Eternal Kiss Blog

Just an FYI - check out my new blog, Eternal Kiss, at:

www.ekfilm.blogspot.com

It will be the central repository for information about a feature film I am currently working to get off the ground, with principal photography tentatively slated for late Spring 2006.

Paul Kimball

Fields of Fear - Update

For anyone wondering why I haven't posted as much as I usually do this past week, I am in the middle of editing the Fields of Fear documentary right now, which takes about 14 to 16 hours of my time each day (although I did manage to find enough time today to catch David Cronenberg's latest, A History of Violence, with Linda).

For folks who want some background information on the subject of animal mutilations, I suggest you read Operation Animal Mutilation: Report of the District Attorney, First Judicial District, State of New Mexico. The report, which was the result of an extensive investigation by former FBI agent Kenneth Rommel, can be found on-line at http://www.parascope.com/articles/0597/romindex.htm. One can also track down a copy of Linda Moulton Howe's film, Strange Harvest, which is where the UFO angle in terms of the animal mutilation phenomenon really began. Another place to look, if you can find a copy, is Mute Evidence, by Daniel Kagan and Ian Summers. In the book, they sum up the problems with Howe's film. "This wasn't research," they write, "it was the delivery of dogma."

However, the Rommel report, while being accepted by the authorities, was rejected by many ranchers, who were convinced that there was more to the mutilation phenomenon than just the work of predators. Amateur investigators, among them Canada's Fern Belzil, continue to look into cases, and continue to reject the predator explanation as valid. You can see Fern's work at his website, http://ufobc.ca/Fern/. Above is a picture of the remains of one of his mutilation cases. The work of aliens, or predators? Or perhaps something (or someone) else?

Our film will provide an objective analysis, and, hopefully, some answers.

Paul Kimball

Stan Friedman on UFO Planet - Transcript

The transcript for Stan Friedman's appearance this past weekend on UFO Planet can be found at:

http://www.ufo-planet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1162

Future chat guests will include authors Nick Redfern (www.nickredfern.com) and Mac Tonnies (www.posthumanblues.blogspot.com), two of my favourites.

Paul Kimball

The Latest from The Empire of the Odd

One of my favourite blogs, as regular readers know, is The Empire of the Odd, which you can find at: http://www.oddempire.org/weblog/ (also on the "Other Side of Truth Reading List").

Here is today's column, which I found interesting:

"Nonrandom Thoughts.

Some definitions

Skeptic; One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

Cynic; A person whose outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative.

Debunker; To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug. (http://dictionary.reference.com/)

People have called me a cynic. I am scornful of some people. Does that make me a cynic?

Sometimes; I might not validate you, I won’t agree with you, unless you say something that I can agree with. When you don’t I don’t.

Is that cynical?

Am I a debunker? No doubt.

Mac Tonnies wrote a definition of a debunker that I quite like.

Debunkers comprise the most virulent of contemporary self-described “skeptics.” There is nothing inherently unsound about debunking, contrary to the many appeals on behalf of the “pro” side of any given paranormal controversy. But in order to debunk, the subject being debunked must be bunk. Valid, substantiated evidence cannot be debunked until new evidence supplants or alters it.

This is certainly true. Debunking is simply finding the truth of the bunk. Finding the truth that something is bunk. Is that a bad thing? Not in that light. When I debunk something, I have a reason. I don’t just do it because I dislike you. I might pay more attention to your web page if I dislike you. If you flame me I’m probably going to flame you back. If you deal with me in a reasonable manner, I’m likely to be very reasonable. There is evidence to support this.

Am I a skeptic? Certainly. It’s self evident.

Am I unreasonable? I am about some things. I’m unreasonable about liars and I intensely dislike bullies.

Is that unreasonable? Only if you are a liar and a bully. You will find me very unreasonable.

However; here is the crux of the issue;

I question myself. I ask myself these questions daily. I look in the mirror and ask, “Is this right? Is that fair?” Are you right? Are you being fair?

My detractors never ask those questions. Too intent on blaming others they don’t have time for self reflection. To intent on saying “it’s not my fault, it’s THEM that caused it.” They have no recursive thoughts, they don’t’ self reflect, they are spiritually dead.

They take no responsibility for the place they are or the people they have become.

I pity them.

I pity people who would listen to them. They have little to say. They find expression difficult.

They sound like children."

This ought to make him the target of feigned outrage by the True Believers... which shows that the Odd Emperor must be doing something right!

And kudos to Mac Tonnies (a good guy, despite his evil Cyberpunk alter ego) - his definitions, mentioned by the Odd Emperor above, are spot on.

Paul Kimball

The Other Side of Happiness, Vol. II

Also critical to maintaining a happy-go-lucky outlook on life are your friends. In my case, I've been blessed since high school with a core group of old buddies who I can always rely on, and vice versa. Here's an old photo of five of us (sadly, "Kill" was taking the photo, so does not appear).

From left to right, the loyal members of SOPS - Ignatius (better known as "Ig"), Spot, the Control Monkey (now known as Zeus), Rico, and yours truly, aka Stuart.

Boy, I sure had a lot more hair, and a lot less "midriff," back then!

Good times, great friends (and one brother, aka Rico), and great beer! What could be better??

Paul Kimball

Dear Mr. Fulford...

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:

http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2005/08/condon-effect-in-canada-part-i.html

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:

http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2005/06/end-of-roswellism-creation-of.html

http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2005/08/combating-condon-effect-sturrock.html

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:

http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2005/08/kaku-on-et-time-travel-space-travel.html

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.

