it will take the topic seriously and have investigators that seem normal, qualified and intelligent. Can't wait for tonight!
I made sure to tape "NY-SPI" and watched with interest. I plan on watching every new episode. I was thankful to hear some of the investigators say they were skeptics and would try to "disprove" sightings as best they could. Applying the scientific process is the best way to find which cases deserve scrutiny. However, I came away as disappointed as with other UFO "investigation" shows. Too little time was spent, as usual, trying to explain what could have accounted for the "evidence" besides alien spacecraft. Using hypnosis to uncover repressed memory is hardly embraced by scientists as a fool-proof way of arriving at the truth. Yet, an investigator finishes the show by saying he believes the man in Carteret, N.J., was abducted. Based on what? One person seeing something unusual is not now, nor will it ever be, evidence of anything. We don't need anymore shows full of "credible" witnesses. That's not science. It doesn't matter if the witness is a cop, pilot, astronaut or priest. Also, the radar return information was interesting and compelling, but, again, no one talked to a radar expert to offer what could have caused the returns besides alien spacecraft. We are left with no conclusions, just more innuendo. UFO investigations are supposed to put matters to rest, not keep myths alive. I hope the NY-SPI crew can become more scientific and less emotionally attached in future shows.
I think it would be as popular for them as Ghosthunters is for the SciFi Channel.
They do a professional and complete job with their investigations and I think they would have a very large following if properly promoted. I only happen to find that the show was on by accident.
you said you taped the show? i suggest you go back and watch it again because your memory is as faulty as, well, one person claiming to have seen a ufo? They never said they believed he was an abductee on the show. Never. I just watched it again and what they said was that they believed that he was being honest and sincere with them. Not that they believe he was abducted. Even with the test they talked about they said the test doesn't say he's an abductee, just that he was honest and his answers were consistent with others. Oh and let's not make the classic debunker mistake here and change the case findings. This isn't about one man. Hundreds of people witnessed this event and there is video evidence. Too bad they didn't analyze it though. Now that is a VALID complaint about the show.
You also seem to gloss over the first case investigation where they come to the conclusion that it was not aliens! Hmmmm. Sound like ufo believers or skeptical investigators?
I think your beef is actually with the network and not the investigators. And I think you are dead on with this one. If you want a more detailed case investigation they should only do one case per show, allowing for more time to break things down to the little details. With "reality" shows we are always so quick to blame the subjects (in this case the investigators) for their actions, when in fact they have no control over the editing and final product. I suspect they shot so much more of the investigations that never made it to air. TV networks think we have no attention span so they often move too quickly and leave things out. It's really too bad.
I have been interviewing some of the top investigators in the UFO field, and following the UFO subject for a very long time. I had the pleasure of having the NY-SPI founders on my radio program recently and NEEDED to come here and put my two cents in for what it is worth.
I watched the pilot episode with extreme interest, to not only see the NY-SPI team conduct their investigations, but also to see the final product in the show it self.
VERY well done on both accounts. I was impressed with the handling of the cases, the professional manner everything was done in. And I wanted to give credit to the production department and producers of the program for Airing a pure form of ufologists and the work they do.
Sorting through the information on a sighting is not an easy thing to do. So to all the team members of NY-SPI; Good job! Keep it up!
While surfing the cable guide I came across this show. Very interesting and informative. It's a subject that is open to much criticism, but it seemed the team kept objective without being overly dramatic.
Would definitely tune in again, for this or other interesting investigative subject matter.
