Thursday, September 26, 2013

The Roswell "Dream Team" Nightmare


On August 28th, I received an unsolicited e-mail from my friend Kevin Randle, in response to a note I had sent him thanking him for appearing on my podcast and offering my condolences on the death of Jesse Marcel, Jr. I am publishing it here in full, with no additions or alterations of any kind. I do so with great regret, because I value confidence highly and I had agreed after receiving it to keep this communication between Kevin and I private, even though I had not asked to receive the information and was therefore under no obligation to do so. But now, when to keep that confidence requires me to stand by and say nothing about subsequent statements that I know to be untrue, then the ethical balance as I see it has shifted, and I have a duty to set the record straight, even on a matter as inconsequential to me in the grand scheme of things as the Roswell Incident.

There has been, for several months now, speculation at the UFO Iconoclasts blog about rumoured "new evidence" that could break the Roswell case wide open. Some of the statements have come from Rich Reynolds, the man who runs the blog - others have come from various commenters at the blog, including Anthony Bragalia, one of the members of the self-proclaimed "Dream Team" that came together ostensibly to examine the Roswell case with a fresh outlook. That "team" also includes Kevin, his former research partner Donald Schmitt, Schmitt's current partner Tom Carey, longtime Roswell-as-ET proponent David Rudiak, and Canadian UFO researcher Chris Rutkowski, whom I had recommended to Kevin for the spot as "team skeptic" when I turned down his invitation to join. For the full history of all this, I recommend readers go to the UFO Iconoclasts blog and look through the archives. 

Things reached a head this week when Mr. Reynolds published an article titled "The Rumored 'New Roswell Evidence' by Anonymous", the central claim of which centered on the question of whether or not the "new evidence" which is the focus of the investigation by members of the "Dream Team" was photographic slides purportedly from 1947 showing alien bodies (there were other peripheral claims made, but those are beside the point). Previously, Mr. Reynolds had published claims that the slides existed but were subject to a non-disclosure agreement, among other things.

Mr. Bragalia responded at the UFO Iconoclasts blog as follows: 
Folks... bogus information from Richard Reynolds... and from anonymous. He is threading a tale to create whole cloth... but there are too many holes in Mr. Reynolds tale.
I knew this to be false, at least with respect to the central point of the existence of the slides and the Dream Team's interest in them, because of what I had been told by Kevin in the e-mail of August 28th. I asked Mr. Bragalia a simple question - was the central claim by Anonymous about the slides true? As I wrote in a comment at the UFO Iconoclasts blog:
How about Mr. Bragalia answer one simple question then that goes to the heart of the matter - are there slides, or not, that the "Dream Team" have access to and which purport to be from the Roswell "crash" in 1947? 
If the answer is "yes" then the story as reported by Rich is, in it's most fundamental aspect, correct. If not, then Mr. Bragalia should say so, clearly and unambiguously, and in a public venue. 
This is one of those "come to Jesus" moments where people have to make a choice. Admittedly, it's penny ante stuff in the grand scheme of things, so it's more like a "come to Jebus" moment, but still... within the context of the world in which Mr. Bragalia and the Dream Teamers live, it's the moment of truth. Is the basic story true... or not? Is Anonymous a liar (and Rich one too by implication), or is his / her account accurate in its core claim? 
Mr. Bragalia's response? "Paul Kimball you must be kidding. I owe you nothing. Come to Jesus? How about go to hell?" 

And that is where it would have ended for me, if not for comments that Kevin made to columnist Jack Brewer yesterday
"I have seen no photographs, slides, or pictures of alien creatures associated with the Roswell crash," Randle explained. "I have participated in no investigations of such slides."
That was the straw that shifted the balance for me, because the truth, as readers will see from the text of the e-mail below, is markedly different. There are slides. There is a non-disclosure agreement (which has clearly been breached, because the information made its way to me via a "Dream Team" member), and Kevin has investigated the claims of the slides.

