tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post4902821736211584808..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Aztec, Karl Pflock and Scott RamseyKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-88015207288062861272012-07-09T09:05:13.273-07:002012-07-09T09:05:13.273-07:00Terry wrote:
Would it be unpalatable to call him ...Terry wrote:<br /><br />Would it be unpalatable to call him an investigator?<br /><br />Yes. He didn't investigate anything. He told the story... might have invented the story. He certainly contributed nothing that could be considered as an investigation.<br /><br />He was a con man whose record goes back into the 1930s, maybe as early as 1928. Yes, he was apparently a Yale graduate and seems to have been a championship class golfer, but he was still a con man.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-38385297826316216252012-07-08T17:27:40.908-07:002012-07-08T17:27:40.908-07:00> Silas Newton was the primary witness in that ...> Silas Newton was the primary witness in that he was the first to talk to anyone...But, he was a second-hand witness<br /><br />I see what you mean. He was not a primary witness to events but a primary witness to others' statements. Would it be unpalatable to call him an investigator?<br /><br />> it is quite difficult to proof read yourself<br /><br />As a proofreader and editor by trade, I deal with this on a daily basis. It's especially frustrating when I send a worker an error list but my own explanation has a mistake or some obtuse phrasing.Terry the Censorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361088223337740598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-6472262198101208472012-07-08T16:56:25.718-07:002012-07-08T16:56:25.718-07:00Terry -
I see the confusion. Silas Newton was the...Terry -<br /><br />I see the confusion. Silas Newton was the primary witness in that he was the first to talk to anyone about the Aztec crash, sharing his information with Frank Scully. <br /><br />But, he was a second-hand witness in that he didn't see anything himself. He talked with others who had seen the craft, the bodies, and described for him, the events near Aztec.<br /><br />I suppose a clearer way would have been to note that Newton was the first to talk about Aztec, but that he had seen nothing himself. He just talked to those who did.<br /><br />This proves it is quite difficult to proof read yourself. I know what I meant but failed to translate that to the posting.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-61404875732030028712012-07-08T14:50:57.338-07:002012-07-08T14:50:57.338-07:00> one of the original and primary, though secon...> one of the original and primary, though second-hand witnesses<br /><br />That does not make sense as written.Terry the Censorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361088223337740598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-77761888532878932952012-07-07T09:19:46.673-07:002012-07-07T09:19:46.673-07:00Steve M -
My issue with Karl was that he attacked...Steve M -<br /><br />My issue with Karl was that he attacked me personally, misrepresented my research, and didn't complete his. I have detailed elsewhere some of my complaints about his analysis of Roswell.<br /><br />He rejected Frankie Rowe based on an incomplete interview and his belief that Mogul was responsible for the debris. If Mogul was the solution, then Frankie Rowe was, at best, mistaken... But Mogul simply does not adequately explain the situation.<br /><br />One of the firefighters Karl interviewed told Karl that they didn't make a run outside the city and Karl was happy with that. When I asked the same man if he knew Dan Dwyer, Frankie's father, he told me that Dan had gone out to see the crash (and yes, I have the interview on tape).<br /><br />Reject Frankie Rowe if you must, but you can't reject her for the reasons Karl gave. He was wrong about them.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-10647853150842102162012-06-19T18:33:27.865-07:002012-06-19T18:33:27.865-07:00I think I'll answer my own main question from ...I think I'll answer my own main question from above:<br /><br />All things considered, I'm guessing there will no book publication based on the "dream team's" Roswell investigation before the 2015/2016 time frame, since I get the impression this will be a <i>very</i> long-term investigation. <br /><br />So be it. The most important thing is that it be as comprehensive, in-depth, and thoroughly vetted as possible, since the subject deserves and requires it.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-80191013872805255452012-06-15T09:35:53.984-07:002012-06-15T09:35:53.984-07:00Kevin
Your problem with Mr Pflock appears to be t...Kevin<br /><br />Your problem with Mr Pflock appears to be that he took issue with you and Don Schmitt's research about a witness and on his stance on Frankie Rowe. As Brazel stated that he found the debris in June and Ms Rowe appears not to be a credible witness, Mr Pflock appears to have been correct in both instances and his premature death is a sad loss to UfologySteve Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14765165764276462479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-4103405276129192022012-06-14T16:43:55.934-07:002012-06-14T16:43:55.934-07:00Hi, Kevin---
