Thursday, October 03, 2013

Death of a Dream

(Blogger’s Note: I published this with trepidation, simply because I have been warned that if I persist in the claim that I was not a participant in the slide investigation other confidential emails will be published to prove the point. I freely admit that it appears from those emails that I was involved but the reality is that I wasn’t even completely in the loop. But I will not be intimidated. I told the truth when I said that I had not seen the slides and that I did not participate in the investigation of them. So, even with this threat handing over my head, I post the following.)

Well, looks like this time it was I who screwed the pooch. I trusted a friend with information, which he is now outraged that I dumped on him, but that wasn’t his original reaction. The big regret here is that it is Tom Carey who gets caught in the crossfire which is not of his making.

Some two years ago, Tom approached me to do the “ultimate” Roswell book. I had already approached a publisher with a similar idea, but that publisher wasn’t interested in it, thinking that the market was saturated and besides, they liked their books to be about several cases rather than concentrating on one. That solved a dilemma for me.

We discussed the direction that we wanted to go and I think our opinions were a little different. I wanted to be sure the book was properly and completely resourced and Tom agreed, but he didn’t want the book to be written for skeptics. I thought we should follow the “what do we think, what do we know and what can we prove” adage.

Tom, gentleman that he is, didn’t want to leave Don out of it and although we hadn’t discussed it, told Don of the project. We all met sometime later and talked about what the project would need. I said that for it to work well, we would need to find something more than additional testimony. We would need some documentation, some kind of confirmation that went beyond additional testimony, but I had no idea what that would be.

As a side note, I did learn of a woman who claimed to have a diary written in 1947 that mentioned some of this. That was what we needed and I pursued that only to learn, in a conversation with Tom, that he’d actually been to the woman’s home in New Mexico and the diary, if it existed, was buried in an out building that was filled with snakes and scorpions, two of my favorite things.

Finding myself having completed my contractually obligated book, I thought that I would begin to put together the information for part of the investigation, which was an analysis of MJ-12. I don’t know how we could do anything unless we looked deeply into this controversy. It ran more than fifty pages and had 175 footnotes.

I also completed a long piece on Project Mogul in which I actually found a few things that had not been discussed before, most of them coming from the Air Force report on Roswell. I think the Air Force just threw in all this material without looking at it. Some good stuff is hidden in there. Like the MJ-12 report about Mogul was long and heavily footnoted.

Several of us were continuing to interview witnesses, or to be technically correct so that I’m not accused of lying again, men who were stationed in Roswell in July 1947. These were men who had not been located before and who had not come forward. The results were mixed with some not knowing anything and others adding to the body of testimony. At this point, as can be imagined, all were in their eighties.

We were chugging along, finding some new witnesses, developing some new information and I thought, looking for that sizzle that would bring this all home. One thing that must be said is that we were scattered all over the United States and into Canada. We communicated through email and telephone and just a few times in person. That made coordination a little difficult, but not impossible.

Then, earlier this year, Rich Reynolds published his piece about slides that had been found showing alien bodies, or I suppose, more accurately, a strange creature that might be a deformed human. Nick Redfern was the source of the information, which I had never heard until I read it on Rich’s blog. I sent Nick an email and he said I should call, which I did.

On February 10, 2013, I sent an email to the team, which must have struck most of them as odd, because it demonstrated my total lack of knowledge on the subject. I said:

I have no idea if any of you have been watching the nonsense over at Rich Reynolds’ UFO Iconoclasts blog. He is suggesting that he now has inside information of the Roswell events, which he will release in the near future… However, I noted today that he is suggesting that we all have entered into some sort of legal entanglement to cement our legacy and that we are prevented from disclosing what we know. I have entered no such agreement with anyone and have no inside knowledge that I have hidden from the group. If any one of you have done so (and no I don't think you have) it would not be legally binding on the rest of us. …. I don't know the purpose… Therefore, my advice is to ignore him completely (Ahh, had I just taken my own advise).


In response I learned some of the details of the slides and given the situation, pursued it no further. It was under control by members of the team and by inserting myself into the investigation, I could screw it up. The owner of the slides seemed to be a little “gun shy.”

