Getting Rich And Famous From UFOs
Occasionally, there are a few rumblings around the virtual UFO world about authors and researchers who seem to be in the UFO biz for the fame, drinking parties, and chicks. I can hardly contain my pain-streaked laughter when I read things like this. Anyone who is involved in the study of at least interest in anomalies had better look elsewhere for adoring crowds, fortune and casual sex.
Some of the few people making money from UFOs are conference organizers (and that is rare.) Perhaps one or two of the author/ researchers have made enough money on their books and videos to cover their expenses and maybe a greasy taco. The largest crowds at conventions generally number a few hundred. If that’s all you need in the adulation department, you’re not aiming high enough.
Other than a couple of people like Stanton Friedman and Linda Howe (and perhaps Whitley Strieber) the UFO field is not populated with anyone who comes even close to making a living from reporting on UFOs and “aliens.” The only ones making a decent income from the subject are probably television and film producers who read a few books, talk to a few writers, and make the right deals. Publishers also sometimes realize a modest profit, but the misses outnumber the hits by a wide margin.
Women who could conceivably make the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue are not usually found at UFO conventions. UFO researchers (male ones anyway) are not generally thought of as babe magnets. This of course assumes that you want to meet swimsuit models. If so, flying saucer gatherings are not a good bet. Take a look at Lesley Gunter’s comments on this.
I find that many of my friends (male and female) are either vaguely interested in UFOs, or don’t really care about them at all. The ones that are into the subject have other interests that are usually just as worthy of conversation. And yes, we do attend parties, and we do drink alcohol. Isn’t that what most people do?
I see other UFO writers maybe once a year if I’m lucky, and that’s because we’re speaking at the same convention. We probably talk UFOs for perhaps 30 percent of the time, more if we’re arguing about something. The time spent together, however is often too precious to discuss Roswell or the latest sighting or whatever. That can be done on the phone or online. Actually, minutiae is mentioned far less than ideas and theories that can be supported by decent facts and observations. A new idea is almost always more important than a new UFO case any day.
Most of these people didn’t write about something because they wanted favors. They did it because there was a genuine curiosity that was sometimes supported by a publisher. That also involves work and even more luck. It’s not out of the range of many people’s talents.
One of the other things I feel lucky to experience at these gatherings is to talk about what I have written with readers. I certainly avail myself of this opportunity when I see an author or reasearcher wandering the halls of the hotel or sitting at their tables. The fact that I have written a couple of books helps to grease the wheels, and is one of the many reasons why I got involved in the first place.
Surprise, surprise. Like many who are interested in the subject, I have a genuine curiosity about things that don’t have an explanation yet, and it’s fun and educational to talk with people who know more than me, or who have better connections for information. No one person has “the answer,” and those that think they do are generally fundamentalist, garrulous and humorless. Those sorts of people attend UFO conventions too, but I don’t generally party with them.
If there is an “answer” to be found in the UFO enigma, it will probably come by accident to those who realize that the search is likely much of the goal, and/or a genuinely inspired and original bit of thinking. Science may only cover part of this. The phenomenon itself certainly isn’t handing out answers, or selling them, or running a casting couch.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, March 29th, 2008 at 1:23 am and is filed under Books, Conferences, Pop Culture, UFOlogists, UFOlogy, UFOmystic Exclusive, Wake Up Down There. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- Private Eyes Investigate UFO Drone Story »
- UFO Fakery? »
- Take the Quiz… »
- Shag Harbor at 40 »
- Damn Those Evil Aliens! »
- Socorro Hoaxed? »
- UFOs on the Radio »
- UFOMystic in 2008 »
- Interesting Logo For Private Space Company »
- Can Anyone Explain The Latest Crop Circle? »
|
Mar 29 2008 
March 29th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Greg
While personally I don’t see a reason for you to come to your own defense, or that of others, I think you missed the origin of a lot of this frustration. There are several who shall remain nameless who propagate false accounts and exaggerated claims which upon hindsight are patently money making opportunities and have no problem with PT Barnum’s maxim;”There is a sucker born every minute.”
This in turn not only muddies the muddy water further, it wastes everyone’s time and energy. Most importantly, it reinforces that the whole shebang is self inflicted flim flam. As a result there is an unfortunate broad brush that a great deal of information is a commodity alone, like selling hot dogs.However there is no regulatory agency for B.S. Personally, I found the process of learning how to tell shoe polish from s–t is a worthwhile educational experience..I dont think anyone can avoid dead ends if they take this subject seriously and I don’t think theres a good reason to shoot all the messengers. I had wished you would write more and I am glad you are doing so on this site. Best Wishes.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
There are a lot of AVERAGE people seeking a way to make themselves above average, and UFOs seems like a good place to find fame and fortune. Sure there are a few rare people who know how to work the system (Stanton and Streiber), but the vast majority of the time they are but one man shows that come and go (Tom King, Gary Lowery, Peter Gersten, Philip Kraph, etc). They all want their five minutes of fame — and they get it for awhile — then they fade away back into obscurity where they belong…unless they are one of those who don’t have enough common logical sense to come in out of the rain or know when to quit while they are ahead (Richard Hoagland or Art Bell). Others have got the talent, but it looks like they are waiting for something (Linda Howe).
So much for fame but more importantly, UFOs are a great way to bring advertisers to your website, seeing as UFOs are only second to sex for number of hits on the Internet. Any fortune is better than none, so the incentive is always there to try and exploit the system. Of course, just because people seek something does not mean they will find it, but nonetheless the temptation to try and take it is there. Many will try yet many will fail.
As for the womanizing aspect, UFO conventions ARE a good place to find very gullible women who will believe just about anything you tell them — and that is a dream come true if you are looking for an easy catch. Now if you can find a woman who believes in UFOs and is a nymphomaniac, you have it made.
I’ve been to a few UFO conventions and there is nothing respectable about them. I was at Laughlin the second to last time they were there and I swear it reminded me exactly of the scene in CONTACT after the announcement was made that they had discovered a signal from another race in Vega. There were fortune tellers, overunity and anti-gravity proponents, “walk-ins”, telepaths, healers, and all other kinds of unprovable nonsense being sold there. They reminded me of vultures waiting for a victim to pounce on. It is disgusting but I guess that is what makes it so entertaining to watch.
