New Book About UFO Books

... and the author didn't believe any of them. Might still be useful as a historical survey of the literature.

blogs.nature.com...

A cursory search shows this is not available. If anyone finds it, please post.

a reply to: JimOberg

Jumpin' Jesus Tonight!

Is that the the Jack Womack with an intro by the William Gibson!?

Jim, thanks X1000!!!

Can't even believe it.

a reply to: JimOberg

Hi Jim,

From the blog link:

...the most complete compilation of lens flares, camera smudges, film imperfections, blurs and jiggled shots ever published..

Gotta agree, UFO videographers should, at least, brace their camcorders against something, instead of jiggling all over the place.

Yeah, I saw one loitering, lots of eye witnesses. Did it come from outer space? Doubtful, I have no idea where the hell it came from.

Here's an idea to find out if they're piloted by ET. Set up phone booths in areas where UFOs hang out; then set up wildlife cameras around them to photograph ET when he tries to phone home.

Okay, okay, well, seriously, only the scholars of this, the ATS website, know for sure.

originally posted by: schuyler
A cursory search shows this is not available. If anyone finds it, please post.

The book is being sold at the link below. The book costs US$40 for the basic edition (with a "deluxe" book package also available on the same website):
shop.mexicansummer.com...

a reply to: JimOberg

A survey like this is a useful reminder that it took a while before the Flying Saucer mythology began to take on some consistency. The now universal, smooth headed, big eyed greys did not even appear until after the publication of The Interrupted Journey. Prior to that, it was hairy dwarfs, mechanical men, giants with glowing eyes, tiny humpbacks, and, of course, beautiful Aryan Space Brothers.

LOCATION : CANADA
DATE : 2016
VIDEO SHOW UFO OBJECT IN THE SKY .

a reply to: DVNC2000

Please read the Terms & Conditions. They will explain what is necessary before you can start your own thread. Please note that knowing posting three hoaxes can get you banned:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: JimOberg
... and the author didn't believe any of them. Might still be useful as a historical survey of the literature.

blogs.nature.com...

This is actually the cover story of this month's Fortean Times in the UK - issue #FT345. The article is essentially a dialogue between Womack and Gibson, which tbh is a rather dreary account of how they both were initially attracted to the topics of UFOs and Forteana through discovering curious books in dime stores and the like. I can only hope the book itself is a little more interesting.

To be clear though, one should note that this book is in no way an investigation or analysis of UFO accounts, nor is it an exploration into the work of, say, Valleè or Hynek, but rather a more 'cultural' compendium of such obscura as tomes with titles such as 'Elvis UFO Connection' or 'We Want You: Is Hitler Alive?'

This is a great book if you want to pretend aliens aren't here, but other than that, it is useless for any practical purpose. I wouldn't exactly call it "disinformation", more like "uninformation". Which is fine, if you're looking for misleading entertainment rather than a serious discussion. It does call into question why this book is being promoted by the OP, but I think that is a different discussion.

originally posted by: JimOberg
... and the author didn't believe any of them. Might still be useful as a historical survey of the literature.

blogs.nature.com...

I prematurely thought that the book was going to be about a negative POV on UFOs by a skeptic. Not to worry, it's about early UFOlogy "pulps", the parents on many millions of books down the line. My first UFO book was Adamski's first book, Leslie, Desmond; Adamski, George (1953) "Flying Saucers Have Landed", and "Adamski, George (1955). Inside the Space Ships".

Nobody in their right mind believed anything Adamski or any of the other authors said, only those with a weaker mind than normal and, obviously, not that highly educated. So it's okay for Jack Womack to make fun of that decade 'cause they, in turn, were entertaining in a "Yeah, bs! manner.

Treat yourself to the Deluxe Edition for $100.

Jack Womack
Flying Saucers Are Real! (Deluxe Edition)
September 16, 2016
Anthology Editions
ARC028


Flying Saucers Are Real! is a catalogue of the Jack Womack UFO library and a history of one of the 20th century’s most pervasive subcultures. The collection presents an unknown wealth of images taken from mid-century flying saucer books and extensive text by the author-collector outlining the history of the UFO phenomenon and opining on the selections. This edition also features an introduction by science fiction author William Gibson.

