At
the risk of annoying a few and because it seems that some people have
absolutely no reading comprehension, I thought I would address, once and for
all, this notion that I have recanted on Roswell. I believe it came about
because some people are incapable of understanding a simple title of three
words. They seem to understand the first two, but not the third. And, I thought
that since there have been many commentators on this, but none of those with
two exceptions bothered to communicate with me I would clear the air. In the
time of “fake news” it is easy to understand how this happens but that doesn’t
make it right.
 |
North Main Street, Roswell. Photo
copyright by Kevin Randle.
|
Jerry
Clark wrote a review of my book, Roswell
in the 21st Century for Fortean
Times. It was titled, “Recanting Roswell certainty.” That third word should
have put the whole thing into the proper perspective, but some couldn’t get
past the first two which were, “Recanting Roswell.” Adding that third word
certainly changes the meaning of the title.
In
the early 1990s, after Don Schmitt and I had interviewed dozens of witnesses,
from senior members of Colonel William Blanchard’s staff to ranchers living in
the Corona area, I was absolutely convinced that what had fallen was an alien
craft. We had testimony from those who claimed to have been deeply involved,
who had seen the craft, the bodies, the clean-up efforts, and participated in
the movement of all that material to Wright Field. We had many leads to follow,
we had more witnesses to interview, and I believed that for the most part,
these people were relating what they had seen and done back in July 1947. We
even had learned of a diary kept by Catholic nuns that told of the object in
the sky which would have been a nice bit of documentation.
This
was before I had read a book, Stolen
Valor, about alleged Vietnam veterans who were lying about their service in
Vietnam. Some had been clerks. Some hadn’t served in Vietnam. Some hadn’t even
been in the military. The best example of all this is that in 1990 there were
an estimated 2.5 million Vietnam vets. Men and women who had actually served in
country. There was a question on the 1990 census that asked if you were a
Vietnam vet. Thirteen million answered, “Yes.” That meant that 10.5 million
were lying about it for no apparent reason other than it made them feel good.
All this provides an insight in to the Roswell case and the number of people
who claimed inside knowledge.
In
the world today, as I have learned more about the witnesses and have been able
to cross check information, it is clear to me that the Roswell case is nowhere
as robust as we had thought. I laid out the case, as I understand it, based on
the evidence I have seen, the interviews I have conducted and the research I
did and we are left with a multiple witness case without sufficient
documentation and without any sort of physical evidence. Not exactly the robust
case I had once believed it was.
The
trick for everyone is to read the entire title of the review. We all know that
something fell at Roswell. The debate has been over what it was. At one time I
would have told you it was alien. Today I tell you that I just don’t know. For
me there isn’t a good explanation which I guess means that the solution is
unknown rather than alien.
32 comments:
I for one am just glad you are being honest Kevin because my conclusion although not having done such extensive work on the case as yourself is "I don't know". And all one can ask for is honesty, it shows you are interested in Truth, and that to me counts most. I think perhaps its the conclusion Don and Tom simply couldn't arrive at, they refused to come to such a conclusion and perhaps allowed themselves, and others, to be persuaded that a mummy child was an alien.
As Ive said before though, its the unusual behaviour of the air force that has still got me pausing for thought, and the outright lies. Over a balloon? No... no, there is still something else in my opinion. What, I don't know.
Hi Kevin
Great article and I hope it is clear enough for some of the debunkers.
David Rudiak once spoke about the number of people who claimed to be part of the "D Day landing" also - again, a lot of people claimed to be there can;t have been.
Just a minor point that there is no "debate" about what fell at Roswell - just a "discussion/investigation" into the matter.
Finally, I do hope you will make it to the 70th year anniversary in July.
Best wishes
Nitram
Nitram -
At this point, and what I'm talking about is a debate rather than an investigation. An investigation implies a continuing search for evidence whether it is testimony or debris. A debate suggests that we have two (or more) camps who believe they had an answer and are putting forward their evidence for their answer. Not much in the way of investigation is going on at the moment.
While I fervently believe that you are the preeminent authority on UFOlogy, I cannot help but think that with regard to Roswell you have arrived at the point of overlooking the forest for the trees. That said, Dr. Randle, you must state your beliefs about UFOlogy, in general, and about specific UFO cases such as Roswell, in particular, as you arrive at them, because otherwise you would not be true to yourself, nor ultmately to us, your ardent followers. So while I respect your statement of this new, latterday evaluation of Roswell, I myself find agreement with your earlier assessment of the case.
Thank you for understanding.
Having read the USAF final report on Roswell, titled "Roswell, Case Closed" it was apparent that the AF was puting out a propaganda piece full of holes. Did they interview any of the command staff that were there? NO! The entire work was geared only to debunk. The best info I have read on Roswell come from June Crain and SEN Barry Goldwater (his candor on the Blue-Room being highly classified.) I believe the info is out there, it is up to us individually to accept or deny it. This is like a jury trial except we come to our own conclusions. My conclusion is Roswell was an Alien craft and our government is keeping that and related information highly-classified. Anything that may have been released that should not have just call "BOGUS" or "Fabricated." If anyone in the military learns something the government thinks it should not have, just debrief the individual with drugs and hypnosis. Then there is the best solution of all,"LIE!" Both Bill Clinton and Donald Rumsfeld were asked about the 9-11 Building collapse in public, both pretend to know nothing about it. With UFO's they simply say they do not know. Gullible people take them at their word.
