Wednesday, May 05, 2021

X-Zone Broadcast Network - Retrospective

This week, I decided to take a look at the UFO situation without the benefit of a guest. Periodically, I just think it’s time to review what is going on in the world of the UFO from my perspective, which is, of course, a different perspective.

Kevin Randle

In the first segment, I looked at the idea that Disclosure might be coming closer with the release of the Navy videos and the Navy’s confirmation that the video was authentic. I believe that some thought it meant the image was of an alien spacecraft. It just meant that the video had been filmed by a Navy pilot, not that the image was anything other than an artifact created by the technology rather than something real.

All this affects the idea of Disclosure, and that this might be a way of diverting attention from Disclosure. I noted the trouble of two cultures or two civilizations meeting and the consequences of that. This was a suggestion as to why Disclosure might be as close as we thought. It was a point that I returned to later in the show. You can listen to this, and the rest of the show here:

In the Second segment, I touched on some of the past guests who were less than fully cognizant of the UFO situation. Rather than go through this again, I’ll just point to other postings that cover the information in more detail.

For those interested in my discussions with Lawrence Spencer and his claim of receiving material from a nurse stationed in Roswell in 1947, you can read about it here:

Of course, as with the following two former guests as well, you can listen to those shows by using the Embedded Audio Player on the left. Just scroll through the list until you find the right program.

I did talk about Christopher Montgomery, who had slung several allegations at me on other programs and in his book. You can read about that here:

Finally, is Robert Gross, who thought he had found a viable explanation for the Roswell crash. He hung up before we finished the show because, well, it had devolved into my questions and his answer of “No Comment.” You can read about it here:

My real gripe, as I talked with these men was that they didn’t seem to have a good grasp on the subject. They didn’t follow up on their theories with the proper documentation and research. They didn’t follow the path to the end.

One of the ways I illustrated this was my search for the soldiers from Company F, who had accompanied George Custer into the Battle of the Greasy Grass (known by others as Custer’s Last Stand). The point was, in the world today, I was able to find a company roster with the names of each of the men with very little trouble. I’ll have more on this when I find the answers to my questions about their fate (and no, all of them didn’t die with their company, which intrigues me).         

In the third segment, I talked about the nonsense of changing UFO to UAP. Although there are a number of people who believe that UFO means alien spacecraft, I think that the majority out there know that UFO means something that is unidentified. Some of us, Stan Friedman, Don Schmitt and I returned to using flying saucer when we meant an alien craft. That makes it clear. Everyone understood. None of this nonsense about an “unidentified aerial phenomenon.”

I did mention that Coral Lorenzen of APRO had started using UAO, meaning “unidentified aerial object.” Not as clean as UFO and still mentioned an object suggesting something more solid that a phenomenon. Anyway, it is a matter of semantics and you have to wonder if this change wasn’t introduced just to confuse the issue rather than to clarify it.

This seemed to be rewriting history, encompassing both the Robertson Panel and the Condon Committee. Although both were wrapped in the mantle of scientific research, both were, in fact, attempts to end public interest in UFOs. The conclusions of the Condon Committee were written before the investigation began… and strangely, the findings of the committee were those outline by the Air Force in the Hippler letter, which shouldn’t have ended up in the public’s hands. You can read the details here:

Finally, I got around to UFOs and the Deep State. I noted that if the book had been written this year rather than last, there would have been more information about the longevity of the Deep State and how it operates. We see it as those appointed to positions of power in the Biden Administration are those who have served in the federal government for decades in other Administrations including those led by Republicans.

I answered the question about the persistence of the secrecy. Why, today, after decades of exposure to UFO reports, investigations, sightings, and information, does the truth remain classified? It has nothing to do with a fear of panic and everything to do with retaining power. This is all outlined in the book.

Next up is a discussion with Don Schmitt about the current state of UFO research and where we think it is headed. If you have questions, append them here, and we’ll talk about it. 


Louis Nicholson said...

Very interesting broadcast as usual. However, as you know, I have to open my big mouth if you say something I strongly disagree with. LOL.

You said "the internet is a wonderful research tool. You can find anything on the internet." You appeared to be saying that anything you read on the internet is true.
While the internet might be a good place to start one's research on a topic, one must be very, very careful in ending their research there. One must be VERY careful assuming anything found on the internet is credible based solely on the fact it is one the internet. As we all know, internet photos, videos and documents may be fabricated or altered.

How do you know the information you found on the internet about the Custer soldiers was accurate only after doing a "cursory 15 minute" search on the internet? Did you try to corroborate that information by at least reading the highly regarded works of notable General Custer scholars?

I think it is dangerous to tell young people "that anything can be found on the internet" and its "a wonderful research tool." One must be very careful in believing anything on the internet without corroboration by more credible sources. At one point, I taught classes at a community college. If I assigned my students a research paper and one of them turned in a paper only citing the internet, that would be an automatic fail. There had to be more research done because there is a lot of garbage on the internet.

