Mirage Men is out.

Hey Op!!
Where is the video?

What happened?
Is there a way to get it?

snc24
Where is the video?
What happened?

The video was on Youtube without the permission of the people that own the rights to it. Random Media are planning on making the video available in the Spring.

At the moment, you can buy the "Mirage Men" book from Amazon:
www.amazon.co.uk...

As I commented on ATS back in 2010 shortly before the book became publicly available, the book focuses on speculation that intelligence services are behind a significant part of the UFO myth, with considerable discussion of Rick Doty and a few other familiar names. Basically, I found it :

(a) contained a very large element of speculation - much of which I did not agree with, but was also

(b) extremely interesting and entertaining. I just wish it was two or three times as long to allow many of the issues to be addressed in greater depth - but this may not have been ideal for a commercial publication aimed at a wider audience...

It would have probably come top of a list of the most thought provoking UFO books I'd read in the year or two before that book.

IsaacKoi

snc24
Where is the video?
What happened?

The video was on Youtube without the permission of the people that own the rights to it. Random Media are planning on making the video available in the Spring.

And here lay a key difference in UFO investigation vs other research/scientific investigations.

In UFOlogy investigations are seen as a reason and opportunity to sell a video or a book 1st and disseminate information 2nd.

In science, information is disseminated first, published in paper for all to review and challenge, they are mostly archived on freely accessible databases and THEN books, videos, TV shows are made about the research.

reply to post by JadeStar

Not entirely sure why you are directing those comments at Isaac, since he is one of the few people who try to make the discussion, research and ultimately the field more credible and reputable.

I agree with you, in a larger sense, that a lot of people use and view 'ufology' as a way to merely make money, but in this particular case I don't agree.

To start off, much of the information, if not all, reported in the book and documentary were already available from open sources. Doty, Bennewitz, Serpo, etc have been discussed and debated at length in UFO lists, blogs, podcasts, and so on. It's just a matter of doing research.

Second, and I think this is important, as you can see, the way the book/documentary approaches the UFO phenomenon and field is not exactly the most popular. If the authors were entirely worried about making money they wouldn't have published this material, but instead would have stick to the formula that sells: validating much of what the general gullible "UFO believer" already believes.

Your obvious disdain for 'ufology' is palpable on every post you make, and there's much to detest about it as it currently exists, no doubt, but I don't see many suggestions and ideas coming from you on how to better it. Is that even something you care about, I wonder.

Willtell
To say this is the foundation of the UFO myth is absurd.

Yes that is absurd. That's not what the film says though.

Woodcarver
Sure this might be the beginning of this particular story but to say that this is the foundation of all ufo myth is plainly wrong info as well.

That is also wrong, but again no one is saying that.

Are you confused about the title?

Do you not know the difference between "a" and "the"?

reply to post by freelance_zenarchist



It does not say "A UFO Myth", so please don't try to argue semantics, because it can also clearly be interpreted as "A Myth: The UFO Myth".

Yeah, the video is no longer available... but to the point someone made about aliens invading, or being here without saying why being scary... maybe, but what if they've always been here? What if we were some sort of experiment?

The cognitive dissonance is huge and the notion seems fantastical and of course some fringe mentalities grab onto it to augment their own drab world, as with any fringe notion, but the information, when looked at holistically, points towards some intelligence behind the scenes... absolutely weird and unsettling to most folks' worldview as it is.

Even before I saw what looked like a huge cylinder shaped ship hanging motionless in a windy, day-lit sky (forget about the many lights seen doing impossible maneuvers at night I've witnessed in AZ ) I was prepared to accept it likely space aliens came by Earth for a look every once in a while based on the historical accounts and the likelihood our huge universe is teeming with life. But even discounting the more marginal claims, they seem to be here in greater numbers and for longer than an exploratory fly-by.

Government involvement with (or knowledge about) UFOs seems insane... but I am forced to admit that some of the evidence points in that direction. The details are debatable, but the basic idea that some portion of our govts are hiding something about a real phenomena seems disturbingly valid.

Once over the hump into possibility, it gets weird and frustrating... almost like something doesn't want us knowing we are in an experiment of sorts, thus ruining it... but that is so darned insane... and it's back to "Naaah..."

reply to post by IsaacKoi

It would have probably come top of a list of the most thought provoking UFO books I'd read in the year or two before that book.

So what are some of the most thought provoking UFO books you have read in recent times? If we had to exclude the Dolan series and Kean, what remaining books are credible enough of worthy mention?

reply to post by mr10k


I can make the picture bigger. Are you having trouble reading it?

It's exhausting trying to talk about nuanced issues with people who seem incapable of comprehending even the basic premise of someone's argument. And these are the people who want to understand, as they believe it, a potential alien phenomenon?

For those having trouble understanding what this book/documentary is about, or what the authors intentions and feelings regarding the UFO phenomenon are, allow me to quote from an interaction, present in the documentary, between Linda Howe and Mark Pilkington (the book's author):

HOWE: What is your bottom line? Beginning, middle and end?

