[OVNI-SCIENCES] Body snatchers in the desert
GBourdais
gbourdais at wanadoo.fr
Mar 28 Juin 19:16:41 CEST 2005
Bonjour, Franck, et tous
Puisque vous me citez (de manière curieuse) et que vous suivez les débats sur la liste UFO Updates, vous auriez pu remarquer que je
suis l'un des participants, peu nombreux, qui ont commencé à poser des questions et faire des critiques sur ce livre de Redfern, ou
plus exactement sur le lon g entretien de plus ded 50 pages déjà publié, en attendant le livre. Je vous fais copie ci-après de deux
de mes messages.
D'autre part, je vous fais également copie d'une longue liste de questions posées par Robert (Bob) Durant, l'un des très bons
enquêteurs sur Roswell (voir dans mon livre) qu'il m'a autorisé à passer sur cette liste. Malheureusemrent, mon message a été
suspendu par l'animateur Errol Bruce Knapp, apparement pour le motif que Nick Redfern s'est absenté (au beau milieu du débat)
jusqu'au 4 juillet et a demandé qu'on attende son retour. Curieusement, un certain nombre de messages ont continué à passer. Du
coup, j'ai communiqué ce texte de Bob Durant à un certains nombre d'ufologues intéressés, et il y a déjà des réponses en privé.
Voici d'abord mes deux premiers messages sur cette liste, et une approbation de Bruce Maccabee, puis les questions de Bob Durant,
provisoirement mises en attente, telles que je les ai diffusées en parallèle. Désolé, c'est en anglais et je n'ai pas trop le temps
de traduire.
Gildas Bourdais
---------------------------------
Mon message du 22 juin :
From: Gildas Bourdais <gbourdais at wanadoo.fr>
To: <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:21:40 +0200
Subject: Re: UFO Review - Roswell - The End
>From: Nick Redfern <nick.redfern at sbcglobal.net>
>To: <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
>Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:45:58 -0700
>Subject: Re: UFO Review - Roswell - The End
>>From: Greg Boone <Evolbaby at aol.com>
>>To: ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net
>>Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:39:15 EDT
>>Subject: Re: UFO Review - Roswell - The End
>>As for the 'mutants' there's no telling what manifested itself
>>after the A-bombs dropped as we never know what can become of
>>the various genetic anomalies. Look at what happened after the
>>Chernobyl blast. The mutations go from one end of the spectrum
>>to the other. Some so horrid most people can't look at them
>>without fainting. There was a "60 Minutes" episode that showed a
>>few and that was enough to cause people to faint.
<snip>
>Notably, the files, re. the above, were sent to Oak Ridge and
>shared with the nuclear aircraft people there and their biology
>lab - where one of the book sources worked...
>Also, there are US newspapers widely available from 1945 that
>talk about how the US knew that the Japanese were planning to
>attack the US with post-Fugo balloons that would have advanced
>gondolas beneath them that would be manned by "death defying
>Japanese" who were going to use bacteriological warfare on the
>US.
>Somewhere, these files must exist to have allowed the
>newspapers to get this data. Someone may know a way in to get
>these 45 files re the post-Fugo balloons and the "death defying
>Japanese," all of which is the early days of what led up to the
>New Mexico events.
Hello Nick, and All
I have begun to read you long interview, but I have stopped
half way, having already a couple of questions and criticisms.
Your story looks good as long as you don't read it with a very
critical mind. I don't think we are going to wait long on this
List before you get some strong reactions and critics. In the
meantime, here are some preliminary reflexions of mine.
First, the confusion in Roswell with a "flying saucer" seems
just as unbelievable as for any other type of balloon. A balloon
is a balloon, even a very big one. Or a fragment of it. The same
remark applies to a small craft, either wooden or metallic, or
to a fragment of it.
And the same remark applies to the discovery of a human body, be
it of a genetically ill person, and even badly damaged by a
sinister experiment such as dropping him fom high altitude
without protection. That is still very far from making an
"alien" body!
Another big problem with your story is when the DIA informer
tells you that the AF intelligence favored UFO crashed stories,
just in order to cover-up sinister experiments with japanese war
prisoners.
The sad fact is, there have been in the past, criminal experiments
such as deadly irradiations, but they were finally made public!
