The Roswell Slides and a Little Hypocrisy

By Kevin Randle A Different Perspective 3-5-15

      The hypocrisy of this situation is beginning to get to me. On the one hand, we are told that there is a witness who was in Roswell in July 1947 who saw the alien bodies and he said that the slides show what he had seen or at the very least it looked like what he had seen. On the other we are condemned for naming him as if his credentials are unimportant beyond what we are told. He was there in 1947 and we should just accept this fact according to the narrative that is developing.

Well, his name wasn’t all that important when he was one of many voices talking about the events of 1947. When he is identified as tying the alleged bodies recovered in Roswell to that depicted on the slides, his voice becomes more important. And now we are told that he was a lieutenant, maybe in Roswell or maybe later all because of a possibly misunderstood question or answer. That is certainly not outside the realm of possibility and if you looked at my military record in the summer of 1967, you’d see that I was a PVT E-1, or the lowest of the enlisted grades and in that summer the lowest of the low, which is a basic trainee. I did get promoted along the way and if you looked at the summer of 1968, just a year later I was a Warrant Officer WO-1. So he could easily have been commissioned at some later date.

However, I don’t think anyone has checked on any of this. I believe that when his name appeared in the Yearbook along with his picture that was enough to prove his credentials. When it was shown that he was a member of the 390th ASS that sort of underscored those credentials because he served under Major Edwin Easley, the base provost marshal and Easley was responsible for security on the base. At least Benavides was in a unit that had that function as opposed to a guy who had been a cook and told his family about his experiences.

Here’s something else. Easley complained that his units had been decimated in 1947 (and yes I used that term on purpose because a very large number of his soldiers were transferred). According to the Unit History, the military police organizations including the 390th, had their soldiers transferred at a high rate. This began in May 1947 and continued until at least August. Easley was complaining, in a letter in the Unit History, about his trained soldiers being replaced by those who were not as well trained. The numbers show that the soldiers assigned remained steady, it was just that for those moved out, others were brought in. A man who had been in the unit in May might have been gone by the end of June but his picture could be in the Yearbook.

The Unit History also tells us that the Yearbook was created during that same period and that it was sent off to the printers in August to be returned in November. Walter Haut, who had the responsibility for the Yearbook told me that ten to twenty percent of the soldiers assigned were absent, which is irrelevant here because Benavides does appear in the Yearbook. It is possible, though, that he wasn’t physically present in July 1947, that he was transferred out before July or transferred in afterwards. It might be that he wasn’t there at the right time.

There is a secondary issue and that is the rank. Adam Dew tells us that he was told Benavides said he was a lieutenant. This can be checked as well. The National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis is where all military records are stored once the military person is no longer on any of the variations of military duty including the National Guard and the Reserve. Although what can be released is limited by the Privacy Act of 1974, it would give us the highest rank obtained and should provide us with information about his length of service and might even give the dates of his various military assignments. This would provide some of the answers and is something that should now be standard in investigating claims of military service. It might provide the date on which he was assigned to the base or the date he transferred out. It would provide us with a glimpse into his military career, which at this point is quite important.

There is another way to check this as well. When a soldier is assigned to a unit, he signs in. It is mentioned on the Morning Reports. When he leaves, he signs out and that is mentioned as well… but more importantly, if he goes on leave, if he is sick, if he is on temporary duty, it is mentioned in the Morning Report. These are designed so that the command knows how many soldiers are present for duty at a specific location.

The Morning Reports would tell us if he was gone at the critical time… but there is a catch. These are also located in St. Louis and they just don’t respond to requests for that data quickly, they will only provide them for a 90 day period and they now charge for the information. If we had someone in St. Louis, he or she could visit the archive and get the information faster I believe… if not, it will take months to get an answer from them and then it might be wrong.

And yes, I have written for the records, which will also take months with little hope of getting the information needed. Without a serial number, it will be more difficult, but sometimes with this I get lucky.

