Richard C. Hoagland

[Paul Kimball]

Yes, but whose fault is that? Ufology's. They have plugged Roswell, and abductions, and government cover-up, for decades now, instead of focusing on better cases, data, and trying to make the argument for a serious scientific study of the UFO phenomenon.

Paul

Yes UFOlogy has plugged the above for decades but you can't seriously believe that mainstream media is interested in the nuts and bolts stuff, they couldn't care less. All they are interested in is the sensational side to the field and are not adverse to editing out anything from interviews that doesn't meet their criteria.

I work in the so-called mainstream media. You can sell a good news story, or doc, that is fact-oriented, about UFOs (I've done it) but it can take a bit of effort - ufology doesn't make that effort, preferring to focus on crashed saucers, abductions and cover-ups, all wrapped in a nice, ETH as ETFact bow. Contrary to what some people think, that isn't a proven fact, but they expect the media to treat it as such, which just isn't going to happen.

Don't blame the media for what has been a self-inflicted wound for ufology. That's too easy.

Paul

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Nah, sorry. For every good, fact orientated UFO based story there is about 4-5 bullshit sensationalistic stories smothering them. These 4-5 are either laced with highly edited interviews that end up mis-quoting the interviewee or contain pinheads like David Sereda and Richard Hoagland. Not to mention boofheads like Michael Shermer(?) and Joe Nicol(?) to cover the debunking side of the argument. (Those two guys are as extreme as the absolute believers they are trying to debunk!)
The 4-5 are under the supervision of the networks that run them.
They CHOOSE to run those type of stories and they pick the subject matter because the info is already out there and they don't have to do any research, knowing full well that people will recognise and identify with them.

The Media isn't about getting the facts out to people, they are all about ENTERTAINING people,full stop.

Of course the UFO field is inherently responsible for its own self harming but please don't try to tell us that we have a sympathetic Mainstream media out there just waiting to supply us with the right stuff, because they don't give a rat's tossbag about the right stuff!

 

[Paul Kimball]

You're welcome to your opinion, even if it doesn't reflect how the media really works.

Of course the media is about entertaining people, because that's what the vast majority of the people want. But they also look to inform, particularly the independent producers who are responsible for creating most of the programming (the networks commission it, but generally don't make it).

And for every Joe Nickell or Michael Shermer (who have valid opinions, even if you disagree with them), there are a lot more Richard Hoaglands and Linda Moulton Howes and Steven Greers and Michael Horns and... well, it's a long list.

By the way, what exactly is the "right stuff"? Just things with which you agree? The Shermers and the Nickels of the world need to be part of the discussion too.

Having said that, I will agree that a lot of paranormal programming is repetitive. But blame small production budgets for that (do you know what it costs to make a good documentary??), and blame the small production budgets on the fact that paranormal documentaries are generally not big ratings draws.

Paul

 

[The Pair of Cats]

My opinion comes from watching decades of documentaries provided by the media, somewhere into the several hundreds.
That's it, Paul what is the right stuff?
Is it the content of "" Best Evidence". a great doco for sure but still just a reflection of your "opinion" and some of the stuff YOU agree with.
Is it any of the majority of the documentaries provided by the media. ....i don't think so!

I think the right stuff is probably in the mind of the beer holder!

You may be a part of the media but it also makes you part of the problem of the media. Your excellent documentary is nestled in amongst the regurgitated mainstream crap like a diamond nestled in amongst the turds!

And for every Joe Nickell or Michael Shermer (who have valid opinions, even if you disagree with them), there are a lot more Richard Hoaglands and Linda Moulton Howes and Steven Greers and Michael Horns and... well, it's a long list.

And the majority of the "turds" contain these outstanding contributors to the UFO field. lol

If the mainstream media was doing its job properly and researching who the forons are in the field maybe we, as the viewers wouldn't have to put up with the same old, tired, boring bullshit

Having said that, I will agree that a lot of paranormal programming is repetitive. But blame small production budgets for that (do you know what it costs to make a good documentary??), and blame the small production budgets on the fact that paranormal documentaries are generally not big ratings draws.

So how does the above quote relate to this being the UFO fields fault?
There are loads of solid people to interview and other cases to follow.
It's not UFOogy's fault that the Networks "choose" not fund any decent productions, that's their choice as you say, due to ratings etc.

