UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jun > Jun 6

Re: Area 51 Still Operational

From: "Steven Kaeser" <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 07:32:59 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 09:06:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Area 51 Still Operational


>From: KRandle993@aol.com [Kevin Randle]
>Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 18:26:41 EDT
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Area 51 Still Operational


<snip>

>> I recall a case in France where the police placed trace evidence
>>(or photographs of it) into an investigation file.  The US Air
>>Force has a great deal of interesting physical evidence that they
>>haven't been able to explain, some of which is now available
>>through the FOIA process. If Karl Pflock wants to chime in here,
>>he can provide some interesting details regarding the
>>"Scoutmaster Case" in Florida in the '60s, which the Air Force
>>investigated and couldn't explain.

>The Scoutmaster case is from August 1952. The Air Force explained
>it as a hoax. Given the scoutmaster's history of spinning tall
>tales, had been discharged from the Marines in 1944 under less
>than honorable conditions (during the height of WWII, what does
>that tell you about the guy?) and there was no independent
>corroboration for the sighting if you looked carefully at the
>statements of the boy scouts who were there. All the physical
>evidence was explainable with the exception of the burnt roots of
>the grass samples. But, since the chain of custody was broken,
>that might not be important.

>Nearly everyone in the UFO fields realizes that this case is a
>hoax. Please notice I said nearly everyone.

>KRandle


Kevin-

I've learned to take everything I see in this genre with a
"grain of salt" until I can check into it myself, and I
certainly haven't performed any great research into this case. I
mentioned only in response to a blanket statement that seemed to
indicate that the author was unaware of any cases where physical
evidence had been collected and analyzed. This case happened to
come to mind, and I brought it up.

I would note that in 1952 the military labeled just about every
case a "hoax", "Venus", "air inversions", or "misidentification
of birds or aircraft". Indeed, this may have been the correct
explanation for many unknowns, but the military was obviously
trying to put a "spin" on this subject and not really trying to
get the truth to the public. In July of that year the military
had to deal with the Washington DC sightings that showed
military leaders the impact of the public's intense interest and
how it could disrupt communication lines. Indeed, this was the
year that the military grew to fear the impact of the public's
reaction more than the "unknowns" themselves. Given it's
behavior over the years, I would tend to take anything the
military issued in a public statement about UFOs with a very
large "grain of salt".

Secondly, the fact that he left the marines under less than
honorable circumstances was not exactly unusual. Without
details, this may or may not be relevant to his being an
honorable person, and (again) the "spin" on this facet of his
life comes from the military's release of information, as are
the allegations of his "spinning tall tales".

On the other hand, he was a Scoutmaster. This means that a
sponsoring organization (most like a church) thought enough of
his character to assign him the task of helping to guide older
boys as they become young men. This is not a guarantee of good
character, but generally tends to be a reasonable indicator. As
I recall, it was after his alleged sighting that his life began
to fall apart, and I would suggest that there are few who have
had a serious "sighting" that haven't suffered some sort of
paradigm shift in their "reality". I would suspect that many of
us have flaws in our character that we've learned to control as
we go through our daily routines. It wouldn't surprise me if an
encounter with something completely unknown or frightening had
the effect of bringing those "flaws" to the surface.

Without a second witness (and I'll concede that the scouts, who
only saw a light through the trees, didn't see enough to provide
good testimony) this case rests on the anecdotal comments of a
person whose character has been questioned.  As far as the trace
evidence is concerned, postulating what might have caused it
does not prove what "did" cause it. To prove that he had hoaxed
this case one would have to show how it was accomplished and
prove that he had the ability to pull off such a hoax.

No, this isn't a particularly good case to waste much time on.
There are too many dead ends, and the available information has
been tainted by those who may have had motives contrary to the
search for truth. If I recall correctly, the central character
in this incident left the community as an outcast and later
attempts to locate him (many years after the fact) failed.

But I stand by my statement that there are good traces cases,
that have not been fully explained, in the public record.

Steve



[ 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