In follow-up e-mails after August 28th I pleaded with Kevin to release this information himself, or at the very least disassociate himself from the "Dream Team" for reasons that should be clear from reading his e-mail (especially as they relate to Schmitt). He told me he was going to do so, and then several weeks later sent a note apologizing for "dilly-dallying". Last night he sent me a note saying that he could not do so now that Mr. Reynolds had published what is clearly substantially correct information, and because I had commented on it at the UFO Iconoclasts blog. "Now is no longer the proper moment to bail. If Reynolds had waited a week or two, I would have been long gone." I am afraid that given how the past month has unfolded, I simply do not believe that, but the point is moot.

My response? The proper time to bail was the end of August at the latest, given what the e-mail published below exposes - skulduggery, mistrust, half truths and complete untruths, profiteering, true believerism... all the things that undermine real research, a point Kevin made to me twelve years ago when I first met him.



Whether people believe it or not, it pains me greatly to publish this, because Kevin is one of the very few UFO researchers for whom I still had any respect. At his core, I still believe him to be a decent and honourable man. But it is clear to me now that he cannot be objective when it comes to Roswell, and that has led him to participate in the evasions, half-truths and untruths, and behind-the-scenes skulduggery that is the bread and butter of the Ufology circus, and Roswell in particular, but which has no place in a true, honest, open and objective search for the truth. 

I didn't ask to be dragged into all of this, and I won't be a party to it further for any reason. It offends me on many levels. 

The truth abhors a vacuum. It is time for someone to fill in the void with the real story, and let the chips fall where they may. 

Paul Kimball


From Kevin Randle to Paul Kimball, August 28th, 11:11 pm.

Good Evening, Paul –
Okay, here’s the deal, again just between you and me, and because Carey’s book has really screwed the pooch on this one. He had told me that it was about Wright Field and Wright Patterson Air Force Base. It was about what was there and I had no idea that he was going to delve as deeply in the Roswell pool as he did. 
Two years ago we had a meeting (and a few others since then) about doing the ultimate Roswell book. I told him, and Schmitt after Tom invited him aboard, that for this to work, we’d need to come up with something new and exciting. I said that we could review the data as presented, weed out the crap, and present the case as dispassionately as possible, but we needed something beyond the witness testimony and the few documents held. This had to be heavily and properly footnoted with all sources revealed for the “peer” review to follow. (I put peer in quotes simply because I figured that some of the peer review wouldn’t actually fit the definition, but that everyone had to be able to evaluate the sources.) 
They agreed with that but said nothing to me at the time. Now, here’s where it gets good. They knew, at that time, of a source who approached them and who claimed he had photographic evidence. Two color slides of the alien bodies, taken by a reputable geologist. The Kodak coding on the slides was proper for 1947 and there were plans underway to have the photographs properly analyzed. 
To get that information, both had to sign a “nondisclosure” agreement and both foolishly did. The investigation took off from there. I don’t know if you’ve seen The Newsroom on HBO but they talked of a Red Team to evaluate the data that the White Team was getting. Although I was excluded, and I think of my role as the Red Team, I don’t believe that was actually their thinking. They’d signed the damned agreement and they were stuck with it. 
What they didn’t count on was that the source would be down in Midland, Texas, talking to the geologist buddies of the man who took the photographs, and the story got out from there. I’m not sure what the purpose of the Midland trip was, but all it did was put the information out for others to find, including Nick Redfern. I’ve talked to Nick about this. 
Here’s where the train slips off the rails. I have learned that the man with the photographs is not the man who took them. The man with them got them from his sister who was cleaning out an attic in Sedona, Arizona but the sister was helping her boyfriend in the cleaning who worked for an estate service. (Convoluted enough for you?) The slides were found in a box in a separate envelop taped to an inner box lid, away from other slides. The box apparently belonged to the second wife of the photographer… the other slides in the box contained pictures from that “era” including one of Eisenhower (which is obviously five years too late). 
Neither Schmitt nor Carey told me the photographer’s name or the name of the man who allegedly took the pictures (though given the chain of custody, I’m not sure who might have taken the pictures but I had a name of the man who died decades ago and I know the name of the man who allegedly took them), but I have been able to learn all that, and found a telephone number of the man who lives in Chicago. 
I’m sure that I don’t have to tell you the problem with these slides… oh, and the man who has them now and who has approached a number of media outlets attempting to sell them, is a graphic artist. And the date code on the slides is correct for 1947. Well, Kodak recycled the codes so the date could have been 1927, 1947 or 1967. No real help there. 
I have been reluctant to say anything about this because, in the very off chance that the photographs are authentic, if I revel what I know, the owner will blame Schmitt and Carey for telling me, even though I learned everything through other sources. I haven’t wanted to screw up their chances of getting the pictures, but I really don’t believe the photos to be real. 
This is the alien autopsy without the motion, without the photographer, or without a chain of custody. Say what you will about Santilli, but at least he claimed to have talked to the photographer. Carey and Schmitt aren’t even sure who that might have been. Someone other than the geologist might have taken them and given them to the man who taped them in the box. 
While this little conspiracy of silence has annoyed me, I understood the necessity for it. If the photos were real, premature release could jeopardize the investigation and if they were fakes, then Roswell had just taken an unnecessary hit. If the investigation revealed them to be fake we could make that announcement without having to retract anything about their authenticity. 
So, you say, what changed? Carey and Schmitt’s book… which, when I saw the nature of it, revealed more about the Roswell case. They simply couldn’t talk about what went on at Wright Field; they had to get deeply into Roswell as well. It looks as if we’re putting out the information piecemeal, put I had nothing to do with that. 
My dilemma, then, is how to tell Tom that I’m now out. I hung in there with the unilateral decision to invite in Schmitt, even given his history of lying (which, BTW, continues in some arenas, and Schmitt’s grab for the spotlight to the exclusion of all others). But this latest book seems to sink our effort before we even get to the end point. 
No, I do not believe the story which is the main reason for not mentioning it. Why get everyone all excited about something that is going to blow up… and I suspect Rich Reynolds, knows it and is hoping to catch me in this web. 
I think that brings you up to date, other than to say that, again, between you and me, I have enough income from pensions that I could never sell another word and live quite comfortably. I write what pleases me now rather than what might be more commercially successful. 
I don’t know if this fully explains the situation, but if you have questions, feel free to ask. I tell all this privately, but will maintain publicly the attitude I have shown up to now. I see no reason to reveal this even though there are some who believe they have a right to everything we had found. 
Of course any comments you care to make would be greatly appreciated. I just can’t wrap my head around the chain of custody.
Kevin



