Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Best Evidence and Debunkers

When you see Best Evidence, you may well ask yourself - where are the usual "debunkers"?

Simple answer - they're not there.

In every film I've made about the UFO phenomenon / paranormal before this one, I've always given something close to equal time to both sides. In Stanton T. Friedman, Karl Pflock, Vaughn Rees and Kevin Randle all questioned aspects of Stan's work and beliefs. In Do You Believe in Majic, Karl once again had his shot. In Aztec 1948, it was Karl again, this time very effectively. In Fields of Fear, Kevin was on hand to counter the arguments of those who find something paranormal about so-called "cattle mutilations".

In short, I've established my bona fides as an even-handed filmmaker on this subject. I have nothing to prove in that regard.

This allowed me to take a different approach with Best Evidence. The job I took on here was not to give both sides a fair shot. Instead, it was to make a case that the evidence demands that the UFO phenomenon be taken seriously by the mainstream. In an interview I did with Stuart Miller for UFO Review last year, I half-jokingly referred to myself as Ufology's "Crown prosecutor" (at the time I was going after the exopols). In Best Evidence, my target was the indifference of the mainstream establishment, and the condescension of fundamentalist debunkers like Seth Shostak - you know, the guys who harp on Roswell ad nauseum, as if it was the only UFO case on record, while all the time ignoring cases like RB47, or Tehran.

Why do they do that?

Simple - because they can't explain those cases, so it's easier to just not talk about them.

Frankly, that ticks me off. Intellectual dishonesty always does.

So, my job in Best Evidence was to throw ten cases at them, and say, "hey, if you can explain all ten of these, then I'll shut up - but if you can't, then maybe you should put a sock in your high-handed dismissals of the UFO phenomenon, and take a closer look at it with an open mind."

I took the role of an advocate - not of a theory, like the ETH, or EDH, or whatever, but rather of the need to look more closely at the UFO phenomenon, and to treat it with the respect that quality, unexplained cases deserve.

Let's see if they have the guts and intellectual integrity to join that discussion.

Paul Kimball

4 comments:

Ray said...

Paul:

Do you have a press kit or a preview DVD you could send me so that I could have something to yak about on my blog? I don't have cable or satellite TV so I'll probably won't see "Best Evidence" even if it ends up airing here in the states. And with my dial-up ISP, I won't be seeing any YouTube clips either (I have to go to the library to watch that kind of stuff, depending upon a public access computer being available.)

One case that impressed me -- and I don't think it's ever been debunked -- is the Coyne-Helicopter incident that occurred in 1973 near Mansfield, Ohio. Maybe you can tell me in a private email if that case made the top ten. I saw Colonel Coyne on a talk show hosted by Dick Cavett. The topic was UFOs and even Carl Sagan couldn't come up with a good answer regarding what had happened. Of course, if Mr. Klass had been there, he would have offered his "It was a meteor" explanation.

Best,

Ray

Anonymous said...

Maybe you should upload your trailer on Disclose.tv ( http://www.disclose.tv )

Just a recommendation...

Tina

Paul Kimball said...

Ray:

Coyne didn't make the top ten list - as I recall, it was in the top 25 somewhere. It is indeed a good case.

I'll send along a preview DVD for review purposes when we have some made in the next week or two.

Paul

Anonymous said...

hey everybody

I figured it would be a good idea to introduce myself to everyone!

Can't wait to start some good conversations!

-Marshall

Thanks again!