From: jkirby@ornews.intel.com (John J Kirby) Subject: Letter from Kevin Randle, Author "..UFO Crash at Roswell" Date: 20 Jul 1994 22:45:05 -0700 Organization: Intel Corporation, Oregon I happen to be an acquaintance of Kevin Randle, co-author of "The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell." Recently, there has been some traffic on the net about the book. Some of the comments were passed on to him. He asked for an opportunity to respond, and so here is a letter from Kevin. It is printed verbatim (hopefully all scanner / OCR errors have been removed) except that two proper names were removed. Some non-flame responses may be passed back to him. Incidentally, I have been told by a movie previewer that the Roswell movie (Showtime premier 7/31) is excellent. Note that the debris and impact site shown in the movie is NOT the actual site. However, the movie will be followed (I'm told) by "The making of the movie Roswell" The taping of this WAS done in part at the crash site. So I would suggest that you watch this also if you'd like to see the real crash setting. JK ================= July 8, 1994 Dear John: Here are some thoughts that you might want to add to the internet about our research: 1. It seems that we are caught in a no-win situation. If don't publish everything we have, then we are accused of suppressing information. So, we include the data about the painter who saw the living creature walking into the base hospital, that one might have survived the crash, and that fire fighters from Roswell saw it. We tried to make it clear that these were second-hand stories, uncorroborated by first-hand testimony, but that's overlooked. We're also condemned because we didn't include more data about the possibility that one might have survived. We included everything we had, tried to mitigate its importance, and still we catch flack for it. However, we believed it necessary to report all that we find. What if we withhold something that would provide the final clue? Aren't we obligated to report the data, regardless of what it says? 2. I believe we performed due diligence in our search of alternative explanations of the Roswell crash. We reported, in depth, those searches, but there are still those who would criticize. We have filled dozens of FOIA requests, we have searched records in various archives, personally visited White Sands, Holloman AFB, Kirtland AFB, and Cannon AFB and the Space Museum in Alamogordo. We have listings of every missile launch from White Sands from January 1946 to the mid-1950s. We have checked the records of various experimental aircraft from 1941 through 1955. We have researched various balloon projects including Helios, Skyhook, Torrid and Mogul. We even tried through Air Force records, DIA, CIA, and NASA to learn if the Soviets had flown spy aircraft over the continental United States anytime in 1946 or 1947. In writing the book, Don and I discussed the length of some of the alternative explanation chapters. Don thought they were longer than they needed to be, but I insisted that we cut nothing from them. I wanted it clear that we had tried to find something that would explain all the facts. Even with all that, it's still suggested that our only motive is fame, glory and money. For those interested, Mogul looks good but it isn't. The launch they claim is responsible for the Brazel ranch find can't be documented. Balloon launch no. 9 is not in the records. No one knows if there was a launch no. 9, but they claim it is responsible. For Mogul to work, we must reject the testimony of a number of witnesses who were on the site and who described it. We must accept testimony from one source, [name], about his observations, although he has radically altered his story from what he told me, on video tape, and what he signed in his affidavit. We must interpret Jesse Marcel, Sr.'s claim of hieroglyphics to mean only flowers so that it matches the tape used on Mogul. We must change Jesse Jr.'s statement the symbols were geometric forms...circles and squares so that it means flowers. We must reject the testimony of four dozen people and accept that of two or three whose stories do not track with anything else in the case. Mogul does not explain the gouge reported by Brazel, Brigadier General Arthur Exon, or Jesse Marcel. Instead we are treated to the claim that what we report from General Exon is not really what he said, or meant to say, despite the fact we have the quotes on tape and a letter from him saying that the quotes were accurate. We did select the portions of the interview we thought important, but that is our job. Attempting to reject that testimony because it isn't what we want to hear isn't good investigation. It is trying to prove a theory rather than letting the investigation suggest the explanation. Mogul doesn't explain what was seen in the night sky, it doesn't explain the two sites reported by so many of the eyewitnesses, it doesn't explain the strange debris, and it doesn't explain the bodies. Mogul reminds me of the Fugo balloon controversy of a couple of years ago. It sounds great on the surface but it doesn't explain all the facts and any theory that doesn't cover all the facts must be rejected. 3. For those who think we are doing this for the money, I might point out that we have spent a great deal of money and have yet to earn it back. If we were doing it for the money, I would have taken the theory that Roswell could be explained by a special V-2 modified to carry small humans aloft. The experiment failed, killing the crew. If I could find any evidence that such is the case, I could sell the book tomorrow for a great deal of money. We are searching for the truth. How else to explain our investigation and then rejection of Gerald Anderson. After all, I was the first researcher to interview him and I had his whole story on tape. It makes no difference that he eventually refused to talk to me at the insistence of [another author on this subject]. I had the opportunity to break that story first, but did not. The simple fact is that we learned it wasn't true. Or, how else to explain our rejection of MJ-l2. Our investigation has shown the documents to be fraudulent. That certainly is not going to make us any friends, but that is what the facts show. The only thing we've tried to do is find the truth and publish what we find. We don't need to have people sharp shooting from the hip. We need sound critique, we need facts. We don't need useless speculation. 