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 -> 1999 -> Jun -> Here

From: KRandle993@aol.com
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 11:10:14 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 12:28:40 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Disproves Glenn Dennis' Roswell


List, All -

I'm not sure what induced Kal Korff to announce that the Glenn
Dennis story was not accurate so long after most of us have
decided that it was. I was, however, more surprised by the
support of Dennis with the "so he lied" defense. We all agree
that he lied about his nurse. What more do we need to know about
him?

It would seem to me that once we have caught a witness in a lie,
then we must re-evaluate all the testimony that comes from that
witness. In this case it goes beyond just lying about one small
and insignificant aspect of his tale, but the lies are essential
to his entire story. Without the lies, Dennis would not be on
the stage, and that might suggest something to us.

Certainly, we have been confronted by lies by UFO witnesses in
the past. Some of those lies are harmless and meaningless.
Others address the central issues. Dennis, for example, said
that he had been a mortician in Roswell. In 1947 that wasn't
exactly true. He was, in fact, only an embalmer. Is this...
embellishment... sufficient for us to reject his story? No. In
fact, it is clear that he was a mortician during his career, so
the exaggeration in 1947 was, and is, of little importance.

We have been confronted by many people in the UFO field who have
exaggerated their employment. Some have lied about their jobs,
others have denied they held the jobs they held. Sometimes these
lies can be understood in the context of the situation but even
then, we begin to look at the tellers of those lies a little
differently, especially when the lie is of no consequence. Why
lie about something like that?

Others have lied about their educational background. Here Jesse
Marcel, Sr. comes to mind. We have a discrepancy between the
record and what Marcel said. Of course, if Marcel was still
alive, we might be able to resolve this dilemma, but, in today's
world we can't. We know that many military men have taken
classes at various universities for their military occupations.
Many of those classes were taught by the professors, but
attendance at those courses are not listed by the universities.

There are also extension courses taught at military bases by the
universities. I have, as yet, been unable to locate any records,
with one minor exception, to suggest that this is the case with
Jesse Marcel. Such classes are given for college credit. In my
own case, when I entered the University of Iowa, I received a
number of credits for university courses that I took in the
Army. This might explain the discrepancy between what Marcel
said and what we can find.

Of course, the real point is that Marcel was, in 1947, exactly
who he said he was. He was the intelligence officer at Roswell
and the story he told was corroborated by various records,
newspapers, and other officers. The problem with his educational
background is, at this point, a minor problem that is,
essentially, irrelevant.

But, when we move into the realm of Glenn Dennis, we find, not a
single embellishment or exaggeration, but a complex web of lies
that go directly to the core of his claims. He told us of a
nurse who had told him what she had witnessed on the base - a
partial, or preliminary, autopsy. She described the alien
creatures to him, begging him not to reveal what she had said.
He had been "sworn to secrecy."

Dennis, however, hesitated only briefly when asked the name. He
told all of us that it was Naomi Self, or a variation of that
name. Searches through all sorts of documented sources, military
files, unit histories, school records, birth records and the
like, failed to produce results. When Dennis was confronted with
the results, he said that he had never given anyone the real
name. It meant, according to Dennis, he had lied about a central
feature of his tale.

Before more commentary, there is a personal note. A number of
years ago, I was searching for Robert Slusher. I had spoken to a
number of men named Robert Slusher who had been in the Army Air
Forces in the mid-1940s. They were not the correct man.

This becomes important because, at that time, I was talking to
Dennis. He asked me why, after he had violated the confidence,
after he had provided me (and many others) with the name of his
nurse, we had failed to find her. He was, well, not exactly
irate, but certainly disappointed in our failure to find the
nurse. I explained the situation to him, meaning that there were
many people with the same name. Plug John Smith into a CD-Rom
telephone 'book' and look at the number of hits.

The point is, Dennis, was pushing the name of the nurse. He was
insistent that he had provided the correct name. When we went to
him and said that his nurse didn't exist, he changed his tune.
He hadn't given the right name.

The question is, why not just refuse to name her? Why invent a
name for us to chase? Why reinforce that name by insisting he
had provided the right name? Then, when confronted by the
negative results, change the tale and retreat to the point where
he refuses to name her now? Why not follow that path originally?

The answers to these questions lead to a single conclusion.
There was no nurse. If there was no nurse, then the vast
majority of his tale has no support and collapses. If there was
no nurse, then that segment was a lie, so why should we accept
any other aspect of his story?

The problem for us, as researchers, is that when we find a major
problem with a tale told by a witness, we begin to rationalize
it. We try to think of reasons to reject the importance of the
lie so that we can continue to believe the tale.

It is the same for the researchers. When we learn that an
important researcher has lied about his background, his
employment, his education, he has, to my mind, destroyed his
credibility. Yet, here, in the UFO field, we say, "So he lied?
Everyone does it."

Well, not really. It's a simple excuse so that we can continue
to believe in the man's work, or the witness' story. So, when I
learned that Glenn Dennis lied about his nurse, when there was
no independent corroboration for the tale he told, when there is
evidence that Dennis was less than candid with other aspects of
his story, then I have to reject it. The problem isn't that he
lied about the nurse, but that he lied to us at all. He should
have no credibility and we shouldn't dismiss the problems just
by saying, "Well, he lied." We are obligated to publish that
information as well. I did that in 'The Randle Report' that came
out in June 1997.

So, sorry, but I reject the Glenn Dennis tale now because he
lied, the nurse he described does not exist, and all attempts to
rehabilitate this testimony demonstrates what is wrong with our
research techniques.

Krandle, Ph.D.
http://www.randlereport.com