Message From Chris Bentley

Hi all,

Below is a message I received from Fanderson's Chris Bentley. I must
admit to being rather surprised that there are people who still insist
that this is all a hoax, as the information has now come from several
sources besides Fanderson -- Paolo Malaguti, Helen Weber, Andy Lovie --
people who have kept in contact with Ed Bishop and/or Mike Billington
over the years, and who independently verified the story themselves.

Marc

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Bentley
To: Marc Martin
Subject: Re: Ed and Mike

Hi Marc,

It is disheartening, is it not, that at this sad time there are UFO fans who
are not prepared to believe what other fans are telling them, accusing them
instead of perpetrating some sort of sick joke?

Perhaps you might care to inform those people via your forum that myself and
my Fanderson colleagues have been personal friends of Ed Bishop for a great
many years, having come to know him over the course of his frequent
appearances at our conventions (he only missed one event in two decades) and
his tireless assistance with various club projects and publications. Ed's
honourary life membership of the club was bestowed many years ago in
recognition of his close patronage and keen involvement with the club's
activities, and he was still enthusiastically embracing that role only a few
short weeks ago when we discussed his ideas for the forthcoming September
convention in Borehamwood.

Ed also worked closely with me two years ago while I was writing 'The
Complete Book of Gerry Anderson's UFO', selflessly spending many hours with
me going through the details of different aspects of UFO's production and
making many invaluable contributions with information which had not come to
light before. He also jumped at the opportunity to write the foreword for
the book and I was both touched and honoured by his faith in me to write the
book that he felt the series deserved.

Given our relation with Ed, it is unthinkable that any of us who are
involved with Fanderson would ever have dreamed of reporting his death on
the club website (or would ever report anyone else's death for that matter)
if there were any chance that it was not true. Indeed, we did not do so
until after I had personally spoken to Ed's wife Jane on the afternoon of
Wednesday, June 8th.

Although she was clearly very upset, breaking down in tears twice while she
spoke to me, she related the tragic circumstances of earlier in the day -
how Ed had died that morning. I don't know if Helen Weber may have
interpreted Jane's information to indicate that Ed's death took place on the
Tuesday from the perspective of those of you in the US, given the difference
in the timezones (anything between four and eight hours behind the UK) -
here in the UK though, as related to me by Jane, it was Wednesday morning,
June 8th, when Ed passed away.

It was also Jane who informed me that Michael Billington had died on Monday,
just as you had also been told by your own source. I admit that I took
Jane's information in this regard entirely on trust, but it appears now
that, on the detail of which day Mike died, we were all misinformed by a
third party. The Fanderson report was corrected yesterday in reponse to
additional information as it has filtered through, and it will continue to
be updated as further information becomes available.

Frankly, it is entirely immaterial to what extent the dates and times are
accurate and I am appalled that certain people feel inclined to be picky
about this when the rest of us are grieving. Did Fanderson not provide the
correct service to fans by breaking this news on the internet as soon as it
was possible to do so with the information that was available at that time?
Writing that piece for the club website was one of the hardest things I've
ever had to do, coming as it did at a time when I was still in shock myself
at learning the news.

I have to say I really am disgusted at the reaction by some members of this
so-called fan 'community' who have contributed to the SHADO forum in the
last few days with their ridiculous accusations of a hoax perpetrated
entirely by Fanderson. What awful, cynical people they must be.

Thankfully it is heartening to see that those individuals appear to be very
much in the minority, as the vast majority of your correspondents (as well
as those on the Fanderson forum) clearly have the common sense to recognise
that no one in their right mind would have made this news so public were it
not so terribly true.

Kind regards,
Chris

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Thankfully it is heartening to see that those individuals appear to be very
> much in the minority, as the vast majority of your correspondents (as well
> as those on the Fanderson forum) clearly have the common sense to recognise
> that no one in their right mind would have made this news so public were it
> not so terribly true.

I suppose that some newcomers in the fan community do not realize that Fanderson
is considered a reliable source of information. Before the Fanderson story
broke, I had already received this news from somewhere else, and emailed
Chris Bentley to confirm if it was true. This was because I felt that if
Chris thought it was true, then it must be true. This is based on my being a
Fanderson member for around 15 years, and not recalling any retracted stories
in FAB NEWS (other than the annual April Fools story).

Also, as to the earlier question as to why the story is dated in the year
2105, this is the way Fanderson has dated their stories for a long time.
I think it is based on the Gerry Anderson comics from the 1960's, which
dated their issues 100 years in the future. So, 2105 - 100 = 2005.

