Friday, April 24, 2009

Anthropomorphic Dummies and the Roswel UFO Crash

Since Tony opened the door again, let’s run through it. We have the Air Force’s second final report on Roswell cleverly titled Roswell — Case Closed which suggests those reporting bodies were fooled by anthropomorphic dummies dropped as tests some ten years later. When first offered, even the colonel holding the press conference seemed to have his tongue planted in his cheek. The reporters didn’t seem to be buying the explanation then and everyone seemed to be having a laugh at this ridiculous suggestion.

Fast forward ten years and now it seems that all those skeptics who didn’t buy the Air Force answer (which is not to say they bought the extraterrestrial answer either) seem to have slipped into the Air Force camp quietly. Now, we are treated to the idea that human memory is fickle and that this "time compression" explanation that was laughed at then, makes sense now.

Well, I’m not going to argue that point because people do confuse events, people do confabulate and some of them just tell lies to thrust themselves into the public spotlight. We don’t have to look far to find them. People claim high military rank to bolster their credibility. They claim to have participated in events that they did not. They claim all sorts of things. And sometimes they just get confused about a sequence of events or the time frame for them with no malice in mind.

But with the Air Force final report, we don’t have to worry about time compression and confusion because we’re stuck with lies. Oh, not from the Air Force officers interviewed because they related what they were doing while working on various projects accurately. We can argue interpretation here, but again that’s not the point. If you want to read a fascinating history of the Air Force Project High Dive, this is the place to do it.

No, I’m going to argue about the witnesses to alien bodies quoted to support the Air Force idea of these people seeing anthropomorphic dummies.

Here’s the rub, of those cited in the report, Gerald Anderson, Glenn Dennis, and Jim Ragsdale, none was involved. Each told an interesting story, but those stories have been discredited. And of those three, Dennis was only relating what had supposedly been told to him by a nurse. He hadn’t seen the bodies himself, just the drawing the nurse made which seems to reflect the Martians from the 1953 War of the Worlds movie, at least in part.

The final two quoted, Vern Maltais and Alice Knight were reporting, accurately I’m sure, what Barney Barnett told them about seeing the alien creatures. It’s clear, however, that Barnett’s tale had little or nothing to do with the 1947 UFO crash. They could only tell us what Barnett had told them.

So, the question becomes, why would the Air Force give any credence to these reports? Why not just say that the stories told were without foundation and let it go at that? Why come out with this idea that anthropomorphic dummies, which looked like what they were and not alien creatures, stand? And finally, how good can your conclusions be if you’ve built your foundation on a phony base?

Here is the conundrum for the Air Force. They wanted to attack the idea that there were bodies so they took testimony from civilians who claimed involvement but who, by the time the Air Force started looking at this, had been exposed.

To make it worse, if possible, they explained Frank Kaufmann’s illustration of what the craft looked like by publishing a picture of "tethered ‘Vee’ balloon" that was taken in 1965, or nearly twenty years after the fact. The problem here is that Kaufmann was making up most of what he said about the construction of the craft so their explanation fails on that point.

The question then is, how does the testimony of those people support the idea of anthropomorphic dummies? If we conclude that these people were in error, in the case of Maltais and Knight, or were inventing their involvement as did Anderson, Dennis and Ragsdale, then isn’t the argument for anthropomorphic dummies eliminated?

And doesn’t all this argue that the Air Force didn’t care for the truth as long as they could confuse the issue in the minds of those who haven’t been paying close attention and keeping score at home? They can say, "Well these people really saw anthropomorphic dummies," when the fact is, they didn’t see anything at all. Any descriptions they offered, if it matched the dummies was purely coincidental. That doesn’t help their case.

Finally, the Air Force stayed away from attacking the testimony of any of the high ranking officers. They were just left out of the mix. I suspect they didn’t want to be calling an Air Force general and a bunch of colonels liars. Use the civilians but don’t mention the Air Force officers.

