UFO Conjectures

Sunday, December 18, 2016

The Lack of Stamina and Inquisitiveness in Ufological “Research”

I see that another reprise of the Roswell-missing-Mogul-balloon discussion has erupted at my pal Kevin Randle’s blog, between him and French UFO skeptic Gilles Fernandez.
When I saw it, my silent mind said, “For Christ’s sake, not again.”

Yes, I, too, keep re-iterating the same themes over and over again, but only because none have been really addressed by my readers, like Kevin’s readers do when he posts something.

This is one of the problems with “ufology” besides its inherent madness and delusion.

No one gets to the bottom of things. They merely skirt matters, skating atop a mystery with bombastic claims and pretend information [fake news!].

For instance, can’t someone finally resolve the missing Mogul balloon imbroglio?

David Rudiak thinks he has, as does Kevin. But they haven’t. Nor has Gilles.

It remains an open question apparently. And drives “sane” UFO buffs crazy with its continual resurrection in UFO circles.

It’s a non-matter after all. The Air Force use of Mogul as an explanation for the Roswell incident is iffy or worse: disinformation.

The Roswellian ET believers trying to debunk the AF’s Mogul tripe are wasting their time on the non-matter. It’s an easy assault, while what really happened at Roswell sits encrusted by lying witnesses and UFO “researchers” too lazy or too unimaginative to find new Roswell material that has been hidden or forgotten amidst the Roswell clutter of foolishness and botched research since 1978.

And, I’ve suggested that a real UFO researcher might seek out Paul Trent’s son who is still alive and privy to his father’s photographing of the (in)famous McMinnville UFO.

He’s the kid on the ladder in the LIFE array of Trent photos taken shortly after the event:
And what about Frank Mannor’s son, who was with his father and saw the Ann Arbor “swamp gas” UFO? He’s still alive and living near his old homestead where he and his dad saw a UFO.

There are more, many more UFO escapades that could be examined if “ufologists” got off their asses and looked for answers instead of traipsing to Roswell for conventions or other UFO venues thinking that that’s “research.”

It’s pathetic, ufology that is, and many of it’s practitioners (me among them).



  • Hi,

    my two cents (what´s that in euros?): I think that after a hundred years and after our discovery of real aliens there still will be people who are sure that Roswell case was something to do with crashed UFO (ET ship). You can´t disproof a thing, much less a belief.


    By Blogger Jerry Cornelius, at Sunday, December 18, 2016  

  • Rich -

    I have tried to make it clear that the discussion was not about Mogul (not again) but about what I see as a blind spot in the skeptics... that is an acceptance of documentation that supports their point of view without critical analysis. I used the Mogul argument that they embrace Mogul even though the documentation works against them. They are unwilling to admit that the documentation gives us a different picture, just as Twining's Letter about the lack of crash recovered debris gives us a different picture about Roswell. I believed that the skeptic was skeptical about everything, even when it appears to support the skeptical point of view. That was the point of the discussion and not the viability of Mogul.

    Besides... Winter has come!

    By Blogger KRandle, at Sunday, December 18, 2016  

  • Oh, I know Kevin that you are trying to make clear where thinking goes wrong, but using the Mogul stench opens the door to responses that revitalize the same old, same old Mogul arguments, pro and con.

    You're operating from a position of intelligence but some of your readers are not. (Gilles is an exception.)

    I'm surprised that David [Rudiak] hasn't chimed in.

    Like the Ramey memo, the Mogul "facts" seem never to come to fruition or end. Why is that?

    Can't the matter be put to bed, somehow? By anyone?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, December 18, 2016  

  • Hello,

    I think Kevin or myself "stamina" are intact. Of course, Kevin as one the main authors about the case, and me having wrote a book, we continue to be interested by the case, and sometimes, we "debate".

    But his blog, other his books, or my own blog shows that we are interested by many more than Roswell.

    Each six months or so, there is a "Mogul offensive". With the birthday of the case, next summer, it smell it will re-start again ^^

    For me, the fight (oups flight) of June 1947 the 4th cause is OK (la cause est entendue, we say in French) and solved from 2009 (my interest on the case): there was a flight June the 4th.

    From SUNlite 4-4, 5-5 (you must read), my humble book, etc., you have many things consolidating this, whatever Kevin is trying by his "mantra" that the flight was cancelled. It is like in the film "Goundhog Day" :)

    I profit this comment to wish all the UFO conjecture readers (and his owner) happy end of the year days, with you family, friends, etc. Enjoy!

    Best regards,


    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, December 19, 2016  

  • Unfortunately we get have to get dragged down into the minutia of these things because that is where the UFO proponents ply their trade. Trying to unpack the long winded assertions of UFO buffs does mean you have to get down into the mud. And it usually isn't worth the effort.

    But You're welcome, anyway!

    The entire case against Flight 4 being a possibility is that:

    1. Kevin has decided that the word "cluster" (seen in the Crary diary) has some precise and pedantic meaning. A Kevin Cluster could not be a constant level-flight.

    2. That the rules would not allow a flight at the time/weather conditions.

    The skeptical response is that:

    1. The word "cluster" is used several times in the diary. Unfortunately for Kevin, it is specifically used to describe precisely the kind of constant level flights that Kevin's self-coined definition should exclude.

    2. Likewise, other flights were launched in conditions/times that Kevin claims were prohibited.

    That is it.

    It's all rather silly, I admit, but if you had to put money on where the source of silliness was, would you bet it came from Skeptics?


    By Blogger Lance, at Wednesday, December 21, 2016  

  • You can see, Lance, that the Roswell/Mogul "dispute is a bacterial-like infestation, taking over Kevin's blog and now seeping in over here.

    I regret that Kevin used Mogul for his anti-skeptic-reasoning stance.

    Mogul merely muddies the argument: that skeptics (and UFO believers) are at odds with reason.

    There seems to be no resolution to the Mogul dispute because no one wants to make the effort to get at the facts.

    Everyone wants to argue but no one wants to do the leg-work to provide a definitive clarification, not even detail-oriented (but often biased) David Rudiak.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, December 21, 2016  

  • Lance isn't an RRRGroup member but close enough.\I'm inserting his comment (because he has a tendency, like Bryan Daum, to include inordinate white space after his comments). Here's Lance's rejoinder:

    "Oh, I think about as much has been done as can be done, barring some new documents turning up.

    The problem with a Rudiak-type "explanation" is that it is always composed of one part unparalleled analytical review of real evidence and nine parts of unsupported assertions, spun with almost psychotic bias.

    The truth, I think, is that Kevin (one of the truly honest folks writing about Roswell) has, over the years, realized that the jig is up for the myth:

    1. The main witness, Marcel, created an ever-changing story that looks more absurd, the more you learn about it. Marcel's very first interviews absolutely kill Roswell (he said that the debris in the photos is the same stuff he picked up. That is debris, decidedly, is not flying saucer parts). Kevin knows all this and has acknowledged it.

    2. The supposed witnesses who actually saw bodies are now ALL disavowed and discredited--even by Kevin.

    3. Not a single, not one, not any, bit of hard evidence has EVER been produced that supports the tale. No old diary, no document, no photo, nothing.

    It really is all a sham--mostly created by hucksters like Friedman and spun into a myth by a gullible public."


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, December 21, 2016  

  • Like much of what I do--the white space isn't intentional. Thanks!

    By Blogger Lance, at Wednesday, December 21, 2016  

  • You're welcome, buddy.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, December 21, 2016  

  • Joyeux Noël ! ^^


    Best Regards,


    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Sunday, December 25, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home