tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post4544830874473040454..comments2024-03-18T16:51:50.688-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Extraordinary Claims...KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-51752495532297496062011-09-13T06:08:02.747-07:002011-09-13T06:08:02.747-07:00“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary eviden...“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”<br /><br />Isn't it amazing how this little saying has commanded so much undeserved respect and fear over the years? It was almost as if it was accepted as being some major discovery in itself, rather than a particularly narrow view from a concept that had no real basis in fact.<br /><br />The very word, 'extraordinary', suggests that some things can be more than ordinary. But when you take a step back and study it for a moment, you realize that even the word has no particular meaning because, nothing that exists is anything at all except ordinary. <br /><br />Nothing unreal can exist and so nothing real is out of the ordinary. <br /><br />What there actually is, is what is known and that which is still unknown. The whole thing pivots on contemporary understanding of our universe. <br /><br />And then there is the evidence. <br /><br />What makes one piece of evidence ordinary and the next, extraordinary? If evidence is extra... or out of the ordinary then, what value does it hold? We seek what exists and is ordinary in every respect except... in our lack of understanding. <br /><br />We seek to discover that which we suspect, but do not know exists. If we discount the drive to discover because we do not already know of it, we will never discover a thing.<br /><br />Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? One wonders how Galileo might have approached this problem.Redoubthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06555430774793592194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-26911717961043633012011-09-07T22:15:24.657-07:002011-09-07T22:15:24.657-07:00> His evidence was not extraordinary.
Wasn'...> His evidence was not extraordinary.<br /><br />Wasn't it EXTRA-ordinary? He found EXTRA-ordinary rocks. Compare this to much of abductology, where the scant physical evidence of the EXTRA-ordinary usually also has an ordinary cause: scratches, stains, anxiety, bad dreams...Terry the Censorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361088223337740598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-22593805037047047292011-09-05T13:12:35.544-07:002011-09-05T13:12:35.544-07:00Dr Rudiak,
We are being chided elsewhere for disc...Dr Rudiak,<br /><br />We are being chided elsewhere for discussing these old cases so I will be brief.<br /><br />Let me just say that (as I have mentioned), that Klass didn't present this theory as proven in his chapter on Socorro. He simply showed that it might be a possibility.<br /><br />Now I would love to be a debunker so why is it, using your suggested low standards for us skeptic lowlifes, that I also can't accept Tony Bragalia's recent hoax theory for Socorro?<br /><br />To my way of thinking, neither Tony nor Klass proved their theory. Indeed, can you show me any skeptic who has said that the Klass or Bragalia theory WAS proven?<br /><br />On the other hand, I can show you plenty of believers who accepted Mr. Bragalia's CONFRIMING theories about various Roswell matters even though they contained the same evidentiary problems as he had in the Socorro case.<br /><br />Perhaps you might see why I am suggesting that your premise is flawed?<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-1781799422046092102011-09-05T12:48:28.547-07:002011-09-05T12:48:28.547-07:00The flip side of the very high evidenciary bar of ...The flip side of the very high evidenciary bar of "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" is the super-low evidenciary bar of the debunker that "extraordinarily bad explanations demand extraordinarily little evidence".<br /><br />Socorro and Klass' lame tourist trap theory is a good example. What have we so far? Well _maybe_ the mayor had _other_ land, that Klass erroneously claimed was the actual Zamora site, that _maybe_ afterward _maybe_ some in town thought could be developed into a tourist trap, only it never happened, for sure.<br /><br />From this Klass insinuated that the mayor and Zamora conspired in a hoax to draw tourists to town. <br /><br />Never mind that there is literally ZERO evidence to support Klass' hoax theory. Even if we assume the mayor did own alternate land and there was indeed a push afterward to exploit Zamora's sighting on the mayor's land, this still is not real evidence of any kind to support the accusation of hoax for profit. Try arguing this before a judge and watch yourself get kicked out of court in under 2 minutes.