True, Edwin Easley didn’t describe for me alien bodies but he did say things to family members. Patrick Saunders didn’t mention bodies but did talk of hiding information and suggested aliens to his family. Arthur Exon talked of alien bodies based on information he received from those he knew and trusted.

All this is, of course, now second hand, but the Air Force said nothing about any of these men, didn’t quote anything they said, and pretended they didn’t exist. I’m willing to bet the Air Force might have been afraid that if they attacked the reputations of these men there might have been trouble. Suppose they sued the Air Force for publicly damaging their reputations. Such a court fight would be big news, if only for the topic, and the Air Force would have been required to prove the men were lying... which opens the door to subpoenas and court testimony. That could have gotten ugly in minutes.

Or, they just didn’t want to suggest that they would promote men to high rank who believed they had seen alien bodies or who supported the idea of alien visitation.

Anyway you look at it, the Air Force could have found itself with a nasty, public fight as it tried to prove the men liars or worse and the men demanding information through discovery. The Air Force would have been forced to produce documents or produce evidence that the men were lying. Either way, the Air Force loses.

With the anthropomorphic dummies, the Air Force supplies an answer for questions about alien bodies and they don’t have to go after the Air Force officers. The civilians just made a mistake about the bodies (though Ragsdale talked about 15 bodies, Anderson talked about one of the creatures walking around, and Dennis merely reproduced what the nurse had told him about the bodies... though I don’t believe the Air Force mentioned multiple anthropomorphic bodies being dropped which would render their explanation inadequate, but I digress). And, as an added bonus, they don’t have to label anyone a liar who might turn around and sue them. They were just mistaken in their interpretation of what they had seen. Neat.

Anyone who thinks through this is going to realize that the Air Force explanation is a crock... and if this explanation can’t be believed, then what is the Air Force hiding. If the truth is that nothing extraterrestrial fell at Roswell, then why would the Air Force care what we all think? Why not just ignore the problem because it doesn’t impact them at all... unless there is more to it than meets the eye.

30 comments:

cda said...

Kevin:
You are partially correct. I do not accept the 'anthropomorphic dummies' any more than you, but why try and read subtle motives for the AF report? I cannot make out your own motives sometimes. You state that
you are sure Vern Maltais and Alice Knight were reporting accurately what Barnett told them. Why are you so sure Maltais & Knight are 'accurate' whereas Barnett was not? Perhaps the first two had faulty memories and embellished what Barnett told them. Can you show otherwise? Also, had Glenn Dennis been exposed at the time (1997) of the AF 'dummies' report? I thought his exposure came a bit later, but maybe I am wrong.

I agree that the AF 2nd report was redundant. It was unnecessary and need never have been written.
But the problem was that the AF, chided by various ET proponents (maybe yourself included?) had ignored the 'bodies' aspect in their 1994 report and wanted to try and remedy this omission. They also wanted to avoid labelling certain civilian and military witnesses as liars. Someone must have drawn the AF HQ's attention to these 1950s 'dummy drop' tests and suggested this might be a way out for the AF. Hence their flawed 2nd report. There is no cover-up, no real bodies, and certainly no secret papers on ETs. The time confusion, by witnesses, is certainly quite possible. There is absolutely nothing in this 2nd report to suggest any cover-up. There are things suggesting the writers wanted to dispose of this troublesome subject (i.e. the alleged bodies)without any accusations of telling lies or fabrications. Remember that even Phil Klass scorned this report (although Karl Pflock seems to have partially supported it). I believe he (Klass) even had a row with McAndrew who walked out of a meeting between them. But for heaven's sake, do not go over the top and suggest it indicates the AF have something big to cover up about Roswell. After 6 decades? That is a fantasy, pure and simple.

cda said...

One other thing:
I always thought it odd that the Air Force chose to announce their 'dummies' report on the 50th anniversary of Arnold's UFO sighting. Wasn't it June 24, 1997?
Maybe that WAS intentional!

starman said...

"After 6 decades? That is a fantasy, pure and simple."