It's a well-known fact that, at least for a couple of days in July 1947, the Roswell incident was a big deal. A national media event. The military took the situation seriously and held a press conference in which they, by telling everyone it was a weather balloon, gave misleading information that obscured the details of the supposed Mogul operation. If the government did all that, then someone, somewhere must have written multiple reports detailing this breach of security, and their efforts to sanitize the leak.
Where are the reports? Where is the documentation of this incident, and the documentation of the materials once it left RAAF? If the debris arrived at
Wright Field, where are the documents? The photographs? I too am skeptical of the alien explanation, but I want to see the official records so the debate can finally be put to rest.
Here is another reason why you will find more roadblocks.
This was recently released by the CIA. It was kept as secret about the CIA comments on a newspaper story. Point being if they had story on file, they anything that we would consider real will never be released.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp75-00149r000500070005-8
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP75-00149R000500070005-8.pdf
Craig posts an interesting link there. It shows how scepticism, which asserts common sense reality, in fact does something subtly different, which is to assert a view already constructed by the limitations deriving from suppression of evidence. We are always from the beginning in a constructed frame of disclosure/non-disclosure that is skewed, controlled. I was recently intrigued for example to discover that NASA was fully aware of the CIA's Project Stargate, yet it poses as the watchword of conventional reality and research. In that light, what of NASA's 20 page letter to Spielberg warning him away from even the fictional interpretation of the UFO phenomenon in his movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind? There are attempts and sometimes successes here at skewing what is reasonable and imaginable, but it is not only the believers caught in a trap but also the sceptics. Their Occam's Razor comes with a CIA/NASA logo on it, in the small print. Default reality ain't so default!
John -
In the Roswell case the trees are important because there is rot, dying trees, trees that are covered with vines that disguise them and a lot of undergrowth that needs to be cleared away to understand the whole case. The forest isn't as healthy as it looks from above and it is only after we walk among the trees that we see the true nature of the case and the foundation on which it is built. The case is not robust. It is merely testimony, some of which is very persuasive but much that can be called interesting as best. In 25 years all we have seen are witnesses who are not reliable, information that is inaccurate and more than a few cases of misidentification. Things are just not what we all thought they were.
I agree with the commenter above that said any hard evidence pertaining to Roswell being an extraterrestrial crash is sealed and locked away from the public, most likely by our ever-trusting government. It makes me sad, yet mad to think that a lot of us more than likely won't get the ending to the story (Roswell) we so desperately want, all because unfortunately we have to be lied to instead.
Thanks Mr. Randle for all the digging you've done throughout the years to try and expose any truth on this topic. And answering people's questions even when some seem to misconstrue what you're saying. :)
Kevin:
I think that answering the Roswell case with an "unknown" is unacceptable at the current stage of your ufological career. You are expected at this point to be able to discard the very unlikely theories, such as Mogul, and accept that there seems to be NOT one theory as likely as the ETH, and accept the notion that it is now very UNlikely the appearance of a brand new hypothesis to explain Roswell. At this point, if not with certainty, and accepting there is no hard evidence yet, you are expected to tell the people what is the more likely explanation.
Don Maor -
If there is no positive answer, which is to say some sort of identification even it that identification is alien in nature, then the only thing I can say is that it is "unknown." I have no positive answer.
I do not understand why I am obligated to jump to the ETH when there is no real evidence for that other than testimony, much of which has been shown to be unreliable.
I have said, repeatedly, that the rejection of all the mundane and terrestrial answers does not immediately lead to the ETH... and any explanation that requires the invention of interstellar flight is one that must be viewed carefully. I am not confident enough at this point to say, "Yeah, it was alien," without some additional evidence. In 25 years or more of searching, that evidence has not surfaced and I laid out my arguments in the book... Jumping to conclusions led to the Not Roswell Slides fiasco in 2015...
So, I do not agree with your analysis here and reject your command that I say something with which I disagree... meaning that I have no explanation for what fell at Roswell.
@Kevin,
I disagree with your point: "...and any explanation that requires the invention of interstellar flight...".
No UFO case 'requires the invention of interstellar flight' to explain it. It's a strawman argument that even some scientists propose, clearly to debunk a case. At this point in time, it's science fiction.
. .. . .. --- ....
Hi Kevin
I think Don has a point, although we don't necessary need yet another discussion about Mogul.
At this stage there are only two proposed answers on the table:
1. Alien &
2. Mogul
So... since you and David have completed refuted answer number 2, then the remaining possibility, however unlikely/ridiculous, must therefore be correct...
