It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Schmitt did study commercial art at Milwaukee Area Technical College, receiving an associate's degree. He also says he studied at or received degrees from other local universities or colleges, but many of those claims appear to be bogus.
In a 1990 biography he used to promote himself, Schmitt wrote that he has attended the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [UWM] and Marquette University, taking classes in criminology, theology and sociology. During an interview - with his parents and fiancee present - he said he is currently "pursuing his doctorate in criminology from Concordia College." Schmitt also said he received a master's degree from UWM and a bachelor of arts degree from Concordia College.
At first glance, the cumulative evidence in Schmitt's books - the testimony, the documentation - looks convincing.... But a closer look begs questions. Since some of the key witnesses aren't identified and most of the documentation refers to personal interviews, readers must rely on the author's credibility. And that may be a problem. In addition to his false statements about his educational background, Schmitt embellishes reality. He constantly refers to his books as "bestsellers," but that is certainly stretching the facts since the books have never appeared on any bestseller lists.
The "day-job" of Don Schmitt has never been the issue, though some have tried to make it the issue. It was the lies he told about it. When I asked him, repeatedly about it, he told me he didn't work at the Post Office.... To compound the lie he had Postmaster Ken Eppler write a letter that he and Schmitt knew was misleading. It was designed to mislead everyone....[/iquote]
There is more, a hell of a lot more to Randle's comments but it's a lot of typing and I feel that if you read Randle's and Schmitt's books and were taken in by them, causing you to believe the distorted truth they constructed, then you ought to do yourself a favor and get Klass' book or Karl Pflock's book Roswell: Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe or even Kal K. Korff's The Roswell UFO Crash: What They Don't Want You To Know.
Even if you don't like Klass, Pflock, or Korff, you should familiarize yourself with their research results and verify their findings resulting in the confirmation that no UFO crashed near Roswell. Lies beget lies. The alleged crash of a UFO near Roswell depends and rests on lies.
Originally posted by MarrsAttax
Don Schmitt was a postman therefore there was no spacecraft crash at Roswell. Nice logic. Kevin Randle was his co-author. Did he also lie about his credentials? If not, then your argument is irrelevant.
Find me someone who has never told a lie.
Originally posted by Damsel
Let's cut right to the meat of the subject: what's your hang up, Shrike? Why is it that you refuse to accept the possibility that UFOs might belong to extra-terrestrial visitors? I refuse to accept the answer that there isn't any evidence, because there is. Your posts never seem to be dedicated to discounting the evidence, rather, you maliciously attack the people. I don't think I've seen a thread you've made about the subject of ET without seeing you blatantly insult both the believers and those who promote the ET hypothesis. So I ask: why? What is it in you that has such a problem with the ET hypothesis? What about it upsets your vision of reality?
You seem like such a logical guy, but when it comes to confronting the evidence of aliens or anything like that, your logic goes out the window. Who cares if Don Schmitt lied about his profession? Does it discount what the Roswell witnesses said? No. He reported what they said, and their testimonies are documented by several other people, so it's clear he did not make the whole thing up himself. Jesse Marcel, Walter Haut, and many others testified to their dying days that what they saw was true. So why do you stop one point short of a logical conclusion? What's your hang up?
Originally posted by Damsel
reply to post by The Shrike
You prove my point exactly. You dodge all of my questions, then speak as if you already know everything; as if it's just a matter of convincing everyone else of how right you are. You even end your arrogant comments with another insult. Why? You shouldn't need to resort to these tactics to win an argument if you know you're right.
Who are you really trying to convince?
Originally posted by chunder
Shrike, your own words from another of your threads just a short while ago -
"Whether you dislike the researchers for whatever reason rocks your boat, it isn't the personality you should question, it should be the results of their research. "
- seems to me you just completely shot down your own thread, and as far as I am concerned any credibility you may have had.
Originally posted by greyer
It's funny to me how so much time and energy can be put into digging up such a small fact when also the same time and energy is put into denying and trying to dodge away from the true fact and so much evidence to support it. The ego works in such mischievous ways to call truthful people liars and that is surely why they don't come out, they know the world hates them why would they?
