tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post783036393585626939..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Roswell Questions and AnswersKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-55378901108488527212007-07-17T11:14:00.000-07:002007-07-17T11:14:00.000-07:00We can dispute Exon's testimony forever but in the...We can dispute Exon's testimony forever but in the end it will be a case of us<BR/>agreeing to disagree. However, my main point is this: How did General Exon,<BR/>who had heard these rumors back in 1947, but who had never seen anything first hand,<BR/>manage to come out with the extraordinary conclusion " Roswell was the recovery<BR/>of a craft from space". ("UFO CRASH... p.112) ?<BR/><BR/>This is not some frivolity that can be brushed aside (unless he had tongue in cheek).<BR/>Here is a US military person of the top rank making this<BR/>sensational pronouncement to you, based solely on rumors.<BR/>It simply defies all logic and commonsense. I remind you that there is no such<BR/>thing as a craft from space. There was not either in 1947 or now in 2007. Science<BR/>does NOT admit the existence of any such craft. There may have been such visitations<BR/>in the very distant past; we cannot say. But no such craft have visited the earth in modern times<BR/>and all such claims that they have are still in the <BR/>realm of science fiction. For Exon to make such a claim implies either that he knows<BR/>what such a craft looks like and has seen one (as he could claim of an automobile,<BR/>airplane or rocket) or that some trustworthy informants have told him they had seen one (and this means<BR/>that they also knew what such a craft looked like). You cannot make such a<BR/>claim based solely on tittle tattle.<BR/><BR/>And we may be quite sure Exon was not told this officially because there was absolutely no need for<BR/>him to know. Allegedly, it was, and still is, the 'great secret'. Thus he was far too junior to be 'in the know' in 1947. <BR/>Nor, for the same reason, can he have read official documents confirming ET existence.<BR/>If perchance he had, zillions of others would also have read them<BR/>by now, (including you & me) confirming his pronouncement, and the truth would be public knowledge.<BR/><BR/>The same argument applies to Jesse Marcel jr. Although he did<BR/>at least see & handle some debris 60 years ago, he also has assumed he<BR/>handled an ET craft. Why? Perhaps you ought to point out to Marcel that there is no<BR/>such thing as an ET craft. If he still believes he saw one (or portions of one), why not ask<BR/>him how he is certain of this. I repeat: how does Marcel know what an ET craft looks like?<BR/>Did his dad possess this great top secret knowledge and confide it to the family? <BR/>And if Jesse jr had the slightest inkling of this in 1947, I wonder why he never told the UFO world<BR/>until two pro-ET ufologists repeatedly interviewed him and influenced his mind<BR/>some 30+ years afterwards. (I also wonder why either Marcel, sr or jr, allowed such <BR/>highly important material to be swept into the yard and be concreted over to form a patio!).<BR/>All Marcel jr can legitimately say is that<BR/>he handled some odd looking debris which his dad recovered from a ranch, and which did not<BR/>resemble anything he, as a boy of 11, had ever seen before, but that he did not think it important<BR/>enough to retain any at the time. For him to now claim that he handled<BR/>alien spacecraft wreckage in 1947 is, quite simply, twaddle. It only reinforces my conviction that people<BR/>have planted ideas in his mind that were never there in '47. I have not seen his recent book<BR/>but assume he continues with the 'I handled an ET craft' theme. <BR/><BR/>Kevin, there is nobody on earth who can say what an ET craft looks like because no such<BR/>thing exists. So all those witnesses, like Exon & Marcel, who tell us they know Roswell<BR/>was an ET craft, are fantasising. This sums up my case. <BR/><BR/>'The Unholy 13' ? As fictitious as 'Majestic 12'. Where are all the documents 'The Unholy 13' <BR/>must have produced? At least we do have some Majestic 12 documents whatever you<BR/>, and I, think of them. But papers from the Unholy 13? None at all. <BR/>You are impressed by the names Exon gave you and that they made sense in terms of what<BR/>these people were doing in '47?<BR/>We both know a prominent ufologist who is even more impressed by the MJ-12 names<BR/>and what they were doing in '47. Sorry, but Exon's committee has no more validity than<BR/>the infamous MJ-12 committee. By the way, was the word 'unholy' your terminology or Exon's? <BR/><BR/>I have never met a single Roswell witness, nor have I spoken to any on the phone. <BR/>So you may regard my opinions as valueless, if you want. But you can apply an awful lot<BR/>of plain commonsense to the Roswell scenario, and the more you do the more the whole<BR/>thing looks like a manufactured mystery, a space tale which never once entered anybody's<BR/>head in the late 1940s, but which slowly built up from the first investigations (by ETH believers) in 1979. <BR/><BR/>One other point: I presume you are positive that the tracks and gouge Exon saw in the desert were not<BR/>present before the said 'crash'. I say this because Bob Young told me they were there in 1946.