Roswell, Randle and the Reich

[drew hempel]

Since no one has posted a Kevin Randle show thread that I can find....

Randle prominently states that there's no way we could have classified technology from 1947 that would still be classified -- what could it possibly be?

Joseph P. Farrell's new book "Roswell and the Reich" gives plenty of evidence to the contrary --

Here's a new radio interview with Farrell about his book (Farrell relies on Redfern for one chapter of his book as well).

http://www.thebyteshow.com/Audio/JosephPFarrell/JosephPFarrell_RoswellAndTheReich1_TBS.mp3

Randle says "he doesn't understand the motivation for keeping this suppressed" -- but I guess it is political. I mean if the CIA continued the Nazis - just read Professor Chomsky's "Political Economy of Human Rights, Vol. 1 -- Washington Connection and Third World Fascism."

So that's why a cover-up persists today.

Randle seems to suggest that astronomers would not look for Earth-like planets in a certain area of space because some UFOlogists say that a certain interpretation of the Betty Hill star map can not be wrong. So Randle is elevating UFOlogy with astronomy? I understand he's arguing against that such a direction by science would be taken -- by it's hilarious to even make such a suggestion. Obviously UFOlogy is not on par with astronomy -- although there might be fun parallels to make.

Whenever a conversation has to be based on the presumption of extraterrestrials and then all sorts of hypotheses are constructed -- it's already a limited framework, channeled in a certain idelogical direction. David did an excellent job in this interview with Kevin. The irony being that when the "nuts and bolts" ETH angle is so emphasized it seems to be by people with less actual abstract logical training.

What Kevin is saying about alien abductions is his best in my opinion. He says the psychologists are projecting onto the "abductees" and leading them along. Kevin also claims that there's a homosexual angle to alien abductions and I agree that is an obvious aspect -- it's been brought up on at least one other radio paranormal podcast I heard as well.

When Kevin brings up Stan Friedman he sounds like he's almost gonna cry -- why? Because Kevin is closest to Stan in Kevin's approach -- ETH nuts and bolts -- but that's why they probably have the most heated arguments about fine-points of interpretation.

But then David seems to take personally Kevin's criticism of the alien abduction psychologists -- which I personally think is Kevin's best critique of UFOlogy in this interview.

Still what Kevin says about alien abduction and sleep paralysis can also be applied to his list of

"crashes"

He dismisses some as not real crashes -- but includes others which others would not include as crashes, etc.

Which is why I take the ufomystic angle on the topic.

Thanks for another fascinating show.

 

[Kieran]

Since no one has posted a Kevin Randle show thread that I can find....

Randle prominently states that there's no way we could have classified technology from 1947 that would still be classified -- what could it possibly be?

Joseph P. Farrell's new book "Roswell and the Reich" gives plenty of evidence to the contrary --

Here's a new radio interview with Farrell about his book (Farrell relies on Redfern for one chapter of his book as well).

http://www.thebyteshow.com/Audio/JosephPFarrell/JosephPFarrell_RoswellAndTheReich1_TBS.mp3

Randle says "he doesn't understand the motivation for keeping this suppressed" -- but I guess it is political. I mean if the CIA continued the Nazis - just read Professor Chomsky's "Political Economy of Human Rights, Vol. 1 -- Washington Connection and Third World Fascism."

So that's why a cover-up persists today.

Randle seems to suggest that astronomers would not look for Earth-like planets in a certain area of space because some UFOlogists say that a certain interpretation of the Betty Hill star map can not be wrong. So Randle is elevating UFOlogy with astronomy? I understand he's arguing against that such a direction by science would be taken -- by it's hilarious to even make such a suggestion. Obviously UFOlogy is not on par with astronomy -- although there might be fun parallels to make.

Whenever a conversation has to be based on the presumption of extraterrestrials and then all sorts of hypotheses are constructed -- it's already a limited framework, channeled in a certain idelogical direction. David did an excellent job in this interview with Kevin. The irony being that when the "nuts and bolts" ETH angle is so emphasized it seems to be by people with less actual abstract logical training.

