STALKED BY A SAUCER SKEPTIC
(originally published Sept 2009)
The "will to disbelieve" in the extraterrestrial can be disturbingly strong. I know this because I am being stalked by a UFO skeptic. The secrets learned from this "extreme skeptic" provide telling insight into just how far some will go when they feel compelled to defend their doubt. A UFO skeptic who fashions himself as the new incarnation of the late arch-skeptic Phillip Klass has revealed why such doubters are so rabid. He provides keen insight into the mind of the "morbidly skeptical". He helps us to define the essential difference between a "critical thinker" and a "cynical skeptic".
In the most recent edition of Mr. Tim Printy's skeptical e-newsletter entitled SUNlite, he attempts to "deflate" or "demolish" recent UFO and Roswell-related research by this author. He has devoted pages upon pages to skeptical rants about my work. This commentary appears in current and past issues of his newsletter; within his blog; on various internet forums; and in endless, scathing emails to this author and to others within the UFO research community. But the backstory on Mr. Printy reveals a skeptic who does not wish to arrive at truth. Instead he fears it. And like his predecessor Phil Klass, he will obfuscate the truth by any means necessary. Like a child unable to accept something that he does not like, Printy protests too much. In his vehemence, he reveals his real concern: the evidence that I have brought forth on Roswell may be true. Printy has been compelled to resort to misrepresentation, omission and assumption. Exasperated, he has finally degenerated to name-calling and outright lying.
In Printy's latest issue of SUNlite, he offers his skeptical "solutions" to three of my recent stories about UFOs and Roswell. These stories have appeared on the UFO Iconoclast blog and have been reproduced on websites worldwide:
FAMOUS LIFE PHOTOGRAPHER'S ROSWELL CRASH REVELATION
Famed LIFE photographer Allan Grant related to this author that he had been flown by the military from LA to New Mexico on July 7 1947 to photograph what he was told by the military was a "big meteor crash." When he got there, he was issued a gun by his Air Force pilot escort. They searched and found nothing. When he returned, he realized that he had either been "landed in the wrong place at the wrong time" – or that the military had used him as a potential cover and diversion for the crash that he had learned was a disc near Roswell.
Full story here: Famous LIFE Photographer's Roswell Crash Revelation
THE SKEPTIC'S "SOLUTION"
Printy "solves" the case by telling his readers that Allan Grant and his widow were old people who were confusing dates. Printy makes the "discovery" that the Grants are really referring to a documented trip to Shiprock, NM during a November 1947 "meteor hunt" that Grant had made, meeting with Dr. Lincoln LaPaz and Boyd Wettlauffer. The Grants somehow confused this as being associated with Roswell.
Printy makes much about this "solution" by reproducing a page from an archived Albuquerque newspaper that mentions Grant and this November 1947 meteor hunt. He pretends that it is an original "finding." He implies that this is "the answer to the mystery." The Grants were simply confused about dates.
What Printy did not know is that this author had already discussed this very Shiprock, NM visit with the Grants in email correspondence over two and a half years ago! Once he was provided this correspondence, Mr. Printy was stunned silent. He had tried to play a game of "Gotcha!" and it had backfired. This is because in a March 17 2007 email to this author, the Grants had already explained what Printy had thought had never been discussed. The Grants clearly state in that email: "Just four months after Roswell, Allan was sent to Shiprock, N.M." Printy now admits his error and has assured me he will add this clarifying information in his next newsletter.
In follow-up correspondence, I asked the Grants if there was any way possible that they were confusing the Shiprock, NM meteor hunt in November with Allan's flight to the Roswell area in July of 1947. I asked this because I had known that Allan was involved in many photography assignments to New Mexico over the years. It was important to know if he could make the distinction between the two trips and events. Grant remained clear and steadfast – that these were in fact separate events that had occurred at two distinctly different times and places – one in July and one in November of 1947. During the July flight, Grant indicated that he went alone with a pilot, and that he was not met by others. He also was issued a gun. In the Shiprock visit in November, Grant explained that he was not alone – he was met by Dr. Lincoln LaPaz and Boyd Wettlauffer. And he was not issued a gun, as he was in July. Grant was very aware of the Green Fireball phenomena and of the Meteor Hunt and Balloon projects of the time period. He had confused nothing.
