A
fellow identifying himself as Lemurian is often commenting here but most of
those comments don’t see the light of day. That’s because they’re just nasty
and often appended to the wrong posting. It’s as if he just clicks on one and
then writes whatever moves him regardless of the topic. I delete them because
they are nasty and inappropriate. Recently, however, he did provide a comment
that wasn’t nasty, only inappropriate. He suggested that we all access a
website that contained information about the Barney Barnett aspect of the
Roswell case. You can access that story here:
https://www.ufoexplorations.com/other-roswell-crash-secret-of-plain
While
the story is interesting, it is also somewhat misleading, and it is filled with
misinformation. Please note here that I said “Misinformation,” rather than
“Disinformation.” There is a difference.
Rather
than go through this one segment at a time, I’ll just make a few general
comments. First, there are no other first-hand witnesses to the Barnett tale.
The archaeologists have never been found and the Gerald Anderson story,
sometimes used to bolster the case, is a hoax. Anderson is little more than a
footnote in the overall picture. He destroyed his own credibility by lying
about his Naval career and forging a number of documents. For those interested
you can read about it here (You’ll need to scroll down a bit to find the
relevant segment:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2020/08/stan-friedman-vs-philip-klass-whats.html
I
spoke with Fleck Danley, who was instrumental in providing a date for the
Plains of San Agustin crash that Barnett had discussed. It was clear to me,
that Danley had no real idea of when the alleged discussion with Barnett took
place. Danley was pushed into agreeing with the July 1947 date by Bill Moore so
that there would be a tale of alien bodies for his book, The Roswell
Incident. Without Barnett, they had only stories of strange metal and the
Army’s efforts to recover the debris and change the narrative.
Barnett’s
wife, Ruth, kept a diary for 1947. It was, apparently, the only year in which
she did that. I was able to obtain the diary from Alice Knight, Barnett’s
niece, so that we might copy it. There is no mention of any event on the Plains
that suggest Barnett was involved in anything unusual or strange. In fact, the
only date in the diary that works, meaning that Barnett was out of his office
and over in the area of the Plains to see the crashed saucer is on July 2,
1947. If we follow the conventional wisdom, that is a day too early because the
Roswell crash took place later.
Although
the counterargument is that Barnett wouldn’t have shared this startling information
with his wife so we wouldn’t read about in the diary, there are no indications
of anything unusual happening at the time. Barney didn’t come home upset,
didn’t suggest anything out of the ordinary. Just that he’d been out of the
office that day. Later, however, we see that Barnett told many people the story
of crash including friends and family. You can read about this aspect of the
case in Roswell in the 21st Century. I will note here that no
one has ever found a document in which any of that was discussed. You would think
that someone would have written something that would provide a little
corroboration in the proper time frame. Instead, all we have are memories that
were decades old when they were finally discussed and Barnett had been dead for
those decades.
There
is one interesting point here. Although nearly everyone who discusses the story
places it on the Plains of San Agustin, in reality, according to Jean Maltais,
Barnett’s description was somewhat vague about the location. She only mentioned
“the flats,” which could mean any number of places in New Mexico. Most ignore
this minor glitch in the tale to focus on the Plains.
But
let’s get to the meat of this claim. Tony Bragalia wrote about Dr. Herbert
Dick, “While considering various archaeologists,
researchers uncovered Harvard-trained Dr Herbert Dick. Dick was a noted
archaeologist who passed away in 1992. Some years before his death however, he
was located and questioned. Dick
categorically denied that he had ever worked around the Plains of San Augustin
region in July of 1947 (highlight added). Dick had told researchers he
had not been there, telling one of them, "If I knew anything I would have
told you." One of his dig party, Jeff Morris, also denied it. These
denials were reported in early 1990's issues of the publication IUR
– International UFO Reporter and elsewhere.”
Much of this is inaccurate. I did talk to Herbert Dick about this
and rather than “categorically [denying] that he had ever worked about the
Plains of San Augustin (sic),” the truth is that he wasn’t sure exactly when he
arrived there in July 1947. What he denied was that he had seen any sort of a UFO
crash retrieval operation on the Plains. This was not reported in the IUR
as claimed.
Dick told me (not one of them) that if he knew anything about this,
he’d tell me. What is important here that another member of his team denied
that “it,” meaning, here, I suppose, that they had seen nothing suggesting a
flying saucer crash. This was not reported in the IUR.
