August 30, 3026 — Veteran UFO Researcher Kevin D. Randle - The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
You're in the Paracast, the gold standard of paranormal radio.
And now, here's Gene Steinberg.

Speaker 2 (00:33):
We're back with a brand new episode of the Paracast
this week, featuring our friend Kevin D. Randall, who's been
in the UFO paranormal field for, what, four or five centuries,
is it?

Speaker 3 (00:48):
I think I joined around 2000 B.C., Oh, it hasn't
been as long as I thought.

Speaker 2 (00:56):
Oh, yeah, you haven't been around.

Speaker 3 (00:57):
For a while.

Speaker 4 (01:00):
Oh, B.C., okay, okay, yes.

Speaker 2 (01:03):
Well, that's different. Well, people say I'm confused. You know,
this book that you have, UFO Sightings and Alien Visitations,
Facts and Falsehoods, is going to be ideal for this
week's episode. The reason is, on last week's episode... We
featured Preston Dennett. And as Kevin probably knows and a

(01:25):
lot of others, Preston Dennett is kind of sort of
a contactee admirer. So people that maybe a lot of
us would not really take too seriously, he finds to be, well,
reasonable and like that.

Speaker 4 (01:44):
You can't help being a contactee. If they want to
contact you, they will.

Speaker 2 (01:50):
Well, assuming the contactees are telling us the truth, then
that's true. There's nothing. We can't explain necessarily why someone
would do that. Is it seeking 15 minutes of fame? Well,
if it is, very few people get there. 15 minutes
of fame or even 5 or 10 minutes. So I
don't know why they do it. In fact, that might

(02:12):
be a question to ask before I get into a
main subject. Kevin, we've had these people through the years.
I think Dolly Safran is one of the latest ones.
But going back to George Adamski and before, what prompts
these contactees to make these claims that definitely are not verifiable?
Is it to be famous or what?

Speaker 3 (02:35):
George Adamski once said, that he was interested in the
contactee movement because it allowed him to serve alcohol during prohibition.
He got into that because of prohibition and he could
have alcohol. I guess you get your 15 minutes in

(02:58):
the spotlight if you claim you've traveled to Mars. I
think Adamski went to Venus, which his spacecraft would have
melted about the time it touched down on the surface.
And George Van Tassel, who was his nemesis, I suppose,
went to Mars. And they would argue about each other,

(03:18):
but they wouldn't call him out by name. Adamski would say, well,
you know, you can't believe what those Martians are saying.
Van Tassel would say, well, yeah, you can believe the Martians,
but the Venusians are just not a very truthful group.
So they would argue about the credibility of their various
people they contacted, but they wouldn't call each other out
because I think both of them knew the truth that
neither one was in a contact with anybody.

Speaker 2 (03:41):
Well, part of the problem also, Kevin, is that they
were very primitive in their estimations. These had to be
nearby planets. that visited them. They couldn't think beyond the
solar system. So they were locked into what we knew, allegedly.

Speaker 3 (04:01):
If you look at the time frame, the late 1940s,
the early 1950s, everybody was talking about the flying saucers
being interplanetary craft. The day the Earth stood still, the
guy obviously was from somewhere inside the solar system. They
didn't talk about interstellar flight. That part of the equation
developed much later. but they were looking inside the solar system.

(04:24):
You can go back, there was once a plan to
cut big geometric symbols in the Sahara desert and fill
them with gasoline and light them on fire, hoping that
the Martians would be able to see these burning geometric
symbols and realize there was intelligence life on earth. Although
I'm not sure how intelligent it is, if you think
that would work.

Speaker 4 (04:45):
I'm sure they can see light now. We have so
many cities.

Speaker 3 (04:49):
And that's a very good point. I love to see
those light maps where you see where the cities are
and everything is going on and where it's dark and
lakes and things like that. But in the beginning, it
was interplanetary stuff and it evolved into interstellar later on.
I think once we got beyond 1952 and that era,

(05:09):
they were looking more into the interstellar as opposed to
the interplanetary. And it evolved to that point where clear leaders...
I don't want to say there was no other life
in the solar system because they're talking about possibility of
life on a microscopic life on Mars, on a couple
of the moons of Jupiter, I think, under the ice.
There's oceans that may contain some sort of life, but

(05:31):
we don't have any intelligence life inside the solar system.
And I do not qualify that in any way. Ah,
you got it.

Speaker 2 (05:38):
The argument is whether we have intelligent life on Earth.

Speaker 3 (05:43):
I just said that.

Speaker 2 (05:46):
That's what I'm saying.

Speaker 3 (05:49):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (05:49):
In any case, one of the things that Preston mentioned,
and I took it out of the interview because I
didn't want to get into a long discussion about it.
He's talking about landings. I mentioned Aztec New Mexico. And
I'm sorry, folks. We do reserve the right to sometimes
edit the shows, mostly just to clean up the stumbles

(06:14):
and everything. But in this particular case, he came up
with this, and I thought, am I going to spend
the next 20 minutes educating him about Scott Ramsey and
Frank Scully and all those people and what Paul Kimball
had said on the show and what Kevin here said
on the show, or are we going to bypass what

(06:34):
I bypassed?

Speaker 3 (06:36):
You know my theory on Aztec, and I've looked into
it deeply myself. I've been to Aztec New Mexico and
looked around. But I think the evidence is clear that
nothing happened in Aztec New Mexico. There's a guy named
Monty Shriver, as a matter of fact, who was in
high school in 1947, put a long piece of my
blog about there not being anything going on. And he

(06:59):
challenged Ramsey quite a bit on some of the things
Ramsey said. The other thing you have to look at
when you read Ramsey's book, he clearly does not have
any firsthand witnesses, although the writing suggests that some of
the there was a police officer, I think Maine Cuban,
who he quotes as if he got the information from Cuban,

(07:20):
but he didn't. It came from second and third hand sources.
So I early on kind of rejected the Aztec case.
There was an article in an official UFO magazine back
in the 1970s, 75, 76 by a guy named McClellan,
I think it was, who said the big story was
the Aztec UFO sighting is a hoax. And laid out

(07:42):
the whole chronology for it. So we've got some very
credible people looking into this. There's a book out called
Official UFO. It's edited by the former editor of the magazine,
and it's in book form, and you can get it
at Amazon. The only reason I mention it here is
because that story is in that book. So if you're
interested in learning about what he said about the Aztec crash,

(08:06):
you can get a hold of that book and take
a look at it. It's filled with a lot of
the articles that were in the official UFO magazine. Some
of them very positive, some of them somewhat negative. Bernie O'Connor,
when he was doing the magazine, wanted it to be
a legitimate source of information. So he was very particular
on what he selected for publications.

Speaker 2 (08:27):
That's a soap opera in and of itself, because Bernie
O'Connor's publisher was one of these old-fashioned publishers. publishers who
would bring out as many books as possible, to hell
with the credibility, it was all about selling books on
the newsstands. And the trick I was told in those days, Kevin,

(08:52):
is that publishers would bring out as many books as
possible and live off the advances from their distributor.

Speaker 3 (09:00):
Yeah, but the problem was The problem with that analysis,
and while that is absolutely true later on, when Official
UFO began and Bernie O'Connor was the editor, he was
very careful in what he published. It was later on
after Bernie O'Connor left UFO Magazine that it developed into
the nonsense that it was. In fact, on the cover

(09:20):
of one issue, it was that an Illinois town had
been destroyed by flying saucers, but it was rebuilt overnight,
so you couldn't tell. Yeah. And so he went off
on the tangent. But in the beginning, Official UFO was
one of the better of the UFO magazines. There was
Saga's UFO Report. There was Argosy's UFO Magazine. There was
Troops Flying Saucers and UFOs. There was like six magazines

(09:42):
in the 1970s where they were publishing a lot of
UFO stories. And I was writing. Let's break.

Speaker 2 (09:48):
Let's break here. Kevin Randall, Gene in Geneva, you're in.

Speaker 4 (09:52):
The Pericast.

Speaker 2 (10:05):
You've entered another dimension. You've entered the Paracast. Paracast. Yes,
the 70s were a good time for UFO magazines.

Speaker 3 (10:25):
I was delighted because it helped me pay for my
college tuition, writing for the UFO magazines.

Speaker 2 (10:30):
Well, there was one way to get away with it.
It was interesting, too, that we had, you know, a
lot of, you know, normal, I would call them almost fanzines. But,
you know, Geneva and I published one called Cabianemtor. But
the thing is, you had lots of good magazines that
were not. on the newsstands. But the newsstands in those

(10:51):
days were populated with magazines with legitimate coverage of the
UFO enigma. And then, of course, you know, things got bad.
Of course, over the years, the distribution centers disappeared. They
went out of business because there was no more money
in it. People were not buying magazines. I mean, you

(11:11):
have the rare newsstand now, but the selections are nowhere
near as rich as they were then. It reminds me
of the time when my father and I would go
to Times Square in New York City. And we'd go
to a magazine stand, you know, tons of magazines. And
then we would go to a newsstand that had out-of-town newspapers.

(11:35):
And it was filled with publications from all around the country.

Speaker 4 (11:39):
But then they got consolidated.

Speaker 3 (11:44):
Well, when you focus on the UFO magazines, I think
there were six in the mid-1970s. And I know that
the editors of Saga magazine, for example, wrote to those
of us who were writing UFO stories. And they said,
if you write for these other magazines, we'll never buy
another one from you. And I'm thinking, well, good luck

(12:06):
with that because I'm going to continue to write for
anybody who's going to pay me money for the articles.
And it never came to that point. But you get
an awful lot of the early UFO investigators, like Jerry
Clark wrote for them and Stan Friedman partnered with people
who wrote for them. So you can look at those

(12:26):
magazines and you can tell by who was publishing at
that time what their points of view were. I think
Lorenzen's published in the magazine. But you're absolutely right. At
one point, there were literally dozens and dozens of magazines.
And if you wanted to be a writer, one of
the places to kind of cut your teeth was in
this magazine. You find a niche that you were interested

(12:46):
in and you could, you could probably publish articles. There
was a civil war. There was a model railroading. There
was aviation. There was all kinds of these niche things.
And if you kind of worked your way into that,
you're building your writing credits. I got a letter from
one of the history magazines wanting to know if I
wanted to become their expert on the mexican uh mexican

(13:09):
war of 1848 and i thought i thought no i
really don't care to but i was doing the ufo
stuff and that was that was helping pay the bills
so i was i was content with that but the
other thing that i tried to do and i know
others did as well was try to publish information that
we found reliable there were some people um Warren Smith

(13:31):
comes to mind immediately, who was not above making up
stuff if he didn't have enough to fill out an article.
And he once asked me, do you make up stuff?
And I said, no. But he was telling me about
some of the stories, especially one about Bigfoot, where he
interviewed two girls allegedly who'd seen Bigfoot in Missouri. And
he told me he just fabricated the whole thing. And
then Brad Steiger was writing for him, too. And Brad's attitude,

(13:54):
which I liked as a compassionate person, was he would
believe what you told him. until he found out otherwise.
My attitude was, if I'm going to publish this stuff,
I want to verify it. And Brad was an advocate
of Al Bielek and his time-traveling stories from the Philadelphia experiments.