So, if there was such a story behing the alleged UFO crash at
Roswell, it would have been so much easier to admit it, and then
quickly turn the sad page, instead of publishing two fat,
incredible books on balloons and parachute tests to try to
"explain" Roswell.
The fact is that the Air Force, far from promoting UFO crashes,
has done all it could to deny them. BTW, The same goes for UFOs,
and the argument that their belief was favored in order to
protect secret planes. There may have been some actions of the
like now and then, but it certainly does not square with the
global, historical line of the military cover-up on UFOs.
Another aspect difficult to believe it the testimony of the
"lady from Oak Ridge" : what a fantastic tale, of those
mutilated bodies brought to Oak Ridge, and later sent to Los
Alamos and who knows where! Hard to believe, Nick.
On the other hand, the stories you have been told are quite
good to spread confusion again, as I can already sense it on
this list. However, I will read your book with interest.
Gildas Bourdais
--------------------------------
Mon message du 23 juin :
From: Gildas Bourdais <gbourdais at wanadoo.fr>
To: <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:52:00 +0200
Subject: Re: UFO Review - Roswell - The End
>From: Nick Redfern <nick.redfern at sbcglobal.net>
>To: <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
>Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:24:16 -0700
>Subject: Re: UFO Review - Roswell - The End
>>From: Gildas Bourdais <gbourdais at wanadoo.fr>
>>To: <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
>>Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:21:40 +0200
>>Subject: Re: UFO Review - Roswell - The End
>>I have begun to read you long interview, but I have stopped
>>half way, having already a couple of questions and criticisms.
>>First, the confusion in Roswell with a "flying saucer" seems
>>just as unbelievable as for any other type of balloon. A balloon
>>is a balloon, even a very big one. Or a fragment of it. The same
>>remark applies to a small craft, either wooden or metallic, or
>>to a fragment of it.
>With regard to the issue of why the people at Roswell couldn't
>tell a balloon from a flying saucer, you're not realizing the
>one, key thing that so many other researchers don't realize (or
>take into consideration the significance of either).
>That's the big thing: why couldn't they tell a balloon from a
>UFO (even a big balloon)?
>The simple answer is that this occurred little more than a week
>after the first UFO sighting by Kenneth Arnold. At that time,
>there was no UFO UpDates, no Net, no UFO Magazine, nothing, no
>UFO history, no books on the subject, etc., etc.
>So in other words, there was no way that anyone - only days
>after Arnold - knew that flying saucers weren't made like
>balloons, precisely because there was no history to the subject
>in place for them to work with and make accurate comparisons.
>Today, we might make an educated guess on what a crashed saucer
>would look like because we have 60 years of reports to deal
>with.
>You tell me how guys would specifically not know that saucers
>were not made of balloon like materials when the subject was
>barely a week old?!
Nick,
Yes, I say that. I don't think there was a bit of a chance that
the Air Force officers at Roswell, the elite of the Air Force,
could have been confused by debris of balloons, gondolas or
gliders to the point of issuing the famous press release which
announced proudly, contrary to basic military rules of restraint
and secrecy, that they had found one of those mysterious "flying
disks", about which there were plenty of reports in the press.
The fact that it was just ten days after Kenneth Arnold should
have made them even more cautious. So, there was at least
"something big", and it was not a gondola with Japanese
prisoners. And, had they made such a terrible blunder, I don't
think that Colonel Blanchard, for one, would have pursued his
brillant career, up to the grade of four star General.
>>And the same remark applies to the discovery of a human body, be
>>it of a genetically ill person, and even badly damaged by a
>>sinister experiment such as dropping him fom high altitude
>>without protection. That is still very far from making an
>>"alien" body!
>True, but it's made clear that some of these people were
>physically handicapped. No disrespect here, but they looked
>unusual to begin with. Then in flight suits, decomposing after a
>day in the desert? Seen at a distance near a weird device? Of
>course, people will think it's aliens.
No, I cannot agree on that either. A human body, even
genetically handicapped, remains a human body. BTW, this remark
applies to people with progeria, which do not look at all like
the strange body of the AAF (whatever it is).
>>Another big problem with your story is when the DIA informer
>>tells you that the AF intelligence favored UFO crashed stories,
>>just in order to cover-up sinister experiments with japanese war
>>prisoners.