Best regards,

Paul A. Kimball, LL.B
President
Redstar Films Limited
http://www.redstarfilms.blogspot.com/

Robert Fulford on Abductions: Why Are Aliens So Boring?

Robert Fulford is one of Canada's best and most influential journalists, his profession since the summer of 1950, when he left high school to work as a sports writer on The Globe and Mail. He has since been a news reporter, literary critic, art critic, movie critic, and editor on a variety of magazines, ranging from Canadian Homes and Gardens to the Canadian Forum. He was the editor of Saturday Night for 19 years, 1968-1987, and has since been a freelance writer. His books include This Was Expo, Best Seat in the House: Memoirs of a Lucky Man, Accidental City: The Transformation of Toronto, and The Triumph of Narrative, the text of the Massey Lectures he delivered on CBC radio. His column appears in the National Post on Tuesdays in the Arts & Life section and on Saturdays on the Op Ed page. He is an officer of the Order of Canada and a senior fellow of Massey College.

You can check out his Web site by clicking here.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered (as I was enjoying today's National Post - while trying to chase a cold away with some Tim Horton's chicken noodle soup) that, to this sterling resume, Mr. Fulford can now add: "has written a column about the UFO phenomenon that is certain to get him labelled a debunker, klasskurtzian and a skeptibunkie."




From the National Post, Saturday, 8 October 2005, p. A19:

"Why Are Aliens So Boring?

The folklore of the 20th-century produced nothing more absurd, yet nothing more persistent, than the belief that creatures from other worlds habitually visit Earth, kidnap a few humans and then return them, apparently unhurt, to their homes. The alleged human vitims later describe their experiences in what scholars of alienography call 'abductee narratives.' These sound like tales told by idiots, but no one who cares about the popular imagination can be entirely indifferent to them.

Abductees report that some aliens say they are bringing world peace and others announce that their mission is war. But a strikingly high percentage appear to be carrying out a peculiar assignment, raiding the reproductive systems of their victims to collect DNA. 'My eggs were taken,' one typical abductee reported, and another said, 'sperm was sucked from my penis by a machine.'

Why? Extraterrestrials must be far smarter than we are (they travel distances our scientists can barely imagine) so anyone even mildly curious will wonder what they want with a substandard planet's genetic material. That in turn suggest another question to Susan A. Clancy, a Harvard psychologist and the author of Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens (Harvard University Press), the latest book on this phenomenon. Having interviewed dozens of abductees, and found them likeable and honest, Clancy writes about them with compassionate but sceptical understanding. She's not like the late John Mack, a psychiatrist at the Harvard medical school, who scandalized his colleagues by deciding that abductions actually took place. Clancy believes her subjects only in the sense that she believes they think they are telling the truth.

And she doesn't abandon her sense of humour. She asks why mentally superior aliens haven't anything better to do than hang around North America stealing our genes. 'Why are these genius aliens so dim?' she asks. 'After fifty years of abducting us, why are they still taking the same bits and pieces? Don't they have freezers?'

And why are aliens so boring? They often speak to abductees but they never say anything interesting. As Clancy has noted, not one of them sounds as engaging as an average human child. They recall those dead people who speak from the spirit world through table-tappers and similar mystics. The record shows that these communicants have never uttered even one interesting sentence. Most conversations consist of 'I saw your Uncle Leonard.' 'How is he?' 'Fine, sends his best.'

The reason is the same in both cases. The conversations are fictional and both abductees and spiritualists suffer from stunted imaginations. They are capable of one delirious flight of fancy, nothing more.

Clancy discovered that abductees share certain characteristics. They are not crazy, but they score high on a schizotypy test, which doesn't mean they are schizophrenic but suggest they have a weakness for fantasy and for thinking related to magic. Most of them believed in flying saucers before they were abducted.

In her view the aliens are entirely human creations, expressing fairly ordinary emotional needs. Most of us don't want to be alone and many of us yearn to believe there's something bigger than out there - and that it cares about us. Also, we want to feel special. 'Being abducted by aliens is a culturally shaped manifestation of a universal human need.' Abductees express these feelings by believing in a convenient story that can never be proved and therefore never disproved. They may also be terrified (and thus made to feel vulnerable) by recent discoveries in genetics and reproductive technology.

Clancy devotes careful attention to the mother and father of the abductee community, a New Hampshire social worker named Betty Hill and her postal worker husband, Barney. Believing they were abducted in 1961, they began hypnotherapy a few years later. That's how Barney deeply affected American mass culture by giving credibility to the little guys with big heads and wraparound eyes who have since appeared in everything from Close Encounters of the Third Kind to The X-Files.

Asked under hypnosis to draw an alien, Barney came up with a sketch that launched a thousand myths. In fact, he was reproducing a face he had seen 12 days earlier on a TV show, The Outer Limits. But by the time anyone figured that out the aliens Clancy calls 'macrocephalic space-waifs' had become permanently lodged in mass culture. As Clancy says, 'Betty and Barney Hill got their ideas from books, movies and TV. From then on, people got their ideas from books, movies, TV, and Betty and Barney Hill."

For the aggrieved (and I'm sure there will be many), you can e-mail Mr. Fulford at robert.fulford@utoronto.ca.

