From: Jacques.Poulet@f7.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jacques Poulet) Subject: BOBXLER.TXT 1 of 3 Date: 23 Apr 94 19:37:00 GMT Organization: FidoNet node 9:1012/7 - ParaNet EPSIL, Deux-Montagnes Quebec Look what I've just found. Bob Oechsler is suddenly getting excited over a police report. Must be quite damaging for the business. The Carp case was a steamy one, full of holes, right from the beginning. Now that Bob heated it up with unrelated 'facts', he seems worried that it may be getting too warm now and he may drown with it. Let's start with the title: > CARP SURVIVES DEBUNKING ATTEMPT I didn't know that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) were debunkers. My paranoia level must be dropping. But we've been dealing with the RCMP before and have always had a good cooperation from them. Some cases became explained while others became a bigger mysteries. So should we only accept their expertise when it fits our whishes? >In order to qualify my response to the rather authoritative >commentary published recently by Benjamin Leblanc (Co-director of >O.C.I.P.E. near Montreal), it will be necessary to provide some >insight into my philosophy on analysis and reporting of UFO case >investigations. First let me establish some basis for authority >regarding my qualifications in submitting this report, I have no idea >what Mr. Leblanc's qualifications may be as he failed to report any >such information in his submittal - CARP: FINAL WORD. Is it required to have any qualification, besides typing of course, to type the RCMP report and to title it according to its content? It seems obvious to me, knowing the background of that case, that this report puts a lid on the trash can. I don't understand how your "philosophy on analysis and reporting of UFO case" would help us understand your reasons for supporting such a weak case. I re-read the paper and found only two references to your philosophy: >If you would like a videotaped report of the summary of my findings >including a complete copy of the Guardian video, send a postal money >order in U.S. funds in the amount of $35 (Canadian Orders $40 CPMO) >to BoB Oechsler at... ... >[Also attached were two more pages of order forms for Oechsler's >video, magazine and book sales division] It is consistent with what you wrote in "THE INSIDER'S REPORT": >Additional video updates will be availabe by mail order. To order a >copy send a check or money order ($35.00) to BoB Oechsler at... I guess that it helps to pay the bills, especially now that you are investigating UFOs on a full-time basis. I'll do better than that: anyone interested in a copy of the Carp video, send me a blank tape with enough money to cover the return expenses and I'll make you a copy. >My active involvement in the research and investigation into >the UFO phenomenon dates back fourteen years, five years in which I >served as the host of what became a nationwide radio broadcast called: >UFOs Today. Anyone who spends 250 hours a year chatting over the >telephone with UFO specialists and witnesses is bound to get an >incredible education. Add to that another 1,000 hours a year looking >at UFO photos and videos in the company of Ph.D. level technologists >and you've got a good basis for fundamental analysis training. When >you couple those credits with several weeks a year of field >investigations, diplomatic and intelligence agency contacts, former >NASA engineering credentials, and acclaim as a robotic innovator, you >have BoB Oechsler, Investigations Analyst. Biographical Information >sheet available via fax Very impressive! But completly irrelevent. You could be in jail, a taxi driver, a fisherman, or whatever. The important thing are: Does your argumentation stands on its own? Do you provides _verifiable_ facts? >Since beginning the Guardian video analyses process in February of >1992, I have visited the Ottawa area conducting field investigations >and research on at least nine occasions. I have invested almost >three months time on location and thousands of dollars in expenses >which include costly electron scanning microscope and x-ray analyses >of contamination and control field samples collected at the landing >site. How can you afford all that? Certainly not with just the sale of videos! Is there someone else paying the bills here? >Over the course of my two years of investigation into the mysterious >Guardian Case, I have consulted on no less than three major network >television broadcasts on the case in question and have included in my Like when you claimed, in the UFO MAGAZINE (Vol. 11 No. 6) that "NBC invested in excess of $115,000 unsuccessfully attempting to duplicate the effects in the Guardian video and concluded that to fake what was observed on the video would take a sizable investment ...". When contacted, the producers told us that that amount was the allocated budget for that segment of the show, including salaries. >investigation three top Canadian Government Agencies, RCMP Federal >Investigations Unit included. My investigation has involved more So why reject their report now? >Ph.D.. level scientists in varied disciplines that any other case in >civilian history to my knowledge. While I feel confident in certain >findings and assessments derived from these efforts, it would be >premature and inappropriate for me to offer a _Final_ conclusion. A wise choice, considering the RCMP report. >I cannot even eliminate with 100% certainty that the whole thing was >an elaborate fabrication, although I believe it would be an extremely >remote possibility. Sound tactics: Keep room for retreats. >... the RCMP refused my written request for a copy of >their final report citing internal regulations. It's hard to believe! >There appeared to be enough evidence in the video to detect military >pyrotechnic flare residue