March 29th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Robert Sterling outed you,Greg Bishop, last October. You are an operative for the CIA whose mission it is is to spy on us Ufonauts(nuts perhaps?) and report back to your Illuminaughty Mistress Sigrid! Whose on tomorrow night? Another one your disinformation agents like E.A. Guest or Rupert the AntiChrist? You can’t fool us anymore! Man-In-Black!
March 29th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Greg,
I find it best to ignore the trolls who start this kind of stuff, but, as you’ve chosen to address it, I can only add - right on!
Honestly, anyone who thinks that UFOs are the way to seduce eager young women, or make a fortune, is nuts. Absolutely bonkers.
When people bemoan the camaraderie of people interested in UFOs, they are saying far more about themselves, and their own social inadequacies, than they are their targets.
Paul
P.S. Make sure Gorightly has lots of UFO babes at RetroCon, or I shall be most displeased!
March 30th, 2008 at 2:32 am
It is my understanding that Gorightly won’t need to stock the pond. My understanding is that the babes flock to such things by the truckload just on the off chance they may snag a ufologist for a hot night of wild sex. Of course, you guys will probably be too drunk to notice.
March 30th, 2008 at 5:40 am
Lesley,
I do my best work when I’m drunk. Just ask Redfern!
PK
March 30th, 2008 at 10:27 am
You know Paul, you comments would make more sense if they weren’t being addressed to people who are anonymous. That fact undermines your “argument” and reveals your real purpose — a childish tit-for-tat strategy and a knee-jerk reaction to anything that you don’t agree with, instead of seasoned reason.
I’ve named names and it is obvious that if you look at the background of the people that I mention that I tell the truth. The same is true of the UFO conventions. Anyone that has gone to one knows I speak the truth. All you have are words with no names to check on, no examples of what is good in UFO conventions, and…no truth. If calling names and avoiding reason is going to continue to be your strategy, you will fail at UFOlogy, just as you failed to become a practicing lawyer or an experienced musician.
March 30th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
No doubt about it — the chicks dig Ufologists.
March 30th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Good post Greg. It’s hard not to feed trolls,but it can be fun sometimes.
Instead of sneering at those of us who like to have hot wild sex at all of the money making UFO conferences while drunk on imported beer — at the Italian villas that have been paid for with all the money made from UFO research — they could make a plea to the media to stop making those lame anal probe jokes and tin foil hat wearing references in every other sit-com, etc.
March 30th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Hot babes at a UFO convention? I smell an oxymoron here somewhere. I doubt seriously a hot babe could spell ufo. However, to give the ladies that do go to the conventions their due, the ones I’ve met have read just about everything from Asimov to Zecharia Stichin and can quote verbatum the Kama Sutra and all the Joy of Sex books. Very cerebral women.
This reminded me of an early teenage memory that happened during the height of the Viet Nam war about a very hot and gorgeous young lady who was sun bathing in her bikini and a nuts and bolts flying saucer landed in the field next to her home. She buckled her top back on and walked over to greet the three “short men” who disembarked. She said they must have been Australians because of their accents. They began waving their arms and hands around, she said, so she thought they were leaving. She waved back and they scurried back into the saucer and left. She then thought that Australians are rude.
Perception is reality.
March 30th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Speaking of trolls…
Actually, “Sage”, I chose to not become a practising lawyer… a choice I made after I passed the Bar exams with flying colours, and was called to the Bar, of which I am still a member. Yeesh… you should try to get your facts straight before sticking your foot in your mouth. Of course, none of what you wrote had anything to do with the topic at hand, did it… which proves my point about trolls.
As for finding gullible women at a UFO conference, I guess you must be speaking from experience. Shame on you!
Paul
March 30th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I presented some of my evidence proving that UFOlogy has a history of being a way to find fortune and fame and you responded by…trying to turn this into a childish tit-for-tat. In lieu of providing counter-evidence, I have noticed that all your replies are emotional ones instead, so all you can prove about trolls so far is that, by definition, you are one yourself. Why don’t you show us some of your “flying colours” of how to present evidence in this regard?
As for finding gullible women, women are not the only gullible people there — there are just as many gullible men. NOTE: For those of you who still aren’t paying attention, I never said that there were any hot women at UFO conventions, just gullible ones (and remember, beauty is in the eye of the beholder).
And yes, I am speaking from experience — I have been there and talked to them. Therefore I can justify my claim that most of the people at UFO conferences can be summed up in one word: delusional. Just take a look at the themes of the booths of the participants that I pointed out previously above. Or take a look at the credentials of the speakers: psychic researcher, past life researcher, landscape photographer, freelance writer, ancient astronaut researcher, psychic medium, aerospace draftsman, Meier groupie, hypnotherapist, etc. Even if their credentials didn’t give away the farm, when these kind of people talk it removes all doubt that they are experts at only one thing: BS. And if you are a paying customer, very expensive BS.
March 30th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Well, if it is any comfort Greg, I certainly believe you, Nick, & Paul, deserve their own set of groupies
And hopefully I’ll get to meet each and every one of you in person one day, so I can buy you a beer. It’s the very least I could do after all the joy you have given me with your awfully interesting posts
March 30th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
“Sage”
Actually, you started it, when you assumed my original comment was somehow directed at you when it wasn’t - it was a general response to Greg’s post. I didn’t even read your bit. You then made it personal.
And again, if you think UFOs are a way to seduce women, or make your fortune, then more power to you, and good luck. And I don’t have to justify myself to anyone - I’ve been pointing out the frauds and phonies and hucksters, of which there are indeed more than a few, without hiding behind a comfortable cloak of anonymity, for years now.
The problem is that these people, and the behaviour of which you speak, can be found anywhere: you should see some of the parties lawyers and doctors throw, not to mention police officers - I’ve attended all three types, and those people have far more away over others, particularly their subordinates, than any ufologist (whoever they may be) does over a few gullible Joes or Janes at a conference.
Of course, then you get into the really nasty ones, guys like Hitler, and Stalin, who conned entire nations, and you start to see that the penny ante stuff that might go on from time to time in ufology is small game, to say the least. Hardly worth getting worked up over, is it?
March 31st, 2008 at 7:53 am
Greg-
I really think you and Nick both took the “UFO PROVOCETUER” too much to heart.
You both do outstanding work, are both
men of principle and intelligence, and
that is what will be remembered, long ,
long years from now.
Craig
March 31st, 2008 at 8:39 am
Craig,
I couldn’t agree more. Considering the RR guys recently mounted a defense of Tailgunner Joe McCarthy, I would think that people would see “them” (i.e. Rich Reynolds) for what “they” are - trolls (”they” were the ones to whom I originally referred as such).
Paul
March 31st, 2008 at 9:25 am
I think this is a good topic and discussion as it is an apt demonstration of how personalities are applied, viewed and processed with bias being a democratic feature based on assumptions on all sides.
To me,this is the underground stream that lurks under the surface of this field of interest.
As either entertainment or speculation or just plain old political positioning among the partisan party members…all this has the odd ring of both being on and off the topic we are fascinated by…wheres the beef? Who has the beef?
I suppose it all comes back to the eye of the beholder….just like the anomalies we study. Maybe its the study of relativity.
March 31st, 2008 at 10:01 am
Craig
It’s not so much a matter of taking things to heart. By that, I mean it’s not something I dwell on.
Rather, it’s simply that when my name is tied to something that I consider to be incorrect, then I need to rectify that situation via a statement.
But it basically boils down to this: everyone has social lives (or they should have if they don’t).
And drinking beer with friends on the night of (or the night after - or whatever!) a UFO conference is no different from a bunch of cops getting together for a beer after their shift is over. Or shop-workers doing the same, or pilots, or architects, or…the list goes on.
Would I turn up loaded to interview someone about their UFO experiences? Of course not! Do I see any problem in having a few drinks with friends like Paul, Greg, and Mac after I’ve finished lecturing, or interviewing someone etc? Of course not either!
I will never apologize for living my life the way I live it because I’m not answerable to anyone. And life’s too short to not enjoy every moment of it while you have it.
But I do feel the need to get my point across. And the point is that having a few beers with a few mates at a UFO conference on a saturday night and chatting about music or films etc has zero bearing on my ability to then go and interview someone 4 days later about alien abductions, or to dig through files at the National Archives the next week in search of USAF-UFO files, etc etc.
All this really means is that I’m a human being who has interests beyond UFOs, and one of those interests is hanging out with friends who I only see in person once or a twice a year at gigs.
And hell will well and truly freeze over before I have to justify that!
So, that’s my position: I wasn’s so much taking their comments to heart. Rather, I feel strongly the need to correct things from my perspective.
We may all have interests in UFOs; but at the end of the day we are all human beings (I think …LOL), and humans are social animals that require interaction with other humans in social environments. And that is all perfectly normal.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Paul:
Once again you dodge and evade presenting evidence for your claims and resort to an emotionally baited response instead. Maybe that kind of mentality will work with your peers, but it isn’t going to work with people like me, since I only listen to evidence and not emotion.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Nick:
This thread was about the getting rich and famous off of UFOs. You seem to think that there is no such thing or that it is very rare, but history tells us a different story. For being such a relatively small group of people, the UFO community gets a disproportionate share of media attention. Remember the X FILES? A lot of people got rich and famous off of that and it wasn’t long after that that Canadians started swamping American stores with their version of “The Top Ten UFO Sightings”. Look at the hundreds of books on UFO encounters / retrievals / abductions in Amazon. There are no science careers available in UFOlogy so people who have or want a career don’t go there. That is because fame and fortune are the only things that UFOlogy has going for it. There are no other incentives for joining UFOlogy, are there?
March 31st, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Bruce,
I came ot my own defense because, as Nick said, something was said about me (actually I was lumped in a group about which specific things were written) that I did not agree with. I did not reference the original post because I didn’t want to start an argument that would take up my time and energy more than this site already does, since ufomystic is my platform and I want to use my energies here.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:27 pm
crg,
Shhh!
March 31st, 2008 at 7:30 pm
RPJ,
Same back at ya, and thanks!
March 31st, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Regan,
I’m afraid that any pleas to take UFOs seriously in popular infortainment will fall on deaf ears.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Night Flight,
Great story!
I don’t know if perception
IS reality, but it probably has a lot to do with it.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:28 am
Let’s see who “The Sgae” troll really is, and what he’s about. He wants to talk about evidence and facts? Okay…
He/she wrote:
“This thread was about the getting rich and famous off of UFOs. You seem to think that there is no such thing or that it is very rare, but history tells us a different story.”
Actually, the substance of the thread was about ufologists, or those who study, write or lecture about UFOs, getting rich off of them. A very different story. Further, when you write thathistory tells us a different story, that implies lots of people have done it. Name more than a dozen who have become rich and famous off of ufology (again, which is what the thread was about). I would suggest you not mention ANY researchers - I’ve been to many of their homes, and I’ve seen just how “rich” they have become. At best, they have augmented their other incomes to a small extent, like Kevin Randle, from work in ufology. At worst, more than a few have lost money, like Dick Hall. Yes, there are frauds like Richard Boylan and Steven Greer out there who make money, but I doubt even those guys are getting rich, at least as the term is generally understood, i.e. millions of dollars.
He/she then wrote:
“For being such a relatively small group of people, the UFO community gets a disproportionate share of media attention.”
Disproportionate to what? Paris Hilton is a community of one, and she gets far more attention than all of ufology combined. The same could be said about celebrities in general - a small community that gets a disporportionate share of attention to real news.
He/she then asked:
“Remember the X FILES?”
Yes - it was a decade ago, and had nothing to do with ufology, or UFO conferences, or ufology. It was a television drama. Fiction.
Lots of people got rich off of MASH by playing and writing about Army doctors. Using your “logic”, that must mean that there’s a fortune to be made from being an army doctor or nurse. Or perhaps a bigot… I’m sure the cast and crew of All in the Family did quite well. Etc.
He/she goes on to say:
“A lot of people got rich and famous off of that and it wasn’t long after that that Canadians started swamping American stores with their version of “The Top Ten UFO Sightings”.”
Typical baiting troll behaviour, which I would usually ignore, except for the fact that “The Sage” claims to be all about evidence, but can’t seem to get it right. “Best Evidence” isn’t in the US market, anywhere. Even if it was - and I hope it will be at some point - it will hardly be “swamping” the stores.
He/She then write:
“Look at the hundreds of books on UFO encounters / retrievals / abductions in Amazon.”
Do you realize how many books are listed on Amazon? Do you realize what a small percentage of them are really about UFOs, or related subjects? I would suggest that you wander down to your local chain book store and check the shelves, and see where all of these UFO books are. Good luck.
