Does it bother anyone else that when you go to some of these "other" UM sites and start reading the comments that the majority of posters agree with the theories and conclusions drawn by the segment?

Maybe I'm expecting too much since the comments are typically those of casual viewers. However, this forum in particular has been invaluable to me over the years in enlightening me to different schools of thought. If anything, I find myself questioning UM's presentation more often than I did in years past. It starts to become apparent how UM "spins" things so the viewer arrives at a certain, likely predetermined, conclusion.

I guess what I'm getting at is...what happened to critical thinking skills? I just can't believe how many people blindly accept the theories proposed on UM without further question.

I'm realize I'm probably over-thinking and just expecting too much, but still, it's kind of alarming to think how easily people can be swayed.

I can certainly understand your frustration with this. I do believe that critical thinking skills are on a downward slide in this country. I credit, in part, the changing nature of our educational system. The substance of education has moved away from problem solving and toward mere presentation of facts in the last 20 years. Additionally, even college education has moved in a way that is not as conducive to critical thinking in years past. Four year degrees are becoming more and more like technical school education all the time in that they are more about career prep than education. During college, I majored in Interdisciplinary Studies which allowed me to basically design my own major from available courses. I chose this option because I wanted a degree to give me career potential but didn't want to be limited to a specific career out of college. I'm a big proponent of the classic liberal arts education. I focused on Biology for the core component of my degree, but for the rest, I took 2-3 classes from almost every department the university had. I was asked in an interview once what the most important course I took in college was. I responded with Intro to Logic. It was a lower level course in the Philosophy department, but it gave me so much insight into making arguments and breaking down ideas for validity and truth. It truly was a course in the science of critical thinking. It's also helped a lot in my career as I'm now a computer programmer (lots of logic involved).

On the other hand, we're dealing with people who have a lot less knowledge of things than those of us here. Those of us here are fans, not just of UM, but of true crime stories in general. We have a much deeper insight into investigative techniques, forensic science, and crime statistics. We also have researched UM cases beyond what was presented on UM and/or have seen those cases on other shows that provided more information. Critical thinking skills aside, I can see how someone who is not a "true crime" buff and is only given the information presented on UM could come to believe the theories they present on quite a few of their cases.

There also is the fact that this UM board has a longer history and therefore a longer institutional memory than other boards. Posters have brought in articles and even personal accounts which UM either failed to mention or willfully excluded from their segments. I'm thinking of information like "Angela Hammond was pregnant by the boyfriend who claimed to save her" which dramatically changes the tone of the segment.

I think, too, the overall climate of specific message boards contributes to the way posters write. Most posters don't want to rock the boat. If a message board is mostly skeptical, new posters will likely either be skeptical or feel that they're out of place and go to another, less skeptical board. If I went on one of those "other" sites and said something like "I think Paul Freshour was one of the Circleville letter writers and here's why," I probably wouldn't be accepted as one of the group, and I'd either give up or come back here.

I agree that there is a greater lack of critical thinking skills these days, but I don't think it necessarily explains why other sites are, well, more credulous about UM's explanations. Indeed, what I usually see on message boards is that posters are even more cynical about authority than they perhaps should be, and see conspiracy and coverup in just about everything.

In addition to what's been presented by the posters above, there's also the human tendency to believe that everything presented on TV or published in a book or newspaper MUST be true so some people don't even suspect that the information may be slanted, deliberately misleading, or poorly researched and presented.

In addition to what's been presented by the posters above, there's also the human tendency to believe that everything presented on TV or published in a book or newspaper MUST be true so some people don't even suspect that the information may be slanted, deliberately misleading, or poorly researched and presented.

So true. From my experience working at Blockbuster Video for several years, I've encountered many people who honestly believe that any movie "based on a true story" is 100 % accurate. I once had a big argument with someone who was adamant that everything in the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" remake actually happened because the movie said it was "based on a true story" and they had trouble differentiating that with the concept of "loosely inspired by real-life events". These are exactly the type of people who would believe that any theory presented on UM must be gospel.

I think one of the biggest causes of wrongful convictions in this country is people like this making it onto juries because they hold the mindset that anyone who's on trial must be guilty and don't do any critical thinking to determine whether there's reasonable doubt or not. The ironic thing is that these same people would probably watch an UM "Final Appeal" segment on someone like Paul Ferrell and automatically think: "Oh, well, if the show says he might be innocent, then he MUST be innocent".

