tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post2000428723836130401..comments2024-03-18T16:51:50.688-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Lies and Moore LiesKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-65437229199969322322009-02-10T10:08:00.000-08:002009-02-10T10:08:00.000-08:00Haven't any of you ever been involved in a cover-u...Haven't any of you ever been involved in a cover-up? Kevin, more than any of us, knows how the military works - how information can be manipulated. I'm sure he understands exactly what went on from the military side.<BR/><BR/>It's been seven years since "9/11" yet we as a country are still full of terrorism paranoia. "Roswell" happened a mere finger-snap after the end of WWII, so we must keep in mind the cultural psychology of the day and how it influenced our behavior.<BR/><BR/>"Something" happened, that much is clear. Something that was confusing enough that a press release was authorized and issued. One can only imagine the fall-out from Washington D.C. <I>"Retract that press release or I'll have your heads! Marcel, if you want to spend one more day in this man's Army you'll say you were mistaken. And cut the crap about showing it to your family."</I><BR/><BR/>And so it became a "weather balloon." Simple. Explainable. Understandable. A dog-and-pony show was orchestrated, and photographers were shown "wreckage." End of story.<BR/><BR/>Only, it wasn't. <BR/><BR/>Why does the UFO story persist so? If it really, really, really was a weather balloon, WHY don't people accept that explanation and move on? I mean, you have to wonder why some have gone to their graves believing that it was a UFO.<BR/><BR/>I don't know <I>what</I> happened in Roswell, but I'm not prepared to definitively say it was one thing or another. I don't dismiss the military's "weather balloon" explanation out of hand, but in light of the controversy I remain highly skeptical.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I hate to bring this up, but if there were so many Mogul flights, did *NONE* of them ever come down anyplace other than military property? Did *NONE* of them ever drift off and land where a civilian could find it? Or did they just float off into outer space, never to be heard from again? How come none of these generated the same level of controversy as Roswell's?Bob Barbanes:https://www.blogger.com/profile/12344068760904928223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-69194332621717145382009-02-07T07:35:00.000-08:002009-02-07T07:35:00.000-08:00"other than me not really seeing much practical us..."other than me not really seeing much practical use for the latter unless there is something of the former involved."<BR/><BR/>Other than you, huh?<BR/><BR/>What is an example of this practical use?<BR/><BR/>LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-90155872900288086942009-02-07T02:58:00.000-08:002009-02-07T02:58:00.000-08:00Jerry,Being a historian myself, I don't disagree w...Jerry,<BR/><BR/>Being a historian myself, I don't disagree with you, and I was perhaps a bit too flippant before. As I said, there's absolutely no harm in continuing to discuss and research Roswell. However, the point I was trying to make was that unless new material comes out, or perhaps a radically new interpretation, then it's not a terribly productive enterprise at this point, and resembles more the kind of debate that you see in Irish pubs between Catholics and Protestants. As far as I can tell, the only person who is really conducting <I>new</I> research into Roswell is Nick Redfern, but as I noted above, you almost never hear his name or work mentioned in these debates, because it doesn't fit neatly into the already established Mogul vs. Aliens framework.<BR/><BR/>But, as I said, we are not really in disagreement about the merit of new historical research, or even ongoing debate about old research, other than me not really seeing much practical use for the latter unless there is something of the former involved.<BR/><BR/>Best regards,<BR/>PaulPaul Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-84621253341373783322009-02-06T13:31:00.000-08:002009-02-06T13:31:00.000-08:00Paul, Since when isn't history is in the details? ...Paul, Since when isn't history is in the details? Why should Roswell be any different? If it were not for what you dismiss as mere "minutia," would the discipline of history even exist? History, like life, is complicated, and understanding requires patient -- and often tedious -- sorting-out.<BR/><BR/>I have every confidence, unfortunately, that what gets discussed here is little noticed (or, more likely, unnoticed altogether) by the broader public and media. But if the merits of the Roswell case are to be discussed and debated by knowledgeable and intelligent individuals, this is surely the forum for it. Why should it be abandoned to faux-documentarians, cynically preying on popular credulity, on one hand and ideologically driven debunkers (military and civilian) on the other?