UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jan > Jan 1

Re: New Year Agenda - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 09:15:49 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 10:52:05 -0500
Subject: Re: New Year Agenda - Randle

 >Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 11:28:04 -0600
 >Subject: Re: New Year Agenda
 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Subject: Re: New Year Agenda
 >>Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 17:33:01 +0000

Dick, Dennis, All -

This has gone on a little too long now. Let's all step back for
a dose of perspective.

Dennis wrote,


 >I'll keep my remarks as brief and cheery-minded as possible.
 >You've called for an open, objective investigation of Roswell.
 >(With which I concur.)

 >I assume that means that each witness is to be analyzed and
 >weighed with the same set of scales.

 >So when I use Kent Lorenzo as an example, it's not to suggest
 >that one Roswell witness who claims nothing untoward happened
 >there should trump two who claimed a spaceship with little
 >bodies crashed. It's to ask where Lorenzo is in all the books,
 >monologues, and videotaped interviews ufology has made over the
 >last several years. Where are all the other eyewitnesses
 >interviewed by Roswell investigators who had nothing
 >extraordinary to say about it?

First, I have talked to Lorenzo, especially after he erected a
website that suggested that he was a good friend of Jesse B.
Johnson, who I suggested had been the base pathologist. Yes, Don
Schmitt looked him up in the Compendium of Medical Specialties
and said that Johnson had studied to be a pathologist. Lorenzo
said not so, at least in 1947, so I looked him up and found that
Johnson had, in fact, been a pathologist but that he had taken
his training after he was released from active duty. I reported
these facts in The Roswell Encyclopedia.

 >Where, in other words, is the vaunted objectivity and balance?

 >I realize that "Roswell Witness Says Absolutely Nothing
 >Happened!" doesn't make for much of a headline; but if that's
 >truly half of the story, I sure haven't seen it promoted that
 >way in most of the Roswell material I've read and looked at.

I considered writing an article about the "busted" leads which
would incorporate all those people we talked to who had nothing
to say, but then, really, where is the story? A witness who saw
nothing, heard nothing and did nothing is not a witness.

 >How many other Roswell witnesses haven't been heard from because
 >they didn't have any tale to tell? Lorenzo was, I believe, the
 >second commanding medical officer at the hospital at the time.
 >Had bodies been brought in, he would almost undoubtedly have
 >been aware of them.

This really makes very little sense. Roswell witnesses who had
no tale to tell? What then, makes them witnesses? Yes, they
might have been assigned to the base, but if not involved in the
recovery (Mogul or otherwise), and they have nothing to
contribute, then what should we report. I thought we had made it
clear that the majority of the soldiers assigned to the base saw
nothing and heard very little.

I don't know what a second commanding officer might be other
than an executive officer and the information I have, from both the
yearbook and the telephone directory suggests that Lorenzo was
neither. That doesn't negate what he says, only that he was one of
many medical personnel assigned to the base in July 1947.

 >As near as I can tell, however, Roswell investigators have yet
 >to beat a path to his door.

So, I looked at his website and talked to him on the telephone.
I followed up with additional questions and moved on. I reported
what he said as it related to Jesse B. Johnson. What more would
you have me do?

 >Kent Jeffrey's long report may indeed have had its flaws. But
 >when he says he talked to a number of 509th veterans who said
 >nothing untoward took place, I have to take him at his word. Did
 >fellow ufologists ask him who his contacts were so they could
 >conduct follow up interviews? Or was he effectively hounded out
 >of the field?

Here's where this really breaks down. Yes, Kent talked to a
number of pilots and others who were assigned to the 509th in
July, 1947. Yes, he, and I talked to people who were there and
who said they had heard nothing about the UFO crash, the little
bodies, or anything else (which is quite foolish since part of
the story was on the front pages of both the daily newspapers in
July 1947, but let's forget that).

The problem is, if the event took place and it was truly
classified, then those who were not involved would not be
expected to know anything about it. You simply do not discuss
classified material with those who are not cleared to hear it.
Yes, you can talk all you want about senators and politicians
compromising classified material, but we're talking about a
special unit that dealt with highly classified material all the
time. If a specific pilot was not involved and now claims the
event didn't happen because, if it had, he would have heard
about it, that just doesn't wash. No, there is no reason to
believe that he would have heard about regardless of who he was,
who his friends were, or what security clearances he might have

I speak from experience here. I watched people get into trouble
for "talking out of school" and we weren't dealing with any
earth- shattering secrets. This refrain, that had it happened, I
would have known, is false and anyone who had dealt with
classified material and security clearances knows that.

I have tried to report on all the relevant materials so that
those who have not had the opportunities I have can look at
Roswell and make a rational decision. I reported that every
member of Blanchard's staff that we interviewed (or others
interviewed) who commented on this said that something unusual
happened with the exception of Colonel Robert Barrowclough. I
reported what he said in his hand- written note to Kent Jeffrey,
and that he said nothing happened.

But it really comes down to this. Kent Jeffrey reported on what
he was told by officers who were either not involved in the
recovery, or who were not there in the proper time frame.
Interviewing the former chiefs of ATIC, who started their
activities in 1957 and not in 1947, does nothing to tell us what
went on ten years earlier. Interviewing officers who were in
Roswell but heard nothing of the tale tells us nothing about
what might have happened, especially when the members of
Blanchard's staff, the men who were involved, with the one cited
exception, say something else.

I have reported on the destruction of the Glenn Dennis tale, on
the destruction of the Jim Ragsdale tale, the shifting nature of
some of the stories, and have exposed any number of those who
were inventing the stories. The only reason that everyone knows
that Curry Holden's wife thought his story of the Roswell crash
was something that he "invented" at his advanced age is because
I reported what she said to me. And I reported what his daughter
said to both Mark Rodegheir and to me.

I haven't reported, for example, on what a four-star general
told me because he didn't know of anything that happened in
Roswell in 1947... and he really wasn't in a position to know
anything either.

Just to jump on the other side, have you taken the Air Force to
task for their "good faith" effort in explaining Roswell in
their 1994 report? I notice that they don't quote from Brigadier
General Arthur Exon, though they knew who he was because I told
McAndrews. I notice that they mention nothing about Edwin
Easley, and while they couldn't interview him, they had copies
of my taped interviews but failed to mention that the provost
marshal at Roswell said, repeatedly, he had been swore to
secrecy. I notice that they mentioned nothing of what Lewis
Rickett had to say, which contradicted Cavitt, but knew of him
because I told them what he said and supplied them with tapes.

The point here is that I can line up as much information and
indignation on my side of the fence as you can on yours. I can
show duplicity on the part of the Air Force in their
investigations, and I can point to a number of interviews with
Charles Moore and the mogul boys that I have reported on.

This affair is not as one sided as you seem to indicate here.
There is plenty of slop on both sides and many mistakes were
made. (Need I point out here that I actually believed that Don
Schmitt was telling me the truth about what he was doing and
later found out differently?). So, to answer the questions, yes,
I have talked to these people, and I have reported on those who
had something relevant to say. I have not reported on those who
saw nothing because they saw nothing. And I have been quick to
expose those who were less than candid when I have learned the
truth about them.

The point is that those who don't know anything don't know
anything and for them to believe, because they were in the 509th
in July, 1947, that they would have known something, is foolish.
The circle of those involved was limited and security reared its
ugly head. For every one that Kent can produce who said he heard
nothing, I can point to another who has.


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com