Sunday, March 10, 2019

X-Zone Broadcast Network - Fallout from February 27, 2019

Over the last several days some of my colleagues have suggested that I was overly harsh in my interview with Christopher Montgomery. They seemed to think that my challenging of his statements and pressing him on his lack of response to some of my questions was too mean. I should have toned down the rhetoric. I say, “Crapola.”

The interview was inspired after I learned that he had told Rob McConnell on his X-Zone radio show that, “…he’s [Randle] written books about UFOs and yet you can find red herrings in his book too. For example, he believes that the aliens recovered at Roswell were crash test dummies, and crash test dummies didn’t come along in the 50s.”

I asked for a source on this and he responded, “No comment.”

But here’s the deal. I never said anything like that to anyone. In fact, had I said something like that, I would have said “anthropomorphic dummies,” which was what the Air Force had claimed. But the real point is that I have never suggested that bodies recovered near Roswell were either crash test dummies or anthropomorphic dummies.

I thought that my categorically denying any such statement would give him pause, and maybe think that his sources were in error, whoever they might be. But, no, he provided no source for the statement but wouldn’t retract or amend it.

In his book, Montgomery wrote, “Randle devoted an entire chapter in his book The Plains of San Augustin, New Mexico to debunk Anderson.”

Of course, while I never wrote a book with that title and I would have spelled San Agustin correctly, I do believe I know where this originated. Back when the Gerald Anderson nonsense surfaced, there was a bit of a controversy over his reliability. CUFOS and FUFOR arranged a conference in Chicago in February 1992 to discuss all aspects of this. We spent two days going over the information. The conference was attended by Stan Friedman, Don Berliner, Mark Rodeghier, Fred Whiting, Tom Carey, Don Schmitt, Michael Swords and me. Conspicuous by his absence was Gerald Anderson, who was invited, expenses paid, but he failed to make it for some rather lame reason.
Participants in the Plains of San Agustin Conference. Left to right, Kevin Randle, Don Schmitt, Tom Carey
Mark Rodeghier, Mike Swords, Fred Whiting. Standing, Don Berliner and Stan Friedman.

Each side was to prepare a written statement outlining their perspectives, limited to 25 pages. Friedman and Berliner wrote theirs and Carey, Schmitt and I provided ours. Our commentary suggested that there were great holes in the Anderson story, and we learned later that Anderson had a habit of embellishing his accomplishments and that he had identified his high school anthropology teacher as the leader of the archaeologists who had stumbled onto the alien ship. This was called, The Plains of San Agustin Controversy, July 1947, edited by George Eberhart, and published jointly by CUFOS and FUFOR. For those who wish to read all this for themselves, see:

So, his comment was wrong, didn’t acknowledge the context in which that chapter was written or by whom, failed to note our 184 footnotes that provided our sources, and that subsequent events had suggested that Anderson’s tale was not credible. Even Don Berliner, who had been arguing that Anderson should be believed realized his mistake. Both he and Friedman published a statement in the January 1993 MUFON UFO Journal, issue No. 297, explaining they had lost faith in Anderson as a source. Friedman, oddly, later repudiated that statement. The note signed by both Friedman and Berliner, said:

…Don Berliner and Stanton Friedman, authors of Crash at Corona (Paragon House, New York, 1992), no longer have confidence in the testimony of Gerald Anderson, who claims to have stumbled upon a crash site with members of his family. Anderson admitted falsifying a document, and so his testimony about finding wreckage of a crashed flying saucer near the Plains of San Augustin [sic] in western New Mexico and then being escorted out by the U.S. military, can no longer be seen as sufficiently reliable.
The authors regret the need to take this step, but feel it is absolutely necessary if they are to stand behind their book and subsequent research into what continues to be the most important story of the millennium. This does not mean they feel there was no crash at the Plains of San Augustin; there is considerable impressive testimony to such an event. Nor does it mean that everything reported by Gerald Anderson is without value.
Dennis Stacy, editor of the Journal at the time added his own note. “Although it strongly suggests it!”

For those interested in how some of this finally played out, though it has little real relevance to the discussion of Montgomery’s book, John Carpenter wrote an article about this in the March 1993 issue of The MUFON UFO Journal entitled “Gerald Anderson: Disturbing Revelations.”

Although this too is of no real relevance here, Anderson also claimed to have been a member of the elite Navy SEALs and provided some documents to prove it. However, the SEALs, who do not like having men claim to have been a SEAL but who were not, put his name on their Hall of Shame list. These are men who claim to have been SEALs but were not.

Continuing, after a fashion, with this, Montgomery wrote, “Stan Friedman took up his [Anderson] cause and published details about the site of the actual wreckage recovered at the arroyo on the Plains of San Augustin [sic], near Corona, New Mexico. Randle never mentioned the actual location of the wreckage, which I believe he had knowledge of.”

