Showing posts with label Kenneth Arnold. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kenneth Arnold. Show all posts

Thursday, May 30, 2019

X-Zone Broadcast Network - Disclosure First, then Dr. Bruce Maccabee


Dr. Bruce Maccabee was the guest for this week’s show. But before we started, I mentioned that I had just heard the statements made by Christopher Mellon, one-time Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. The statements seemed to suggest, once again, that we are moving closer to Disclosure. He said, “We know UFOs exist. This is no longer an issue. The issue is why are they here? Where are they coming from and what is the technology behind these devices that we are observing?”

This might be the most positive statement made by a former high-ranking
Dr. Bruce Maccabee. Photo copyright
by Kevin Randle.
government official. He would have been in a position to know what was going on. And, as he said, “There is a vital national security issue which I that our sovereignty is being violated by vehicles of unknown origin.”

This was a point that I have made over the years. No matter what they were saying, if people were reporting seeing these unidentified craft, there was a military obligation to investigate them. Didn’t really matter the point of origin. If there were craft out there penetrating our airspace without the proper authorization, then that is a matter of national security. The government could attempt to brush it off as something unimportant, but until they had identified the intruder, they must intercept it. Anything else was a failure to complete the government’s, and in the case the Air Force and Navy’s, responsibility.

Mellon, in fact, said that intercepts, or as he characterized it, “interacting,” was happening on a nearly daily basis.

Dr. Maccabee and I discussed this for a moment, but we didn’t have much more information than that. I had just found the story in the hour or so before the beginning of the program. It was, in the new parlance of the mainstream media, “Developing.”

From there Dr. Maccabee and I talked about the Arnold sighting and the ramifications of it in the world of the UFO. You can listen to it here:


We also discussed some of the best of the photographic evidence including the McMinnville photographs from 1950. As Dr. Maccabee mentioned, this really doesn’t take us to the extraterrestrial, meaning simply that while there might not be a solid, terrestrial explanation for the photographs, that doesn’t mean it proves alien visitation. More evidence is required to establish that.

Dr. Maccabee also brought up the 1973 Skylab III sightings by three astronauts. Again, there doesn’t seem to be a satisfactory answer for the sighting. Dr. Maccabee has written a paper about the case at his website that can be found here:


Next up is Dan Wright who will be filling us in on his book CIA & UFOs. If you have questions, let me know in the comments section and I’ll do my best to get them. We did touch on most of the questions from readings here in this show but given the interview with Mellon, time was a little shorter than usual.

Saturday, January 19, 2019

The Roswell Deception - A Review


(Blogger’s Note: For those interested in more information about this, I interviewed James Carrion on my A Different Perspective radio show. You can listen to both hours here:


And for those who wish to read the book, you can find it here:


All this will provide information about Carrion’s theories, some of my thoughts on them, and additional points of view.)

In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I have been involved in the investigation of the Roswell case for more than thirty years. I am deep into the minutia of the case and know where the mistakes were made and what witnesses are more than likely being less than candid. In other words, you might think that I
James Carrion. Photo copyright
by Kevin Randle
bring bias to this examination of The Roswell Deception, but I believe I can view it in a very dispassionate light. I have tried to separate what might be considered a kneejerk reaction to a new theory that moves us beyond those which has been traditionally assigned to the Roswell case.

Before we begin, there are a few things that I want to make clear. Just looking at this book as an historical thesis, we are shown a history of the United States as it existed in the late 1940s. We are shown the paranoia that seemed to run rampant, the distrust of our one-time ally, the Soviet Union, and a belief that if our government did it, there are good reasons for it. This is all demonstrated through the newspaper articles and government documents that are linked to the book through the Internet.

There are “mini-biographies” of many of the people who populated the upper echelons of both the military and civilian worlds in the late 1940s. Those are interesting in and of themselves but some of them are irrelevant to understanding UFOs. To learn a little more about the men who were running things gives us an insight into the how and why of certain decisions were made but that doesn’t really help us understand the philosophy of the times.

There was a great deal of information about the use of deception during the Second World War. This included the use of faked divisions, rubber tanks and military vehicles, and radio traffic designed to convince the Germans that the coming invasion of France would be directed at the Pas de Calais rather than Normandy as but one example. This was designed to prove that militaries, including the United States, had successfully engaged in deception in recent history.

Second, and of little importance, are a number of small errors that do suggest a problem with the overall scholarship. Walter Haut is continually referred to as Warren Haught, the name that so many newspapers used for him. I’m not sure why this wasn’t picked up and corrected. It doesn’t seem that Carrion realized this.

In keeping with misnamed people, Carrion refers to Major Curtan and provides information about Major Eugene Curtain (page 204). But this is irrelevant because the man in Fort Worth was Major Edwin M. Kirton. The FBI didn’t bother to get the correct spelling of the man’s name. They just assumed it was spelled “Curtan.”

Third, there were other things. COMINT, which is jargon for communications intelligence is defined as code breaking. True, code breaking is part of the COMINT mission, but it goes far beyond that. It is monitoring of communications, the interception of those communications and study of them. There are many aspects to COMINT.

Fourth, is the constant suggestion that the men of the 509th Bomb Group were “handpicked.” There is no evidence that this is true, especially when we look at the unit rosters from the summer of 1947. Edwin Easley complained that his MPs were routinely rotated out of the group, to be replaced by others who now had to be trained in the procedures for handling the atomic weapons and secrets. There didn’t seem to be anyone handpicking them.