(14:15):
Brad was telling me that Al Bielek would stay at
his house periodically, and Brad was very disappointed when he
discovered that Bielek was not telling the truth, that it
was all a big hoax. But that was Brad's attitude,
and I like that attitude for what he was doing,
but what I was doing, I had to take a
more investigative look at it, which is not to say

(14:35):
I was never fooled. I mean, Frank Kaufman comes to
mind immediately, but Frank Kaufman had the paperwork. You ask him, well,
do you have the document? You say you're a master
sergeant in the Army. Do you have the discharge papers,
documents showing it? He produced those. When we got to
around 2000, 2001, after Kaufman had died, and Mark Roddicker,

(14:59):
Mark Chesney, and Don Schmidt, I believe it was, had
visited Kaufman's widow. And she said, well, I've got all
these papers. I don't know what to do with them.
Can you go through them and make sure there's nothing
that Frank had been obligated to do that we've missed on?
And they discovered that he had been less than candid.

(15:20):
And we got his documentation then from the St. Louis,
the big army archives in St. Louis and discovered, well,
he hadn't been a master sergeant. He'd been a, he
had been a staff sergeant. He hadn't been involved in intelligence.
He'd been an administrator. And so, you know, that kind
of shot all his stuff down. But I mean, even
when you tried to vet people, you would get fooled.

(15:43):
I mean, he's handing me these documents. I could not believe,
and this is kind of a carry on where you
were going. Gene was that I could not believe that
he would forge the, separation documents he showed us. We
got the originals and found out he'd used whiteout and
re-piped in there. And so when you Xerox it, you

(16:04):
can't tell if you're careful on it. And so a
lot of the documents, when he got the original, we
found out about all the forgeries he had. And then
we did an expose and the International UFO Report around
that timeframe where we had the documents and we had
all the other information. And we published that information because
Kaufman had become a semi-important person in the Roswell case,

(16:30):
but it turned out he was inventing what he was
telling us. Interesting aside, he was on, Kaufman was on
Coast to Coast with Corso, Philip Corso. And what was interesting,
if you listen to that program, every time there was
a bit of a controversy about information at the Roswell case,

(16:50):
Corso always said, believe what Kaufman was saying he deferred
to Kaufman on these points which tells you that Corso
wasn't telling the truth either so it just we look
at all of that stuff and I think as we
go through the UFO investigations we learn more about these
things so when we can see where the mistakes were

(17:10):
made and we try to correct those that we thought
it was not a credible Roswell case we learned Frank
Kaufman's not credible there was a guy named Trowbridge In
his obituary, it actually said he was the last person
to handle the Roswell debris. And the story was that
he had gone to the Marcel house to play bridge
on the night that Jesse Marcel came home with the debris.

(17:33):
So he had a chance to handle it in Jesse
Marcel's house. And I'm thinking, how could that be? Vo
Marcel would not have been holding a bridge party with
Jesse basically out of town. So the story just wasn't.
was not true. And had he been there, Marcel, either

(17:55):
Jesse Senior or Jesse Junior would have mentioned it at
some point. Well, also there that night was this guy
named Trowbridge. He was clearly in Roswell in 1947, the
documentation put him there, but this story just was not true.
And so when I heard that story, I was one
of the first people to debunk his part of the story.

(18:16):
And we did a lot of that sort of thing
with the Roswell case, Because there were so many people
coming forward with their parts of the Roswell story. And
you listen to the story and say, well, that just
doesn't make sense to what we've learned from other people
who were clearly there and were telling us consistent stories.
And we could document that story.

Speaker 2 (18:35):
You see, that's the biggest argument against Aztec. In Roswell,
there was a cultural memory. Lots of people knew something
was going on. Maybe they made up stories. But lots
of people knew that something was going on. In Aztec, No.
You know, Monty Shriver, was it Monty Norman? Monty Shriver.

Speaker 3 (18:58):
Shriver. Yes, Shriver. Not Monty Python, Monty Shriver.

Speaker 2 (19:03):
Yeah, I know that. Monty Shriver, you know, had a
good institutional memory of Aztec in those days. In fact,
I know you ran material from him. We had him
on as an interview in one of the earlier episodes
of After the Paracast, our premium show. which goes for
PowerCast Plus members. And he basically said what he said

(19:26):
in the articles that you had of him. And that
is one of the biggest arguments against Aztec. No one
knew of anything.

Speaker 3 (19:36):
Another one is William Steinman did the book UFO Crash
at Aztec.

Speaker 2 (19:43):
Let's talk about the Steinman book in our next segment
with Gene and Geneva and Kevin. What does that mean?
It means you're in.

Speaker 4 (19:52):
The Pericast.

Speaker 5 (20:06):
This is Jerome Clark, author of the UFO Encyclopedia and
other books.

Speaker 3 (20:10):
You're listening to the Paracast.

Speaker 2 (20:16):
Kevin Randall joins Gene and Geneva. We were just getting
into the Aztec New Mexico crash book by Steinman. Tell
us more, Kevin.

Speaker 3 (20:26):
He quotes a guy named Harold Dunning. And he says
Dunning wouldn't talk to him and wanted him to go away.
And Steinman viewed this as being... part of the cover up.
But I talked to Dunning and some of the people
around there and they said, no, it just didn't happen. And,
you know, tired of these people calling and bothering and

(20:47):
thinking they're covering the thing up. Sometimes when people tell
you they have no information about her event didn't happen,
it didn't happen. And Aztec is one of those events.
I suspect that, and this is my supposition, this is
my speculation, that the Aztec story came from the rumblings
of Roswell. Roswell was in July of 1947. And you

(21:12):
begin to get the Aztec story in March of 1948.
And I think that was part of it. But they
may not have moved it to Roswell. They just set
it in Aztec New Mexico. And it may be because
you mentioned the two con men, Leo Jabarro and Newton,
Silas Newton, may have heard some rumblings about stuff going
on in the Aztec area. and planted the UFO there

(21:35):
because they were trying to sell what they called the
doodle bug, which would help you find oil deposits. They
were trying to convince people that this was alien technology
and would be valuable in finding these sorts of things.
They eventually, Newton and Bauer, finally were convicted of fraud
in a Denver court, but that's a whole other story.

(21:58):
How credible is a witness who has got a fraud conviction?

Speaker 2 (22:02):
We live in a society now where we are trying
to arrest the former head of the FBI. So you
never know what kind of political implications that has.

Speaker 3 (22:12):
The point is you take a look at all of
that stuff. And I mean, Newton was a con man.
He was clearly a con man. I think Karl Flock
actually gave a lecture in Aztec in 2003, I think
it was. I know this because Carl sent me an email,
said he'd been in Aztec doing a lecture. And he
mentioned that I was serving in Iraq and I got

(22:34):
a standing ovation for being deployed to Iraq. That's why
I remember the time frame. But he pointed out that
Newton was a con man and he made his whole
life running cons. If there was a legitimate way of
doing it that was simpler and a con that was
more difficult, Newton would run the con. The kind of

(22:54):
witness you don't want. Unless there happens to be, oh,
I don't know, 25, 30 other people who will back
you up on that. So you can say, well, this guy,
this may be the one time he was telling the
truth because we have these other witnesses that are saying
some of the similar things.

Speaker 4 (23:11):
Is it common for groups of witnesses to see the
same thing?

Speaker 3 (23:15):
There are lots of sightings where you have multiple witnesses.
There was a big sighting in Farmington, New Mexico around 1950.
I don't remember the exact date where there were literally
dozens of witnesses. Oh, okay. There's the Washington Nationals that
took place over two Saturday nights in Washington, D.C. Not
only were there military pilots involved, there were civilian pilots involved.
There were people on the ground involved seeing the thing.

(23:38):
And the objects showed up on three separate radars scattered
around the Washington, D.C.

Speaker 4 (23:43):
Area.

Speaker 3 (23:44):
And it launched what was my favorite newspaper headline of
all time because it's like it's right out of a
science fiction movie. The Cedar Rapids Gazette banner headline says,
Saucers Swarm Over Capitol. So there were dozens of witnesses
to that. All the Michigan sightings, there were dozens of
witnesses to that. The Roswell case, we've got literally that

(24:06):
when you get to Aztec, you've got virtually no witnesses
other than the two con men. So we have to
look at all of that. But I mean, Aztec shouldn't
take up a lot of our time simply because there's
nowhere to go with it. It's a dead issue. And
I know Scott Ramsey and His guys have spent an
awful lot of time and money trying to promote this case,

(24:28):
but they haven't shown me anything that's persuasive. Jerry Clark
wrote a devastating review for the Journal of Scientific Exploration
about that. And I remember Jerry telling me, I'm having
to read the book the third time because there's so
much wrong with it. So he just wrote a devastating

(24:49):
review of the book. And I mentioned things to Scott Ramsey.
He was talking about a guy who, Sam Bass, I
think his name was, and he was supposedly killed in Vietnam.
And you can get a listing of everybody who was
killed in Vietnam, you know, the wall in Washington, D.C.
You go to their website and you can look up

(25:11):
any name you want and they'll tell you where to
find their name on the panels and maybe give you
a little bit of a background of how they died
in Vietnam. And his name didn't appear on it. And
And Ramsey's counter to that was, well, I wrote to
those guys and they said, well, there might be some
we didn't get. Well, how come it's always like that?

(25:31):
The ones we try to find that are talking about
they did this sort of thing are the ones who
are available to us. And the ones who are telling
us some stuff that sounds good and it's not off
the wall, we can find the documentation. For example, there
was a woman who was telling about her uncle, Darren Rasmussen.

(25:52):
who was in Roswell in 1947 and talked about the
alien bodies, the alien craft. He's not in the yearbook.
Walter Hott created a yearbook in the summer of 1947
of people assigned to the base, but Rasmussen's name is
not there. But his name appears in the Army telephone directory,
the base telephone directory. So he was there and we

(26:12):
were able to document it. So sometimes one source doesn't
have a person in it and another source does, so
we can document his presence there. But a lot of
times you get these people and you just can't document it. Well,
there's all kinds of reasons why you can't do that.
And when I get to that point, I say, no,
I don't believe this story. You've got to come up
with something better.

Speaker 2 (26:33):
By the way, we're going to go a little bit
later into the latest book from Kevin Randall, of which
there are many UFO sightings and alien visitations, facts and falsehoods.
And I think we kind of sort of I'm covering
that now. But we have a bunch of questions in
our forum. Geneva, would you fish them up and tell

(26:53):
us who sent them? And let's get on with this, okay?

Speaker 4 (26:56):
I don't know if I'm looking for the correct place,
but in just a moment, I have found.

Speaker 3 (27:04):
While you search for that, let me just point out
in UFO Sightings and Alien Visitations, it's a book that
covers sightings that I believe have some legitimacy. And it
deals with some of the hoax and the evidence why
I think those stories are a hoax. So it's not
just a book of, yes, everything is true or book, no,
everything is false. It's a book that looks at the
investigations and how I came to the conclusions for specific cases.

Speaker 4 (27:28):
Now, I'm not sure where you want me to look
for this information. Here's a podcast archive. Well, here's one
from Richard Hawkins, but it's kind of silly. It says,
what an actual show with real people. And a bunch
of laughter emojis. Duty to disobey trailer. Oh, okay. Got it.

(27:52):
Section 525 of the NDNA for fiscal year 2023 requires
me to rescind the mandate that members of the armed
forces be vaccinated against COVID-19. That's what you want?

Speaker 2 (28:11):
Yeah, why is he making such a big deal of
COVID in a forum for Kevin Randall?

Speaker 4 (28:16):
It's a conspiracy. In other words, the COVID vaccine mandate
was an illegal order, at least in retrospect. Either way,
is being subjected to unwanted pharmaceutical injections what they signed
up for? Well, yeah, yeah, you're always injected when you're

(28:39):
All kinds of crap when you sign up. The United
States military and government agencies conducted numerous experiments on service
members without their full knowledge or informed consent, particularly during
World War II and the Cold War. Yes, they were.
This looks to me to be no difference in principle.

