.
The Roswell Corner
Next time, say “Pretty please with sugar on it”
In an interesting blog entry, Kevin Randle talked about Roswell transparency but then stated that he did not want to tell Lance Moody how they obtained the information from the Nun’s diary documented in The truth about the UFO crash at Roswell because Lance was too nasty in his request. Lance may have been somewhat demanding but people have been requesting this information for years. Karl Pflock wrote in both of his books on the subject that the actual diaries were never made public. Was Pflock also nasty in his requests to Randle or was Randle just not willing to give out that information?
Randle would eventually relent to Moody’s request and, after two decades, finally reveal the “truth” about the Nun’s diary. Neither Schmitt or Randle ever saw the diary entries contrary to what was implied in the book. It was all second hand from one questionable source and a nun, who claimed to have read it. That a nun could recall the exact details seen many years before, in a diary she may have read only once (if at all), is highly questionable. Yet, Randle not only mentioned the diary entry being factual in the Truth about the UFO crash at Roswell, but also mentioned it years later in Conspiracy of Silence! He also told Karl Pflock that Schmitt was able to corroborate the story. Randle now states the footnote in the first book had left out the key part of the sentence which stated “as viewed by Sister Day”. Why didn’t he tell this to Karl Pflock or publish it in the various books and journals he had written on the subject? Kevin Randle could have set the record straight long ago but chose not to do so until now.
Can you hear me now?
Kevin Randle announced his thoughts concerning the Roswell press release on his blog. He has come to the conclusion that the press release was never issued in written form but was reported to the media via a phone call from Walter Haut. Karl Pflock had drawn this conclusion many years ago. So, this really is no great revelation. Mr. Randle calls this trivia but he ignores the implications of this conclusion .
In the books, UFO crash at Roswell and The truth about the UFO crash at Roswell, Randle and Schmitt made it an important point about how the military desperately ran around retrieving all the copies of the press release. This was based on the testimony of Art McQuiddy and Frank Joyce. Joyce had claimed that the military had come into the offices attempting to find every scrap of paper. If there was no written press release, as Randle now seems to conclude, the military had no reason to go into the offices and ransack them. Does this mean that the memories of McQuiddy and Joyce are faulty and one has to start questioning anything they stated, which could not be verified?
Circleville logic
For the umpteenth time, Kevin Randle tried to compare the Circleville, Ohio case to Roswell. On July 5th, the Circleville newspapers reported the recovery of a “disc” that would be tentatively identified as a RAWIN target and weather balloon in the 8th of July edition (Even that article stated the possibility remained that it could be a flying saucer). Unlike today, not all the news in the country was readily available to everyone. Unless it was published in the local paper or it was part of the base’s routine message traffic, the 509th would have been ignorant of what had transpired at Circleville.
Mr. Randle pointed out that, unlike Roswell, the locals in Circleville seemed to be able to identify the object without the military’s involvement. There are reasons for this not mentioned in his blog. In the NM case, Brazel described a large quantity of debris that was spread out over a large area. This was far more than one might find from a single weather balloon and reflector. Additionally, the source of the Circleville reflector was known by some officials in the area. The Thunderstorm Project had arrived in the area with some fanfare in early 1947 and began operations in May at the Clinton County Army Air Force Base just fifty miles from Circleville. They had been launching these balloon/reflectors into thunderstorms on a regular basis by early July and the local military/civilian authorities were probably aware of what was happening. Meanwhile, the 509th had little or no contact with the activities of the NYU team prior to July 8th. As I point out on pages 18 and 19 of this issue, there is no good evidence presented that Blanchard and Marcel were even familiar with the ML-307 reflectors in the photographs.
MEA CULPA!!!
It was pointed out by Kevin Randle that I got James Bond Johnson’s name wrong in my Roswell issue. Somehow I began writing his name as Jay Bond Johnson (I have spelled it out that way on my web site as well). Johnson and I exchanged e-mails about a decade ago before he passed away so there really is no good excuse I can offer. I apologize to his family and friends for the error and am working on fixing the web site. The SUNlite errors will remain because I don’t think it would be right to cover up the mistake.
.