<BR/><BR/>Meantime, those of us whose interest in historical ufology is not focused on Roswell are free to continue our own efforts. I've spent this new century researching pre-1947 UFOs and Forteana. I've recovered many hundreds of heretofore-unknown accounts. Kevin's interest in Roswell has in no way kept me from doing my work, nor should it get in the way of your doing yours. In any event, Kevin himself has written on a wide range of UFO-related issues.<BR/><BR/>My choices aren't determined by some nebulous concern about public opinion, whose attention span is brief and whose fascinations are bound to be shallow ones. Ufologists need to do the work that in their informed judgments is important. Kevin's judgment is as informed as anybody's, and we should all respect it as we would any other reputable colleague's.Jerry Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02973999338163526808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63174757525597743042009-02-05T03:31:00.000-08:002009-02-05T03:31:00.000-08:00If what people are about is a polite (or sometimes...If what people are about is a polite (or sometimes less than polite) debating society over the minutiae of the Roswell case, then by all means go ahead and keep chatting. In the grand scheme of things, it does no real harm, and if it amuses folks, then by all means.<BR/><BR/>However, if one is truly interested in trying to discover the reality of the UFO enigma, then one's time, talents and effort would be better spent looking at newer cases, or those older cases which haven't been properly investigated, and which may still yield useful information. <BR/><BR/>And that is why it matters... assuming one thinks that the UFO mystery is worth pursuing, and that it's bigger than one single case that has monopolized the public perception of UFOs - and not for the good - for almost three decades.<BR/><BR/>But, as I said, each to their own.<BR/><BR/>PaulPaul Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-37007890317483923522009-02-04T13:41:00.000-08:002009-02-04T13:41:00.000-08:00Though, if I may, this truly faultless rationality...Though, if I may, this truly faultless rationality and reasoned expression of same limits itself entirely to the 'known' unknown. <BR/><BR/>The greater illumination Mr. Clark would provide just lights up a bigger blackness that no proud Cartesianist can surmount, actually, for all the pretensions of that arrogant Cartesianist... The room erupts into affronted harumphery, perhaps, forgetting that each may suffer the slings and arrows —some decidedly more than others I point out— from that which each may perceive as their "philosophical" opposition. <BR/><BR/>...Such —mechanism— as can be employed, eh? Mild terrorisms, ridicules and slanders, distractions and distortions et al.<BR/><BR/>To wit, I'm reminded of persons in our community, most persons I'm betting, who shine themselves on by treating a "paratopiary," or paranormal collection, as something that can be observed, evaluated, and assessed from some superior, if misunderstood and overemployed "scientific" vantage... like the unknowable elements of the "paratopiary" observed are not perhaps _themselves_ looking into the smug accessor much more deeply... providing for a REAL observation, a DETAILED evaluation, and a PENETRATING assessment, eh? Judge not, to some degree, lest ye be judged? Remember the bigger blackness lit. <BR/><BR/>But then from where would our inspiration come? Our advancement. From what would we then derive our satisfaction and salvation —address our grievances— but that rationality alluded to... rationality too few of us are willing to employ because_real_ rationality demands an open-mindedness, courage of all types, and profound humility as we laboriously sift intellectual sands for some kind of evidence _outside_ the box we other otherwise conject _must_ be there. <BR/><BR/>Any attempt to smother inquiry or follow evidence wherever it may lead is ludicrous on its face and deserving of a punch in its literary throat if that's what it takes. Declared war! <BR/><BR/>History _is_ mystery. It is not a source of satisfaction. It is a source of _instruction_ leading to that satisfaction. Not realizing that is why we keep making mistakes over and over again or suffer the aforementioned errant slings and arrows of rouges, rascals, and other shiftless irascibles.Alfred Lehmberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02028589165474437987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-86643159031640911542009-02-04T12:04:00.000-08:002009-02-04T12:04:00.000-08:00As a lifelong student of history, I have every exp...As a lifelong student of history, I have every expectation that events from long ago are going to be difficult, even impossible, to get a clear fix on. I also have no problem with continued discussion and investigation. That's what historians do. Among other items in the job description, they research and debate events from decades, centuries, and more ago.