Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books 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 Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> May -> Here

From: DRudiak@aol.com
Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 17:22:50 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 00:51:06 -0400
Subject: Reality Check Requested -- Will Korff show his


>From: TotlResrch@aol.com <Kal K. Korff>
>Date: Sat, 10 May 1997
>To: Updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: DRudiak Reality Check Requested

>Dear Mr. Rudiak,

>I have been working on a reply to you, among many other things,
>but before I can continue, I would appreciate a clarification
>(so I can direct my response accordingly) on where you stand
>on a few things.

>1) Do you believe that I am a UFO researcher, UFO skeptic,
>UFO debunker, or a UFO believer?

You have said you are a UFO researcher and UFO believer.  Yet all
you have written are debunking books.  If you are a "believer"
why aren't you also writing books about what you believe are very
solid cases?  You remind me of James Oberg, who claims to be a
"sympathetic skeptic," yet finds it impossible to write about a
single UFO case he believes has merit.

> Or, do you believe I am a government "disinformation" agent or
>on the payroll of some nefarious agency (you pick the agency and
>the group) for the purpose of detracting from  the subject of
>UFOs?? Just WHAT is your position and WHAT are your beliefs about
>me? Be blunt please, and to the point. You need not pull any
>punches or couch your opinions in any sort of polite formalities.

I don't know what you are -- honestly -- or why you do as you do.
 Why is this even relevant to the discussion of the facts of
Roswell?   You do strike me as a UFO debunker in "believer"
clothing.  Your personal motivations are unknown to me.  Maybe
you really do feel there is nothing to the Roswell case.  What I
don't understand is if you are a serious UFO researcher, as you
claim to be, why aren't you spending most of your time digging
into cases which you do feel have merit, and writing books about
these?  That would be one way to advance the UFO agenda, not
debunking easy targets like  Billy Meier.  Even most UFO
researchers think he's a phony.  Most of the public has never
heard of him.   Why even spend the time debunking him?  As to
writing a debunking Roswell book, your motivations may have
something to do with your obvious gift for self-promotion and a
desire to cash in on the upcoming 50th Anniversary.   I have yet
seen an original argument about the case on your part.  It's all
been said before by the likes of Todd, Klass, Pflock, and, of
course, the Air Force OSI people who did the Roswell report.

>2) How do you regard the testimony of Brig. General Thomas
>DuBose? Do you consider it to be credible? Yes or No?

Dubose backed up Marcel about what happened in Fort Worth and
added details not mentioned by Marcel and likely not known to
him.  Both Dubose and Marcel are further backed up by a long list
of circumstantial documentary evidence and indirectly by the
testimony of others.  E.g., photographer C. Bond Johnson of the
Fort Worth Star Telegram was immediately struck by the powerful
stench of the rubber weather balloon in the office.  This was
AFTER both Marcel and Dubose said the real debris had been
swapped with a weather balloon Ramey brought in.  This would have
been the same material that Marcel recovered the previous day, if
this really was the real debris brought by Marcel to Fort Worth.
Yet nobody who handled this debris beforehand made any comment
about it having any odor.

 E.g., Robert Porter said he flew with Marcel to Fort Worth and
handled the wrapped packages of debris.  He mentioned nothing
about a powerful rubber odor, or any sort of odor.  He said on
board the plane he was told the debris was from a flying saucer,
then he was told in Fort Worth it was nothing but a weather
balloon, which he didn't believe.  I consider this circumstantial
evidence pointing to a debris swap, just as Marcel and Dubose
said.

We also have statements from the newspapers, such as the N.Y.
Times the next day, that the "disk" was identified as a weather
balloon and radar reflector *within an hour* after the initial
press release.  Marcel had probably just gotten air borne at that
time.  We also have Ramey's statements to the Washington Press
corp at the Pentagon (e.g. the Washington Post the next day) in
which he described a weather balloon and radar reflector for
them.  Again, this seems to have been BEFORE the debris ever
arrived in Fort Worth, yet Ramey told the press that he had just
gone to look at it.  And if you look at the San Francisco
Examiner, the reporter said he contacted Ramey very early on
(before Ramey's phone lines got jammed), and Ramey told him it
was nothing but a weather balloon and radar reflector.