<br /><br />Also never mind that it doesn't fit the actual facts of the case, the very reason people like Hynek and Blue Book's chief debunker Quintenella rejected the hoax theory. It would have required a massive conspiracy among the town folk to pull it off, including most of the Socorro police department.<br /><br />It wasn't just Zamora's character and say-so as a policeman that made Socorro such an outstanding case. There was plenty of _fresh_ physical evidence on the ground that something material had just been there, and also an absence of physical trace evidence pointing to hoaxers planting such physical evidence, i.e., no footprints, tire prints, equipment, chemical residue, etc. <br /><br />Within minutes of Zamora's encounter, most of Socorro's police department was on the scene and reported the ground and bushes still smoldering and moisture in the bottom of the four rectangular landing indentations, as if the soil had been freshly penetrated.<br /><br />And again, no other footprints, tire prints, etc., indicating that somebody had just been there to plant the physical evidence. <br /><br />How exactly do you hoax something like this? It would have required a conspiracy amongst the policemen to cover-up any evidence that there had been a hoax. It would take some time to prepare the physical evidence, such as digging the landing holes, somehow making them appear to have been formed by something of great weight bearing down on the soil, in one case crushing a rock at the edge of the impression, making sure there was moisture in the bottom when back-up arrived, freshly burn the soil and hard-to-burn creosote bushes, cutting one cleanly in half, etc., etc., somehow causing the burns without leaving traces of a chemical acclerant (according to AF samples reported afterward). <br /><br />Then you have to make sure you clean away away any evidence of having planted the evidence, which is also where the conspiracy amongst the Socorro police comes in, including maybe the FBI agent who was at the scene within 2 hours.<br /><br />But let's just ignore all these little problems. Klass' theory must still be treated as viable because any theory, no matter how stupid or lacking in evidence, is preferable to "UFOs are real, unconventional craft not made by us".David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-9970797206234786362011-09-04T18:57:54.340-07:002011-09-04T18:57:54.340-07:00Hi Don,
Klass's theory was unproven--I readil...Hi Don,<br /><br />Klass's theory was unproven--I readily admit that. <br /><br />I just read Klass' account and he doesn't present it as proven--he just wonders about it. As I suspected, he never accuses Zamora or the Mayor of hoaxing anything, he just muses upon the tourist trap idea as a possibility--the same kind of musing that is done ad infinitum here by many of the above correspondents like those who suggest all manner of nefarious lying by those involved in the Roswell case without any proof.<br /><br />By the way, that chapter only spends a small amount of time on this part of the case. Klass mentions lots of other problems with the Socorro case.<br /><br />The town CERTAINLY planned to make the site a tourist trap. Here is a headline from the 4/24/65 El Paso Times: "Socorro to Use Flying Object as Tourist Catch".<br /><br />Apparently the road to the faux site was graded and improved for this purpose.<br /><br />That the returns on this investment never amounted to much doesn't mean anything in relation to the story.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-21141456765676540902011-09-04T18:22:56.314-07:002011-09-04T18:22:56.314-07:00Lance: "If Klass was referring to the town&#...Lance: "If Klass was referring to the town's tourist site, then he was right."<br /><br /><br />If the site being referred by Klass' atmospheric physicist, a man who lived right near the landing site, and the land the mayor is supposed to have owned, is the phony one, then there is no way to connect Zamora with it since that is not the site Zamora reported. Klass may have intuited something fishily hoaxy about the chamber site but that is evidence against Zamora being in on the hoax, unless Zamora vouched for the chamber site.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-3458306867668316892011-09-04T17:12:11.814-07:002011-09-04T17:12:11.814-07:00Dr. Rudiak,