<BR/><BR/>Please give us your views on Haut's latest 'after my death' affidavit, and whether it adds anything<BR/>of value to the Roswell cause. Or is it just another diversion?CDAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02286117965667317691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-13630283552247579942007-07-15T05:50:00.000-07:002007-07-15T05:50:00.000-07:00I learned about Exon from Johnson in February 1989...I learned about Exon from Johnson in February 1989 and told Stan about both Johnson and Exon in August 1989. I found Johnson through the Special Collections archives at the University of Texas at Arlington as I was attempting to get high quality copies of the various photographs.<BR/><BR/>Don Schmitt, in his interviewing technique, tended to jump around, believing that this would provide clues about the veracity of a witness. I'm not sure where he learned the technique, but I know that it sometimes disconcerted me as we attempted to interview a witness. I liked to let them talk, but Schmitt would interrupt to ask his questions.<BR/><BR/>I had wondered about Exon confusing the Mantell case and the dates, but Mantell was killed before Exon moved on to an assignment at the Pentagon. He seemed sure of the timing, based on his assignment. That tended to rule out Mantell. Merkel, on the other hand, might be right.<BR/><BR/>Finally, if Exon had been contaminated by Stan's material, then wouldn't he had also suggested the same members of the oversight committee. I was struck with the names Exon provided tht made sense when you learned who they were and what they were doing in 1947.<BR/><BR/>I also think, that before we get to far into the weeds with this forty-year-old memories thing and reject testimony because the events are old, we must remember that studies of memory show that these older memories are often very accurate. True, about 25% of the people in the studies screw up everything, but at the other end are those who remember it all very accurately. So, we can't reject testimony just because the event was deep in the past. We have to find a better reason than that.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-78050522830422087762007-07-02T09:19:00.000-07:002007-07-02T09:19:00.000-07:00OK, I accept that you spoke to Exon before Stan di...OK, I accept that you spoke to Exon before Stan did. I hope you are positive about your timescales. <BR/><BR/>I have been looking at some of your other books (including “Case MJ-12“ and “Roswell UFO Crash Update“), and things are far from clear about Exon’s dates & events. The similarity of “Majestic 12” to the “The Unholy 13” is still a bit too close to be coincidence. (Don’t forget that there were in fact 13 members of MJ-12 since Bedell Smith replaced Forrestal upon the latter’s death, as Friedman has reminded us). Stan Friedman tells us that he first learned of Exon from J.Bond Johnson but that when he contacted Exon, Exon told him Johnson had grossly exaggerated his (Exon’s) true involvement with Roswell. I assume you also learned of Exon from Johnson, but you don’t indicate this. Stan then tells how when he contacted Exon again in 1991, the latter told him that you also exaggerated Exon’s involvement. Exon later wrote to you saying a bit of one thing and a bit of another. (I am quoting from your “Roswell UFO Crash Update” where you print Exon’s letter). <BR/><BR/>Regarding the interview with Don Schmitt, in this book (p142-7), it is not coherent. Exon seems to jump about, mixing up events, names and dates. He names Symington & Spaatz as two of the control group, but if you look at the transcript, he confuses this with the period he is talking about, i.e. the 1964-65 period, when he was responsible for the so-called planes he prepared for secret UFO missions to Montana & Wyoming. Perhaps Don has done some bad editing here, but the confusion remains. Then Exon goes back in time and describes the Roswell material; then he jumps forward to the late 1950s. He is more than confused, wouldn’t you say? He is wandering from decade to decade, and then brings up the missing 4 planes, at one point saying “I am trying to put a time period with this because I can’t figure out for sure why ...” Exon’s whole paragraph on p146 is a shambles. <BR/><BR/>How anyone can read this edited interview and come out with a favourable impression of Exon’s memory escapes me. And at the time of this Schmitt interview (June 1990) we may be quite certain that Exon was indeed familiar with MJ-12 from previously talking to Stan, and receiving Stan’s bulging UFO papers. <BR/><BR/>Re the case of the missing 4 aircraft from Kentucky or Tennessee whilst pursuing a UFO (your other book p58), you say there is no reason to suspect Exon is wrong or deluded. I would say: deluded no, wrong yes. The case sounds similar to the Mantell case where 4 planes were involved, even though only one crashed, and wreckage was found. True, the date is offset a bit, but Exon was recalling this 40 years or so later. It is a common fault to get distant timescales confused, and Exon sounds more than a bit confused, as I have said. If you reject my idea, then consider another case (Jan 1956) of Col Lee Merkel, also from Kentucky, given by Keyhoe in “Aliens from Space”, p192-3. I would place a high bet that one of these two cases is the one Exon is referring to.