>>The sad fact is, there have been in the past, criminal experiments
>>such as deadly irradiations, but they were finally made public!
>Yes but these are far more controversial tests, because the
>further you dig into all this you find the Unit 731 connections.
>That is the crux of the cover-up. Not the crash as such but the
>fact that it linked the people of the day with the scum at 731.
>That was the damning secret that remains hidden to this day and
>why these were far more sensitive than the already-declassified
>experiments.
I don't see why an experiment such as carrying war prisonners in
a stratospheric gondola, or glider if you prefer, would be more
damnable that those awfull tests of deadly irradiation, made on
mentally retarded and abandonned people, which have been
revealed and confirmed officially by the Department of Health.
Again, it does not make any sense to promote, at great risk of
ridicule, stories of Mogul balloons and parachute tests. Even
Philip Klass laughed about the parachute story. It does make
sense, on the other hand, if is was to protect the big secret of
a UFO crash recovery.
>>The fact is that the Air Force, far from promoting UFO crashes,
>>has done all it could to deny them.
>That is true of today's Air Force certainly. But I have a whole
>chapter in the book where it's quite clear the hand of
>officialdom was at work spreading spurious crash reports to hide
>all this decades ago.
>Hell, even at the official website of the NSA, if you go to
>their UFO section, download the PDF of a translation of a 60s
>Russian mag article on UFOs. There's a piece in there on the
>Spitsbergen crash. Someone in the murky official world has
>circled the Spitsbergen story with the word "Plant". I have
>loads of similar examples.
I know these stories : Silas Newton (found by Karl Pflock),
and the Spitsbergen "plant". But the major fact is, as noted
by Jerry Clark, that after the Scully book, no serious
researcher would want to hear about crash stories for the
next 20 or 30 years. What kind of a promotion is that ?
On the contrary, it had a fantastic debunking efficiency.
>>Another aspect difficult to believe it the testimony of the
>>"lady from Oak Ridge" : what a fantastic tale, of those
>>mutilated bodies brought to Oak Ridge, and later sent to Los
>>Alamos and who knows where! Hard to believe, Nick.
>You say "hard to believe". I would say controversial, and for
>that reason precisely why I spent years and quite literally
>thousands of dollars traveling the US following this. So you
>think it's harder to believe that than aliens crashing near a
>location that was test flying captured Axis technology? Hmmm....
Thank you for having spent so much time and money inquiring. But
some others have done that too, with different conclusions.
Anyway, I have finished reading your long interview, and I have
more comments to make. First on Roswell, and then more global
remarks. Lets not enter into details, it would be too long.
Except for Dr Lincoln Lapaz (not Lepaz). What you suggest, that
he was an actor of this somber plot of Japanese prisonners in
gondolas, does not fit with an important testimony, the one of
Lewis Rickett, interviewed by Mark Rodheiger. I have the
complete transcript, passed to me by Bob Durant, and there is
nothing about balloons in there. LaPaz was after meteors and
UFOs. Again, there is a general remark to make - sorry to
insist on that. You say in your interview (p 23) : "It does not
make sense to hide a UFO crash story behind some diabolical
experiments with handicapped people". But yes, it does! It's a
big stake. You say yourself that, if Roswell can be "cracked",
then the whole story of UFO crashes and secret studies is going
to collapse. I don't believe so, but that's what many people are
going to conclude. They have already begun on this list. What
bothers me most is that you don't really cite any identified
witness. It's all hearsay, from a "DIA guy", etc. And, you know,
all material proofs, paper trail, have been destroyed! On the
UFO crash, there are dozens of known, credible witnessed, and it
makes a big difference, even though material proof is lacking as
well.
More generally, there are many other opinions of yours which I
cannot accept. To begin with, you seem quite sure that Kenneth
Arnold saw a squadron of Horten-like prototypes. I am not
prepared to buy that. So, after the "Pelicanists", are we going
to have, again, to deal with the "Hortenists" ?