What Kevin is saying about alien abductions is his best in my opinion. He says the psychologists are projecting onto the "abductees" and leading them along. Kevin also claims that there's a homosexual angle to alien abductions and I agree that is an obvious aspect -- it's been brought up on at least one other radio paranormal podcast I heard as well.

When Kevin brings up Stan Friedman he sounds like he's almost gonna cry -- why? Because Kevin is closest to Stan in Kevin's approach -- ETH nuts and bolts -- but that's why they probably have the most heated arguments about fine-points of interpretation.

But then David seems to take personally Kevin's criticism of the alien abduction psychologists -- which I personally think is Kevin's best critique of UFOlogy in this interview.

Still what Kevin says about alien abduction and sleep paralysis can also be applied to his list of

"crashes"

He dismisses some as not real crashes -- but includes others which others would not include as crashes, etc.

Which is why I take the ufomystic angle on the topic.

Thanks for another fascinating show.

Kevin is entitled to his view, but I wonder is he just focusing to what he knows since 1947. Has he looked or studied the many references to this Phenomenon before 1947. I've an opinion we are dealing with a phenomenon that comes from a different dimensional plane to us. However I don't rule out the other possibilities to origins.

Joseph Farrell has interesting things to say, but his works doesn't account for the technology seen in skies of countries before 1990'S. I don't buy for one moment. We had the ability to create craft a mile wide. If the Nazis had such technology, they would have used that technology to make superior planes to defeat the Allies.

I be more willing, to believe they could have been working on something usual, like the Nazi BELL. It was a crude device, that required or needed two power stations to give it power. However there is no prove that such a device existed. There is circumstantial evidence not rock solid evidence.

Clinical sleep paralysis doesn't hold water for me; when you have two people or more having an experience at the same time and both are seeing entities. Fairy lore has many descriptions of people been abducted. Which involved women having sex with us mortals . Odd stories for me, who has never experienced abduction.

Also Fairy lore tales; described how the fairies had to paralysis their victims before they could take them to the Fairy world. It was necessary process according to the stories.

As an outsider to the whole abduction thing. I find it weird. But I've family members who have experienced weird entities coming into their room all hooded. They looked like trolls. So my view has somewhat changed over the years. So I remain open minded to the topic of abductions.

 

[drew hempel]

Yeah if you listen to the Farrell interview he actually discusses Kevin Randle's research on Roswell -- well he critiques it.

Here's a good page on the secret technology

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_antigravity.htm

Nick Redfern has military documents of a triangle craft on a U.S. military base on the U.K. from the late 1940s.

 

[paraschtick]

Wow ... someone who has also listened to The Byte Show and not come away insane (I am of course referring to the very nice but possibly barking mad GeorgeAnn Hughes). How Dr Farrell copes with her I just don't know

However, I'm eager to read what Dr Farrell says about Roswell in his new book. He's broached the facts surrounding German technology at the end of the WW2 before in "Reich of the Black Sun", and mentions how the MJ12 documents (taking them at face value, and not commenting on whether they are fraudulent or not) portray something very earthly rather than extraterrestrial. I'm also very eager to read the particular sections of the MJ12 documents he refers to so I can see for my self if he is barking up the wrong tree or not.

In the new book, he also talks about the backgrounds of some prominent Roswell researchers, and in the Byte Show interview, you get the feeling that they might have hidden agendas in some way. It will be very interesting to see what he says.

Oh and Irish Seekers, if Dr Farrell is right then his work may show that what has been our skies in the 1990s, as you say, has grown directly from what was being developed during the war years and earlier.

 

[drew hempel]

yeah I actually had a very close encounter with a big black triangle. In the summer of 1997 I was watching X files with my sister. The show ended and she said -- "there's those lights I've seen before in Taos and by Franconia." Franconia being north of us 15 miles -- on the St. Croix river between Wisconsin and Minnesota.

