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 - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 13:05:21 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 21:44:00 -0500
Subject: Re: New Year Agenda - Rudiak


 >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,

 >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.

But notice his argument is about "witnesses" who say they know
nothing. He wants them "weighed with the same set of scales" as
those who say they know something. Huh? Normally people who
don't know anything aren't even considered "witnesses."

 >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?

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

Where are all the witnesses who reported something remarkable
but are completely missing from the Air Force Roswell report?
Can you find what Gen. Dubose had to say in there, or Gen. Exon?
Where is Jesse Marcel's testimony, or that of his son? Where is
Rickett's testimony or Provost Marshall Easley's?

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.

 >How many other Roswell witnesses haven't been heard from because
 >they didn't have any tale to tell?

Probably lots, because they have nothing to say.

 >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.

You believe? You wouldn't be trying to inflate the credentials
of your witness, would you?

Lorenzo said he was a Captain, U.S. Army Medical Administrative
Corps, and the third-ranking medical officer, not the second. He
described his position thusly: "My primary duty was Medical
Supply Officer for the Base Hospital."

References:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1998/sep/m27-029.shtml
http://www.grassyhill.com/Roswell/Witnesses/CaptKimball.htm

Now explain to us all why the third ranking officer, the medical
supply officer, would "undoubtably have been aware" of any
bodies that had been brought in?

Was he at the base hospital 24/7? Did the man never sleep? Was
he never off-duty?

If people are unaware of something happening, that doesn't mean
it necessarily didn't happen. Most human beings are not
omniscient nor omnipresent. They could conceivably have been in
a position to know, but circumstances may have been such that
they didn't know. E.g., Lorenzo could have been off-duty at the
time and at a completely different part of the base when the
bodies supposedly came in.

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

Kevin Randle said he spoke to Kimball, and Kimball told him he
didn't know anything. This is no different than police
investigators canvassing a neighborhood looking for witnesses
and ignoring people who say they were unaware of anything
happening. It's the people who say they know something or were
involved in some way that you concentrate on.

 >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?

When conducting any sort of investigation, the most efficient
use of one's time is spent interviewing in depth people who say
they know something, not those who say they don't. This is a
remarkably simple concept, yet it seems to be way over your
head.

Sometimes even when principals say nothing significant happened,
it can point to exactly the opposite conclusion. A classic case
in point was Sheridan Cavitt who denied for years being involved
or even at Roswell at the time. But then the AF tried to turn
him into a star witness and suddenly he was magically at Roswell
and involved. His testimony was a patchwork of serious internal
contradictions that clearly pointed to him lying on many points,
such as never meeting rancher Brazel or finding a balloon crash
no bigger than his living room. This raised the question as to
why he would need to lie unless he was still trying to hide
something.

What you seem to be ignoring in your typical Stacian rant is
that there are witnesses of merit who have said that something
highly unusual happened at Roswell. Skeptical accounts
frequently ignore such witnesses (e.g. AF Report), yet your
wrath is hypocritically directed against accounts that fail to
mention people who knew nothing.

 >Or was he effectively hounded out of the field?

Jeez, get a grip! Kent Jeffrey took himself out of the field.
Nobody "hounded" him.

 >Ufology's track record on Roswell is pretty self-evident: you
 >can do almost anything and remain a member in good standing -
 >just don't criticize Roswell.

Your Roswell skeptical martyrdom routine is getting pretty darn
boring! It is also typical skepti-bunker hypocrisy. You guys
love to dish it out, but you can't take it. When the criticism
comes back at you, you place yourselves on the side of the
angels and scream persecution.


David Rudiak





[ 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