For the rest, consider this - in the past few weeks, the National Post, one of Canada's two national newspapers, has printed columns by two of its most respected columnists dealing with aspects of the UFO phenomenon (the first was Andrew Coyne's column on Paul Hellyer, see Don't Shoot the Messenger, http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2005/09/dont-shoot-messenger.html). This, I believe, is a result of the recent Exopolitics conference held in Toronto, which has indeed achieved more media attention for the UFO phenomeon (one of the goals of the conference organizers) - unfortunately, most of it has not been good. Call it the "Paul Hellyer factor."

Both Coyne and Fulford are well-read, intelligent, thoughtful, perceptive people - they are the kind of opinion-shapers that ufology needs to engage if it is ever to make any headway, and move away from being a fringe pseudo-science.

I'll do my part - I'll send them each a DVD copy of Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Cases. I've also sent Mr. Fulford a response, which can be found at: http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2005/10/dear-mr-fulford.html

But ufology should also do its part - no more conferences with former Ministers of National Defence (or anyone else, for that matter) citing Corso's The Day After Roswell, please.

Paul Kimball

Discovery Channel Report on Toronto Conference

This link will take you to the Discovery Channel's piece on the recent Toronto Exopolitics conference:

http://www.exn.ca/video/?video=exn20050927-aliens.asx

Listen in particular to some of Paul Hellyer's comments.

Is this really where ufology wants to go - a guy who bases his views on Corso's The Day After Roswell, and claims that the proposed return to the moon in 2018 is so that the United States can build an advance base to counter the aliens, and that we may be dragged into an interstellar war (or was that intergalactic??) as a result??

I suppose that's why the Chinese are planning to go there as well.

What a waste.

Paul Kimball

The Other Side of Happiness

People sometimes ask me why I'm almost always happy, even when the bank balance is approaching zero, there's no Kraft Dinner left in the cupboard when I get home at 5 am, or - even worse - Star Trek: Enterprise is being cancelled.

Well, d'uh!

Just thinking about my "better half" brings a smile to my face.

Here she is, above, in Flagstaff, Arizona, back in August, 2004, while we were on vacation.

For the record - Linda Wood, MA, LL.B, currently working as the Program Administrator at the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation. My film industry colleagues are always telling me she does a "great" job - much better than me, when I held the post back in 1998 - 1999.

And they're 100% correct!

Here she is, at left, being assimilated by the Borg - or, to be more precise, the Las Vegas Hilton, at the Star Trek Experience.


17 years together, and still as happy as we were when we first met.

Not as drunk, perhaps - but just as happy!

All hail Nathaniel Hawthorne - and Ig, you still owe me for the bet!!

Paul Kimball

Stan Friedman on UFO Planet

Stan Friedman will be appearing in a live chat session at UFO Planet (www.ufo-planet.net) this Sunday, October 9th, at 2PM EST (11AM PST, 7PM GMT).

Future guests include authors Mac Tonnies (www.posthumanblues.blogspot.com) and Nick Redfern (www.nickredfern.com), with more to come.

This is one of the best reasons to join UFO Planet, as only members are eligible to participate in the chat sessions.

Paul Kimball

Coalitions of the [Fill in the blank yourself]

In the interest of fairness, you can find Rich Reynold's explanantion for the UBC brouhaha at http://rrrgroup.blogspot.com/2005/10/ufo-blog-coalition-redux.html. It hasn't changed my take on things, but perhaps it will change yours.

Paul Kimball

Best Evidence - Update

Someone asked me the other day how we chose the cases for our forthcoming documentary Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Cases.

Well, here's the protocol that was used:

A select group of UFO experts was confidentially polled and asked to provide their top 10 list of the ten cases which offer the best evidence for the reality of the UFO phenomenon. Each case was assigned a point value, with #1 receiving 10 points, #2 receiving 9 points, and so on, down to #10, which will receive 1 point. The results of all the lists were then added together. Each case was also awarded a bonus of 2 points for the number of times it was selected by the experts. This was designed to provide balance, and recognize the significance of a case that might have been selected consistently, but not necessarily in the top 5 (I call this the "Bryan Trottier" rule, which, if you're a hockey fan, will probably make sense). The 10 cases receiving the most points comprising the top 10 list.

The selection of a case were limited only by the following minimal criteria:

i. Must have multiple witnesses (ie. 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).

The list that we got as a result is... well, I think it pretty much covers the Top 10 cases - and there are many cases with merit that obviously did not make the list. As one xpert said, it is really a "Ten of the Best" list.

Principal photography begins in November (we managed to pick up an interview with Dick Hall on our way back from Puerto Rico), with the film due for delivery to Space sometime in the late winter.

For reference, here is the statement of purpose for the film:

"The goals of the Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Cases documentary are:

1. The need to take the UFO phenomenon seriously;

2. The need to focus on the evidence, and the best cases;

3. The 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).

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."

While the UFO community is not the intended audience for the film, I hope they'll tune in (they may be surprised to see what cases did - and did not - make the list). The film is meant for the general public, and is intended to be a introduction to the subject of the UFO phenomenon for those who may not be familiar with it in any meaningful way, which is still the majority.

We'll see how it works out.

Paul Kimball

Words of Wisdom... From a "Wise" Man

Will Wise, who heads up the Project Blue Book Archive (www.bluebookarchive.org), the best research resource available on the Internet for people who want to study the Project Blue Book files, has left a comment here at The Other Side of Truth that is worthy of "Guest Column" status (Will must be honoured!!).

Here it is, in its entirety:

"Hi Paul:

It seems to me that any group that wants to set itself apart from the kooks, crooks, and spoilers of Ufology needs to adhere to a few key principles. There are probably more but I'll throw some ideas out.