Ultra was kept secret for three decades after WWII even though there was no longer any real reason to keep it secret. Considering the potential impact of ETs, judging by, say, the 1938 broadcast, there is a powerful motivation to keep it under wraps, for MANY years.

Joseph Capp said...

Dear Kevin

I don't understand why we go over and over again these points. either we believe the people that were there or we don't. I am sixty five never been in the parachute core but even with wearing glasses I could tell a manikin with a big sign on their bodes "REWARD" what a disgrace that we even entertain this nonsense. Is it just that we are prejudices against small town people and underestimate their intelligence. I live now in one of the biggest cities...I know for a fact that there is a great deal of prejudices around small town folks and what they can do. Some of the greatest minds came from these small towns and provinces. The only dummies are us... for not standing up strong enough... we mock what they stood for and what they went through because of it.
As for the Air Force they would have been lacking in their duties if they didn't cover this up in the beginning.
Many, who were ordered to debunk Roswell, in the final report decided these witnesses weren't even worth a word of explanations. June Crain who had more integrity and courage than all of them put together and worked at Write Patterson for twelve years is a non entity along with many more. She came forward after being anonymous for years after the release of the dummy explanations. She knew the guys in the corp.
It is time for the broader UFO community to get angry over these insults. The very idea that they could spin these say a great deal about who WE are.

Joe Capp
UFO Media Matters
Non-Commercial Blog

Erich Kuersten said...

great post! To figure this out you just have to read into WHY the air force wants to keep a lid on this stuff. Look at 2001 Space Odyssey with Heyward Floyd (sp?) and his briefing on the moon where he talks about how they'll need to wait and think how best to slowly disseminate the information to the public (about the monolith), the dummy explanation is basically a confession from the air force-- all the truth we need to handle... if you can handle it. But the placebo the public who isn't ready can grasp onto.

if you need the president to come on TV and say aliens are here, then you probably aren't ready to start "dealing" with the issue on a personal level. Because if you can read between the lines, the truth is there. Waiting for the authorities to validate what you know is true proves, in a sense, that you are not ready to "hear" it. As long as we have a shred of doubt we're free to focus on "confession" and not on the soul-warping horrors of all the various theorists out there - the angels and spirit and djinn and archetypal menagerie of belief systems that all point to truths beyond our five senses. Til we start dealing with this we are like dogs trying to understand algebra by eating our master's homework.

cda said...

What your previous 3 contributors are saying is this:

The top brass of the USAF (but of no other country), and a few top guys in the intelligence agencies possess the great secret. They are all so level headed and clever, sane, sensible people that only they can be trusted with this secret. But we, the public (together with a vast number of scientific specialists the world over) cannot. We are too stupid, too prone to panics, too dim-witted to understand or appreciate. Most of us can't even put two and two together anyway, let alone comprehend such matters as an ET visit to earth. And with the world in its current financial chaos the public are more vulnerable than ever to being told the 'truth'. Therefore these select few at the top are going to keep the great secret from the rest of us, maybe forever.

Yes of course. Why did I not realise this before?
Ever since 1947 in fact.

But surely the world's top bankers deserved to be told the truth, didn't they? Had they been told many years ago, we would never have got into the several quintillion dollars of debt we are now in. Simple, isn't it?

starman said...

I think great caution is warranted, not only on the basis of the 1938 experience but the reaction of many people to the real phenomenon. It isn't even necessary to actually encounter UFOs and ETs, or for their existence to be officially confirmed, for them to arouse fear in people e.g. during the '73 flap. Even if there is little basis for keeping a secret--which is FAR from the case here-- history shows that it can be done for decades e.g. Ultra.

Lance said...

Hi Kevin,

It seems to me that the Air Force report may have made the same mistake you did: giving the "witnesses" the benefit of the doubt and trying to find a possible reason for what they reported.

Of course it ended up that ALL of the direct body "witnesses" were liars and so the AF explanation is not even really needed.

