Saturday, July 07, 2012

Roswell Festival - 2012

The Roswell Festival, sponsored by the International UFO Museum and Research Center, was held over the first weekend in July. The July 4th holiday, falling as it did in the middle of the week, created a situation where there was no real three-day holiday, which meant for many that both Friday and Monday were work days.

One of the landing sites near Levelland.
After a detour through Levelland, Texas (where I looked at the stretch of road where a number of the close encounters or landings took place in 1957) I arrived in Roswell early on Thursday afternoon. I checked into the hotel and headed down to the museum to see what was going on the day before the festival started. You might say it was a bad idea because Don Schmitt and I got involved in helping to set up the museum floor for the festival (oh, I didn’t do all that much, but did provide a little commentary on how things should be arranged).
The next morning started with a breakfast before the doors opened. Julie Schuster, the museum director, who is ill, managed to show up to greet many of us. It was her only appearance at the festival and I fear it took a toll on her. She stayed to complete some work for the museum, though nearly everyone wanted her to go home to rest. They had the situation well in hand and didn’t want her to worry.
Almost at the moment the museum opened, one fellow came in to suggest that he wanted to take Stan and me to dinner so that Stan and I could hash out our differences. I told him absolutely not. I would not be a part of such a thing, though he did promise to pay for the meal. Any meal with him around would have been quite unpleasant.
I spent the day talking to people about UFOs, my philosophy of research, and early on, had a brief talk with Steve Pierce of Travis Walton abduction fame. As noted, I had a nice chat with Travis about his abduction experience, my philosophy of alien abduction which does not mirror his, naturally, and UFO research in general.
Tom Carey had arrived by then, with his wife, Doreen, as had David Rudiak with his wife, Roberta. While setting up the tables, I suggested that David could share my table, which he did throughout the festival.
Combat assault in Vietnam
I did several programs about my journey through UFO research, but in keeping with some of the complaints about my book, Reflections of a UFO Investigator, (that there wasn’t enough about my activities outside UFO research), I added some of that material to the presentation. If nothing else, people got to see some photographs that I had taken in Vietnam and learn that the vast majority of Vietnam Vets were “normal.”
On Saturday night, there was the Roswell investigators panel that included Stan Friedman, Tom, David, Frank Kimbler, Don and me. Don acted as the moderator, though he let some of those in the audience ramble on with their questions a little longer than I thought necessary, which is probably why no one asked me to moderate. After all, the title was “moderator.”
Frank Kimbler, David Rudiak and Tom Carey
The fellow, who thought that Stan and I should go to dinner, attempted to create some controversy with his “question.”  As he talked, I whispered to Don that I wasn’t going to be dragged into the fight. I wasn’t going to say a word in response. Apparently Stan wasn’t going to either.
His point seemed to be that we all should agree on everything because those at the far end of the spectrum, the debunkers, just loved it when we didn’t. He seemed to think that we all should embrace a common theme regardless of the evidence, or our interpretation of that evidence.
This seemed like an idiotic stand to take. If we all agreed on everything, regardless of the evidence, then wouldn’t the Skeptics have a field day with that? … And rightly so. There is no point in it, and no rational reason that I should accept everything that leads to UFOs as being extraterrestrial, and there is no point in Stan (or anyone else for that matter) doing the same. To get to a proper place, whether it is the extraterrestrial or somewhere else, we must be free to examine the evidence without worrying about agreeing with the opinions, interpretations, and beliefs of everyone else.
Talking to Stan later (he wasn’t dragged into the discussion either) I noted that he had the same opinion. There is no point in agreeing to agree with everything regardless of the evidence. All that would do was drag the whole discussion down with it.
Interestingly, a woman asked if we were all locked into the extraterrestrial explanation and there was a certain amount of agreement among us all. I suggested that given the evidence, it was the most likely solution, but there was a chance we were talking about something that might be interdimensional, intradimensional, or that we were talking about time travelers. I believe, given the other responses, the others on the panel tended to agree. We weren’t going to eliminate any possible explanation, but there were some solutions that seemed more likely than others.
Denise Crosby
