UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 26

Re: Sci-Fi On Roswell: A Review

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak.nul>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:18:55 -0800
Archived: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:50:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi On Roswell: A Review


>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 22:34:20 +0000
>Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:02:02 -0500
>Subject: Sci-Fi on Roswell: A Review

<snip>

>David Rudiak (one of our List contributors) held forth on his
>analysis of the Ramey message, and if his interpretation is
>correct the telegram certainly is a smoking gun. But the program
>failed to mention that several other individuals and groups keep
>coming up with other interpretations of key words in the
>telegram. Some kind of organized peer review is badly needed
>here. Rudiak's Roswell web site is excellent and he deserves
>praise for his conscientious and honest efforts.

I don't object to peer review. I just want to know exactly what
you mean by an "organized peer review" and exactly how they
would go about doing such a review. Who would be doing the
reviewing and who would be doing the picking of the reviewers?

I don't want this turning into a repeat of the "scientific"
Robertson Panel and Condon Commission, which, as everybody
knows, were just whitewashes designed to bury the subject under
the cloak of being "scientific reviews" by esteemed scientists.

If this isn't done very carefully, then I can just see the
headlines a year from now, "Esteemed Scientific Panel Disproves
Alleged Roswell 'Smoking Gun' - Deemed To Be Nothing But the
'Will to Believe'"

Back in 1947 we had similar headlines that killed the story for
a long time, such as the Daily Record headline: "Gen. Ramey
Empties Roswell Saucer - Ramey Says Excitement Is Not Justified
- General Ramey Says Disk is Weather Balloon"

Propaganda like this can be very powerful. Ridicule and appeals
to authority tend to work very well.

In the meantime, people without PhD's and pointy heads can do
their own "peer review" by simply looking at key words and
phrases at:

www.roswellproof.com/reconstruct.html

The main "qualification" is the ability to read. See for
yourself whether the critical words "victims" and "disc" are
there or not.

The fact that other groups and individuals have come up with
different interpretations does not automatically render them
equally viable. E.g., some people didn't even bother to do
objective letter counts, so we end up with them trying to
squeeze a 9 letter word into an 8 letter space, or elsewhere a 3
letter word into a 2 character space.

I have spelled out other examples in my response to Steve
Kaeser, particular with the critical word VICTIMS as opposed to
other renderings of REMAINS or FINDING. See, e.g.,

I applied various forms of analysis such as comparing to actual
teletype font, determining expected letter positions based on
even spacing, comparing to other words (the elevated printed "C"
in both "victims" and "disc") and doing extensive searches for
possible alternates. Did they?

I have tried to be very rigorous and consistent in my approach
and applied many constraints to narrow down the possibilities,
as I outlined in my methodology discussion on my Website (which
hardly anybody bothers to read):

www.roswellproof.com/methods.html

Has anybody else spelled out exactly how they went about doing
their interpretations? Not that I know of. So why are all
readings being treated as equal?

>Finally, Karl Pflock came up with a typical whopper by asserting
>that the entire "Roswell mythology" is attributable to and dates
>back to the discredited witness, Frank Kaufman. Huh?

Well that's Karl Pflock for 'ya. Once a CIA propagandist, always
a propagandist. Equally "convincing" was his statement that he
started out as a true-blue Roswell "believer". He's been
debunking Roswell as a Mogul balloon ever since 1994 in "Roswell
in Perspective." He employed the same propaganda techniques then
as now. Example: He claimed hardly anybody reported "memory
metal" (and those one or two accounts he flippantly dismissed as
foggy memories, such as Bill Brazel's).

My Website now has an updated compilaton of eyewitness
descriptions of debris:

http://www.roswellproof.com/debris_main.html

with the memory metal descriptions at:

http://www.roswellproof.com/debris2_memory_foil.html

At the start is a chart of all the people reporting this
property, either 1st or 2nd-hand. I count 16 that I know about.
 Even if you throw out a few of questionable ones, like Jim
Ragsdale, that still leaves in the neighborhood of a dozen such
descriptions. In addition to Marcel, there was Bill Brazel,
Gen. Exon, Loretta Proctor, Sgt. Robert Smith, neighbors Loretta
Proctor, Sally Tadolini & mother Marian Strickland, sheriff
Wilcox's daughter Phyllis McGuire, etc.

I also got the word today that he's putting a lot of heat now on
Bill Doleman, the archeologist at the Univ. of N.M. who led the
dig. You think as a major proponent of Mogul and tinfoil radar
targets, Pflock would welcome such a search for physical
evidence that might even bolster his own case. What if Doleman
ultimately turned up pieces of an old radar target or Mogul
equipment? I'm sure Pflock would then change tunes and be
praising Doleman to the high skies.

>One thing that puzzled me was the absence of any reference to
>Pappy Henderson (pilot of the B-29 who flew crash-field cargo to
>Fort Worth) and later told both friends and members of his
>family that he had transported alien bodies and described in
>general terms what they looked like. Though his "testimony" was
>second-hand, like that of Maj. Easley's daughter I found it very
>persuasive.

I agree. Henderson told his story to a lot of people before his
death. I, for one, consider it to be very credible and certainly
one of the better accounts of small bodies being recovered at
Roswell. If interested, people can have a look at the affidavits
of his wife, daughter, and business partner:

http://www.roswellproof.com/henderson.html

And as we both know, the best Karl Pflock could come up with to
dismiss Henderson's story was that he was a "practical joker".
Or in his post yesterday, they were all just second-hand
stories, so ignore them.


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