at the landing site. The laboratory >results proved negative on required detectable elements and most >likely eliminated military involvement. The RCMP's chemistry section (item 4.42) said "... that time and knowing where to look is an important factor when attempting to find strontium. All traces of the material would disappear in a very short time especially when exposed to the elements." Who should I believe? >Thus began the scramble at RCMP HQ to come up with a viable >explanation for the craft in the Guardian video, namely a helicopter. That's your "interpretation" of the events. Do you have evidence to support it? >It seemed to be the optimum solution for them since there were so >many reports of helicopters in the area, yet the DND report concluded >the object in the video and the helicopters unidentified. All the neighbours we interviewed told us that there were frequent flying-ambulance flying over the area. Which is confirmed by the RCMP report. >The specifics cited from the Guardian video suggesting a helicopter >include a presumed relationship between the rapidly strobing blue >light on top of the craft which reflects off a curved surface and the >masthead light which is a white light shinning "up" through the >control rods at the rotor assembly on a helicopter. This is a >ludicrous assumption that is easily refuted as the premise for the >explanation of the object depicted in the video. It may be ludicrous, but how can you take Guardian's forgery seriously? These are clearly the products of a sick mind. And the video has clearly been edited, in several versions. If it was a real event, why not send the complete recorded scene? >The Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation reviewed the Guardian video >materials and could find no one who could agree with the RCMP >interpretation. You have evidence to support that claim? >Perhaps a touch of professional protocol might be advisedly exercised >by Mr. Leblanc regarding his commentary following his publishing of >the RCMP report. He evidently has not done enough research on this >case to offer academic conclusions. Do you base that opinion on the fact that you don't agree with the content of the report? >He certainly did not bother to contact me for comment upon receiving >the RCMP report, in fact he didn't bother to send me a copy of his >submittal nor alert me to its posting. Maybe Mr. Leblanc didn't know that you had the copyrights on the Guardian video or the Crap Carp case. >Every single assertion made by Leblanc is wrong. Comments in the >RCMP report that he attributes to me were actually made by the >Guardian suspect who has refused even simple methods of proof that >he is not Guardian. Fine. If you say so. So I guess you may understand how we feel when you asserts wrong things about a case that should be trown in the trash can, which most ufologist did. >Is it possible that O.C.I.P.E. is really an organization whose >objectives are to debunk UFO cases? Trying to kill the messenger Bob? >Consider the following factual scenario. O.C.I.P.E. collaborated on >an investigation involving a report from Guardian regarding a 1989 >event which he called a UFO landing in the swamp. The investigation >correspondence was published as a crash and probably a "hoax" in >Leonard Stringfield's July 1991 Status Report VI. The document from Guardian says: "...The UFO abruptly stopped, and dropped like a stone." >The problem with the assessment is that their investigation located >three independent witnesses who triangulated a UFO sighting and other >details that matched precisely with the Guardian report. You make it looks as if the Guardian wasn't one of those individuals, or a close friend or relative of them. And one of those 3 witnesses wasn't telling the same story as the others. >To my knowledge they didn't even bother to spend $12.00 Canadian to >obtain dated before and after aerial photos of the area available >from Energy and Mines. What's the point? We knew it was a hoax. >I have great difficulty giving credence to any individual or >organization publishing articles with the title: FINAL WORD. The one who is loosing credibility, is you, with your continued support of the Walter's photos of the Gulf Breeze UFO and of the Carp case. >The Guardian videotaped UFO landing investigation has proven to be a >very complex endeavor. I understand you. It's not easy to make a weak case look good. You've done a good job so far. Like you said once: "No matter what or how good the story is, 50% of the people will believe you, 50% won't. All you have to care about is the 50% that will." Unfortunately, that last figure may be shrinking. I hope you won't have to find a job to survive. >Perhaps the answer will never be proven to everyone's satisfaction, >but many will go away dazed by the testimony of a Canadian Government >Official who claims to have been taken aboard a craft that night in >August of 1991 at the site where Guardian filmed his video. Are you talking about "Sarah"? Hasn't she change her story recently? >Examine the evidence, review the findings and evaluate the analyses >before drawing your own conclusions... A sound advice. Always. Jacques Poulet (04/23/1994) P.S. For those who wants a copy of the Carp video, here is my snail mail address: 404 9th Avenue Deux-Montagnes,Qc CANADA J7R 3M8 -- Jacques Poulet - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jacques.Poulet@f7.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG ====================================================================== Inquiries regarding ParaNet, or mail directed to Michael Corbin, should be sent to: mcorbin@paranet.org. Or you can phone voice at 303-429-2654/ Michael Corbin Director ParaNet Information Services From: rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) Subject: Re: BOBXLER.TXT 1 of 3 Date: 27 Apr 94 14:19:31 GMT Organization: The University of Manitoba In <2951.2DBA171C@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Jacques.Poulet@f7.