Just to be clear, we don't know y...Dr. Rudiak,<br /><br />Just to be clear, we don't know yet that the info was false. If Klass was referring to the town's tourist site, then he was right. <br /><br />Not knowing yourself, it seems premature spread all the vitriol especially since, if Klass had used the same kind of rhetorical devices, you would also be complaining about that!<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-66635048522749773302011-09-04T16:40:44.644-07:002011-09-04T16:40:44.644-07:00And was the land and the site being referred by th...And was the land and the site being referred by the atmospheric physicist, a man who lived right near the landing site, and the land the mayor is supposed to have owned -- is what is being referred to, according to Klass, the real or the phony site?<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-7578143957587120422011-09-04T16:29:53.473-07:002011-09-04T16:29:53.473-07:00Incidentally, in the Klass Socorro quote that Sour...Incidentally, in the Klass Socorro quote that Sourcerer just provided, it is interesting to note the following:<br /><br />Klass: "But that began to change when an atmospheric physicist at the New Mexico Institute of Technology in Socorro told me that he hadn't even bothered to take the few minutes drive to the site. He explained to me how the town was economically depressed and that city officials were trying to attract industry, and urged me to "nose around" a bit."<br /><br />Now this was supposedly how Klass got the idea that it was a hoax to attract tourism, after Klass said he initially hadn't even considered the idea because Hynek had completely dismissed it.<br /><br />Now who was this "atmospheric physicist" at N.M. Tech who gave him the hoax idea? My guess is none other than the ubiquitous Charles Moore of Mogul balloon and Roswell infamy, but that's just a guess.<br /><br />Also, whomever the atmospheric physicist was, it is also interesting to note how he conducted his "investigation". He couldn't be bothered to actually drive down to the site to investigate says Klass. How typical of most skeptics--lots of opinions based on nothing but armchair "investigation". (Thought I'd throw a little red meat out there.)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46654558962945353212011-09-04T16:22:38.300-07:002011-09-04T16:22:38.300-07:00What Jerry Clark wrote in his UFO Encyclopedia was...What Jerry Clark wrote in his UFO Encyclopedia was:<br /><br />"<i>Drawing on innuendo rather than on specific evidence</i>, Philip J. Klass speculated that Zamora had conspired with Mayor Holm Bursum, Jr. (who owned the property on which the UFO landing reportedly occurred), to manufacture a UFO incident to attract tourists to town. <i>No such commerical exploitation ever too place, and there is no reason to take Klass's theory seriously."</i><br /><br />Clark gets a pass because, quite unlike Klass, Clark does not accuse anybody of fraud based on erroneous information. Instead he dismisses the charge of fraud as little more than innuendo if not outright ridiculous.<br /><br />I'll bet Clark assumed Klass had done his homework as a journalist and actually established as a matter of fact that the mayor owned the property, and thus repeated the statement, which later turned out to be false. Klass had apparently done no such thing, though he could have tottered down to the hall of records to make sure.<br /><br />Instead Klass used this false information as the lynchpin of his typical character assassination and accusations of lying and fraud against Zamora, also insinuating that Zamora's backup, Sgt. Chavez, who arrived at the scene only a minute or two later, was also part of the hoax. (Note how Klass insinuated this, by saying the dispatcher thought it strange that Zamora asked specifically for Chavez, a state trooper instead of one of the Socorro police. Actually there was nothing "strange" about it, since Chavez was a mentor to him and he trusted him completely.)<br /><br />I'm surprised Klass didn't accuse the entire police department and town of being in on the hoax. As I wrote on Kevin's blog a year and a half ago:<br /><br />"The hoax angle was worked to death by Hynek and the Air Force. They could never come up with a single credible piece of evidence to suggest a hoax. Quintanilla and Hynek both agreed that the only way Socorro could have been a hoax was if Zamora, all the police involved, and even the FBI agent Byrnes were in on the hoax. They would have all had to lie about the absence of track evidence and hoaxing paraphernalia at the site, or conspired to clean it up..."<br /><br />http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2009/11/socorro-ufo-landing-analysis.htmlDavid Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-19120620204372515182011-09-04T14:41:44.372-07:002011-09-04T14:41:44.372-07:00Ok Don,
As someone who has written for a living, ...Ok Don,<br /><br />As someone who has written for a living, I understand it. I noted above that Jerome Clark also says that the Mayor owned the property.<br /><br />I would guess that he gets a pass on it in these parts.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-5447843317278383412011-09-04T14:41:23.715-07:002011-09-04T14:41:23.715-07:00"My first major investigation was in 1966 whe..."My first major investigation was in 1966 when I visited Socorro, NM. Two years earlier, a policeman -- Lonnie Zamora -- had reported witnessing an egg-shaped UFO land, two ETs in coveralls briefly scurry around, and then the UFO blast off like a rocket. Now at that time, I suspected that some glowing UFOs near high-tension power lines might be freak atmospheric phenomena which I called "plasma UFOs," similar to ball lightning. And I knew that the Socorro area frequently suffered intense thunderstorms. So, I suspected that Zamora might have seen a plasma. Dr. J. Allen Hynek had already briefly investigated this case for the Air Force's Project Blue Book and had rejected the possibility of a hoax, so that thought hadn't even entered my mind when I went down there.