Printy fails to tell the Grant's complete account. Mrs. Grant confirmed that throughout the decades of their marriage they had identified Allan's flight in July of 1947 as the "Roswell flight". Allan remembered the fuss about the press release of the RAAF finding a crashed "disc" and then later stating that it was a balloon. This was precisely when Grant remembers being flown by military out to a site he was told was near Roswell.
Nor does Printy tell his readers the Grants' true feelings about what happened in July of 1947. In emails in 2007 they write: "The Feds knew all along that it was something more than a meteor, and what better way to deal with it than to invite the prestigious LIFE magazine to come in and take a look. You take them to the spot and show the world there's nothing there. Everybody is happy and relieved, and you can go about your business. Additionally, you can keep all other media out by saying that LIFE had already been there and found nothing." Printy omits the Grants' belief that meteor hunts – like balloons – could be used as a very effective diversionary tactic. As a photographer for America's leading pictorial, Allan Grant lived by the clock for a living. He was very detail-oriented and even maintained a website late in life chronicling his long career. He knew what he did, when and where he did it – and for whom. Mrs. Grant allows that the photograph of her husband on their website that pictures him in a volcanic-looking terrain may not be of the Roswell visit. Printy – even after being forwarded Mr. and Mrs. Grant's 2007 emails to me – stubbornly maintains that they are gravely mistaken.
Mr. Printy never makes his readers aware that Allan Grant wrote about his July 7 1947 trip to the Roswell area over two decades ago! In 1997 Mr. Grant's story was published in the Los Angeles Times. Grant is very clear about the specific date and the circumstances surrounding the event. Twenty years later he and his wife repeated the same details to me. Mr. Printy purposely omits such details so that his analysis "fits" – even if he has to force it.
Printy believes that the Grants were mistaken about Roswell in 2007. He believes that they were mistaken two decades prior and throughout their decades of marriage. Printy has a penchant for belittling the elderly. In numerous emails to me he has implied that the elderly are weak-minded and that they are "easily led." This is especially interesting in that Printy has privately admitted to me that he has never himself conducted even a single interview of a witness – elderly or otherwise – during his entire "career" as a skeptic!
ROSWELL FIREMAN CONFESSES: IT WAS A FLYING SAUCER!
In 2008 this author spoke with the last-living 1947 Roswell Fire Department fireman. This was done because numerous Roswell crash accounts relate the involvement of the Roswell firemen, including of fireman Dan Dwyer. Witness Frankie Rowe is the daughter of Dan Dwyer. She and her sisters confirm Dan's story of going to the crash site and viewing a crashed disc and non-human corpses. Because Dwyer is now deceased, I wanted to see what the remaining Roswell fireman would say about the crash event. The fireman (now 90) confirmed to me (and in a later conversation, with author Kevin Randle), several stunning things about the Roswell crash in 1947. He said that:
An intimidating Colonel from the Roswell Army Air Field visited the Roswell Fire Department after the crash. They were told that an unknown aerial object had crashed outside of town (the fireman said that it was "unidentified – a flying saucer.") They were told not to respond to any calls about it or to go out there – that it was to be handled by the military.
The Roswell City Manager also came to the Fire Department to warn them it was serious military business and not to get involved.
Dan Dwyer did go out to the crash on his own and saw strange activity near the site, including armed guards.
Full story here: Roswell Fireman Confesses: It WAS a Flying Saucer
THE SKEPTIC'S "SOLUTION"
Printy "solves" this case by simply comparing the fireman's testimony to acknowledged fraudulent Roswell "witnesses" such as Frank Kaufmann and Gerald Anderson. Printy just decides to "lump" together any witness testimony that is troubling to his skeptical analysis with unrelated witness testimony that has been proven not credible. In other words, if one witness lied or embellished about Roswell – then every single witness before or since has done the same.
