Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Kurt Peters, Karl Pflock and Don Schmitt

You know, I sort of hate to bring this up, but since we’ve heard repeatedly about Don Schmitt’s misrepresentations in the mid-1990s, and because I’m tired of people quoting from Karl Pflock’s book as if it was handed down on stone tablets, I thought it time to stir this pot.

Does anyone remember Kurt Peters?

Back in the early 1980s, there was a lot of interest in cattle mutilations. Newspapers covered the story, UFO organizations were hip deep in it, network news broadcast segments about it, and several people planned to write books about it. Ian Summers and Dan Kagan did write one called Mute Evidence which was published in 1984. In it they mentioned they had met two men in Colorado Springs, George Erianne and a fellow who identified himself as Kurt Peters and said, “That’s Kurt with a ‘K’.”

As Summers and Kagan wrote in their book, they asked who he was and he said that he was just a “researcher” who sometimes worked for Erianne.

Summers and Kagan soon learned that a fellow named Karl Pflock had been working with Erianne. They put it together when a man they were interviewing told them about Karl Pflock, and said, “That’s Karl with a ‘K’.” They learned that Pflock and Erianne were writing a book about something called Project Jerome which was a secret germ warfare operation that had something to do with the cattle mutilations.

When Kagan and Summers returned to New York from Colorado, they learned that Karl was on the grievance committee for the Science Fiction Writers of America (OMG, he wrote fiction… well, that’s it for me… obviously he can’t tell fact from fiction… I wonder if Max Littell ever yelled at him for that), he served as an editor for the Libertarian Review and “that he liked to go around telling people that he had connections with the CIA.” Finally, they learned he was a senior editor for a publishing company that was outside New York.

So, if the information is accurate, Karl wrote a book or planned a book that suggested the cattle mutilations were some sort of germ warfare project, he said that he worked for the CIA, and he said his name was Kurt Peters… oh, and let’s not forget his ties to the Science Fiction Writers of America.

In the November/December 1993 issue of UFO (American version) Karl wrote an article called, “I was a Ufologist for the CIA…” This is sort of an explanation about his UFO career including his time at NICAP in Washington, D.C. and what he did with the CIA. Of importance here is the section labeled, “Kurt Peters & the Mutilations Caper.”

In an attempt to explain his deception (which reminds me of Don Schmitt’s explanation about why he kept his job at the post office a secret), Karl wrote:

In August 1978, I relocated to Colorado Springs – a move inspired by failed air conditioner on a miserable Washington summer day and the concurrent realization that a writer can live anywhere, not by my nonexistent spymaster. Naturally, some folks that otherwise. Their suspicions were “confirmed” when my name surfaced in Daniel Kagan’s and Ian Summers’s 1983 book Mute Evidence, a highly skeptical look at livestock mutilations and those the authors called “mutologists.” I had known about but had never seen the book and what Kagan and Summers wrote about me until Dick Hall passed along some extracts in late 1992.
During the summer of 1980, I was in desperate need of a commercially viable book project. A friend put me in touch with George Erianne, a well-known Springs private detective, who supposedly had the answer to the livestock mutilations. There were being perpetrated by a gang of rogue germ warfare researchers. Erianne claimed to have established this through his own investigations and information given him by small-town Colorado newspaper editor Dane Edwards, whom Erianne said was on the run from the rogue mutilators. (As I learned later, Edwards’ pursers actually were creditors and cops.)
Erianne needed a writer to collaborate on a book. I needed a money-maker, and this seemed like just the ticket. I could have saved myself well-deserved embarrassment if I had not allowed my critical judgment to be shouldered aside by visions of fame and fortune.
Not Long after our book proposal began making the rounds of publishers, Erianne was contacted by Kagan and Summers, who said they were working on a book about the mutilations mystery. Rivals! They would be in town in a day or two and wanted to interview George, who agreed to see them.
I suggested it might be useful for me to be at the meeting. However, there was a chance Kagan and Summers might recognize me by name as a writer and put two and two together. Erianne suggested I use a pseudonym and say I was a researcher who sometimes helped him on his cases. Thus was the misbegotten “Kurt Peters” born.
Soon after the interview, Kagan and Summers discovered the truth about my relationship with Erianne, confirming it in a telephone conversation with me. Coupling this with their accurate conclusion that the rogue researchers story was bogus, they reasonably but wrongly decided that Erianne and I were collaborating in an attempt to peddle a hoax. They included this accusation in their book, apparently without making any attempt to verify their hunch. This may well have soured certain editors on my work, and certainly it has added to the Pflock as a ufologist for the CIA myth. Anyway, it was my own damned fault.
So that is the spin that Karl put on this. It wasn’t his fault. It was Erianne’s fault because he suggested Karl use a fake identity. It was Kagan and Summers’ fault for incorrectly deducing that Karl and Erianne were attempting to peddle the germ- warfare-researchers causing the mutilations tale. They failed to confirm the information, but Karl had the chance to set them straight when he talked to them before they wrote a word of their book. Shouldn’t he have mentioned the problem because he was spreading it with Erianne, according to the information in Mute Evidence?

So, we have Karl Pflock lying about who he was, his association with Erianne and while he wrote that Kagan and Summers incorrectly suggested he was attempting to peddle his rogue chemical warfare researchers, he did nothing to set the record straight when he talked to them. Is this as egregious as Don Schmitt’s tales in the mid-1990s? I suggest they are but in the world today, Karl gets a pass on it but Don does not. Karl attempted to spin the story, just as Don did. There are some seeming contradictions in Karl’s article, but I don’t see anyone pointing these out endlessly.

Is this old news? Certainly. But some of those who insist on attacking Don for things done two decades ago and who are using Karl’s book as the end all source should realize that the same can be said about Karl spinning tales… or should we just look at Don’s or Karl’s latest work and decide if it rises or falls on its merits?


In the world of Ufology the side you take up is usually the one that falls under your own belief structure. Sometimes it has less to do with evidence and more to do with what you wish to believe. Was Karl’s lie about who he was as bad as Don’s lie about where he worked? Was Karl’s attempt to sell Kagan and Summers on the rogue chemical warfare agents as bad as Don’s claim about the nun’s diary? I’ll let you all decide… but to me, they look very similar.

61 comments:

cda said...

As you say, everyone has to decide for themselves what to believe and what not to believe. I certainly do not reject Karl Pflock's views on Roswell simply because he once used a pseudonym with the idea of assisting writing a hoax book on cattle mutilations.

Donald Keyhoe once wrote aviation fiction. He also once (according to FBI records) wrote an article, during WW2, falsely claiming that Hitler planned to destroy the US Merchant Navy and that the FBI knew all about such plans.

Knowledge of this fact might lower Keyhoe's status as a UFO writer in some people's eyes. Should we accept or reject Keyhoe's UFO writings on their merits alone? My answer is yes we should.

Sir Patrick Moore was a famous UK astronomer. Was his status lowered by writing a spoof contactee story, using a pseudonym, in the 1950s? No it was not, even when he was finally exposed.