<BR/><BR/>You have written extensively on the Mantell case, yet the likelihood that Exon was referring to it didn’t occur to you? And if Exon has got this story & dates a bit muddled, what does it say about the reliability of his Roswell testimony, or anything else for that matter?CDAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02286117965667317691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-77027913672623474032007-06-30T05:14:00.000-07:002007-06-30T05:14:00.000-07:00I spoke to Exon BEFORE Stan, and in fact, told Sta...I spoke to Exon BEFORE Stan, and in fact, told Stan about him in August 1989. After I wrote the article about the "Unholy Thirteen", which speaks to the secret group controlling the UFO data (and we really don't need to argue about the reality of that for this discussion), and since the composition of that committee, as described by Exon differed significantly from MJ-12, Stan attacked. If Exon was right, then MJ-12, as described was a hoax...<BR/><BR/>Which explains Stan calling Exon and reading segments of my interviews with him to him... and Exon suggesting he had been misquoted (at least, according to Stan). When I sent a copy of the book and a copy of the tape to him and asked where he had been misquoted, he said that all the quotes were accurate... that we (meaning me) had over emphasized the importance of what he said, but the point was, he said it, and when he had a chance to object, to me, he did not.<BR/><BR/>Yes, Stan sends packages of material to witnesses BEFORE he interviews them and I have suggested this might not be the best technique. But, when I interviewed Exon, he had not received Stan's package and he had not been immersed in Roswell information.<BR/><BR/>So, the point is, you cannot suggest that Exon was primed by this material. He had little knowledge from outside sources and was providing his descriptions of the events based on his experiences at Wright Field in 1947. He provided the specific names of people based on his experience and not on some kind of priming from the MJ-12 documents.<BR/><BR/>I will note that some of the names he provided made sense in the context of the time. Stuart Symington, for example, was the Under Secretary for War for Air in 1947 and given this was an Army Air Force activity, it made sense that he would be involved. And doesn't this sort of negate your claim because, if Exon had been contaminated by the MJ-12 material, he would not have come<BR/>up with new names as he did? Instead, he would have given those<BR/>names already identified as MJ-12.<BR/><BR/>Remember, here, I'm not arguing for the authenticity of the information, merely that the information came from a source who had not been contaminated by Stan's package of materials, who had not been exposed to the media versions of Roswell because the big explosion of interest was to follow, and who was relating to me, as best he could, the composition of the committee and his experiences at Wright Field.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-51903634019265239392007-06-24T01:56:00.000-07:002007-06-24T01:56:00.000-07:00Thanks.Since writing my piece I have reread Stan F...Thanks.<BR/>Since writing my piece I have reread Stan Friedman's Top Secret Majic and his version of the Exon testimony, and it sheds a lot more light. Apparently Stan first spoke to Exon in 1989 and followed up by sending him a mass of UFO/Roswell info & some of his (pro-ETH)papers. Hence Exon was well primed in UFO lore by 1989. The crucial point is this (and you may want to take your time): Did Stan Friedman contact Exon before you did, or after? I'll await your response. <BR/><BR/>Yes, it is important. Stan also says that Exon thought highly of his pro-MJ12 stuff. I suggest this is what gave Exon the idea of the 'controlling committee', i.e. the 'Unholy Thirteen' that you talk about. In other words, Exon got the idea of this committee from what Stan had told him about MJ-12! If so, this rather negates your own analysis. I am not saying which of you is right or wrong. I am merely suggesting that if Friedman 'got at' Exon before you did the picture changes quite a bit.<BR/><BR/>When you have more time I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks. <BR/><BR/>CDACDAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02286117965667317691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-82631132709996441762007-06-23T08:51:00.000-07:002007-06-23T08:51:00.000-07:00I don't have a lot of time to respond, at the mome...I don't have a lot of time to respond, at the moment, to all this, but will say that I found Exon. Another witness told me that someone I should talk to was Arthur Exon. I located him in California and called him, asking about his involvement with Project Blue Book. He told me that he was responsible for dispatching aircraft and investigators to the scene of UFO sightings. This was in the 1960s. I let the conversation flow naturally. <BR/><BR/>This was in the early 1990s, before Roswell hit the big time. Karl Pflock and Phil Klass ignored him almost completely because they didn't have good explanations for what he said.<BR/><BR/>The same with Edwin Easley. I found him because he had been the provost marshal at Roswell and I knew he would have been involved in this. <BR/><BR/>Finally, quickly, Exon did have first-hand knowledge to some of it, such as flying over the crash sites in 1947. So, Exon can't be as easily dismissed as both Karl and Phil attempted to do.