When Grandma says something that you know is not true, and you try to help her along and suggest a more plausible story, you may get the whole thing wrong--but your reasons were not to mislead.

In the UFO world, such an act is seen as a horrible "lie".

Why would you write an article that says (basically): "The Air Force lied about what some known liars lied about?"

Even if we accept the above claim, I think we are still left with a pitiful little bag of balloon debris as all that's left of Roswell, are we not?

From where I am sitting, it certainly doesn't advance your case in the least.

Lance

starman said...

"ALL of the direct body witnesses were liars"

True of Kaufmann, Anderson and Dennis (who didn't actually claim to see bodies)and probably Haut; I'm not sure if Holden said he saw them. But should we just dismiss all the second hand testimony?? Has any research shown that the children or spouses of MPs who claimed to have seen bodies, for example, were liars? Or that the MPs or archeologists etc weren't even there at the relevant time?

Lance said...

Quote:

"Has any research shown that the children or spouses of MPs who claimed to have seen bodies, for example, were liars? Or that the MPs or archeologists etc weren't even there at the relevant time?"

===

The sheer desperateness of this is amazing! Is there ANY point at which believers will admit that maybe they were wrong?

No I suppose that no one has PROVEN that all of the second-hand "testimony" is mistaken or false.

What a great world it would be if EVERYONE used UFO standards to conduct business:

You say someone told someone something! Let's take it to court!

Just how does one "research" the validity of hearsay testimony? How can you prove that someone long dead DIDN'T say something. Or that they were misunderstood or that they were lying (I'm sure a SHOCKING allegation in this case!).

The truth about Roswell is that there are far more liars involved (including the researchers like Schmidt) than most reasonable people would allow for.

Believers seem to say:

Lie to me once shame on you

Lie to me 500 times and we start getting to the truth.

Lance

starman said...

"how does one research the validity of hearsay testimony"

It was done in the case of Barnett. A diary showed that he wasn't even where second hand testimony placed him, on the Plains. KDR has rejected that story but not the Roswell second hand witnesses.

KRandle said...

Good Morning -

Let's see if we can straighten this out. My point was that the people cited by the Air Force about the bodies were those who had been exposed by the UFO community as not having been involved. By the time the Air Force report was published, we knew that Anderson, Ragsdale and Dennis had nothing to contribute. I had written material exposing them.

So, given that, this idea that reports of bodies based on the testimonies of those witnesses were in error and any conclusion other than hoax added to the confusion. We didn't need a big Air Force report about this... and if the Air Force felt it necessary (though the why escapes me), they could have quoted the researchers and been much farther down the road.

With Maltais and Knight, they were telling us, honestly, what they had been told by Barney Barnett. The problem isn't that they were second-hand witnesses, but that Alice Knight give me a copy of Ruth Barnett's diary for 1947. It clearly takes Barnett out of the picture... as it does Anderson. Barnett couldn't have been working on his house on July 5 and be out on the Plains of San Agustin with the Andersons at the same time. In the end, it really doesn't matter what Knight and Maltais say because it is quite clear that Barney Barnett was not involved in the Roswell case... So, I give them a pass because the original source wasn't available for interview.

So, that section of the Air Force report does nothing to advance our knowledge and actually draws on information that was out of date when it was written.

The underlying reason for the Air Force report might be the important point. It begs the question, "Why do they care what a bunch of UFO nuts believe?"

Certainly, it is not going to affect Air Force appropriations. It isn't going to hurt recruiting efforts. It's not going to undermine the security of the United States...

Wait a minute, could that be the reason. Something about the Roswell case might impact the national security? That would explain why they felt it necessary to issue the reports.

No, this doesn't take us to the extraterrestrial. Nor does it take us to Project Mogul, which was exposed in 1947, which tells us about its impact on national security. But there must be something that that causes concern.

So, we can be flip and suggest that they kept the secret for 60 years, even as we debate the issue, proving it has escaped into the public arena or we can try to figure out was what so important that after fifty years, the Air Force would attack it again.