So we go out on the deck -- it's just dark -- and watch these balls of light, each a different color, doing strange maneuvers on the horizon. I'm standing there thinking "not a helicopter, not headlights, not a tower, not a plane." My sister says "I'm bored" and goes inside.

Then I see a craft heading towards me - with the lights on it -- and the craft is over the neighbors woods -- flying from the horizon -- going slowly and low.

So the craft comes up over the hill and then right over the tree on the edge of our yard. So I could triangulate the craft's size and height -- it was wider than the crown of a large oak tree -- flying right over the tree. It made a humming noise and flew slowly. I could have hit the craft with a rock but I didn't dare take my eyes of it.

The craft was a perfect equilateral triangle -- black -- no fuselage -- nothing at all -- perfect triangle. The lights were on each corner with one in the center.

The craft then flew over the garage and continued east, over the valley, crossing the river.

I immediately thought it was military. My mom ran the local legal newspaper. Her worker brought me a three ring binder of local news articles from a mass sighting in 1978 of a craft. She said we lived in a "military flight test corridor" and there were also cattle mutilations, scaring one rancher to move away.

Then a few years later I read on rense.com of an EXACT same sighting -- humming noise, slow equilateral big black triangle.

So then I read Curt Sutherly's book on ufos which had quite a bit on the Belgium flap and the triangles.

Then I read the MUFON reports for Minnesota -- and sure enough there were other sightings of the exact same triangle and the one just across the river -- saw the triangle shoot off -- accelerating at an unbelievable rate.

So this craft is not a dirigible -- it's the same as what was seen in Belgium.

I still think it's military.

Also Nick Redfern has documents of a triangle craft on a U.S. military base in the U.K. in the late 1940s.

I think this craft has been around for awhile -- and is based on Tesla principles, using mercury plasma, which Tim Ventura has written about, based on John Dering's replication of this antigravity technology.

Also during the mass sighting in 1978 a lady had missing time and under hypnosis said she had been abducted up into the craft.

Also if you dig there's some excellent youtube footage of this triangle craft accelerating instantaneously.

I'm current finishing up this new documentary on the Nazi connection behind the JFK assassination.

I think it's excellent circumstantial evidence to UFO tech as well -- especially considering David and Kevin's brief discussion of Fred Crisman -- CIA connected to a UFO sighting and to the assassination of JFK.

JFKII - The Bush Connection - Complete Documentary

 

[Kieran]

Wow ... someone who has also listened to The Byte Show and not come away insane (I am of course referring to the very nice but possibly barking mad GeorgeAnn Hughes). How Dr Farrell copes with her I just don't know

However, I'm eager to read what Dr Farrell says about Roswell in his new book. He's broached the facts surrounding German technology at the end of the WW2 before in "Reich of the Black Sun", and mentions how the MJ12 documents (taking them at face value, and not commenting on whether they are fraudulent or not) portray something very earthly rather than extraterrestrial. I'm also very eager to read the particular sections of the MJ12 documents he refers to so I can see for my self if he is barking up the wrong tree or not.

In the new book, he also talks about the backgrounds of some prominent Roswell researchers, and in the Byte Show interview, you get the feeling that they might have hidden agendas in some way. It will be very interesting to see what he says.

Oh and Irish Seekers, if Dr Farrell is right then his work may show that what has been our skies in the 1990s, as you say, has grown directly from what was being developed during the war years and earlier.

We have reports of people seeing black delta triangles dating back to the year 1871. The Russians would have been the mostly likely candidate to have secured such technology if it existed after World War TWO. Most of the odd experiments were occurring in locations East of Berlin. But I remain open minded to what Mr Farrell has claimed. We have to remember the best cases of sightings of Triangle Craft. Have occurred since the 1970'S. And most of those sightings have happened in America. Black is the dominant colour for black project secret Air craft. However I am convinced the earliest reports of Flying discs and Cigar ships are created by non humans. I think Mr Farrell would make a Good guest.

