Saturday, April 17, 2010

Brazel in Custody in Roswell

As the debate in the last posting rages, and as we race toward 300 comments on it, there was one discussion in the debate that demonstrates the original point. I had suggested that we look at the evidence in a dispassionate matter. Instead, in some cases, it became a rejection of evidence because of a belief that such things just couldn’t happen.

Some of the skeptics have rejected the idea that Mack Brazel had been held by military authorities for about a week. Christopher Allan, for example, wrote:

Karl Pflock [seen here] went into the question of Brazel in his book, p.169-171. He concluded that it was very doubtful if such incarceration took place. But ETHers will insist it did. What on earth would they need a whole week to detain him for anyway? If they were determined to silence him they could do it in maybe 2 hours by getting him to sign a secrecy oath on July 8. That supposes the affair was already classified top secret. In which case he wouldn't have been permitted to even give his RDR [Roswell Daily Record] interview later that day.
But Karl Pflock is not the final authority on this, and in fact, he dismissed some data simply because he didn’t like it. That it agreed with the skeptical attitude doesn’t make it right. Let’s look at some of the facts.

Karl pointed out that I hadn't recorded the conversation with Easley, which is true. But I do have my notes written at the time, meaning as I was talking to Easley. About Brazel at the base Easley said (quoting from my notes and seen here), "Brought him to base... talked to him for several days... not involved in that (Easley saying that he was not involved in the interrogation). Brazel at the guest house."

This was, of course, the "top cop" at the Roswell base and who had not been interviewed by anyone until I talked to him. He was careful in what he said because, as he told me repeatedly, "I’ve been sworn to secrecy." (Which is an argument for a later time and one that I do have on tape.)

Not to mention that Pflock is, in essence, calling me a liar about this testimony. Yes, I sincerely wish I had it on tape, but that doesn’t change the fact that Easley said it to me and I was the first, and as far as I know, the only researcher to have talked to him... Karl presented nothing to refute this testimony other than mention it wasn’t on tape... just like some of the interviews he conducted but which he says he reported accurately.
Then we reject what Bill Brazel said about seeing the stories about his father in the newspapers and going out to the ranch to help him. Mack returned two or three days after Bill got there. Testimony provided by Brazel during my first interview with him in 1989.
Then we reject Marian Strickland, who actually said on video tape (I made the recording in 1990) that Mack sat in her kitchen and complained about being held in Roswell. (Lyman Strickland also said this but not to me. He had died before I traveled to Roswell.)Then we reject what Loretta Proctor said about Brazel being held in Roswell... As well as the testimony of several others who saw him in Roswell including Floyd Proctor and even Walt Whitmore, Jr. who said he saw Brazel at his father’s house, not to mention his being at the newspaper office sometime on July 8 to give the interview. Which, I point out again, puts Brazel in Roswell after his initial visit.

Floyd Proctor told Bill Moore, as reported in The Roswell Incident, about seeing Brazel in Roswell being escorted by the military. Now, given that Bill Moore described his own book as a "disgraceful hodgepodge of fact and fiction," and given that we have seen him manipulate witness testimony to fit his vision of events, skeptics would be well within their rights to reject these statements attributed to Floyd Proctor. And, if Proctor was stand alone, I would reject it as well.

However, I do know that some of the testimony reported in The Roswell Incident was accurate because the witnesses told me the same thing. And, Loretta confirms what her husband said. So, we can, if we want suggest this testimony is accurate. We might assign less weight to it than that given by other witnesses and reported by other writers, but it still has some value in the overall understanding of the Roswell case.

We also reject the testimony of other Brazel friends, Leonard Porter and Bill Jenkins, who talked of Brazel under military escort.