While at the festival, I did have a chance to talk, briefly, to Denise Crosby who had been in Star Trek: The Next Generation and who had done a couple of interesting documentaries about Star Trek. I thought it interesting that she traveled the world, literally, talking to people about Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry’s vision of world harmony. National origin, ethnic origin or religious belief didn’t seem to matter when it came to Star Trek. It is a common bond throughout the world.
Sunday night a number of the speakers were invited to dinner, which I wouldn’t mention except for a bit of irony. As we made our way to the table, I selected a chair and someone commented that it was as far from Stan as I could get. Well, that hadn’t been on my mind, and I hadn’t really noticed, but I walked to the other end of the table and selected a chair across the table from Stan.
Earlier, when no one was around, he had said to me that he appreciated my service to the country. I thought that was a nice thing for him to mention, especially since some of our beliefs about UFOs are at the opposite of the spectrum.
Proving that Stan and I are at opposite ends, I had said to him, at the hotel one morning, “Aztec? Really?”
We had a brief, but not acrimonious debate about the case, with Stan saying, “Yes, Aztec.”
Anyway, we sat down there and about five or ten minutes after we had, someone said, “You seem to be getting along.”
Stan said, “Of course. We are gentlemen.”
At the meal, we avoided the topics we knew that could grow heated and discussed some points in general, a little about the Levelland sightings, and some of the history that seems to interest us both.
Those at the table, who expected some fireworks, were probably disappointed in that. But hey, we were there to eat and socialize and not debate the reality of MJ-12 or the Aztec UFO landing.
I did sit in on one of David Rudiak’s presentations about the Ramey memo, which I found interesting. He went to the trouble to point out other interpretations of it and why he accepted, or rejected, the conclusions drawn by others. This seemed to be a presentation that gave the facts and though I knew what he believed, I thought the program was fair. His history of the events leading up to the Roswell crash and the newspaper articles about it from around the country was fascinating.
Random Thoughts and Observations:
The vendors, out in the parking lot, and there seemed to be fewer this year, complained that the people were not spending their money as freely as in years past. Inside they seemed a little more cautious about what they bought as well but I found many who were interested in my books.
I did notice that gas, on the north side of Roswell was selling for about $2.96 but on the south side and out west, it was going for $3.13 to about $3.21. I don’t know why it was so much more on one side of town, but the difference was enough that I would think you’d drive over to the other side to buy it cheaper.
It seemed that it was hotter this year and the hotel was a different one. If asked, I don’t know if there was anything significantly different between the two, though this year’s inn was just off Main Street which might have made it a tad quieter.
Frank Kimbler and Martin Dreyer
I also met a fellow, Martin Dreyer, from New Zealand, who I have been talking to on the telephone for a decade and a half. It was nice to put a face to the voice, and he has a real interest in the Roswell case, often asking the difficult questions. He did take pictures of the Saturday night panel for me.
Frankie Rowe, having moved to Roswell, showed up a number of times and I have a number of nice chats with her. She wanted to show me a “magazine” from 1938 proving that her father had been a firefighter. She seemed to think that I questioned this… I told her that I have a page from one of the logs at the fire station dated June 1947 that proved her father had worked there. It had never been a question for me.
I did see Yvonne Smith briefly, said hello, and that was about it. We were on opposite sides of the museum and our schedules seemed to conflict slightly.
Derrel Sims and I were on opposite sides of the museum as well. He came up to me and said that he had appreciated my service. Again, I thought that was a nice thing to do.
And I did see Dr. Frank Thayer who is listed as one of the co-authors of the book about the Aztec crash. We spoke briefly and he told me that Scott Ramsey hadn’t wanted to send me a copy of the book because I would negative about it. I don’t know if that means that Scott thought his information weak (doubtful) or that he thought I wouldn’t give it a fair reading. I did read it and found the evidence to be weak, so Scott was right but for the wrong reasons.
The main thing, though, seems to be Julie’s illness. There was a lot of concern for her by many there. She had done such a good job of organizing everything that her staff could step right in without missing a beat. I can’t think of a thing they might have overlooked, which is a testament to Julie’s organizational skills.