Note: An addendum, at 11:20 pm Thursday, September 25th.

Now that the betrayal is out in full, let me say that there was nothing in my statement that wasn't the truth. Whatever Paul might believe, or think he's proved, I have never seen the slides, and I have not participated in the investigation of them.  
Because it was not my investigation, I believed it was up to those others to publish what they had when they were satisfied that it was authentic. I simply had no role in it. I am astonished that Paul would violate my trust by publishing an email that was clearly meant to be held between Paul and me... and then I'm accused of duplicity.
My reply:
Kevin wrote: "I have not participated in the investigation of them. 
From Kevin's e-mail to me: 
"I have learned that the man with the photographs is not the man who took them. The man with them got them from his sister who was cleaning out an attic in Sedona, Arizona but the sister was helping her boyfriend in the cleaning who worked for an estate service. (Convoluted enough for you?) The slides were found in a box in a separate envelop taped to an inner box lid, away from other slides. The box apparently belonged to the second wife of the photographer… the other slides in the box contained pictures from that “era” including one of Eisenhower (which is obviously five years too late).  
Neither Schmitt nor Carey told me the photographer’s name or the name of the man who allegedly took the pictures (though given the chain of custody, I’m not sure who might have taken the pictures but I had a name of the man who died decades ago and I know the name of the man who allegedly took them), but I have been able to learn all that, and found a telephone number of the man who lives in Chicago." 
Kevin may want to try and split ethical and moral hairs, but the claim that he has "not participated in the investigation of them" is clearly false, because he conducted his own investigation, and reached conclusions from it.
And yet Kevin thinks I'm the bad guy here. Given what can be seen in that e-mail (and others that I will not publish but which followed this one), it sadly comes as no surprise to me that Kevin is trying the one tactic left to him, the last refuge of the PR scoundrel - blame the messenger, and try to shift the story.
To which I will add a final note. Kevin's comments to Brewer shaded the truth to a degree where the grey and the black are indistinguishable, and the white is long gone. I was appalled. I was also terribly disappointed that despite obviously knowing what the right course was, he refused to take it (despite saying he would), and continued his association with a known liar who once accused him of being a government agent, and whom he acknowledged is still lying (Kevin's words, not mine). But that alone wouldn't have led me to publish - his comments to Brewer did, because they were public and they were not fully truthful.