And that is the extent of my investigation. I talked to Nick, learned a little more about what had been written, and then received an email advising me that the situation was being handled. There was nothing more for me to do about it.

Periodically, Rich would publish a little more, but he didn’t add details and seemed to be averse to saying anything that might screw up the investigation. It was just a periodic mention of this, most of which were observed.

In August I agreed to do the podcast with Paul Kimball. By then I had heard little more about this. It was not my investigation and there simply was nothing that I could do to further it. My intervention might have screwed things up, and while I thought of this as a rather unsophisticated “alien autopsy” I also thought the investigation should continue. I did mention to one of the team members that I believed the slides to be a hoax.

After that podcast, I noticed that Kimball was being criticized for not asking me about the slides. As I have said, I would not have answered the questions because I didn’t believe the information belonged to me. It belonged to those who had conducted the investigation and who were working with the witnesses. In fact, I didn’t know that the nether regions of the creature or body had been covered until Nick Redfern mentioned in it his latest posting about this a couple of days ago.

I thought the criticism was unfair, so I sent Paul an email explaining the situation to him. I thought he could be trusted to keep the information private. In fact, on August 29, he wrote, “Thanks for sharing it with me, and of course I will keep it in confidence.” I will note here that his assurance lasted nearly a month.

In what I should have paid attention to, he also wrote, “Personally, I would reveal the whole story publicly and force a clearing out of the stables…”

And although I had learned about the slides from Nick and Rich, I felt that the information belonged to others who had originated the investigation. I was not comfortable in publishing anything for two reasons. One, it was proprietary and second, I was not confident that it was a real event, meaning that the slides had not been authenticated.

It was about the time of the podcast that I said that I didn’t think the slides were authentic, meaning that there were slides, but that the image was not of anything real. At that time I received, unsolicited, an email about an analysis of the slides, suggesting that some analysis had been accomplish back in March. It added something of a note of authenticity, so I mentioned all this to Paul. But then I realized that this was not an analysis of the slides, but a proposal of what sort of information was necessary to build a case for authenticity. I sent a second email reporting this, but note, I’m not participating in the investigation, I’m merely a recipient of the data. I hadn’t asked for it, I hadn’t interviewed anyone to get it and I hadn’t even been given access to the documents about it. I had not seen the slides in any form.

Then came Rich’s latest update on the slides. I received quite a number of emails about them, and replied to some of them. In a response that so outraged Paul, I said that I hadn’t seen the slides nor had I participated in the investigation. I knew about it but I hadn’t participated.

So, in what I guess is the classical definition of situational ethics, Paul decided that if I lied about this, he was under no obligation to hold my communications with him in confidence. I don’t understand how this would nullify that agreement. Even if I had lied, he had agreed to hold the information in confidence.

Then, to prove his point, he threatened to publish more of our confidential communications. Now, I could prove that I had not participated in the investigation, but to do so would require me to violate a confidence or two in a way similar to that of Paul, but I won’t do it.

In fact, he also said that I would have to talk about the nun’s diary, but I thought that had all been covered earlier. The tale was told by Bill English to Don and then to me in Alamogordo. English was reported to be a former Special Forces officer and a Vietnam veteran. We, meaning Don and I, also talked to a woman in Roswell who was supposed to be a nun, or former nun, who had seen the diaries and remembered the entry. But it turns out that English wasn’t in the Special Forces, wasn’t an officer, and apparently wasn’t a Vietnam veteran. We’ve chased the diaries for two decades, and if they existed, I now believe them to be irretrievable lost. Since I had reported all this earlier, I’m not sure why it is an issue.

I did suggest to Paul that I had come to the conclusion that this re-investigation simply wasn’t working and that I was going to alert the team about this. I wanted to email Tom first because I thought he deserved a personal note from me. I probably wrote a half dozen versions and finally sent one. After more than ten days, I received an email from Tom in which I noted he was a little annoyed with me… but what the hell, I expected that. I just hoped that we could remain friends. Apparently all this was not fast enough for Paul and ironically, I received the reply from Tom only a couple of hours before anonymous posted his article that lead to all this unnecessary turmoil.