 

[drew hempel]

1871 O.K. I found that "triangle" sighting from 1871 -- I think it's silly to equate such a sighting with the very specific triangular craft sighting on a U.S. military base -- reported in the AFOSI military documents which Nick Redfern has from FOIA.


August 1st. A tremendous red disk hovers over Marseilles, France, at 10.43 p.m., stationary until 10.52 p.m. Then it moves North for seven minutes, halts again, then moves East, disappearing at 11.3 p.m. Venus again near inferior conjunction. August 29th. France. Astronomer Trouvelet reports formations of highly complex objects; some triangular, some round, others many-sided. Some of them hover, then move off One appears to go wrong, to fall, to crash. As it falls it oscillates from side to side like a disk falling through water, or like a flying disc that has suddenly lost its motive power.

 

[Blacknight]

Randle seems to suggest that astronomers would not look for Earth-like planets in a certain area of space because some UFOlogists say that a certain interpretation of the Betty Hill star map can not be wrong. So Randle is elevating UFOlogy with astronomy? I understand he's arguing against that such a direction by science would be taken -- by it's hilarious to even make such a suggestion. Obviously UFOlogy is not on par with astronomy -- although there might be fun parallels to make.

What Randle said was that Marjorie Fish made an incorrect assumption about habitable planets and red dwarf stars--subsequently disproved--which caused her to draw dramatically incorrect conclusions, leading to the whole unfounded speculation that Zeta Reticuli is the aliens' source. He never said anything that I can recall which did anything which could even remotely be considered as equating "ufology" with astronomy. Randle may be one of the best, most objective researchers working today and that often means he doesn't let the facts yield to his predispositions or paranormal politics.

On another note, I've heard David mention several times now his family's sighting in Venezuela. He rightly seems greatly distressed at not being able to provide documentation of that sighting, since it was reported in large local newspapers at the time. Knowing the approximate date of the event, why not simply pay a local college student to check library microfiche/microfilm? It couldn't cost much to pay a few hours of a college student's time. Seems a painless way to finally resolve that matter, if only in David's mind.

 

[drew hempel]

Well with the deference to astronomy in the search for extraterrestrials I think it's important to consider the regular shoddy science found within so-called "ufology." James Carlson has a new book debunking the whole "Nukes and UFOs" claim by Hastings and Salas, showing that the definitive Echo Flight "sighting" was nothing of the sort:

Americans, Credulous by James Carlson

Will James be on Larry King? Probably not because he's not promoting the nuts and bolts ETH line which so readily considers itself to be objective and scientific.

UFOlogy is a big joke, as Carlson so well documents.

 

[Blacknight]

Just to be clear, drew, I was responding to your incorrect assertion that Randle equated the science of astronomy with the "whatever it is" of ufology. He did no such thing.

However, I agree with your premise to some degree. Clearly any field which aspires to be a science needs to have some degree of rigor implicit in its methodologies. I believe Stan Friedman is one of the few real scientists (with, as I recall, a masters degree...not even a PhD) examining the UFO issue on an ongoing, full-time basis. Most researchers of aerial phenomenon are well-meaning individuals, but are not well-trained practitioners of the standard protocols of science. It has always been a field that is mainly anecdotal, lacking even a strong body of image evidence...even in an era of ubiquitous cell phones, video cameras, digital cameras, inexpensive computers, etc.. There is something else at work here and I think scientific research coming from the mainstream (probably psychology, sociology, geology or neurology) will ultimately solve the puzzle, assuming it is solvable. Ufology is pretty much a made-up science, recognized by no legitimate scientific body. It exists primarily to give a thin veneer of credibility to "researchers" who would otherwise have no credibility at all.

And, I must add that I nevetheless found many of Randle's observations very interesting.

 

[drew hempel]

If you want to learn about the real Stanton Friedman watch this documentary on him made by his nephew Paul Kimball:


"Stanton Friedman is Real!"