The UFO field has no control over what the Networks do. Time after time we hear of respected people being interviewed for docos only to have their stuff being heavily edited or cut from the show entirely.
The field of UFOlogy only provides the materials for the shows. Ultimately the NETWORKS decide whether or not they will run it or not as you quite rightly have said, above.

 

[valiens]

Paul, do you talk to anyone else who makes mainstream docs about UFOs? If so, and if their work has been featured on a major network, ask them if anyone from the network asked them to highlight the skeptical point of view. I don't know that they have but it seems like these programs often end on a skeptical note as if to act as a network disclaimer that "We don't really believe this crap, folks. It's all gonna be okay."

I'm sure you've seen shows & specials like this so...where does that impulse come from? If you know anyone who has been involved in such a project, ask 'em. Put the subject to rest.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Paul, do you talk to anyone else who makes mainstream docs about UFOs? If so, and if their work has been featured on a major network, ask them if anyone from the network asked them to highlight the skeptical point of view. I don't know that they have but it seems like these programs often end on a skeptical note as if to act as a network disclaimer that "We don't really believe this crap, folks. It's all gonna be okay."

I'm sure you've seen shows & specials like this so...where does that impulse come from? If you know anyone who has been involved in such a project, ask 'em. Put the subject to rest.

Jeremy:

I know more than a few, especially my colleague Mike MacDonald here in Halifax, who has made a number of UFO-related films - to the best of my knowledge no-one at a network has ever interfered with the production of a film in the manner you suggest. Generally, if skeptics are included, it's because the filmmaker wants to include them - which is certainly the case when I've provided the skeptical point of view. It's called balance.

Paul

 

[Paul Kimball]

My opinion comes from watching decades of documentaries provided by the media, somewhere into the several hundreds.
That's it, Paul what is the right stuff?
Is it the content of "" Best Evidence". a great doco for sure but still just a reflection of your "opinion" and some of the stuff YOU agree with.
Is it any of the majority of the documentaries provided by the media. ....i don't think so!

I think the right stuff is probably in the mind of the beer holder!

You may be a part of the media but it also makes you part of the problem of the media. Your excellent documentary is nestled in amongst the regurgitated mainstream crap like a diamond nestled in amongst the turds!

But this is true of docs about almost anything, and television in general. The reason isn't some grand conspiracy - it has everything to do with the fact that most filmmakers are hacks, and not very good at what they do. The same can be said for almost any occupation.

And for every Joe Nickell or Michael Shermer (who have valid opinions, even if you disagree with them), there are a lot more Richard Hoaglands and Linda Moulton Howes and Steven Greers and Michael Horns and... well, it's a long list.

And the majority of the "turds" contain these outstanding contributors to the UFO field. lol

If the mainstream media was doing its job properly and researching who the forons are in the field maybe we, as the viewers wouldn't have to put up with the same old, tired, boring bullshit

There you go again with the loaded phrase "the mainstream media". But just what does that mean? The evil networks, who in my experience never interfere editorially in production the way you suggest? Or the producers and directors, who must have some sort of agenda I don't know about?

Again, you get the crap partly because that's what ufology has been peddling for decades, partly because lazy audiences don't demand more, and partly because most filmmakers aren't very good at what they do.

Do you really think for a second that if thousands and thousands of viewers called / wrote in to complain about the types of films that were being aired, the networks wouldn't respond, and commission more films like Best Evidence from more people like me? Only one thing drives the networks - ratings, and ad revenue that comes from it. So long as no one is complaining, they have little incentive to change.

Having said that, I will agree that a lot of paranormal programming is repetitive. But blame small production budgets for that (do you know what it costs to make a good documentary??), and blame the small production budgets on the fact that paranormal documentaries are generally not big ratings draws.

So how does the above quote relate to this being the UFO fields fault?

It doesn't, at least not directly - but I will note that most people who pontificate about films and filmmaking have no understanding of what is required, or how it's done, or what the audiences really want. That includes most people I've met in ufology over the years, who scream for films that will meet their expectations, but which would be commercial flops.

There are loads of solid people to interview and other cases to follow. It's not UFOogy's fault that the Networks "choose" not fund any decent productions, that's their choice as you say, due to ratings etc.

Again, yes it is the viewer's fault to a large degree, because they don't demand more in the kind of numbers that would force a change. It's also ufology's fault, because they keep peddling the stuff that makes me and others cringe.

