Saturday, October 17, 2009

The Roswell UFO and Jesse Marcel

I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Nothing in the world of UFOs is ever easy or simple. It seems that almost any question will not have an easy answer and there are times when the more complex the answer the more it seems that someone is engaging in rationalization.

Take, for example, Lance Moody’s question about Jesse Marcel and the debris in Ramey’s office (seen here). He believes that since Marcel was quoted as saying that if he is in the picture it’s the real debris, the debate is over. Clearly the photographs of Marcel in Ramey’s office show him with the remains of a rawin target and a weather balloon. But, is it really that easy?

Of course not. First, the quote originally appeared in The Roswell Incident by Charles Berlitz and William Moore. This book was described by Moore as a disgraceful hodgepodge of fact and fiction. Moore, himself, offered three different versions of quotes by Marcel about the debris and the pictures, each changed to reflect the latest information. I think we can safely reject the Marcel quotes in that book because we don’t know what Marcel actually said to Moore, how Moore interpreted it, and how it might have been changed as new information was discovered.

Oh, if it was only so easy. But Stan Friedman got Marcel to sit down in front of the cameras for a documentary and Marcel, in that documentary, says the same thing. If he’s in the picture, it’s the real debris. If it is anyone else, then it is not.

So, we’re back where we started and Lance’s question takes on added importance because we see Marcel making the claim. How do we answer Lance’s question?

I could argue that the material on the floor in Ramey’s office was there before Marcel arrived, if the time lines have been reconstructed properly, and if that is true, then that couldn’t be the stuff that was found in Roswell. I could argue that Ramey was telling reporters, before Marcel arrived, that it was all a weather balloon and that the stuff on the floor reflected that explanation.

Yes, I know that some of this is speculative and there will be arguments about the validity of such a claim, but we do have some very good documentation and the timing of some of these things seems to be off when corrected for time zones. All this implies that the cover story was in place before Marcel could have arrived, if the take off time as given by Robert Skirkey in Roswell is correct... and please note that I am qualifying all this because we are dealing with old memories here and we have no documentation about the take off times.

Of course, I can point out that the press release written by Walter Haut, and clearly ordered by William Blanchard, gives us a window of times. I can suggest that none of this blew up until after the press release was put onto the various wire services and there would have been no reason to order Marcel, or anyone else to Fort Worth until then, but again. It is speculation.

I could argue that Colonel Thomas DuBose, who was in Ramey’s office(Ramey kneeling and DuBose seated), said, on video tape and to various others including Don Ecker and Kay Palmer, that the stuff on the floor had been switched and it was not the stuff found in Roswell.

Yes, I know Jaime Shandera challenges this and he did interview DuBose, but he made neither tape recording nor took notes. We are left to accept, or reject, his version based on that, and in the face of the recordings of DuBose that do exist and can be reviewed, it seems that his claims should be rejected.

So, this suggests that the pictures were staged and that the stuff that was flown in from Roswell was not the stuff on the floor. Testimony from those who were there at the time make this clear whether it was DuBose who makes the claim or Marcel... more on this later.

Irving Newton, the weather officer, told me that he had just arrived at the weather office, which was about 6 p.m., when he got a call from Ramey (or Ramey’s aide which would have been the same thing, militarily speaking) and was told to get over to the general’s office immediately. If he didn’t have a car, he was to steal one, his words, not mine. When he arrived, he was told that he was supposed to identify the stuff on the floor, but was also told that the general thought it was all part of a weather balloon. In other words, Newton didn’t have to identify it for Ramey because he already new and the officer talking to Newton wanted to make sure that Newton gave the right answers.

More important, we know that Newton went to work on the evening shift that began, for him, at six. But we also know, based on other documents, that Ramey was already telling people that the Roswell find was a weather balloon, and that Major Edwin Kirton was telling the Dallas Morning News it was a weather balloon thirty minutes or more before Newton could get to Ramey’s office, which means the identification of the balloon and rawin target had already been made.

All this is interesting and certainly argues against the material on the floor being what was found near Roswell, but we still have that statement by Marcel. This is a real problem and argues most persuasively against anything extraterrestrial being found.

There is, however, one other significant bit of information. Back in the 1980s, Johnny Mann was a reporter for a television station in New Orleans and he was going to do a series of reports on UFOs. He wanted to interview Charles Hickson and Calvin Parker, which is irrelevant to us. He also interviewed Houma, Louisiana resident, Jesse Marcel (seen here), even taking him to Roswell to walk those fields again. Mann made it clear that Marcel wasn’t exactly sure where he had been and that one stretch of New Mexico desert looks like any other so Mann didn’t care. They were in the general vicinity, which was close enough for his story and for filming purposes.

Mann, of course, had a copy of The Roswell Incident and he flipped it open to the pages showing the pictures of Jesse Marcel with the weather balloon debris. Mann showed the pictures to Marcel and said, "Jess, I gotta tell ya, that looks like a weather balloon."

Marcel replied, "That’s not the stuff I found."

Johnny Mann, who has no dog in this fight, who wouldn’t care what was said as long as it was the true, made it clear to me, that Marcel recognized the material in the picture as a balloon.

This exchange was overheard by the cameraman, so that it is not single witness, but can be verified. And yes, I know the skeptics will point out that this is hearsay, but I would suggest that Mann has no reason to invent this tale and it can be corroborated. And I should point out that I sought out Mann rather than he coming to me.

So, we have Marcel saying that if he is in the photographs, it is the real stuff and then looking at the two specific photographs of himself with alleged debris saying that it’s not the stuff he found. I’m not going to speculate about what this means. I will point out that it isn’t the black and white issue that Lance and others believe it to be, and it proves that nothing about this is ever simple or easy.

Call it rationalization if you want, but it is about investigation and looking at all the facts. Does this bit of information lead us to the extraterrestrial? No. But it does suggest there is more here than a Mogul balloon because the evidence and testimony isn’t explained by that either.

And it makes everyone wonder what the military was trying to hide. Mogul was all over the place in July 1947, from the discussions by the Mogul team with everyone they thought might help to pictures in the newspapers a day or two after the 509th Bomb Group told the world they had a flying saucer. Dr. Albert Crary, the leader of the balloon launch expedition even used the name Mogul in his unclassified diary and his field notes.

In this, I have not mentioned any of the other credible testimony from high-ranking officers in Roswell who almost universally suggested there was something to this crash and Mogul does not answer the question. The men who would have had to know about the crash in fact said that it happened and suggested it was extraterrestrial with one notable exception.

I have not mentioned the effort by the military and the government to convince us all that it was a weather balloon and then a Mogul balloon by citing the need for secrecy for Mogul. This simply fails because Mogul, the launches in New Mexico, the attempt to create a constant level balloon, and even the name were not classified in 1947 as so many others have claimed. The ultimate purpose, to spy on the Soviets was a secret, but that is a red herring. It means nothing here.

In the end, we do have good reason to reject the Marcel statement that only he was in the real pictures (which, by the way, is contradicted by the other five pictures of the others) and because of that, the argument is not ended. Marcel himself said the pictures to which Lance referred, and that others referred, were of a balloon and not the stuff he found. Most importantly, you don’t have to rely on my honesty, integrity, or interpretation for that because the information comes from others.

So, no, I don’t see this as a rationalization but a rejection of a statement that is challenged by much other evidence. This is what I mean when I say that nothing is easy in the world of the UFO.

103 comments:

Lance said...

Come now, Kevin,

The picking and choosing of which statements you find compelling is not exactly playing fair, is it?

Two previous statements say one thing.

A later statement, well after Marcel had begun no doubt to feel his place in "history," after the buffs have explained to him how the story is supposed to be told, after maximum witness contamination.... well that is the one you choose.

Would you really feel good about that if some other writer used the same method?

In the Roswell game, many researchers rigidly hold onto witness testimony UNLESS that testimony leads away from the UFO story. And that tells you a lot a about why UFO research is confined deservedly in a barren, dusty attic locked away forever from scientific interest.

Lance

Mac said...

Marcel has *also* claimed that he hid a portion of the "real" debris behind the staged weather balloon debris. And, if "The Roswell Incident" is to be believed, he also claimed that one of the pictures contained in the book depicted the real stuff (albeit nothing visibly exotic).

I think there's a case to be made for Roswell being the residue of a genuine paranormal event, but I think Marcel, Sr.'s testimony is a decidedly weak link.

cda said...

Stan Friedman interviewed Marcel several times during 1978-79. We may be quite certain that STF plied him with his numerous research papers on UFOs and ETs, and by the time STF had finished with him Marcel was well on the way towards a full belief in the 'Roswell was ET' idea.

The problem over the photos arose because Moore & Berlitz only showed the (severely)cropped versions of these, and only two photos, in their book and the reader, and maybe Marcel also, could not be sure after 3 decades that they depicted the same debris.

It was only when you produced the full uncut photos that it became obvious that all six showed the same debris. Hence the need to concoct the idea that the real debris was replaced by a substituted balloon. As for the suggestion that Ramey put the ersatz stuff there before the real stuff arrived from Roswell (i.e. before he had even seen it!), all I can say is what a preposterous notion.

And you still have not answered why Ramey needed to 'invite' the press to Fort Worth at all. He had a perfect story to say to the enquiring press (if it was truly to be kept under wraps): "it has all gone to Washington". Ramey wanted a bit of publicity for the base, and why not?

Joseph Capp said...

Dear Keven,
The opposite is true of what Lance said when ever a witness to Roswell comes forward they have memory problems when they disagree with the debunkers. Any little character flaw by any Roswell witness makes them a liar. Finally, again we have the debunkers claiming Marcel was a complete idiot, or liar. For him to mistake what was in that picture as something unseen on earth., To have that material go all the way up to headquarters with out being recognized is what I call debunkers wishful thinking. Most of them have not been in the military and probably couldn't handle it if they were. Brad Sparks recently spoke about a document being released that showed that when this debris was describe over the phone even headquarters didn't know what it was. So now we have idiots all the way up to the top...it's a wonder they won the war.
This is what happens to research when debunkers are allow a platform for stupid theories and I mean stupid. Marcel was the fall guy that happened all the time in the service. But Marcel was no idiot he was one of our boys who fought for the safety of us all even these ungrateful debunkers.

Joe Capp
UFO Media Matters
Non-Commercial Blog

Lance said...

"The opposite is true of what Lance said when ever a witness to Roswell comes forward they have memory problems when they disagree with the debunkers."

Gosh Joe,

You sort of picked the wrong article to which you connect this assertion since this article clearly and unambiguously demonstrates my point.

Kevin honestly presented things as they stand and gave his reasons for picking the later testimony. I think those reasons are flawed (especially for someone writing history).

"Any little character flaw by any Roswell witness makes them a liar."

Joe, is your post meant to be satire? Are you maybe talking about the character flaws of people like:

Gerald Anderson
Frank Kaufman
Glen Dennis
Jum Ragsdale

I get it! Very funny, Joe.

Well done!

Lance

Bob Koford said...

CDA said:

"And you still have not answered why Ramey needed to 'invite' the press to Fort Worth at all. He had a perfect story to say to the enquiring press (if it was truly to be kept under wraps): "it has all gone to Washington".

I said in a previous comment that I agree with you on this point, whole-heartedly, but for different reasons. To me, there was just no logical reason to have a press conference, at all. Based on everything presented, by Kevin, it seems that everyone was convinced of the earthly origin of the stuff, by then, so why draw even MORE attention to it?...unless there was something else they needed to hide, in which case the weather balloon story, presented to the press makes more sense. It was meant to buy more time, and cool off their inquiring minds.

Kevin, I recently came across this reference: 1947 04 Jul 0500 ? US-V2 WSPG 72.5 km GE-Special with biological payload, landed at 142 km range near Roswell after partial parachute failure.
http://www.rocketservices.co.uk/spacelists/sounding_rockets/decades/1944-1949.htm

Have you vetted this story out? I had never remembered coming across it before now. I only did because I was searching for Aeronomy missions being conducted at the time.


Ramey wanted a bit of publicity for the base, and why not?"

This makes no sense. We're talking about the 509th here! They don't want, or need ANY publicity.

Also, the counter-argument saying Marcel never thought the stuff was strange, before the nineteen-seventies, is undone by Marcel, Jr.'s testimony confirming that his father stopped in the middle of the night to show his family... a simple weather device?...I don't think so. This is why you would have to be calling Marcel a liar.

cda said...

Joe Capp should get better informed about Roswell. The document Brad Sparks mentioned has been in the public domain for some 30 years. It is the FBI teletype, and its contents are not as Joe described. It does not say that AF headquarters did not know what the debris was. The quote is: "Major Curtan (Kirton) further advised that the object found resembles a high altitude weather balloon with a radar reflector but that telephonic conversation between their office [i.e. Ft Worth] and Wright Field had not borne out this belief". In other words, the guy at the Wright Field end of the phone line was dubious of the balloon + radar reflector answer and wanted the stuff shipped to Wright Field for further examination. Not the least surprising during the height of the fear of possible Russian invasion of US air space soon after WW2. This teletype also makes clear that information about the flying disc was only supplied to the FBI because of "national interest in the case" and the attempts to broadcast the story and the numerous AP wires.

Note: 'national interest', NOT 'national security'. There is a big difference!

Also, Joe, no debunker has said the stuff went all the way to headquarters without being recognised. And nobody has ever called Marcel an idiot either.

David Rudiak said...

Which photo was Marcel referring to when he said he was photographed with the "real stuff": the public photos or the military ones?

Nobody ever talks about the military photos that would have been taken as standard operating procedure, both at Roswell and Fort Worth. If the boys at Roswell were such drooling idiots that they could mistake a rubber balloon, child kite balsa wood sticks, Scotch tape, and candy wrapper paper/foil for one of them new-fangled supersonic flying saucers, even issuing a press release to that effect, then why no pictures of their super find? Certainly Ramey got all dressed up to have his photo taken with mere weather balloon debris for the newspapers. Why not have military photographers there to record the great historic event of actual flying disc debris?

The fact is, whenever Marcel was actually shown the photos of himself with the weather balloon, he always denied that was what he brought with him from Roswell (e.g., reporter Johnny Mann or Linda Corely). The only time he was quoted saying he was photographed with the real debris was when he wasn't shown these photos.

Marcel was interviewed over the phone, not in person, by Berlitz & Moore, so he had no idea what photo might be referenced. What he did say was first he showed Ramey his debris samples. He was quoted saying he remembered having one photo taken with these (but who took the photo?), which were subsequently removed, then LATER Ramey and Dubose were photographed with the balloon debris. "I was not in those."

But he was in those. It could simply be a matter of Marcel not remembering the second civilian photo session. The photographer, Bond Johnson, likewise didn't remember taking the Marcel photos, though remembered taking the photos with the general.

The likely photo sequence of KNOWN photos is 2 Ramey photos, 2 Ramey/Dubose photos, THEN the 2 Marcel photos, because small changes in the debris pattern of the Marcel photos match up with what is seen in the last photo taken of weather officer Newton, by some other unknown photographer. Point: the photo Marcel remembered being taken with the “real debris” was before the Ramey/Dubose weather balloon shoot, not after.

People also forget that Marcel wasn't the only Roswell witness. He has a lot of backing for various parts of his story, such as highly anomalous debris (around 20 other witnesses including Gen. Exon and fellow intel man Rickett). Gen. Dubose backed his story of high security and the weather balloon coverup in Fort Worth. (affidavit, RECORDED interviews). Rickett and others spoke of the extremely high security in place and a large recovery operation. All of these people would have to be lying, not just Marcel.

And finally, if Marcel was truly such an idiot and had embarrassed the Air Force, including making a bad ID that totally disrupted the routine of not only Roswell, but also Gen. Ramey & staff, and worst of all, the Pentagon right on up to Gen. Vandenberg, leading to embarrassing national & international news stories, then why doesn't this show up in his subsequent record? Why wasn’t he quickly booted out of the service as an incompetent? (And why no subsequent investigation of this fiasco?)

No, he was instead promoted to Lt.-Colonel in the Reserve a few months later (endorsed by Dubose & Blanchard), and Blanchard, Dubose, Ramey, and Col. John Ryan (Ramey's op officer, next Roswell base commander, future AF Chief of Staff) are singing his praises afterwards.

Examples: Ryan: Marcel's work and past service were "most exemplary" and "most outstanding." (Aug. 12, 1948). Ramey: Marcel's services to his command were "outstanding"; past performance and progress made him future command officer material. (Aug. 19, 1948)

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/marcel_evaluations.html

Incidentally, historically the press held Haut or Blanchard responsible for the embarrassing flying disc press release. Marcel was never blamed.

David Rudiak

Lance said...

"Nobody ever talks about the military photos that would have been taken as standard operating procedure, both at Roswell and Fort Worth."

And here we have Mr. Rudiak doing what he does best. Making things up.

Honest researchers like Kevin acknowledge where the evidence is weak. But those like Rudiak are in a different class. When he wants something to be true he simply creates it in his mind and then cretinously proclaims that it must be that way.

There is no evidence of another photo shoot that I am aware of. Is there anyone else (who is not batsh*t insane) who is aware of other photos?

Still waiting for Rudiak's response to the obvious fabrication I caught him in and documented earlier. I would be mortified if I had been exposed in such an baldfaced misstatement (still up on his site for anyone to see)--these things run off some people like water.

Lance

starman said...

Bob Koford:

cda:

"height of the fear of possible Russian invasion of US airspace after WWII."

Come on, in 1947? What did Russia have then that could invade US airspace? They didn't even have a stategic bomber force in the war, and in 1947 they were preoccupied with reconstruction.

Lance:

"Making things up."

If it was standard procedure, can't we assume there were photos taken by military photographers, in Roswell and Ft. Worth?

cda said...