And, we reject the story told by Frank Joyce about Brazel visiting him, at KGFL in Roswell after he had been to the newspaper office. Brazel told Joyce that he was under orders to give this new tale or it would go very hard on him. We reject this because Joyce’s story has grown over the years... however, when I first interviewed Joyce, he made it clear that there were things he knew that he just hadn’t mentioned to anyone. In fact, he showed me a letter he had sent to himself, which was postmarked so that he could verify that he hadn’t "just remembered" or that he was now embellishing his account. But reject him anyway.
We accept what Bessie Brazel said, even though she said that she had accompanied her father into Roswell on the first trip and didn't remember the military following him back out (which is fairly well documented... I mean even Cavitt admitted that he went out to the ranch, which, of course directly contradicts her). She said that her father didn't return to Roswell, even though that also is documented. She said that no military came out to the ranch.

She also said that she knew it was a balloon when they gathered up the material, all of it, leaving none in the field for Cavitt and Marcel to see. It strikes me that if a 14-year-old girl could identify this as a balloon, why then Jesse Marcel, an adult with intelligence training, surely would have recognized it... but I digress.
So, what this means is that we reject all the evidence from several different sources including documents and testimony that does not support our point of view and accept the statements from a single source, even when that source has been contradicted by documentation, because it does.
Not to mention that Bessie Brazel herself repudiated the testimony. Said that she had confused the 1947 event with something that happened a couple of years later. So, even she isn’t sure about all this, but her story suggests balloon and nothing extraordinary so she is considered right and everyone else is wrong.
And now I have to hear, again, about how Karl Pflock had refuted the idea that Brazel was held in Roswell... The evidence shows that he was. Period. The length of time is an estimate based on what Bill said. That he arrived two or three days after his father left and his father return two or three days later. Four to six or seven days based on the man who should know.
These would be facts and no, they do not lead to the extraterrestrial but do suggest something out of the ordinary happened. The point here is that the skeptics are flat out wrong on this point. It will interesting to see if they will attempt to spin it in some fashion.

207 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 207 of 207
David Rudiak said...

Gilles wrote:
Same is for the DX54 "sometime in the week before", ignoring the name of the rancher, bad speeling Wilcox, etc: PRESS RUSH.

DXR54: UP telex with their version of base press release: "THE DISC LANDED ON A RANCH NEAR ROSWELL SOMETIME LAST WEEK."

AP version of press release: "THE FLYING OBJECT LANDED ON A RANCH NEAR ROSWELL SOMETIME LAST WEEK."

Gee, in that "press rush", the two different major wire services got exactly the same "sometime last week" wording. What an amazing "coincidence". Maybe they were "contaminated" by the same source, say Roswell PIO Haut handing a written copy of the press release to the AP and UP stringers in Roswell. Brazel's name not in story initially? Not a "press rush", but deliberately left out, as was the location of the ranch or exact details about what was found or exactly where the “disc” was being forwarded.

Marcel as primary investigator would probably be the major source of information for Blanchard/Haut's press release. The press release said "sometime last week" and your claim this was due solely to "press rush" is totally lame given two news agencies used the exact same wording and Blanchard had plenty of time to review the wording before releasing it.

So why was Marcel's story in the press release "sometime last week", but only 2 hours later in Fort Worth it became 3 weeks before?

After, we have the real protagonists meeted, interviewed, etc. Marcel and Brazel are such ones...

One more time : One is related in FW (Marcel) (FWST source), the other (Brazel) in Roswell (RDR source).


One more time Gilles. It doesn't matter that there are two different newspapers. This does NOT somehow prove independence of sources.

Marcel was military and would be acting under orders of Gen. Ramey. He would tell any story he was supposed to tell at that time, or kiss off his military career.

Marcel had also spent at least an entire day with Brazel, so they are hardly "independent" to begin with. In fact, their stories should be much closer in detail than they were. Brazel and Marcel gave completely different recovery dates, completely different debris field sizes (both incompatible with Ramey’s singular balloon/radar target story), and Marcel also changed discovery date between the press release in Roswell and the story he told in FW.