(29:01):
So who sent this?

Speaker 2 (29:02):
That's J. Randall Murphy. Before Kevin makes a comment about it,
I know some of you have been wondering what happened
to us for a little over three months. We did
a great show with Preston Dennett. All right, his viewpoints
are kind of wacky, but he's basically a lot of
fun to talk to. And then I caught pneumonia the

(29:25):
third time, by the way, and it was not a charm.
It took me quite a bit of time to get
back in the swing of things. But now, of course,
we have this week's episode, and we're going to try
to move on and get as many regular shows prepared
as possible. So stay with us. Let me tell you,

(29:45):
we have Kevin D. Randall talking about his new book
and lots of other stuff. With Gene and Geneva, you
are in.

Speaker 3 (29:52):
The Pericast.

Speaker 4 (29:52):
The Pericast.

Speaker 1 (30:06):
Hi, this is Bryce Abel.

Speaker 5 (30:07):
I'm the producer of Dark Skies, the co-author of A.D.
After Disclosure, and you are listening to the Paracast, the
gold standard of paranormal radio.

Speaker 2 (30:20):
Kevin Randall, you're responding now to the comments from J.
Randall Murphy there. Does that relate to anything that you
even care about?

Speaker 3 (30:30):
Well, I was going to say, being completely flippant about it,
I really couldn't care less about that stuff. It doesn't
make sense. When I was in Iraq, we had to
take the damned anthrax shots.

Speaker 4 (30:42):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (30:43):
And those weren't fun, by the way. Oh, I'm sure.
And I'm not sure it was an illegal order by
the commander in chief because there's all kinds of vaccinations
and all kinds of medical things that we had to do.
as service members. And we signed up knowing full well
that you go through basic training and you get all
these shots. I mean, I can't tell you how many
shots we had. And then when you deploy into a

(31:06):
specific area, when there's problems with some kinds of diseases,
you got to take shots for those and so on
and so forth. So I, I'm not sure that's a
conspiracy that we even need to talk about when you
mentioned some of these other things. He's right. I mean,
during the Cold War, they had soldiers out there in
trenches and dropping atomic bombs close to them to see

(31:26):
how the radiation would affect them and things like that. So,
you know, that that's absolutely true. And we can look
back at other experiments that the government sanctioned, the Tuskegee
syphilis experiments where they were treating black men for syphilis. Allegedly,
but they weren't really doing it because they wanted to

(31:48):
monitor the progress of the disease and see how it went,
how it evolved in each individual. I mean, a horrific thing.
They experimented with radiation on terminal children because the children
were terminal. So, you know, what's the big deal? I mean,
that's just egregious types of things. And we can go
back into the 19th century. We need to do that.

(32:10):
So there's things that the government has done that were
less than ethical and And that's putting it mildly. So
you want to talk conspiracies. Yeah, we can point to
all kinds of conspiracies that we can prove when we
get to the UFO phenomenon. We can do the same thing.
The Condon Committee, the University of Colorado study that was
commissioned in the late 1960s, before the investigation started, before

(32:34):
anything was done, the Air Force, a guy named Robert Hippler,
Lieutenant Colonel Robert Hippler, sent a letter to Robert Lowe
of the Condon Committee saying, and said, here's what we'd
like you to find. Say the Air Force has done
a good job of their investigation. There is nothing of
scientific value to learn by further study in the Air
Force closed Project Blue Book. That's before they did anything.

(32:55):
50 years later, we're now talking about problems that we see,
and they're talking about, well, we don't know what's going on.
We have these anomalous phenomenon monitoring our naval maneuvers or
flying over military installations. And we need to find out
what they are and what's going on. We've had 50

(33:15):
years of science and the military saying, well, the Conduct
Committee proved there was no such thing as UFOs. We
didn't need to worry about it. Suddenly, we're back to
where we started. We still don't know anything about what's
going on, but we've got a lot of additional information
that is coming out, although they're not really telling us
anything new. We talk about the five data dumps they've made.

(33:36):
And you go through that stuff and you say, yeah,
we know all this stuff already. Give us something we
don't know. Where are the secret files? Why is the
only mention of Roswell in those data dumps, the FBI
telex that's been circling in the UFO community for 30
years or 40 years? We've had that telex. That's the
only thing they could find. There's nothing that I can

(33:57):
find about the November of 1957 Leveland sightings where There
were literally dozens, the sheriff actually said hundreds, of witnesses
to this glowing craft coming down close to cars, stalling
the engines. And when the object leaves, they can restart
their cars. And the Air Force spent eight hours investigating
the sightings a few days later and determined it was

(34:19):
ball lightning. What a load of crap. Ball lightning is very,
very powerful. It's 12 to 24 inches in diameter and
very short life. Here is a series of sightings where
they're talking about huge craft coming down, leaving landing traces,
stalling car engines. It had gone on for hours in
the level land, Texas. I can find nothing about that.

(34:40):
That's a case that we should know more about. In fact,
I know there were Air Force officers involved whose cars
were stalled by the craft at level land. And so
these witnesses would be perfect to talk to because here's
the Air Force. The Air Force car was behind a
car from the Texas Department of Public Safety, which was
behind the sheriff's car. And they were out looking for

(35:02):
the craft after they'd gotten so many reports of it.
And we can see how the Air Force manipulated the
sightings because in the newspapers prior to the Air Force investigation,
the sheriff, and I hate his name, Weir Clem, which
was something like Jack Armstrong, but his name was Weir Clem.
He goes out to search for it himself. And he's
talking about seeing a red oval-shaped disc or football-shaped disc.

(35:24):
In the Air Force investigation, in the transcript of his
report to the Air Force, it's now a streak of
light 900 yards away. Then you get to 1975. Don
Berliner talking to the guy again. We're back to the
oval-shaped object. But the important point is the next day,
the sheriff takes his car to the mechanic. And Don
Berlinson was the guy who found him, telling him the

(35:45):
next day the sheriff came in and wanted his car
checked out to see what was going on. The only
reason the sheriff would have done that is if his
car stalled. And if his car stalled, then the car
behind him with the Texas Department of Public Safety guys
in it stalled. And more importantly, the car behind them
with the Air Force officers in it stalled. I have
not been able to find those officers, but I know

(36:06):
they're out there because I've got documentation about that. they're
being sent out there to take a look at what's
going on.

Speaker 2 (36:13):
Geneva, we have a question here from Burns State, a
guy named Robert from Canada. Would you go through the
first one? We'll take them one after each other.

Speaker 4 (36:20):
Okay, one. Given your most recent statements regarding the case
for Rosewell, having ET involvement being not very robust anymore,
which top cases, aside from Leveland and Shag Harbors, Do
you see us having ET involvement? So that's question one.

Speaker 3 (36:42):
First of all, let me take them one at a time.
First of all, it was like the year 2000, I
said the case wasn't as robust as it had been.
And it's because a number of people who claim to
have been witnesses to the craft and the bodies turned
out not to be telling us the truth. Frank Kaufman
springs immediately to mind. talking about the bunch jim ragsdale
springs to mind in fact ragsdale's son called me one

(37:04):
day we were we and i say we don schmidt
and i and i think tom carrey and other people
were in roswell for one of the festivals and ragsdale's
son called me and he said well you know the
aliens were wearing these helmets of solid gold and i'm
thinking i can think of no metal worse than gold
for being a helmet because it's very soft and it's
very heavy and it's soft But he said, he said,

(37:27):
you know, you give me $ 5, 000 and I'll tell you
where they are. And I thought, you give me $ 5, 000
and I won't report you for fraud. But the point
simply is we had talked to these people and in
the preliminary parts of the investigation, they sounded like they
were credible sources. And then we were able to spend
more investigation. And you have to remember, we were not

(37:48):
full-time investigators. We were guys doing this on our spare
time on our own nickel. We were spending a lot
of money on our investigations. So we had to do
it when we had an opportunity. So we couldn't spend
weeks in Roswell investigating and vetting people. We had to
do it when we were able to do that. We
found that Ragsdale was not telling the truth. This story

(38:09):
broke down. under scrutiny as we got deeper into it,
but the preliminary looked very good. So we reported on it.
So when I said the story wasn't robust, I meant
the number of witnesses we had to a craft and
bodies had dwindled quite a bit. We have a couple
of witnesses, firsthand witnesses. We have some secondhand witnesses to

(38:30):
the craft and body. I'm not real happy with secondhand
witnesses only because they're secondhand witnesses. They didn't see anything themselves.
They saw They're reporting what their parents or their friends
or their colleagues told them. So secondhand witnesses don't thrill
me that much. So when I talk about it not
being robust. On the other hand, when you look at Roswell,

(38:53):
everyone agrees something fell. No question about it, something had
fell at Roswell. What was it? Well, Tom, Kerry, Don Schmidt,
and I looked at an awful lot of alternative explanations.
I've got a complete listing of all the missiles and
rockets tested in White Sands in that timeframe to see
if anything could account for what Mack Brazel found. There's

(39:17):
nothing there, by the way. We thought about experimental aircraft.
We couldn't find anything. We thought maybe they dropped an
atomic bomb. Back in 1947, the atomic bomb, the size
and shape was classified. they had practiced atomic bombs because
he had to practice on loading them and they what
they called the silver plate b29 they had special bomb
bays for the to accommodate the size of the bombs

(39:40):
and that as they were practicing maybe they dumped one
and they tried to recover it so other people wouldn't
see how big it was or what it looked like.

Speaker 2 (39:49):
We'll look at that and more questions in Bern State
in our next segment with Kevin, Gene, Geneva.

Speaker 4 (39:54):
You're in The Paracast.

Speaker 2 (39:56):
I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.

Speaker 3 (40:05):
This is Micah Hanks of The Grayling Report and you're
listening to The Paracast, the gold standard of paranormal radio.

Speaker 2 (40:17):
Robert, known as Burns State from Canada, and Kevin was
giving us the answer to question number one or two more.
Go ahead, please.

Speaker 3 (40:27):
Well, so we looked at alternative explanations. We did. What
is wonderful about the Air Force report, they looked at
all the same alternative explanations that we had looked at
and said none of them account for the debris found
by Mack Brazel. The only explanation they could come up
with was this balloon array train that was I don't
want to say part of Project Mogul because it really wasn't.