For instance, one of my passions is studying the American Civil War. A while ago, the national media talked about an elementary school textbook entitled "Our Virginia: Past and Present" which asserts that thousands of African-Americans fought for the Confederacy as combat soldiers (not just serve as servants or slaves which was actually the case). This is pure nonsense. All reputable Civil War scholars strongly disagree with this notion. When asked what was the source of her information, the author Joy Masoff said her sole source was the internet. She was severely castigated by the media and reputable historians for doing such shallow research for an elementary school textbook. While there IS information on the internet which supports her position, when someone does more than 15 minute cursory internet research by thoroughly researching this claim outside of the internet, one finds that such information is completely bogus.

Indeed there are a number of internet sources which claim African-Americans are inferior to whites. Are we to believe that is true because there are Internet sources which promulgate that?

Also, there is purported personal information on the internet about you, including your 2021 net worth. One such internet source actually has your net worth in large, bold numbers to emphasize it and therefore make it appear accurate. Are we to automatically believe that such internet information about your current net worth is credible because it is on the internet? I know I don't. (As an aside, that source also states you were born on New Year's Day. If true, that's interesting because I was also born on New Year's Day.)

So again, I think we have to be careful in assuming anything is true on the internet. I will certainly agree that a lot of internet information is true, but we don't know what is true by just looking at the internet.

That's my two cents for today. Look forward to your chat with Don Schmidt.

Moonman said...

Dr. Randle makes a lot of good points although I agree with the previous posting about Internet questionable reliability. Caveat emptor (although we need a new Latin phrase for all the free data people who refuse to pay anything... Spongia cave?).

I do disagree with him about his assumption that since we have not been invaded so far, then likely we are okay. It is comforting to assume that we are safe because it seems we have not been invaded, but I suggest appearances may be deceptive. What if we are not smart enough to recognize we have been invaded by aliens? Do they have to fly Independence Day types of giant spacecraft? If the alien visitors are 1000 years to 1000000 years in advance of us, I suspect we are pretty dumb in this area. Do you think they will drop us an email, text message or lawn landing? How about microbe sized or smaller (nanotech) that invade our bodies? We do not have the sense to even see all the viruses in our bodies. As to a response, "So what?", I like to point out that even Earthly microbes can control their giant hosts to do various things by influencing their behavior, perhaps to their detriment.

Also, I wonder sometimes how we can make any generalizations of alien behavior given lack of reliable information.

But considering how things are going on our planet, I would appreciate being able to blame aliens.

Anonymous said...

I actually love to hear you speak about the Levelland case.

KRandle said...

Louis -

I said nothing about believing everything you read on the Internet. I was suggesting it was a wonderful research tool because we have access to the entire range of human knowledge (well, given the world today that might not be quite right but I digress). My point was that I can find what I need there. Wikipedia is important, not necessarily for the content of the page, but for the list of sources. You can follow up on it and see if the information as presented is an accurate representation of the facts.

Of course, you don't accept everything there as accurate. What I meant was we have, in essence, a gigantic library of thought. I can go into a bricks and mortar library and spend hours searching for something I need with no expectation that it will be there. I can go to the Internet and know that somewhere, somehow, I can find what I want.

That was the point of finding the list of names for Company F of the Seventh Cavalry in 1876. I cold go to many university libraries and not find that information...

And, of course, it has to be verified from other sources. The search doesn't end there.

So, no, I haven't advocated that everything on the Internet is accurate, that it isn't somehow biased, as if it isn't pushing a personal agenda. I'm merely saying that the information is there and accessible from my home. I am saying that you can find it on the Internet and once found, you then must determine if it is accurate... It was how I discovered that Robert Willingham had not been an Air Force pilot or that Project Mogul was not the culprit in the Roswell crash... (That information was in the massive Air Force report that can be found on the Internet).

I am sorry that some of you missed the point... Once you find the information from one source, you must verify it from another. But it is all out there and it is why, I try to supply multiple sources, many of them found through the Internet, as I complete my work.

I believe that we are on the same page, probably in the same paragraph, and maybe even reading the same sentence.

Louis Nicholson said...

Kevin -

I'm glad you clarified that. I knew you would. do I corroborate what your net worth is? JUST KIDDING! LOL!

Nitram said...

Louis asked:

" do I corroborate what your net worth is?"


It's $900,000.

Your welcome Louis.


KRandle said...

That figure is inaccurate. Just last week it was 1.6 million. I don't know how they come up with the number.

John Steiger said...

Kevin -- Thank you for another wonderful radio presentation. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time and making the effort.

Louis Nicholson said...

Nitram said:

"It's $900,000."

Kevin said:

"That figure is inaccurate. Just last week it was 1.6 million. I don't know how they come up with the number."

I definitely know those numbers are false. Kevin is worth way more than that, at least in my assessment of the man.