Saturday, April 17, 2021

The Latest NAVY UAP Video

One frame from the latest Navy video of a UAP.

As I have mentioned, John Greenewald and I had discussed the Navy release of videos that seemed to show a triangular-shaped object near their ships. In one case, it was said that the object was a mere 700 feet over the USS Russell. The Navy verified that the videos were authentic, meaning only that they were videos taken by Navy personnel and had come from Navy sources. It didn’t mean that the Navy was saying that the videos showed alien spacecraft, though, at the moment, there is no terrestrial solution for the sightings. You can see the video here:

During our off-line discussions, John suggested that this might be Condon 2.0. Here he was referring to the 1969 study of UFOs made at the University of Colorado and chaired by Dr. Edward Condon. Although it was wrapped in the trappings of science, it was clear, from both documents released years later and comments by Condon at the time, that this was not a serious scientific study. The conclusions were drawn before the research began, and those conclusions were the ones reached at the end. Illustrative of this point was a letter written by Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert Hippler to Dr. Robert Low, of the Condon committee. I have written about all that at this blog and you can read these postings here:

What all this means is that the real purpose of the Condon Committee was to end the Air Force investigation into UFOs and convince the public, and science, that there was nothing to the sightings. All could be explained in the terrestrial.

Condon was actually the second attempt at this. The first took place in 1953 in a panel chaired by Dr. H. P. Robertson. Their conclusion was that there was nothing to UFOs other than a great deal of misinformation, misidentification and a misunderstanding of science. The panel suggested that sightings be debunked and when sightings that had once seemed mysterious were explained, the public fascination with UFOs would disappear.

They also saw a national security aspect. The military communication channels might be flooded with UFO reports at a time of national emergency. The panel wanted to alert the government to this possibility. You can read about the Robertson Panel in many sources including The UFO Encyclopedia by Jerome Clark, UFOs and Government by Dr. Michael Swords and Robert Powell (and many others) and several of my books, including The Conspiracy of Silence.

So, how does that get us to the latest Navy release?

John was suggesting that we have been presented with some intriguing information that seems inexplicable. He thought that there might be some classified drone project that was responsible for the sightings. He thought the plan might be to allow these seeming unidentified objects gain some national exposure and then they would be revealed as a drone project. People would hear these explanations and believe, as they had in the past, that once again, the UFOs, or in this case, the UAPs, had been identified. Nothing to see here.

And while that is an interesting theory, there might be another reason for this. A fellow calling himself JoeWhip provided another solution for the Navy sightings. He wrote, “This seems like the explanation for the triangle UAP. Color me totally unimpressed with these leaks. None show anything interesting, other than the tic tacs.” He then provided a link to a YouTube video:

Before you go look at that, let me add a little history here. Back in the 20th century, when video tape and video cameras were all the rage, I was often shown or given copies of UFO sightings that had been taped. In one case the object hovered in the distance for a long time until it slowly faded away. It was described as the “Bat Signal,” meaning that it had a couple of semicircles as the top and one at the bottom that vaguely resembled the Bat Signal. But this was the result of attempting to video tape a point of light in the distance. The camera, unable to resolve the image compensated so that it looked like a circular object with those markings on it. The point is that this was a camera artifact created when someone attempted to tape Venus early in the morning. Venus, of course, faded away as the sun rose and overpowered Venus as a light source.

Take a look at the video JoeWhip linked, and then look at the Navy videos. It seems that here is a good explanation for the videos that we have. I find it hard to believe that someone in the Navy didn’t know exactly what the videos showed. The similarity is difficult to reject.

I will note that this doesn’t explain all the sightings by the Naval personnel, and it doesn’t explain why there are reports of the object following one of the ships for 90 minutes, or how they determined that the UAP was 700 feet over the ship. It does seem to suggest that the video released by the Navy is an artifact created by the night optics in use and the video equipment in play.

This is why the John suggested we are at Condon 2.0. We have a mystery. It has received play in the mainstream media, and then, suddenly, we be given an explanation. Once again, UFOs, or in his case, a UAP, is explained in the mundane. This doesn’t negate all the great UFO information that has been collected but it does seem to explain this latest video. People tend to remember the explanation rather than the mystery and then reject all the other relevant information.

No, I’m not 100 percent convinced that these latest videos are explained, but I have to say, it does look that way. What we need now is more information about the visual sightings by those who weren’t using night vision equipment, and if the objects were tracked by radar. We need more information before we can mark explained to the whole body of sightings, but all that is lost in the videos the Navy released.


Friday, April 16, 2021

Coast to Coast - Pentagon Video and Other Sightings


On Wednesday, John Greenewald and I were talking about some official information, photographs and video that had just leaked. John mentioned that some of that wasn’t all that interesting but he was intrigued by the video which shows pyramid-shaped objects near the USS Russell in July 2019. At one point the objects about 700 feet above the ship.