1) Ignore the kooks, crooks, and spoilers. You just shouldn't take the bait from these people. Let your work stand on its own and don't give in to the desire to defend it from all comers. SETI does just fine and rarely, if ever, responds to criticism from a Ufologist. If your work is questioned by important sources within the mainstream respond in a dignified and intelligent manner and never stoop to personal attacks.

2) Build a consistent track record of objectivity and critical self-examination. Be your own worst critic and you won't find yourself caught off-guard by criticism from outside sources. If the criticism is valid then accept it gracefully and, indeed, with pleasure and then build on it. This kind of criticism is a GOOD thing and you should thank them (even if they acted like a first-class you-know-what) for their help.

3) Build bridges with those who matter. The world is run by political, academic, and corporate leaders and these are the people who count the most in terms of public opinion. We all may get one vote on election day but on most every other day the opinions of certain people matter more than others. Focus your efforts on these individuals and try to build bridges between what they believe and what you are trying to tell them. For example, SETI supporters believe strongly in extraterrestrial life but often do not give much shrift to the feasibility of interstellar travel. Others believe in interstellar travel but not strongly in the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial life. Target your message to each audience if you want to gain their support and realize that if you are successful it may be many years between tolerance, provisional acceptance, and public support.

4) Make a long-term commitment and do not function under the illusion that you will achieve your goals in the near-term. If you are serious about the studying the UFO phenomena then, in y estimation at least, the odds are against you and it may be after you die that your efforts bear fruit. Plan for the worst and hope for the best.

5) Be positive. Attacking others is easy but building up something worthy is difficult and difficult. Don't attack others just because they deserve it as you may need their support in some way in the future.

6) Have high standards. Carefully vet members of your organization and insure that they will not prove to be an embarrassment to you in the future. If they do then jettison them like yesterday's trash and never speak of them again.

Any other thoughts?

Will"

Wise words, indeed, to which we should all do our best to follow.

My only thought would be that sometimes it's necessary to expose the kooks, crooks and spoilers, lest they garner a larger audience simply because they go unchallenged. Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly.

Thanks Will. You're one of the good guys in ufology.

Now, if only you'd pop by UFO Planet a bit more often!!

Paul Kimball

The Love You Take... addendum

See also Kyle King's commentary at:

http://uforeflections.blogspot.com/2005/10/coalition-of-thepuerile.html

Paul Kimball

New Redfern Interview

There is an interesting interview with Body Snatchers in the Desert author Nick Redfern in Phenomena Magazine. It can be found at:

http://www.phenomenamagazine.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Area+51&action=page&obj_id=4036

Paul Kimball

Ladies and Gentlemen - Meet the REAL Paul Hellyer

For all the UFO folks who went gaga over Paul Hellyer's foray into the UFO field, I can't help but laugh.

You deserved what you got - and didn't get - largely because you didn't do a background check on the man to see if he was credible. You just heard "I think ET is here" and assumed that he was legit, dazzled as you were by his political credentials. Well, the joke is on you.

The man began his career as a Liberal. He served in the cabinet of Lester Pearson for several years, and then ran for the Liberal leadership in 1968 when Pearson retired, ultimately losing to Pierre Trudeau.

Eventually, he bolted from both cabinet and then the Liberal Party and its caucus (Hellyer could never stomach being a #2), and formed his own vanity party, the Action Canada Party. Quickly discovering that Canadians were less enthralled with Paul Hellyer than Paul Hellyer was, he decided to head back to a mainstream party.

The Liberals?

Nope.

Hellyer joined the Progressive Conservative party.

And then, in 1976, he ran for the Tory leadership.

Here's the hilarious part (he's had such a long career, with so many mistakes and outright goofiness, that there's so much to mock - but this is my favourite) - in his convention speech, he chastised the Tories for not being right-wing enough! He said they were not true conservatives!!

This from a former Liberal cabinet minister!!

Hahaha...

[Pause for further laughter]

The Tories, perhaps not unexpectedly, were less than amused, and Hellyer did not win the leadership (Joe Clark, a "Red" Tory, took it, and went on to serve briefly as Prime Minister from 1979 to 1980).

[Still laughing about Hellyer]

Hellyer then REJOINED the Liberal Party, despite the fact that it was still led by his nemesis, Pierre Trudeau (this was 1982), the most left-wing Prime Minister in Canada's history. Remember (you almost need a scorecard for Hellyer's career), Hellyer had accused the Tories of not being right-wing enough in 1976, after being a Liberal cabinet minister for most of the 1960s, and...

Hahahaha...

[Further pause for laughter]

In 1988 he contested and lost the Liberal nomination in the Toronto riding of St.Paul's to former Liberal cabinet minister and his successor in the adjacent riding of Trinity, Aideen Nicholson.

So much for being a Liberal, because a few years later Hellyer bolted - again - to form - again - another vanity party, the Canadian Action Party (CAP). This party, like the Action Canada Party, failed to ignite "Hellyer-mania" across the land, and Hellyer lost bids for a seat in the in 1997 and 2000 federal elections.

Hmm... I can't resist listing the results of those two elections. I'll skip all the parties at the top, and head straight to the bottom, where you'll find Hellyer and the Canadian Action Party.

1997

7th place - Natural Law Party, 37,085 votes (the NLP is the political branch of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's Transcendental Meditation movement, and, among other things, advocates "yogic flying")

8th place - Christian Heritage Party, 29,085 votes (the name about says it all, folks)

9th place - Canadian Action Party, 17,502 votes

10th place - Marxist-Leninist Party, 11,468 votes

Well, at least the CAP didn't come dead last!