<br /><br />But that began to change when an atmospheric physicist at the New Mexico Institute of Technology in Socorro told me that he hadn't even bothered to take the few minutes drive to the site. He explained to me how the town was economically depressed and that city officials were trying to attract industry, and urged me to "nose around" a bit. I soon learned that the local newspaper ran a box in every issue saying that the most efficient way to attract new industry is to first attract tourists. When I interviewed a man who lived right near the landing site, and had been working in his garden when the UFO supposedly blasted off, he told me that he hadn't heard a thing, and that when he visited the site soon afterwards he saw no physical evidence to support Zamora's story and suspected that it was a hoax. When I interviewed the police radio dispatcher who had taken Zamora's call for backup, he recalled that, strangely, Zamora had not requested a fellow police officer or someone from the Socorro sheriff's office, but instead asked that a specific state trooper be sent. And I found out that Socorro's mayor owned the "landing site" property and the town's only bank, and earlier had sought approval to build a new road to the UFO site for the benefit of tourists. So, when I wrote UFOs: Identified, I was confident enough to suggest that this case might be a hoax. And by the time my second UFO book, UFOs Explained, was published, I did unequivocally characterize the case as a hoax, as I've done subsequently regarding a number of other highly suspicious cases. <br /><br /><br />Skeptic: But the Socorro "tourist trap" was never built.<br /><br />Klass: Yes, but the plan had been initiated. On the first anniversary of the "landing," a newspaper article quoted a city official as saying outright that they intended to use it as a tourist attraction, and it reported that the road to the site had recently been upgraded. It also mentioned that a movie about UFOs had recently shot some scenes in Socorro. Perhaps when members of the City Council learned the truth, they opted not to proceed any further with the plans."<br /><br /><br />http://www.gpposner.com/Klass_inter.html<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-74491859768826236012011-09-04T14:15:12.021-07:002011-09-04T14:15:12.021-07:00"If the city owned the land for the tourist l..."If the city owned the land for the tourist landing site, then that EASILY explains why Klass might have confused the difference between the Mayor owning it and the city owning it--which obviates Dr. Rudiak's discussion of good journalism, etc."<br /><br />No, it doesn't. He could have "EASILY" researched it and not remain "confused"...and we still don't know who owned it.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-7927208298759331402011-09-04T13:12:29.357-07:002011-09-04T13:12:29.357-07:00Thanks to Dr. Rudiak,
I don't disagree with y...Thanks to Dr. Rudiak,<br /><br />I don't disagree with your thoughts on the educational/government contracts. I would not be surprised if things are just as you say.<br /><br />The gist of what Klass was alleging (actually he never seems to allege anything, he just asks questions) was that McDonald was using some of his contract money for UFO research.<br /><br />And he was.<br /><br />And even if this was accepted by those directly monitoring the contract (as was apparently the case), it would not look good to the public. <br /><br />In my opinion, that could easily be seen as misuse and I'll bet that the ONR ultimately saw it that way, too.<br /><br />====<br /><br />Whether the tourist trap dreams of the Socorro mayor ever came true seems irrelevant. Obviously there were those in town who thought there might be a chance since they DID fix up a site specifically for that purpose.<br /><br />You guys have actually convinced me that Klass' idea might not be as dubious as I first thought. If the city owned the land for the tourist landing site, then that EASILY explains why Klass might have confused the difference between the Mayor owning it and the city owning it--which obviates Dr. Rudiak's discussion of good journalism, etc.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-28719224319471401492011-09-04T11:54:44.420-07:002011-09-04T11:54:44.420-07:00Ok. The Chamber of Commerce site. Whew. For a mom...Ok. The Chamber of Commerce site. Whew. For a moment there I thought there was a third site, Mayor Bursum's. I stop looking at cases if there are more than two sites.