And to Lance, I've lost my fascination with the second-hand sources, even when that's all we have because what they heard and report is too open to their interpretation. But there are some first-hand sources that do talk of bodies... Edwin Easley, Patrick Saunders, Walter Haut (though I freely admit his affidavit is shakey).

As for June Crain (or as she was known to others June Kaba), while she clearly worked at Wright Field, her work records do not place her there during the critical 1947 period. She took time off to have children. The events she describes, if they took place, were more likely in 1953.

In the end, the message here was that the Air Force has something to hide. Otherwise, they'd just deny they investigate UFOs (though clearly they still do) and let everything think of us as a bunch of conspiracy nuts. It's always easy to dismiss someone once you have labeled it.

starman said...

Easley and Saunders may be first hand witnesses but their testimony regarding bodies is second hand. Imperfect as all such testimony may be, we shouldn't just dismiss it; there certainly is a lot of it, and didn't you just note how the recent recollections of a Roswell fireman corroborate some of it?

Nick Redfern said...

For those who may be interested:

http://desertdarkness.blogspot.com/2009/04/roswell-quest-for-truth.html

Rob Mitchell said...

Are there any first hand witnesses to the bodies left that have not been discredited?

Regards,

starman said...

Maybe Holden? I'd be reluctant to trust Haut but AFAIK, he hasn't been "exposed" like Kaufmann.

David Rudiak said...

It seems "I personally don't believe the story" or "He/she may have had motivation to lie IMHO" has become synonymous by skeptics with the witness somehow becoming "discredited".

No, "discredited" means real evidence that has come to light that a witness fabricated evidence or major parts of their story, such as Kaufmann's phony documents or Ragsdale's golden helmets.

Most of the time, "discredited" means nothing more than nitpicks over a witness' story. They didn't mention a particular detail to one interviewer that they mentioned to another. Or they didn't bring it up until later. Or all old people must all be senile and confused. Frankie Rowe gets emotional and often tears up when retelling her story. Can't trust her. She's now been "discredited".

Regarding Haut, nothing has come to light to clearly "discredit" him. Lots of allegations have been made to "discredit" with nothing to back them up, such as Haut being senile or motivated by money for his museum. Never mind that Haut was dropping hints for years or confiding privately about the bodies and has some other witness corroboration, such as Lt. Richard Harris, who told Kevin in the mid-1990s that Haut at the time told him about the dead alien body on the other side of the hangar door, but Harris refused to take a look. (Harris also admitted to helping cover up the financial paper trail as did Blanchard’s aide.) In 1998, quite independently, nuclear engineer Chester Lytle told researcher Robert Hastings that Blanchard admitted to him that Roswell was an ET crash and bodies were recovered, partially confirming Haut's story that his buddy Blanchard took him out to the hangar to begin with to see the bodies and craft.

Haut's story about the shape and size of the recovered egg-shaped craft he viewed in the hangar and the time of viewing was independently corroborated by at least half a dozen civilians and military witnesses who saw it being carried through town or at the base on a tarped, flatbed 18 wheeler on the afternoon of July 8, witnesses such as Sgt. Earl Fulford (who also participated in the cleanup and was another first-hand witness to the anomalous "memory foil") and Richard Talbert, who said he briefly saw the object under the tarp when it lifted up. Again high security was mentioned by various witnesses, the truck being accompanied by a convoy of MPs toting machine guns. Were they guarding a balloon that had to be carried back on an 18-wheeler? Naturally the latter scenario is ridiculous, so the only other explanation to a debunker is that all these witnesses are automatically “discredited”.

How about Army photographer Frederick Benthal, who said he was flown in from Washington and photographed the bodies in a tent out in the field? He first told his story to Stan Friedman in 1990. Has Benthal been "discredited"?