2000


The 2000 election was a good news / bad news proposition for the CAP (the phrase "good news" being entirely relative to the 1997 election results).
First, they surged ahead of the Natural Law Party! Second, they increased their vote total!
Third...
Umm...
Er... Let's just go to the results, shall we.
7th place - Marijuana Party, 66,258 votes (again, the name pretty much says it all)
8th place - Canadian Action Party, 27,103 votes
9th place - Natural Law Party, 16,577 votes
10th place - Marxist-Leninist Party, 12,068 votes
11th place - Communist Party, 8,776
Now, the vote figures that the CAP tallied would be great if you were running for Halifax city council (although they still wouldn't get you elected Mayor). For a federal political party in Canada, alas, not so great.
At this point, Hellyer (more or less pictured, at left) approached the left-wing New Democratic Party (a real party which does elect MPs), to discuss the possibility of merging the two parties into 'One Big Party'. Remember, this was a man who had twice been a Liberal, and once a Tory who accused other Tories of not being conservative enough, and had run for the leadership of both parties.

[Pause for Laughter]

No doubt many in the NDP were honoured by this (yes, that's sarcasm, folks), what with the CAP having NO MPs, and having garnered less than 0.3% of the popular vote in 1997 and 2000, but for some reason known only to him, leader Jack Layton entertained the idea, at least in theory - until Hellyer (er, sorry - the Canadian Action Party) demanded as a condition of merger that the NDP - one of Canada's big three parties, remember - change its name.

The NDP's answer?

Umm...

NO!

Needless to say, Canadian leftists were not amused by Hellyer.

Check out the following discussion boards for a sampling of their thoughts on Ufology's latest Big Fish:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=25&t=000580&p=
www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=008223

So, let's recap...
In the course of his political career, Paul Hellyer has been a centrist, a right-winger, and a left-winger... and managed to burn his bridges with all of them, because, ultimately, the only political philosophy that matters to him is "Hellyer-ism," i.e. "ME ME ME-ism," wrapped in whatever mantle he deemed expedient at the time.
In the wake of this final debacle, Hellyer resigned the Canadian Action Party leadership, and went off to do...

Well, I think ufologists now know the answer to that one.

Given his history, I predict that ufologists can expect, within the next year sometime, for Hellyer to ditch exopolitics and ufology, and join CSICOP. Instead of Corso and Webre, he'll be citing Klass and Menzel. On the other hand, maybe he has finally found a home - a place where people will hang on his every word and treat him like the Messiah that he has always longed to be.
At last, exopolitics is good for something!

It says a lot about how ufologists seem to think these days, and their very palpable desperation to make something, anything, happen, that this man was actually seen as important.
As a Big Fish.
Yeesh...

[Final pause for laughter]

As I've said before, it amazes me that ufologists wonder why no-one takes them seriously. If they had just done a little research into Hellyer, they would have known with whom they were dealing, and this mess (and it IS a mess, folks) could have been avoided.
To paraphrase Paul McCartney and John Lennon, "they should have known better than an egomaniacal kook like him."

Paul Kimball
P.S. Perhaps not so funny after all, considering some of the people Hellyer has been associating with:
http://www.publiceye.org/Icke/IckeBackgrounder.htm
http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2001-03-15/news_feature_p.html

Lyrically Speaking, Vol. I

Here's one that never even made it to a band practice - I've always had a soft spot for it, however!

A Southern Love Song

Icecubes, icecubes,
we got lots and lots of icecubes,
icecubes, icecubes,
which one is the one for you?

South pole, south pole,
she lives alone at the south pole,
antarctic, antarctic,
she lives alone in the antarctic.

Polar bear, predator,
I'm a penguin dinner just for her,
polar bear, polar bear,
she eats me up and then melts away...

I must have been drunk when I wrote that one!

Paul Kimball

Memory Lane, Part III

After the break-up of Tall Poppies in 1994, drummer Glenn MacCulloch and yours truly formed a new band, which we called Julia's Rain. We added Rob Currie on bass, and Chris MacKenzie on guitars, but it was singer Kelly McKeigan that provided the new band with it's spark, and me with a singer who really brought my songs to life.

We released a well-received E.P., Fiver, in late 1994. The Halifax Daily News wrote:

"Julia's Rain emerged out of the ashes of the popular and ambitious Dartmouth band Tall Poppies, which has already spawned one promising ensemble, The Booming Airplanes. Julia's Rain leans more to electric instrumentation than the acoustically-inclined 'Planes. Kelly McKeigan possesses a rich, haunting voice ripe with regret and melancholy. Guitarists Paul Kimball and Chris MacKenzie construct intriguing textures that sound like retro '60s folk rock crossed with fey '80s and '90s English bands such as The Smiths and Suede. What's most impressive are the songs. There are two killer tunes on Fiver, the kind of songs you hear once and never forget. "Fading" and "Mysterio" are catchy, perfect pop constructions that could be masterpieces in the hands of a good producer. For an initial demo, Fiver is a promising start indeed."

Fiver got us a showcase spot at the 1995 East Coast Music Awards, where we received some serious interest from record companies (and where Kelly appeared on national television - CBC - as an awards presenter). At left is a picture from that showcase which appeared in The Cape Breton Post - from left to right, Glenn on drums, Kelly, yours truly, and Chris in the corner. Glenn and Rob left the band shortly afterwards, but Kelly, Chris and I continued on for another year, until Chris left. Kelly and I added drummer Dave Croft and bassist Mark Winkelman to the line-up, and for another year and a half this was the best version of any band I ever played with (we brought in a never-ending group of lead guitarists over this period, and sometimes even performed as a four person group).