I regret it's come to this, but I never asked him to send me that information, and I'm not the bad guy here. I realized when I published it that this would almost certainly cause an irreparable breach between Kevin and myself, not because he would never forgive me (anyone who forgave Schmitt clearly has a high degree of forbearance), but because I'll never be able to trust or respect him again. I honestly wish it were otherwise. As I said, I'm terribly disappointed in him.

And there it rests, for each to judge on their own.

32 comments:

Ryan P. said...

You will be crucified for this by some Paul but I for one am thankful that you did your best to get Randle to see the light and when he would not do so you had the courage to publish the true story. I remain a devoted reader and admirer of your commitment to the truth wherever it takes you and whatever it might cost you personally. - Ryan

Allan Lawrence said...

The duplicity on display here is appalling; and I say that as someone who was convinced that Roswell was extraterrestrial. Now I wonder.

Good for you, Mr. kimball for exposing it.

Allan Lawrence

Ross said...

Randle has frequently chided others for this kind of nonsense, and here is is neck deep in it.

As for Carey and Schmitt signing non-disclosure agreements, an act worthy of entry in the annals of rubedom.

Anonymous said...

Kimball is indeed a bit weaselish here - but Randle is the king of weasels and weasel-words. All in all I'll take Paul as the much lesser of two evils.

jacarav@ca said...

Finally the truth gets out, I congratulate you Mr. Kimball has been honest and consistent with the thoroughness of the investigations should be UFOs ... thanks

Anthony Bragalia said...

Paul-

History will hate you. You are indeed reprehensible. The word 'weasel' that has been used by others to describe you is too kind. Not only has Kevin Randle spoken the truth on this matter (and I have too) but you have singly jeopardized release of what may be the first genuine physical evidence to have ever surfaced affirming ET visitation.

You are a jealous, petty man and wanna-be, and many know this. Because of this you have seen fit to ruin.

Firstly, not all of us were privy to viewing this new evidence. Not all of us saw it. Those of us who did hold a different opinion than Kevin. Though he has offered his concerns about chain-of-custody w/ us, he has never done any kind of formal evaluation, as he very truthfully states. Others on the team have. Why this is so is a long story and it relates to certain obligations placed on some not to speak in detail of the investigation.

Additionally, I spoke the truth in blogs recently when I commented that 1) we are unaware of any connection between a geologist and Silas Newton 2) we are unaware of any connection between a geologist and the supposed Aztec UFO crash 3) The team does not own, manage or otherwise control any physical evidence that we shopped to media.

These were indeed fictions made up by others outside the team.

I have some news for everyone: It does not matter anyway:

- None of you will likely ever see the evidence to evaluate it for yourselves. You can thank Paul and people like him for this.

- You will likely never know the full story because I'm not telling it (and yes, I am indeed the one who discovered the geologist and knows every single, remarkable detail of the story and who continues to work on it.)

But I am not the owner of the evidence. And that person is surely disgusted at these things:

1) That people like Paul (who are supposedly concerned with truth) would intentionally cause irreparable harm to an ongoing investigation just because they heard a leak about it. They want to be first to "reveal" what they know. Those people are self-aggrandizing.

2) That those in the "UFO world" would betray confidentiality so readily.

3) That they felt compelled to force comment by investigators about evidence that is still under investigation. They would even badger and threaten them to do so.

4) That they somehow feel they are "owed" updates before we are prepared to provide them.

5) Who tell fictions, speculate and build on what they may know to draw traffic to their blogs and try to insert themselves.

It is unfortunate, as the evidence now appears to be expertly authenticated - yet only the qualified and invited few will be given the opportunity to view it. And perhaps this is the way that it should be.

