It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Max B Miller’s magazine “Saucers” (1953-60) – one of the “most interesting of the period"

page: 1
29

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Jerome Clark’s excellent (albeit rather expensive…) book “The UFO Encyclopedia” (2nd Edition) states that Max B Miller’s magazine “Saucers” was “one of the few periodicals in which both conservative mainstream ufologists and contactees, who ordinarily occupied separate mental and literary universes, found a home … The magazine was one of the best-edited and most interesting of the period”.

The same entry in that encyclopedia comments that Max B. Miller “managed to be friends with everyone from Donald E. Keyhoe to George Hunt Williamson, and he was the first to publish the claims of celebrated 1950s contactee Truman Bethurum”.



There are over 10 references to Max B. Miller in NICAP’s classic “UFO Evidence” (1964), in which he is referred to as the “former NICAP photographic adviser”.

As a result of the copyright position outlined in Section B below, I have helped arrange for Max B Miller’s “Saucers” magazine to be made freely available online. Searchable PDFs of every issue of this publication are now online.



Once again our Swedish friends at the “Archives For the Unexplained” ("AFU") in Sweden very helpfully (and very promptly) did the boring job of scanning most issues of the relevant material. The 3 issues missing from the AFU’s collection were then kindly scanned by veteran American ufologist Barry Greenwood.

The combined collection of scans of Max B Miller’s “Saucers” magazine can be downloaded from THIS TEMPORARY LINK for the next week. After that, or if you only want one issue, you can obtain any of the issues of this publication from the AFU’s website at THIS LINK.

More specifically, the scans are:
Saucers vol 1 no 1 (Scanned by Barry Greenwood)
Saucers vol 1 no 2 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 1 no 3 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 2 no 1 (Scanned by Barry Greenwood)
Saucers vol 2 no 2 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 2 no 3 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 2 no 4 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 3 no 1 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 3 no 2 (Scanned by Barry Greenwood)
Saucers vol 3 no 3 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 3 no 4 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 4 no 1 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 4 no 2 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 4 no 3 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 4 no 4 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 5 no 1 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 5 no 2 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 5 no 3 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 5 no 4 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 6 no 1 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 6 no 2 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 6 no 3 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 6 no 4 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 7 no 1-2 (Scanned by AFU)
Saucers vol 7 no 3-4 (Scanned by AFU)




edit on 1-8-2016 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2016 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2016 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2016 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Section B : Copyright issues regarding pre-1964 publications in the US



I like to share UFO source material freely online. It is my fond (if somewhat optimistic…) hope that this may somewhat improve the quality of online discussions about “UFOs”.

I have generally restricted myself to posting material in relation to which I have obtained explicit permission from the person that wrote/edited the relevant publication or their heirs/assignees (e.g. various newsletters (including "Skeptics UFO Newsletter" by Phil Klass, “The New Ufologist” (1994-1997) co-edited by Jenny Randles, ”Journal UFO” edited by Dave Haisell and Rick Hilberg’s 1960/1970s “UFO Magazine”) and various out-of-print books (e.g. www.abovetopsecret.com... " target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">”Melbourne Episode : Case Study of a Missing Pilot" by Dr Richard Haines about the Valentich disappearance and “On Pilots and UFOs” by Dr Willy Smith) plus various PhD dissertations regarding UFOs (see my thread Dr Who?? : UFO PhD dissertations - free online). Heck, I don’t even like to make copies of official government documents available unless the copyright position of the relevant government is clear to me or unless I obtain permission from that government (e.g. when I made from available Canadian UFO documents in PDF format in 2012 that was done with the express permission of the Canadian government and similarly when I made Australia UFO documents available in PDF format in 2013 that was done with a permission given on behalf of the Commonwealth Government of Australia).

While I sent out a lot of emails seeking permissions to make UFO material available (with a fairly high success rate - unless dealing with leaders of some American UFO groups…) sometimes it is not possible to find the heirs of the authors/editors of some old defunct magazines/books. In some cases, it is also unnecessary because some of the older UFO material from some countries is now in the public domain and is copyright free.

Although I’ve spend quite a bit of time in the last few weeks looking into copyright issues in relation to some old UFO material from the USA, I’m just a layperson when it comes to American copyright laws. So, I cannot give (and am not giving…) legal advice on any related issue. These are seriously complicated waters – particularly if you have to consider material published in more than one country.

