Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Jesse Marcel - A Dispassionate Look

There has been, again, an assault on the integrity of Jesse Marcel, Sr., by one who has never served in the military and who seems to believe that if it didn’t appear in Marcel’s service record, then it must be a lie. Such simplistic thinking has, for too long, influenced both sides of the UFO question. In the real world there are shades of gray and we must remember that to understand much of what happens in UFOlogy we must be aware of that.

I thought that if we attempted a dispassionate look at Marcel, we might learn something. Oh, it’s not going to lead us to flying saucers and alien bodies, but it might teach us something about the case anyway.

Marcel, in discussing flying saucers (a term very much in use in 1947, though there are those who deny this) with his ham radio buddies in the late 1970s, said that he had picked up pieces of a flying saucer while he was stationed in Roswell (do I need to append New Mexico to this). It was just conversation among friends, but one of those friends was also a station manager in New Orleans who mentioned Marcel to Stan Friedman.

Friedman, and then Len Stringfield, interviewed Marcel who told them about picking up pieces of flying saucer. By searching newspaper files starting with the Arnold sighting on June 24, 1947, they found (or rather I am told William Moore found) a picture of Marcel holding up some of this alleged flying saucer debris on July 9, 1947.

So we come to the first question. In 1947 what did flying saucer mean? Was it a term applied only to alien spaceships or did it have a more general connotation?

Given what I have read in the newspapers and magazines from that era, it would seem to me that flying saucer meant any sort of object, mirage, or apparition seen in the sky. It didn’t necessarily mean spacecraft and I think that it rarely meant spacecraft.

True, that was sometimes the definition applied then but it wasn’t as fixed as it is now. So, when Marcel told his son he had pieces of a flying saucer, he might not have meant it was an alien ship.

I can, of course, interview the son about that and I remember the words he said his father spoke when Jesse Jr. found the writing embossed on the small I-beam. His father said that Jesse Jr. might have been the first person in the world to have seen writing from another world... but in this discussion, I’m thinking that flying saucer was a more generic term than it is today, which, of course doesn’t mean that Marcel wasn’t thinking alien in 1947.

If we look at his statements to various investigators, in front of the media, and to others he talked to, what he described is mainly bits and pieces of debris that had no real shape and provided no real clue to what the overall craft, or object, might have been. Bits of metal, thick paper and thin foil are basically bits of metal, thick paper and thin foil. It is not what you would expect to find littering a crash site, but then, you would certainly find that sort of thing scattered among the larger pieces unless the thing disintegrated or that the field Marcel walked was only part of the crash site. Others suggest that the main body of the craft had come down elsewhere and Bill Brazel told me there was a gouge suggesting something heavy had hit and skipped. Marcel didn’t mention the gouge and as far as I know, no one asked him about that specifically.

So, we have some metallic debris and the like which suggests a technology that was advanced beyond ours but the problem is not with the descriptions of the debris by Marcel but the interpretation put on it. It would seem that everyone, debunker, skeptic, researcher and believer concedes that Marcel handled the material that he claimed to have handled. No one is accusing him of lying about this.

The darling of the debunkers, Sheridan Cavitt, in his official statement to the Air Force, said that he didn’t remember if Marcel had gone out to the field with him or not. He didn’t deny it, he just wasn’t sure. What is important is that Cavitt talked about the debris, but his interpretation of it was that it was something of terrestrial manufacture and unimportant. He never explained why, after he had returned from the Debris Field he didn’t mention this to Colonel Blanchard, the 509th Bomb Group commanding officer.

Yes, I know that Cavitt’s chain of command did not pass through the 509th Headquarters, but instead to the CIC office in Albuquerque. But then, if Cavitt had accompanied Marcel to the Debris Field, Blanchard would have asked both what they had seen. Apparently Cavitt did not mention he thought it was all a balloon when he spoke to Blanchard.

But again, we have no evidence of Marcel lying. We have a disagreement as to interpretation of the debris they saw. Cavitt thought balloon and Marcel thought flying saucer.

We all seem to agree that Marcel went out to the Debris Field. We all agree that he found material that he believed to be exotic. We agree that he took it home and then out to the base. Marcel had not lied about any of that. Others witnessed various parts of that activity so we have independent corroboration.

We all agree that Marcel had been a major in 1947, he was the air intelligence officer of the 509th Bomb Group, and that he held bits of what he believed to be a flying saucer, whatever definition we wish to apply to those words today. So where does this idea that Marcel was a liar come from?

