UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 27

Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:31:44 EST
Archived: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:01:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed


>From: Brad Sparks
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:47:34 EST
>Subject: Frank Kaufmann Exposed

Good Morning, List, All -

Brad Sparks wrote:

>The new expose of Frank Kaufmann's patently obvious bogus
>storytelling has now been posted to the CUFOS website:

>http://www.cufos.org/

>with compelling evidence that Kaufmann forged his military
>papers which he showed Roswell investigators in order to bolster
>his ridiculous story of special intelligence assignments (the
>original and the forgery were both found in his papers and there
>is evidence of rubber cementing of papers over the original).

>My question is why should it take so long to realize that
>Kaufmann was a hoaxer and a liar? Didn't Karl Pflock dissect his
>lies quite well in his 1994 and 2001 books? What else was really
>needed? Bloody signed confession?

Because we gave him the benefit of the doubt because there was
nothing to prove him a liar and a hoaxer. We investigated,
checked and attempted to confirm but we didn't have the PROOF.
Now we do.

Nothing against Karl here, but no, he didn't dissect Kaufmann's
lies because there were alternatives. Kaufmann told us about
something in the Congressional Record and Karl proved that
nothing of the kind was in the Congressional Record, but Frank
had the document. It was a Congressional Recognition, which
isn't the same thing, but it struck me at the time this was
splitting a fine hair. Karl, with his experience in Washington
would know the difference, but would Kaufmann have known it? And
yes, I verified that it was an real document.

And Frank introduced Martin Scanlon into the mix. Here was a
general who had helped establish Air Force Intelligence. Of all
the generals he could have named, he picked this one. An
interesting coincidence now, but at the time it seemed like a
minor corroboration...

So yes, a confession would have been nice before we began to
brand the man a liar. We were very careful with what we said
about Gerald Anderson as his tale began to collapse. He wasn't
as clever as Frank and Anderson provided all sorts of
information that we checked, proving him a liar. Frank held
tightly to the stuff.

>We can now read a copy of the forged Maj. Easley memo of "July
>30, 1947" describing the imaginary saucer recovery operation,
>which had previously only been flashed to Roswell researchers
>who were not allowed by Kaufmann to take a copy.

>My question here is why, if the memo is addressed at the top
>"To: JRDB, AFSA, AIRD" weren't these agencies followed up as
>they might have been sources for confirmatory copies of the
>Easley memo and other documentation? Wouldn't Vannevar Bush's
>JRDB have been an exciting lead to chase in light of the
>misguided Wilbert Smith memo of 1950? Didn't anyone have a good
>enough memory to recall these telltale agency paper-trail clues?

For crying out loud, he flashed the damned document at us but
would never allow us to have a copy. I was busy looking at Easley's
signature block and trying to find anything I could in the thirty
seconds I had it in my hand. Sorry that my powers of observation
aren't as honed as they should have been. I just didn't notice that
when I saw the document.

When we got our hands on his separation papers, after his death,
I noticed, immediately the flaws in it. At one place where it
says grade, he had put in NCO/IC. Well, I knew that NCO/IO was a
position and not a grade. That, and other flaws told me the
document was a fraud, which is probably why I never saw it until
after he died.

>Or did Roswell researchers indeed follow up on these agencies
>and didn't tell anyone about the negative results? Do we need
>an investigation of the investigators just to find out what is
>really going on with the Roswell case? Did UFOlogists find out
>that AFSA did NOT EVEN EXIST YET in 1947, that it was created
>two years later by JCS Directive 2010 of May 24, 1949, and was
>the predecessor of the NSA? Wouldn't this be damning proof that
>the Easley memo was a blatant hoax by a con man who was a moron
>on military and intelligence history, who couldn't keep agencies
>and their dates of formation straight? (BTW, the bogus MJ-12
>"1st Annual Report" of Oct 1952, which should be dated 1948 if
>it was the first annual report after 1947, suffers from the same
>stupidity of the nitwit hoaxer by claiming it covers 5 years of
>AFSA intelligence activities, when AFSA had only been in
>existence 3 years.)