Although Bragalia wrote, “It turns out though that Dick had lied [highlight
added] to these researchers when he was interviewed by them. In 2006 a
revealing letter was uncovered by researcher Art Campbell. Campbell has been
active in the UFO field for decades, including with NICAP. He is the author of
"UFO Crash at San Augustin" and maintains the UFO Crash Book website. The documents that he discovered confirm that Dick
had not told the truth. Dick was in fact at the Plains at the very time that he
said that he was not.” As we have seen, Dick had told me he was on the Plains
in July 1947, he just wasn’t sure exactly when he arrived.
Bragalia went even further, when he wrote, “A thorough search of
records finds that no other group of archaeologists were working on the Plains
in early July of 1947 except Herbert Dick and party – and Dick lied that [highlight
added] he was even there. Lies
are used [highlight added] to cover up the truth by those who wish to
evade it. To have ever spoken of the event, Dick may have felt that he could
have risked a security breach, his own professional advancement, future
professional credibility, award of grant monies or – later in life
– damage to his impressive professional legacy.”
But Dick didn’t lie. In an interview I conducted on June 23, 1991,
Dick told me that he had worked in the area called Bat Cave on the southeastern
edge of the Plains in 1947. He just wasn’t sure exactly when he arrived. The
letters and notes found by Art Campbell, showed that he had arrived in time to
have seen the crash, had it taken place on July 2, and would have been in a
position to see the recovery operation in the days that followed, had there
been one.
Don Schmitt at one of the alleged Plains of San Agustin crash sites. The Bat Cave is across the Plains in the mountains seen behind Don. |
The point is that Bragalia’s speculations about Dick are not borne
out in the interview I conducted with the man. According to Bragalia himself,
he was using information provided by Campbell and the source mentioned, the International
UFO Reporter, does not contain this information. Instead, it comes from Art
Campbell’s analysis of the situation which is highly speculative. Campbell
mentioned a paper found in The Magdalena Fact Book. This was a document
that I created for the single meeting in Chicago to discuss the problems with
the Plains of San Agustin tale. The book was created for the meeting, there
were only five copies and I have one of them. I’m surprised that Campbell had
seen a copy of it and can only guess that it was Friedman who showed it to him.
The real point here is that the information about Dick’s
involvement, that he lied repeatedly about what he was doing and where he was,
is inaccurate. Dick wasn’t confused. He had forgotten the exact date he arrived.
He was quite candid in his conversation with me about where he was and what he
was doing. What Dick’s statements do, corroborated by the documentation from by
Campbell, is destroy the remaining threads of the Gerald Anderson claims of what
he had seen on the Plains, and calls into question that Barnett saw anything
there in the summer of 1947.
Dick denied the involvement because there was no involvement. I
can say this with confidence because I talked to the man. I don’t have to rely
on what others have said or written. I have the first-hand source, that trumps
all the second and third-hand reports and all the speculation that permeates
Bragalia’s article.
Bragalia’s analysis here is more of the same sort of over-the-top
rhetoric we’ve seen before. He has taken some poorly researched information and
created a scenario in his mind that fits into his theory. He writes in a
fashion that suggests he knows what is going on, but a careful reading and an
examination of all the facts, including my interview with Dick, show the flaws
in his theory. He even cites a source that doesn’t exist.
One more thing for those of you of a conspiratorial mindset.
According to Dick, he knew Winfred Buskirk (Anderson’s archaeologist on the
Plains) in the 1940s. Since both were working on their PhDs at the time, and
both were in New Mexico (well, Buskirk was working in Arizona in the summer of
1947, he lived in Albuquerque), it is not surprising. I just thought I’d
mention it to stir the pot and before someone creates another whole scenario
about government secrecy and lying anthropologists.
21 comments:
Kevin...you´re only envious because Stanton Friedman, Don Berliner and others found a second Crashsite and a Witness for a Crahssite with a crashed flying Disk and Aliens.
You, Don Smitt and Tom Carrey denies the Crash in the Plains of San Agustin only because you all can't get the Glory for it, you all can only admit the Foster Debris Field and that´s wears you down that you did not succeed. And that´s make you angry and evil, and then you spread lies about all the others who had more success.
That´s the Truth and nothing else!
- best regards from Germany, Michael Lemurian
Thank goodness Ruth Barnett kept a diary in that singularly important year! Her undertaking that simple daily task changes our historical view.
