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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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!”