>Why wasn't the AFSA reference the smoking gun that should have
>disposed of Kaufmann years ago? Are we going to be told that no
>one saw the forged Easley memo long enough to remember "AFSA"
>was at the top? Did anyone get shown the forgery more than once
>or get to take some notes? Are we going to hear excuse after
>excuse that no one was really a document investigator, or their
>attention was on other things in the memo, or no one knew what
>the abbreviations meant (yeah right, no one knew Vannevar Bush
>headed JRDB)?

Had we been allowed to hang onto the documents, we would have
investigated them, just as we did once we had them in hand. A
couple of these things didn't surface until recently. We did the
best we could with the resources at hand and even if it took us
a while, we did get to the right conclusion. Frank Kaufmann was
making it up. And I really don't need to see someone attempt to
rehabilitate him as happens in the UFO field. (Let's see, that
would be Allende, Corso, Dennis, Adamski, van Tassel... and so
on.)

But get this. We continued to work, looking for both
confirmation of his tales, and ways to disprove them. When we
found the evidence, we prepared it and then published it, as we
have done in the past. We exposed Gerald Anderson (though I
conducted the first interview with him) we exposed Glenn Dennis
(with the lion's share of the work done by Vic Golubic), we
exposed Jim Ragsdale after he began to spin stories of golden
helmets and jewel encrusted thrones (and someday I'll tell you
the personal cost there) and we have ignored other stories that
were so contradictory that it was difficult to even listen to
them.

With Frank, I got free food, and some pleasant conversation. He
seemed to know what he was talking about, had some of the right
names, and kept saying that he had documentation to prove
everything, if it became, in his words, "Nut cutting time."
There was a hint of others to confirm including Thomas, Fletcher
and Adair... and then Fletcher died and Frank went to the
funeral. He played the string very carefully, and when we became
suspicious, there was another document handed to us. He was
careful there because had he provided any of those we found
after he died, the game would have been over in minutes.

So the point is, I saw the Easley letter once. I don't know
about some of the others. I did notice that the letterhead and
the little "war bond" symbols were on it, just as they appeared
on one version of the 1947 Twining letter. I tried to pick out
key phrases that would tell the thing was a fake, but just
didn't have time. Had he provided a copy, then, I think that
would have ended the game. He must have known that.

>All three of the Kaufmann-forged memos of July/Sept 1947 on the
>alleged disc recovery suffer from still another dumbbell
>historical error: They recite that the "Directorate of
>Intelligence" of Air Intelligence was to receive file copies of
>reports, etc. But the "Directorate of Intelligence" of the Air
>Force (and/or possibly its predecessor the AAF) also DID NOT YET
>EXIST. When the AF separated from the Army and reorganized, air
>intelligence was DOWNGRADED in organizational stature from an
>Assistant Chief of Air Staff to a mere Director of Intelligence
>under a deputy chief of staff, and he headed what was now called
>a "Directorate of Intelligence" (D/I) for the first time and
>that occurred on Oct 10, 1947. So the D/I did not exist in July-
>Sept 1947. Duh!!!!

You know, now that we have the documents in hand, we could begin
the analysis. But we had only been shown the Easley letter
briefly and had I been looking closely, I would have asked (a)
why this seemed to be a xerox of the original (where would he
have gotten the xerox machine in 1947) and not a copy of a
carbon copy and (b) where were the classification markings
because, surely, this letter would have been classified.

No, I didn't study it as carefully as I could have because Frank
promised a copy and my first task would have been to verify
Easley's signature. Besides, he was standing right there,
yammering in my ear while I was trying to concentrate on what it
said.

The other documents were new to us. When we got our hands on
them, we began the verification process. Had Frank not died and
had we not gotten a hold of these papers, we wouldn't have the
PROOF that Kaufmann was lying.