For Printy, it does not matter if you were a world-class photographer or a life-saving fireman. If you are old and you are telling a Roswell story – then you are either misguided or a liar. As mentioned before, Printy has admitted to me that in his many years of "skeptical analysis" he has never himself interviewed a single witness. In an email to this author, Printy said that only if you were with an organization such as the CIA would you have the ability to conduct such interviews to determine if a witness was telling the truth! Mr. Printy analyzes those of us who interview witnesses, but he admits that he has himself never conducted such an interview!
Unlike such frauds as Kaufmann and Anderson as pointed out by Printy, the fireman is unquestionably who he says he was. And the fireman was sought out – he did not come forward – to tell his story. These are essential differences.
And what Printy also does not tell his readers is that the fireman was referred to me by the son of Rue Chrisman, the Fire Chief at the time of the Roswell crash. Chrisman's own son not only confirmed that the crash was that of a UFO (his words) but that the last-living fireman knew much more. Author Kevin Randle also spoke with the fireman. I wanted another person to confirm what the fireman had told me. The story was confirmed by Randle, but this time the fireman said that he would prefer not to be identified or to be bothered about the matter again. Living out the remainder of his life at age 90, this is understandable. But strangely, Printy seems to find this to be an indication of fraud.
Printy makes much of the fact that Karl Pflock had briefly contacted this fireman many years ago. What Printy does not tell his readers is that I was the one who made Printy aware of that very fact! I made Printy aware of this because I wanted him to know that the fireman was not fictitious (as Printy also implied). In fact, Printy's own friend had interviewed him! And what Printy fails to explain is that the fireman remembered this interview. It was Karl Pflock who kept hammering the fireman with different variations of the same question. Pflock was obsessed that fireman Dan Dwyer would not have gone out to the crash site because the Roswell Fire Department did not make runs outside of city limits. The fireman (a man of few words by nature) did not offer anything that Pflock did not ask.
Two decades later, I located this same fireman and mentioned to him that I was referred to him by Rue Chrisman's son. I knew that Chrisman and the fireman's family went to the same church. A brief but friendly dialog ensued. I asked him very specific questions as well as more open-ended ones. The fireman told his story sparsely, somewhat reluctantly and without elaboration. He knew that I had already talked with the son of his former Fire Chief, and what the son himself knew about the reality of Roswell. There was not a hint of misdirection or embellishment. The Fireman was of clear mind and told the story as he remembered it. And he remembered it well.
ROSWELL MEMORY METAL RESEARCH
In a multi-part series of articles by this author, the case was made that in the months immediately following the Roswell crash, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base contracted Battelle Memorial Institute to begin studies on Roswell-like "memory metal".
These articles can be read through the links below:
THE SKEPTIC'S "SOLUTION"
Printy believes that all of the timing, events, documents and individuals identified in the Battelle-Roswell article series are "coincidental". He maintains that I have "connected dots" where they should not be connected and that I "read into things". He believes that I confuse standard aeronautical metals research with non-existent ET metals research.
Printy lacks even a sophomore-level understanding of researching the history of science. He admits that his critique of my work is limited to simple "Googling" – something that he had accused me of doing. Unlike him, I have engaged the expert opinion of metallurgists, utilized FOIA and subscription-based technical databases, and I have contacted archivists of DoD and their contractors.
His skeptical "analysis" dances around several fundamental facts:
Backtracking the history of scientific literature on shape-memory alloys leads to work done by Battelle in the late 1940s under contract to Wright-Patterson AFB (where the Roswell debris was reportedly flown). Memory metal reports conducted by the military years later reference a once-restricted Battelle 1949 report on novel Titanium alloys (including Nickel-Titanium, the basis for today's Nitinol memory metal).
A former General at Wright-Patterson implicates "specially-processed Titanium alloy" as part of what comprises the Roswell debris.