The big difference between Pflock and Schmitt is that Pflock was essentially a Roswell skeptic (after being a partial believer), whereas Don Schmitt was, and still is, trying to promote an idea totally unacceptable to science, based solely on very dubious 2nd and 3rd-hand testimony, and then taking conspiracy theory to extremes.

If you want to promote something as sensationally new to science as the discovery of an ET visit to earth you require a far stronger and higher standard of proof than if you are painting a negative view. And in the former case it does you no good whatever to lie about your past or your qualifications.

KRandle said...

CDA -

I think you get the point, partially. I'm suggesting that we put the past behind us, look at the work they do today (or in Karl's case the last work he did) and decide what to believe...

You seem to be endorsing the idea that what happened 20, 30, or 40 years ago, while interesting, shouldn't be used to reject something that is happening today. I guess we all have skeletons in the closet and sometimes it is just best to leave them there.

If you wish to reject Don's point of view based on your skepticism then that is fine...

Nitram Ang said...

Why are we not surprised some clown wrote...

"Don Schmitt was, and still is, trying to promote an idea totally unacceptable to science, based solely on very dubious 2nd and 3rd-hand testimony, and then taking conspiracy theory to extremes."

and further

"it does you no good whatever to lie about your past or your qualifications."

So, you have met Don Schmitt and discussed the Roswell case personally with him CDA?

I have news for you, the ET explanation is not his first choice for what happened at Roswell! But like the other clueless debunker who has recently taking to getting nothing right on this blog - you don't need to have spoken to anyone or met them personally to be an authority on what they think or believe.

Another reason why the clown on this blog is so clueless...

"The big difference between Pflock and Schmitt is that Pflock was essentially a Roswell skeptic" (and therefore completely trustworthy and beyond reproach).

Don made a mistake a longtime ago - have you never made a false statement in your life CDA - you must be squeaky clean?

Lance said...

Martin D is sadly unfamiliar with the Roswell story--it's hard to debate with someone who doesn't even know the basic facts.

Simple believers like Martin D.might want to read Kevin's previous entry for just one example of why Schmitt is so toxic to the the anyone interested in the truth. The problem with Schmitt is hardly one lie.

He also made up some of the stuff that acts as a foundation for Martin's religion.

For instance, the nuns diary exists as one of the verses in the Roswell bible because Schmitt pretended that he had seen it--he hadn't.

Calling such an obvious UFO huckster, a "researcher", is a prime example of why UFO "research" is such a pathetic joke with zero scientific standing.

Best,

Lance

Nitram Ang said...

Hi Lance

Ok - I understand you coming to the defense of your mentor - and maybe I got a bit carried away with my earlier post.

The point I was trying to make is what Kevin posted earlier:

"I guess we all have skeletons in the closet and sometimes it is just best to leave them there."

So maybe give the guy a break...

Regards
Nitram

Nitram Ang said...

Oh & Lance - how many times do I need to tell you - this is NOT a debate - it is an INVESTIGATION.

Regards
Nitram

Don Maor said...

Lance said:
"it's hard to debate with someone who doesn't even know the basic facts."

What are the basic facts Lance? crash dummies from the future? The Mogul balloon hoax? Dozens of witnesses lying?

Larry Holcombe said...

cda:

Just a couple of quick issues to touch on.

You state that Pflock had the idea of assisting writing a hoax book on cattle mutilations. You compare that with Keyhoe writing aviation fiction. There is a big difference between writing what is known fiction and a so called non-fiction book that is a hoax.

As far a Keyhoe and the Hitler issue, did Keyhoe believe it to be true when he wrote it and it turned out to be false, or did he know it was false when he wrote it? It makes a huge difference. Can you direct me to the FBI records?

Finally, you said, "Should we accept or reject Keyhoe's UFO writings on their merits alone? My answer is yes we should."

We should what? Accept or reject his UFO writings, sorry I'm not clear on this.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin - really? You said above: "Was Karl’s lie about who he was as bad as Don’s lie about where he worked? Was Karl’s attempt to sell Kagan and Summers on the rogue chemical warfare agents as bad as Don’s claim about the nun’s diary? I’ll let you all decide… but to me, they look very similar."

You think Pflock's behavior is "very similar" to Schmitt's?

You're the guy who wrote in September 1995 quote, "The search for the nurses proves that he (Schmitt) will lie about anything. He will lie to anyone… He has revealed himself as a pathological liar… I will have nothing more to do with him." And ""That said, let me now point out that I do not now believe anything that Schmitt says and neither should you…" (Kevin Randle;"To Whom It May Concern" Letter)

So you mean Pflock was also a "pathological liar?" You must be the world's foremost expert in comparing apples to oranges.

The prime difference is above. Pflock said "...it was my own damned fault". He bothered to aknowledge his mistake. Schmitt? Never. You? Who knows.. The bigger the pride the farther the fall....

And Martin/Nitram who hides his identify but spews criticism. Schmitt is STILL spinning crap every presentation he does - he doesn't even get basic facts right. 2014 - Schmitt at UFO symposium: 1) Says "Engineers at RAAF took a ten pound sledge hammer and hit a six foot piece of debris over, and over and over again and not a single scratch or dent could be found" (pure fictional exaggeration), 2) Shows a photo of an ME109G being evaluated at Wright Field in 1947 and tells the audience "This is a German ME262" (Wrong..he can't even identify correctly a photo in his own book?), 3) Says "US didn't even have any atom bombs until 1949 AFTER the Soviets tested their first bomb" (Wrong - The US atomic bomb inventory did exist and is fully documented from 1945 to 1949), 4) "Little I-Beam struts the size of a pencil were found with alien hyrogliphics" (Wrong..they were larger than a pencil).

This guy is NO researcher and he checks no facts and spills junk information to a gullible crowed who will belive anything.

And you dare to say "His first conclusion about Roswell isn't the ET hypothesis?"

What's in your cool aide Nitram?

cda said...

Nitram:

Please tell us what Don Schmitt's first conclusion was on Roswell, as we are all waiting to hear. What caused him to change this conclusion?

It is up to Kevin, not you, to decide whether this forum is for debate or for investigation. I assume it is the former but you obviously think otherwise. Maybe the correct answer is 'both'.

Which is worst - a clueless debunker, a clueless believer or someone who cannot even spell his own name?

Larry H:

What I meant was that we should accept Keyhoe's writings on their merits (when they deserve it) or reject his writings when they deserve it. The Hitler/US Merchant Navy story was given in The 'Skeptical Inquirer' some years ago and I may not easily be able to locate it now. I think Keyhoe's original article was in 1941 but don't recall the source. He co-wrote it with a journalist called John J. Daly. Because of it, the FBI concluded Keyhoe was unreliable as a writer.

Brian:

Could you possibly be the other "clueless debunker" Nitram (or Martin) is talking about? Take comfort from the fact that he added the word 'clown' to me, but not to you!

Lance said...

Additionally Martin D., your unfamiliarity with the material hinders you in understanding Pflock.