>One of the CUFOS articles recites the following:


>"He said that the bodies had been taken to the base,
>to one of the hangars. They were put into large boxes,
>and then flown out of Roswell. According to Kaufmann,
>the bodies were on two separate flights in case of an
>aircraft accident. One plane flew directly to Wright Field,
>but the other diverted to Washington, D.C., so that high
>ranking members of the administration and the military
>would have a chance to see what the creatures looked
>like. Then, those bodies were sent on to Wright Field.
>There was nothing in this scenario that seemed unlikely
>or that could be disproved."


>NOTHING that "seemed unlikely"??? Why would bodies or biological
>material be shipped to Wright Field for pete's sake??? What
>biological labs did they have at the aeronautical engineering
>facilities at Wright Field??? Were they going to subject the
>alien cadavers to the tender analytical mercies of a supersonic
>WIND TUNNEL??? Doesn't that at least "seem" unlikely?

It seemed likely that everything would be taken to a central point
and then sent on for analysis. It seemed likely that it might be
taken to a central point, traceable by investigators, to be routed
elsewhere to inhibit that search. In that light does it make sense
to take the debris to Fort Worth for identification? Yet, balloon
debris was taken there so that we could be treated to the analysis
and identification by a warrant officer.

Arthur Exon told us that he heard the bodies were coming into
Wright Field. He said that one was taken to Lowry where the
Army had a mortuary service. So, it wasn't just Frank, but a
real, life, honest-to-God general officer who was there in
1947 telling us this.

Exon also told me that during his time at Wright-Patterson,
investigators were flown into the field, and then flown out to a
UFO investigation. If some wise guy reporter attempted to
backtrack the investigators, he would come to Wright-Patterson,
where the UFO investigation was housed, even though the people
on that particular mission weren't assigned there. It was just
one step in covering their tracks, so, it seemed natural that
everything would go first to Wright Field and then out from
there.


>In 1947 the beginning and end of any military biology and
>pathology research was the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
>(AFIP) at Walter Reed Army Hospital and the chemical biological
>warfare lab at Ft. Detrick, Md. Yet not one crashed saucer-alien
>body story I can recall -- certainly not Kaufmann's nonsense --
>ever mentions AFIP or Ft. Detrick. (I predict that now because
>I have posted this that new MJ-12 forgeries will now turn up
>citing lab analyses or autopsies from AFIP and Ft. Detrick =E2=C7"
>and they will be falsely backdated to appear to have emerged
>months before my posting, complete with affidavits from the
>usual liars swearing they "received" the documents in 2000 or
>2001 or whenever.)

>Brad Sparks

So, it took us a while, but we got there. We have posted the
information for all to see as quickly as we could. We arranged
the evidence very carefully before revelation because we had
learned our lessons with Gerald Anderson. Back in those days, I
talked to members of the Albuquerque High School who, while I
was on the telephone, told me that Anderson took the
anthropology class from Dr. Buskirk. I called Fred Whiting, who
called Stan Friedman, who called Gerald Anderson (in an attempt
to verify this information) and Gerald Anderson called the
school, threatening a lawsuit if they EVER revealed anything
about his transcript.

Now, we knew Anderson lied, but we had lost an opportunity to
prove it by sharing that data prematurely. Later, Anderson,
because he wasn't nearly as smart as he thought he was, gave us
a second chance, and I very carefully guarded that information
until we could publish it. I didn't want to lose the
documentation.

Here we did the same thing. We wanted to make sure that we had
everything aligned and wouldn't lose this opportunity. I think
we did the right thing here. But now we have the truth, and we
put it out there for all to see. I don't know how we might have
handled the end of this situation better. Maybe we should have
been more skeptical, but there were areas where Frank was
checking out.

And let me point out, in one final alibi, that others might have
been skeptical, and they might have suggested Frank was not
telling the truth, but they couldn't, and didn't, prove it. We
did. And once we had that proof, we provided it for all to see,
rather than sitting on it. Had we not published, no one would
have known the truth.

Again, it might have taken us a little longer to get there but
we ended up in the right place. Now, please, everyone, all
together, "We told you so."


KRandle


[ 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