Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Jun -> Re: 'Roswell-- Anatomy of A Myth'

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: KRandle993@aol.com
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 08:27:08 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:27:43 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Roswell-- Anatomy of A Myth'

>From: XianneKei@aol.com
>Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 20:18:28 -0400 (EDT)
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: 'Roswell-- Anatomy of A Myth'

>>Date: 16 Jun 97 09:48:53 EDT
>>From: BOB SHELL <76750.2717@CompuServe.COM>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Kent Jeffery's [sic] Debunking Article In The
>>MUFON Journal

 >Hi Bob,

 >> In his latest newsletter Phil Klass comes down hard on me for being
 >> critical of Kent Jeffrey.  Here is what Phil says:

> [snipped]

 >That's not all he came down on you hard for -- you left out the last part
 >of what Phil had to say about you:

 >_A_ _CASE_ _OF_ _"SOUR GRIPES?"_ Shell's harsh comments may stem from >the
 >fact that Jeffrey was one of the first Roswell crashed-saucer proponents to
 >publicly denounce the Santilli film as a hoax in 1995 while Shell was
 >strongly endorsing its authenticity. For example, on Aug. 28, 1995, Shell
 >said there was a "95% probablility that the film was manufactured, exposed
 >and processed in 1947... I know who the cameraman is, I know where he is."
 >Shell's reluctance to denounce SCAM as a hoax recalls the sage observation
of
 >French philosopher Charles Peguy: "He who does not bellow the truth when he
 >knows the truth make himself the accomplice of liars and forgers."

 >Sounds like a nice way to call you a PR Flak, no?

 >> As you found when you read it, Ed, it is simple debunkery,
 >> and not very sophisticated debunkery at that.  Are we to
 >> believe that Kent was really a serious, dedicated Roswell
 >> researcher and then had his mind changed by this puny
 >> "evidence"?  I think not.  My advice to others is read it.  It's
 >> pretty widely available now.  And if this reads like someone
 >> who has had a serious change-of-heart (to borrow Phil's hyphens),
 >> then so be it.  But if, instead, it reads like a debased attempt to
 >> throw road blocks in front of serious disclosure and research, all
 >> should join in your call on Jeffrey to remove himself from the
 >> issue at once.  He can only do harm now.

 >So you don't think Kent was serious... do you have any idea? I'm going out
 >on a limb here, because I don't really know what these guys will say, but I
 >wonder what the other serious Roswell researchers will have to say about
 >Kent?

 >Kevin Randle, I'm positive that you will disagree with Kent's conclusion,
 >but do you think Kent was serious? Do you think he is controlled by som
 >evil-alphabet soup agency?


Of course I disagree with his conclusions. I see that he accuses us of
selective use of the data and then does exactly that. I think we can
challenge each of his points without too much trouble.

Yes, I think he is serious, though I hesitate to say anything positive about
him. This should not reflect on Kent but more on Don Schmitt. After the
magazine article accused Schmitt of being dishonest, I wrote a long letter
defending him, read it to him and he thanked me. Not once did he suggest
that I might want to hang on to it. He left me twisting in the wind. However,
I don't think that Kent is dishonest nor do I believe he is a government
agent. I just think he's wrong on this point.

What I'm appalled at is not Kent's article but those who think it should be
suppressed. Hey, this is America where we have the right to say any damn
thing we want. I might not like it, but Kent has the right to say it, just as
I have the right to ignore it, refute it, and challenge it. If we don't like
what he says, let's prove him wrong rather than try to bury his work.

KRandle