In one video, the UFO is reported to have shadowed a destroyer for 90 minutes, maneuvering near it. That was one of three incidents when UFOs were seen near various Navy ships.

John Greenewald

John wanted more information about this and communicated with his contacts at the Pentagon and in Washington for an official comment. He didn’t expect much other than the normal, noncommittal response. Instead, the Navy confirmed to him, as they did to other news sources, that the videos were authentic. This video is alleged to be part of the UAP Task Force which is supposed to report to Congress in June.

There has been discussion about this required report. Some in the UFO community have thought that it would take us closer to Disclosure. However, there seems to be avenues for suppressing parts of the report under the umbrella of national security. This means, quite simply, that all the report and its evidence, might not be reveaedl publicly as wanted by those outside the government. There has even been talk that there could be a delay in the completion of the report.

Although the objects in the video are unidentified, that only means that they’re unidentified. More research is needed but what is important here is that the Navy authenticated the video and said that it was unclassified. In fact, John suggested that some sort of drone program might be causing these sightings and this is just another step in the run up to that sort of revelation. You can listen to John and me discuss this here (that discussion begins at 45:30):

From the discussion of the UAP Task Force, I wanted to talk about some of the latest sightings that didn’t leak from the government. I will note that when looking at these reports, I want some evidence they are valid. Length of sighting is one. None of the following reports are shorter than a minute which gives the witness a good chance to identify the object. I also look at for multiple witnesses and if they are independent of one another, so much the better. In other words, there are ways to determine if the sighting is more than just an unidentified apparition.

Here are a couple of good examples of this, courtesy to the National UFO Reporting Center. The witness in Gouverneur, New York, said that he and his partner were in their living room when they heard a strange noise on January 21 of this year. He went to the window and saw the UFO with a red steady light, a blinking green light and a blinking yellowish light that seemed to form a triangle. The witness reported that within an hour, the witness heard the same noise again. He saw, within two hundred yards, a similar object with the same lights blinking in the same pattern.

Just over an hour later, in the same New York location another witness reported nearly the same thing was observed. The witness said he was working on a puzzle with his girlfriend when they heard an odd sound. They both got up to look out the window and across the street, above the neighbor’s house, they saw an odd red light and both blinking yellow and green lights in a triangular shape. The movements of the object were not like those of an airplane or helicopter and he ruled out a drone because of the size.

Like the first report, the witness said that about an hour later, or about 3 a.m. they heard the sound again. This time they ran outside with a camera, but it could not pick up the light. Like the first witnesses, he said it was a very clear night with plenty of stars visible and a very low level of ambient light. He said that the sound was terrifying.  

As I said, all these sightings lasted for a minute or more. There were two witnesses at each location, and all the sightings were of a triangular shape with the same-colored lights. The sightings happened in a short time frame and were relatively close to one another. Given all that, these are interesting sightings that deserved additional investigation.

From the Fran Ridge and the MADAR network comes another New York report, this one from Utica on January 29 about eight days after the first reports. The witness was driving north when he saw bright lights to the left, in a field. At first, he thought it was the lights of a truck but then saw a large craft bank over the treetops and then hover in front of him. He stopped his car in the middle of the highway and stared at the bright object for about thirty seconds. He said that he was frightened as the craft leveled out and without a sound flew about twenty feet overhead. As it flew over, he saw that the craft was cigar shaped and that it had tiny wings that were swept back. He then saw another car coming and he started up again, returning home.

All of this, from the Navy’s release of videos to the witnesses watching the objects near them, provide additional evidence. We need to evaluate that evidence so that we might learn what is going on, though, given the nature of the cases, that seems quite clear.

X-Zone Broadcast Network - John Greenewald vs Tony Bragalia


This week we had a special edition of A Different Perspective with guests Tony Bragalia and John Greenewald. The idea to discuss Tony’s claim that the Pentagon had confirmed they were in possession of alien debris and that they were conducting reverse engineering on it. We began with Tony describing what he had discovered through his FOIA campaign directed at various government agencies. You can listen to the first part of the program here.

John did present his side of this conversation as well, explaining, again how the FOIA worked and that sometimes the material sent was not necessarily what had been requested. He was of the opinion that what was addressed in the email didn’t necessarily relate to the specific request. The FOIA officers attempted to fulfill the request in compliance with the law.

John Greenewald
Tony mentioned a connection between his investigation into Nitinol metal and Titanium. He mentioned that General Exon had talked about the ultra-high purity of Titanium. I said that I didn’t remember General Exon saying anything about Titanium in my interviews with him and I asked for the citation. Tony didn’t have it at his figure tips but promised to send it to me later.

