Oct 15 2007
|
|
The Trowbridge Interview
Back in July, me and Greg both spoke at the UFO Festival in Roswell, New Mexico. While there, we were granted a personal, behind-closed-doors interview with an elderly man named Jack Trowbridge, who was based at the old military base at the time of the infamous incident. Trowbridge had much to say in the interview that was both illuminating and insightful.
Here’s what Greg had to say in his review of the weekend in Roswell:
Late Friday night at one of those ubiquitous local restaurants that try hard to look like chain establishments, Nick and I were encouraged by FATE magazine publisher Phyllis Galde to arrive early Saturday morning to meet one of the few surviving witnesses to the Roswell crash debris.
Jack Trowbridge is a 91-year old veteran of the Army (and later U.S.) Air Force. Of course, Nick and I were late, but this turned out to be an advantage, because Galde set us up in a private room with him. Trowbridge’s son John sat across from us and videotaped while we shot impromptu questions. Trowbridge was apparently at Jesse Marcel’s home playing a weekly bridge game with other men from the Roswell Air Field when Marcel arrived home on the night of July 7th, 1947. He spoke about handling the “memory metal” which, when wadded up, would reform into its original shape. For a 91 year-old man, Trowbridge is remarkably alert and animated, and we enjoyed meeting him.
Curiously, this bridge game episode has never been mentioned in past accounts, and Jesse Marcel Jr. has not publicly recalled seeing any of this strange metal, only a lot of debris and the well-known I-beams with strange designs embossed on them.
And why am I mentioning this again? Well, you can now view a new interview with Trowbridge - who again talks about his Roswell recollections - right here.
This entry was posted
on Monday, October 15th, 2007 at 10:53 am and is filed under Breaking News, Conspiracies, Crop Circles, Evidence, Eyewitness Accounts, Government Projects, Media Appearances, Roswell, The Redfern Files, UFOlogy. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- Interview Posted »
- An Astronaut Speaks »
- Roswell UFO Festival: Days 2 and 3 »
- UFOMystic on Binnall of America Podcast »
- UFOs & Room 101 »
- The Ray Fowler Interview »
- UFOs: Best Evidence »
- Alien Seeker News »
- UFOs in Sweden »
- Interview Posted »
|
October 15th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Nick, did you & Greg manage to check this gentleman’s credentials, to verify whether he was really stationed at Roswell during the summer of 1947?
His testimony is troubling for me. He goes on saying “All of Intelligence were playing bridge (at Marcel’s house)”. (?) From what I can recall right now, it had always seemed to me that, whatever the hour Marcel returned to his house after investigating the debris that fell over the ranch Mac Brazel managed, there was nobody there but his family. And I suppose it was fairly late since I seem to recall Jesse Jr (Marcel’s son) had already gone to bed and his father urged the mother to wake him up in order to show him the now famous i-beams with funny hyerogliphics (whatever the hell they were). So in my mind it was always a rather private event… and now comes this.
Which of course, being Roswell, doesn’t surprise me one bit anymore (sigh!)
October 15th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
“See the shocking new testimony from Army intelligence officer Jack Trowbridge…”
How can it be that after 60 years, they can still manage to find “new” testimony, but never any “new” physical evidence? They can find all kinds of people willing to break the rules and spill the beans, but they can never manage to find anyone who was also willing and able to break the rules, keep physical evidence to themselves after stealing it, and then show it later. The excuses never end.
“[July 7th] The night of the crash…”
Nobody has ever bothered to read the newspaper they show in the film. If they read it they would see where it states that the night of the crash was June 14th. Brazel waited two weeks to report it on July 7th. So Brazel saw some type of unknown aircraft wreckage at the ranch, but it was so unimportant to him that he ignored it for two weeks. Two weeks! Then Brazel heard all the talk about UFOs and flying saucers so that was when he decided to report the wreckage to the sheriff, but first he took most of the debris and hid it under some bushes. If there were any ETs in the wreckage, that would have been the time to find them — assuming that Brazel did not find any ETs the first time around when he first discovered the wreckage two weeks ago, but just choose to ignore them. In the meantime, the dead and seriously wounded ETs just lied around waiting for someone with a moral conscience to come along and help them.
All those stories about the military immediately going out to the ranch and finding live bodies after a major crash landing is ludicrous, if you actually read the factual historical account of the incident.
October 15th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Hey Sage,
From what I understand of this case, what fell on Brazel’s ranch was only debris: a large area covered with this tin-foil material who allegedly was unfoldable, the balsa-like i-beams and all that. That was what Marcel saw and what he lifted from the area and showed his son.
All the talk about bodies and the disc incrusted on a mound came much later. And too conveniently, I admit it. Roswell seems like a story to which we’ll never have the definite version. Skepticism is understandable.
That’s why people like Friedman talk about the alleged disc crashing in Corona, not Roswell. But I admit I’m no Roswell expert, so if I have omitted valuable info, anyone is free to correct me.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Trowbridge’s background does check out; however, both Greg and I noted that this bridge game that is referred to - as well as the reported presence of intelligence personnel at the Marcel family home - does not tie-in with what Marcel Jr. has to say on the matter.
For the record, I’m still convinced that if the truth ever really comes out about Roswell to where we have a full and complete answer, it will be shown to have nothing to do with ETs and everything to do with dark and dubious human experimentation.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
RedPill,
“From what I understand of this case, what fell on Brazel’s ranch was only debris”
“That was what Marcel saw and what he lifted from the area and showed his son”
This does not address the fact that whatever was there and whoever claimed to see it, it had sat around for three weeks before it was finally decided to report it.
“Roswell seems like a story to which we’ll never have the definite version”
But we do have the definite version. It is the same version that everyone has ever based this case on: the newspaper report of the incident. Yet clearly no one has ever bothered to read the newspaper account where it clearly states that Brazel found the debris on June 14th, yet waited until July 7th to report it.
“That’s why people like Friedman talk about the alleged disc crashing in Corona, not Roswell”
The fact is, without the Roswell newspaper account, there would be no basis for the (still) non-existent Corona newspaper account either.
Nick,
“I’m still convinced that if the truth ever really comes out about Roswell to where we have a full and complete answer, it will be shown to have nothing to do with ETs and everything to do with dark and dubious human experimentation”
And you get all that from a newspaper account that no one who has ever researched the issue, has ever bothered to read and does not mention anything about finding any pilot seats, navigation instruments, metallic parts of an engine or hull, little green men in spacesuits, or explain why Brazel waited three weeks to report anything?
October 16th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Sage:
For the record, even though I don’t agree with the conclusions of their authors, practically every book on Roswell that has been published addresses the issue of the “June 14″ story.
Even though I disagree with the ET approach to Roswell, there is intriguing data contained in those books to show that Brazel may have been persuaded to promote the June date as well as the completely mundane nature of the materials, to make it sound like nothing stranger than a straightforward balloon.
Read the books, read the testimony of those that have commented on this issue.
It still doesn’t mean aliens crashed, but it sure as hell suggests it wasn’t a weather balloon or Mogul balloon either.
Then again, there are people in the DoD who think Roswell was the work of Jack Parsons opening a doorway to some hell-like realm and letting “something” in.
Whether we believe that or not, certain people in the official world most definitely do.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Nick,
“There is intriguing data contained in those books to show that Brazel may have been persuaded to promote the June date as well as the completely mundane nature of the materials”
If Brazel could be forced to lie about the June 14th date, would it not make far more sense to force him not to say anything at all to begin with, that way no attention would have ever been given to the Roswell incident? If you are willing to believe that Brazel lied about the date he saw the debris, what is to stop us from believing that everything Brazel said was part of the force lie routine then?
If Brazel lied about the date, he would have had to lie about everything else that contradicts the UFO crash belief. So when Brazel said he hid the debris under some bushes, he lied about that, and when he said he went with Marcel back to his house and filled the bed of his pickup to a depth of eight inches, he lied about that, and when he said he estimated the entire weight of debris at about three pounds he lied about that. Brazel lied about everything except one thing: he saw some debris on the ranch..and, of course, it was UFO debris even though Brazel never made any such claim. To claim that Brazel lied about anything makes no sense whatsoever, and undermines the very heart and soul of Roswell because without that newspaper article, there would be no Roswell incident. It is an incredible paranormal miracle that all these alleged Roswell investigators can see through all those hundreds of lies Brazel told and zero in and read between the lines for the one and only “true” thing Brazel “said”.
And their obviously make believe storytelling does not end here. They proceed to take this one report of debris and decimate it just so they can substitute another (non-existent) report of their own making in its place…how honest is that? For example, when did the UFO actually crash? July 2nd because a UFO was reported by the Wilmont’s on that date. Of course the Wilmont’s did not report a UFO that was about to crash, but they were probably forced to lie about that just like Brazel was. Then there is the obviously lame story that Brazel was a diversion for the real crash at Corona, even though we have yet to see any real life newspaper articles about the Corona debris as we have for the Roswell debris.
Do these nitwit Roswell “researchers” believe that they are really fooling all the people all the time? If someone walks up to you on the street and say, “Hey pal, have I got a deal for you…”, are you going to take some time to see if they actually have a deal for you or are you going to not waste your time with that obvious con job and walk away? Of course not, so do not ever act surprised if any and all actual scientist walks away at the mention of the ludicrous Roswell story.
The only kind of people in the official world that I know of that believe in the Roswell UFO crash have no credibility.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Sage:
Brazel could not be forced to say nothing, because he had already spilled the beans to friends and the sheriff’s office before he even told the military. Indeed, with the press having been told, the military were practically the last to get the word from Brazel; hence why damage control was the order of the day.
Had he told no-one then it would have been easy to request or order his silence. Having spilled the beans prior to telling the military made their job harder.
You say: “The only kind of people in the official world that I know of that believe in the Roswell UFO crash have no credibility.”
It’s interesting that you say that you know people in the official world who believe in the Roswell UFO crash.
May we know who they are so we can speak with them and try and determine how and why they hold that view?
October 17th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
“Brazel could not be forced to say nothing, because he had already spilled the beans to friends and the sheriff’s office before he even told the military”
I will call your bluff. May we know who your sources are so we can speak with them and try and determine how and why you came up with that view? I will have no problem understanding if you dodge and evade that question…as will everyone else.
“It’s interesting that you say that you know people in the official world who believe in the Roswell UFO crash”
What is more interesting is that I never said any such thing. You need to pay a little more attention to what you are reading. I said I KNOW OF some people, not that I KNOW THESE people. In other words, the only verifiable official word is that Brazel told the truth, and all you have to do to find out for yourself is to read the Roswell newspaper article, listen to what the airforce said about the issue, and look at the evidence for the issue — or the complete lack of evidence as the case may be.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Sage:
Those sources who were prepared to speak on the record to me ARE named (Levine, Barker, Salter etc; plus people like Keith Basterfield’s on the record source who spoke with him on identical issues etc).
I have no control, however, over someone who wants to relate an account but who insists on anonymity - and that applies to any case, not just Roswell.
That also applies to the father and son who were involved in the 1985 Flying Triangle case that I cited in one of my “Archives” posts.
If someone asks me to hold their name back, I do so. If they dont, I don’t.
I have no doubt, however, that as time passes what I believe to be the truth about Roswell - that it involved human beings utilized in high-altitude ballon-based experiments that failed and had nothing to do with aliens - will be vindicated.
Up until very recently I thought that the case would fall into that “Jack the Ripper” style category, where it would become such an old case, with everyone dead, that it defied a definitive and provable answer.