Pflock (whom I spoke with on the phone on quite a few occasions) started as a Roswell believer. His document, "Roswell in Perspective" outlines this.

It was only over time that he became a skeptic because the crap evidence leads a thinking person that way. He made a journey looking for the truth.

Here recently Kevin outlined the garbage that Glenn Dennis spewed out. And yet there was still at least one hardcore believer churning out apologetics for this, silliest of "witnesses".

Considering all of things that Dennis did, it is hard to imagine ANYTHING that he could do that would shake the faith of some Roswell buffs.

I have no idea how Kevin can compare Pflock's small misadventure, (which didn't apparently result in bad data becoming part of the record AND had nothing to do with Roswell AND was self-confessed) with the dubious stuff that Schmitt had vomited into the Roswell myth (and with the slides we see that he is STILL spewing).

It's a joke, right?

Lance

KRandle said...

Well, I expected push back on this but thought it important to make this point. So let’s look at this again.

Erianne and Karl fed the false story of Project Jerome and the chemical welfare to Summers and Kagan. They didn’t fall for it but when they confronted Karl about his real name and he had a chance to tell them the truth about this, he didn’t do so.

And I knew it would be pointed out that he said it was his own damned fault at the end of the segment in UFO, but only after he had blamed everyone else for the trouble. He did learn something from his time in Washington, D.C.

And since many of you don’t remember, or have forgotten, Don wrote, “Recently, several parties have raised questions concerning my educational background and place of employment. Although these matters should, and do, have no bearing on the Roswell investigation that Kevin Randle and I have conducted, I thought it best to offer these clarifying comments.

“I have been an employee of the U.S. Postal Service since 1974. I worked part-time until 1983, when I became a full-time rural letter carrier. During all this period, I have been a freelance commercial artist. I will soon receive a Bachelor's degree from Concordia College with a major in Liberal Arts, and I've been accepted into a newly-established graduate program in criminal justice studies at Concordia.

“I would like to offer my sincerest apologies for any false or misleading statements I made about my background. I regret any misunderstandings that may have sprung from this.

“As a consequence, I have resigned, effective April 13, 1995, as Director of Special Investigations of the Center for UFO Studies. I will continue, with the support of my colleagues, as a CUFOS board member. I want to thank all those who have offered their support and friendship to me during the past few months.

“Donald R. Schmitt”

Does that let Don off the hook, just as Karl’s apology apparently let him off the hook? Do we really need to revisit this or do we let all this drop at this point?

Brian Bell said...

Kevin - well it is your blog (as you have clearly pointed out time and time again), so I don't know why you are asking "do we all let this drop at this point?".

You were the guy who started this public conversation in the first place.

KRandle said...

Lance did say, “I have no idea how Kevin can compare Pflock's small misadventure, (which didn't apparently result in bad data becoming part of the record AND had nothing to do with Roswell AND was self-confessed) with the dubious stuff that Schmitt had vomited into the Roswell myth (and with the slides we see that he is STILL spewing).

The reason it didn’t become part of the record for cattle mutilations was that Erianne and Karl couldn’t find a publisher for it. They had sent out proposals which outlined the answer for the mutilations as Project Jerome. Had the New York publishers fallen for the line, it would have become part of the mutilation record. And it only counts if it had something to do with Roswell?

But some of Karl’s misinformation did become part of the record. For example, in his book, Karl wrote about Frankie Rowe’s claim that her father had gone to the crash site. He said that he had interviewed three retired members of the fire department and a former city council member about this. According to Karl, “None of the former firefighters remembered the department making such a run.”
That seems to be a true statement and Karl, in his footnote, reported the names of those firefighters. I spoke with one of them who told me essentially the same story that Karl had reported. I then asked if he knew Dan Dwyer and he said that he did and that Dwyer had gone out to the site in his own car. So, the question is now, did Karl know this and just leave it out because it would support what Frankie had said, or did he simply end the interview once he got the information he wanted? I don’t know, but the information Karl published was misleading. I find it difficult that he wouldn’t have had the information, but I just don’t know.

The former city councilman is Max Littell who didn’t served until the 1950s. I asked members of the fire department about this in the 1990s and their response was, “What are we supposed to do, let it burn?” That doesn’t negate Littell’s claim but then there are fire records that do show responses outside the city limits in 1947, so the point is moot… and Karl acknowledged this.

In the end, there is information that supported Frankie’s tale but Karl chose not to report it… we can only say that he might not have found it (Though he told me that the first draft of his book was not skeptical enough for Prometheus so he fixed the problem)… and before we all take off on a tangent, the information only proves that Dan Dwyer was telling the story about going out there, that he told others about it, and not that there was an alien spacecraft crash.

KRandle said...

But what about his analysis of the Beverly Bean tale who told of her father, Melvin Brown seeing the alien bodies? He points out, rightly, that the story is second-hand and that Brown left no written record. He wrote, “His widow and oldest daughter refuse to discuss the matter, and despite concerted efforts by myself and others, Beverly has never responded to requests that she sign an affidavit attesting to her account.”

In 1991, Don Schmitt arranged to have Beverly, her sister Harriet Kercher and her mother interviewed in England. All confirmed that Brown had told them the story and in fact, the sisters disagreed on the number of bodies their father had seen as CDA points out repeatedly. Karl’s report does not mention this, though a copy of the tape had been sent to the Fund for UFO Research and Karl had access to that information. He does acknowledge that he had seen Reflections of Roswell II, a compilation of testimony from various witnesses about what they had seen and heard. At best, his statements about what the family said are misleading. At worse he knew about them and chose to ignore them. So, is this bad data becoming part of the record? He said the sister and widow refuse to discuss the matter, but they did… and before we go off on that tangent again, it doesn’t mean there was a spaceship crash, only that Brown was telling the story to all family members.

Before we go much farther into this, I want to point out that this is not meant as a defense of Don Schmitt, but a look at the double standard that is being applied. Karl’s name change and his support of Project Jerome is interesting and I suggest that anyone interested in this take a look at the “Deep Cover” chapter of Mute Evidence to decide if it rises to the level or the Catholic Nun’s diaries.

cda said...

I am still waiting for someone (presumably Kevin or Nitram) to tell us:

1. What was Don's initial conclusion over Roswell?
2. What caused him to change his mind and go for ETH?
3. When, approximately, did this change occur?

KRandle said...

Well, CDA -

In 1989, when we planned the trip to Roswell, both of us were of the opinion that there were be a simple explanation for the crash. We thought the balloon explanation made sense. Then in February 1989, we met with Bill Brazel and realized that this wasn't going to be as simple as we thought.

As we were leaving New Mexico, I remember telling Don that there was more here and we'd have to come back. Over the next several months as we talked to more people, searched more documents we slowly became convinced that the extraterrestrial was a more likely solution... General Exon and Edwin Easley, among others helped to confirm that.

During the search, we checked the launch records at White Sands, we looked at aircraft accidents, we tried to find information on the possibility that an atomic bomb might have been lost (as had happened other times). I even chased down everything I could find on the Fugo Balloons.