So, here’s where we are. Apparently only the chosen have the right to question a man whose story is becoming more important. For the rest of us, we are required to sit back and believe what we are being told. I understand that protecting the witness is their goal, but they are the ones who have pushed him to the forefront. And, let’s not forget he has appeared in two or three documentaries, one of which basically identified him. He was mentioned in one book that provided enough information to identify him. So, all this nonsense about violating the privacy of a 90-year-old man sort of sailed when he appeared in the documentaries. That is the hypocrisy of all this.

I will note one thing in passing. It is important to get the documents from an independent source. We had Frank Kaufmann’s discharge papers that seemed to verify what he was saying. It just never occurred to me that he would alter them. I believed that man who was a Special Forces officer would tell the truth, not thinking, in the early 1990s, someone would lie about that. I tumbled onto Willingham because I requested his records after I learned that in some thirty years everyone thought someone else had done it. I told MUFON that I would happily attempt to verify the military records of those who claimed military service, but they were not interested in that. So I say, let’s look at the records to see what they say before we all go off half- cocked.

Continue Reading . . .

See Also:

The Roswell Slides: Adios

'Roswell Alien Slides' Owner Speaks Out

The Roswell Slides and Me (Kevin Randle)

More Info On Roswell Alien Slides; Adam Dew Interviewed By Chicago News Station | VIDEO

Chicago Man Uncovered Secret Alien Pics? | VIDEO

Spying on the Roswell Slides

Sneak Peak at The Roswell Alien Slides?

Live Press Conference with Roswell Alien Slides Researchers | VIDEO

Pictures of the Beings Found in Roswell to Be Presented by Jaime Maussan | VIDEO

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson is Shown Roswell Alien Slides | VIDEO

Maussan Explains Origin of Roswell Alien Slides & Upcoming Show | VIDEO

First Glimpse of Roswell Alien Slides Documentary – Surprise! | VIDEO

Roswell Alien Slides To Be Unveiled in May Via a Live Streamed Event

The Roswell Slides and the Aztec UFO Crash

The Roswell Slides and Premature Disclosure

Roswell Researcher, Tom Carey Announces Discovery of Alien Photographs | VIDCAST

"Two Color Kodachrome Slides ... Purport To Show A Glass-Encased Alien Cadaver"

Real Alien Autopsy Photos: 'Roswell' Image Of Extra-Terrestrial Body Dated To 1947

Roswell UFO Researcher Claims He Has Alien Photos | VIDEO

Noted Roswell Researcher Talks of 'Smoking Gun Evidence' at University Forum

“How Often Does An Honors Class Take A Serious Look At UFOS?"

Journalist, Miles O'Brien To Moderate UFO Panel at American University | VIDEO

New Details of Alleged Roswell Alien Slides/Photos Revealed

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Conversations with Dr Frank Drake:The Evidentiary Hypocrisy With UFOs Exhibited By Mainstream Science

By Frank Warren
The UFO Chronicles
© 2005-2009

In November I sent the following correspondence to Frank Drake:

Dear Dr. Drake,

Back in July a colleague of yours, Seth Shostak, debated a colleague of mine, Stanton Friedman, on the idea that some UFOs are indeed ET spacecraft; Friedman took the "pro position" and Shostak of course opposed the notion.

One thing the two men agreed upon was that they both adhered to the concept of “intelligent life existing in the universe.” As the debate progressed Shostak took issue with the evidence that Ufologists in general present for their theorem—this brings me to my question:

It would seem that most of the ideologies presented today from “mainstream Astronomers” e.g., extra-solar planets, rogue planets, black holes etc., are based on “circumstantial evidence”; for example, the idea of “extra-solar planets” is deduced by a “star’s wobble”; my observation, as well as the question, is why the guidelines for Astronomers in regards to evidence is acceptable in “their field” but they won’t apply the same rules to Ufology.

I would certainly appreciate your thoughts on the “evidence or data methodologies” used in Astronomy, and why said methodologies don’t seem to be adequate for Ufology.

Thank You,
Respectfully,
Frank Warren

He kindly responded:

Hi:

Well, it is hard to give a short answer to your query.

