From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:59:49 +0000
Archived: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:34:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Randle's Analysis Of The Mantell Case


>From: Tim Donovan <uwtd.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: Randle's Analysis Of The Mantell Case

>An Analysis Of The Thomas Mantell UFO Case:

>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m16-026.shtml

>Hi,

>So what comments were received? It's been five years, but I
>didn't come across the paper until now. Is Randle's view widely
>accepted by Ufologists?


Tim,

I don't know how widely accepted Randle's conclusions are, but
he is to be commended for pulling together a lot of information
on the case in a fair and balanced manner. Some new information
has come to light since his report was written, and the case is
still being reviewed by personnel of the NICAP web site.

Having personally investigated hundreds of cases, I am inclined
to think that witnesses probably confused two or more visual
stimuli as being one and the same object. I have encountered
this numerous times when an object is widely reported and a lot
of people go out and scan the sky trying to see it for
themselves. One or more Skyhook balloons were somewhere in the
general area, and their exact locations need to be pinned down.
That research is going on now.

I am not wholly convinced that what Mantell chased was a Skyhook
balloon. There are too many unusual observations suggesting that
a high- performance object was also in the area. But in all such
cases we need to go where the evidence leads us. The Skyhook
explanation is a reasonable one generally speaking, if certain
problems with it can be clarified or explained. Randle's effort
is good science. I applaud it. But there is more to come.


 - Richard Hall





Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/