In regard to the current and ongoing...Hi, Kevin---<br /><br />In regard to the current and ongoing reinvestigation and review of the Roswell incident by the "dream team," can you give us an update on when you estimate, generally, your investigatory group will be a) done with the investigation, and b) when it might be published?<br /><br />Based on what I've read so far in the past several months, I'm assuming that as part of the process, a complete review of all prior witness testimony, documentation, and new data will be re-vetted and quantified/qualified as best as can be to provide the most up to date and deeply researched info possible -- is that correct? <br /><br />Will the book, when published, be done by one or more authors, i.e., co-authored, or will various chapters be written by various individuals on the team, instead?<br /><br />I'm also hoping it will be fully footnoted with cites and a comprehensive index, and think an associated website for the book would be a very good idea, and maybe with a blog, to provide further or new and additional data and evaluations as they occur, and a forum for discussion, as a venue to support, promote, and enhance the data in the book. Are there, as yet, any plans for an e-book version? Has a publisher been decided upon? <br /><br />I'm just curious about the process, how the group cross-references and mutually vets data in the effort to produce a kind of "final report" on the Roswell incident that covers and revisits all prior ground, and the best guesstimate of when we all may be able to read the published findings. <br /><br />Oh, and don't let the debunkers get you down. They can do their own book if they want to. I agree is best not to pre-release data that's pending or under review until you all are ready to publish the finished book. <br /><br />I'm sure it won't be the last word, but it would be nice to have one source/report, or book, derived from a cooperative effort to read about the current findings and details about the entire controversy that has raged on now for over 35 years, since Friedman interviewed Marcel.<br /><br />Then, if the skeptics feel the need to, they can conduct a similar effort, from their perspectives, to provide rebuttal and an alternative viewpoint of the evidence extant. I'm fairly sure Prometheus would publish it, just as a counter-point. <br /><br />I'm an agnostic about Roswell myself, but am inclined to think that something definitely occurred there which still remains unknown and incomplete in all the reporting upon it, either pro or con, so far.<br /><br />I also think James Carrion's recent blog article about the US government having promulgated the Arnold, Roswell, and Maury Island incidents, as part of an early Cold War psyop against the Soviets, is both unsubstantiated and more of an opinion piece than a genuine research effort, since he provided no cites, documentation, witness testimony, or other data that could be independently evaluated in making his various claims and contentions, and which is primarily why he's gotten so much static about that unscholarly and mistaken oversight--if you're going to make revisionist statements as to the basis for a series of significant, early UFO incidents being tied together in the manner he posits, ya gotta provide the underlying and foundational data to support your contentions, as I hope and assume the "dream team's" efforts will also show when eventually presented to the public for consideration.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-56501194490236141182012-06-14T10:35:29.088-07:002012-06-14T10:35:29.088-07:00Kevin wrote: "Don -
You fail to pay attentio...Kevin wrote: "Don -<br /><br />You fail to pay attention. The Roswell Fire Department was not involved as both Tony and I have reported in the past, based on better information."<br /><br />You're right, I don't keep up. Doesn't matter whether Rowe had a false memory in "The Truth etc". You still need a crash site close to Roswell town and the RAAF, and apparently another non-1947-reported site on the Foster Ranch.<br /><br />"And if the information came into the Roswell sheriff and he called out to the base, why wouldn’t the RAAF be involved? When did you become an expert on which military base would respond to an event in their area?"<br /><br />I didn't say anything about the first responders.<br /><br />If there were a spaceship and alien crew on the site visited by them (or any other site nearby it), I would not expect it all to be trucked to the RAAF when there were better options. <br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-40889014719910629512012-06-14T10:23:06.232-07:002012-06-14T10:23:06.232-07:00Kevin,
Of course, I know why you are deflecting. ...Kevin,<br /><br />Of course, I know why you are deflecting. <br /><br />I did briefly bring up the nuns with you when you were here in Cincnnati (you signed my copy of your book after the lecture you gave).<br /><br />At the time, I simply believed that you had seen the source and I asked if you had the text. I don't remember how you answered.<br /><br />Pat Packard was in regular contact with you at that time (in the days before long distance was a trivial expense) and he told me that you were happy to answer my questions, and I gave him several. I began to focus on the nuns because your answers (as above) were so vague. It's quite telling that you use this unimportant detail to justify continued stonewalling.<br /><br />Why not just admit that you made a mistake and that the nun diary citation was bogus just like all of the first hand witness testimonies?<br /><br />You say that we are arguing abut what the entries say.<br />No we aren't. No one knows what the he entries say because you have never published the text. Indeed you admitted that you had never even seen the documents and didn't have the text.<br /><br />It's like arguing in Alice's land beyond the looking glass.<br /><br />Simply put, Kevin. What was the text of the nun diaries that you cited in your second book?<br /><br />It's an easy question and if I was the one being asked about a citation I made, I am comfortable that I could honestly and truthfully answer.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-75729771282335635502012-06-14T09:23:29.081-07:002012-06-14T09:23:29.081-07:00CDA -