And I guess you also forgot that Sheriff Wilcox, yet another primary interviewed source, told the same contradictory find date stories as Marcel to AP and UP. Wilcox told AP that Brazel had found it "two or three days before", but UP "about three weeks ago". Wilcox also confessed to AP that he wasn't "independent" of the military when he refused to answer more questions, saying he "was working with those fellows at the base". But, you of course know for a fact that Brazel was not, because your skeptic psychic powers tell you the many eyewitness stories of detainment and coercion cannot be true.

David Rudiak said...

(part 2)
Your whole argument depends on your unstated assumptions that: 1) The government and military never lie or put out cover stories, despite massive historical evidence to the contrary (e.g., Watergate break-in, 1960 U-2 incident, 1962 A-12 crash); 2) Witnesses to events are never pressured to toe the government line, despite massive historical evidence to the contrary; 3) therefore, both Brazel and Marcel were totally independent and totally unpressured and truthful in the statements they made.

But "protagonist" Marcel clearly said otherwise when interviewed 30 years later, and was totally backed up by Gen. Dubose, who was also there. They were under orders and the balloon story in FW was a “cover story” to get rid of the press. How much clearer could a high-up military insider like Dubose have been?

As for Mack Brazel, your entire arbitrary dismissal of the many witnesses who did say he was in military custody and coerced, is so that you can assume he was also independent and not pressured, because you want to 100% believe the balloon story he told. But if the military did force him to change his story (like Frank Joyce said Brazel admitted to him), then obviously Brazel is not an "independent" source either.

If he was unpressured, then why did he retract his own balloon story at the end? And why did he say he would never report anything again unless it was a bomb? These do not sound like the statements of somebody who was happy with his situation or the story he just gave.

The RDR, who printed the Brazel interview, also did not believe the balloon story judging by the skeptical editorial accompanying it. "Now What Is It?" The Army still wasn't telling all its secrets, they wrote.

And if Brazel really found just "rubber strips", where are they in the FW photos, instead of a mostly intact balloon? Why wasn't the rubber disintegrated to black ash after a month in the heat and sun, as per Moore's multiple demonstrations? And where is Brazel's "flower tape" in the FW photos? The surviving "physical evidence" in the photos does not back up Brazel's story, nor does the official story of a singular balloon and radar target. That is also part of what was said in FW.

David Rudiak said...

Gilles wrote:
Brazel heard on FS the ID week end (week end of the first 3000 dollars rewards BTW).

Yeah, he was very motivated to go in Roswell the monday ! It is surprising you ?


So Brazel supposedly wants the $3000 reward after hearing about the flying saucers in Corona on July 5. Marcel's story was that he was so excited that he went out bright and early the next morning to where he had thrown his bundles of debris under some brush 3 weeks before (7 or 8 miles away, not a trivial journey). But despite his alleged huge excitement over the big reward (why you claim he went to Roswell) and his rush to recover the debris, he then waited another day to go to Roswell.

This apparently all seems perfectly logical to you.

Finaly, Schultz is abble to made more 850 miles in two days inyourworld. Maybe in one you claimed !

Maybe in GillesWorld France people still drove on donkey paths in 1947, maybe even today.

InMyWorld U.S.A., highways were usually wide, paved, and generally straight when possible, without stone walls and hedgerows lining the sides, quite unlike what is common in European rural areas. Also out West, we don't have villages every few miles, like in rural GillesWorld.

Yet in GillesWorld, the claim that Schultz could drive 850 miles in two days he obviously considered another "extraordinary claim" demanding extraordinary evidence. LOL.

Dont be sudainly surprised Brazel is fast too and reacted for shorter distances, and for 3000 dollars ;)

Gee, if I could collect a reward like that (like $40,000-$50,000 today), I don't think I would have waited another day to go to Roswell, but Gilles apparently thinks the super-excited Brazel would.

And despite being so excited about collecting that big reward and rushing out to retrieve the very debris that was going to make him rich, Brazel somehow forgot to bring the debris with him when he made his special trip to Roswell to collect the big reward. Instead, he had to bring back not one, but two top intelligence officers, in not one, but two vehicles, to collect his "5 pounds" of debris for him. This again apparently seems very logical in GillesWorld.

Obviously, such arguments don't prove anything either way. But I noted contradictory dates of Brazel reporting, like from Sheriff Wilcox, and a few newspapers. Later witness testimony from Marcel and Dubose also support a Sunday, July 6 date.

And the numerous things that would have had to be crowded, maybe impossibly so, into a one day scenario of report/investigation/return to Roswell, also make it unlikely InMyWorld.

cda said...

DR knows perfectly well that Haut's press release means nothing as far as the date the object landed is concerned. This is because NOBODY saw it land! That release was hurriedly written before Haut (or Blanchard) had the full facts. How can anyone possibly accept such a stupid statement ("landed last week") when nobody saw, or heard, it land? Even if we assume Brazel checked the whole of his ranch once a week, this still would not prove anything about when it landed; the stuff could have been blown there from another part of the ranch. It may have consisted of 2 separate 'landings' or it may even have been placed there! (No I don't really believe the last one). The "landing" date is, quite simply, poppycock. Yet it is contained in an official press release!

And if the landing date is wrong, why cannot other parts of the press release be wrong? It was rushed out with minimal checking to reach the public. DR ought to acknowledge this. That is why Haut and Blanchard got a severe rebuke from Washington, as was reported at the time.

The two independent primary newspaper accounts give the most acceptable dates, and agree with each other. It is only conspiracists like DR & others who insist these accounts were somehow 'arranged' to be identical and false.

It is only conspiracists who cannot find the REAL evidence to prove an ET craft crash-landed. (This despite DR telling us that he lives in the real world whereas the skeptics live in a fantasy world). It is only conspiracists who believe that a radio station might lose its license if it broadcast Brazel's interview. Why did not the RDR get closed down for publishing Brazel's interview? (Why did the AF allow any interview at all?)
Why were any pro-ET Roswell books ever allowed to be published?

Conspiracists select the evidence they want to believe; they have NO real physical evidence. They also continue to say that all the released official documents that say no physical evidence exists could well mean exactly the opposite!

Don Maor cannot even name ONE military person (with written evidence) who was briefed about Roswell, although he tells us that those several who deny the existence of physical evidence were 'out of the loop' or were, in effect, liars.

That is the logic of the 'Roswell is ET' fantasy world, and has been so since 1980.

Gilles Fernandez said...

"Brazel's name not in story initially? Not a "press rush", but deliberately left out, as was the location of the ranch or exact details about what was found or exactly where the “disc” was being forwarded."

Ah oki : the release then includes "stratageme" in order to hide the name of the rancher and to protect the location of the capture of a disk...

In essence, the Press release was in order to hide the capture of a disk ! It makes sens !

To make a press release is an awesome stratageme to hide an event ! I dont know better way ! You keep silent to hide something.

Your rethoric about why we have no Rancher's name, no location, the "burlesque" mention of a disk have landed... is that it was in order to hide.

The best way to hide information would have been nothing to provide the press. The press release realization means exactly the opposite!

cda said...

Part2

Brazel said he first discovered the debris on June 14. He did not bother again until July 4. The object therefore landed before June 14, not "last week". But nobody can say exactly when. And by the time Marcel got there it was quite possible for much of the debris to have been blown around and relocated. There may even have been another balloon (flight 9) added to the debris by then.

Instead of arguing that Brazel would have rushed into Roswell on the Sunday, why cannot DR and Kevin acknowledge that, on the contrary, Brazel was so UNconcerned about the stuff that he decided to wait until Monday? It simply shows that Brazel decided that the debris was probably not a true flying disc (being not the least disc-shaped) but only brought it into town when he had other things to do in Roswell, i.e. on the Monday.

This makes more sense, but will never satisfy the conspiracists.

Ioan Dirina said...

Please take a glimpse at my rare spiritual book,about my prophetic dreams predicting real events in the near future,by visiting my website at www.dirinaioan.com and enjoying a free reading of it !
Any feedback will be appreciated.

With anticipated thanks,

Ioan Dirina,auhtor

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 207 of 207   Newer› Newest»