Now, though, I’m not so sure. New documentation has surfaced recently (as some in the UFO community know) that reinforces the idea that dark experimentation was afoot in and around Lincoln County where Brazel found the wreckage.
Some of that new evidence will surface very soon, some I’m still researching.
Okay, you know “of” these people. That doesn’t take away the fact that you said they are in the official world; and if they believe Roswell to have been extraterrestrial, that has to be of significance and interest.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Sage:
And on the specific issue of who Brazel spoke with and who were specifically NOT my sources, consult the Roswell books for the info - people like Frank Joyce, his neighbors the Proctors, the case of Dee Proctor etc.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
“Those sources who were prepared to speak on the record to me…”
How would the average person prove to themselves that the people you claim that you spoke with, actually exist and were there on the date(s) in question? Trusting you and your alleged witnesses is a matter of blind faith and not fact.
As for anonymous witnesses, it is unimportant because it does not matter who the witnesses are or not, what matters is if there was any physical evidence of what they claimed…and the Roswell incident has never had any physical evidence to back itself up with.
All this is minor though, compared to the issue of where is the evidence that Brazel “spilled the beans” before July 7th? That is how you justify your claim that Brazel was “forced to lie” to the newspapers on July 7th. Brazel’s supposed lies had more impact then when he allegedly spilled the beans the first time. No newspaper picked up the story the first time around, and the story certainly must have been much more interesting the first time around — unless it never existed. If the story was not newsworthy the first time around, why worry about it and turn a harmless situation into a national incident and draw all kinds of attention? It is an unsupportable assertion.
“Okay, you know ‘of’ these people. That doesn’t take away the fact that you said they are in the official world”
No it does not. And?
“and if they believe Roswell to have been extraterrestrial that has to be of significance and interest”
I only respect facts, not officials. What officials have to say does not interest me unless their testimony indicates where some facts can be found to support their testimony. Now facts are interesting.
Are there any examples of any people in the official world that believe in the Roswell UFO crash and have any scientific credibility?
I have consulted the Roswell books, but unlike many people, I do not believe everything I read. When I read a book for research purposes, I look for references and bibliographies so I can verify the facts for myself. The Roswell books blatantly contradict one another and what few officials are in there are not credible. The Roswell books only give reports of evidence, not evidence of what was reported.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Sage,
You say: “How would the average person prove to themselves that the people you claim that you spoke with, actually exist and were there on the date(s) in question? Trusting you and your alleged witnesses is a matter of blind faith and not fact.”
Well, for a start I would recommend, and hope, that “the average person” would go out and research Roswell for themselves with an open and clear mind and then comes to their own conclusions based upon their own researches and interviews, rather than taking the approach of just sitting in front of a computer and making comments about me and whether I can be personally trusted or not!
I get this occasionally: people saying how can you be trusted? Or how do we know you (me) weren’t lied to? None of them, however, seem willing to actually follow that up with their own study of Roswell and devoting their own time and money to trying to resolve things. Nope: they prefer to make comments about my honesty as a person from the safety of the Net.
Whether people accept it or not, I have been 100 per cent honest with everything I have related in print concerning my Roswell investigations.
Now, is it possible I was lied to by those sources? Yes, of course it is and, if people read some of my old posts at UFO Updates for example, I have never ever denied that. I don’t *think* I was lied to, however, but proving that an 80 or 82 year old person is lying about a 60 year old event that is utterly lacking in official documentation and where practically everyone involved is now dead, is near impossible.
The only way to at least have a chance of proving it something is to research and investigate it.
Instead, and sadly predictably in a field like this, I get (seriously - about 4 or 5 per year) accusations of being on some “government payroll” to deny the “fact” that aliens crashed at Roswell!
Of course, for these people it’s much easier to question my honesty and trust than it is to actually devote the time to doing their own study. Because the latter takes time, commitment, personal sacrifice, money; whereas the former takes nothing more than the tapping of a few keys on a computer keyboard.
I’m glad to hear you say you have no respect for officials. That’s very wise in today’s world particularly, and one issue upon which we can agree: “I only respect facts, not officials. What officials have to say does not interest me unless their testimony indicates where some facts can be found to support their testimony. Now facts are interesting.”
However, if someone in the official world that you “know of” believes Roswell to have occurred (in the sense that it didn’t involve a weather balloon or Mogul balloon), have you asked these officials you know of whether their views are based on facts or belief?
October 18th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Do you think of yourself as an average person? What makes you think the average person is so lazy and stupid?
You would be surprised by how much evidence you can get from just sitting around in front of a computer and looking up the birth dates, criminal records, and employment history of people who can actually be identified in real life. You should not be surprised by how little evidence you can get when the people cannot be identified in real life, even when not sitting around in front of a computer.
Show me some verifiable facts and I will believe anything — and you cannot get any more open-minded then that! The problem is that most people that want you to believe in something, do not know what a verifiable fact is. The Roswell newspaper article is an example of a verifiable fact. The dates and times and witnesses stated within it can all be verified. That there was a different crash with different witnesses or that Brazel lied about what he saw or was irrelevant to the “other real UFO” is not a verifiable fact. There is no “Corona newspaper” article for example. Worst of all, it relies on blind faith trust and blind faith distrust. You are supposed to blindly distrust the Roswell paper, which you can see, and trust some other story, which you cannot see. It is based on a, “Trust me when I say that I researched this and found out that…”.
I do not doubt that you are honest, but being honest does not prove you have honestly found any truth.
“Now, is it possible I was lied to by those sources? Yes, of course it is”
That is not the point. The point is, would you know how to recognize the truth if you found it?
“The only way to at least have a chance of proving it something is to research and investigate it”
And what if there is nothing to research or investigate? It would remain an unsolvable mystery. Unsolvable mysteries are a very common thing in this world, but not many people are logical enough to realize when there is insufficient data behind an incident to reach any scientifically reasonable conclusion, and then let it go.
“Of course, for these people it’s much easier to question my honesty and trust than it is to actually devote the time to doing their own study”
This is not a question of what is easy or hard to do, or what kind of things are noble or not, it is a question that you seem to be dodging and evading — can you prove you are a trustworthy person…or not? Do you want me to believe in your version of Roswell because you researched it, or because you have some facts and you are not important here other than you are giving us some facts with enough info for the average “lazy and stupid” person to reasonably go out and verify the facts for themselves too?
“I’m glad to hear you say you have no respect for officials”
But you do not appear to be very glad to hear I do not respect you. What you have in common with any official, is you are both authorities. People will listen to you, right or wrong, just because you are listed as an authority. That is illogical and that is why I would not give any more credence to an official then I would a nobody, but unfortunately, most people are not very logical at all and will believe any official tells them.
Before you jump the gun here, to have no respect for someone does not mean to disrespect them. For all you know, it could mean that the respect will be forthcoming when that person earns it.
“However, if someone in the official world that you ‘know of’ believes Roswell to have occurred (in the sense that it didn’t involve a weather balloon or Mogul balloon), have you asked these officials you know of whether their views are based on facts or belief?”
I have read their testimonies and, like I said, none of them have any scientific credibility. Before you start dragging this thought train off into left field any further, let me clear this up for you by being a little more specific: Stan Friedman is part of the “official world” and his personalized little version of Roswell is no better then anyone else’s and it most certainly is not very scientific.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Sage:
You said: “Do you think of yourself as an average person? What makes you think the average person is so lazy and stupid?”
Yes, I consider myself to be average, no more, no less. And I most definitely don’t think the average person is lazy and stupid, and I certainly never said so!
My point - and my comment and observation - was that I do not think it’s possible to resolve a 60 year old case (Roswell) from the benefit of sitting in front of the computer. But it’s quite easy to make comments about me from the computer on a case that the person in question has not looked into from a personal perspective.
“Lazy” and “stupid” never even entered the equation or my comment, however.
You ask if I would recognize the truth if I found it. I’d say I would recognize it as definitive truth if I could verify it. Right now, with Roswell, I think I am on the right track because the interviews I’ve done and fragmentary documentation I have found (more of which is to come soon) points in that direction.
Can I prove I’m an honest person?! Well, I would hope people would see that I’m honest, partly at least by being honest enough to admit that I can never say for certain that with respect to Roswell, for example, I wasn’t lied to (even though I don’t personally think that was the case).
I’m always honest about what I write. If someone deceives me, then that’s one of the unfortunate hazards of this subject.
You ask: “Do you want me to believe in your version of Roswell because you researched it, or because you have some facts and you are not important here other than you are giving us some facts with enough info for the average ‘lazy and stupid’ person to reasonably go out and verify the facts for themselves too?”
First, it matters not in the slightest to me what conclusions you reach concerning my views on Roswell. The only reason we are having this ongoing debate is because I have to keep replying to your posts.
In other words, if you weren’t writing, I wouldn’t be replying. That should tell you enough about how much i care about whether or not you “believe in [my] version or not.”
And stop making it sound like I am calling people lazy and stupid by putting those words in quotes.
I never said that - I pointed out that sitting in front of a keyboard is far easier than going out and tracking people down etc to try and resolve something. The words lazy and stupid never even entered my posts.
You say: “But you do not appear to be very glad to hear I do not respect you. ”
Sage, please believe me, I do not care at all what you think of me. I DO NOT CARE! I don’t lie in bed at night, awake all hours, thinking “Oh no, Sage has no respect for me”!
Again, we only engage in debate because you keep making comments I have to reply to. I don’t even know you, so why the hell would I care what you think of me?
I’m an authority on UFOs? I’d prefer to say I’m someone who has collected a lot of data on the subject, who has reached some tentative conclusions based on that collective data, and that I try to share with others the data that I think may enlighten all of us (to varying degrees) on aspects of the UFO puzzle.
I’d say it’s hard (and highly egotistical) to consider ourselves as UFO “authorities” when the “U” in UFO still stands for “unidentified.”
October 19th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
“I do not think it’s possible to resolve a 60 year old case (Roswell) from the benefit of sitting in front of the computer”
Is that a verifiable fact or an unsubstantial opinion?
“But it’s quite easy to make comments about me from the computer on a case that the person in question has not looked into from a personal perspective”
Computers have nothing to do with that.
“‘Lazy’ and ’stupid’ never even entered the equation or my comment, however”
Who were you referring to that would just sit in front of a computer and not go out and do any research (as if it were impossible to do research on a computer and one cannot stand up while using a computer). More importantly, it does not address the question of how would the average person prove to themselves that the people you claim that you spoke with, actually exist and were there on the date(s) in question. To tell someone to “go out and do your own research” does not tell us *HOW* it is supposed to be done. Tell us how to actually verify your witnesses instead of dancing around the issue. Maybe you could tell us how you actually verified your witnesses.
“I’d say I would recognize it as definitive truth if I could verify it”
That does not answer the question. Changing the question from “recognizing the truth” to “verifying the truth” is avoiding the question. If recognizing the truth to you means something that can be verified, tell us how you would verify it.
“Well, I would hope people would see that I’m honest”
In science, if you are a dishonest person but you have some verifiable facts, all that matters are the facts, not the person reporting the facts. If you are an honest person but you have no verifiable facts, all that matters is there are not facts, not the person reporting the facts.
“That should tell you enough about how much i care about whether or not you ‘believe in [my] version or not’”
I did not ask if you cared or not. I asked if you were relying on any facts you had on Roswell that were believable or instead if you had no facts but you were relying on yourself as being believable.
