UFOs: The Secret History

I watched this documentary or ‘story’ as I would call it on Prime, and found it to be highly entertaining and particularly useful in that it provides a nice overview of the early UFO history and background especially. Naturally once we get into the realm of abductions all consensus starts to break down. “In the psychological model the episodes [of abduction] were confabulation, the result of confusion between memory and fantasy in some individuals nurtured by widespread accounts in the media.” One could say the same thing about serial killing, which from a (mostly) theoretical perspective is also merely another type of folklore. Once again the ufology mythos highlights the razor sharp and thoroughly modern distinction between ‘observers’ and ‘experiencers’. The filmmakers here corralled the famous folklorist/ufologist Thomas Bullard to inform us rubes that these stories of abduction do not vary (much), which distinguishes them as ‘real’ events apart from merely being folklore, aka ‘stories’. Strange to me that a folklorist would like to reassure us about ‘reality’. From my research so far I would disagree with this assessment too as an oversimplification, in that one could say that such stories do vary but depending upon the media form and also upon the time frame under consideration. The film suffers from a certain inconsistency in this regard common within the field or mythos, as you like it. The problem of course is that different accounts of this subject include different data sets as valid. Jacque Vallee in his book Passage to Magonia speaks credulously of the airship sightings at the end of the 19th century, whereas Bullard describes them as “entertainment” dreamed up by rival small town newspaper editors. The irony of Bullard’s claim that abduction accounts ‘do not vary’ in the middle of a folkloric account served up as a documentary film cannot pass unremarked. Films are stories. Films are folklore. To claim the stories of contactees haven’t varied within a documentary describing how film executives demanded changes be made to a film about UFO contact (Fire In the Sky) ignores film itself as a form of communication and as part of the overall system of folklore. I have also heard (the source escapes me at the moment so please forgive) that the roadside abduction accounts gradually morphed into the ‘home invasion’ style accounts aka Strieber as we move from the 70s into the 80s. It seems that scientists (at least the ones brave or foolish enough to venture into ufology) have become characters within folklore. Whether they are ‘mad’ or not remains an open question. The paradox here is that the story of UFOs includes debunking. Just as science includes the code ‘true/false’, ufology includes the identification of otherwise ‘unidentified’ phenomena. The question remains what explanations will be accepted by witnesses, experiencers or other observers. ‘Swamp gas’ may be unacceptable to even the general public at times but eventually the controversy is forgotten. Regardless of one’s personal feelings on the topic, this film does a great job of illustrating the scientific (sociological) question, which remains open, as to whether ufology can ever successfully disentangle itself from “fringe mythology” and cross over into legitimate (‘official’) scientific inquiry.

A serious look at the subject, produced in 2008.

I thought it was pretty good compared to other UFO shows. I would recomend it to anyone interested in the topic.

Rather overpriced offering of somewhat amateurish quality - which is not necessarily a detriment, but does suggest another missed ufological opportunity. Color me anomalistic, but I dream of the day that the UFO phenom will be given the Ken Burns treatment it so desperately deserves.I think Mr. Cherniack wears his Kubrick homage a bit too heavily for my taste. Even so, he would have benefited from imitating Stanley's documentary preface scheme originally planned for A Space Odyssey: a series of monologues from experts on selected aspects of ET contact.First disk is a disappointingly compressed history of the UFO phenom with some ok CGI and numerous talking head comments. Basically, this constitutes a truncated history of USA flying saucers courtesy of Jerome Clark. Truly a pleasure to hear from Michael Swords and Thomas Bullard, whose contributions need much wider appreciation. Would have been nicer to have more Bruce Maccabee and Stanton Friedman, however, not to mention others. All in all, this segment should have been twice as long. Hard to understand how it skims so superficially over the late 60s, virtually omitting the importance of the '73 flap, the Hudson Valley sightings, etcetera, etc...Second "supplemental" disk is talking heads on the "Fermi Paradox" and some other speculation on ET contact. Interesting to hear some of these ideas intelligently and openly considered. But another lost opportunity in that there is little expansion on most of them or anything in the way of discussion, which would certainly have opened up the topic in so many fascinating directions.Third disk is devoted to abductions. More talking heads, mostly David Jacobs, Budd Hopkins and the mavens of CUFOS. Again, interesting but disappointing in that this all important subject matter is treated too piece meal. Also, quite annoying not to be able to hear some of the off camera comments to which the interviewees occasionally respond to. John Mack's point of view is represented by an "experiencer" who is provided far too much time to speculate. Again, multiple opinions would have been far more worthwhile and interesting. Why not have an open panel of various abductees? In any case, the controversy is handled rather ineptly. Not once is the all important issue of what actually or practically constitutes "evidence" addressed. This leaves Professor Jacobs constantly having to defend himself against every sort of pointed and nebulous criticism.All in all, not really worth the price of admission.

Here in one mild-mannered doc is a highlighted history of the modern era of UFOs in America. As today we get so much stuff related to the ATIP revelation with "tic-tac" video played ad infinitum it might be good to review. From the Kenneth Arnold event to Roswell later day revival it recounts the government's bizarre attempts to cloud the issue. Most of us know this stuff, but we may have forgotten things which this will help explain how we're at the point of the government finally admitting the aerial phenomenon isn't "swamp gas" at all. One forgotten advocate mentioned is Dr. James McDonald who went from government debunker to believer. I think he knew a lot more than he ever got out.

There were far too many details left out of some of the very well known cases - for instance, Betty & Barney Hill were, soon after their experience - after high officials in the military found out about it - were taken to a military base and questioned.and the Air National Guard pilot, Thomas Mantell, who chased a fast moving object - and was later said to have confused a UFO for Venus: it has been said, in other documentaries, that on that date, Venus was not visible from the part of the world where he was flying.3) many years after the Roswell event it was revealed by Master Sergeant Frank Kaufman (ret.) and also by Lt. Colonel Richard French (ret.) that there were TWO crashed alien flying crafts outside of Roswell, not just one.