Posts : 10050
Reputation : 359
Join date : 2013-02-04
|Subject: Leading Roswell Researcher Kevin Randle Recants the Alien UFO Explanation Tue Dec 27, 2016 6:46 am|| |
Guy Malone, organizer of the 2017 Roswell conference at which I’ll be speaking, recently sent me this link:Leading Researcher Shocks, Debunking Own Roswell StoryThe article is by Bill Turner, but it draws heavily on an interview between Randle and Robert Sheaffer, linked at the bottom of this excerpt of Turner’s piece:
Leading Roswell Researcher Kevin Randle Recants the Alien UFO Explanation
Posted by MikeHeiser | Dec 24, 2016 | ExoPolitics & Disclosure, Roswell, UFO Religions, UFO Sightings, Cases, UFO Theories, UFOs, UFOs, man-made |
- Quote :
- UFO news today should have scientists and skeptics reaching for pens to circle the date on the calendar to mark a significant change in direction by Kevin Randle, a long-respected expert in the UFO research field as it relates to the Roswell, New Mexico event in 1947. Robert Sheaffer, a skeptic who has written a book titled Bad UFOs: Critical Thinking About UFO Claims, relates that he discovered the turnabout in a book review of Randle’s newest book, Roswell in the 21st Century, in which Randle states that he does not believe that a UFO crashed at Roswell. Sheaffer and Randle appeared together in a radio interview that covers a wide range of subjects on UFO news and is provided below.
Sheaffer provides a detailed account of his interaction with Randle on his site.
Sheaffer’s account in turn draws on Jerome Clark’s review of Randle’s latest book, Roswell in the 21st Century. Sheaffer writes:
- Quote :
- Clark’s review is titled “Recanting Roswell Certainty,” a provocative title to say the least, especially as it concerns Randle, one of the most dedicated long-term promoters of the Roswell incident as an ET saucer crash. Clark says that:
- Quote :
- Roswell in the 21st Century, which never insults one’s intelligence, is noteworthy for being the first recantation by a major figure in the controversy, now nearing its fourth decade.
- Quote :
- “Recantation?” That’s a pretty strong word.
In my Bad UFOs book, I quoted Karl Pflock’s 2001 book Roswell – Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe. Pflock demonstrated inconsistencies such that of the just four people publicly identified as witnesses to alien bodies, “not one of the purported firsthand witnesses to alien bodies and a lone survivor is credible. Not one.” (Pflock, p. 118-120).
In this review, Clark continues:
- Quote :
- Randle was initially taken with what seemed to be credible evidence. Eventually (as I did), he grew doubtful of that evidence, especially as it concerned the supposed recovery of dead aliens. Of the eight claimants (he spoke directly with all) who said they had observed such bodies, Randle writes, “not one [..] turned out to be telling the truth.”
- Quote :
- So Randle has raised the number of those who lied about seeing alien bodies at Roswell from four to eight, and there never were more than eight. This completely undercuts the need for bizarre ET or non-ET explanations for alleged alien body sightings at Roswell. Stalin and Mengele sent in deformed children in a Commie Nazi saucer: Annie Jacobs. The U.S. Army flew in dwarfish captured Japanese pilots in a bizarre craft: Nick Redfern. The Air Force dropped crash test dummies in the desert: U.S. Air Force. All of these highly implausible explanations are unnecessary, because there are no truthful accounts of alien bodies at Roswell to explain.
If it is indeed the case (and it sure looks that way) that Randle has been drive away from the ET explanation for what happened at Roswell, he deserves accolades for his courage. Being data-drive in ufology often doesn’t win hearts and minds. Sheaffer’s last point, about no explanation for the bodies being necessary is equally valid.
The absence of bodies, however, does not undermine some sort of WWII or Cold War era experiment being behind the Roswell incident. As readers of my fiction (The Façade) know, I think that’s the case, and I still think the nature of the explanation is sinister, involving Operation PAPERCLIP personnel (Nazis) and certain technological pursuits. I just don’t think it’s a coincidence that the Majestic documents that purport to report on the Roswell crash contain elements of Nazi-era photo-chemical process for producing Uranium 233.1 A good case can be made for the viability of this process, while dispensing with some of the more bizarre theories about the Nazi “Bell” technology. Granted, this isn’t the only way to parse the available data and its scattered presence in certain Majestic documents, but it’s on the table for me. No ETs needed,but still something the U.S. government would have a high interest in covering up … and for which a concocted conspiracy about alien craft would provide a workable diversion.
[list="font-variant-numeric: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0.7em 0px 0.3em 1.143em; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; list-style-position: outside; list-style-image: initial;"]
[*]Here’s one description for this, but the real source is Witkowski (The Truth About The Wunderwaffe), who cites specific NARA material in building his case. Readers of my Facade sequel, The Portent, will be familiar with some of that data.