The UFO field has no control over what the Networks do.

I'll agree with you there, although like any viewers, if enough of them complain, the networks will take notice.

Time after time we hear of respected people being interviewed for docos only to have their stuff being heavily edited or cut from the show entirely.

Well, d'uh. It's usually a 48 minute film (a standard 1 hour for TV) - how can you not edit stuff?

The field of UFOlogy only provides the materials for the shows. Ultimately the NETWORKS decide whether or not they will run it or not as you quite rightly have said, above.

Considering that it's the networks putting up the license fees which partly fund production (and trigger all other funding), they have every right to decide what they will commission. Those decisions, however, are based on their read of what the audience wants. If you want to change their minds, let them know about it.

Paul

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

Yes, but whose fault is that? Ufology's. They have plugged Roswell, and abductions, and government cover-up, for decades now, instead of focusing on better cases, data, and trying to make the argument for a serious scientific study of the UFO phenomenon.

That's because Roswell, abductions, and government cover-ups are all three highly relevant to the subject. They make the case for scientific study more persuasive, not less.

Ufology is, as you know, a very general term. Some elements of Ufology have been focusing on the data and the best cases for many years. Hynek wrote "The UFO Experience" in 72. Nicap was doing its thing before that, just like APRO. Some Ufologists have always been doing what you say needs finally to be done. This seems to indicate that the failure hasn't been due to UFOlogy in general but to all three: the hack journalists that you mentioned, the scientists who continually delineate this subject without doing any real research, and also some UFOlogists who may be focusing too much on the more sensational aspects of the subject. But, most importantly, on those responsible for covering up the truth about the UFO phenomenon. Just look at Rick Doty -- a man who worked for the establishment, fucked up UFOlogy in the 80s for the establishment. They prevent the truth from coming out by using various means of disinformation to control most people's attitudes towards UFOs. See the Robertson panel for proof of this claim.

It's silly to blame viewers of UFO documentaries for not complaining to networks about their crappy lineups.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

But this is true of docs about almost anything, and television in general. The reason isn't some grand conspiracy - it has everything to do with the fact that most filmmakers are hacks, and not very good at what they do. The same can be said for almost any occupation.

Yes but you are blaming the problem of bad Network programming on UFOlogy and it is clear that you are not adverse to pumping up your own ego by saying that most filmmakers are hacks. More than ever ,as i said before, you are part of the problem. Your derision of your documentary filmmaker colleagues just loses more credibility points as you are now starting to sound like one of the petty, sniping infighters that you say are the problem in the first place.

There you go again with the loaded phrase "the mainstream media". But just what does that mean? The evil networks, who in my experience never interfere editorially in production the way you suggest? Or the producers and directors, who must have some sort of agenda I don't know about?

Whaaaaat? You don't know what the mainstream media is and your in it?!!!
Try FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN. Any of those stimulate your braincells? Michael Shermer, valid opinion???? Those words don't even belong in the same sentence. Michael Shermer, the man who said that airline pilots do not qualify as valid observers of UFO's!!! To quote John McEnroe..."You CANNOT be serious!! This is one of the guys REGULARLY TROTTED OUT BY THE NETWORKS as one of their fair and balanced appraisals of the UFO field.
Another major loss of credibility points!

Of course the Networks don't "interfere editorially in production...". As long as your film has the words "Roswell", "Alien Abduction" or "Area 51", "UFO", "Best Evidence" or any other of the myriad of keywords that networks love, your show will get a gig. Sensationalism Sells.

Well, d'uh. It's usually a 48 minute film (a standard 1 hour for TV) - how can you not edit stuff?

Yeah. Just ask Joseph A. Citro!

 

[Paul Kimball]

But this is true of docs about almost anything, and television in general. The reason isn't some grand conspiracy - it has everything to do with the fact that most filmmakers are hacks, and not very good at what they do. The same can be said for almost any occupation.

Yes but you are blaming the problem of bad Network programming on UFOlogy and it is clear that you are not adverse to pumping up your own ego by saying that most filmmakers are hacks. More than ever ,as i said before, you are part of the problem. Your derision of your documentary filmmaker colleagues just loses more credibility points as you are now starting to sound like one of the petty, sniping infighters that you say are the problem in the first place.

