tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post3263592474170724487..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: I Understand Kent JeffreyKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-30643550730208966192007-12-15T05:30:00.000-08:002007-12-15T05:30:00.000-08:00Why does Friedman still support a crash on the Pla...Why does Friedman still support a crash on the Plains?? And why did Don Schmitt consider KDR a government agent?starmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09884942748644499035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-36565482521604176132007-11-12T12:27:00.000-08:002007-11-12T12:27:00.000-08:00"They said that had it happened, they would have k..."They said that had it happened, they would have known."<BR/><BR/>Well, what exactly DID they know? Even the USAF admits something happened -- Project Mogul.<BR/><BR/>Were they aware that there was indeed a crash? Did they even know there was a weather balloon crash, or a balloon crash at all?<BR/><BR/>If "they would have known," wouldn't they have known it was Project Mogul then? If "they would have known" about an UFO crash, wouldn't they have known about a much less sensitive occurrence -- Project Mogul, or some type of balloon?<BR/><BR/>This of course assumes that if the military wanted to keep a secret, they would have worked harder to hide alien wreckage than hide Project Mogul. <BR/><BR/>Thus, if "they would have known" something happened but didn't even know about Project Mogul, they would have been less likely to know about alien wreckage.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12114596567988586680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-4932075766204095042007-11-09T11:12:00.000-08:002007-11-09T11:12:00.000-08:00This is a great article, and it resonates a deeper...This is a great article, and it resonates a deeper feeling of the need to stay in touch with this case, as much as others would like to forget it. I earnestly watch for those respected investigators who don't jump ship every time something turns out to be wrong, <BR/><BR/>because something is always going to turn out to be wrong, and I'll always want to find out what changes these "flaws" cause in the <BR/>case. Sometimes it can turn out to be a great big relief to be wrong.<BR/><BR/>But I also admit that I feel that some of those who don't see the need to go over it, or who want to "put it to rest",do so because they are not even convinced that we are dealing with anything unusual, let alone Extra or Non Terrestrial in the first place. <BR/><BR/>I would have to challenge anyone who falls into this category to read through at least the first three UFO program Status Reports, <BR/><BR/>especially number two ( December, 1951 ), that are available at the Blue Book Archives, and explain just who on this planet can hover around 40,000 feet, until f-86 jests arrive, and then bolt "straight-up"...presumably into outer-space, to avoid them? Or who <BR/>had giant "flying-Wing" shaped aircraft, in 1951, that could orbit Air Force bases at will, at 55,000 feet, or greater, and never stop to <BR/>refuel? There has been solid evidence, in hand, since this time period for extra-terrestrial visitation (or equally "wacky" assertion of an previously unknown, extremely advanced, earthling race). <BR/><BR/>The YB49 flying wing was in storage, by that month, and it was a dwarf to the flying wing sighted by the pilots, anyway. Sightings of a yellow or gold triangular craft go back even further than that. We send up our best, and then more, and it isn't good enough to get them close enough to even positively ID the craft! Doesn't this put to rest the Air Force assertions that there was no "...evidence of technological advancements beyond our present day scientific knowledge"? <BR/><BR/>To that end, any crashed UFO story must also be given the standard examination, without preclusions, for it is no more exotic than the idea of facing an extra terrestrial visitation. <BR/><BR/>And at the time Kauffman stepped forward, there were reasons to give him his day. For instance, not many of us knew about the many wedge or triangular-shaped objects that had been already been seen, and to that point every spoke in terms of them feeling it was a "saucer". Kauffman had asserted that "it" was wedge shaped, making <BR/>him seem to be a possible "marker" for the case. As long as we don't get all wrapped up in anyone's particular story, then we simply deal with the evidence as it comes, thanks especially to folks such as yourselves, Dr. Randle, and we'll just see where it goes from here.Bob Kofordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739226809252915992noreply@blogger.com