UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

A private e-mail (to me) that makes interesting/insightful points

I hope you can implement the policy for ufocon.blogspot mentioned in your post today.

I am one of those hundreds of thinking entities who check your blog daily, but never comment, as you have noted recently in other posts. The reason for this behaviour is simply demonstrated: a while ago you had a post on death of Ruppelt. Ah, I thought, I have the tools do do some quick research, and the personal background, to contribute something to this. After an hour or so of research, very quick and satisfying, I posted the information. The immediate response was a rant from Mr Rudiak, with no informational content, challenging every point not based on a factual or reasoned basis, but merely on Mr Rudiak's judgement that x is a common mistake or y cannot be.

Well, there are not enough hours in the day, or any point, in dealing with such nonsense. So better not to post at all.

I am not saying that others like me would post as often as those who seem to have no other life than trolling and bashing out reams of top-of-the-head text every hour in the comments section. But censoring any comments that do not have substantive content might bring some of us out of the woodwork.

PS I have a BA in physical anthropology. During the years of training I examined and evaluated hundreds of Native American burials. The 'nonhuman' or 'pathological' attributes of the mummy in the Roswell slides all simply correlate with the age of the individual. But no point on commenting on that; Rudiak et al would simply demand proof of experience to make such a statement...


  • What about the death of Ruppelt?

    Please, please don't tell us (after 55 years?) that his death was linked in some way to UFOs or that someone had to silence him for threatening to spill the beans.

    As a matter of fact I believe NICAP suggested exactly this, soon after his death. But I must admit that my memory is a bit shaky on this point.

    Does anyone 'high up' in ufology ever die a natural death? A few maybe.

    Look at poor James Forrestal!

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, May 19, 2015  

  • CDA:

    Perhaps you remember a post from a month or so ago about Ruppelt's death, from a lady who sent us some info, and which was savaged by some, Rudiak, among them, I think.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 19, 2015  

  • My suggestion to the writer -- respond in the comments, and be done with it. It is an incredible waste of time to second-guess. Just do it. And if your comments are as well-thought-out and well-written as your email was, I suspect the editors will allow it. And who knows. You may begin a trend!

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Tuesday, May 19, 2015  

  • Who is Ruppelt, Where did he come from why did he have to die?

    By Blogger Dr. Science, at Tuesday, May 19, 2015  

  • Dr Science:

    Probably your best reference is: "Captain Edward J.Ruppelt - Summer of the Saucers, 1952".

    Written by Michael D.Hall and Wendy Ann Connors. Published by Rose Press International, Albuquerque, NM in 2000.

    A 304-page large paperback book. And excellent value it is. Yes I am serious.

    But please do not read it expecting any conspiracy-oriented stuff. If you wish to know, Ruppelt died a natural death from a heart attack. His health declined in his last years.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, May 19, 2015  

  • The "conspiracy" thinking about Ruppelt does NOT relate to his death but to the fact that the two editions of his famous book "The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects" are very, very different. In the first edition it is apparent that Ruppelt takes some UFO reports very seriously and leans, ever so slightly, toward the fact that we are dealing (in some cases) with an extraordinary phenomenon. The second edition adds chapters that leave the impression that UFOs are smoke and mirrors, nothing more. Curious to say the least.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Tuesday, May 19, 2015  

  • I remember the posting about Ruppelt's death. A couple people posted some tidbits of info- I believe one was a woman who supposedly lived down the street from him and her husband carpooled with him?
    Folks that post regularly can be a bit harsh and intimidating. Both believer and skeptics alike. It's hard for anyone new to jump into the conversation. Plus like the person from the anonymous email said, they don't have all day to go back and forth.
    I think there are a lot of hard heads in ufology. To quote Stanton Friedman "don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up". Not only does it apply to some skeptics, but many believers as well.

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Tuesday, May 19, 2015  

  • Hi all!
    I read a lot of blogs for quite a time before I began commenting on them and learned a lot. I've had satisfying exchanges with others on these blogs.
    I've discussed things with UFO believers on blogs such as this, with 'creationists' on atheist blogs, with witch-doctors on anti-psuedo-medicine sites, with ghost-hunters on 'Bad Psychics' and the list goes on.
    I've exchanged with believers here and at other sceptical or free-thinking UFO sites and had success (at least partly due to previously examining the comment sections). Often the best rule is just to be nice. if you have some valid points to make, make them and give the believer the opportunity to return his/her ideas in a similarly polite manner. We can actually learn a lot from each other without descending into a barking match.
    Some of the best points I've ever made in comment sections were constructed by others from different fleeting parts of my comment.
    Don't get me wrong, some exchanges have turned out somewhat savage mostly because the other did not care to exchange ideas and thought with me but only wanted to repeat, again and again, that I am WRONG and that they are RIGHT.
    Now that I've written that I realize that I am not always as reasonable as the wisdom that I speak, but that's OK, because self-assessment and understanding of one's own faults is an important part of being a rational, reasonable skeptic.
    For that matter, I see it as an important part of being an intelligent person, no matter which side of various fences your views place you.

    All the best,

    By Blogger Woody, at Wednesday, May 20, 2015  

  • I think Ruppelt had a genuine change of heart about UFOs, resulting in the revised second edition of his book. He was put off a bit by Keyhoe and NICAP, but mostly from the contactees who flourished in the 1950s and gave the subject a bad name. He also got a bit disillusioned by Blue Book's later methodology which, he claimed, was far less rigorous than it was under him.

    Be that as it may, regarding Stan Friedman's quote "don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up", could this not apply to the very man who said it, namely Friedman himself?

