tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post9127972198425133572..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Roswell and Chasing UFOsKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-35601909398213861902014-01-12T03:51:08.062-08:002014-01-12T03:51:08.062-08:00I realise the 'Button' subject has been ad...I realise the 'Button' subject has been addressed, but I would like to add to your conclusion, that the button 'found at the site', was a post 1949 Air Force silver plated brass button.<br />The Air Force button was initially gilt (thin gold plated) from 1947-1949, then changed to silver plated.<br />Here is a photo of the progression.<br />http://i42.tinypic.com/2ppdbgl.jpg<br />(Source: Record Of American Uniform And Historical Buttons, by Alphaeus H. Albert)<br />Brass does not rust, and the tarnished blue metal appearance of the silver is correct, even if it were buried for 40 years.<br />All this really shows is that 'perhaps' Air Force officers were at the site after 1949 in dress uniform (Which is unusual, but certainly a possibility), or more than likely it was 'planted' for the TV show.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14809548661176848384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-72800022819698857472012-07-22T11:27:33.174-07:002012-07-22T11:27:33.174-07:00Larry -
Just look up the White Sands Missile Rang...Larry -<br /><br />Just look up the White Sands Missile Range web site and use the contact button. That's what I did. He responded quickly.<br /><br />On November 4, 2011, I posted a piece about this... you could find it by typing White Sands into the search engine on the left side.<br /><br />The important part of the email was,“...an infrared shot of a Navy missile test...The high powered optics tests are part and parcel of our test mission here at the missile range. The data we collect belongs to our ‘customers,’ the weapons developers and is used for technical purposes. Once in awhile the clips make their way to the general public...”<br /><br />I have no reason to doubt his explanation... and as I said last year, Paranormal Files did a test and found they could replicate the actions of the missile.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-56286084111493323822012-07-22T09:19:31.857-07:002012-07-22T09:19:31.857-07:00Kevin said:
"Monty Marlin pretty well defined...Kevin said:<br />"Monty Marlin pretty well defined what test it came from..."<br /><br />Well, that's what I was asking; which test was it?<br /><br />I wonder if you could either post the relevant part of the message or, if there is no general interest in it, forward it to my email account, or alternatively, give me Monty's contact info so I could follow up on it independently?<br /><br />Thanks.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-47627391756946134622012-07-21T13:27:31.514-07:002012-07-21T13:27:31.514-07:00Larry -
While I find your arguments interesting, ...Larry -<br /><br />While I find your arguments interesting, I will note that a rocket or missile, if it strikes the ground at a shallow angle, will bounce. Those folks over at Paranormal Files: Fact or Faked were able to duplicate the missile motion.<br /><br />Second, Monty Marlin pretty well defined what test it came from. I have no reason to reject his information.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-16563377531770896812012-07-19T15:27:23.657-07:002012-07-19T15:27:23.657-07:00Epistemic values seem to have decayed into mere en...Epistemic values seem to have decayed into mere entertainment choices.Terry the Censorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361088223337740598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-56855001554829263322012-07-19T12:22:49.541-07:002012-07-19T12:22:49.541-07:00Part 3
As I’m sure you are aware as a pilot, alum...Part 3<br /><br />As I’m sure you are aware as a pilot, aluminum aircraft don’t contact the ground at a couple of hundred miles per hour, bounce into the air hundreds of feet and keep on flying—they wad up into piles of twisted wreckage. In order to survive a contact with the ground and keep functioning, whatever the object was, it had to have been constructed in a much more rugged manner than aircraft. That means it was dense. Small, solid fueled missiles are relatively rugged—they have been known to skip off a surface at grazing angles and get airborne again. However, as I’ve said, this was a large object, and it didn’t contact the ground at a grazing angle. <br /><br />There is one frame that shows the moment of the first contact with the ground. In that frame, the object appears to contact the ground slightly asymmetrically, and it tilts with respect to the camera line of sight (this would be a “roll” in aircraft frame of reference). When the object rolls around its longitudinal axis, its image becomes an ellipse of lower aspect ratio (i.e., it becomes more circular). This tells me that the object was actually of circular planform and not cigar shaped. Almost immediately after the first contact with the ground, the object snaps back into its stable orientation (“wings level”) within a few frames. Clearly it is not flying aerodynamically. Since the object is not flying by aerodynamic forces, what does keep it up and propel it? <br /><br />The only other conventional choice would be rocket propulsion. One of the characteristics of