Thursday, July 11, 2019

X-Zone Broadcast Network - Robert Sheaffer and Unidentified

Given the interest in History’s Unidentified, with the suggested connections to UFO insiders in the government, I reached out to noted skeptic Robert Sheaffer. I, along with others such as Rich Reynolds and John Greenewald, had wondered about
Robert Sheaffer
Luis Elizondo’s credentials and military background which, to this point, have been ill defined. We all, however, had separated that problem from the Navy fighter pilots’ observations of some sort of unusual
 craft. I wanted to get the take of someone who had his feet planted firmly on the other side of the fence.

Before getting into that discussion, however, I asked a question that had been bothering me for a long time. Do skeptics ever research a case and find no terrestrial explanation? Do they ever just say, “I don’t know what it was?”
You can listen to the discussion here:

We did talk about Levelland and to be fair, I’m well-versed in that case and the question came spontaneously. Robert hadn’t been prepared for it, but did provide some interesting ideas about it… and I found our discussion about ball lightning, as a possible solution, to be, well, funny. The Air Force used a phenomenon that was not well understood, and that might not even exist as theoretically postulated to explain another phenomenon that was theoretically postulated and might not exist as described.

Given that I was in Roswell on Friday when the last episode aired, I had not seen it. I did, however, read several reviews of it. I was surprised that both Rich Reynolds and Stephen Bassett found the episode wanting. Robert, in our discussion, suggested that the Italian officer featured might not have been as credible as he was portrayed by those on the program.

We did, eventually, get about to the AATIP, the To the Stars Academy and the Navy sightings that were the basis of Unidentified. Robert’s suggestion that the video of the objects that had been played in every episode were recorded in infrared as opposed to normal digital equipment in our normal range of vision. He mentioned an analysis available at which might be illustrative of the problem. This link should take you to the proper video:

And, you can read Robert’s take on all this at his blog which you can find here:

Yes, yes, at the end of the program, I said that Don Schmitt would be the next guest. However, events have over taken me, and some interesting things have been said about the last episode of Unidentified. Given that, and that one of those voices belongs to Stephen Bassett, he will be the guest next week. Don Schmitt will follow the week after that.


Matt Wiser said...

Kevin, a problem with many skeptics is that they come across as what the late Stanton Friedman called "Nasty negativists." These folks have three qualities in common: 1) "Don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up." 2) Attack the witnesses, not the data. 3) "It can't be, therefore it isn't." Just as blind faith that all UFOs are ETs does not do the UFO community any favors, blind skepticism-such as issuing explanations without looking at information presented or talking to the witnesses, or flat out refusing to consider other possible explanations other than the one given, doesn't do the skeptics any favors, either.

Moonman said...

Are you aware that your Roswell shows have already been published in Itunes?

Nitram said...

Thanks Dr Randle

Look forward to hearing an update about Roswell and what your colleagues have been up to...


Unknown said...


Debunkers/dogmatic skeptics is their proper name.
They don't get it, but in reality they're the flip side of those gullible folks from the UFO community, albeit far more arrogant and with a snobby, educated image.

Brian B said...

Any scientific endeavor benefits from skepticism. Without it a person (or persons) can claim anything they want and claim it is true including all the lies and con jobs they make up to scam people.

Evidence is evidence. Proof is proof. If you don’t like skepticism then find another hobby to pursue other than ufology.

And for the record, the kind of nonsense broadcast at the end of the last episode of “Unidentified” is a good example of why skepticism benefits ufology.

The Italian helicopter case is a known hoax, but believers worldwide now claim it “real” because Elizondo and DeLonge say it is.....

Luis R. González said...

I consider myself a sceptic and I have been so in Ufology for more than 40 years. Answering your question I have come across some cases I cannot explain. One of those few is a CE3 none the less! It is one neither I, nor its main investigator & my friend V-J Ballester Olmos have solved. You can read it all here (in Spanish, sorry):

On the other hand, I do not believe there is an extraterrestrial answer to it.