I am monumentally uninterested in your opin...CDA -<br /><br />I am monumentally uninterested in your opinions at this point. You are rejecting an idea without knowing anything about it. The skeptics complained that no one had seen an object in the air. We located witnesses at three locations including William Woody, E. L. Pyles and the nuns. That isn’t good enough and you are already suggesting they saw a meteor, which, of course, displays your ignorance of meteors.<br /><br />Lance -<br /><br />You wade in hypocrisy hip deep. You alleged that you had been asking me about the nuns since the early 1990s but now say you asked Pat Packard who asked me at your request. So you didn’t bother to contact me about it and what you said originally was misleading. For that reason, I’m going to ignore your continued drumbeat about the nuns. You’ll learn everything you wanted to know about it when I am finished with the investigation and not before.<br /><br />Don -<br /><br />You fail to pay attention. The Roswell Fire Department was not involved as both Tony and I have reported in the past, based on better information.<br /><br />And if the information came into the Roswell sheriff and he called out to the base, why wouldn’t the RAAF be involved? When did you become an expert on which military base would respond to an event in their area?<br /><br />Steve -<br /><br />All I have said was that if we came up with an unsourced document that no one else had seen we would be attacked... in fact, I have a sourced document that Lance KNOWS is real (we’re actually arguing over what it says) and I’m attacked.<br /><br />I reported, accurately what Karl had said and done in the past. I suggested that his report on Newton’s diary should be seen in the light of this other information. If you don’t like that... tough.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-32129812719836025002012-06-13T11:19:25.980-07:002012-06-13T11:19:25.980-07:00Methinks we have strayed a bit from the Aztec case...Methinks we have strayed a bit from the Aztec case. <br /><br />Unless of course Kevin thinks there is some connection between Roswell and Aztec. <br /><br />And no, I am not persuaded that any personnel from Roswell took part in the Aztec recovery 8 months later. <br /><br />Is there any indication that the supposed ETs that crashed on the Foster ranch (or one of the other Roswell sites) were from the same star or planet as those who supposedly crashed at Aztec?<br /><br />Does anyone know? The Ramseys or Stan Friedman maybe?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-56869500888921585922012-06-13T09:33:35.512-07:002012-06-13T09:33:35.512-07:00Kevin
I'm a little disappointed that your hav...Kevin<br /><br />I'm a little disappointed that your have make accusations about an investigator who is no longer alive to answer these allegations. <br /><br />SteveSteve Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14765165764276462479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-45118732885594141042012-06-13T08:03:22.410-07:002012-06-13T08:03:22.410-07:00So, that's the big deal about the nun's di...So, that's the big deal about the nun's diary. It can be used to support a crash site somewhere near enough to Roswell town for the Roswell Fire Dept to be involved so that they bring home memory metal so Frankie Rowe can see it, have it confiscated and be threatened by a ginger army officer.<br /><br />And at least Kevin, being a career officer, should realize no crashed saucer or alien bodies found on the Foster Ranch would be hauled to the RAAF. <br /><br />So, a lot depends on whether there was something (showing distress)in the sky at the right time, day, and direction.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-75106090620181943542012-06-13T07:57:46.245-07:002012-06-13T07:57:46.245-07:00Lance:
How right you are about the nuns. It sound...Lance:<br /><br />How right you are about the nuns. It sounds every bit as bad as Stan Friedman's attempt to fix a date for the San Augustin crash by going by an approximate month and year as related to him by two second-hand witnesses 30 years afterwards! Wasn't there alleged to be a diary available, somewhere, for that too?<br /><br />Still, let them find that hospital diary. Then with a bit of effort (!) the 'dream team' can start trying to show that the nuns saw an ET craft and that this craft is the same as the one that partially crashed on the Foster ranch with the rest falling on the plains of San Augustin (or on one of the other 3 Roswell sites).cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-64881950901179528012012-06-13T07:07:13.811-07:002012-06-13T07:07:13.811-07:00Don''s comments are quite cogent .