It has little to do with the so-called decline in critical thinking or the gullibility of our fellow citizens. Our site is better because our avatars rock.

Does it bother anyone else that when you go to some of these "other" UM sites and start reading the comments that the majority of posters agree with the theories and conclusions drawn by the segment?

Maybe I'm expecting too much since the comments are typically those of casual viewers. However, this forum in particular has been invaluable to me over the years in enlightening me to different schools of thought. If anything, I find myself questioning UM's presentation more often than I did in years past. It starts to become apparent how UM "spins" things so the viewer arrives at a certain, likely predetermined, conclusion.

I guess what I'm getting at is...what happened to critical thinking skills? I just can't believe how many people blindly accept the theories proposed on UM without further question.

I'm realize I'm probably over-thinking and just expecting too much, but still, it's kind of alarming to think how easily people can be swayed.

Good points but one thing to consider is a lot of people just view UM as entertainment. I mean I remember a period of time where a lot of people thought of programming on Lifetime as being "Endless Mindless" which meant that you could literally tune into that channel and get drawn into hour after hour of mindless programming.

I'm not saying UM fits into that category but although I still question the outcomes over certain cases now over twenty years down the line I don't necessarily analyze them like I used to. Most of them are what they are at this point although I'm always happy to see an update on these forums about a new solve.

I agree with all of the above.
1) Education. I am jealous of anyone who graduated pre-2000. My public school experience made me a steadfast fan of putting any children I may have in private schools or at least schools with prestige even if I have to go in debt to do it. If I do send a kid to public school, I will thoroughly investigate said school rather than trusting the neighborhood outlet to educate my child properly.

2) Mindless TV. Not to bash reality TV fans, but the amount of shows like Jersey Shore and Toddlers and Tiaras as well as the people who take said shows seriously, are on the rise. I think this programming does contribute to intellectual decline.

3) Gullibility. This problem is nothing new.

I'd like to add
4) Recent technological advances. I'm not trying to say that the internet is making us dumb or is a problem. Heck, I love the computer! But this is an era of instant gratification and more people seem to prefer taking things as is than doing any critical thinking/research. Laziness and apathy are causing less people to "think outside the box" if you will.

Four year degrees are becoming more and more like technical school education all the time in that they are more about career prep than education. During college, I majored in Interdisciplinary Studies which allowed me to basically design my own major from available courses. I chose this option because I wanted a degree to give me career potential but didn't want to be limited to a specific career out of college. I'm a big proponent of the classic liberal arts education.

I am a big opponent of the so-called liberal arts education for everyone. I also think it's great that universities and colleges are moving away from constantly injecting liberal arts requirements into more technically-oriented degrees such as engineering, nursing, pre-med, and architecture. I think the liberal arts overemphasize "big picture" thinking and theoretical concepts, and tend to underemphasize the importance of outlier data--as well as completely ignore the scientific method (no matter how loudly "soft science" academics scream that their fields of study are, in fact, REAL SCIENCE!)

I hold a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Tennessee. I was required to take rhetoric and philosophy courses, in addition to sociology and political theory courses. It's absolutely fabulous for laying the groundwork to become an attorney, which was the plan for me at the time--then again, so is a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering. You're forced to critically think in both programs of study--just in different ways.

I remember attending a job fair between my junior and senior year of college, around 2007. The FBI was there of course, handing out their brochures and whatnot. They had a list of majors they were especially interested in, and at the top of that list was Engineering and a number of so-called "technical" degrees. I overheard a representative explain to another student that the reason they were seeking those students was because they historically do very well with critical thinking. I was able to see this for myself when I went through military schools.

When I attended Military Intelligence Basic Officer's Leadership Course (a military commission is about the only thing useful that B.A. in Poli Sci managed me), we were required to take a block of instruction on logic. I was able to see firsthand how the "liberal arts education" worked for many of my peers. Their analyses and predictions were often based on theoretical concepts rather than hard data--which is what the OCS graduates and technical majors tended towards. The latter usually ended up making the correct moves in our exercises, and I totally believe it was due to the fact that their backgrounds were based in the hard sciences and/or technical careers rather than in the liberal arts. If it was measurable and testable, it was probably a good indicator. If it was something like "well, Group A is Muslim, so they'll never be in Area 1 on a Friday because they'll be at the mosque, so I won't put (surveillance) assets out there that day", you can bet Group A showed up in Area 1 on Friday---because if my fellow students had studied the trend data products carefully, they would have been able to predict that very thing.