To Starman:

There was indeed fear of Russia after WW2. They, like the US, had captured numerous German rocket scientists, and could, in the eyes of the US military, have been in a position to launch rockets against the US, even in 1947. Don't forget the Swedish 'ghost rockets' scare of 1946, well known to the US military at the time.

So the fear certainly existed in '47, even if it turned out to be unjustified.

Bob Koford said...

Starman:

I do not believe they seriously thought the Russians had the capability at that point, or even in 1948, as you can read from this quote on my Blog

http://bobkoford.blogspot.com/2009/01/historic-views-quote-number-one.html

It is true that they had the Ghost Rocket scare, CDA, but investigations never panned out as far as it being the Russians. They never were able to confirm anything but theories regarding the Green Fireballs, which some definitely assumed were a Russian secret weapon.

starman said...

cda:

"There was indeed fear of Russia after WW2. They, like the US, had captured numerous German rocket scientists, and could, in the eyes of the US military, have been in a position to launch rockets against the US, even in 1947."

Sounds absurd. As Bob Koford pointed out, the ghost rockets were not Russian. Moreover, attacking the US, or even provoking it by violating its airspace, would've been lunacy, inasmuch as the US still enjoyed a nuclear monopoly at the time.
Bottom line, fear of Russian intrusion--if it existed at all-- couldn't have been so great that they'd want an obvious balloon and reflector shipped to WP to make sure it wasn't soviet. That sounds ridiculous. It had to have been something more exotic.

Btw Bob, about that report of a V2 with a biological payload: Based on KDR's reconstruction of events, isn't "4 Jul 005?" too early by almost a day?

Bob Koford said...

About the V-2 question, I am interested because:

1. We know from the documents that the UFOs, especially teardrop-shaped, silvery flying objects, were attracted to our own aerospace programs over the years.

2. On the off-chance there were discoveries, leading to other discoveries, in the Roswell event, I was searching for other items which may have evoked fear for cover-up

David Rudiak said...

Bob, about the July 4 V-2, the V-2 records I've seen show an attempted launch on July 3 that was finally aborted because of severe technical problems. The next V-2 launch date was July 10.

David Rudiak

David Rudiak said...

Marcel’s actual military record and high performance reviews afterward speak volumes as to whether he screwed up in any way. Instead he received a promotion, was recommissioned instead of thrown out , received a top secret intel post in Washington afterward (with the Pentagon and SAC competing for him), had reviews with words like "outstanding", superior numerical ratings, recommendation for command officer training, etc., etc.

This does not exactly fit the profile of a bungling intel officer who couldn't properly ID a simple balloon, who also somehow got a highly inflammatory press release sent out that turned into an national and international front page news story, tied up the Pentagon in knots for the rest of the day, undoubtedly pissed off a lot of generals, including the head cheese himself, Vandenberg, yet absolutely nothing bad happens to him or to any other main officers involved at Roswell, like Blanchard. And there is no known investigation into this allegedly monumental screw-up at our one and only atomic bomber base.

Instead it sounds like Marcel and the other boys in blue did their jobs very well and did as they were told. (In fact, Marcel’s evaluations say exactly that—-a man who did his job exceptionally well and followed the chain of command.)

Yet the debunkers claim all Marcel found is what is depicted in the Fort Worth photos, namely a singular weather balloon and radar target.

Imagine, a stupid, lying intel officer who makes a huge, embarrassing mistake, later supposedly admits to being photographed with “real debris” that instead is nothing but a weather balloon, but higher officers back then continue to think he's great.

How can this be? It makes no logical sense. If that was all Marcel found and this led to the infamous flying disc press release, his head would have been handed to him. At the very least, he would have been quickly removed as head intel officer at Roswell and transferred to our equivalent of Siberia where he could do no harm. When his commission ended the next Spring, he would have been gone. But none of this happened.

Instead Col. Blanchard upped his numerical ratings and endorsed a promotion, Gen. Ramey a year later was calling him "outstanding", command officer material, AND mildly protesting his transfer saying he had nobody in his command to replace him. (I guess competent intel officers were in very short supply at the time, even a year after Roswell.)

So obviously it was something other than Gen. Dubose’s “cover story” weather balloon that Marcel recovered and brought to Fort Worth for Gen. Ramey to look at. And this “something else” is what Marcel remembered being photographed with. To explain Marcel’s comment that he was photographed with the real debris but Ramey and Dubose were later photographed with the weather balloon, there had to be other photographs taken, but these were internal military photographs not seen to this day. Marcel simply forgot 30+ years later when initially interviewed by phone (but not shown any of the actual photos being asked about). Photographer, James Bond Johnson, likewise remembered the Ramey photos he took but not Marcel’s. Whenever Marcel was subsequently interviewed in person and actually shown particular photos of him with the weather balloon, he always denied that was the debris he brought with him from Roswell.

If Marcel & Blanchard honestly thought they had a real “flying disc” debris in hand, this definitely would have been documented at Roswell by a photographer. Similarly, Ramey would have had it documented in Fort Worth, not only for historical reasons, but as possible evidence for any subsequent investigation that should have followed but didn’t. This would indeed have been standard procedure.

The fact that there was no investigation afterward into the allegedly colossal screwup is another “dog that didn’t bark” piece of evidence that there was no screwup by Marcel or anyone else.

David Rudiak

cda said...

David Rudiak's last two paragraphs indicate to him that there was no big 'screw up' at Roswell or Fort Worth. Perfectly correct, but to me the lack of military photographs indicates that
the personnel at Roswell did not think the debris was worth photographing, because they were already at least 80 per cent certain it was just a shredded balloon plus attachments and not a 'flying disc'. But Haut's unwise press release ensured the 'higher HQ' authorities would demand to get their hands on it, whatever conclusion the guys at Roswell had come to.

No skeptic I know of has ever said Marcel was stupid or a liar. He obeyed orders and said little, knowing that what he collected at the ranch was a bit strange, fragmented and scattered but probably still identifiable. He and Brazel did try and put the pieces together to make a kite.

There is no reason whatever to suppose (i) hidden official photos exist and are still under wraps or (ii) that such photos were later lost or destroyed.

Lance said...

Rudiak's method is to make up an excuse anytime the evidence doesn't show what he wants it to. He's really not even worth talking to since no matter what he will not follow the evidence (or as I clearly showed, create a lie to promote his ideas).

Beneath contempt.

On another topic does anyone know anything further about the supposed markings on the photographed debris found by one Neil Morris circa 1998?

In the online stuff I have found the resolution is too low to see much of anything. I have asked once before (with no answer) does anyone have high-rez scans of these?

Finding markings (similar to those described by witnesses) would put another nail into the Roswell case but I can't find anyone's results of looking for them (other than that I described above).

Lance

KRandle said...

Lance -

I thought my answer to your question was well reasoned and rational. You said that Marcel said if he was in the pictures it was the real stuff and if he wasn’t then it was faked. That made the case for you. But, there was another Marcel statement, based on actually looking at the photographs taken in Ramey’s office in which he said that wasn’t the stuff he’d found in New Mexico. Are we to reject that statement just because you don’t like it?

Let’s talk Mogul which seems to have a somewhat analogous situation. We have various statements about the project that are demonstrably false. It wasn’t highly classified as many claim. The name, Mogul, was known to Dr. Albert Crary and he used it in his unclassified diary. It was known to Charles Moore, who was introduced to Dr. James van Allen as a Mogul engineer. We also know:

a. The balloon launches were well publicized based on testimony given by Charles Moore and this argues against secrecy.

b. Pictures of Mogul balloons appeared in newspapers around the county on July 10. Moore even identified the ladder in one of the pictures as a ladder he had purchased with petty cash.

c. The officers at Roswell knew of the balloon launched because members of the Mogul team told them about those activities when they came to Roswell to ask for help.

d. There was no flight no. 4, according to Crary’s diary, and if there was no flight no. 4, there was nothing to scatter debris on the ranch. According to the diary, the flight was canceled due to weather conditions.

e. Flight no. 5 is mentioned in the various documents relating to Mogul as the first successful New Mexico flight.

f. Moore told me that if they canceled a launch, then the equipment was cut from the arrays and then the balloons were let go because you couldn’t put the helium back in the bottles. The balloons were launched individually because they didn’t want the whole array floating around which was considered a hazard to air traffic.

g. Moore’s calculations, based on the winds aloft data and the mythical flight no. 4, show the balloon could have come within 17 miles of the debris field because he remembered losing track of it near Arabela... excuse me, but haven’t we been rejecting all such memories from Roswell witnesses as too old to be of value?

h. All Mogul flights are accounted for in the documentation so that there is nothing left to leave the debris... metallic debris... and even if you allow for the balloons, there was nothing on them to leave metallic debris.

i. Pflock and others originally seized on flight no. 9 as the culprit until the documentation showed that it had been recovered and then switched to the mythical flight no. 4.

j. It was the purpose of Mogul, to spy on the Soviets, that was so secret. The attempts to create a constant level balloon were not classified, the project name was not classified and the equipment was not classified or in any way special. Anyone would have recognized it was weather balloons and some kind of reflector, if the reflectors had still been attached.

So, the question becomes, what evidence is there of a flight no. 4? Doesn’t the preponderance of the documentation and evidence suggest that there was no flight no. 4? If there was no flight no. 4, then doesn’t the Mogul explanation fail at this point? And, if there was no flight no. four, then where did the broken up rawin target come from?

KRandle

Lance said...

Hi Kevin,

I certainly agree that you presented the material fairly (I thought I said as much). I also tried to show reasons why taking later testimony is not usually preferred over earlier.

Now as to the Mogul material you present:

This whole idea of knowing the Mogul code name (and when it was known) doesn't say too much. I know that it has been shown that Moore could have known the name contemporaneously (and perhaps forgotten it or as some would have it lied about it). I don't see where this leads but I reject that Moore had some nefarious reason for getting into the Roswell story.

As to the flight 4 etc. I will look into this and report back (as though my opinion means anything! :))


Do you know anything about Neil Morris finding markings on the photographed debris?

Thanks,

Lance

cda said...

Kevin:
There WAS a flight early on the morning of June 4. Crary's diary tells us this. True, he says the official flight 4 was cancelled, but he tells that a substituted balloon array flight did take place. Whether this included any radar reflectors we cannot say (but we know it did include a sonobuoy). You cannot safely rely on Charles Moore's memory on what exactly was launched that day, just as you cannot rely safely on his, or anyone else's memory, without proper documentation to back it up.

Lance:
From my own memory (there we go again!) Neil Morris claimed to have discovered markings in the Ft Worth photos that were very similar to those shown on the beams in the (in)famous Roswell autopsy film. Morris was, and may still be, a technician at Manchester University, UK, and part of the team known as RPIT (Roswell Photo Interpretation Team).

starman said...

cda:

"But Haut's unwise press release..."

Was ordered by Colonel Blanchard. If the highest ranking officer at Roswell thought the material was important enough to bring to the attention of the press (which wouldn't have been the case if it was just mundane mogul junk) it was surely worth photographing.

"There is no reason whatever to suppose (i)hidden official photos exist and are still under wraps.."

Sure there is, if they show real alien material, which the government would rather not disclose.

KRandle:

"Are we to reject that statement just because you don't like it?"

cda and Lance think it resulted from Friedman brainwashing Marcel into supporting the ET line. I don't buy that. Marcel didn't need Friedman or anyone else to tell him what kind of material he was photographed with. He was not an impressionable 6 year old child. When shown the public photos he clearly stated to Mann that they don't show him with the real stuff.

Gilles. F. said...

Greetings Mister Randle,

You writed :

d. There was no flight no. 4, according to Crary’s diary.

Erf ?

In Crary's dairy (one rare 1947 document we have), in the 4th june entry, I read exactly :

"No balloon flight again on account of clouds. Flew regular sono buoy in cluster of balloons and had good luck on receiver on ground but poor on plane. Out with Thompson pm. Shoot charges from 1800 to 2400."

I'm correct ?

The sono buoy, devoted to record "bomb" acoustic dataes as Mogul project was devoted for, was then... levitating ? No ballons fligh ?

Or it was realized a "service" Mogul flight N°4, june the 4th, after the service n°3 May, the 29th ?

And then, a flight number 4 (service, as reported in NYU report) have flyied...

(with NYU pink purple symbols scotch, providing of East Coast toy's manufactury (Merry Lei Corp) etc, but it is another matter...).

In essence, I dont understand why you claim no flight this jun, the 4th, according to Crary's diary when Crary write a sonuoboy flying...

No offense, just disapointed by your claim.

A second question, with all due respects, if some people claim a "cover-up", why USAF didn't erase the sentence "No balloon flight again on account of clouds." ?

Some claim the omnipotence and super power of USAF to cover a secret, but USAF is idiot to keep that sentence in her report which will be available for each people with the net...

With Respect, and sorry for my bad english.

Gilles. F.

KRandle said...

CDA:

Thanks for proving my point for me because, as you have pointed out, this isn’t as cut and dried as others would have us believe. Crary’s diary for Wednesday, June 4 said, “Out to Tularosa Range and fired charges between 00 and 06 this am. No balloon flight again on account of clouds.”

That seems to rule out flight no. 4. However, the next line said, “Flew regular sonobuoy mike up in cluster of balloons and had good luck on receiver on ground but poor on plane. Out with Thompson pm. Shot charges from 1800 to 2400.”

Charles Moore, commenting on this wrote, in his “The New York University Balloon Flights During Early June, 1947,” that “Crary’s diary entries for June 4 are puzzling because they are contradictory. My examination of his original handwritten entries suggests that he copied them later from other notes...”

He also wrote, “...I think that the June 4th balloons carried NYU Flight #4 although there is no mention of this flight in the NYU flight summary because no altitude data were obtained.”

He then wrote, “Since we had spent the time after our arrival at Alamogordo in preparing for a full scale flight, I think that we would not have improvised on the morning of June 4, after the gear was ready and the balloons inflated; we would have launched the full-scale cluster, complete with the targets for tracking...”

And he wrote, “I have a memory of J. R. Smith watching the June 4th cluster through the theodolite on a clear, sunny morning and that Capt. Dyvad reported that the Watson Lab radar had lost the targets while Smith had them in view. It is also my recollection that the cluster of balloons was tracked to about 75 miles from Alamogordo by the crew in the B-17. As I remember this flight, the B-17 crew terminated their chase, while the balloons were still airborne (and J. R. was still watching them), in the vicinity of Capitan Peak, Arabela and Bluewater, NM. I, as an Easterner, had never heard of these exotically-named places but their names have forever afterward been stuck in my memory.”

So, what do we really have here? Crary said the flight was canceled and then talked about sending up a sonobouy, but the notes are confusing. Moore makes much of this, adding his memories to the mix, but also qualifying his statements by saying things like, “I think,” and “I have a memory.”

The documentation says there was no flight no. 4, no where is it recorded. There is a gap in the record, but that is accounted for by Crary who said it was canceled and the first recorded flight in New Mexico is no. 5.

My point here is if we can reject the Marcel quotes that don’t fit with our view of the world, then can’t we reject the Moore quotes that don’t fit with out view of the world. The evidence seems to suggest there was no flight no. 4, but there is just enough confusion to leave the door barely opened. To be fair, though I don’t know why I should bother to be fair when the other side is rarely fair, I would say that there is a slight possibility that there was a flight no. 4. I would also say that I don’t believe that the debris scattered by such a flight, if it could be proved it made its way north to the Brazel ranch, would have caused the commotion it did. It would have looked like just what it was. Weather balloons and radar targets.

In my last note here, I put it together using only that information that fit a specific scenario and I was much stronger in my language than I would normally be, but only to make the point. There is just enough confusion on many of these points that we can’t get to the bottom line... unless, of course, you know there has never been alien visitation and any evidence to suggest otherwise is wrong. Then the confusion doesn’t matter because you already know the truth.

David Rudiak said...

Starman wrote:
When shown the public photos he clearly stated to Mann that they don't show him with the real stuff.

Linda Corley's 1981 interview, also in person with Marcel, clarifies some matters further.

First Marcel told her he never met with either Berlitz or Moore and that all interviews with them were conducted on the phone. Thus Marcel was never shown specific press photos. His quoted remarks about having a photo taken with the "real debris" need to be taken in that context.

Then Marcel, shown the actual press photos by Corely, repeats (like the Mann interview) that the photos don't show the real debris.
(following quotes exactly as in Corely's transcript, including bracketed clarifying comments)

CORLEY: And this is what? Like that foil that they described in here [The Roswell Incident book].

MARCEL: What you see here is nothing but a piece of brown paper that I put over so that the news media couldn't get a picture of what I had. [Referring to above photo (Corely's uncropped photo of Marcel holding radar target) on page 34 of The Roswell Incident book (their highly cropped photo of Marcel)]

CORELY: Oh, you were covering the stuff?

MARCEL: I was covering it, yeah. But nobody knew that. I was told by my commanding General, "Just don't say anything. Don't show anything..."

Then Marcel pointed to the now famous photo of Ramey and Dubose:

MARCEL: You see this picture right here? [Photo of General Ramey on page 35 of the The Roswell Incident] That's a fake. ...He (Ramey) claimed that it was fragments of a weather balloon. So they took this [photo]. This is part of a weather balloon. ...I wasn't even there then. (My comment: probably meaning he wasn't there when Ramey photo taken) They had this photo taken, strictly for the press.

CORLEY: But when they let the press take this picture [Marcel photo] they still told you to cover the stuff up?

MARCEL: Right. Well, he didn't have to tell me that. I knew that.

CORLEY: Oh? You knew better than to show [debris]?

MARCEL: That's what I did.

CORLEY: But didn't they think that people weren't going to be stupid enough to believe that it was a weather balloon like that? [pointing to photo of weather balloon]

MARCEL: I knew it wasn't a weather balloon. And General Ramey knew it wasn't a weather balloon...

