UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 29

Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed

From: Royce J. Myers III - The Watchdog <ufowatchdog.nul>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:18:06 -0800
Archived: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:37:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed


>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:56:28 -0500
>Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed

>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:31:44 EST
>>Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Randle

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

><snip>

>The Kaufmann documents have all kinds of incorrect garbage in
>them which would quick show them to be fakes. However, as Kevin
>points out Kaufmann would just flash these things at people and
>not let them see the documents. So he got a lot of milage giving
>people the impression that he had some documented proof of his
>tales. He took in the Popular Mechanics magazine reporter.

>The Army Air Forces did not have a Directorate of Intelligence
>in July 1947. That rather stupid mistake was not committed until
>shortly after the USAF came into being. So "Easley's letter,"
>which clearly violates established correspondence protocols,
>talked about an entity that does not exist in July 1947. As I
>have said before, any clerk with a few months' experience in the
>military could probably turn out fair good forgeries. Kaufmann
>apparently could not, so he depended on just flashing something
>that looked official.

>Kaufmann never impressed me, especially his story about the
>radar trackings and the explosion on the screen. This is a dizzy
>tale.

>However, people who had briefly seen his documents could be
>impressed enough to suspend judgement on his tales. A few months
>ago Kevin in a long serious of postings on "UFO Frauds"
>suggested that there should be peer review of such claims. The
>original idea seems to have been diverted to review famous cases
>like the Mantell case, but I think the original idea to review
>"insider" tales is needed in ufology.

>As I have said before, it is needed, but few in ufology have the
>stomach for it.

There have been so many instances in this field where people
have flaunted false credentials and hard copies of those
credentials don't materialize (i.e.: the person(s) won't supply
the documents, the documents were lost, et al), the big bag
gov't has come along and rounded them all up erasing them in the
process, and/or the credentials are bogus. I've ran into all of
the above as I'm sure many of you out there have.

Let's not forget the past of some other folks using bogus
documents or alleging to have doctorate degrees or other
educational credentials:


Jim Dilettoso: A degree from a university that he later said was
"honorary" - still no degree has ever turned up to my knowledge.
This among other credentials that he does not have.

Sean David Morton: Claimed to have earned a doctorate degree
from a university in Texas that is nothing more than an outreach
ministry. Claimed to have a degree in Advanced Drama from a
school that does not offer degrees and a school he has never
attended.

Lee Shargel: Claimed to be a NASA scientist with a degree in
Egyptian Quantum Physics...how the hell did aynone fall for
that?!

"Dr." Jonathan Reed: Not even his real name and the man has no
doctorate under any of his numerous aliases.

"Dr." Harold Chacon: Had a reference letter he claimed was from
Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico. Daniel Munoz
claimed to have verified the letter. Problem was that the
numbers listed on it were all bogus. Chacon was never a doctor.


We all know there are far many more than just those listed here.
I think the lesson to be learned in the case of Kaufmann is for
investigators to demand copies of such documents if any such
claims are made or the documents are presented. Until then, all
information is suspect until it can be verified and should not
be disclosed. If the person turns out to be a fraud, then they
should be widely exposed.

Kevin appeared to be in a hard spot with this alleged witness at
the time as the witness appeared to not be co-operating with
supplying documents. The Kaufmann incident was a hard lesson
learned by all. If anyone is hesitant in providing you proof
they claim to have, then 99.99998% of the time they're full of
it.

No matter how good something looks, demand proof...

Regards,

Royce J. Myers III
UFOWATCHDOG.COM

[ 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