(40:48):
It was the New York University balloon project. And Project
Mogul was the idea we're going to spy on the
Soviets with these balloons at a constant level. But the
documentation takes that out of the running. The culprit in
this was the alleged launch of flight number four on
June 4th, 1947. The diary of Dr. Albert Crary, who

(41:09):
was the man leading the project, says no balloon flight today.
Because of clouds, it was canceled. Later on, they launched
what they called a cluster of balloons, and it was
not the full array. Charles Moore, who was one of
the scientists working, or an engineer working with Crary on
these projects, told me that flight number four had been

(41:33):
configured exactly like flight number five. Flight number five, we
have the schematic for it. The Air Force published that
in their report. We have the schematic. It shows no
ray-win targets listed on it. Other flights do show the
ray-win targets, ergo there were no ray-win targets to leave
debris on the Brazel Ranch. So where I am today

(41:53):
is I know of no terrestrial explanation that accounts for
the debris found in two separate locations, as testified to
by Brigadier General Arthur Exon, that would explain what was found.
Where do we go from there? Well, we can take
a step into the extraterrestrial. My problem was that I
hate to do that without something more concrete, but that's

(42:16):
where we need to go. Unless somebody can come up
with something better than this nonsensical Project Mogul explanation, we
have no terrestrial explanation for it. And I think when
the Air Force did their investigation in the mid-1990s, that
if there had been another legitimate explanation, they would have

(42:37):
come up with it and shown it to us. I
can think of nothing that would have been classified in
the mid-1990s, would have to remain classified in the 1990s,
that would have taken place in 1947. Classified material does
have a shelf life. It does expire. Some of it
lasts longer than others, but you get to the point
where you've got a secret weapon, eventually you use it,

(42:59):
and suddenly the classifications mean nothing. The atomic bomb, very
highly classified during World War II. Once we dropped them,
That kind of secrecy goes out the window. The Foo Fighters,
a big project trying to figure out what the Foo
Fighters were doing in World War II. When the war ended,
nobody cared anymore because there was no urgency in learning
the solution. So when I say it isn't as robust,

(43:24):
it's we lost some of the witnesses to that. Some
of the debris we thought we had that might have
been inexplicable, we didn't have. But we have some very
credible witnesses who who talked about what they experienced in 1947,
what they saw in 1947, and we have no terrestrial
explanation for what fell.

Speaker 2 (43:45):
We have question number two from Byrd State.

Speaker 4 (43:48):
I have a question of my own. Both sites, you
said there were two different sites. Was the debris similar
from both sites?

Speaker 3 (43:57):
Yes, yes, yes. They talk about the debris that was
very lightweight and you couldn't easily bend it. On the
second site, Bill Rickett, Louis Rickett, who was a counterintelligence NCO,
top sergeant in the counterintelligence office in Roswell, was at
that site and was talking about this piece of metallic

(44:18):
debris that was pretty lightweight and he couldn't bend it.
And so we do have some of that corroboration from
one site to the other. So, yes, we do.

Speaker 2 (44:27):
Okay.

Speaker 4 (44:28):
Okay. So question two from Burnt State. What do you
make of all the recent UFO files being dumped by
the American government? Is there anything in there that piques
your interest as possibly being non-human technology? Or do you
think it's all mostly experimental human technology in these videos

(44:50):
they have released?

Speaker 3 (44:52):
There are videos and information in there where they have
no resolution, as they call it. not calling it unidentified anymore,
it's no resolution, that are intriguing. And there's eyewitness testimony
and censored data that go along with that, that make
them intriguing. But I haven't really looked at a lot
of that data, so I don't know. What I see

(45:14):
in the dumps where I have looked, a lot of
the history is there. Newspaper clippings, for example, that they've
released to us from newspapers at the time frame, which
makes me wonder why there was nothing about the Roswell
case in there. Because There's loads of newspaper clippings for that.
But the information is mostly stuff that we already knew

(45:37):
or stuff that we are unable to investigate ourselves. Overseas stuff,
military stuff. We can't go out to the Nimitz and
talk to the crew or that sort of thing where
we have to rely on what has been reported and
what has been shown. Some of the video does look anomalous, but...
With the drone technology that's being developed, some of that

(45:59):
might be explainable as drones. And I've always talked about
if the witness has gotten up at 3 o'clock in
the morning and gone outside for whatever reason to walk
the dog or look at the stars or smoke a
cigarette or whatever they're doing, and you see an airplane
in the distance with its landing lights on. You don't
really see the airplane. You don't see the flashing lights,
but you see this light moving across the sky. And

(46:22):
he's the only witness to it. What do you do
with something like that?

Speaker 4 (46:26):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (46:26):
It could be something very inexplicable, but there's not enough
data there. There's not enough witnesses. You can, you can
check with the FAA, but if he didn't file a
flight plan and, and not commercial, but private aviation isn't
required to file a flight plan if they stay below
3000 feet. And so this guy, this guy out there
practicing his nighttime flying abilities and he has his landing

(46:49):
light on. And so you see this bright white light
moving across the sky and you don't see the navigation lights.
then there's a way to explain the sighting. So it
is a unidentified sighting, but if you had enough data,
you would realize that it was an airplane. So, you know,
you have to look at all of that sort of
thing as well. So when you look at the current

(47:10):
information being released, some of it is more current. And I've,
I've done same on, uh, mentioned some of this on
coast to coast as a matter of fact, some interesting
sightings that have been outside coming from those data dumps,
but there's really nothing that, uh, I can do as
a UFO researcher to learn more about it. Where do
I file a full request? And then they always fall

(47:31):
back on national security. If you, if you, if you're
following the wrong road, meaning you, you, you logged onto something,
then their attitude is, well, it's national security and it's
unreleasable to you. And we, we've got any number of
cases where that has happened, or they simply deny it.
When Moondust popped up on the scene in 19, I

(47:54):
think Robert Todd was the first one to get State
Department documents that mentioned Moondust. And Cliff Stone got some
and I got some. So there were UFO component to
Moondust because Moondust was the code word. It was compromised.
They changed the code word. And when Stein got Stephen Schiff,
Congressman Schiff from New Mexico, to query the Air Force

(48:17):
about it, the Air Force's initial response was there's no
such thing as Moondust. We don't know anything about that.
When the documentation was presented with Moondust on it, actually,
I found four files in the Project Blue Book files
that are actually labeled Moondust. When that was shown, they said, well,
we'd like to amend our last answer. Yes, there was
something known as Moondust, but it was never deployed. Would

(48:37):
you like to see a list of the deployment of Moondust?
And Todd wanted to know more about it. And they
said the new code word is properly classified and unreleasable.
So you had Project Blue Book ending in 1969. And
the idea was, well, we're not doing UFOs anymore. Then
we learned in 1985, well, they're doing UFOs under the

(48:59):
label of Moondust. When that's compromised, they tell us, well,
we're not going to tell you the new code word
so you can't get the information. Then we get to
2004 with the Nimitz stuff, and suddenly we realized that
there's probably been an investigation going on inside the military,
a very highly classified one, with a small group of
people involved in it, that had been going on basically

(49:20):
since the end of Project Blue Book back in 1969.
And then we had Leslie Kane and Ralph Bluenfall's articles
that kind of brought that to the forefront. So now
we are down, we're what, eight years later, and we
still don't know anything more than we did when it,
when all that started. They're going to do this. We're
going to do that. We're going to investigate this. But somehow,

(49:42):
the good stuff never shows up.

Speaker 2 (49:45):
We'll have more questions and more answers from Kevin, including
the rest of this one. With Kevin, Gene, and Geneva,
you're in The Paracast.

Speaker 3 (49:53):
The Paracast.

Speaker 2 (50:08):
Hi, my name is Richard Dolan. You're listening to the Paracast.
We've gotten lots of deep questions from listeners that will
consume a lot of this show, and we'll progress through
them one by one for as much time as we have. Kevin,
finish that answer.

Speaker 3 (50:28):
The answer was basically finished. We haven't gotten anything new
out of all these investigations. They tell us how they're
going to investigate. They're going to tell us who's going
to investigate. They're telling us how long the investigation is
going to take. They talk about the funding. And when
we get right down to it, we don't get an
awful lot of information that is valuable to us in
the research other than, well, we have some cases that

(50:49):
are unresolved. Well, let us know about those cases. Maybe
we can help.

Speaker 4 (50:53):
Okay. Question three from the Burt State. The valet has
cited with an cited SIDED, not cited as in seen.
He has cited. with an interdimensional possibility as to what's
behind the UFO phenomena. Jerome Clark separates the UFO phenomena

(51:19):
into event anomalies where materialistic evidence is present and experience
anomalies as events that are alive only in the minds
and memory of witnesses. How do you define the UFO
phenomenon when it comes to one of its most prevalent

(51:42):
and bizarre features, high strangeness.

Speaker 3 (51:46):
I often, you know, they say, well, what are UFOs?
I lean toward the extraterrestrial explanation, the interstellar explanation, nuts
and bolts explanation, because that's where I'm grounded, I suppose.
I've talked to Jerry Clark about this, and I've talked
to Jacques Vallée briefly about this, and I understand it.
there are alternative explanations that are equally as mysterious. Interdimensional visitation,

(52:11):
you might say, is one of those. And it makes
some sense because it eliminates the problem of traveling the
vast interstellar distances. Of course, then you've got to figure
out how they are separated from us and can cross
over into our dimension. It could be time travelers from
the future, which is an idea that intrigues me, but
I don't think it's right because I can see all

(52:32):
the paradoxes that would eliminate the possibility of time travel ever.
But there are alternative explanations. To me, most of the
UFO sightings, most of the UAP sightings are mundane. They're
explainable as misidentifications or hallucinations or outright hoaxes or illusions.

(52:54):
You got that. And I say 99% of the sightings
have terrestrial explanations, but there's that 1% that do not.
And they have multiple chains of evidence, for example. We
might have landing traces and eyewitnesses, and you might have
radar tracks. Level N springs back to mind where you
had the cars being stalled. The sheriff was taken to

(53:17):
a site where something had landed. So you've got the sightings,
you've got the interaction with the environment, you've got the
landing traces, which is indirect physical evidence. So you can
look at all of that stuff. There may be a
possibility most of those alternative explanations i'll say that without
the possibility of time travel are relevant to the discussion

(53:38):
some of that may be the reason we're seeing these
things as opposed to a lot of extraterrestrial or interstellar
phenomenon do we have to look at the interstellar distances
we have to understand the technological difficulties of traveling interstellar
distances we just can't do it we don't know how
to do it chemical rockets aren't going to do it

(54:00):
i think um I just reported on Coast to Coast
about a possibility of a signal from a star 124
light years from Earth. If we launched a craft today
to go there, it would take like 200,000 years to
get there. That's not a quick trip. A trip to

(54:21):
the nearest star, Proxima Centauri, would take about 4.1 light
years at the speed of light. And that doesn't account
for acceleration of the speed of light and deceleration at
the other end, which would increase the time. But that
distance and given time dilation, the crew could survive. But
then the question becomes, what kind of civilization do they
come back to at Earth? Because literally hundreds of years

(54:43):
could pass during their trip. Oh, yeah. If we'd launched
this in the 1600s and the people come back and
they look at us today, they just wouldn't comprehend the civilization.
So you've got to think of that as well. So
there's got to be a way to defeat the vast distances.
That's our stumbling block right now. And I'm well aware

(55:05):
of that sort of thing. But these alternative explanations, they
do have some viability. And I look at those periodically
myself to see if there's something I have missed or
something I didn't understand. There have been a couple of
times in the last couple of decades where scientists have
have thought they have found a way of defeating the

(55:26):
speed of light as the ultimate barrier, but it turned
out that either it was on a microscopic level or
a very short-lived skeptic, and they were not able to
get much further than that. So there's kind of an
explanation for these alternative explanations.

Speaker 2 (55:41):
Well, we have to wait for the 2060s when Zephyrin
Cochran will invent warp drive.

Speaker 3 (55:48):
Oh, good for him.

Speaker 2 (55:51):
Geneva, we have questions from A listener named Squiggly Diddley.

Speaker 4 (55:59):
Squiggly Diddley.

Speaker 3 (56:01):
Okay.

Speaker 4 (56:02):
Squiggly Diddley said, after all the years of research into Roswell,
what bit of information that you found out to be
eventually false or a lie disappointed you the most?

