UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, October 15, 2015

Nick Redfern has a Roswell piece I like (you'll see why)



  • Very well stated.

    It does seem, at least from my past six months of experience on Kevin's blog, the focus of the so called "ongoing investigation" remains the minutia of old testimony largely unverified by anything other than notes and recordings of verbal stories from decades ago.

    They won't even go and escavate anymore for their infamous "memory foil".

    My observation has been that people who want to believe Roswell was ET will do anything to shape testimony so it aims toward their desired conclusion despite contradictory information, changing storylines, facts that make no sense, lying witnesses, and the like.

    Roswell believers have learned how to effectively dodge conversations they don't want to have and to ignore rational alternative conjecture and hypothesis.

    "If it ain't alien it ain't up for discussion."

    Roswell is stuck. More practically speaking it's dead.

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Thursday, October 15, 2015  

  • Good article by Nick and he appears to sum up the current state of affairs. As much as I have great respect for Kevin, the endless (pointless?) droning and combing over minutia is a turn off for me. I do realize that others get into it, but for me its mind numbing.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Thursday, October 15, 2015  

  • I agree with Brian. However Nick wrote that he doesn't know what happened at Roswell, which rather contradicts what he wrote in his BODY SNATCHERS IN THE DESERT some ten years ago. Has Nick had a change of heart? Perhaps he no longer finds his conclusions of 2005 convincing.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, October 15, 2015  

  • Tim:

    Kevin has so much to offer, as I found by scouring his past magazine pieces (such as one about the UFO movies he accumulated or tried to).

    Why he's persisting in rehashing the Roswell effluvia baffles me; it's, as you say, mind numbing, and redundantly imbecilic.

    But no excoriation by blokes like you, me, or Nick seems to discourage him from continuing the prattle.

    And CDA, at his age, going on an on with non-effective rebuttal, also baffles. He, too, has much to offer in other areas of the topic (UFOs, not Roswell).


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, October 15, 2015  

  • Christopher:

    Nick Body Snatchers thesis was a conjecture based upon some intriguing happenstances in the Roswell time-frame.

    I don't think Nick saw his hypothesis as Gospelic.

    Nick is open, obviously, to an incident with secret consequences. I, too, see the possibility of there being an episode that has transmogrified into the Roswell alien crash.

    (Now, tell us why you insist on trying to correct the erroneous mind-set(s) of the Roswell ET crowd that Kevin encourages at his blog. It's a Sisyphusian endeavor on your part, is it not?)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, October 15, 2015  

  • RR:

    Don't know really. I like a challenge, sometimes. I try to use plain common sense, but realise it will never apply to absolutely dedicated believers. In a way I enjoy receiving the insults as it encourages me further.

    But in the end, I do agree it becomes very boring and pointless. The whole thing is an exercise in stupidity and moribundity (if there is such a word).

    By the way, what is "Sisyphusian"? Or am I a bit short on literacy?

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, October 15, 2015  

  • CDA: You are misunderstanding my words. I am very careful about what I write. Do I think the Body Snatchers may still have validity? Yes. But how can I actually know? I can't unless there is proof. Anymore than I can't know Heaven exists or I can't know if the Loch Ness Monster exists. We can theorize on things like Heaven and Nessie, and we can look at the merits of theories for these issues and for Roswell too. But being of an opinion that a theory for Roswell has merit or may have merit, is VERY different to knowing for sure. That's the point of that sentence in my article. I don't know because I can't know unless or until the theory is shown to have merit or lack of merit. I can have an opinion that pushes me in a certain direction. That's not knowing though.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, October 15, 2015  

  • Sisyphus: the Greek hero condemned by the gods to pushing a large boulder up a hill, only to have it roll back down before he could get it to the top......forced to roll it up, over and over again for eternity.

    The primary myth about futility.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, October 15, 2015  

  • Greek history, whether real or mythical, is not my strong point. Ufology, on the other hand IS my strong point. At least, it was once but alas, my powers are declining, as you can see from Kevin's blog. It's heads they win, tails I lose.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, October 16, 2015  

  • Guys our age, CDA, are in a decline altogether.

    Let's hope senility doesn't take over.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, October 16, 2015  

  • Nick, I find your Snatchers story line compelling but as you have stated it makes no headway with the traditional Roswellian crowd.

    Some of your documents cited in the book are compelling as well, but as you know since some were batched with phony Majestic documents they are whitewashed as well.

    As I have stated, when a document references an aircraft formerly unnamed and only designated with its classification, and one stating prone flight testing, there are only really two options - Northrup or something German.

    But as you say, we'll never really know unless other documents can be found or proven authentic.

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Friday, October 16, 2015  

  • > Why [Kevin Randle]'s persisting in rehashing the Roswell effluvia baffles me

    I wonder if he is trying, single-handedly, to work through all the vexing issues he had hoped the Dream Team could resolve.

    But more broadly, Kevin seems to have an unshakeable faith that something about Roswell is extraterrestrial, he just hasn't found proof yet. Last night I read the sad chapter "The Roswell Phoenix" in his otherwise fine book UFOs in the '90s (1997). Most of the other chapters were a thorough housecleaning of hoaxes and false witnesses. But in the Phoenix chapter, Kevin takes some ambiguous statements by military men, particularly Easley, as positive confirmation of an ET element. These statements are not supported by any corroborating evidence whatsoever -- a problem he used to disqualify witnesses in other chapters! Kevin's 2012 memoir is much the same: more vigourous housecleaning, but that same cryptic statement by Easley is proof enough for Randle.

    Most of us here are basically rational people, yet we all have at least one area of irrationality. One subject or idea that we fail regularly to scrutinise as critically as we scrutinise all the others.

    (Myself, I haven't picked an area yet, but we are having a national election in Canada on Monday. On Tuesday, I can resume the hunt for my personal eccentricity.)

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Monday, October 19, 2015  

  • Terry:

    I too wonder why Kevin clings to Easley's evidence, as though it was the big ET clincher. If you look through the transcript of Easley's phone call with Kevin in ROSWELL UFO CRASH UPDATE, you can see that Easley says precisely zilch. In several places there are hints of this & that, but Easley's main message is simply that he couldn't tell Randle anything except to tell him that he couldn't tell him anything! In other words, a totally useless interview. The reason? Easley was, as you may expect, sworn to secrecy.

    We may assume that other interviews (I believe two or three in all) gave a similar response. Yet Kevin, and others, give it great weight in the pro-ET thesis. Amazing!

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, October 19, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home