Regards
Nitram
the biggest problem i have with the case is the debris that marcell snr bought home to
his son if there was memory metal why didnt he show his son the memory metal jrn never
reported seeing anything like that jrn also said some of the burnt looking metal matched
what he saw in the pictures
"the hurt business wrote":
the biggest problem i have with the case is the debris that marcell snr bought home to his son if there was memory metal why didnt he show his son the memory metal jrn neverreported seeing anything like that jrn also said some of the burnt looking metal matched what he saw in the pictures"
Lots of confusion here. Marcel Jr. NEVER described "burnt looking metal", much less that it "matched what he saw in the pictures."
The only thing "burnt"-looking that he decribed was:
(Berlitz & Moore) "[There was] a quantity of black plastic material which looked organic in nature. ... There were ... bits of black, brittle residue that looked like plastic that had either melted or burned."
(Affidavit) "[There was] a brittle, brownish-black plastic-like material, like Bakelite."
http://www.roswellproof.com/debris5_parchment.html#anchor_3639
As to the description of metallic, foil-like material:
(Berlitz & Moore) "The material was foil-like stuff, very thin, metallic-like but not metal, and very tough."
(KPFA radio) "Most of the debris consisted of metal foil. It was kind of like a dull aluminum on each surface."
(Affidavit) "Most of the debris looked like pieces of an aircraft airframe and its skin. . . . [There was] a thick, foil-like metallic gray substance."
Again, nothing about it being "burnt" or resembling balloon material.
www.roswellproof.com/debris2_memory_foil.html#anchor_3639
The only instance I have found of Marcel Jr. saying SOME of the debris might superficially resemble balloon material, also has him denying that it was since there were also major differences:
(KPFA) "...There were structural members that I felt looked like I-beams. I guess the major difference there was that on the inner surface of one of these I-beams there looked like there was some writing of some kind. The writing was a purplish-violet hue and was entirely within the member itself."
[Although some of the material he handled could possibly be interpreted as fragments of balloon wreckage, Dr. Jesse Marcel Jr. says there are enough differences to raise questions about the Air Force explanation.] "Well, I talked to Lt. Cantor [sp?] and I told him that they did make a good case for this being parts of a weather, [that is] Mogul device, because there are some basic similarities there. Then again, there are some things that are totally different too. So I can't reconcile what I saw with what a Mogul device would have looked like. As they said, the beams were balsa wood. Well, I know what balsa wood looks like 'cause when I was a kid, I made stick models all the time. And that sure didn't look like balsa wood, unless it was sprayed with aluminum paint, or something like that, to make it look like metal. And you know it was extremely light..."
www.roswellproof.com/debris1_beams.html#anchor_3611
The only material Jr. claimed to have personally handled for any length of time was the "I-beam" with geometric figures on it. If he didn't handle the foil-like material or didn't examine it carefully, any memory properties it might have had could easily have been overlooked. His father did describe plastic-like or memory properties to the metal, as did some other witnesses, most notably Brazel's son Bill, who was describing this right from the beginning in "The Roswell Incident".
couldbebetter -
Sorry but June Crain did not work at Wright Field in July 1947. I have her employment documents, not the copies but the originals that she sent to me, and there are huge gaps in her employment by the Air Force. There doesn't seem to be a timeline that fits into employment in which there would have been a crash story. I fear that she had confused something that was fairly mundane with the tales of alien bodies arriving at Wright Field, later Wright-Patterson AFB.
Another, better-documented, weird burn case that MIGHT be UFO related was reported in the Hobbs (NM) Daily News 5 weeks later. According to the paper in several articles (June 3, June 4, June 11) 8-year-old Charles Keith Davis was at the back of a laundry with his grandmother (said to be standing only 3 feet away). According to the boy, something black came out of the sky, sent down a ball of flame, and set his hair on fire. He suffered 2nd degree burns and was admitted to the local hospital.
Both the boy and his grandmother reported a "whooshing" or "whizzing" sound at that the time. The grandmother said, "I heard this sound, like something whizzing by real fast... and then I heard Charles screaming..." When she looked at him, he was enveloped in black with his hair standing on end and burning. The grandmother did not see anything in the air, only heard the sound, and there were no other witnesses.
Another oddity is that despite the 2nd-degree burns, the boy felt no pain, only itching. The grandmother thought the lack of pain had something to do with what burned him.
Burned skin and hair samples, the child's T-shirt, and the grandmother's blouse were said sent to the FBI for analysis, but what, if anything they found, was not reported.
The doctors had no idea what caused the burns nor did the police who investigated. Lightning was ruled out. There was initial speculation that a steam boiler at the rear of the laundry sent out a burst of flame. Another theory advanced by the fire department was that a ball of lint blew out of the rear of the laundry, ignited, and burned away as it struck the boy. It was cautioned by the police that this theory had not been proved. (Seems, however, like a plausible theory to me.)
