Saturday, May 20, 2017

X-Zone Broadcast Network - Nick Redfern, The Roswell UFO Conspiracy

Nick Redfern. Photo by
Kevin Randle.
This week I talked with Nick Redfern about his new book The Roswell UFO Conspiracy: Exposing a Shocking and Sinister Secret because it would let people know about his new book, open up a discussion about an alternative explanation for the Roswell crash and it would give me a chance to promote my book, Roswell in the 21st Century. Although I had suggested that his book was an update of his Body Snatchers in the Desert, it is actually more than just that, and it provides more information about some aspects of American history that are, for the lack of another term, rather disgusting. You can listen to our discussion here:

Given the way things are in the world today, when people begin to talk about anonymous sources and don’t provide names, I begin to worry about the information. Nick pointed out that some of his sources weren’t actually anonymous but they were unnamed which, according to him is not quite the same thing. It means that while they’re not named, Nick knows who they are. I understand the necessity for these unnamed sources, some of it the responsibility of the publishers who now require that we all provide permission slips signed by the subject of interviews, often with the caveat that they had no objection to their names being used. The problem isn’t that Nick has refused to name them, the publisher wants to make sure that they agreed to being named because if they didn’t… lawsuit.

I know from my own experience that sometimes an overzealous researcher will want to verify the information that I have reported. They call the witness to ask their own questions, and I understand that. I want to be able to verify the information published by others myself… to see if it is accurate, if the witness has something else to say, or if the comments were taken out of context and the witness actually meant something different. I have found problems with some of those interviews conducted by others when I asked the questions, so I do get it.

But the flip side of that is something that I have run into and that is drunks, as a single example. As I mentioned on the program, Bill Brazel told me that drunks, making bets in bars, had called him on several occasions to ask if the information published about him was true… and not just at a descent hour but at two or three in the morning… I hesitate to subject people to that sort of harassment… or to those who don’t like the information and who want to argue the point with the witness.

One way around that is documentation and I pressed Nick on that when he began to speak about Unit 731, which had, according to him, conducted experiments on humans that can be called little more than torture. And this is where we slide off into another dark side of American history. Starting not long after the Japanese invasion of mainland China, they built a concentration camp where they performed experiments, many on Chinese men, women and children, but also on Russians and prisoners of war. These experiments included cold weather exposure to see how the body reacted to extreme temperatures, injecting live bacteria into humans to map the progress of deadly disease, amputating limps and attempting to reattach them, sometimes on the other side of the body, and the vivisection of living, conscious subjects because they didn’t want the normal decay of the diseased organs after death to color the results. They wanted to see exactly what was happening on the living organs.

Okay, that’s really enough of that. As the war wound down and it was clear that Unit 731 was about to be overrun by the Russians, the Japanese ordered everything destroyed, the buildings burned and ordered those who had participated to never say a word about it. I think the Japanese understood the concept of war crimes and they were hiding the evidence… which means that there was little in the way of documentation. Nick had mentioned a project like Paperclip that had brought the captured Nazis to the US to help build our space program. There was a similar project for the Japanese… or so he said.

Very little research on my part was able to confirm this, though I don’t know if any of the Japanese actually made it to the US. But Japanese who had participated in these “experiments” were questioned about it by American authorities and were told that anything they said would not be used in war crimes trials. General of the Army Douglas MacArthur was the senior officer to approve this because the information about the progress of some diseases, and effects of extreme cold, and other experiments did provide valuable information. The thinking I suppose, was that the data had been gathered and there was no reason to destroy it. The damage had been done, the subjects were dead and the information might be used for the benefit of others.

The point here is that Nick had been correct in what he had said about Unit 731 and its horrendous past. Many of the Japanese involved were identified and were not tried as war criminals so that the data would not be lost. That doesn’t take us to the crash of that alleged experimental craft in New Mexico in 1947, but it does get us a little closer.