About abductions, you point to a curious detail as a possible
source of later confusion, which is that, in some experiments,
back in 1947, the victims would have to wear eye protection
giving them the look of big black alien eyes. Frankly, this is a
very, very weak argument! I also remarked that you alluded to
the testimony of Myrna Hansen, without naming her (why don't you
give names when you can, since Greg Bishop talks about her at
length in his book ?). You talk of "vague" remembrance of being
carried in an underground base of some kind. But it was not
vague at all. She was terrified by her abduction, and she was
regressed by Dr Sprinkle just a few days later. BTW, about the
book "Project beta" of Greg Bishop, you suggest that he has
explained all the rumors like Dulce as disinfomation fabricated
by AFOSI in Kirtland, to protect secret experiments from
Bennewitz looking too close at them. I agree in the case of
Dulce, but that does not mean that all the rest is rubbish. Greg
Bishop leaves the door opened, to the reality of the Myrna
Hansen testimony (he even cites another witness, the wife of a
Cimarron policeman who saw the abduction and cattle mutilation),
and even to real UFO observations by Bennewitz!
About cattle mutilations, you mention the important study of
Kolm Kelleher : no objection to that. But I don't accept the
hypothesis that all these spectacular cattle mutilations, by the
thousands, were just secretive military experiments! And what
about the recent wave in Argenina ?
Finally, you give your opinion on the nature of UFOs, as being
"thought forms", and "tulpas". Well , that's an old story coming
out again. I doubt very much that it's going to explain the big
UFO picture. And with that, you can call me a "believer" if you
like.
Gildas Bourdais
--------------------------------
Mon message a été soutenu par le physicien Bruce Maccabee, qui parle peu, mais en général pas pour rien :
From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac at compuserve.com>
To: <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:51:55 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Review - Roswell - The End
>From: Nick Redfern <nick.redfern at sbcglobal.net>
>To: <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
>Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:24:16 -0700
>Subject: Re: UFO Review - Roswell - The End
>>From: Gildas Bourdais <gbourdais at wanadoo.fr>
>>To: <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
>>Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:21:40 +0200
>>Subject: Re: UFO Review - Roswell - The End
>>I have begun to read you long interview, but I have stopped
>>half way, having already a couple of questions and criticisms.>
>>First, the confusion in Roswell with a "flying saucer" seems
>>just as unbelievable as for any other type of balloon. A balloon
>>is a balloon, even a very big one. Or a fragment of it. The same
>>remark applies to a small craft, either wooden or metallic, or
>>to a fragment of it.
>With regard to the issue of why the people at Roswell couldn't
>tell a balloon from a flying saucer, you're not realizing the
>one, key thing that so many other researchers don't realize (or
>take into consideration the significance of either).
>That's the big thing: why couldn't they tell a balloon from a
>UFO (even a big balloon)?
>The simple answer is that this occurred little more than a week
>after the first UFO sighting by Kenneth Arnold. At that time,
>there was no UFO UpDates, no Net, no UFO Magazine, nothing, no
>UFO history, no books on the subject, etc., etc.
>So in other words, there was no way that anyone - only days
>after Arnold - knew that flying saucers weren't made like
>balloons, precisely because there was no history to the subject
>in place for them to work with and make accurate comparisons.
>Today, we might make an educated guess on what a crashed saucer
>would look like because we have 60 years of reports to deal
>with.
>You tell me how guys would specifically not know that saucers
>were not made of balloon like materials when the subject was
>barely a week old?!
Not a good argument for the balloon hypothesis.
Arnold's story was accompanied by his claim that the objects
traveled at about 1200 mph (an underestimate). Arnold suggested
they were some new type of aircraft, probably jet aircraft.
There is nothing about a balloon - not even a blimp - that
suggests the capability to travel at jet speed - for example, no
balloon has jet engines. I doubt that one could propel a
balloon through the atmosphere at over 1000 mph and have it
remain intact.
IMHO "guys would specifically" know that balloons don't travel
at juet speed, but saucers - reportedly - do, so if it was a
balloon... it wasn't a saucer.
--------------------------
Et maintenant les questions de Bob Durant, en avant-première :
To Jerry Clark and all,
I sent this list of questions of Bob Durant, with his permission, to UFO Updates, but EBK postopned it until the return of Nick
Redfern, after July 4.
This list seems important to me, so I am sending it to you privately, in advance, although some may have it already, I don't know.