What we have here are the press photos directly in front of Marcel and Marcel specifically denying that they show the real debris. The photos showing the weather balloon were "fake" and done by Ramey strictly to deceive the press. Marcel also indicates "real debris" was still there but covered up by the brown paper, also seen in the photos.

David Rudiak

Gilles. F. said...

Greetings,

So, you writed (TY for the add-on) :

However, the next line said, “Flew regular sonobuoy mike up in cluster of balloons and had good luck on receiver on ground but poor on plane. Out with Thompson pm. Shot charges from 1800 to 2400.”


"Mike up" isn't part of Crary exact Journal quote, well.. a detail.

Regarding only the dataes you pointed to proove no flight N°4 : Crary journal data.

How those next lines allow you to claim the flight N°4 was cancelled ?

Regarding Crary Journal,one again, when Crary itself, in the same document, next line, writed a sonuoboy in a cluster of balloons have flyed ?

Are you invoking the levitation of a sunuoboy ?

Cluster of Ballons followed by a plan (B-17), with receivers on ground.

Typical Mogul "research" or "service", flights, but Mogul anyway. - read flight N°5 entry in Crary Journal to have the same proceedings or "patterns" including a plan and ground receivers, or explosions in Tularosa -).

Respects,

Gilles. F.

Gilles. F. said...

Greetings Mister Rudiak,

Linda Corley's 1981 interview recorded in a "tape" ?

May I, poor reader, have the "need to know and hurt" -sic - those tapes ?

No, impossible...

It is retranscription, following Corley's memory about the "blanks" and tapes, debarking suddenly as proof, but as usual, when it is interresting to have the tapes, and proofs, nothing.

The tapes - the proof of what she claims -, as usual in Roswell, have a problem...

Please, excepted her or S. Friedman, who have listening the tapes, as independant searcher ?

Nobody.

Gilles F.

KRandle said...

Gilles F. -

I quoted exactly what Charles Moore published in his March 27, 1995 paper. He was working from Crary's diary and I will assume that you are working from a different source... which I will assume is the big, fat Air Force document which does not include the word, "mike" and has split sonobuoy into two words.

You seem to be claiming that flight no. 4 was this sonobuoy flight which used the cluster of balloons from the canceled flight no. 4. If this is accurate information, this flight did not constitute flight no. 4 and we only have Moore's memories that they kept the radar reflectors on it and tracked it with a B-17 since there is no documentation to support these claims. And his memories that it disappeared somewhere around Arabela which he remembers because the name was exotic.

My point here is that some will reject Marcel's statements about the pictures of the balloon in Ramey's office not being the stuff he had found in New Mexico because he might have uttered them after his original statement about being in pictures with the real debris.

When Johnny Mann showed him those specific pictures he said it wasn't the stuff he had found. It's not as if I'm making this up it to keep the Roswell story alive. The quotes were heard by another man.

I was attempting to point out the double standard here. Reject the Marcel quote because it doesn't fit, but embrace the Moore statements because it argues for the point you want to make.

Bottom line... there is no documentation for a flight no. 4. It is not listed in the various reports and documents. The best you can say is that flight no. 4 was of balloons and a sonobuoy.

In the end, Mogul is not a very good solution to the Roswell case, which, of course, does not mean that Roswell was alien... just that there is no terrestrial explanation that covers all the facts.

KRandle

David Rudiak said...

Gilles. F wrote:

Linda Corley's 1981 interview recorded in a "tape" ?

Yes, recorded on tape.

No, impossible...

I don't know why this would be impossible.

It is retranscription,

??? No, a transcription direct from the tape. This may simply be a language problem. English doesn't have the word retranscription.

following Corley's memory about the "blanks" and tapes, debarking suddenly as proof, but as usual, when it is interresting to have the tapes, and proofs, nothing.

No, not based on Corley's memory. This is a transcription from the tape.

Confusion may arise because Corely decided to keep the interview private for 12 years (partly out of deference to Marcel, who in his last phone call with her, she said sounded "scared" and upset that she might make the interview public.)

As I remember, when Corley first made contents of the interview public at a UFO conference, she said she was working from notes because when she tried to replay the tape, she couldn't make out clearly what was being said. She thought the tape had deteriorated.

Later she tried it on a different tape player and there was nothing wrong with the tape; it was a problem on her first recorder. Then she made a complete transcript. You can go on the Internet and order it, e.g. at Amazon.com (Title: "For the Sake of My Country")

Please, excepted her or S. Friedman, who have listening the tapes, as independant searcher ?

As I remember, she made copies of the tape and had them for sale at one time. I could be wrong about this. Maybe Kevin knows if others have copies and have listened to the tape.

David Rudiak

David Rudiak said...

I guess I should have reviewed the history of the Corley transcript better instead of going from memory. Here is one version:

http://www.mnmufon.org/mmj/mmj80.pdf

My previous post:
Gilles F: following Corley's memory about the "blanks" and tapes, debarking suddenly as proof, but as usual, when it is interresting to have the tapes, and proofs, nothing.

Me: No, not based on Corley's memory. This is a transcription from the tape.

Correction: According to the article, both a transcription and partial reconstruction from memory of parts that weren’t totally clear.

Me: Confusion may arise because Corely decided to keep the interview private for 12 years (partly out of deference to Marcel, who in his last phone call with her, she said sounded "scared" and upset that she might make the interview public.)

As I remember, when Corley first made contents of the interview public at a UFO conference, she said she was working from notes because when she tried to replay the tape, she couldn't make out clearly what was being said. She thought the tape had deteriorated.

Later she tried it on a different tape player and there was nothing wrong with the tape; it was a problem on her first recorder. Then she made a complete transcript. You can go on the Internet and order it, e.g. at Amazon.com (Title: "For the Sake of My Country")

Gilles F: Please, excepted her or S. Friedman, who have listening the tapes, as independant searcher ?

Correction: She initially put the tapes “up on a shelf” because Marcel sounded so scared, then waited until Mrs. Marcel had died before sharing the tapes with Stanton Friedman. By this time, they had in fact deteriorated and Friedman on his own couldn’t clearly make out what was being said. That’s when she did her own transcription aided by reconstruction from memory. A new tape player did help “clean” the tapes and make them more understandable. Her first public appearance when she described contents of the interview was at the 1999 National UFO Conference.

Because parts of the tape may not have been totally clear does translate into the entire tape being incomprehensible or the transcript entirely invalid. (I don’t believe anywhere in the transcript Corley indicating she couldn’t understand the tape to the point that she couldn’t make a proper transcript.) Read the transcript and Corley comes off as a honest reporter, at times commenting on some remarks of Marcel’s that didn’t make sense to her. She does not appear to be exaggerating or making anything up.

David Rudiak

cda said...

We need to be quite clear on the 'balloon switch' claim (made by Kevin and others). The reason this claim is made is that the 6 (or is it 7?) photos do NOT depict what any pro-ETHer could possibly admit was an ET craft or portions thereof. It is far too balloon-like, with metal or wooden beams as attachments.

Therefore, the theory goes, the debris must have been switched to fool the press and public.
But nobody has ever discovered who actually did the switch, and nobody even 30-45 years later, has come forward to admit they did it or even that they saw anyone doing it. This particular aspect is very devoid of witnesses. Various people such as Marcel, Johnson, duBose etc, at the base say this and that, first say one thing then another, but it all stops short of any real first-hand (or even second-hand) claim of the 'switch'. How on earth could Ramey have done such a thing before seeing the debris? Inconceivable. But even after seeing the debris, who would have performed the switch? Irving Newton was the base weather officer, so he is the obvious person. But he has spoken many times, and knows nothing about it. So who did it?

Are we really to believe Marcel that the real stuff was hidden by brown paper but in the same room whilst the substitute stuff was on display?
Further, how did Ramey acquire the ersatz balloon so quickly, and how did he dare display it when the real debris, even if stashed away, could always pop out (due to a misunderstanding) at any time? It all smacks of very rapid and precise organisation and logistics, during a time of high excitement, that in practice would have been impossible. And of course there was no certainty that the secret would not leak out.

But the fundamental question remains: Why were the press invited to Ft Worth at all? If something is to be kept top secret, then the very last thing you do is risk security and invite the press to take pictures. Nor do you give a phony explanation on the local radio station. You simply keep your mouth firmly shut.

Gilles. F. said...

Greetings Kevin Randle and David Rudiak,

Thank you for your attention and time. I must point my "admiration" that in this blog as several in USA, we can discusse cordialy between different opinions, "sceptics" with "pro HET", even if I dont like those "boxes". And "figures" like both of You taking time and attention to all is an "honnor". That's not always the case in France !

To Kevin Randle firstly:

NYU/Watson Labs were not reported "service" flights, only "Research" flights, as all of us know.

For exemple, in annexe 27 of the big USAF report, and for the period interresting us, there are n°3 et 4 in the appendixe.

If we use Crary diary's regarding the dates of those 2 flights in NYU appendixe, we find too a May the 29th entry and a flight:

“May 29 thurs. Mears and Hackman got balloon ascension off about 1 pm today with B-17 plan to follow it.”

And June the 4th entry :

"No balloon flight again on account of clouds. Flew regular sono buoy in cluster of balloons and had good luck on receiver on ground but poor on plane. Out with Thompson pm. Shoot charges from 1800 to 2400."

In other words, 2 different documents are corroborating those 2 flights, same date,and with a maximum accuracy they were "service" flights.

The first "research" flight in west coast was number 5 (and not the first flight success as I read here or there). The 3 and 4 were only "service" flights.

If there is a number 5, there were a 4 and and a 3, or there were no number allocated : only flying flights have a number, not the one annulated.

I concede it is not the case for 1946 flights faillures, but they are labelled A and B.

N°3 and 4 were "service" flights regarding those 2 documents and flew.

(To follow)

Gilles. F. said...

(...)

Failure flights have no label : they labeled only flights who flyied... We can assume this regarding Crary diairy too :

In Crary diairy, there was a faillure flight east cost in May the 9th entry due to high winds.

This flight have then no number in NYU report, and is totaly absent, "prooving" only flying flights are numerotated by NYU, not the canceled ones...

Independantly, NYU proceeded very often too to little clusters launches, consisting of 3 or 7 balloons and 3/5 ML307 targets, manufactured east cost probably too by Merry Ley Corp (so the tapes with symbols).

But there are no records of those flights. Anyway, we can ask ourselves if they are or not good candidats to explain Roswell too.

Concerning Moore (Charles B.) in his book, he used his memory for labelled flights and remembered only the flights he saw or participated. The last word are important IMHO to explain a memory problem he have, but who wasn't in fact IMHO too.

He did a confusion easy explainable cause remembering the flights he participated only, faillures or success.

So, for this reason, in his book, Moore number3 is the faillure of May the 9th, and number 4, June the 4th flight. Why this problem ?

Because regarding Crary diary, Moore is in Alamogordo june the first only, not before : he never assisted and participated to the real number 3 service taking place May the 29th. He cant remembered a flight he wasn't here...

Moore remembers then May the 9th flight and June the 4 flights, labeled 3 and 4 in that context and only in this context(the flights I was here, to be short).

I noticed too an effort was made to recovered Flight number 5 research materials :

June 5 Thurs. […] B-17 and personnel out to Roswell. Recovered equipment some 25 mi east of Roswell.

Allowing me to assume service flights 3 and 4 are on the nature, as it is probably for some little cluster of 3/7 balloons and 3/5 targets.

In essence, I'm not agree with you when you writed :

"this flight did not constitute flight no. 4 "

A contrario, the 2 independant documents (Crary diary's in regard to NYU appendixe, and reciprocaly) are corroborating that 3 and 4 were "service" flights.

Or if cancelled, as for May the 9th flight, it would exist no one label in NYU appendixe for those faillures...

Sorry for my english, I hope to have been however "clear" concerning this attempt of a "demonstration" number 3 and 4 flew and were service flights.

Will reply to David Rudiak after.

Best Regards and one more time, TY for your time and attention.

Gilles F.

Gilles. F. said...

Greetings Mister Rudiak,

I have read your 2 answers with intention and thank you for your time to "review" this history.

However, "my" question remains and as I asked : Excepted Corley and Friedman, who have listening the tapes ?

Nobody other in my knowledge and it seems now impossible to work directly with the direct "sources" : the tapes.

In a martial law point of view and without offense, it is second hand testimony facing for example a direct ones : in a documentary, Marcel says in summerizethat if he’s in the picture, it’s the real debris. If it is anyone else, then it is not.

As you pointed, all we have is both a transcription by Corley and partial reconstruction from memory of parts that weren’t totally clear by Corley, transcription working from notes..

Without the tapes, how can we judge the part of what it is "partial" in the tapes, and then what comes from memory reconstruction, knowing how human memory can be "biased" (Elizabeth Loftus works are well know on this matter) ? Or what it is coming from notes ?

In any case, if I want to compare if transcriptions, some from notes + partial memory reconstruction, are accurated with what Marcel saids, I cant.

In an investigation point of view, I have a problem.

Corley, without offense to her, DESCRIBES contents of tapes searchers have no possibility to judge on piece.

Even if, as the editor noticed in your link "Recovering the audiofrom a cheap tape done in 1981 would be easy withgood pro audio equip. - I could do it myself. I have old music tapes dating back to 1980 that still sound reasonably good. All you need is a little filtering and some dynamic expansion. Voice only tapes are easier yet."


So, we have the quote originally appeared in The Roswell Incident by Charles Berlitz and William Moore. Kevin Randle pointed some good points. For some minutes, I forgot this Moore and Berlitz quote cause K. Randle "objections".

BTW : I have not the original book, but my question is if yes or not the pictures in the book are "cropped" ?

We have Mann interview, but, correct me if I'm wrong, it is testimony too.

A record is not available like it is for the reportage "by" S. Friedman where Marcel claims in essence "If he’s in the picture, it’s the real debris. If it is anyone else, then it is not." No, in my knowledge.

"This exchange was overheard by the cameraman, so that it is not single witness, but can be verified."

Do we have a testimony recorded by this cameraman corroborating Mann memories and testimony ?

Marcel replied, "That’s not the stuff I found.", seeing the pictures (cropped or not ?) following Mann.

Because if the pictures presented are cropped, it is when other elements of radar-target (ticks ie) aren't present that Marcel seems to have a problem...

The possible "cropped pictures" can then explain Marcel didn't recognize "his" wreckage. And the consequence of this :

When it is complete pictures, showing radar-target, it is the real wreckage he found ?

Out of the quote in Berlitz and Moore book, about the pictures itselves Marcel made a declaration about the "substitution" which makes problems IMHOtoo :

"The stuff in that photo was pieces of the actual stuff we found. It was not a staged photo. Later, they cleared out our wreckage and substituted some of their own. Then they allowed more photos. Those photos were taken while the actual wreckage was already on its way to Wright Field. I was not in these. I believe these were taken with the general and one of his aids."


TY again for your attention,

Best Regards,

Gilles F.

cda said...

To F.Gilles:
There are only two photos in the Berlitz-Moore book. The one showing Marcel with the debris is cropped by about 75 per cent, with none of the floor debris shown. The one with Ramey & Dubose is cropped by at least 50 per cent. The other 4 photos are not there at all.

Gilles. F. said...

Greetings,

Thank you very much Christopher Allen for this verification.

So, without the debris cause "cropped pictures" (radar-targets wreckage including sticks), with Mann (with Moore and Berlitz too regarding da quote ?),

Marcel didn't recognize "his" stuff, and these are "stagged" pictures...

He is right in a sens.

The pictures Mann presented using the Berlitz / Moore book didn't figure that "strange material" then, so Marcel didn't recognize "his" stuff... No sticks, kite structure, pink-purple "symbols" etc...

Sounds logic he didn't...

but Marcel says : "The stuff in that photo was pieces of the actual stuff we found."

Or in Stanton Friedman TV reportage, as in the book Marcel defends the thesis "If I'm in the picture, it’s the real debris. If it is anyone else, then it is not."

Does it means that the absence of the radar-target wreckage in the pictures presented is the reason why Marcel didn't recognize "his" stuff ?

What if with complete pictures presented to "test" if the real wreckage he found were radar-targets ?

In my knowledge, the 4 others Bond pictures never have been public before Marcel passed out in 1986. They "came" after.

So, following all of the discussion : there are problem for Berlitz / Moore quote, problem for Corley testimony, now with Mann presenting cropped pictures.

It remains the "Marcel thesis" AND TV document which sounds like "If I'm in the picture, it’s the real debris. If it is anyone else, then it is not."

Knowing the other pictures, we must admit without offense to Marcel that this thesis sounds "strange"...

But this 80's testimonies are the ones with less "contamination" and, question of opinion (?) conduced to a radar target as the real stuff with "maximal likelihood" (?).

Best Regards,

Gilles F.

KRandle said...

Gilles -

Actually what we learn is that Moore interviewed Marcel over the telephone so that Moore didn't show him any of the pictures. I don't believe that Friedman... or whoever interviewed Marcel for the film showed him the pictures either. As far as I know, the first time he saw those specific pictures with a reporter handy was when Mann handed him the book...

So, when he was questioned about those pictures, he said that it wasn't the stuff he'd found in New Mexico.

For those keeping score at home, there are seven known pictures that were taken in Ramey's office. J. Bond Johnson took six of them and someone else took the seventh. All the pictures were published some where at the time, even the picture of Newton. I have a copy of it as it appeared in a 1966 publication.

So the point remains. Marcel said that if he was in the pictures it was the real stuff, but when actually shown the pictures that were taken in Ramey's office, he said it wasn't the stuff he had found.

Gilles. F. said...

Greetings K. Randle,

Erf No ! ;)

I quote you :

"So the point remains. Marcel said that if he was in the pictures it was the real stuff," (the stuff he was "pictured" with are real then).

