Because the scientists associated with analyzing the slides can’t admit they made a mistake, the slides continue to be a source of derision from skeptics and proponents alike. Recently, Gilles Fernandez fenced with Mexico’s number one alien biologist Dr. Rios. Rios made a foray into Gilles’ Facebook group “UFO pragmatism”, where he kept posting images from his blog. He never re- sponded to any challenges to his work. I continued to ask how he determined that the woman was close enough to the body to use as a standard of measurement for the body. At one point he stated the woman was 30 CM from the body. I immediately pointed out that if she is 30CM behind the body, then the body would appear larger. For instance, if the body was 100 CM from the camera and the woman 130CM, then the body would appear 1.3 X larger than if it were next to the woman. Instead of discussing this point, Rios simply left the discussion! I thought of writing another article exposing more of his false assumptions and incorrect calculations but it would have been beating a dead horse. This video by Fin365 pretty much demonstrates the body in the photograph is the Palmer mummy despite Rios efforts to deny that they are two different corpses.

Meanwhile, Don Schmitt and Tom Carey seem to have finally admitted the photograph shows the mummified remains of a two year old boy as the placard states. If these two can finally admit they made a mistake, I have to wonder why Rios can’t admit his error?

I suspect that Rios was one of the original scientists that Schmitt claimed to trust in his original mea culpa after the placard was deblurred. Rios, after placing his reputation on the line, now will not consider the possibility that he might be wrong. That means that he is not interested in science but his belief and preserve his reputation. Either he is blinded by that belief or he knows that he is promoting a hoax. In either case, it makes him look foolish.

The annual Mogul offensive is early

Kevin Randle, and the other crashologists, normally wait until July to launch their annual Mogul offensive. This is where they repeat their same old arguments about why MOGUL is an IMPOSSIBLE explanation for the debris recovered at the Foster ranch. I have addressed these issues in my article “Crashology’s last stand” in SUNlite 5-5. In that article, I demonstrated that many of the arguments against Mogul are one-sided interpretations of the documentation and are not facts as the Crashologists want everyone to believe. Mr. Randle fails to understand that to truly falsify the MOGUL hypothesis, he has to positively prove that the “cluster of balloons” (which is a term Crary used to describe several complete flights by the NYU team) that was launched on June 4th could not be the source of the debris at the Foster Ranch.

Just one example of Randle’s rationalization is the “statement of fact” that the flight could not have been launched until daylight because the flight did not have permission to be launched at night. This argument was a cornerstone of Randle’s rebuttal of MOGUL until he realized that flight #8 was launched before sunrise in early July. In order to correct this conflict, Randle concluded that they MUST have had special permission to launch that flight at night to coincide with the planned V-2 launch. There is no evidence to support this “special permission” to launch at night other than his statement of “because I said so”. Randle also ignores why Flight #17 was launched in the evening, which was airborne after sunset. This occurred in September of 1947 so one must assume that the NYU team had special permission to launch this flight as well. If these special permissions were that easy to obtain, what prevents the NYU from having the same type of “special permission” for the “cluster of balloons” to be launched at night on June 4th?

This is the kind of rationalization by Randle, and the other crashologists, that is being used to falsify the MOGUL explanation. It fails to address all possibilities and demonstrates that their minds continue to remain closed to possibilities other than the one involving a crashed spaceship.

During the Mogul debate on Kevin Randle’s blog, Brian Bell proposed another possible theory for what “crashed” at Roswell. He suggested a back-engineered B-29 flown by pilots defecting from the Soviet Union. The bomber did have the range (The ferry range was about 5000 miles according to the standard aircraft characteristics) to make the trip. While, I find it an unlikely scenario, it is interesting to see how the crashed spaceship proponents reacted. They dismissed it because it was an explanation that is based on a very biased interpretation of witness testimony told decades after the event. Isn’t that essentially what the ET crash propo- nents use for their theory? Things that make you go hmmm......

Last year, Kevin Randle had stated on his blog that he thought the aliens may have crashed their spacecraft on purpose in order to announce to the human race they existed. In SUNlite 7-2, I commented about how ridiculous this theory seemed. Brian Bell mentioned this recently on Randle’s blog, which prompted Kevin Randle to e-mail me about my comments. He told me that his statements were more of a joke than a serious theory. I pointed out that he stated it was a “favorite” theory of his and their appeared to be no attempt at humor. Randle assures me that this theory is a “favorite” only because it is “so far out there and funny”. I guess that means we are still stuck with the infamous “lightning” theory that many of our planes can survive but alien spacecraft can not.

Quelle: SUNlite 3/2016