Live, we rocked. Some of the critics...

"Julia's Rain's vocalist blew me away with an amazing voice that fills the room with powerful emotion. They're a great band. I could say more, but I'd just end up gushing. See this band!" - Dalhousie Gazette

"Strong and intense alternative style pop tunes [with] staying power [that] linger in the mind for days after... their balance of modesty and attitude, combined with their very danceable songs, would have almost any audience onside before the night was through." - The Cape Breton Post

"Live, the band rocks. They put on a forceful, convincing set. Several record companies were circling around Julia's Rain - no wonder." The Halifax Daily News [alas, never signed a deal, although I did turn one down once. Long story... PK]

"The band feeds off of McKeigan's energy, and the songs, mostly by Kimball, are superior - engaging and diverse... It was a moody and powerfully moving performance." Metro Backbeat

The high point was the release of our CD Wonderful Broken Silence, in 1995, which we produced ourselves. We brought Glenn back to play drums, and former Tall Poppies member Mike Riley (aka Fat Robot) and Rob Currie played bass. Even Mike Trainor, the second Tall Poppies singer, popped by to play tambourine on one track. Laurence Currie, the best producer on the East Coast, engineered the album.

The critics were, again, very positive:

Chart, the "bible" of the Canadian music scene back then (it may still be the "bible" of the Canadian music scene, but I've been out of the loop since 1998, so I wouldn't know anymore), wrote:

"Julia's Rain could easily appear on the soundtrack to my life. I can imagine hearing a song from wonderful broken silence at a party or at 6:30 a.m. as I drive home while watching the sun rise. It's the late-night musings of a melancholy DJ or the passionate expression of a band that you somehow "get" although it never says anything to the audience or even looks up from its shoes. This Halifax group's follow-up to Fiver is a melodic, thoughtful progression through eight slightly twisted landscapes of sound. "Louder Than Bombs" is definitely the stand-out track. There's genuine emotion in these very radio-oriented pop songs and this EP's mere 34-minute run time leaves me wanting more."

Atlantic Gig, the "bible" of the Atlantic Canadian music scene back then (the mag is no longer around, alas), wrote:

"Julia's Rain cites The Smiths as influences - as well as the Beatles, U2 and REM. They thank Morrissey & Johnny Marr in the "kudos" section of the liner notes to Wonderful Broken Silence. This is fair, as the serious guitar pop of Smiths' classics like The Queen is Dead certainly shares a rhythmic and melodic similarity with Wonderful Broken Silence. There is a melancholy air to Kelly McKeigan's vocals (which can't help but remind me of Natalie Merchant, ex-10,000 Maniac) and a sombre note in Paul Kimball's lyrics. Songs such as "Vampirella" and "Mysterio" create characters that are best described with a line from Fading": 'My mind it mocks me with illusions.'

Wonderful Broken Silence, the band's follow-up to the highly-praised EP Fiver, is rich in texture, as deep as it is high and wide. Acoustic and electric guitars (courtesy of Kimball and Chris MacKenzie) provide the foundation upon which the songs are built, as the mortar of keyboards and the strong rhythm section keep things together. Kelly is the ghost that haunts this disc, emoting as breathing. I've been told her on-stage presence is spooky (in the good sense).

Driving pop for the most part, the disc contains two spectral nuggets. "Vampirella" would be a shuffle if there were any percussion, but is instead made macabre by swelling guitars and effects - again very spooky. The intriguing "Do You Think" features Paul's spoken vocal bouncing around in your headphones over a moaning keyboard and strumming acoustic guitar - 'do you care / or do you just sit back and stare / at problems you could fix / but let other people wear.'

A great album, reminding me of the unrestricted pop of the late 70's and early 80's, Wonderful Broken Silence is a dark room until you draw the curtains - then the scenery's lovely."

After WBS, we shot two music videos, which aired nationally on Much Music (Canada's MTV), and which represented, I guess, the beginning of my film career (my brother Jim, who now works with me as a producer at Redstar Films, even appeared in one, so I guess it marked the beginning of his film career too!). We also made a number of appearances on various television shows, locally and nationally, and played a lot of great gigs. Above is a photo of three of the band members - yours truly, Kelly, and Mark Winkelman - during the video shoot for "Fading."

In February, 1998 we played the last of those great gigs. It was a sold out show here in Halifax during the East Coast Music Awards. We ended with our signature song - "Mysterio" - and received a standing ovation from a crowd that didn't know we would never take the stage again. Afterwards, Tom Wilson, the lead singer from the band Junkhouse, which was hot in Canada at the time, walked up to me as I was packing up my guitar and said (I paraphrase here), "great show - that 'Mysterio' is a great song. I'd love to record that some time."

We didn't intend for that to be our last show - indeed, in the next issue of Chart we were identified as the east coast "band to watch." It just worked out that way, as we had already drifted apart.

However...

Somewhere, here in the office, I stil have the master tapes for notes from underground, the full-length album that we began to record in late 1997 but never finished.