<BR/><BR/>(A couple of small instances: I remember -- though he has probably forgotten the conversation -- a discussion between Kevin and me about the fate of Col. David Crockett at the Alamo. Historians still don't know whether he died fighting or whether he was executed after surrendering. Accounts from contemporary informants differ. Those of us fascinated by the career of Wyatt Earp know the large, continuing, and conflicting literature which attempts to sort out the whats and whys of the street fight in Tombstone, Arizona Territory, on October 26, 1881. Suffice it to say accounts differ. Examples of continuing historical controversies, arising from conflicting testimony and disputed evidence, are as vast as the literature of history itself.)<BR/><BR/>It seems odd that anybody would discourage further investigation, on the peculiar grounds that some informants -- on both sides, it needs stressing yet again -- have proved unreliable and therefore we should just throw up our hands and go home. Nobody who knows anything about history would expect matters to be otherwise. Human informants are uncertain instruments, and no one-size-fits-all approach works. <BR/><BR/>As it stands, the Roswell case is not good evidence of anything. It's just a historical curiosity, possibly of potential significance, possibly not. If those who seek to shut down inquiry and discussion were being asked to devote their own time to actual field investigation, one would understand the complaint. Since they're not, all that's left to the rest of us is head-scratching about their squawking. <BR/><BR/>To them I'd say: If this matter is so inconsequential as you profess to believe, why even bother participating in the conversation? Or is there some still, small voice telling you that maybe, just maybe, interesting questions remain?<BR/><BR/>If not, then you're wasting your time and ours. Let the discussion go forward among those whose judgment tells them there are things yet worth discussing. Maybe they'll get somewhere, and maybe they won't. But it is my perhaps idiosyncratic belief that historical inquiry is eminently justifiable by definition.Jerry Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02973999338163526808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-49155819954406883402009-02-04T10:01:00.000-08:002009-02-04T10:01:00.000-08:00Roswell is a mess, tainted by some pretty shoddy r...Roswell is a mess, tainted by some pretty shoddy research and investigation over the years (no offense meant to Kevin here, who, as Jerry says, has been good at admitting his errors), and some wishful thinking - by both sides. That people within the UFO field are still talking about it, ad nauseum, seems ridiculous - unless there is NEW information that might shed light on events, why the continued debate and discussion? Isn't it time to move on, and look at new cases, or those from the past which have been largely overlooked since Roswellism took root in the early 1980s?<BR/><BR/>The Roswell case has become ufology's equivalent of trench warfare in WWI - the two sides both fighting over the same 1000 yards, with no end in sight, and no new ideas being brought forward. The results are predictable.<BR/><BR/>Best regards,<BR/>PaulPaul Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-27908162476691777662009-02-04T09:28:00.000-08:002009-02-04T09:28:00.000-08:00Or perhaps after one sees and hears a few Glen Den...Or perhaps after one sees and hears a few Glen Dennises, he realizes that keeping the door open for your middle ground is letting far too much trash into the house.<BR/><BR/>I am reminded of the great story that Jim Moseley tells about his interview with Glen Dennis.<BR/><BR/>Dennis went on and on about how they were going to have to make this quick... how he didn't have much time... Just a couple of minutes, etc. <BR/><BR/>And then he talked and talked and talked for several hours...<BR/><BR/>I don't know what happened at Roswell for sure. The Mogul balloon story seems quite plausible and I have not seen any convincing evidence that it was anything else.<BR/><BR/>Hell, when I hear a story about someone finding a bunch of stuff that looks A LOT like balloon wreckage. I sort of lean towards the idea that it might well balloon wreckage. But then I don't have the apparent emotional investment in it being something else.Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-19542564237258398882009-02-04T07:58:00.000-08:002009-02-04T07:58:00.000-08:00I would have thought that I had made myself clear ...I would have thought that I had made myself clear to the point of boring repetition that I am a Roswell agnostic. That would, in fact, make me a skeptic in the classical, as opposed to polemical, sense. I have outlined in various postings here why I find the ET interpretation (which I presume is what would-be mind-reader Lance means by "the cause") hard to swallow. <BR/><BR/>I have also written that I consider unpersuasive the alternative theories so far proposed. Now I learn that I must be, in fact, a "supporter" of the "myth." I mean, what else could I possibly be? It's not as if controversies allow for some middle position. Jeezus.