4. As I read some of the criticism of our book, it strikes me that those raising the points have not read the book. Many of the complaints are answered in the text or in the footnotes. The MacKenzie story, for example, is corroborated by others who are specifically named. The location of the impact site is corroborated by Provost Marshal Edwin Easley, Bill Rickett, and Jim Ragsdale. W. Curry Holden's involvement is corroborated by Dr. C. Bertram Schultz and Dr. W. Frankfurter. Schultz's daughters both remember him telling the story as they were growing up in the 1950s and 1960s. These two points are conveniently overlooked. Instead we're told why MacKenzie should be rejected and that Holden didn't really say much. The data are there for those who want to spend an extra few minutes understanding the work. I think that we should be asked the questions before people began to speculate about our motives in research. We might not be saying what people want to hear, but we have tried to learn the truth, whatever that truth might be. [Personal message deleted.] Sincerely yours, /s/ Kevin D. Randle From gmiller@midget.towson.edu (Gordan Miller) Thu Jul 21 22:55:56 1994 Path: igor.rutgers.edu!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!midget.towson.edu!gmiller From: gmiller@midget.towson.edu (Gordan Miller) Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.visitors Subject: Re: Letter from Kevin Randle, Author "..UFO Crash at Roswell" Followup-To: alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.visitors Date: 22 Jul 1994 02:55:56 GMT Organization: Towson State University, Towson, MD Lines: 17 Distribution: world Message-ID: <30ncfs$q0l@news.umbc.edu> References: <30l21i$bda@ornews.intel.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: midget.towson.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL0] Xref: igor.rutgers.edu alt.paranet.ufo:7890 alt.alien.visitors:33000 It struck me as curious that while R&S interviewed Harold Dunning in regards to the *alleged* Aztec recovery, they never mentioned, even briefly and in passing, whether or not they even visited the *alleged* crash site in Hart Canyon. Their "investigation" of Aztec almost seemed to consist entirely of interviewing the one guy who could be counted on to give them the answer they wanted to hear. Ufology is full of amusing spectacles. For my money, few are more amusing than the way nobody in ufology seems to be able to find the Hart Canyon site, despite the fact that Steinman's maps, pictures and directions have been freely circulating for years. Mr. Steinman, of course, has not been running his mouth in public for years, but I'm sure there are many possibly innocent explanations for his sudden, total silence. This caveat aside, I bow deeply in the direction of Messrs. R&S, as their Roswell investigations seem to have been nothing short of heroic. "Researchers" who actually do research are rare enough; these two are showing the rest of us how it should be done. Skeptics... Flame away. I've got my earplugs in. From tmahood@netcom.com (Tom Mahood) Fri Jul 22 14:44:46 1994 Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.visitors Path: igor.rutgers.edu!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com!tmahood From: tmahood@netcom.com (Tom Mahood) Subject: Re: Letter from Kevin Randle, Author "..UFO Crash at Roswell" Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] References: <30l21i$bda@ornews.intel.com> <30ncfs$q0l@news.umbc.edu> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 18:44:46 GMT Lines: 46 Xref: igor.rutgers.edu alt.paranet.ufo:7914 alt.alien.visitors:33028 Gordan Miller (gmiller@midget.towson.edu) wrote: : It struck me as curious that while R&S interviewed Harold Dunning in : regards to the *alleged* Aztec recovery, they never mentioned, even : briefly and in passing, whether or not they even visited the *alleged* : crash site in Hart Canyon. Their "investigation" of Aztec almost seemed : to consist entirely of interviewing the one guy who could be counted on : to give them the answer they wanted to hear. : Ufology is full of amusing spectacles. For my money, few are more : amusing than the way nobody in ufology seems to be able to find the Hart : Canyon site, despite the fact that Steinman's maps, pictures and : directions have been freely circulating for years. Mr. Steinman, of : course, has not been running his mouth in public for years, but I'm sure : there are many possibly innocent explanations for his sudden, total silence. : This caveat aside, I bow deeply in the direction of Messrs. R&S, : as their Roswell investigations seem to have been nothing short of : heroic. "Researchers" who actually do research are rare enough; these : two are showing the rest of us how it should be done. : Skeptics... Flame away. I've got my earplugs in. I've been to the site, or at least the location shown in Steinmann's book. It was real easy to find, and evidence of significant visitation was obvious. I have to say my level of skepticism was much higher after I left the site. A lot of Steinmann's "evidence" had much more probable (and mundane) explanations. The rebar A-frame artifacts he found and pictured in his book as temporary tripods to support the craft were in all probability temporary jigs to support pipelines as they