Michael Lemurian wrote:
"You, Don Smitt and Tom Carrey denies the Crash in the Plains of San Agustin only because you all can't get the Glory for it, you all can only admit the Foster Debris Field and that´s wears you down that you did not succeed. And that´s make you angry and evil, and then you spread lies about all the others who had more success."
Dr Randle can speak for himself, of course, but I have no idea why you think Kevin has not been successful - none of the people you mention have "solved" the Roswell event?
Perhaps you can tell us a bit more about your involvement in the Roswell case - you are obviously a Stan Friedman fan?
Following your logic, it would appear that Stan must have been quite angry too, since Kevin interviewed Frankie Rowe first and she handled some of the material...
Obviously there is no 100% agreement on the "other sites" although everyone (except CDA) agrees that something crashed on the Foster ranch...
Regards
Nitram
P.S. I get a strong whiff of Michael Horn in the ramblings of Lemurian, though that may be a disservice to the latter.
@John Steiger
TZhank goodness that we know that the Army Air Force told to Barnett never to say a word about the UFO Crash in the Plains. This contains also nothing write down anything. I dont understand why you Guys constantly search in Diaries when is clear what the Army Air Force said to Barnett and also to Marcel. *shaking head* *rolleyes*
@Nitram
No i´m not a Stanton Friedman Fan, i know that there´s a long History of Disputes of the several Roswell Researcher and nobody of them has covered himself with fame.
I´m very interestet in Crash Retrievals and Roswell & Co. are the best documented. I just believe the Witnesses and i think Crash Retrievals are an very important Key for the Disclosure Movement because we need Hardware to prove that there´s an alien Presence on Earth. Scientists should have access to all of that, to the crashed UFOs and the dead Aliens. I think without that there will never be a real Disclosure.
And we need all that to save the World from climate Change and so, otherwise the Humankind will be in 100 or 150 Years to be extinct.
But there other problems, too! Wars, poverty, hunger - all that can we change with the UFO-Technologies and that´s the reason why we need a Disclosure and the Hardware from the Crash retrievals. That´s the reason why i´m so persistent in this Topic.
Lemurian: Thank goodness we know that, as you contend, everyone involved with the Roswell UFO crash never said or wrote a word about a UFO crash on the Plains, EXCEPT for the simple fact that this is NOT the case -- NOT THE CASE AT ALL!
Only Barney Barnett stands as a witness to such an alleged crash on the Plains of San Agustin.
No one else.
And he is refuted by his own wife's diary, which is historical evidence. Plus no one else to my knowledge that was present on the Plains in the summer of 1947 supports Mr. Barnett's contention that such a UFO crash occurred.
Aztec UFO Crash: Yes It Happened:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfe0LoqzkCE
uh, because people dont always do what theyre told.
I’m noticing the same information from gerald anderson and kids at ariel school. Telepathic communication with images and feelings, short 4ft creatures, skin tight dark suits, large eyes. Even glen davis gives same description, regarding roswell and a nurses description.
Well, I don't know who Glen Davis is unless, of course, you are talking about the discredited testimony of Glenn Dennis. And Gerald Anderson made up his tale of being on the Plains of San Agustin, so I don't think you would want to use him as a source. Just thought I would mention it.
Kevin, you have no concrete proof that Dick has not seen any UFOs in the Plains. If you rely only on his statements, you are seriously mistaken. You know very well that the American Government can very easily intervene and may threaten witnesses. There are many witnesses to the "Roswell Incident" who have stated that they cannot tell everything they know. Even Jesse Marcel told to Linda Corley that he can't tell everything he knows.
It is not fair of you to criticize Stanton Friedman for supporting a false witness (Gerald Anderson) when that you also supported Frank Kaufmann (anothe false witness) . No researcher is infallible. Everyone can make mistakes, including you. In every post you criticize Friedman as if you know it all and the rest of the researchers are stupid.
Without the research of Friedman, Berlitz, and Moore, none of you (including yourself) would have heard of Roswell or done any research into this Incident.
I respect you for everything you do in the UFO field and I consider you the most important researcher, after Stanton Friedman, in UFO investigations.
But, try to be fair to both yourself and the other UFO researchers. None of you possess the absolute truth. Everyone can make mistakes. But to consider yourself "infallible" and criticize all other researchers who try to shed light on this case, is a serious professional mistake.
I wish you the best of luck and please don't be offended if I was too harsh in my expression. I enjoy reading your books and I know you are a professional and be like that until the end.