Here's a lyrical excerpt from "Darkest Hour," which I wrote for my fiance, after she had a particularly bad dream:

"The car in your dream / shattered by the side of the road / twisted heap of metal / its story told just moments ago // the driver, young and broken / so frail, dying / a whisper and he's gone // you helpless and alone / a wound inside / afraid of what lies beyond // I wish I could share this dream / and take the hurt away / or at least be the comfort when you awake // It's 3 am, still no sign of light / the darkest hour of the soul / I want to be with you tonight / to give you, to give you, to give you / someone to hold."

Maybe someday Kelly and I will re-unite, wander back into the studio, finish off the album, and then play one final, proper send-off gig?

That would be nice.

Rev. Pete would be well pleased, I think.

Paul Kimball

Fields of Fear Production Stills, Vol. V

Here are a couple of shots with Orlando Pla, the paranormal investigator who served as our local guide while on the Puerto Rico leg of the Fields of Fear shoot. His help was invaluable. He was great to work with!


Above is a shot of Orlando and Nick Redfern in El Yunque, with DOP Findlay Muir (the guy on the ground with the camera).

At left is a shot of Orlando and yours truly, somewhere near Roosevelt Roads (the exact location must remain a secret!!).

We were obviously on the lookout for chupacabras, but we didn't see any.

Lots of little lizards, however!

They were all over the place, which was definitely a cool thing to see for a Maritimer who had never been to a tropical place before.

Speaking of cool... there was none. Whew. Talk about hot!!

Lots of humidity, too, which meant that after Day 1 of shooting, whn I wore jeans to protect me from "critters," I said "screw this," and went with shorts, ticks and mosquitos be damned.

Fortunately, I seem to have avoided dengue fever!

Paul Kimball

Paul Hellyer - The Big Fish Flops

Poor Paul Hellyer.

He agrees to speak at a UFO / Exopolitics conference (it seems even the organisers weren't quite sure which) in Toronto this past weekend. The news media pick up on it, and, all of a sudden, there he is - Canada's former Minister of National Defence, on the front pages of all the newspapers again.

Well, not the front pages, exactly, but at least he was in the paper, which for Hellyer is all that matters.

He's a somebody again. He's important. A Big Fish.

Sure, a Big Fish in a very, very, small pond - but still, a Big Fish.

For someone like Hellyer, however - a guy who once stood at the pinnacle of the Canadian political system, and then proceeded to flush his once-promising career down the toilet over a period of three decades, to the point where he exists now as little more than the answer to a trivia question ("what idiot put the Canadian navy and air force in army green?") - it isn't the size of the pond that matters anymore, but the size of the fish. Particularly when he's the fish.

Most important to the ETH proponents (and their more radical off-shoots, the True Believers), he was a VIP (sure, that was forty years ago, but they'll take what they can get these days).

He was going to blow the roof off the joint.

He was going to expose secrets.

In the words of one of the event organizers when he introduced Hellyer this past Sunday, "we are here today witnessing history."

As Hellyer's fellow speaker, exopolitics-activist / conspiracy theorist Steven Bassett, wrote:

"The Toronto Symposium will break new ground. It will mark thefirst time in history that any defense minister or secretary of defense of any first world nation (and possibly any nation) will state publicly that he or she is convinced the UFO phenomenon is extraterrestrial in origin." [see http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2005/sep/m23-007.shtml]

And then The Big Fish opened his mouth.

THUD.

See his speech at http://www.checktheevidence.com/video/

Yes, he says, a few UFO reports came across his desk when he was Minister of National Defence (hardly a controversial claim, as I've shown over and over that it was the RCAF that was tasked with investigating UFO sightings until the National Research Council took over in 1968), but he didn't really look at them, because he had more important things to do.

Huh?

More important things to do??

I guess that puts UFOs in perspective.

Someone asked him about Shag Harbour, and the Michalak case, both of which occurred on his watch at the Department of National Defence - and both of which were investigated by the Canadian Armed Forces.

Hadn't heard of them at the time, he said.

A top secret Canadian program to deal with UFOs?

Nope. No mention of it.

But he does believe that UFOs are real, that they are aliens, and that there is a massive government conspiracy. He even believes that they have crashed, and that we have reverse engineered their technology (clever little monkeys that we are).

Oh yeah - re: alien abductions, he stated that: "What crimes have they committed? The aliens may have mutilated a few cattle, and allegedly abducted a few people, but to the best of my knowledge, they have not killed anyone. So - are they really an enemy, or legitimate explorers from afar?"

To Hellyer, the answer is simple - they're our Space Brothers (the central theme of Exopolitics, and, before it, Contactee-ism).

THUD.

And now the backlash has begun... sort of.

John Velez, a leading proponent of the reality of alien abductions (and who claims to have been abducted himself), wrote today at UFO Updates:

"If it had happened to him, and his wife and kids, he'd be whistling that little tune out of the other side of his mouth."

Velez's full comments can be found at: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2005/sep/m28-029.shtml

I don't blame Velez. Frankly, I don't know what to make of the abduction phenomenon, but if I was convinced that it was real, in the "aliens are doing it" sense (as Hellyer obviously does), then I wouldn't say (and I paraphrase here) "hey, they haven't killed anybody, so they can't be all bad, and we certainly shouldn't be building weapons to aim at them, like the evil Americans are doing right now."

Hey, Paul - FYI: if alien abductions ARE real, then it shows that the aliens ARE NOT our pals. Under these circumstances, building weapons against them is exactly what we should be doing.

Other than Velez, however, ufology is being pretty silent about Hellyer now, with the exception of a few, like Eugene Frison, who have been critical. Oh, and the ubiquitous Michael Salla, who views Hellyer's speech as a major event of world shattering significance (see http://www.exopolitics.org/Exo-Comment-38.htm for a good chuckle).

