Sunday, 29 May 2011

The Problem with Single Source Testimony...




Although interesting ABC's interview with Annie Jacobson's "source" regarding the alleged events at Roswell in 1947 highlight the consistent problem of individual testimonies. Whilst ABC have declared there were " Holes" in the source's account. His story however essentially remains the same, leaving us really none the wiser.

There are certainly problems with the feasibility of the plot and how the Soviet deception would have been implemented. In addition why would Stalin turn to Joseph Mengele? When he could have taken a leaf out of Nick Redfern's book " Body Snatchers in the Desert" since the USSR had previously captured important Unit 231 sites in China and Manchuria. It held key Unit 731 scientists (later tried, imprisoned and executed). 

With possession of key Unit 731 weapons and human trial data; dare I say they might have acquired... possible test subjects? It certainly would have been an ambitious and imaginative project not withstanding the ethics involved.

Nevertheless not to add much more to the current furore surrounding this subject, I found Annie Jacobson assertion that it was not really for her to verify or test the veracity of this claim but merely only to report it quite remarkable.

Has a responsible Journalist I think Jacobson should have withheld this aspect of her publication until further research could be undertaken to either corroborate her source's story or give it at least more credence with additional data since this issue only occupies a small portion of the actual book itself and as such serves little purpose as part of an alleged factual history of such a highly secretive military installation.

Once again without knowing the background of this individual whose sole testimony cannot be verified or cross referenced however impressive his credentials maybe. I have to assume he would have to have been a military doctor or surgeon since Jacobson states in her interview that he (the source) actually claims he held one of the occupants why would a team of engineers be solely charged with both the analysis of biological beings and their craft?

Given that by the time both the alleged vehicle and its occupants arrived at Area 51 they would or at least I would have thought been subjected to the attention of two very different professions regardless of their origin?

Like the Penkridge Mystery so much more is greatly needed to establish whether there is any merit to this story.










  

Sunday, 30 January 2011

A Matter for the Record?


Back in November Kevin Randle's Blog Spot "A Different Perspective" Published a blog entry entitled  " UFO Crashes and the Public Record" -  

Essentially the blog focuses on the Del Rio Crash and its lack of supporting evidence in-so-far that nothing appears at local level in the form of newspaper reports or testimony pertaining to unusual activity during the period in question.


Likewise I have always believed that had an object of unknown origin crashed near Penkridge back in 1964 there should indeed be some evidence of this, whether in the form of hearsay gossip over the years or local newspaper reports detailing unusual activity in the area.

On the face of it like the Del Rio Crash there appears to be little or no evidence to support the assertion that something of an unusual nature did occur back in 1964. Save the testimony of one individual whose story lacks much needed corroboration. 

In essence Kevin concludes that such absence is a clear indication that nothing out of the ordinary as taken place. Right or wrong this line of reasoning is both a persuasive and cogent argument for not pursuing what could be construed by some as being little more than the product of a individual's imagination.

The stimulant in this case being SUFOG's Article published in the Burntwood Post. By the same token it could be argued the original source for the Penkridge Mystery rests with one individual whose integrity remains unknown to this day save the faith and credence placed in him by the late Leonard Stringfield. Although the stimulant or motivation which brings this story teller forward remains unknown.

In writing this I have to question my own reasoning for continuing to look for something which undoubtedly others would argue does not exist and given that at present I have not progressed much further in my research. It would indeed be difficult to argue otherwise.

Whilst in the last year I have continued my research on a much broader spectrum, looking at the key figures within the Defence Council back in 1964. Whilst in itself interesting I have in some respects moved off on a tangent away from my intended research.

But since a wealth of historical material still does exist within the public domain and a continuing belief on my own part that if something of an unusual nature did occur along the borders of South Staffordshire near Penkridge in 1964 then there will be hidden somewhere in the mists of time a few tell tale signs that cannot be entirely erased by the passage of time.

For those who think this is entirely a pointless exercise. There will indeed become a time to draw a line underneath the whole episode. Until that time I will of course continue to undertake further research to satisfy my own curiosity.

Stephen