It can all be traced to a transcript of an interview that was conducted by Bob Pratt in 1978. Pratt’s transcript is sometimes garbled with his questions or comments inserted into the middle of Marcel’s statements. I believe that Pratt was careful in transcribing what Marcel said, was less careful with his own comments, and while he would have understood the transcript completely though today we are sometimes confused.

Karl Pflock, in his Roswell book, printed the transcript, but he cleaned it up. He put his spin on some of the words, and as I have said before, the insertion of a comma in one place changes the meaning of the answer to one of those confusing questions.

Again there is little dispute about what he described as seeing on the Debris Field. The problem arises when we begin to compare his service record with what he said in the Pratt interview. Some of the things said here were not repeated to others, which makes me wonder how this came about.

At the being of the interview, Marcel said, "I had flying experience before going in service, started flying in 1928, so being in the air was not foreign to me."

This has been interpreted to be Marcel suggesting that he had been a pilot as far back as 1928, yet when he was asked, in a pre-commissioning interview in 1942 what his hobbies were, he mentioned photography and ham radio. He said nothing about aviation. But he did mention was a cartographer and that he worked from aerial photographs and part of his experience was flying over the areas.

However, and this is important, he said only that he had been flying since 1928 but not that he was a pilot. As part of his job as a cartographer, he flew but did not pilot the aircraft. We have a wash on this. No lie from Marcel, but a misinterpretation from those who wish to assassinate his character. I know from my own experience that when I first joined the Army I mentioned nothing about my previous flying experience, although most of it was as a student with limited hours as a pilot. What this all means to me is that Marcel had flown as part of his job but hadn’t piloted the aircraft and in his interview entering active duty simply did not mention this because, at the time, it was irrelevant and unimportant.

There are two other points in the Pratt interview that talk about flying experience. Marcel mentioned that he had 438 hours of combat time, which meant that he had flown into combat as a member of a crew. Some suggest he was a passenger in an aircraft that was flying into combat, but I suggest he was a member of the crew rather than just a passenger. The exact nature of his position in the aircraft is irrelevant and we have documentation to support his tale of combat flying hours.

He then mentioned that, "...[I] was intelligence officer for bomb wing, flew as pilot, waist gunner and bombardier at different times..."

Now we have Marcel saying he was a pilot, at least to those who weren’t paying attention. He said he had flown AS a pilot, not that he was one and this is a vital distinction. He was not claiming to have been rated and his military record reflects that he was not a military pilot. This does not mean he hadn’t flown as a pilot.

No one seems worried that he also said that he had flown as a bombardier or waist gunner. Again, he wasn’t saying that he had been trained in those positions, only that he had flown in them. This, to me, means he wasn’t lying, but giving an accurate accounting of his experience. In aviation units, those not rated in specific positions sometimes fly in them.

There is a scene in 12 O’Clock High in which they have returned from the first bombing mission in Germany. General Savage learns that half the ground staff has made the mission flying as waist gunners, men who were not rated in those positions but made the mission anyhow.

Yes, this is fiction, but my own experience in an aviation unit bears this out. I gave "stick time" to crew chiefs and door gunners and myself flew as a door gunner on occasion. Nothing in our records would reflect this.

In other words, I don’t see this as a lie by Marcel either. He had the opportunity to do those things and did them. They just weren’t mentioned in his military record and I wouldn’t expect them to be.

The problem is actually when he apparently said he had 3000 hours of pilot time. This is a huge number for someone who is not rated. I have something like 16 – 1700 hours, if you count everything, and I was rated.

But I don’t know how this number came up. In Pflock’s version of the interview, he has Pratt asking the question. According to that version, "Pratt: You had three thousand hours as a pilot – "

Marcel said, "Right [and] eight thousand hours [total] time."

The way it appears in the Pratt interview is "Q – 3000 hrs pilot (right) 8000 hrs flying time."

I could argue that it was Pratt who introduced this number into the discussion and we don’t know where it originated. I could argue that we don’t have Marcel saying this, but to be fair, he seems to be agreeing to it which is really the same thing.

In the end, it seems to me that the 1928 as the date when he started flying is irrelevant because that was when he started flying as a map maker. He didn’t say he started flying as a pilot in 1928. That is an assumption that others have made over the years and I don’t think anyone ever asked Marcel about this.

Later he said that he had flown as a pilot, and this too, is the truth. He wasn’t saying that he was rated or a pilot but that he had flown as one, as well as a waist gunner and bombardier. This too, seems to be the truth.

The problem for me is this claim of 3000 hours as a pilot and 8000 flying time. While I can ignore the 8000 hours total time simply because he was in aviation units and we know he had nearly 500 hours in combat make that total number a little more palatable.

But the 3000 hours of pilot time is quite worrisome... I can’t see how that is possible for a non-pilot even in an aviation unit. This would seem to be an embellishment but I have no evidence that the number is inaccurate... and in the end, no one else does either. Marcel never really did say he had been a pilot.

I suppose this could be seen as splitting a fine hair but do we really want to trash a man’s reputation for something like this... something that we can’t prove is a lie. It might just be true, though I find it hard to believe.

Those attacking Marcel also accuse him of lying when he said he was shot down once, on his third mission and that he claimed he was the sole survivor. The debunkers have gone wild with this claim which is really one that we can provide a resolution to.

Debunkers have said there was nothing in his file to show that he was shot down and I say there wouldn’t be unless he had been put in for an award of some kind. There is no place to make such a note and it was such a common occurrence that it didn’t merit mention.

Pflock, in his interpretation of this wrote, "Marcel: I got shot down one time, my third mission, out of Port Moresby.

"Pratt: Did everyone survive?"

"Marcel: All but one crashed into a mountain."

In this interpretation, Marcel is saying that everyone but one crashed into the mountain which means there was another survivor.

However, if I add a comma, I change the meaning. "Marcel: All, but one crashed into a mountain."

Now everyone, but a single poor soul survived.

In the Pratt interview, it appears like this, "... I got shot down one time, my third mission, out of Port Moresby (everyone survive) all but one crashed into a mountain."

No matter how you slice it, Marcel didn’t claim he was the only survivor as many of the debunkers allege. This is a clear win for Marcel. No evidence that he was lying and no evidence that he claimed he was the only survivor.

For me, the most troubling is the claims in the Pratt interview are for college credit and a college degree. Again, the Pratt transcript is garbled. In the Pratt interview, it said (and reproduced here exactly as it is in the transcript), "... degree in nuclear physics (bachelors) at completed work at GW Univ inWash. attended (LSU, Houston, U of Wis, NY Univ, Ohio State) , Docotr pool? and GW..."

Prior to entering the Army, Marcel mentioned that he had attended LSU for a year and a half, but there is a qualification on one of the documents. In parentheses, it said, "Uncredit." I have no idea what that means. Did he merely audit the classes? Did he flunk out? Did he receive an incomplete?

I did check with the other universities mentioned, asking each if there were any kind of extension courses that Marcel might have taken while on active duty. All replied that he hadn’t attended their schools in any official capacity. I do know that some of the military courses he took were taught at universities, but nothing to suggest any civilian education at them. The Pratt interview seems to be the only place he made these claims and they are not true.

In the end we have seem to have a single example of Marcel lying but even this makes no sense. Why claim to have attended so many schools? Why say this at all because someone was going to check?

Does this really suggest that we could trust nothing that Marcel said? We all agree that he walked the Debris Field. We all agree that he picked up the material. We all agree that something fell. But because we have some ambiguous statements on a transcript that is sometimes garbled, we’re simply going to reject everything that he said, even when it is corroborated by others whose testimony is trusted.

Since this is a dispassionate look, which means I’m not debating the point, but attempting to understand it, there is one other interview that is important. I don’t understand how the skeptics have missed it for the last decade but I have seen little mention of it (and now I’m sure it will be quoted to prove that Marcel was a liar... I can see the headline, "Jesse Marcel admits the Roswell case a lie.")

Dr. Linda Corley is from Houma, Louisiana, which was where Jesse Marcel lived. She said that in 1981, while working on a school project, she called Marcel and asked for an interview. She spent about four hours with Marcel and his wife, Viaud, and said that she "can’t remember a more pleasant or interesting visit."

Rather than repeat what she heard from Marcel during that interview because it is essentially what he said to everyone else, I’ll mention what happened in the days that followed. According to Corley, she received a telephone call from Marcel. She said, "I can still hear Jesse’s frantic voice on the telephone saying NOT to use any of the material obtained from my conversation with him. He seemed almost hysterical when he called my home, the first time, several days after the interview."