With that disclaimer firmly in mind, I thought I’d highlight a few basic resources relating to American copyright law. If you are looking into copyright issues, you may find these a useful starting point.

As a basic introduction, I note that Wikipedia includes the following in an entry entitled “Copyright renewal”:



Works published before 1964 in the US are all in the public domain, excepting only those for which a renewal was registered with the US copyright office (Footnote 1) (Footnote 2) Relatively few works from this era have had their copyrights renewed. A US copyright office study in 1961 found that fewer than 15% of registered copyrights had been renewed

Copyright renewal has largely lost its significance for works copyrighted in the US in 1964 or after due to the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992. This law removed the requirement that a second term of copyright protection is contingent on a renewal registration. The effect was that any work copyrighted in the US in 1964 or after had a copyright term of 75 years, whether or not a formal copyright renewal was filed.

Copyright renewal is significant for works with US copyright notices from 1923–1963. All copyright registrations and renewal registrations are published by the Copyright Office in its Catalog of Copyright Entries. For works with copyright notices from 1950 onward, the catalog can be searched online for renewals using a website maintained by the Copyright Office; the corresponding renewals are from 1978–1991


As always, it’s best to check the references supporting a Wikipedia entry…

Let’s have a look at the references cited in the above section:

Footnote 1 is a document issued by the US Government (specifically, issued by the US Copyright Office) entitled “Renewal of Copyright”. It includes the following in a note in bold on Page 1:



note: If a copyright originally secured before January 1, 1964, was not renewed at the proper time, copyright protection expired at the end of the 28th calendar year of the copyright and could not be restored.








Footnote 2 is a private blog website called “Public Domain Sherpa” which – as the name may suggest – gives a guide to ensuring material really is copyright-free. That page includes the following:



Copyright renewal requirements tripped up a lot of copyright owners before the current copyright law did away with them. Failure to renew caused many works originally published from 1923 through 1963 to enter the public domain.

Works published from 1950 through 1963 are easy : You can do renewal searches for 1950–1963 works online, at the Copyright Office web site. The Copyright Office has put online copyright registration records from 1978 onward. These records include copyright renewals from 1951 onward (and some from 1950, since some copyrights from 1950 could have been renewed in 1977)



For works with copyright notices from 1950 onward, a catalog maintained by the Copyright Office at THIS LINK can be searched online for renewals:



From doing various searches of that database, it appears that copyright for the material made available in this thread was not renewed.


edit on 1-8-2016 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Here are a few further sample covers/pages, including some sample tables of contents:









posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
In a forum currently dominated by political shenanigans it is quite refreshing to see a senior member such as your self chime in with something of substance in relation to UFOs.

I downloaded some of the documents you linked. S&F I'll be back later to comment after I evaluate your findings.




posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: IsaacKoi


Oh..
This page from 1957 reminds me of the Project Orion Nuclear Propulsion - test being made in 1950..
Take a look at the picture and then the video I linked

Perhaps 7 years later they had a functional Orion craft in the skies







1950



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I have seen this book at my local library here. And its HUGE!!!!!!! It would probably take years to read it, if not longer. One of these days I just may need to check it out!



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Nice work and interesting reads! I'm about to dive into all the articles.
edit on 1-8-2016 by Staroth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Great thread and you are right about the price of the book a decent second hand copy is £270. Will track it down as ebooks just don't cut it for me. Can't beat a vintage thread like this I didn't think ATS content like this anymore I'm glad I popped in



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: IsaacKoi
Here are a few further sample covers/pages, including some sample tables of contents:
....

Thanks Isaac, I downloaded all of them and look forward to reading them. It's very kind of you to make these interesting reference materials available.

I have no idea what most of the photos show on those cover samples, but this one jumped out at me as looking a whole lot like lens flare.

edit on 201681 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Amazing photographs . fifty years and we are trying to figure out it's all real or not...



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
Amazing photographs . fifty years and we are trying to figure out it's all real or not...


Many already know..
Its just been 50+ yrs trying to convince the unconvinceable.

B



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bspiracy

originally posted by: 0bserver1
Amazing photographs . fifty years and we are trying to figure out it's all real or not...


Many already know..
Its just been 50+ yrs trying to convince the unconvinceable.