You can listen to the exchange on the first part of the program. It begins at 24:32 minutes in the show. Tony said, “…he told you, on tape, that he understood that some of the [Roswell] wreckage being tested was comprised in part by special processed Titanium, so we begin to examine specially processed Titanium in these documents…”

I said, “I do not remember Exon saying anything about the Titanium.”

Tony said, “It’s in your book and I will cite and send it to you…It’s in your books… you certainly did talk about Titanium and Arthur Exon and his mention of specially processed Titanium.”

Tony did send a citation. The reference came from my book Roswell UFO Crash Update and Tom Carey and Don Schmitt’s Witness to Roswell. The information originated in Don’s interview with Exon in June 1990. It said:

I don’t know, at that time, if it was Titanium or some other metal… or if it was something they knew about and the processing was something different.

Tony has taken that single, rather unimportant reference to Titanium as the possible metal recovered and turned it into a positive identification of the metal from Roswell being Titanium. So, in one way, Tony was right. Exon did mention Titanium but in the long haul, it is not as important as Tony has made it out to be. It wasn’t a positive identification of Titanium, and there was no mention of any sort of processing related to the Titanium. Exon did talk about special handling of the debris but it wasn’t necessarily related to Titanium as Tony suggested.

Arthur Exon. Photo by
Tom Carey.

Lewis Rickett, who had been the NCOIC of the Counterintelligence Corps (CIC) office in Roswell, handled some of the debris and said it reminded him of Cold Rolled Steel. He also pointed out that it was very light weight and very strong. I mention this only to point out that those who actually handed the metal had different opinions of it. General Exon never handled the debris, a point that Tony has overlooked. This sort of thing will become important in the second hour of the show.

It was in the second hour that things became somewhat acrimonious. You can listen to that portion of the show here:

I brought up the problem with Tony’s analysis of the Dr. Herbert Dick interviews that dealt with the situation on the Plains of San Agustin in July 1947. You can read about that in detail in the following posting. I believed it had some relevance in the way Tony had described the situation and as the one who actually interviewed Dr. Dick, I believed that I had a better handle on it. The discussion related to Tony’s misunderstanding of what Dr. Dick had said and his, Tony’s, somewhat over the top description of what he believed had happened.

It was here, as I was attempting to explain the significance of Tony’s analysis of Dr. Dick’s statements that Tony kept interrupting me. I told him he would understand if he would just let me finish. Finally, annoyed with his constant interruptions, I told him to “Shut up.” Not exactly the most professional way to handle this, but I had sent him what I thought of as the rules for this discussion. One of them those rules was not to interrupt because I would provide an opportunity to respond later. He just hung up.

In our email exchange that followed, I provided additional information about Dr. Dick and my interview with him. Dr. Dick told me that he arrived on the Plains in July 1947. He didn’t think it was in the first week, which was the critical time. Later, Art Campbell found documents that put him on the Plains on July 1. Tony had written that Dr. Dick had categorically denied he had been there in July and Campbell’s discovery proved that he had. Of course, Dick never denied he had been there, only that he wasn’t there at the very beginning of the month.

Tony later wrote in an email that he had been right about Dr. Dick and that I knew it. I was the one who talked to Dr. Dick, I knew what he had said, and there was never any question about him being on the Plains in July 1947. The question was about when he arrived. Putting him there on July 1, was a blow to those who accepted the Plains San Agustin crash.

Don Schmitt on the Plains of San Agustin. Photo by Kevin Randle.

With Tony gone, John and I completed the show. In the last segment of the show, I mentioned that John had just written about a Pentagon release of more video. We discussed the implications there, along with what it meant to the UFO report due to Congress in July, and the possibility that some of these sightings were drones.

We also, briefly, touched on the Roswell Slides. Tony had been a vocal advocate of the validity of the slides. Once the slides were available to the public, the image on the slides was quickly identified. It is just another example of Tony’s advocacy for a position that isn’t as solid as it could be.

Next week is the second part of the show, which is available now through the embedded audio player or by using the links above.

Wednesday, April 14, 2021

Did Herbert Dick Lie about Being on the Plains of San Agustin?


A fellow identifying himself as Lemurian is often commenting here but most of those comments don’t see the light of day. That’s because they’re just nasty and often appended to the wrong posting. It’s as if he just clicks on one and then writes whatever moves him regardless of the topic. I delete them because they are nasty and inappropriate. Recently, however, he did provide a comment that wasn’t nasty, only inappropriate. He suggested that we all access a website that contained information about the Barney Barnett aspect of the Roswell case. You can access that story here:

While the story is interesting, it is also somewhat misleading, and it is filled with misinformation. Please note here that I said “Misinformation,” rather than “Disinformation.” There is a difference.