I find the "humanities" discourage--dare I say hostile towards?--scientific thinking, contain sometimes unverifiable data, can be culturally biased and therefore non-universal (especially philosophy), and are at times often completely based on untestable theory. I find that to be the antithesis of logic. I'd sooner take someone who was "career prepping" in a technical field than waxing eloquent about a metaphysical theory any day.

This, of course, is all anecdotal and only my opinion. There are brilliant people from all schools, studies, occupations, and walks of life, and that's something I've also seen firsthand.

I am a big opponent of the so-called liberal arts education for everyone. I also think it's great that universities and colleges are moving away from constantly injecting liberal arts requirements into more technically-oriented degrees such as engineering, nursing, pre-med, and architecture. I think the liberal arts overemphasize "big picture" thinking and theoretical concepts, and tend to underemphasize the importance of outlier data--as well as completely ignore the scientific method (no matter how loudly "soft science" academics scream that their fields of study are, in fact, REAL SCIENCE!)

I hold a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Tennessee. I was required to take rhetoric and philosophy courses, in addition to sociology and political theory courses. It's absolutely fabulous for laying the groundwork to become an attorney, which was the plan for me at the time--then again, so is a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering. You're forced to critically think in both programs of study--just in different ways.

I remember attending a job fair between my junior and senior year of college, around 2007. The FBI was there of course, handing out their brochures and whatnot. They had a list of majors they were especially interested in, and at the top of that list was Engineering and a number of so-called "technical" degrees. I overheard a representative explain to another student that the reason they were seeking those students was because they historically do very well with critical thinking. I was able to see this for myself when I went through military schools.

When I attended Military Intelligence Basic Officer's Leadership Course (a military commission is about the only thing useful that B.A. in Poli Sci managed me), we were required to take a block of instruction on logic. I was able to see firsthand how the "liberal arts education" worked for many of my peers. Their analyses and predictions were often based on theoretical concepts rather than hard data--which is what the OCS graduates and technical majors tended towards. The latter usually ended up making the correct moves in our exercises, and I totally believe it was due to the fact that their backgrounds were based in the hard sciences and/or technical careers rather than in the liberal arts. If it was measurable and testable, it was probably a good indicator. If it was something like "well, Group A is Muslim, so they'll never be in Area 1 on a Friday because they'll be at the mosque, so I won't put (surveillance) assets out there that day", you can bet Group A showed up in Area 1 on Friday---because if my fellow students had studied the trend data products carefully, they would have been able to predict that very thing.

I find the "humanities" discourage--dare I say hostile towards?--scientific thinking, contain sometimes unverifiable data, can be culturally biased and therefore non-universal (especially philosophy), and are at times often completely based on untestable theory. I find that to be the antithesis of logic. I'd sooner take someone who was "career prepping" in a technical field than waxing eloquent about a metaphysical theory any day.

This, of course, is all anecdotal and only my opinion. There are brilliant people from all schools, studies, occupations, and walks of life, and that's something I've also seen firsthand.


My definition of "classic liberal arts education" is not one that focuses solely on philosophy and "soft sciences." Instead, what I'm referring to is a more well-rounded education that includes both hard science and liberal arts courses in equal measure. I had three different majors in college. One of them was mechanical engineering for two years. I can honestly say that I learned as much about research, interpreting data, and drawing conclusions from that data in my composition courses as I did from my biology, physics, and chemistry courses. I agree that the liberal arts overemphasize big picture thinking, but I also believe that a sole emphasis on hard sciences and technical courses can inhibit creativity and "thinking outside the box." I think that too strict an adherence to either side of the coin results in individuals who, "can't see the forest for the trees."

Also, only my opinion, based on my observations of the people I've known and been exposed to.

For one, I think Stack and the producers tried to make the show as mature and friendly as possible. There is some things they couldn't share on the show because the families involved didn't want extra information to be known and/or they didn't have permission to share certain details on air. Obviously, alot of people have found out the extra details in the years to come but that's the beauty of finding out for yourself.

