UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Nov > Nov 27

Re: Melvin Brown And The MPs

From: Greg Sandow <greg.nul>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:04:02 -0500
Archived: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:26:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Melvin Brown And The MPs

>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:16:00 EST
>Subject: Re: Melvin Brown And The MPs


>You are talking past each other. You acknowledged that this was
>a "very well reasoned" point questioning why a cook would be
>allowed such extraordinary access to ET spaceship and bodies,
>then you sidetrack onto a point about exceptions to military

"Well-reasoned" doesn't mean correct. The premises behind the
reasoning could be wrong.

>Aren't you getting sick and tired of all the
>"exceptions" that have to be dragged out to keep the Roswell
>dead horse alive?? All we have at least on this List is a vast
>collection of dead ends, all deadending in Roswell, NM. T

This isn't my impression. I've been through Kevin Randle's
Roswell files, and seen - also heard on tape - a lot of first-
hand testimony that doesn't require any special pleading.
There's still more of it in the new Schmitt/Carey book.

One thing seemed clear to me, after seeing and hearing Kevin's
material. Some of the criticisms made of his witnesses really
don't stand up. General Exon, for instance, really did say
exactly what Kevin quoted him as saying, and did so without any
prompting. I've heard this myself on tape.

>Do you really think the entire Roswell case hinges on the
>third-hand hearsay of Melvin Brown for crying out loud??

Of course I don't. But each strand of the evidence - or, if you
like, the "alleged" evidence - has to be examined on its own.

Besides, I wasn't defending Melvin Brown. I was commenting on
one kind of argument that people have used in attacking his
(alleged) testimony. That's a very different thing. If I wanted
to say that I believe Brown's (alleged) testimony, I would have
done it, in plain English.

>Do we have to have shyster defense lawyer type arguments
>each and every time someone tries to make a more balanced
>assessment of the credibility (or lack of same) of an alleged
>Roswell "witness"?

That's loaded language, Brad. I'm as balanced as the next guy,
even if you disagree with what I said. (Of course, that would
depend on who the next guy is!)

>Again, as I have pointed out here on this list, the arguments like
>this are for a political not scientific objective. The political
>objective is to try to "prove" Roswell ET reality to the political
>powers of the country. This is not the same thing as a
>scientific objective.

Well, that's certainly not what I'm trying to do. But I think
I've learned how to hit a nerve with you, Brad. Not that I'd
ever want or need that knowledge.

>"Moreover, standard military procedure is that mess and
>medical personnel are the last to be taken from their primary
>duties for other assignments, and then only in extreme situations.
>Roswell AAF was a huge base with thousands of personnel
>assigned, many of them in redundant staff positions (e.g.,
>squadron clerks), so if there was a need for extra hands on
>the Lincoln County [UFO crash] sites, there was a
>substantial pool from which to draw before resorting to a
>raid on the mess hall kitchens [for cooks like Brown to do
>guard duty]."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. My point was that standard procedures aren't
always followed. > >Another point is that if the Roswell crash
situation was so >dire and exigent that mess cooks had to be
drafted to do >guard duty then that would mean that every single
man on >the base would have had knowledge of it. That kind of
>manpower net would catch everyone if it caught a cook like

Same point. What "would" have happened isn't necessarily the
same as what did happen. No matter how plausible the "would"
might seem.

I have no specialized knowledge of military affairs. I freely
concede that weakness in my presentation. But on the other hand,
the people who do have the specialized knowledge seem to skip
over elementary things I've encountered in whatever reading I've
done. A recent history of Khrushchev's role in the Cold War, for
instance - based on new material from Soviet archives, as well
as known information from the American side - shows both sides
behaving so illogically that it's a wonder we all survived. The
political and military blunders were simply amazing, and
included all kinds of things that "would" never have happened,
if one assumed that both sides followed what should have been
their procedures, and did any kind of logical thinking. Not
precisely a comparable situation, I'll grant, but worth thinking

>>... The second story comes from "Nikita Khrushchev and the
>>Creation of a Superpower," by Khrushchev's son Sergei, now a
>>university professor living in the US.

>The story is bogus!

>The Soviet embassy <did>have direct communications with the
>Kremlin during the Cuban Missile Crisis. A cutoff would have
>been seen as an act of war.

>The Soviets did not need Western Union to transmit high-priority
>messages to and from Moscow. The Soviet Embassy rooftop had and
>still has a vast array of radio antennas, many of which are for
>shortwave transmissions directly to and from Moscow, most of
>which were encrypted with one-time pads, some of which were sent
>as microbursts to try to evade interception.


You should argue with Khrushchev's son about that. Or at least
you should look at his book, which is a substantial scholarly
volume, based on far more than personal recollections.

But even if this anecdote is bogus, there are many more stories
that show illogical, non-standard things happening even in high-
security situations.

Greg Sandow

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