The behavior and comments of so many about evidence that had never even been publicly presented is detestable. Minds were made up. There was name calling and there were threats to tell all.

I can only imagine what it would be like if they evidence were actually disclosed.

I do not understand the motives and reasons behind Reynolds and Kimball's need to inflict harm to honest, hard investigation and good people who are only seeking truth. Perhaps it is because neither has ever done such investigation themselves.

Anthony Bragalia

Ryan P. said...

"honest, hard investigation and good people who are only seeking truth"

You're joking, right?

Did you even read the e-mail? Do you understand all of the implications, not for some story about dead aliens but for how people conduct research and interpersonal relations?

Like I said - Paul will be crucified for this by the true believers but it was done in the service of the truth which was not being told to the public by Randle or Bragalia.

Shameful.

Nick Redfern said...

Hey Paul

http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-roswell-slides-my-perspective-by.html

Cheers,
Nick

Paul Kimball said...

In my opinion, Anthony Bragalia has the integrity and intelligence of a kumquat. That is the only comment I have for him.

PK

Paul Kimball said...

Thanks Nick... it's good to see that more of the story is finally coming out. There is much more to it, and I'm hoping someone will step up and do the right thing.

PK

Paul Kimball said...

Ross,

Quite right about Kevin chiding others... one of the reasons I posted the clip from his interview in 2001, which was related. When we see stuff like this, he said, we have a duty to expose it. And so I have, after giving Kevin plenty of time to do the right thing, as he said he was going to do.

Paul

Paul Kimball said...

Anons.

Here's the thing about weasels - they dig through the dirt. In this case, I had the dirt dumped on me, and then I dug through it. So sure, I'll happily wear the label of "weasel."

Paul

Paul Kimball said...

Ryan, Allan, Jose,

Thank you.

Paul

Anonymous said...

Let me see if I've got this right: Paul thinks Kevin is lying when he claims that he, Kevin, didn't participate in "the investigation." Kevin, on the other hand, insists he conducted his own investigation independently. Tony threw a hissy fit, took his marbles and stomped home. Nick, meanwhile, is doing his best Rodney King impersonation (Can't well just get along?) And nobody gets to see the alleged slides until some recognized news agency is willing to cough up some big bucks first.

That about sum it up?

Paul Kimball said...

Anon.

This is about much more than the slides - it's about the entire mess that is the "Dream Team"... so I hope people don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.

I also don't think Kevin is lying, although he is certainly shading the truth. He probably even believes it now. It is lawyer-speak, the kind of thing you hear from some sports star or actor when trying to explain away a transgression. It may not be a bold-faced lie, but it's something even worse and more insidious. Once again, I feel sorry that Kevin has, due to his addiction to Roswell, allowed himself to be dragged into the DT.

But honestly... he thought teaming up with Donald Schmitt would be in any way a good idea? He thinks Anthony Bragalia is stable and an objective and good researcher?

The mind reels.

As for Nick, well... he's a cheerful Brit. No harm in that. :-)

PK

Anonymous said...

Kimball, you're the kind of person who I would like punch in the face and then shake your hand.

Anthony Bragalia said...

My harshness was really directed solely at Paul Kimball- who has now made himself wholly untrustworthy and a pariah. I suspect his own Uncle, Stan Friedman, does not now trust him.

I do not put Rich Reynolds in that category and should not have even used his name in the same sentence as Paul's. Rich means well, Paul does not. Rich was directly involved, Paul inserted himself. These are essential differences.

AJB

Paul Kimball said...

I have a successful career and a very happy and fulfilling personal life, neither of which involves "ufology". The last thing I need or want is "ufology" fame.

You folks (The last Anon., Bragalia) really need to get out more.

PK

Paul Kimball said...

If all of this leads to me never receiving an unsolicited e-mail from a "ufologist" ever again, then I view that as a very good thing. I wear Anthony Bragalia calling me a "pariah" as a badge of intellectual and moral honour.

PK

Anonymous said...

I think it's obvious that Kimball wasn't the Anon. at UFO Iconoclasts. Say what you will about the man but he always signs his name to what he writes. I suspect it was Redfern or Reynolds.

