Jun 08 2007
|
|
Best Evidence UFOs
Earlier this week I received in the mail a DVD copy of Paul Kimball’s latest UFO documentary, Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Sightings, which was made for Canada’s Space Channel.
This is a film that I have been looking forward to seeing for a long time: last summer, while we were both in the UK, Paul was telling me about some of the cases he would be using, and the commentators, researchers, authors and investigators who had agreed to come on board and be interviewed. And, as a result, it became pretty clear to me that this was going to be a good one. And indeed it is.
Thankfully, this is not some half-hearted effort, put together on a shoestring budget, with bad visuals, muddled voice-overs, and cheap special-effects. Rather, it is an excellent, thought-provoking and illuminating study of some of the most profound UFO cases on record.
The premise behind the production of Best Evidence is intriguing: Paul arranged for a multitude of leading lights in ufology to submit their “best” cases, and was finally able to whittle that huge array of reports down to those ten that appeared to offer the best evidence in support of a genuine UFO presence in our midst.
So, which incidents made it?
Well, coming in at number 10 (Yes, I know I sound like a DJ counting down the pop charts!) is the strange series of encounters that occurred at Nuremberg in 1561, in which countless UFOs were seen by awe-struck townsfolk - a story that continues to both intrigue and mystify people to this day. And both Stan Friedman and Don Ledger stress the important point that, as the Nuremberg case demonstrates, UFOs are nothing new, and stretch back centuries - if not even longer.
At number 9 is the startling story of the Skylab encounter of 1973 - an encounter that involved three trained astronauts who were witness to a huge UFO, possibly 800 to 1,000 feet in diameter. As Brad Sparks notes, it is the credibility of the witnesses that really makes this event a strong one.
Then comes a notable encounter in Canada’s Yukon in December 1996, which - importantly - was supported by the independent testimony of various individuals, all of who were certain that some sort of huge object of unknown origin was operating in the Yukon skies on that winter’s night more than a decade ago. Stan Friedman discusses the Mother-ship scenario, and we are left with the question: was the giant Yukon UFO the cosmic equivalent of a Navy aircraft-carrier?
Case number 7 is both a profound and unsettling one, since it involves the apparent disabling by a UFO of the nuclear warheads (or at least the disabling of the ability to launch the nukes) at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana in 1967. Captain Robert Salas, USAF (Ret.) provides excellent, credible commentary on his own personal recollections of the affair and, today, is of the opinion that the intelligences behind the UFOs were trying to get a dramatic message across: get rid of your nuclear weapons.
Canada’s Shag Harbor encounter of October 1967 follows next. Although a UFO incident, it could quite easily be argued that in this case, the “U” in UFO stood for “underwater” just as much as it stood for “unidentified.” With accounts of UFOs zipping in and out of the waters of Shag Harbor, of a concerned Canadian and US military, and seemingly highly advanced unidentified technology skulking around both in our skies and beneath the waves, this is a case that is truly eye-opening. Don Ledger, who is one of the leading investigators of the case, provides much food for thought.
Case number 5 is that of Kelly Johnson - of U2 spyplane fame - whose sighting in 1953 of a 200-foot long UFO is surely one of the most important on record; given the man’s background and integral role in aviation history. And Stan Friedman makes the important and highly valid point that if anyone was in a prime position to know what we, the human race, were flying in our skies back then, it surely would have been Johnson. Yet, the fact that Johnson concluded that he had seen something truly extraordinary only amplifies the nature of the case, and hits home the fact that a small number of UFOs do appear to be true unknowns.
While there are certainly countless examples of alleged UFO caught on film or camera, perhaps none provokes such debate as do the famous McMinville photos taken by farmer Paul Trent in 1950. And, it is this encounter in UFO history that makes number 4 in Best Evidence - with commentary and endorsements provided by Bruce Maccabee.