Rather than go through this one segment at a time, I’ll just make a few general comments. First, there are no other first-hand witnesses to the Barnett tale. The archaeologists have never been found and the Gerald Anderson story, sometimes used to bolster the case, is a hoax. Anderson is little more than a footnote in the overall picture. He destroyed his own credibility by lying about his Naval career and forging a number of documents. For those interested you can read about it here (You’ll need to scroll down a bit to find the relevant segment:

I spoke with Fleck Danley, who was instrumental in providing a date for the Plains of San Agustin crash that Barnett had discussed. It was clear to me, that Danley had no real idea of when the alleged discussion with Barnett took place. Danley was pushed into agreeing with the July 1947 date by Bill Moore so that there would be a tale of alien bodies for his book, The Roswell Incident. Without Barnett, they had only stories of strange metal and the Army’s efforts to recover the debris and change the narrative.

Barnett’s wife, Ruth, kept a diary for 1947. It was, apparently, the only year in which she did that. I was able to obtain the diary from Alice Knight, Barnett’s niece, so that we might copy it. There is no mention of any event on the Plains that suggest Barnett was involved in anything unusual or strange. In fact, the only date in the diary that works, meaning that Barnett was out of his office and over in the area of the Plains to see the crashed saucer is on July 2, 1947. If we follow the conventional wisdom, that is a day too early because the Roswell crash took place later.

Although the counterargument is that Barnett wouldn’t have shared this startling information with his wife so we wouldn’t read about in the diary, there are no indications of anything unusual happening at the time. Barney didn’t come home upset, didn’t suggest anything out of the ordinary. Just that he’d been out of the office that day. Later, however, we see that Barnett told many people the story of crash including friends and family. You can read about this aspect of the case in Roswell in the 21st Century. I will note here that no one has ever found a document in which any of that was discussed. You would think that someone would have written something that would provide a little corroboration in the proper time frame. Instead, all we have are memories that were decades old when they were finally discussed and Barnett had been dead for those decades.

There is one interesting point here. Although nearly everyone who discusses the story places it on the Plains of San Agustin, in reality, according to Jean Maltais, Barnett’s description was somewhat vague about the location. She only mentioned “the flats,” which could mean any number of places in New Mexico. Most ignore this minor glitch in the tale to focus on the Plains.

But let’s get to the meat of this claim. Tony Bragalia wrote about Dr. Herbert Dick, “While considering various archaeologists, researchers uncovered Harvard-trained Dr Herbert Dick. Dick was a noted archaeologist who passed away in 1992. Some years before his death however, he was located and questioned. Dick categorically denied that he had ever worked around the Plains of San Augustin region in July of 1947 (highlight added). Dick had told researchers he had not been there, telling one of them, "If I knew anything I would have told you." One of his dig party, Jeff Morris, also denied it. These denials were reported in early 1990's issues of the publication IUR – International UFO Reporter and elsewhere.”

Much of this is inaccurate. I did talk to Herbert Dick about this and rather than “categorically [denying] that he had ever worked about the Plains of San Augustin (sic),” the truth is that he wasn’t sure exactly when he arrived there in July 1947. What he denied was that he had seen any sort of a UFO crash retrieval operation on the Plains. This was not reported in the IUR as claimed.

Dick told me (not one of them) that if he knew anything about this, he’d tell me. What is important here that another member of his team denied that “it,” meaning, here, I suppose, that they had seen nothing suggesting a flying saucer crash. This was not reported in the IUR.

Although Bragalia wrote, “It turns out though that Dick had lied [highlight added] to these researchers when he was interviewed by them. In 2006 a revealing letter was uncovered by researcher Art Campbell. Campbell has been active in the UFO field for decades, including with NICAP. He is the author of "UFO Crash at San Augustin" and maintains the UFO Crash Book website. The documents that he discovered confirm that Dick had not told the truth. Dick was in fact at the Plains at the very time that he said that he was not.” As we have seen, Dick had told me he was on the Plains in July 1947, he just wasn’t sure exactly when he arrived.

Bragalia went even further, when he wrote, “A thorough search of records finds that no other group of archaeologists were working on the Plains in early July of 1947 except Herbert Dick and party – and Dick lied that [highlight added] he was even there. Lies are used [highlight added] to cover up the truth by those who wish to evade it. To have ever spoken of the event, Dick may have felt that he could have risked a security breach, his own professional advancement, future professional credibility, award of grant monies or – later in life – damage to his impressive professional legacy.”

But Dick didn’t lie. In an interview I conducted on June 23, 1991, Dick told me that he had worked in the area called Bat Cave on the southeastern edge of the Plains in 1947. He just wasn’t sure exactly when he arrived. The letters and notes found by Art Campbell, showed that he had arrived in time to have seen the crash, had it taken place on July 2, and would have been in a position to see the recovery operation in the days that followed, had there been one.