And there are assumptions that are not backed up by evidence. Often, we read about what the Soviet analysts would think about a flying saucer case, or how they would have interpreted certain information, but that is all speculation. At one point, Carrion wrote, “Astute Soviet intelligence analysts would have paid attention to the flying disc news reports quoting the anonymous Cal Tech physicist.” No documentation has been offered to prove that these assumptions are valid, and in some instances, we find them contradicted in later portions of the book.

Before we get too deep into the book, we are told, “…the flying saucer stories that proliferated in the summer of 1947 were part and parcel of a U.S. led strategic deception operation…that U.S. had amazing aerial technology… goals to stay Stalin’s hand from invading Europe, smoke out spies and to break Soviet codes…”

It is later in the book that we move back to the flying saucers beginning with an analysis of the motives behind the Kenneth Arnold sighting. This was one of those aerial deceptions that Carrion wrote about. Arnold, the man who launched the flying saucers, was lured into the area by a reward offered for finding the wreckage of a Marine aircraft that had crashed some months earlier, killing all aboard but that had not been located. The theory, according to Carrion, was that the military would be interested in the Pacific Northwest because this was the route that Soviet missiles would take during an attack. By providing an opportunity for someone, anyone, to see these radical new aircraft, in the Pacific Northwest, it would suggest to the Soviets that the U.S. capability was far superior than it actually was. This would prevent the Soviets from attacking Western Europe and by extension, the United States.

The flaw here is that the U.S. had nuclear weapons and the Soviet Union did not. This would seem to be the real deterrent and this aerial deception was unnecessary. If the U.S. could obliterate the Soviet Union with those atomic weapons, that would keep the Soviets in check, at least until they developed their own atomic arsenal. Mutually assured destruction would stay their hand at that point. Carrion suggested that we had few actual bombs and that convincing the Soviets that we had a delivery system that they could not defeat was the real purpose.

But what was it that Arnold saw that was so radical that he didn’t recognize it as terrestrially based aircraft? According to Carrion (page 84), “Perhaps Arnold was not familiar with the flying wing designs which were tailless, even though they were
XB-35
not a military secret. Newspapers reported in May 1946 the test flight of three N9M flying wings… and Northrop’s giant XB-35 winged bomber…”

The problems with this are many. Only four N9Ms were built. One crashed in 1946, two had been detailed to the Air Force for training and by June 1947, it seems that only one was flying. These were test aircraft and only about a third the size of the XB-35, so it is debatable that had there been nine of them and they might not have been visible at the distance reported by Arnold.

As for the larger XB-35, in June, according to the documentation, there were only two in existence. According to the PIO at MUFOC Army Air Field, “None of our flying wings has been in the air recently.”

This seems to negate the idea that Arnold saw something that was part of an aerial deception, which undermines the theory in the book. If it wasn’t an aerial deception, then what Arnold saw has another explanation. Carrion counters by saying that they might have been towing something, though it is difficult to believe that the inherently unstable XB-35 would be capable of towing anything.

Carrion tells us (page 114), that the deceivers had anticipated that the Arnold story would be a “flash in the pan,” so they began feeding new sightings to reporters, which, according to Carrion’s theory, culminated in the Roswell case. This seems to suggest they anticipated Roswell, or had planned it in advance. This would keep flying saucers in the news. But the day after the Roswell crash was reported, the news was that both the Army and the Navy had moved to suppress news stories about flying saucers. Rather than encouraging the proliferation of flying saucer tales, they were trying to keep the media from publishing more about them.

But more importantly, Carrion offers no documentation and no evidence that anyone was watching the flying saucers with an eye to keeping the story alive. No evidence that the Soviets were interested in it, or that the aerial deception had been created to suggest a superior aircraft. In fact, there are news reports and speculation that the flying saucers were “… a Soviet plot to create US panic.” This is a Soviet aerial deception.

Carrion, in writing about the Roswell crash, noted, as did some newspapers, that there had been a “blistering rebuke” (page 201) to the 509th subordinates for issuing the press release. Walter Haut, however, told me there had been no such rebuke. Maybe the press assumed it or maybe a spokesman said it, but those in Roswell were unaware of it. Karl Pflock, in his book (Roswell: Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe, page 290, reported that George Walsh had received a second call from Haut asking what he, Walsh, had done because he, Haut, had just received a call telling him to shut up. Of course, there is no documentation for
Walter Haut. Photo
copyright by Kevin Randle
this either and it conflicts with what Haut himself had said repeatedly.

On that same page, Carrion wrote, “Something that didn’t smell right in this news article was the revelation that ‘not all the principals were satisfied with the announcement that the wreckage found on the New Mexico ranch was that of a weather balloon.’ Which principals? Making a baseless statement was borderline gaslighting the public.”

But the answer to that question is there in the newspapers. Mack Brazel, who found the original wreckage, was quoted as saying that he had found weather observation devices on two other occasions and this was nothing like those (Roswell Daily Record, July 9, 1947, page 1.)

Eventually we learn that “Lieutenant Warren Haught delivered two entirely different press releases to the local Associated Press and United Press outlets – a purposeful decision that will make sense later in the story.”

Which might be true if there were, in fact, two different press releases delivered to the media outlets in Roswell. Walter Haut told me that he wasn’t sure if he had, in fact, delivered the press releases in person. He might have read them over the telephone. Both George Walsh and Jud Roberts said that there was no hard copy of the release (and a news wire copy reported that the press release was verbal and not written). They received it over the telephone and since one of the recipients, Walsh worked for the AP and another, Frank Joyce, worked for the UP, it seems that this explains the subtle differences in the two. It was not some sort of clever deception to out spies or break codes but just the expected differences that would develop in the ways that the press release was distributed to the news wires and then published in the newspapers.