rocket powered missiles is that they usually fly with relatively constant thrust. Constant thrust creates more or less continual acceleration. That’s why rockets and missiles go faster as they burn off fuel. This object, however, shows basically constant horizontal flight speed. <br /><br />I could go on, but the question is, how, if at all, did Monte Marlin explain any of this—the size, the speed, the shape, etc? I think there is no question that the footage was taken by a professional photographer at a dedicated desert test facility and that White Sands is a good candidate. But that doesn’t explain what the object is and why it looks and moves like a flying saucer. If he can tie this footage to a specific test of a specific vehicle, on a specific range, on a specific day, I am prepared to be persuaded. Otherwise, it sounds like he’s just guessing.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-50005551520997197262012-07-19T12:19:04.670-07:002012-07-19T12:19:04.670-07:00Part 2
I was familiar with such a range at China L...Part 2<br />I was familiar with such a range at China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station, having once planned a test I was responsible for at that location. Using Google Maps, the test range can be seen about 2 to 3 miles due West of the main runway complex at China Lake. You can see that that test range has a main flight path centerline, a “West Camera Road” and an “East Camera Road” equidistant from the flight path centerline by a distance of about 1500 ft. One of those roads (I forget which) has a line of telephone poles spaced at equal intervals that runs the length of the range (on the order of 10 miles) and that carries telephone and data lines from one end of the range to the other. As those road names imply, the normal practice when filming an event at one of these ranges is to drive out onto one of the parallel roads and set up a camera at the location where one expects the action to occur.<br /><br />It was apparent to me that the flight and crash of the “disc” had probably occurred at just such a range. But, the vegetation seen in the “disc” crash video and the mountains in the distance does not look like China Lake, so I surmised that the test range must be somewhere else. I speculated that White Sands might be the location, but I could not locate any overhead imagery or maps that depicted bombing ranges at White Sands. In principle, however, it should be possible to locate the exact location at which the “disc” video was taken.<br /><br />Given the typical dimensions of a test range, the flight path of the disc was probably about 500 meters from the camera at closest approach, while the line of telephone poles was about 25 or so meters away. A telephone pole is about 1 ft in diameter. That means, of course, that if the “disc” image was the same size as the pole image it would be about 20 times larger, or about 20 ft in length. In fact, the “disc” image is about 2.5 times larger than the width of one of the poles, so it is more like 50 ft or more in length —approaching the size of a Lear Jet fuselage.<br /><br />Also given the typical dimensions of a test range, I estimate that the flight speed was no more than 100 to 200 mph, and the maximum flight path altitude was a few hundred feet above ground level (AGL).<br /><br />Then there is the behavior of the object, itself. Those who have viewed it will recall that the object projects an oval outline to the camera (with an aspect ratio of about 4 or 5 to 1), approaches from camera right in a descending flight path, contacts the ground, rebounds into the air on an ascending flight path which rounds out at the top (a few hundred feet AGL, by my estimate), descends again, contacts the ground a second time, at which point it disintegrates into glowing smithereens. I speculate that the object’s flight was originally recorded on IR film and then transferred to a video image. Filming in the IR band would explain why the object itself and its fragments after the explosion are glowing brightly and why the resolution is rather poor.<br /><br />Without getting bogged down in the details, let me note a few of the anomalies of the object’s flight. If the object were an aircraft (i.e., a vehicle that flies by generating aerodynamic lift) then it would have to be of very light construction that is typical of aircraft.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-44892981331604529392012-07-19T12:18:22.917-07:002012-07-19T12:18:22.917-07:00Part 1
Kevin,
With regard to your main point: Ye...Part 1<br />Kevin,<br /><br />With regard to your main point: Yes, “Chasing UFOs” is a piece of fluff. As soon as I saw the previews for it a few months ago, with the entire crew dressed up like “Ghostbusters” I lost all hope of it having any informational content. And yes, if any of the crew had the brains that God gave a goose, they could have figured out quickly that the Air Force uniform button had no significance whatsoever. And yes, they could have avoided a lot of useless thrashing about if they had consulted a few people ahead of time who were familiar with the case.<br /><br />However, what I want to question is your implication that the White Sands “disc” video is completely explained. When I first saw the video, something like 6 or 7 years ago, as a professional aerospace engineer, I spent a fair amount of time trying to identify what was being depicted. I downloaded a video file from the internet and went over it frame by frame. There are a few conclusions one can come to, based simply on photogrammetry (measuring the relative sizes and locations of images in the sequence).