Personally, I’m a little disgusted with these secret agreements that were made at the end of the war. I’m disgusted that the US government, and the US military seemed to think there was a higher purpose there and the horror could be overlooked for the value of the data collected…

Anyway, I’m finished with this rant. I bring it up merely because Nick had talked of Unit 731, had few names and it seemed even fewer documents to support all of this and how it ended up in New Mexico two years after the Japanese surrender. I bring it up so that we see that there is something to be said for Nick’s theory here and there is independent support for some of the information he used in his book and what we discussed on the program. It doesn’t mean that the object that crashed was of terrestrial manufacture and that this theory is the correct one, only that there is some information to support the theory and that more research is required.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Fake News, ABC and the Bermuda Triangle

I have to wonder about ABC News. When I heard that an airplane had vanished on a flight from Puerto Rico to Miami, I knew it wouldn’t be long before someone had to mention it was another mysterious disappearance in the Bermuda Triangle. A solution for that mystery has been available for decades and some of the planes listed as having vanished, in fact, did not. Wreckage has been found. I mentioned much of this a long time ago on this blog, and have, of course, promoted the book, The Bermuda Triangle Mystery – Solved by Lawrence Kusche a number of times. For those earlier posts see:

In this latest tragedy, ABC was the first that I saw that mentioned the Bermuda Triangle complete with a map showing the anchors of the triangle at Puerto Rico, Bermuda and Miami. They also mentioned the number of crashes of aircraft and sinking of ships in the area, never mentioning that the numbers are not significantly higher than those for other heavily traveled sea lanes.

From the information readily available, it seems that the aircraft crashed, though I have nothing to suggest why that happened. Wreckage identified as coming from the lost aircraft has been recovered by the Coast Guard. That tells me that the aircraft crashed, not that it disappeared.

A 440th Tactical Airlift Wing C-119.
Once again, I will note that while I was assigned to the 928th Tactical Airlift Group, which was a unit subordinate to the 440th Airlift Wing, I had an opportunity to talk with the pilots, crew, and command post staff about the loss of one of their aircraft in the Bermuda Triangle. They had wreckage from the aircraft that was identified with the unit numbers on it, not to mention the serial numbers of some of the parts recovered. The aircraft crashed; though it is still listed in many of the books about the Bermuda Triangle as having disappeared.

I suggest that the news media try to be a little more topical and get off their lazy butts and use Google. There they could learn that the Bermuda Triangle is a manufactured mystery that was the result of incomplete facts, flawed research and an abundance of imagination. Rather than fan the flames of mystery, try to learn the truth so that the story doesn’t become one more sensational chapter in a tale that is untrue. 

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Hangar 1 and the Roswell Case

By a somewhat strange coincidence, I happened on an episode of Hangar 1 just a couple of weeks after I had interviewed Jan Harzan, MUFON Executive Director. I hadn’t realized that the opening of the show made such a big deal out of “MUFON’s Archives” stored in this huge warehouse-like hangar. Harzan told me that when the producers arrived, they asked where the files were and the current director said, “Over there in Hangar One,” and a title was born. Many of MUFON’s files are
no longer in a hangar… and the hangar shown on the beginning of the program does not exist as a MUFON warehouse.

Yeah, that’s splitting a hair because television is a visual medium and the producers of television shows are in need of stunning visuals which that hangar is. I can live with that as long as we all understand that Hangar 1, as described, does not exist.

But then they delved into the Roswell UFO crash and fell badly off the rails. It started with the mispronunciation of Mack Brazel’s last name and continued on to invented quotes for Jesse Marcel. The Chaves County sheriff, George Wilcox, did not go out to the ranch managed by Brazel and upon his return alert the intelligence officer at Roswell. Instead, Brazel brought some of the debris into the office in Chaves County and the sheriff then called the base alerting, indirectly, Major Jesse Marcel. The sheriff did not go out because the Brazel ranch was in Lincoln County.

Hangar 1 brought in General Nathan Twining, who, in 1947, was the commanding officer of the Air Materiel Command, and later the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They point out that Twining had created the first official UFO investigation and cloaked it in secrecy… but failed to mention that in the letter in which he calls for the creation of that study, he also cited the lack of crash recovered debris.

They talked about Glenn Dennis’ missing nurse, never revealing that the search for her failed and upon that point Dennis then changed the story about her, her name and why he had given us the name he did. They showed a drawing of the alien creature claiming it was made by the nurse but, of course, it wasn’t. The drawing was made by Walter Henn under Dennis’ direction. I happen to have the original
drawing, with includes a couple of changes made by Don Schmitt, also under Dennis’ direction. (Given the circumstances, I might own the copyright on it.)

The drawings made under the direction of Dennis, original artwork by Walter Henn,.
Then, in what I found outrageous, they begin to cite the secret or shadow government that was created at that time, July 1947, under the name MJ-12. They mention in passing that it is somewhat controversial but we all realize that is just a way to dismiss the claim of controversy. They suggest that everyone knows that it is real. This is where they completely lost me because the consensus seems to be that MJ-12 is a hoax. I laid all this out in Roswell in the 21st Century, in which I devote the massive Appendix A to a comprehensive analysis of the whole sorry episode. I have found what I believe to be the fatal flaw which brings down all of MJ-12. For those who haven’t figured it out yet, MJ-12 is a hoax that began in the 1980s.