While it is true that Friedman supported and still supports the Anderson tale, the crash site Anderson identified was on the far side of the Plains of San Agustin, not in some arroyo near Corona. I’m not sure what it means that I had knowledge of the actual location that I never mentioned. The only site that isn’t in dispute is the debris field located by Mack Brazel. Other sites have been suggested, where the craft and bodies were found, but there is no solid information confirming any of them.

He wrote, in another attack on my integrity, “I believe Randle is probably a shill for the Air Force in a campaign to debunk UFOs.”

On my radio show, he did suggest that I was an unwitting participant in it but made that claim again. I wasn’t acting on orders, but my actions suggested I was an unwitting dupe. I wondered if researching a sighting and following the evidence to a conclusion was acting as a shill. I mentioned, specifically, the Chiles-Whitted sighting of July1948. I’ve discussed that on this blog which you can read here (if you wish to understand this):

The point is that the evidence, as we now understand it, suggests a mundane explanation for their sighting. I wondered if, as we applied better information and research to a case, and found a logical solution, we shouldn’t publish that because of what the information said. Aren’t we obligated to share all information, no matter where that information might take us? Isn’t that point of investigation? To learn the truth. And if I publish that truth, how does that make me a shill, unwitting or otherwise, for the Air Force?

I had other, difficult questions for him about things I had found in his book. I suggested that Philip Corso might not have been the most honest of sources. We can go through his various tales at length, but it was clear that Montgomery had no real insight into Corso’s background or stories. He just accepted all that Corso said as if it was true. You can read about Corso here:

Finally, I will note that I invited him back to the show, to finish up where we left off when he disconnected. He thought it a good idea, but wanted to read a prepared statement and wanted a list of the topics we would discuss. Given it was my show, I said I wouldn’t allow the statement, realizing that if he was clever, he could have made the points without having to read them. He could just inject them into the conversation.

At his request, I also sent a long list of items I thought we could discuss. But I also mentioned that the first time he said, “No comment,” the connection would be severed. I would ask the questions and if he didn’t want to answer, then he would have to find someway to say that other than, “No comment.” I thought it only fair that he provide the source for some of the allegations he had slung at me.

But after writing that he thought it was a good idea, he never answered any of my follow up emails. I don’t know why, if he was confident in his information and believed his book was an accurate representation of the UFO field, he decided to no longer communicate with me. I was willing to engage in the conversation but he wasn’t. He had bailed on the first… though he said his connection was disrupted, the information in the studio was it was a disconnection rather than a service interruption. In other words, he hung up.

So, if you still believe I was too harsh, this might provide some insight to that. I’m not sure why I’m subjected to these attacks and misrepresentations of my position or why I find myself having to explain that my investigations were not influenced by the Air Force. I have tried to provide the best information available, have corrected errors that I have made in the past, and continue to research carefully. If that makes me a shill for the Air Force, then I suggest it makes many others shills for the Air Force as well. Careful research should not be attacked because you don’t like the outcome. It should be embraced as we all search for answers.


cda said...

One reason for this guy's antagonism towards you is that in your early Roswell books you heavily promoted ETH and accused the USAF of a cover-up, whereas in your later ones, especially the latest one, you more or less discounted ETH. Perhaps not entirely but substantially.

Mr Montgomery is obviously infatuated with both Roswell and MJ-12, and does not approve of authors & investigators who switch sides. As to you being an AF 'shill' I recall when crop-circles were the rage in the UK that one pro-ET circle promoter appeared on TV to claim that two men who had made a lot of the circles (and who were present in the studio) were stooges of the government. He had lost his case and his cause, so all he had left was to accuse his adversaries of being 'put up to it' by the authorities.

So it is clear to me that your antagonist has irretrievably lost his case and his cause.

[And no, I am NOT a stooge of either the US or the UK government, Mr Montgomery]

John Steiger said...

Dr. Randle (Kevin): I find it sad you are subject to criticism for merely defending yourself against Mr. Montgomery's unsubstantiated allegations against your investigation findings. It should not have to be.

That said, I feel compelled to clarify one statement of yours in this posting: "The only site that isn’t in dispute is the debris field located by Mack Brazel. Other sites have been suggested, where the craft and bodies were found, but there is no solid information confirming any of them."

Re: the other sites, while there may not be a pinpoint location identified in Chaves County, the evidence points to a second crash location in Chaves County from an early July 1947 time frame.

Louis Nicholson said...

