Mirage Men

[rhcball]

It came out early, finished it yesterday. Walter Bosley doesn't come out looking too hot.

I can't really gauge the value of the book. It did give me some opportunities to observe the faultiness of my thinking, though--there were at least two occasions where certain content triggered a quick and broad judgment ('the UFO subject is all government deception' or 'my God they really have been here')--the second 'conclusion' coming on the heels of a somewhat dramatic interview with Kit Green. Pilkington describes himself going through the same process, but as is typical with the subject, after a few minutes the glow of certainty fades and one returns to question mark status.

Maybe it's just a further lesson in having to accept that the issue will never be settled. That's a nice dream, but for me, my feeble little mind has a very hard time balancing itself comfortably in the middle ground. Perhaps another ten or fifteen similar books will finally complete the re-wiring process.

Anyone else read it yet?

(Also, maybe something of interest--Richard Doty took the author onto Kirtland with no problems, which struck me as odd, as I was under the impression that he had a falling out with the Air Force. The visit was in 2006.)

(Another thing--the book has some discussion of radar with regards to its manipulation by military agencies, which has been in existence for as long as the modern UFO phenomenon...it might take a bite out of radar's status as some sort of sacred evidence...)

 

[rhcball]

Here's Colin Bennett's review, he's always up for a good time: 2

(The review actually starts on the site's main page, two long paragraphs concerning the "Fortean" circle from which Mark Pilkington emanates)

 

[Walter Bosley]

I made my comments about Mirage Men in Nick Redfern's review post about the book on UFO Mystic. I'll add here that Pilkington and his buddy John live up to the description in Colin Bennett's review linked above. The interview I gave them has been altered and spun.

Re: Doty's alleged falling out with the USAF and his access to Kirtland... Well now, things are not always what they seem, kiddies... heh heh heh (Also, consider that retirees are allowed to go on bases...)

 

[rhcball]

I made my comments about Mirage Men in Nick Redfern's review post about the book on UFO Mystic. I'll add here that Pilkington and his buddy John live up to the description in Colin Bennett's review linked above. The interview I gave them has been altered and spun.

I was suspicious of the way your later comments were riddled with ellipses (...). As if you were a drooling idiot struggling to put a sentence together.

After a further 24 hours, my general impression of the book is dimming. I probably had unrealistic expectations. There's a lot of rehash of stuff already out there, and interviews with professional liars don't add up to much more than entertainment.

I do admit to envying Doty's career. I think I'd be quite happy to screw with UFO researchers for a living.

 

[Walter Bosley]

'Drooling idiot'?? Wow, so provocative!

The ellipses were intentional, for humorous 'dramatic pause', but I should not expect an emasculated moron such as yourself to comprehend that...

 

[rhcball]

'Drooling idiot'?? Wow, so provocative! The ellipses were intentional, for humorous 'dramatic pause', but I should not expect an emasculated moron such as yourself to comprehend that...

I think there's some misinterpretation going on. I was referring to the way Pilkington quoted you in the book, adding lots of dot-dot-dot to make you look like a nutcase. I was working under the assumption that you probably weren't talking the way he portrayed it, as the 'dungeons and dragons' introduction made it obvious there was a bit of an agenda at work.

...Conversely, if I'm missing the boat and that part of your interview was supposed to be humorous, it didn't come out looking that way.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Oh for crying out loud! I totally misunderstood -- sorry!!!

---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 PM ----------

Let me say again, mea culpa. I completely misread that...

I just figured out my mistake: In my post above I used ellipses, but RHC was commenting on a segment in the book that uses ellipses. I thought he was commenting on my use of ellipses in the post! Doh!

 

[rhcball]

See, my handlers were right--communicating to you AFOSI guys is tricky business.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Yeah!!

 

[dyingsun]

Yeah!!

(Sorry to interject, but please continue )

 

[Walter Bosley]

Yes, somebody besides me continue!!

 

[xLordSummerislex]

I have to admit to quite enjoying the book, however, having read Walter's comments elsewhere about how he was misquoted, it does cast question marks over a big chunk of the content. Having said that, there's a fair amount in the book that's been published elsewhere (Project Beta, various of Nick Redfern's books, Jenny Randles' book on MIBs which suggesed AFOSI might be deliberately muddying the waters), so there's no major revalations in the book if you're up on the subject. The stuff about radar ghosting and the development of UAVs was interesting, though I'd imagine probably available in books on aviation technology (which I'd probably never get round to reading, so useful in that regard).
That Colin Bennett review was a bit... odd. I have no idea what he's on about when he goes on about a cabal of English Protestants? He also bangs on about Paul Devearaux being a debunker, despite him having been instrumental in formulating the earthlights theory of UFOs, which is as valid (if not more so) than any. Sounds he has some kind of running feud with the mainstream of ufology/Forteans in the UK, which presumably colours his perceptions.

 

[rhcball]

That Colin Bennett review was a bit... odd. I have no idea what he's on about when he goes on about a cabal of English Protestants? He also bangs on about Paul Devearaux being a debunker, despite him having been instrumental in formulating the earthlights theory of UFOs, which is as valid (if not more so) than any. Sounds he has some kind of running feud with the mainstream of ufology/Forteans in the UK, which presumably colours his perceptions.

Yeah, Bennett is at war with the proper Fortean Times crowd. I tend to agree with him that the magazine has lost its sense of the magical. But by the same token, though, Bennett goes too far in the other direction--there's an old article on the site where he tears into Stanton Friedman for soliciting information regarding a "whistleblower's" mental health history, which, considering the revelations, was hardly an outrageous move on Friedman's part (I think the guy in question's name was Wolf--it was a lot of Burisch-resque BS).

After Bennett wrote his book on George Adamski, he spoke at Fortean Times' 'UnConvention,' and I guess he was asked whether or not Adamski had a real encounter with The Other or not. Bennett wouldn't give them a straight yes or no answer, and the gathered masses apparently went bananas in outrage. In that sort of scenario, I'll side with Bennett every time. I think that story serves as a good symbol for the Fortean Times 'scene' as a whole, and it's why I kick myself every time I spend twelve dollars on an issue.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Educate me: Was Fort himself a skeptic? I was under the impression he was somewhere in the middle, i.e. not demanding of concrete answers and open to paranormal as much as not... I'm getting an impression that guys with an axe to grind on the paranormal are in 'Fortean' groups... If I'm wrong, please clarify briefly...

 

[xLordSummerislex]

You're more or less correct in your assessment of Fort, I guess you could sum up Forteanism (something Fort himself wasn't fond of) as an interest in the odd, without feeling the need to be pro or anti (unless the evidence strongly points one way or another). We have locally a skeptics group and a Fortean group, the two cross over to an extent, though someone defined the difference between the two as Forteans are skeptics with a sense of humour, and I'd say that was true to an extent.
Rhcball- I'd tend to agree that FT can tend to the dry these days, though, as with any monthly magazine (especially one that's been running for nigh on 40 years), it's always going to be a mixed bag. Don't really know much about the personalities involved, so can't really comment much more than that.