Marc

--- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@u...> wrote:

<< I suppose that some newcomers in the fan community do not realize
that Fanderson is considered a reliable source of information. Before
the Fanderson story broke, I had already received this news from
somewhere else, and emailed Chris Bentley to confirm if it was true.
This was because I felt that if Chris thought it was true, then it
must be true. This is based on my being a Fanderson member for around
15 years, and not recalling any retracted stories in FAB NEWS (other
than the annual April Fools story). >>

Perhaps for a few people, wanting to believe it is a hoax, no matter
how unpleasant or inappropriate, was better than having to accept it
was true. I am sure it should not be viewed as an attack on the
integrity of Fanderson generally or Chris Bentley individually. It's
just... upset people not *wanting* to believe the information. And we
all know the www doesn't always get things right.

With bad news, people may attack the messenger – maybe that happened
in a few cases - the main messengers being Fanderson and these lists.
News of a death produces different reactions in different people. In
this instance, perhaps some of the reluctance to believe the facts
stems from seeing the double announcement – the sad coincidence of
both men passing away within a few days of each other. One or other...
well, yes, people get older – it happens. But both of them is startling.  

Carly

Having read Chris Bentley's letter, I am surprised at his tone which I
understand may come from personal distress but I think is unhelpful. I
have read all the messages on the board since the reported deaths of
Ed and Mike and I see no justification for `disgust' and nor can I
identify anyone who warrants the charge of being `awful' and `cynical.'

I certainly don't think it is picky to want to know when the deaths
occurred. I was one person who asked for clarification of Ed's date of
death as those sort of details matter to me (and others I suspect)
even if, as Chris implies, they aren't of any significance to him
personally. The initially reported date of Mike's death was wrong.
This type of confusion over dates happens all the time with celebrity
deaths so it is not at all surprising that we see it happening here.
Two different dates were reported for Ed's death. It's not a personal
attack on Chris Bentley or Fanderson to seek some accuracy on these
important points.

It has already been pointed out that one factor undermining confidence
in the news is Fanderson's convention of using 2105 for 2005. It may
be what they have always done, but for those who are not familiar with
this, then of course that is going to raise questions about validity
of the story especially, as Chris himself acknowledges, people don't
want to believe what is generally agreed to be a difficult story to
accept. The deaths of the two leading actors from UFO occurring so
close to one another is by anyone's standards a bizarre and tragic
coincidence.

Although there may be by now a significant body of information from a
variety of sources confirming this story, people will continue to come
to it new over the next few days and maybe even weeks. They may not be
aware of all the corroborating details and nor will they necessarily
know anything of the quality of the sources. Few of us have the
privilege of having personal contact with Ed or Mike's family or
associating with people who do. They will have to sort it out for
themselves and may need to ask questions to do so. Surely we can allow
that.

I'm sure like me, most of you were in a state of shock and disbelief
when you first heard the news. As a community, perhaps we can show
some understanding to one another as people struggle to come to terms
with what are, for most of us, significant losses.

All the best to all who are affected by these most unhappy events,

David

For the record, I have never believed this was a hoax





--- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@u...> wrote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Chris Bentley
> To: Marc Martin
> Subject: Re: Ed and Mike
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> It is disheartening, is it not, that at this sad time there are UFO
fans who
> are not prepared to believe what other fans are telling them,
accusing them
> instead of perpetrating some sort of sick joke?
>
> Perhaps you might care to inform those people via your forum that
myself and
> my Fanderson colleagues have been personal friends of Ed Bishop for
a great
> many years, having come to know him over the course of his frequent
> appearances at our conventions (he only missed one event in two
decades) and
> his tireless assistance with various club projects and publications.
Ed's
> honourary life membership of the club was bestowed many years ago in
> recognition of his close patronage and keen involvement with the club's
> activities, and he was still enthusiastically embracing that role
only a few
> short weeks ago when we discussed his ideas for the forthcoming
September
> convention in Borehamwood.
>
> Ed also worked closely with me two years ago while I was writing 'The
> Complete Book of Gerry Anderson's UFO', selflessly spending many
hours with
> me going through the details of different aspects of UFO's
production and
> making many invaluable contributions with information which had not
come to
> light before. He also jumped at the opportunity to write the
foreword for
> the book and I was both touched and honoured by his faith in me to
write the
> book that he felt the series deserved.
>
> Given our relation with Ed, it is unthinkable that any of us who are
> involved with Fanderson would ever have dreamed of reporting his
death on
> the club website (or would ever report anyone else's death for that
matter)
> if there were any chance that it was not true. Indeed, we did not do so
> until after I had personally spoken to Ed's wife Jane on the
afternoon of
> Wednesday, June 8th.
>
> Although she was clearly very upset, breaking down in tears twice
while she
> spoke to me, she related the tragic circumstances of earlier in the
day -
> how Ed had died that morning. I don't know if Helen Weber may have
> interpreted Jane's information to indicate that Ed's death took
place on the
> Tuesday from the perspective of those of you in the US, given the
difference
> in the timezones (anything between four and eight hours behind the UK) -
> here in the UK though, as related to me by Jane, it was Wednesday
morning,
> June 8th, when Ed passed away.
>
> It was also Jane who informed me that Michael Billington had died on
Monday,
> just as you had also been told by your own source. I admit that I took
> Jane's information in this regard entirely on trust, but it appears now
> that, on the detail of which day Mike died, we were all misinformed by a
> third party. The Fanderson report was corrected yesterday in reponse to
> additional information as it has filtered through, and it will
continue to
> be updated as further information becomes available.
>
> Frankly, it is entirely immaterial to what extent the dates and
times are
> accurate and I am appalled that certain people feel inclined to be picky
> about this when the rest of us are grieving. Did Fanderson not
provide the
> correct service to fans by breaking this news on the internet as
soon as it
> was possible to do so with the information that was available at
that time?
> Writing that piece for the club website was one of the hardest
things I've
> ever had to do, coming as it did at a time when I was still in shock
myself
> at learning the news.
>
> I have to say I really am disgusted at the reaction by some members
of this
> so-called fan 'community' who have contributed to the SHADO forum in the
> last few days with their ridiculous accusations of a hoax perpetrated
> entirely by Fanderson. What awful, cynical people they must be.
>
> Thankfully it is heartening to see that those individuals appear to
be very
> much in the minority, as the vast majority of your correspondents
(as well
> as those on the Fanderson forum) clearly have the common sense to
recognise
> that no one in their right mind would have made this news so public
were it
> not so terribly true.
>
> Kind regards,
> Chris
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry if Chris is offended, but there's absolutely a difference
between a fan site and main-stream journalism. Maintaining a healthy
skepticism until there's independent confirmation only makes sense.