So, I would say that the switch was a gradual process that took place from about February 1989 until sometime in early 1990.

We also discussed time travelers, interdimentional visitation as just two of the possible explanations.

I'm not sure why this is important to the discussion here, but this is what I remember about the evolution of our thoughts.

cda said...

Thanks indeed for the information. You are right to question whether it is important to the discussion. I only raised it because one contributor (who can't spell his own name) insulted me and followed this by saying that Don Schmitt was not initially a Roswell ET believer. I wanted clarification on this.

Come to think of it, Bill Moore started out as a Roswell non-ET believer also. I believe he has now gone back to that position.
A similar thing happened to Kent Jeffrey.

Strange thing, this Roswell 'disease'.

Brian Bell said...

I believe Kent Jeffrey's case is similar if not identical to what Pflock concluded and experienced.

Brian Bell said...

Forgot to mention, neither one is totally an ET skeptic, it's just that they concluded that Roswell was not sound evidence in support of it. They are both typically labeled "skeptics" but it's only relevant to Roswellian Theology.

Nitram Ang said...

CDA asked...


"I am still waiting for someone (presumably Kevin or Nitram) to tell us:

1. What was Don's initial conclusion over Roswell?
2. What caused him to change his mind and go for ETH?
3. When, approximately, did this change occur?"

Good question CDA - you are starting to think like an investigator - although you still haven't quite grasped the point...

What I posted earlier read:

"I have news for you, the ET explanation is not his first choice for what happened at Roswell!"

First choice meaning CURRENT NO1 solution, if you like.

Doesn't take into account what he MAY have thought when he first started out on this long journey...

So to answer your question...

Time traveler (he has mentioned this to me when we meet a few years ago and more recently went we spoke by phone). Of course ET is another possibility and right down the bottom we have the mogul balloon hoax.

My question to you remains unanswered:

"Don made a mistake a longtime ago - have you never made a false statement in your life CDA - you must be squeaky clean?"

You also posted:

"It is up to Kevin, not you, to decide whether this forum is for debate or for investigation. I assume it is the former but you obviously think otherwise. Maybe the correct answer is 'both'."

Kevin has mentioned to me before - The Roswell Incident is an "ongoing investigation".

While I don't agree with his "final conclusion" I give him credit for admitting that he has made mistakes believing some of the false "witnesses" for example).

You CDA, have not conceded anything and your ridiculous argument about the "sci-fi novel" shows your closed mindset to the whole thing.

Finally - my name is not important - we have never met.

Nitram Ang said...

Hi Lance

"Here recently Kevin outlined the garbage that Glenn Dennis spewed out. And yet there was still at least one hardcore believer churning out apologetics for this, silliest of "witnesses".

Considering all of things that Dennis did, it is hard to imagine ANYTHING that he could do that would shake the faith of some Roswell buffs."

For what it's worth I agree with what you have written above...

I am surprised that David still supports the tale told by Glenn Dennis.

Regards
Nitram

Brian Bell said...

Nitram/Martin - your name is important because you post as though you're an "expert" and challenge others while hiding your identity. What are you afraid of? Hard to take an anonymous self proclaimed expert too seriously. Enough said.

cda said...

Nitram/Martin/etc:

I do not recall talking about a "sci-fi novel" here or elsewhere. I did mention that Keyhoe wrote aviation fiction. Yes, it is irrelevant as far as his UFO writings are concerned.

In fact, didn't Karl Pflock also write science fiction? Hasn't Kevin done likewise? They may have used pseudonyms - I don't know.

I wonder: have YOU ever written SF, whether under your real name or a pseudonym?

Don Schmitt's explanation for Roswell (once he got going with Kevin into the investigation) has always been ETH. Are you now saying that time travel was at one time his first choice explanation but he later discarded it in favor of ETH?

Presumably Kevin can also shed light on this. (Provided it is not going too much off-topic).

I did once meet someone called 'Nitram'. But he had a different surname.

Jack Brewer said...

Hmmm... One reasonable take away from both Kevin's post and the resulting discussion would be to not pay much attention to anything not verified, pretty much regardless of source. Other side of that same coin would be if someone presents verifiable documentation of a circumstance, then so be it.

A reason that is such a relevant issue in UFO circles is that our researchers are notorious for representing opinion (and outright fabrications) as established fact. In the case of the Roswell Slides that aren't the Roswell Slides, for instance, I was never overly concerned about the backgrounds of any of the players. I thought it much more relevant that they blatantly and overtly represented circumstances as facts of which they failed to provide verification, at least to date.

In short, that's among the largest challenges to the entire genre. It just happens to have been epitomized by the slides crew and a majority of the Roswell proponents over the years.

Brian Bell said...

And the funny thing about the "Roswell slides" is now pro-ETers claim "we never said that...the skeptics did!" Once more evidence of shenanigans to dodge anything that might bring question to Roswellian Theology.

Lance said...

Come now Kevin,

Can you really not distinguish the difference between leaving out or not mentioning some bit of evidence that you think is important and MAKING UP evidence that doesn't exist at all?

Did Don tell you that he had seen the Nun's diary?

Lance

Larry said...

Lance,

Are you really going to deny that both acts were deceptive? (That seems to be the touchstone by which you dismiss someone as being unreliable.)

Of course there is a distinction: one was an act of omission and one was an act of commission.

KRandle said...

Since Lance seems to think that Don’s role in the nun’s story was invention of the tale and because it became part of the record, it is more egregious than Karl’s role in the cattle mutilation story, I thought it time to look at that specifically.

First, Don didn’t invent the nun’s story. It came to us from Bill English who said he was a former Special Forces officer and at the time we had no reason to doubt it. We now know that wasn’t the truth.

We got partial confirmation of this the next day in Roswell when we talked to Sister Day. She said that she had seen the diaries and confirmed the entries by the nuns. If I remember correctly, she had looked at this after the new interest in Roswell was sparked so she remembered what she had read.

Don learned the diaries had been sent to Oklahoma and what he learned there seemed to confirm everything that we already knew. I thought he had seen the diaries but as it turned out he hadn’t. I simply don’t remember what he said about it at the time. Our error was in not fully qualifying the footnote which gave more support to the diaries than it should have.

Now, Karl, in his Kurt Peters guise, is participating in a discussion about the cattle mutilations and while George Erianne is spitting out the information about Project Jerome, Kurt Peters is supporting it. According to Summers and Kagan in Mute Evidence, pages 351 – 352, Kurt/Karl jumps into the conversation about a bacteria called Clostridium.

According to the book, “Kurt Peters mentioned something about how good a fatal Clostridium CB [chemical/biological] weapon would be for something like assassination purposes. The idea, he said, was that you would normally find Clostridium in the body of the murdered man once he began to decompose, and pathology examinations would never find the fatal Clostridium that had killed him, since it would blend well with the usual complement of bacteria in a dead body.”