There you go again with the loaded phrase "the mainstream media". But just what does that mean? The evil networks, who in my experience never interfere editorially in production the way you suggest? Or the producers and directors, who must have some sort of agenda I don't know about?

Whaaaaat? You don't know what the mainstream media is and your in it?!!!
Try FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN. Any of those stimulate your braincells? Michael Shermer, valid opinion???? Those words don't even belong in the same sentence. Michael Shermer, the man who said that airline pilots do not qualify as valid observers of UFO's!!! To quote John McEnroe..."You CANNOT be serious!! This is one of the guys REGULARLY TROTTED OUT BY THE NETWORKS as one of their fair and balanced appraisals of the UFO field.
Another major loss of credibility points!

You haven't answered my question, other than to trot out the tired old cliche that the major networks are the mainstream media, and, by implication, they have some sort of evil agenda. The reality is far more complicated than that, which I've tried to explain, but apparently to little avail. But if it makes things easier for you to just rail at the "mainstream media" then go right ahead.

Of course the Networks don't "interfere editorially in production...". As long as your film has the words "Roswell", "Alien Abduction" or "Area 51", "UFO", "Best Evidence" or any other of the myriad of keywords that networks love, your show will get a gig. Sensationalism Sells.

Actually, Best Evidence has nothing to do with sensationalism, which you would know if you had actually watched the film. The cases were picked by the very people you say should be consulted on a more regular basis - the UFO experts. There are no debunkers in the film. It's just the facts. And guess what - the film was pre-licensed to a major Canadian broadcast group, and is now selling around the world. Good films can be made, and financed, and the networks will gladly go along, so long as you can convince them that there's an audience for it, which to my mind is fair enough, because these are private corporations responsible to their shareholders at the end of the day, which means they have to make money. To expect otherwise is ridiculous.

Well, d'uh. It's usually a 48 minute film (a standard 1 hour for TV) - how can you not edit stuff?

Yeah. Just ask Joseph A. Citro!

If Citro has a problem, then he should just say "I'm never going to be interviewed again". But here's the thing - UFO researchers practically beg to be on camera. They might complain about how they were treated in a particular case, but then they go get interviewed again. Explain that to me?

And people think that the "mainstream media" are selling out. Hah!

As a public service, however, I once posted this list of things to watch for at UFO Updates, for those who might entertain the thought of being interviewed, because the truth is that there are good filmmakers, and bad filmmakers, and that has nothing to do with the networks, who generally just commission the film.

I stipulate that some producers are jerks. I've commented on this
subject at length in the past - in a thread called "Media & The
Truth." Still, I feel obliged to once again state:

a) not all documentary producers are like this;

b) if you tell us to "shove it", we'll just find someone else.

c) see (a) and (b) again.

Everytime you give an interview, you're taking a bit of a risk.
But there are ways to minimise that risk. Try the following
(this advice may get me drummed out of the "evil producers
union" but what the heck):

a) first, ask any producer for a resume and a sample of his
previous work on the subject (ie. UFOs). If this is his first
UFO film, ask for a sample of his previous work on another
subject - if he's treated them fairly, odds are he'll treat you
fairly. Check his website (we all have websites). If he won't
provide a previous film or a resume, walk away. If he doesn't
have a website, walk away;

b) whatever legal paperwork (contract, release form) should
include a clause to the effect of: "The producer will have
complete editorial and creative control over all aspects of the
film. The Subject / Interviewee (etc) will be given the
opportunity to screen a fine cut of the film, and will have an
absolute right to require changes only in the case of any
factually inaccurate statements by the Subject, or by others as
they relate to the Subject, or if any statements made by the
Subject are taken out of context within the film" This is
probably the best you can hope for, but it's better than
nothing. If a producer won't oblige (and the above is a standard
term in any contract we sign with a Subject), walk away (as most
of Michael Moore's victims should have);

c) never answer any question you do not feel comfortable
answering;

d) recognise that any answer you give longer than 30 seconds is
likely to be edited, not always to your liking (although (b)
above helps prevent your words from being twisted, like Michael
Moore does). A 2 hour lecture is a lousy idea. We'll ignore it.
Keep your answers short and to the point. In television,
soundbites rule. If you can't accept that, walk away;

e) always remember that every camera and microphone is
potentially live, even when the little red light isn't on;

f) always check your facts beforehand - if you say something
that's wrong, it's part of the record, you're stuck with it, and
you have no-one to blame but yourself when you end up looking
like an idiot;

g) ask to see a treatment, or at least a one-page synopsis, of
the film in advance;

h) before the interview begins, ask to take a look in the camera
viewfinder to see how you're being framed - tight close-up, mid
shot, etc. If the producer or director won't let you, definitely
walk away; and

g) remember that being "treated fairly" doesn't mean that the
producer, director or the final film will end up endorsing or
accepting your point of view.