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jacques Poulet) writes: > Look what I've just found. Bob Oechsler is suddenly getting >excited over a police report. Must be quite damaging for the business. Seems to be. Despite the fact that he has been viewed as an expert and is believed by many newbies to this field, some have viweed his reputation as questionable right from the start. > Let's start with the title: >> CARP SURVIVES DEBUNKING ATTEMPT > I didn't know that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) >were debunkers. My paranoia level must be dropping. What he does right off the start is imply that there have been no other attempts to show the fallacy of the Carp case. He selects the RCMP investigation as the only time the case has been questioned, forgetting about Clive Nadin's investigations, MUFON Ontario's, MUFON Quebec, etc. >>In order to qualify my response to the rather authoritative >>commentary published recently by Benjamin Leblanc (Co-director of It was clearly not LeBlanc's commentary, but the RCMP investigation. Again, a nice try to deflect the criticism. >>investigations. First let me establish some basis for authority >>regarding my qualifications in submitting this report, I have no idea >>what Mr. Leblanc's qualifications may be as he failed to report any >>such information in his submittal - CARP: FINAL WORD. > Is it required to have any qualification, besides typing of >course, to type the RCMP report and to title it according to its Agreed. All LeBlanc did was key in the RCMP report, which itself is part of a larger investigation by a number of civilian and government organizations. He didn't need to note his own background, though he *should* have explained that the RCMP report was only part of the case against the Guardian's claims. >>My active involvement in the research and investigation into >>the UFO phenomenon dates back fourteen years, five years in which I >>served as the host of what became a nationwide radio broadcast called: >>UFOs Today. Anyone who spends 250 hours a year chatting over the >>telephone with UFO specialists and witnesses is bound to get an >>incredible education. Add to that another 1,000 hours a year looking >>at UFO photos and videos in the company of Ph.D. level technologists >>and you've got a good basis for fundamental analysis training. When >>you couple those credits with several weeks a year of field >>investigations, diplomatic and intelligence agency contacts, former >>NASA engineering credentials, and acclaim as a robotic innovator, you >>have BoB Oechsler, Investigations Analyst. Biographical Information >>sheet available via fax Looking over evrything Oechsler includes, I just realized that *all* of it can apply to me, too, except that my own involvement in ufology dates back *20* years! I was host of a local TV show and a radio program, interviewed people like Hynek and Friedman and spent many, many hours talking with other researchers. And I have looked at innumerable photos and videos that haven't stumped me but may impress other, less critical people. Diplomatic and "intelligence agency contacts?" Sure, me, too. I was never a NASA engineer, but then, Stanton Friedman has found out that Oechsler was never one, either (!) My own conclusion: the Carp case(s) is (are) baloney. >>Since beginning the Guardian video analyses process in February of >>1992, I have visited the Ottawa area conducting field investigations >>and research on at least nine occasions. I have invested almost >>three months time on location and thousands of dollars in expenses >>which include costly electron scanning microscope and x-ray analyses >>of contamination and control field samples collected at the landing >>site. I began investigating the nonsense in the late 1980's, when I started getting the docs. Clive went to the site back then, with other researchers, and found nothing to the claims. That was more than *two years* before Oechsler heard about it. Electron microsopy? Of what? He found the site *by himself* and *in the dark*, as documented by Theophanous et al. What kind of contamination? I have been reviewing Ted Phillips' trace cases and the NAICCR UGM reports, and there *never* has been incontrovertible "contamination" found at "landing sites." Aside from the fact that you need to know what to look for and have rigourous methodology in place to do anything resembling scientific analyses, what kind of samples did he take? Where were the results published? Who did the analyses? Levengood? (!) ;) -- Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada From: rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) Subject: Re: BOBXLER.TXT 2 of 3 Date: 27 Apr 94 14:33:01 GMT Organization: The University of Manitoba In <2952.2DBA171C@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Jacques.Poulet@f7.