|
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/
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp