Sunday, May 20, 2007

Best Evidence - The Top 10

I've received a number of e-mails from folks who couldn't see Best Evidence because they don't live in Canada, asking what the final top 10 list was. Here it is, along with the people who appeared in each segment to comment:

10. Nuremberg, 1561 (note - this was actually an editorial decision on my part, as I bumped the case that came in at #10 so I could make the point about the pre-1947 nature of the UFO phenomenon, which a couple of people suggested I do) - Don Ledger, Stan Friedman

9. Skylab III - Brad Sparks, Stan Friedman

8. Yukon 1996 - Stan Friedman (I would have really liked to get Martin Jasek in this segment, and he agreed to do it, but time and budget just didn't allow for us to make it out to BC; Stan filled in admirably)

7. Malmstrom AFB 1967 - Captain Robert Salas, Dick Hall, Stan Friedman

6. Shag Harbour - Don Ledger

5. Santa Barbara Channel, 1953 (the "Kelly Johnson" case) - Brad Sparks, Stan Friedman

4. McMinnville, 1950 (the Trent photos) - Bruce Maccabee, Brad Sparks

3. Rendlesham Forest - Colonel Charles Halt, Dick Hall, Nick Pope

2. Tehran, 1976 - Stan Friedman, Bruce Maccabee

1. RB47, 1957 - Brad Sparks, Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Bailey (who also discussed his own RB47 incident over the Gulf of Mexico five years later), Stan Friedman

In the closing segment, it is Mac Tonnies who gets the final word.

Paul Kimball

5 comments:

not_anonymous said...

Any update on availability of a DVD?

Aaron said...

Paul -

I added keywords "Paul Kimball" to my Tivo on the off-chance it airs down here in the near future.

Assuming that doesn't happen, will there a DVD (or HD-DVD) I can buy?

Aaron

Anonymous said...

With al do respect I don't think any Top Ten List is complete without something from ABBA.

Mysterio

Dr. X said...

Hi, Paul---

I was wondering if you have read about a relatively recent "new explanation" posted on http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=299 regarding the Rendlesham case?

The link noted here is part 1 of 2 on this site, and I recommend reading both parts and the related follow-up posted comments by forum members for details.

While the new information is anonymous, and presents a prosaic, if bizarre, kind of interpretation of the incident being an elaborate practical joke that got out of hand, involving a possibly intoxicated USAF HH53 helicopter ARRS crew, and which contains enough detail that could and should be investigated, it seems this story has a number of holes in it that might imply a "second-level" cover-up or interpretation of the original government dismissal and/or possible cover-up of the initial incident at the time it occurred and since.

It's a tough question, I know, since the info provided is still rather limited and anonymous, at least publically on the site so far, but I was wondering what you and others might think about this new version of the Rendleshem events.

There are many ways of looking at the whole story, and the new "practical joke/hoax" version of same, but I just wondered what you thought, given the new story.

Why would this new story come out now? What would tend to suggest or confirm, one way or the other, that either the "hoax gone bad" story or, in turn, a cover-up of the original possible cover-up (limited hang-out theory) is more probable?

Is there a third alternative which might be more likely than either the Rendleshem incident being an actual "ufo crash landing" or a "hoax" involving a dropped Apollo test-recovery capsule?

I recall Vallee speculating that the incident might have been staged as a kind of psyop, with special effects, to test or gauge the reaction of elements of the military to a convincing _simulation_ of an actual ufo incident, some kind of process to calibrate or observe how military personnel might react and what they would subsequently do. Very curious, regardless of what may have actually originally happened.

Also, I was curious about what other, say, top 11 to 25 or 30 uap or ufo cases did you originally consider for inclusion in your documentary, in order of potential significance and evidentiary value, that did not make the top 10 "cut" and, briefly, why they became "also-rans?"

Your top 10 provided leads about a couple cases I was unaware of, and intend to look into, and for that reason and others, it would be interesting to know what other important cases beyond the top 10 were both considered and rejected.

Might there be a sequel at some future point, covering some of these other cases, or a "version 2.0" of the top 10 doc, including revisions/updates that provide ex post facto data that may emerge and/or other relevant, important cases?

From everything I've read about your documentary so far, it seems like you did a damn fine job covering the bases and presenting an overview of the top 10 cases chosen, but not having seen it yet, I too was wondering when a DVD of it might be available, and what the likely cost, including shipping and handling, may be. Will there be bonus stuff included on the DVD that didn't appear on the broadcast and, if so, what bonus material can we expect to be added?

Do you have any thoughts about or plans to provide the documentary in a digital downloadable "e-doc." form for those may want to see it as soon as released, using PayPal or equivalent, for those us who want it right away, and as an alternative for the cost-conscious and lazy, like myself? [*grin*]

Other than what might be a concern about digital copy protection or DRM issues, since you're a multi-media kinda guy, you might find what I'm proposing, if you can effectively protect your financial interests, a useful and broader form of profitable distribution than just mailing out DVD's when paid for via back and forth snail mail. At least consider the variables in that idea vs. how you plan further paid distribution of copies of the documentary.

OK, that's _my_ "top 10" questions and related comments. More than enough for one reply post. I'm learning to restrain myself, somewhat. Ha! 8^}

---Dr. X

Paul Kimball said...

Guys:

The DVD will include a bonus disc with extras, mostly interview stuff that didn't make the final film, a lot of which is fascinating. Some of it will be people talking about cases that didn't make the list.

Dr. X:

I doubt there will be a "Version 2.0" film anytime soon, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I think I've said all that I have to say about the UFO phenomenon for a while, at least in terms of filmmaking. While some people think of me as the "UFO filmmaker", I've actually done more work over my career on other subjects (especially music), and I'm looking forward to working on non-UFO related projects again. I start shooting a classical music docuentary next month, in fact.

As for the cases that didn't make the top 10, I'm writing an article for Anomlaist Magazine that will address some of them, and I mention some in various interviews I've done (Binnall of America, Strange Days... Indeed, which should be available this week), so that's where you can find that info, or at least some of it.

Remember, however - with the exception of Nuremberg, I didn't pick the cases - a surveyed panel of experts did. I personally didn't vote for Rendlesham, for example - not because it's a bad case, but because I think there are stronger ones out there. I ranked the Kelly Johnson case higher. McMinnville troubles me a bit, so I didn't vote for it on my list. I like Shag Harbour, but did not vote for the Yukon case (again, a good case, just not in my top ten). And so on.

Thanks for the link re: Rendlesham - I'll check it out.

Mysterio:

You crazy cat, you! :-)

Paul