And we must never forget the Hangar 1 report of the “star soldier,” who claimed to have been abducted at 17, served for twenty years fighting the alien enemy on Mars, only to be returned to his bed 15 minutes after he left. This wasn’t part of the most recent episode I watched, but it is part of the series. This is fiction complete and total and to suggest any sort of reality to it makes the whole field of UFO research look bad.

Don’t get me wrong (though I know that many will), I don’t object to this show on principle, but only because they “report” everything as if it is a foregone conclusion for reality. They pay lip service to some of the criticisms of various investigations and sightings, but ignore most of that criticism. While this is supposed to be a documentary, remember what Jan Harzan told me during our discussion of it, “Television is not a documentary.” This is all television and they, MUFON, have no real control over what the producers say or do.

Or, in other words, it’s not their fault.

Here’s now what we know, based on some of what Harzan said. The show wasn’t really a documentary. You couldn’t do justice to the five or six cases examined in each episode, but it was good for business with more sightings being reported and more people joining the organization. They aren’t above running with a story that nearly everyone knows is complete fiction. I suppose we could deduce he was saying was that they did it for the membership gains and the money it brought in.

Saturday, May 13, 2017

X-Zone Broadcast Network - Monte Shriver (Aztec UFO Crash)

Monte Shriver
Although I have always thought that the evidence for a UFO crash near Aztec, New Mexico, in 1948, was probably false, this tale keeps popping up as if it is something real. I reached out to a former Aztec resident, a man who was in high school in Aztec in 1948, and who has spent the last several years investigating the case, Monte Shriver. (Interestingly, it was Scott Ramsey who rather nastily told me to invite Shriver on the show.) Shriver knew the people in Aztec who were supposedly aware of this crash and who, using the historical records and documentation available has provided a different perspective on the case. You can listen to the interview here:

(I have learned that if you go to YouTube and type in “A Different Perspective,” you’ll find all the programs there so that you can sort through the ones you wish to hear if this long link doesn’t take you to the right place.)

Our discussion sometimes moved into the minutia of the situation giving the impression of vital errors and while that might suggest trouble with the overall tale, I also thought it could be the sort of mistake that someone who hadn’t lived in the area would make. Aztec resident Shriver knew all the roads, rivers and ravines, but those outsiders investigating might just confuse one river for another proving only that sometimes the trivia is hard to keep straight. These were some of the things that Shriver pointed out, though I wasn’t overly impressed with what I think of as minor problems.

But there were, and are, other much larger problems with the tale. One of the alleged eyewitnesses claimed to have been working for the El Paso Natural Gas company in 1948 which was the reason he saw the crash but the records seem to indicate that the company didn’t arrive until a year or two later. And a photograph of “drip tanks” that were close to some kind of fire in 1948 that brought in other witnesses hadn’t been built until years later. If you want to follow up on this, you can read about all these things in Shriver’s own words here:

There are many problems with the Aztec UFO crash case, not the least of which is the lack of any sort of documentation from 1948. There are no newspaper articles, no military records and by the time you reach some of the FBI statements that have been available for years, you realize those are based on the book, Behind the Flying Saucers and not on evidence derived from the field.

Next week’s guest: Nick Redfern

Topic: His theory of what fell at Roswell.

Monday, May 08, 2017

X-Zone Broadcast Network - Jan Harzan

Jan Harzan
Jan Harzan, the executive director at MUFON, was my guest. We did talk about the organizational structure of MUFON but we didn’t go into depth simply because such logistical details are of little real importance and not very interesting to listen to. That finished, we talked about some of the best UFO sightings, Hangar One, and the idea that MUFON had been infiltrated by members of the intelligence community as suggested by a former state director. You can listen to the program here:

The sighting Jan Harzan chose to talk about is one from Canada in 2013. This involved a large, dumbbell-shaped object that emitted some sort of electromagnetic signal. Although the witnesses, whose names are not provided, managed to take video of the object, when they reviewed the video, the object was not visible but some of the radiation emitted from it did seem to be recorded. Analysis of that video is being made, but when I asked for names of the witnesses, I was told about some of the scientists who had expressed an interest in the video, and about those who had attended a conference that had nothing to do with UFOs. Some of the attendees did think the video interesting but I still didn’t learn who the witnesses were. Without that information, it is difficult to validate the sighting. I was asked if I was calling the witnesses liars, but how could I do that when I didn’t know who they were, what they had actually said and if the details have been skewed by those reporting them? This case is labeled as 74282 and more details are available at the MUFON website. You find information about this here (if the link still works):