Since Stan Gordon is coming up on Kevin's podcast, I hope Kevin asks him about what he found out in investigating the 1965 Keckburg case. Gordon has reported learning of a Pittsburgh opthalmologist who treated a child with severe corneal burns from watching the UFO pass over on its way to Kecksburg,
I see my previous post about the boy with burned hair I put into the wrong blog--should have been in the next blog about Albuquerque girl claiming facial burns from a UFO--apoloogies.
"Sorry but June Crain did not work at Wright Field in July 1947. I have her employment documents, not the copies but the originals that she sent to me, and there are huge gaps in her employment by the Air Force. There doesn't seem to be a timeline that fits into employment in which there would have been a crash story. I fear that she had confused something that was fairly mundane with the tales of alien bodies arriving at Wright Field, later Wright-Patterson AFB."
To be completely accurate, "June Crain" did NOT claim she worked at Wright Field in July 1947 or that she worked continuously or that her DIRECT knowledge of a crash occurred in 1947, instead saying it was her employment during 1951-52 (but was indirectly aware of the 1947 crash).
First, in her interview with James Clarkson (www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/crainclarkson.pdf), she states she had three short periods of employment spanning 10 years, from 1942-1952, which seem to be corroborated by her work record document:
"I worked at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and I worked there three different times... The first time I worked in the supply unit... it wasn’t a long period of time that I worked. And the second time was a supply unit and it was a photographic unit."
Clarkson comments in a footnote: "From her papers and those obtained from the National Archives, these dates are as follows: July 03, 1942 to June 30, 1943--Resigned due to Pregnancy. May 13, 1948 to July 21, 1948--Resigned due to Ill Health. March 08, 1951 to May 02, 1952—Moved away, although June told me that her husband was jealous of her success and told her to resign. She was steadily promoted, starting as an Under Clerk Typist and ending as a Clerk-Stenographer." (see p. 6)
As to crashes, she said she knew of the Roswell crash, but there were two others she was aware of during her employment in 1951-52: (p. 24-25) THIS is the period of time of her employment that we should mainly be concerned with.
CRAIN: "I’m the last survivor of the Parachute Branch, and I know what was going on in fifty one (‘51) and fifty two (‘52). And there was a crash during that time and possibly two (2). The Roswell crash was different, it was in forty-seven (‘47). [CLARKSON: These three (3) crashes that you heard about while you worked at Wright-Patterson?] CRAIN: One (1) was the Roswell, and then there was two (2) others."
Elsewhere Crain says the other crashes were also in the "Roswell area", but is never specific. On p. 17 she give a description of the piece of "memory metal" she says she was shown at W-P by co-workers during the '51-'52 period, allegedly from a another "space ship" crash in New Mexico. It has the other properties usually given by other memory metal witnesses: dull grey color, very light in weight, "indestructible" to normal hand testing--couldn't be torn or cut or marked. Additional descriptions are given on p. 41 where she says it didn't feel like an ordinary metal, having a smooth, slick feel to it. She wasn't even sure it was a metal.
Just because we don't know of a NM crash in the '51-'52 period is not by itself a reason to reject her story or assume she was confusing it with stories associated with the 1947 crash. Unverified, yes, but not necessarily false. Not everything makes it into the newspapers.
David -
You know the problem here? I was the first to interview her under the name of June Kaba, and have notes from that first interview in which she was saying that the master sergeant had just flown in from New Mexico and that this WAS part of the Roswell crash. If you go to the Majestic Documents web site, you'll note that they said she "talks about her experience with the parachute group and the military culture of Wright Patterson AFB from 1942 to 1952...
But we know from the documents that she sent to me, and I supplied to Jim Clarkson, that from 1943 to May 1948, she did not work there, and her employment that time lasted just a few months. She also worked there from March 8, 1951 to May 2, 1952, which is what, fourteen months?
So we have her mentioning that the Roswell case was different... after she had learned the details and to get around this, we now have two additional crashes in New Mexico that we don't know about. I would think that since the information she provided is not corroborated and needs the addition of another UFO crash to work, and that she talks about the same things that were associated with the Roswell case, this is a pretty good reason to reject her story.
Unless someone can supply some corroboration for this, I think we should leave it as little more than a footnote (if we even want to do that). The New Mexico landscape is already cluttered with too many downed UFOs that we don't need to add two more to the list.
So, while she later corrected her tale, when she first spoke to me, she had yet to review her records, and I was the one who suggested that the timing didn't work out for Roswell. It seems to me that there is quite a bit wrong with her story.
(Part 1 of 2)
You know the problem here? I was the first to interview her under the name of June Kaba, and have notes from that first interview in which she was saying that the master sergeant had just flown in from New Mexico and that this WAS part of the Roswell crash. If you go to the Majestic Documents web site, you'll note that they said she "talks about her experience with the parachute group and the military culture of Wright Patterson AFB from 1942 to 1952...
Thank you for attempting to clarify, but I don’t see the big problem here, which might also be explained by simple confusion on YOUR part if all you have are notes of interviewing her. According to Clarkson (also on Majestic Docs site in his affidavit and also his 65 page full transcript of his recorded interviews with her, not just notes), he reviewed your notes and in his affidavit states, “These recollections are entirely CONSISTENT, then and now. Further, we spoke about these events on several occasions, not always in recorded conversations. June Kaba never claimed to know more or less than what she stated to Mr. Randle and myself.” I’m just quoting Clarkson here, who obviously disagrees that there are any significant problems with her testimony.