As som...Don''s comments are quite cogent .<br /><br />As someone who has followed the "case" for a long time, I have seen it get retrofitted with alarming regularity.<br /><br />For instance, The supposed false debris aspect has now become so convoluted that I admit I no longer know what the actual scenario dreamed up by the proponents.<br /><br />As far as the nun story goes, where did it even come from? As I mentioned, Kevin cites only the nun diary entries, that even he admits he never saw. It may well be that these are the concoctions of someone known to unreliable and untruthful. <br /><br />We currently have no evidence for the nun story at all.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-12173794602616955272012-06-13T05:49:21.346-07:002012-06-13T05:49:21.346-07:00CDA wrote: "So by all means locate the nuns&#...CDA wrote: "So by all means locate the nuns' diary if you can, but please Kevin don't try to put it forward as evidence that an ET craft crashed on the Foster ranch."<br /><br />I'd recommend the dream team concentrate on producing a coherent narrative because, over the decades, the rest of us have lost the track of the story.<br /><br />So, Chris, as best I can tell, the nun story will support, not anything over in Lincoln county, but a Chaves county site, which I assume is Kaufman's, which I gather is now okay because of Haut's last tape. I'm guessing here.<br /><br />Also, it seems there is a Lincoln county site which is on the Foster Ranch, but is not the site reported in the press in 1947, but another site. It appears to be necessary because of what Brazel might have said to Joyce. I'm guessing here.<br /><br />I think it is why in Roswell discussions here we always seem to go off-topic. I think it is due to none of us knowing anymore what the topic is.<br /><br />Waiting for the executive summary, Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-73072471502956252692012-06-13T05:25:11.568-07:002012-06-13T05:25:11.568-07:00This nuns' entry will be quite useless even if...This nuns' entry will be quite useless even if it is eventually found. It supports nothing at all, other than that a bright light fell towards the earth (how do the nuns know it was really downwards?) at some time between 11 and 11.30pm on an unknown night. The July 4 date is most probably fiction.<br /><br />Why should this sighting be the least bit remarkable? It is a perfect description of a plunging meteor, nothing else. Nobody will ever know where it struck, or what direction it was travelling, its distance from the observer or in fact anything useful at all. <br /><br />So by all means locate the nuns' diary if you can, but please Kevin don't try to put it forward as evidence that an ET craft crashed on the Foster ranch.<br /><br />As far as supporting Roswell, it will be a virtually worthless diary entry.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-81830438956159513912012-06-12T19:56:11.116-07:002012-06-12T19:56:11.116-07:00Seems to me, Lance, we mean the same thing, a circ...Seems to me, Lance, we mean the same thing, a circular citation is no citation. Your history with Kevin about it is for you two to work out.<br /><br />For myself, the page 4 nun story is not an issue, no matter if it exists, is found, and reads exactly as Kevin and Don said it did. If it does, I gather its value to Kevin, and perhaps the entire dream team or some of them, is that there was an object, worth noting by two nuns, in the sky at a desired time, and date, and travelling in the desired direction. <br /><br />It's why I mentioned the Wilmots' sighting...wrong time, wrong date, wrong direction. <br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-1916709897786797152012-06-12T17:22:12.684-07:002012-06-12T17:22:12.684-07:00SIgh.
Page 4 of The Truth About the UFO Crash at ...SIgh.<br /><br />Page 4 of The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell, first paragraph, last sentence reads:<br /><br />"The entry noted the sighting was late on the night of July 4, between 11:00 and 11:30 PM." <br /><br />There is then cited footnote #4.<br /><br />Footnote #4 for chapter 1 (on page 217) reads:<br /><br />4. Records held by the Franciscan Catholic nuns.<br /><br />What I just did above was a citation.<br /><br />It was a citation of a citation. <br /><br />The difference between my citation and the one in the book, is that I am actually looking at the real source and can back up my claim right now (and am happy to do so, if need be).<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-32985445433278729002012-06-12T16:39:52.381-07:002012-06-12T16:39:52.381-07:00Lance wrote: "Don,
I assume that you don'...Lance wrote: "Don,<br /><br />I assume that you don't know the story of how the nun's diary entry appeared in Kevin's 2nd Roswell book."<br /><br />Sure, I do. A couple of nuns thought they saw a plane in trouble and made a note of the moment in a diary or log.<br /><br />"It is cited as thought it was reviewed by the authors."<br /><br />In the book? I don't recall that. They didn't offer a citation. I don't know where they got the information.<br /><br />The reason I hope they got the story wrong, is that I don't want to have to deal with the rehabilitation of <br />"Steve McKenzie", the support of his story being what was so important about the nuns' story back then -- or so I recall. I don't follow the vicissitudes of the Roswell incident. I'm waiting for a coherent narrative, otherwise, I have nothing to judge the worth of the investigations of the last 30 years, which is why I stick to the 1947 press stories. <br /><br />At least the nuns didn't take photos, so we won't have to spend the next 30 years wondering what happened to the negatives (or Polaroid originals). That's a blessing.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46958676938846574342012-06-12T15:39:30.975-07:002012-06-12T15:39:30.975-07:00P.S. my communications with you in the1990's w...P.S. my communications with you in the1990's were through Pat Packard, who said he relayed my questions to you and then told me your responses.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-73519068868174091732012-06-12T15:37:37.916-07:002012-06-12T15:37:37.916-07:00Kevin,