At number 3 is the controversial Rendlesham Forest, England UFO landing of December 1980 that can arguably be classed as the British Roswell - at least, in terms of commentary, numbers of people involved, and books written on the subject. Colonel Charles Halt, USAF (Ret.), and former Ministry of Defense man Nick Pope talk about the case - lights in the sky, object moving in the woods, elevated radiation readings found at the scene, the list goes on. And Halt surely makes the understatement of the whole show when he notes that the aftermath of the affair - that, he says, included USAF people being drugged and hypnotized, and the confiscation of radar-tapes showing the movements of the UFOs - was “quite interesting.” I’ll say!
Coming in at a close second: the Iranian Air Force’s “UFO dogfight” of 1976, that saw two Phantom F-4’s implicated in a striking UFO encounter over the nation’s skies, and that also saw the Phantom’s utterly out-performed, and - more disturbingly - profoundly affected in terms of weapons and electrical systems being temporarily shut down by the unknown visitor. And as Stan Friedman notes with respect to the fact that the Iranian’s launched two of their state-of-the-art aircraft in hot pursuit of the UFO: “You don’t scramble if you’re not worried.” Indeed.
So which case makes number one? The 1957 encounter of the USAF crew of an RB-47 aircraft, who were shadowed for more than two hours and across more than a few US states by a distinct unknown. With aerial observations, airborne tracking, ground radar-based confirmation, and a plethora of trained, high-quality observers, the RB-47 event is one that makes Stan Friedman pose the question: “What more can you ask for?”
And there you have it.
Of course, there will be those who will inevitably ask: “Hey, why wasn’t the [insert name here] incident discussed?” Well, the answer to that question is that this Top 10 list was one based solely upon the responses provided to Paul by those researchers that he polled.
There will always be those who will disagree with the cases presented, and I can personally think of one or two others that I would have included had it been my Top 10. But, regardless of that, Best Evidence is a first-class production, with strong cases, good production and special-effects, a fine narration from Kris Lee McBride, and solid commentary from a host of researchers and investigators.
And Best Evidence is refreshing for two other reasons, too: number one, it doesn’t try and force-feed a particular theory for the UFO presence down our collective throats. It merely hammers home the fact that some presence, some unknown, is most assuredly among us.
And, second, you will find no debunkers in this production. Now, I’m not against having the views of those of a skeptical nature presented in a show such as this - it can, sometimes, provide a welcome balance to get both sides across.
But what I am against is this mentality of so many shows (and channels) that interview UFO researchers with the sole intention of having them knocked them down by some debunking type with a few letters after their name.
In the case of Best Evidence, however, it is those who were personally there and those that have dug deep into the cases in question that are given air-time; rather than the myriad debunkers who prefer to pontificate from the comfort of their armchairs; and who, in many cases, have done zero personal research into the things they are babbling on about.
The final word I will leave to researcher and author Mac Tonnies, who is quoted in the closing moments of Best Evidence as noting that, if real, the UFO presence on our world appears to be influencing both the way we think and our own mythologies, and that “this is a sacred thing to be messing with.”
Paul tells me that the show has been getting rave reviews and plans are already moving to have Best Evidence broadcast outside of Canada. So, keep watching the TV listings: you definitely don’t want to miss this one.
This entry was posted
on Friday, June 8th, 2007 at 12:36 pm and is filed under The Redfern Files, Breaking News, Eyewitness Accounts, Author Interviews, Reviews, Alien Encounters, Government Projects, UFO Sightings, Media Appearances, Conspiracies, Close Encounters, Evidence, UFOs On Film, UFOlogists, UFOlogy, Videos. 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 Ma.gnolia Technorati Help
- Related News Stories:
- Beyond “Best Evidence” »
- UFOs: Best Evidence »
- UFOs: Why No Open Contact? »
- Bigfoot & UFOs »
- Cash-Landrum in the News »
|
June 8th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Thanks Nick, on behalf of everyone involved.
Paul
June 8th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Paul, Nick,
How might someone obtain a copy of this?
Jess
June 9th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Nick — I have some fascinating information about Robert Salas, from the son of the Captain who Salas used as a source. Turns out the Captain’s son states Salas is a liar and there never was a UFO sighting.