How about MP PFC Ed Sain, who independently said he guarded the tent? And though not saying publicly he saw any bodies, his son Steven Sain has said his father told him about guarding the "little green men", but doesn't like to talk about it, having signed a security oath and still fearing for his life. How about Leola Van Why, wife of MP Cpl. Raymond Van Why, who Sain said was with him, corroborating Sain's story, saying her husband told her about the round spaceship crash clear back in 1954?

Or how about MP PFC "Eli Benjamin"? Has he been "discredited"? He testified to escorting bodies from the hangar to the base hospital and seeing one alive being worked on by doctors. (Yes, Benjamin is a real person in the Roswell yearbook who’s name has been changed to protect his identity.)

Hmmm, that's beginning to sound like Glenn Dennis' story. Has he really been totally "discredited"? Aside from him giving out a false name for Nurse X, what other parts of his story are demonstrable lies? As Anthony Bragalia has pointed out in a recent blog, Dennis may have had honorable reasons to lie about her identity, in order to honor an old promise.

Various parts of Dennis’ story also have ample corroboration from others. Both former Roswell police chief L. M. Hall and recently Sgt. Milton Sprouse both stated that Dennis was talking about the call from the base for child-size caskets back in 1947 and early 1950s. Sprouse also said a medic sergeant friend of his told him at the time of the autopsies at the base hospital and the medical personnel involved, including his friend, disappearing immediately afterward without a trace. He also said his B-29 crew were taken out as part of a clean-up and afterward described to him the “memory foil”. Have Hall and Sprouse been “discredited”?

At least two witnesses, medical technician David Wagnon and Pete Anaya, described a nurse they knew that fit Dennis' NurseX description. Anaya also said he spoke to her outside the base hangar while he and his brother Ruben were picking up Lt. Gov. Joseph Montoya (who told them about seeing the aliens in the hangar). Anaya said she spoke about the aliens in the hangar and warned them not to go inside. Anaya also said she disappeared immediately afterward. Ruben Anaya also claimed to have glimpsed two small bodies from a distance under sheets in the hangar, one of them moving. So I guess that makes him another possible first-hand witness. Have the Anayas been "discredited"?

How about the family of Miriam Bush, secretary to the hospital administrator and also bearing a physical resemblance to Dennis’ NurseX. They said she told them about being shown the small alien bodies at the hospital, one still alive. Then she was so traumatized by the threats she received afterwards that it destroyed her life. Are the Bush family “discredited”?

There are numerous stories from the families of MPs (such as Beverly Bean, daughter of Sgt. Melvin Brown) about the aliens being guarded in the hangar and elsewhere awaiting shipment, and then the testimony of crew members of the unusual B-29 flight the next day where a mysterious crate in the bomb bay was loaded under high security and surrounded by a security detail for flight to Fort Worth, to be greeted by a mortician. Have all of these witnesses been “discredited”.

There is the Sheriff Wilcox family, and Wilcox seeing the aliens and spacecraft (then being threatened into silence and helping to silence some witnesses, like Dennis). How about Chester Barton, a witness to a crash site under heavy guard with large burn areas similar if not identical to that described by the Wilcox family. Actually a Roswell UFO skeptic, he said he was told the dead crew was taken to the base hospital and then flown to Fort Worth. Has he been “discredited”?

How about Frank Joyce and his story that Brazel told him about the small, stinking, non-human bodies when he first came to Roswell? Is Joyce also automatically “discredited”?

There is Frankie Rowe and her father fireman Dan Dwyer seeing the alien (again the family being threatened) and the new witness discussed here, the last surviving Roswell fireman confirming Dwyer went out there and the Sheriff's department was involved in the coverup. Oh, obviously the guy is old and MUST be suffering from dementia according our usual resident debunking noise makers, therefore “discredited” just because they say so.