I couldn’t remember if the tale of the “star soldier” had been part of the Hangar One series or one of the other nonsensical “documentaries” that have been aired in the last couple of years so I didn’t ask about it specifically. Turns out that it was part of Hangar One and you can read my take on it here:

I did have a problem with Jan Harzan’s deflecting the blame for this series from MUFON to the producers. Sure, I know producers have their own agendas and that often it is in conflict with what some of those participating in the show have, but when he suggested this wasn’t a documentary but something else, I thought that was too much. Instead, he told me how many new members the series had produced and how the financial situation at MUFON had improved. The point that was missed was that Hangar One was being broadcast as a documentary that obtained its information in the MUFON files, and the star soldier was part of that whole process. The program was a disservice to UFO research even if it had been financially rewarding to MUFON.

Next week’s guest: Monte Shriver

Topic: Aztec UFO Crash

Wednesday, May 03, 2017

The Mystery of Oak Island Solved by Joy Steele

While the Laginas begin to power up for a new assault on the treasure hidden beneath Oak Island, a new theory about the Money Pit has revealed. Joy Steele, in her book, The Oak Island Mystery Solved, has provided an interesting idea. According to her, there is no treasure, never had been, and the alleged Money Pit is nothing more than a tar kiln, used in the early 18th century to produce material to repair ships. And, given what has been found on the island by the Laginas and some of those others, this does make some sense.

According to the history, back in the early eighteenth century, the British received their naval stores from Sweden which apparently included tar. But that supply was cut off and the British looked to their colonies in the new world to replace that source. They induced colonists in the Carolinas to create the tar kilns because of the dense pine forests (Can you say Tar Heels?). It would seem on my quick research that they built dozens of these kilns in the Carolinas, but it seems they also built them up and down the east coast of North America.

The question becomes, “Would they have built tar kilns on Oak Island?”

I have learned that pine trees are considered resinous trees, but oaks are not. They don’t produce resin when cut or “injured” which makes them good for furniture, cabinets and fire wood. Pines do produce the resin which can be rendered to tar which makes them bad for furniture and fire wood.

Would the British have established a camp on Oak Island and used it to produce tar? Well, oak trees aren’t any good for that, but there are pine trees in Nova Scotia. Would Oak Island have been a place where the British would build these kilns even if the pine trees were not in abundance on the island?

Well, we know there was a British camp on the island. That was established by those guys the Laginas brought in and who, using metal detectors, found British coins and other debris that suggested a camp. So, there was a British presence on the island that predates the discovery of the Money Pit. And remember that the residents of Nova Scotia reported seeing lights on the island in the early eighteenth century.

I don’t know all that much about sailing ships of the eighteenth century, but it would seem that docking at an island for repairs might have been simpler than sailing all the way to the mainland (and yes, I know it’s not all that far, but the tides and depth of water might have made it somewhat problematic). That might also explain the artificial nature of that swamp that the Laginas are always attempting to drain, might explain some of the debris found in the swamp, and might explain why some believed that a ship had been scuttled in the area. It would might also explain the artificial beaches, the coconut fiber and the alleged coffer dam.

I also know that some of you might say, “Yes, but what about that stone with the strange carvings found 90 feet down in the Money Pit?”

I would say, “I believe that was created as an inducement for selling stock in another attempt to penetrate the Money Pit. They could say that they had found this plague proving that there was a huge fortune just a few feet down. Buy stock in my company to recover it.” I would note that no treasure has been found a few feet below where the alleged stone was found.

There are those out there who will complain about this debunking of the Money Pit, but I have to say that you need to follow the evidence. The Laginas have provided some of that evidence in their searches. They have found coins on the surface, have pulled iron nails out of the swamp that suggest they had been using on sailing ships, and they have found evidence of lots of tunnels… but they have found absolutely nothing to suggests there is a treasure hidden anywhere on the island.

For those interested in seeing the other side of the coin, might I suggest you take a look at Joy Steele’s book, The Oak Island Mystery Solved, which can be found in many places including Amazon at: 

Saturday, April 29, 2017

Cosmic Whistleblowers - Simon Sharman

The other day I had the opportunity to watch a documentary by Simon Sharman called Cosmic Whistleblowers. You can see a preview, or rather a short trailer about the film, here.