<br /><br />1) The pan motion of the camera is horizontal to a high degree of precision, thus the camera was on a tripod or similar fixed mount with its pivot axis aligned to the vertical. (i.e., the tripod was leveled). <br />2) The camera motion was extremely smooth and accurate. (i.e., tracked the object precisely, with no jitter or overshoot). The camera mount was professional quality—probably with a viscous-damped pivot. The camera operator was experienced.<br />3) The camera was optimally placed adjacent to the apparent flight path of the object in such a location as to capture the action of the object with a minimal azimuthal range of motion.<br />These facts argue that a professional camera operator with professional equipment was prepositioned to capture the object’s expected flight path. <br /><br />4) From the point of view of the camera, the object’s flight path was behind the poles (i.e., farther from the camera than the poles).<br />5) Assuming that the telephone poles were essentially identical in size to each other and placed at essentially equal intervals, the line of poles was approximately (but not exactly) parallel to the flight path of the object. <br />6) The setting for the image sequence was an arid, sparsely populated desert environment, typical of the American Southwest.<br />These facts suggest that the location of the video “shoot” was probably a military test range of the type used for free flight testing of bombs, missiles, or experimental aircraft, in which the flight of the object being tested could pose some hazard to the civilian population or the video crew. For these reasons, such facilities are located far from population centers, and are designed so that the camera operator position is removed far enough from the intended flight path to minimize the risk to the camera operator, in the event of a crash or explosion (as happened in this case).Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-2732009395166630702012-07-19T02:48:50.586-07:002012-07-19T02:48:50.586-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-43981056554186062112012-07-18T12:50:14.322-07:002012-07-18T12:50:14.322-07:00dsheehan312 -
Please note one other thing. Their ...dsheehan312 -<br /><br />Please note one other thing. Their posting correcting the mistakes came two days after I posted mine... which is not to say that they read it and reacted, only that I posted my criticisms two days before. My point was had they bothered to ask anyone with a little knowledge in the field, they would have avoided the errors...<br /><br />Really the missile footage was explained long ago. I even did something about it right after it because it went viral. The footage is about 15 years old. All they had to do was ask at White Sands, something they apparently didn't bother doing... and then reported that their missile expert said it wasn't a missile.<br /><br />While I am delighted they have attempted to fix the mistakes, their report is out there for all to see and it is filled with mistakes that could have been avoided.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-5617817885312293092012-07-18T12:43:14.386-07:002012-07-18T12:43:14.386-07:00dsheehan312 -
All well and good, but here's t...dsheehan312 -<br /><br />All well and good, but here's the problem. If you watched the show, you saw them making rookie mistakes. It was clear to me the moment I saw the button that it was irrelevant. That didn't stop them from promoting it in the show as something significant.<br /><br />Here's something else. That button has to be planted on the field for them to find. It show no real signs of age and degradation from the elements.<br /><br />And it was only after many of us complained about the show that they let us all know that the button was irrelevant. Admitting it now does not let them off the hook because they could have done something at the end to tell us that later information clued them in to the button.<br /><br />Sorry, this was a bad show and they should have known better.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17912566708193165812012-07-18T11:15:46.225-07:002012-07-18T11:15:46.225-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-58976756445157980162012-07-18T09:42:50.351-07:002012-07-18T09:42:50.351-07:00Um the chasing ufo's team has already acknowle...Um the chasing ufo's team has already acknowledged all of your theories about the button and upon further investigation after the show was finalized they learned that the button is at earliest from 1949. Look here: http://tvblogs.nationalgeographic.com/2012/07/16/the-science-of-chasing-ufos-ufo-landing-zone-2/#.UAbeSNIM01o.twitterdsheehan312https://www.blogger.com/profile/11651481610518230714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-71552562883740853212012-07-18T09:34:29.570-07:002012-07-18T09:34:29.570-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-44428544961200255202012-07-18T09:34:23.866-07:002012-07-18T09:34:23.866-07:00No, I don't mean KKK or Korff. There is anoth...No, I don't mean KKK or Korff. There is another KK. Read UFO Updates and she posts there all the time to the annoyance of everyone.