From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:56:41 -0500
Archived: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:49:47 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Fourth Kind' Movie Review


>From: John Velez <jvelez49.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:53:36 -0500
>Subject: Re: 'Fourth Kind' Movie Review

<snip>

>Steve Kaeser wrote in response to Katharina:

>>Please have Nick Redfern provide details as to the Doctor in
>>question. I believe that she doesn't exist until proven
>>otherwise. I find it absolutely strange that people would
>>support a film because they thought it portrayed any sort of
>>reality, and use it to promote their beliefs. That, in my
>>opinion, is pretty sick and those involved with this should know
>>better.

>I wrote a _Movie_Review_ Steve, I don't think any part of my
>post could even remotely be interpreted as, 'promoting my
>beliefs'. Could you elaborate please? Maybe I'm misreading or
>misinterpreting what you're referring to. Can you point me to
>the part of my review that you are reading as, me
>pitching/selling my 'beliefs'?

Hi John,

Your review of The Fourth Kind came just after a friend (an
"experiencer") had to rush out and see it midday Friday. He came
back all excited about this case [that he also was not aware
of], and he was completely convinced that the archival (or aged)
footage was real.

I recalled the warning on UpDates a few weeks ago that this
pseudo-documentary was coming out and then began to look at a
few sites from the Hollywood angle, and quickly found several
pages that detailed the viral web activity and the web marketing
for TFK.

I would note that Milla Jovovich was the reason my friend knew
about the film, being a non-computer user. We had television
promos that he saw, and he likes Milla as an actress. Then,
given the subject, he couldn't resist and he immediately called
friends to tell them of this important movie.

I thought that the Bud Hopkins review might alter his view, but
any attempt to show him evidence that it may only be a movie was
interpreted as an attack on his core beliefs. I don't follow
Alien Abduction research deeply, but also don't criticize or
belittle the beliefs of others (in a variety of subjects).

Your review, in my interpretation, was written prior to doing
any research on the case, which you believed to real enough to
mention doing to get more details on the case.

I did interpret that as an endorsement of TFK from a ufological
perspective. But from the hype they've generated as the opening
approached, a large segment of the target audience is probably
more inclined to believe this as fact, rather than fiction, at
the core.

Given the distractions of many Movies and Television shows after
segments of the genre have latched onto them as real, or an
effort to prepare the public for the 'truth', it seems even more
important to research first and declare importance to the field
later.

I did not interpret your review as going that far, I believe I
did post a response that included a couple of web links on TFK's
production and marketing.

As far as "promoting your beliefs" is concerned, that was a poor
phrasing to select. But given your prior involvement in the
Abduction arena, albeit inactive, your review IMO tended to give
it credence, and after seeing my friends reaction, I fear we
have another movie to keep an eye on to see if there's a
negative.

I believe most researchers in Ufology would prefer not having to
filter out the noise it may add to the research effort. That's
not to say that honest debate shouldn't take place, but we
debated the Alien Autopsy for a decade and there are still a few
believers helping to keep it profitable for Ray Santilli.

Most researchers who've been at this for a few decades believe
that most, if not all, of the MJ-12 documents have failed to
provide any provenance and or supporting evidence. But their
credibility has been promoted through numerous UFO documentaries
by their proponents on the History Channel.

Not to mention that it took about three years for people to stop
posting that The X-Files was a Government effort to prepare the
public for some future announcement.

There's no telling what the impact of 2012 will be.

For those who are researching this for the first time, how does
one select what to believe and what to reject in the salad of
beliefs and theories that are promoted at any given time? There
are many thousands of people interested in this field, but
trying to get a majority agreement is akin to herding cats.
Maybe we need Nancy Pelosi to work the room.

My intention is not to get into a long debate over the movie. If
there is evidence to disclose, I'm interested in seeing it, and
I will be forwarding a question to Nick Redfern to get
information on what he knows.

I'm also not really here to debate peoples beliefs, but I would
like to keep the facts we can point to on the table and take
them into account. But maybe that has to wait until we have
clearly defined rules of evidence.


Steve



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/subscribers/

Your access info works there too...

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.