He/she then wrote:
“There are no science careers available in UFOlogy so people who have or want a career don’t go there. That is because fame and fortune are the only things that UFOlogy has going for it. There are no other incentives for joining UFOlogy, are there?”
First, ufology is not a formalized discipline, not is it a science - it involves many disciplines, depending upon which aspect of the phenomenon you choose to deal with - Rich Dolan and I, for example, are more inclined to look at the historical aspects, which is just as valid as looking at the historical development of political parties, or military technology, or the space program, or… whatever. Neither of us would claim to be scientists, although we can follow the general basics.
But the main point is that there are NO careers in ufology, because there is no such thing as ufology. There are people interested in studying various aspects of the UFO phenomenon, including scientists, but that is secondary to their days jobs. Nick writes about a lot of stuff besides UFOs. Greg works in film and television production, as do I, where I’ve made far more stuff about other things, from classical music to pro wrestling to 19th century evangelicals, than I have about UFOs. Jacques Vallee is another good example of someone who had a profound personal interest in UFOs, but who had a whooly separate - and very successful - career. Kevin Randle is a military officer and a science-fiction author. Karl Pflock had a lengthy career in government. And on and on…
Fame and fortune, despite your wholly unsubstantiated claims, have nothing to do with it for anyone but the rare hucksters, who are exceptions that prove the general rule, which is that its an interest in the subject matter is what brings the vast majority of people to UFOs, especially an interest in the mystery - the same reason people take an interest in almost anything beyond their regular jobs and lives, whether it be stuff like Oak Island or the Titanic or old battles or… well, you name it.
Paul
April 1st, 2008 at 5:36 am
Sage:
You say: “This thread was about the getting rich and famous off of UFOs. You seem to think that there is no such thing or that it is very rare, but history tells us a different story.”
It *is* rare.
The UFO community is very small to start with, the number of people who write UFO books etc is even smaller, and the number of people who get rich from it is even smaller than that.
So, yes, getting rich from ufology is by definition rare.
What in the name of Lord Kinbote does “The X-Files” have to do with anything? Was it made by Ufologists who made money from it? Of course not! “The X-Files” is completely irrelevant. But nice try though.
Famous? That’s a joke. How can anyone in Ufology be “famous” when we speak to a minority of the population to begin with, when only a couple of hundred people turn up at even the bigger UFO gigs, and most UFO books don’t ever break out of the small UFO market and into the mainstream?
No-one who craves fame out of the subject should even entertain “joining” ufology (as you so oddly word it - is there a form we have to sign to “join”? If yes, I never got my copy. Should I have got a uniform and a badge too?), unless their idea of fame is speaking to a couple of dozen people on a sunday afternoon, or selling a few hundred books here and there.
Yes, Strieber’s “Communion” was an exception, as was Corso’s “The Day After Roswell” and Nick Pope’s “Open Skies, Closed Minds” in terms of sales and in terms of really catching the public’s attention, and that of the media too. But that’s a couple of UFO books out of hundreds and hundreds of UFO book. So, again, it’s a rarity.
But many UFO books hover around the high hundreds to the low thousands in terms of overall sales (that’s roughly where my book sales stand, and I know from speaking with friends and colleagues and industry feedback that this is where most sales figures are at).
You say: “…fame and fortune are the only things that UFOlogy has going for it. There are no other incentives for joining UFOlogy, are there?”
Of course there are other incentives - (A) a desire to understand what the truth is about UFOs; (B) a quest for answers; and (C) a realization that there are others who share the interest, and the fact that coming together and discussing things, sharing data etc might actually shed some light on what’s going on.
That’s why I “joined” (to use that odd term of yours again).
Indeed, if the *only* reasons for “joining” Ufology were fame and fortune, my personal opinion is that I would have thought most people would have left the subject years ago because of the overall and demonstrable *lack* of fame and fortune!
The fact that most of us continue for years to investigate, research and be active in the field - and specifically *without* fame or fortune - should be considered a good indication that there are motivations beyond just what can be got out of the subject.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:03 am
Nick:
Exactly so, and well said. Remind me to bring soem extra groupies for you at our next secret meeting - don’t forget your decoder ring and the password, however - you remember how ticked off Bishop got last time!
Paul
aka MJ-13
April 1st, 2008 at 10:24 am
Thinking about it, I don’t know anybody that is “rich” in the UFO field. I see a lot of investigator/researchers making a little money here and there but I don’t see anybody driving new SUV’s every year either. More or less it seems to be a labor of love for most if not all, with occasional small payoffs in the form of a book deal or something.
Now in terms of film makers, I don’t see alot of them making loads of cash off of the UFO field for various reasons including the fact that you in essence have a small vertical customer base. I recall an article some years ago about a film maker that secured exclusive rights (nobody had asked to that point) to some avaition conflab. He spend about a week at the conflab getting interviews, video from planes, and different angles. About 80,000 people showed up at this. He cut everything into a 2 hour DVD as I recall and sold DVDs of the conflab for $19.00 each. As I recall he sold around 30,000 copies (and was still selling at the time of the article) and his net profit was around $13-15 dollars per video. Do the math that is not a bad payday. Would that be something a film maker does everyday with every film? NO. As many people know that is a rare exception.
Lets say you have some new video for the UFO field. You figure that if everybody bought a copy that was in the UFO field, you might sell between 4-8 thousand copies. Real world you will probably sell in the neighborhood of 20-30% of that number. Doesn’t add up to a ton of money. Now if this was some allegedly leaked government video, that you have world wide hype going on, you stand to make more because you are tapping into a much larger market.
For example lets say some known film maker comes up with what is claimed to be leaked film of the Roswell crash. He builds the hype, starts lining up a network TV deal, gets a few researchers on board so to speak and even though they may say the film is questionable due to this or that reason, the film maker has now tapped a market that went from 3000, to millions of people. Kind of like people yawn when you talk about a video of a JFK speech. But these same people get really interested if a new film of the assassination were to come out.
Another example. If you were to release a calender with various UFO photos you would probably sell 1000-5000 copies. However if you sold a calender called the babes of UFOology, featuring bikini wearing bomb shells, you would probably sell a whole lot more.
Over the years there are and have been what I would consider beautiful women in the field, but if you are looking for stunning “bomb shells” as in the type found at Hollywood parties, its not very likely. Of course if you were evaluating the men and women in Hollywood and the basis of “real” or “fake” probably 90 percent of them are fake. If you were evaluating people in UFOology, I would guess that 95% would be real, with 5% or less being fake.