David Rudiak said...

I went to geologist Frank Kimbler's presentation about his search for physical evidence out on the debris field. I found Frank very intelligent, modest, sober, sane, and fair. He is going about this as a scientist would, following the evidence chain and not jumping to conclusions until all the facts are in.

Frank teaches at the New Mexico military institute in Roswell and became interested in the Roswell case after speaking to some of the guarded relatives also working there of some of the original Roswell witnesses. He couldn't believe that these otherwise conservative people would just make up such stories. He wasn't specific about what they told him, but apparently it was strange enough to hook him.

Frank has found a few pieces of small aluminum shards and has been trying to have them analyzed to see if they are anomalous in any way. The preliminary results show perhaps unusual alloy ratios and isotope ratios from two tests on the edge of being anomalous, but not conclusively so because of range of error in the measurements. Frank made an offhand remark that MAYBE these preliminary results indicated extraterrestrial origins was annoyed how this got blown up last year into him stating they definitely proved extraterrestrial origins.

He is working to get more definitive isotope ratios, but it is not easy getting labs interested to do the work for nothing. The director of one at the Univ. of N.M. quickly deduced Frank was looking for evidence of non-Earthly origins in the ratios, and when Frank admitted that his samples were from the Roswell crash site, the guy refused to do the tests since he knew Roswell was baloney. So much for scientific curiousity and objectivity.

In another instance, Frank Fed-Exed a boxed and wrapped sample to a scientist at the Univ. of Arizona (I think). On the verge of tears, she called Frank and swore that when she got the package and opened it, it was empty. Frank is now very paranoid about the disappearing physical evidence syndrome we are all familiar with and refuses to allow any more samples out of his sight for testing. That again makes further testing difficult if he has to act as personal courier for his own samples.

One very interesting result that Frank determined early on from aerial photos of the debris field area from 1946, 1954, and another one in the 1960s, is that the region independently confirmed by eyewitnesses to be the debris field definitely had some sort of major soil disturbance between the 1946 and 1954 photos, but seemed to be mostly healed over in the 1960s photo.

Some of his aluminum samples also had indications of being in an explosion, such as characteristic microstress marks (pointed out to him by an explosives expert), pitting, with one piece having a tiny "blow-through" hole with flared edges on the other side.

Frank has also found an unusual 50 caliber military bullet and three aluminum buttons that are military and date to the late 1940s to early 1950s. I found that very interesting (perhaps suggesting a large military recovery), but Kevin was skeptical and didn't think the buttons proved much of anything, maybe even being planted so somebody would have something to find. Also why would buttons being falling off like this even with perhaps multi-dozens of men combing the area? (fair point)

David Rudiak said...

On my way back home from Roswell, my wife and I stopped in Alamogordo, said "hi" to the 6+ foot wooden dummy at the space museum there that purportedly "explains" the small bodies (though the museum mercifully didn't make that claim), went to the amazing I-Max presentation of repairing the Hubble space telescope, then went out to nearby White Sands to hike around in the beautiful dunes at dusk with the full moon rising.

Next day, I visited the Lonnie Zamora Socorro landing site, which I found without much difficulty. The four landing marks are still ringed with rocks placed there almost 50 years ago, but the depressions have been filled in with silt in the wash.

The greasewood bush in the middle, that got sliced in half by the "flame" Zamora saw when the object took off and was still smoldering when backup quickly arrived, was now gone. But there were several similar greasewood plants ringing the zone, about 5' to 7' high. (Zamora deduced the small size of the beings by comparing them to a nearby greasewood plant that was only about 5' feet high, if I recall correctly.

I also took photos showing what Zamora would have seen from various distances and vantage points. Although I parked my car about 120 feet away just off the main road (if you could call this rutted, unmaintained dirt path a road), it was clear that Zamora could have easily driven to within 50 or 60 feet of the landing site (where the slope into the arroyo steepens) before getting out to approach on foot. This jibes with what Ray Stanford has written.

Zamora got VERY close to the object, and there is no way he could have mistaken it for something ridiculous like a hot-air balloon or a helicopter or an escaped lunar lander from Alamogordo, or anything else mundane but equally far-fetched.

Also placing my wife in the landing area where Zamora claimed to have first seen his two humanoids and a good view of the oval object when he was approaching, then walking up the road, I determined that Zamora was probably about 750 to 900 feet up the road ("measured" by pacing) when he made this observation. Here he had a clear view up the winding arroyo unobstructed by terrain. I could clearly make out most of my wife (except her feet hidden by intervening brush) and a landmark greasewood bush to her left about 7 feet from the east-most landing pad area.