Originally posted by The Shrike
Originally posted by chunder
Shrike, your own words from another of your threads just a short while ago -
"Whether you dislike the researchers for whatever reason rocks your boat, it isn't the personality you should question, it should be the results of their research. "
- seems to me you just completely shot down your own thread, and as far as I am concerned any credibility you may have had.
Someone already replied with the same comments. A lot of ignorance going around. Read my comments again and pay attention this time. I didn't contradict myself, it just went over your head. Find my reply and try to prove me wrong, again.
Originally posted by The Shrike
"Who are you really trying to convince?" Simple question; I'm trying to "convince" all of the gullible members of this forum who are locked into a distorted sense of history and it's easier for them to be fooled by charlatans such as Don Schmitt and his ilk, rather than develop a questioning mind 'cause if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck. The alleged UFO crash near Roswell is a duck!
I haven't dodged "all" of your questions. You haven't asked me any logical, intelligently phrased questions since if you had I would have answered them. Are your questions about the thread topic?
Don't doubt me about Don Schmitt, read his parner's (Kevin Randle) "press release" disavowing Schmitt.edit on 8-11-2012 by The Shrike because: To correct grammar and add comments.
Originally posted by The Shrike
Originally posted by greyer
It's funny to me how so much time and energy can be put into digging up such a small fact when also the same time and energy is put into denying and trying to dodge away from the true fact and so much evidence to support it. The ego works in such mischievous ways to call truthful people liars and that is surely why they don't come out, they know the world hates them why would they?
Please repeat that in English and describe how it applies to the thread's topic. Thanks.
Originally posted by Damsel
Originally posted by The Shrike
"Who are you really trying to convince?" Simple question; I'm trying to "convince" all of the gullible members of this forum who are locked into a distorted sense of history and it's easier for them to be fooled by charlatans such as Don Schmitt and his ilk, rather than develop a questioning mind 'cause if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck. The alleged UFO crash near Roswell is a duck!
I haven't dodged "all" of your questions. You haven't asked me any logical, intelligently phrased questions since if you had I would have answered them. Are your questions about the thread topic?
Don't doubt me about Don Schmitt, read his parner's (Kevin Randle) "press release" disavowing Schmitt.edit on 8-11-2012 by The Shrike because: To correct grammar and add comments.
Do you really think the way to convince people that they're wrong is to hurl insults, call them "ignorant and gullible," call the people they might have trusted "charlatans?" Maybe I'm just giving you too much credit, but I don't believe that.
I have certainly asked you logical and intelligently phrased questions. Either they "went over your head," or else you just blocked them out because they were inconvenient to you. My questions are about you, though it does tie in with the thread topic.
Honestly, I could care less about Don Schmitt. I've never taken his word as gospel. You could prove that Don Schmitt is a well-known con-man (you haven't, incidentally) and it wouldn't matter. You know why? Because Don Schmitt is not the Roswell Incident. The ET hypothesis for the Roswell incident does not require Don Schmitt in any way, shape, or form. It's right there in the Roswell newspaper at the time: "RAAF Captures Flying Saucer On Ranch in Roswell Region"
The major witnesses all say the same things and most of them went to their grave with these testimonies. We also have things like the Ramey Memo and testimonies from people like Dr. Edgar Mitchell about a cover-up still in place today. In addition, none of the explanations from the Air Force hold up in light of the facts.
These are things completely independent of Don Schmitt. I'm sorry, but I fail to see the logic behind the idea that character assassination of Don Schmitt will somehow prove the Roswell Incident was just a weather balloon. Sounds like an ad hominem to me.
Originally posted by The Shrike
You wrote: "I have certainly asked you logical and intelligently phrased questions." Please point to them as I must have missed them. I doubt that anything you say can go over my head. Don't ask me questions about me, discuss the thread's topic. Isn't that why you are here? And if you don't care about Don Schmitt, then yous shouldn't have gotten involved with this thread. Based on your above comments your sense of history is distorted. Case closed.