<br /><br />(For some reason--serendipity I suppose--there seems to be a heavily "K" thing in the debunKing crowd--maybe it's a qualification.)<br /><br />Of course, I'm not sure KP is KK, but it has her tone and the comments tend to be very similar, such as using the sexism card: "poor me, the male Ufologists just like to beat up on us women," instead of "they're beating up on me because I post such inane and ignorant material."<br /><br />In this case, stupid comments about Frank Kimbler were being made, such as him not being a real "scientist" (in quotes) and teaching only high school. The guy was a working geologist before he started teaching college-level geology at New Mexico Military Institute in Roswell, which is considered junior college level. (Yes, and they also have high school students whom he also teaches--so what?)<br /><br />It even annoyed me that he/she attacked Charles Moore for "only" having a bachelors in engineering, therefore he was incapable of doing "real" science either. True, his Roswell debunkery wasn't real science (more like deliberate fraud), but even I have to give the devil his due. Moore made many contributions in atmospheric science before he turned debunker. <br /><br />You don't need a PhD to do good scientific work and a PhD doesn't magically protect you from bias or screwing up either.<br /><br />What was the original subject of this blog? I forget.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-8323195380652406082012-07-18T07:32:00.957-07:002012-07-18T07:32:00.957-07:00Kal Korff.Kal Korff.starmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09884942748644499035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-64172467344903050812012-07-18T00:44:54.328-07:002012-07-18T00:44:54.328-07:00DR:
You suspect "that KP is really a certain...DR:<br /><br />You suspect "that KP is really a certain KK". You mean KKK don't you?<br /><br />(No I am not referring to the Ku Klux Klan).cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-32064856833481360002012-07-17T23:28:28.588-07:002012-07-17T23:28:28.588-07:00"Kurt Peters" cluelessly wrote:
Anti-Ros..."Kurt Peters" cluelessly wrote:<br /><i>Anti-Roswell: "scientist" Charles Moore (sneered at as a publicity-seeker by actual meteorology grad students) only had a B.S. in Engineering - NO doctorate researcher here, yet he is constantly 'refuted' here.</i><br /><br />Point? I'm no fan of Charles Moore, but even people with B.S.'s can do serious scientific work. I'll give Moore credit for making contributions to atmospheric science.<br /><br /><i>Pro-Roswell: "scientist" Frank Kimbler is presented as a hard-science ufologist, yet since is is at present a high school science teacher in Roswell, university-based academics will laugh at his conclusions (unfair, but true).</i><br /><br />New Mexico Military Institute is BOTH a boarding "high school" and junior college. Kimbler teaches at both levels.<br /><br />Kimbler has a masters in geology, teaches geology at the college level at NMMI where he is an assistant professor (do they have professors at mere "high schools"?), worked for NOAA and the NM Bureau of Mines, wrote "New Mexico Rocks and Minerals, the Collecting Guide." Go to Google Scholar and you will find several published science papers by Kimbler.<br /><br />So yes, Kimbler qualifies as a "scientist" and an experienced geologist.<br /><br />What sort of "scientist" is "Kurt Peters"? Why is "Kurt Peters" posting under a pseudonym if he/she is so brilliant and wants to be taken seriously? Because if he/she posted under his/her real name, the jig would be up, because I have strong suspicions that KP is really a certain KK, who nobody takes seriously and is constantly making ignorant remarks.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-50600821381301644122012-07-17T11:01:39.010-07:002012-07-17T11:01:39.010-07:00One must notice that Kevin really does try to give...One must notice that Kevin really does try to give a fair hearing to both/all sides of the issues discussed here.<br /><br />And here an example from Roswell research that may point to why "real" science snickers at both UFOs and Roswell:<br /><br />Anti-Roswell: "scientist" Charles Moore (sneered at as a publicity-seeker by actual meteorology grad students) only had a B.S. in Engineering - NO doctorate researcher here, yet he is constantly 'refuted' here.<br /><br />Pro-Roswell: "scientist" Frank Kimbler is presented as a hard-science ufologist, yet since is is at present a high school science teacher in Roswell, university-based academics will laugh at his conclusions (unfair, but true).<br /><br />Neo-Roswell: "Roswell Dream Team" sounds more like a show marketing proposal to some cable channel than a serious effort at rethinking past mistakes (balloon-boy, anyone?).