In short, it seems that the Big Fish has become the Big Flop.

Why?

Because they've finally figured out that he doesn't know anything, at least not in an official capacity.

Worse, he's not just another believer. He's an exopolitical, Phil Corso-reading believer.

If you listen to his speech, there can be little doubt of this. Hellyer began by calling Corso's book The Day After Roswell "one of the most fascinating books I have ever read. It is the unimpeachable source of what I am going to say to you today."

THUD.

The sad part is that I think he believes that.

Eek!

No surprise to some of us, but it's come as a major embarrassment for conspiracy theorists.

Why?

Because if anyone in Canada would have known about the Cosmic Watergate, and UFO secrets, and alien bases, etc etc, it would have been the Minister of National Defence in the mid 1960s.

That's what they were all hoping he was going to say, although if they had read his statements prior to the Conference, they would have known better.

Instead, nada. Nothing. "Rien," as they would say in Quebec.

Now, there are four possible explanations for this, three of which, I confidently predict, will be quickly employed by various conspiracists to try and "cover-up" this embarrassment.

First, they'll say, Hellyer lied (watch out, Paul - conspiracists will turn on you faster than you can blink). He knows exactly what went on (and goes on still), but he wouldn't say. Possibly he's a disinformation agent, or something like that.

He is Canada's real "cigarette man" (as opposed to the fictional one, as portrayed by Canadian actor William Davis in the X-Files television series - pictured above).

The second explanation will go in the opposite direction - he knows lots of stuff, but he's scared they'll "rub him out" like they did James Forrestal, or Edward Ruppelt, or James McDonald, or __________ (fill in the blank), so he has to be careful about what he says, and to whom. In short, he's not "cigarette man," but a Canadian ufological Deep Throat / Mr. X.

If those two don't work, or as an alternative, they will go with, "Well, he was kept out of the loop, of course." After all, the conspiracy is very restricted, and very few people are "in the Know" - despite the fact that the conspiracy is also massive. Hey - they never told him! They just fobbed him off with a few UFO reports. He didn't have MJ-12 Top Secret Restricted clearance. And so on.

This is what I call the "Sergeant Schultz" theory, after the Hogan's Heroes character (pictured above) who saw nothing, heard nothing - in short, knew nothing.

Which raises the question:

They told Wilbert Smith, and they didn't tell Paul Hellyer?

Sure.

How much are you willing to pay for that bridge in Brooklyn again?

The third explanation is patently ridiculous, and the first two make no sense. The "he lied" explanation also has the added bonus of making those conspiracists who were all agog about Hellyer before the Conference look like idiots, although, given their mind set, this is the explanation that they might find the most palatable - "hey - we were duped again by the evil conspiracy!" Rather than knock some common sense into them, it will probably feed their peculiar brand of paranoia.

Either way, rest assured that the conspiracists will trot out one of the three explanations noted above (I confidently predict the "he was out of the loop" will be the front-runner) as the real reason behind what Hellyer said, and, more important, what he didn't say.

In the process, they will completely ignore the fact that there is a fourth explanation.

The conspiracists won't like it, but it's the one that makes the most sense.

It's the one that has always made the most sense.

Hellyer didn't know about a conspiracy, and didn't take UFOs terribly seriously while serving as Minister of Defence, because there is no conspiracy (at least, not the one the conspiracists are talking about), and no-one took UFOs as seriously back then as some ufologists now seem to think they did.

They were puzzled by them. They investigated them. That is beyond doubt. But, when they came to the conclusion that most could be explained, but some couldn't, they shrugged their shoulders and said, "well, that's that."

After all, what government would want to admit that there was something going on in the skies that they could not explain?

Besides, there were, as Hellyer stated, more pressing matters to deal with. Problems that they could solve, and that were of real concern to ordinary people (i.e. the voters).

Ergo...

There was no super secret Wilbert Smith research project. After all, Hellyer served as Minister of Transport from September 19, 1967 until April 29, 1969 - surely he would have been informed of Smith's work then?? Of course, if it had been that important, he would have already been informed as Minister of National Defence.

There was no super secret plan to get an alien spacecraft to land in Alberta.

There was nothing that did anything more than arouse Hellyer's - or anyone else's - curiosity.

That's the reality.

Because if there had been more to it than "the UFO phenomenon is real, but we have no idea what it is," then Hellyer would have known. And, unless he's lying now (see explanation #1, above), he would have said something at this "historic opportunity."

But he didn't.

If you happen to be a conspiracist, or Exopolitics type (is there a difference??), that sound you heard, once again, was...

THUD.

For the rest of us, however, that "Thud" is the silver lining in this debacle.

Anyone who takes the study of the UFO phenomenon seriously owes Paul Hellyer a huge "thank you."

He's set the record straight... despite himself, and despite the efforts of those conspiracists and Exopolitical svengalis who fed him the information that he regurgitated on cue last Saturday.

Paul Kimball

P.S. As an aside, here's one of Canada's pre-eminent historians, Dr. Jack Granatstein, on Hellyer's tenure as Minister of National Defence:

"Defence Minister Paul Hellyer also ranks as one of the killers of the Canadian military. The idea of unification was not a bad one. The military should work together. However, Hellyer’s tactics were terrible: changing uniform and rank structures was not necessary to effect unification. Hellyer went too far and killed the Canadian military."

See: http://www.cda-cdai.ca/CDA_GMs/AGM67/granatstein.htm