But there is a third version of the press release which, of course, suggests that Carrion’s claim is wrong. Haut provided the press release to the Roswell Daily Record. Their story is different than those reported by the UP and AP. In other words, rather than having been filtered through Walsh and Joyce, and then rewritten by editors at the two wire services and later by editors at the newspapers that reported it, the Roswell Daily Record had the information directly from Haut. They wrote their story based on what Haut told them and not what have been sent in to the wire services.

Carrion, however, suggests that this is unimportant how many press releases there were because all the key words were in both of them (A Different Perspective radio broadcast). That would allow for the code breaking operations to go forward… but, if there was actually no need for two or more releases, why even create them?

Later, we are told (page 248), “Bottom line being that Blanchard would never have unilaterally sent out the press release unless he was under orders to do so.”

A page later, Carrion wrote, “one question that has not been adequately answered however is who authorized the Roswell press release to be sent out. As it was highly unlikely that Colonel Blanchard pulled the trigger on this decision, UFO proponents shift the finger to SAC’s deputy Commanding General Clements McMullen.”

These are more bold statements that have no facts to back them up. Blanchard, as both the 509th and the base commander, certainly had the authority to send out the press release. He was not required to ask permission from his higher
Colonel William Blanchard
headquarters. Notice that in one statement we are told he would never do it and in the next that it was highly unlikely. We are not told who these UFO proponents are.

Without actually supplying any documentation that the Soviets were at all interested in the Roswell crash, and with the story not only printed in newspapers all around the country, it was killed within three hours. It was claimed they had a flying saucer and then it was nothing more than a weather balloon and you have to ask, would the Soviet spies inside the United States actually be interested enough in this tale, as it developed, to transmit to Moscow using a code? Why not just send the information in the clear, referencing all the newspaper articles about it? No reason to encode it. Send clippings out in a diplomatic pouch because, once the explanation had been offered, there was no urgency to get the information to the Soviet Union. Carrion suggested to me that Stalin wanted the information fast and that couriers and diplomatic pouches would take too long (A Different Perspective radio broadcast).

Having provided an explanation for the Roswell crash, that is an aerial deception to fool the Soviets and a way of providing hints about Soviet codes, Carrion moves back to Kenneth Arnold. This time, however, Arnold isn’t the witness, he is the investigator. Ray Palmer, a Chicago publisher, wanted Arnold to investigate the Maury Island UFO incident. This was a semi-flying saucer crash. It was more of an emergency landing, but it resulted in damage to a fishing boat, the death of a dog, and injuries to the son of one of the men on the boat.

Maury Island is a notorious hoax. The investigation into it indirectly resulted in the deaths of two Army Air Forces officers. The aircraft they had used to travel to meet with Arnold developed engine trouble. It crashed after the crew chief and a passenger parachuted to safety. The pilots were unable to bail out and died in the crash.

All of this, from the Arnold sighting to Arnold’s investigation into Maury Island is an unnecessary diversion. Palmer, who had printed stories called the Shaver Mystery in his science fiction magazine, saw Arnold’s sighting as a way of validating some of those science fiction tales. The Shaver Mystery suggested a race hidden inside the Earth was responsible for all the troubles we face on the surface. The flying saucers were manifestations of craft used by those hidden away. Since the Shaver Mystery had been presented as truth hiding in fiction, and because these stories had boosted his circulation amazingly, Palmer wanted more. If the flying saucers could be tied to Shaver, then that would be best.

Arnold was to investigate Maury Island, the sighting reported by Harold Dahl and Fred Crisman. It has become clear over the years that Maury Island was a story invented by Dahl and Crisman to capitalize on the flying saucer craze of the moment. But there was an earlier connection. In 1946, Crisman had sent a letter to Palmer’s magazine suggesting that while he, Crisman, served in the China-Burma-India Theater during the Second World War, he had found one of the hidden caves that lead into the inner Earth. He could corroborate some of the Shaver Mystery with his first-hand observations.

All of this, about Maury Island and landed flying saucers, would have been ignored, if not for mystery calls made to newspapers about Arnold’s investigation of Maury Island. It seemed that the caller knew everything that was going on in Arnold’s hotel room as he interviewed the witnesses and discussed the matter with Captain E. J. Smith of United Airlines who’d had his own flying saucer sighting a few days earlier. This greatly disturbed both Arnold and Smith, and at one point, they nearly torn the room apart looking for hidden microphones.

But there were no hidden microphones and although the mystery caller was never identified, it is clear that it was either Dahl or Crisman. (On A Different Perspective, Carrion suggests that it was David Johnson). Given the nature of Crisman, he was probably the one making the calls. He never provided information to which he had not been privy. To prove he was on the inside, he was able to give the names of the two officers killed in the plane crash before they had been publicly released, but only because he had met them that day in Arnold’s room. Dahl and Crisman had tried to give the Army Air Forces officers some of the recovered residue from the damaged saucer but both officers knew what it was and it wasn’t part of a flying saucer. This is contrary to what Carrion suggested. George Early, in UFO, laid all this out in a series published in October, 2010; January 2011, and finally in October 2011.