So, it would seem that he was a willing participant in this hoax, and, the question is, was this part of the book proposal that he and Erianne had put together… Were they going to peddle this chemical/biological warfare angle as the solution to the cattle mutilations, but got tripped up when the Summers and Kagan tumbled to it? Or were they just feeding misinformation to Summers and Kagan as a way of leading them down a road so that he and Erianne could sell their book.

My point here was that these “misadventures” took place decades ago, and both Karl and Don have come clean about them. Shouldn’t we now concentrate on what they are saying today (or in Karl’s case, what he said in his book in 2001) rather than attempting to negate their work because of transgressions in the past… my point was that both had said and done things decades ago that suggested they had roamed far from the narrow path of truth.

So, yes, Lance, I find both tales disturbing, and yes, I think they are on a same level. Karl’s failed only because Summers and Kagan didn’t fall for it (and again, we don’t know what was in the proposal) and Don didn’t originate the nun diary tale. Split that hair if you must, but I do think they are on the same level.

cda said...

I think Kevin has brought this dispute or confusion about the nuns' diary upon himself. In his and Schmitt's two books there is no mention of Sister Day or Bill English or their connection with the nuns' story and diary. Why not?

It is an example of an incomplete account of an alleged event, an omission that reflects badly on the research for either book. The reader is not told the full story.

The same applies to Melvin Brown's tale(s). A reader of the above two books might assume Brown's daughter just 'turned up' out of the blue and told her father's story to the authors, whereas she in fact related it to Timothy Good in London at least two years BEFORE Randle and Schmitt ever heard of it. Kevin and Don never mention Good at all. It would be interesting to compare the daughter's story as told to Good with her (and her sister's) story as told to Kevin's associates two years later. But I assume this is impossible now.

Glenn Dennis? Same thing again. No mention in the above two books of how this guy was located. Turns out that Stan Friedman interviewed him well before either Kevin or Don did. But nobody would ever know this from reading these books. Just another incomplete part of the Roswell 'legend'.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin has argued that Pflock and Schmitt are "on the same level" having one knowingly committ error by omission and the other by commission. Somehow, at least to Kevin, that makes both of them "on par" with one another when it comes to credibility.

I submit that to determine credibility, one must look upon a person's entire "ledger" - not just one episode alone.

As far as I can tell, Pflock does not have as lengthy a "dirty ledger" as does Schmitt, who could be accused of many, many acts of deliberate omission and commission. Pflock on the other hand, not so much. Bear in mind acts of omission can be both willful and unwillful (by oversight or mistake). Acts of commission are often more associated with premeditated deception or intentions.

The point being that Pflock has been deliberately brought into question and intentionally likened to Schmitt as means to defend one's previous work which just happens to be in direct conflict with Pflock's.

In other words, this is not about diaries so much as it is about someone being upset with others quoting Pflock.

Paul Young said...

I tell you, there are some pretty unforgiving people around here.

The way I see it, Don Schmitt simply jumped the gun. If Sister Day told him that this diary existed and she had seen the particular entry of interest with her own two eyes...then of course he believed her.

(Strewth, if we can't take the word of a nun...!!! :-)

I expect he took it that it would be a simple matter of going to Oklahoma at a date convenient to himself and study it at his leisure. He was then as flabbergasted as anyone when the realisation set in that the damned thing wasn't around.
Ok, he fibbed about seeing it for himself and put himself in this awkward situation. But I expect he had not the slightest doubt it existed and that he could get his hands on it.

Shoddy investigative procedure for sure...but actively intending to be deceitful?

Brian Bell said...

Paul -

On your comment about the lack of forgiveness, I will just comment that anyone who enters the fray of UFOlogy should brace for the shocking reality that they will slapped around by both sides of any discussion and therefore must recognize these conversations are not for the faint hearted or timid.

The subject is highly controversial and because for some it literally takes on a religious persona, people will go to great lengths to do or say whatever it takes to maintain their position in light of the fact that there is a real and bonafied phenomenon with conclusions that have yet to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that intellectually superior alien beings who resemble small humanoid people are continuously present on or visiting this earth.

In general, UFOlogy has itself established a culture of "eating its own".

David Rudiak said...

Lance wrote (part 1 of 2):
Here recently Kevin outlined the garbage that Glenn Dennis spewed out. And yet there was still at least one hardcore believer churning out apologetics for this, silliest of "witnesses".

Can't imagine who that "hardcore believer" might be. Some guy named David Rudiak, however, pointed out in detail that there was much more to Dennis' story than the name of the nurse. In fact, a good many other witnesses corroborate various aspects of Dennis' overall story.

The best corroborated part was Dennis saying he got a call from the base asking for child-size caskets and preservation techniques. About half a dozen witnesses have been found saying Dennis was telling them about that call immediately after (such as former Roswell police chief L.M. Hall, whose affidavit is in Pflock's two books--he must have been lying too) or within a few years, not many decades later. Also, very significantly, Garner Mason, whose father, grandfather, and uncles ran the family mortuary business in Hagerman, N.M., at the time, said it was their mortuary that actually made the delivery of child caskets to the Roswell base hospital. "We received the call from Ballard's [Funeral Home, Roswell, where Dennis worked], because they didn't have enough of them to fill the order. So we made the delivery to the base." ("Witness to Roswell", p. 147)

Incidentally, since the thread is about Pflock, Pflock at times didn’t deny the base call to Dennis, but instead said the child caskets part was due to a polio epidemic at the base that killed children (ZERO evidence of that). Then it was a 1956 aviation accident where the crew were badly burned and shrunken. (Get it? Shrunken adult bodies being placed in child caskets instead of buried in adult caskets.) But interestingly enough, he accepted the basic story that Dennis did receive such a call, but Dennis allegedly used that as a premise to change it into an alien body call.

Considering all of things that Dennis did,

He did one thing only: There was no nurse with any of the names he provided. He lied about the name, but nothing else he said has ever been shown to be a lie, in fact is backed up by other testimony. E.g., others said he DID have a relationship with a base nurse, and one witness said he encountered the nurse of the same description (whom he knew) outside the base hangar telling him of alien bodies therein.

it is hard to imagine ANYTHING that he could do that would shake the faith of some Roswell buffs.

It is hard to imagine ANYTHING some discredited balloon witnesses could do that would shake the faith of some hardcore Mogul balloon buffs. Yes, I can play this silly game too, Lance.

Mogul engineer Charles Moore was caught not in one lie, but multiple lies (and changes of story), including a provable hoax and document alteration to try to demonstrate one of his nonexistent Mogul balloons solved Roswell.

Roswell CIC agent Sheridan Cavitt was also caught in multiple lies: I was never stationed at the base; oops, OK, but I wasn't there at the time; oops, OK, but I wasn't involved; oops, OK I was involved, but barely, and I never met the rancher Brazel or went out with Marcel; oops, OK so I went out with Marcel, back to I wasn't ever involved, etc., etc.

Classic quote from Cavitt's interview with Col. Richard Weaver, who headed AFOSI's 1994 Roswell debunking report, speaking of his opinion of Pflock:

"He's OUR CHIEF DEBUNKER. I lean toward him".