Don Schmitt at one of the alleged Plains of San Agustin crash sites. The Bat Cave
is across the Plains in the mountains seen behind Don.

I provided this information to Stan Friedman, telling him that Dick had been at the Bat Cave on July 1. Friedman’s response? He said we didn’t know how far back in the cave they were working and we didn’t know which way the cave faced. I told him that it faced to the west and that they wouldn’t be very deep because they were researching human habitation. Humans would have been very close to the mouth of the cave because to move in deeper would have put them in darkness. Besides, according to the information, the only level spot for camping was about a hundred yards from the mouth of the cave. They had a panoramic view of the whole of the Plains and the alleged crash site in the days prior to that alleged crash and of the recovery operation had there been one.

The point is that Bragalia’s speculations about Dick are not borne out in the interview I conducted with the man. According to Bragalia himself, he was using information provided by Campbell and the source mentioned, the International UFO Reporter, does not contain this information. Instead, it comes from Art Campbell’s analysis of the situation which is highly speculative. Campbell mentioned a paper found in The Magdalena Fact Book. This was a document that I created for the single meeting in Chicago to discuss the problems with the Plains of San Agustin tale. The book was created for the meeting, there were only five copies and I have one of them. I’m surprised that Campbell had seen a copy of it and can only guess that it was Friedman who showed it to him.

The real point here is that the information about Dick’s involvement, that he lied repeatedly about what he was doing and where he was, is inaccurate. Dick wasn’t confused. He had forgotten the exact date he arrived. He was quite candid in his conversation with me about where he was and what he was doing. What Dick’s statements do, corroborated by the documentation from by Campbell, is destroy the remaining threads of the Gerald Anderson claims of what he had seen on the Plains, and calls into question that Barnett saw anything there in the summer of 1947.

Dick denied the involvement because there was no involvement. I can say this with confidence because I talked to the man. I don’t have to rely on what others have said or written. I have the first-hand source, that trumps all the second and third-hand reports and all the speculation that permeates Bragalia’s article.

Bragalia’s analysis here is more of the same sort of over-the-top rhetoric we’ve seen before. He has taken some poorly researched information and created a scenario in his mind that fits into his theory. He writes in a fashion that suggests he knows what is going on, but a careful reading and an examination of all the facts, including my interview with Dick, show the flaws in his theory. He even cites a source that doesn’t exist.

One more thing for those of you of a conspiratorial mindset. According to Dick, he knew Winfred Buskirk (Anderson’s archaeologist on the Plains) in the 1940s. Since both were working on their PhDs at the time, and both were in New Mexico (well, Buskirk was working in Arizona in the summer of 1947, he lived in Albuquerque), it is not surprising. I just thought I’d mention it to stir the pot and before someone creates another whole scenario about government secrecy and lying anthropologists.

Thursday, April 08, 2021

Coast-to-Coast AM: Travis Walton and Mike Rogers

A few days ago, I stumbled across a number of blog postings about the Travis Walton abduction, suggesting that there was now a problem between Walton and Mike Rogers. The suggestion, or the interpretation of some of those remarks, suggested that Rogers was repudiating the abduction and had stopped just short of calling it a hoax.

Travis Walton.

Now, those who know me and have read my work in the UFO field know that I’m not a fan of abduction tales. I understand the logistical problems with interstellar flight and that the vast distances, not to mention the current thinking that the speed of light is the limiting factor, suggest that travel among the stars is something that would take years, if not decades and centuries. I get that our current knowledge is subject to revision as our understanding of the universe increases, but that doesn’t change the fact that interstellar flight is, basically, impossible for us under today’s laws of physics.

That doesn’t mean that a civilization that is a hundred years, two years or a thousand years more advanced than our own hasn’t figured out a way to do it. That means, to my way of thinking that alien visitation, and by extension, alien abduction is possible. I believe that many cases of alien abduction have terrestrial explanations.

There are two distinct factors are work here. One is sleep paralysis, which is a period just prior to going to sleep or just after waking when the individual cannot move. It is a frightening experience for those who have never suffered an episode of sleep paralysis. In about 80% of the cases, there is also the feeling that there is something, some entity or creature in the room as well.

There are several cases in which sleep paralysis, when fully explored offers an explanation for the abduction case. You can read about this, at length, in The Abduction Enigma.