Nick Redfern said...

Absolutely: don't be bloody stupid. I can absolutely assure you that I most certainly was not the anonymous source who posted that story at the Iconoclasts site and for several reasons.

1. I would not do something so juvenile and pathetic in the first place.

2. I have far better things to do with my time - like having a life and not playing stupid mind-games with ufologists.

3. Me doing it serves no purpose because I put out my very own statement anyway which was posted at Iconcloasts today, and which explains my involvement - which is to the smallest point possible. Indeed, my ONLY involvement was to be the recipient of a single phone call, the contents of which I shared with the DT after I got it, which I think was March or April.

4. It doesn't match the story told to me - the biggest issues being (A) the Silas Newton angle which was never even a part of the story told to me, and (B) I was never told anything specifically about CNN, only that a major news service was involved.

5. You say about Paul: "Say what you will about the man but he always signs his name to what he writes." And so do I! I have never, ever posted anything anonymously to any site/blog/forum - period.

6. I could go on and on, but I'll end with this - you have the nerve to suggest I'm Anonymous when you don't even have the guts to use your real name, which again only needs the use of one word I used earlier: pathetic.

Nick Redfern said...

Hey Paul
I just realized I began my last comment with the word "Absolutely." I meant, of course "Anonymous." LOL. Can u change before posting?

Paul Kimball said...

Sorry Nick - I had to publish them both because I don't have the ability to edit comments (or if I do I don't know how to use it).

PK

Paul Kimball said...

P.S. And I echo your comments to Anon. - I only refuse comments that are defamatory or contain more than a dollop of foul language, because I believe in the free exchange of ideas and opinions, even those critical of me or friends like you. :-)

kenneth dudley said...

www.narcap.org

Anonymous said...

Paul, you have been a debunker from the very beginning. You had me fooled for perhaps the first couple of years. Then I started picking up on things from your own words and what other people were talking about as well. The only reason you even have a voice in the UFO field is because of who you married. Otherwise you would be a nobody.

So just know you didn't fool me for very long. I would have hoped that you would have disappeared by now. I hope your betrayal serves to isolate you and cut you off for good.

Just take your good buddy Nick (I'll write a book on anything) Redfern with you when you disappear.

Paul Kimball said...

I love you people who just don't even have the guts to sign your own name to a comment slagging someone else. Cowards.

In your case, however, you're also a moron. I'm not married. Never have been.

This is the kind of crack research and thinking that I have sadly come to expect from UFO believers.

Nick Redfern said...

Anonymous, if you have things to say about me, USE YOUR NAME. There's nothing more pathetic than when someone makes comments about someone else but is scared to death to use their real identity. Why are you such a total chicken when it comes to confrontation?

rutkows said...

Just to set the record straight, I haven't seen the slides. In fact, I knew nothing of them at all until I read about them on someone's blog a week ago. My role on the Dream Team is to evaluate evidence when it is presented to me, and it hasn't, yet.

Paul Kimball said...

Chris,

You're a good guy, and I'm sorry I ever recommended you for this band of ne'er do wells... I had hoped you would have a positive impact, at least upon Kevin. Alas, it seems not...

What does it say, by the way, when you have a situation where the non-skeptics on the Dream team were not only aware of the slides, but investigating them (yes, even Kevin was doing that, both by communicating with S & C and by making his own inquiries), and yet the skeptic on the Team hadn't even been made aware of their existence... even as DT members were making it aware to others, like me?

I feel bad for you Chris, although I do wonder why on earth you would continue to associate yourself with them from this point onwards. As I wrote, this is a "come to Jebus" moment.

Best,
Paul

Terry the Censor said...

> My role on the Dream Team is to evaluate evidence when it is presented to me, and it hasn't, yet.

Just a yes/no question, Chris: Has any evidence been presented to you?

I ask because, as Randle notes above, two DTers recently published Roswell material behind the backs of the other DTers (if I understand KR correctly).

Paul Kimball said...

Terry,

Good to see that someone is paying attention and looking beyond the "slides" angle to the bigger picture here.

PK