Brazel debris field imagery
Last year, Frank Kimbler made some interesting announcements about his work at the Roswell debris field. In one instance, he mentioned that some of the debris he recovered was proven to be extraterrestrial in origin. However, later examination of the data indicated this comment by him did not take into account the margin for error in the analysis, which I pointed out in SUNlite 3-5. I also mentioned a LANDSAT image he presented that had me confused:
The Landsat image is hard to figure. There is no exif data or information of where the photograph was obtained. We don’t know the location and one has to wonder why a photograph that was taken by a satellite launched in the 1970s would show something when aerial photographs taken only a few years after the incident showed nothing. Is this a new crashed spaceship location or is it the Brazel debris field? It is hard to draw conclusions without more information and it seems that Kimbler is holding back.
Was Kimbler holding back or did he have the smoking gun?
The debris field over four decades
In the book, The Roswell Dig Diaries, professor Bill Doleman produced two aerial images showing the debris site in 1946 and 1954. According to Dr. Doleman:
Both the November 1946 and February 1954 aerial photography were acquired in stereo-pairs, thus allowing inspection through a magnifying stereoscope designed for just such viewing, which exaggerates topography and makes non-natural features more easily detectable....No linear trace that is visible in the 1954 aerial photographs, but is not visible in the 1946 photographs, was found during inspection of the aerial photography. Thus, no evidence of a furrow-like feature that was present in 1954, but not 1946, was detected
in the aerial photograph study. 1
Examining those two images and two others from 1982 and 1986 seems to indicate there is little change in the area for forty years. The photograph in 1986 seems to have the same major features as those in 1946. Any effort to hide a gouge would have also affected the features the gouge had crossed. Either, the men at Roswell Army Air Field were experts at hiding the gouge or there never was one.
The top two images comes from the book, The Roswell dig diaries.Any differences appear to be lighting/seasonal related.
Recall that one can still see the impact mark of “Article 123” (the third A-12 test aircraft built) on Google earth, which occurred in May of 1963. Despite a documented effort to hide that crash site, the USAF/CIA were unsuccessful in doing so.
What year was Kimbler’s photograph from?
In his open minds interview, Frank Kimbler described downloading satellite images and processing them to reveal a startling find (See image to right):
I manipulated the satellite imagery to enhance infrared and show areas where the ground was disturbed....this area that shows up, this disturbed area, is right smack dab over the top in exactly the same direction that witnesses had talked about.2
As I pointed out last issue, Kimbler seems to have missed the interview of Jesse Marcel, where he clearly stated a NE to SW direction vice a WNW to ESE direction. So, his direction ignored testimonial evidence offered by one of the principle witnesses.
I also have concerns with his claims about photo manipulation. I am not sure how he manipulated the infrared end of the spectrum using photo processing software unless he is using infrared images to begin with. He gave no description on how he obtained the image or how he processed it.
Kimbler presented this image to Open Minds and the “Chasing UFOs” team. However, he never mentioned a date for his photographs. All the images in the LANDSAT database
are dated and labeled clearly so I am not sure why he seemed so secretive about it. The best time frame Kimbler gave occurred in the Open Minds interview, where he blurted out that the feature appeared “Maybe from the late 90s early 2000...it might even have been before that....” 3 One wonders why Mr. Kimbler could not be more specific. Didn’t he look to see when the feature first appeared or did he just find one image and then proclaim he had found something unique?
I had attempted to locate his image last year when the Open Minds article first appeared but missed this vital clue of “when” to look. Because I could not locate it, I assumed his location was some place other than the accepted Brazel debris field. However, I was focusing my search in the early 1990s and 1980s. Little did I realize that I was looking at the right place but the wrong time.
1998???
Thanks to an anonymous SUNlite reader, we may now know the rest of the story. In early September, I received an e-mail from them with images showing what they had discovered regarding the Kimbler images.
The attached images revealed that the feature was visible in the area of the accepted location from the Brazel debris field but first appeared in 1998! Following this individual’s guidelines, I downloaded images from the Landsat 5 satellite database at http://glovis.usgs.gov/. The following images were downloaded:
LT50320371998173XXX01.JPG
LT50320371998173XXX01_TIR.JPG
LT50320371998189XXX01.JPG
LT50320371998189XXX01_TIR.JPG
LT50320371998237XXX01.JPG
LT50320371998237XXX01_TIR.JPG
What all these numbers mean is that they were taken by Landsat 5 on path 32 row 37. The julian date was 1998 and the days were 173, 189, and 237, which translate to June 22nd, July 8th, and August 25th.