However, the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same.In both cases we look for well-observed, calibrated data, which can be verified by repeat observations or experiments, best done by more than one observer.

All the astronomical claims of actual existence you mention are supported by such solid, repeatable evidence. The wobbles in stars are seen to repeat, and to follow a complicated pattern which fits precisely the wobble expected when a star is being pulled on by a planet moving with a changing speed in an elliptical orbit. This is a very definitive requirement, which is met precisely by the observations. Furthermore, in some cases there is more than the wobble to go on—the light of the star is decreased by just the right amount and with the complex time history expected if the planet passes in front of the star. And it repeats as it should. So there is no doubt here.

Some things are still speculations, of course. Rogue planets are one. There are no observations of such a planet. But it is fair to speculate they exist from our growing modeling of what takes place as a planetary system is formed, and the prediction from this modeling that some planets will be ejected from the system. Indeed, it would be amazing if this did not occur.

When it comes to UFO reports, none of the evidence criterion are satisfied. No observations can be repeated. None has ever been definitively recorded. So the rigid standards of science are far from met. As Carl Sagan said, "Grand claims require grand evidence", and that evidence is not there.

Frank Drake

I replied:

FW: Dear Mr. Drake, Thank you for you for your expeditious reply to my inquiry.

FD: Hi:

Well, it is hard to give a short answer to your query. Actually I was looking forward to a "detailed explanation." However, the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same. In both cases we look for well-observed, calibrated data, which can be verified by repeat observations or experiments, best done by more than one observer.

FW: Allow me to play devil's advocate based on your affirmation of equality in regards to evidentiary protocol of Astronomy and Ufology.

FD: All the astronomical claims of actual existence you mention are supported by such solid, repeatable evidence. The wobbles in stars are seen to repeat, and to follow a complicated pattern which fits precisely the wobble expected when a star is being pulled on by a planet moving with a changing speed in an elliptical orbit. This is a very definitive requirement, which is met precisely by the observations. Furthermore, in some cases there is more than the wobble to go on—the light of the star is decreased by just the right amount and with the complex time history expected if the planet passes in front of the star. And it repeats as it should. So there is no doubt here.

FW: To be clear, (from a layman's [me] point of view) since we have "empirical evidence" of our own sun's orbit presumably being affected by the gravity (pull) of Jupiter (and other large planets in our own solar system), and the orbit (wobble) seems to be directly proportional to the mass of said planet; we therefore can presume the "same effect" takes place in other solar systems, with their stars, and although we cannot see the planets, we can observe the wobble, via "Doppler Shift" etc. Since the "wobble" is directly proportional to the "mass of a planet" (at least it appears to be here, in our solar system) we can determine the mass of said planet by mathematical equation.

In addition to the wobble of a distant star, going on the assumption that it is indeed a planet's gravity causing the wobble, one could assume that if said planet were to cross between the earth and the star being observed, the light from the star would be measurably diminished.

You finally, state, that "there is no doubt here." I take that to mean that this is going "beyond theory" and is accepted as fact . . . interesting.

First I'd like to state that the "circumstantial (indirect) evidence" put on the table for "extra-solar planets" is more then enough "for me," for validation of their existence; however, playing "Devil's Advocate":

1). Can we state emphatically that there aren't "other forces" in the universe that aren't currently known that would "mimic the pull" caused by gravity of a "Jupiter sized planet?" Could another "space borne" object of the same mass cause the wobble?

2). Are there other actions that could affect "Doppler Shift," or any other form of detection in the same manner that "star wobble" does, e.g., pulsations etc.?

3). Given the fact that the most detection methods of "extra-solar planets" is relatively new, (with technology expanding by leaps and bounds) and not without controversy, i.e., ("Barnard's Star and possible planetary bodies, David Gray's disputation of 51 Peg,") isn't possible that either "new information" could surface, or the interpretation of the data may change, and affect the current conclusions?

IMHO if the answers to any of the afore mentioned questions is "unknown" or "it's possible," then that would leave "some" doubt, albeit little to the "absolute existence" of extra-solar planets based on the current methodologies used for their reality; that said, what we're left with is strong "circumstantial evidence" in support of the "theory" of extra-solar planets."