Deluxe Edition Includes:

Softcover Book (First Edition)
“Flying Saucers Are Real” rectangular lapel pin
“From Heaven To Earth” circular button featuring cover art
Hardshell 3mm black and white slipcase
36 page, black and white risograph zine on the Shaver Mystery
Lenticular holograph print signed by both Womack and Gibson
Limited edition 7″ vinyl with Buchanan and Goodman’s “The Flying Saucer Part I & II” on the A-side and a silkscreen print on the B-side
Newly designed Anthology tote bag
About The Author:

Jack Womack is the author of Ambient (1987), Terraplane (1988), Heathern (1990), Elvissey (1993), Random Acts of Senseless Violence (1994), Let’s Put the Future Behind Us (1996), and Going, Going, Gone (2001). He has taught writing at the Clarion West workshop in Seattle and was the co-winner of the Philip K. Dick Award in 1994.

Jack has published short stories, features, reviews and articles in Omni, Spin, The Washington Post Book World, Artbyte, Science Fiction Eye, and many others. His novels have been translated into German, French, Spanish, Italian, Hebrew, Japanese, Czech, Polish, Greek, and Norwegian. He is a longtime resident of New York City.

BUNDLE $100

originally posted by: Adonsa
a reply to: JimOberg

Hi Jim,

From the blog link:

...the most complete compilation of lens flares, camera smudges, film imperfections, blurs and jiggled shots ever published..

Gotta agree, UFO videographers should, at least, brace their camcorders against something, instead of jiggling all over the place.

Yeah, I saw one loitering, lots of eye witnesses. Did it come from outer space? Doubtful, I have no idea where the hell it came from.

Here's an idea to find out if they're piloted by ET. Set up phone booths in areas where UFOs hang out; then set up wildlife cameras around them to photograph ET when he tries to phone home.

Okay, okay, well, seriously, only the scholars of this, the ATS website, know for sure.

Get a hold of yourself! The criticisms are well aimed and deservedly so. But don't read it in the present tense 'cause the criticisms belong in their era, NOT the present.

Clumsy cameras (loading emulsion film, making sure it's sprocketed right, pulling for tautness, closing the back, winding the knob to get to the first frame. Only expensive models offered more features. Wait a week until you get the prints unless you processed your own. And until you saw the print or negative you didn't know if you had an image. And, of course, no optical or digital image stabilization.

While we have moved on tremendously in photography, there is a lack of clear, sharp, closeup photos. But whatever we get nowadays is superior and more watchable than photos of old and of models, and modern hoaxes are better also.

William Gibson was a fine science fiction author for about three books, but he hasn't written anything significant since about 1990 or Mona Lisa Overdrive. Most science fiction authors have a real problem with understanding and accepting the presence of aliens and especially alien abductions. Probably because it might endanger their livelihood, where they make up aliens for a living. Perhaps it's simply that they would have preferred different aliens if they were writing the script, but they are not.

And what's with the references to Phil Klass, probably the most reviled, despicable villain in all of 20th century Ufology? Be careful not to say his name three times or he may appear and haunt you.

One reason and a big reason we don't have a good pile of homeowner and vacationer type UFO photos is that almost ALL that ever felt like they had a good photo called the wrong folks that took the photo evidence and it was never seen again.

originally posted by: Logarock
One reason and a big reason we don't have a good pile of homeowner and vacationer type UFO photos is that almost ALL that ever felt like they had a good photo called the wrong folks that took the photo evidence and it was never seen again.

Great point, and absolutely correct. There are many, many incidents where people know they captured a few frames of a very strange aircraft with their cameras. The film was dropped off to be developed, as you had to do, only to be met with a handful of excuses when they went to pick it up. "Accidentally destroyed, oops", or "someone got yours by mistake". "Enjoy a free new roll of film, sorry about that."

Is anybody really still on the fence about flying saucers being a fact for almost a century? Really? I find that hard to believe.

originally posted by: billydebunker

originally posted by: Logarock
One reason and a big reason we don't have a good pile of homeowner and vacationer type UFO photos is that almost ALL that ever felt like they had a good photo called the wrong folks that took the photo evidence and it was never seen again.

Great point, and absolutely correct. There are many, many incidents where people know they captured a few frames of a very strange aircraft with their cameras. The film was dropped off to be developed, as you had to do, only to be met with a handful of excuses when they went to pick it up. "Accidentally destroyed, oops", or "someone got yours by mistake". "Enjoy a free new roll of film, sorry about that."

Is anybody really still on the fence about flying saucers being a fact for almost a century? Really? I find that hard to believe.

You gotta be kidding! In the years that I used emulsion film (1950s-1990s) that did not contain any UFOs, I lost a lot of rolls and it was just laboratory screwups. Millions of photos were taken before digital photography and a lot of them saw print in magazines, TV shows and documentaries, etc. There is nor was there any conspiracies to not return developed film. Accidents happen and eveen the Lunar Orbiters had problems processing film while in space.

