From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 10:31:09 -0300
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 10:30:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Paul Kimball's Best Evidence - Ledger


>From: Stuart Miller <stuart.4.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 19:39:23 +0100
>Subject: Re: Paul Kimball's Best Evidence

>>From: Paul Kimball <TheRobieShark.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 13:45:42 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Paul Kimball's Best Evidence

>>>From: Stuart Miller <stuart.4.nul>
>>>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 15:56:52 +0100
>>>Subject: Paul Kimball's Best Evidence

><snip>

>>>This List, along with others, has used up copious volumes of
>>>bandwidth in the past berating the quality and moral integrity
>>>of previous UFO documentaries and the people who have produced
>>>them. Oh how we love to complain about how we've been stabbed in
>>>the back, lied to, been victims of dishonest editing, etc., etc.

>>To be fair, there are a lot of shoddy documentaries out there,
>>and not just about the UFO phenomenon, so critiquing them is no
>>great wrong in my book... even if one of those films, in
>>someone's opinion, happens to be mine. But I agree with you
>>about the "stab in the back" stuff, and said so on SDI last week
>>- I've never met a documentary maker who purposefully went out
>>and said, "hey, let's screw this guy over, or treat him
>>unfairly." Usually, it comes down to the fact that the
>>documentary maker(s) have different opinions than you do, or
>>have reached different conclusions. There are, I suppose, the
>>exceptions that prove this rule, but I haven't met them, nor has
>>anyone I know who works in the industry.

>Well, I can think of two examples straight off the top of my
>head where the action on the part of the producer could best be
>described as malicious.

>Firstly, Peter Jennings treatment of Roswell and Stan was at the
>very least uncalled for and the testimony of two retired RAF
>pilots in a British documentary, conducted outside, was finished
>off with the call of a cuckoo as the last words were spoken. Now
>if that isn't putting the boot in, then I don't know what is.

>>>Here at last is a documentary produced not only by someone who
>>>knows what he's talking about but who has also delivered a fact
>>>driven, objective piece of work featuring people who also know
>>>what they're talking about.

>>It's at this point that I must object to your subject title.
>>It's not really "Paul Kimball's Best Evidence" - it's

><snip>

>I mean no disrespect to the list of names that followed Paul, but
>someone had to think it up and put it together. If it had turned
>out awful you would have copped the blame so you might as well
>get the kudos while the going is still good.

>What I tried to say in my previous post, and didn't elucidate
>too clearly, is that people make great contributions to this
>subject but often don't get acknowledged. Be it books, research,
>whatever, we snipe and criticise but don't often say "Well
>done".

I think the NOVA hatchet job on Budd Hopkins deserves special
mention. If ever there was a effort to apologise [up front] to
the scientific community by a documentary producer anxious to
curry favor at the expense of the data, this is a prime example.

But it is nice to have a few sympathetic yet informed producers
out there.

Paul is informed but not co-operative by the way...

He's held in check by a series of ugly pictures that he doesn't
want anyone to see. I have shots of him with his hat off.


Don Ledger



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/