From about 700' to about 300-350' away, the object/critters would have been mostly or entirely obscured by terrain, but he would have been able to see at least part of the object those last 300' or so as he approached. I would guess it probably wouldn't have taken him more than 20-25 seconds to drive the approximately 800-900' from his initial observation point to where he parked and got out on foot, thus not much time for alleged "hoaxers" to escape to anywhere yet leaving no footprints behind.

Then there is the hoax scenario problem of the object taking off right in front of him while he was probably no more than 50' away and then flying off at high speed, plus backup being on the scene probably no more than a minute later with the brush and ground still smoldering.

I defy anybody to find the trap doors, curtains, and wires hanging from the sky to stage such a "magic trick" out in the middle of the desert.

Paul Kimball said...

Those at the table, who expected some fireworks, were probably disappointed in that. But hey, we were there to eat and socialize and not debate the reality of MJ-12 or the Aztec UFO landing.

Sounds like a Kimball family reunion. :-)

Terry the Censor said...

> complaints about my book...that there wasn’t enough about my activities outside UFO research

Really? I'm nearly done reading the book and I have no such complaint. I wouldn't mind there being more non-UFO information but that's personal and not necessary. I bought it hoping for the stories behind the investigations, and for an overview of the methods (and occasional madness) of investigation itself, and that's what I got.

@David Rudiak
> the guy refused to do the tests since he knew Roswell was baloney. So much for scientific curiousity and objectivity.

Remember in the previous paragraph you wrote: "this got blown up last year into him stating they definitely proved extraterrestrial origins."

Be fair. Why would a scientist want to get caught up in such a sensational process? Open Minds disregarded the tentativeness of Kimbler's evidence and wrote the slam dunk story they wanted. Why would a scientist want to be involved with an investigation where facts don't matter?

Lance said...

Dr. Rudiak on Kimbler:

"He is going about this as a scientist would, following the evidence chain and not jumping to conclusions until all the facts are in."

Glad to hear it, where can you examine the supposed photos and scientific methodology by which he determined the "exact" "Crash" site?

On another topic. Tim Printy's excellent SUNlite Roswell is now out:


David Rudiak said...

I wrote:
"the guy refused to do the tests since he knew Roswell was baloney. So much for scientific curiousity and objectivity."

Terry responded:
Remember in the previous paragraph you wrote: "this got blown up last year into him stating they definitely proved extraterrestrial origins."

Be fair. Why would a scientist want to get caught up in such a sensational process? Open Minds disregarded the tentativeness of Kimbler's evidence and wrote the slam dunk story they wanted. Why would a scientist want to be involved with an investigation where facts don't matter?

"Be fair?" That's what the scientist WASN'T being. The scientist agreed to do the testing until he found out what it was about.

"Being fair" in science is doing the testing and letting the resulting data hopefully speak for itself, not deciding ahead of time whether something is nonsense or not. That is NOT objective science.

E.g., the results could easily have been that the isotope ratios came out normal for earth-based elements. Or it could have turned out anomalous, in which case the scientist may not have liked the implications of the result, but that isn't the point of doing the science, now is it? The point of having the scientific method is one's personal prejudices NOT determining the outcome.

What this particular scientist did was equivalent to the people in Galileo's day refusing to look through his telescope for fear of what they might see.

Incidentally Kimbler said another Univ. of N.M. scientist who was there at the time WAS curious and did do his own testing with other equipment (with Kimbler sitting next to him as he ran the test), but the results were unfortunately not as definitive.

The point is one scientist had the courage and integrity to follow the evidence; the other let his prejudices get in the way.

David Rudiak said...

Kimbler's website:

He had more information at his lecture, such as the USGS aerial photos and analysis of Landsat satellite images by an Italian scientist, both showing clear soil disturbance at the same location of where several witnesses (e.g., Bill Brazel Jr., Tommy Tyree) placed the debris field. This is the same area he has been searching with his metal detector.

He also had bar graphs more clearly illustrating alloy composition from various tests and comparing them with standard aluminum alloys.

Lance said...

Kimbler withholds any info that might allow confirmation of the dubious technique claimed for locating the "exact" location of the Mac Brazel debris field. This is the key point I questioned.

