Why I enjoyed Season 3

What I enjoyed watching about Season 3 was the interactions between Bill, Pat and Kevin that made it fun to me, it came off more of as a family of friends, they where still professional like the other Seasons, and they did have their share of disagreements. With season 3 I got the feeling that the three actually liked each other even when the camera was off and even when they where disagreeing with each other.

With Season 1 I felt that there was a biting, nipping friendship between Ted and Pat that by Season 2 became a under current of tension on and off camera at times. With the arrival of Kevin, I felt that all three had a level resecpt for each other that became a foundation of a good friendship that shines on screen.

Of course that's just my opinion of what I saw and felt from watching the shows over the Seasons. I know that none of it may be true and Bill, Pat and Kevin may hate each others guts and are the best actors in the world, with each of them having a voodoo doll of the others that they stick pins in everyday. THAT WAS A JOKE AND NOT MY OPIOION!

What's your opioion of the show? (REMEMBER BE NICE THEY WILL READ IT)

I thought the first season was one where they still were playing with the format. Not much was actually learned on those shows, although a few of them do stick out. The Puget Sound episode was interesting, but the hoax aspect of the case was left open.

The second season really gelled as they had some very good cases to look at. While some of the episodes were off a little, the others had much evidence to glean and analyze. I also felt the show looked less like a reality show like the first season and more of a science show.

The third season (four episodes to go) was uneven at best. Some outstanding shows are mixed in with some very mediocre episodes. It may also have to do with the subjects and what I find interesting, so to some the Dulce episode may be fascinating. As nothing was really learned other than second and third hand stories, I was not impressed.

Some of the experiments are interesting, but the ones involving flares are never convincing to me. I know they want to prove that it may be impossible to do a hoax with flares, but the tests used seem contrived. Of course the people seeing the flares will state that is not what they saw. There is a matter of pride and they do not want to say they were wrong on TV.

The best experiment was the model of the aerodynamically shaped object found in South America. It was able to float, and I found it interesting. The Starchild skull was another interesting bit of information shown, and I recently read the book on the subject.

All the shows are entertaining, and that is their main job. The episodes with some incredible evidence and information are the best shows.

The engagement with various government entities on this subject matter at this level of network distribution may have ruffled more than a few "Eagle" feathers. UFO Hunters has an attitudinal orientation that might suggest to the observant a characteristic peculiar to the male physicality of the species. A certain "in-your-face-edness" or edge that other treatments don't or haven't shown. For the genre, "very action-oriented" - very American in flavor, in my personal opinion - best in class. Other cultures produce differently - "Hunters" is unique. Being "old" I enjoyed the cross-generational perspectives.

Although entertaining, I value the informative aspects of the work very, very highly.

More.

Cheers,

Fix'

I can't exactly remember the episode but I believe that Ted found a piece of debris at the site where supposedly a plane and a UFO collided. I remember Ted saying he was going to take it back to the lab and have it tested. There was something odd about it. That was the last I heard about it on the show. They never said what it was and I found that very unusual for them. They almost always would say that it didn't pan out or it turned out to be this or that. But this time there was nothing. They left me hanging and I never found out. Bill if you are reading this I sure would like to know. If nothing else just to satisfy my curiosity .

After watching the New Years day episodes (especially the James McDonald episode) It showed me how much I really miss Ted. Now Kevin, (and those of you who love Kevin) don't get me wrong; but I really can't stand skeptics for the sake of being skeptical. I don't hate Kevin, but I could do without the character he's playing, or the role he's playing.

Bill was more optimistic in season 3 because he had to counter Kevin's constant skepticism. At times Kevin reminded me of a little kid that repeats the question WHY????? Playing the devil's advocate gets old after a few episodes. After watching "I know what I saw" or "Black Box UFO" I find there's no NEED for the kind of obnoxious skepticism that Kevin brought to the show. There is a growing throng of legitimate eye witnesses EVERYWHERE.

I think it was Bill that said something like (I'm paraphasing) :"Aliens could land in Times square and people would still say it was a light trick caused by the sun and clouds".