The second problem, often related to sleep paralysis, is the use of hypnosis to gather the data. By reading the transcripts of some of the sessions, you can see where the operator, that is the hypnotist, is unconsciously leading the subject into the arena of alien abduction. Again, The Abduction Enigma covers that. You can also read more about it here:

I believe that the most likely scenarios are those of what I think of as targets of opportunity such as the Barney and Betty Hill, the Charles Hickson and Calvin Parker, the Terry Lovelace case, and, of course, the Walton abduction. I believe these are more likely alien abduction than many of the other cases. You can listen to my interviews with Calvin Parker and with Terry Lovelace here (or just scroll through the listings on the embedded audio player on the left to find those interviews):

Having read about the fallout between Travis Walton and Mike Rogers that seemed to suggest something new was coming. As I said, it seemed that Rogers was close to repudiating Walton.

I know each man having met each of them on several occasions. I reached out to Mike Rogers asking about all this. It seemed to me that he was suggesting that the fallout was a personal matter that seemed to relate to the abduction only tangentially. He wasn’t repudiating it by saying he was done with Travis Walton, only that his association with Walton was terminated. That seemed to clarify the matter.

But then he sent an email that reminded me that no one had actually seen Walton being abducted. When the men in the pick-up truck spotted the UFO near where they had been working, rogers, who was driving, stopped. They were all in a state of shock by the brightly glowing UFO that was not all that far from them. Travis, fascinated by the craft, got out of the truck and begin walking toward it. As he got near, a bright beam of light shot out, striking him. He was thrown back, landing on the ground some distance away.

The others, still in the truck and in an even more agitated state, didn’t check on their friend. They screamed at Rogers to get them out of there. Rogers turned around and sped away. I actually mentioned to Rogers once that I found that a little bit chicken… but, of course they did return. This is the reason, that in the beginning, law enforcement thought they might have murdered Walton.

We know, of course, that wasn’t true. Walton reappeared some five days later, calling friends to come and get him. According to what Rogers told me some time ago Walton only remembered about fifteen minutes of his time on the ship. Rogers worked out the details based on what he was told.

What I learned in my communications with both men, was that all this had to do with personal matters. It had nothing to do with the UFO sighting and those events. Rogers wasn’t about to claim the whole thing was a hoax. He was annoyed with Travis and it seemed that Travis was annoyed with him.

I told both that I was going to report on this and that, having my questions answered, I was going to bow out of the conversation. This really was none of my business and it was not the business of those in the UFO community. The suggestion of some sort of repudiation of the abduction and by extension, the UFO sighting was not on the table.

On Monday I learned that they have, apparently, worked out their differences. For those interested, I have more information on my blog about the sighting and even an interview with one of the other men in the truck, Steve Pierce. It should supply a complete picture and wrap up this latest episode. 

X-Zone Broadcast Network - Bill Konkolesky

This week I changed things slightly and invited Bill Konkolesky on the program to talk about his abduction experiences. About the first thing I learned was that he doesn’t like the term abduction because it implies he was a victim. Instead, he prefers the term “experiencer,” because these were, well, experiences. You can listen here (or use the embedded audio player at the left):

We did discuss some of the terrestrial explanations for alien abduction. Sleep paralysis was one of those topics, of course. Those who experience sleep paralysis

Bill Konkolesky with Budd Hopkins

often describe an event that is remarkably similar to alien abduction. I did mention that protocols to separate sleep paralysis from alien abduction had been talked about but that no such protocols have been established.

We did talk about the vast distances between stars and that the speed of light, as we understand physics today, is the limiting factor. While it is certainly possible that in the future, we might discover a way of defeating that problem, as of today, we simply can’t do it. This did lead into a discussion of ancient astronauts and ancient aliens, but that conversation didn’t reveal very much.

One of the things that interested me was some sort of corroboration. Bill gave three examples of that. He told of a childhood friend who had witnessed part of an interaction when a fog crept into the backyard where they were playing. The friend, however, didn’t see the gray alien wrapped in the fog.

In the second event, Bill and friends witnessed a display of lights but again, while that would provide corroboration for the sighting, it does nothing for the claim of abduction.

In the third event, he was on a date when they were approached by what might have been an alien. Unfortunately, he is no longer in contact with the woman and frankly, I have no desire to bother her, given her strong reaction to the event.

This led to the question of attempting to record any of these events, but he hadn’t done anything like that. I thought if the abductions were happening periodically, there might be a chance for a recording. Bill did mention that when MUFON has attempted something like that it has always failed for some reason. I find that somewhat suspicious, but that’s an argument for another time.

I asked why he thought he had been singled out and he suggested that it was a family thing. He said that others in the family had reported some strange activity. He was reluctant to supply names and I didn’t push him on the subject.

Next week will begin a two-part show with both Tony Bragalia and John Greenewald to discuss Tony’s claim that the Pentagon had admitted to possession of alien materials. If you have questions about this, put them in the comments section and I’ll try to get them asked. 