<br /><br />The Bursums go back a ways in Socorro and so maybe owned a fair amount of land. I don't know, but it should be easy to find out if anyone wants to. Land ownership in NM is not straightforward, often enough, so whoever does ought to run what they find, if anything, past a NM real estate attorney.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-10062806584439108512011-09-04T11:44:25.317-07:002011-09-04T11:44:25.317-07:00According to conversations I had with Ray Stanford...According to conversations I had with Ray Stanford on the true Socorro landing site, the city set up a phony landing site to preserve the original landing site and to keep any curiosity seekers from trampling the original. It's a little bit like the Foster ranch debris field site, where a plaque has been placed about a mile away from the true site. Even so, not a lot of people bother to go out there.<br /><br />Socorro isn't exactly a huge tourist destination to begin with, more of a small town you drive through on your way between Albuquerque and El Paso or Las Cruces. Traffic is sparse. Even back then, I doubt if one in a hundred people driving through either knew or cared about the landing incident there in 1964, so much so that they would take time off from their travels to go try to find the landing site.<br /><br />If you were going to try to develop a tourist trap, one of the first things you would do would be to pave the road out to the site, and throw up lots of signs, like billboards along the Interstate with arrows pointing to the famous Socorro alien spacecraft landing site.<br /><br />Never happened.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-20699657599515660712011-09-04T11:29:46.233-07:002011-09-04T11:29:46.233-07:00I'll state outright that I'm not familiar ...I'll state outright that I'm not familiar with the nitty-gritty _details_ (if there were any) of Klass' charges against McDonald that he misused research grant money fund from the Navy. However, if there were were no details and it was nothing more than a sweeping indictment, then chances are there was nothing to it. <br /><br />From my observations when I did scientific research at the university level, professors who obtained military grant money _routinely_ used the money for side research. As long as the main contract was being fulfilled, then the military doesn't care if other related research was being carried out that might have nothing to do with the contract.<br /><br />E.g., one lab carried out eye-tracking research, related to how to organize instruments and train pilots in the most efficient way to utilize those instruments. The same equipment and group of grad students might also be used to do eye-tracking or pupil research having nothing to do with training pilots.<br /><br />Misuse of funds? I think not. The military actual understands and _supports_ this. The grant money has a primary objective, but they are also helping to train a new generation of grad students and supporting research that might not otherwise get carried out because of lack of funding from civilian grant agencies, such as NIH.<br /><br />So McDonald would have had to grossly misuse funds before the Navy would care. E.g., taking an unrelated surfing trip to Hawaii on taxpayer funds would have been misuse. But going there because it was necessary for the research he was doing for the Navy, or maybe there was a conference there on atmospheric physics where he was giving a presentation, and while he was there he also investigated a UFO incident, there really isn't a problem. Maybe the Navy even wanted him to do some UFO research for them on the QT, because the AF wasn't cooperating with them. (Keyhoe even wrote about the AF stonewalling the Navy on some UFO incidents.)<br /><br />So I would want to see the actual details of the allegations hurled against McDonald before passing judgement. Again, if it was anything like what I routinely observed in various university science labs funded by the military, there was probably nothing to it--just people harmlessly doing side research, while the contract research remained on track.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-47732440529223970642011-09-04T11:09:43.794-07:002011-09-04T11:09:43.794-07:00Don, sorry I meant to thank you instead of Christo...Don, sorry I meant to thank you instead of Christopher (although always happy to thank CDA!)<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-19602902421096668912011-09-04T11:07:02.714-07:002011-09-04T11:07:02.714-07:00Thanks Christopher,