Just two old counterintelligence agents talking shop with one another. (Another classic quote, Weaver to Cavitt: “"...in my REAL job we handle all the Special Programs that do keep all the secrets.”)

This was 1994, same time as "Pflock's Roswell in Perspective." Pflock a crashed saucer supporter at that time? Give me a break!

David Rudiak said...

Response to Lance (part 2/2)

I have no idea how Kevin can compare Pflock's small misadventure, (which didn't apparently result in bad data becoming part of the record AND had nothing to do with Roswell AND was self-confessed) with the dubious stuff that Schmitt had vomited into the Roswell myth (and with the slides we see that he is STILL spewing).

It is hard to imagine ANYTHING that Pflock could do that would shake the faith of some Pflock buffs.

More Pflock dirty tricks: Guess who was handling the 1994 Roswell Congressional inquiry for Congressman Steven Schiff of N.M.? Answer: Karl Pflock's wife. Here is a post on UFO Updates I wrote (rebutting our own CDA BTW) summarizing the resulting misinformation that got put out from Schiff's office, probably as a result of Pflock's inside access:

http://ufoupdateslist.com/2006/aug/m14-006.shtml

As you will note, deliberate misquotes were inserted into the public record to slant opinion in the direction of a balloon and Marcel being the sole culprit in the so-called balloon misidentification blunder. E.g., on Schiff’s website, in the transcript of the initial RDR crashed "flying saucer" story, "intelligence office" got changed TWICE to "intelligence officeR" (who the RDR was getting information from at the base about what happened).

And in the RDR's Mack Brazel interview, his infamous quote: "I am sure what I found was not any weather observation balloon."

...was changed to: "I am NOT sure what I found was not any weather observation balloon."

I seriously doubt Congressman Schiff was personally responsible for this. This has Pflock’s fingerprints all over it. He ALWAYS was a Marcel basher and Mogul balloon crash promoter.

Please read it all. Pflock has had more than one “small misadventure.” His whole past is highly suspicious. In spite of attempts by Lance to portray him as some sort of "believer", it is hard to find anything he wrote to that effect. E.g., his column for "Saucer Smear" never had one good thing to say about the field or any researcher. It was pure ridicule. (Do “believers” do that?) No wonder Lance bows at his feet with true religious devotion.

Nitram Ang said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nitram Ang said...

Hi Lance

Just got to work and see you have been busy stirring the pot again...

So, perhaps you can answer the hard question that your mentor can't:

"Don made a mistake a longtime ago - have you never made a false statement in your life Lance - you must be squeaky clean?"

CDA

You seem to be losing your memory - as I have mentioned this several times...

You state that if "victims of the wreck" can be clearly read from the "Ramey memo" (oh no, here we go again...) then you believe Ramey was writing a "sci-fi novel".

You remember that now CDA?

So you are either a clown or if you don't really believe this then you are dishonest (therefore anything that you post should not be trusted either like a couple of authors we all know).

Paul Young wrote:

"I tell you, there are some pretty unforgiving people around here."

Good point but just needs to be tweaked:

I tell you, there are some pretty clueless, unforgiving people around here.

Brian Bell (if that really is your name)

I have never laid claim to being an expert on the Roswell Incident, however I am probably one of the most qualified "anti ET" writers on this blog.

I have been to Roswell and spoken with some of the witnesses and discussed matters directly with the dream team -

KRandle said...

CDA -

Let's chat... didn't mention English or Day at the time because I believed that the original source was the diary and I thought that Don had corroborated the information. I thought we had that nailed down and we didn't... so, yes, I brought this on myself. In today's world, given what has happened, I would name all the culprits in this little morality play. At the time, it seemed unnecessary.

Good had nothing to do with our finding Beverly Bean. He doesn't mention Brown's name in his book. I met him at a convention, must have been in 1990. I had a copy of the Yearbook then and asked him about his source. He took the Yearbook, thumbed through it and said that his guy was in it, but he wouldn't tell me the name. We found Brown through other sources, and no, I don't remember exactly how, but we got the video taped record not long after that.

And you can compare the stories, as long as Good has a transcript of his interview with her. Ours is on video tape.

I had heard from Cliff Stone that there was a mortician involved in this. Stone thought he worked in the main library in Albuquerque, so I spent two days there trying to find the guy without success. So after that, I'm in Walter Haut's living room and asking some questions about the mortician and Haut said, "I know the name you're fishing for. It's Glenn Dennis."

In July 1989, I arranged an interview with Dennis. I learned that it was to take place a week after one that Stan had arranged. I said that if he would share the information, I would cancel my interview, which I did... but it didn't matter because two months later I interviewed Dennis on video tape for two hours. He didn't like the clothes he was wearing, so he did the interview again in a suit so a second two hour interview exists.

So you see, Good wouldn't give us the name of Bean, but we found it ourselves. Got Dennis' name from Walter Haut and interviewed him myself...

If you ask, I can tell you how others were located... many of them because of the Yearbook, others because of reunion rosters, more because of Unsolved Mysteries (including Gerald Anderson) and a few because of the City Directory for 1947.

Nitram Ang said...

David wrote, in reference to Pflock:

"In spite of attempts by Lance to portray him as some sort of "believer", it is hard to find anything he wrote to that effect."

I have a written email from Pflock stating that he believed the Barney & Betty Hill abduction was a real event.

Regards
Nitram

Lance said...

"misinformation that got put out from Schiff's office, probably as a result of Pflock's inside access"

Probably, huh?

So you don't know and have no evidence?

This is pure conspiracy buff smearing...it's how a worldview like David's get built. It's the same method used by those who say that no planes hit the World Trade Center on 9/11, for Instance.

Sadly, in David's worldview ,those who claim (using the cruddy evidence at hand) that a flying saucer crashed at Roswell are on the same footing as those, like me, who say, probably not.

We aren't.

Although here among UFO buffs, David may get some positive reinforcement--that would vanish in a debate in front of a nonpartisan audience.

Now, I wonder if someone can correct me or David on the matter of "Roswell in Perspective."

My memory is that the conclusion of that white paper by Pflock left the door open for the Roswell Flying Saucer scenario. Am I mistaken or is David? I have the paper, but it's buried somewhere in the basement and I'll check if no one else knows.

If I am wrong, I do apologize to David. I am quite sure that, at least at some point, Pflock thought the saucer idea was viable.



Lance

Lance said...

Well it was easier to find than I thought.

And I was right, for course.

Pflock's conclusions in "Roswell in Perspective "(paraphrased except quoted portion):

a. there were human-like but strange bodies
b. bodies were associated with unusual wreckage
c. bodies and wreckage were removed by air
d. bodies and wreckage resulted from Something Else.
e. "that Something Else may have been the crash of an alien spacecraft."

That David considers Pflock at this time as such a dastardly DEBUNKER gives a hilarious additional insight into his conspiracy buff world! You need to REALLY believe in order to pass muster before David Rudiak!