Thursday, April 01, 2021

Carl Hart, Jr., The Lubbock Lights Photographer has Died


John Steiger alerted me to this and it is something that I should have noted last year. Carl Hart, Jr., the teenager who took the iconic Lubbock Lights pictures, died on September 24, 2020, in Lubbock.

He was born in Lubbock, attended the Lubbock High School and graduated from Texas Tech University. He was a first-generation Eagle Scout and had a passion for scouting during his life.

Carl Hart in 1951.

In September, 1951, Hart, who was interested in photography, was lying in bed when he saw a group of lights flash overhead. He knew, based on the newspaper accounts, that the lights sometimes returned. When they did, he was ready, photographing two flights. He originally took five pictures but one has been lost.

His pictures have been the subject of controversy since they were published. He was interviewed by Ed Ruppelt, then the chief of the Air Force UFO investigation. And he was maligned by Donald Menzel for perpetrating a hoax.

Hart maintained that he didn’t know what he photographed. On the bad advice of friends, he was told not to copyright the pictures because it would make it seem that he had faked them. Those pictures have been published around the world.

In the mid-1990s, while I was in Lubbock on another investigation, on a lark, I looked up his telephone number. I was surprised that he was still in Lubbock and surprised when he answered the telephone. We had a nice chat about the pictures. He told me that his house was gone, replaced by a Pizza Hut. At the end of the conversation, I asked him what he had photographed. He said that he still didn’t know. I might have been the last UFO researcher to interview him.

Other than this single brush with fame, Hart lived a quiet life in Lubbock. He was 87 years old.

Wednesday, March 31, 2021

Did Mike Rogers Repudiate the Travis Walton Abduction?


There has been a bit of a controversy lately. Travis Walton and Mike Rogers are at odds with one another and some have interpreted this to mean that Rogers no longer supports the story of Walton’s abduction. I read a number of posts about it and they were confusing. It was unclear if Rogers was saying, finally, that the abduction was a hoax, or maybe something less exciting. His words were that he no longer supported Travis Walton.

Travis Walton

I know Rogers to some extent. We have communicated over the last couple of years. I did meet him once, in 1997, in Roswell. Nothing long and involved. He and Walton were finishing a presentation and the next person up was Russ Estes. I was there with Estes and we all just said, “Hello.” Walton and Rogers left before Estes took the microphone and began to speak.

I have had Rogers on my radio show and you can listen to that interview by scrolling through the listings on the embedded audio player. Just look for Mike Rogers. I believe there is a problem with one segment in the first or second hour of the interview that we failed to get fixed. You can read about it here:

Anyway, I emailed Rogers about all this. I thought I understood the situation. It seemed that Walton and Rogers had a falling out over a personal matter. It was strong enough that Rogers wasn’t going to support Walton, which I took to mean that he wasn’t going to be with him on any interviews or at any presentations. It wasn’t that Rogers was repudiating the abduction tale. He was severing his connection to Walton over this personal matter.

However, during the email exchange, Rogers sent the following, “You must realize that none of us witnesses saw Travis get abducted.  That in itself speaks volumes. The further this goes the more I wonder.” The emphasis is in the original. He added, “You can quote me on that.”

Yes, we can say that they all passed polygraph tests, or rather most of them did. But those first tests were about the Rogers’ team having murdered Walton and not about the abduction. Walton failed his first polygraph but subsequently passed two others. Walton has said that the first test was flawed because the polygrapher didn’t believe in UFOs and thought the whole thing was a hoax. The alleged test wasn’t a properly conducted test. Walton has a point here. You can, of course, read all about that in Walton’s Fire in the Sky.

Steve Pierce Photo copyright by Randle

I did talk with Steve Pierce several years ago about this, and the story that he and Philip Klass had talked about Pierce recanting. Klass would pay ten thousand dollars for that. I covered all this years ago and you can read about that here:

I will note here that none of those who were involved in the sighting and the subsequent events that night has ever said that it was a hoax. All have remained a solid front about the case. The statement by Rogers to me just hours ago is the first crack in the wall. You have to wonder about the line, “You must realize that none of us witnesses saw Travis get abducted.” Is there a deeper meaning hidden there?

When I began this minor quest, I had hoped clarify the situation but I now fear that I have muddied the water even more. I’m not sure what to make of all this?

And, I have reached out to Walton although he hasn’t answered an email from me in a couple of years. I had invited him on the radio show but his last comment was, “What’s the point?” I have not heard back from him, but then, I didn’t send the email all that long ago. If there is a reply, I’ll post it too.