Another General (after the Roswell crash) states in a Secret Memo that a lightweight intermetallic material of unusual fabrication is a "material of construction" of UFOs.
A Battelle scientist named Elroy Center (whose story was publicly told in 1992) claimed in 1960 to have analyzed ET metal when at the Institute.
The Battelle 1949 report (obtained under FOIA this year) suspected to be related to Roswell was found to have been co-authored by Elroy Center. Center is the very same scientist who confessed decades prior to the FOIA release to having studied crash disc material. Another of the report's co-authors reported to Battelle Titanium scientist Howard Cross. Cross was found to have conducted secret UFO studies on behalf of the US government.
The official "co-inventor" of Nitinol (Nickel-Titanium) memory metal conducted "mind over matter" tests on the material to see if a psychic could "morph" it.
The official history of Nitinol memory metal is riddled with holes and contradictions.
There exists clear evidence that Battelle (and NASA) continue to "seed" shape-memory technology.
Printy has specific "gripes" about certain aspects of this research. They include:
Battelle Scientist Confessor Elroy Center:
Printy says that the story of Elroy Center is second-hand. He states that the person who related Center's story was the boyfriend of Center's daughter. He also says that Elroy's involvement in the Battelle metals report does not prove anything. What Printy does not tell readers is that the Center family friend was a middle-aged adult professional when he told Dr. Irena Scott about Center's confession. Printy also does not make clear that Dr. Scott was herself a PhD scientist employed at Battelle! Though he acknowledges that Center's family confirmed Elroy's intense interest in UFOs and ET, he does not explain what I had told him – that this is an ongoing investigation and that others may be coming forward to affirm Elroy's confession.
Printy fails to comprehend that a Battelle scientist related a story of ET metal analysis. And that it was this same scientist who authored the very report that was long suspected to relate to Roswell metal analysis. It was not known that Center was the co-author of this report until August 2009 when his report was released under FOIA. Center made his confession in 1960. Center's report is later referenced in four military-sponsored studies on memory metal. These are "coincidences" that Printy simply cannot handle.
Earlier Titanium Research "Disproves" the Roswell Metal Thesis:
Printy offers up Titanium technical reports completed before the Roswell crash. He wants his readers to believe that I think that it was only after the crash that Titanium became of interest to military. What I actually maintain is that a novel Titanium alloy comprised some of the debris found at Roswell.
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Commander General Arthur Exon implicated "specially processed" Titanium as part of the debris composition. Battelle's chief Titanium expert, Dr. Howard Cross, was proven to be a secret UFO researcher for the US government. Elroy Center, who confessed to ET metal analysis, is shown to have been expert in Titanium purity. General George Schulgen wrote that the "materials of construction" of UFOs were of lightweight intermetallics of "unusual fabrication". Memory metal (such as Nitinol) is a lighweight, specially-processed Titanium intermetallic.
I am keenly aware that Titanium was being explored for its application in jets and aeronautics, with strictly terrestrial inspiration. But I am also aware that such Titanium alloys (like Nitinol) can comprise material that closely resembles the kind reported at Roswell. That a unique Titanium alloy should be part of an ET craft should not be that surprising. Titanium is one of the most abundant elements in the universe.
Skeptics have said that Titanium and Nickel were used as early as 1939. But I acknowledge in the very first article in this series that "the earliest known combination of Titanium and Nickel reported in the scientific literature was in 1939 by two Europeans." But this crude sample was a by-product of entirely unrelated research. Any unique alloy work was not performed or noted. No tensile tests for "maximum bend radius" or "elongation" were conducted (as they were for the Battelle report). And the 1939 scientists would not have been able to melt and purify the Titanium to sufficient levels at that time (as they did at Battelle when the report was written) and they would not have known about the energy requirement needed to create the effect.