NOT a good point!

originally posted by: klassless

originally posted by: billydebunker

originally posted by: Logarock
One reason and a big reason we don't have a good pile of homeowner and vacationer type UFO photos is that almost ALL that ever felt like they had a good photo called the wrong folks that took the photo evidence and it was never seen again.

Great point, and absolutely correct. There are many, many incidents where people know they captured a few frames of a very strange aircraft with their cameras. The film was dropped off to be developed, as you had to do, only to be met with a handful of excuses when they went to pick it up. "Accidentally destroyed, oops", or "someone got yours by mistake". "Enjoy a free new roll of film, sorry about that."

Is anybody really still on the fence about flying saucers being a fact for almost a century? Really? I find that hard to believe.

You gotta be kidding! In the years that I used emulsion film (1950s-1990s) that did not contain any UFOs, I lost a lot of rolls and it was just laboratory screwups. Millions of photos were taken before digital photography and a lot of them saw print in magazines, TV shows and documentaries, etc. There is nor was there any conspiracies to not return developed film. Accidents happen and eveen the Lunar Orbiters had problems processing film while in space.

NOT a good point!

You really have not provided any evidence that we are incorrect.

I guess your point is what, that because some film that does not contain UFOs gets destroyed, and because some film that does contain UFOs does not get destroyed, then you draw the conclusion that no film of UFOs has been confiscated or destroyed. Take a logic course and get back to me.

a reply to: billydebunker

I guess your point is what, that because some film that does not contain UFOs gets destroyed, and because some film that does contain UFOs does not get destroyed, then you draw the conclusion that no film of UFOs has been confiscated or destroyed. Take a logic course and get back to me.

You are the one in need of a logic course. If UFO films are confiscated, then there will be no good photos of UFOs. But there are good photographs of UFOs, therefore...?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: billydebunker

I guess your point is what, that because some film that does not contain UFOs gets destroyed, and because some film that does contain UFOs does not get destroyed, then you draw the conclusion that no film of UFOs has been confiscated or destroyed. Take a logic course and get back to me.

You are the one in need of a logic course. If UFO films are confiscated, then there will be no good photos of UFOs. But there are good photographs of UFOs, therefore...?

That is a logical fallacy, sir. You appear to have never studied logic, or even a Venn diagram.

To make the above sentence correct, you would have to change it to:

"If ALL UFO films are confiscated, then there would be no good photos of UFOs." I hope you now see where your statement failed logically, and I mean that with no animosity, I'm here to help.

And actually, it's good to hear someone in here admit that there are good photos of UFOs, maybe you should share them in here, it might help some people to understand that.

originally posted by: billydebunker

originally posted by: klassless

originally posted by: billydebunker

originally posted by: Logarock
One reason and a big reason we don't have a good pile of homeowner and vacationer type UFO photos is that almost ALL that ever felt like they had a good photo called the wrong folks that took the photo evidence and it was never seen again.

Great point, and absolutely correct. There are many, many incidents where people know they captured a few frames of a very strange aircraft with their cameras. The film was dropped off to be developed, as you had to do, only to be met with a handful of excuses when they went to pick it up. "Accidentally destroyed, oops", or "someone got yours by mistake". "Enjoy a free new roll of film, sorry about that."

Is anybody really still on the fence about flying saucers being a fact for almost a century? Really? I find that hard to believe.

You gotta be kidding! In the years that I used emulsion film (1950s-1990s) that did not contain any UFOs, I lost a lot of rolls and it was just laboratory screwups. Millions of photos were taken before digital photography and a lot of them saw print in magazines, TV shows and documentaries, etc. There is nor was there any conspiracies to not return developed film. Accidents happen and eveen the Lunar Orbiters had problems processing film while in space.

NOT a good point!

You really have not provided any evidence that we are incorrect.

I guess your point is what, that because some film that does not contain UFOs gets destroyed, and because some film that does contain UFOs does not get destroyed, then you draw the conclusion that no film of UFOs has been confiscated or destroyed. Take a logic course and get back to me.

The following is a lesson, for you, in logic. First, you put words in my mouth by bad-guessing my "point". It's really YOUR point! All I intimated was that because some film that may have contained images of alleged UFOs is lost that doesn't have to necessarily result in conspiracy. I will never accept that some film processing laboratory technicians see UFOs in film sent to labs by some clerk in a store and they turn whistle blowers to either be told to confiscate or destroy the film or give it to some unknown authority.

Sounds like a bunch of supernatural baloney to me!

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and supply to us examples of film confiscation by whatever authorities, what did the film contain, and how YOU found out about it?

Supply evidence that YOU are correct.

You rock DJW001!

And your reply to DJW001 shows that you don't know what logic means and, thereby, not use it. You're not here to help but to initiate flame wars.