After downloading the images, I then cropped the desired area, ran auto levels in photoshop and then performed an auto adjustment in the curves function. The resultant sequence of “natural color” images can be seen here:
Notice the bright spot that corresponds to where the feature appears in the July 8th TIR image. To me, this indicates the area was radiating heat at the time. It seems reasonable to conclude that this feature came from a controlled burn designed to remove shrubbery.
There is no indication of the feature in either of the June 22nd images. I looked through several images in years prior to this and it was not evident in any of them. Over the years after 1998, the feature faded with each subsequent year. It seems that we can therefore conclude that the feature was created between June 22nd and July 8, 1998. Because of the thermal image brightness, I would assume it was closer to the July 8th date.
I also chose to downloaded the Multispectral images from the LANDSAT MRLC collection (MRLC/MTBS Reflectance set) for 1998 and 1999. The original images are labeled:
5032037009812550_REFL.tif (left) - May 5, 1998
5032037009911250_REFL.tif (right)- April 22, 1999
I cropped the images and did adjust the contrast/curves in these images to enhance the features. One gets similar results using the tasseled cap images. However, the band 6 and Normalized Burn Range images did not show this feature. In the reflectance images above, you can see another area that had been apparently burned at the crossroads above the “feature” (top arrow). Does this mean there was alien spaceship debris here as well or does it mean this is nothing unusual?
Just routine?
Prescribed or controlled burns are not unusual for New Mexico. They happen often enough and it appears this area is not immune to frequent burns. I found another feature in the same general area on May 19, 2009. It was not visible on the 17th of April image indicating it had recently been created. Is it possible those who performed the burn in 1998 came back in 2009 to finish the job?
Hide, melt, or alter.....
Kimbler seems to think this controlled burn was done to hide the evidence of the crash. He only suggested this in the Open Minds interview but was more confident about it in the “Chasing UFOs” episode. He stated that he thought it was meant to either hide the material, melt it, or alter its properties. Is this speculation valid?
The first suggestion was that it was to hide the evidence. A controlled burn would actually reveal small bits of metallic debris since the shrubbery would have been removed by the fire. Unless Kimbler thinks the heat of the brush fire would vaporize the metal, it seems unlikely this would work. This brings us to his other possibilities. Is Kimbler actually suggesting that somebody thought it was possible to remove any evidence of the “indestructible metals” used in an alien spaceship by using a simple brush fire? I don’t think a controlled burn can reach the temperatures necessary to alter an alloy (unless it is something like Bronze) or melt metals. It takes some really intense heat to alter modern man-made alloys like Stainless Steel. One wonders how an alien spaceship could survive the rigors of space travel if a simple brush fire could melt or alter the properties of the metals used in its construction. Additionally, even if the metal were melted/altered, I do not think the isotopic ratios would be affected. The idea of using a brush fire in 1998 to hide evidence of an alien spaceship crash in 1947 seems ludicrous in this light.
Other than wild speculation by Kimbler, there seems to be no reason to consider this feature is some product of a sinister conspiracy that, after fifty-one years, suddenly wanted to hide any evidence that might still be present. When one looks at the evidence objectively, one can conclude that this was most likely due to routine burning.
More of the same
Is Frank Kimbler allowing his “will to believe” to affect his objectivity in his investigation? In the Open Minds interview, he stated that he “wanted” to find some debris. When you “want” to find things, you probably are going to do so. You will interpret imagery to suit your beliefs and allow you to make proclamations that you have discovered extraordinary things instead of the more mundane possibilities. In my opinion, Kimbler’s approach to revealing what he discovered has hurt his credibility. If he felt he had something earth shattering, he should have gotten his “ducks in a row” and published it in a scientific or UFOlogical journal (or the internet) with all the details listed instead of trickling out the information in a manner that was elusive. Like many of the other Roswell authors before him, he did not present all the information so others could evaluate his work or did not look beyond what he wanted to find. While the name has changed, the methodology involved in Roswell research pretty much remains the same.
While the “feature” that appeared in the summer of 1998 is interesting, there is probably a more reasonable explanation for it than the one Kimbler is pitching to people. In my opinion, this “feature” can best be described as a coincidence and not really related to any crash of an alien spaceship.
Quelle: SUNlite 6/2012
Fortsetzung folgt...
5048 Views