Then, according to Corley, "He stated that everything he told me was a lie."

She also said, "Well, I knew most of what he said was previously published material, given on other interviews, so I figured that this was only his way of trying to prevent me from using the information given me. But I did not know why. My heart really went out to him. He sounded so scared. The second telephone call was similar to the first. A day or so later he called to inquire if I had released any of the information to the press. I assured him that it was only for a school project but he insisted that I was going to the press with it. I tried to calm him and promised him that I would not use any of the personal information if he did not want me to. However, that did not seem to console him. I just didn’t know what to make of his strange behavior..."

So, contrary to what a debunker has written, Viaud Marcel never said it was a lie. That quote came from her husband under what sounded like duress. I don’t know why he would want to repudiate what he had said in the past, though I can speculate. However, this is to be a dispassionate look, so I’ll leave those speculations for later.

What we all really disagree about here is the interpretation that Marcel, in his later life, put on what he had found in New Mexico in 1947. Because some of us don’t agree with that interpretation, they’re going to smear his reputation, even though we know that the military records are often incomplete, that we can see how some conclusions about his statements were drawn both by Pratt and others who read his interview transcript later, and that there is confusion in what was actually said by Marcel.

I understand that some believe that if Marcel is eliminated from the Roswell case, major damage has been done, which I suspect is the reason for the smear campaign. But when you look at it carefully, all you see is that Marcel claimed to have picked up strange debris that he couldn’t identify. He was who he said he was, which means he was the air intelligence officer in 1947. He was on Blanchard’s staff and every other staff officer who was interviewed with a single exception agreed with him. He believed the material was of alien manufacture.

The confusion then, comes from the Pratt interview and Marcel’s actual record. You can decide if those discrepancies are enough for you to reject what he said or if they are the sorts of trouble you run into when looking at the written words of an interview made decades earlier and a set of military records that are even older.

Personally, in the end, I will not label Marcel a liar for those discrepancies simply because there are enough problems with my military records and what I know to be the facts in my record to suggest similar problems exist with Marcel’s records.

We can disagree about the interpretation but the case for Marcel being a liar is not proved. This, I believe, is the conclusion that a dispassionate look will sustain. We haven’t reached the extraterrestrial, but I think we understand a bit more of the situation in Roswell in 1947.

86 comments:

Sourcerer said...

Kevin wrote: "Given what I have read in the newspapers and magazines from that era, it would seem to me that flying saucer meant any sort of object, mirage, or apparition seen in the sky. It didn’t necessarily mean spacecraft and I think that it rarely meant spacecraft."

By early July, the association of flying saucer and spacecraft was made. It was set on this course in the public and the media by Hal Boyle. Among a more discreet crowd, the occultists, such as Meade Layne, made the association and propagated it. So did various Forteans. Evidence can be found in the newspapers that summer.

But the most significant source for the association is the US Army. Various officers during the Wave kept referring to (for no reason I can think of, except..) Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, men from Mars, and War of the Worlds (of course, to ridicule the notion. So, they were either being proactive against the ETH, or were responding to it).

Consider also Ramey's reasons why the Roswell object was not a flying disc: it didn't have a power source and it didn't have space for a pilot. Recall the Twining "memo". The army had a very definite spec for the discs.

I've read at least one newspaper article from July 1947 in which the author (a staff reporter, I think) wrote a half-page on the flying saucers and the ETH -- without humor or ridicule, but seriously.

"Bits of metal, thick paper and thin foil are basically bits of metal, thick paper and thin foil. "

Let's not forget that the descriptions in 1947 from Brazel, Marcel, Ramey, Wilcox were lies. The description was created to support the lie that the object was a single weather balloon and a single RAWIN kite.
None of it works for Mogul, either, imo.



Regards,

Don

KRandle said...

Don -

My point wasn't that there weren't those thinking in the extraterrestrial, but that it was not the automatic connection made today. I had seen the Hal Boyle piece long ago and used it to suggest that people were thinking of alien creatures as green.

But in the first few weeks of 1947 no one made that leap automatically and that was the point. I also noted the comment by Jesse Marcel to his son suggesting he might have been the first person to see writing from another world to show that Marcel was thinking about flying saucers as alien craft.

Sourcerer said...

