From: Gildas Bourdais <gbourdais.nul>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:14:45 +0200
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 13:09:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Robert Durant's Questions On 'Body Snatchers'


>From: Nick Redfern <nick.redfern.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:43:05 -0700
>Subject: Re: Robert Durant's Questions On 'Body Snatchers'

>>From: Gildas Bourdais <gbourdais.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:41:24 +0200
>>Subject: Robert Durant's Questions On 'Body Snatchers'

>>Robert Durant has authorized me to post his list of questions on
>>Nick Redfern's book, Body Snatchers in the Desert. Here they
>>are, following my own list of questions, posted earlier:

>Gildas,

>I sent answers to Bob's 4 questions on 24 June, 5.29 PM.
>They're below:

>>1. Is the Redfern flying device that crashed and gave rise to
>>the Roswell testimony a credible piece of flying machinery?

>>By Redfern's account, it consisted of either a huge balloon or a
>>collection of balloons that provided lift for the payload.

>>The payload was a flying-wing controllable glider that may or
>>may not have been powered by a propeller. The glider carried
>>four Japanese pilots of very small stature and weight, but four
>>nevertheless, plus at least some additional equipment.

>>What record is there of such a device?

>>Would it make any sense to an aeronautical engineer?

>>In July 1947, what balloon or collection of balloons could have
>>lifted all that weight? Note also that this device was designed,
>>per Redfern's story, to fly at least high enough to consistently
>>use the jet stream winds, and this means at least 25,000 feet.
>>Thus the device would need to include heating and oxygen
>>supplies sufficient for flight lasting several hours in the case
>>of a test, or several days in the case of use as a weapon
>>against the Soviet Union, which is what Redfern says was the
>>goal. Or so I think. But that is the kind of question that
>>readers should be asking as they scan the pages of this book.

>Answer 1: I was able to prove that in the closing stages of
>the War, the Japanese were planning to build huge balloons,
>underneath which would be attached a gondola big enough to hold
>4 guys. They were to be approx 5 feet tall, because weight,
>space, etc., was a premium. US newspapers of the day cited in
>the book talk about this and references to "death defying
>Japanese" manning the "pressurized gondolas", which would be
>equipped with water, food and oxygen tanks to afford protection
>for high-altitude flights to the US - to a height of around
>30,000 feet as the balloons undertook their 4-day flight to the
>US. So this is a prime example of small men, in an advanced,
>pressurized gondola attached to a huge balloon system. Quite
>Roswell like, I think. These manned-balloon flights were
>referenced in US newspapers in 45.

Nick and All,

I am quite ready to believe that the Japanese had such a
project, with "death defying" pilots. They had already Kamikazes
! One first remark is that, if they were willing to risk their
lives for their country, would they be as well for an obscure
experiment led by former enemies? Anyway, I don't think you
really answer the series of questions of Bob Durant. Especially
on the records of such experiments in White Sands. You don't
have any. You don't have any record either on alleged secret
planes,or "lifting bodies" derived from Hortens projects.

>>2. How does the description of the device, either pristine or
>>after a crash, comport with the record of Roswell witness
>>descriptions? I refer here to the testimony that describes the
>>material, not the elaborate "I saw the aliens rolling around in
>>the sand" stories like those of Kauffman, Ragsdale and Dennis.

>>For example, the testimony of Sergeant Lewis Rickett and Jesse
>>Marcel, Jr., to name only two. Note that much witness testimony
>>has been invoked by both the Mogul and the Spaceship proponents.
>>Will that testimony also fit the Redfern thesis?

>>Seems to me that if one is to explain Roswell in Redfern's
>>terms, the extensive, thoroughly documented witness testimony
>>must be addressed in detail. How well does Redfern accomplish
>>that task?

>Answer 2: The scenario I have is actually not that different to
>the ET theory and witnesses. We both talk about more than one
>crash site, both talk about bodies found, both talk about
>military cordons, both talk about a cover-up. In fact, really
>the only major difference is the interpretation of what the
>people were looking at when they came across the materials, not
>whether they saw something or not.

I agree that your story fits more or less to some aspects of the
Roswell file. But it is not a proof that it is true. BTW, there
is one big missing piece, though: the impact site close to
Roswell.

Even if we forget about Kaufmann and Ragsdale, there is still a
series of witnesses pointing to such a site. For instance Lewis
Rickett and Chester Barton who both mentioned a site at a 45
minutes drive north of Roswell. Cavitt took Rickett there, not
to the Foster ranch, as you wrongly said (p. 15), repeating a
mistake of Karl Pflock. Why did you drop that site? It is very
important.

It is probably where the craft and beings were discovered, not
forgetting that a body may have also been found on the Foster
Ranch. Yes, it is a very complex story, and there is a lot more
to discover about it. But most probably not little Japanese
pilots on a Horten-like aircraft.


Gildas Bourdais