Clarkson also notes his 23 years experience as both a military and police investigator and found Crain/Kaba totally credible. He also noted her vision was extremely poor from an illness in the 1950s and couldn’t find a UFO book in her house. He interpreted this as indicating she wasn’t some well-read “UFO buff” but was speaking from actual experience. He further noted she waited 5 years (from 1992-97) before allowing Clarkson to interview her (after you interviewed her) and only permitted further interviews after learning she was dying from cancer, also being pissed off at the dishonesty of 1997 AF Roswell “crash dummy” report that was broadcast all over the news.
But we know from the documents that she sent to me, and I supplied to Jim Clarkson, that from 1943 to May 1948, she did not work there
Did she SPECIFICALLY tell you she had, or did you just ASSUME this since it fit in with your narrative for your second Roswell book? Maybe your notes only mentioned she worked at W-P between 1942 & 1952, whereas in the very detailed Clarkson transcript, she makes it very clear she did not work there continuously, but in three short stints: 1942-43, 1948, and 1951-52. Her papers confirm do indeed confirm this. So an actual problem with her testimony to you, or just a misinterpretation on your part?
and her employment that time lasted just a few months. She also worked there from March 8, 1951 to May 2, 1952, which is what, fourteen months?
Are you arguing this wasn’t sufficient time for her to have been told of at least one other alleged UFO crash in the 1952 time period or have witnessed the “memory memory” she said she handled right after being told this? What would that take—10 minutes?
(cont. next post with other possible sources)
(part 2 of 2)
Although I can’t point to a specific instance, certainly not one published in the newspapers, rumored crashes from this time period HAVE come from OTHER sources besides Crain/Kaba.
According to Leonard Stringfield’s Status Reports #1 & #2, he received four separate reports by military personnel of an Army training film they viewed that included footage of a crashed UFO and three aliens from either 1952 or 1953: 2 former A.F. officers, and Army & A.F radar specialists. The A.F. radar specialist said he was shown this film in 1953 and was later told by security officers the crash was in New Mexico in 1952. [Thus VERY similar to Crain/Kaba’s story.] He described the craft as silver, disc-shaped, 15-20 feet in diam., with a domed section on top, imbedded in desert sand. An open hatchway was 3 feet high by 1-1/2 feet wide. The inside showed muted pastel colors and a panel with a few simple levers. An autopsy scene showed 3 aliens, large heads, mongoloid in appearance, all looking alike, small noses, mouths, shut eyes, no ears or hair. The skin was leathery and ashen. They wore tight-fitting pastel suits. An A.F. Colonel saw the film around 1956. Disc: circular, metallic, silvery; interior well-lighted, light color, and smooth walls. Aliens: three, all looked alike, short, ashen or gray, no ears or hair, 4 fingers and no thumb, pale green/yellow suits.
Although Stringfield provided no names and this can’t be verified, Stringfield reported there were multiple sources reporting this. Further, no less than astronaut Ellison Onizuka, who died in the 1986 Challenger tragedy, likewise told at least two people of being shown a similar dead alien film in 1973 along with other military officers. In Stringfield’s report “UFO Crash/Retrievals: Is the Cover-Up Lid Lifting?” he wrote:
“In 1985, [reporter] Chris Coffey, of Cincinnati, who was a close friend of astronaut Ellison Onizuka, revealed to me that she had asked him when they met after one of his visits to Wright-Patterson AFB, about his interest in UFOs. He admitted he kept an open mind on the subject and added that his curiosity was aroused when he and a select group of air force pilots, at McClelland AFB [Calif.] in 1973, were shown a black-and-white movie film featuring ‘alien bodies on a slab.’”
Stringfield continued: “In his state of shock, he said he remembered saying aloud, ‘Oh, my God!’ Chris, knowing my work in C/R [Crash/Retrievals], had arranged for me to meet Onizuka to discuss UFOs after his scheduled flight on the space shuttle Challenger. As it turned out, fate intervened when the shuttle exploded.”
Former NASA technician Clark McClelland likewise reported that Onizuka told him the same story only a few days before the Challenger flight.
David -
No, I'm not confused and wonder if you have any actual evidence. Unnamed sources who talk about an undiscovered training film and a UFO crash in New Mexico in 1952 that no one seems to have found a link to. Seems pretty flimsy to me.
And did Jim Clarkson mention that June had three UFO sightings including one in 1975 that she reported to the sheriff? Oh, and in another letter wrote, "I have seen flying saucers two times." In another letter dated "30 March 91," she wrote, "Here are the story of the 3 sure sightings I have had."
And while I hesitate to mention this, but quote from her letter to me, "I suffered brain damage as a result of loss of blood." This would be prior to my interviews with her and certainly prior to Jim's interviews with her. I have no doubt that she was sincere when talking with Jim but that doesn't equal proof...