The one very interesting point that comes out in all of this is that a fellow, David Johnson, had a large role in keeping the flying saucers in the newspapers. He seemed to have inserted himself into all Maury Island investigation through Arnold. Johnson, according to Carrion, singlehandedly convinced another newspaper reporter to push the Maury Island story out, over the news wire. Johnson was in communication with Arnold and knew Arnold’s plans. Johnson and Arnold would later go flying in search of the flying saucers, and Johnson would have his own sighting. If there was an outsider, a ringleader in this grand deception on a local level, then David Johnson would be a prime candidate for that. As I say, this is an interesting point made in Carrion’s book and on A Different Perspective. That alone might be enough for us all to take notice of it.

The one name that doesn’t surface in the book is that of Colonel Howard McCoy. He was involved with the Foo Fighters during the Second World War, he investigated the Ghost Rockets over Scandinavia in 1946, and then was a part of the early investigations of the flying saucers. He was an intelligence officer who seemed to be on the inside of everything, which makes him a candidate for the Roswell deception.

But the real point here is that contrary to Carrion’s belief that this was part of the grand deception, Maury Island was nothing more than a hoax carried about by two men who did not have sterling reputations and a Chicago publisher who wanted to boost his science fiction magazine’s circulation. They offered nothing that would be of interest to anyone other than those who thought the Shaver Mystery is real. The perpetrator of this was not some government organization but a magazine publisher who wanted to validate the Shaver Mystery to keep his circulation high. In this case, it was for the money.

This review could go on for much longer with these sorts of revelations. The problem for Carrion is that while he supplies links to interesting documentation, he has nothing that proves his case. He does not supply the smoking gun but suggests this lack of evidence is proof of it. He wrote, “The ‘perfect deception’ is a classic example. It is out there somewhere, but like the perfect crime, it manifests itself only in results. It is difficult to prove, and harder to study because quite often the study would attack comfortable beliefs.” (page 214)

Which is a way of saying that it must be true because we can’t prove it. We can only look at the results, but the results are inferred from documentation and information that is sometimes vague and sometimes irrelevant. The foundation is very weak and nearly nonexistent.

Worse still is what Carrion wrote early in his book. “Unfortunately, no U.S. strategic deception operations since WW2 have been declassified so I cannot offer official smoking gun documents that confirm unequivocally that the U.S. perpetrated strategic deception in the year of 1947…”

Carrion does provide an interesting history of the paranoid world of 1947, of the espionage going on by the United States as intelligence officials read all telegraph messages leaving the United States in something known as Operation Shamrock which was exposed decades ago. But all that does not lead us to an aerial deception of the magnitude claimed, that was designed to keep the Soviets from invading western Europe, to keep them from launching missiles over the Pacific Northwest and to help break the codes being used by Soviet agents.

He wrote that he was supplying a theory that could be falsified. In this case, we can say that Arnold had not been fooled by flying wing aircraft as part of an aerial deception because there were not sufficient flying wing aircraft to form a flight of nine. Of course, it might have been some other aircraft, or flying wing aircraft towing something, but again, the evidence does not support such a claim.

We can say that the Roswell press release was not part of a purposeful deception because there were not two purposeful versions. There was the single version that Haut supplied over the telephone and any variation of that version is the result of the communication over the telephone, the notes taken by those who received the calls, and the stylistic differences between the two wire services. Besides, with the information about the crash out in the public arena, and identified within three hours as a weather balloon, there would be no reason for Soviet spies to send a coded message about anything even if they thought there was something important there. In other words, the two purposeful versions did not exist and the documentation and testimony bears out this conclusion.

We can look at the Maury Island affair as a hoax dreamed up by two men with the assistance of Ray Palmer. It was a ploy to validate the Shaver Mystery and not some conspiracy by a secret government agency to convince the Soviets that we had superior military aircraft. Arnold was not part of the deception. He was just a handy foil for those perpetrating the hoax.

But in the end, Carrion admits that he provides a lot of speculation but no real evidence. While he challenges us to “falsify” his theory, to do so, we need access to still classified records of this grand deception. The problem is, such records might not exist and might never have existed. We can’t falsify the theory by proving an alternative to it because we need those records to do so.

The book is interesting for those of us interested in the minutia of the time, and the theory is clever, but it fails without any sort of evidence. Speculation is fine, but in the end, there is nothing left… the foundation is built on quick sand and rapidly collapses without the support necessary to make the case. Read the book for the history of time, for the information about the cases on which it touches, but remember that the theory is not proved.

Thursday, January 17, 2019

X-Zone Broadcast Network - James Carrion

In a two-hour special edition of the radio version of A Different Perspective, I talked with James Carrion, author of The Roswell Deception. This is the theory that the “Saucer Summer of 1947,” as he calls it, was a deception created by American military forces as a way of convincing the Soviets that we had a spectacular aircraft that could deliver atomic weapons deep into the Soviet Union. You can listen to the first hour of the discussion here:


And the second hour here:


In the course of the discussion, we covered the events at Maury Island, a well-known hoax that Carrion believed to be part of the deception, the Arnold sighting, a key component of the deception, and the Roswell crash, which was designed to
James Carrion. Photo
copyright by Kevin Randle.
keep flying saucers in the public arena. We might have gotten a little deep into the weeds on some of this, but I believe the information is interesting.

One thing I do want to say is that Carrion’s comments about a fellow named David Johnson are quite interesting and put Arnold’s involvement in the beginning of the US saucers sightings into, dare I say it, a different perspective. As you listen to the program, or as you read the book, look and listen for his name to appear…

And if you need to understand the Roswell case in greater detail, take a look at Roswell in the 21st Century. I believe I distilled all that has come and gone about Roswell in the book, and it provides the best look at what happened there. As they say, “A little self-promotion never hurts.”