And the question that pops to mind is, “Just who in the hell is Paul Kimball to make these decisions?” He might not approve of some of the team members, but that isn’t really any of his business. I knew of the problems with some of them as this began. I overlooked them, but this too has outraged Paul and gets us back to the question of “Just who in the hell is Paul Kimball?”

To pile on, now he publishes an old letter of mine, written, what, nearly twenty years ago. This doesn’t need to be rehashed. What is the point, other than to attack someone he might not like? Apparently, he believes he needs to select my friends for me.

Here’s the point that some don’t seem to understand and is the real issue. I confided in Paul and he agreed to that. He kept the confidence for nearly a month. It takes no courage to violate an agreement and what I seem to be getting hammered for is not revealing all I knew immediately because some of it came in confidential agreements. I will again note that I know of no instances in which Tom or Don violated any agreements they had made.

I will note here that I was not allowed to withdraw gracefully from the project and I believe this has irreparably damaged my friendship with Tom Carey. This I deeply regret. And, that it has brought up an issue about Don Schmitt again, I regret. Say what you will, he is a charismatic man who has a deep knowledge of the field. We had worked around our differences, but Paul Kimball is outraged that he wasn’t chased away twenty years ago.

The real point here is that after two years, we have identified more men who remember endless drumbeat of Roswell information. I know from my own military experience that I will watch almost anything that has to do with the units I served with in Vietnam or Iraq… though I haven’t seen any of the Vietnam movies other than the laughable The Green Beret (which is not to say the Green Berets are laughable, just that silly John Wayne movie is.)

To my team members, I apologize for screwing this up. I tried to do what I thought of as right, but, of course, that didn’t work out. I tried to avoid this controversy but just underscored it. To Tom, I apologize for outing this whole thing by trusting someone I thought of as a friend and to Don I apologize for unnecessarily opening an old wound.

This is much longer than I planned, but it should be clear that all this came about because a confidence was violated. Regardless of the reason, that is the bottom line here.


Kurt Peters said...

Well said, Sir!

...anyone who denies the roughly two decades of hard work and perseverance that the coalition of Randel, Schmit and Carey have demonstrated simply doesn't understand how the investigation developed.

...YET... somehow two bloviating egoists were added to your team, and became the sole reason for all criticisms directed at your joint efforts.

(How to fix it all is above my Pay Grade...)

Steve Sawyer said...

And now, here is Paul Kimball's reaction:

cda said...

Tell us please: Was it wise for two members of your team, Carey & Schmitt, to write another Roswell book during the period you were all supposedly doing your investigations into the 'final word 'on the affair? Couldn't they have held back?

Or don't you think it matters?

KRandle said...



After the turmoil of the last week you think I'm dumb enough to comment?

Any questions about the content of that book should be addressed to Tom or Don.

Lou Sheehan said...

In a word, Mr. Kimball was 'wrong.' Under his reasoning, he should be shunned. However, I think most people -- including myself -- will accommodate Mr. Kimball's numerous offenses and continue to accept his positive contributions. On the other hand, how many people will trust Mr. Kimball with a confidence in the future?

RRRGroup said...

Many people will continue to admire and laud Paul Kimball for his astute energy on behalf of the truth.

Josh S.

Mike said...

At this point in time, if there are people out there with actual evidence related to Roswell, wouldn't they go to a good and reliable news organization? This is a story just about every person on the planet knows about so after awhile witnesses, etc., to this matter would have figured out that simple little fact regarding "notoriety" of the subject. If there were actual photos of an alien or two from that event, what sense is there in bringing them to UFO investigators? Just doesn't make sense.

Steve Sawyer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
oh_marone said...

Kevin - So now Kimball has 'punished' you by carrying through as he threatened to do - he quickly released another of your private emails to him because you dared to explain yourself and comment on the brouhaha. It's his way of attempted blackmail and control.

Maybe you didn't notice Kimball's typical m.o. over the past decade or so since he came on the ufology scene, riding on his uncle-in-law Stan Freidman's coattails.