And she did have UFO books at her house? How do I know? Because I sent her copies of some of my books.
I have no evidence that she had any security clearance, but on this point I freely admit that I do not have sufficient documentation to reject the idea that she had one. Just thought I would mention it.
(part 1 of 2)
No, I'm not confused and wonder if you have any actual evidence. Unnamed sources who talk about an undiscovered training film and a UFO crash in New Mexico in 1952 that no one seems to have found a link to. Seems pretty flimsy to me.
Yes, I would agree, it is flimsy, because (as I said originally) we have no independent confirmation, such as a newspaper story that at least SOMETHING happened, in contrast with Rowell, Kecksburg, or Shag Harbour. However, Stringfield (no flaky researched) mentioned FOUR seemingly independent military sources, including a colonel, telling him a very similar story of being shown a movie while in the service of a crash in this time period ('52-'53), one specifically mentioning New Mexico and 1952. And there was one NAMED source mentioned by Stringield, astronaut Onizuka, who also claimed seeing with other officers another similar film of aliens on a slab.
The point I was trying to make is that June Crain/Kaba’s story of an unknown crash had SOME support from several others. It wasn’t just her. In contrast, what about Gen. Exon who claimed knowledge of MULTIPLE crash retrievals in Wyoming, Montana, and the Pacific Northwest while he was C/O at Wright-Patt.? The only known suspected C/R I know of while he was there was Kecksburg in 1965, and he didn't even mention that. If anything, Exon’s claims are even “flimsier” than Crain’s (Stringfield, e.g., couldn’t provide even one supporting witness of any of these Western US crashes from 1964-66), so do we dismiss everything he had to say or insinuate he had mental or psychological problems, as you are doing with Crain? (more below)
And did Jim Clarkson mention that June had three UFO sightings including one in 1975 that she reported to the sheriff? Oh, and in another letter wrote, "I have seen flying saucers two times." In another letter dated "30 March 91," she wrote, "Here are the story of the 3 sure sightings I have had."
No, he didn't, but this is a nitpick. Wasn’t the same "repeater" knock put on Evelyn Trent, e.g., to try to discredit the Trent photos? Guess we also have to dismiss astronomer Clyde Tombaugh with his self-admitted 6 UFO sightings or astronomer Frank Halstead with four. Or Exon with his multiple UFO crash retrievals?
And while I hesitate to mention this, but quote from her letter to me, "I suffered brain damage as a result of loss of blood." This would be prior to my interviews with her and certainly prior to Jim's interviews with her.
From your blog only last year, you gave the complete quote (so obviously you aren’t so “hesitant” to mention it): “Although I am classed as legally blind, my vision is peculiar in that I have so called tunnel vision. I suffered brain damage as a result of loss of blood.”
By quoting out of context, you are obviously insinuating with "brain damage" that she must have been seriously mentally impaired. Do you realize "brain damage" can be very localized affecting only one modality, which is what Crain/Kaba is actually indicating? From my background in vision science, what apparently happened to her is she had a stroke to the blood supply supplying her visual cortex. This can destroy her peripheral visual field, but leave her central, detailed vision intact. People with tunnel vision can still read, but this is very difficult lacking the peripheral field to orient themselves on the page.
In fact, according to Clarkson, her visual disability did not stop her from successfully supporting herself as a home remodeler. That alone would indicate her cognitive abilities (memory, reasoning, math, language, etc.) were mostly if not entirely intact. In addition, in Clarkson's transcript, she is obviously very articulate, lucid and intelligent, again suggesting her cognitive abilities were mostly intact and her "brain damage" was indeed very localized and limited to her vision.
(part 2 of 2)
I have no doubt that she was sincere when talking with Jim but that doesn't equal proof...
Neither I nor Clarkson have said it equals "proof". [In fact, Clarkson refers to her story as anecdotal.] What is instead being argued is credibility. But you are obviously trying to insinuate through various arguments she was NOT credible, was “brain damaged”, mentally feeble, and making stuff up. (In your blog a year ago, e.g., you also said “This then, seems to be the tale told by a lonely woman. It seems to be a confabulation rather than a blatant lie." This is more insinuation that she told the story only to get some attention.)
In contrast, Clarkson, who wrote he had 23 years experience as a military and police criminal investigator, detected absolutely no deception on her part, found her credible, and thought the story she told him was consistent with the one recorded in your notes, which he said he reviewed. Also, he said she never changed her story through multiple interviews with him.
And she did have UFO books at her house? How do I know? Because I sent her copies of some of my books.
This is a total nitpick and based on ME oversimplifying what Clarkson actually wrote. Clarkson said: "In assessing this anecdote it should be remembered that June did not know much about UFO lore. She did not, for instance, have two shelves of UFO books. Although she was a reading advocate, her visual impairment made it difficult for her."