I don't think all UM viewers are gullible, but since some don't know the cases like the rest of us here and the authorities involved do, they take it at face value. You can be left to a few options though, like:

1. Take the case(s) at face value and believe what they're telling you
2. Come up with your own conclusion/scenario based on what you've learned, whether or not it's true (but who's to know?)

Some people also don't want to go through all that digging to find all the information, as which can be said about people who buy into all the mainstream case fodder (Casey Anthony's case for example). I'd also like to add that Unsolved Mysteries may not be or have been televised outside the US/North America, so other intellects may have been left out of discussion and not be so fortunate as us here to talk about these cases and come up with their own theories.

I just got my B.A. in Creative Writing and I've always tried to be and been taught to be theoretical AND make use of data to form sound conclusions. But I know what you mean, Meg, and no offense taken whatsoever; I think I lucked out with the university I went to because I know that other liberal arts programs do indeed gloss over things and encourage theory over solid data. My experience sounds closer to asmitty's. There were ample core requirements to ensure that all majors had to tap into the different fields of study, which at my college was great for becoming well-rounded.

I'd also like to add that Unsolved Mysteries may not be or have been televised outside the US/North America, so other intellects may have been left out of discussion and not be so fortunate as us here to talk about these cases and come up with their own theories.

It actually was (and possibly still is) broadcast in several other countries, particularly in the UK. I've seen a view of these viewers on boards online, but not many of them. It would be nice to hear more about their opinions!

In addition to what's been presented by the posters above, there's also the human tendency to believe that everything presented on TV or published in a book or newspaper MUST be true so some people don't even suspect that the information may be slanted, deliberately misleading, or poorly researched and presented.

As far as information being slanted, deliberately misleading or poorly researched and presented, I agree that it happens, but I don't hold UM in contempt for that. As far as I've always been able to tell, UM is not a deliberately farcical show. There have certainly been interviewees who, much to the embarrassment of UM, have used the show as an outlet for spreading lies, and many people on the show, both liars and truth tellers, have been proven wrong about things they've uttered on the show, but I sincerely do not believe that UM would be deliberately involved in the production and broadcasting of a segment that they already know is BS.

Does it bother anyone else that when you go to some of these "other" UM sites and start reading the comments that the majority of posters agree with the theories and conclusions drawn by the segment?

Maybe I'm expecting too much since the comments are typically those of casual viewers. However, this forum in particular has been invaluable to me over the years in enlightening me to different schools of thought. If anything, I find myself questioning UM's presentation more often than I did in years past. It starts to become apparent how UM "spins" things so the viewer arrives at a certain, likely predetermined, conclusion.

I guess what I'm getting at is...what happened to critical thinking skills? I just can't believe how many people blindly accept the theories proposed on UM without further question.

I'm realize I'm probably over-thinking and just expecting too much, but still, it's kind of alarming to think how easily people can be swayed.


I think people in general will accept anything at face value without questioning the facts presented.Critical thinking has gone out the window ....:( Most folks,have just gotten lazy IMHO.I keep thinking of how many movie goers actually accepted the history of the sinking of the Titanic through the lens of James Cameron.You wouldn't believe how many people actually took it as fact rather than fiction.You would think that an event that was so well known in the 20th century people would have had the sense to know the differance.If someone can't do that,why would they be able to digest a case that needs to be solved ?Different sceniros that could happened to the indivual etc etc.It requires too much thought.

I agree with all of the above.
1) Education. I am jealous of anyone who graduated pre-2000. My public school experience made me a steadfast fan of putting any children I may have in private schools or at least schools with prestige even if I have to go in debt to do it. If I do send a kid to public school, I will thoroughly investigate said school rather than trusting the neighborhood outlet to educate my child properly.

2) Mindless TV. Not to bash reality TV fans, but the amount of shows like Jersey Shore and Toddlers and Tiaras as well as the people who take said shows seriously, are on the rise. I think this programming does contribute to intellectual decline.

3) Gullibility. This problem is nothing new.

I'd like to add
4) Recent technological advances. I'm not trying to say that the internet is making us dumb or is a problem. Heck, I love the computer! But this is an era of instant gratification and more people seem to prefer taking things as is than doing any critical thinking/research. Laziness and apathy are causing less people to "think outside the box" if you will.There is some truth to this. Even though technological resources like the internet have benefited society with information exchange, it can turn people into 'zombies.' People now text their friends non-stop and surf the internet without a care in the world. A person may not have to think critically if the information is already at their finger tips. They just have to type in what their interested in, and voila.