So bottom line as I see it. Its a labor of love that most labor for no monetary gain and a few do make some money. However it’s not people’s primary source of income… Unless Nick, Greg, and Paul were going to release a “babes of UFOology” calender, with Paul offering video of the photo shoot. Just kidding guys.
Cheers,
Robert
April 1st, 2008 at 10:45 am
“is there a form we have to sign to “join”? If yes, I never got my copy. Should I have got a uniform and a badge too?”
Geee… and here I was thinking you big-shot Ufologists wore some kind of special tin-foil hat; you know, a golden one or with an extra antenna, to stand out from the rest of us Ufo-grubs
April 1st, 2008 at 11:08 am
RPJ:
Uncanny! How did you know? I’m wearing mine right now! Bleep-bleep!
April 1st, 2008 at 11:55 am
Gee, and I thought Greg was telling the truth about becoming rich from this subject… not. The only richness is in the flow of alien dogma. In my experiance most people aren’t looking for 5 minutes of fame either. All I know is when one experiances unexperianced phenomina, after the fear one needs output and input to understand their experiance. Some will express their experiance only to find they should of kept silent. Those that do have the strength to express their experiance(s) don’t have as much chance of becoming rich as the disinformation artists like hollywood. I’ve seen all the proof I need to believe and do feel sorry for those that base their knowledge and arguements from their brainwashing forced on them by the one eyed beast. Okay so I may be wrong TV does entertain those that live in a bigger box.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:15 pm
RPJ:
In my entire career, in reference to all the UFO films made, the actual profit we made on them, in total, might be CAD $10,000. Five films. CAD $10,000.
Now, to be fair, we absolutely made money when we made the films in terms of salary and stuff, but even that is not exactly going to make me rich - Best Evidence was done on a budget of around CAD $150,000 (chump change for a TV production) - my take was around CAD $40,000. Not bad, but it was the only film I did that year, so that was most of my pay, although I do have revenue streams from other, non-filmmaking efforts.
But that’s what I do for a living - make films, about UFOs, and a whole bunch of other things too.
If one can make sales of films into foreign markets (and the USA is a foreign market for me), then you can make some real money. But that hasn’t happened for us yet, with the exception of TVNZ for Best Evidence.
In terms of whether there’s a huge market for UFO product, as “Sage” seems to think, let me leave you with this - I was told flat out by a broadcaster that should be programming UFO films more often that UFOs are yesterday’s news. What’s hot? Zombies.
Frakkin’ zombies!
I may have to become a zombologist!!
Paul
April 1st, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Sorry - that last comment should have been directed to Robert.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:14 pm
“So, yes, getting rich from ufology is by definition rare”
So what? The title of this thread is “Getting Rich And Famous From UFOs”. You do not dispute that you can get rich from UFOs and that is all that counts. Whether it is rare or common is irrelevant.
“‘The X-Files’ is completely irrelevant”
Since the X-Files made money off of UFOs, it is completely relevant. If it weren’t for UFOs, the X-Files would not have made it.
“How can anyone in Ufology be ‘famous’ when we speak to a minority of the population to begin with”
From Answers.com…”Fa*mous (Fa’mes) adj. Well or widely known”. Last time I looked, Stanton Friedman, Whitley Strieber, John Mack, and Peter Gersten are famous by that definition. Even people who don’t believe in UFOs know about these people, so your artificial restriction of the audience to only UFO cult members was illogical.
“Unless their idea of fame is speaking to a couple of dozen people on a sunday afternoon, or selling a few hundred books here and there”
Exactly. Five minutes of fame is still fame. And a small fortune is still a fortune. You guys are reading between the lines and adding words that aren’t there like “huge” or “majority”. Fortune and fame are relative. In the case of UFOlogy, it is an example of trying to be a big fish in a small pond.
“Of course there are other incentives - (A) a desire to understand what the truth is about UFOs; (B) a quest for answers; and (C) a realization that there are others who share the interest, and the fact that coming together and discussing things, sharing data etc might actually shed some light on what’s going on”
Anybody who has those reasons for incentives is a failure. Plain and simple.
“That’s why I ‘joined’ (to use that odd term of yours again)”
Try a dictionary and see what a metaphor is.
“The fact that most of us continue for years to investigate, research and be active in the field - and specifically *without* fame or fortune - should be considered a good indication that there are motivations beyond just what can be got out of the subject”
It would if it were true but it clearly is not. I know you can’t claim to be one of those.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:21 pm
“In my entire career”
Which one?
“In reference to all the UFO films made, the actual profit we made on them, in total, might be CAD $10,000″
Yeah, I believe you. But still, even a $10,000 bonus is a small fortune.
“but even that is not exactly going to make me rich”
Which leaves the “…or famous” part in question.
“In terms of whether there’s a huge market for UFO product, as ‘Sage’ seems to think”
You can’t dispute statistics which show the second highest number of hits on the Internet are for UFOs. That is a marker and it is is huge. Whether anybody can ever tap into that market remains to be seen, but the temptation is high. You seem to be making a go at it.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:02 am
>“In my entire career”
>Which one?
I raised a number of points, and “The Sage” responds by starting with an ad hominem. Most of my points he / she ignored, because he / she knows he / she can’t deal with them. There’s nothing else for me to say to him / her, because he / she is simply trolling. No chance for a reasoned discussion, so from hereon in I’ll ignore him / her.
Greg:
Great post. Right on, as anybody who knows actually anything about the topic, and cares about the facts, is aware.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:16 am
Sage:
The thread of this post is about *Ufologists* making money/fame etc, and *not* general issues of UFOs and money-making, such as from “The X-Files” etc.
Read Greg’s opening words again:
“Occasionally, there are a few rumblings around the virtual UFO world about *authors and researchers* who seem to be in the UFO biz for the fame…”
Greg continues: “…Some of the few people making money from UFOs are *conference organizers*…Perhaps one or two of the *author*/*researchers* have made enough money on their books and videos to cover their expenses and maybe a greasy taco.”
Greg is *clearly* talking about people within Ufology because his opening words refer to researchers, authors and conference organizers, etc and *clearly not* people who make TV shows like “The X-Files” etc.
If you want to lump everyone who makes shows like “The X-Files” into this argument, then that’s up to you.