I had read the first link ear...Thanks Christopher,<br /><br />I had read the first link earlier (I think that is where Kevin got the info for his earlier excellent blog post on the matter).<br /><br />There seem to be 2 landing sites: the original "real" one and one that the city fixed up circa 1966. <br /><br />The second site is about a quarter mile away from the original one and I have seen no reference as to who owns it. It very well may be owned by the city (giving them the right to fix it up for tourists) but I don't know. The links we have so far don't make this clear.<br /><br />I was suggesting that in this rather confusing situation that Klass could have been confused about what site was being discussed and not "lying" as is alleged above.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-88237904091153015992011-09-04T10:46:53.671-07:002011-09-04T10:46:53.671-07:00Lance: "Is is possible that the land that was...Lance: "Is is possible that the land that was fixed up for tourists and called the landing site (even if it wasn't really) belonged to the Mayor?"<br /><br />Link 18 (a pdf) in the wikipedia article on Lonnie Zamora. <br /><br /><br />Also:<br /><br />http://www.dchieftain.com/news/81987-07-30-08.html<br /><br />Can you document there is or was a phony site on land that was owned by the mayor?<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-56144724952608540232011-09-04T09:46:55.517-07:002011-09-04T09:46:55.517-07:00Hi Kevin,
I think Klass was alleging that taxpaye...Hi Kevin,<br /><br />I think Klass was alleging that taxpayer funds were being used for UFO research. <br /><br />He saw that as improper and I am inclined to agree with him. <br /><br />Did he pursue this out of pique? Possibly. But saying that he did it for 18 months sort of overstates things-did he write a letter every day? <br /><br />Should he have just accepted the answers given to him and just shut up? He got several answers and some of them were untrue. It turned out that he was right and I am sure this spurred him on.<br /><br />Should we have accepted the Intelligence Community's report that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and just shut up, too?<br /><br />The thing that Klass knew (and I think the higher ranked folks at the ONR knew) was that the public would not have approved of McDonald's ad hoc use of their funds to support what was essentially his hobby.<br /><br />I think McDonald was in the wrong here and knew it (and there is evidence that shows that he knew it). The fact that his contract monitors absolved him really doesn't tell the whole story. If they had alleged something more serious, they themselves would have also been at least partially responsible. It was to their benefit to make the story go away.<br /><br />====<br /><br />So any love for my questions about the Socorro mayor and his land?<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-81954545502067913582011-09-03T17:07:24.707-07:002011-09-03T17:07:24.707-07:00Lance -
I have a question. We all agree that Klas...Lance -<br /><br />I have a question. We all agree that Klass questioned the ONR about McDonald investigating UFOs while working on their (or under) their contracts. ONR audited and found nothing inappropriate in McDonald's activities. But Klass kept the investigation going for 18months.<br /><br />Just what was he alleging? Shouldn't he have been satisfied when the ONR reported that the audit was complete and McDonald had fulfilled his contract appropriately?<br /><br />In other words, once his questions were answered and the audit completed, shouldn't that have been the end of it? What allegation was he making that continued the pressure?<br /><br />Just wondering.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-90100676306542642532011-09-03T13:53:10.494-07:002011-09-03T13:53:10.494-07:00Oh, and full marks for having Moseley on a hot lin...Oh, and full marks for having Moseley on a hot line! Rofl!Alfred Lehmberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02028589165474437987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-488232350877144082011-09-03T13:45:18.634-07:002011-09-03T13:45:18.634-07:00Wow! 1983?! No, apart from spirit and a still th...Wow! 1983?! No, apart from spirit and a still thoroughly nasty PJK, I'm well trumped. <br /><br />Odd, though, that it floated as a deathbed statement at the time... without a hint or an admonition of how old it was... <br /><br />Too, it was that outrageous at the time and caused a kerfuffle. The death of the toadstool king? There was some attention to the the curse I recall. Where was the curse's proclaimed provenance, then, I wonder?Alfred Lehmberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02028589165474437987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-34674260904618938352011-09-03T13:43:12.876-07:002011-09-03T13:43:12.876-07:00I apologise for saying we had strayed from the top...I apologise for saying we had strayed from the topic, as Kevin does specifically mention Klass & McDonald in his original blog post.<br /><br />Obviously I was diverted by the magnificent (once again) prose of Mr Lehmberg. It was this that caused my mind to temporarily (I hope) veer off course. <br /><br />I didn't like his suggestion that it was Klass who, in effect, pulled the trigger that ended McDonald's life. But to go into that would certainly be way off topic.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.com