tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post2680106391570907349..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: X-Zone Broadcast Network - Fallout from February 27, 2019KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-36604370378245080902019-05-10T14:33:01.232-07:002019-05-10T14:33:01.232-07:00Good Afternoon -
While this is wildly off topic, ...Good Afternoon -<br /><br />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 KRandle993@aol.com. Thanks.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I think that covers question one.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I think that covers it.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-25741202562155468542019-05-08T21:51:03.667-07:002019-05-08T21:51:03.667-07:00Dear Mr. Kevin Randle.
My name is Norihiro Kamata...Dear Mr. Kevin Randle.<br /><br />My name is Norihiro Kamata. I am a Japanese skeptic investigating The Roswell Incident.<br />I would like to ask you about the Roswell incident. Because you're one of the world's leading Roswell Case researchers.<br /><br />Currently, three people are believed to have gone to the crash site: Jessie A. Marcel, Sheridan Cavitt, and Lewis Rickett.<br />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.<br />Is there any solid evidence that the "man in plain clothes" or "detail from his department" was Cavitt?<br /><br />According to my research, The above three people are said to have gone to the crash site in following two evidence.<br /><br />1. Testified that Marcel went to the crash site with Cavitt(after 1978 interview)<br />2. Testified that Cavitt went to the crash site with Rickett(after 1978 interview)<br /><br />I think these testimonies are weak as the evidence.<br />Is there any other evidence that support Cavitt and Rickett went to the crash site?<br /><br />For example, Cavitt was the only "man in plain clothes" at RAAF at that time who could be with Marcel.<br />If there is such evidence, please let me know.<br /><br />I would really appreciate your kind support.<br />Thank you very much for reading my message.<br /><br />Sincerely, <br />Norihiro KamataNorihiro Kamatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15498103461269798910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17434735094049038552019-03-17T19:40:30.422-07:002019-03-17T19:40:30.422-07:00Okay. That's what I suspected. You are neutr...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.Louis Nicholsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08504089634070585120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-42214523924529367212019-03-15T15:39:03.941-07:002019-03-15T15:39:03.941-07:00Louis -
I use skeptic in the purest sense of the ...Louis -<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Please do not confuse skepticism with being a debunker. I think that might be where you misunderstood what I said.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-50265542001597963362019-03-14T14:43:41.966-07:002019-03-14T14:43:41.966-07:00I just got around to listening to the broadcast. ...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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.Louis Nicholsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08504089634070585120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-25353176888965923542019-03-12T02:03:48.060-07:002019-03-12T02:03:48.060-07:00Dr. Randle (Kevin): I find it sad you are subject ...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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.John Steigerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10038697365721558826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-39022906251889729842019-03-11T12:56:43.592-07:002019-03-11T12:56:43.592-07:00One reason for this guy's antagonism towards y...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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />So it is clear to me that your antagonist has irretrievably lost his case and his cause. <br /><br />[And no, I am NOT a stooge of either the US or the UK government, Mr Montgomery]cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.com