UFO Conjecture(s)

Friday, January 09, 2015

Why Kevin Randle has lost (some) respect and (lots of) cachet

Kevin Randle is one of those names in UFO-land that carries weight – not as much weight as it once had but still rather formidable in some UFO circles.

Mr. Randle has been trying, mightily, to correct his image as a sloppy UFO researcher by recently regurgitating correctives of the Roswell scenario, which he and Donald Schmitt, among others, botched by accepting witness testimony willy-nilly; that is, he (and his cohorts) took down Roswell stories as if they were gospel when, in fact, they were as dubious as the Christian Gospels, even more so.

Yet, Mr. Randle, via his blog [A Different Perspective], continues to allow comments, such as those I’ve placed in the posting just prior to this one.

The comments come from UFO loonies or UFO trolls/scum as Steve Sawyer without any disciplined editing, just carte blanche posting of crazy comments, whether from those cited or ET obsessed quidnuncs like David Rudiak,

Mr. Randle thinks, I believe, that if someone says something or writes something, those somethings have got be valid or credible.

This is what got him in trouble with the sensible UFO community about Roswell in his books.

Now he continues that mistake but allowing a “democratic” free-for-all at his blog where anyone can post something, anything, and it stands there as a viable example of truth, but is often hardly that, mostly just goofy-ass observations by UFO laggards hoping to become someone noted in Ufology – a sad desire, granted, but still wished for by some at the fringe of UFO lore and history.

Mr. Randle has got to tighten his grasp of UFO-related commentary, keeping fools out of his blog, and not interacting with their crazy ruminations.

If he doesn’t do that, he’ll descend further into the bowels of ufology where most former UFO UpDaters now reside, because they, too, got flippant and UFO insane.

RR

5 Comments:

  • It's the minutia that gravitates to Kevin's site and the ability to argue this slurry of details.

    Weird, isn't it? It's its like looking for clues at a crime scene when the scene itself has been trampled through for the past 70 years leaving no trace of any tangible evidence...it the evidence was there to begin with.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Friday, January 09, 2015  

  • Exactly Tim...

    I get gripes for placing old (classic) UFO stories online here, but I try to bring to them a new or previously unknown (or esoteric) element.

    Randle retreads the same old stuff over and over again.

    I think his modus has to do with hits -- which Roswell always creates -- deriving some ad revenue.

    Frank Warren does the same at UFO Chronicles, as do many other UFO sites or blogs.

    The few pennies one gets for an ad hit or sold book is so niggardly that I'm surprised UFO die-hards resort to the practice, as it muddies the UFO/Roswell waters more than they already are.

    In Randle's case, he's accrued to the table some newbies, who just happen to be older than the millennials beloved by advertisers and those of us who like new ideas from the non-geezers.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 09, 2015  

  • That situation somewhat reminds me of the Mickey Mouse character playing a sorcerer's apprentice in Fantasia who cannot control his own creation, and, as a result, is nearly drowned by the endless repetition of it's ill effects.

    In this case, he seems unaware that this lack of editorial purview mimics his prior investigative technique and negates his own realization that he was chasing a ghost of his own creation by encouraging more of the same.

    In fairness to him, all of this would exist without his participation.

    Your friend Freud would say his Superego tried to steer the unsteerable, domesticate it for mass consumption, make it follow a linear path like a narrative couched in totemic reliquaries as in mythology. Bendable metal, corpses, enormous conspiracies, etc

    It's un-provable and liminal nature preserves it as a belief system because it does not require proof to be viable as a belief.

    To say he is entangled in this beyond calling back the Genie in the bottle is stating the obvious.

    Frankly, an editorial control over comments is the least of his issues in being listened to with any amount of interest for me, personally.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, January 09, 2015  

  • I have noticed some comments like that on Mr Randle's blog, but then again he has allowed my own occasional comment there so i'm not sure how critical I should be about this.
    It can seem a shame when I compare some of his more recent work to the wonderful effect some of his writings had on me in the past.
    His introduction in 'A History of UFO Crashes' was one of the triggers, one of the important things (like Peter Brookesmith) that led me to walk to path of the scientific sceptic, the critical thinker, the assessor of evidence.
    Since then countless other writers and pieces have effected me, but I remember how much I enjoyed many of the great sceptical habits he impressed upon me in that introduction.
    I still check out 'A Different Perspective' now and then to see what he is on about lately.

    All the best, folks,
    Woody

    By Blogger Woody, at Saturday, January 10, 2015  

  • Kevin, Woody, is basically a good guy, but a little lax in what he allows to surface, at his blog, which gives credence to the things submitted, often loony stuff.

    He saps his credibility by allowing, in his books and blog, nonsense or outright lies.

    He needs to be more circumspect in order to get back to being a viable UFO source.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, January 10, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home