But it has zero to do with what Greg was saying to his readers - about how there are occasional specific rumblings about *ufologists* in it for the fame etc.
Chris Carter of “The X-Files” is not a ufologist; therefore his show is irrelevant to this discussion.
I said: “The fact that most of us continue for years to investigate, research and be active in the field - and specifically *without* fame or fortune - should be considered a good indication that there are motivations beyond just what can be got out of the subject.”
In response, you said: “It would if it were true but it clearly is not. I know you can’t claim to be one of those.”
This is clearly baiting on your part; but I’ll take the bait, as I do get a degree of entertainment from your comments now and again.
As I have said before, my books sell in small quantities - from around 800 or 900 copies to about 2 or 3,000 on average.
Despite what people think (and despite what people have said to my face, behind my back and in print), I don’t make much money from Ufology (I certainly couldn’t make a living from UFOs); yet I continue to do what I have done for 20 years, because I have a deep interest in the subject.
If monetary gain was my motivation for *joining* Ufology, then I should have quit the subject years ago, rather than continue to do what I’ve done since the 1980s.
I continue to write articles for mags that only pay small fees, I continue to speak at conferences that (in many cases) only cover expenses, and I continue to write books that maybe just about pay for 2 or 3 months rent on the room I live in.
And your view and interpretation of fame is clearly very different to mine!
For ufologists (for the most part - I pointed out above that Strieber, Pope, Corso etc were occasional exceptions), the subject does not bring money or fame.
But I will say again that this doesn’t stop me or friends and colleagues like Greg from continuing to do what we do.
Those who “join” ufology and then leave (and who return the badge and the uniform to the enlisting office), after realizing that there isn’t much of a chance of earning a load of money, *could* be considered to be in it for what they think they can personally get out of it.
However, I see those people as a minority, and I see the bigger picture like this: we’re a group of people who do what we do because we care about the subject. We meet up to share info (conferences, lectures, etc) with like-minded colleagues and friends, and we do it (for years) utterly knowing that fortune and fame within the subject are about as rare as stumbling across a crashed UFO. Yet we continue: because of the subject.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:48 am
Actually, Nick, I have to confess - I’m just in it for the babes. For example, there was this 70-year old lady at Laughlin this year… mmmmm…
Paul
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Paul:
It took you four postings before you responded to me, each one being a smart arse (or is that dumb arse) taunt, so I think I’m entitled to dodge and evade the issue for at least the next two posts, just like you, eh? Or better yet, you still have no argument so why bother with your nonsense? All I’m doing is encouraging you to act more childish than the time before.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
“Read Greg’s opening words again: ‘Occasionally, there are a few rumblings around the virtual UFO world about *authors and researchers* who seem to be in the UFO biz for the fame’…Greg continues: “…Some of the few people making money from UFOs are *conference organizers*
In other words, anyone “in the UFO biz”. That means “the business of UFOs”, including people who may not even believe in them or study them, say like conference organizers or movie directors. By Greg’s own inconsistent definition, X-Files is a part of that “UFO biz”. See? I can read. Now it is your turn.
“Greg is *clearly* talking about people within Ufology”
How are conference organizers “within UFOlogy”? They are just as much “within UFOlogy” as the X-Files were…in other words, they were just there for the money and entertainment and not “research” or “authoring”.
“I said: ‘The fact that most of us…”
That is an assertion, not a fact.
“…continue for years to investigate, research and be active in the field - and specifically *without* fame or fortune - should be considered a good indication that there are motivations beyond just what can be got out of the subject’…If monetary gain was my motivation for *joining* Ufology, then I should have quit the subject years ago, rather than continue to do what I’ve done since the 1980s”
Then you must be in it for the five minutes of fame, right? You can’t tell me you aren’t famous within UFOlogy circles…or as you put it, “UFO biz”.
The fact that some of you are without fame or fortune does not prove that none of you started out on your quest in UFOlogy *without* fame or fortune in mind. I think every single one of you started with that intention but many of you just simply failed. What happened after that was some of you didn’t know when to throw in the towel (Kal Korff for example).
The whole entire history of all the “truth” that has ever existed in UFOlogy in a nutshell can be summed up with these words: “Trust me, it was here a moment ago!”.
You might be able to cite a few people in all of UFOlogy who are in it for the truth, but for every one person you might name there are hundreds more that are not in it for the truth. George Adamski, Kal Korff, Billy Meier, Daniel Fry, Claude Vorilhon (aka Rael), Marshall Applewhite (aka Do), Pamela Stonebrooke (aka “I had sex with a reptilian”), Philip H Kraph (aka “I could have had sex with a Verdant”), Gary Lowery (the alien claw), Zecaria Sitchin, Richard Hoagland, Carlos Diaz (plasma UFOs), Peter Gersten…so where is yours or anybody else’s “truth” in the middle of all that nonsense? It doesn’t exist. There is no smoking gun, just smoke and mirrors. Sure there have been a few poorly taken photos taken here and there, with some poorly told stories to go along with them, but nothing that is scientific or so non-transparent that a five-year-old couldn’t see through it. Even when UFOlogy has something going for it, they blow it because their hearts aren’t in it. Stanton Friedman gives a good talk about science and reason but I have yet to see where he practices what he preaches. Look at his bogus MJ12 project, where he was caught chasing his tail after someone’s elses junk mail — where’s the “science” in that? What about Dr W C Levengood, the “world-renown biophysicist”? He gives talks about “charge density plasma pulses” that he (but no one else) finds in crop circles or his Alien Choir’s “Doppler shift” of objects that were standing still? Where’s the science in that? When is anybody in UFOlogy going to show us some truth? It doesn’t exist.
You claim you are in it for the truth, so why don’t you have any either? Where are you looking for this alleged truth, that no one else has looked before? Why do you think any truth might exist? I don’t believe you are in it for the truth because otherwise you would have some by now. If there is no truth to be found, I think you would have realized it by now, if you were really searching for it, and if there is no truth in it to be found in it, why not be honest and say there is no truth in it? Maybe because there is something more important than truth…say like fortune *or* fame? There is no other reason in UFOlogy that is consistent and makes sense.
“And your view and interpretation of fame is clearly very different to mine!”
No surprise there. Applewhite’s definition of suicide was very different to mine.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
All,
This thread might hold the record for the longest on ufomystic!