In other words, there was no indication she was some sort of "UFO buff" trying to get into the limelight. In fact, Clarkson said it took 5 years before she would talk to him, and then only when she was dying of cancer and pissed off at the AF for their highly dishonest and stupid “case closed”, “crash dummy” Roswell report. Hardly sounds like the M.O. of an old, “lonely woman” just trying to get a little attention.
Kevin wrote in his blog:
This was before I had read a book, Stolen Valor, about alleged Vietnam veterans who were lying about their service in Vietnam. Some had been clerks. Some hadn’t served in Vietnam. Some hadn’t even been in the military. The best example of all this is that in 1990 there were an estimated 2.5 million Vietnam vets. Men and women who had actually served in country. There was a question on the 1990 census that asked if you were a Vietnam vet. Thirteen million answered, “Yes.” That meant that 10.5 million were lying about it for no apparent reason other than it made them feel good. All this provides an insight in to the Roswell case and the number of people who claimed inside knowledge.
This is my example of chasing footnotes. Kevin may not be aware but the claim is totally inaccurate. There is absolutely NOTHING in the Census data to support the claim—NOTHING!! As Mark Twain once wrote, there are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics. The ACTUAL Census data, as I will examine below, does NOT in any way support the claim of the “Stolen Valor” book.
The takeaway point is, you can’t take a completely FALSE statistic like this and then claim it must also apply to Roswell witnesses. If it provides any insight at all into Roswell witnesses, it is that LIKELY very few of them are deliberately lying or are bandwagon witnesses.
Go to the US Census Bureau website and see what the ACTUAL question asked on the 1990 census. It was NOT if they were a “Vietnam vet” or actually served in Vietnam, only if they were on ACTIVE DUTY in the Armed Forces during the period of the Vietnam war (or some other period) OR in the military Reserves OR in the National Guard:
www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/1990_population.html)
https://www.census.gov/prod/1/90dec/cph4/appdxe.pdf
Has this person EVER been in active-duty military service in the Armed Forces of the United States or ever been in the United States military Reserves or the National Guard? If on active-duty, was it during:
September 1980 or later
May 1975 to August 1980
Vietnam era (August 1964 - April 1975)
February 1955 - July 1964
Almost the exactly same worded question was asked in the 2000 Census Long Form:
https://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d-61b.pdf
So again, ONLY asking if they were in some form of ACTIVE DUTY military service during Vietnam, not whether they served in Vietnam itself. That FACT by itself tells us some enormous LIE is being perpetrated here.
Digging in deeper, according to U.S. census bureau statistics provided by the Defense Dept. and the 1980 census,
http://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1991/compendia/statab/111ed/1991-04.pdf
http://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2001/compendia/statab/120ed/tables/sec11.pdf
about 2.7 million were Vietnam vets (served in Vietnam theater) while about 8.7 million were active duty during this time (1964-1975).
(part 2/2)
Where are the “13 million” allegedly claiming to be “Vietnam vets”? I can’t find it anywhere in the ACTUAL SOURCE data of the Census Bureau. First, AGAIN, the Census NEVER asked whether people actually served in Vietnam, only if they were on active duty. In reality, FEWER people claimed active duty than actually were on active duty during this period. According to the 1980 Census data, only about 8.3 million are listed as still living active duty vets during the Vietnam era, vs. the 8.7 million figure of the DOD, meaning some who died since then plus maybe others who never filled out the Long Form survey.
In addition, data from 1970 shows about 3.7 million Reservists, 4.0 million National Guard, and no doubt millions more between 1964 and 1975. There were also 27 million living vets in 1980 or 18 million who were not active duty during Vietnam. Finally, there was a total pool of 76 million eligible men who were in the Selective Service System during Vietnam and potentially draftable. (See the 1990 Census Bureau statistics link again.) Lots of other people could conceivably want self-glorification, such as civilians in the USO, Red Cross, DOD, war industries, etc., were were directly or indirectly part of the war effort.
Thus out of a total pool of at least 100 million potential “Stolen Valor” liars trying to get in on the glory, there is absolutely no supporting evidence that even the tiniest fraction of these people, not even a fraction of 1% lied on the Census form. In reality, there are about 400 thousand FEWER people claiming to be active duty personnel recorded in the Census than who actually served during this time.
Doubtlessly some extremely SMALL fraction of these were liars, but the actual FACTS of the Census question and results do NOT remotely support the claim that four times as many people lied about being Vietnam vets than were actual vets.
Here’s one “stolen valor” website that likewise totally distorted the Census question and the meaning of the results:
http://www.breachbangclear.com/stolen-valor-is-no-big-fucking-deal/
“Here’s evidence of how bad the problem is: approximately 3,400,000 Americans served in Vietnam, off its coast or in the Vietnam Theater. But according to the National Vietnam Veterans Foundation, nearly fourteen million have lied about serving in Vietnam. “During [the year 2000] Census count, the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in-country is 13,853,027. By this census, FOUR OUT OF FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE Vietnam vets are not. The scope of the Stolen Valor problem is enormous... fewer and fewer Americans care at all about military honor or integrity.”