“I pointed out that sitting in front of a keyboard is far easier than going out and tracking people down etc to try and resolve something”
I detect a hint of an insult in that, and not objective reporting of facts. That is all I am saying.
“I’m an authority on UFOs? I’d prefer to say…”
It does not matter if you admit you are an authority or not, what matters is if you are considered an authority by the UFO community. I would say considering your standing in the UFO community that yes, you are considered one.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Sage:
You say: “Is that a verifiable fact or an unsubstantial opinion?”
Opinion, based on my experience that with a 60 year old case it’s vital to try and interview as many of these old-timers as possible before they croak. Merely surfing the Net can certainly provide good information, I don’t dispute that, but will not replace hands on, in person investigations and interview - in my opinion.
You say: “Computers have nothing to do with that.”
I disagree.
Who was I referring to? I was referring to anyone who thinks that commenting from the Net is somehow as vaild as getting out and doing research, speaking with first-hand witnesses to particular events etc. Again, that’s just my own view. If others disagree, then that’s their right and I’ll continue to disagree with them.
I actually don’t think it’s lazy - I think it’s people just not realizing the value of hands-on, in the field research, and so they take the stay at home and pontificate approach instead.
Jesus Christ, I am not dancing around any issues. If people want to verify what I or someone else writes based on an interview then what other people should do is, as I said before, research the cases, the people, the books, and spend time with the relevant people. And then if people think that the sources are being honest, or they think they are liars or fantasists, then they will be able to formulate a conclusion.
The way in which I verified that the people I interviewed were at least who they claimed to be, and did work at the places they claimed to work, in the correct time frames, came from the things that we all collect in our lifetimes, and some quite down to earth things - military records, tax records, photos (in one case taken at the official installation at a large Christmas party with countless colleagues in uniform around) etc.
If people claim a big military or Intel background and they can’t provide any proof of it (such as work records, and things similar to what I was shown etc), then they’re full of crap.
So, that’s how I’d say people should try and verify the witnesses - ask for something that at least demonstrates their credentials and then take it from there re chasing the story etc.
How would I conclusively verify something? Well, something could only be conclusively verified if the evidence was indisputable. That’s not happened in ufology yet, which is why I say I have reached tentative conclusions based on what I think is going on.
Finding definitive facts pertaining to Roswell is difficult; however, it doesn’t mean that we don’t have the truth - just that we can’t actually prove it for certain.
Remember that the USAF maintains that a Mogul balloon and crash test dummies were the cause of the Roswell legend. But there are no actual facts to prove that. The Air Force can’t prove it, and found no docuuments at all that prove that a Mogul balloon and crash dummies were the cause of Roswell. Yet, it’s widely accepted by skeptics and certain elements of the media as fact.
I maybe considered an authority, but again, in a field where (as I said) the “U” in UFO still stands for “Unidentified”, for me at least I consider us to just be people who have (A) accumulated data on an unresolved puzzle; (B) tried to make sense of it; and (C) shared it with others.
With that, we’re off to the pub for the rest of the night, and I’ll be back on line on Monday. So, any replies to this one will be answered by me on Monday night.
October 20th, 2007 at 10:52 am
SAGE: “Is that a verifiable fact or an unsubstantial opinion?”
NICK: “Opinion”
Since you have already told us you do not care what people think about you or your work, this comment indicates you certainly value your own opinion very highly but you could care less about anybody else’s opinion.
NICK: “[I think it's] people just not realizing the value of hands-on, in the field research, and so they take the stay at home and pontificate approach instead”
The obvious purpose of a blog is not to post research but to post opinions, so what else would you expect in a blog? Furthermore, how would you know what anyone’s qualifications here are that you could apply that statement to any of us? Do you want everyone to stop posting their valueless opinions in this blog and leave…preferably to do some research “out there” in the real world?
NICK: “The way in which I verified that the people I interviewed were…military records, tax records, photos…that’s how I’d say people should try and verify the witnesses - ask for something that at least demonstrates their credentials and then take it from there”
What do official military and tax records look like and why would you not do some actual verification in some official repository instead? Tell us how to verify someone’s military or tax records?
I would ask you for the names of your witnesses so that we may verify their military and tax records for ourselves, but you indicated you do not want that information made public. It is a secret and if we do not qualify to verify that secret information from you for ourselves, what good is the information you do show? Read some scientific peer reviewed journals sometime. They do not hide anything. All the details are given so ANYONE can verify facts for themselves. You will never see any excuses for why they did not publish any details, otherwise they would never be published in the first place. If only UFOlogy would be held accountable to such higher standards.
NICK: “Well, something could only be conclusively verified if the evidence was indisputable”
That still does not answer the question. How do we recognize when evidence is “indisputable” and how does that help us recognize the truth? Remember, there are people who still dispute the Earth is flat.
NICK: “That’s not happened in ufology yet”
Which implies that there is no truth in UFOlogy yet, which implies you have no truth yet either.
NICK: “it’s widely accepted by skeptics and certain elements of the media as fact”
What people “accept” as “fact” is not how truth is recognized. It was widely accepted that the Earth was the center of the Universe by skeptics and certain authorities as fact for thousands of years…and they were all wrong.
NICK: “I maybe considered an authority, but again, in a field where (as I said) the “U” in UFO still stands for ‘Unidentified’”
There are no maybes about it, you are considered an authority. Stop denying that fact. People can be authorities on ANYTHING, even things that are unidentified or unknown.
I do not want to pick on you, and I do not like discussing this, but to challenge you and your authority is the proper thing to do, is it not? A scientist, even if they took this challenge personally, would not express their offense but merely hand over a copy of their methodology, facts, and data and say, “Here is my research, see if you can find anything wrong with it”. They would not hide their actual research and just show you their conclusion and say, “Go out and do your own research”.
October 20th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Sage:
Well, I’m around tonight after all, so here’s my reply.
Re opinions: you misunderstand me. I am very interested to hear what people think about my research, findings, conclusions, as well as what they think of the research, findings and conclusions of others, etc.
That’s precisely why I post to this blog - to share info and see what people think.
When I say I don’t care, that’s with specific respect to what people think if they disagree with me, in the sense of me not letting it bother me.
I’m happy to debate opinions all night if there’s a chance it will get us somewhere, and to understand what other people think and to secure their views and opinions is valuable.
However, do I care if at the end of the night we disagree massively,our opinions widely differ, and people think I’ve been deceived or lied to by bullshitters, fantasists etc?
No: if I am of the opinion that the data is valid, then I won’t lose sleep over what others think. That’s the specific sense I mean by not caring about opinions.
So, it’s not a situation where I don’t care about opinions. Rather, I don’t care in that it’s of no personal or emotional concern to me, if we disagree on those opinions.
It’s just UFOs; not curing cancer, saving the ozone layer etc. Just weird stuff in the sky. Not enough to lose sleep over yet (in my opinion, at least), unless the aliens land of course…
You mention “valueless opinions.” Of course, I don’t consider any opinions (even yours, actually!) posted here to be valueless.
Again, the point is that I don’t care if people disagree with me - but that’s very different from not caring what they have to say.
You ask: “What do official military and tax records look like and why would you not do some actual verification in some official repository instead? Tell us how to verify someone’s military or tax records?”
As far as your comment re “some official repository” is concerned, this is totally incorrect. As people who know me will be well aware, I regularly travel to the National Archives in Maryland (maybe 3 times a year for 4 or 5 days at a time), and I’ve done that each year since 2001. Before that, in the UK, I used to reguarly visit the National Archive at Kew, England to undertake similar research, dating back to (I think) 1991, or maybe 92.
I’ve also researched extensively at the Library of Congress, various presidential libraries, the NSA museum, and several other archives.
As for document verification: I have filed for numerous personal military documents from the National Personnel records center and so I know what official records look like, same for records at the National Archives. Same for all other records - you make a comparison with known, authentic papers re style, format; is the typeface old and written on an old typewriter?; find a document authenticator (in their specific field) etc.
I have no problem re naming my sources. Indeed, in my Body Snatchers book, for example, all but 2 are named. The choice to withhold those 2 names was not mine. That doesn’t just go for Roswell, however. As I have said before, if someone is ok about being named then i’ll name them. If they’re not, I won’t.
For the record, however, in all the writing I’ve done (10 books and numerous articles) and of the literally 100s of people I’ve interviewed over the last 20 years, I think the number of people who have asked for anonymity or to be placed under a pseudonym, or just to have their first name used, etc is no more than around 20 to 30 - which for such a controversial subject, and one that creates so much ridicule and stigma, is not too many and in my mind is understandable.
How would we recognize when the evidence is indisputable and how does that help us re the truth?
Well, if some UFOs are indcative of alien visitations, I’d say something like a DNA analysis of some sort of material said to come from an alien body (I’m speaking hypothetically of course).
If that material were proven to be like nothing on earth, that might ultimately be shown to indisputable, and if the DNA came from a body found in the desert that was small, bald and had big black eyes, that might help us confirm that the people who have associated such creatures with UFOs are speaking truthfully.
You say:
“Which implies that there is no truth in UFOlogy yet, which implies you have no truth yet either.”
I disagree - we just haven’t found and confirmed the evidence/truth yet.
I’m not - nor have I ever (read my words) - denied that people might consider me an authority on UFOs.
What I actually said was that I don’t consider myself an authority - in the lliteral sense of the word - because I don’t think anyone can be considered an authority on a subject where the subject matter is utterly unknown in terms of precisely what it is or may be.
Rather, as I said, I consider myself to be someone who has done a lot of research, secured a lot of information, data, documents and testimony, tried to makes some sense of it all and come to some tentative conclusions and share it with others that find it to be of interest. Nothing more and nothing less.
Yes, in some people’s eyes that makes me an authority.
You say: “I do not want to pick on you, and I do not like discussing this, but to challenge you and your authority is the proper thing to do, is it not? A scientist, even if they took this challenge personally, would not express their offense but merely hand over a copy of their methodology, facts, and data and say, ‘Here is my research, see if you can find anything wrong with it.’ They would not hide their actual research and just show you their conclusion and say, ‘Go out and do your own research.’
I don’t mind at all that you might “pick on me.” For the record, however, I actually don’t consider what you are doing as picking on me.
I see it for what it is: you disagree with me and want to debate etc. That’s fine and I actually have no problem with that. At the end of the day, however, we’ll likely continue to differ - that’s how it goes.
As far as handing over data, info etc, I always, where possible, put as much data in the public domain as I can, via books, mag articles, web posts etc.
I am speaking to you with utter truthfulness when I say that if anything is ever held back that specifically relates to the interviewee, it is because the interviewees (I’m not just talking about Roswell here, of course - I’m talking about interviewees in general) have requested that I don’t share every bit of their lives with others, and in a fashion that results in everyone and their brother knocking on their front door demanding an interview, and who might not adhere to their requests for anonymity (and I have seen that happen on several occasions with other researchers who have shared their unnamed sources with other researchers, and then those researchers have then spilled the names of those sources all over the place).
Look at Deep Throat from the Watergate scandal, for example. Was his every action, identity, background etc given to one and all at the time? No. There was an insistence on staying in the shadows. But did that mean that what he had to say didn’t open doors to valid data? No, it did not.
Rest assured, you may not agree with my views and methodology, but again, my actions (specifically with respect to interviewees here, not documents, photos, etc) are governed to a significant degree by how much a witness/interviewee is willing to say, and how comfortable they are about going public, and to what degree etc.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:14 pm
You could not post to this blog to see what people think because, as you also said in an earlier thread, “I can’t be wasting time thinking about what others think”, especially those you considered part of the mainstream. Last time I looked, what others think is called “opinions”.