He oversells composition of the junk he found with a metal detector. The claimed significance of the material has been reasonably debunked.

As usual he works from the conspiracist mentality:

I found some junk THEREFORE Space ships!


KRandle said...

Lance -

You are so negative, I don't know why you bother. Frank Kimbler is on the right site because we have confirmed it for him... and if you don't believe I know the exact site, I remind you of the picture I took of Bill Brazel, on the site, saying that he had found some of the pieces basically at his feet.

Frank has not "oversold" the material he has found. He said, last Saturday, there were some anomalies in the testing. These were significant enough to warrant further testing for confirmation, which seems like a reasonable thing to me. He has been quite open and honest with me about all of this.

His metal hasn't been debunked, and if it is, it will Frank who does it. He is not going to accept something because it is was he wants to believe, nor will he reject it because it is impossible for something strange to have fallen there.

As usual you work from the debunker mentality. "There are no spaceships therefore nothing can suggest there are."

Lance said...


Again, it is the exact technique that Kimbler used to yield the supposed photos showing that the ground near the site is somehow different that I am requesting. It has NOT been published and from the summary of the idea sounds quite dubious.

Did he know where the site was prior to creating the photos.? Does his technique only get a hit at the site? Where is the science of the thing.

These are the questions that should be asked. But pious believers never bother. Just the trapping of science are enough, I suppose. No need to double check.

The analysis of the metal was also declared to NOT be anomalous in a paper (that I don't have in front of me). Did you see that paper? I can get it a link to it for you?

If you did see it, what allowed you to dismiss it?



Lance said...

By the way, Tim Printy today published clear evidence that neoprene balloons don't degrade into ashes anywhere near as fast as you like to claim.

Will you abandon that rubbish or is it already part of the canonical verses, holy and unchanging?


Don said...

Re, the neoprene thing, surely over the decades some peer reviewed journal reported on this matter, but if not, then the manufacturers or even the weather bureau or the army or navy did. Hard to believe there is no authoritative literature on the issue of neoprene decay, forcing hobbyists to have to perform their own tests.

As for Kimbler's fragment, put a PayPal button on your websites and send that frag off to a lab. This is the 21st century. How hard can it be?

I just found out St Isadore of Seville is the patron saint of the internet. That explains a lot of stuff I read on blogs.



KRandle said...

Lance -

The topic was my experiences at the latest Roswell Festival. david added a nice companion piece about his experiences. All other comments are irrelevant to this posting.

David Rudiak said...

Lance wrote: (part 1 of 2)
By the way, Tim Printy today published clear evidence that neoprene balloons don't degrade into ashes anywhere near as fast as you like to claim.

Will you abandon that rubbish or is it already part of the canonical verses, holy and unchanging?

Hilarious Lance. So are you claiming Charles Moore hoaxed his various results that neoprene deteriorated into an ashlike state in 2-3 weeks exposure to N.M. sun? Or are you claiming Printy and Moore conducted their tests in very similar or same conditions? Without the latter, you are comparing apples and oranges. Welcome to yet another edition of bunk DebunkerScience.

Of course in the real world there were a few major differences between how Printy conducted his tests and Moore, or how a neoprene balloon would deteriorate at the Foster Ranch. The main ones affecting deterioration are altitude, sunny days, temperature, and wind, which strongly effect amount of UV breaking chemical bonds and evaporation of solvents in neoprene rubber, drying it out.

1. Printy was in New Hampshire (but does not specify where, though presumably Manchester where he lives); Moore was in Socorro, N.M., a bit closer to the actual weather conditions one might encounter at the Foster Ranch. (Printy also conducted a shorter test in Florida, but we'll skip that for lack of details. Printy also admits being away for 12 days from his N.H. experiment, which affects his estimates of sunlight exposure.)

2. Socorro, N.M. is 4600'; the Foster Ranch is over 6000'; Manchester, 200'. This affects the amount of UV radiation hitting the neoprene material, which contributes to the deterioration. All things being equal, roughly 6% increase in UV radiation for every 1 km (3200') increase in altitude, or roughly 8% higher UV in Socorro, 12% higher Foster Ranch (not to mention roughly 3x higher UV while any balloons were flying in the stratosphere before coming down).