Lance

David Rudiak said...

I wrote:

"In spite of attempts by Lance to portray him as some sort of "believer", it is hard to find anything he wrote to that effect."

"Nitram" wrote:
"I have a written email from Pflock stating that he believed the Barney & Betty Hill abduction was a real event."

Well, Nitram, I said difficult, not impossible. I knew Pflock supposedly supported the Hill abduction, but I would bet a sheckel or two that had he lived, he would have certainly debunked it in the end.

Kal Korff played a similar game, pretending to be a believer (claimed to have his own UFO sighting, which is highly doubtful), but always debunked UFO cases. At least people like Sheaffer or Klass are/were straight up debunkers, making no pretense of being closet believers while ridiculing everything in sight.

I don't put Menzel in quite the same category, because he filed a UFO report in 1948 (that took place in New Mexico) with the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, saying it had him quite puzzled. (This was when the AFSAB was investigating the green fireball phenomenon.)

But in two books Menzel later wrote, he claimed it never had him puzzled for even a second, instantly recognizing it as a meteor. But that isn't what his letter said.

In short, Menzel LIED in his books. Maybe he was a closet "believer," but he had a job to do when he put on a public face. Maybe the same was true with Pflock.

When I interviewed Frank Joyce back in 2001, he had no kind words for Pflock, calling him "goddamn CIA". Pflock portrayed Joyce as some sort of lunatic, then dismissed him with the flip of his hand, saying nothing he said about Roswell could be believed. Well, I guess that settles it. All it takes is a proclamation from Pflock as God and a witness somehow becomes totally discredited.

I'll give credit to Pflock for at least doing considerable legwork and actually speaking to witnesses and collecting information. His Roswell debunking books are far superior to the other debunking books in how they are researched and written, being chock full of interesting information, if you ignore his propagandistic way of writing.

But I give him no credit for being remotely even-handed or fair in his evaluation of the testimony or evidence. One such example was flippantly dismissing all of the Pappy Henderson witnesses, like his entire family, business partner, WWII plane crew, as being the unwitting victims of a "practical joker." Amazing! Pflock always knew the credibility of complete strangers better than the people who actually knew them intimately.

Because Pflock proclaimed Henderson a "practical joker", suddenly the testimony of at least half a dozen witnesses that Henderson told them of alien bodies and flying saucer debris becomes totally worthless.

Then we hear the followup nonsense from Pflock sycophants that all Roswell witnesses have been "discredited". They haven't REALLY been "discredited"; they have been PROCLAIMED as discredited by people like Pflock, which is hardly the same thing.

Nitram Ang said...

Hi David

Not wishing to add fuel to a flame, but you wrote

"Well, Nitram, I said difficult, not impossible. I knew Pflock supposedly supported the Hill abduction, but I would bet a sheckel or two that had he lived, he would have certainly debunked it in the end."

Maybe this isn't entirely fair.

I don't believe in the ET explanation for Roswell - I am therefore a debunker or a skeptic?

What is the difference (in your opinion) between the two(?), as I don't consider myself a debunker and there are some that have even called me a "believer"!

Regards
Nitram

Brian Bell said...

Nothing like a heated debate.....

To: Nitram ANG: "Self Proclaimed Man of Mystery & Knower of All Things Roswellian"

On Lance - I think it out-of-bounds to demand Lance to confess his "wrong doings" on this blog to illustrate your silly and rather minor point. We are not focusing on "Lance's past mistakes"....we are focusing on the reputations and credibility of Roswell researchers on different sides of the camp.

On CDA - You are right. He is a "clown". In fact, I recently spoke to an "eye witness" who didn't give his name and preferred I refer to him only as "Mr. X", who told me a friend of his brother's former high school sweetheart told him that her cousin's uncle once met a man who knew a guy who once worked at an unnamed military location who claimed he once saw definitive proof that someone unknown to him but related to his brother had actual, bonafide and unaltered photos that contained within the image a photo of CDA wearing an Alien clown suit while juggling pencil sized I-Beams with strange "flower-like" hieroglyphics and a sign around his neck which stated "I am from your future". (sorry CDA - couldn't help myself).

To Lance and David: Lance is right, even in Pflock's "Inconvenient Facts" he enters the conversation, while frequently coming back to it, that he once believed the ETH but later came to the conclusion Roswell was best explained by something other than a crashed alien saucer. He's simply one more victim of UFOlogy's tendency to "divorce their own" when they happen to conclude that not every event can be easily explained as alien in nature.

To David: Joyce is yet one more example of a guy who has simply embellished his story over time. Pflock was able to discredit his testimony so no doubt he would refer to Pflock as "GD CIA". If former CIA people are so problematic, then ETH'ers might best be served by also ignoring those CIA folks who happen to support the ETH.

Nitram - if you are really "the most qualified" person here to defend the non-ETH as you claim above, you might want to try demonstrating that a little better. If you and Don are so close, and if what you claim is true - that Don currently supports the "men from the future" theory, he hasn't been claiming that publicly in any recent speeches or books - he is still selling the ETH.

Perhaps you should be supporting the Roswell Slides - maybe they really depict "mummies from the future".

Nitram Ang said...


Lance wrote again:

"Although here among UFO buffs, David may get some positive reinforcement--that would vanish in a debate in front of a nonpartisan audience."

Please Lance - how many times do I need to tell you - this is NOT a debate - it is an INVESTIGATION.

Maybe put this quote under your pillow tonight...

Regards Nitram

Lance said...

I didn't see the request about false statements.

I have never knowingly lied in any statement related to the topics we discuss here.

And if I got something wrong (which is different that lying, a distinction often lost here), I would endeavor to correct it.


Lance

Nitram Ang said...

Hi Lance

Right... so you have never lied about Roswell - but you imply that you have made false statements about other matters unrelated to Roswell and therefore anything you might say in connection to Roswell can be trusted.

Lance - can I make it clearer...

If Michael Jordan lies on his CV (stating he had a law degree for example) it doesn't diminish his authority as a "basketball commentator"

I will agree that you are more open to admitting a mistake than many on this blog...

Regards
Nitram

Kurt Peters said...

YO Nitram!!!

Kurt, Karl, Don, J.A.Hynek...

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"... (or as foul???)

...but, while as a simple unfrozen-cave-ufologist, I must admit that all this talk of "Karl Pflock"
frightens and confuses me...

(...yet, I have to admit that Rudiak's complete and disciplined rebuttals are a bright spot here...)

anyway...you wrote:
"If Michael Jordan lies on his CV..."

May I ask you to comment/evaluate this informed and expert posted evaluation by Randle of your BFF Schmitt?:

"I also have a problem with a letter sent out by Ken Eppler, the post master
at the post office where Don Schmitt works. MILWAUKEE MAGAZINE published an
anonymous letter claiming that Schmitt worked at the post office which began
the debate about Schmitt's employment. Gillian Sender noted that "...Hartford
Postmaster Ken Eppler confirms that Schmitt is employed as a full-time
carrier. Schmitt has worked at the Hartford Post Office since 1974."