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jacques Poulet) writes: >>Over the course of my two years of investigation into the mysterious >>Guardian Case, I have consulted on no less than three major network >>television broadcasts on the case in question and have included in my > Like when you claimed, in the UFO MAGAZINE (Vol. 11 No. 6) >that "NBC invested in excess of $115,000 unsuccessfully attempting to >duplicate the effects in the Guardian video and concluded that to fake >what was observed on the video would take a sizable investment ...". >When contacted, the producers told us that that amount was the allocated >budget for that segment of the show, including salaries. Good zinger. The situation is also portayed a bit unrealistically. It's more like: "Hey, we want to do another UFO clip. Who's a talking head we can get on camera who'll say something lively?" I've been on Unsolved Mysteries, too, and I know what's like. They DO have big budgets, but it's for production, like Jacques notes. >>Ph.D.. level scientists in varied disciplines that any other case in >>civilian history to my knowledge. While I feel confident in certain Maybe he needs to do more reading. The Michalak case had more scientists involved, and also more military investigation. You can include Gulf Breeze, too, if you want. Then there's Socorro. >>I cannot even eliminate with 100% certainty that the whole thing was >>an elaborate fabrication, although I believe it would be an extremely >>remote possibility. > Sound tactics: Keep room for retreats. How hard would it be to fake some docs and rig up a few lights to film in an isolated field? Elaborate, no. Hyped, yes. >>... the RCMP refused my written request for a copy of >>their final report citing internal regulations. > It's hard to believe! No, it's not. He wanted their *complete* and *unsanitized* report, which they won't release. Standard policy. >>There appeared to be enough evidence in the video to detect military >>pyrotechnic flare residue at the landing site. The laboratory >>results proved negative on required detectable elements and most >>likely eliminated military involvement. If it was a flare involved, which is still doubtful. >>Thus began the scramble at RCMP HQ to come up with a viable >>explanation for the craft in the Guardian video, namely a helicopter. The helicopter seemed a likely candidate, so it was pursued. I personally thought it could have been a hot air balloon, after reading the article in the Ottawa Citizen about the night balloonist who had strobes and other lights on his craft. (Later investigation suggested otherwise.) >>It seemed to be the optimum solution for them since there were so >>many reports of helicopters in the area, yet the DND report concluded >>the object in the video and the helicopters unidentified. > All the neighbours we interviewed told us that there were >frequent flying-ambulance flying over the area. Which is confirmed by >the RCMP report. Lesley and others agree that there *has* been UFO activity in the area for some time. Others note that helicopters overfly the area as well. The helicopter theory is quite tenable. >>The Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation reviewed the Guardian video >>materials and could find no one who could agree with the RCMP >>interpretation. > You have evidence to support that claim? Good point. My guess is that he found someone at Sikorsky to say that the appearance of the lights didn't look a lot like one of theirs. -- Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada From: rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) Subject: Re: BOBXLER.TXT 3 of 3 Date: 27 Apr 94 14:43:50 GMT Organization: The University of Manitoba In <2953.2DBA171C@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Jacques.Poulet@f7.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jacques Poulet) writes: >>Every single assertion made by Leblanc is wrong. Comments in the >>RCMP report that he attributes to me were actually made by the >>Guardian suspect who has refused even simple methods of proof that >>he is not Guardian. Oh, for Pete's sake! Will someone with MUFON Ontario just publish Guardian's name, already? They know who he is. Their article and full expose on the Carp Hoax will be available on the net in a few weeks, when it can be scanned in. What needs to be done is have this person's background and past hoaxing behaviour get widely known. >>Is it possible that O.C.I.P.E. is really an organization whose >>objectives are to debunk UFO cases? > Trying to kill the messenger Bob? >>Consider the following factual scenario. O.C.I.P.E. collaborated on >>an investigation involving a report from Guardian regarding a 1989 >>event which he called a UFO landing in the swamp. The investigation >>correspondence was published as a crash and probably a "hoax" in >>Leonard Stringfield's July 1991 Status Report VI. Is it possible that the Carp case represents a disinformation scheme to make all of ufology look incredibly silly and make rational people dismiss other cases by pointing to this one hoax as proof that the rest are worthless, too? >>The problem with the assessment is that their investigation located >>three independent witnesses who triangulated a UFO sighting and other >>details that matched precisely with the Guardian report. > You make it looks as if the Guardian wasn't one of those >individuals, or a close friend or relative of them. And one of those 3 >witnesses wasn't telling the same story as the others. Right on! Even Nadin found a few people who had seen NLs, but were probably unconnected to the "crash." And if the hoax perpetrators were some of the witnesses, their reports are unreliable! >>To my knowledge they didn't even bother to spend $12.00 Canadian to >>obtain dated before and after aerial photos of the area available >>from Energy and Mines. > What's the point? We knew it was a hoax. And what's worse, the resolution on the photos wouldn't show any changes at the "site!" >>Perhaps the answer will never be proven to everyone's satisfaction, >>but many will go away dazed by the testimony of a Canadian Government >>Official who claims to have been taken aboard a craft that night in >>August of 1991 at the site where Guardian filmed his video. > Are you talking about "Sarah"? Hasn't she change her story >recently? Yeah, who's this? Also, "Canadian Government Official" probably means "low level civil servant," right? Boy, this case continues to take on a life of its own! Far too much money and time wasted on a big zero when there are so many other, more deserving cases to document. -- Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada