How much do we REALLY know? - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

radar1979 · 12-26-2013, 06:48 PM

Forgive me if this sounds like or turns into a rant...it is merely intended as food for thought.

As to the title...how much do we, casual viewers, actually end up knowing about the cases which are profiled? My opinion...pretty much the tip of the proverbial iceberg in most cases. I think it a fair note of caution to say that we should be careful just how much of the "full picture" we think we are getting in 8, 12 or even as much 22 minutes. For cases that span multiple weeks...let alone YEARS...the capsulation of the stories into such short time slots must necessitate that much be left unspoken.

EXAMPLE: I assume that most members of this forum are familiar with 1990 segment on the alleged buried treasure inside Victorio Peak in New Mexico. Here, we have a story that was first granted a 22 minute (2 part) slot and later was allowed to have an additional 12-15 minutes added to it by virtue of an expanded "UPDATE".

Something about this case always baffled me as it is one of...if not the only....TREASURE segment in which the location of said treasure was pinpointed with such accuracy. Not only that, we have a case of murder, a US Military base, and an implied connection with Watergate and F. Lee Bailey...and after ALL of this the story is condensed to roughly 37 minutes?

Well, a simple perusal of New Mexico and Kansas newspapers from 1941-1977 proved MOST interesting.

Without going into nauseating detail, this one story turned out to have so many additional layers of information that the UM segments can easily be said to have barely scratched the surface. Perhaps the most interesting tidbit that went unstated was the fact that the story had been profiled on national television 13 prior. Some show called 60 Minutes and some guy named Dan Rather.

Also, remember how the "update" made such an issue out of the supposed new wrinkle in the story involving Captain Swanner? Well, sad to say, but I found his name in the Las Cruces and Albuquerque New Mexico newspapers several times between 1973 and 1977. Also, just FYI...these two newspapers alone devoted so much space to the Victorio Peak Legend that no real book ever need be written on the subject.

CONCLUSION: Whatever you believe about this story, nothing that was featured in either the original or updated segments of UM was new information. Rather (not Dan) it was simply a modern re-hash of stories which had gone silent and left the spotlight for a while. Also, that which was shown and spoken of in the segments will seem like a mere footnote for anyone who wishes to have a go at this case in the "old fashioned" way...and it is my supposition that this could likely be said for most UM segments.

HINT: New Mexico newspapers are both available and searchable on ancestry.com. Also, since Mr. M.E. "Doc" Noss is now dead his FBI file is available. It is a MOST fascinating read.

So...again...how much did we REALLY know after 37 minutes?

Sean M

TheCars1986 · 12-26-2013, 08:27 PM

Most of the cases on UM were condensed and edited for "good" TV. Unfortunately for us viewers, UM left out a lot of crucial information in certain cases. Thanks to the internet, and this forum especially, new information has came out which has helped paint a better picture of what happened in the cases. That's my theory anyway.

TheUntouchables · 12-26-2013, 08:48 PM

UM was never meant to give detailed accounts of the cases. And I'm sure law enforcement decided which information they chose to divulge when consulting with UM. The segments stuck to salient pieces of information to fit a story-telling format. They didn't present certain theories as more plausible over others because in time more information would be uncovered which could drastically change the course of the investigation.

Mystery Man · 12-27-2013, 03:25 AM

I remember someone saying (I believe it was about the Matt Flores case) that they were withholding information to see what tips were the most legit, so that's possible. And of course, making it better for TV

That's what i love about this forum. Most of us are genuinely interested in this case, and we're always finding new tidbits of info that add different angles to the cases. It's always cool when someone directly involved posts, too.

nikkispence1989 · 12-28-2013, 06:07 PM

It doesn't seem right to me that ALL info that can be given should be withheld to make good TV.

Even the UM.com doesn't give all info which I think is wrong because there needs to be a place where all the info is their incase a person with a tip needs refreshing to make a statement

12-26-2013, 06:48 PM	#1
radar1979 Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Feb 22, 2004 Location: St. Albans W.V. Posts: 68	How much do we REALLY know? Forgive me if this sounds like or turns into a rant...it is merely intended as food for thought. As to the title...how much do we, casual viewers, actually end up knowing about the cases which are profiled? My opinion...pretty much the tip of the proverbial iceberg in most cases. I think it a fair note of caution to say that we should be careful just how much of the "full picture" we think we are getting in 8, 12 or even as much 22 minutes. For cases that span multiple weeks...let alone YEARS...the capsulation of the stories into such short time slots must necessitate that much be left unspoken. EXAMPLE: I assume that most members of this forum are familiar with 1990 segment on the alleged buried treasure inside Victorio Peak in New Mexico. Here, we have a story that was first granted a 22 minute (2 part) slot and later was allowed to have an additional 12-15 minutes added to it by virtue of an expanded "UPDATE". Something about this case always baffled me as it is one of...if not the only....TREASURE segment in which the location of said treasure was pinpointed with such accuracy. Not only that, we have a case of murder, a US Military base, and an implied connection with Watergate and F. Lee Bailey...and after ALL of this the story is condensed to roughly 37 minutes? Well, a simple perusal of New Mexico and Kansas newspapers from 1941-1977 proved MOST interesting. Without going into nauseating detail, this one story turned out to have so many additional layers of information that the UM segments can easily be said to have barely scratched the surface. Perhaps the most interesting tidbit that went unstated was the fact that the story had been profiled on national television 13 prior. Some show called 60 Minutes and some guy named Dan Rather. Also, remember how the "update" made such an issue out of the supposed new wrinkle in the story involving Captain Swanner? Well, sad to say, but I found his name in the Las Cruces and Albuquerque New Mexico newspapers several times between 1973 and 1977. Also, just FYI...these two newspapers alone devoted so much space to the Victorio Peak Legend that no real book ever need be written on the subject. CONCLUSION: Whatever you believe about this story, nothing that was featured in either the original or updated segments of UM was new information. Rather (not Dan) it was simply a modern re-hash of stories which had gone silent and left the spotlight for a while. Also, that which was shown and spoken of in the segments will seem like a mere footnote for anyone who wishes to have a go at this case in the "old fashioned" way...and it is my supposition that this could likely be said for most UM segments. HINT: New Mexico newspapers are both available and searchable on ancestry.com. Also, since Mr. M.E. "Doc" Noss is now dead his FBI file is available. It is a MOST fascinating read. So...again...how much did we REALLY know after 37 minutes? Sean M

12-26-2013, 08:27 PM	#2
TheCars1986 #VLSKMS Forum Fanatic Join Date: Nov 22, 2008 Location: Maryland Posts: 8,606	Most of the cases on UM were condensed and edited for "good" TV. Unfortunately for us viewers, UM left out a lot of crucial information in certain cases. Thanks to the internet, and this forum especially, new information has came out which has helped paint a better picture of what happened in the cases. That's my theory anyway.

12-26-2013, 08:48 PM	#3
TheUntouchables Fearless & Incorruptible Occasional Poster Join Date: Nov 18, 2013 Posts: 75	UM was never meant to give detailed accounts of the cases. And I'm sure law enforcement decided which information they chose to divulge when consulting with UM. The segments stuck to salient pieces of information to fit a story-telling format. They didn't present certain theories as more plausible over others because in time more information would be uncovered which could drastically change the course of the investigation.

12-28-2013, 06:07 PM	#5
nikkispence1989 Podcast and calories Occasional Poster Join Date: Nov 11, 2013 Location: England Posts: 87	It doesn't seem right to me that ALL info that can be given should be withheld to make good TV. Even the UM.com doesn't give all info which I think is wrong because there needs to be a place where all the info is their incase a person with a tip needs refreshing to make a statement