Linţă Petruţ-Valentin -
Let's see if I understand this... You suggest that I have no concrete proof that Dick has not seen any UFOs on the Plains... other than his comments to me, which included a statement that if he did know anything he would tell me because he wasn't a real fan of the US government. I mean, I talked to the guy several times, and while you are correct that there were threats made, please note that those people did talk without repercussions. I don't know why you reject, out of hand, Dick's statements to me about this. There is nothing on the record to refute his statements.
And the difference between Gerald Anderson and Frank Kaufmann is that it was Don Schmitt, Mark Rodeghier, Mark Chesney and me who exposed him based on documentation. Stan rejected him because Kaufmann had not talked to him first. In fact, Stan asked me and Don, "Why is he talking to you rather than me."
Stan, on the other hand, learning the truth about Anderson, who admitted to creating a fake telephone bill, lied about his Naval career, and was caught in major changes in his descriptions of the event, maintained that there was some solid information in the Anderson tale.
While we, Don and I, admit our mistakes and publish the updated information, Stan would double down. Some of what Anderson said was true...
And there were roadblocks that Stan threw up to inhibit our investigation, including telling witnesses not to talk to us. He even wrote to the publisher of out first book alleging that we were taking other investigators research without credit or attribution, the very thing he did to us.
Never said that I was infallible, but did suggest that there were areas in which I had solid information, such as what Dick said to me and that was misquoted by others, or that Stan did use our research without credit or attribution in his book. This is merely attempting to get at the truth rather than my truth or Stan's truth or anyone else's truth.
Glad you enjoy the books, but remember, the situation sometimes changes as new information is uncovered.
Linţă Petruţ-Valentin -- The problem with Jesse Marcel is NOT "that he can't tell everything he knows." Jesse Marcel's problem was that he said TOO MUCH, including some claims that are highly questionable as to their accuracy.
That said, his son's verification of some of Marcel's testimony saves him as a witness ... to a degree.
Herbert Dick lied, several times!
It is ridiculous to deny Jesse Marcel's testimony! Without the testimony of Jesse Marcel, we would not know anything about Roswell today. Kevin has little left and he will deny all the witnesses from Roswell. Jesse Marcel had other confessions (to Linda Corley and Calvin Parker) about which Kevin does not mention anything on his blog. Why?
Let's not forget that Jesse Marcel made other statements about which Kevin doesn't want to say anything at all. Kevin only talks about what suits him and about the things that support his statements. Why doesn't he say anything about Jesse Marcel's accounts to Linda Corley (with the extraterrestrial writing) or to Calvin Parker (about the fact that he hid a piece of the metal recovered at Roswell in the boiler lid at home)?
Jesse Marcel told to Calvin Parker that he stole a piece of metal from the Roswell crash that he hid in the boiler lid of his house. Why didn't Kevin investigate anything about this?
Kevin, I was thinking that, perhaps, there is a plausible scenario that could rehabilitate Barnett's testimony and resurrect the double-crash theory. Hear me out.
When Barnett told several people that he had discovered the wreckage of a flying saucer in the desert, he was not lying. Those who knew him believed in the veracity of his account, because he was not the type of person to invent such a story. But even though he did genuinely discover the wreckage of a flying saucer, this event did not occur in 1947, but rather on a later date, let's say in late 1948.
Despite the fact that Barnett found the craft and the bodies in late 1948, the crash did occur in 1947, and the double-crash theory is correct. Two UFOs collided, with one crashing near Roswell and the other crashing on another location. The site of the second crash, however, is not the Plains of San Agustin, but rather Magdalena, as Vern Maltais originally said. Which means that Herbert Dick could have never seen anything on the Plains, because nothing happened on the Plains. Thus, both UFOs crashed in July 1947, but one craft crashed near Roswell and the other near Magdalena. The first craft was immediately retrieved by the military, while the other was not discovered until late 1948, which is when Barnett discovered it.
This scenario, I believe, solves everything. It explains why Ruth Barnett's diary does not say anything about a UFO crash in July 1947, it explains why Vern Maltais said that Barnett told him that he had discovered the flying saucer “a couple of years prior,” and it explains why Herbert Dick did not see anything on the Plains in July 1947. Yet, it simultaneously lends credence to Barnett's account — which was believed to be true by all those who knew him — and rehabilitates the double-crash theory.
As the icing on the cake, it explains why the Roswell crash happened in the first place. It was not caused by a malfunction of the craft, it was not caused by the strike of a lightning. Instead, it was caused by a collision with another craft.