IMO, people are probably more gullible today compared to, say, forty years ago. On the other hand, information is more readily available compared to forty years ago.

There is some truth to this. Even though technological resources like the internet have benefited society with information exchange, it can turn people into 'zombies.' People now text their friends non-stop and surf the internet without a care in the world. A person may not have to think critically if the information is already at their finger tips. They just have to type in what their interested in, and voila.

IMO, people are probably more gullible today compared to, say, forty years ago. On the other hand, information is more readily available compared to forty years ago.
Yes. I amend my prior post to include that gullibility is on the rise.

And yes, as much as it's sad to admit, people totally use the internet to cut corners. Students use "wiki" to find out things right away rather than researching in the library , homework questions are googled, etc. and through these actions, little critical thinking is done. I took a pedagogical course last year that thoroughly examined the impact of media and technological advance on academia and cognition. I love the convenience of technology, but the drawbacks are too unfortunate not to take notice. It scares me how time flitters away when I sit at the computer and how little thought many of my searches online involve. They're often ritualistic checking of email or trying to quell boredom. My job doesn't start until late July so I'm often online. I'm trying to cut back on computer time, but it's not easy, particularly when I need to do research and want to keep in touch with family. I'm moving out of the country and will need to rely on the computer for talking to people from back home. I wouldn't say I'm an addict, but I do need to cut back and sometimes wish for the good old days when things weren't all digital.

This is an interesting issue that I think a lot of people have dealt with at some point. I personally spent the majority of my UM viewing time during the 80's and 90's, when I believe the show was at the height of it's popularity. I was a young child and then a young teen during these years, and it was a lot easier for me to take the info contained in the various segments as gospel.

It wasn't until I became an adult and started researching some of these cases outside of UM, that I learned things like how much editing goes into a TV show, or how LE withholds certain pieces of info for investigative reasons. These days, I tend to take everything that I read, see on TV, or find on the internet with a grain of salt.

Speaking only for myself, I actually enjoy coming across info that wasn't included in the UM segment because it allows me to see the case from a different perspective. JMO as always....

I blame the laziness of society. Can I actually blame the internet on this one as well? Okay I will. We are lazy. We have the ability to learn anything we want but refuse to lift a finger to do so. That is why it is more "convenient" to believe things than actually believing it. That's why the National Enquirer is still in existence. Hey, it wouldn't be on the shelves if people didn't buy it you know?

But this is what we have come to. We believe television. We believe newspapers. Instead of saying "that's a very well written article and I think I share that person's opinion for the most part" we get lazy and don't think for ourselves. As much as I love Saturday Night Live I think the less enlightened person takes the exaggerations of celebrities/politicians to heart and assumes this is exactly how this person is and is what they say all the time.

How many people have ever heard the term "Youtube it or it never happened?" I have, I have never used it, but have heard it countless times. It basically means "I am too lazy to use my mind to know if that is true so if you have no physical proof then you are lying."

Or you can blame "reality" TV. A friend of mine swears that shows like The Hills, Kardashians, Hell's Kitchen, Big Brother, etc. are NOT scripted and do not pander to the entertainment of the audience. Do you really want to know how boring a person's life would be? Follow them around with a camera 24 hours. My life would be as boring as crap. Which is why Kim Kardashian has to get married, make a big deal about it and then get split up 72 days later. Marriage without drama is so..................normal and not very TV friendly. So a divorce has to be thrown into the mix to spice up the ratings or so that People magazine can plaster a sappy story on its front cover about Kim being broken hearted. And yet people will STILL believe it wasn't a sham marriage.

So why did I go into a rant about all this? Because the media controls your mind in more ways than you like to think. I have it all figured out, but a dumber person doesn't, and that's who buys things all the time.

One last thing to ponder about the media. I won't dip into the Zimmerman/Martin case that is going on right now, but after that shooting and the story broke even People magazine slanted the reader's opinions. Martin was 17 years old but the picture on the cover was probably when he was 12-13. Then the picture of Zimmerman was in an orange jump suit. Without even reading beyond the headline how many people have already formed their opinions on the whole case? More than you think, and the media knows this. So if it works that way, it works that way with UM even if they aren't trying to be slanted.