In the months after the crash, the Battelle report shows that they began to conduct first-ever, sudden, and intense development of these new Titanium alloys. This included chemical tests and phase diagramming. Swiftly – and all at once – they started a veritable obsession with "intermetallics." They were examining ways to melt these novel alloys effectively; increase their purity and "mixability" levels; and analyze their crystalline structures.
The "Nickel Ratio" of the Battelle Report Does Not Equate to the "Nickel Ratio" for Nitinol:
Printy says that because the Nickel content of Titanium-Nickel alloy found diagrammed in the Battelle report is not at 50% (as it is with Nitinol) that this proves my thesis is incorrect. What Printy does not inform his readers is that in my very first article on this subject I specifically note: "Although Nitinol is not identical to the Roswell debris material, it represents our best attempts at recreation of the found memory metal." I explain that shape-memory alloys are Roswell-inspired. But they are not themselves the morphing metal found at Roswell.
I even had emailed Printy new NASA research showing that by varying the Nickel content of shape memory alloys (and by including small amounts of other elements), certain desired characteristics can be brought out in shape memory material. The Roswell material was likely a specially processed material. Perhaps it was fabricated in the gravity-free vacuum of space where ultra-high levels of purity and "mixability" can be achieved. It was a highly-novel intermetallic that incorporated Titanium as one of its elements.
Uri Geller Was The Psychic Tested by Nitinol Scientists:
The "official" co-inventor of Nitinol, Dr. Fred Wang, was proven to have conducted bizarre "mind over matter" Nitinol experiments in the early 1970s. His associate at the US Naval Lab, Eldon Byrd, confirms there was a report generated on psychic influence to morph Nitinol. When I included the report's title, author and year of publication, I did not name the specific psychic who was tested. Printy feels that because the psychic (Uri Geller) was not named, that I in some way do not really believe the report. But Printy misses the point: I do not need to "believe" or "disbelieve" Uri Geller. The point is that – at that time – government scientists did conduct these strange tests and they wanted to see if Geller could influence a morph in Nitinol metal using mental energy. During this same time frame, Geller was also documented to have been psychically tested at the government think-tank Stanford Research Institute. I knew that the inclusion of Geller's name in my article would a distraction that would be "hopped on" by skeptics as a reason to disbelieve the Nitinol tests, and I was right.
The Battelle Report Doesn't Mention ET:
Printy points out that the FOIA-obtained document does not mention ET material. There is nothing to indicate that anything other than terrestrial materials were being studied.
But such comments show a complete lack understanding of the two fundamental concepts of military intelligence – and of how such science would be reported. These are the concepts of "Compartmentalization" and "Need to Know". "Compartmentalization" of sensitive information assures that fewer people know the details or scope of a particular mission or task. "Need to Know" is a security criterion that requires an individual to establish the need for such information in order to complete an assigned activity. You only reveal parts of the story – and never give the backstory. Or tell them a plausibly deniable story. For instance, tell them that the ET material was "Russian or German". Blend the information so that it does not appear to be anything other than part of existing areas of research. And it is clear that the release 1949 Battelle report is part of a larger study. Prior work on the material may have been finely "segmented" out to various groups so that no one group knew the full story. This is precisely how captured enemy MIG aircraft, for instance, were reverse-engineered. These science reports never mention the "backstory" of the craft's "who, what, when or why."
CRITICAL THINKER vs CYNICAL SKEPTIC
Never have your head in the sand – you'll only get your ass kicked. Printy's morbidly skeptical approach has come back to bite him. In a prior SUNlite newsletter, Printy implies that I conduct this research for "fame and fortune". What Printy does not know is that I have never taken (nor sought) any compensation for any of my research. He speaks without knowing. He says that I am motivated by a want for notoriety. He does not tell his readers that for many years I have quietly provided UFO researchers with leads and stories without receiving or seeking attribution or credit.
Critical thinkers are welcome. They encourage us to view all aspects of a problem to arrive at solutions and truth. Cynical skeptics are another matter. As Maya Angelou wisely observes, "There is nothing so pitiful as a cynic – because he has gone from knowing nothing to believing nothing."