-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Questions for Paul Kimball
- Thread starter ondafritz
- Start date
Paul,
Even though I think it's been covered a few times in other forums...how can I, some random guy in the US, get to watch your documentary "Best Evidence". I know you mentioned it won't be out on DVD until 2008 at the earliest. I really don't think I could make a trip to Canada (and at that, not sure where I'd have to go
). Would the next best bet be for me to try and get the local MUFON organization to possibly consider having you out here to present the documentary?
I've been to the website and am more intrigued the more I read and see clips from the film. Thanks!
Even though I think it's been covered a few times in other forums...how can I, some random guy in the US, get to watch your documentary "Best Evidence". I know you mentioned it won't be out on DVD until 2008 at the earliest. I really don't think I could make a trip to Canada (and at that, not sure where I'd have to go
). Would the next best bet be for me to try and get the local MUFON organization to possibly consider having you out here to present the documentary?I've been to the website and am more intrigued the more I read and see clips from the film. Thanks!
P
Paul Kimball
Guest
herigonz said:Paul,
Even though I think it's been covered a few times in other forums...how can I, some random guy in the US, get to watch your documentary "Best Evidence". I know you mentioned it won't be out on DVD until 2008 at the earliest. I really don't think I could make a trip to Canada (and at that, not sure where I'd have to go
I've been to the website and am more intrigued the more I read and see clips from the film. Thanks!
Have film, will travel!
There are basically three options at the moment:
1. Hope a US network picks it up. Our distributor is working on it;
2. Wait for the DVD release, which should be early 2008; or
3. Catch it at a live screening, like the 2007 X-Conference. There are no more screenings lined up for 2007, but one never knows what will happen.
Thanks,
Paul
P
Paul Kimball
Guest
ondafritz said:
Aha - I get it now!
W
Woody Sideman
Guest
Hi Paul
I live in the UK. As far as I can tell we have not seen your show about MJ12. Do you know if it has ever been released here, and if so, what station?
Sadly, I still use the term "MJ12" in correspondence sometimes when in fact what I'm talking about is the early activities of the CIA (in their early existence, a very wide organisation). In the 1950s and 1960s the CIA had a very broad back. Perhaps that's not appreciated so much by the younger generation, who view the CIA as a political group that perform hidden functions to further American foreign policy.
Woody
I live in the UK. As far as I can tell we have not seen your show about MJ12. Do you know if it has ever been released here, and if so, what station?
Sadly, I still use the term "MJ12" in correspondence sometimes when in fact what I'm talking about is the early activities of the CIA (in their early existence, a very wide organisation). In the 1950s and 1960s the CIA had a very broad back. Perhaps that's not appreciated so much by the younger generation, who view the CIA as a political group that perform hidden functions to further American foreign policy.
Woody
P
Paul Kimball
Guest
marmer said:
I don't recall that David and Gene asked me this one, so...
Who knows? There are a couple of things I might be interested in working on with Rich, although they wouldn't have anything to do with ufology.
Paul
P
Paul Kimball
Guest
Woody Sideman said:
No, the film has never been shown in the UK, but the enhanced DVD is available from UFO TV - go to www.ufotv.com.
Paul
P
Paul Kimball
Guest
tommyball said:
Again, I don't recall this being asked, at least not exactly, so let's just say that we are actively looking into a sequel for BE, which means I can't really tell you what the next ten would be.
On my list of the next ten, however, I would certainly add the Father Gill case from New Guinea, the Falcon Lake incident from Canada, and the Vins-sur-Caramy case from France. Probably the 1952 Washington sightings, and the Valentich case as well.
Paul
Roger Knights
Skilled Investigator
I like the snippets of Best Evidence I've seen so far. I hope you do a sequel. Several of them.
Here's an idea for an unusual theme for a sequel. It would focus not on the cases, but on the Govt's attempts to mislead or thwart investigators, to dismiss cases with inappropriate swamp gas explanations, etc. It would be fun to watch ufologist-interviewees sarcastically describing their attempts to get straight answers. I suggest you title the sequel "Crooked Answers." It would plant questions in viewers’ minds like "Why Are They Acting Furtively?" or "What Are They Hiding?"
You could unofficially refer to it as "Worst Evidence"--because every instance is indirect and very inferential. But it would make up for the weakness of each individual episode with their quantity. And quantity has a quality all its own. (One expression of this is Goldfinger's "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, thrice is enemy action.") It would encourage the public to demand a better set of answers than it’s been given, and a real explanation.
Of course a great many run-arounds, evasions, obfuscations, half-truths, preposterous "pelicanistic" dismissals, can be attributed to the bureaucratic instinct to cover up, bureaucratic ineptness, etc. Well, if the bureaucrats who are feeding the public this baloney were made to look foolish, and the public were shown to be entitled to better-quality responses, that at least would be something.
Further, I suspect that such an approach to the topic would be convincing to a segment of the public that isn't reachable by more head-on lines of argument. In particular, I think that people in law enforcement and "intelligence" would be impressed, because they, unlike scientists, are in the habit of weighing probabilities and thinking in terms of the weight of the evidence--and they often give great weight to "patterns of suspicious behavior."
Here's an idea for an unusual theme for a sequel. It would focus not on the cases, but on the Govt's attempts to mislead or thwart investigators, to dismiss cases with inappropriate swamp gas explanations, etc. It would be fun to watch ufologist-interviewees sarcastically describing their attempts to get straight answers. I suggest you title the sequel "Crooked Answers." It would plant questions in viewers’ minds like "Why Are They Acting Furtively?" or "What Are They Hiding?"
You could unofficially refer to it as "Worst Evidence"--because every instance is indirect and very inferential. But it would make up for the weakness of each individual episode with their quantity. And quantity has a quality all its own. (One expression of this is Goldfinger's "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, thrice is enemy action.") It would encourage the public to demand a better set of answers than it’s been given, and a real explanation.
Of course a great many run-arounds, evasions, obfuscations, half-truths, preposterous "pelicanistic" dismissals, can be attributed to the bureaucratic instinct to cover up, bureaucratic ineptness, etc. Well, if the bureaucrats who are feeding the public this baloney were made to look foolish, and the public were shown to be entitled to better-quality responses, that at least would be something.
Further, I suspect that such an approach to the topic would be convincing to a segment of the public that isn't reachable by more head-on lines of argument. In particular, I think that people in law enforcement and "intelligence" would be impressed, because they, unlike scientists, are in the habit of weighing probabilities and thinking in terms of the weight of the evidence--and they often give great weight to "patterns of suspicious behavior."