You all must've read my mind, because alot of this is what I was thinking. Glad we have alot of smart people here. We should all become reporters and journalists, we know too much for our own good lol. ;)

Before we continue to patronize fellow citizens and bask in the rays of our superiority, let me suggest a simpler reason: we like to believe in myths. We create fictions that make sense of our lives. That's why songs, novels, and films exert such power over us. It's got nothing to do with the quality of our schools, the internet phenomenon, or other Americans being dumber than us.

Therefore, what's wrong with posters on other sites yielding to the imaginative power of UM or being a little more gullible than the rest of us? It's the same impulse that leads posters on our site to believe in satanic cults and demonic possession. Believing in these things is beside the point; wanting to believe in them is the lode star.

Before we continue to patronize fellow citizens and bask in the rays of our superiority, let me suggest a simpler reason: we like to believe in myths. We create fictions that make sense of our lives. That's why songs, novels, and films exert such power over us. It's got nothing to do with the quality of our schools, the internet phenomenon, or other Americans being dumber than us.

Therefore, what's wrong with posters on other sites yielding to the imaginative power of UM or being a little more gullible than the rest of us? It's the same impulse that leads posters on our site to believe in satanic cults and demonic possession. Believing in these things is beside the point; wanting to believe in them is the lode star.

Well said sir, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Well said sir, you took the words right out of my mouth.

I second that.

Just take the Jeffrey MacDonald case as an example. Some people cannot fathom how a father/husband could slaughter his wife and children as brutal as they were murdered. It's easier to believe and accept that some gang of drug crazed hippies did it. Everyone's scared to admit that there's a monster among us, and it puts people's mind at ease more, IMHO, to think there's danger out there lurking in the dark as opposed to right next door.

Before we continue to patronize fellow citizens and bask in the rays of our superiority, let me suggest a simpler reason: we like to believe in myths. We create fictions that make sense of our lives. That's why songs, novels, and films exert such power over us. It's got nothing to do with the quality of our schools, the internet phenomenon, or other Americans being dumber than us.

Therefore, what's wrong with posters on other sites yielding to the imaginative power of UM or being a little more gullible than the rest of us? It's the same impulse that leads posters on our site to believe in satanic cults and demonic possession. Believing in these things is beside the point; wanting to believe in them is the lode star.

Seconding all of this.

I have to say I am a bit skeptical that there were "good old days" when people were significantly less gullible. When were these days...the 90's, when so many people believed in UFOs? The 80's and the Satanic cult fears? The conspiracy-filled 70's? The 50's when there were communists behind everything?

Just take the Jeffrey MacDonald case as an example. Some people cannot fathom how a father/husband could slaughter his wife and children as brutal as they were murdered. It's easier to believe and accept that some gang of drug crazed hippies did it. Everyone's scared to admit that there's a monster among us, and it puts people's mind at ease more, IMHO, to think there's danger out there lurking in the dark as opposed to right next door.

Same with Darlie Routier. There's never been any strong evidence that this so-called intruder of hers actually exists, but some people would prefer to believe in that than the possibility that a mother could brutally stab her children for no apparent reason.

I have to say I am a bit skeptical that there were "good old days" when people were significantly less gullible. When were these days...the 90's, when so many people believed in UFOs? The 80's and the Satanic cult fears? The conspiracy-filled 70's? The 50's when there were communists behind everything?
I think gullibility and hysteria have always been around. Like people in the year 1000 thinking that the devil was going to come out at midnight and similarly, the year 2000 with Y2K fears. But I think that it's an increasing trend . I apologize if I sounded "superior" earlier, because I surely am not perfect and can be gullible like anyone else. But I do believe that people have become lazier with the internet and technology at their sides (myself included!) and that leads many to accept as is rather than think outside the box.

I have to say I am a bit skeptical that there were "good old days" when people were significantly less gullible. When were these days...the 90's, when so many people believed in UFOs? The 80's and the Satanic cult fears? The conspiracy-filled 70's? The 50's when there were communists behind everything?

You know, the more things change the more they stay the same. Kind of like today. We laugh because in the 1950s Communists were feared and suspected at every turn yet we are not any better today with terrorists and assuming we aren't safe anymore either. In fact, when it comes to that, I think we are far worse. We are scared of our own shadow more than we ever have been despite the world not being anymore dangerous.

I don't think there are less people who believe in UFOs either, wouldnt' there be more nowadays? There is far less trust in the government now than ever before and its the government behind the UFOs right?

I agree with some other posts, the internet if anything has made us stupider and lazier despite the fact that we have all information at our fingertips.

Same with Darlie Routier. There's never been any strong evidence that this so-called intruder of hers actually exists, but some people would prefer to believe in that than the possibility that a mother could brutally stab her children for no apparent reason.

See though I believe Jeffrey MacDonald is innocent but I've never believed for one second that Darlie Routier was. So horses for courses I suppose.

Before we continue to patronize fellow citizens and bask in the rays of our superiority, let me suggest a simpler reason: we like to believe in myths. We create fictions that make sense of our lives. That's why songs, novels, and films exert such power over us. It's got nothing to do with the quality of our schools, the internet phenomenon, or other Americans being dumber than us.

Therefore, what's wrong with posters on other sites yielding to the imaginative power of UM or being a little more gullible than the rest of us? It's the same impulse that leads posters on our site to believe in satanic cults and demonic possession. Believing in these things is beside the point; wanting to believe in them is the lode star.

This. I also don't know why people are being taken to task for not being overly investigative of a show like this. Maybe they were casual fans of it but not enough to come to a board like this and investigate the case so they just comment on what they know. Not everybodies life is UM.

I also think the myth thing is aplicable here at times and also the belief of too much judgement which lead to crazy theories sometimes being believed over other more reasonable theories. I don't know if it's more admirable to armchair quarterback over and over on some cases to the point of going off several directions that can't be proven. Stuff like that leaves to practicing hitman and stuff like that.

Unsolved Mysteries was 50% crime show and 50% paranormal. If people want to believe all the ghosts and UFO stories, then so be it. To be honest, I don't see psychics, ghosts and all that to be unlikely, as this world is full of surprises.

Like I said before, some people don't dig into the whole crime thing as much as others do. Just be glad that some of us are intuitive and that alot of these cases are getting solved or looked at again.

Before we continue to patronize fellow citizens and bask in the rays of our superiority, let me suggest a simpler reason: we like to believe in myths. We create fictions that make sense of our lives. That's why songs, novels, and films exert such power over us. It's got nothing to do with the quality of our schools, the internet phenomenon, or other Americans being dumber than us.

Therefore, what's wrong with posters on other sites yielding to the imaginative power of UM or being a little more gullible than the rest of us? It's the same impulse that leads posters on our site to believe in satanic cults and demonic possession. Believing in these things is beside the point; wanting to believe in them is the lode star.Oh, I would beg to differ. Yes, humanity has always enjoyed fiction and myths to make sense of life. It has always been that way. That is true.

However, some of the answers given in this thread do pertain to justins5256's question. I am not going into a debate about this subject, but many believe that the US education system has been on the decline. With that decline, critical thinking is suffering as well. If critical thinking suffers, are people capable of questioning the information given in society? This has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. It involves people accepting whatever is given to them. To add to that, our society now has abundant access to information, thanks in part to the internet. With that information, one can have a hard time distinguishing between fact and fiction. In some cases, fact and fiction are one in the same.

For many, it's often convient to just accept whatever is written/shown rather than to question the given information. It's not surprising that some random posters agree with whatever theory UM spouts out on the internet. Hell, I am guilty of accepting some of UM's theories because I do not critically think about the case. It could happen to anyone.

In addition, technological gadgets (Ipods, Ipads, Cellphones, etc) are all over the place in society. (At least, in the US.) They make a nice distraction for anyone.

After reading this thread, I realize that there is no simple answer for the OP's question. There are many reasons.

You can't accept them as absolute truths because by definition they aren't. They are theories. Possible outcomes? Sure, but obviously emphasized and sensationalized for the sake of good television to a certain degree. One that really comes to mind is the Sammy Wheeler case which turned out to be just a random act of violence, but UM explored the whole family drama aspect which in the end had nothing to do with Sammy's death. But hey, it was an angle worth exploring at the time and Sammy's brother might be my favorite person to ever be interviewed for UM (By coincidence...by coincidence, sure it was, and I'm Michael Jordan).

Stuff like that leaves to practicing hitman and stuff like that.