3. But UV also affected by amount of cloud cover, which is much higher in N.H., absorbing more U.V. E.g., rainy/cloudy weather absorbs about 2/3rds of UV. Printy ran his test for 38 days between May 28 and July 4. Looking up 2012 weather records for Manchester on WeatherUnderground, 18 of those days it rained (June is the rainiest month in Manchester), 1 day had fog/haze, 3 days were mostly cloudy, 13 days were partly cloudy/mostly sunny, 3 days were sunny. In other words, most of the time it was clouded over. Printy estimates from his records the equivalent of 21 days of full sun, but it was probably less than that (remember he wasn't even there for 12 of those days to record anything). Probably full sun was hitting the ground no more than 50% of the time, vs. 83% of the time average for places like Roswell or Albuquerque in June. The much sunnier climate in N.M. more than compensates for the fact that Manchester has about 7% more daylight hours (which Printy mentions). Bottom line, maybe conservatively another 25%-30% LESS UV overall for Printy's test because of clouds and rain.

4.New Hampshire has much cooler average temperatures in June/July, both of which reduce deterioration by decreasing evaporation of organic solvents. Difference in average June high and average temperatures between Socorro or Roswell and Manchester around 15-20 deg. F. Similarly, the N.M. desert has higher average winds, especially a full exposure place like the Foster Ranch. Hard to say how much the heat and wind speeds up deterioration, but think warm air hair drier or hand drier vs. no drier, or paint drying much faster in the sun and heat. I'll take a wild guess that the higher heat and wind increase the rate of neoprene deterioration 50-100%

David Rudiak said...

Reply to Lance, part 2 of 2:

Lance chortles gleefully that Printy somehow “proved” neoprene deteriorates slower than Moore's demonstrations. But all Printy demonstrated at best is that under milder conditions with less sun, less UV, less heat, and less wind, there is slower deterioration. What a surprise! Even Printy admits there was quite a bit of deterioration even under his much gentler weathering conditions: "The material began to flake on top and deteriorate by the time I saw it on day 38 (I was out of town on vacation for 12 days)."

Printy also isn't exactly consistent in how he conducts his various experiments. For his debris field demonstration he assumes the neoprene torn into little pieces and scattered all over the place (to try to replicate Brazel's 200 yards across description and no doubt his “rubber strips”). But for his balloon deterioration experiment, he assumes the balloon lies in one place, not dragged around and shredded by a month of wind, which is needed to get all those little pieces of balloon scattered around 200 yards to begin with. Then he says the balloon material underneath remained elastic and didn't deteriorate nearly as much as the stuff on top

No doubt Printy was now trying to replicate the mostly intact, elastic-looking balloon in Ramey's office. No more Brazel “rubbers strips” scattered all over the place.

Printy does the same thing with the alleged weather target debris, assuming it is ripped into little pieces and scattered to try to replicate the debris field, but also assuming (no doubt using the usual debunker psychic powers) that Marcel also found a mostly intact radar target (strangely unaffected by dragging and wind like the other alleged targets), no doubt now trying to account for the fact that the radar target in Ramey's office is NOT in little pieces, and, in fact, adds up to one radar target, not bits and pieces of multiple targets.

In other words, the usual debunker tactic of trying to have it both ways.

(I also notice Printy won't touch the mysterious absence of the hundreds of yards of balloon twine stringing the whole Mogul mess together so that things could be dragged around to create that large shredded debris field that Printy tries to replicate.)

I'll give Printy credit for conducting an experiment, but I won't give either Printy or Lance much credit in the scientific acumen department.

David Rudiak said...

Kevin wrote:
The topic was my experiences at the latest Roswell Festival. david added a nice companion piece about his experiences. All other comments are irrelevant to this posting.

Of course, Lance couldn't resist his usual snotty ad hominem attack on Frank Kimbler, without ever meeting the man or having attended his talk. Frank had quite a bit more details in his talk on his methods, results, and experiences trying to test the material than on his website. I wasn't taking notes and was reporting from memory.

Sorry I couldn't resist responding to his off-topic bunk that Tim Printy had somehow just proved that neoprene balloons don't deteriorate into ash after a few weeks sun exposure.

Lance said...

Ad hominem is attacking a person directly. I questioned the work of Kimbler only. You might do well to learn the difference.