<br /><br />Admirably, Kevin allows discussion of all three.Kurt Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09217079871185958463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-38573004672704286982012-07-16T20:13:32.638-07:002012-07-16T20:13:32.638-07:00I think the bottom line here is that National Geog...I think the bottom line here is that National Geographic has never produced or shown a UFO-related program or documentary, ever, that was not negative, ridiculing, or dismissive in nature. <br /><br />They are seemingly incapable and/or unwilling to do an objective, fair, or balanced presentation when it comes to the subject of UFOs. <br /><br />I watched most of the episode of "Chasing UFOs" that featured James Fox exulting about finding a rusty piece of tin, and then the absurd, post-1947 button, and found the whole show simply stupid, demeaning, and amazingly silly. <br /><br />This is just another form of "disinfotainment," and while James Fox has tried to rationalize his participation,** saying he was misled by the show's producers, it seems clear he's "gone along" with the inherently self-debunking nature of the show. <br /><br />This is really tragic, after Fox produced two fairly decent, good UFO documentaries. It's all about "lowest common denominator" entertainment, ratings, and money, not actual education, research, or empirical analysis. <br /><br />There's an article on the UFO Chronicles website which suggests the show was "hijacked," according to Fox and Ben McGee, two of the three "UFO chasers" but, to me, it seems apparent they've sold out since they're sticking with the program despite their belated misgivings over "Chasing UFOs" thrust and direction, which is wholly subjective and simply offensive to anyone concerned about objectivity and honesty in reporting on the UFO subject.<br /><br />**See: http://bit.ly/N7itGk<br /><br />As KR said about the recent Chase Brandon fabrications, this show, too, is simply more "crapola."Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-39879508369455301592012-07-16T19:57:04.899-07:002012-07-16T19:57:04.899-07:00The National Geographic Channel is, btw, owned by ...The National Geographic Channel is, btw, owned by Fox Cable Networks, a division of News Corporation, owned by the neocon Rupert Murdoch, the guy embroiled in the ongoing phone hacking and corruption scandal in Great Britain. <br /><br />I'd say that suggests at least one reason why "Chasing UFOs" is such an awful, sensationalized program.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-65313777866672763512012-07-16T12:03:18.081-07:002012-07-16T12:03:18.081-07:00Lance wrote: "There is a sad resurgence in di...Lance wrote: "There is a sad resurgence in discussion of long dead cases that frustratingly ignores earlier work."<br /><br />True. Worse, though, is there is no new work on those cases.<br /><br />They are "dead" because, beginning with the AF and Navy in 1947, right on through to today's Ufology, there is no interest in them as "cases", and how some cases might be connected, only whether there is useful evidence in them that they are actual UFOs or not, and especially if anything can be gotten from them to imply ET/NoET.<br /><br />Because of the narrow-beam interest of both UFO skeptics and advocates, I think they miss a lot, when something is there to miss, even though it might be relevant to their interests, because it doesn't immediately say 'UFO' or 'ET' to them.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-8245244326972621332012-07-16T09:17:22.374-07:002012-07-16T09:17:22.374-07:00Starman:
Here is a quote from Coral Lorenzen's...Starman:<br />Here is a quote from Coral Lorenzen's book "The Great Flying Saucer Hoax" (published 1962), p.11.<br /><br />"More rumors surround it [Mantell case] than any other sighting in UFO history. The latest to reach me was from a captain in the USAF Reserve who claims he took part in the investigation of that incident, including the location and inspection of the crashed F-51. He bolsters an old theory that the 'space ship' removed Mantell from his ship and then allowed it to crash. The captain says Mantell's body was never found."<br /><br />There you are - a claimed first-hand witness who is talking BS. You can check the contemporary newspapers yourself and see that not only was his body found but the funeral had been arranged. <br /><br />Funny, but this 'captain' reminds me a bit of some of the military guys who testified about Roswell. <br /><br />I'll shut up now.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-20141156888320200612012-07-16T09:16:53.332-07:002012-07-16T09:16:53.332-07:00I don't think CDA meant his comments in a nast...I don't think CDA meant his comments in a nasty way, just in the same spirit as Kevin's piece itself. <br /><br />There is a sad resurgence in discussion of long dead cases that frustratingly ignores earlier work.<br /><br />I can see Richards' side as well. He likely came in without realizing that we have a load of grizzled regulars for whom many of these cases are old hat.<br /><br />Of course, that doesn't stop us from discussing one of those old cases to death!<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-1982341571549926682012-07-16T09:12:30.413-07:002012-07-16T09:12:30.413-07:00@ Richard
The Mantell case isn't on my short ...@ Richard<br /><br />The Mantell case isn't on my short list so I have no dog in that hunt, and I haven't read much about it, including Kevin's account.<br /><br />I recommend reading Sparks on Mantell, to be found on Updates, June 2008. The article isn't about the UFO, but the account of the chase. There was supposed to be a Part 2 which was to be about the UFO, but I don't recall if it was published.<br /><br />His post didn't generate much comment, so I don't know what the general opinion of it is.<br /><br />In the Part 1, Kevin is listed by Sparks as a source or contributor. <br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.com