Regards to all
Gildas Bourdais
----- Original Message -----
From: "GBourdais" <gbourdais at wanadoo.fr>
To: <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
Cc: "Robert Durant" <Rjdurant at aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: UFO Review - Roswell - The End - Clark
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
> To: <- UFO UpDates Subscribers - :>
> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 3:44 PM
> Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: UFO Review - Roswell - The End - Clark
>
>
>> From: Jerome Clark <jkclark at frontiernet.net>
>> To: <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
>> Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:20:49 -0500
>> Subject: Re: UFO Review - Roswell - The End
>>
>>
>>>From: Gildas Bourdais <gbourdais at wanadoo.fr><gbourdais at wanadoo.fr>
>>>To: <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
>>>Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 12:49:12 +0200
>>>Subject: Re: UFO Review - Roswell - The End
>>
>>
>> Gildas,
>>
>>>Thank you for you appreciation of my work. In turn, I can tell you that you IUR is the best one that I know. But do you realize
>>>how many papers, that you published over the years in IUR, are in total contradiction with the Redfern story? And how strongly
>>>they point to a UFO crash recovery?
>>
>> Yes, at one time I was disposed to the conclusion that the Roswell incident was a UFO case. For some time, though, I have been
>> less and less certain of that, while also being skeptical of the Mogul explanation for all the reasons Roswell proponents,
>> including yourself, have cited.
>>
>> I defer further comment till I read Redfern's book next week.
>
> Jerry and List
>
> Yes, lets' read the book, which I hope to receive next week.
> In the meantime, though, Robert Durant has authorized me to pass here
> a list of questions on the Redfern hypothesis.
> Here are the questions of Bob Durant. They may help to read it.
> 1. Is the Redfern flying device that crashed and gave rise to the Roswell
> testimony a credible piece of flying machinery? By Redfern's account,
> it consisted of either a huge balloon or a collection of balloons that
> provided lift for the payload. The payload was a flying-wing controllable
> glider that may or may not have been powered by a propeller. The glider
> carried four Japanese pilots of very small stature and weight, but four
> nevertheless, plus at least some additional equipment. What record is
> there of such a device? Would it make any sense to an aeronautical
> engineer? In July 1947, what balloon or collection of balloons could have
> lifted all that weight? Note also that this device was designed, per
> Redfern's story, to fly at least high enough to consistently use the
> jet stream winds, and this means at least 25,000 feet. Thus the
> device would need to include heating and oxygen supplies sufficient for
> flight lasting several hours in the case of a test, or several days in the
> case of use as a weapon against the Soviet Union, which is what Redfern
> says was the goal. Or so I think. But that is the kind of question that
> readers should be asking as they scan the pages of this book.
>
>
> 2. How does the description of the device, either pristine or after a
> crash, comport with the record of Roswell witness descriptions? I refer
> here to the testimony that describes the material, not the elaborate "I
> saw the aliens rolling around in the sand" stories like those of
> Kauffman, Ragsdale and Dennis. For example, the testimony of Sergeant
> Lewis Rickett and Jesse Marcel, Jr., to name only two. Note that much
> witness testimony has been invoked by both the Mogul and the Spaceship
> proponents. Will that testimony also fit the Redfern thesis? Seems to me
> that if one is to explain Roswell in Redfern's terms, the extensive,
> thoroughly documented witness testimony must be addressed in detail. How
> well does Redfern accomplish that task?
>
> 3. The recently published book Project Beta by Greg Bishop recounts the
> systematic "disinformation" of the late Paul Bennewitz by Air Force
> and Defence Intelligence Agency personnel. Bennewitz was told that an
> alien base existed under Archuleta Peak near Dulce, New Mexico, that they
> had a treaty with the U.S. government, that horrible experiments on humans
> were being carried out, and so forth. These stories were spread far and
> wide, becoming part of the belief system of UFO enthusiasts. Why this was
> done has not been explained. One explanation is that it was aimed at
> Soviet spies in order to waste their efforts. Others, including me, think
> it was part of a decades-long program to keep legislators and journalists
> away from the UFO issue. Eventually, Bennewitz was hospitalized in a
> psychiatric facility and lost control of his business. Others who have
> been victimized by federal government "disinformation" or attempts at
> disinformation include Jacques Vallee, Linda Howe, William Moore, Jenny
> Randles and several movie producers. On February 28, 2005 Sergeant
> Richard Doty, the main Air Force intelligence agent assigned to disinform
> and destabilize Bennewitz, appeared on the Art Bell radio program and
> detailed his role in deceiving the UFO research community. I am giving
> you a very compressed summary of a very long list of instances of such
> interference with UFO researchers, going back to the early 1950s. My
> point is simply this - when reading Redfern's account of how he came to
> learn about the Japanese "paperclip" program that he claims formed the
> real basis of the Roswell Incident, does the reader ever think that
> perhaps Redfern has joined the dismal line of ufologists who have been
> deliberately disinformed? Is there anything fishy about how he was first
> approached? About how the additional whistle-blowers "reluctantly"
> confessed?