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t78477-250.html
This was posted, by surprise, by the son himself, on a thread I started which also includes tons of debate about your research as well.
June 9th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Drew:
This is odd because Paul’s documentary actually uses some of the Freedom of Information Act documents on the case. Maybe Paul can clarify as he interviewed him personally?
Nick
June 9th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Jess:
I know that Paul is getting it shown in a couple of overseas countries, so hopefully the US will be on the list. When he reads this, I’m sure he’ll clarify.
June 9th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
I’ll send this question along to Bob Salas, who is in a better position to reply than I am. But I’ll note two things - first, Salas isn’t the only person to have come forward. Second, and this is what struck me from the get-go reading Carlson’s comments (and I’ll buy that Carlson is who he says he is for now), was that Carlson consistently referred to Salas as either “Mr. Salas” or “Salas”, and never by his rank, which was, when he retired, Captain, USAF. This in contrast to how he refers to other former officers. This is an old debaters trick, to subtly diminish the credibility of a witness. I’ve never liked it, and I have little to no respect for people who use it.
Paul
June 9th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
DVDs hopefully out by the end of the summer, and the film hopefully in a number of other countries by the end of 2007.
Paul
June 9th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Well Paul I don’t know about the rules of the site but if you could post a link to the DVD sales when it comes out I will be happy to buy a copy. Thanks.
Jess
June 10th, 2007 at 5:59 am
Maybe government physicist Henry Stapp’s new book — The Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participant Observer (Springer-Verlag) will solve this conundrum of flying Forteana.
http://www.amazon.com/Mindful-Universe-Mechanics-Participating-Collection/dp/3540724133/ref=sr_1_1/104-3716947-3615932?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181478452&sr=1-1
June 10th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Do not let my handle, skepticaled, color your opinion of my POVs. I haven’t seen Paul Kendall’s UFO documentary and based on Nick’s enthusiastic review it doesn’t sound like it’s something I want to see. First, anyone that’s been around UFOlogy for a while can come up with their version of the 10 best cases, it’s not something that is written in stone and everyone has to accept as THE best cases. Second, anytime that Stanton Friedman’s name comes up in almost every sentence, I’m outta here. There is no other UFO personality as distasteful as not only listening to him but looking at him. He doesn’t have one iota of my respect. He is UFOlogy’s #1 B.S. artist. Nuklear Physicist, yeah!
The main reason why I may not watch Paul’s doc. is because it sounds like it’s going to be mostly talking heads with no visuals which in UFOlogy is the main interest; something you can see. You can always read reports but it’s the visuals that keep and hold interest. Rather than reading about reports, no matter how well documented they are and no matter the respectability of the reporter(s), there are enough photos/films/videos to make the list into the hundreds, so 10 cases in 2007 is meaningless.
It bothers me someone as respected as Nick uses Roswell as a reference when he says: “Rendlesham Forest, England UFO landing of December 1980 that can arguably be classed as the British Roswell.” By using Roswell, it is understood then that a spying balloon train fell, NOT CRASHED!, in Rendlesham Forest for that is what happened in the vicinity of Roswell and Nick because he wasn’t personally there, nor anyone else can disprove that FACT.
Finally, Nick doesn’t like skeptics nor debunkers. Why is this? It is only natural to be a skeptic in light of insufficient evidence or questionable evidence as in the alien autopsy. And I’ve been a debunker and I’m proud of it. After extremely serious research I debunked not only Fred Steckling’s claims of alien bases on the moon, but another UFO personality on the West Coast who was bilking the gullible by claiming that he could contact UFOs and direct them in front of an audience. He was a liar and I proved him so.
So before you rail againts skeptics and debunkers, in general, be specific and name names and why you disagree with their skeptical view(s) and who debunked something or someone who later turned out to be innocent. For instance, the story of Dr. Jonathan Reed is viewed skeptically by more than a few UFO experts. A debunker did a great point-by-point debunking. We need skeptics and debunkers!
June 11th, 2007 at 6:56 am
Skepticaled:
You have just written something truly remarkable - namely, something that totally distorts or misinterprets everything I said and which you comment on.