There are a multitude of Roswell/Wright-Patterson alien body witnesses, starting with Gen. Exon, June Crain, Chester Lytle, the families of Cpt. Oliver Henderson and Col. Marion Magruder, the recently interviewed Lt. Col. Marsden and his wife discussed here, Len Stringfield body witnesses, and dozens and dozens more civilian and military witnesses telling similar, cross-corroborating stories of the small alien bodies at Roswell and W-P. Are all these witnesses “discredited”? Most of these witnesses are second-hand, but still, how many does it take? Hundreds? Thousands?

We could add to this the several dozen first and second-hand witnesses to highly anomalous debris—not fragile, common-place rubber balloons, twine, scotch tape, aluminum foil, and balsa wood, but really strange stuff that clearly didn’t come from any sort of balloon. Are all of them “discredited”?

There are several dozen other witnesses to high security, cordons, threats, and security oaths, over what—a not very secret supposedly lost balloon made up of totally unclassified materials that probably never existed in the first place since no documentation has ever been produced on it. All this for something that was no bigger than Sheridan Cavitt’s living room? How believable is that?

Yes, some of these people could be lying or confused, but really, literally all of them? It seems the more new witnesses we uncover, the more they keep cross-corroborating each others’ accounts. What a vast conspiracy of lying, confused witnesses we have here.

David Rudiak

cda said...

There seems to no answer to this latest from David Rudiak. Certainly I cannot refute it all, even if I wanted to. Neither, probably, can anyone else. And yet....
It reminds me a little of a famous problem, known as the "Monty Hall problem" that was circulating some 15 years ago that fooled several thousand learned people, including quite a few mathematicians, even a number of PhDs. They were all wrong. Some later admitted this, but others did not. All right, maybe this is a false comparison and not really relevant to the Roswell issue. As for me, I am still waiting (though not with baited breath) the all-inclusive hard evidence that will finally demonstrate the proof of Roswell. And that "financial paper trail" (or ANY paper trail) that DR refers to? Entirely fictitious, just like the hardware and bodies.

Lance said...

Just read Rudiak's hilarious recovered Ramey memo text.

As someone who works daily with images, it seems to me that, while a few suggested words are plausible, most of the interpretations are the equivalent of looking at clouds and seeing a pretty pony.

In short, the "research" is exactly not that. It's more of a religious interpretation like those Jesus tortillas.

After looking at his additional work on the balloon trajectory (in which the math is possibly well beyond me--or perhaps just so mind-numbingly poorly written that I don't have the moxy to wade through it all ). all I can say is that common sense tells me that releasing a balloon into the air and precisely predicting where it will or won't fall might not be as foolproof as presented.

I also note that Rudiak's above post uses all the high standards of UFO research and follows all the rules:

1. Every witness is good.

2. No matter what.

3. If they are caught in an obvious lie, you can reluctantly discard the lie--but hold on to everything else at all costs.

4. It is natural and good for witness stories to get better over time.

5. This means they are more accurate.

6. A story needs about 40 years to get really accurate, so ignore contemporaneous accounts.

7. When you have a bunch of lackluster witnesses, it is best to put them all in one big lump which creates a super witness!

8. Glen Dennis only lies when he opens his mouth. Everything else from him is golden.

9. In this business, quantity is much more important than quality.

10. Anyone who disagrees with you is part of the conspiracy. Skeptics cannot simply honestly disagree with you. They ALL have AGENDAS! Possibly CIA/NSA agendas!

Lance said...

After looking more into this Ramey memo material, I can't help but be more and more amused. Even though Rudiak's claims could be substantiated with a blind test of his text recovery methods, he (disingenuously but predictably) avoids doing this--a real truthseeker this one.

I suspect that the Ramey text recovery method went something like this:

"Ok here we have a blob from the memo. Does it look like anything.... anything at all...?

Could it be 'disc'?

Maybe....

Could it be 'bodies'?

Possibly...

Could it be 'cover up'?

No...too short for that.

I am gonna put down 'disc'

Ok what do we have so far?

'Cover Up bodies in disc!'

Are you sure that 'in' is not 'alien'?

I think you are right!

'Cover Up bodies Alien disc!'

Makes sense....

Ok next blob....