But what if it is not an opinion? If one person claims you are scientifically naive, has at least some evidence to demonstrate that, and both of you disagree, that is not simply a case of being in disagreement of opinions, that is a case of objectively reporting facts vs denial of them. Distinguishing the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact is critical to performing proper field research. If a father and son look at each other and exclaim, “Did you see that?”, is that a statement of opinion, fact, or neither? Should research reports contain material that is not a fact?
There are lots of people who go to the National Archives, the Library of Congress, etc, but what does that prove about any of the Roswell witnesses you allude to? What we need to know more then if you have visited any of these archives are, which person did you verify, using which military or tax record, in which one of those archives, so that way ANYONE can verify your results and not have to just take you at your word for it. We already know that you know what official records look like, but how does that tell us how to verify someone’s official records for ourselves? It does not tell us anything factual only that we still have to take you at your word for it.
We all know what slippery little devils those alleged Roswell witnesses can be. One second you see them; the next second they are gone! Most of the alleged witnesses did not exist until the late 1980s. All the famous Roswell “researchers”, have nothing but their slippery little Roswell witnesses and they all tell us different and mutually incompatible stories that cannot be verified. So Stanton Friedman has his slippery version of the Roswell storytale, Linda M Howe has her slippery version of the Roswell storytale, Kevin Randall has his slippery version of the Roswell storytale, and you…so when does the storytelling end and reality begin — with public verification, not private verification.
You claim finding some alien DNA would be indicative of how we recognize evidence that is indisputable and help us recognize the truth when we see it, but I was not looking for a specific example, but a clear and unambiguous scientific guideline or methodology, which I did not see even for the specific example. I cannot imagine that the only acceptable evidence for the existence of ET would be their DNA. So guess what? There is no alien DNA and no ET bodies in the desert so once again, the proper conclusion would be that there is no evidence that people are speaking truthfully about these things, that UFOlogy has any truth in it, or that you have any truth. The fact is, we have no ET DNA or a body in the desert. This is what I meant by being scientifically naive.
You are an authority and it was not a case if you think you are an authority. It is what the UFO community thinks of you and it is a fact that you keep denying. I do not know why you keep denying that…what is wrong with being considered an authority?
Deep Throat had doors to open because at least there were some closed doors that existed to be opened. There will be no Deep Throat for the UFO community because there are no doors at all.
It is not that I disagree with your views or methodology, I just do not believe you have any methodology, so naturally I would question your views on it.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Sage:
You said: “You could not post to this blog to see what people think because, as you also said in an earlier thread, “I can’t be wasting time thinking about what others think”, especially those you considered part of the mainstream. Last time I looked, what others think is called “opinions”.
Okay, I could perhaps have phrased that different: I believe, based on my evaluation of the evidence that there is a small, real genuine UFO puzzle, and I’m very interested in people’s opinions who may find my findings of interest.
I’m happy to debate and share info etc, but I specifically, and really, don’t care about the skeptics and their opinions, and I won’t lose sleep over people who disagree with me or who think I’m wrong.
That’s my main point: I care about opinions if people have an open mind, but I don’t care what outright debunkers and those who are skeptical for the sake of being skeptical think because they aren’t open-minded.
Re your words about facts and opinions and should reports contain just facts: If someone tells me that they saw something that filled them with awe, or panicked them, etc, I don’t see any problem with informing people of things like that.
If the person is of the opinion that something was “out of this world” then I don’t have a problem with relating those words, even if I don’t agree with them, because I feel it’s important to relate how the witness felt, and not just relate the stone-cold facts.
You don’t agree, and we have had this debate before - such as those 2 UK witnesses who I wrote reported their encounter to the police in 1985 and the “breathless” statement re their “Flying Triangle” sighting etc.
We disagreed back then re this exact same issue and we’ll continue to disagree on what should or should not appear in a report.
You won’t change your mind and neither will I. We’re human, we have different views and opinions. Learn to live with the fact that people are never going to agree on most things, and most certainly not ufology.
You say: “There are lots of people who go to the National Archives, the Library of Congress, etc, but what does that prove about any of the Roswell witnesses you allude to?”
Going to various archives and having document authenticators examine aged files may not prove their story (only original documents on the incident, bodies etc could prove that, and those we don’t have), but it proves they were who they claimed to be, and did work where they claimed to work.
I verified the official backgrounds of all of those I interviewed aside from one UK geezer named Levine.
But in the book I pointed out that I was wary of Levine and his overly exagerrated, conspiratorial style. The rest: their papers check out.
The problem, as I have pointed out here, on UFO Updates etc, is that some of those I interviewed were not happy about speaking on the record, and others were concerned about having people phoning them up, turning up on their doorsteps etc and throwing them wide open, lives and all.
Now I fully concede that to an extent things are therefore reliant on me verifying things rather than the public.
But that was the situation I was faced with (specifically with my Roswell investigation, I would stress - this is most assuredly not the case for most of the people I’ve interviewed over the last 20 or so years), and i have never denied that for some people this is problematic from the perspective of concluding I was lied to.
As I have stressed, most of the people I have collectively interviewed during my UFO research for my books and articles have been very willing to go fully on the record re names, locations, etc etc. The Roswell people were wary. I chose therefore to go with publishing their stories with the caveat that some were unwilling to speak on the record, but that I had checked them out and was satisfied with them.
Can that be considered problematic? Of course it can! But I’ve never denied that. I can only say what I have said before: that I have dug personally into their backgrounds, I’ve sat opposite them chatting to try and gain a sense of their characters etc. I’ve seen photos, records etc. And I have reported my thoughts on them and whether i thought they were being genuine or not.
For my main 5 Roswell interviewees, in my book I pointed out that I felt 4 were being honest and one (Levine) was deceitful to a pretty signficant degree and had an agenda that involved subterfuge, distortion and manipulation.
So, yes to a degree it’s reliant on my word. But I have always been honest enough to admit that I felt one of the sources was not playing it straight with me, because that’s how he came across.
You say: “…we still have to take you at your word for it.”
Yes, I agree, that’s true. But I can assure you it certainly does not do me any favours with the ufological research community - at all - for me to have said (and still state two and a half years after my Roswell book was published) that I do NOT believe anything alien crashed at Roswell.
In my book and in Net debates and at speaking gigs, I have always spoken honestly, from the heart, and with deep conviction when I say that I came to believe my sources and that I personally verified that they were who they claimed to be at least.
If the fact that this doesn’t meet your view of what is acceptable in terms of what makes something credible and verifiable, so be it. But I would ask anyone to put themselves in the position in which I was placed: I was presented with an opportunity to interview a bunch of old intel guys and an Oak Ridge employee who told me a remarkable and dark story about human experiments that they said led to the Roswell “crashed UFO” legend. But, they had guidelines about how far they wanted to go in terms of what they had to say, and how much (or not) they wanted to go with the story, and to what extent (or not) they wanted to speak on the record.
I was faced with filing the story away, or, after confirming they were who they claimed to be, and learning that other researchers had heard very similar tales, running with the story. I chose the latter. I believe, being personally satisifed with them, that I did the right thing.
Are there people out there who think I did the wrong thing and was lied to, deceieved and fed disinformation? Certainly. I debated with them on UFO Updates for months after the book came out.
But that’s ufology.
But, in my view, the real truth about Roswell (that it was a high-altitude balloon-based experiment using people) was, and still is, a dark and dubious secret that still troubles certain people today as a result of the secrets they carry. They called, and still call, the shots to what extent they are willing to share their lives and stories.
You say: “You are an authority and it was not a case if you think you are an authority. It is what the UFO community thinks of you and it is a fact that you keep denying. I do not know why you keep denying that…what is wrong with being considered an authority?”
For christ’s sake, of course there is nothing wrong with being an authority! Not a damned thing!
And I have never, ever denied that people in Ufology may consider me an authority. Go back and read my words on that issue.
I have spelled my point out very clearly: namely that I don’t see how someone can be considered an authority (in the literal term of what that means) when the whole point of what remains at the heart of the UFO puzzle is completely and utterly unidentified!
Now, I have a lot of data, a lot of witness interviews, a lot of documents etc.
In other words, I (lke most people who do UFO research) have a lot of info on a subject where we have not got a real clue of what’s going on.
In my view, therefore, that makes us collectors of info, disseminators of info, and people who try to make sense of things. But to me at least, with respect to UFOs, it doesn’t make an authority and nor can it.
In my view (and if people disagree, fair enough; it’s hardly an overly significant issue in my view) an authority is someone who knows what the hell is going on.
I’m honest enough to say that for the most part I have some ideas (some firm ideas, some less so, and some downright speculation), but no hard and fast answers.
Again, you and ufology might still see that as implying I’m an authority. But really it depends on how you view the term “authority.”
Someone who studies heart disease would, in my view, be an authority because they have hard, verifiable data to work with - how and why an artery blocks, the nature of cholesterol and its effects, high-blood pressure factors etc.
But for those of us that collect UFO data we have no hard evidence as does the heart specialist. So, can we consider ourselves authorities?
As I have said, for me: we’re collectors of data, we examine data, we share it, we try to understand it. And thus far, after 60 years, we are still looking.
You say: “There will be no Deep Throat for the UFO community because there are no doors at all.”
Is that a fact or an opinion?
In summary and conclusion therefore (for tonight at least…): we disagree on what should be reported (fact vs opinions or both); we disagree on methodology; you see a problem re relying on the word of a person (me, in the specific case of Roswell) for verification of another source who either refused to speak on the record or who ensured that they kept their tracks well covered; you don’t believe I have any methodology (and I don’t care that you don’t believe I don’t have any methodology), and so on and so on.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
“I could perhaps have phrased that different”
Finally. It is very good now. Well, maybe except for…
“[I] don’t care about the skeptics and their opinions”
Do you really think that only “yes men” (read: groupies or the opposite of skeptics) will be the only ones of benefit in your pursuit of truth? I think you could have phrased that differently too. How about, “I do not care about noisey negativists”, aka Stan Friedman? Or how about, “I value any opinion as long as it is constructive and not destructive”? I do not polarize the issue by segregating people into categories that I am prejudiced against. Only the opinions matter, not the people.
What exactly is being conveyed so that reporting someone’s feelings about an event would be considered “informing people”? In media circles, that is called sensationalism. Do I need to watch the 5 o’clock news and hear a woman wail in pain over her loss of her 5-year old in a recent fire? How does that make me a more “informed” person? It does no such thing. Repeating opinions instead of reporting facts is not very scientific at all. It makes it sound like they are being biased, gullible, or sensationalist. I see lots of repeated opinions and little reported facts in grocery store tabloids, while on the other hand I see lots of reported facts and little repeated opinion in peer reviewed science literature. Of the two, who do you think is trying to be the most serious and be taken the most seriously?
“We disagreed back then re this exact same issue and we’ll continue to disagree on what should or should not appear in a report”
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing. And who is being the closed-minded one here? If you can ever prove their is any value in repeating opinions, I will change my mind right then and there — unlike yourself, who will never change his mind because he already knows what he wants to believe in, and does not care to bother with those who disagree with him.