Any other response boils down to "It must be true. I read it on the
internet."

--

Jonathan Andrew Sheen

http://www.leviathanstudios.com
Leviathan of the GEI (Detached.)
[hidden email]

"What'dya expect? I'm a New Yorker!"
-Anonymous New York Firefighter, 9/12/01

carly, please forgive me for using your message but I am tired of being called cynical among other names. I have been a fan of UFO since I was 10 yrs old. It came on at 3am and I even got in trouble a few times for watching it. Two years ago it came on DVD and I have watched all the episodesat least twice since then. I joined this group because it seemed the mostreliable UFO club on the net. I had NEVER heard of fanderson. I see a message that two actors who were in UFO died at the same time. One from a mysterious ailment. I look at the site and it says they died on June 8, 2105. Well that is 100yrs in the future. All of us will be dead in 2105! How am I supposed to know that fanderson does all their dates that way? So yes I think someone is having a bit of fun at my expense. I ask for confirmation from a reliable source like a newspaper. I get the Telegraph which I have to join to get the story. I see in a James Bond fandom magazine the story that Ed and Mike
died but again the source is fanderson. I am very cynical when I read strange information on the net.
It would be different if the net were 100% reliable but everyone knows that more hoaxes and scams are perpetrated on the net than anywhere else. Have you heard about adults that pretend to be kids on the net, meet the kids, and then the real kids end up missing or dead. How about the little girl who goes to the computer in the middle of the night and looks up white horse and gets a pornographic site. Why did the parents leave the computer in stand bye mode. Alot of people get ripped off by ebay. I was charged twice for a "Titanic" membership. How about the email that says "you have won a million dollars" , you answer it and your computer goes nuts. Why? Because someone planted a virus on your computer. You can be anyone you want to be on the computer and fool millions of people . I say I am 43. How do you know I am not 12 and love fooling adults. You don't. All I am issomeone who types in when I want to talk to people.  

carlyjward <[hidden email]> wrote:
--- In [hidden email], Marc Martin wrote:

<< I suppose that some newcomers in the fan community do not realize
that Fanderson is considered a reliable source of information. Before
the Fanderson story broke, I had already received this news from
somewhere else, and emailed Chris Bentley to confirm if it was true.
This was because I felt that if Chris thought it was true, then it
must be true. This is based on my being a Fanderson member for around
15 years, and not recalling any retracted stories in FAB NEWS (other
than the annual April Fools story). >>

Perhaps for a few people, wanting to believe it is a hoax, no matter
how unpleasant or inappropriate, was better than having to accept it
was true. I am sure it should not be viewed as an attack on the
integrity of Fanderson generally or Chris Bentley individually. It's
just... upset people not *wanting* to believe the information. And we
all know the www doesn't always get things right.

With bad news, people may attack the messenger – maybe that happened
in a few cases - the main messengers being Fanderson and these lists.
News of a death produces different reactions in different people. In
this instance, perhaps some of the reluctance to believe the facts
stems from seeing the double announcement – the sad coincidence of
both men passing away within a few days of each other. One or other...
well, yes, people get older – it happens. But both of them is startling.

Carly







Yahoo! Groups Links








signature

test'; ">
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]