He saids that, I modestly agree, BUT + the claim pictures without him are without the real stuff... (Ramey, Dubose, Newton are with the same stuff...)

I quote U too :

"but when actually shown the pictures that were taken in Ramey's office, he said it wasn't the stuff he had found."

When shown CROPPED picture(s), he said it wasn't the stuff he had found... (and right, the picture are cropped, and no stuff presented in.)

+ explaining "If I'm in the picture, it’s the real debris. If it is anyone else, then it is not." (This is a false claim regarding that pictures)

I missed something ?

Best Regards,

Gilles F.

David Rudiak said...

Reply to Gilles F:

Marcel was never shown photos when interviewed by Berlitz/Moore. He was interviewed over the telephone.

When interviewed in person by Mann and Corley, with the public press photos pointed to for him to look at, he called the photos “fake” and “staged” and said that wasn’t what he found at Roswell. It was a weather balloon Ramey used to deceive the press.

I think you are being entirely too dismissive of Mann’s testimony (backed by his cameraman) and Corley’s transcript, which completely corroborate each other and other well-documented statements by Marcel about the highly anomalous nature of the debris.

Eyewitness Gen. Dubose in his affidavit also corroborated Marcel’s story. He said the weather balloon in the photos was a cover story to get rid of the press (plus Dubose saying he personally took the phone call from Gen. McMullen to start the coverup). There are also recorded interviews of Dubose saying the same thing. Shandera’s claim that Dubose said there was no swap has no backing of a recording or even notes of the interview.

Various photo forensic evidence also indicates this balloon/target was not from Mogul. Ramey also referred to the balloon/target in the singular, and 3D photo reconstruction backs that up. Ramey’s weather officer Newton has always stated (including 1947) that it was a singular balloon/target that could have come from any number of weather stations. He is still of that opinion and doesn’t believe what he saw was from a Mogul.

My website has lots of documentation from 1947 newspapers of Rawin targets crashing elsewhere and being demonstrated elsewhere. For example, there was a debunking press demonstration held at Fort Worth AAF July 10. Where did that balloon/target come from? Obviously Ramey had ready access to these devices. If they weren’t already at the base, they could be quickly flown in from some nearby source for Ramey’s press photos of July 8.

Why would a “Mogul” recovery end up with exactly one balloon & target? How did Ramey’s singular balloon/target separate how so precisely from the “rubber strips” and “sticks” and “foil” that Brazel said he rolled up into two bundles?

Photoanalysis shows Ramey’s radar target has no attached string or twine, as a real flown and recovered radar target should. (And Brazel said no string or twine was found, quite impossible for a Mogul crash, which would have left hundreds of feet of such material tangled in the brush.) The white paper backing is completely white and clean, not what one would expect from a target dragged through the dirt and sitting in the elements for a month.

The balloon in the photos also isn’t nearly deteriorated enough, remaining obviously pliable and intact. A neoprene balloon out in the hot sun turns to brittle black ash after 2 to 3 weeks.

Ramey’s words also betrayed him. He was quoted saying the “box kite” “disc” in his office would have been 25 feet across if reconstructed. This is nonsense and said by Ramey before Marcel even arrived in Fort Worth.

He was also quoted saying the object was “hexagonal”. This had to be scripted for him ahead of time. Only an intact assembled target might have a profile described as “hexagonal”. Only an expert would know this. It would be impossible to discern any sort of “hexagonal” shape from a torn-up radar target.

Marcel was also quoted back in 1947 by AP saying debris was scattered over a square mile (something he repeated 30 years later when interviewed by Leonard Stringfield). How could what was in the press photos be scattered over a square mile? Not even a complete Mogul balloon would be scattered so widely. (Contrast with Brazel being quoted as saying only 200 yards across, or Cavitt in 1994 claiming no bigger than his living room—a repeat of Ramey’s singular weather balloon story.)

(continued next post)

David Rudiak said...

(continuation of reply to Gilles. F)

If one wants to take Marcel’s Berlitz/Moore quote literally, then he also said he was photographed with the real debris BEFORE Ramey and Dubose. Yet other photoanalysis of small changes in debris position show Marcel was actually photographed AFTER Ramey/Dubose and before weather officer Newton. (I’m speaking of the public press photos we know about.) Marcel in his later Corley interview indicated when the press photos were taken, real debris was still in the office but concealed.

This led me to speculate that maybe Marcel was photographed more than once, the first time being unreleased military photos before the press photos were taken; he later forgot about the second public session (at least at the time of his initial interviews by Berlitz/Moore). From the Roswell base press release, clearly Blanchard and Marcel (and maybe others at the base) thought they had a real flying disc on their hands. Photos would necessarily be taken at Roswell for documentation. Military documentary photos would also likely be taken at Fort Worth when Marcel arrived and first met with Ramey. Photos were clearly planned by Ramey ahead of time. Ask yourself why Ramey was in dress uniform for the occasion.

Much too much weight, in my opinion, is attached to the Berlitz/Moore Marcel quote of being photographed with the real debris, as if this alone somehow proves all he found was Ramey’s singular balloon/radar target. Much independent evidence contradicts the statement, including other quotes from Marcel when actually shown the photos. There are also many other eyewitnesses, civilian and miltary, to highly anomalous debris found at Roswell and a coverup. This is not Marcel’s story alone. It has much corroboration.

David Rudiak

Lance said...

Kevin,

Were any of the Marcel photos published contemporaneously in newspapers, magazines, etc?

Thanks,

Lance

David Rudiak said...

Oct. 21
Reply to cda:
We need to be quite clear on the 'balloon switch' claim (made by Kevin and others). The reason this claim is made is that the 6 (or is it 7?) photos do NOT depict what any pro-ETHer could possibly admit was an ET craft or portions thereof. It is far too balloon-like, with metal or wooden beams as attachments.

No, the primary reason the claim is made is because eyewitnesses there, Marcel and Gen. Dubose, said there was a switch and a coverup.

Therefore, the theory goes, the debris must have been switched to fool the press and public.

Because Marcel and Dubose said so, not because “pro-ETHers” made it up.

But nobody has ever discovered who actually did the switch, and nobody even 30-45 years later, has come forward to admit they did it or even that they saw anyone doing it.

So?

This particular aspect is very devoid of witnesses.

Whose testimony you probably wouldn’t accept even if they had come forward, just as you dismiss Marcel and Dubose saying a switch and coverup.

Various people such as Marcel, Johnson, duBose etc, at the base say this and that, first say one thing then another, but it all stops short of any real first-hand (or even second-hand) claim of the 'switch'.

Again, so what?

How on earth could Ramey have done such a thing before seeing the debris? Inconceivable.

Maybe you missed the part of Marcel saying he first met with Ramey and showed him the “real debris”, then the switch was made.

But even after seeing the debris, who would have performed the switch?

Ramey had lots of aides and thousands of people at his disposal. I’m sure finding people to procure and then carry in a weather balloon and radar target into his office wouldn’t have been very hard.

Irving Newton was the base weather officer, so he is the obvious person.

He was the obvious person to bring in to officially ID what Ramey was already saying was a balloon/target. Why would he be the obvious person to switch the debris??? Again, you make no sense.

But he has spoken many times, and knows nothing about it. So who did it?

Again, so what? This is typical of you taking some very minor point and blowing it up into something you believe to be a showstopper.

Are we really to believe Marcel that the real stuff was hidden by brown paper but in the same room whilst the substitute stuff was on display?

Why not? Out of sight, out of mind. If reporters can’t see it, there is nothing for them to report.

Further, how did Ramey acquire the ersatz balloon so quickly,

Weather balloons were dirt common, hundreds sent up every day by military and civilian weather services, including at Fort Worth. Rawin targets not as common, but on display at Fort Worth and elsewhere back in 1947 newspapers, as documented on my website. For example, two days after Ramey’s weather balloon press photos, they held another debunking demonstration at the base with radar target attached to balloon, complete with radar tracking trailer. When did that come from?

Ramey’s weather officer Newton in 1947 was quoted saying that the radar target in Ramey’s office could have come from any of 80 weather stations in the country.

Obviously Ramey had ready access to radar targets, balloons, etc. If they weren’t already at the base, they could have been quickly flown in from places known to have them, such as Fort Sill, Oklahoma: Flight time ½ hour. Alamogordo and the White Sands weather station south of Alamogordo had them: Flight time, 2-1/2 hours.

According to Haut’s affidavit, Ramey was at Roswell that morning for the staff meeting and said they were going to cover it up. That would have given Ramey 7 to 8 hours to come up with the balloon/target, or plenty of time.

Even if you don’t believe Haut, AP in 1947 reported Blanchard contacting Ramey by 10:00 a.m. and reporting the find. Again this would be plenty of time to come up with a shill balloon.

(continued next post)

David Rudiak said...

(continuation of reply to CDA)
and how did he dare display it when the real debris, even if stashed away, could always pop out (due to a misunderstanding) at any time?

Why would it “pop out”? Were there civilians milling around Ramey’s office sorting through the debris? This was a general’s office, a very controlled situation.

The reason Ramey “dared” to display the weather balloon debris was to debunk the Roswell story and get rid of the press, just as Marcel and Dubose said happened.

It all smacks of very rapid and precise organisation and logistics, during a time of high excitement, that in practice would have been impossible.

It was rapid, but could have been planned out hours ahead of time—hardly “impossible”. See first half of my post above.

And of course there was no certainty that the secret would not leak out.

But the fundamental question remains: Why were the press invited to Ft Worth at all? If something is to be kept top secret, then the very last thing you do is risk security and invite the press to take pictures. Nor do you give a phony explanation on the local radio station. You simply keep your mouth firmly shut.


The secret was already out, or have you already forgotten the Roswell press release that they had recovered a flying disc? What Ramey did is obvious—ridicule the press release and make the press go away. The real question was why the Roswell press release?

Was Blanchard some rogue base commander who acted without authorization from above? Well hardly. Newspapers reported him in communication with Ramey that morning. Had Blanchard gone ahead without at least Ramey’s authorization, serious things would have happened to him afterward.

Similarly, if Marcel screwed up a simple balloon ID and set off the whole mess that disrupted the chain of command right to the top of the Pentagon and publicly embarrassed the AAF at a national level, even more serious things would have happened to him. So why are Blanchard, Dubose, and Ramey praising him afterward in his service evaluations? Ramey, e.g., called him “outstanding”, commander officer material, and said he had nobody to replace him.

Maybe the “non-ETHers” should be asking themselves the question if comments like that make any logical sense if all Marcel found was balloon material that he misidentified, eventually creating a huge fiasco.

As to the “why” of the initial press release, according to Haut, the secret was already leaking out, especially in the Roswell area. The press release was a diversion from the more sensitive and accessible craft/body site north of town, and also shifted the action away from Roswell to “higher headquarters”, namely Ramey. Ramey took it from there with his debunking weather balloon story.

This would have been a classic psy-ops bait and switch operation to make the whole subject of flying saucers look ridiculous. That night was a teletype message with military intelligence telling a reporter they thought the flying discs were radar targets. The next day, UP and Reuters reported the military was running a debunking campaign to kill the saucer rumors. This included several military balloon/radar target demonstrations (including at Alamogordo and Fort Worth) with standard lines that the targets were widely used and this undoubtedly explained the flying discs that people were reporting.

This was a well-orchestrated debunking campaign. Ramey only set it in motion.

David Rudiak

Gilles. F. said...

Greetings D. Rudiak.

You writed about other matters out the ones we started to discusse, and you replied, I posted counter - arguments regarding "Corley matter".

We are now about several new points...

Anyway,

I quote you, between several points we can discusse, but new ones (an invasion !), new threads can be opened about, and my honnor to exchange with you.

For one of them (the new ones) :

"He was also quoted saying the object was “hexagonal”. This had to be scripted for him ahead of time. Only an intact assembled target might have a profile described as “hexagonal”."

"Only an expert would know this. It would be impossible to discern any sort of “hexagonal” shape from a torn-up radar target."

No no and no ;)

I well know your "point" regarding the FBI teletype, mentionning the hexagonal shape, as a problem you seems to have, well known cause me too totaly immerged in Roswell case in France and your "objections".

In my (in redaction) book, I used your site to proove my point about this claim and the FBI teletype matter, and the "hexagonal problem" you have.

In the page of your own site :

http://www.roswellproof.com/RAWIN_construction.html,

You are presentating an hexagonal shape possible in 2D, which sounds impossible for you without an expert knowing a radar target in 3D...

Quoting your site :

" A special metal hinge at the center connected all core sticks together, and was designed to enable the complete target to fold down flat for easier transport and storage. "

How appears the "target" in flat if the target isn't completed or in 3D, without this metal hinge ?

As an hexagone ?

Your third picture in this page, is not an hexagone ?

How resists this "special metal hinge" to a flight and a crash, and without it, coming flat and becoming as an hexagone structure then ?

A contrario IMHO, if a ML307 crashes, we have more probabilities to find it as an hexagone, for anyone following how a ML307 is builded.

I missed something ?

BTW : I heard you have a Merri Ley target boxe, and the notice how to build it ?

I'm very interrested, cause in France and cause distances, like my pb for the question I asked if or not Berlitz / Moore pictures were "crooped" (they were) ;)

Regarding this "BTW", my question is simple or naïve one :

Did the sticks have letter(s) marked to help the "owner" to build a target, or not, in the box and notice, you seem to have ?


Best Regards.

Gilles F.

KRandle said...

Lance -

Yes. I've found all the pictures published in various newspapers of the time. The Newton picture is the rarest, but it was used too.

Lance said...

Thanks Kevin,

Sorry to keep bugging but if you don't mind, can you remember if the Marcel photo appeared in the Roswell paper in 1947?

Thanks,

Lance

KRandle said...

Lance -

Yes, Marcel's picture appeared on
the front page of the Roswell Daily
Record on July 10, 1947.

Lance said...

Thanks Kevin,

I would have to say, in that case, this scenario presented of Marcel referring to different pictures (or forgetting about the pictures, etc.) becomes much harder to accept.

Your own picture appearing in the paper is something you are quite likely to remember (realizing that you are something of a celebrity and such appearances may be old hat :) for most folks it is a rare and quite memorable occasion), I would contend that when the photographs were brought up (whether by phone or in person) Marcel knew exactly what was being referred to.

While, as you say, nothing is easy in this business, I think that this point (which I don't believe has been referred to previously) leads towards the idea that Marcel was referring to the (as we now know, prosaic) debris pictured in those photos when he called it "the real" stuff.

I know that it must seem like I tenaciously cling to one fact--perhaps to a fault. I do like to look into things that can be explored through the existing evidence which may be why I so despise when people like Rudiak make their ad nauseum guesses and fabrications as to what people MUST have done or PROBABLY did etc. etc.

Thanks,

Lance

cda said...

To David Rudiak:
Why not read Brazel's own account in the Roswell Daily Record, given quite independently of what was going on at Fort Worth, of the debris he & Marcel found. His description tallies remarkably well with what is depicted in the Ft Worth photos. Brazel mentioned the supporting balloon which "held it up" and how he and Marcel tried, but failed, "to make a kite out of it" [the corner reflector].

Perhaps you will try and persuade us that this was all part of the great deception, and that Brazel was told what to say by the military, and that he knew exactly what the substituted balloon would look like in order that his description to the RDR matched that given to, and seen by, the press at Ft Worth and miraculously also matched the stuff in the photos (which of course Brazel had not seen at that point)!

It all sounds highly dubious and highly implausible. Brazel was describing what he saw and collected, just as the pictures at Ft Worth show what Brazel & Marcel (and perhaps others) collected from the ranch.

To cap it all, Brazel ends up by saying "I am sure what I found was not any weather observation balloon". Quite so, it (i.e. the battered corner reflector) did not resemble anything he had seen before.

Had he been instructed what to say by the military (as part of a "well orchestrated debunking campaign"), it is strange indeed that his conclusion on the debris was the exact opposite of what Ramey was telling the press at Ft Worth.

Gilles. F. said...

Greetings,

Completing modestly what CDA exposed before, in the Brazel Daily Record, the tapes with flowers printed is mentionned in the article...

So, if it was a detail intructed by the military, WHY it didn't serve the cover-up demonstration later in the Press Conference ??

What a better proof of what USAF exposed to present this tapes used for the construction of the corner-reflector ?

It would be the "ultimate" proof for this pseudo-cover-up.

Probably because Brazel description and the Press Conference are independant, each depicting the real wreckage found in Foster Ranch.

Best Regards,

Gilles F.

Lance said...

Taken all together, the comments in this thread are certainly quite damaging to the Roswell story.

I wanted to say that I particularly appreciate the comments by Gilles F.

If I would gather the best points on the Pro-Roswell side (from my slanted skeptic position :)), I would have to include:

1. The Press Release (why have one?)
2. Witnesses not recognizing prosaic nature of debris.

Unfortunately, the crashed craft part of the story (with bodies, etc) has taken a terrible beating as the first hand witnesses were exposed and discarded. That whole idea really just seems to live on from fumes of their discredited stories. In that department, all that is left now are tenuous (and often dubious) second hand stories: a pale shadow of the startling direct testimony that kicked the story into the cultural consciousness.

==

Looking at another angle now, has it been said by anyone that the Mogul arrays were typically marked with writing in English?

In the contemporaneous Circleville, OH case some of the crash debris WAS clearly marked which quickly lead to a prosaic explanation.

I have never heard anyone describing any of the Roswell debris (the stuff in the photos or certainly the purported "real" stuff) as having any English on it.

Could it be that odd tape markings (which as far as I am aware we have NEVER seen photographs of) and the lack of any other identifying writing were part of the reason Marcel thought the debris was more unusual than it was? Perhaps not aliens from another world (that idea was not as ingrained as it is now), but maybe he thought it was from a different country or just weird?