I had one of the nuns tell me that she tho...Kevin,<br /><br />I had one of the nuns tell me that she thought the records may have long before been sent to Oklahoma. Surely you understand that does not make the statement true?<br /><br />I tried to further track them down but (using only long distance) ran into a dead end.<br /><br />None of this has anything to do with whether or not Schmidtt saw the diary entires. Are you saying that he tells you now that he did or did not see the entries?<br /><br />Do I have any of the following wrong:<br /><br />1. You cited the diaries as though you reviewed them?<br />2. You later admitted that you had never seen them but that Don had told you about them? The fact that you only paraphrased the entry in your booked tipped me off way back then that something was fishy.<br />3. In a recent post you seemed to admit that Don never saw the diary either but that you hope to track it down.<br /><br />In short, is the citation you made completely bogus and do you now disavow it?<br /><br />If you do, then I am willing to accept that you used poor judgement and that the nun story has not been proven. That would not be dishonorable...we all make mistakes.<br /><br />Talking about research you are doing now is all well and good but it has nothing to do with the unproven story and bogus citation you made back then. I am sure you understand that even if you do now find the diary (and I hope you do) that has nothing to do with what I am outlining above.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-78951842761859599912012-06-12T14:49:48.175-07:002012-06-12T14:49:48.175-07:00Chuck Finley -
Paul Kimball was right. I should j...Chuck Finley -<br /><br />Paul Kimball was right. I should just delete some of the comments. Yours would be among the first. The least you could do is be polite rather than belittling my name.<br /><br />Yes, I will revise my statement. It was not Bernard O'Connor who asked for the editorial work. It was Dick Ruhl. I have a letter dated January 6, 1976, thanking me for my assistance on his article.<br /><br />If you had any reading comprehension (which is my snotty comment to you), you would have seen that the material attributed to me is in quotation marks, which means they were my words from an interview he had conducted with me. I did not write that section of the article, any more than Karl wrote sections of the my posting here. I quoted him, and put his words into quotation marks.<br /><br />If you have anything relevant to this posting, I would be interested in hearing it. If not, keep your thoughts to yourself.<br /><br />Lance -<br /><br />Did you are did you not trace the nun's diaries to Oklahoma yourself? Did you or did you not talk to the people there who, at one time, had the diaries in their possession? That is certainly the impression you left with me.<br /><br />And again, I am working to get the whole story of the nun's diaries and I will publish that information on my schedule and not yours. If you don't like it, well, tough.<br /><br />You say you have been after this since the early-1990s. If we had any communications then, I don't remember them. Can you enlighten me?<br /><br />And to both of you... if you can't tone down the rhetoric, I will delete your comments as quickly as I see them. I grow tire of this nonsense.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-31923594236592389762012-06-12T10:38:23.975-07:002012-06-12T10:38:23.975-07:00Kevin,
I know the nun's diary entry exists ju...Kevin,<br /><br />I know the nun's diary entry exists just as well as I know the Newton diary exists. In other words, only upon the word of others. <br /><br />Don,<br /><br />I assume that you don't know the story of how the nun's diary entry appeared in Kevin's 2nd Roswell book.<br /><br />It is cited as thought it was reviewed by the authors.<br /><br />Kevin has admitted that he never saw the diary but accepted the word of "dream" researcher, Schmitt that he had seen the entry.<br /><br />Starting in the early 1990's I began to ask Randle to supply the text that Schmitt had noted. He never could.<br /><br />Later, Schmitt showed what a fantastic grasp of the truth he has in a spectacular meltdown (making him a perfect candidate for the "dream team") and had a falling out with Randle. <br /><br />He really is a crackerjack among crackerjacks!<br /><br />In a recent post Kevin seemed to admit that Schmitt also never saw the entry (which again is cited in their book in the same way that honest researchers cite source material--in UFO land, those silly old rules don't apply). I asked Kevin if Schmitt has now admitted that he never saw the entry. Kevin never replied.<br /><br />Kevin gets testy when asked about this matter but (predictably) has never really admitted the impropriety of it.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.com