B


Its been 50+ years of fighting the intentional suppression being actioned by the owners of Publishing Companies ,MSM and Movie and other media formats.

There was a time when the MSM was NOT BOUGHT AND OWNED BY TBTP.....and there was a time before TPTB KNEW of the issue and that they should muzzle the media by buying it and shutting it down.

American Patriots once owned MSM outlets and Americans and vis a vis the WORLD recieved a lot of TRUTH.........so basiclly if anyone is interested and so motivated they only need list the major media conduits in existance Globally Country by Country......then look at how these tools were used........go back to the VERY BEGINNING OF EACH FORMATS HISTORY its not so much work......and look at WHO and HOW these conduits positively benefitted politiclly fiscally and religously.....then chart out and graph then convert to animated 3-D visuals these CONDUIT EVOLUTIONS all side by side by side....and then you will by proxy see the same NAMES OF INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES AND GROUPS popping up again and agin....you will see who was first to harness mass media and use it as a tool of social engineereing.

Go back to the first TV stations and first Radio stations and first Newspaper and periodicals and first Movie Production Companies and first Publishing houses....there are more media conduits as well...find them and do a historical synopsis on them and on who used them and how they used them running right up till today.

This is a critical part of exposing TPTB....because when you do an forensic dynamic template on these focuses and then apply this same methodology to Industries like the Energy Industry and Shipping Industry and Insurance Industry and Charity Industry and Pharmacutical Industry and Prison Industry and Food Industry ect ect ect.......you WILL FIND THE SAME NAMES POPPING UP....and these my friends are what we little people call TPTB.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: IsaacKoi

Section B : Copyright issues regarding pre-1964 publications in the US



I like to share UFO source material freely online. It is my fond (if somewhat optimistic…) hope that this may somewhat improve the quality of online discussions about “UFOs”.

I have generally restricted myself to posting material in relation to which I have obtained explicit permission from the person that wrote/edited the relevant publication or their heirs/assignees (e.g. various newsletters (including "Skeptics UFO Newsletter" by Phil Klass, “The New Ufologist” (1994-1997) co-edited by Jenny Randles, ”Journal UFO” edited by Dave Haisell and Rick Hilberg’s 1960/1970s “UFO Magazine”) and various out-of-print books (e.g. www.abovetopsecret.com... " target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">”Melbourne Episode : Case Study of a Missing Pilot" by Dr Richard Haines about the Valentich disappearance and “On Pilots and UFOs” by Dr Willy Smith) plus various PhD dissertations regarding UFOs (see my thread Dr Who?? : UFO PhD dissertations - free online). Heck, I don’t even like to make copies of official government documents available unless the copyright position of the relevant government is clear to me or unless I obtain permission from that government (e.g. when I made from available Canadian UFO documents in PDF format in 2012 that was done with the express permission of the Canadian government and similarly when I made Australia UFO documents available in PDF format in 2013 that was done with a permission given on behalf of the Commonwealth Government of Australia).

While I sent out a lot of emails seeking permissions to make UFO material available (with a fairly high success rate - unless dealing with leaders of some American UFO groups…) sometimes it is not possible to find the heirs of the authors/editors of some old defunct magazines/books. In some cases, it is also unnecessary because some of the older UFO material from some countries is now in the public domain and is copyright free.

Although I’ve spend quite a bit of time in the last few weeks looking into copyright issues in relation to some old UFO material from the USA, I’m just a layperson when it comes to American copyright laws. So, I cannot give (and am not giving…) legal advice on any related issue. These are seriously complicated waters – particularly if you have to consider material published in more than one country.

With that disclaimer firmly in mind, I thought I’d highlight a few basic resources relating to American copyright law. If you are looking into copyright issues, you may find these a useful starting point.

As a basic introduction, I note that Wikipedia includes the following in an entry entitled “Copyright renewal”:



Works published before 1964 in the US are all in the public domain, excepting only those for which a renewal was registered with the US copyright office (Footnote 1) (Footnote 2) Relatively few works from this era have had their copyrights renewed. A US copyright office study in 1961 found that fewer than 15% of registered copyrights had been renewed

Copyright renewal has largely lost its significance for works copyrighted in the US in 1964 or after due to the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992. This law removed the requirement that a second term of copyright protection is contingent on a renewal registration. The effect was that any work copyrighted in the US in 1964 or after had a copyright term of 75 years, whether or not a formal copyright renewal was filed.