1. I *never* said that this list should be considered a cast in stone Top 10. Rather, I *specifically* pointed out that this was just a Top 10 put together by Paul, based on the various ufologists he had polled. I also said that my personal list would include other cases.
2. Re Stan: perhaps he may wish to reply to you calling him in a public forum a “BS artist”…
3. I specifically stated that the show contained good production and special effects. It is packed with visuals.
4. Your words re Rendlesham and what I *actually* said are so distorted as to be laughable.
Go back and read what I said. Absolutely nowhere did I say that Rendlesham and Roswell could be compared in terms of cases. What I actually said (and *all* I actually said) was the Roswell and Rendlesham were comparable in the fact that both had received a lot of commentary; both had been the subject of a lot of books; and both cases (regardless of what did or did not happen) involved a lot of people. And that was it. I make *no other* comparisons between the two, and certainly not the one you refer to re the spying balloon.
4. Re skeptics: again, you are *way* off mark. I actually said it can produce a “welcome balance” to get both sides across. And what I *actually* said and that angers me most is not that TV shows use skeptics, but that many such shows have a *pre-conceived* agenda to knock down the UFO angle, and so they then merely trot out the usual skeptics to comment. This is not a balanced approach of using beievers and skeptics. It is biased television. If you read my words again, you will see this: namely the problem I have is that it is the agenda of those TV shows/producers that have a conclusion in mind before they make the show! And although it certainly doesn’t happen everytime, I have personally seen this happen behind the scenes on shows I’ve been on.
And so what happens, is that the TV company in question often doesn’t employ the use of a skeptic to provide a balanced approach. Rather they employ the use of the skeptic to hammer home the conclusion/theory that the show wants promoting.
And I have to say that I have met far more skeptics who *haven’t* personally investigated the things they are commenting on, than I have uflogists who *have* personally investigated the things they are commenting on.
To go back to Stan, for example: those of us in Ufology may not agree on everything, but Stan has traveled extensively to archives in search of documents, for probably 100s of hours.
Paul traveled to the UK to interview people for the Rendlesham angle of the show. I have seen more than a few skeptics who have done neither, but instead who have merely pontificated about why this or that cannot be so from their living rooms.
So, I have no problem with people being skeptical per se. But I have a *big* problem with skeptics being used in TV shows to merely comment on a theory that the channel or writer or producer wants to use to knock down the UFO theory.
June 11th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
skpeticaled,
Echoing what Nick wrote, I also want to add that if you take the time to look over the site, you will find that we do not have anything against skeptics or debunkers. What we do find annoying are fundamentalists of any stripe, be they UFO believers or non-believers.
Also, both Nick and I have been accused of being “skpetics,” so your accusations appear doubly strange and off-base.
What I find in T.V. shows on the paranormal is that if any skeptics are consulted, they are often the same ones (Joe Nickell and Michael Shermer, for example) offering similar explanations for widely differing scenarios.
The “skeptic” you refer to in connection with the Reed escapade is Royce Meyers, whose site I heartily recommend. I don’t consider him a classic “debunker,” although he has certainly brought to light a great deal of bunk in the UFO field!
P.S. While I may not agree with Stan Friedman, I would never bring up anyone’s appearance as a criteria for judging their work. Most would consider that sort of behavior as the mark of a morally and intellectually bankrupt whiner.
June 12th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Nick, Greg…..
BRAVO !!!!!! And Touche !!!!!!!!!
LOL!! ROTFLMAO !!!! You two have made my day!!!
June 12th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Skepticaled:
Indeed, we need debunkers - like Stan Friedman, who debunked Bob Lazar.
Paul Kimball
June 12th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Paul:
Very good point. On that same path, people may not agree with the data presented in my Body Snatchers, but I’m hardly a champion of the ET notion for Roswell, so that makes me a Roswell skeptic - albeit not a UFO skeptic.
There is this mentality in some quarters of ufology that you have to be a complete believer or a complete skeptic.
I’ve found that if we are honest with ourselves we all fall into that “Gray” (hoho) area.