Again, the above is not perfect, but it will help reduce the
risk. Consider them the equivalent of interview condoms.

Paul

 

[Paul Kimball]

Yes, but whose fault is that? Ufology's. They have plugged Roswell, and abductions, and government cover-up, for decades now, instead of focusing on better cases, data, and trying to make the argument for a serious scientific study of the UFO phenomenon.

That's because Roswell, abductions, and government cover-ups are all three highly relevant to the subject. They make the case for scientific study more persuasive, not less.

Ufology is, as you know, a very general term. Some elements of Ufology have been focusing on the data and the best cases for many years. Hynek wrote "The UFO Experience" in 72. Nicap was doing its thing before that, just like APRO. Some Ufologists have always been doing what you say needs finally to be done. This seems to indicate that the failure hasn't been due to UFOlogy in general but to all three: the hack journalists that you mentioned, the scientists who continually delineate this subject without doing any real research, and also some UFOlogists who may be focusing too much on the more sensational aspects of the subject. But, most importantly, on those responsible for covering up the truth about the UFO phenomenon. Just look at Rick Doty -- a man who worked for the establishment, fucked up UFOlogy in the 80s for the establishment. They prevent the truth from coming out by using various means of disinformation to control most people's attitudes towards UFOs. See the Robertson panel for proof of this claim.

It's silly to blame viewers of UFO documentaries for not complaining to networks about their crappy lineups.

You make a lot of unproven assumptions in there. First, that Doty did anything for "the establishment". What the heck is the "establishment"? If you mean the AFOSI, for reasons that likely had nothing to do with UFOs, then sure. If you mean a massive government conspiracy, then no.

And then there's the question of what the "truth" is about the UFO phenomenon. Apparently you think you know - or at least you think the government knows. Fine, but you can't prove this "truth" - as any one of a number of very good UFO researchers, like Mac Tonnies, or Jacques Vallee, or Greg Bishop, or Brad Sparks ... (the list goes on) will tell you. It's a mystery.

As for blaming the viewers, of course I do, to an extent, because audiences and ratings are what drive production, not some evil conspiracy. As the great Canadian rock band Trooper once sang, "if you don't like what you've got, then why don't you change it". Networks do indeed listen to what their viewers are telling them, whether its in the form of ratings or direct feedback.

The truth is that the audience for serious UFO-related programming is small. Very small. I know people in ufology don't believe that, but it's a fact. Of course, the audience for serious programming on almost any subject is pretty small. People prefer bread and circuses, otherwise PBS would be the only game in town.

So, who do you blame for giving the people what they apparently want?

Vox populi.

Paul

 

[Schuyler]

Well, we've got Paul here, who actually works in the media field and makes documentaries on UFOs, and we've got the pair of Cats dude, who watches them. This is a perfect real-world example of the "Cult of the Amateur" in action. Web 2.0 and its much ballyhooed 'user generated content' basically has content generated by users who have no particular expertise in the subject matter they are discussing. But they do have opinions, some of them very loud. This can easily drown out people who actually do have some expertise. Thank you, Paul, for providing some content that is actually useful and not just a matter of unsubstantiated and ill-informed opinion.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

Well, I guess I could be wrong about Doty. There really isn't any evidence, beyond his employment at AFOSI, to indicate that he actively engaged the UFO community in a deliberate attempt to keep it from getting closer to the "truth." Perhaps he wasn't a cover-uper after all. Just an asshole.

Still, some aspects of what he did appear to involve government sanctioned disinformation. I'm thinking in particular about the massive psychological warfare waged against poor Bennewitz, out of which emerged, thanks to the Aquarius document, the MJ12 affair. I'll put a question mark over his name from now on, instead of a big "X."

 

[The Pair of Cats]

This is a perfect real-world example of the "Cult of the Amateur" in action. Web 2.0 and its much ballyhooed 'user generated content' basically has content generated by users who have no particular expertise in the subject matter they are discussing.

