That’s the claim of this article.
The SDMB is the place to get to the bottom of this!
So Ward Kimball claimed that 40 years previously USAF was going to give them some UFO footage to craft a film around, and then rescinded the offer, but said they had plenty of authentic UFO footage on hand.
There are so many potential holes in that (especially given the subsquent analysis of Blue Book etc.) that there’s hardly any Swiss holding them together. It’s say-so on say-so on probably faulty recollection on possibly some misunderstanding and maybe even a bit of pranking.
In the absence of even a shred of evidence, I don’t know that it’s worth any followup.
The article claims the Airforce has approached multiple filmmakers over a period 30 years about the film. Even if you think the USAF has such footage, its pretty hard to believe they’d almost reveal it to the public, going so far as to let multiple civilians in on the secret, and then change their minds at the last minute. Once would be pretty implausibe, doing it multiple times with different sets of film-makers is silly.
And I think Brad Bird already said there’s no aliens in “Tomorrow Land”
Nitro, I don’t mean to pick on you, but it’s a pet peeve of mine the way people say “no evidence” or “not a shred of evidence,” when that is incorrect. A claim to what happened “is” evidence. It might not be conclusive evidence, it might even be impeached evidence, but it still qualifies as evidence. I wish people would say, “there is no proof,” or “you have nothing conclusive,” instead of saying there is no evidence.
Understood.
However.
Except in the formality of a courtroom, an unsupported claim doesn’t constitute evidence as it’s more generally understood. I’ll cop to being guilty of a technicality but I doubt anyone misreads my intent.
Of course the USAF has plenty of footage of Unidentified Flying Objects; that does not mean it has any of extraterrestrial spaceships.
I would think the USAF would have at least erased their memory after going back on the deal. Somebody majorly dropped the ball there.
By that standard there is limitless evidence of anything happening for any reason.
I gather your post is your cite.
The battery went dead on their flashy thing.
" A claim to what happened “is” evidence"
Evidence is that which proves or disproves or tends to prove or disprove a “claim”. I could claim that Shiloh 2013 is the screen name of a 90 year old former member of the NKVD. A claim is not evidence that that which is claimed is true or false.
This.
Wait, we agree on something? Amazing.
No, he’s right in a narrow legal sense. I just think it’s too fine a distinction to enforce outside of a legal classroom or persnickety court.
Y’know, I thought the flight footage in “The Cat From Outer Space” looked TOO real…
My Dad was a USAF intelligence officer (served in Vietnam – his unit’s job was to monitor enemy radio transmissions, and tell the flyers not to go where the enemy might be expecting them that day); he’s totally skeptical about the whole Roswell, etc., thing.
No.
There is no real UFO footage (UFO being used here in the sense of “interplanetary spacecraft of extraterrestrial origin”).
Off to read the OP and maybe learn if the term UFO is being used in a different sense.
Is Mr. Bird suggesting that this guy is an Earthling?
Why would ETs cross vast interstellar distances to visit our planet and then hide from us anyway?
Well, actually, we all know the answer.
Is it okay for him to say “there isn’t a shred of corroborative evidence?”