I would love to get High-Rez scans of the debris photos using current technology. If clear and convincing evidence of those strange tape designs were evident, it would be the end of Roswell, no?

I wonder. What would you say, Kevin, if such evidence were found? Surely you can admit that such a find would be incredibly damaging.

And what would I, as a skeptic, need to see to admit that maybe there is something to the story?

I'm not talking about alien technology. I'm talking about some possibly producible piece of evidence which if found would heavily damage the skeptical story.

Anyway, just musing on things here in the early morning...


Lance

Gilles. F. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gilles. F. said...

(I removed my reply cause something to "add" and impossible to edit)

Greetings Lance,

TY, really appreciated.

Concerning the "letters matter" you point, Brazel described letters if I'm correct of the use of although" in english.

In the Roswell Daily record, July the 9th, I read :

"they were no words to be found anywhere on the instrument, ALTHOUGH there were letters on some of the part"

Emphazis by me (and translated from french to english having not the original paper). But each of you can verify.

That's in fact the reason I asked above in another comment here if D. Rudiak have an original notice providing of a Radar-target boxe of Merri-Ley Corp.

Do the sticks (ie) have letters in order to help the "owner" to build the target (wich can be complexe for neophyte) and "sounds logic" to have such help and marks ?

***

Secondly, I profit we spocked about the Circleville case, used it in my book in redaction, where I react, no offense, to a David Rudiak argument. The following one :

"Only an intact assembled target might have a profile described as “hexagonal”. Only an expert would know this."

BUT, in the newspaper about Circleville case, “ the Colombus Citizen ” July 1947, the 6th, I read :

“ It looked like a meteorologist's balloon, with a SIX-pointed kite-like contraption suspended from the balloon. ”

Six was emphazed by me.

If 6 points aren't formed an hexagone, what they are forming ?

And we are July the 6th, so all cover-up thing about Roswell is out the matter here.

A contrario, a crashed radar-target have more probability to be an hexagone when it is well understand how it is builded.

Among different "my" arguments, for example, I readed a David Rudiak sentences :

"A special metal hinge at the center connected all core sticks together, and was designed to enable the complete target to fold down flat for easier transport and storage."

When the shape is flat down, in 2D, what is the shape ? And then what if a crash enabled the hinge after a shock ? What parts are the stronger ones and better resisting to a shock, and what is the shape with them ?

An hexagone IMHO too.

Best Regards,

Gilles F.

starman said...

Lance:

"Your own picture appearing in the paper is something you are quite likely to remember..."

Not in this case. Participating in a deception, as DuBose indicated it was, or being made to look like a fool, unable to distinguish mundane balloon material from a flying saucer, is not something he'd want to remember. Especially since many years elapsed between 1947 and 1978-81, and the Roswell subject was pretty dead in that interval. In his shoes, I wouldn't have kept a copy of the RDR with those public photos, or referred to them often if I did...

Bob Koford said...

Regardless of what others may think about clinging to a pro_ETH hypothesis, that overly obvious, and glaring fact is, arguing to the level of nano-tech about the photos, and Mogul, cannot remove the straight-forward issue of the time, and money wasted on obviously everyday items...items that were everyday items BEFORE, and AFTER the incident in question.

Even common citizens, including ranchers were fully aware of both rocket equipment, and radar reflectors, and balloons. Citizens of our country were pretty up-to-speed on all of it, in 1947.

Why, in this one little moment in time, were these common items causing such a furvor? It just doesn't make ANY sense, at all!

Lance said...

Hi Bob,

As I admit, this is one of the points in favor of the Roswell story.

But when you take this in the context of WHEN, you cannot ignore the sensation that the Arnold sighting caused across the country and the idea that this may have colored the way people looked at everyday things. All over the place, everyday things suddenly became saucers and were reported as such: clouds, Venus, aircraft, and certainly balloons.

Starman,

I would certainly disagree with you here. I think people do remember things that greatly shamed them (as you would have it) just as much as great triumphs. I agree that he might not have kept a copy of the paper but I would be willing to bet that he saw his picture in it and that he remembered it.

It's rather unfair to suggest that all the witnesses remember PERFECTLY anything that indicates a saucer crash but they forget anything contrary. no?

Lance

Gilles. F. said...

To Lance,

From France, and regarding my modest "investigation", I'm too very "fascinated" to trie to imagine, to retrace, make in the context, the ambiance and atmosphere june 1947 / july 1947 -, the Kenneth Arnold Observation/ Roswell case periods, in USA.

and then "advertising" to avoid anachronisms mainly about the semantic of "Flying Saucers" in THIS PERIOD.

For me, it is a "key" to understand several things in Roswell case, and what happened, taking human factor into account.

Duuno if clear.

Cordialy,

Gilles F.

starman said...

Lance:

"All over the place, everyday things suddenly became saucers and were reported as such: clouds, Venus, aircraft and certainly balloons."

Laymen may mistake a planet or other "everday" light in the sky for a UFO. Such mistakes are understandable if people aren't familiar with planets or the thing being observed is too far away for its nature to be unmistakeably obvious. But this was different. Brazel didn't see a UFO, just debris. If it was a bunch of balloons and other junk, its mundane nature should've been obvious, even to him, and certainly to the intelligence officer at the Roswell base.
Btw, even in there was some Mogul flight on June 4, why was the material (in Ramey's office) in relatively pristine condition for something that had been exposed to the elements for weeks?

Gilles. F. said...

Greetings Mister Bob Koford,

You writed :

"Even common citizens, including ranchers were fully aware of both rocket equipment, and radar reflectors, and balloons. Citizens of our country were pretty up-to-speed on all of it, in 1947."

I can present a "case" really interresting cause implicating a Rancher and Mogul.

As you probably know or everybody here can verify if right, I have sounds Bod Todd was directed to Mogul pist in fall 1990 because...

He discovered a document by FOIA where it was related a RANCHER of Danforth (Illinois) believed to have found UFO's Wreckage.

But, after the examinations by Militaries the debris were suspected to come from a "secret program" called Mogul...

It is very interresting here to have a sort of first steps of a "mini Roswell" implicating a rancher and Mogul...

Best Regards,

Gilles F.

Gilles. F. said...

Sorry, I forgotted :

This case taked place in... august 1947.

Very sorry, but can not edit in previous post...

Bob Koford said...

Hello, Gilles F.

Are you talking about the Danforth, Ill. case?

If you are, it actually is interesting to me in other ways. First of all, it never appeared as strange material to the farmer, it reportedly fell from the sky, and burned a small part of his field. The FBI handled it, and sent it on to AMC.

It had the appearence of recognizable items, right from the start.

This is also one of the cases I referred to awhile back, where Project: Mogul is mentioned, by name, at the time. Not very secret.

If not this case, then could you please tell us the case to which you are refering?

thanks.

Bob Koford said...

Sorry...I see you mentioned Danforth.

Gilles. F. said...

Greetings M. Bob Koford ,

Yes, it is of course the same case, my appology if it wasn't clear.

You mean then the Rancher RECOGNIZED it as "prosaïc items", ie balloons, but contacted FBI only cause the "balloon" BURNED a small part of his field ?

Will try to retrieve what a version I have of that case.

TY for your reply,

Gilles F.

Gilles. F. said...

(Re)

Dear Mister Koford,

Yes, it is the BB same case.

http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=NARA-PBB2-117

No offense, just a question, or objection, cause maybe not the same documents, but I cant understand why or from what you stated :

"it never appeared as strange material TO the farmer".

Emphazed by me.

The redactor of the document writed (not the rancher then) "instruments found by a rancher..."

Redactor writting a case he knows as explained and mentionned "instruments" cause
AMC BEFORE identification

On the other hand, I agree the documents shows that the Rancher mentionned the burned section of his field.

In essence, I dont understand how you can state "it never appeared as strange material TO the farmer"

From these documents I have of course.

But maybe there exists the rancher deposition where we can find evidences the items never appeared as strange to him ?

Maybe it is just me...

Regards,

Gilles F.

Bob Koford said...

Had to redo my reply, hope it doesn't appear twice.

"Project 10073 Record...The articles contained in the instrument was analyzed and it was found that no connection can be made between these articles and the so-called "Flying saucer." These specimens, therefore, are considered as part opf a hoax..."

"The specimens were carefully examined by both thechnicians of the Analysis Division (T-2) and Electronics Sub-division (T-3). The latter organization stated that these specimens definitely had no connection whatsoever with the "Mogul" project nor with any other research and development project of this Command."

I don't see anyplace that indicates a similarity with the Roswell case, pertaining to the confusion around the material. There was no balloon, just some items which caused a fire.

What I am curious about, is the fact that, just because they were of obviously man-made materials, why does this show no connection to the flying saucers? Did they have actual material to comapre future recoveries with that bore no resemblance to items made by us?

I know, I know...crazy, but still, it was thought that some of the saucers, if they were real, would have been manufactured by some other "humans" from someplace here on Earth. Stuff like: copper wire, ceramics, plastics, etc.

Joseph Capp said...

Hello everyone,
Dear Lance,

to take one statement and try to put holes in the Roswell story is a laugh. When first being interviewed by Stanton, Marcel said it could not have been a balloon. But even if stardom had made him over exaagerate you still have to contend with the 600 other witnesses, including 11 death bed revelations by personal who were there to their families (note: not to UFO researchers) that Roswell was a crashed "spaceship" with time "Creatures".
So for my part when you explain all that then I will take your nit picking clowns seriously.
Joe Capp
UFO Media Matters
Non-Commerciald Blog

cda said...

Re Joe Capp:
A crashed spaceship with "time creatures"?
Completely new to me. Has anyone else heard of "time creatures" in the Roswell case? Or creatures from another dimension perhaps? Methinks this case gets curiouser and curiouser!

Gilles. F. said...

Dear M. Bob Koford,

No offense, and will stop to invade the replies in this topic about our discussion, but I dont see any evidences, after reading your last reply, and previous, concerning your statement :

"it never appeared as strange material TO the farmer"

(Emphazed by me).

For me, with current elements, it is a case where "balloons" were found in a field by a rancher, and rapported as "flying saucers".

As for Roswell, AMC or military maked the good identification as prosaic items, and solved the case.

so, your other statement :

"Even common citizens, including ranchers were fully aware of both rocket equipment, and radar reflectors, and balloons. Citizens of our country were pretty up-to-speed on all of it, in 1947."

didn't convince me, without more evidences, cause I can be false

Best Regards,

and one more time thank you for your replies and attention, and the possibility to have a discussion here.

Gilles F.

David Rudiak said...

The Danforth debris case is very interesting because:
1. Nobody really thought it was a flying disc. The FBI considered it might be from "Operation Mogul" (yes, they too knew about the not-so-secret Mogul Project and mention it several times in a low-classified document) and sent the Danforth debris to Wright Field to check it out.
2. Wright Field did a thorough analysis and concluded it was a hoax made from old radio parts. They even identified the year and make of the radio as I recall. They then wrote up a report and sent it back to the FBI. I have one page of this report on my website:

www.roswellproof.com/FBI_telegram.html

What's also odd about this is the Roswell FBI telegram says their Cincinnati office was to be informed of the results of Wright Field's analysis of the Roswell "disc". (Yes, even further analysis had to be done on the obvious weather balloon and balsa wood/foil radar target. What diligence!)

This was right after the statement that telephonic conversation between Wright Field and Fort Worth AAF had them disagreeing with the proposed balloon/target identity. What's to disagree with?

Anyway, this seems to have been used as the justification to the FBI for the continued flight of Roswell debris to Wright Field for further analysis (despite Gen. Ramey telling the public that it had been canceled). This was obviously the strangest rubber weather balloon and balsa wood kite in human history!

So what happened to the debris analysis that the FBI was supposed to be informed of, as in the Danforth case the next month? The GAO wanted to know too during their Roswell investigation in 1994 on behalf of N.M. Congressman Schiff. They dug into FBI files and Wright Field files and couldn't find a thing.

So we have an obvious hoax getting a complete workup by the tech and intel boys at Wright Field and then getting right back with their results to the FBI, but the supposedly equally mundane weather balloon and radar target shipped on to Wright Field creates no investigation and resulting paperwork that anybody can find. At the very least, it seems the FBI was never further informed of anything.

This is just one more "dog that didn't bark" piece of evidence that a full-scale coverup of what was really found at Roswell was in effect, just like the Pentagon investigation into the supposed big screwup at Roswell, that should have been carried out, but never was.

David Rudiak

Gilles. F. said...

To M. David Rudiak and dear others,

A question pointing a "nuance" which could be important.

Concerning Mogul, what was precisaly top secret ?

The project itself and his name ?

Or,

The classification of the scientific DATAES provided by Mogul project research.

I have not a possible 1946 memorandum from HQ AMC we discuted in France sometimes,

which seems to have been published by FOIA request, where probably the answer is.

I think this nuance, if corrobotated by documents is really important.

TY for your help about this humble question.

Best Regards,

Gilles F.

Gilles. F. said...

Re.

I found the document (it is in the USAF big report).

It is writed (personal EMPHAZIS) in essence :

"

1. To amplify the information given in the basic letter it is
desired by Electronic Subdivision that THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION and SCIENTIFIC DATA pertaining to project "Mogul" be classified "TOP SECRET :"

a. precise data as to the exact placement of measuring instrument.

b. Scientific observations and measurements that have
military application.

c. Detailed methods of measuring results.


2. Engineering preparations for the final. test that are not in
conflict with the above will be classified confidential.~'


In essence, that things were top secret : dataes.

So, there is not to be surprised to see Mogull name or mention in low classified documents IMHO.

Best Regards,

Gilles F.

David Rudiak said...

Response to Gilles.F

The spying purpose of Project Mogul was classified top secret. This was using microphones taken into the stratosphere by the balloons to listen for the sounds of distant potential A-bomb tests by the Russians. This required constant-altitude equipment to keep the microphone in the stratosphere for a prolonged period. To know if the balloons were functioning properly, they had to be tracked. These are the flights listed in the Mogul summaries. These are the constant-altitude flights in the Mogul summaries.

Special, classified microphones were being developed for the spying purpose, but they weren't available in June/July 1947. That's why they were using the stock, unclassified Naval sonobuoys in the meantime.

They were setting up explosive charges up and down the White Sands range to test the reception of the sonobuoys. That is probably why Crary's diary notes that the scheduled constant altitude flight on June 4 was canceled because of cloudy weather, but they sent up the already inflated balloons with a sonobuoy attached, probably to test whether it worked properly when they set off the explosives.

Since this wouldn't have been a constant altitude balloon with the altitude regulating equipment, it would have been stripped off, and so would the tracking gear, such as a radiosonde or radar targets.

Otherwise it would have been listed as a normal flight. It wasn't, just like the missing Flights #2, #3, and #9. #2 and #3 were failures--never left the ground, and #9 on July 3 was supposed to go up in coordination with a V-2 launch. But when the V-2 was canceled, so was #9. All equipment was stripped off, and the already inflated balloons were released.

If there really had been a standard flight, complete with radar targets, altitude control equipment, normal tracking, etc., as Charles Moore now claims, then Flight #4 would have been listed in the flight summaries. It wasn't. There never was a Flight #4. You can't have it both ways.

The top secret "scientific data" being referenced was probably anything related to microphone reception. Even if Brazel had found a sonobuoy, it wouldn't have meant anything to him. The average person wasn't going to be able to deduce anything from the debris, none of which was classified. Civlians came across crashed Moguls all the time, some cases noted in Crary's diary. It wasn't considered to be anything of consequence. One example was Flight #6 on June 7, found by rancher Sid West. Somehow he knew to report the balloon to Alamogordo (probably carried reward tags), and two guys in a jeep went out to retrieve what was there.

Incidentally, Flight #6 was a badly failed flight, but it went up and was fully equipped and tracked. Therefore it was in the Mogul flight records. So why wasn't Flight #4? Because it never existed, not as a tracked, attempted constant altitude flight anyway.

Everything else about Mogul was unclassified or had a low level of classification, certainly nothing to make the military go ballistic. The constant altitude equipment was all totally unclassified, as was the trajectory data. Moore and others wrote a scientific paper a few months later, published in the Journal of Meteorology in May 1948, with pictures of the constant altitude equipment, plots of trajectory, descriptions of various balloon materials descriptions of how the balloons were tracked, etc. Obviously none of this particular "scientific data" was classified. A copy of the article was in the 1995 USAF Roswell report.

David Rudiak

Gilles. F. said...

Greetings D. Rudiak,

Many thx for your reply and time used.

I "know" and is very attentionned about all of this for several times now.

But, my problem is the non comprehension of the logic explained here, and without offense :

There were NO FLIGHT in May, the 29th (n°3) and june, the 4th (n°4)

BUT :

Yourself writed Crary teams SENT UP a balloons cluster june the 4th :

"That is probably why Crary's diary notes that the scheduled constant altitude flight on June 4 was canceled because of cloudy weather, but they SENT UP the already inflated balloons with a sonobuoy attached, probably to test whether it worked properly when they set off the explosives."

Or,

For n°3, Crary noted :

"“May 29 thurs. Mears and Hackman got balloon ascension off about 1 pm today with B-17 plan to follow it.”"


In essence, there were no those 2 flights, but they were 2 flights ?

Concerning june, the 4th, Crary writed :

"had good luck on receiver on ground but poor on plane."

Prooving ground tracking team, reception of telemeasurements, dataes, and a plan, all working on

a cluster of Balloons in the sky which FLEW this june the 4th.

All of this making me to assume, they were two clusters of balloons may the 29th, and june, the 4th, which are n°3 and 4 "service flights".

To have both : no flights, but flights however, is disapointing for me ^^

Best Regards,

Gilles F.

David Rudiak said...