In a letter dated March 13, 1995, and signed by Ken Eppler, he wrote, "In the
letter section of the March, 1995 issue of Milwaukee Magazine, It is implied
that Donald Schmitt has worked full-time for the U S Postal Service since
1974. Not only is this untrue, but I have never made such a statement to
MIlwaukee (sic) Magazine or anyone else."

This letter was designed with one goal in mind and that is to deceive. Don
Schmitt, according to what he told me, and said later on tape, had worked
part-time at the post office beginning, I believe, in 1972 or 1974. He became
a full-time employment in 1982.

The question that must be asked is who benefited from this deception? Schmitt
or Eppler? When I called Eppler, after I had heard some very disturbing
things, he refused to answer questions, saying that I should "talk to Don."

When others suggested that the 600 page medical textbook didn't exist, I said
that all he had to do was show it to people. He explained that it cost
$200.00 and he didn't have a copy. I thought it strange that the illustrator
didn't get a copy from the publisher as part of the payment, but said
nothing. Instead, I suggested that any medical library would have a copy and
a photocopy of the acknowledgments page showing his contribution would
certainly end the debate.

The book has never surfaced and it has gone from a 600 page medical book to a
400 page, loose leaf sales tool and is now back to a 600 page medical book.
To this point, in over two years, nothing has been produced to show that this
book exists, or that Don Schmitt worked as a medical illustrator.

I could go on, but there really is no point. We have Don Schmitt engaged in
activities that are not honest. We have caught him in lies about his
employment and background. I could document more but believe this is really
enough."

http://www.ufomind.com/area51/list/1997/nov/a04-003.shtml

cda said...

Nitram:

"If Michael Jordan lies on his CV (stating he had a law degree for example) it doesn't diminish his authority as a "basketball commentator" "

Well, does it or not? You decide. I don't know the answer. It depends on other things as well. It may diminish it a little but not enough to distrust Jordan overall as a basketball commentator.

This whole debate (or 'investigation' as you call it) is getting personal and a bit out of hand.

Yes I can be serious and I can be sarcastic. Ramey's memo is regarded in different ways according to viewpoint. Here are 3 viewpoints:

1. The preparation of a speech he was going to give on radio later that day. (see Berlitz & Moore)
2. The rough draft for a science fiction novel (my 'clowning' suggestion)
3. A top secret official message from Ramey about the true nature of the alien debris and bodies found - a secret Ramey, and a few others, took to their graves (David Rudiak's idea).

You decide which of these three is the most likely and which the least likely.

And yes, Roswell is a huge comedy of errors and has never been anything else. And I am being serious here.

Brian Bell said...

Add to these some more potential explanations for the Ramey telegram/memo:

4) A silly non-standard and purposely drawn up prop for someone to hold during the media event. You got to wonder why anyone would allow someone to hold, bring to, and allow to be photographed at a media event a real TOP SECRET memo.

5) A copy of a media telegram Marcel brought to Fort Worth to show what had already been disclosed to newspapers or by wire by local Roswell media. The content being no different than what was initially reported or was planned on being released in local newspapers.

6) A Fort Worth media telegram clarifying what the military had released or would allow to be released after the media event.

I don't think the content of that telegram was intended to be classified.

KRandle said...

Kurt Peters -

If that is really your name...

That was written twenty years ago. Do you allow no room for growth and maturity? As I noted, Schmitt apologized for all this sometime later... does that mean nothing?

And, of course, you're not the first to bring this up but the posting, which has sort of drifted off topic was to suggest that transgressions in the past, while certainly relevant in considering reliability, should be tempered with some compassion and consideration of the length of time that has passed...

I'm merely suggesting that we don't use this as the sole criterion for rejecting the work of people of today...

And, of course, we need to understand the sources and methods. We all grow...

However, if you wish to reject Schmitt's work today for what happened decades ago, that certainly is your privilege. I just hope it isn't the only reason.

Gilles Fernandez said...

Hello,

Concerning the Roswell slides Saga, I suppose nobody noticed the last article in my blog? Damned, it was in English, however. Well MY English! ;)

Despite it is more or less what happened I described in my article, then an hoax and social experiment of some sort?

Wait few days in order this saga, well, "solved".

May the 5th is coming and be ready to switch for a new scientific paradigm... (Well, how you are influencing, influenced by fakes or subjective slides depicting however "not an alien").

Dunno how Carey, Schmitt and Bragalia will react to have defended such a thing, even if some the promoters well known what it was, from where the slides came, etc.

Stay tuned!

Regards,

Gilles Fernandez.

Don Maor said...

Gilles,

Your article is pretty much garbarge, which is not to say that the slides depict an alien. We must wait the release of the images.

The only good thing of your article is the link to a video of Adam Dew in which he says that the Rays were friends to the Bush family. (I guess he is speaking of the family of Vannevar Bush?).

KRandle said...

The discussion of the Roswell Slides in connection to this post is now over.

Rusty Lingenfelter said...

@Brian, I've always thought 4) was likely. It makes no sense to me the someone responsible enough to be trusted with classified information allows it to be photographed.

On another note, I find it really sad that the debunkers (and a few believers) come here to attempt to drive traffic to their moribund sites.

Brian Bell said...

I agree Rusty. I am also open to other possibilities on the Ramey memo whatever they may be.

Terry the Censor said...

> I’m tired of people quoting from Karl Pflock’s book as if it was handed down on stone tablets

My limited edition copy is printed on thin sheets of flexible metal that, even so, could not be deformed by blows from a sledgehammer.

KRandle said...

Terry -

I stand corrected, though I think some believe it was written on stone.

Brian Bell said...

More Schmitt non-sense (and Carey too):

It is common to hear Scmitt say in face-to-face interviews, radio talk shows, and UFO conference speeches that "death bed" testimonials and death bed "affidavits" are sub missable in court and therefore with now what amounts to be "more than 700 eye witnesses" these death bed declarations, specifically as they relate to alien bodies, are hard evidence that if taken to court would be accepted.

NOT. US law states that such statements (known as dying testimonials) are ONLY sub missable IF the proceedings deal with criminal homocide OR civil suits where the "death bed" testimony specifically relates to the CAUSE of the witnesse's impending death. Quote: "the statement must relate to the circumstances or the cause of the declarant's own death."

Therefore these proclamations ARE NOT evidence as UFOlogists claim...and as such are considered "hearsay" by court law. Unless of course you claim the alien was a paid US civil servant who somehow caused your impending death from your exposure to him 60 years prior.

Anna Y said...

Nice to see my Dad is still making waves even after his death. I'm sure he is smiling.
Keep the debates going! We will never really know the full truth about Roswell.
Keep watching the skies.

Cheers!
Anna (Pflock) Light

Anna Y said...

Nice to see my Dad is still making waves even after his death. I'm sure he is smiling.
Keep the debates going! We will never really know the full truth about Roswell.
Keep watching the skies.

Cheers!
Anna (Pflock) Light