Who include yourself it seems.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

You haven't answered my question, other than to trot out the tired old cliche that the major networks are the mainstream media, and, by implication, they have some sort of evil agenda. The reality is far more complicated than that, which I've tried to explain, but apparently to little avail. But if it makes things easier for you to just rail at the "mainstream media" then go right ahead.

You keep asking me what i mean by "Mainstream Media", then you answer the question in the very next paragraph.
The bottom line is money. Since you don't seem to know what the "mainstream media" means as a phrase and to use your words.."that the major networks are the mainstream media.." I will tell you. The mainstream media are the networks who supply television programming to the "main" television viewing audience, which is to say the people who watch the major networks. The same networks who pay you money so that they can air yours and any other filmmakers wares on their network at any time that they wish or not.
They do have an agenda. It's called making lots of money from selling the advertising space that occurs during your documentary.
You are obviously in the industry to make money like any other TV celeb UFO authoritarian otherwise you wouldn't do it.

Who cares if i'm not a documentary film maker. The intricate details of such are not relevent when you can clearly see the programming right in front of you. It's in the TV guides, it's on the network promos. They even tell you what's going to be on.

Actually, Best Evidence has nothing to do with sensationalism, which you would know if you had actually watched the film. The cases were picked by the very people you say should be consulted on a more regular basis - the UFO experts. There are no debunkers in the film. It's just the facts. And guess what - the film was pre-licensed to a major Canadian broadcast group, and is now selling around the world. Good films can be made, and financed, and the networks will gladly go along, so long as you can convince them that there's an audience for it, which to my mind is fair enough, because these are private corporations responsible to their shareholders at the end of the day, which means they have to make money. To expect otherwise is ridiculous.

I have seen your film. although not in a while. As i said before a good film but it doesn't set the world on fire by any means. It hasn't appeared on any TV here for a while though. And good for you that it is being sold around the world, you must be making good money from it.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Actually, Best Evidence has nothing to do with sensationalism, which you would know if you had actually watched the film. The cases were picked by the very people you say should be consulted on a more regular basis - the UFO experts. There are no debunkers in the film. It's just the facts. And guess what - the film was pre-licensed to a major Canadian broadcast group, and is now selling around the world. Good films can be made, and financed, and the networks will gladly go along, so long as you can convince them that there's an audience for it, which to my mind is fair enough, because these are private corporations responsible to their shareholders at the end of the day, which means they have to make money. To expect otherwise is ridiculous.

I have seen your film. although not in a while. As i said before a good film but it doesn't set the world on fire by any means. It hasn't appeared on any TV here for a while though. And good for you that it is being sold around the world, you must be making good money from it.

Your profile info says that you're from Adelaide, Australia. I'm curious - how did you see Best Evidence? It's only aired on Canadian TV so far, hasn't been sold on DVD, and hasn't been sold into the Australian market. So, if you are really from Down Under, how could you have seen the film?

 

[Paul Kimball]

Well, we've got Paul here, who actually works in the media field and makes documentaries on UFOs, and we've got the pair of Cats dude, who watches them. This is a perfect real-world example of the "Cult of the Amateur" in action. Web 2.0 and its much ballyhooed 'user generated content' basically has content generated by users who have no particular expertise in the subject matter they are discussing. But they do have opinions, some of them very loud. This can easily drown out people who actually do have some expertise. Thank you, Paul, for providing some content that is actually useful and not just a matter of unsubstantiated and ill-informed opinion.

Thanks for the support, but PoC is entitled to his opinion about the quality of the films being made, because at the end of the day that's the viewers call to make.

As to his comments about the nature of the industry, however, that's a different story. But people are free to believe whatever they want.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

You are right, Paul (Best Evidence: The top Ten UFO Cases).
I apologise, I may not have seen it after all. I have a friend who gets hold of imported DVD’s and VHS tapes at regular intervals and I might have seen it with him but I am really not sure. Very probably not!

I thought you said it was sold worldwide. Everywhere except Australia and anywhere else, it seems. I guess that none of the TV networks here have picked it up yet, is that right? The deal has not been finalized? As my knowledge of how the media works is limited please feel free to enlighten me.
It will be good to see a decent factual film on the subject after such a long time!


