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 -> 1998 -> Feb -> Re: Some Questions about Your Book on Roswell

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: KRandle993@aol.com [Kevin Randle]
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 20:31:21 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:25:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Some Questions about Your Book on Roswell

>Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 00:09:40 +0000
>From: Philip Mantle <el51@dial.pipex.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Some Questions about Your Book on Roswell

>Forwarded Message:

>From: JBONJO@aol.com
>Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 19:52:26 EST
>To: TotlResrch@aol.com [Kal K. Korff]
>Subject: Some Questions about Your Book on Roswell

>I am the Roswell UFO Crash Photographer that you quote in your
>book, 'The Roswell UFO Crash -- What They Don't Want You to
>Know'.  Since we never have met or had any conversation I am
>curious and therefore am requesting the basis for several
>statements published in your book:


This is really a fight that I would like to avoid but there are
some allegations made here that simply are not true. J. Bond
Johnson was, in fact, one of the photographers. There was
obviously more than one as his own statement makes clear, though
not necessarily at the same time. However, the point is that I
have, on audio tape, the original statements made by Johnson that
are in direct conflict with what he says today. The point is, I
do have the tapes, and more to the point, Johnson has heard them.
In fact, he has copies of the pertinent statements.

>"General Ramey allows the press to enter his office and
>photograph the actual flying saucer wreckage, although they are
>not allowed to touch it.  One of the photographers present is J.
>Bond Johnson, who takes several pictures..." p.
>28-29.

>FACT: I was the ONLY photographer present to photograph the
>wreckage in General Ramey's office.  In fact, NO OTHER
>photographs ever have been produced of Ramey, DuBose and Marcel.
>I was left alone in the office for a short time while awaiting
>the arrival of General Ramey and during that period unwrapped a
>package of the wreckage and did my best to arrange it for a
>useful photo.

>Incidentally, my hat -- I was the only civilian present so it
>must have been my hat! -- is shown on the chair in the background
>of several of the photos.

>I did not take the Irving Newton photo and have no information as
>to who did. It must have been taken subsequent to my arranging
>the crash wreckage pieces since they obviously are still arranged
>the same way on the floor of the general's office.  There have
>been speculations that Newton was photographed by a FWAAF base
>photographer after I left and that the photo then was released to
>the press along with the "cover-up" press release on the evening
>of 7/8/47, which quoted Newton.


Johnson has always maintained that he was the only photographer
present when he shot the pictures of General Ramey and Colonel
DuBose. This is the first time that he has suggested that he
unwrapped the debris and spread it out.

Interestingly, he claimed, originally, that he had shot one
picture of Ramey and one picture of Ramey and DuBose. Then, he
decided that he had shot two pictures of Ramey and two of Ramey
and DuBose. This seems logical based on the photographs.

Now he claims he shot two of Ramey, two of Ramey and DuBose and
two of Marcel. He said, originally that he had not taken the
pictures of Marcel and didn't know who did. Now he claims
responsibility for all six.

BTW the civilian hat only appears in a single photograph.

>"A short time later, the shredded remains of an ordinary weather
>balloon are brought into Ramey's office and quickly substituted
>for the real saucer wreckage," p. 29.

>FACT: It has been well established by ufologist researchers that
>there NEVER was any 'substitution' of any wreckage whatsoever.


There is no well established fact that there was NEVER any
substitution of wreckage. Colonel DuBose, on video tape, and in
interviews with disinterested third parties said there was a
substitution.  DuBose, in fact, signed a letter saying that the
debris had been switched. Johnson is quite wrong here and is,
quite frankly, offering the Moore and Shandera scenario again.

>"At the official press briefing that follows the 'bait and
>switch' maneuver, General Ramey announces that the whole flying
>saucer affair has been a mistake, and that the debris recovered
>by Maj. Jesse Marcel is nothing more than the remains of a
>weather balloon." p. 29.

>FACT: There is no known record of ANY "press briefing" by General
>Ramey other than the casual comments he made to me during my
>photographing of him, Colonel DuBose and Major Marcel.  These
>comments made only to me were a denial that he knew the nature of
>the debris being photographed.

Except for Colonel DuBose's statements that there had been
a number of reporters at the FWAAF who talked to Ramey.
There are other stories printed in the other Dallas -Fort
Worth newspapers that are not from Johnson. There is also
a number of radio reports, including one from ABC News that
suggests that other reporters were in Ramey's office. Therefore
Ramey and members of his staff were talking to other reporters. His
tale is interesting but not unique. He wants to be the only reporter
who was there.

>"THE BOND JOHNSON FACTOR ...At that time I was briefed on the
>idea that it was not a flying disc as reported but in fact was a
>weather balloon that had crashed....  Almost the first thing that
>Ramey said was, "Oh, we've found out what it is, and you know,
>it's a weather balloon." p. 125.

>FACT: I have been quoted in the past as making statements similar
>to these. There is no basis in fact as to these remarks, I never
>have made any such statements since this does not in any way
>coincide with any recollections or records that I have of my
>visit to General Ramey's office on 7/8/47.

I wonder if he would like to hear the tape again. Not only did he
make comments similar to these, there are exactly what he said. I
have the tapes with the comments and I was careful in the
transcription because this was at the time that Moore and
Shandera were talking about their new star witness. At that point
Johnson moved from having seen only a weather balloon to having
photographed the real debris. But the point is, I have the
comments on audio tape and know exactly what he said. When
confronted with that information, he stuttered and evaded, but
had no answer, accusing me of getting the quotes wrong.

What he said to me, once again on tape is, "I posed General Ramey
with this debris. At that time I was briefed on the idea that it
was not a flying disk as first reported but in fact was a weather
balloon that had crashed."

I can bury this guy at any point because of the audio tapes. You
can hear him changing his story after he talked to Moore and
Shandera. And then you can hear him try to suggest I was wrong,
even when I was quoting from his own words.

You know, his comments about having never made any such comments
really annoy me since we went through this, meaning Johnson and
me, about three years ago. I sent him a copy of the quotes, on
tape, so that he could hear his own voice making the quotes. He
said it, plainly.

Now he's back with a new and even better story. But the point is
originally, he just hopped over to the air base, took two... no
four...no six pcitures and was told that it was a weather
balloon. Now, he wasn't told that but his own words sink his new
story.

Thought you might find these thoughts interesting.

KRandle