<BR/><BR/>The certainty, buttressed with sneering contempt for dissenters and heretics that Lance repeatedly expresses in this forum, underscores the sad truth that ideologues have no tolerance for ambiguity. They demand the satisfaction of unequivocal certainty where, to more open-minded observers with no stake in the outcome, none is visible. <BR/><BR/>Unlike Lance, I don't know what happened at Roswell. I doubt that either a spacecraft or a Mogul balloon was responsible. Meantime, I suspend judgment until better, surer evidence comes along to clarify the issue, and I support the efforts of all honest inquirers who don't confine their support to informants who tell them what they want to hear. That's why I admire Kevin's work. Yes, he's been wrong sometimes. Who hasn't? At least he acknowledges his errors and learns from them. We may expect, on the other hand, self-described skeptics to continue to clasp Charles Moore's dubious claims to their breasts until finally they're pried from their cold, dead hands.Jerry Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02973999338163526808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-80345859608088792502009-02-04T06:33:00.000-08:002009-02-04T06:33:00.000-08:00One has to wonder at the brain processes needed to...One has to wonder at the brain processes needed to reconcile such glaring problems.<BR/><BR/>I look at Kevin's main story above and wonder how he can possibly equate someone inflating their college record, which has an obvious purpose to Moore's denial of knowledge of the name of the project he was part of many years earlier.<BR/><BR/>It's like asking someone if he was ever a policeman. You would expect him to reliably remember such a thing. But then ask him the name of the ammunition he used in his gun--maybe he would be reliable, maybe not. I wouldn't stamp my foot down and say that the two types of memories are the same as Kevin seems to be doing here.<BR/><BR/>Remember that Moore is decidedly NOT a skeptic towards UFOs. Indeed he may be the 1st scientist to ever report a UFO. His sighting was so famous that the comic book Weird Science detailed it the early 1950's. <BR/><BR/>Jerry Clark says that he feels that he (along with Kevin and Brad Sparks) can now say that Moore is not credible on Roswell matters. Can we then say the same of Marcel? Of course not! He supports the cause.<BR/><BR/>I was actually unaware that Clark was still a Roswell supporter. I am surprised when any smart person who knows the facts still holds on to this myth.<BR/><BR/>One has to marvel at the resilience of Camp Roswell. <BR/><BR/>Now that my snarky comments are concluded, I will turn off the rhetoric for and may I ask you, if I may, Kevin, what the current thinking is on the debris that is pictured in the photos?<BR/><BR/>Have most researchers concluded that it IS Mogul debris? <BR/><BR/>Are there high rez versions of those photos online anywhere?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-32478767298994613292009-02-03T22:04:00.000-08:002009-02-03T22:04:00.000-08:00In the taped interview printed in Linda Corley's "...In the taped interview printed in Linda Corley's "For the Sake of My Country," Marcel, Sr. claims that while he's indeed displaying balloon wreckage in the office photos, he's using balloon material to hide the *real* debris he's also holding!<BR/><BR/>Sorry, but I don't buy it.Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074004681516756703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-65722771887435101372009-02-03T15:15:00.000-08:002009-02-03T15:15:00.000-08:00In the Moore-Berlitz book only two of the Ft Worth...In the Moore-Berlitz book only two of the Ft Worth photos were printed, and both were cropped quite a bit. Therefore the impression was (coupled with Marcel's actual quote in the book) that one photo showed the actual debris, while the other (with DuBose & Ramey) showed the 'substitute' debris. It was not until Randle & Schmitt published the photos in full, together with the other 4 photos, that it became obvious that all 6 pics showed the same stuff. This was not until, I think, 1990, some 10 years after the Moore-Berlitz book. It was only at that point that the idea got around that ALL the photos showed substitute debris, and the real debris was never photographed. Ever since that time the ET proponents have insisted that substitute debris was planted while the real stuff was shipped to Dayton (or Washington). <BR/><BR/>It was (and still is) a useful device to get round the problem of the obvious similarity of the depicted bits & pieces in the 6 photos, whilst retaining the ET hypothesis. But it was NOT part of Marcel's original story as told to Friedman & Moore.