I was working on something else this morning when I realized that the man who most recently accused me of cowardice had said, on August 2, 2007, "Yes, I certainly did and do call Kevin Randle a coward. I called him a ‘coward’ because he refuses to debate the facts of Roswell, despite repeated invitations to do so by the media. This is a fact."
His fact collapses when the evidence is examined. First, as noted elsewhere, I debated Karl Pflock about the facts of Roswell after receiving an invitation to do so. But, worse for the man who called me a coward is this fact, which he has forgotten. I debated him on Thursday, June 26, 1997 at eight in the evening on televison station KOMO in Seattle.
I remember little about this other than the cab driver couldn’t find the TV station and that one of the first things done was a smear of Jesse Marcel. Naturally, it is easier to call someone a liar than to demonstrate how the error was made that suggested he was a liar. No one wanted to hear an explanation of how Marcel’s personal and private military record was improperly leaked into a public arena. I have the date, location and time in my media diary.
But the point here is that I have accepted invitations to debate, and when I have found other responsibilities getting in the way, I have, at least set a note expressing regret...
Oh, for the record, I debated Phil Klass on a number of occasions on a variety of programs (once sitting side-by-side with him for a remote to Good Morning America. I debated Karl Pflock on the TV show SF Vortex, and debated several others at various times on the radio or on television.
So, I guess I’ll wait for the apology for this slander and a retraction of the allegation. Yeah, I’ll have a long time to wait.
Kevin, shame on you! Of course you know that *this man* means that you're ducking his invitations to debate you this time. It doesn't matter that you've already debated him. For him, the debate goes on! Er..well at least it would go on if you weren't such a coward and debate him again...because he'd make mincemeat out of you, man, this time, you betcha.
ReplyDeleteIronically, I left a comment on each of two YouTube videos he put up. They were not particularly abusive or insulting comments; I merely noted that if I were Kevin Randle I would tell him to get bent. Oh, and I think I called him fat. Needless to say, when I hit "Enter" each time I got the usual "Your comment will be published after approval." Equally needless to say, they weren't.
The funny thing is, we know about the Israelis. If *this man* were really part of some super-secret special really secret ("and we mean SECRET") service and was out blabbing about on YouTube, he'd be dead but quick. The Israelis do *not* screw around about stuff like that.
No, he's just a joke. And it is he who gives UFOlogy a bad name. At least Phil Klass had some.
For whatever it's worth, I get the feeling that what's-his-face is tiring of ragging on you. I predict he'll gradually fade out, only to surface again in a decade or so . . .
ReplyDeletewell, bless your heart, these are the times that try men's souls. I have enjoyed hearing you on AUDIOMARTINI and plan on reading yoru books. You are an enlightened and entertaining resercher and I hope to learn more from you for my own research
ReplyDeletewow... that was good... it will take forever to prove or disprove the existence of UFO's... it will take a real ET coming forward and showing all humanity........ and hopefully one does come out in full regalia.... and show up and tell us all the TRUTH...
ReplyDeleteYou heard it first here! Andy Kaufman is alive and masquerading as Kal Korff! No Really!
ReplyDeleteHe's another "Tony Clifton" persona! No, seriously!
Not.
alienview@roadrunner.com
> www.AlienView.net
>> AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
>>> U F O M a g a z i n e -- www.ufomag.com
Kevin, I'm kinda disapointed in your 'abduction' take, especialy as it assumes far too much information.
ReplyDeletePeople normaly debate if alien-abduction as a whole takes place, and that's where I suggest you plant the roots of any futher books on this subject.
When it comes to individual cases, we are forced to rely on far too many assumptions. We assume they are telling the truth, when it's possible they are lying for any number of reasons. One of the assumptions most researchers seem unaware of is the notion that abductees want to be outed and want to share their experiences. My bet is that the majority of such people don't want to come forward at all.
Consider the paradigm of a rape victim. Some victims find it empowering to share their stories with others, even going as far as becoming motivation speakers of sorts. However, the majority of victims do not want such publicity.
As to your 'homo-abductee' statements, well they are pretty much trash and even foolish. I enjoy your work in the UFO field, but I doubt your opinion on the sexual preference of abductees is anywhere near scientific in nature. I also doubt you took all considerations into account before even proclaiming such a thing.
This said, I will seek out your book and read it, and just maybe comment further.
-Jason Gammon
www.boyinthemachine.blogspot.com
James -
ReplyDeleteUntil you've read the book, your comments are out of place. This piece, written quite a while ago was in response to those who suggested that our methodology was unscientific and that our demographics were skewed. This was to explain exactuly how the information was obtained, providing the sort of information that is not required by other researchers.
Our point, in The Abduction Engima, was that there are terrestrial explanations for abduction that are satisfactory. Rather than look at the data we present, it is rejected because we don't conclude that abduction is driven by alien forces.
And you, like so many others missed the point about the over representation of homosexuals in the abduction population. The only conclusion we draw from it is that homosexuals are over represented. Since there is no outward characteristic that would subject homosexuals to abduction beyond their representation in the general population, we wondered if other such characteristics were equally over represented. Maybe one blood type over another. Maybe college education over high school. Maybe left-handedness as opposed to right. Maybe a look into these questions would provide some answers.
So you, like so many others, missed the point. I used it in the piece here because it had been a focal point by critics. They seemed to believe we were making the claim as a way of suppressing information. Instead, we found an anomalty in the statistics and thought if of sufficient interest to mention it.
As I tried to make clear, this piece was in response to criticism of The Abduction Engima. Other points are raised in the book and have not been adequated addressed by other abduction researchers.
KRandle