Speaker 3 (56:17):
Well, clearly it was witnesses who were lying about their
participating in the case. Frank Coffman, for example, talked. gave
us a great story. And it made sense in the
context of it. He was at Roswell in 1947. In
a civilian capacity, he'd been discharged from the Army. And
what he told us at the time, he was discharged
from the Army and brought back on board as a

(56:40):
civilian employee doing the same job. And there's a picture
of him in the yearbook getting a medal. And I
was able, I believe the medal was a World War
II victory medal. And I'm not sure why there was
a presentation for it because he served in The army
or the military during that time got the World War
II victory medal. But I think that's the medal he
was getting at the time. But I mean, so he
was there. He was interacting with the military people. And

(57:02):
his story was very disappointing. And I think that that's
sort of it. We were at one point where we
had several eyewitnesses of the bodies and turned out who
were not telling us the truth. Disappointed in Jesse Marcel Sr.,
Simply because as we look at the Bob Pratt interview,
Pratt interviewed him in 1978 right after he was discovered.

(57:23):
And he was talking about how he had gotten five
air medals for shooting down five Japanese airplanes. He was
an intelligence officer. And periodically he would go on the
bombing missions as an essential crew member, so to speak.
So he would be talking about how he had manned
the guns and he'd shot down five enemy aircraft. The

(57:44):
problem is we can only document two air medals, and
both were for Meritorious Service for going with the flight.
I myself have a whole bunch of air medals for
that same thing from my Vietnam service, but he didn't
have five of them. Colonel Weaver, who conducted the Air
Force investigation in the mid-1990s, told me that back in

(58:06):
World War II, the Army Air Forces kept track of
everybody who had shot down an enemy aircraft, whether it
was a fighter pilot or a gunner and a bomber
or whatever. And I think that one of the gunners,
and I don't know that much about him because I
didn't really care, but he got credit in official documentation
of shooting down 19 enemy aircraft. Jesse Marcel's name does

(58:30):
not appear anywhere in those records. Now, granted, That might
be one of the instances where you say, well, his
name doesn't appear, but he only claimed five, which would
have made him an ace. But that was disappointing, learning
that he would embellish his career that way. Yeah, he
got two air medals. He didn't have five. That sort
of thing. He was interviewed by Linda Corley, who lived

(58:55):
in Houma, Louisiana, with Jesse Marcel after the military lived
in Houma, Louisiana. And she discovered Jesse Marcel there, and
she spent literally hours with him. And she published a
book called For the Sake of My Country, so you
can read the transcripts in her commentary about it. her
feelings of this. And he begins to tell this story
about how he had saved a soldier's life by conducting

(59:19):
an appendectomy, being guided by a surgeon over the radio.
And as he starts, well, as he starts to tell
the story, his wife says, oh, not that one again.
She didn't even accept it.

Speaker 4 (59:32):
It sounds familiar.

Speaker 3 (59:35):
But there are things that Jesse Marcel said that were true,
that we were able to verify. He talks about what
the metallic debris looked like. And yeah, we got the
verification from Mack Brassel's son. Bill Brassel told us about it.

Speaker 2 (59:47):
We'll finish the answer on the other side with Kevin Randall. Gene, Geneva,
you're in.

Speaker 4 (59:52):
The Paracast.

Speaker 5 (01:00:08):
This is Chris Rutkowski, and this is the Paracast, the
gold standard of paranormal radio.

Speaker 2 (01:00:18):
Kevin, let's finish up the answer to that question from
Squidley Diddley, and then we'll get to questions, more questions
from J. Randall Murphy. Go ahead, please.

Speaker 3 (01:00:29):
Well, looking at all this stuff, and I've often said myself,
leads to the disappointments. If Jesse Marcel was a standalone witness,
I would reject the story completely. But he's not standalone.
We've got the sheriff involved. We talked to the family
of the sheriff. They were involved because in 1947, the
sheriff lived above the jail and his wife was the matron.

(01:00:51):
So the family lived above the jail. So when Mack
Brazel brought in the debris, one of his daughters, Phyllis McGuire,
was there. And we've got descriptions of the debris field
from people who saw it. So we not only have
Jesse Marcel talking about it, We have other people talking
about it, so we can corroborate some of what he said.
But the disappointment was Jesse Marcel tending to embellish some

(01:01:12):
of that. Those were the great disappointments, I think, other
than not being able to find the debris ourselves and
having pictures of the bodies. But other than that, you know.

Speaker 4 (01:01:22):
Well, isn't it likely that in any scenario where you
have a lot of people involved and a lot of excitement,
the stories will diverge at a point?

Speaker 3 (01:01:33):
We do have some of the divergence. Frankie Rose springs
to mind because when she first talked to us, and
I say talked to us, that was Don Schmidt and me,
and later on Tom Carey. She had a very limited story,
and as she got comfortable with us, and as she
realized that there were not going to be any negative
ramifications from telling us her story, it expanded somewhat. But

(01:01:57):
she talked about her father... going out to see the
craft and the bodies, went out and looked for it,
her father being a firefighter. And the story had been
that the Roswell Fire Department had gone out to the
crash site. And if you go look at the records
for the Roswell Fire Department, there's no indication they went
out there. And I looked at the records. I went

(01:02:17):
back to June of 1947, July of 1947. So I
could look. There were runs outside the city limits. And
one of the counter arguments had been, well, the fire
department didn't make runs outside the city limits. And I
was asking the firefighters about it and said, well, yeah,
we do. What are we supposed to do? Let it burn?
So they did make the runs outside and we could
document that, but nothing like that. What was interesting that

(01:02:40):
we found out, and it kind of points to Carl Flock,
he interviewed a firefighter who was in Roswell at the
time named Smith. He got Smith to say, well, we
didn't make the run outside there to the crash site.
He said a colonel came to the fire department, It's
always a colonel. It's never a captain, never a major,
never a sergeant. And told them they didn't have to

(01:03:03):
bother to go out there because the military was handling it.
And so Carl was happy with that answer. I wasn't.
So I talked to Smith because basically it shoots down
the idea that there was a fire run out to
there and shoots down kind of Frankie Rose's father being involved.
And I was talking to Smith and I asked the
one additional question that Carl did. And I said, well,

(01:03:24):
did you know Dan Dwyer, Frankie Rose's father? And he said, oh, yeah,
Dan went out there. I said, what? He said, yeah,
Dan went out there in his private car. It wasn't
an official run by the fire department. He just got
in his car and drove out there. So, yeah, the
fire department did not make a run out to the
site where the craft and the bodies were found. But
one of the firefighters, a lieutenant in the fire department,

(01:03:45):
did go out there and he told his family about it.
Frankie Rowe told us about this. I later was able
to interview his Helen Cahill, who is another daughter. She
didn't live in Roswell in 1947. She was older and
had married and lived in California. But she told me
that her father told her the story in the 1960s
when she came back for a visit. So we got

(01:04:06):
Frankie Rowe talking about that and being at the fire
department at one point. And a state trooper brought in
a piece of the debris, so she got to handle it.
We've got her father, Frankie Rowe's father, Dan Dwyer, going
out there. And we got Helen Cahill corroborating that story.
So we have all of that kind of thing going
on for us.

Speaker 4 (01:04:27):
Something happened.

Speaker 3 (01:04:29):
Yeah, something happened and it was anomalous. And it shows
what you have to do in the investigations. You always
have to ask that one additional question. There's always another
question to ask. And sometimes people get the answer they
want and they stop. And sometimes if they ask the questions,
they would have had that answer modified somewhat so it
becomes more credible.

Speaker 4 (01:04:49):
Or sometimes they could accidentally instill a false memory too,
depending on how they frame their question.

Speaker 3 (01:04:58):
Yes, yes, yes. We have to be cautious of that
because we're dealing with memories that are being accessed. When
Jesse Marcel came out, we're like 35 years down the
road from the event. So all the witnesses we're talking about,
there's been 30 years of this. And once we start
the investigation, we have to be very careful that we
don't feed false information in our question. It's kind of like, Well,

(01:05:20):
did you see the red car that hit the pedestrian?
So suddenly you've introduced a car in that. Maybe the
car was day glow orange or something. It wasn't red.
But I was always cognizant of being careful and asking
the questions. And I know some of the other people
aren't that cognizant of that. And the introduction of the
false memory, the inadvertent introduction of the false memory. Elizabeth

(01:05:41):
Loftus has done a lot of work on that and
experimentation and how it how easy it is to introduce
the false memories to people if you're not careful.

Speaker 4 (01:05:49):
It's very easy.

Speaker 3 (01:05:50):
Yeah, if you're not careful in your questioning of them.

Speaker 4 (01:05:55):
Yeah. So, Gene, are we supposed to move on to
the next questions?

Speaker 2 (01:06:02):
Yeah, we have one from J. Randall Murphy. We have
three from him.

Speaker 4 (01:06:06):
Did you see Disclosure Day? If so, what did you think?

Speaker 3 (01:06:10):
No, I didn't, but I hear it's really crummy. Well,
they get to disclosure, but if you're doing a movie
like that, a fictional account of that, I'm more interested
in the ramifications to society than developing the investigations. Yes,
we have alien visitation. Good God, what's going to happen now?

(01:06:31):
If you say, well, Roswell happened 80 years ago, hasn't
really affected, well, it's affected my life because I've been
investigating it for years. But for most people, you know,
Roswell is just Roswell, New Mexico. Wonderful. There was TV
programs and movies and all of that stuff. It really
hasn't affected their lives, but disclosure day doesn't really go
into that. It kind of stops when you get to

(01:06:52):
the point, well, here's disclosure. I haven't seen it. If
it shows up on one of the streaming services for free,
I'll watch it. If not, I won't.

Speaker 4 (01:07:00):
Is it about Roswell?

Speaker 3 (01:07:01):
No, it's about disclosure. It's about, well, we've been.

Speaker 2 (01:07:07):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:07:07):
And, and I don't know whether they talk about Roswell
or not, but it, The point simply is, once you
come out and say, yes, we've been visited, then Roswell
takes it. What we know about Roswell suddenly becomes more
credible than if we don't have disclosure about it. But
I haven't seen Disclosure Day. And when we looked at
Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and I bring that

(01:07:29):
up simply because Spielberg directed that as well, it begins
with the five Avenger torpedo bombers that disappeared in the
Bermuda Triangle being found in Mexico intact. And looking at
the evidence, I think, well, we know what happened to them.
They all crashed into the sea. And the reason they
did that was they ran out of gas. Well, the

(01:07:51):
flight lead says when the first man's down to 10 gallons,
the gas will all ditch together. Assuming that if you've
got five airplanes going down together and all of that,
it'll be much easier to find you than if you're
scattered all over. Yeah. Ocean. So the Bermuda Triangle, I

(01:08:11):
think that's one of the nemesis to our work as well,
this area. David Cush did a book, the Bermuda Triangle
Solved a number of years ago. And I read that.
I was a believer in the Bermuda Triangle until I
read his book. And I said, you've got to look
at the opposition's arguments and see if they hold water.
It turns out when I was an Air Force Reserve officer,

(01:08:34):
I was part of the 928 Tactical Airlift Group, which
belonged to the 440th Tactical Airlift Wing. One of their airplanes,
I think it was the C-119, disappeared in the B-minute triangle.
And so I was there talking to them about it
and seeing what they would know, because here it is.
And they said, oh, yeah, we got some of the wreckage.
We recovered some of the wreckage. You want to see it?
I said, sure. But I didn't take pictures, which I

(01:08:57):
should have done. But they had equipment. they'd recovered wreckage
that was clearly identifiable as coming from that aircraft so
we know what happened we know what.

Speaker 4 (01:09:08):
Happened well it's the most logical explanation so and question
two here Have you ever changed your basic position on
alien visitation? If so, when, from what to what, and
what is it now?