Spartacus01
Karl Pflock and I published an article in the IUR about this. We wondered if the date had been wrong, something that Stan Friedman would not even consider. However, according to Vern and Jean, Barney told them about the crash during a Thanksgiving get together in 1947, and Alice Knight said much the same thing.
The other problem here, is that you can see clear across the Plains, and according to the story, Barnett saw it as he was heading west on the highway, meaning it was visible from the highway, which tends to rule out it being there for several months before it was found.
Of course, if you change the time frame, then you eliminate the tale told by Gerald Anderson, which is not a bad thing.
Kevin,
Yes, Dick said that he and his archaeological team were working in an area that gave them a full view of the Plains of San Agustin. However, if you read my comment again, you will see that my hypothesis is that the crash did not actually occur on the Plains, but much closer to Magdalena. There is a distance of 32 miles between Magdalena and the Plains of San Agustin, so it is possible that the flying saucer crashed on the same day as the Roswell incident, but in a location somewhere between the Plains and Magdalena. This would explain why Dick did not see anything — because the flying saucer did not crash on the Plains themselves, but rather in the area between the Plains and Magdalena.
Are you certain that Vern and Jean claimed that Barnett told them this story on Thanksgiving Day in 1947? As far as I know, Friedman stated that the couple claimed they first heard the story around 1950. If they truly heard the account for the first time in 1950, then it is perfectly possible that Barnett discovered the flying saucer and the bodies in 1948, which would explain why Ruth's diary does not mention anything strange occurring in 1947.
Essentially, my theory is this: the crash happened in 1947, but it did not take place on the Plains of San Agustin. Furthermore, neither Barnett nor the military discovered the flying saucer until sometime after 1947. And the archaeological team that discovered the saucer and the bodies with Barnett in 1948 had nothing to do with Dick's team.
Sparticus01-
Here's your problem, well, actually, your problems. The Barnett tale is single witness, unless you count Gerald Anderson. If you do, then the date is July 1947. Of course, Anderson's tale has been discredited, to you're back to single witness.
Moore said that Barnett was working near Magdalena, not that he was in that town but working near "the flats." But if you have been to that area of New Mexico, you'd know that you can see a long distance. And the road between Magdalena and Datil swoops toward the southwest, which puts everything closer to the Plains. In other words, the crashed craft would not have stayed there for very long before someone found it. Friedman, Moore and I all interviewed Barnett's boss and he told us that Barnett told him the story in the summer of 1947.
Lue Elizondo said that there were two crashes on the same day, a clear reference to the Roswell case.
There were archaeologists working around this area in 1947 who would have witnessed the crash, had it happened. There is no evidence that any archaeologists in the area reported the crash.
And since Barnett put it on the Plains, you must present some evidence to move it from that area. While your theory is interesting, it is highly speculative and without evidence, it fails. Too much evidence argues against the Barnett tale being accurate.
Kevin,
Obviously, I do not even take Gerald Anderson's account into consideration, as I am aware that Anderson is not a credible witness. That is why I have chosen to focus entirely on Barnett's testimony.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you yourself have said on other occasions that you interviewed James Danley, and that, during the interview you conducted, he specifically stated that he did not clearly remember when he first heard the story. If this is true, then he could have heard the story in the summer of 1947 as easily as in the summer of 1948. If Danley himself did not remember, then no conclusion can be drawn regarding the precise date when Barney discovered the disc and the bodies. The only witness who provided a specific date was Alice Knight, but her date is contradicted by the diary that she herself helped to find, which probably means that she could have confused Thanksgiving Day of 1947 with Thanksgiving Day of 1948.
Moreover, as you have also pointed out in another article, "the Flats" is a rather vague reference, as there are many areas in New Mexico that could be described in this way. Therefore, "the Flats" could refer to the Plains of San Agustin, but it could also refer to somewhere else entirely. Thus, I believe it is incorrect to assert that Barnett and those who knew him claimed the crash site was in San Agustin, because "the Flats" is simply too generic a reference.
The location of the crash is not very important to me. It could be the region between the Plains and Magdalena, but it could also be a completely different area. I only suggested the 32-mile zone between the Plains and Magdalena because it seemed plausible to me, but if you say it is not, then I trust your judgment. I do not live in the United States, so I cannot know exactly how the territory of New Mexico is distributed, apart from the major cities. I am basing my assumptions solely on what I have read. The fact remains that "the Flats" is too vague a reference, and interpreting that word as a reference to the Plains of San Agustin is arbitrary.
Post a Comment