I won’t go into great detail here simply because you can listen to the whole discussion yourself. I believe his aerial deception to be an interesting theory but fails because of a lack of supporting documentation that outlines and confirms the deception. Carrion’s book, however, provides loads of circumstantial evidence, biographies of some of the key players, and an insight into the paranoia that gripped the post-Second World War world. You can read the book, for free here:



For those interested, I will be posting a longer review of the book in the next few days. Before I posted it, I wanted the opportunity to raise some of the points with Carrion and to clarify some of the points that I didn’t fully understand. That should spark some interesting commentary.

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

UFO vs UAP vs AAV


Well, here we go again. Another reason to dislike Ufology. This time I find myself engaged in a discussion over semantics. I have to wonder what is the proper terminology for these things that people claim are buzzing around Earth. And this is just another part of a much larger, societal problem with nearly everyone requiring everyone else conform to their personal beliefs and to use their personal terminology, sometimes under penalty of law (or thoughts of changing laws for that purpose, but I digress already).

Steve Bassett suggested during my recent interview with him that his preferred term for what we all think of as UFOs is UAP, standing for unidentified aerial object. Back years ago there were those who made the argument that UFO suggested two things that might not be true. That is, these things were objects and they were flying. UAP didn’t suffer from those preconditions and was, therefore, a much better term.

But even before we got to UFO, there were the Foo Fighters, a name which conjured up no sort of image or preconceived notion. Foo Fighter was something that airmen on all sides of the war saw that they couldn’t identify. When World War II ended, interest in the Foo Fighters and their origin ended and that name didn’t translate into anything that was coming in the near future.

Arnold's "Flying Saucer."
We, of course, here in the United States, started out with flying saucer, based on Ken Arnold’s description of the motion of the things he saw as opposed to their actual shape. Others thought that flying disk was a better description. I’m not really sure I understand the difference… both came to mean (please note the qualifier) alien spacecraft. That wasn’t the only definition back in 1947, it just evolved into that.

Although Ed Ruppelt is credited with creating the term, unidentified flying object, a review of the Project Blue Book (Project Sign and Project Grudge documents that are all a part of the Blue Book files) shows that others might have used the term or a variation of the term without really suggesting it was the definitive definition of what was being seen and reported. These records mention unidentified objects and the like without making this an official designation.

Ruppelt told us about the distinction between the terms, or as he defined the distinctions, when he was leading Blue Book. In serious matters, it was UFO or unidentified flying object, and when attempting to ridicule the whole thing it was those flying saucers, probably said with a sneer or a smirk.

There was a point during Blue Book and during the mountains of paper generated by this topic which wasn’t supposed to be important but seemed to attract a lot of attention, the acronym became UFOB, for unidentified flying object. I don’t know why they attached the “B” to it. Taking this to its ultimate
A "true" UNIFLOB
conclusion, I designated then as uniflobs, which just grabbed a bunch of the letters from unidentified flying objects and strung them together.

Coral Lorenzen was also unhappy with the connotations that calling them flying saucers created so she preferred UAO, which stood for unidentified aerial object. We can look at back issues of The A.P.R.O. Bulletin in the late 1960s to see this. For example, in the July/August 1967 issue was the headline, “UAO Struck Automobile in Ohio.” She soon tired of this, probably because it was a battle that she would never win and reverted to the conventional UFO a couple of years later.

At some point, and I don’t know what that point is, others, unhappy with UFO, created UAP, as mentioned. This has been around for a while but has never grabbed the status of UFO, probably for the same reason that Lorenzen’s UAO failed. It just didn’t seem to have the pizazz of UFO and by the time she attempted to shift to UAO, it was too late. That’s probably going to happen to UAP.

I mention all this because there are those out there now that think we need to rethink the name of these alleged alien spacecraft. Those at the Academy to the Stars have come up with their own acronym, AAV. This stands for Anomalous Aerial Vehicle. I’m not sure that it does anything other than disguise what we are talking about from those who haven’t kept up with the latest trends, which again, in the world today, is filled with the latest trends.

I will point out that this new name doesn’t suffer from all the problems of UFO but that it does assume that what we’re talking about isn’t just an object but is a vehicle. It seems to presuppose that these anomalous (unidentified) aerial (flying, but not in the same way that flying suggests an operation… it just means it’s in the sky) vehicles (which is worse than object because a vehicle suggests a manufactured ship rather than object would could be a meteor, or a cloud, or a bird) are someone’s’ craft.

This is all driven, to some extent, by an attempt to disguise what we’re really talking about. No, it’s not UFOs, it’s AAVs. Somehow this change will slip by those with open eyes and be fooled that we’re not talking about alien visitation but something of more scientific. We’re not studying UFOs, we’re studying AAVs. Is there really a difference, other than the letters in the acronym?

I just thought I would mention this history of the ever changing name and point out that UFO is probably here to stay, no matter what some of us attempt to do. If I had my way, I’d stick with uniflob, but only because it suggests that we don’t take ourselves so seriously that we can’t see the irony of changing the name as if that will change the outside perception.

Update 1:

From Chris Rutkowski (which makes this even worse):

Back in 1980, the term TOPA was suggested by a scientist as a replacement for UFO, to make it more acceptable by the scientific community.

