UPDATE 1/22/2017: Kevin Randle has responded to Sheaffer’s post.
Guy Malone, organizer of the 2017 Roswell conference at which I’ll be speaking, recently sent me this link:
Leading Researcher Shocks, Debunking Own Roswell Story
The article is by Bill Turner, but it draws heavily on an interview between Randle and Robert Sheaffer, linked at the bottom of this excerpt of Turner’s piece:
UFO news today should have scientists and skeptics reaching for pens to circle the date on the calendar to mark a significant change in direction by Kevin Randle, a long-respected expert in the UFO research field as it relates to the Roswell, New Mexico event in 1947. Robert Sheaffer, a skeptic who has written a book titled Bad UFOs: Critical Thinking About UFO Claims, relates that he discovered the turnabout in a book review of Randle’s newest book, Roswell in the 21st Century, in which Randle states that he does not believe that a UFO crashed at Roswell. Sheaffer and Randle appeared together in a radio interview that covers a wide range of subjects on UFO news and is provided below.
Sheaffer provides a detailed account of his interaction with Randle on his site.
Sheaffer’s account in turn draws on Jerome Clark’s review of Randle’s latest book, Roswell in the 21st Century. Sheaffer writes:
Clark’s review is titled “Recanting Roswell Certainty,” a provocative title to say the least, especially as it concerns Randle, one of the most dedicated long-term promoters of the Roswell incident as an ET saucer crash. Clark says that:
Roswell in the 21st Century, which never insults one’s intelligence, is noteworthy for being the first recantation by a major figure in the controversy, now nearing its fourth decade.
“Recantation?” That’s a pretty strong word.
In my Bad UFOs book, I quoted Karl Pflock’s 2001 book Roswell – Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe. Pflock demonstrated inconsistencies such that of the just four people publicly identified as witnesses to alien bodies, “not one of the purported firsthand witnesses to alien bodies and a lone survivor is credible. Not one.” (Pflock, p. 118-120).
In this review, Clark continues:
Randle was initially taken with what seemed to be credible evidence. Eventually (as I did), he grew doubtful of that evidence, especially as it concerned the supposed recovery of dead aliens. Of the eight claimants (he spoke directly with all) who said they had observed such bodies, Randle writes, “not one [..] turned out to be telling the truth.”
So Randle has raised the number of those who lied about seeing alien bodies at Roswell from four to eight, and there never were more than eight. This completely undercuts the need for bizarre ET or non-ET explanations for alleged alien body sightings at Roswell. Stalin and Mengele sent in deformed children in a Commie Nazi saucer: Annie Jacobs. The U.S. Army flew in dwarfish captured Japanese pilots in a bizarre craft: Nick Redfern. The Air Force dropped crash test dummies in the desert: U.S. Air Force. All of these highly implausible explanations are unnecessary, because there are no truthful accounts of alien bodies at Roswell to explain.
If it is indeed the case (and it sure looks that way) that Randle has been drive away from the ET explanation for what happened at Roswell, he deserves accolades for his courage. Being data-drive in ufology often doesn’t win hearts and minds. Sheaffer’s last point, about no explanation for the bodies being necessary is equally valid.
The absence of bodies, however, does not undermine some sort of WWII or Cold War era experiment being behind the Roswell incident. As readers of my fiction (The Façade) know, I think that’s the case, and I still think the nature of the explanation is sinister, involving Operation PAPERCLIP personnel (Nazis) and certain technological pursuits. I just don’t think it’s a coincidence that the Majestic documents that purport to report on the Roswell crash contain elements of Nazi-era photo-chemical process for producing Uranium 233.1 A good case can be made for the viability of this process, while dispensing with some of the more bizarre theories about the Nazi “Bell” technology. Granted, this isn’t the only way to parse the available data and its scattered presence in certain Majestic documents, but it’s on the table for me. No ETs needed,but still something the U.S. government would have a high interest in covering up … and for which a concocted conspiracy about alien craft would provide a workable diversion.
- Here’s one description for this, but the real source is Witkowski (The Truth About The Wunderwaffe
), who cites specific NARA material in building his case. Readers of my Facade sequel, The Portent
, will be familiar with some of that data. ↩
), who cites specific 
, will be familiar with some of that data. 
Looks like Randle has some disagreement with this “rumor” that he recanted. He responds here…
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2016/12/roswell-recanted.html?m=1
Thanks!
Thanks Darryl! So he really HAS NOT debunked Roswell, he just pointed out his consideration of the “doubt” perspective.
In the event you are ever able to quit your day job… I would welcome a non-fiction version of the Facade written by you, outlining all the relevant issues and teaching people to think well about them. I believe the Church grossly under estimates the importance of this issue. It’s not even on our radar. Yet the upcoming generation is more prone to believe in ET than Jesus. Thank you for all your work in this area!
Nathan
We may someday find a UFO or alien life (from another planet). That day has not arrived. To say that life other than that on earth is impossible defies logic. To say that there has been a successful giant conspiracy to cover-up (alleged) UFOS for decades also defies logic.
A cover-up (or misdirection on the matter) is actually demonstrable (there’s a long paper trail of actual documents, casting aside the spurious ones). My view is that this has nothing to do with alien life, though.
You are ignorant of the evidence, and science/ math, because it is so obvious they are visiting us, only a child or an unimaginative dolt would make such a fatuous statement as yours.
It is highly unlikely that we would see UFOs. What is more likely is that we will someday find evidence of some sort of life on another planet.
You are incorrect in your assertion re: Dr. Randle’s belief about Roswell. Rather than denying Roswell as an ET event, it is my understanding that Dr. Randle is now on the fence about Roswell.
Dr. Randle believes Roswell may or may not be an ET event – to Dr. Randle the evidence is inconclusive. That is what I learned from reading Dr. Randle’s most recent book on the subject: Roswell in the 21st Century.
ADDENDA: To my knowledge, no one has refuted the statements of Thomas Gonzalez re: his witness to alien bodies at Roswell. This includes Dr. Randle.
UFO’s are real – I’ve seen a physical craft. There is enough evidence to prove Roswell – I believe Bob Lazar, and he’s been confirmed as a Los Alamos physicist, so while he may be a paid shill spreading disinfo, it doesn’t appear that way, and unless he’s a super spook, he’s telling the truth, and he confirms Roswell aliens. I think Randle wants to ride with aliens, and that’s what I need to see, too, however; I highly doubt that chance will occur in my lifetime, so I have to eventually use statistical analysis with the witnesses, and perhaps I can do that one day; in the end, they can’t all be liars – its’ statistically impossible. Dolan is right – there IS an SSP (my Dad worked on it).