My response to Robert Fulford's column, sent in an e-mail to Mr. Fulford a few minutes ago:
"Dear Mr. Fulford,
As a regular reader of The National Post, and an admirer or your work both there and elsewhere, I was intrigued to see you address, in today's paper, the UFO phenomenon.
As usual, your column was well-written, and eminently readable. However, I feel obliged to point out that your overall conclusion - unstated, but clear - that the UFO phenomenon is (a) solely tied to the "aliens-are-here" theory, and that (b) it is a bit wacky as a
result, ignores the substantial evidence that UFOs represent an objective, and as yet unexplained, reality, worthy of serious scientific, historical and journalistic attention and study. Indeed, until the late 1960's, they were a topic of not infrequent question and answer exchanges in the Canadian House of Commons (where future Manitoba premier and Governor General Edward Schreyer was one of the many MPs who had questions to ask), and were
investigated by the Royal Canadian Air Force and the RCMP, before being turned over to the National Research Council.
Unfortunately, the serious study of the UFO phenomenon has been in decline since the late 1960's, for two reasons, neither of which has to do with the merit of the subject. The first relates to the Condon Report. For more information, please see my blog post, "The Condon
Effect in Canada," at:
The second factor has been the rise of what I have termed "Roswellism," i.e. conspiracy theory run amok. I have addressed this problem, which, unlike the Condon Effect, is an internal problem amongst UFO researchers, with columns at:
I would encourage you to take a quick look at these three columns, which will show, I think, that there is a serious side to the UFO phenomenon, and that it is worth further study - I may also be the only person to compare ufology to Thatcherism and Tony Blair's Third Way! :-)
At the moment, I am writing and directing a documentary for Space: The Imagination Station, about the phenomenon. Best Evidence: The Top 10 UFO Cases, will hit the airwaves sometime in the Spring of 2006. I will send you a DVD copy at that time. The goals of the documentary are to demonstrate that:
1. There is a need to take the UFO phenomenon seriously;
2. There is a need to focus on the evidence, and the best cases;
3. There is a need to entertain ALL theories that can be validated scientifically. These include the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis, but also include time travel (TDH, or Temporal Displacement Hypothesis) and the Extra-dimensional Hypothesis (or EDH).
Please note that these are not "pie-in-the-sky" theories, but rather represent the cutting edge of modern scientific research. See:
The technology to make any of these three theories a reality is well beyond our capabilities. But, as Dr. Kaku notes, it is not impossible.
The goal is to create a film that will approach the subject from this point of view, in an entertaining manner, that will provide viewers with a quick synopses of the best evidence that the UFO phenomenon is an objective reality, and should be taken seriously (thereby achieving #1 and #2, above).
At the end of the film, however, the experts will be asked to make sense of it all, and provide some possible explanations. It is here that the ETH, EDH and TDH will be briefly explained, and the viewers encouraged to open their minds to the serious, scientific possibilities of other realities - as well as to recognize that none of them have been proved, and that the possibility still exists that UFOs can be explained relatively mundane, terrestrial answers, whether as a result of further investigation, or perhaps natural phenomena or government experiments of which we are not yet aware.
The selection of cases was limited by the following criteria:
i. Must have multiple witnesses (i.e. corroboration) – this could take the form of a single person who has a sighting that is corroborated by radar, for example, or by communication from an aircraft to ground control;
ii. Anonymous witness testimony is not acceptable;
iii. The objects must have been observed at some point in the air (they are “unidentified FLYING objects” after all).
It may surprise you to learn that there are many cases that meet these criteria.
I hope you will give the "other side of the truth," i.e. the Best Evidence documentary, the same consideration that you have just given Susan Clancy's recent book.
There are, after all, always two sides to every story, and an objective analysis demands that both sides be considered, and weighed, before a conclusion can be reached.
As I said at the start, always a pleasure to read your columns.
Paul A. Kimball, LL.B
Redstar Films Limited