Gildes F. wrote:

There were NO FLIGHT in May, the 29th (n°3) and june, the 4th (n°4)

BUT :

Yourself writed Crary teams SENT UP a balloons cluster june the 4th :

"That is probably why Crary's diary notes that the scheduled constant altitude flight on June 4 was canceled because of cloudy weather, but they SENT UP the already inflated balloons with a sonobuoy attached, probably to test whether it worked properly when they set off the explosives."

Or,

For n°3, Crary noted :

"“May 29 thurs. Mears and Hackman got balloon ascension off about 1 pm today with B-17 plan to follow it.”"


Actually Charles Moore claims the attempted flight in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania on May 3 was Flight #3. It is not recorded in Mogul records, however. Why? According to Moore, the balloons broke loose. Therefore there never was a flight. Gildas Bourdais has the relevant tables (also noting how Moore altered the original Mogul records to try to further make a case for the nonexistent Flight #4):

http://www.ovni.ch/guest/bourdais8.htm

Similarly the attempted Flight #2, April 18, also in Bethlehem, is not recorded. According to Moore, there was no flight because telemetry failed. No flight, no recording of Flight #2, even though they intended to do the flight.

There is no Flight #9 recorded either, from July 3. Why? Because that flight was also canceled and never went up.

But Moore and the USAF claim Flight #4 (i.e., a fully configured constant-altitude balloon) went up, was tracked, but nothing is recorded in Mogul flight summaries? Does that make sense?

In essence, there were no those 2 flights, but they were 2 flights ?

Here’s the distinction. These were not constant-altitude flights; they were simplified test flights of equipment, consisting of smaller balloon clusters plus the piece of equipment being tested.

The test flights were NOT fully configured constant-altitude flights. All other equipment would have been stripped off, including any tracking radar reflectors (which were rarely used anyway—you have to go to Flight #8 in July before you see any mention of radar tracking). The test flights were not recorded as flights. The constant-altitude flights that did go up were carefully tracked (thus required tracking equipment) and were always recorded, even when they were faulty flights, like the neoprene balloon Flight #6 on June 7.

Charles Moore and the Air Force have made the claim the “Flight #4” was a tracked, fully configured constant-altitude balloon. Yet it is not in Mogul records. That’s a self-contradiction. They are trying to have it both ways. If it really were a constant altitude, tracked balloon, it would have been recorded as such. The fact that it wasn’t recorded proves it never existed (though a test flight of the sonobuoy may have happened).

The Air Force theory required the fully-configured constant-altitude balloon flight to supposedly account for the various described debris. Thus radar reflectors in particular were absolutely necessarily to account for thin metal descriptions (never mind that the physical properties and quantity didn’t really match with witness descriptions of what was actually found).

Moore even went further than the Air Force, claiming that Flight #4 was similarly configured and worked even better than the real Flight #5 the next day, the one that is actually recorded as being the first “successful” N.M. Mogul flight. He needed that to try “prove” that winds aloft would carry it “exactly” to the Foster Ranch site.

His “perfect flight” assumption was required to justify it being up in the air much longer than the other known neoprene flights in order to get it to the Foster Ranch. But the reality is he treated more like the faulty #6 going up and down, a super-perfect balloon in the stratosphere, and even with all that, still had to cheat with his math to get it “exactly” to the ranch. This is Moore’s Flight #4 trajectory hoax:

http://roswellproof.com/flight4_trajectory.html

(continued next post)

David Rudiak said...

Concerning june, the 4th, Crary writed :

"had good luck on receiver on ground but poor on plane."

Prooving ground tracking team, reception of telemeasurements, dataes, and a plan, all working on
a cluster of Balloons in the sky which FLEW this june the 4th.,


All this probably indicates is that they were doing a simple test flight of sonobuoy reception, not that they were carefully tracking a constant-altitude, large balloon cluster (as Moore and the AF claim). It appears from Crary’s diary they had planned to do a tracked, constant-altitude flight, maybe starting inflating some balloons and assembling the equipment, but then cloudy weather forced cancellation. Rather than just throw away the already-inflated balloons, they then turned it into a simplified test flight, attaching the sonobuoy and nothing else.

Without the constant-altitude control equipment to keep it in prolonged flight, this balloon cluster would have behaved like an ordinary weather balloon. It would have gone straight up to high altitude, the neoprene balloons would have popped, and then come straight down again. It would not have been up there very long. (This is how the faulty Flight #6 behaved because the altitude control equipment was damaged on launch—but it was nonetheless tracked and recorded like a regular flight.) Such a simple flight could have in no way gotten anywhere near the Foster Ranch, given the known wind data.

All of this making me to assume, they were two clusters of balloons may the 29th, and june, the 4th, which are n°3 and 4 "service flights".

Right, very stripped-down service flights, sans tracking gear and constant altitude equipment, not fully configured constant-altitude recorded flights. But it is the latter that Moore and the Air Force require to make their Mogul theory “work”. So it is again a case of trying to have it both ways.

To have both : no flights, but flights however, is disapointing for me ^^

You have to keep in mind the distinction between the small, simple service flights and the fully configured, recorded Moguls that actually went up and were tracked.

Thank you for the cordial discussion.

David Rudiak

Gilles. F. said...

Greetings David Rudiak,

You writed :

"You have to keep in mind the distinction between the small, simple service flights and the fully configured, recorded Moguls that actually went up and were tracked."

Well, from the start I "claimed" n°3 and 4 are "service flights". That was "fallacious" to claim the contrary.

But some are inviting us to say those flights were cancelled. And that they are evidences in Crary's diary... No.

That's totaly false.

And I'm happy you are agree with me.. about this point.

Now, if those service flights flew -sic -, and embarked ML 307, with the famous tape,

as other mini clusters were launched in june july 1947, with 5/7 balloons and embarking 3/5 ML 307 with that tape, well it opens prosaïc "perspectives" to explain Roswell IMHO.

"Things" I trie to present in my humble book.

Many thx one more time for your time, attention and cordiality with someone probably writting english "strangely" ^^

Best Regards,

Gilles F.

David Rudiak said...

David Rudiak

You writed : "You have to keep in mind the distinction between the small, simple service flights and the fully configured, recorded Moguls that actually went up and were tracked." Well, from the start I "claimed" n°3 and 4 are "service flights". That was "fallacious" to claim the contrary.

I believe you have been trying to make the case that a simple service flight on May 29 in N.M. was the missing #3, i.e., a large, fully-configured constant-altitude flight. No it definitely was not. Charles Moore himself has written that the attempted but failed #3 was in Pennsylvania on May 3. Again see his own table:

http://www.ovni.ch/guest/bourdais8.htm

But some are inviting us to say those flights were cancelled. And that they are evidences in Crary's diary... No. That's totaly false. And I'm happy you are agree with me.. about this point..

No, I don’t agree with you (if I understand what you are saying here). I think you are trying to turn the smaller, simplified service flights of equipment, that were not recorded, into the much larger, heavily equipped, multiply-tracked constant-altitude flights, that were always recorded whenever they actually went up. They were NOT recorded if there was a cancellation (as Crary’s diary actually notes for a planned June 4 flight and what happened for #9 on July 3) and/or equipment failure that prevented launch (the real #2 and #3 back in Bethlehem, Penn.). There were no Flights #3 or #4 in N.M. If there had been, they would have been recorded.

Moore and the USAF claim it was a fully configured constant-altitude flight (the fictitious canceled Flight #4) that came down at the Foster Ranch. In fact, it is absolutely essential to their arguments. According to them, a simple service flight could not have reached the ranch (Moore) nor accounted for the various debris descriptions or the large size of the debris field (e.g., 200 yards across, according to the Brazel account).

Furthermore, if their had been such a flight (which Moore even claimed was more successful than the recorded “first successful” Flight #5), then why wasn’t it recorded? There is an impossible contradiction here. Moore and the AF are trying to have it both ways.

(continued next post)

David Rudiak said...

2nd part:

Now, if those service flights flew -sic -, and embarked ML 307, with the famous tape, as other mini clusters were launched in june july 1947, with 5/7 balloons and embarking 3/5 ML 307 with that tape, well it opens prosaïc "perspectives" to explain Roswell IMHO.

I believe Gildas Bourdais has made a similar argument, that maybe a small, unknown service flight reached the Foster Ranch, and may partly account for the debris descriptions of Mack Brazel (1947) and Bessie Brazel (30 years later). Maybe, but that doesn’t explain the large debris field of Brazel or the absence of expected debris (e.g., twine) or the singular and very fresh balloon and radar target pictured in Fort Worth. Nor does it account for the now numerous accounts of highly anomolous debris, extreme high security, witness intimidation, the press release, Blanchard and Marcel’s successful military careers afterward, etc.

I think there is a much simpler explanation for Mack Brazel’s balloon story—simple coercion by the military, for which there is much testimony (including provost marshal Easley who admitted to Kevin that they kept Brazel at the base under armed guard). The story Brazel told his son Bill was quite different. (And, of course, Bill Brazel’s very early testimony about his father telling him of an explosion, early July discovery, very large, linear debris field, and Bill Brazel’s direct handling of a memory foil and uncuttable woodlike piece, completely corroborated Marcel’s account of what happened. None of this was in any way conventional or could possibly be explained by any sort of balloon.)

As for Bessie Brazel Schreiber, unknown to most people, she partly recanted some of her earlier testimony (this I got directly from Tom Carey). She believed she was probably remembering a later balloon and confusing it with the Roswell events.

There was, in fact, a later Mogul that may have come down roughly in the vicinity of the Foster Ranch (the only documented Mogul flight shown to have come down anywhere near there). This was Flight 38, Dec. 4, 1947, listed as coming down “50 miles north of Roswell”, which could have still been 30 or 40 miles from the Foster Ranch, but the crash position is vague. Maybe Bessie was on another nearby ranch.

What is interesting about this flight, besides coming down in the vicinity, was their extremely rare use of a different balloon envelope material: nylon coated with rubber on the inside (to prevent gas leakage) and painted with aluminum paint on the outside (to minimize heating by the sun). This is actually close to Bessie Brazel’s description: “Most of it was a kind of double-sided material, foil-like on one side and rubber-like on the other. Both sides were grayish-silver in color, the foil more silvery than the rubber. ...The foil-rubber material could not be torn like ordinary aluminum foil can be torn..."

This is NOT the description of the easily tearable foil/white paper that covered a Rawin target. In any case, a later event cannot explain an earlier one.

Many thx one more time for your time, attention and cordiality with someone probably writting english "strangely" ^^

Merci, one of the few French words I know.

David Rudiak

David Rudiak said...

Yet another response to earlier query by Gilles F., whether radar targets had markings on them:

Yes, indeed. In fact, United Press in their Roswell story of July 9 reported, “Those men who saw the object said it had a flowered paper tape around it bearing the initials ‘D.P.’” If true, this makes it rather hard to understand why anybody would think they had anything other than something man-made and American on their hands. (There is no Latin alphabetic “D” in Russian, e.g.)

Some of the reported radar target crashes were also said to have lettering.

Columbus, Ohio, Gazette, July 6 (Circleville radar target crash case)
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Circleville.html

“Ernie Ortman, a Gazette reporter, gave this description of it: It looked like a meteorologist's balloon, with a six-pointed kite-like contraption suspended from the balloon. The kite-like contraption if fanned by air current, could give the appearance of a flying saucer.

“Ortman said the kite was covered mostly with tin foil. Ortman said there was some lettering and numbers discernible on the wooden frame work of the kite. He said the inscription showed in one spot: ‘LMYRCX210.’ In another spot were the initials: ‘W.V.V.’ and what Ortman thought was either ‘RIO’ or the capital letter ‘R"’ and the number 10 (R 10).”

(I’m guessing here that “R 10” referred to one of the framework sticks labeled “10”—maybe “Rawin 10” on the Air Force Rawin ML307 target schematic, which were in fact 2’10” long (hence the number “210”). In other words, the balsa sticks may have been stamped with identification to help in proper assembly.)

Circleville, Herald, July 8
“A second mysterious silver foil-covered six-pointed contraption was delivered to the office of The Circleville Herald, Tuesday afternoon, by David C. Heffner… The markings on the newly found gadget are: ‘ML 387[sic], B-AP, Mfg. By Chase."

July 9, Richmond, Indiana, Palladium-Item
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Oxford_Ohio.html

“OXFORD. -- This college town, seat of Miami university, is taking its first ‘flying saucer,’ if that is what it is, in stride… On one corner there is some writing, almost too fine to read with the naked eye. It reads this way: CC-7724-I”

David Rudiak

Gilles. F. said...

Dear David Rudiak,

"Charles Moore himself has written that the attempted but failed #3 was in Pennsylvania on May 3."

Yep, but.

In his book, as I humblely explained or tried to explain before, Moore reports flights he was HERE TO SEE.

In Crary's diary, Moore attempted a flight the May the 8th, east coast, (or the 9, I write with memory) which was a faillure.

So Moore reported it in his table of his book in that context, the flight I was here and tried.

May the 29th, a flight (flight 3 was done). Crary Diary.

But Moore (ibid) came in Alamogordo June the 1th.

He cant recall a flight he wasn't here. So did he : no mention.

But he recalls the flight of june the 4th. Normal, he was here, and this flight is corroborated in Crary's diary.

Those 2 last are the switched flights in annexe 27 of USAF report, cause the table summerizes research flights.

Switched numbers are the "service" ones. Cancelled flights aren't labelled (May, the 8 or 9th, memory..) isn't or we must have at least 3 4 5 fights (before the research flight of june the 5th) if NYU labels cancelled flights.

Indepandantly those flights, there were little clusters launched with ML 307 too.

***

For Bessie, I know that Schmitt and Carey's thesis... when she is died as usual, defended before too BTW (the confusion). That's ad hoc explanation IMHO.


I know Gildas Bourdais coexisting or cohabitation NYU wreckage and ET wreckage -sic -, one from june the 14th and another regarding the Associated press date (start of july).

Lacking parcimony and economy principles, in order to have ad hoc the ET wreckage ?

Yes, the associated press depeach is very funny, lacking the name of the farmer ie, or the Disk have landed ! This depeach is vague and without infos (no name of the rancher, a disk have landed, etc)

So, this date is better despite the lack of cleareness versus the Brazel interview ?

which CANT be instructed by the army regarding Chistopher Allen or the humble of mines arguments IMHO, above.

I "concede" to never heard the december 1947 flight. But as you pointed "In any case, a later event cannot explain an earlier one."

I'm sorry to have been short and maybe with less english level as my usual which is not very low. It is late here and will be maybe out internet PC for 2 or 3 days, and wanted to reply cause your time spent for me one more time today.

Best Regards,

Gilles F.

David Rudiak said...

Some responses to Gilles.F on Ramey’s “hexagonal” description and RAWIN target construction.

1. Rawins folded down are triangles, not hexagons.

Diagrams showing how Rawin ML-307s are constructed and how they fold down into triangles are at my website:

http://roswellproof.com/rawin_construction.html

Notice also the photos at the very bottom, showing various angles on an assembled rawin target, all of them very non-hexagonal. These are screen captures from a probable 1947 newsreel, again debunking the flying saucers and using the Rawin target as the explanation, one of a number of such debunking demos that followed in the wake of Ramey’s weather balloon debunking. Complete movie here (target never looks hexagonal):

www.roswellproof.com/balloondemos.html

Also have a look at photos of reported rawin balloon crashes at the time:

www.roswellproof.com/balloon_crashes.html

In all these cases, the crashed Rawins are not broken up and shredded, like in the Ramey photos, i.e., they are relatively intact. Do any look “hexagonal” to anybody?

2. Unfolded, fully assembled, and intact (not broken, torn up, and laid out flat on the floor, as in the Ramey photos), they only appear hexagonal in profile if viewed from directly above or below (and if you ignore their obvious 3D structure, e.g. if viewing from a distance or if you close one eye). From all other angles, their profile is decidedly non-hexagonal.

I’ve thrown up a quick webpage illustrating this plus detailing other arguments:

www.roswellproof.com/rameys_hexagon_story.html

The Rawin targets were built up around a central core of three balsa sticks at right angles to one another. Think of these as the diagonals of a cube, so it is a basic cubic structure.

If the corner of a cube is viewed, the profile of the cube is also hexagonal, but this is an unusual perspective. Very few people would describe a cube’s shape as “hexagonal” if you asked them. And very few people would describe an assembled radar target as hexagonal either if asked. Irving Newton, Ramey’s weather officer, instead described them as resembling “six-pointed stars”.

If very few people would describe a cube as “hexagonal”, how many could deduce “hexagonal” from 3 sticks crossed at right angles, or from a small metal hinge in the middle holding the sticks together and allowing the target to fold down? To me that argument makes no sense.

Now imagine a paper cube; tear it up and throw it on the floor. Could anyone deduce this was a cube, much less might have a hexagonal profile from a particular angle?

Only a specialist very familiar with the radar targets might ever describe them as “hexagonal”. For example, somebody launching them might take note of the hexagonal profile as the balloon went up and they viewed the Rawin at some distance and from directly below.

But this isn’t what is depicted in the Ramey photos. This is not an assembled, intact radar target. It is broken and torn up into pieces, then laid out flat on the floor. How do you deduce the “hexagonal” shape from this?

Ramey would have had to be an expert in weather balloon equipment to know this. Yet he was also mincing words about his tentative radar target identification. It resembled or it might be, but he would have to bring in a weather officer to make sure. But he couldn’t come up with a “hexagon” description unless he was sure and very familiar with the targets to begin with. No need for his weather officer and all the maybes. Just ID it and be done with it.

(continued next post)

David Rudiak said...

