UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > May > May 24

Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 17:04:13 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:51:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions - Randle

>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:24:04 -0700
>Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions

>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 11:31:59 EDT
>Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions



>>So, no, this doesn't help, other than supply a different version
>>to the already confused record. I think we can say, safely, that
>>Johnson was out there and he took pictures. I believe that he
>>took six, but others with some rather flakey analysis, seem to
>>believe he took only four...

>"Flakey analysis"? Both Neil and Andrew have used scientific
>methods to arrive at their conclusions. If you have a problem
>with their results, you need to make it clear in a scientific
>way or you can just say "I believe David, and David thinks it's
>BS so I'll call it 'flakey'." I think you can do better than
>that. You have a responsibility to your readers to at least make
>an attempt to understand Neil's evidence and comment
>intelligently. "Flakey" is a crude and unintelligent judgement.

Yes, flakey. I think David explained the trouble in rational and
compelling terms. He makes it clear that Johnson took six of the
pictures. The composition suggests that. I see no reason to
restate the very cogent and intelligent arguments made by David.
And, I don't need a lecture from you on how we need to further
examine evidence (or flakey conjecture) when it is well
established that Johnson took the pictures.

At some point you or Neil or someone else is going to have to
realize that Johnson changed his story as the mood moved him,
said that I misquoted him when all the quotes were on tape, and
invented scenarios so that he could say he photographed the real

Sometime you are just going to have to listen to someone else.

Sometime you are going to have to dispassionately examine the
evidence rather than telling everyone else to do it.

>>so now we need a third cameraman

>Yes, we do.

But we know of only two... you invent a third based on an
analysis that has been refuted by Rudiak. There doesn't need to
be a third at all.

>>take two pictures of Marcel... not to mention the guy who took
>>the picture of Newton.

>Yes that is correct.

Actually, it isn't correct. We have Johnson photographing
Marcel, Ramey, and Ramey and DuBose. We have someone else
photographing Newton. You can't just invent things because you
want them to be.

>>I think we can safely say that the debris
>>in all the pictures is the same,

>No you better take a closer look. Examine the Bettmann.
>If you don't have it, I'm sure Neil can send it to you.

Excuse me, but I found the connection to Bettmann before any of
you even knew the name or about Johnson. Bettmann was also
credited with the copy of the Newton photograph. I have a set of
16 x 20 blow ups and a number of 8 x 10s of specific areas of
the pictures. So, I've taken a good, deep look at the prints, at
scans from the negatives, and I don't need more of the same.

>>though the angles of the
>>photographs change and some of the debris is moved around as
>>people handled it.

>Parts of the debris have been hidden or rearranged for no
>apparrent reason.

No, the balloon debris was simply moved as people handled it for
the pictures.

>>Johnson's legacy is a confusion about what he saw and did
>>because he offered so many versions of it. When we reduce this
>>to the known facts as opposed to the speculations, we have
>>Johnson photographing a balloon and target with the cover story
>>already in place.

>Well yes, the cover story had been in place since the Army
>Intelligence decided on these tactics: bait and switch. It was a
>drama concocted to deceive the public. But for some reason they
>left some of the debris in Bond's photos and it's there for all
>to see who care to examine the evidence. Maybe they thought we
>were too dumb to realize the difference.

You don't know it was Army Intelligence... we do know that SAC,
in Washington, D.C. was calling the shots based on testimony.
The CIC was involved to some extent, but that's not really the
same as Army Intelligence. Yes, that's splitting a hair but not
a very fine one. Army Intelligence has one mission and CIC has

>>We have no "real" debris in those pictures

>Yes we do see real debris, but that's not the only question. We
>must also decide if the radar reflector is a ML306 or an ML 307.
>They were not the same in design or construction and so had
>different parts. I'm putting my money on an ML306.

I'm not going to engage in a yes, we do, no, we don't argument

>That rules out Mogul. So you might begin to realize how
>important our disagreements could become. I think everyone on
>the list should follow our discussions carefully.

>>and an explanation handed out to the press as quickly as

>Whatever that means.

It means that the explanation was in place before Johnson got


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



[ 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