Speaker 2 (01:09:27):
You know what, before we get the answer to that
question from Kevin Randall, and then proceed to discuss this
new book, we're going to take a break. Someone called
it on TV a stadion briac. But it's kind of literally, anyway. Anyway, Gene, Geneva, Kevin,

(01:09:51):
you're in.

Speaker 4 (01:09:52):
The Paracast.

Speaker 3 (01:10:03):
You're in the Paracast. You never know what's going to
happen next.

Speaker 2 (01:10:12):
We're going to be covering much of this show with
the questions from our listeners of Kevin D. Randall. And
this is one that was asked by Jay Randall Murphy. Randall,
please continue with question number two's answer.

Speaker 3 (01:10:28):
Well, I think at this point I'm going to say,
you know, buy my book UFO Sightings and Alien Visitations
because you'll get some of that information in there. Anyway, yes,
I've changed my opinion many, many times. I As a teenager,
I went into this firmly believing that UFOs were alien spacecraft.
And as I got deep into it and doing my

(01:10:50):
own investigations, I kept not finding sightings that were inexplicable.
I would come up with answers. So I decided, you know,
there's really nothing to this. And then after the Project
Blue Book files were released in 1976, Bob Cornett and
I actually went to Maxwell Air Force Base after the
Air Force now announced that the files had been declassified.
And we We were both in Air Force ROTC at

(01:11:13):
the time. So we went down there and they let
us see the files. And going through the files, it
became clear that there was some very inexplicable sightings in there.
It kind of changed my mind there. And then I've
gone to a more skeptical point of view that the
vast majority of the sightings are mundane objects. I was
in an investigation in Wisconsin, Grant County, Wisconsin. And a

(01:11:36):
guy called in and said, I was with the sheriff's
deputy of the police department. I forget which one it was.
Guy called in reporting a flying saucer was landing in
his backyard. And one of the deputies says, well, you
want to go? And I said, yeah, of course I
want to go. So we went rushing out there. He
takes us through his house. He had a screened in porch,

(01:11:58):
takes us outside. He points up to it and it's
the moon.

Speaker 4 (01:12:02):
The moon.

Speaker 3 (01:12:03):
Well, the problem was there were low hanging clouds and
there was high winds and And so with the clothes
blowing by the moon, it gave it a you didn't
get a really good look at the moon. It was
always sort of hazy. And it had the illusion of
motion simply because of clouds going by it. And another
guy called in and he said, there's a flashing red
UFO hovering outside my house, you know, back several hundred yards.

(01:12:29):
And we went out and it was one of those
red lights on a radio tower. He just never noticed
it before. He's out looking and said, well, that's really weird.
I've never seen that before. And so that kind of
thing causes you to rethink your position on the reality
of UFO sightings. But then you look at other cases
where there really is no credible explanation. Leveland, of course,

(01:12:53):
springs to mind immediately. The Washington Nationals, because you had
military pilots, you had commercial pilots. You had military people
on the ground. You had civilians on the ground. And
you had radar. I talked to two of the guys
who were in the radar room, Dewey Fournay and Al Chop,
the second night, the second Saturday night the UFOs showed up.

(01:13:14):
They were in the radio room. And I talked to
one of them. And I forget which one was telling me, well,
you know, it got kind of gory out there. And
I said, well, what do you mean? He said, well,
you know, I'm not really supposed to talk about it.
And I talked to the other one. And I said, well,
I was talking to so-and-so. And he told me how
it got kind of gory. And the other one just
gave me the whole story. that the radar operators knew
it wasn't weather-related. They were familiar with weather-related phenomena on

(01:13:37):
the scopes, and the fighter pilots would come in, and
the UFOs would all disappear off the scope, and when
the fighters left, then they would all reappear. So they
pretty much told me the whole story, or the one
guy did. So, I mean, there's cases that really are inexplicable.
Contrary to what the Air Force and the government would
wish you to believe, there are cases that are inexplicable

(01:13:57):
in that fashion. Is it proof of alien visitation? Absolute, totally? No,
it's not. But it's getting us there. And you begin
to pile this up. You're making a small pile of
rocks and you keep adding one and the pile gets
pretty big and it becomes pretty persuasive. So the answer is, yeah,
I've changed my mind a number of times. I wrote

(01:14:18):
a book with Russ Estes and Bill Cohn called The
Abduction Enigma, where we pretty well dismantled the abduction phenomenon.
And then I talked to Calvin Parker, about the abduction
in Pascagoula. And in fact, if you go to my
blog and type Calvin Parker's name into the search engine,
it'll bring up the radio interview I did with him

(01:14:38):
so you can listen to that radio interview. And talking
to Calvin Parker about that, I realized that, well, he
said there were witnesses who came forward who saw the
craft that night. And I said, no, they came late.
He said, no, no, they were there that night. And
there's a document published dated the date after. They saw
the sighting on October 11th, 1973. On October 12th, 1973,

(01:15:02):
Hickson and Parker were taken to Keesler Air Force Base.
And I want to check to see if there's any
radiation involvement or something like that. I don't know after
12 hours what good that would do, but they did that.
And they were interrogated by a number of Air Force officers.
I mean, high ranking officers at Keesler Air Force Base.
And in the letter, they talk about how there had
had been four other witnesses calling in about having seen

(01:15:23):
this craft, having seen the abduct, but hadn't necessarily seen
the abduction, but seen the craft. And as before there
was news media, it was before there was social media
where you'd, you know, I just had a wonderful Coca-Cola
type thing. Oh, that's what I'd love to hear. So
you didn't have that kind of immediacy. So the fact
that they were getting that information prior to the stories

(01:15:45):
coming out is very illustrative of it. since then Philip
Mantle and Irene Scott have, they got, they sat down
with Calvin Parker and with hours and hours of interviews
with him, but they found other witnesses who came forward
much later that saw the thing as well. So we
have the people who saw, who came forward the next

(01:16:08):
day talking about what they'd seen. And then you had
some that came forward in the months afterwards and you
have some that came forward after the years with their,
with their experiences. So that kind of changes my opinion
of abduction. I would like to say that if there's
really alien abduction, this is the one that kind of
underscores the validity of those cases, simply because of the

(01:16:30):
credibility of the witnesses, not only the abductees, but other
witnesses who talked about what they had seen that night.

Speaker 2 (01:16:37):
By the way, listeners, we had the late Kevin Parker,
we had Irina Scott and Philip Mantle on the PowerCast
over the years talking about all this. Go ahead, Geneva.

Speaker 3 (01:16:49):
Well, before you go there, I can plug my book
because there's stuff about that sighting in the book, the
1973 sightings, the 1973 abduction cases, then specifically the Pasagula case.
So you get my take of the investigation for 1973
in the book. So it gives you more detail. Oh, good.

Speaker 4 (01:17:07):
And the name of your book?

Speaker 3 (01:17:09):
It's still UFO Sightings and Alien Visitations. Thank you. I
appreciate the plug.

Speaker 4 (01:17:15):
UFO Sightings and Alien Visitations.

Speaker 3 (01:17:18):
Available available almost immediately.

Speaker 4 (01:17:22):
And the last question. We seem to be heading into
a new postmodern era of ufology. Whatever that means. What
do you think is in store?

Speaker 3 (01:17:36):
It actually depends on how candid the government gets. If
we really get to disclosure. or if they dance around
it as they have been doing for eight or nine years.

Speaker 4 (01:17:50):
Well, if it's either that or the Epstein files, then
probably opt for the UFOs.

Speaker 3 (01:17:56):
No, I don't think, well, maybe you're right. The Epstein
files would not create the worldwide response, I guess is
a better word. I was going to say panic, but response.
Disclosure would create a larger response. It would affect religion.

(01:18:17):
It would affect societal norms. It would affect a lot
of stuff. Well, the Epstein files really don't do that.

Speaker 4 (01:18:24):
It's just gossip. I mean, it's literally gossip, but it's
basically gossip.

Speaker 3 (01:18:32):
And we have the same problem with UFOs, though. You
could say some of the cases we've tried basically gossip.
I mean, it's just there's no validity.

Speaker 4 (01:18:40):
Reality-changing gossip.

Speaker 3 (01:18:43):
Well, but we have an opportunity to get to an answer. Yes. admit,
you know, that there may be a small core of sightings,
no matter how much information we have, we don't get
to a solution that is reliable. But the other thing is,

(01:19:03):
we talk about the sightings, it turns out the higher
the education level of the witnesses is, the longer they
see the objects, the more credible the sighting, simply because
they've had to do that. There's any number of UFO
crash stories, for example, where they see like a cigar-shaped
craft with lighted windows and a lighted cockpit at the

(01:19:26):
front end of the craft heading to the ground. But
I have seen video of UFOs, of meteors, breaking up
in the atmosphere. And you get that sort of look.
And if you've got a very short look at it,
you know, seconds, the mind fills in the details. And
we've got a number of cases.

Speaker 2 (01:19:47):
Let's go to those cases in our next segment. With Gene, Geneva,
and Randall, you are in The Paracast.

Speaker 3 (01:20:07):
Hi, this is Tracy Torme, screenwriter, producer.

Speaker 2 (01:20:09):
You're listening to Paracast, the gold standard of paranormal radio.
We continue. Kevin Randall answering questions from listeners to the Paracast.
Go ahead with that one, please.

Speaker 3 (01:20:24):
It was reentry of the Zon-4 spacecraft. I think it
was a Soviet spacecraft that deorbited. And as it came down,
It broke up and people saw it. And there were
literally thousands of people who saw it and understood exactly
what it was. But there was a small core of
people who thought it was a cigar-shaped craft coming down.
And they drew that illustration with a cigar shape to

(01:20:45):
it and reported it. One of the witnesses was a
woman who had four college degrees. She had two master's
degrees and a PhD, not to mention her undergraduate degree.
She was a well-educated person. But she got a glimpse
of it, and she drew the object, and it looks
quite a bit like some of the other sightings that
we've had where people are talking about cigar-shaped craft with

(01:21:07):
windows along the side. So, I mean, that suggests how
the mind sometimes, I think it's Gestalt psychology that covers that,
how the mind fills in the details.

Speaker 4 (01:21:17):
There were a lot of long tubular UFOs reported during
the Second Direct War also.

Speaker 3 (01:21:27):
The second war? I was there.

Speaker 4 (01:21:29):
Yeah, the second one.

Speaker 3 (01:21:31):
I didn't see any of those.

Speaker 4 (01:21:32):
Some people saw them. There were theories of what they were.
The most plausible theory to me was that the outer
case was mostly transparent, but there was a fuel tank
in the middle or some kind of structure in the
middle that they couldn't make transparent, and that was what
people were seeing.

Speaker 3 (01:21:52):
Well, I had access to the SIPR net when I
was in Iraq And I looked for UFO sightings on
the SIPRnet all the time. Oh, you never found it.
I never found any, but I had access to, I
had a top-secret clearance, so I had access to the SIPRnet,
so I was able to look for those sorts of things.
And I, of course, looked for them. Of course, if

(01:22:14):
I'd found them, I probably couldn't say anything about it,
because it would have been... But the point really is,
I did look, and I didn't find anything. Okay, yeah.
an Air Force intelligence officer. I was an Army intelligence
officer at that time. But as an Air Force intelligence officer,
I was looking for UFO sightings. And I didn't really
find any in classified materials. I found some. There was

(01:22:36):
something called the Wikileaks Intelligence Brief. And there would be
a UFO sighting periodically in that. And I can mention
that simply because the paragraphs were all marked with either
a C or an S. or a U, which means unclassified, confidential,
or secret. So the UFO sightings usually had the U

(01:22:58):
in front of them. They were unclassified, so we were
free to talk about it. But there was never anything
spectacular about those sightings either.