>
> 4. If it turns out that there is nothing of substance behind the new
> explanation for Roswell, will that help or hurt the attempt to get elected
> federal officials and mainstream journalists to investigate the Roswell
> Incident?
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: <Franckboitte at aol.com>
To: <Debat at ovni-sciences.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 6:25 PM
Subject: [OVNI-SCIENCES] Body snatchers in the desert
Bonjour Liste, Tous,
Le dernier développement concernant Roswell est un bouquin commis par Nick
Redfern intitulé "Body Snatchers In The Desert" dont tout le monde parle mais
que semble-t-il personne encore n'a lu (en tous cas pas moi et je ne vais
certainement pas dépenser 25 $ pour cela).
La thèse de Nick Redfern est que la "chose" qui est tombée à Roswell était
bien un ballon, oui, mais pas un ballon Mogul. Plutôt un dérivé du Fugo, des
plans duquel les américains s'étaient emparés après la capitulation d'Hiro
Hito et que les japonais comptaient utiliser, piloté par des kamikazes, pour
balancer des saloperies bactériologiques au-dessus des EU. Une équipe apellée
731-testing Unit aurait été constituée en grand secret dans le but de retourner
l'invention contre les communistes, et le test aurait échoué suite à un
orage, dispersant les corps de japonais "volontaires" au quatre vents.
Bien entendu, cette chose était inavouable, d'où les multiples
contradictions du gouvernement américain pour tenter de se dédouaner de Roswell trente ans
plus tard.
L'auteur prétend tenir ces "révélations" d'anciens militaires de l'unité 731
aujourd'hui libres de parole.
Une embrouille de plus, me disais-je, et un bon scénario pour Spielberg,
lorsque le téléphone vint interrompre mes réflexions.
Au bout du fil, J. Sider :
"Nick - ou plutôt Nicholas - Redfern, je connais, me dit-il, j'ai acheté par
erreur un de ses livres co-autoré avec Andy Roberts, intitulé "Strange
Secrets" (Paraview Pocket Books, 2003) . C'est un debunker de première. On a droit
avec lui à la sempiternelle comptine des avions nazis, Vrill, Hanebaü et
autres Horten de la seconde guerre mondiale. Son explication n'est jamais que la
septième pour debunker Roswell. Ca ne vaut rien".
Un avis comme un autre mais qui, venant d'une de nos ufologues les mieux
documentés, mérite que l'on en tienne compte.
J'ajoute que dans son "livre dégoûtant" comme le qualifie Gildas (1), même
l'archi-debunker critique d'art John F. Moffif qualifie (p. 60, citation
unique) Redfern, qui vit aujourd'hui aux EU, "de britannique crédule", auteur de
"The FBI files : The FBI's UFO Top Secrets Exposed" (1998).
Quant à l'historien Richard M. Dolan, que nous avons eu le plaisir
d'entendre sur ARTE le 8 juin ("Les OVNIS de la Guerre Froide"), dans son
indispensable "UFOs and the National Security State", Tome 1, il ne le cite même pas.
Robert Gates a écrit :
"As a cold war researcher, I know that there were numerous
testing, projects and experiments that went on over the years.
However over the years I went on a number of wild goose chases
of projects experiments and testings that allegedly happened but
when you nailed everything down people/places/project names you
found things that didn't add up."
Cordialement,
F. Boitte
===
1 : Picturing Extraterrestrials, Ptometheus Books, 2003
_______________________________________________
Debat mailing list
Debat at ovni-sciences.net
http://www.ovni-sciences.net/mailman/listinfo/debat
Plus d'informations sur la liste de diffusion Debat