Oddly enough, he was ignored.


Tuesday, October 16, 2018

Chasing More Footnotes


I have complained in the past that I am becoming less than thrilled with the UFO community. The reasons for this are varied but come down to a couple of basic ideas. One of those is that no matter how often a case is proven to be a hoax, a misidentification, a misinterpretation, or an inability to recognize the mundane, there are those who will argue the point forever. A recent post was partially inspired by this. How many times do we have to delve into the Oliver Lerch tale when everything that can be found points to an invention of the tale rather than a real event?

The point here, however, is that part of the problem is that some people who claim to be researchers or investigators just don’t follow the path to its end. This is what lead to the chasing of footnotes because sometimes the footnote is simply inadequate. Sometimes the information is not complete.

Not to pick on Richard Dolan, but just the other day as I was looking for something else, I noticed a couple of problems. These sorts of things are not restricted to Richard because we all have
Richard Dolan. Photo copyright by
Kevin Randle
fallen into the trap. On page 16 of his UFOs and the National Security State, he reported on a sighting by railroad engineer in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, who saw ten shiny disks on June 23. His footnote leads us to a number of sources, which cover a number of sightings in that same paragraph. Unfortunately, the information about the Cedar Rapids sighting is wrong, as I have noted in an earlier posting. The report was not made until after the Arnold sighting, was apparently for the afternoon of June 24 rather than the 23, and the railroad man was not in Iowa, but in Joliet, Illinois. Among those who reported this information as Dolan had, were Dick Hall and Frank Edwards. I believe Hall got it from Edwards, who must have seen something in the Cedar Rapids Gazette about the sighting a couple of days after Arnold. Edwards, or those others, had not followed the story to the source, or they would have found the discrepancies.

As I say, not to pick on Dolan, but later, on page 25, he wrote about Bill Brazel and the finding of the metal debris from the Roswell crash. The footnote takes us to Stan Friedman’s Crash at Corona in which he quotes from an interview with Bill Brazel. The quotes are accurate, for the most part, but there is no footnote to explain how the information was gathered because Friedman supplies no information about that. The trail ends there.

However, I know how that interview was conducted because I had
Stan Friedman. Photo copyright by
Kevin Randle
arranged it, and Don Schmitt and I were there. I recorded it. The more accurate footnote would have taken us not to Friedman’s book, but to UFO Crash at Roswell, where the footnote explained the circumstances of the interview. In other words, the original source was that interview that Don and I conducted and not the information printed in Friedman’s book.

A side problem with this is that Friedman altered one portion of the interview without justification. Those who follow Dolan’s footnote to Friedman will get the inaccurate information… Friedman inserted the word “black” into the interview to describe one the sergeants who came to the Brazel ranch to collect the bits of debris Bill had found. Brazel made no reference to the racial identity of those four men but Friedman inserted the word to bolster the Gerald Anderson fairy tale. You can read the whole story here (if you are so inclined):


This problem is not confined to UFO research. I was looking for information for a post on the new version of the Treasure Quest show and found a couple of sites that provided what seemed to be accurate information. Reference was made to someone named C. H. Prodgers and in this day of the Internet, I thought I would find out what he had said about the treasure.

Twenty-five years ago, I couldn’t have gathered the information. True, one of the articles referred to Prodgers, but in the world today, I was able to find a copy of Prodgers’s book online. I didn’t have to rely on what others had written about it. I could read it for myself. And, I found that much of the information published, that referenced Prodgers, was incorrect. After all, they were quoting Prodgers as the source, but what Prodgers had written did not match what they were reporting. Could Prodgers have been making up the tale of the treasure? Sure. But that didn’t matter because he was the original source. He was writing from the point of view of having been there, lived the adventure, and there wasn’t much documentation that preceded him. The others were quoting him as their source.

That is, I chased the references to the ultimate source. I corrected the errors made by others who had used the same source, and came away unimpressed with the information. It reads more like fiction than fact and there really is nothing to back up the story. And now that the first season is over, we have seen a large number of problems with this treasure hunting quest.

So, now you’re wondering how all this relates to Ufology. It is about getting to the original source. In the past, the only way to do it was go to the location or find a library that had the proper resources in its collections. You had to read the microfilms and search endlessly for the articles. That is what I had done with the Cedar Rapids story. I could search the microfilm of the Cedar Rapids Gazette and I found the original article about the railroad man and his UFOs. Took about an hour. Had I lived elsewhere, I might not have found it… until I could make an Internet search.

Here’s another example. As I point out in another post, Don Keyhoe, in writing about the 1948 Mantell case, got some bad information and therefore some of his conclusions wrong. He didn’t have access to the documents available to us online today. He assumed that the timing of the events fit into a specific sequence. He assumed that the times given in various reports was when the object was seen over that specific town. What this means that the sighting of the object from Madisonville, Kentucky, wasn’t of an object overhead as Keyhoe believed, but of one to the northwest. The claim that the object was over the Godman Army Airfield tower as Keyhoe believed, is not true. The documents in the Blue Book files proved that the men in the tower saw the UFO somewhere to the southwest at the very limits of human ability to see it. Given those two facts, Keyhoe’s estimate of the speed was way off. That’s not Keyhoe’s fault. He was relying on information that had been reported to him orally rather than seeing what the documents said. He couldn’t have reviewed those documents easily until 1976.

