Wednesday, November 16, 2005





Ufologist Kevin Randle comments on Nick Redfern's "Body Snatchers in the Desert":

BS In the Desert

In fact, Brown had an explanation for everything found on the ranch with the exception of the bodies. He did speculate, suggesting that some kind of flying wing, this one designed by Northrop, had crashed while carrying five chimpanzees dressed in silver flying suits. Since the experiment related to the space race, and since launch operations at White Sands had been closed down because of an accident in May 1947, those involved hid their mistake.

(Via The Other Side of Truth.)


Randle goes on to reject the possibility that the Roswell Incident was due to an experimental flight of any sort -- crewed by malformed humans or chimps. While he doesn't tell us anything we haven't heard before, his central gripe -- the extraordinary nature of the debris -- poses a hurdle for researchers.

2 comments:

W.M. Bear said...

It doesn't look to me like the issue will EVER be resolved. I thought Randle did make one excellent point: "Redfern’s theory hinges on the integrity of his anonymous, but alleged first-hand witnesses." I think someone here (Mac?) noted something similar in one of the earlier threads on Redfern. This may, indeed, be the weakest part of Redfern's case, since he also paraphrases and dramatizes his witnesses' stories instead of quoting them directly. However, he does also amass a fair (and to me convincing) amount of circumstantial evidence, including documents in support of these stories. Finally, given the two main possible explanations of Roswell -- an ET crash or experimental aircraft tests gone horribly wrong, I would tend to choose the latter (all other things being equal) simply because IT SOUNDS SO MUCH MORE PROBABLE! Of course, mere probability certainly does not constitute PROOF of anything, which I seriously doubt we will ever see in this case.

Kyle said...

One point on the nature of Nick's witnesses...

If what Nick and his sources assert is true, they sincerely have something to fear, should this become a real story. War crimes do not carry a statute of limitations, and even a cursory reading of Nick's book reveals just how much his sources would be admitting to were they to be exposed.

Aside from this, I found Randle's critique somethat hypocritical in that he decries the fact that there is no evidence that such balloon/experimental wing hybrid craft ever flew. But if the book is accurate, this project, and ANY record of it, would be much more likely destroyed and never spoken about than an alien vessel and beings.

Finding a crashed UFO and covering it up is just a coverup. An occasional loose lip does no real harm, since the entire subject induces ridicule in most quarters. Sacrificing handicapped military detainees for scientific study while prosecuting Nazis for war crimes on the other hand is duplicitous at the very least, and hypocritical in the extreme, and of course a heinous federal crime. Plus, the perpetrators would see hard prison time...long time.

wmb...I would agree that the Redfern hypothesis is the more plausible, and I find the utter lack of evidence not surprising considering the times involved, and the risks of exposure. Once the story was contained, eliminating the paper trail would be a cinch, and quieting any potential whistleblowers would be as simple as offering to finger them as an accessory.

Finally, I find the fact that the sources seek anonymity supportive of the Redfern hypothesis as well. I can certainly see how one involved might want to come clean, but while avoiding any official "entanglements".

It all makes good sense to me under the extraordinary circumstances of the period in question.

Kyle
UFOreflections.blogspot.com