Given
the track record of “Ed,” and his drumbeat support of the thoroughly
discredited Alien Autopsy film, I normally ignore his comments. We’d just go
around again with his demand that I look at the evidence, which I have, and his
denial of the evidence that it is a hoax. We have photographs from the process
of crediting the aliens, we have the statements by Ray Santilli who has
admitted to fake nature of some of that film, and we have the complete collapse
of the alleged photographer’s story. We have piles of evidence showing the film
is faked against a lack of anything substantial showing that the film is real.
 |
| Creating the alien creatures for the Alien Autopsy. |
HOWEVER…
Ed,
in an attempt to reinforce his personal belief structure in the face of the overwhelming evidence, sent this:
All, The
MP wrote that the crash happened on the 2nd of July, and everything was cleaned
up by the 4th. Mack found the wreckage from the explosion that caused the crash
about five miles away after rain and thunder the night before. The weather info
supports this version. https://ufology.patrickgross.org/rw/w/anonymousmp01.htm
Ed
But rather than ignore the comment
completely, I did check out the web address because there are sometimes nuggets
of interest hidden in them. While Ed continues to support the MP story, it is
interesting that the web address is not quite as enthusiastic as Ed. At least
that was my take on it. I just wondered if anyone other than Ed was impressed
with the MP’s story and what they might have thought about the comments at the
end of the email exchange.
I suppose the real point here is that I get
tired of fighting the same fights over and over. The goalposts are moved or the
data are rejected out of hand because they don’t support the belief structure.
I see two people presented with the same facts come to mutually exclusive
conclusions.
My search has been for the truth. Not my
truth or your truth but the truth. I freely admit that the Roswell case is not
as robust as I once thought but I also know that Mogul is not the answer. I
realized that people like Glenn Dennis and Frank Kaufmann have hurt the
investigation with their, I was going to say confabulations but what I really
mean are their lies.
So, take a look at the MP’s story, at the
comments at the end. Look for the internal inconsistencies and think about the
way these things would operate in a military environment. Not how it is
portrayed by Hollywood or told by people with no experience, but how it
actually is.
And, let me know in the comments what you
think about it.
The term "DOD" would not have been in use during the time period of the alleged events in question. The Department of Defense did come come into being until September 18th of 1947, so clearly on July 3rd of 1947, the date that "Ed" is claiming, that acronym would not have been in existence. As far as the crash site in question, I don't believe "Ed." The Plains of San Agustin story has been completely discredited since the testimony of Gerald Anderson was proven to be false. "Ed" and his tale is simply another story that has no corroborating data to support it, and some "red flags" that simply cannot be overlooked, although some people in the UFO community will certainly ignore them. Thanks Kevin.
ReplyDeleteTime is so limited and precious, and "Ed's MP Story" is a futile waste of it. Not even worth a blogpost. Sorry to say, Kevin.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that Glenn Dennis and Frank Kaufmann have damaged the Roswell story’s credibility. On the flip side, which witnesses do you still regard as the most credible?
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that Glenn Dennis and Frank Kaufmann have damaged the Roswell story’s credibility. On the flip side, which witnesses do you still regard as the most credible?
ReplyDeleteI asked the MP if he would give me his name. After a few weeks he did. I then asked Kevin if he would send me his yearbook to verify this information, which he did. The name and rank the MP used was also found in the Roswell yearbook Kevin sent. And John, why are you being a jerk. Do I owe you money?
ReplyDeleteEd
RIchard B: Understanding Roswell (2022) by Kevin D. Randle explains it all.
ReplyDeleteRichard B -
ReplyDeleteJohn Steiger makes a good point here. Your question is answered in detail in the book.
Ed -
Without being able to question the MP and verifying that he is (was?) who he claimed to be, we have another anonymous source and we all have seen how reliable these anonymous source have been. There is no accountability when the source is wrong because who do we blame... So, unless you care to name the source so that he can be properly vetted, his information should be rejected... and I say that because of the problems with the information he provided.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteI've given you the name of the MP before but here it is one more time:Sgt.Thomas L.Evans
He was a little confused about going into the desert the night of the event and said he didn't get out much but using time and milage calculations he gave me directions. He said that he was on the plains, but he was mistaken about the name and location of the plains. We emailed back and forth for several months and then I asked him if he could write up what he remembered, and I'd post it on UFO Updates which he did. The reception and discussion were small minded and disrespectful, so in a few weeks he had his son contact me that he wasn't feeling well and that's the last contact we made. He could have been a great witness, a contender. The six-fingered testimony was important. You and others are making a mistake by ignoring it.
Ed
Ed -
ReplyDeleteThe man was not assigned to either the 1395 MP Company of the Special Services Squadron which were responsible for military police functions or security at the base. If he told you he was an MP, then he lied about it. He was assigned to Squadron T, which had a supply function. Once again, his story based on what we know simply does not track.
Kevin, All,
ReplyDeleteHave you seen this?
Ed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3NwgD6HmUQ&t=5s
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteI didn't know where to put this part of a Bob Shell interview. It is still totally relevant.
From Bob Shell; Photo Shop: When skeptics look at this footage, what conclusive evidence do they point at to call it a fraud?
SHELL: So far, I've seen nothing from any of the skeptics that really holds any water. You know, there have been lots of people on television and in articles saying "Well, it's obviously a fake because there are no aliens. "You can't really argue that way. You have to find something wrong with the film if you want to demonstrate it's a fraud. The first thing that came out was someone saying, "Obviously, it's not true because in 1947 they didn't have coiled phone cords like we see in the film, or wall telephones." Well, we researched that with the Bell Telephone Museum and found that these phones definitely were available in 1947. Someone else said the wall clock was not made in 1947. We went to General Electric and verified that this wall clock was introduced in the '30's. Other people have said the Shure microphone visible in the film, that the surgeon is speaking into periodically during the autopsy, is the wrong vintage. I talked to a technical specialist from the Shure corporation, and he said it is the right vintage. Some people have attacked the film because it goes out of focus when the camera moves in close. That's just because the camera he used, a Bell and Howell Film 70, doesn't focus very close, and if you move in closer than a certain distance, the pictures do get blurred. That's just a characteristic of the camera. So, so far all of the things hauled out by the skeptics to use to debunk the film haven't really proved anything.
Ed
Ed -
ReplyDeleteDid you not see the photographs in the posting? Have not read the testimony of those involved in creating the dummy for the autopsy? Are you unaware that military autopsies were filmed in color? Did you not know that the original interview with the cameraman sounded as if he was British rather than American ans once that was pointed out, the transcript was changed?
Did you know that Bob Shell is currently in prison?
Do you have any real evidence other than the speculations of those who wish to believe, even in the face of all the negative evidence?