Calvin Parker is Seriously Ill

 I have received word that Calvin Parker, one half of the Hickson-Parker abduction story has some serious health issues. Philip Mantle, who published Calvin’s books wrote, “My friend and colleague Calvin Parker in the USA hasn’t been well for a year or two now. After a number of medical tests his doctors have decided that he has to undergo surgery, possibly next week. I’ll not go into specifics but will say that he has a very serious medical problem the cost and the cost of constant hospital visits, tests and now an operation is simply beyond his means.

Calvin Parker
As those of you who visit here often know, I’m not a fan of alien abduction stories. I believe there are terrestrial explanations for most of them running from poor interview technique, to psychological issues to outright hoaxes. There are few cases that I find intriguing and that don’t seem to fit that pattern. These are usually single events that take place outside in what I would consider targets of opportunity. The Hickson-Parker abduction fits into that pattern. Two guys, outside, when the abduction took place.

I met Charles Hickson many years ago at a UFO convention. His story was virtually the same as always with little in the way of corroborative detail. The big plus was that the local sheriff, after the abduction, left Hickson and Parker alone in an interrogation room with a recorder running. They said nothing to one another that would suggest hoax.

It was only in recent years that Calvin told his side of the story. I interviewed him twice for the radio version of A Different Perspective. I really didn’t detect anything that would suggest hoax. I just don’t believe that he is sophisticated enough to construct an elaborate hoax. Maybe a better way to say it is that there seemed to be no motive for it and his wasn’t the sort of character that would agree to do something like that.

You can listen to the two interviews I did with him by scrolling through the interview lists on the audio player to the left. You can decide for yourself. But I will note that others have been located that saw something strange that night and have been interviewed about those experiences. They tend to corroborate the story being told by Calvin today.

For those interested in supplying some financial assistance to Calvin, there is a Go Fund Me page. You can access the page here:

Normally I wouldn’t do anything like this, but then Calvin was kind enough to appear on the radio version of the blog twice and share his tales. Too often, those of us who do these sorts of interviews seem to forget about the guests when the show ends. I just thought Calvin deserved a little help with what will probably be monstrous medical bills.

Philip said that he would keep us all apprised of the outcome of the necessary surgery and I’ll post information here. Given that, I thought it only fair to repay his kindness with a note about his health and his needs. Help if you can and if you want to

Saturday, March 27, 2021

Memories That Seem Real


I have suggested for years that memory is unreliable and I have cited a study done by Ulric Neisser after the Challenger disaster. He provided his first-year students with a short survey asking them about how they heard about the disaster, where they were and the like. Three years later, he provided those same students, now seniors, with the same six questions. He added a seventh about how accurate they thought their memories were.

He found that nearly 75% of those were wrong about some of what they remembered. Nearly a quarter of them were completely wrong. Once of the students, when confronted by that information, said that she was sorry, but it was how she remembered it.

Why bring this up here and now?

I have been posting to a blog ( my experiences as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam. At the top of the blog, I note that these are the relative true stories of my year there. I said relative true because I’m aware of the foibles of memory and how it can fool us.

One of those stories was called “The Real, True Story of My Thanksgiving Dinner.” I had said for literally decades, that I had left the dinner on a tray in the serving line as the flight crews were scrambled. I won’t go into all the details but if you wish to read that story, you can find it here:

And now for the rest of the story as the late Paul Harvey would say. I have all the letters that I wrote home more than fifty years ago. I hadn’t looked at them and hadn’t really cared to read them in all those years. But, for the blog, which, frankly, I created to help promote the Vietnam Ground Zero books I had written with Robert Charles Cornett in the 1980s, and to satisfy some of my friends and colleagues who were interested in what I had experienced, I pulled those letters out.

I will note here that, more than once, the flight crews were scrambled in the middle of a meal, often to either reinforce or extract a unit that had gotten into some kind of trouble. But, as you’ll read, it didn’t happen on Thanksgiving. One of the letters explained exactly where we were. We were not at Cu Chi but actually had been deployed to Tay Ninh for some sort of mission. We were told that the Thanksgiving meal would be provided there. Apparently, it wasn’t very good.

The Hornet Company area, circa February, 1969. Photo by Kevin Randle.

I have no memory of this. I must bow, of course, to the letter I had written a few days after that experience. I have to say that a document written at the time is surely more accurate than my fifty-year-old memories. This would be my fifty-year experiment in the reliability of memory. I offer this as a cautionary tale as we attempt to unravel mysteries that are decades old. Documentation created at the time is certainly better than memories related long after the fact.

There is one more caveat to be offered here. As I work through those letters and tell the stories that happened in Vietnam, I can verify some of the memories as correct, from the story of “Smokey” to that of Tet 1969 (I used, as an aid, an article I had written decades ago when those memories were fresher, but what I remembered now was reinforced by that article).

The point is simply this. Memory isn’t always reliable. We must search for additional corroboration but we much not reject the memory because it happens to be old.