UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > May > May 3

Re: Roswell Vs. The Critics - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 18:12:19 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 06:21:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell Vs. The Critics - Randle


 >From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch@grassyhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 23:22:18 -500
 >Subject: Re: Roswell Vs. The Critics

 >>From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 05:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
 >>Subject: Roswell Vs. The Critics

 >Greeting Bill, List and Readers

 ><snip>

 >>Here is what was presented by Don:

 >>Almost fifty-five years and four explanations have past and
 >>still the Roswell crash of 1947 remains one of the greatest
 >>mysteries of all time. Within recent years there has been a
 >>proliferation of anti-Roswell books that are not only debunking
 >>but resort to nothing less than pure character assassination.

 >When allegations of "Character Assassination" come from
 >researchers like Don Schmitt, we definitely have ourselves a
 >Kettle-Black situation. If Don was referring to comments about
 >him, he has only himself to blame. It was not the skeptic
 >community that lied about his education, employment, and
 >especially his Roswell-related research, methods and
 >conclusions. His history of distortion is so well known, I
 >wonder at the level of support he receives today.

 >"...I do not now believe anything that Schmitt says and neither
 >should you."
 >(Kevin Randle - in his To Whom It May Concern Letter dated Sept
 >10, 1995)

 >If Don was referring to Maj. Jessie Marcel: Again, it was
 >Jessie, and no one else, that told people like Moore and Pratt
 >some pretty wild tales about his education and military record.
 >It has been claimed many times by researchers that Jessie had no
 >reason to lie about what he found on Foster's Ranch. But then,
 >it is equally true that he had no reason to inflate his military
 >record either.


Bruce, Bill, List, All -

I find myself a little puzzled here. I have waited for some sort
of response to this suggestion that Don Schmitt has lied about
his background, education, occupation, parts of his Roswell
investigation and the like, yet no one seems willing to
challenge Bruce on these points. It seems to me that we are in
agreement about this.

Bill, I don't mean to single you out, but when you attended the
lecture, were you aware of the baggage that Schmitt brought to
it? If not, then what is your reaction now, to the information
he presented? Do you find it to be credible? I am interested in
why anyone would listen to a thing he has to say, given what we
know about him.

This, I believe, moves into the realm of one of Dick Hall's
points about taking Ufology mainstream. How can we expect the
scientific and journalistic communities to listen to us when
some of those on the lecture circuit not only aren't telling the
truth, they have admitted they weren't telling the truth, and
turn up time and again selling their new and improved stories?

Don Schmitt and Tom Carey have interviewed more than 600
witnesses... is Schmitt counting in that number dozens who I
interviewed when he was somewhere else doing something else?
Does this count the new witness they identified as "Tex" who
tells a tale that doesn't quite fit into anything and who
probably should have been identified as "Swede?"

We are now going over the same material. I could name a dozen
people whose stories have been exposed but we still schedule
them to lecture, we still sit in the audience, nodding and
agreeing, even when we know the person has lied about his
background or his education, or his top secret clearances. We
don't challenge any of these people and when they are rightly
challenged, then their colleagues leap up screaming "character
assassination." Well, it's not character assassination when
you're telling the truth.

On the other hand, Don Schmitt, while we were still working
together, told a number of people not to talk to me because he
suspected that I was a government agent planted on him. Here was
my friend telling people I was a spy and not to be trusted.
Since I'm not a government agent nor was I planted on him, would
this then be character assassination?

Yes, Bruce and I disagree on Jesse Marcel. Bill Moore, who
originated some of these stories has provided, in one case,
three different versions of a single Marcel quote. He has
described his own book as a disgraceful hodgepodge of fact and
fiction. He claims to have inside sources and worked for the
AFOSI as an unpaid agent. Here again is another person who is
still quoted as if he as anything to say that might be of
relevance to us.

Yes, I think that if Jesse Marcel was still alive, we might find
simple answers to our questions, but today we don't have that
luxury. I think most of the trouble comes from simple
misunderstandings, but that is just an opinion about this.

But this discussion has devolved to a point where Bruce's
original statements have been lost. We aren't talking about
Schmitt and his new and improved Roswell story, but talking
about whether or not the pictures in Ramey's office show a rawin
and a weather balloon (Sorry, Ed, but it is a weather balloon
and rawin). We should be examining how it is that Schmitt can
find a venue and that people won't challenge what he says about
the case.

Until we clean our own house, no one is going to listen to us.
We're going to remain the lunatic conspiracy fringe whose
positive evidence gets buried under the rubble of those who lie
to us... and we're all so dumb that we'll just sign up for more
lies.

If we want to move on, then we must encourage real debate rather
than shouting down those whose opinions differ from our own. I
know how that is because no one wants to listen to the
possibility that some alien abductions might be terrestrially
based, meaning there are mundane explanations for them. No one
wants to seriously discuss this. Instead the shouting begins.

So, that's where we are. We do not intelligently debate, we
embrace those who lie to us, and we will not tolerate dissent.
We must accept all parts of the UFO field from animal
mutilations to crop circles to the wildest of the conspiracies
without question and we must attack those who suggest that a
mundane explanation might fit the facts better. (No, I am not
suggesting here that I believe the Mogul explanation and yes, I
am slightly overstating the case but I certainly can offer
examples.)

So, people, just why are we listening to Don Schmitt? I'd like
to know the reason for it.


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