Various surviving wire telegrams have the military making similar
statements about the debris about an hour later, with additional
changes of story from the initial Roswell base press release.
E.g., the initial release by Blanchard said the rancher had found
the debris a few days earlier (that was Marcel's memory of what
Brazel told him as well).  But an hour later, the press was being
told that he found it three weeks earlier.  That was to become
Mac Brazel's official story a few hours later when the military
marched him to a press conference in Roswell.  Brazel said he
initially found the debris on June 14.  And the story was
repeated the following day by the mysterious balloon launch team
at Alamogordo who staged a phony Mogul launch for the local
press, then added that Brazel undoubtably found the balloon they
had launched on June 14.  The problem with the story was that
there was no June 14 launch.  It was a complete lie.  The real
Mogul team had left the week before.  This was a deliberate and
coordinated debunking campaign.

There's more, but that's enough for now.  It's obvious a weather
balloon cover story was being put out while Marcel was still en
route to Fort Worth. The testimony of both Dubose and Marcel on
the weather balloon swap is highly credible on this point.  And
if Marcel had really screwed up such a simple debris
identification, would Ramey have written so highly of him a year
later?  The Air Force has a strange way of dealing with it's
so-called incompetents and liars.  Perhaps Kal Korff can offer an
"innocent" explanation.

> And do you regard DuBose's remarks where he was ADAMANT that the
>weather balloon story was a cover up story designed to get the
>press of Ramey's back to be credible?

It's obvious Korff is trying to set me up for something here,
instead of simply stating his case.  It's a cheap debating trick.
But yes, I find Dubose's remarks to be credible.  He was saying
the same things back in 1979 and didn't change his basic story up
to his death in 1993.

I can only speculate at this point what Korff is going to pull.
Perhaps he's going to do a Phil Klass, and say that Dubose was a
very old man at the end who underwent hypnosis  and was very
vulnerable to being led in his testimony by researchers.  In
other words, when you can't attack the evidence, attack the
witness.  Marcel is an obvious case in point.  And since Dubose,
an Air Force general, backed up that "liar" Marcel, he's going to
have to discredit Dubose as well, plus everybody else who backed
up Marcel.  Or a simpler tactic, already employed by the Air
Force debunkers, is to avoid mentioning that such people even
existed.

>In gory detail, please, like how you very admirably stated your
>case in your two lengthy messages to me, would you please explain
>your COMPLETE position on DuBose's testimony and how you see that
>it fits into the Roswell scenario.

(ASIDE:  Isn't it interesting how Kal Korff repeatedly DEMANDS to
know the detailed positions of others, while telling us
absolutely NOTHING?  Why won't Korff detail his own position
first?)

Dubose and Marcel were eyewitnesses who  independently said there
was a debris swap at Fort Worth, and are backed up in their
testimony by considerable other evidence as quickly outlined
above.

Dubose was the only one to mention that debris was also secretly
flown to Washington via Fort Worth several days before (probably
2 days before), and subsequently flown on to Wright Field for
analysis.  Following Ramey's press conference, the surviving FBI
telegram says that Major Kirton (Ramey's head intelligence
officer) "advised that the object found resembles a high altitude
weather balloon with a radar reflector, but that telephonic
conversation between their office and Wright Field had not borne
out this belief."  Well Mogul material definitely resembled a
weather balloon and radar reflector, since that's what the early
balloon trains were made of, but Wright Field disagreed.  Why
would they disagree?  Perhaps the material that Dubose said they
had received earlier from Washington didn't match balloon
material.  That's a logical inference, and would seem to back up
Dubose's story of an earlier debris flight which eventually ended
up at Wright.

Now interestingly, the Air Force report mentions the story of a
debris flight to Washington (it's in Lt. McAndrew's summary), but
doesn't mention that the story came from one of their own
generals (Dubose).  In fact, if you look through the entire 1000
page report, you won't find Dubose being mentioned anywhere as
being involved, not even to identify him in the pictures taken of
him with Ramey with the radar reflector debris.  They're scared
to death of what Dubose had to say.  Why is that?  Why couldn't
they bring themselves to even mention the man's name?

