Bob Young was my guest this week. I had asked him on the show to discuss his take on the Kecksburg UFO Crash of December 1965. Now, I knew that Bob was a skeptic and that he had, what he thought to be a logical though terrestrial explanation for the crash tale. You can listen to that here:
https://www.spreaker.com/episode/46854217
I
will admit here that at one time, looking at the evidence, I believed there
were five 
Bob Young and friend. I
don't know which is which.
solid cases of UFO crashes, or in one case, an emergency landing. In
the world today, with better information, with access to a wide variety of
sources and witnesses, I’m not sure that five is an accurate number. I’m sure
that I’ll disappoint Stan Gordon by suggesting my opinion more closely matches that
of Bob than it does his. However, you can listen to the show I did with Stan to
get his perspective here:
And for those who wish to read his opinions on
the Kecksburg UFO crash, you can find that here:
We
did talk of other things such as the nature of skepticism and the nature of
evidence. I know that some skeptics require the actual crash ship or the bodies
of the alien crew before they’ll concede interstellar flight and alien
visitation. I mentioned the Levelland sightings which does provide multiple
chains of evidence and wondered if something like that would rise to the level of
solid evidence for him.
Bob,
I think, wanted something more tangible than multiple witnesses at multiple
locations, but did concede that it wouldn’t take a crash saucer and dead crew
to convince him. It’s all a matter of the level of evidence required. Some set
the bar very high, and some set it a little lower… of course, if you’ve seen a
flying saucer and experienced some of the effects of a close approach, your
take on all this might be somewhat different.
Next
week I’ll be talking with Jennifer Stein about her experiences and interactions
with Travis Walton. She had spent quite a bit of time researching the case and
is responsible for the documentary, Travis. You might say we’ll look at
the case from a different perspective.
5 comments:
Not sure why you brought up Levelland. The poor guest could not match your expertise. Maybe you need to get some like Mr. Printy or some other skeptic willing to study the specific topic and try to present their rationale for the case.
It seems that this case and alot of others that once seemed important are now relegated to the subjective sphere of UFOarcheaology. They are so long ago and really there is no data you can sink your teeth into any more. Did they even happen or is it just fake news?
Apparently, these old cases keep coming up because no one is gathering real, current data. I thought Project Hessdalen at least would do so, but it is pretty lame. Maybe some people are trying to figure out how to monetize the Sky Net search for UFO data.
Kevin -- Thank you for having Mr. Young on the program. Now, where to begin on how to respond?
1.There was not a single mention by either Mr. Young or yourself of John Murphy, one of the major witnesses on-site. How can an accurate assessment of the Kecksburg UFO event be made without reference and discussion of Mr. Murphy's involvement?
2. There also was no discussion of the Hays' family's experience, contrasting the variances in statements between those of 10-year old John Hays and that of his father.
2. In two books -- Kevin D. Randle, A History of UFO Crashes(1995), pp. 108, 112-117, and Kevin D. Randle, Ph.D., Crash: When UFOs Fell From the Sky(2010), pp. 221, 223-230, Kevin, you describe and criticize Mr. Youngs' investigation of the case. You state that [Mr. Young] "is so enthusiastic for his own position that he ignores, in some cases, the evidence that doesn't support him, or draws conclusions not warranted by the established facts." History at 114, Crash at 226. And then you proceed to write: "But the truth, as developed through the documentation, is that Young hasn't reviewed all the evidence." History at 114, Crash at 227.
There is a a mass of material relating to the Kecksburg UFO of December 1965. I am of the opinion that Stan Gordon has undertaken a considerable amount of research regarding this case, and I stand by his findings as opposed to those of Mr. Young.
I have read some FOIAs on Moon Dust. Then, I found a great book on the subject. Thank you, Captain Randle.
John -
Stan Gordon will have his opportunity to respond on October 27.
Kevin -- Excellent to hear of Stan's upcoming appearance. Thank you so much for inviting him on.
Post a Comment