Speaker 4 (01:23:06):
No, I never heard of anything coming closer than just
being seen in the sky. And Cheney was doing shock
and awe during that time, so all kinds of things
were probably in the sky.

Speaker 3 (01:23:21):
You mean Bush was doing shock and awe?

Speaker 4 (01:23:23):
Oh, well, yeah, people were attributing it to Cheney, but
I don't know who was.

Speaker 2 (01:23:29):
Go ahead. Continue. Just continue. All right, Kevin, go ahead.

Speaker 3 (01:23:33):
What I'm going to say is I deployed to Iraq
with Major Cheney, and people would come up and say,
are you any relation? He'd go, Uncle Dick. But he
was no relation to the vice president, but he just
had the same last name, and he always played it
up as much as he could, which I thought was
kind of funny.

Speaker 2 (01:23:50):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:23:52):
Yeah, I have a paperback romance novel written by his
wife set in the Old West with a lesbian relationship
between two women. I'm trying to find a collector I
could peddle it to by Lynn Chaney.

Speaker 3 (01:24:14):
I'm not going to be looking for that, by the way.

Speaker 4 (01:24:18):
Well, people still know who he is.

Speaker 3 (01:24:21):
Yes after we gunned down that guy yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:24:27):
And I want to ask also do you have any
opinion on Bill Cooper or do you know about his story.

Speaker 3 (01:24:36):
Yes I do I don't find it credible I found
it I'm searching for a benign way of mentioning I
do not believe his story Well.

Speaker 4 (01:24:51):
I guess there are two parts on my side. One
is whether his story is believable, but he definitely got killed.
And he got killed at the time he said he
was planning to name names, and he was killed just
before he would have done that.

Speaker 3 (01:25:12):
Yeah, well, I guess when you draw a pistol on
sheriff's deputies, they respond with hostility.

Speaker 4 (01:25:21):
But who sends a sheriff's deputy at midnight to collect taxes?
I know people who haven't paid taxes for decades. Of course,
they don't publish it.

Speaker 3 (01:25:34):
I just don't find his story credible. I mean, I looked,
I had a different name for his book. What a
Behold a Pale Horse.

Speaker 4 (01:25:42):
Yeah, I was trying to remember.

Speaker 3 (01:25:44):
That's it. I thought it was Behold a Pale of
Horse Horse. I think he also had the theory that
Kennedy was assassinated by the driver of the limousine. You
can see the driver turn around and shoot Kennedy. We'll

(01:26:05):
sit here and watch this video as long as we
have to, to make sure you see that. I mean,
there's Secret Service agents all around, and if the driver
turned around with a pistol, I think People would notice, yeah.
They would have noticed that, and the driver would have
been shot immediately, if not sooner. But no, I don't
find his stories credible, which I think is a gentlemanly

(01:26:30):
way of saying I don't believe him.

Speaker 4 (01:26:33):
Yeah, it was more the timing that got my curiosity aroused. Otherwise,
I hadn't been paying much attention to his stories, but then...
The fact that he never got to go on the
air and name his names.

Speaker 3 (01:26:50):
I suspect he would have never gotten on the air
and named his names because he probably didn't have.

Speaker 4 (01:26:53):
That's possible.

Speaker 3 (01:26:56):
And we run into that. We run into that in
the UFO field all the time where people are talking about...
We're running into today with David Grush and his UFO crashes.
He won't name the name, how he learned about them
or anything about it. And I think he's up to... Oh, well, yeah.
And I know I... When he first came out and
started talking about the 12 crashes, he named two. One

(01:27:17):
was in Italy in 1933, which colleagues in Italy had
investigated in the 1990s when the story broke and determined
it was not true. And then he mentioned Roswell, but
he didn't mention any of the others. I think based
on whom he was associating with, I could figure out
what the other 10 were with a high level of accuracy. Okay.

(01:27:45):
But we still don't have the names. We still don't
have the cases. We still are waiting for that information
to come out. And it's, again, been years.

Speaker 2 (01:28:00):
Let's go to Rusty Shackleford's question.

Speaker 4 (01:28:04):
Oh, let me see. Is that below this one?

Speaker 3 (01:28:08):
Yes.

Speaker 4 (01:28:08):
Oh, just no. Randall said no. Let's see. Oh, here
we go. Like Kevin, I believe the MJ-12 documents to
be a hoax. However, I'd like to know who created
them and why. Therefore, I would love to know if
Kevin has any idea who Tim Good's source was for

(01:28:29):
the original MJ-12 documents.

Speaker 3 (01:28:33):
Yeah, I know exactly who Tim Good's source was. It's
Bill Moore. Bill Moore shared it with him. and Bill
Moore had done redactions on the MJ-12 documents he shared,
and when the documents were originally published by Timothy Good,
those were the redactions that you see there. I did
a book, cleverly called Case MJ-12. It was updated several

(01:28:53):
years ago now with more information, but Bill Moore shared
And Sam Friedman told me this. Bill Moore had called
him one night in early 1980s and said, I've run
up against a brick wall on my investigation of Roswell.
I'm thinking of creating a Roswell document that I can
show to witnesses to kind of induce them to tell

(01:29:15):
me what they know. He told that to, I think,
Brad Sparks and a couple of other people. So it's
well documented. Bill Moore did that. And lo and behold,
Bill Moore comes out with the MJ-12 documents. He's working
with Richard Doty, who did not have the most credible
evidence career with the OSI, with his Air Force career,
and ended up as the senior NCO in a mess hall,

(01:29:38):
or what the Air Force called dining facilities.

Speaker 2 (01:29:42):
Before we split for our next segment is that Dodie
was on the Paracast a few years ago. Impersonable guy,
believed none of it. Gene, Geneva, Randall, you're in.

Speaker 4 (01:29:55):
The Paracast.

Speaker 2 (01:29:57):
I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.

Speaker 3 (01:30:07):
Hi, this is Tracy Torme, screenwriter, producer.

Speaker 5 (01:30:09):
You're listening to Paracast, the gold standard of paranormal radio.

Speaker 2 (01:30:17):
Let's continue the answer to that question from Kevin Randall
on the infamous MJ-12 documents.

Speaker 3 (01:30:25):
I looked at that. Linda Howe published some information that
she had gotten about the MJ-12 documents and gave us
the listing of some of the crash retrievals that had
been made and that sort of thing. I believe Linda
Howe was telling the truth, but she got the information
from Doty. And I don't think Doty was telling the truth.
Bob Pratt had said that he and Moore, and I

(01:30:47):
think Doty may have been involved in it as well,
had written a novel back in 1980 before we got
into the MJ-12 documents. It was about a government agent
who stumbled onto the big secret of flying saucers and
all of that. They were never able to get it published.
And when MJ-12 came out, Pratt called Moore and said,
we ought to dust out our novel, dust off our

(01:31:09):
novel here and see if we can get it published
now because there's a lot of interest in that sort
of thing. So the answer to the question is very simple.
The creator of the MJ-12 documents, according to what I believe,
based on the evidence I've seen, It was with Bill
Moore and Richard Doty supplying some of the information about
how classified materials circulate. And Timothy Good got the document

(01:31:29):
from Bill Moore. Since that time, there have been literally
dozens of people coming up with MJ-12 documents. I know
Stan Friedman had a good time debunking a lot of those.
Robert Wood, his son, can't remember the son's name, Ryan Wood,
Ryan Wood. They truly believe the MJ-12 documents are authentic,

(01:31:52):
and they've got some interesting documents. But once again, we
don't have any provenance for them. Question documents, you've got
to have a provenance.

Speaker 4 (01:32:01):
Yes. How thick are the documents, and do they look
plausible on the surface?

Speaker 3 (01:32:08):
If you look at the original Eisenhower briefing... there's all
kinds of poison pills in that. And one of those
is the Del Rio crash. They talk about it. Another
crash that happened in December of 1950. This is the
Del Rio crash made up by a guy named Robert Willingham,
who claimed to be a retired air force Colonel. This

(01:32:29):
is where I got very jaded. And somebody says something
like that. I'm going to check them out. And, uh, uh,
found out that he had spent 13 months in the military, uh,
He rose to the exalted rank of E4, a low-ranked
enlisted man. He claimed to be a veteran of World
War II, which technically was correct because the war was

(01:32:49):
not declared over until the middle of 1946. He joined
the army in December of 1945, so technically the war
was still on, although the shooting had stopped and everybody
had surrendered. He talked about being a fighter pilot in Korea,
and he was telling this cockamamie story about He was
assigned to a radar unit in Korea, but he and

(01:33:11):
a friend would go out and they would take like
P-51s off and they'd fly off on their own missions.
And I'm thinking, you know, having been a military pilot,
I know that doesn't work because if you're entering the area,
the AO, the area of operations, they would have to
check in with the forward air controller. And if they
didn't check in and they didn't know the code words,
they would have been shot down. But he spent 13

(01:33:34):
months in the military, according to his records. And people say, well,
we've got pictures of him in Air Force uniforms in
the 1960s. How do you explain that? And I said,
send me the pictures, which they did. I looked at
him and I said, those are not Air Force uniforms.
They're Civil Air Patrol uniforms. Civil Air Patrol, for those
that don't know, is the official auxiliary of the Air Force.
It's a civilian organization that started for search and rescue

(01:33:57):
operations and much cheaper to call out the Civil Air
Patrol because they could pay the guys there for their
fuel and that sort of thing and save a lot
of money. and it developed a cadet program. And the
reason I know that I was in the cadet program
when I was a youngster, but I looked at the
uniform and you could see on the lapel of one
of the shirts or the collar of one of the shirts,

(01:34:17):
he's got his, he's got his major rank. And on
the other side it says CAP. And if you zoom
in on the pocket, the breast, right breast pocket, there's
a metal plate there. And it says civil air patrol
auxiliary of the United States air force. He claimed that
he was promoted to Colonel by, um, Lyndon Johnson in 1973. Well, A,

(01:34:38):
that's not how you get promoted. It's got to go
to Congress for approval. And B, Lyndon Johnson had died
in January of 1973, and this promotion supposedly came through
after Johnson had died. But you have to submit the names,
no matter who you are. The president can submit the
name of somebody you'd like to see promoted, and Congress
has to approve it. When I got promoted to major,

(01:35:00):
I got a list of all the people who were
promoted that day. And so- It was a short list.
It was six or seven, eight people on it. There
was another major on it, but his name was below mine.
So technically I outranked him because my name was higher
on the list than his. But there was a number
of people. It had been sent to Congress and they
had approved it. So you've got to look at that.

(01:35:21):
So Willingham was not telling the truth, but his citing
of a UFO crash in Mexico is in the document
dated 1950. The original story told by Willingham was dated 1948.
He was talking about how he's flying F-94s, which were
not operational at that time, and how the UFOs had

(01:35:42):
been seen on the dew line, which hadn't been built yet.
Time travel. Yeah, but he signed an affidavit. And then
a guy named Robert Zeckel got a hold of him.
And Zeckel, I guess it was Bruce McAbee that actually
found the documents talking about some kind of alert in
December of 1950, UFO alert. It was on play for

(01:36:02):
an hour, hour and a half on the date. So
Zeckel confabulated the Willingham sighting to 1950. And then Willingham
went along with that. When I talked to Willingham, he
told me the sightings took place in the mid 1950s
and he wasn't sure, but he couldn't have been involved
in the sighting in December of 1950 because he was

(01:36:23):
serving in Korea. Well, not according to your military records, pal,
you weren't. You had been discharged by that time as
an E4. not an officer. You were a low-ranking enlisted man.