PILKINGTON: Our bottom line is that there is a UFO phenomenon that is genuine and needs to be studied and taken seriously. And that one of the things that makes that difficult is the muddying of the waters by people like Rick Doty, Walter Bosley, and others, who are working for FBI, OSI, whoever else they’re working for, CIA, NSA; and that they are making the work of people like yourself, and us and others, who want to understand what’s really going on very very difficult.

vbstrvct
reply to post by JadeStar

 

Not entirely sure why you are directing those comments at Isaac, since he is one of the few people who try to make the discussion, research and ultimately the field more credible and reputable.

It was not directed at him personally of course. It was directed at the producers of the video and the way the subject handles research in general.

I agree with you, in a larger sense, that a lot of people use and view 'ufology' as a way to merely make money, but in this particular case I don't agree.

To start off, much of the information, if not all, reported in the book and documentary were already available from open sources. Doty, Bennewitz, Serpo, etc have been discussed and debated at length in UFO lists, blogs, podcasts, and so on. It's just a matter of doing research.

Why must every researcher duplicate the same research which was already done by others? Hardly seems an efficient use of the scarce resources serious UFOlogy has in terms of time and finances does it? That's why papers are published.

Second, and I think this is important, as you can see, the way the book/documentary approaches the UFO phenomenon and field is not exactly the most popular. If the authors were entirely worried about making money they wouldn't have published this material, but instead would have stick to the formula that sells: validating much of what the general gullible "UFO believer" already believes.

And yet they used the same method to get their research out. A for-profit video.

Your obvious disdain for 'ufology' is palpable on every post you make, and there's much to detest about it as it currently exists, no doubt, but I don't see many suggestions and ideas coming from you on how to better it. Is that even something you care about, I wonder.

Clearly you have not read "every post" I make because if you did your question would have been answered in a reply on another thread which ironically enough, was a reply to Issac....

I will repost here so my position on this stuff is clearer to you since you might have missed it:

IsaacKoi
I'd like to wish fellow members of ATS a very happy New Year.

Was it just me or did the quality of UFO research in 2012 and 2013 actually fall from the previous (already fairly low) standard?

The first day of a new year seems to be a good time to ask some basic questions about the future direction(s) of UFO research.

The current state of UFO research is so frustratingly poor that its amusement value continues to decrease.
Is else anyone working on (or have ideas for) any projects that may improve the quality of research?

edit on 1-1-2014 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)

I have a couple of projects I'm working on as time allows.

Basically the idea is this: UFOlogy in the late 60s-through the early 80s was filled with often thorough scientific analysis.

UFOlogy in 2013 was pretty much a tangled unscientific mess filled with conspiracy theory, new age practices (channelling), "paranormal researchers" and outright hoaxes.

It's a subject which I liken to an Onion. Many layers, most of them stink.

In order to get to the hard core of actual strange and most importantly SCIENTIFICALLY valuable cases UFOlogy must peel back and shed the layers of the onion.

That is why I post the research I do here on ATS. That is why I made recent posts about the post 80's explosion of Reptilian UFO stories and their likely origin. That's why I posted the thread on little known aircraft/spacecraft that are being developed, tested or flown which could account for the consistent 40% of cases that are misidentified aircraft.

If one can cut through the noise of a scientific problem then we can begin to actually examine any real data that may be there.

UFO investigation takes resources and time. Most serious researchers have precious little of either. So what better way to see that this time and money is used efficiently to study the tiny minority of UFO cases which present us with enough evidence that they can be scientifically analyzed than to weed out the Misidentifications, Misunderstandings, Conspiracy Stories without supportive evidence, Hucksters and Hoaxes?

Time and money is better spent not chasing every reported UFO case down blind alleys but weeding through the noise for the stuff that really matters.

Since I joined ATS I've been called many things, a disinformation agent, a debunker, a close-minded scientist and a skeptic.

I'm only one of those things and it is the last one. A skeptic. But an open-minded one willing to look, listen, read and watch the "evidence" presented. Is that not what the UFO field cries out for quite often? For "science and academia to take it seriously?"

Well that's what I hope to do but in order to do that properly the stuff that is not worth being taken seriously needs to be jettisoned from the field..... seriously.

That means I take a skeptical view towards a subject that is filled with unknowns of all sorts because scientific skepticism is like a candle in the darkness. It is something which can guide us to making reasonable decisions about what to study, and what is likely noise within this subject.

And I make NO apologies for treating the UFO field as a scientific problem because until someone comes up with a better way of not fooling ourselves the scientific method works best when faced with an unknown. So, no, I am not interested in spirituality, spirits, trance channeling, dreams, and other nebulous subjects that have attached themselves to the UFO field.

Invisible or "spiritual" aliens which can not be examined are scientifically worthless. Channelling and contactee/abductee stories without providing us with any scientifically verifiable information not already known to humanity is also of no scientific interest.

(continued in the next post).

As a scientist-in-training I have taken up the recommendation Professor Peter Sturrock made in his paper Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports: The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York, September 29 - October 4,1997 published in the Journal of Scientijic Exploration Vol. 12, NO. 2, pp. 179- 229,1998.

Sturrock, a professor of astrophysics at Stanford stated in Section 14. Recommendations Concerning Implementation

However, even without waiting for such a change in policy of journals, societies and universities, scientists could exhibit a great deal more curiosity than they do now. Of course, it must be professional curiosity if it is to lead to professional results. It is not enough for a scientist to occasionally pick up a tabloid at the supermarket check-out stand.

And...

Unfortunately, it would be far more difficult for a scientist to plan ef- fective research on the UFO problem than in his or her main research area. The scientist would therefore be well advised to collaborate with one or more in- vestigators with experience in field work or some other aspect of UFO research. Such collaboration would be greatly facilitated if, as the panel rec- ommended, there were "some form of formal regular contact between the UFO community and physical scientists." Such contact could help acquaint a broader spectrum of UFO investigators with the normal procedures, protocols and standards of scientific research.

So there it is folks. That's why I'm here. Here is my motive...from Appendix 6. SETI and UFO Investigations Compared:

... the status of UFO studies may be improved if we can find a way to move in a direction where independent confirmation and repeatability could be realized and become routine. Where some level of repeatability exists but explanations are incomplete (e.g.,in the Hessdalen project), more investiga- tive resources are clearly required. Open channels of communication between UFO investigators and a broader scientific group may lead to natural explanations of many observations and thereby winnow the numerous reports to a few notable examples to which intense cooperative efforts could be applied.

I am willing to help foster one of those open channels despite what my current and future colleagues may think.

I figured ATS is home to some of the most knowledgeable people on this subject, some of whom have studied it in great detail for far longer than I have and I'm hoping to sort of partner up on research that takes more time than one person can devote in hopes that we can quietly examine the scientifically relevant data while rejecting the noise.

Thanks for bringing it up, will check it out.

JadeStar
It was not directed at him personally of course. It was directed at the producers of the video and the way the subject handles research in general.

You will find the contact information for the authors on the documentary's website.

Why must every researcher duplicate the same research which was already done by others? Hardly seems an efficient use of the scarce resources serious UFOlogy has in terms of time and finances does it?

You're the one appealing to scientific methods and you can't see any point to a researcher picking up on the research of others?

And yet they used the same method to get their research out. A for-profit video.

No, one person decided to write a book about something he finds interesting. Years later the author and other people decided to release a documentary based on the book.

I will repost here so my position on this stuff is clearer to you since you might have missed it:

I'm aware of your stated goals, thanks.

reply to post by freelance_zenarchist


I didn’t say the video said that, my post was in reference to some posters perceptions.

vbstrvct

JadeStar
It was not directed at him personally of course. It was directed at the producers of the video and the way the subject handles research in general.

You will find the contact information for the authors on the documentary's website.

Why must every researcher duplicate the same research which was already done by others? Hardly seems an efficient use of the scarce resources serious UFOlogy has in terms of time and finances does it?

You're the one appealing to scientific methods and you can't see any point to a researcher picking up on the research of others?

There is a difference between picking up on the research others have done to verify their original premise and being forced to essentially duplicate the same research countless other researchers have done on the same subject. One is a good check and balance on the original research, the other is an inefficient use of scant resources.

JadeStar

Willtell
reply to post by vbstrvct

 

Points:
First, you fail to realize the absurdity of the very premise of this video.

Why would the Gov go to lengths to prevent people from the attention of military basis by creating a myth that they are run by aliens.
That would increase the attention of those and like basis!

Because they did it before and it helped obscure the U-2 spy plane flights. Contrary to what you say, most people when hearing the alien stories would tend to look the other way as they sound absurd. This is the same as the CIA using the UFO subject as a cover for U-2 flights in the 1950s. The CIA has openly admitted they have done this.

When the government finds something that works they tend to stick to it.

This is a small piece of a huge puzzle.
Go read Timothy goods book for example, there all kinds of Alien events, true or false,

And that is the problem with Good's books. All storytelling. No analysis. No science. Nothing that rises to the level of credibility because its all in the same stew of misidentification, misunderstanding, disinformation.

Any real data in his books is buried in noise so deep it's not worth using them for any serious research. They are entertaining of course but at some point the subject has to be comfortable with progressing beyond sci-fi style entertainment and towards sci-fact style science.

Clearly a lot of people have a "need to believe" the stories they need without vetting or validation. I'm not one of them.

edit on 2-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

You’re forgetting the context.

Confuse and lie to a guy who is looking closely at a military base and you don’t want him

to do that or anyone else, so you mythologize aliens on military basis.

Now everybody and their momma is at area 51, Dulce and you name it.

Why because the gov started a rumor!


Good is good for information, no one thinks he is a scientist.

We read these books for information and entertainment not scientific “facts”

If the sorry, lazy, shiftless, lying, no good government did their job we wouldn’t have to read popular books to get information.
Also the vaunted “scientists” as well aren’t doing much.

Hi, does anybody know where i can find this film it has peeked my interest now and i feel i need to now see it ha. thanks.

reply to post by ktmadhouse


It should be released later this year, maybe in the Spring, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

ktmadhouse
Hi, does anybody know where i can find this film it has peeked my interest now and i feel i need to now see it ha. thanks.

Video is here!

Probably wont be much longer get it while it lasts