Those who cite Keyhoe’s estimate of the speed have not followed up on the information which was published in the early 1950s. Had they done so, they would have realized that his claim the object was moving at 180 miles an hour was badly flawed. Information available today gives us a much clearer picture. This isn’t to fault Keyhoe because he was relying on the information he had, but to fault those who haven’t bothered to update the information when they began their research.

What all this means is that in the world today, we can look much deeper into the past. We have access to nearly all human knowledge through the Internet. We can study newspaper files in cities hundreds or thousands of miles away (though some services require a subscription). The files of Project Blue Book are on line for all to review… and there are other sources of information about Blue Book that we have today that Keyhoe and others in the 1950s and 1960s didn’t have.

There is then, no real excuse for continuing to report information that is out of date or inaccurate. We can clear up these things by taking our research to the next level, which has always been the real point of chasing footnotes. This isn’t about “gotcha” but about cleaning up the information so that we can come to the proper conclusion. It isn’t about making someone look bad, but about searching for the answers to the mystery, whatever that mystery might be.

While I find chasing footnotes to be fun, I guess there are those who can’t be bothered with following the trail. They already know the truth so there is no need to search any further for it. Why clutter up a good UFO report with a lot of facts that provide us with an identification? Sometimes, however, we do learn something important about a case, which is why I do what I do. I just wish that there wasn’t a constant fight inside Ufology, protecting the sacred cows, when the facts take us somewhere else. 

I can cite examples here. Tales that are told and retold by those who are enthusiastic about their favorite cases. They ignore facts that don’t fit into their view of the world. They know the “truth,” and the facts be damned.

The airship crash in Aurora, Texas, in 1897 proves the point. The evidence and documentation shows that the story was invented by a stringer for a Dallas newspaper. Other documentation, in the form of histories of Aurora or Wise County where Aurora is located, that were published within a couple of years of the alleged crash mention nothing about it. Had such an event taken place, even if it didn’t involve a craft from another world, these histories would have contained some information about it. There is none. But we still have to listen to tales of the Aurora, Texas, UFO crash and put up with television documentaries in which they are digging “for the truth.” Of course, when they’re done, they have not advanced our knowledge. They have just added another level of nonsense to the tale.

Monday, June 26, 2017

X-Zone Broadcast Network - Dr. Irena Scott

Dr. Irena Scott
This week I spoke with Dr. Irena McCammon Scott who had published the book, UFO’s Today: 70 Years of Lies, Misinformation and Government Coverup. I had hoped that we would be able to talk about what was new in the book and when I asked, she pointed to a tale of Cordell Hull who had talked about alien bodies stored under the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. The problem is that the tale is not new and was reported in the International UFO Reporter in the winter 2001 – 2002 issue. There doesn’t seem to be much in the way of corroboration for the story. You can listen to the interview here:


(And, as always, you can find it on YouTube by searching A Different Perspective with Kevin Randle. Just add Dr. Scott’s name.)

We did speak at length about the Kenneth Arnold sighting, and I wanted to know more about Maury Island where a damaged UFO had touched down, leaving some debris behind. Although we talked about the story being a hoax, Dr. Scott fell back on the position that it was a hoax, but there was a Men in Black component in it. She didn’t know that one of the witnesses, Fred Crisman, had been in contact with Ray Palmer, the science fiction editor year or two earlier and who had leaped onto the flying saucer bandwagon the first chance he got. The Men in Black were probably Crisman and his partner Harold Dahl, who seemed to be leaking everything to the newspaper and frightening poor old Ken Arnold. Arnold believed his hotel room had been bugged because of the articles in the newspaper. I don’t think we ever got through that, but I gave it a try.

We did speak briefly about the nonsensical story of Charles H. Forgus, the Texas deputy sheriff who claimed to have seen the crash site and the bodies of the alien creatures found near Roswell. I reported on this a while back and you can read the story here:


Next week’s guest: Jan Harzan

Topic: MUFON and the Inner Circle

Thursday, August 25, 2016

The Shaver Fiction = Carrion’s Latest Proof?

(Blogger's Note: Brad Sparks did what I had planned to do which was provide some information suggesting that Carrion's theory was not built on a solid foundation. He has been on this psy-op explanation for the 1947 UFO wave for a long time. This new aspect, published recently has some flaws, as Brad points out. Brad's analysis follows.)

James Carrion's latest blog posting claims he now finally has "proof," "hard evidence," that US deception operations fabricated the flying saucer flap of 1947 and launched the whole modern UFO era in order to perpetrate a strategic deception on the USSR.  We will leave aside for now the basic questions of how major sightings at Muroc Field (future Edwards AFB) Flight Test Center and by White Sands rocket scientists can be explained by such a vast deception operation. 


His "proof" is what is now his central figure in the entire plot, a "Col." Carl Goldbranson, and an FBI memo of July 21, 1947, released decades ago.  But Carrion has so far failed to prove that Goldbranson did anything more than ask the FBI to investigate a notorious character who supposedly knew the origin of flying saucers and whose location and timing supposedly coincided with certain incidents in early July 1947.  That's what's in the FBI memo.  

And it's late in the game, long after the 1947 saucer flap ended on about July 10, with Goldbranson's response very slow and lackadaisical for something supposed to be part of some hush-hush strategic deception operation.  Shouldn't Goldbranson have been doing "this" (whatever "hands dirty" stuff it's supposed to be) before the flap, before, say Kenneth Arnold? 

Carrion apparently missed the fact that it was the infamous Richard Shaver whose name got through the document censors in one place of the FBI memo.  Yes, the Richard Shaver of the lunatic Shaver Mysteries, full of "deros" or "deranged robots" -- the so-called robots who were not actually even robots (how deranged is that?!?) -- and Lemuria tales. 

