A not so different perspective
Kevin Randle recently wrote an article stating that his review of the government documents indicated that an alien spaceship did not crash at Roswell. This is nothing new since he stated this in his recent book, Roswell in the 21st century. Almost twenty years ago, Mr. Randle had dismissed these same documents as some sort of deception to cover-up the alien spaceship crash. Now he suddenly flips to the same argument that skeptics have been making for decades. Still, Kevin can’t bring himself to completely divorce himself from the Roswell legend that he has helped create. After mirroring his book’s argument against an alien spaceship crash, Randle also trotted out the same old arguments that I have addressed several times here in SUNlite.
In my opinion, Mr. Randle is trying to find a way to make himself sound like the rational proponent and paint skeptics as the ir- rational individuals, who blindly accept the USAF explanations. While he seems to be willing to admit that what was recovered might not have been an alien spaceship, Randle is reluctant to state that what was found at the Foster Ranch is what we see in the photographs. Both skeptics and proponents agree, with some exceptions, that what is seen in the photographs are old balloon debris and one, or more, ML-307 reflectors. The most likely source of that debris is project MOGUL. Unfortunately, Randle has been anti-MOGUL for so long he can’t seem to bring himself to admit there is the possibility, however small, that MOGUL might have been the source of the debris. To convince himself, and his followers, he creates absolute statements that he cannot establish as facts like “there was never a flight #4 because it was canceled and then disassembled” or “the cluster of balloons statement means no reflec- tors were involved”. As I have previously stated, these are Randle’s biased interpretations of what he thinks happened based on the entry in Crary’s journal. While it is a fact that Crary wrote these passages in his journal, it is not a fact that these passages absolutely state what Randle says they do.
I think it is best to summarize the rebuttals I have published regarding Randle’s, and others, arguments regarding Roswell by simply listing them here:
Project Mogul does not explain the debris for numerous reasons: See “Crashology’s last stand” in SUNlite 5-5.
The testimony of Thomas Dubose proves there was a switch of the real debris with that of a weather balloon: See “Flip-Flop- ping” in SUNlite 4-6
Marcel was a radar expert because of his training and would have recognized a radar reflector for what it was: See “Drooling idiots and elite units” in SUNlite 4-6.
The debris in the photographs was some off the shelf balloon materials that were laid out in the sun for a few hours then pho- tographed for the press: See “Balloon testing” in SUNlite 4-4 and 4-5.
There was not enough debris in a Mogul flight to account for Brazel’s description: See “Debris field simulation” in SUNlite 4-4 In summary, I would like to repeat what I wrote in SUNlite 5-5:
The whole idea of the MOGUL theory offered by the USAF/Todd/Pflock/Moore is that it is the most likely source for the debris described and photographed in 1947. The NYU team used the same types of materials in their balloon flights prior to July of 1947. It does not mean MOGUL is the only possible source of the debris but, based on what we know, it is the most probable source. If some evidence were un- earthed that either produces a more reasonable solution or conclusively falsifies the MOGUL hypothesis, skeptics would be more than willing to accept it. However, that evidence has to be verifiable and not based on speculation, biased interpretation, opinions, or guess- work.
Quelle: SUNlite 5/2018