“I verified the official backgrounds of all of those I interviewed…[things which] are reliant on me verifying things rather than the public”
You have a questionable event using questionable people with questionable backgrounds (there is more to people then just military and tax records), and so what do you do when it comes to documenting this so very important event so that anyone can verify your research without question? You skip it. Hiding information is the opposite of documenting. The fact that the so-called witnesses do not want to put their name on the line is evidence that they may not be trustworthy. Letting alleged witnesses bully you into skimping on the most important part of doing research is inexcusable.
“Your view of what is acceptable in terms of what makes something credible and verifiable…”
It is not my view, it is proper scientific reasoning. Would you like me to quote my University textbook on Scientific Reasoning? If you had done your book in the same style as a peer reviewed science journal, there would be no debates. It would be listed in Wikipedia as the greatest event of the last century. Scientists would be interested in it. But Roswell is a go nowhere story because there is never anything to go on. It has been beaten to death for about thirty years now and UFOlogists are no closer to resolving the issue today anymore than they were thirty years ago.
“I don’t see how someone can be considered an authority (in the literal term of what that means) when the whole point of what remains at the heart of the UFO puzzle is completely and utterly unidentified!”
Because people are not very good at logical thinking. Gravity is still completely and utterly unidentified. So is quantum mechanics. Yet no matter, there are still people considered authorities in those fields. But just because they are authorities does not mean they know anything either. Why do you think that appeal to authority is such a common logical fallacy?
“So, can we consider ourselves authorities?”
That was never the issue or the question. The issue and question always has been, are you considered by your peers as an authority? The answer is yes. I tend to distrust authorities, as do you.
SAGE: “There will be no Deep Throat for the UFO community because there are no doors at all.”
NICK: “Is that a fact or an opinion?”
It is a fact. I know the difference between fact and opinion and there are no doors. What doors? Where? It is all poorly told storytelling to go along with their poorly taken photos. There is no evidence of anything and there never has been…with the extremely rare exceptions like the completely ignored Battle of LA event. Even when the believers have something, they are so naive and ignorant they do not even realize that they do have something.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Sage:
You say: “…I think you could have phrased that differently too.”
Nope, what I said was just fine.
You say: “What exactly is being conveyed so that reporting someone’s feelings about an event would be considered “informing people”? In media circles, that is called sensationalism.”
I disagree with the above. You disagree with me. We disagree. Always will. I see nothing wrong with reporting how a witness feels about a sighting. You do. People differ. That’s all. And I don’t see it as sensationalism or anthing that can be compared with supermarket check out mags.
You ask me: “Would you like me to quote my University textbook on Scientific Reasoning?”
Good god, no.
You say re the Roswell interviewees: “Letting alleged witnesses bully you into skimping on the most important part of doing research is inexcusable.”
First, no-one bullies me, ever, And certainly not a bunch of old geezers in their 80s. In fact, there was never any bullying or even trying to push the story on me according to draconian, bullying rules of their or anything like that at all.
It was just a case of them wanting to tell what they knew, but not wanting to be in the firing line of everyone and his brother.
It was for the most part (after we got to know each other) a very relaxed, if slightly surreal, “take it or leave it” situation. No-one bullied me into doing anything or not doing anything.
I was simply asked in a cordial fashion that if I wanted to pursue the story that I respect their position not to go public to a large degree. I was never told anything like: “You have to get this story into the ufological arena no matter what, and here is how you have to do it, like it or not.”
It was purely a free choice on my part to dig into the story or walk away. I could have walked away because of that, but chose not to. They were pleased, I think, to get the story off their chests and out there.
You say: “The fact that the so-called witnesses do not want to put their name on the line is evidence that they may not be trustworthy.”
Yes, and I point out this very fact in the book too, and at places like UFO Updates on countless occasions. I have never denied that the approach I took was problematic in terms of working with off the record sources and whistleblowers.
I went along with their wishes at my own decision for a number of reasons, one (seldom discussed) being that I was not the only person told such accounts of Roswell being connected to high-altitude balloon experiments using people.
Keith Basterfield in Australia was given a practically identical account by a source whose father worked in British Intelligence, and Keith’s source related it to him 6 months before my book was even published, so there’s no way Keith’s source got the info via my book. There’s many more people like this that I will be going into in an article to be published soon.
So, that was one of the reasons I went with their wishes: I knew that they were not alone and that others had fragments of the story too, and that made it worth pursuing - for me, at least.
Had no-one else ever made such claims to anyone else along the lines of those told to me, I would indeed have been suspicious. But a read of crashed UFO materials right back to Stringfield in the late 70s and early 80s throws up strands of the human experiment angle. Most were buried by ufology that didn’t want to deal with the possibility that maybe aliens didn’t crash at Roswell.
You say: “The issue and question always has been, are you considered by your peers as an authority? The answer is yes.”
And I never denied that people consider me an authority (go back and read my words). So, if I didn’t deny it, why do you keep bringing it up? What I said was that (how many times must I say this?) I don’t consider myself an authority (in the literal sense of what that means) when we have no idea what is going on. I consider myself a collector and disseminator of info. It really only depends on how you, me and everyone else defines the word “authority” and that’s all.
You say: “I know the difference between fact and opinion and there are no doors. What doors? Where? It is all poorly told storytelling to go along with their poorly taken photos.”
How do you know it is “all” poorly told storytelling? Presumably to make such a sweeping statement yourself, you have interviewed everyone who has made such a statement or taken such a photo, so that you can make an assessment of them and their accounts?
If you haven’t, then it’s just (shock, horror!!) your opinion.
October 25th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
SAGE: “Would you like me to quote my University textbook on Scientific Reasoning?”
NICK: “Good god, no”
We know. It shows. A sure sign of someone who is “open-minded” is when they could care less about skeptical viewpoints and only care about those viewpoints that agree with their own. Good job!
“No-one bullies me, ever, And certainly not a bunch of old geezers in their 80s”
Right…so you just personally decided that it would be in the best interest of those wanting to know the truth of this matter (i.e. — everyone who reads your book obviously), for you to not publicly document any evidence, but to keep it all hidden and private to yourself. That is one very interesting “scientific technique” you have going on there.
“There’s many more people like this that I will be going into in an article to be published soon”
There have been plenty of opportunities for this to happen in the least thirty years, so why now? Why not wait another thirty years? What took so god awfully long for all these “honest” researchers and “honest” witnesses to come out of the closet and tell the “truth” anyway? Money? Fame?
“I knew that they were not alone and that others had fragments of the story too”
You say you “knew” but you are unable to prove you knew. This is all based on just your mere words, and mere words have never been an example of what evidence or facts are.
“How do you know it is ‘all’ poorly told storytelling? Presumably to make such a sweeping statement yourself, you have interviewed everyone who has made such a statement or taken such a photo, so that you can make an assessment of them and their accounts? If you haven’t, then it’s just (shock, horror!!) your opinion”
But I do know, trust me. Take me at my word. I have evidence, but I am keeping it private. You know that I know…
…you are good at logical fallacies. I do not have to interview every fisherman who has ever bragged about “the big one that got away” to know the obvious — “the big one that got away” is an example of storytelling. Roswell is another example of “the big one that got away” only it has been slightly changed to “the big UFO that got away”.
Can you tell the difference between reality and fantasy? I think not. If I told you that MOTHER GOOSE was real, I think you would consider believing me. And if I told you I had some witnesses who could vouch for MOTHER GOOSE being real, you would buy into it, even if I would not tell you who my witnesses were (other then their pseudonyms) and I used absolutely no scientific methodology in my research (and I do not even want to know what those words mean).
The obviously false Roswell stories never check out because researchers try never to give us anything real life to check them out with. It is called (shock, horror!!) intellectual dishonesty and scientific cowardice. You would not know anything about that now, would you?
October 25th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Sage:
You say: “Right…so you just personally decided that it would be in the best interest of those wanting to know the truth of this matter (i.e. — everyone who reads your book obviously), for you to not publicly document any evidence, but to keep it all hidden and private to yourself.”
No, not at all.
This was a weird story, with interviewees wanting to remain in the shadows. And if I wanted to pursue it and secure their interviews, I made a decision to pursue a line of investigation that I have seldom had to do before.
Yes, that was certainly my choice. But, it is most certainly not my norm.
In every other book I have written my main sources have all spoken on the record, aside from one source in my “On the Trail of the Saucer Spies,” and I’ve written 10 books.
So keep it in context - 3 of my Roswell witnesses spoke off the record, and 1 in “Saucer Spies.” The rest of my interviewees (aside from a few people with very minor stories to relate) are all named, in each and every book.
4 main sources over 10 books: It’s hardly a sign of an overwhelming trend on my part to regularly use anonymous people, in other words. Not that you claimed I did regularly use anonymous sources in my books, but I make this point to demonstrate that it is not my usual practice to hold back info; only in those few and rare cases where the people asked for such.
And as I said, the Roswell investigation was quite unlike any other I’ve done (as I freely admit- and always have admitted) and as I also admitted, I considered the fact that they didn’t want to speak on the record as problematic - I have said so on countless discussion posts at UFO Updates, for example.
Plus, one other reason for being careful with the interviewees is very simple: my Roswell book may have been published 2 and a half years ago, but the investigation is still ongoing, as is the search for sources named by the interviewees, and their families (some success had already - as will become apparent when I do a follow up article/paper to the book).
You say: “There have been plenty of opportunities for this to happen in the least thirty years, so why now? Why not wait another thirty years? What took so god awfully long for all these “honest” researchers and “honest” witnesses to come out of the closet and tell the “truth” anyway? Money? Fame?”
I can’t speak for others, but in the case of my interviewees/witnesses, I truthfully feel that it was a desire on their part to come clean and get off their chests a story that was disturbing, dark, one that filled them with regret as result of being implicated or had knowledge of. Roswell hung around them like a dark family secret.
Fame? Nope, certainly not with my sources, because they remain in the shadows, and did so from the beginning. So that wasn’t their motive - ever.
Money? Nope, at least not my witnesses. I bought them dinner or lunch when we met sometimes, and on other occasions they did likewise, but that’s it as far as any benefit went.
Plus, because they remained in the shadows, they never got financial payments from appearing on TV shows (as sometimes happens re a fee or a daily per diem for filming), as have certain other Roswell players.
I can’t comment on other people’s witnesses, of course, because I don’t know, but I can tell you that mine (the Roswell ones, I mean) got absolutely nothing of personal benefit out of telling their accounts - at all - as far as I can tell, at least.
Unless, as some believe, it was part of an official psy-op to further try and hide further the fact that aliens really did crash at Roswell - and that my sources were following some disinfo agenda, which I don’t buy.
After all, the Air Force already has the Mogul Balloon and crash-test-dummy scenarios in place, so why would they introduce another angle (the one told to me)?
If that was their intent, that would then make it look like they (the AF) lied about Mogul and the dummies if they introduced a new scenario via me. And to do that would make no sense.
So, I see my sources as people who wanted no personal gain (fame or money), but in old age were ready to clear their chests of secrets that had troubled them for years.
And if there is another reason for them relating their accounts, why tell of all people a UFO writer (me), whose books sell at best a couple of thousand copies, collectively around the world? My point is that such actions are patently illogical - in terms of the fact that their story would get very limited exposure, and certainly only limited to a small number of people: namwely, the UFO research community, who for the most part denounced my book, and ignored my sources’ accounts anyway, because they had nothing to do with aliens crashing at Roswell!
So, everything else - other than a desire to clear the decks and come clean because they were troubled by keeping the secret - in terms of logic either totally defies reason (the psyop angle) or has no validity (fame or money).
You quote me correctly as saying: “I knew that they were not alone and that others had fragments of the story too.”