Carrion has failed even to prove that Goldbranson was continuing his wartime deception duties 2 years after the war, in peacetime, in the face of his FBI memo placing Goldbranson in the wrong agency (Army Intelligence), not on the deception staff (Joint Chiefs). 

But Goldbranson did not even ask the FBI to perpetrate any deception!  How is asking the FBI to investigate someone amount to carrying out a deception??  Does any of this deceive the Soviet intelligence agencies?  And into believing what?  That a marginal character like Richard Shaver of the Shaver Mystery stories and the "truth" about underground worlds and Lemuria, was a credible bearer of intelligence about flying saucers being US secret weapons??  The Kremlin halls would have been shaking with laughter at such "capitalist" insanity. 


Carrion charges that Goldbranson was "getting his hands dirty in the UFO controversy of 1947" and "had no reason to be involved unless he was actively promoting a deception plan."  Again, how is asking the FBI to investigate a crackpot amount to "actively promoting a deception plan" against the USSR??  How is asking for investigation a getting of one's "hands dirty"?  Seems like a fair-minded gathering of information, that's all.  

At best, if Goldbranson was indeed working in some deception activity, then this seems to be a cover-one's-bases effort to make sure Shaver wasn't a Soviet deception against us through Shaver's promotion of cuckoo saucer-like tales -- not a strategic deception but mere harassing disinformation to keep our counterintelligence agencies busy chasing after windmills.  

Carrion evidently has not figured out that Shaver's name and his location at "Lily Lake" are apparently redacted from the FBI memo of July 21, 1947, cited by Carrion as his bombshell "proof" that UFO's in 1947 were a US strategic deception against the USSR.  The "Shaver" name appears in one place Carrion seems to have overlooked, which the FBI reviewers let slip through the censorship.  If Carrion does know it was Shaver, it is odd that he would withhold discussion of that vital and discrediting point.  

But the claim (by anyone), regardless whether Carrion knew it was Shaver (that only makes it worse), of having answers to the saucer mystery, made in a mysterious anonymous telegram to the AAF (from Shaver's cohort Ray Palmer??), certainly sounds like crank material. 

In another place in the redacted FBI memo, the same paragraph naming Shaver (by accidental slipup of the censors), it states that the two saucer (UFO) sightings on July 7, 1947, occurred "in the proximity of [Lily Lake]" (I supplied the 9-space redacted text here).

So that, plus the unsigned telegram to the AAF on July 5 naming [Shaver] at [Lily Lake, McHenry, Illinois] as someone who knew the origin of flying saucers was sufficient cause for Col. Carl Goldbranson to ask the FBI to "conduct some investigation of Shaver" (reviewer slipped and left Shaver's name in here).  (My thanks to Isaac Koi for supplying the info about Shaver's residence in 1947 at Lily Lake, McHenry, Illinois, and Mary Castner at CUFOS for background info on the area.) 

But Col. Goldbranson is described by the FBI as with ARMY -- "Intelligence Division of the War Department" -- NOT the AAF, and NOT the Joint Security Control of the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff), in charge of deception planning and possibly operations.  

Did the FBI get this wrong?  Did the FBI Liaison Agent S. Wesley Reynolds who knew all the top intelligence generals and officers in the military, CIG and State Dept just not know who Col. Goldbranson was? Did Goldbranson lie to the FBI about who he worked for?  Maybe, but Carrion needs to prove it. 

Right now, Carrion has not even proved that his crucial proof, Goldbranson, even worked on deception operations in 1947.  Maybe he did, but no such proof is given, it's just hinted at, and insinuated, Goldbranson "would" have been perfect to "fill that billet."  But did he?  

Carrion makes a crucial mistake in misreading Goldbranson's rank as of mid-1947 (his source seems to say G was a Lt. Col. and not full Colonel until December 1948).  This means Carrion has the wrong guy on the wrong staff of Joint Security Control even by his own argument.  


FOOTNOTE:  Carrion makes much out of a May 1947 charter for the postwar continuation of the Joint Security Control (JSC) group of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  First off, only the Special Section of the JSC conducts cover and deception planning and coordination according to the charter.  

The JSC charter states that only 2 AAF officers served on the entire staff of 10, and these were an AAF Colonel and a Lt Colonel.  The AAF Colonel served on the Executive Section (admin) but did double-duty on the understaffed deception-op Special Section.  But Goldbranson was a Lt Colonel and evidently not this guy, not this Colonel.  The AAF Lt Colonel served on the Security Section doing security policies and declassifications of documents for historical purposes (almost FOIA-like!).  If Goldbranson was there then he would have been this guy, the Lt Colonel, doing security work not deception ops.  If I am wrong about this Carrion needs to prove it with specific documentation proving that Goldbranson really was on the deception Special Section and that he was even on the JSC at all in July 1947.  


Carrion has some interesting and provocative ideas but unfortunately does not prove his case, in fact does not even make a prima facie (on its face) showing, one that appears to hold together at first glance.  

The FBI memo is a killer by putting Goldbranson in a completely different, wrong agency, right on the face of it, and he didn't catch that or did but doesn't try to explain that (no doubt part of the whole "deception" coverup, of course he might say).  He needs direct evidence, not speculative inference, and needs to make a tighter, more logical case.  I am willing to consider it and give it a fair hearing. 

Brad Sparks