Again, I think the questions I asked should be the kind that UFO believers ask as well. That you blindly accept (because it fits your religion) is par for the course.

Glad you and Kevin had a nice pilgrimage.


Will talk about the other stuff later.

David Rudiak said...

Lance disingenuous wrote:
Ad hominem is attacking a person directly. I questioned the work of Kimbler only. You might do well to learn the difference.

Lance might well learn the difference. To quote from a certain Lance Moody:

"Kimbler withholds any info that might allow confirmation of the dubious technique claimed for locating the "exact" location of the Mac Brazel debris field. This is the key point I questioned."

So Kimbler is "witholding" information (even though he isn't--you just haven't seen it). This is obviously insinuating the man is hiding something because he is evasive or dishonest.

Further his techniques are "dubious", again implying dishonesty or incompetence, even though Lance hasn't seen what they are. They are also merely "claimed", suggesting maybe he is making them up, again implying some sort of dishonesty.

"He oversells composition of the junk he found with a metal detector."

And he "oversells" what he has, again suggesting some sort of dishonesty, like a used car salesman.

The reality is that Kimbler says the results aren't conclusive though worthy of further study because they border on the anomalous. That's why he wants to do more lab testing at better labs. He isn't hiding or overselling anything.

"The claimed significance of the material has been reasonably debunked."

Claimed by whom exactly--Frank Kimbler? No actually the Open Minds people whom Kimbler is annoyed with for misquoting him. But one would know this from your wording, since you are again insinuating Kimbler was making unwarranted claims.

"As usual he works from the conspiracist mentality:"

And, of course, he isn't approaching this in a methodical, scientific way, which is the real way he is going about it, searching for debris, doing tests on what he finds, seeing what the results are, trying to get better tests done, doing more searching. No, he must be operating from a "conspiracist mentality", insinuating the man must be some sort of mental case.

"I found some junk THEREFORE Space ships!"

Oh, and now Lance claims Kimbler is saying he found "space ships", when Kimbler never said any such thing. More flagrant lying and slimy innuendo by Lance.

But no, Lance, nobody should ever accuse you of personal attacks. You are merely questioning his "work".

Don said...


I don't know if it answers any of your questions, but it's the best I found after sloshing through google search for eight pages.



Don said...

Oops. I see David already posted the link.




cda said...

I do wonder if these annual Roswell 'festivals' are taken seriously by the attendees, or are taken more as entertainment.

In particular I wonder if the scientist who, in effect, laid the foundations for the US space program, Robert H. Goddard, ever gets a mention. He had his rocket laboratory on a ranch near Roswell for some 15 years until 1945. I imagine he would, if alive today, be having a great chuckle at the whole idea of an ET visit to earth occurring very near his own workshop a mere two years after his death.

And the very idea of annual festivals to celebrate this would be, to him, ironic indeed - space travel in reverse, and still an official secret after 65 years. Absolutely amazing!

KRandle said...


Of course Goddard is mentioned. One of the high schools is named for him.

I think that this is a festival rather than a symposium provides an answer for the question. It is an opportunity for us to get together to discuss UFOs, but many of the people are not there for the presentations. David's was quite good about the Ramey memo. I talked about my journey through the world of the UFO providing my insights to some of the great cases such as the Allende Letters.

I also showed illustrations of the Chiles-Whitted sighting, how their drawings were reflected in the Zond IV reentry, and pictures from meteor falls that seemed to show a lighted cockpit and a string of windows.

So, if you are interested in various aspects of UFO research, there were presentations for you. There was also a morning foot race and an alien parade... vendors selling southwest jewelry and ears of corn.

The key word, however, seems to be festival... if you want to talk about serious UFO research... some was done. I interviewed Steve Pierce of Walton abduction fame, and I made a point to go to Levelland, Texas. There was a little bit of everything to everyone.

Kurt Peters said...

If 'CDA' would actually do some boots-on-the ground research, she/he/it would realize that Goddard's rocketry lab is reproduced, WITH original rocket nozzles, chambers, pumps, etc., (all of which look like they are new and current) within Roswell's impressive Roswell Museum and Art Center:

The operative word is research of course, 'CDA'....had it been done, one would find that Goddard's lab was very nearly in the same area as the claimed crash location (though Goddard stopped using it about 2 years earlier.