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46064536267730832942009-02-03T12:25:00.000-08:002009-02-03T12:25:00.000-08:00My apologies. Kevin is correct. the quote I was th...My apologies. Kevin is correct. the quote I was thinking of is from the Moore/Berlitz book:<BR/><BR/>"General Ramey allowed some members of the press in to take a picture of the stuff. They took one picture of me on the floor holding up some of the less-interesting metallic debris. The press was allowed to photograph this, but were not allowed far enough into the room to touch it. The stuff in that photo was pieces of the actual stuff we found. It was not a staged photo. Later, they cleared out our wreckage and substituted some of their own. They they allowed more photos. Those photos were taken while the actual wreckage was already on its way to Wright Field. I was not in these. I believe these were taken with the general and one of his aids"<BR/><BR/>I am not sure if the interviewer is Moore or Friedman or if a full transcript has been published. Having not looked into this is a while. I no longer have the facts at my fingertips any more (obviously).<BR/><BR/>It is obvious that Marcel was saying essentially this. <BR/><BR/>Is his changing of his story (when confronted with idiocy of it) consistent with someone spinning a tall tale.. .like so many of the sad "witnesses" have done over the years? Or is it a sign of truthfulness?<BR/><BR/>As with the spaceship debris that JUST HAPPENS to look a lot like prosaic balloon wreckage,, it all depends on your own response to the smell test.<BR/><BR/>I am just laughing at the stupidity of it while I type this:<BR/><BR/>"That was the real debris!<BR/>That was the real debiris!<BR/><BR/>I looks like a balloon, Mr. Marcel....<BR/><BR/>Hmm....sure does... Oh, well that was not the real debris!"Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-60250927203111018932009-02-03T11:07:00.000-08:002009-02-03T11:07:00.000-08:00Lance -Okay, I’ll answer your question, but you wo...Lance -<BR/><BR/>Okay, I’ll answer your question, but you won’t like it. I too was concerned about the pictures of Marcel in Ramey’s office with a balloon and I had read the statement in Moore’s book, but I also knew that Moore changed quotes as the mood moved him. As each new picture surfaced, for example, he changed the Marcel quotes about that. I had thought that the quote from Marcel being in pictures with the real debris was something invented for the book.<BR/><BR/>However, on Friedman’s “Flying Saucers are Real,” Marcel says it again. So we can see and hear Marcel making this claim. Slam dunk for the skeptical side.<BR/><BR/>Not quite. Reporter Johnny Mann, at the time working for WWL-TV in New Orleans, took Marcel to Roswell for Mann’s five part series on UFOs. While there, Mann takes out a copy of the book and shows Marcel the pictures and said, “Jesse, I gotta tell you, that looks like a balloon.” (Which we all know is the radar reflector... the balloon is visible in the rear of the picture.)<BR/><BR/>According to Mann, Marcel said, “No, that’s not the stuff I found in Roswell. That was staged.”<BR/><BR/>No, I am not the source on this... Johnny Mann is. He also provided me with copies of his broadcast interviews with Marcel but he didn’t save the raw footage and that quote is not on the film.<BR/><BR/>For those keeping score at home, Marcel does not, in the Pratt interview, talk about the pictures... only that he was not allowed to say anything to the reporter(s) which brings up another question. We'll take a look at that later.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-28682617819751720462009-02-03T09:21:00.000-08:002009-02-03T09:21:00.000-08:00The contents of the Pratt interview are well known...The contents of the Pratt interview are well known and that is what Marcel says.<BR/><BR/>I am certain that there is some post ad hoc "explanation" by believers that retains the UFO angle. Even without it altogether we are left with the indisputable fact that this space ship debris looked one hell of a lot like a crashed balloon array.<BR/><BR/>If this passes the smell test for you then God bless ya.<BR/><BR/>The evil perfect military cover-up must have been delighted that the debris looked so terrestrial.<BR/><BR/>Gosh the more I think about it, the more I realize how powerful the will to believe in the face of incredible obstacles to logic must be.Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-35256093548769762242009-02-03T08:20:00.000-08:002009-02-03T08:20:00.000-08:00On the MUFON board somebody posted: "It's my under...On the MUFON board somebody posted: "It's my understanding that Pratt re-used/recorded over the original tape"(of the interview with Marcel). Maybe things were changed. I can't believe he said he was photographed with the real debris; they wouldn't allow that to be publicized.