UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jun > Jun 27

Re: Any More News Regarding Roswell?

From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 22:28:42 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 10:52:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Any More News Regarding Roswell?


>From: KRandle993@aol.com [Kevin Randle]
>Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 11:44:55 EDT
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Any More News Regarding Roswell?


Sorry it's taken some time to respond to the above, I wanted to
hopefully clarify the source of the 'TR-3A' sketch which is almost
identical to Kaufmann's supposed recording of the 'Roswell' alien

The comparative sketches are still on my web site at URL:


I understand that the artists impression of the theoretical
'TR-3A' aircraft originated from:

'America's New Secret Aircraft'
by Gregory Pope
'Popular Mechanics', December 1991
Page 34.

I wonder if someone might have a copy of that issue and confirm
it is the correct source.

If so, the initial question is whether this pre-dates the first
known appearance of Kaufmann's sketch.

I would have to expect Kaufmann's similar three-profile drawing
didn't appear until some time after the 'Popular Mechanics'

Regarding the recently discovered April 1949, Top Secret
document, 'Unidentified Aerial Objects', a USAF Directorate of
Intelligence's briefing for the Joint Intelligence Committee,
you commented:

>What we observe in this document, however, is not the all-knowing,
>access to every classified report. Instead, we find the authors
>speculating that the flying objects might be a domestic project and
>their suggestion that any such project be revealed to the Air Force
>because of its responsibility for air defense. In other words, the
>authors of the top-secret report did NOT have complete access to
>everything. They admitted that there were areas they were not allowed
>to examine.


>The point is that no mention of the Roswell case, and a high
>classification does not lead to the conclusion that nothing happened.
>SCI rears its ugly head here and we must make allowances for it.

We should be aware of that possibility, but surely this report
solidifies the overall perspective which has become
significantly clearer in recent years and which consistently
indicates the US government and military had no knowledge of any
evidence pertaining to a recovered 'flying saucer'.

That's what 'UFO' research set out to achieve, a clear
understanding of these issues and continually alleging this
nefarious 50 year cover-up, is merely making unsubstantiated
allegations in the face of the factual evidence which continues
to be exposed.

On Kaufmann's claims:

>>There were two points about Kaufmann's claimed copy of his original
>>'Top Secret' report.

>>The first was why he had a copy at all, did he routinely make
>>duplicates of 'secret' documents for his own files?

>A very good question and I have suggested that it be asked of Frank
>Kaufmann. I intend to ask it on the first opportunity I have to speak
>to Frank in person.


>>Secondly, how was he was able to make what seems allegedly to be an
>>exact copy, complete with letter-heading bearing the name and
>>address of 'Headquarters, Roswell Army Air Field', a typed reference
>>[S1CP/JAM/sfm] and partly typed, partly hand-written date [only the
>>typed '1947' is clear].

>>Although there were no photocopiers available in 1947 (the
>>electro-photographic process wasn't publicly demonstrated until 22
>>October 1948), he could indeed have photographed the document.

>>What did he do then though, send the film to Kodak for processing?

>I notice in reading about spying in the Civil War that messages to
>be taken to Richmond were routinely taken to Washington for copying
>by the Union before they were taken on to the 'Confederate capital.
>I mention this only to suggest that copying of documents was
>accomplished long before 1947.

Accepted, however the question here is of course how Kaufmann
was able to make what looks to be about an 'A4' sized copy of
his 'report'. As mentioned, this essentially consists of
drawings with notes, some of the notes having been 'blacked out'
as might have been an officially released, yet partly classified

>>What about the possibility of clarifying these issues with Frank
>>Kaufmann and also querying why, if the copy letter-heading relates
>>to a document he sent (rather then a letter he might have received),
>>the reference doesn't contain FK's initials?

>I have suggested that these questions would be more appropriately
>addressed to Frank Kaufmann. He will have the answers for them.

This would be welcome and we look forward to any developments.

>The creatures described by Frank have grown a little bit over the
>years, but when we remember that we're talking about events that are
>over 50 years old, a few minors changes should be expected,
>especially when we remember all the reporting that was done last
>year. For clarification, I might suggest a look at the work done by
>Elizabeth Loftus and Richard Ofshe.


>What we must remember is that there has been a lot of material
>published about the Roswell case that is inaccurate.

>I think of the stories told by Gerald Anderson and even J. Bond
>Johnson. Johnson, who told me originally that General Ramey had told
>him it was a weather balloon now claims that Ramey didn't tell him

Appreciated on both counts and it's almost an impossible

Probably the most ostensibly credible witness testimony I have
seen is Glenn Dennis's. How could such a sincere and
conservative elderly gentleman concoct such an elaborate and
emotional story, if there was no truth to it at all.

As we now realise, there's no exceptions and even if we
charitably accept that Glenn didn't intend to cynically deceive
anyone, all that glitters certainly isn't gold.

>When we begin to deal with a situation that has a huge monetary
>stake, such as that that now surrounds Roswell, the situation is
>going to become even more confused. All we can do is attempt to wade
>through this, expose the hoaxes as we find them, and continue to

Sentiments which I'm sure Robert Todd, Karl Pflock, Philip Klass
and many of us would commend.

My thoughts were that Kaufmann's claims and supporting material
are not so much evidently questionable as appearing to be
blatantly bogus.

More importantly, there were now obvious questions and resolving
them was achievable.

E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.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