Copyright renewal is significant for works with US copyright notices from 1923–1963. All copyright registrations and renewal registrations are published by the Copyright Office in its Catalog of Copyright Entries. For works with copyright notices from 1950 onward, the catalog can be searched online for renewals using a website maintained by the Copyright Office; the corresponding renewals are from 1978–1991


As always, it’s best to check the references supporting a Wikipedia entry…

Let’s have a look at the references cited in the above section:

Footnote 1 is a document issued by the US Government (specifically, issued by the US Copyright Office) entitled “Renewal of Copyright”. It includes the following in a note in bold on Page 1:



note: If a copyright originally secured before January 1, 1964, was not renewed at the proper time, copyright protection expired at the end of the 28th calendar year of the copyright and could not be restored.








Footnote 2 is a private blog website called “Public Domain Sherpa” which – as the name may suggest – gives a guide to ensuring material really is copyright-free. That page includes the following:



Copyright renewal requirements tripped up a lot of copyright owners before the current copyright law did away with them. Failure to renew caused many works originally published from 1923 through 1963 to enter the public domain.

Works published from 1950 through 1963 are easy : You can do renewal searches for 1950–1963 works online, at the Copyright Office web site. The Copyright Office has put online copyright registration records from 1978 onward. These records include copyright renewals from 1951 onward (and some from 1950, since some copyrights from 1950 could have been renewed in 1977)



For works with copyright notices from 1950 onward, a catalog maintained by the Copyright Office at THIS LINK can be searched online for renewals:



From doing various searches of that database, it appears that copyright for the material made available in this thread was not renewed.



@OP....this is one of the strongest examples of Anonymous Humanitarian Activism I have been privilaged to share .......I am proud to have shared this thread......you should be proud of your works impacts and its pure intentions.

Please keep this gift growing.Well done...well done indeed.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
Amazing photographs . fifty years and we are trying to figure out it's all real or not...


No they are NOT amazing photographs as a very large percentage were hoaxes. When 35mm SLRs became popular and almost everyone had one, me included, real photos of UFOs were still not impressive 'cause the unknown aerial object was too distant and the cameras had limited single focal length lenses and emulsion film could be blown up just so much so, like today, you still wind up with photos of small, blurred images.

Since the UFOs shown in publications such as SAUCERS were usually not real but models, or film manipulated, you got big UFO images, much clearer.

After fifty years "we are trying to figure out it's all real or not" is not a correct comment. YOU may be trying to figure it out but I think that the reality of UFOs is already accepted by the majority. You have experiencers and non-experiencers. Experiencers, such as myself with 5 topnotch sightings are beyond trying to be convinced. Non-experiencers, such as skeptics, are the problem for it's normal for them to pooh-pooh sightings since they have no idea what is experienced and they're quick to call it human error. But there are open-minded skeptics such as myself that allow for possibilities but you also have ones that irritate with their close-mindness such as Robert Sheaffer.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: klassless
YOU may be trying to figure it out but I think that the reality of UFOs is already accepted by the majority.
Nobody I know doubts the existence of UFOs. What we are still trying to figure out is what they are in the unexplained cases. Occasionally an unexplained case gets explained, like the Yukon case, but there are still others unexplained.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   
A treasure in every issue! It's fascinating to see the formation of UFO history just as the legends were first taking shape. It's also interesting to see that frustration set in fairly early on:

"There is little question but that much of the enthusiasm over UFO's has vanished in recent years. A lack of sightings and important developments... has undoubtedly accounted for this condition. Also, the unimaginable quantity of material--almost wholly devoid of a new approach or even new data--that has flooded the UFO field in recent years has done little more than to deluge a respectable subject with wholesale garbage." - Max Miller, SAUCERS, Spring & Summer 1959



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Thanks again Isaac for bringing this to our attention. I don't personally read everything put out there as there are only so many hours in the day. The history of ufology can be just as wild, whacky and mysterious as ufology itself.

So I do find these 'digital release' are a great resource and can be easily searched via Windows Explorer or within the pdf themselves. when looking at specific cases.

Kind Regards MM



new topics

top topics



 
29

log in

join