Then you say: “You say you “knew” but you are unable to prove you knew. This is all based on just your mere words, and mere words have never been an example of what evidence or facts are.”
Of course I can prove it. By this I meant that I knew others had fragments of this story because the details have long been published for all to see!
Two quick examples among many I have: The exact issue of humans used in NM experiments in 47 is told by a source in Leonard Stringfield’s 1991 crashed UFO “Status Report.”
“Popular Mechanics” reported in their magazine that they were “told” (that’s their exact word of it) the same story practically in 1997 of balloon-based experiments with humans leading to the Roswell crashed UFO legend.
You say: “Can you tell the difference between reality and fantasy? I think not. If I told you that MOTHER GOOSE was real, I think you would consider believing me. And if I told you I had some witnesses who could vouch for MOTHER GOOSE being real, you would buy into it, even if I would not tell you who my witnesses were (other then their pseudonyms) and I used absolutely no scientific methodology in my research (and I do not even want to know what those words mean).”
What? There’s no Mother Goose? Surely you jest? You’ll be telling me next there’s no Santa.
You say: “The obviously false Roswell stories never check out because researchers try never to give us anything real life to check them out with. It is called (shock, horror!!) intellectual dishonesty and scientific cowardice. You would not know anything about that now, would you?”
No, I most certainly would not. I have consistently pointed out to people that, for probably the first time ever, I was placed in a unique situation (for me, at least) re my Roswell investigation that was problematic because of the fact that my sources insisted on remaining as whistleblowers.
I was honest enough to admit that was a problem, and I have always been honest enough to say that I cannot say for certain I was not deceived. Although I don’t think I was.
So, I don’t see my actions in presenting the story in the fashion I did in the book as “intellectual dishonesty and scientific cowardice.”
I see it as me placed in a strange, surreal, and odd situation where I had to make a decision to pursue it in the one fashion I could if I was to get the people to speak with me, supply leads etc., but also me openly explaining to people in the UFO research community the odd circumstances in the process.
I was never bullied, railroaded, anything other than cordial conversations along the lines of: “If you want to pursue it we can talk more. If not, fair enough.”
I elected to do so. But by laying all my cards on the table in terms of the pitfalls of dealing with whistleblowers I don’t believe I was being dishonest.
You say: “But I do know, trust me. Take me at my word. I have evidence, but I am keeping it private. You know that I know…”
Very good: sarcasm. But, if you make such a definitive statement that there is nothing to the UFO issue (aside from Battle of LA and possibly some others), but then fail to tell us how you have PROVED this to where you can say that with utter certainty - other than via your fisherman comment - you are basically doing what you criticize me for doing. Double standards? Yes.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
“…it is most certainly not my norm…so keep it in context…”
In case you did not notice, the context never has changed: Roswell is the context. Let us keep it there.
Someone who knows how to conduct serious investigation does not up and decide to write a research paper as if there were writing for The National Enquirer — even if it is not the norm.
“I can’t speak for others, but in the case of my interviewees/witnesses, I truthfully feel…”
…and then you proceed to speak for your hidden witnesses. What you “feel” is irrelevant. Stop confusing your “feelings” for facts. They are not the same thing. Not even close.
“not with my sources, because they remain in the shadows”
So your sources are “different” from everyone else’s? That is what they all say.
“So, I see my sources as people who wanted no personal gain (fame or money), but in old age were ready to clear their chests of secrets that had troubled them for years”
In this respect you are no different from John Mack. During the 1994 CSICOP conference held in Seattle, Washington, June 23 through 26, one of John Mack’s star ‘abduction’ patients he wrote about in his book ABDUCTION, Donna Bassett, came forward and confessed that she had never really been an abductee. She went on to say that John Mack was so easy to fool into believing she was an abductee because John Mack failed to rely on any sort of scientific methodology. And John Mack’s rebuttal to all of this? “Whether she did in fact hoax or whether she has in fact had these experiences herself. I don’t know”. It is all based on just “feelings” instead of just facts.
“My point is that such actions are patently illogical”
Pretending those were the only actions that could exist is patently illogical. Furthermore, people often do not act according to logic, further invalidating that line of reasoning.
“Of course I can prove it”
That is irrelevant since the real question is, can others prove it? Considering the amount of information you have provided, absolutely not.
“Two quick examples among many I have…”
Do you have any examples not based on hearsay and meresay? I did not think so. And the Air Force told their version of the Roswell story first before others started repeating it.
“What? There’s no Mother Goose? Surely you jest? You’ll be telling me next there’s no Santa”
…or Jesus or a God or monsters or visiting ETs or super-duper paranormal powers.
“My Roswell investigation that was problematic because of the fact that my sources insisted on remaining as whistleblowers”
So they forced you to write about them? That is not a problem with them though. If there was a problem with the witnesses, that should have been a red flag that something was not quite right and you should have tried something different, something more in your “norm”.
“Very good: sarcasm. But, if you make such a definitive statement that there is nothing to the UFO issue (aside from Battle of LA and possibly some others), but then fail to tell us how you have PROVED this to where you can say that with utter certainty - other than via your fisherman comment - you are basically doing what you criticize me for doing. Double standards? Yes.”
No. It is not called sarcasm, it is called mocking. Those are all words you used and I was using them to parrot your arguments back to you. If you do not like them, you should not use them so often. But I am glad you noticed how ridiculous those words and arguments are.
PS — By the way, how many witnesses did you give full details for in Memoirs of a Monster Hunter?
October 26th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Sage:
You say: “In case you did not notice, the context never has changed: Roswell is the context. Let us keep it there.”
No, I’ll always discuss what I personally feel is relevant, and I will make the decision on what I think I should be commenting on. That’s why I chose to use those words.
You say: “…and then you proceed to speak for your hidden witnesses. What you “feel” is irrelevant. Stop confusing your “feelings” for facts. They are not the same thing. Not even close.”
Of course feelings and facts aren’t the same. But I’ll continue to express why I felt they were speaking truthfully and I will continue to express why I feel it’s important to relate both feelings and facts.
As I have now said countless times, you don’t see merit in relating feelings but I do. Neither of us are ever going to change on this point. Ever.
We can of course keep going over this specific point, but it’s just going to be the same stance from you and the same stance from me that we have personally suppported from day one and that we will contine to hold until the day we are both worm fodder.
The John Mack hoax story is utterly irrelevant. You use it as a way of suggesting similarities with mine, but with no evidence at all that my sources were hoaxers. His source admitted to a hoax. Mine have steadfastly maintained their position since I spoke with them (which dates back to 96 in the UK and 01 here). Totally different.
You say: “Pretending those were the only actions that could exist is patently illogical.”
I don’t pretend they are the *only* actions that could exist. I’m sure some people could come up with scenarios I haven’t thought of.
I pointed out that I ran through various scenarios in my mind (those I referred to last night) and truthfully could not determine a scenario that was logical for their actions, aside from wanting to reveal the truth.
You say: “And the Air Force told their version of the Roswell story first before others started repeating it.”
What does that have to do with anything?
For the record, the AF admits that it has no evidence at all to suggest a Mogul balloon crashed or that the bodies were dummies. Not a single document. Just testimony from old, old people that the AF then used to try and form its conclusion.
So, if that’s the case, and the AF has no evidence or files or facts or proof, using the logic that you appply to me, you must then discard as valid everything the AF has ever said about the case.
And as it was the AF that said it was a weather balloon back in 47, logic dictates you should reject that too.
Using your logic, nothing the AF has ever said about Roswell is valid because the AF has presented no factual evidence for its assertions - just opinions.
Note that the AF admitted that they also found no documents or evidence actually confirming the recovery of a weather balloon in 47 - just the saucer retraction story that hit the media where they said that it was all a mistake and just a balloon. But, in your logic, that is not evidence.
You say: “So they forced you to write about them? That is not a problem with them though. If there was a problem with the witnesses, that should have been a red flag that something was not quite right and you should have tried something different, something more in your “norm”.”
Nope, what I should have done is precisely what I did do: relate the accounts, point out that I believed them, point out that I had never been placed in this position before, but also note that there will always be problems because I was dealing with whistleblowers.
If I’m honest enought to admit that I clearly see the problems of working with people who are unwilling to speak openly and on the record (even though I believe them), then I feel that I’m being responsible.
You say: “No. It is not called sarcasm, it is called mocking. Those are all words you used and I was using them to parrot your arguments back to you. If you do not like them, you should not use them so often. But I am glad you noticed how ridiculous those words and arguments are.”
By saying “…If you do not like them…” you imply that I’m mad and pissed.
I don’t actually care what you think - beyond that I feel obliged to point out for people reading this never-ending debate of book-length proportions the fact that you make a statement about the lack of a genuine UFO puzzle, and make “fisherman” comments, and yet you have no evidence to support those assertions.
Yet you criticize me for the same approach.
That’s the point I was making. I’m sure everyone else could see that.
You say: “By the way, how many witnesses did you give full details for in Memoirs of a Monster Hunter?”
As many as I could. The *very* big difference with that book, however, is that even where I only provided first names in some cases, I was almost always accompanied on those trips and interviews by other people who were also there and who can verify the interviews, provide judgment on the credibility of the witnesses, and testify to their existence and comments, and the accutacy of my reporting on the stories.
I don’t know if you have that book, but if you do, you’ll note that (as just several examples) on both my trips to Puerto Rico, my two trips to the Big Thicket, to Lake Worth, to Roswell, etc I was always in groups.
Now, those people who accompanied me may not of course always agree with my conclusions, but that the witnesses exist, and that the people I went with sat and listened to the witnesses relate their stories is something they can validate.
I have always noted that dealing with off the record sources, or sources who prefer a degree of privacy, is problematic in terms of credibility (as I have consistently and particularly noted with my Roswell book).
But as I was usually accompanied on the expeditions and investigations with others who appear in “Memoirs,” and who can independently confirm the sources and their accounts (in terms of me accurately reporting on them), there’s no comparison.
Now, doubtless you would say that does not necesssarily mean the stories are valid just because others were present at the interviews, and that’s quite true.
But people should bear in mind that it’s practically impossible to prove anything when someone may be talking (hypothetically here) about a 40 year old Bigfoot encounter. Doesn’t mean it’s not true, or that the witness has not related the facts - it just means we don’t have the proof.
October 27th, 2007 at 9:55 am
“I’ll always discuss what I personally feel is relevant”
Then why are you complaining about it?
“I’ll continue to express why I felt they were speaking truthfully”
Describe for us what the feeling of “knowing someone is speaking truthfully” for us feels like then, that way we can reproduce your results.
“You don’t see merit in relating feelings but I do”
Is this another example of how you do research? You never asked me what I think about the importance of feelings, you just assumed to know what I think. You are putting words in my mouth I never said nor implied. The fact is that feelings are very important to me because they are psychological feedback, but they are completey irrelevant when it comes to logical thinking or objective reporting. If someone’s car breaks down, do you believe that if they know nothing about fixing vehicles that they can diagnose the problem using feelings alone? That is your approach — you know nothing about UFOs (read: “I am not an authority and no one can be”) but yet you are able to diagnose the truthfulness of UFO encounters using feelings alone.
“The John Mack hoax story is utterly irrelevant. You use it as a way of suggesting similarities with mine, but with no evidence at all that my sources were hoaxers”
Do not ask me for evidence when you refuse to publically disclose your own. Furthermore, logically speaking, there is nothing to disprove where nothing has been proven in the first place…or maybe I should try YOUR methodology: You have a feeling they are being truthful but I have a feeling they are delusional. Now provide evidence that I am wrong.