<BR/>Look at the death of Hitler as an analogy. There was a considerable amount of contradictory and absurd testimony. Heinz Linge said Hitler's body was on a sofa; Gunsche said it was on an armchair a short distance away. Axmann believed Hitler had shot himself in the mouth; others said the temple. After the body of Adolf and Eva were set ablaze, some said they were incinerated completely, until nothing was left but ashes. Mengerhausen, on the other hand, claimed to have seen a more or less intact corpse afterwards. Yet despite all these conflicting and dubious accounts, often given many years after the fact, historians accept the basic scenario that Adolf killed himself in the bunker and was burned outside. The reason why Roswell is often rejected, despite much witness testimony, is that the potential consequences of a real event are a lot more than many people, and society, can currently take.<BR/><BR/>PS. The press release is indeed a great mystery. I understand a forthcoming work will address that. :)starmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09884942748644499035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-35490274069436727562009-02-03T08:16:00.000-08:002009-02-03T08:16:00.000-08:00In this matter, or any other matter of import, act...In this matter, or any other matter of import, actual truth seekers must applaud reliable "skeptics". Rhetoric is not reliable evidence of research, yet I have heard it used by skeptics more times than I could count, over the years. While it is fine and honest to hold beliefs that what happened in New Mexico was not Extra-Terrestrial in nature, it is not honest to make that claim based on statements such as: "It just couldn't have happened", or "...there's no way you could ever make me believe that...", etc.<BR/><BR/>For me, right out of the gate, two things should still be noted:<BR/><BR/>1. Why couldn't the actual debris be identified for what it was, on the spot?<BR/><BR/>2. Why would the Air Force display, for the Press, material that was held at any level of confidentiality?<BR/><BR/>And though I would be the first to admit to you all that I am but a guppy swimming with the Whalesharks, I feel it a valid question to ask: <BR/><BR/>3. Why isn't the fact that it has been the Army, all these years, that has displayed the most emotional responses to the whole "flying saucer" phenomenon, and its need for secrecy? <BR/><BR/>Maybe I have been assuming too much. Maybe you aren't aware of cases such as the L.D. McLaughlin case, or the Airman Bunce case. I have been thinking that you have all read such material long before I ever read one document. But as I quoted, in the McLaughlin case, the Army admitted the reality of the "crashed saucer" episode, albeit this one was the so-called Aztec Crash case. That's still a crashed saucer, and the geographical area in question is New Mexico.Bob Kofordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739226809252915992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-19293778262281691042009-02-03T04:59:00.000-08:002009-02-03T04:59:00.000-08:00"try reading the literature on the subject"Hilario..."try reading the literature on the subject"<BR/><BR/>Hilarious. I'll get on that.<BR/><BR/>I notice that even with your great knowledge of "the literature" you don't bother to refute the Marcel problem I cited above.<BR/><BR/>In my other comments I was, of course overgeneralizing and being perfectly unfair. But the basic sentiment remains correct, I think.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately I am coming to know that the street works both ways for skeptics and believers alike. We look at the evidence and weigh it much differently. In my experience there is rarely a meeting of the minds.<BR/><BR/>To me as a skeptic there is one true mystery of Roswell:<BR/><BR/>Why was a press release issued?<BR/><BR/>Even from the believer side there doesn't seem to be a satisfying answer. <BR/><BR/>The press release makes no sense, no matter how you look at it. One answer may be related to the great excitement that had built since Arnold's sighting and perhaps some over-exuberance on the part of the Army. But that is not really satisfying, is it?Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-89125668582065885892009-02-03T04:21:00.000-08:002009-02-03T04:21:00.000-08:00Lance wrote: "The believer rules for Roswell are q...Lance wrote: "The believer rules for Roswell are quite clear. If any testimony, (regardless of how silly) supports the UFO case, it is true."