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, May 20, 2015  

  • Good point CDA!

    It definitely applies to Stanton. Like his stance on MJ12, mostly debunked documents, yet I believe he still stands behind some of those documents as legitimate.
    I still like Stanton, at least he didn't get into the slide debacle!
    A lot of conspiracy theorists think Ruppelt was forced to change his book, but I don't believe that. I think you're right CDA. I think He genuinely had a change of heart.

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Wednesday, May 20, 2015  

  • Ruppelt had an innocent "change of heart"? No way. I can't buy that for even a second. Have you read his account of the Washington National sightings (1952)? There is no question in my mind that he accepted the senior controller's account of the moving targets as fact, including the 7,000 MPH clocking of a single target. There is no question in my mind that he accepted Major Dewey Fournet's motion analysis of 50 UFO reports as fact. Fournet concluded that from the motion analysis that UFOs were probably interplanetary spaceships. There are several dozen discussions with air force pilots in the book of impossible speeds and turns; Ruppelt hardly sounds like a skeptic in any of this,and I don't believe that he was. To suddenly conclude, in the second edition, that there are conventional explanations for all of this is and much, much more is, well, inexplicable. No, not really, if you have been in this area for as long as I have. The more rational explanation for the second edition 180 degree turn is that he was turned.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Wednesday, May 20, 2015  

  • Dominick,
    I don't believe he changed completely. I think over time he became more cynical. I would to reread the edition. I know it's a big change, but I didn't think he actually stated that there was conventional explanations for all of them.

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Wednesday, May 20, 2015  

  • Also maybe Ruppelt was privy to top secret tests that were being done that explained some of the more fascinating or difficult to explain sightings. Although I doubt it. However maybe someone told him as much. Maybe they convinced him that the hardest cases were actually still of human origin. Therefore his belief had nothing to stand on. Hence the change.

    So Dominick, your belief is that he changed his mind forcefully? That the government or someone else made him release an updated version of his book?

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Wednesday, May 20, 2015  

  • Yes. It's the more likely scenerio. And given what we now know about the way the intellegence community operates in secret, it is a very likely scenerio, indeed.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Wednesday, May 20, 2015  

  • Dominick:

    Then why was he ever allowed to write his original book? He even spoke with Keyhoe, and NICAP, before revising his book, to get the latest 'dope'.

    It seems you are just another conspiracist.

    As if the CIA or NSA can possibly control what is or is not written about UFOs!

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, May 20, 2015  

  • CDA:

    That Ruppelt may have been coerced into changing his first book might be seen, using common sense, as contributing to stress and his eventual heat attack.

    Conspiracies do exist and there have been many, latent and overt, in the history of the U.S. (and British) governments, so many that to deny them or explain them away is to engage in delusional thinking.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 20, 2015  

  • Like CDA points out though- why let Ruppelt publish the original version? And why make him recant his original conclusion so long after?
    I don't know. Maybe he was coerced. But I think there needs to be more evidence than a second edition book, and a heart attack. Yes conspiracies do exist. I believe Forrestal was murdered for what he knew about UFOs and his mental status. He put their secret at risk. Ruppelt however, I'm not sure about. If have to reD up about him some more.

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Wednesday, May 20, 2015  

  • To quote Sylvester the Cat, “sufferin’ succotash and jumping jehosaphat!”

    Talk about sour grapes. Check out what I really wrote and whether it was a "rant" with "no informational content" or a case of "challenging every point not based on a factual or reasoned basis."


    Rather, "UFO DNA" tried to nitpick to death a rather minor email to RRR about Ruppelt by an old lady. She wrote that she and her husband were neighbors of Ruppelt in Long Beach, her husband was an engineer and he and Ruppelt rode to work at Northrop together. She and her husband were both suspicious of his early death. End of story.

    His killer arguments trying to dismiss the email as a hoax or “disinformation” were:
    1. She misspelled "Northrop" as "Northrup".
    2. She got Ruppelt's address off by one digit (neglecting to mention that she and her husband would indeed have been neighbors, since same reference (ancestry.com) confirmed the address she gave, and for their home being, at most, a few houses away from Ruppelt. He didn’t mention that or check it out.
    3. Suggested that a woman, who would now be about 95 years old, was incapable of composing and sending an email, instead needing to be someone who was “very computer savvy.”
    4. Claimed the husband working at Northrop Ventura was not likely if they lived in Long Beach, and since Ruppelt worked at Northrop Hawthorne. But what the woman REALLY wrote was that her husband "finished" his career with Northrup Ventura, not that he was working there when they were neighbors of Ruppelt. He either misread or misquoted what was really said.

    I also noted that her husband was an indeed listed in records as an engineer, something he hadn’t mentioned or checked out.

    This is what he calls ranting and "challenging every point not based on a factual or reasoned basis."

    I would likewise say his flippant dismissal of the email as a hoax was not based on a factual or reasoned basis. People in their 90's needing to be “very computer savvy” to send a simple email? Really? People in their 90's not understandably making even very minor mistakes of memory? Really? What's his excuse for misrepresenting her actual statement about where her husband "finished" his career? Poor reading comprehension?

    I wrote my response because I don't like this kind of superficial debunking of witness statements, pointing out just how feeble his arguments were that the email was a hoax. I still think my criticisms were right on the mark.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Wednesday, May 20, 2015  

  • I read that Ruppelt had had two heart attacks before his final fatal one. He obviously had a heart condition and people do die at early ages of heart attacks.

    Stress from pressure being put on him may have contributed to his early death, but I don't think he was actually murdered.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Wednesday, May 20, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home