“For the record, the AF admits that it has no evidence at all to suggest a Mogul balloon crashed or that the bodies were dummies. Just testimony from old, old people that the AF then used to try and form its conclusion. So, if that’s the case…”
But that is not the case. The AF admitted no such thing. The AF wrote two reports suggesting that a Mogul balloon crashed, and that the alleged bodies were the result of mistaken identity. No mention was made of using “old, old people” to obtain their information. And “old, old people” are the same exact type of witnesses you refer to in your research too. For the record, see the record at…
http://www.af.mil/library/roswell/roswell.asp
“…and the AF has no evidence or files or facts or proof…And as it was the AF that said it was a weather balloon back in 47, logic dictates you should reject that too.”
There is insufficient data to support any of the Roswell storytales, but since the focal point for the whole Roswell charade always begins with the Roswell Daily article, let us start there as well. We have no reason to trust the Roswell Daily story but we have no reason to doubt it either. End of story. It is a go nowhere story — unless you are naive, ignorant, or dishonest. In that case, we could take a story that has insufficient data and then blow it up with another completely different story that also has insufficient data to support it too. Sound familiar?
By the way, the AF does have some files on the existence of the dummies and the Mogul balloon. They also have a nice factual writeup on the history of the evolution of the Roswell storytale, starting with the fact that at the very height of the flying saucer craze, they all thought Roswell was a non-event. I wonder why?
“But also note that there will always be problems because I was dealing with whistleblowers”
They were not actually whistleblowers that we can tell from the information you gave us. That is just your version of the unverifiable Roswell storytale.
“By saying ‘…If you do not like them…’ you imply that I’m mad and pissed”
There you go, basing your research on feeling instead of fact again. What I was implying (and proved) was that using your type of reasoning to prove/disprove the existence of MOTHER GOOSE would not be acceptable, even to you. But here you are, using exactly that type of reasoning to prove/disprove the Roswell storytale.
“Yet you criticize me for the same approach”
I never used that approach and I never will. I mocked your Roswell reasoning approach and I TOLD YOU that was what I was doing.
“Now, doubtless you would say that does not necesssarily mean the stories are valid just because others were present at the interviews, and that’s quite true”
For once you put words into my mouth that would be what I would have said.
“People should bear in mind that it’s practically impossible to prove anything when someone may be talking (hypothetically here) about a 40 year old Bigfoot encounter. Doesn’t mean it’s not true, or that the witness has not related the facts - it just means we don’t have the proof”
Yet you can write entire books on something you have no proof of. Is that not an example of research but of BS’ing?
October 28th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Sage:
You quote me: “I’ll always discuss what I personally feel is relevant.”
Then you say: “Then why are you complaining about it?”
I’m not. I’m pointing out that despite you saying I should keep things in a certain context, if I want to comment on something else that I feel relevant, I will regardless.
You say: “Describe for us what the feeling of “knowing someone is speaking truthfully” for us feels like then, that way we can reproduce your results.”
It’s a gut-feeling based on sitting opposite people, spending time with them, chatting with them, getting to know them and their families, assessing their old records and photos and looking for independent corroboration for their accounts, and then trying to come to a conclusion.
AGAIN - we will never agree on the issues of the importance of recording the feelings and thoughts of witnesses that go beyond just the facts.
You say: “…But that is not the case. The AF admitted no such thing. The AF wrote two reports suggesting that a Mogul balloon crashed, and that the alleged bodies were the result of mistaken identity. No mention was made of using “old, old people” to obtain their information.”
Wrong. The AF came to its conclusion re Mogul after first looking at some of the old research on Mogul of now-deceased researcher Robert Todd (who did not find proof or facts linking Mogul to Roswell) and interviewing the old still-surviving guys who worked on Mogul.
How do I know this? Easy. Back in the early 90s, I had done a lot of research into the MJ12 documents and had a period of correspondence with Richard Weaver, the AF colonel who wrote the first Roswell report.
As you may know, there was a small abbreviated report published by the AF. However, that was based upon a monster-sized 900-page report that Weaver authored too.
Weaver himself sent me a copy of this on publication. In the acknowledgments section, it states: “…Numerous individuals agreed to be interviewed for this publication. We would like to express our sincere thanks to them and their spouses for helping guide us through the complex maze of names, projects, and places that had been shrouded in secrecy by the passing of nearly fifty years. Special thanks go to Athelstan and Kathy Spilhaus, Charles and Wilma Moore, Col. Albert and Jean Trakowski, Lt Col Sheridan and Mary Cavitt, and Maj Irving Newton, USAF (Ret)…”
So, the AF found no documents to support the Mogul balloon theory (or crash test dummy notion - the latter weren’t even used until the early 50s); but relied on the testimony of old people like Cavitt, Moore, Col. Trakowski etc.
Now, of course, there’s nothing wrong with that, because if the AF could find no files, but they knew of old people who were involved with Mogul were still alive, then of course it would make sense to interview them.
However, my point is that of the surviving Mogul people who were interviewed, it was merely their opinion that it was a Mogul balloon that came down at Roswell and the USAF went with that theory in their report. No facts, no documents, to fully confirm a Mogul came down: just the testimony of the old surviving people who worked on Mogul.
Very little comment is ever made about Cavitt’s comments in that same report. He was the counter-intel guy at Roswell at the time and he told Weaver that it was specifically a weather balloon and extremely small.
Indeed, Cavitt actually said that the amount of debris at the site was no bigger than his living room! His exact words were: “Maybe as long as this room is wide.”
Now, that clearly is not a description of one of the huge Mogul arrays that the AF maintain came down and that they base on the interviews they conducted with the old guys who worked on Mogul.
So, clearly we have a problem: the AF have no facts in terms of documents, the testimony of Cavitt is at variance with the guys on Mogul, and the AF was left with nothing but statements from old people…some of which conflicted (Cavitt says weather balloon and small; the Mogul guys say a large Mogul array).
In other words, none of the statements made by the AF can be seen to be factual if we use your logic. That doesn’t mean my sources related genuine data to me of course. But what it DOES mean is that people like you who take me to task for interviewing old people who lack definitive proof need to apply that same approach to the AF too.
You then say: “There is insufficient data to support any of the Roswell storytales, but since the focal point for the whole Roswell charade always begins with the Roswell Daily article, let us start there as well. We have no reason to trust the Roswell Daily story but we have no reason to doubt it either.”
Wrong. Regardless of what crashed at Roswell, the newspaper says it was a “large area of bright wreckage.” However, Cavitt - who was the actual on-site - said the debris would only fill a space as big as his living-room!
So, either the newspaper is correct (and if so, Cavitt - one of the AF’s main interviewees was wrong); or Cavitt is correct, in which case the newspaper is wrong.
In other words, what you see as a news report that is probably correct, is thrown in doubt by an AF source who was on scene and who provided a story that had nothing to do with finding “a large area of bright wreckage” that the newspaper speaks about.
You then say: “End of story. It is a go nowhere story — unless you are naive, ignorant, or dishonest. In that case, we could take a story that has insufficient data and then blow it up with another completely different story that also has insufficient data to support it too. Sound familiar?”
No, it is not a “go nowhere” story. Yes we lack the full story even now; however, just because we suspect that the story has more to it, that doesn’t make us naive, ignorant or dishonest. It makes us people with a sincere interest in trying to resolve an inredibly complex 60 year old case.
You then say: “By the way, the AF does have some files on the existence of the dummies and the Mogul balloon.”
OH, COME ON, SAGE!!!
Of course, the AF has files on Mogul and the dummies. No one in the UFO community has EVER disputed that. What the AF never found, however, was ANY Mogul or dummy document that showed any such device or dummy was found on the ranch where Brazel worked and that they could conclusively confirm (factually) led to the Roswell legend.
If the AF found old records that confirmed the crash and recovery of a Mogul balloon on the ranch, and the paper of the document was forensically analyzed and it was found to have been written back then etc etc, I would happily walk away from Roswell.
But the AF has nothing, aside from documents on the projects in GENERAL, but nothing SPECIFIC that links ANY document to Roswell. Aside from those old recollections from people who worked on Mogul. Not the facts you want, if we apply your logic.
You then say: “They also have a nice factual writeup on the history of the evolution of the Roswell storytale, starting with the fact that at the very height of the flying saucer craze, they all thought Roswell was a non-event. I wonder why?”
Why? Because the case was buried under a mixture of stories of weather balloons, flying discs and mistaken identities. The cover-up worked well enough to make people think there was nothing to it.
You say: “They were not actually whistleblowers that we can tell from the information you gave us. That is just your version of the unverifiable Roswell storytale.”
They worked in the intel world, they didn’t want to speak on the record, they spilled their guts. Therefore, they ARE whistleblowers.
You then make more fact vs feeling comments, which AGAIN, I disagree with, and you disagree with me etc etc.
You say: “Yet you can write entire books on something you have no proof of. Is that not an example of research but of BS’ing?”
That’s a totally outrageous thing to say! Do you really believe that those people (I’m talking about any subject here - not just UFOs) who write about things that they “have no proof of” are specifically guilty of being bullshitters?
Of course they’re not!
They are people who have an interest in trying to solve an old mystery and where the hard, verifiable facts are difficult to come by. But publishing our/my conclusions does not make me/them bullshitters. It makes us people who have chased down a story, tried to make sense of it, and then presented to others. Nothing more, nothing less.
Do you consider the US Air Force to be bullshitters?
The AF wrote two reports on Roswell and presented theories (dummies and Mogul balloons) for which they “had no proof of” (to quote your words), only interviews with old people that worked on Mogul, and a mountain of old Mogul files - but none of which confirmed the crash of such a device or dummies, and that only provided historical background on the projects, project notes etc.
So, do you consider the USAF to be bullshitters? If you apply your own logic to the fact they found nothing to confirm a Mogul crash at Roswell, you HAVE to consider the AF as bullshitters.
If you don’t, then you simply cannot consider anyone else who comes to a conclusion, but who may not have the hard evidence to confirm it as a bullshitter either.
And if you don’t consider the AF bullshitters, despite the fact they found no files to confirm a Mogul or dummy crash, why do you apply that stance to people engaged in UFO research?
Apply it to everyone (the AF too), or apply it to no-one. You can’t use your approach on some and not on others.
October 29th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
“I’m pointing out that despite you saying I should keep things in a certain context, if I want to comment on something else that I feel relevant, I will regardless”
Nobody will ever argue with you on that. You are completely free to do whatever you wish, just be prepared for the consequences of your actions. For example, do not expect everyone to take you seriously when you indicate you are conducting objective reporting of anything paranormal when you clearly are not.
“It’s a gut-feeling…”
Guts do not have feelings, but they often do contain lots of BS.
“AGAIN - we will never agree on the issues of the importance of recording the feelings”
AGAIN - it was the never the intention of any of my arguments to get you to agree. That would be impossible because that requires someone who is open-minded.
“The AF came to its conclusion re Mogul after first looking at some of the old research on Mogul of now-deceased researcher Robert Todd…[and] Cavitt”
The AF used their testimony as SUPPLEMENTAL information, not sole information. Your strawman has been shot down.
“The AF have no facts in terms of documents”
Wrong. The Mogul project is documented to have existed at the time of Roswell, a Mogul balloon was documented to have been released around the time that Brazel found one, the Roswell Daily Record backs up the AF testimony, and so on and so forth. None of the information given is hidden away and is available in plain public sight via FOIA, Black Vault, various internet archives, etc.