Though sinking to an all-time low of publishing two private emails, this still does follows form for Kimball. He's trying to showcase himself as the man who did the right thing and expose whatever it is he think's he exposed in order to position himself as the 'good guy', the 'savior'.

The bottom line is if there's nothing in it for Kimball, he'll marginalize the person or subject or, in this case, try to destroy it for those it means something to - as here with the Dream-Team Roswell investigation.

Remember that old adage about the scorpion and the frog? That applies to Kimball. He can't help himself because of his nature.

Arcturus said...

Peyton Place.

Lord Jim said...

After some pointed remarks I made over at Kimball's blog, he decided to take his ball and go home. Either he banned me personally in a fit of pique, or he closed the blog to all but devotees.

I don't know much about the controversy surrounding Schmitt's background. If he misrepresented himself in the past, I can understand why some like Kimball would be disgusted, though Schmitt would hardly be the first to do this.

I can also see how Randle's public statements are guilty of 'shading' (to use Kimball's term) to the extent that he's walking a tightrope, trying to prevent or repair damage to friendship with Carey, maybe also head off problems with somebody's NDA somewhere being potentially violated.

All this aside, however, it's on its face a shady move to release excerpts from private e-mails without a compelling and demonstrable public interest. And as Randle says in his blog post: Who the hell is Paul Kimball?

My beef is not with someone deciding to act in the public interest. If all we do is go around challenging whether somebody has the right, it'll never be done. My problem is with people like Kimball specifically, but a few others as well, who entertain notions that they are not a part of UFOlogy, that they are above the sordid controversies belonging to it -- all the while acting to create and perpetuate those controversies.

Let's take Kimball's theory on the whole thing to be true for a moment just to ask whether his behavior in consequence was valid. Let's say that because Schmitt misrepresented himself in the past, nothing he is associated with has any credibility. Let's say Schmitt and/or Carey is at fault for telling tales out of school to Randle on the slides. Let's say Randle is guilty of being a chatty Susan and telling his own tangential tale to Kimball. Is the proper response of someone who has 'nothing to do' with UFOlogy and its many controversies to pass directly to releasing private e-mails to the public concerning it? Is the logical first move of someone really and truly disgusted with the controversies of UFOlogy to move as hastily as he can to create one of those controveries?

I would say 'no'. I'd think somebody really averse to UFO melodrama would have stayed away from it. Especially since it's really a private matter between Schmitt/Carey and their source, alternately between Randle and Schmitt/Carey. If Randle is a little cagey in public statements, and if Schmitt and Carey are as well, given there may have been an NDA, where's the great public duty to go on a truth jihad and print private e-mails? Where's the compelling public interest?

Instead, there's compelling personal interest. Some of these guys like Kimball entertain the false notion that they're above the lunatic in-fighting of UFOlogy; that they're truth-telling iconoclasts above the fray. Yet all the while they're in denial and an integral part of it. It's like the guy who beats his wife and all the while tells himself he's a good husband. It's more of the same old joke.

Nitram Ang said...


You made a mistake, you treated Paul Kimball as an honorable man.

That said, I do feel for Don Schmitt who I hardly know - he made a mistake, or two, twenty years ago and still continues to suffer for it.


Ray Palm (Ray X) said...

Here's my take so far on the controversy:

Comments are welcome.

KRandle said...

Nitram -

Yes, the unfortunate collateral damage here is Don. Yes, he made some mistakes 20 years ago but he learned from those mistakes. These really shouldn't be an issue, especially to someone "outside" of the UFO field. One of the big regrets here is that all this has probably damaged beyond repair my friendship with Don... because someone else got a bee in his bonnet. And yes, I suppose I need to brace myself for another round of attacks.

Michael Loengard said...

Hello Kevin Randle!

What do you think about the Roswell Slides, are they real?

What do you think about this photo of a possible Roswell EBE:


Note: Note: But this is not the Marina Popowich Puppet from Montreal, Kanada - Photos: and

Its similar but look at the differences at the mouth and the right eye (on "my" photo the eye on the left side) It seems as if were the eye damaged on "my" photo.

Best regards from Germany, Michael!