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-59109998576453410042007-06-23T08:26:00.000-07:002007-06-23T08:26:00.000-07:00I have reread your chapter on General Exon in "UFO...I have reread your chapter on General Exon in "UFO Crash at Roswell". There are problems with it. One point that you omit is the question of exactly how you located this man. Did he approach you or vice-versa? Who put you in touch with him,or did he pop up as a result of a TV show on Roswell (as did Gerald Anderson)? We ought to be told. There is a hint in this chapter that Exon was familiar with the Roswell story, but not as a result of hearing rumors at WPAFB in '47. Rather that he had read a bit, such as the Moore-Berlitz book, perhaps knew a good deal of UFO-lore from the past, and the like. I suspect (though I have no way of proving it) that Exon is recounting the same tales that Dr Sarbacher wrote in his famous letter to Wm Steinman in Nov 1983, i.e. he is recounting tales and rumors of crashed saucers & bodies picked up from his workmates & friends in WPAFB during the '50-51 period, soon after the Scully book came out. Your chapter tells how Exon was sure there were reports, photographs (both of the debris & bodies), and in fact "everything needed to prove that Roswell represented the crash of an extraterrestrial spacecraft would be found, if those reports were ever to be released". He was also sure there was an oversight top secret committee, "The Unholy Thirteen" you call it, involving Ike, Hillenkoetter, Twining & others. You have spent much time debunking MJ-12 in the past (for which much credit to you), but seem very willing to accept Exon's version of another committee very similar to MJ-12. But to me the most interesting piece is this quote, from Exon: "Roswell was the recovery of a craft from space". Having had no first-hand knowledge of it, how did Exon form this extraordinary conclusion and tell you this 42 years afterwards? Does Exon know what an ET craft (and their occupants) look like? Did he in 1947? Or is he going just by the rumors he heard all those years earlier? Just as important: why, when he had this great knowledge, did he not inform all those UFO groups (NICAP, APRO, MUFON etc) so desperately wanting the proof that UFOs were interplanetary of this fact during the 1950s & 60s? (The same could apply to all the other Roswell witnesses couldn't it?) In short why did Exon not speak out much earlier? Your answer presumably is that he was sworn to secrecy. That is the only answer the pro-ETH Roswellites can give in these cases. Secrecy was, and is, paramount. Hence the long (very long) silence from everyone. Until 1979 and the advent of Friedman & Moore. Then all hell breaks loose and everyone starts talking. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps (!) one day all those reports & photos Exon talked about will surface but that, assuredly, is a pipedream. As I said before, the GAO would have uncovered all of these in 1995. In fact they would not have needed to, since they would have been in the public domain decades ago. No such reports exist, no bodies exist, no wreckage exists. And Gen Exon is recalling rumors and nothing else. There is no reason to suppose your interviews with him, whether in person or by phone, are more worthy of consideration than was Pflock's lengthy phone conversation with him. In fairness, I concede that they are no less worthy of consideration either. It all depends on which side of the fence you want Exon's testimony to be. <BR/><BR/>So to get to the real points: How did you locate General Exon in the first place? What familiarity with UFO history did he have (from reading & films, TV and such)? How was he able to pronounce so definitively that "Roswell was the recovery of a craft from space"? Another question: How and why was Exon ever let in on this highly secret matter anyway? Did he have a 'need to know'? <BR/>A final question: Where are all those reports? <BR/><BR/>I have to agree with you that the USAF should have interviewed Exon in 1994. Perhaps they should have interviewed a few civilians as well, for completeness. But if they had, and had then come to very different conclusions to those of yourself and others, you would have had further cause to attack the AF, again. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps sometime you can also comment on the recent Schmitt-Carey book, especially about Walter Haut's alleged new affidavit which paints a very different picture from his earlier one. <BR/><BR/>CDACDAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02286117965667317691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-29319187798150525702007-06-07T23:10:00.000-07:002007-06-07T23:10:00.000-07:00KR: As an ancillary to that, why no mention of Ros...KR: As an ancillary to that, why no mention of Roswell in the Project Blue Book files. Given the media attention to the case, and the fact that other hoaxes are well represented in those files, Roswell should be there but it’s not. That might be significant... and no, the single mention in a short news article about flying saucers in a file unrelated to Roswell does not count.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Exactly! That point isn't discussed enough. <BR/><BR/>The Blue Book Archives contains information, every-which-way, up...down...everyway 'round about...all information about supposed UFO crashes. Some of these are left as unknowns...and in their own right certainly should not be ignored. After all is said and done, we are still left with the question...where is all this "mistaken for a flying-saucer" information dealing with the events at Roswell? <BR/><BR/>It should be there. Where are those photographs, the ones we are all now use to? (not there) Where are the news stories? (not there). There is no good reason that I have seen or heard yet that can explain this.Bob Kofordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739226809252915992noreply@blogger.com