(more on Ramey's impossible "hexagonal" description)

I think Ramey was briefed on how to describe the targets if it came up. Maybe someone’s plan was to make the very non-disc-like Rawins seem more disc-like by calling them “hexagonal.” Clearly the military Rawin demonstrations that followed deliberately tried to equate the Rawins to the reported flying discs being seen around the country.

There is also good evidence there was no target and balloon in Rameys office office when he was providing the descriptions and Marcel only arrived later. E.g., only about an hour after the press release, Ramey was also quoted saying it was like a box-kite, but it was in his office and he hadn’t seen it yet. Then he supposedly went to take, came back claiming that it would have been “about 25 feet in diameter”, a preposterous description, very much at odds with the real 4 foot Rawins and the small quantity of radar target debris in the photos.

I’ll stop there.

David Rudiak

David Rudiak said...

Gilles F. wrote:

But he recalls the flight of june the 4th. Normal, he was here, and this flight is corroborated in Crary's diary.

Those 2 last are the switched flights in annexe 27 of USAF report, cause the table summerizes research flights.

Switched numbers are the "service" ones. Cancelled flights aren't labelled (May, the 8 or 9th, memory..) isn't or we must have at least 3 4 5 fights (before the research flight of june the 5th) if NYU labels cancelled flights.


Gilles, you continue to avoid the main point. Moore and the USAF have insisted the Foster Ranch object was a fully assembled, equipped, large, constant-altitude Mogul balloon array, not some small "service flight" of a few weather balloons with some test equipment. Moore also insists they tracked it clear to Arabela. They have further argued you need the complete Mogul to account for what was described and found at the Foster Ranch. (Moore has further argued you needed a constant-altitude balloon just to get it there with the given winds, though he cheated outrageously to even get that do work.)

So why isn't "Flight 4" listed in the Mogul flight summaries, just like every other such constant-altitude balloon flight that actually went up and was tracked? You too seem to be trying to have it both ways.

It is not me, but Moore, who also claims that the attempted but failed #3 was actually May 3 in Pennsylvania, not your May 29 in New Mexico.

Flights #2 & #3 in Pennsylvania never got off the ground because of equipment failure. That is why they are not in the Mogul summaries of actual flights. Flight #9 July 3 was canceled when a coordinated V-2 launch was canceled. It isn't in the flight summaries because it too never was.

And "Flight #4" is missing too. Crary said it was canceled because of clouds. It never went up. Instead, they apparently sent up a simple, small "service flight", a balloon cluster with a sonobuoy to test reception.

But that ISN'T what Moore and the USAF INSIST came down on the Foster Ranch. No, it was a real, full-fledged Mogul flight, but they never dare explain why it wasn't listed if there really was such a thing.

And your postulated service flight of a small balloon cluster with sonobuoy can't possibly explain what happened at Roswell, even if one did somehow manage to get up there. How do you explain Brazel's 200 yards across debris field, or the absence of twine that necessarily would have been there? Why doesn't Brazel mention finding something like a sonobuoy? Why did he insist that what he found wasn't like any of the weather balloons he had previously found? If all he found was a singular balloon and radar target (what we see displayed in the Fort Worth photos), then why didn't he just take the whole thing to Roswell? Why did Marcel have to go all the way back out and spend a day to pick up more pieces? Why would Blanchard have insisted that Cavitt come along to help, because Brazel described so much more debris out there? Why was Marcel quoted then saying debris was scattered over a "square mile"? Why would they utilize a large B-29 to fly one balloon and radar target to Ramey? Is that consistent with a service flight or even a complete Mogul? Why is Ramey claiming the radar target appeared to be "25 feet in diameter"?

And we've barely scratched the service of the many inconsistencies between what was actually reported then and now and the Mogul balloon or your service flight hypotheses.

Regards,

David Rudiak

Gilles. F. said...

Greetings David Rudiak.

You writed :

"Do any look “hexagonal” to anybody?"

Well, dunno but :

Circleville case :

" “ It looked like a meteorologist's balloon, with a six-pointed kite-like contraption suspended from the balloon.

“ the Colombus Citizen ” July 1947, the 6th (before the debunking campaign then).

6 points shape is an hexagone.

6 pointed stars is an Hexagone (Newton description).

Hexagone in "popular" semantic means 6 segments shape, but in geometry, a hexagon is a polygon with six edges and six verticles.

This 6 frame is described in a July, the 6th, newspaper. So :

"Clearly the military Rawin demonstrations that FOLLOWED deliberately tried to equate the Rawins to the reported flying discs being seen around the country."

How can taking place the "debunking campaign" already on in the country that July the 6th ? Before then "the capture of a flying saucer by the USAF" and the proprosed debunking campaign ?

A telex IMHO is something you must be short and explicite, like "short notes" and fast description. I dont think a telex is a geometry description exercice, and the writer or descriptor(s) (by phone ?) used what is the faster to describe the "disk" probably ?

***

Concerning the other very interresting questions, it would be a book to trie to propose possible explanation, and that's exactly how I'm humblely finishing to work on.

But concerning the "twine"

"“[There was] something on the order of heavy-gauge monofilament fishing line... The "string", I couldn't break it.”
W. Brazel J in Stanton Friedman and Don Berliner, Crash at Corona, 1991

(150 to 300 pounds tension resistance twine - USAF source - is difficult to breack by our 2 hands ?)

or :

"There was some thread-like material. It looked like silk and there were several pieces of it."

William Brazel Jr, in Charles Berlitz and William Moore, The Roswell Incident, 1980.

I go on holliday for 2 days, to finish that work out the big city of Paris,

and one more time thank's you very much for that cordial discussion.

Sometimes, in our own forums and country, between different opinion protagonists, that's not the same ^^

Best Regards to all,

Gilles F.

Lance said...

Isn't it possible that Ramey asked someone about the debris before he made his statement about it? Perhaps he even asked someone at Roswell by phone what it was and by that time it had been (perhaps tentatively) identified. He could have simply been accepting what he had been told but still wanting a look at it himself.

After all, believers insist that everyone should have know immediately what it.

As for Rudiak's dubious descriptions of the Mogul flights, suffice it to say that there are serious doubts as to whether Rudiak even has the ability to honestly debate any issue. As I have shown clearly and unambiguously, Rudiak makes up stuff. That is the way he works.

There are devastating refutations of the slimy things that Rudiak implies about Moore and the balloon flights:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/rudiak.htm

and

http://www.nmsr.org/sf-gun.htm

As when I caught him in an outright fabrication, he has no legitimate response. He simply moves on to rave about something else.

Lance

Joseph Capp said...

This is what happens in all discussions of Roswell. We nit pick our way out of witness testimony. Every human frailty in a UFO witness is scrutinized, when on debnkers frailty doesn't matter.
Debate on how Roswell would been handled instead rather than those witnesses who are credible. The bottom line is this. If this was a top secret flying saucer those people who wanted to keep their oats or just believed they would lose their pensions have a greater expectancy to lie. So quoting those who are suppose to lie about as if it is gospel makes sense as. So nit pick it to death. I will always believe the orginal people of Corona and Roswell, those who there and had nothing to gain by reporting what happened.
Or do you debunking groupies think they were planing a Roswell festival back then.
Joe Capp
UFOMM

KRandle said...

Gentlemen -

Please tone down the rhetoric somewhat. We can all make our points without resorting loaded words in our discussions.

Please note that I have only removed two messages on this blog. In both those cases the authors crossed my arbitrary line. We haven't reached that point yet, but we are nearing it again.

(Yes, I know that I have removed more than two, but in the other cases, they were in languages that I don't speak and I had no idea what they said. I will assume that they had to do with the discussions at had, but I don't know that. So I removed them.)

So, please, continue the discussion, but leave out the loaded word. Thanks...

BTW, this is the longest discussion to date on this blog.

KRandle

cda said...

Since this disdussion is still raging, I thought I would add that yes, the June 14 date is ceratinly preferable to "sometime last week" (meaning early July) in that a definite calendar date is given. Other dates are merely vague and are taken from AP dispatches before getting anythig first-hand from a known witness. And there is always the confusion between when the debris was first discovered and when it was recovered. So June 14 is perfectly acceptable as a date for the original find, as is the "three weeks previous" from the Ft Worth newspaper, even though they partially contradicted this in one article.

Nor need we suppose the military put this date in Brazel's mind. Why on earth invent a false date anyway?

One little matter people forget is that the sticks shown in the Ft Worth photos supposedly look too 'clean' and pristine to have been laying about in the sun for 5 weeks. Who says they had lain about in the sun for 5 weeks? Brazel specifically says he gathered up some of the debris (more likely the beams or sticks since that was the most unusual stuff) and hid it under some brush (some reports say under a shed). If so, the sticks did NOT lie out in the hot sun for 5 weeks. I concede we can never be sure about this because, once again, the press reports do not give a consistent date for Brazel performing this action.

A complicated case indeed! But that is what Roswell is all about.

David Rudiak said...

cda wrote:

One little matter people forget is that the sticks shown in the Ft Worth photos supposedly look too 'clean' and pristine to have been laying about in the sun for 5 weeks. Who says they had lain about in the sun for 5 weeks? Brazel specifically says he gathered up some of the debris (more likely the beams or sticks since that was the most unusual stuff) and hid it under some brush (some reports say under a shed). If so, the sticks did NOT lie out in the hot sun for 5 weeks. I concede we can never be sure about this because, once again, the press reports do not give a consistent date for Brazel performing this action.

Sorry, but that is NOT what Brazel said. Instead cda is citing what was attributed to Marcel in Fort Worth (along with the debris being scattered over a "SQUARE MILE"--that's one hell of a radar target.)

"It had been found three weeks previously by a New Mexico rancher, W. W. Brazell [sic], on his property about 85 miles northwest of Roswell. Brazell, whose ranch is 30 miles from the nearest telephone and has no radio, knew nothing about flying discs when he found the broken remains of the weather device scattered over a square mile of his land.

"He bundled the tinfoil and broken wooden beams of the kite and the torn synthetic rubber remains on the balloon together and rolled it under some brush, according to Maj. Jesse A. Marcel..."

So it is Marcel who is quoted saying Brazel immediately picked up the stuff when he first found it and threw it under some brush, which is what a sheep rancher would do to keep his stupid sheep from perhaps eating the rubber and foil debris and killing themselves.

But this isn't what Brazel was quoted saying in his Roswell Daily Record interview. No Brazel said he was too busy and paid no attention to it until the 4th of July when he picked up the stuff with his family:

“Brazel related that on June 14 he and an 8-year old son, Vernon, were about 7 or 8 miles from the ranch house of the J. B. Foster ranch, which he operates, when they came upon a large area of bright wreckage made up on rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper and sticks.

At the time Brazel was in a hurry to get his round made and he did not pay much attention to it. But he did remark about what he had seen and on July 4 he, his wife, Vernon and a daughter, Betty, age 14, went back to the spot and gathered up quite a bit of the debris.”

Since cda says we have to go with the Brazel’s story on the date of discovery, then we must also go with his story about when he finally gathered up the debris, a full 30 days after the alleged Flight 4 Mogul flight that supposedly accounted for it. It had been out in the sun and elements for that entire period.

It is not the sticks that are too clean and pristine. It is the totally white paper backing of the radar target in the Fort Worth photos that is much too clean. And the pictured balloon’s condition is too good as well—still intact and still very pliable looking. One thing I do believe Charles Moore on are his demonstrations that the neoprene balloons deteriorated into a black, brittle, paper-like ash after only 2 to 3 weeks in the N.M. sun. Does the Fort Worth balloon look like flakes of paper-ash to anyone after a supposed 4+ weeks in the sun?

(continued next post)

David Rudiak said...

(end of post)

The massively serious contradictions in the official Roswell story don’t end here. For example, Marcel was also quoted saying that after hearing about the flying saucers in Corona on July 5, "Brazell then hurried home, and bright and early Sunday, dug up the remnants of the kite balloon," Marcel continued, "and on Monday headed for Roswell to report his find to the sheriff.”

So after thinking he had found a flying saucer, Brazel is so excited he hurries home and first thing Sunday morning he rides 7 or 8 miles away to retrieve his small bundles of stashed saucer. But then when he goes to Roswell he fails to bring them with him, and instead has to drag Marcel and Cavitt all the way out to his ranch to retrieve them? Does this make sense?

David Rudiak

David Rudiak said...

Gilles F. wrote

Circleville case : " “ It looked like a meteorologist's balloon, with a six-pointed kite-like contraption suspended from the balloon. 6 points shape is an hexagone. 6 pointed stars is an Hexagone (Newton description).

Perhaps this is a language problem, but in English the average person would not equate a “6-pointed star” with a “hexagon”.

Hexagone in "popular" semantic means 6 segments shape, but in geometry, a hexagon is a polygon with six edges and six verticles.

Most average American English speakers would take a “hexagon” description to mean the geometric definition of a polygon with six nearly equal edges and angles, like the Pentagon is the 5-sided polygon shape of military HQ.

In any case, this is all academic. It avoids my repeated point that the descriptions in the newspapers were always of intact, assembled radar targets, not Ramey’s badly torn up one laid out flat on his floor. Again, how can one possibly deduce a “hexagon” shape of any kind from that (while at the same time claiming you don’t know definitely what it is, as did Ramey)? It’s nonsense.

How can taking place the "debunking campaign" already on in the country that July the 6th ? Before then "the capture of a flying saucer by the USAF" and the proprosed debunking campaign ?

You are confusing the pictures of radar target crashes in the newspapers (such as Circleville on July 6), with the military saucer debunkery campaign that began July 9 with radar target demonstrations, such as the ones at Alamogordo, Fort Worth, and Atlanta.

www.roswellproof.com/militarydebunk.html
www.roswellproof.com/balloon_demos.html

A telex IMHO is something you must be short and explicite, like "short notes" and fast description. I dont think a telex is a geometry description

I don’t see how trying to be terse in one’s descriptions in any way explains how Ramey could possibly deduce a “hexagon” shape from a very badly broken and torn up radar target laid out flat on his floor.

But concerning the [missing] "twine" "“[There was] something on the order of heavy-gauge monofilament fishing line... The "string", I couldn't break it.”
W. Brazel J in Stanton Friedman and Don Berliner, Crash at Corona, 1991


Brazel Sr. explicitly denied finding anything like that: “No strings or wire were to be found but there were some eyelets in the paper to indicate that some sort of attachment may have been used.”

The official story of Charles Moore and the USAF is Brazel found the supposed Mogul Flight #4, a large neoprene balloon array made up of at least two dozen weather balloons, 600 feet tall, with radar targets, payload, and various equipment underneath, all strung together by balloon twine. Therefore at least 200 yards of high strength twine should have been found along with the alleged multi-balloon, multi-radar target debris. But Brazel himself said absolutely nothing like that was found. In fact, nobody ever mentioned this.

And nothing holding the radar target to any balloon (what was attached to the “eyelets” of a real used radar target) is pictured in the Fort Worth photos either, despite intense scrutiny of multiple photos in high resolution (not just me, but by others).

The few fragments like “monofilament fishing line”-like material that Brazel Jr. described cannot account for the hundreds of yards of missing twine, that should have snarled and been left at the site. It magically disappeared, along with all the other alleged Mogul gear.

Incidentally Brazel Jr. also stated he couldn’t cut his thread-like fragments with his knife. He compared them to wire. Real monofilament nylon fishing line may have high tensile strength, but it is nevertheless very easy to cut.

Enjoy your vacation Gilles.

David Rudiak

cda said...

Sometimes I really wonder why Roswell proponents have to go into such minute detailabout what is depicted in the photos or what was recovered from the Foster ranch. What is the purpose of it all? These people make two false assumptions:

1. That everything significant that was recovered from the ranch is shown in the Fort Worth photos. It almost certainly is not, and we can assume a lot of it, maybe more than half, is missing from the photos but maybe elsewhere.

2. That the whole balloon plus radar reflector array plus large amounts of twine all came down in much the same area. This need not be so, and almost certainly was not so. Maybe lots of the debris was never recovered due to lack of time & manpower. This would be perfectly natural. Why bother to collect 20 shattered balloons when two or three would suffice? Again, maybe most of the twine came down elsewhere, maybe many miles away. So its absence proves nothing at all about Mogul flight 4, flight 3A, flight 3B, or whatever you want to call it.

Further debate over these minutiae of detail is pointless. I agree that my comments are speculation, but perfectly valid speculation, not contradicted by anything we know, and vastly more 'down to earth' than the concept of an ET visitation!

Bob Koford said...

For what it's worth, the reason I consider the ET Hypothesis, in the Roswell case, over the seemingly explained (to folks like CDA, and Lance) version of the mistaken identity of balloons, and Rawin targets, is because of the combination of the several other testimonies to the contrary, which are bolstered by then Colonel DuBose's own testimony, in combination with the over-whelming data easily referenced via the files turned over to the National Archives, by the Air Force.

These files show to all who take the time to read through them that the Non-Terrestrial Hypothesis must be considered in some cases.

Let's face it...the cost in man-power, and possible danger, that presented itself in many of the intercept cases would never have come about...no -not even once, if everything was so easily explained.

We would NOT have wasted our time chasing ourselves around. Think about it. If even one individual --Base Commander, or otherwise-- knew what we were dealing with, at any point in the many years we investigated it, and chased these objects around, it would have been over...END OF STORY!! But the truth is, nobody knew...NOBODY!!

And everytime someone "out of the loop" would push for closure, because it was all just a waste of time, something would happen that would be just enough to keep it going. Usually, this "something" was kept slightly hush-hush...from the press, anyways.

No one could ever say, "they arrived from HERE, and they left for HERE".

No one could say for any certainty where they arrived from, or where they "fled" to. That's the other thing. They DID (or DO) flee when persued. But when both pilots, and RADAR operators say things like, "it shot straight up, presumably into outer space", then who are we dealing with?

