UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jun > Jun 8

Re: UFO Frauds - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 20:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 19:27:49 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Frauds - Hamilton


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:52:58 EDT
 >Subject: Re: UFO Frauds

<snip>

 >I am suggesting that those who are not who they say they are
 >often have trouble producing records to verify their claims. I
 >am saying that this tempest in a teapot over the DD 214 is just
 >another example. You said you knew where yours was and that you
 >could get to it, not that it would take you years to produce it.

 >BTW, for those of you interested in geneological research, one
 >of the ways to trace ancesters is to contact the county
 >courthouses where they lived and ask for copies of the DD 214
 >(or its predecessor). So, with almost no trouble, he might have
 >been able to do that.

 >I'm saying that we always provide excuses for those who don't
 >have the evidence we need to corroborate. When I challenged
 >Gerald Anderson about being a SEAL and reported that the members
 >of the SEAL museum in Miami knew nothing about him, this was
 >reduced to some guys at some museum. Well, it wasn't quite that
 >simple and the real point was that men who were SEALS and should
 >have known about Anderson didn't. Now with the SEAL web site
 >active anyone can check on it and learn that Anderson didn't
 >tell the truth about that either.

Why do you suppose Stanton has turned around to support the
Anderson story again? Why do researchers feel different about
various witnesses and reach different conclusions?

On the other hand I have heard Stanton say he does not accept
Frank Kauffman's testimony.

And, of course Karl Pflock will have none of it.

All expert researchers who cannot come to the same conclusion.

Well, I have seen the same happen in all controversial areas of
science.

 >In all this nonsense about the DD 214 everyone seems bent on
 >ignoring the information that Stan supplied that went far beyond
 >the lack of a single document. It suggested that
 >Noel/Kirkwood/whoever, hadn't done any of the things that he
 >claims to have done. Why should we defend this guy whose story
 >is interesting but is not corroborated?

I am not asking you to. I have known him for 25+ years and have
seen photos of his days as a Sabre jet pilot and have heard him
tell his story over this time more consistently than some of the
Roswell witnesses so I don't dismiss it.

His problem is associating with schemes that gives him a flim-
flam reputation, but these are things he really seems to believe
in and I am not one to persuade him otherwise.


-Bill H




[ 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