Speaker 4 (01:36:35):
Well, people will lie.

Speaker 2 (01:36:39):
I think we've done a good job here of covering
the questions. The last one from Red, I think, is
kind of sort of answered already. And I think maybe
we should, in the remaining segments of this episode of
the Paracast, and also the After the Paracast podcast, go
into your brand-new, did I say brand-new... your brand new book,

(01:37:02):
which is out as this show is being recorded, as
a matter of fact. We're right up against the headlines here.
It's called UFO Sightings and Alien Visitations, Facts and Falsehoods.
And we've covered some of the falsehoods already. Of course,
we have MJ-12. We have the early UFO contactees and

(01:37:23):
many of them. But what do you think was the
worst thing UFO falsehood that you cover in your book?

Speaker 3 (01:37:32):
Oh, covered in the book is clearly the Kingman story
because it's gotten new legs and some authenticity from government
sources now. If you remember a year ago, something like that,
Christopher Mellon published an email with the critical information redacted,

(01:37:52):
but talks about Kingman specifically and how that's a legitimate sighting.
And I'm saying, no, it really isn't, because Arthur Stanzel,
who was the original source on this, he told the
story to two teenage boys back in the 1970s. And
then Ray Fowler interviewed Stanzel and did an article for

(01:38:15):
Fisher UFO magazine about the UFO crash, which, by the way,
is also in that book I talked about the official
UFO book that Bernie O'Connor had produced. But he told
the teenagers that he had been involved in this thing.

(01:38:36):
And I have nothing against teenagers conducting the investigation, because
as a teenager, I was flying helicopters as an aircraft
commander and a flight lead in Vietnam. So teenagers do
do things that are very good. And these guys... did
their job in investigating it and turned to share the
information with Ray Stanford. But Stanza was the one that

(01:38:56):
told the story originally. When Ray Stanford went and talked
to him, he changed the story in some significant ways
that I thought. The only thing he produced was documentation.
He had a page from his desk calendar that said
that he had to do some kind of special assignment
for Dr. Dahl the next day or some nonsense like that.
If you read the whole file that Ray Fowler's file

(01:39:19):
and I have a copy of it you look at
that stuff and I fell for the gag too I
mean if you go to the history of UFO crashes
that Kingman's in there as being a legitimate crash but
what you find out is Stansel became first of all
Stansel was a credible engineer he was a good engineer

(01:39:41):
he'd written a number of scientific papers for example.

Speaker 2 (01:39:45):
Let's explain that further In our next segment with Kevin Randall,
Gene and Geneva, you're in.

Speaker 4 (01:39:52):
The Paracast.

Speaker 1 (01:40:02):
This is me, the Merciless.

Speaker 4 (01:40:04):
You are listening to the Paracast, the gold standard of
paranormal radio, exactly according to my plan.

Speaker 3 (01:40:14):
Paracast.

Speaker 2 (01:40:16):
Oh yeah, quite an episode with Kevin D. Randall. It's
just terrific. This is the final episode of the main show,
but Kevin Randall will be back with further stories about
UFO information, falsehoods, etc. Go ahead with your answer, please, Kevin.

Speaker 3 (01:40:34):
So Stansel gave the boys the story of the crash,
and they showed it with Ray Stanford. But there was
a part of the file that I didn't bother to read,
and I don't think any else bothered to read, and
I It wasn't that long ago. I actually read it.
Stansel talks about how he was able to project himself
onto UFOs a thousand light years away. And he got

(01:40:54):
involved with a paranormal group like that. And then he
said that when he drank, he tended to embellish his stories.
The boys said that he only had a beer when
they interviewed him. It was a Saturday afternoon. He had
had one beer. But apparently he told others he had
like four martinis before the boys showed up. He's spinning
this tale. And I don't blame the teenagers for believing me.

(01:41:15):
I mean, here's a guy with an incredible CV. You
take a look at his education, you look at the
jobs he held, you look at his publications. It's a
very good resume, but that does not corroborate his story
of seeing a flying saucer, a crash flying saucer and
what he did about it. And some of the things
he said just didn't make any sense to me. For example,

(01:41:35):
he said they originally, I think he said that he
was at Indian River, Indian Creek Air Force Base. In Nevada.
And he was flown to Chicago, then back to Phoenix,
then put on a bus to be driven to the
Kingman area to see the UFO crash. That makes no
sense to me.

Speaker 4 (01:41:54):
That is weird.

Speaker 3 (01:41:56):
He said the bus windows were all blacked out so
they couldn't see exactly where they were going. Okay, I
can buy that. And then he says, you know, we
weren't allowed to talk to anybody. So they get to
the crash site and there's an Air Force officer, Air
Force NCO with a clipboard. He's calling off the names
of everybody on the bus. So first of all, you're

(01:42:16):
not allowed to talk to these people. You're not allowed
to learn who they are. And then they breach security
by calling the names. And he said he was taken
out and he showed the crash. He was supposed to
determine the speed at impact, I guess. And so he
was able to do that by testing the density of
the soil and all that nonsense. And as he was

(01:42:36):
walking back to the bus, they take him by a tent.
with an open flap and he sees the body lying
there on a table. And I thought, yeah, the MPs
would have been stupid enough to do that as well.
And then they go, they go back to their original

(01:42:57):
home stations, wherever they may be. But, um, and then
he told Ray Fowler that he, you know, he, uh, uh,
Changed some of the story and saying, well, you know,
I'd had my four martinis. So there was some credibility
issues there. And then Don Schmidt had found a woman

(01:43:17):
named Judy Wolcott who claimed her husband had sent her
a letter from Vietnam. And he had been in Kingman
in 1953 at an Air Force control tower. And from Vietnam,
he put in a letter that he had seen the
crash and the bodies and all this nonsense. And this

(01:43:38):
made no sense to me either. Well, you've got the letter. Well, no,
I don't. And then I got an email and I
talked to the daughter, her daughter, and she said that
her mother just made stuff up all the time. And
he said, well, my, you know, her father, Wilcox, who
sent the letter was allegedly killed in Vietnam a few

(01:43:58):
weeks later. So the idea was her father was killed
in Vietnam. So, well, he wasn't my father. It was
another guy. And, you know, he's still alive living in Chicago.
And so the whole story just falls apart like that.

Speaker 4 (01:44:11):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:44:11):
And then there was this letter that supposedly kind of
re-fired an imagination in it. I probably shouldn't do that.
I should make you guys buy the book to get
the whole story. But anyway, it was reported by Preston
Dennett and by Jenny Randles. We don't know why I
had trouble remembering her name. Jenny Randles, as opposed to
Randlesports fans, said that, Dick Hall had gotten a letter

(01:44:36):
dated 1966 telling the story of the Kingman crash. And
this is before Ray Fowler had come out with the
story in Official UFO Magazine. And so I emailed Jenny
Randles and she said, oh, she doesn't want to talk
about UFOs anymore. She was tired about it. I had
her book that talked about this letter that predated the

(01:44:58):
article in the Official UFO. And Preston Dennett quoted it
as well. And I tried to talk to him about
that and didn't get a whole lot of information. I
read Dennett's book and I was able to get some
other documentation and realized that the letter dated 1966 didn't
go to Dick Hall until 1977. And the date on

(01:45:20):
the letter, the letter came from Todd Zeckel. Remember the
guy from MJ-12?

Speaker 4 (01:45:26):
I know him from Jim Mosley. He had played a
big role in the estrangement of Jim and his daughter.

Speaker 3 (01:45:36):
Well, anyway, so Zeckel was involved in getting the letter
to Dick Hall, but Dick Hall didn't get it until 1977,
so it really didn't do much to add to the credibility.

Speaker 4 (01:45:49):
It got lost in the mail.

Speaker 3 (01:45:52):
But the problem was, and I fall into the same trap.
I mean, we all do as researchers. They had the letter.
They had Dick Hall's statement about it because he thought
it was authentic. It wasn't quite the way they had
published it in their books. And I went to them
to find out more information and was able to get

(01:46:14):
down to the point where the letter originated. So I
have no faith in that letter. But all this information
is laid out in the book so you can read
the exact chronology of how I found that stuff. And
I don't blame Jenny Randles for not wanting to get
involved with UFOs anymore because you get up to our
lofty ages and it becomes a real pain in the
butt to talk about UFOs with all the stuff going

(01:46:36):
on now and all the nonsense that's out there about them.

Speaker 4 (01:46:39):
And all the real leads have disappeared.

Speaker 3 (01:46:42):
Yes. The Roswell case, you look at it now, all
the firsthand witnesses are gone. I mean, it was 1947,
so you can figure that maybe the youngest one involved
in that would have been 18 years old in 1947.
So you're looking at somebody who was born in 1929,
if they had any part in the investigation. So, I mean,

(01:47:03):
I talked to one guy who was 94 about his involvement,
and I talked to another guy who was 89. The
guy who was 89 was just clear. I mean, his
memory was beautiful, and he was just funnier than hell.
But the only thing he was able to tell us, well,
we're not supposed to talk about it. We all had
to sign documents. So he was providing that information. But

(01:47:24):
he said, I don't really know anything. And I worked
hard to forget it.

Speaker 2 (01:47:28):
Kevin Randall, for those who want to find out more
about what you're up to, tell our listeners where they
can check you out.

Speaker 3 (01:47:35):
You can go to kevinrandall.blogspot.com, which is, I've got like,
1500 articles on there that you can read for free.
And it gives you a lot of this information and
it shows the evolution of my thinking on some, some
things and show how I've kind of changed my opinions
on other things and that sort of thing. And sometimes
we get into a lot of arguments with people about the,

(01:47:55):
about the articles, which is kind of fun, but you
can get it there. The books, the books are all
available on amazon.com. As you said, the latest is UFO
sightings and alien visitation, but there's others out there like
Roswell in the 21st century gets you the, uh, A
chronology of Roswell as it appeared a number of years
ago to me, and there's a lot of good information.

(01:48:16):
There's like a thousand footnotes in it, so you understand
where all this came from. this stuff came out so
you go on there and look all that.

Speaker 2 (01:48:22):
Stuff out hey you can find us on Facebook on
X on Blue Sky Social and Threats look for the
Paracast or at the Paracast whatever that's supposed to mean
Kevin will return to talk about his new book, Another Sup,

(01:48:43):
on our premium show after the Paracast. It's available only
for subscribers of the Paracast Plus. Go to theparacast.plus. For
more information and our lowest rates ever, theparacast.plus. Just paying
for that. plus domain is a lot of money. Kevin D. Randall,

(01:49:04):
you have long been one of my favorites. We're always
glad to have you back on the show. Thank you
again for joining us this week on The Paracast.

Speaker 3 (01:49:14):
So far, it's been fun. We'll see what happens in
the next hour.

Speaker 2 (01:49:17):
Okay, let's take a deep breath and.

Speaker 1 (01:49:38):
The Paracast, featuring Gene Steinberg, is a copyrighted presentation of
Making the Impossible Incorporated. Tune in next week for a
new adventure in The Paracast.

All Episodes

August 30, 3026 — Veteran UFO Researcher Kevin D. Randle

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Breakfast Club

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}August 30, 3026 — Veteran UFO Researcher Kevin D. Randle