UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, March 16, 2015

A Hoaxed Document?

Kevin Randle presents, at his blog, material about a hoaxed document, with comment from David Rudiak, that I was the person responsible for the fake document.

I have not placed online nor circulated any such document.

I did receive a document with an indication of a Hilda Ray/Newton association, but since there was no way to confirm the source and no second source confirmation, I didn't think the document worthy of public note.

But I did send it to Anthony Bragalia and Nick Redfern for their input and impression and I cautioned them that the thing should remain private.

Someone circulated the document, despite my proviso not do to so and with a caveat that there was no second source confirmation..

That David Rudiak (and others) want to write that I've circulated a fake document, with Mr. Rudiak implying that I've done so many times in the past, is treading interesting legal waters.

RR

13 Comments:

  • Well, I read Nick Redfern's post on the subject this morning, and he sounded a note a lot less ambiguous than what you're saying. To quote Redfern:

    "And it's not Rich's 'assertion.' The documents are real - I can absolutely tell you that with 100 percent certainty.

    ...

    This isn't a 'maybe' issue. The documents exist. They are real.

    The connection is that suit was brought against Silas Newton in late 1946, as a result of one of his shady deals. Hilda Ray was one of the attorneys in the court case."

    Now granted, I've read more than enough of Redfern's books to know that a) he's more than a little gullible and b) he has a bad habit of presenting documents as supporting his point of view when they don't actually say what he thinks they do. But still, you may want to clarify whether or not you guys are talking about the same thing, and if not, where the confusion is coming from. The latest comments on his blog seem to be implying that there are actually two documents or something, one real and one fake.

    By Blogger Scott Hamilton, at Monday, March 16, 2015  

  • Yes both Nick and Kevin seem to imply that the document can be found, but does not contain any linkage to Hilda Ray. However, Rich seems to have the same document except that it has Hilda Ray's name on it. If my understanding is correct.

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Monday, March 16, 2015  

  • Rich,

    Thankfully, I had my second cup of coffee...

    I now understand the issue of "derailing" according to Nick Redfern.

    I also read Kevin's blog with Rudiak's comments...will have another cup of coffee.

    I think Nick's comment put it into proper context as far as what document you have in your possession...it appears clear to me, but to others...

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Monday, March 16, 2015  

  • Tony, Nick and now a few others have seen the document.

    Nick discovered it was bogus as did Mr. Bragalia, so we all dropped it as a further pursuit.

    There are not two documents but other information that allows the Rays some connection to Newton.

    I'll do a whole thing on that upcoming, after everything is vetted.....I don't want David Rudiak to blow a gasket.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 16, 2015  

  • Scott, Rich's research into the Newton/Ray issue and surrounding material is entirely separate to the doctored, bogus document.

    What I discuss yesterday is separate to the doctored material.

    People are getting very confused on this: there is (A) Rich's legitimate findings I refer to; and (B) the newly surfaced doctored document.

    It's not a case that what was thought of as solid is now bogus. It's 2 entirely different aspects of the research.

    And I can 100 percent confirm that Rich has not in any fashion published the document. He sent it to me for review, I found out it was a hoax and told him, so that it wouldn't get published.

    I suspect someone created the hoax in the hope he would use it to support his solid material and then it would be revealed it was a hoax; thus making it look like Rich got duped. But to his credit he didn't get duped. He did nothing with the bogus material - at all.

    But his solid research into Ray/Newton and Aztec/Roswell continues.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, March 16, 2015  

  • No I'm not gullible and no I don't have bad habits - at least not in relation to UFOs.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, March 16, 2015  

  • Rich,

    This is what passes for "UFOology" these days. No science or data nor reasoned deduction. No, instead the "believers" stake out their claim to their version of "truth" then it's time to lay traps for the other guy to fall into... or dark rooms and sharp knives.

    Is the doctored document of recent provenance? Who is responsible?

    Be careful, for after all it's "UFOology"!

    By Blogger gishzida, at Monday, March 16, 2015  

  • GZ:

    It's a document not worth any more time.

    I thought that when I got it.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 16, 2015  

  • @ Rich

    It seems a lot of you guys are doing research into these slides even with the big reveal just around the corner. Do you not feel it is worth waiting for the reveal to then see what needs investigating further?

    Everything may have already been covered and answers obtained. All your time and efforts may be wasted.

    I'm not trying to say stop, who am I to tell u to, but I'm just curious if this has ever happened in the past with previous incidents?

    By Blogger Stephen Jackson, at Monday, March 16, 2015  

  • Eh, I love Nick Redfern, but he seems to be in major spin/damage control mode here! Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding the situation, but Redfern seems to have stated in various places that the court document linking Ray and Newton was legit; for example, at Randle's blog: "The official documents are court papers. They show that Hilda Ray worked in her capacity as an attorney in a suit involving Newton in which suit was brought against him. So, she knew him pre-Roswell. Maybe she got too talkative, and Newton (well known for his cons) saw this as ripe for exploitation, told Frank Scully, and the whole Aztec UFO crash issue began." Now, (again if I understand correctly), the court document is actually an obvious forgery? It doesn't add up.

    By Blogger Tristan Eldritch, at Monday, March 16, 2015  

  • Tristan, No spin.

    People are getting hugely confused on this matter. Rich R has been looking into the Newton/Ray issue and made intriguing breakthroughs regarding this.

    However, the document that Kevin says is a fake is indeed a fake. I wrote about it at my blog being a fake!! Here's the link:

    http://nickredfernfortean.blogspot.com/2015/03/roswell-slides-murky-development.html

    Rich has his original research on the Ray/Newton link which is genuine.

    He was then sent a document that was clearly doctored and intended to support the good material.

    Of course, had Rich published the doctored document it would have raised questions about the legitimate info - so he didn't publish it, which was very wise of him.

    I pointed out to Rich that the document was hoaxed when I read it yesterday - it took me about 2 minutes to do so.

    I told Rich it was faked and should not be used to support his case on the Ray/Newton issue.

    But, it's important to note that the fabricated document and the good material is 2 entirely different things.

    It's NOT the case that the original material is now proved a fake. The original material and the new fake are separate data.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, March 16, 2015  

  • Recently Rich made cryptic posts about forthcoming news on this issue. Then I read Nick's posts corroborating the matter. Nowhere was any evidence cited. I don't think there were even any details! Then all this vagueness gets muddled with tales of doctored documents.

    So pointlessly confusing.

    Please, fellows, the Roswell sliders showed us how disasterous it is to jump the gun with proclamations. Let's not copy their methods.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Tuesday, March 17, 2015  

  • I thought that my business, mining truck wheels, was cut-throat, I guess I was wrong.
    Luckily, I'm just an occasional commenter on a number of sites, not important enough to be misused by those online who may disagree with me.

    Woody

    By Blogger Woody, at Tuesday, March 17, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home