<BR/><BR/>Please don't be ridiculous, and try reading the literature on the subject. Believers have rejected a number of witnesses. Friedman rejected Ragsdale and Kaufmann before KDR did.starmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09884942748644499035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-57339354893466326252009-02-02T16:34:00.000-08:002009-02-02T16:34:00.000-08:00PaulRe your comment about Body Snatchers: you may ...Paul<BR/><BR/>Re your comment about Body Snatchers: you may be interested to know I have uncovered files (via FOIA) from the FBI that deal with a young boy from Lincoln County, NM who died in the late 1940s. <BR/><BR/>There were suspicions that the death was due to biowarfare. <BR/><BR/>Moreover, additional files on this death - that were still being collated as late as 1954 - include discussions between the FBI and staff at Camp Detrick (now Fort Detrick) that talk about whether or not there could have been a link between the death of the boy and some of the biowarfare research of Unit 731 that had been transferred to the US under General Charles Willoughby (a good pal of Corso, interestingly). <BR/><BR/>Now, I'm not saying this proves anything definitive, because it doesn't. <BR/><BR/>But it does demonstrate that both the FBI and Camp Detrick were making a potential (and I do stress the "potential" wording) connection between activities at Lincoln County, NM and Unit 731.<BR/><BR/>This story will be published in full in a few months time.<BR/><BR/>I would stress that none of this takes away anything from my firm belief that there is a real, unexplained UFO puzzle.<BR/><BR/>I just no longer accept that something that is representative of that real puzzle crashed at Roswell.Nick Redfernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07199813303416083671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63790191301493175292009-02-02T12:42:00.000-08:002009-02-02T12:42:00.000-08:00What I find interesting is that Nick Redfern's wri...What I find interesting is that Nick Redfern's writings on Roswell are always overlooked in what has become a very narrow debate. Now, I have problems with some of Nick's sources, and I'm not sure that he's right about the nature of the project, but I think he's most likely right about the terrestrial origins of the Roswell incident, and that it was some sort of project much more secret than Mogul, which just doesn't fit as an explanation. <BR/><BR/>PaulPaul Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-1593502578688930652009-02-02T12:15:00.000-08:002009-02-02T12:15:00.000-08:00Kevin,I accept your opprobrium.But I didn't initia...Kevin,<BR/><BR/>I accept your opprobrium.<BR/><BR/>But I didn't initiate the attacks from Mr. Lehmberg.<BR/><BR/>They will cease on my part and UFOs will be the focus of any further commentary from me.<BR/><BR/>RRRRRGrouphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04875523970644487204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-58621550908314396852009-02-02T12:10:00.000-08:002009-02-02T12:10:00.000-08:00I am tempted to delete this whole entry because we...I am tempted to delete this whole entry because we have gotten off onto tangents that are irrelevant. Let's stop the personal assaults, one of which crossed a line, and I don't care where else it has been posted.<BR/><BR/>RRR Group... you wish to comment on me becoming neurotic as a result of this post... okay, I can live with that.<BR/><BR/>But you and Lehmberg are going in a new direction that has nothing to do with this discussion.<BR/><BR/>The purpose here, of this post, was to suggest that we all take a step back. Yes, I was annoyed at some of the responses I received to private requests that we tone down the rhetoric.<BR/><BR/>You want to discuss the facts, yes, let's do that. You wish to go off in other directions, then stop.<BR/><BR/>Lance, Tim Printy, thanks for your comments here. Jerry, Mac, CDA, same to you. And I'm not forgetting Bob and Dave either. New information that helps the discussion. The rest of it can be taken elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>Let's return to our more or less civil discourse. Other comments will be deleted.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.<BR/><BR/>KRandleKRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-42084210903525317812009-02-02T11:24:00.000-08:002009-02-02T11:24:00.000-08:00What a wondrous example of self-delusion you are w...What a wondrous example of self-delusion you are with your indolent audacity to admit and deny almost in the same paragraph, almost like the observer can be expected not to know the difference. See, if you didn't do what I've reported you'd done... why would you _remotely_ (if inadequately) apologize. <BR/><BR/>Additionally, remember, you sent the substance of my grievance with you to Errol Bruce-Knapp and Paul Kimball. I was copied third. I trust you think they are idiots, too.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely, you are the very portrait of "much too little" & "much too late."<BR/><BR/>I require cash damages and "unqualified plus effuse apologies." See, my name is apparently worth more to me than yours is to you.<BR/><BR/>"Got to stop"? Reynolds, I'm just warming up. You have damaged my name and the names of my son and fathers. You _will_ pay.Alfred Lehmberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02028589165474437987noreply@blogger.com