And when you combine this wealth of data, with what some of the Roswell witnesses say, it is enough to at least consider the ET Hypothesis.

cda said...

To Bob Koford:
There is nothing impossible about the ET hypothesis, as applied to Roswell, or anything else. If such ETs exist, a visit to our earth is always possible. It is the surrounding actions of the military, the witnesses, the official 62-year silence and the total lack of hardware or documentation that defies belief.

The endless 'deathbed confessions' (see Joe Capp) the actions of people like Ramey, Blanchard and others who supposedly took this great secret to their graves all sound so idiotic to me.

I cannot think of any other scientific discovery that has caused such an aura of secrecy and cover-up (6 decades now) as this Roswell UFO case. The lengths to which officials supposedly went (and are still going) to cover up this highly important scientific discovery, as I said, simply defies all commonsense and logic. Where is the hardware? Where are the alien bodies? Where is the documentation? Can you find any of it? Nobody can and I predict nobody ever will. It just AINT THERE, is it?

starman said...

cda:

Even if the public photos show only a fraction of what was supposedly collected from the Foster ranch, the condition of what was shown would tend to rule out Mogul. Actually, had the bulk of putative Mogul material remained unseen and uncollected (a very dubious scenario given recon flights etc)a small quantity is contradicted by Marcel's testimony. Kudos to David Rudiak, not only for his enlightening posts, but for his admirable restraint in the face of repeated and vicious personal attacks. He knows better than to dignify them with a response.
Good post, Bob.
cda, with regard to the supposed implausibility of a "scientific discovery" being thoroughly covered up for 6 decades, Roswell was far from an ordinary "scientific discovery." It involved proof of a far advanced ET civilization. The coverup makes great sense, considering the potential impact. Roswell occurred less than a decade after the 1938 broadcast about a Martian invasion. And outright panic is just one possible consequence of disclosure.

Gilles. F. said...

Eya,

What is the only one testimony concerning Roswell event, but the only one taking place and time of the event ?

Brazel one.

What it is described ?

An ET-spacescraft or extraordinary things ?

OR prosaic wreckage ?

What is pointed to ridiculize that testimony, or to point the reader he must doubt about the only one recorded in place and time of an event ?

"an (imaginary) Cover-up" making Brazel testimony, in place, in time, as a non-sens.

Even if the essence of that testimony (its conclusion, the mention of the tapes with pink-purple symbols, etc)

is against, is the inverse, of the own thesis of the ones claiming a cover-up.

I missed something ?

Best Regards,

Gilles F.

David Rudiak said...

Sorry, another long series of posts to detail arguments.

Welcome back Gilles from vacation.

What is the only one testimony concerning Roswell event, but the only one taking place and time of the event ? Brazel one.

No, this is not true. We also have Blanchard’s press release, quoted statements from Marcel, Sheriff Wilcox, Gen. Ramey, Ramey spokespeople (e.g. Major Kirton), Col. Dubose, Pentagon spokespeople, the FBI telegram, a Colorado Senator, and others, often providing information that is seriously contradictory.

E.g., was it really found “sometime last week” and neighbors near the ranch also reporting a strange blue light near the ranch several days before at 3 in the morning (as reported originally by AP and UP)? Or was it the middle of June, the story that came out of Fort Worth later and then in Brazel’s press interview? Sheriff Wilcox reported both, depending on who he was talking to. To UP, Brazel found the object several days before. To AP, it was three weeks before.

What did Brazel do when he found it, supposedly mid-June? According to Brazel, he didn’t think much of it and ignored it for three weeks because he was busy with chores, then picked it up with his family on July 4. According to Marcel in Fort Worth, Brazel also found it mid-June, and immediately picked it up and threw it under some brush 7 or 8 miles from his ranch house. When he first found out about the saucers on July 5 in Corona, he rushed back out the next morning to retrieve it. And then the original base press released, no doubt based in part on what Marcel reported back at the base, namely Brazel found it “sometime last week.” These stories are wildly inconsistent with one another.

Or what did Brazel report finding? Brazel said he told the sheriff that maybe he had found a flying saucer. But UP quoted Wilcox saying that Brazel came in reporting that maybe he had found a “weather meter.”

Brazel, after seemingly describing a balloon and radar target, then recanted, saying what he found didn’t resemble in any way the other weather balloons he had previously found on the ranch. So why would he tell the Sheriff that maybe he had found a “weather meter?” AP also had Wilcox confessing that he was “working with those fellows at the base,” which might explain why he would put out a weather balloon story of his own.

How much debris was there and how big was the debris field? Ramey said only a singular balloon and radar target and no other equipment. (Weight less than 2 pounds) Brazel said debris was scattered across an area 200 yards across and all the debris he gathered in 2 bundles was maybe 5 pounds. But Marcel was quoted saying it was scattered across a square mile! We are talking many orders of magnitude differences in the size of the debris field described in 1947.

So things aren’t so simple as Brazel’s story back in 1947, which itself is contradictory. E.g., Brazel was also quoted saying that after Marcel returned to Roswell, “ that was the last he heard of it until the story broke that he had found a flying disk.” How could he possibly hear the story break back at the ranch with no phone or radio, then additionally hurry back to Roswell to set the story straight? The only way he could have done all these things was if he was already in Roswell.

(continued next post)

David Rudiak said...

(part 2)
But why would Brazel be back in Roswell immediately after just being in Roswell to report his find? Didn’t he have a ranch to run and livestock to tend to? Well according to later witness testimony from Judd Roberts and Walt Whitmore Jr., Whitmore Sr. had heard about Brazel’s story (probably from Frank Joyce) and drove out to the ranch to bring him back for an exclusive wire-recorded interview (which never aired, because the FCC threatened to pull the radio station’s license). But why would Whitmore drive 4 hours to the ranch and 4 hours back if all Brazel had found was his later reported rubber strips, tinfoil, paper, Scotch tape, and sticks? Think about it. Would you drive all the way out there if that’s all Brazel had found, then bring him all the way back for an interview? Does that make any sense?

What is described ? An ET-spacescraft or extraordinary things ? OR prosaic wreckage ?

Generally prosaic wreckage, but not entirely. For example, we also have Marcel quoted saying the debris covered a square mile (this is 1947, not 30 years later), Ramey saying the supposed foil/stick object had a diameter of 25 feet, both of these totally at odds with what was shown. The press release said they had a real “flying disc”, not a balloon of any kind.

Ramey’s intel officer Major Kirton told the Dallas FBI was nothing but a radar reflector and balloon. But then it says that conversations with Wright Field had them disagreeing with that assessment. So Wright Field was saying it WASN’T a balloon/target. Hmmmm. Further the debris was being flown on to Wright Field for analysis. But Ramey told the press the flight to Wright Field was canceled.

Prosaic wreckage description don’t prove anything other than this is what the press was told, not necessarily what really happened. Quoted military officers like Ramey, Dubose, and Marcel, were under orders, and if they had found real saucer debris weren’t going to tell the press about it (unless they wanted to be court-martialed). Controlling what Brazel had to say was easy once he was in military custody (much testimony to that effect, including base provost marshal Easley). Even Sheriff Wilcox in 1947 admitted to working with the military.

(last part next post)

David Rudiak said...

(part 3)
Governments cover-up things on grounds of national security. E.g., when the Soviets shot down the U-2 spy plane in 1960, the CIA thought the plane and pilot (the physical proof) had been totally destroyed and tried to bluff their way out of it. They put in place a cover story that it was really a NASA weather plane that had gone off course, the pilot having passed out from oxygen deprivation. They had NASA release phony transcripts of the pilot’s last moments. At Edwards AFB, a U-2 was repainted with a NASA logo and a false ID number. So they lied and manufactured evidence. Sound familiar?

It didn’t work because the Russians had a very live pilot and an only partly destroyed spy plane with intact spy cameras. This is different from Roswell because U.S. authorities didn’t have total control over the physical evidence, the witnesses, and what came out in the media. They were dealing with a hostile power that did. The cover story fell apart within days.

What is pointed to ridiculize that testimony, or to point the reader he must doubt about the only one recorded in place and time of an event ? "an (imaginary) Cover-up" making Brazel testimony, in place, in time, as a non-sens. Even if the essence of that testimony (its conclusion, the mention of the tapes with pink-purple symbols, etc) is against, is the inverse, of the own thesis of the ones claiming a cover-up. I missed something ?

You seem to be unaware that there was much more than just Brazel’s testimony, which is itself contradictory. There was much more reported back in 1947, described above, again very contradictory about what really happened, and some of it suggesting much more than a balloon crash, such as the base flying disc press release, the strange blue glow reported near the ranch, and Marcel’s “square mile” debris field, all reported in the 1947 press. In addition, there was the secret FBI telegram that didn’t come out until much later about a continued flight to Wright Field, with Wright Field disagreeing with the balloon/radar reflector ID. Why would they disagree, if the photos show all that was found, according to Ramey himself?

(Looks like we're about to break 100 posts)

David Rudiak

Gilles. F. said...

100th ! ^^

Greetings David Rudiak,

TY for welcome me to be back from vacations ^^

You writed :

"To UP, Brazel found the object several days before. To AP, it was three weeks before."

The DXR54 UP depeach, as discussed before is very vague : no name of Brazel ie. In AP releases, the date comes from Brazel own "mouth" and this is a testimony. Why to prefer the first one ?

Bessie testimony (affidavit) mentionned start of july discovery too, but if you continue to examine her testimony, you understand the chain of events she related taking place just after (one or 2 weeks after the discovery they go to Roswell ie) is impossible to be realized in the dates of real events.

Then suggesting middle of june is the date of the discovery too.

You writed "According to Brazel, he didn’t think much of it and ignored it for three weeks because he was busy with chores, then picked it up with his family on July 4."

1947's flying saucer wave started by press releases in N.O states june the 25. A posteriori, and only, people related experiences testimoned taking place before (49 cases IMHO, NO ONE reported before
K.A. in the press). Socio-psychological complex phenomenon initiated by press ?

June the 14, and IMHO until he visites Proctor, discussing about "flying saucer" and about the press reward (3000 dollars), Brazel have no one motivation to report those things the press is speacking (without E.T. semantic BTW).

So, he have NOW legitimated motivation to report a posteriori his discover "what could be a flying saucer", which is in that context "all which have sufficient "insolism" to be a Flying
saucer".

His discovery have enough "insolism" details (tapes, purple pink symbols, no words, etc) in order to be one "those things press is speacking and is offering reward". Period ?

"The press release said they had a real “flying disc” you writed : What is a "flying saucer or disc" in june/july 1947 wave sociological context, without "our" ethnocentrism semantic (E.T.) ?

All and nothing. Those "things" the press is speacking. Each thing with enough "insolism" could be a flying saucer, even if prosaïc.

NYU ballons he found (?) were good candidat IMHO to report it legitimaly as a possible "flying saucer".

"the strange blue glow reported near the ranch" is coming UP DXR54 release ?

There are direct testimonies or
"names" of those ranchers in press releases ? Only a man and his wife in Roswell city IMHO.

They are 853 cases in that wave using press releases, sign, bluebook and other NICAP ie archives.

"3154 witnesses". So to find one in Roswell is statisticaly probable. Does it must surprised us ?

They are 17 taking place in New Mexico, during that "wave", one only at night, 51 witnesses.

"Well according to later witness testimony from Judd Roberts and Walt Whitmore". Yes, but one more time "later" sounds important IMHO (and later other testimonies are in contradiction with "the FCC threatened to pull the radio station’s license", story "added" a posteriori, too.

I conced we can probably find little contradictions here or there alimenting speculations (only). The problem IMHO is that to explain those "contradictions", some must use "ad hoc" explanations not realy "economic" and lacking parcimony principle, in order to have the "spaceaircraft".

Spacecraft added a posteriori near 1989 by Glenn Dennis ie, and all you know about Dennis, Ragsdale,Kauffman/McEnzy serious testimonies (hoaxers).

On the other hand, one more time, to replace those events in Roswell in the sociological context where the press seems to be the only motor of those Flying Saucers is really "rich" IMHO for the investigator.

Helping us to avoid "ethnocentrism" biais when we speculate.

Best Regards,

Gilles F.

cda said...

Happy 100th posting Kevin!

A few corrections to DR:
The FBI teletype was not secret. The reason that Wright Field (i.e. probably one person there) disagreed with what was described to him over the phone as a balloon plus radar reflector was because of the excitement generated by Haut's press release, and the obvious desire to see the debris for himself (or themselves). Nothing more than that. Too risky to allow a purported 'flying disc' to be thrown away!

Also, nobody at Wright Field had seen the Ft Worth photos at that time, so they only had a telephonic description to go on.

What nobody can ever answer is exactly when that phone call was made. The FBI teletype was at 6.17pm but that does not mean the phone call immediately preceded it. Neither does the word 'urgent' on the teletype really convey anything since the FBI often used this in their messages. If the phone call came, say, an hour or so earlier, this would create the impression that the FBI were not too concerned about the matter. But we shall never know the answer.

[Looks like Gilles beat me to the century!]

David Rudiak said...

cda wrote:
A few corrections to DR:
The FBI teletype was not secret.


Allow me to me be specific. It was internal and not for public consumption. The public was not aware of it at the time. Its existence didn’t come to light for another 30 years, and then only because of a lawsuit filed under FOIA. Up until then, the FBI had denied having any UFO files.

So it may not have been classified “secret”, but for all intent and purposes, it was secret, just like all the other FBI UFO files.

The reason that Wright Field (i.e. probably one person there) disagreed with what was described to him over the phone as a balloon plus radar reflector was because of the excitement generated by Haut's press release, and the obvious desire to see the debris for himself (or themselves). Nothing more than that. Too risky to allow a purported 'flying disc' to be thrown away!

How does personal speculation become a “correction?” It’s another, it’s so because I say so argument by cda, anything to allow him to stay in his comfort zone. I guess it wasn’t enough to have a rubber balloon described to them and balsa wood sticks covered with white paper foil. Or the fact that the weather officer unequivocally identified it. No, some corporal at Wright Field wanted to see it, so Gen. Ramey had to comply.

Also, nobody at Wright Field had seen the Ft Worth photos at that time, so they only had a telephonic description to go on.,

Yeah, rubber balloon, balsa wood, paper and foil. Not exactly exciting stuff. The aero-tech experts at Wright Field weren’t going to have a lot of problems figuring it out. They certainly weren’t going to think they had a real flying saucer on their hands, no more so than Marcel or Blanchard. Remember, the experts knew exactly what “flying disc” meant. It was Kenneth Arnold’s large disc-shaped craft flying at supersonic speeds, or similar sightings, such as the even more publicized United Airline sighting of 9 more discs on July 4.

Obviously something a bit more exotic was described to them (which could have included, e.g., some specific piece of equipment exclusive to the Mogul Project, not just ordinary radar target weather balloon debris).

(continued next post)

David Rudiak said...

Part 2

cda wrote
What nobody can ever answer is exactly when that phone call [to the FBI] was made. The FBI teletype was at 6.17pm but that does not mean the phone call immediately preceded it. Neither does the word 'urgent' on the teletype really convey anything since the FBI often used this in their messages. If the phone call came, say, an hour or so earlier, this would create the impression that the FBI were not too concerned about the matter. But we shall never know the answer.

I actually agree with cda here. (Shocking, but it does sometimes happen.) However, we can get a fair idea of the time from the wording. We have Ramey’s strange, inexplicable “hexagon” description for the torn-up radar target, what Major Kirton, who was talking to the FBI, had earlier given Reuters. However, Reuters was told that that supposedly nobody at the base knew what it was, though it was “possibly” weather equipment. The ID is much more positive in the FBI telegram, namely that the object “resembles” a radar reflector suspended from a balloon, plus the information that they were flying it on to Wright Field (information that didn’t become public until just before 5:00 p.m.) My inference from this is that Kirton spoke to the FBI later than Reuters and around the time Ramey was putting out the more definitive ID (which from newspaper articles, was around 4:30-5:00).

By around 5:30, Kirton told the Dallas Morning News that the ID was final, now using “rawin” to describe the device (with correct spelling), and describing it as a six-pointed star, as weather officer Newton had (earlier hexagon description vanishes). But Kirton told the M. News the flight to Wright Field was canceled. The FBI telegram says otherwise, and even the USAF debunkers in 1994 agreed the flight went on to Wright, but putting additional spin on the story saying that a Col. Duffy, former project officer for Mogul, then positively IDed it as coming from Mogul. (Turns out this was probably entirely fabricated, since Duffy was at Mogul HQ in N.J., not at Wright Field at the time, plus never really identified the debris in 1990s letters, but talked all around the question. Sordid details at: http://www.roswellproof.com/RoswellSummary11.html )

Another indication that there was a Wright Field flight was the ABC News radio story, which reported: "A few moments ago I talked to officials at Wright Field, and they declared that they expect the so-called flying saucer to be delivered there but that it hasn't been delivered yet."

So brief time line: ~3:30: Roswell base flying disc press release; ~4:30: Reuters told Ramey’s “hexagon”and possibly weather device; 4:30-5:00 Ramey begins to change the story to more definitive radar target/balloon; ~5:00: AP bulletin that Ramey flying “disc” to Wright Field; LA Herald Express carries Ramey’s probable radar target ID; Colorado Senator also says radar target; 5:30: Dallas Morning News told definitely radar target; 6:17 FBI telegram; 6:30 AP carries weather balloon story.

So when did the FBI talk to Kirton? Putting all together, probably sometime between 5:00 and 5:30, so one hour before the FBI telex was sent is not a bad guess. The lack of urgency in sending the telex is not too surprising given the mundane nature of the debris described to the FBI, plus the FBI being assured their office in Cincinnati would be further informed of whatever Wright Field discovered, something the GAO could not show ever happened after researching documents. The FBI seems to have been cut out of it.

David Rudiak