I’ll try and be clear about one thing: I don’t count movie and TV producers and publishers as UFO researchers. They’re interested in money, not research, theories or ideas. Perhaps they’re the smart ones.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Sage:
As often happens in our back and forth replies, it all gets repetitive and boring very quickly and bait-loaded on your part.
So here’s my final words on this matter:
It matters not what you think of me or what you think of my reasons for “joining” ufology.
I know deep inside of me why I “joined” ufology - and it’s to find the truth that is at the heart of the puzzle, and to share my findings with others that share a similar interest in getting to the heart of the puzzle.
If you feel that’s a lie or a distortion on my part, then hey, go ahead and think that. I can’t stop you thinking that. It just so happens you’re completely wrong.
It also doesn’t matter to me that you don’t believe I’m in the subject to find the truth. Again, I know that my reasons are sound.
However, I find your following statement very odd: “I don’t believe you are in it for the truth because otherwise you would have some by now.”
So, in other words, if I haven’t found “the truth” yet, then by definition that makes me a liar re my statement behind my reasons for “joining”?
That’s very bizarre reasoning.
To everyone else: am I the only one who finds that particular brand of logic to be illogical?
Do you disbelieve *everyone* who looks for “the truth” about *every and any* issue where proof hasn’t yet been found? Or is it just relative to UFOs?
Moving on, you know very well that Greg meant the UFO community in specific terms of researchers, authors etc, because that’s what he specifies.
You made an error by bringing “The X-Files” into a discussion that was about ufologists and people in the community. You wrongly interpreted things and don’t want to admit that and don’t want to back down.
You say, for example: “In other words, anyone ‘in the UFO biz.’”
However, you are wrong. There is *no* “in other words” about this at all!
Greg makes it *very* clear in the words that come *before* the “UFO biz” term what he’s referring to.
Greg *specifically* refers to UFO *researchers* and *authors* right *before* his “UFO biz” words.
I recommend everyone goes back to the start of Greg’s post and reads what he said, namely: “Occasionally, there are a few rumblings around the virtual UFO world about authors and researchers who seem to be in the UFO biz for the fame…”
How you interpret that a comment *specifically* about “authors and researchers” being in it for fame can also include “The X-Files” (a fictional TV show) is utterly beyond me.
And you say: “How are conference organizers ‘within UFOlogy’? They are just as much ‘within UFOlogy’ as the X-Files were…”
Wrong.
Check out who organizes the regular conferences - it’s people *within the UFO community* who do research, such as (A) Ryan Wood (the annual UFO Crash-Retrieval Conf); (B) the MUFON people (who organize the MUFON conf every year); (C) the Retro UFO conf, that Adam Gorightly is a prime-mover in re the organizing; and (D) the X-Conf that Steve Bassett organizes, and the list goes on.
As the above shows, UFO conference organizers are generally people who also do/or have done UFO research. “The X-Files” team is totally different.
You say: “The fact that some of you are without fame or fortune does not prove that none of you started out on your quest in UFOlogy *without* fame or fortune in mind. I think every single one of you started with that intention but many of you just simply failed. What happened after that was some of you didn’t know when to throw in the towel (Kal Korff for example).”
Totally wrong.
When I “joined” back in the 80s in England, there were very few UFO books on the newsstands, there were *no* UFO magazines in the shops at all, conferences were almost unheard of, and the scene was very small and very isolated. Amd of course there was no Net, no blogging etc.
Even the Birdsall brothers’ magazine was then just a B&W photo-copied, stapled newsletter put together on an old photocopier and a typewriter!
And here’s my point re this: in other words, when I “joined” back in the UK in the early to mid 1980s, there was no reason *at all* to ever imagine that money could be made from Ufology - it was such a small subject that attracted such a small body of people who self-published their own little typed journals that they sent out to the small numbers of people who attended their meetings etc.
But I still enthusiastically joined…for the right reasons…to do research, share it with others, even if those others were 12 or 13 people meeting in the back-room of a library on a thursday night - which is how it was back then. Money or fame never even came into it, because there was no money, and fame? Well, there was hardly even a “scene”!
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Nick,
We’ve all seen pictures of your wife — you’re in it for the babe!
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Jules
The irony is that my wife thinks the UFO subject is an utterly idiotic one - really!
The bigger irony is that we actually met at a UFO gig (her first, which she went to out of curiosity) - at which she was utterly bored and vowed never to go to one again! It must have been the effect I had on her LOL.
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Nick,
Yet, she married you anyway — no doubt because of your big UFOs.
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I think it was my hairstyle…LOL
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Wow! This thread really grew since the last time I checked it.
I think Sage has far different definitions of rich and famous than I do. I know truly rich and famous people and to compare anyone in Ufology to them is laughable.
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Nick,
No doubt about — given the right lighting and fluid levels, I’d mistake that hairstyle for a UFO. LOL
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Yeah, not unlike the Socorro/Zamora UFO, methinks…
April 4th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Well Nick, I guess this is my final word too…
“UFO biz” implies anything or anyone that makes a BUSINESS off of UFOs, which means that Hollywood is in the “UFO biz” because they make a BUSINESS off of UFOs, just like conference organizers. Obviously the kind of people you would expect to regulary have conferences in Las Vegas and Laughlin would not be serious-minded scientific types. Sounds like the idea for a regular vacation instead of a scientific peer review of the latest research.
You still never answered my question: “Where is the truth in all of that?”. If you were so interested in searching for truth, we would expected you to have found something by now. If you weren’t interested in searching for the truth, we would expected to you not have found any by now. It is always “stay tuned, we are still searching”.
And how is this search being conducted? Clearly not through “time and research”. There are literally hundreds of mutually contradictory stories and theories about UFOs. Obviously there is no truth to search for in UFOlogy — and there never has been. That leaves the obvious: they are searching for something else. Like their five minutes of fame or a little fortune.
PS — I only believe in facts. No facts? No way I’m going to believe.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
People, you arguments that just because people in UFOlogy are not as rich or famous as say Tom Cruise, is disingenuous. Ever hear of “a SMALL fortune” or “a LARGE fortune”? How about “five minutes of fame”? Obviously fame and fortune are RELATIVE, not ABSOLUTE. You people would know that if you had bothered to look those words up in a dictionary. I guess this is just another example of how the UFO community does “research”. It would be sad if it weren’t so funny.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
As I said it depends on your definition of fame and fortune. I think by Sage’s definition even Sage is famous. After all Sage keeps posting here and people keep responding so that is a sort of fame too. If the bar of fame is so low that Ufologists only known by less than 1% of the population are considered famous then Sage is famous too because most of those fans have probably read this post and comments.