were being welded together. The site's in the middle of a damn oil and gas field! A number of other "curiousities" he found also could be explained by the routine oil and gas operations in the area. I will freely grant however, that if a craft did go down in that area in 1948, it is quite likely it would not be seen, and probably could be retrieved without much notice. The place is VERY remote. The only thing odd I could find was very old sawcuts on some of the Junipers on the ridge. In some cases the branches were left attached, but cut almost through. There didn't seem to be a pattern to the cutting, nor any apparent purpose. A possible (but not as juicy as a saucer) explanation is that surveryors were clearing a line of sight to a distant monument or marker while wotking in the oil and gas field. I have to admit I was dissappointed..... Tom (tmahood@netcom.com) From gmiller@midget.towson.edu (Gordan Miller) Fri Jul 22 21:56:09 1994 Path: igor.rutgers.edu!rutgers!cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!midget.towson.edu!gmiller From: gmiller@midget.towson.edu (Gordan Miller) Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.visitors Subject: Re: Letter from Kevin Randle, Author "..UFO Crash at Roswell" Followup-To: alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.visitors Date: 23 Jul 1994 01:56:09 GMT Organization: Towson State University, Towson, MD Lines: 24 Message-ID: <30ptbp$4a0@news.umbc.edu> References: <30l21i$bda@ornews.intel.com> <30ncfs$q0l@news.umbc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: midget.towson.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL0] Xref: igor.rutgers.edu alt.paranet.ufo:7954 alt.alien.visitors:33090 Wow! Interesting response! If I recall correctly (and I haven't even glanced at the book in several years) Steinman seemed to make much ado about a larger concrete marker of some kind somewhere on the plateau site. Did this appear to be related to the cuts on the trees? A concrete marker, needless to day, is no more evidence of anything at all than the metal struts, which could have been used for damned near anything. On the other hand, it did appear from his photos that something *may* have clipped off the tops of some trees... not really proof of anything, either. I was always amused by the fact that while some claim they hung around the area for hours, days, weeks, months, without ever catching a whiff of the C/R story, Steinman claimed he was in town no more than a couple of hours before locals were cheerfully volunteering to give him a ride out to the "site." This could have been enormous chutzpah on his part, but he seems far more the type to believe everything anyone ever told him (his most egregious fault, by far) than to make stuff up. Some claim, of course, that he did exactly that... but these claims generally emanate from people with no real credibility (not with me, anyway) and who back the assertion up with nothing at all. Did you get any feedback at all, one way or the other, from the locals on your visit there? I kinda miss Steinman.... His excessive credulity aside, his instincts sometimes seemed to be quite sharp. And tracking down Sarbacher was a pretty nice piece of work that I'm not sure anybody currently working in this field would ever have the candlepower for. From tmahood@netcom.com (Tom Mahood) Sat Jul 23 22:29:10 1994 Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.visitors Path: igor.rutgers.edu!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!tmahood From: tmahood@netcom.com (Tom Mahood) Subject: Re: Letter from Kevin Randle, Author "..UFO Crash at Roswell" Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] References: <30l21i$bda@ornews.intel.com> <30ncfs$q0l@news.umbc.edu> <30ptbp$4a0@news.umbc.edu> Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 02:29:10 GMT Lines: 35 Xref: igor.rutgers.edu alt.paranet.ufo:7995 alt.alien.visitors:33184 Gordan Miller (gmiller@midget.towson.edu) wrote: : Wow! Interesting response! : If I recall correctly (and I haven't even glanced at the book in : several years) Steinman seemed to make much ado about a larger concrete : marker of some kind somewhere on the plateau site. Did this appear to be : related to the cuts on the trees? A concrete marker, needless to day, is : no more evidence of anything at all than the metal struts, which could : have been used for damned near anything. On the other hand, it did : appear from his photos that something *may* have clipped off the tops of : some trees... not really proof of anything, either. I poked at the concrete slab for a while. What Steinmann didn't really say was that the slab was actually located in a slight cut in the side of the hill. The best way to describe it was that it was at the end of what appeared to be an older road cut into the side of the ridge, just about at the very end of the old road. It had rebar in it, but no apparent holes where something could have been screwed into it, or otherwise attached. I thought it might have been some sort of foundation for an oil drill rig, but fround what I found out, normal practice doesn't involve concrete foundations. More likely (but not for sure) was that it was a capped drill hole. This makes sense, because just below it, further down on the slope, was a circular depression about 40 feet across with a raised dirt berm around it. When I found this I got pretty excited because the junipers surrounding it showed evidence of burning on the inside towards the pit. However, after I walked around it for a while, I would guess it was a slurry pit for the drilling operation immediately above it on the slope. After spending a couple hours on the site, I had the feeling I could have been at any ridge in the area, and there was nothing really different about this one. As I said, I was dissappointed, but I'm not about to fantasize a saucer crash into existence. Tom