Here’s a classic example of true Internet “FAKE NEWS”, since the claim is obviously total bullshit. The problem of Stolen Valor is hardly “enormous,” actually BARELY EXISTS, and is a total overwrought fabrication by some vets groups, Stolen Valor junkies, or some author trying to sell books on “Stolen Valor,” who either can’t read, just copying one another’s FALSE claims of “facts”, or are deliberately putting out outrageous lies for some political or economic purpose.
Now if anyone can point me to actual REPUTABLE SOURCE CENSUS DATA for the alleged 13 million figure, I’ll revise this assessment somewhat. The claim started with a serious lie or misunderstanding that the Census actually asked anyone whether they were a Vietnam vet. It did NOT, only if they were on active duty. From there it seems to invented another complete fabrication that the census data showed 10 million people claiming to be Vietnam vets who were not.
Chasing footnotes has indeed been very enlightening here.
Well, David -
This has taken an unnecessarily nasty turn...
I don't believe Exon (who was the base commander and not a C/O by which I believe you mean commanding officer) ever talked about four crash retrievals. He was talking about sightings and possible landings in those places thought it really isn't clear if it was all UFO related. He also mentioned this team that flew into Wright-Pat might have gone to Arizona once or twice. All he did was arrange for aircraft and other sorts of support for these teams, which would have been his responsibility as the base commander. The difference here is that she was relaying something she heard and Exon was involved in some of the actual arrangements. She was a secretary. He wasn't suggesting a crash there but that he had arranged aircraft and that the teams went out on missions to those locations. Not really the same thing is it?
I will note that Len Stringfield said to me, as he did to others, that he reported what he was told and not that everything he was told was accurate. He published the Status Reports to provide the starting place for some of the investigations in the hope that more could be learned.
Oh, if you're going to call her Crain/Kaba you might want to amend that to Crain/Kaba/Cubbage... just for accuracy's sake.
Wasn't really suggesting she was a repeater here, though that can certainly be said. No, I was commenting that she had written to me about two UFO sightings, then three, and back to two. That was the relevant fact.
The context, as in "quoting out of context" isn't really a fair criticism because by adding the first couple of sentences it doesn't change the meaning at all. She suffered from brain damage... and of course I know that it can be localized and that it might not impair cognitive function, only that she mentioned it and it is a relevant fact. That we don't know the extent of that damage doesn't mean that it is not a relevant fact. And, BTW, you don't know what I was thinking about all this... I did hesitate to mention it but it is relevant.
And we continue, David -
I won't bother with your diagnose because it is speculation that is not based on an observation of her made by you but deduction based on what you heard.
And I made my observations in direct communication with her... and that some of the things she said were not accurate, which, given the time that had passed, is not surprising. I just do not accept her story of the sergeant shooting his mouth off in that way nor the quick response by military authorities with letters to be signed and warnings to be made.
And do I really have to note my 34 years experience as an intelligence officer with a combat tour in Iraq or that I was trained in military police after my return from Iraq. Is all this really relevant. Do you need to keep repeating Joe's experience? We're aware that he is a careful and methodical investigator.
The relevant point is that she did know about UFOs... she had seen them herself, had an interest in them and possessed UFO books. And why would you say that she didn't have two shelves of UFO books? Did she have two shelves of other books? And how long is a shelf? Isn't that really just a little hyperbole?
And while it might have taken Jim five years to get her to talk to him, she made the initial contact with me. I had no trouble getting her to talk and tell me about her UFO sightings. Never said she was a UFO buff looking for the limelight... just that she had an interest in UFOs and that must have developed after her UFO sightings.
So, do we need to continue this, or just call it a draw and return to our neutral corners? Is this really helpful in understanding UFOs and crash retrievals?
Hello Dr Randle and Dr Rudiak
As always I enjoy reading your posts and comments.
In the spirit of "working positively together" could I politely request that we call this a draw for now and you both return to your neutral corners...
David - did you make "that phone call" as discussed earlier?
Regards
Nitram
Well, David -
Since you weren't really chasing footnotes because this was part of the actual post, we'll run with it from there.
True, the question asked about Vietnam Era Veterans and the answer was about 8.7 million. If the 13 million figure is correct, we still have a huge number of people answering the question inaccurately....
But this site confirms the figure:
http://www.armsmart.com/includes/emails/Vietnam_Vets.html
All that other nonsense, about there being a pool of 100 million veterans is irrelevant because I was speaking only of Vietnam Veterans... and some sources now suggest there are only 710,000 actual Vietnam Veterans (which I believe to be low and the number is probably closer to 1.1 million).
As for the scope of Stolen Valor, just type those words into your search engine and see the long list of posers mentioned. Don Shipley, who tracks claims of those claiming to be Navy SEALs, said that for every authentic SEAL he finds, there are a thousand who claim to have been one been one but who were not. Check out Shipley's website...
The point was that it is now fashionable to claim to be a Vietnam Veteran and literally millions are lying about it. We can continue this argument if you like, but it does not advance the study of UFOs... All you can say here is that the question revolved around Vietnam Era vets.
Post a Comment