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web03/2012/5/25/14/anigif_enhanced-buzz-16996-1337971931-2.gif

hahaha Yes!!! I know exactly what you're talking about.

Human beings tend to look for patterns in things. There have been tests done showing that people will try and fit disparate, unrelated, events together to form a cohesive story or meaning. That’s my biggest complaint about the more ardent UM followers on this website (I didn’t even know there was any other UM sites, LOL). People try and fit every single thing mentioned in a segment into some theory of what happened, the end result of it being that the more they try to involve, the more bizarre and unbelievable the theory gets. I think this ties into the OP’s theme.

Then again, of course sometimes hitmen decide to do a practice run.:lol:

So all and all, what are we trying to say here?

So all and all, what are we trying to say here?

Life is short, even in it's longest days.

So all and all, what are we trying to say here?


Buy land, God ain't mkaing any more of it

Life is short, even in it's longest days.

too short for people to make assumptions about cases? I guess so.

So all and all, what are we trying to say here?

I think that people tend to look for patterns and overanalyze stuff and makes things more complicated that they are at times. Which lead to as bad theories as those supposedly simplistic ones.

I think that people tend to look for patterns and overanalyze stuff and makes things more complicated that they are at times. Which lead to as bad theories as those supposedly simplistic ones.

This I agree with

I think that people tend to look for patterns and overanalyze stuff and makes things more complicated that they are at times. Which lead to as bad theories as those supposedly simplistic ones.

Meh, I have no problem with people overanalyzing things...this is just a message board afterall. We have no direct involvement in any of the investigations, so anything and everything that is posted on this board is pure speculation, but I still think it's fun and interesting.

Meh, I have no problem with people overanalyzing things...this is just a message board afterall. We have no direct involvement in any of the investigations, so anything and everything that is posted on this board is pure speculation, but I still think it's fun and interesting.

But isn't the thread about criticism of people blindly relying too much on UM and accepting their theories? How is it then not criticable to overanalyze every detail, which leads to the same direction?

How about we use our knowledge of the cases for good and try to get them back out in the public (other than on here)?

But isn't the thread about criticism of people blindly relying too much on UM and accepting their theories? How is it then not criticable to overanalyze every detail, which leads to the same direction?

I thought this thread was about the criticism of other UM related boards/sites always accepting the main theory that UM pushed in their segments. I believe that is what justins5256 was criticizing was the lack of any analytical thought process "outside the box" of what was presented on UM.

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web03/2012/5/25/14/anigif_enhanced-buzz-16996-1337971931-2.gif

hahaha Yes!!! I know exactly what you're talking about.

Human beings tend to look for patterns in things. There have been tests done showing that people will try and fit disparate, unrelated, events together to form a cohesive story or meaning. That’s my biggest complaint about the more ardent UM followers on this website (I didn’t even know there was any other UM sites, LOL). People try and fit every single thing mentioned in a segment into some theory of what happened, the end result of it being that the more they try to involve, the more bizarre and unbelievable the theory gets. I think this ties into the OP’s theme.

Then again, of course sometimes hitmen decide to do a practice run.:lol:

Crud, does this mean that Christopher Chichester is not responsible for every Unsolved Mystery that hasn't been solved? There goes my theory! :happyface

It actually was (and possibly still is) broadcast in several other countries, particularly in the UK. I've seen a view of these viewers on boards online, but not many of them. It would be nice to hear more about their opinions!
We have CBS Reality over here which shows UM and Cops and a few other shows. We also have the Crime and Investigation Network and if you have Sky, you get ID but I have cable so don't get it.
I have to watch UM on a particular site as the one on CBS is obviously Farina and well as everyone knows, alot is cut out on the new segments and there are tons of cases on the board that I have never seen.
We have a few English true crime shows but I prefer the American ones as they tend to give alot more detail and I'm sat there watching trying to solve the case in my mind.
The US seems to be alot more advanced with crime solving than we are. Our equivalent of the FBI is Scotland Yard but the way you get FBI Files over there, we don't really get too many shows that concentrate on how Scotland Yard has solved cases.
On the thread subject, I don't tend to take UM's theories too seriously, I have much more fun watching a segment then coming on here to see if there is a thread and seeing what other people think. I certainly never go with the theory of amnesia like they seem to go with on UM majority of time.