FD: Some things are still speculations, of course. Rogue planets are one. There are no observations of such a planet. But it is fair to speculate they exist from our growing modeling of what takes place as a planetary system is formed, and the prediction from this modeling that some planets will be ejected from the system. Indeed, it would be amazing if this did not occur.

FW: Agreed.

FD: When it comes to UFO reports, none of the evidence criterion are satisfied. No observations can be repeated. None has ever been definitively recorded. So the rigid standards of science are far from met. As Carl Sagan said, "Grand claims require grand evidence", and that evidence is not there.

FW: Here I have to respectfully disagree; you stated that the criterion for the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same. In both cases we look for:

1). Well-observed, calibrated data.

2). Verification by repeat observations or experiments.

3). Multiple observers.

First let me clarify some points: The bulk of UFO reports over the last 60 years after thorough investigation, can be attributed to more conventional explanations, e.g., known aircraft, celestial bodies etc.; however, the ones addressed
here are the smaller percentage that cannot be explained in a conventional manner.

The ones I speak of are of an "unknown airborne craft" that exhibit characteristics beyond man-made technologies. It is true, that this phenomena can't for the most part be repeated "on demand" it is a "transient uncontrollable unpredictable event"; however, it certainly does repeat, and observations are to numerous to count. It of course isn't the same as observing a "fixed celestial body" and doesn't have the same obvious advantages for scientific research. It does/has re-occurred, often, and can/has been recorded in a number of ways to allow for scientific investigation; for example:

1). In most cases involving a "craft" there is "direct evidence," i.e., "eye witnesses.

2). The craft "occupies space."

3). It moves as time passes.

4). It emits "thermal effects."

5). It exhibits light emission and absorption.

6). It effects the atmosphere.

7). It can be photographed.

8). It has left residual "after-effects," i.e., forensic evidence etc.

9). It has caused electric, magnetic and gravitational disorders.

10). It has been tracked by radar

The list goes on . . .

You've stated that none (UFOs) have been "definitively recorded." This is inaccurate. UFOs, in this instance "unknown craft" have been photographed, video taped, tracked by radar, and those readings recorded. In addition, they have been pursued by "our aircraft," and those of other countries.

Finally, "all" the criterion you cite for evidence have been met for Ufology with one more addition, "eye witnesses." One only need to look at the data. This is not to say that all the questions have been answered; in fact, it evokes this one—"why doesn't Ufology receive that attention it deserves from mainstream science?"

You quoted one of Carl Sagan's often used statements; I might add that he also said, "In physics, as in much of all science, there are no permanent truths; there is a set of approximations, getting closer and closer, and people must always be ready to revise what has been in the past thought to be the absolute gospel truth."

But back to the quote you mention, "grand claims require grand evidence." Is what Ufologists suggest so grand, so far out? By your own device, ("Drake's Equation") you suggest the number of planets in our galaxy with intelligent, technological civilizations. Is it so far out that one of these civilizations is far more advanced then we, and have mastered space travel; or travel in ways beyond our comprehension. Using our own technological advancement as a baseline we have progressed in a few generations to what only our ancestors could describe as "magic" given some examples; think what might and most assuredly would happen in thousands of years, or more! I've always found it odd that intelligent people admit to advance ETI, yet believe that when it comes to traveling to earth--they (ET) "played hooky" from that class!

Omitting the evidence, the data, for a moment (regarding Ufology) and agreeing on the common point(s) that there is "abundant intelligent life in the universe," the question is not "are they here," but "why wouldn't they be?"

I would like to hear your thoughts on what I've presented, as well as my last question if you would be so kind.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Frank Warren

Dr. Drake hasn't responded to date.

See Also:

What’s Good for SETI’s Goose Apparently Isn’t Good for Ufology’s Gander!

Do Extra-Solar Planets Really Exist?

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE


HELP SUPPORT THIS SITE

ABOUT DONATIONS

↑ Grab this Headline Animator