Nonetheless they use Dubose's story anonymously, but put their
own spin on it.  McAndrew theorizes that the debris was indeed
flown to Washington to be identified by the weather officers
there, which they subsequently did.  End of story.  McAndrew says
nothing about the REST of the story by Dubose in which the debris
was flown on Gen. McMullen's personal plane to Wright Field for
analysis by the labs there.  This must have been MIGHTY puzzling
"tin foil" and "balsa wood!"  Even the weather people in
Washington had no idea what it was.  Why did McAndrew choose to
leave out this part of Dubose's story?

Other questions also present themselves.  Suppose for the sake of
argument that the weather people had identified the debris as
coming from some sort of weather balloon and radar reflector.
Why wasn't this information then relayed down through the chain
of command to Dubose in Fort Worth and back to Roswell?  "It's
just some sort of balloon, guys?"  All through this ridiculous
scenario, we're continually being asked to believe that EVERYONE
at Roswell, including Marcel and Blanchard, were incapable of
recognizing extremely mundane materials like rubber, tinfoil,
Scotch tape, and balsa wood, and then nobody bothered to be
inform them of any subsequent identification, eventually leading
to Blanchard's infamous crashed disk press release.

Here's another logical conundrum.  Supposedly Col. Duffy,
original Project Officer for Mogul, now at Wright Field, a few
days later calls Col. Trakowski, his Mogul replacement.
Trakowski claims Duffy told him of being awakened in middle of
the night by "some man from New Mexico" who shows him this crash
material, and says that it had stirred up considerable press
interest.  From this description, it means we would be talking
about the debris flown to Wright Field AFTER Ramey's weather
balloon debunking of the story.  Allegedly Duffy then identified
it as coming from Mogul.

There are a number of problems with this story, among them being
its second-hand, uncorroborated nature (unlike Marcel's and
Dubose's story about the debris swap).  More important, there was
nothing unique about this material to Mogul at all.  The
identical weather balloons and radar reflectors were used at
military weather stations all over the country. (Irving Newton,
the weather officer Ramey dragged in to identify the debris, said
exactly that in 1947; he's since changed his story).  In fact,
they were displayed the FOLLOWING DAY in a coordinated debunking
campaign of all the flying saucer reports.  Pictures of the
IDENTICAL radar reflectors being launched ELSEWHERE were shown in
at least a few newspapers.  One of these showed a launch from the
weather station at Waynesville, Ohio, about a dozen miles from
Wright Field.   To repeat, this was the following day.

So how could the sleepy Col. Duffy be so certain that the debris
was from Mogul? What was the urgency in awakening the man from
his beauty sleep if the debris had supposedly been previously
identified, as McAndrew contends?  Why not wait until morning?
Why was the FBI told hours before the debris even arrived there
that Wright Field DIDN'T think the debris resembled a weather
balloon and radar reflector?  Why would Ramey even bother to ship
mundane weather balloon debris shown in the Fort Worth photos on
to Wright Field for further identification? Among Dubose's
memories of the event was that Ramey told the press that the
planned flight to Wright Field had been cancelled. That is
absolutely corroborated by the printed newspaper stories, which
say that Ramey and his minions stated that the flight had been
cancelled and that the debris was going to stay right there.

Dubose's story sounds very credible to me.  And there has been a
deliberate attempt by the Air Force to avoid mentioning it or the
man.  This is not a balanced presentation of evidence.  It is a
deliberate omission of critical evidence and the use of
propaganda techniques to deal with it.  One wonders why Air Force
debunkers would have to resort to such techniques if their Mogul
case is so strong.  Why not just lay it all out and let the
evidence speak for itself?

>These clarifications will help me address the relevant issues you
>raised. Unti I get a response from you, I cannot proceed any
>further.

Nonsense!  You could simply state your own position about Dubose
first.  My personal position vis a vis Dubose should have nothing
to do with your own. There's absolutely no reason why you "cannot
proceed any further."  Why not just present your case, such as it
is, and then there can be a discussion? This is just some silly
game you're playing.

>I would appreciate this.

Fine.  Play your little games.  Now show your cards.


David Rudiak.