I just got around to listening to the broadcast. I don't understand how anyone with common sense can criticize you for challenging what Montgomery had published against you in his book. I think he had a lot of gall to complain about you questioning the source of his defamatory statements. His constant "no comment" assertions were nothing less than pure lack of intelligence, lack of any real sources and lack of courage. He complained about you "giving [him] a hard time." What about him attacking your reputation and credibility in his book? You certainly had the right to defend yourself. It was amazing that he appeared to be deeply offended that you were "giving [him] a hard time." You legitimately said you were. I'm convince he hung up during the break.

One thing very surprising was how little Montgomery knew what was in his own book. You had to remind him a number of times that his book contained certain information. Did he really write it?

Now one thing YOU said which sort of took me my surprise was when you described yourself as "a skeptic." Does that mean you now have a bias against the possibility of ET visiting earth? In recent years you seem to have moved from being a true believer of ET being involved in Roswell and other famous sightings, but I thought you were now neutral on the subject rather than being a believer or skeptic. Maybe I misunderstood what you said.

KRandle said...

Louis -

I use skeptic in the purest sense of the word. It means I approach the topic, the research, the investigation, from a point of no preconceived concepts. It there is no terrestrial solution, then that is the way it is. I don't believe that every sighting has a terrestrial solution, but I also know that we don't have the concrete, impossible to refute evidence that there is alien visitation. I am neither a debunker nor a true believer.

I will say that the evidence in the Roswell case is not as strong as I once believed but I have found no terrestrial explanation that covers all the facts. I think that a much stronger case is the Levelland sightings in 1957, but again, we don't have the absolute proof.

So, there is nothing wrong with being a skeptic as long as you apply the skepticism to all investigation. A proper skeptic will question all sides... if one says a sighting proves alien visitation, a skeptic will look at the evidence with an open mind. If one provides an explanation for a sighting, a skeptic will look at the evidence with an open mind.

Please do not confuse skepticism with being a debunker. I think that might be where you misunderstood what I said.

Louis Nicholson said...

Okay. That's what I suspected. You are neutral, neither a believer nor a debunker until the evidence clearly shows an explanation, ET or otherwise. That's the way I am myself.

Norihiro Kamata said...

Dear Mr. Kevin Randle.

My name is Norihiro Kamata. I am a Japanese skeptic investigating The Roswell Incident.
I would like to ask you about the Roswell incident. Because you're one of the world's leading Roswell Case researchers.

Currently, three people are believed to have gone to the crash site: Jessie A. Marcel, Sheridan Cavitt, and Lewis Rickett.
However, Jessie A. Marcel and "detail from his department (Roswell Daily Record July 8, 1947)" or "man in plain clothes (Roswell Daily Record July 9, 1947)" are the only people who can be identified as having gone to the crash site on the basis of media reports at that time.
Is there any solid evidence that the "man in plain clothes" or "detail from his department" was Cavitt?

According to my research, The above three people are said to have gone to the crash site in following two evidence.

1. Testified that Marcel went to the crash site with Cavitt(after 1978 interview)
2. Testified that Cavitt went to the crash site with Rickett(after 1978 interview)

I think these testimonies are weak as the evidence.
Is there any other evidence that support Cavitt and Rickett went to the crash site?

For example, Cavitt was the only "man in plain clothes" at RAAF at that time who could be with Marcel.
If there is such evidence, please let me know.

I would really appreciate your kind support.
Thank you very much for reading my message.

Norihiro Kamata

KRandle said...

Good Afternoon -

While this is wildly off topic, I am always happy to support the international effort to understand UFOs in general and Roswell in particular. If you have additional questions, please email me at Thanks.

Three people went to the debris field on July 7. These were Mack Brazel (of course) Jesse Marcel, Sr. (as the Air Intelligence Officer) and Sheridan Cavitt (the Officer in Charge of the CounterIntelligence team in Roswell).

Cavitt seems to have confirmed that he was on the field when he spoke to Colonel Richard Weaver as part of the 1990s Roswell investigation. About four weeks later he lied to Don Schmitt and me when he said that he hadn't been out there.

I think that covers question one.

According to Rickett, Cavitt took him to a different site, described as being about 40 minutes from the base (which is much closer than Brazel's debris field). According to Rickett, Major Edwin Easley was there as well as other officers and soldiers from the air field (working to clean up the mess).

Cavitt, as a member of the CIC, dressed in civilian clothes. Given their mission, all members of the CIC wore civilian clothes. Their true ranks were classified because of their mission. As Cavitt told me, "You can't have a sergeant investigating a colonel." What he meant was that the colonel couldn't know the rank of the investigator because some pressure could be brought to bear. Although the CIC had the authority to investigate, the military structure could make the investigation difficult. At Roswell, apparently only a few knew Cavitt's rank, one of those was Marcel, and another would have been Blanchard.

I think that covers it.