This is sort of his pursuit of the “Roswell Slides” tale, his discussions with various individuals including some of those who were directly involved in the Roswell crash in some fashion, and with Don Schmitt and Tom Carey who have been investigating it for years. It ends just after the big fiasco in Mexico City and what
Tom Carey. Photo copyright
by Kevin Randle
he learned about this after the fact, including information from the Roswell Slides Research Group and how they deburred the placard. It is an interesting story if for no other reason that you get to see the players in this little drama before Mexico City, during that presentation, and then the aftereffects of learning the truth.

Their website provides a short synopsis for the film. They describe it like this (and please ignore the all caps, but this is take directly from their site):

What caught my attention and this segment was obviously recorded before everything came crashing down (pun intended), was a statement by Tom Carey. He was explaining who was conducting which parts of the investigation and why they were allegedly being careful in their research, something that we all can understand. He said:

Don Schmitt and I want to get our own analysis. We’re not going to sign to something that blows up in our face. In this business that’s terminal.
It really does no good to go through all this again and you can read my analysis, reports, conclusions and opinions on all this by looking back on the blog, especially starting in February 2015 as more information was being revealed by those conducting their investigations. It is clear that bits and pieces of the story were being leaked by all sorts of people for their own purposes and to build suspense until the big reveal in Mexico City.

Tom said that a mistake of the proportions that had been made would be “terminal” but anyone who has been around the UFO field for a while knows that simply isn’t true. The only real mistake is to reveal the truth of a case that suggests something other than alien visitation. As long as you embrace all that suggests there is alien visitation, it really doesn’t matter all that much what mistakes you have made in the past.

The point is that they didn’t actually do their “due diligence” on the case, they didn’t get their own analysis and seemed to reject anything that suggested the slide showed anything other than an alien creature. We all seem to know this and most of us just ignore it. After all, anyone can make a mistake, even a huge one, and come back from it once enough time has passed.

Yes, I’m beating the dead horse here, but I found that one statement by Tom to be rather ironic. He wanted to be careful in his research of the slides because an error made there could be “terminal.” The error was huge, the data badly corrupted, the red flags ignored for a variety of reasons and even when the image was identified and other pictures of it found in a museum in the southwestern United States, there were, and are, arguments that it isn’t the same image. An examination of the slide, reveals the setting, and an examination of the picture taken as the child was recovered in 1898 show it to be the same as that on the slide, but people still seem to disbelieve it.

I mention all this simply because I’m not surprised by this. I have seen it time and again in the UFO field. Find the plausible (and that is the key word) explanation and no matter how solid that explanation is, it will be rejected by some… but then we know the moon landings were hoaxed, the Bermuda Triangle is dangerous and the Cardiff giant is real.

X-Zone Broadcast Network - Lance Moody

Lance Moody
This week I tried something completely different and invited a dyed in the wool skeptic to join me. Lance Moody told about his conversion to skepticism from a younger man who was more open to the idea of alien visitation… as many of us were. Although we did talk about his sometimes rather nasty postings, and attempted postings to my blog, Moody, when engaged in private conversation (or in this case a rather public conversation) is quite rational and not at all snarky. You can listen to the interview here: 

His main argument with much of the paranormal crowd, and this includes those in the UFO community, is the lack of critical thinking. He has a point because we all sometimes accept testimony that is lacking in logic and that we sometimes refuse to accept answers when they are obviously correct. I think here of the Chiles – Whitted cigar-shaped UFO reported in 1948. To me, and many others, the answer is bolide, and as I have said before, the re-entry of the Zond IV in 1968 is the best example of this. You can read some of these arguments on this blog by simply searching for Chiles – Whitted.

An even better example of the lack of logic, one that we didn’t discuss is the Barney Barnett tale of a crashed saucer on the Plains of San Agustin. When coupled with the Eisenhower Briefing Document of MJ-12 fame you have a logical conundrum. If the Barnett tale is true, then it should have been mentioned in the EBD because this was allegedly a briefing for the incoming President about crashed saucers. That it was excluded suggests that it never happened.

If the Barnett tale is true, and it is not in the EBD, then that suggests the document is false. You simply can’t have it both ways because they are mutually exclusive. Both can’t be true and authentic, but, on the other hand, both could be false. The point is that the logic of the situation seems to be lost on some of those who believe that both are true. If you are interested in this in more detail, much of it has been published here, but you can look for the complete details in Roswell in the 21st Century.

Next week’s guest: Jan Harzan