BTW, I know nobody in Ufology with even a small fortune. The best I can say is that I know a few people who manage to make a living and not have to have a 9 to 5 job, but in order to do that they are continually writing books and doing lectures. It isn’t like they are sitting around doing nothing and checks are being dropped off by all their many fans. That being said, maybe there are a couple people in Ufology that I don’t know with small fortunes, but so what if there was?
April 4th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Sage,
That’s why I said that a lot of UFO researchers “aren’t aiming high enough” if they are in fact looking for recognition.
I also said that “the search is likely much of the goal” to emphasize that even if there isn’t any “ultimate truth,” the study of just what people are seeing (or think they are) and what makes people believe that they have been abducted by aliens etc etc can be just as fascinating as any ultimate “truth” about UFOs.
I won’t have a breakdown if I go to the grave without any supposed “answer,” because I’ve learned more about beliefs, scientific methods (or lack thereof), critical thinking, and witnessed more craziness than if I hadn’t become interested in UFOs, and I’m still learning. I’ve had some fun too. Any ultimate explainable reality behind the phenomenon would be icing on the cake.
In other words, I tend to try and look at the positive aspects of my interest.
April 5th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Lesley,
My definition for fame and fortune is exactly the same as the dictionary’s. You are the only one here trying to redefine terms to suit your viewpoint. A small fortune and a large fortune are still a fortune. Widely famous and locally famous are still famous. Just because Nick is not famous in the Humane Society does not mean he is not very famous in the UFO community.
“BTW, I know nobody in Ufology with even a small fortune”
That is the fault of your ignorance, not because it is a fact.
April 5th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I also stated that it is possible that there are some with small fortunes - I didn’t discount it. I don’t understand what that would matter though. Why should people not be allowed to make money? Why do you think scientists and others stay away from ufology, just because of the crazies? No. Most people need to make a living. Maybe you don’t, but most people do.
BTW, try not to let your own fame go to your head.
April 5th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Greg,
“That’s why I said that a lot of UFO researchers ‘aren’t aiming high enough’ if they are in fact looking for recognition”
It depends on how desperate they are looking for recognition. For many who lack self-esteem, any recognition is better than none. So whether they aim high or the aim low, the point still remains that nonetheless, that they are looking for recognition.
I don’t know if anyone actually believes they have been abducted, that is a matter of personal interpretation. From a scientifically rational point of view, the proper thing is not to make judgments of the people, but to dismiss their claims since they are given in the vacuum of evidence. That does not mean that abductees and their stories cannot be analyzed but that is a job for the scientific discipline of psychology to determine if it is worth investigating (some more, seeing as the abduction phenomenon has been scientifically studied in the past). From a personal point of view, I have listened to and read accounts of abductees, and the vast majority of them are silly, childish, naive, and obviously make believe.
“and I’m still learning. I’ve had some fun too”
That is very admirable and I respect that. It seems to be the only proper thing one can do. I too follow in your footsteps in this regard. The one thing that I do that most people do not, is I try to speak out against the UFO charlatans who unethically try to exploit naive and ignorant people of their money. Many UFO books, DVDs, and icons are terribly over-priced. I call it gouging the customer and I do consider it very unethical. Many conference admission fees are unjustifiable — even all those phony and irreputable Televangelists don’t charge as much. That is where I am always reminded of that the goal of these people are to make to make money and get their five minutes of fame.
April 5th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Lesley,
Not everyone who sets out to find their fortunes will find one. The point is the UFOlogy is a hot spot for people seeking their five minutes of fame and fortune. There is nothing wrong with seeking fame and fortune but there is something wrong with seeking only fame and fortune. Making money because you provide me a service or you are furthering the pursuit of truth is honorable, but making money in any way possible just for the sake of making money is immoral.
Scientists and others stay away from UFOlogy because there is no truth to pursue within it.
“BTW, try not to let your own fame go to your head”
That would be impossible, seeing as I am posting *ANONYMOUSLY* :^)
April 5th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Sage,
Well, unlike you I do believe that at least some (and maybe more) researchers are in the UFO field to find answers, not fame and money. There are scores of people behind the scenes whom most of us never hear about who are nevertheless doing sincere work, whatever their belief system may happen to be. They seek nothing but information, and share theirs freely.
Thanks for the compliment, BTW.
One more thing: I actually went down to Tustin today on the way south to another destination and checked out the Heflin site. What I found is that any efforts would be better spent in county archives and libraries, since nearly all traces of the original topography and other features have been virtually wiped out by encroaching civilization in the ensuing 43 years.
April 7th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
“I actually went down to Tustin today on the way south to another destination and checked out the Heflin site. What I found is that any efforts would be better spent in county archives and libraries, since nearly all traces of the original topography and other features have been virtually wiped out by encroaching civilization in the ensuing 43 years”
Yes, but what is more interesting is what hasn’t changed:
the location of the railroad tracks,
Myford Rd,
Walnut Ave, and
the Freeway.
Heflin gave a very specific location of where he was was when the UFO was spotted:
7/8ths of a mile from the Freeway and
1/2 of a mile from the El Toro Marine Base.
The coordinates I gave you last time meet these criteria but it would also place Heflin 1/4th of a mile away from the railroad tracks and 1/10th of a mile from Walnut Ave. Walnut Ave is not visible in Heflin’s photos which means he was closer to the Freeway and further from the railroad tracks then he claims. The description of the UFO incident and the picture taken do not correlate with the story told. Clearly Heflin was not preparing to take a photograph of a railroad crossing sign that was overgrown by a tree because he was way too far away from any railroad crossing sign (railroad crossing signs are placed 15 feet from the railroad tracks).
April 7th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Sage,
The railroad tracks are not necessarily where they were then (the present one is used for intercity commuter transportation) and I have read on one (skeptical) site, (which I can’t find right now) that Myford Road was moved to its present location from where Jamboree road is now. There may have been other tracks in the immediate area. This is why I want to find old records and possibly aerial photos of the place. I also want to ask the original investigators for any recordings of Heflin they may have, in order to verify exactly what he said.
At that point, I may change my opinion.