“But what it DOES mean is that people like you who take me to task for interviewing old people who lack definitive proof need to apply that same approach to the AF too”
I have never taken you to task because of the age of the people you interviewed. That is another one of your strawmen. What I have said was why did it take so awful damn long before anybody went looking for them? Are you aware of what time can do to people’s memories?
“The newspaper says it was a “large area of bright wreckage’”
Brazel made that statement and the newspaper reported his words.
“So, either the newspaper is correct (and if so, Cavitt - one of the AF’s main interviewees was wrong); or Cavitt is correct”
Did you stop to think that maybe the newspaper misquoted Brazel? Or how about the AF misquoted Cavitt? There are lots of choices and not just your two. Have you ever heard of Pascal’s Wager?
One lie will not make anyone a liar anymore than one truthful statement will make a person honest. You cannot discredit the entire AF report based on one isolated statement made by one person — that would be dishonest and illogical. So what about Bessie Brazel’s testimony? Are you going to call her a liar too? Is everybody a liar expect the people you quote, the ones you cannot prove are honest or even exist?
“What the AF never found, however, was ANY Mogul or dummy document that showed any such device or dummy was found on the ranch where Brazel worked and that they could conclusively confirm (factually) led to the Roswell legend”
OH, COME ON, NICK!!!
All they ever said was that whatever Brazel found on the ranch, the AF had nothing to do with it and no one can prove they had anything to do with it. Since there is no actual evidence one way or the other, what does that prove?
Maybe invisible pink elephants took the debris? There is no evidence that they did not, is there? Then again, maybe invisible pink elephants did not take the debris, but there is no evidence for that either. So rather then write a book about the Roswell conspiracy of the invisible pink elephants, would not the more common sense approach be to say nothing until we did have the full story and at least some reasonable facsimile of something that could pass as evidence?
“Do you really believe that those people (I’m talking about any subject here - not just UFOs) who write about things that they “have no proof of” are specifically guilty of being bullshitters? Of course they’re not!”
But no other subject would has so many examples of grasping at straws, an excessive number of mutually incompatible versions of the story, the petty bickering of researchers amongst each other, the freshly hidden evidence of the still hidden evidence of “what really happened”, and so on, other then Roswell? There is no comparison and that is why the scientific community snickers and avoids the UFO community in general.
October 30th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Sage:
You say: “The AF used their testimony as SUPPLEMENTAL information, not sole information. Your strawman has been shot down.”
And you then say: “The Mogul project is documented to have existed at the time of Roswell, a Mogul balloon was documented to have been released around the time that Brazel found one, the Roswell Daily Record backs up the AF testimony, and so on and so forth. None of the information given is hidden away and is available in plain public sight via FOIA, Black Vault, various internet archives, etc.”
Let’s take that step by step. First, you are wrong re the “supplemental” issue. Read the main 900 page report that the AF published.
Yes, of course Mogul was a real project that existed at the time of Roswell. No-one (certainly not me, and certainly no-one in the UFO field) disputes that.
But so what? You seem to think that because (a) Mogul existed at the time of Roswell, (b)that a Mogul balloon was documented as having been released, and (c) the AF interviewed the old-timers who worked on Mogul and who gave their *opinion* on what caused Roswell, then that somehow helps validate the AF’s position that it was a Mogul that came down at Roswell.
It does not.
Based on what you have said in countless posts to me about facts vs opinions etc, you know very well that if me, or any other UFO researcher, had used the AF’s approach, logic and conclusions to support another theory where there was no evidence (just opinions and interviews with old people recalling old events, and files that had no specific bearing on the incident), UFO skeptics would have said something like: “Where’s your evidence? All you have are old memories, files that don’t actually prove or document such a crash.”
The fact is that the USAF did not find any hard fact or evidence to show that a Mogul balloon crashed at Roswell. Yet, their version has been accepted by much of the media, the skeptics, TV channels etc as fact. But they have no more hard facts than anyone in the UFO field does. That, of course doesn’t help anyone’s position, I admit.
But I come back to what I said: if you (or anyone) takes me or any Roswell researcher to task and criticizes us for publishing a book, paper, article, etc, when we lack the hard facts and proof then they MUST also apply that to the USAF and its Roswell report - or apply it to no-one.
As for that 900 page report, most of it is utterly, utterly irrelevant. I can tell you that for certain because I have it right next to me as I write these words and most of the documents are general Mogul files on the project. They tell us *nothing* about what did or did not happen at Roswell.
And yes, the AF DID rely massively on the testimony of the old people they interviewed who worked on Roswell. The Mogul files told the AF nothing. So they HAD to work with the memories of the old Mogul guys.
You say: “What I have said was why did it take so awful damn long before anybody went looking for them? Are you aware of what time can do to people’s memories?”
Well, as far as Roswell in general is concerned it took so long because the case had vanished into obscurity after the “it’s all a weather balloon” scenario surfaced in July 47, and was forgotten about until Stan Friedman began looking into it in the late 70s.
As for my sources, as soon as I heard fragments of their stories, I DID go looking for them. I wasted no time at all in doing so.
As for your question: “Are you aware of what time can do to people’s memories?”
Indeed, I am. I wonder if the AF was aware too when they interviewed the old Mogul players? Hmmmm…..
You say: “Brazel made that statement and the newspaper reported his words.”
Correct, and I happen to agree that Brazel did indeed find a big field of wreckage. The big question is why Cavitt claimed otherwise until his dying day.
That he was one of the few people that everyone (UFO believers, me, my sources, the skeptics, even the USAF) agree was on-site, and he was the one person who said that it was nothing but a weather balloon is, in my view, intriguing.
You then say: “Did you stop to think that maybe the newspaper misquoted Brazel? Or how about the AF misquoted Cavitt? There are lots of choices and not just your two. Have you ever heard of Pascal’s Wager?”
First, I am not of the opinion that the paper misquoted Brazel, since others such as Marcel and the Brazel family also saw the huge field of materials.
Yes re Pascal’s wager: the old thing about being better to believe in god than not.
That’s utter nonsense re the idea that the USAF misquoted Cavitt. The interview was taped in Cavitt’s house; the AF has confirmed the tape was transcribed and published. without changes, deletions etc.
And to ensure that there can be no doubt about Cavitt’s view, here is an extract from Cavitt’s affidavit that he signed (and that Weaver,as the person administering the oath, signed too). With respect to the debris field, Cavitt signed his name to this statement: “The area of this debris was very small, about 20 feet square.” And that’s it. No huge field of materials, according to Cavitt. Just 20 square feet.
Yet, the AF use Cavitt to bolster its balloon theory. But his testimony does not square with the Mogul people in any way, shape, or fashion at all. And he was on site. The Mogul people were not.
Cavitt also says in his interview with Weaver that with respect to what he found at the time: “I couldn’t care less.”
And he said that because he was sure, he said, that it was just a small weather balloon.
Indeed, he cared so little that he seemingly never thought to try and prevent the USAF from looking like fools by putting out the press story it was a flying disc!
If he was on site, knew it was a weather balloon, was only 20 feet square and he “coudn’t care less” as the CIC officer at the base, it beggars belief that he would not have told his superiors and would have taken firm steps to prevent his colleagues from looking like fools for mistaking a weather balloon for a disc in a press release that went all around the world.
The fact is that Cavitt’s story does not fit well with anything we know about the affair. It defies logic and common sense on numerous points.
There is another point too: The USAF makes much ado about Mogul because supposedly the Mogul balloons had the little purple patterns on that the USAF claim were the weird “alien writing’/glyphs that some witnesses talk about.
Now, the fact is that not a single photo or drawing that the USAF found in its Mogul archives/files shows such tape. That all comes from memory of the Mogul people.
Now, Mogul balloons may well have exhibited such tape. However, Cavitt told Weaver that he had no recollection at all of any such tape on the 20-foot square material he examined. In other words, the USAF’s story, approach and conclusion is one big mess, and again Cavitt’s word about the tape suggests no Mogul at the ranch.
You say: “…would not the more common sense approach be to say nothing until we did have the full story and at least some reasonable facsimile of something that could pass as evidence?”
Ah Sage, my friend, if only the AF had followed that advice we could have done without all the crash dummy and Mogul reports…
You say: “One lie will not make anyone a liar anymore than one truthful statement will make a person honest. You cannot discredit the entire AF report based on one isolated statement made by one person — that would be dishonest and illogical. So what about Bessie Brazel’s testimony? Are you going to call her a liar too? Is everybody a liar expect the people you quote, the ones you cannot prove are honest or even exist?”
I’m not dismissing the AF report on the word of Cavitt. I’m saying he was out there at the site (and everyone - on evert side of the Roswell fence - agrees with that). His story massively conflicts with the Mogul scenario. It massively conflicts with what the AF want us to accept happened. On top of that: the AF found no files to show a Mogul balloon (or crash test dummies) EVER came down at the ranch, and they AF could not even find ONE SINGLE PHOTO OR DRAWING OR DOCUMENT that referred to or showed the little purple images that the AF claimed explained the weird images on some of the wreckage. Plus, there was the AF’s statement about “time compression” when faced with the evidence that the dummies weren’t used until the 50s! I think this, as a start, is enough to seriously bring into doubt the AF’s conclusions.
You ask me: “So what about Bessie Brazel’s testimony? Are you going to call her a liar too?”
No, I think she was speaking truthfully. And for the record, I actually believe that the Mogul people truly believe it was one of their devices that came down at Roswell.
This is where I differ to a lot of people in ufology: they totally dismiss the testimony of the people who said it was a balloon (of whatever type), because they believe it was an alien craft.
However, as you know, I DO believe it was a balloon - but it sure as hell wasn’t a weather balloon or a Mogul balloon.
But, when witnesses state they saw balloon materials at the site, i accept that. And as my sources said, there was no better way to hide a secret balloon based project of the type that my book describes by hiding it behind another secret balloon based project: Mogul.
But for the record, I do not believe that the Mogul people were part of a modern-day conspiracy to hide the truth. I think they used their logic that yes they flew large balloons in NM and that they genuinely believed one of their balloons was the cause of all the fuss.
However, the state of NM was swarming with classified balloon projects at that time. There was a very intriguing Navy based balloon-op going on at White Sands at the time, for example, and others too.
I am convinced that when the truth comes out (I doubted for a long time that it would, but it will; there’s some interesting new stuff just around the corner…) it will be shown that Roswell involved a huge balloon array that was linked with dark and dubious human experimentation re high-altitude balloons.
I am convinced the debris at the ranch was balloon based. I’m also convinced that the AF report was massively flawed and uttery failed to provide any proof that a Mogul balloon crashed there.
You say: “But no other subject would has so many examples of grasping at straws, an excessive number of mutually incompatible versions of the story, the petty bickering of researchers amongst each other, the freshly hidden evidence of the still hidden evidence of “what really happened”, and so on, other then Roswell? There is no comparison and that is why the scientific community snickers and avoids the UFO community in general.”
Actually there IS a comparison: the USAF reports. They were definitely grasping at straws and they desperately sought to find anything that linked Roswell with Mogul, but they failed to do so. Their own report, from the interviewees (Mogul people vs Cavitt, for example) contains DEFINITIVE “mutually incompatible versions.”
But the skeptics, the scientific community, the mainstream media embraced Mogul. Why? Because it came from an official body (the AF) and not from UFO researchers. But at the end of the day, those AF reports proved nothing - and still don’t.