Therefore I am looking forward to, sometime in the current millennium, seeing it come “down under” and I am sure I will find it to be worth the wait. Provide, that is, someone doesn’t post it on youtube or videogoogle before then.

I may have mistook it for another, similarly titled Documentary like UFO : The Best Evidence , the one with George Knapp presenting and with Stanton Friedman, Linda Moulton Howe and Budd Hopkins, et al. UFO's: The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 1 or UFO’s-The Best Evidence Caught On Tape 2, or Evidence: The case for NASA UFOs, or this gem, Fake UFOs: Best Evidence. And so it goes on and on and on.

There are so many docos with almost the same title it’s hard to tell what I might be watching. You would think that some of these Documentary filmmakers would at least have some shred of originality in the titling of their stuff. I mean you wouldn’t want to get the more, factual A-grade product mixed up with the z-grade rubbish now would we. Or is that some sort of filmmakers trick that we mere viewers are not aware of? Hmmm, or do they all title their stuff the same because Networks like titles that the viewers can remember or can be fooled with?

 

[Paul Kimball]

You are right, Paul (Best Evidence: The top Ten UFO Cases).
I apologise, I may not have seen it after all. I have a friend who gets hold of imported DVD’s and VHS tapes at regular intervals and I might have seen it with him but I am really not sure. Very probably not!

I thought you said it was sold worldwide. Everywhere except Australia and anywhere else, it seems. I guess that none of the TV networks here have picked it up yet, is that right? The deal has not been finalized? As my knowledge of how the media works is limited please feel free to enlighten me.

Actually, I said "selling around the world" which is shorthand for "it has a distributor who is in the process of selling it around the world". However, I can see how that could have been confusing. The film has already sold to TVNZ in New Zealand. I hope to hear of other sales soon, including Australia.

It will be good to see a decent factual film on the subject after such a long time!

There are more than a few good films out there on the subject. I would suggest you take a look for two by a colleague of mine here in Halifax, Mike MacDonald - The Shag Harbour UFO Incidenct, and Northern Lights. See www.roadhousefilms.ca

Therefore I am looking forward to, sometime in the current millennium, seeing it come “down under” and I am sure I will find it to be worth the wait. Provide, that is, someone doesn’t post it on youtube or videogoogle before then.

If they do, I can guarantee that it will be gone shortly thereafter - copyright infringement is a serious matter.

Having said that, I have posted clips from the film on YouTube. You can view one at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gwmeq-tdg5I

You can also see a clip from Fields of Fear, a 2005 film I did on Canadian cattle mute investigator Fern Belzil, at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiY3tgZE3jc

There are other clips of various UFO-related material at my YouTube site, which you can find through links at the above-noted clips.

I may have mistook it for another, similarly titled Documentary like UFO : The Best Evidence , the one with George Knapp presenting and with Stanton Friedman, Linda Moulton Howe and Budd Hopkins, et al. UFO's: The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 1 or UFO’s-The Best Evidence Caught On Tape 2, or Evidence: The case for NASA UFOs, or this gem, Fake UFOs: Best Evidence. And so it goes on and on and on.

Yes, it is a popular title, which can make things a bit confusing sometimes.

There are so many docos with almost the same title it’s hard to tell what I might be watching. You would think that some of these Documentary filmmakers would at least have some shred of originality in the titling of their stuff. I mean you wouldn’t want to get the more, factual A-grade product mixed up with the z-grade rubbish now would we. Or is that some sort of filmmakers trick that we mere viewers are not aware of? Hmmm, or do they all title their stuff the same because Networks like titles that the viewers can remember or can be fooled with?

Actually, Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Sightings was the most accurate title for the film, so I went with that. I have faith in the average consumer's ability to distinguish between my film and others with similar titles, especially the crappy ones (i.e. anything with Linda Moulton Howe in it).

Also, originality doesn't always work very well. If you were an average viewer, and saw a film called "Fastwalkers", would you know that it was about UFOs?

I didn't.

Paul

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Yeah it may have been that i saw a clip of it on YouTube.
Excellent. Hopefully Australian TV run it soon as i am looking forward to seeing it!

I am also glad to have had this discussion with you as you have given me further insight into the machinations of the Media, Mainstream or otherwise lol .

I don't agree with all that you have said but i appreciate you taking the time to discuss and argue with me on the subject. Thanks mate!