Is it 'saucer'? ... "


Lance

cda said...

The Ramey memo? Of course this is the very paper trail I said was fictitious. How stupid of me. Will the 'hardware trail' follow?

starman said...

David Rudiak,

Thanks for your post. I don't believe Sprouse or Hall any more than Dennis, or Stringfield's informants, or the words Joyce attributed to Brazel. Research has cast doubt on Magruder's story. I can understand someone trying to decipher the Ramey paper, but, deciphering issues aside, I doubt he'd hold something with real secrets in plain sight in a room full of reporters. That said, I accept your basic point; even eliminating the dubious ones, there is still a plethora of testimony. Researchers have had a long time to discredit Anaya and others, and, in theory, this can be done,just like they disproved Barnett, Anderson etc.

Nick Redfern said...

FYI, in case of interest:

http://dailygrail.com/news/new-roswell-revelations

David Rudiak said...

“I doubt he'd hold something with real secrets in plain sight in a room full of reporters.”

There are historical examples of just exactly that happening, the latest happening only three weeks ago, reported in the NY Times and various British newspapers. The head of UK’s antiterrorism unit inadvertantly allowed a secret plan to raid a terrorist cell to be clearly photographed by a press photographer with a telephoto lens, and within hours it was up for viewing on the Internet. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/09/bob-quick-terror-raids-leak
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/world/europe/10britain.html


Another example occurred in 1965 when the NY Times interviewed McGeorge Bundy, Johnson’s National Security Advisor, for their Sunday magazine. The shiny cover of the Sunday magazine had Bundy holding a top secret briefing document on Viet Nam, with the equally top secret code name UMBRA in plain sight. (Bundy also allowed his desktop covered with other probably sensitive documents to be photographed, though what they contained wasn’t obvious in newsprint, just like Ramey’s memo.) Anyway, either the CIA or FBI saw the Sunday magazine and the security slip, went down to the NY Times, who surrendered the negative (in which the smaller print of this document could be read for further details that couldn’t be made out on the mag cover.)

In the case of the Ramey memo, in three of the four photos of Ramey holding the paper, the paper is scrunched up or shows its back to the camera. Only in the one photo did Ramey slightly tilt the paper forward (as if to glance at it), which allowed the camera to get an angle on the front, i.e., a simple, momentary human slip-up of which he probably wasn’t even aware.

Here’s a verbal example. Columnist & radio commentator Drew Pearson was visiting the White House in January 1950. While waiting to see Sec. of Defense Louis Johnson, he overheard angry words exchanged between Johnson and Sec. of State Dean Acheson. Afterward, Pearson asked Johnson if they were arguing about Formosa. No, said Johnson, instead answering, in a major security breach, they were discussing the hydrogen bomb. Pearson had a scoop and immediately put it out on his radio program. U.S. development of the hydrogen superbomb was headline news all over the world the next day.

So such things DO happen, even among normally very security conscious people.

David Rudiak

Louis J Sheehan Esquire said...

Starman --

What is the reference for the Barnett diary that you mention?

-- Lou Sheehan

Lousheehan@mac.com

starman said...

Louis, see THE RANDLE REPORT pages 182-83.

David Rudiak:

OK you scored a point. :) Still, I wouldn't put much emphasis on that memo; deciphering seems a dubious venture.

Louis J Sheehan Esquire said...

Starman -- Thank you for your reply and for your indulgence. Where do I get a copy of THE RANDLE REPORT (pages 182-83)? -- Lou

starman said...

By now, "The Randle Report UFOs in te '90s" is old. Ask KDR, maybe he still has copies for sale.

Louis J Sheehan Esquire said...

Ok. I tried to reach him at krandle@gmail.com but the e-mail was kicked back. I see a mailing address for him so I'll try same.
Kevin, if you see this, let me know at Lousheehan@mac.com

Thanks.

-- Lou

Louis J Sheehan Esquire said...

I was directed to amazon.com and purchased the book there. Thanks again.