Kevin, there is an interesting comment in the UP post-mortem (I have not found an earlier mention) in which Brazel quotes Marcel as saying the object was not anything known to the army or navy. This seems accurate because a) Marcel's time with the Navy and b) it is very unlikely Brazel knew it.

This means the two 1947 named people (less Brazel's family) who visited the site, did not think the object was 'normal' (Brazel is quoted (the Daily Record) that it was not a balloon, and it was not a kite (Kellahin interview).

Marcel's descriptions are unlike the 1947 ones, especially the parchment which he singled out as impressing him. Reminds me of Sally Strickland's description.

As far as truthfulness or honesty goes, I'll take Marcel Sr. over Pflock any day.

Nothing in the remnants of the Pratt interview should be considered unless it is confirmed from other more reliable sources.

Regards,

Don

KRandle said...

Don -

While I agree that I support Marcel more than Pflock, it is not Pflock who continues to launch the assaults. Pflock did serve in the Marines so he had something of amilitary background...

But, of course if we're going to dismiss Marcel for his "lies" then we must dismiss Pflock as well for the Kurt Peters nonsense.

In fairness to Pflock, I believe he was more intellectually honest than the person who continues to attack Marcel.

At any rate, we're pretty much in agreement with each other on this.

Sourcerer said...

Kevin, I don't know who is "launching assaults" on Marcel Sr these days, but back in the 1990s, when I first began studying Roswell, I debated several who did attack him. What I learned is "dispassionate" they were not. In fact, it wasn't the "lies" they pointed to that riled them -- they seemed merely a pretext -- but they seemed to have a repugnance towards him that went beyond just some disputed points in the Pratt piece. They didn't like the look of him, so to speak. They seemed to despise him "on sight". I'm on the road now, so don't have access to my files, otherwise I post a juicy example or two.

I didn't know Pflock. I don't have a high opinion of his work, considering some of it to be sloppy and poor analyses -- consider his Saucer Smear piece on Haut, which is easily refuted by anyone familar with the 1947 news stories, yet it attracts self-described skeptics to elaborate on it. Such poor quality work enables others to spread the misinformation.



Regards,

Don

Bob Koford said...

When you take what substance there exits for the base of Marcel Sr.'s version of things, and add to it the images evoked by Jesse Marcel, Jr. regarding his father's extreme change and sudden dislike for the military, (after the incident,whatever the incident fully represents) then you would have to notice how it all matches up with Major Marcel experiencing some type of traumatic incident, of which he was made to pretend didn't happen. Since his record seems to indicate he was fuilly accepted, and not rejected, the incident was indeed an official cover-up.

P.S. I am almost finished with Jacobsen's book, and would certainly enjoy a more indepth discussion of it.

cda said...

I have never considered Marcel a liar. Some embellishment perhaps, and exaggeration. But basically he is of sound mind and honest.

What really matters is whether at any point in 1947 (i.e. soon after the event) he ever considered the debris he handled was extraterrestrial. It is easy to point to remarks he made to people, including his son, decades later. It is far less easy (in fact impossible) to ascertain what he really said, if anything, to people about ET craft in 1947.

I have always thought it odd that Marcel never kept any of the press reports on the case, never made personal notes or diaries, never took any photos and so on. And this was, supposedly, an earth-shattering event. A skeptic like me cannot help but come to the obvious conclusion: namely that Marcel never considered this affair important enough, nor worth talking about or even thinking about at the time. Nor did Jesse jr. Marcel was perfectly happy to accept the USAF explanation and had probably come to the same conclusion, maybe with a few slight doubts, himself.

Now forward to 1978-79 and his encounter with a certain highly persuasive nuclear physicist; result was that everything changed. (Surprise!)

As to his sudden admission of 'a lie' to Linda Corley in 1981, this would have been sometime after Marcel's interviews (by then written up in the Berlitz-Moore book) and Pratt's interviews were already public knowledge, so it looks like he merely had a change of heart and did not want further publicity. He had of course already appeared in a movie "UFOs are Real" of which Friedman was a consultant.

But I agree, Kevin, that if you want to put a different interpretation on it, that is your right.

David Rudiak said...

I've been doing a lot of research into mention of the ETH in June/July 1947 in the wake of the Kenneth Arnold sighting. There was a LOT of it, most of it sarcastic or satirical, or on the level of nervous laughter, but also some very serious discussion. This included Kenneth Arnold himself, who said he had a lot of fan mail, among it being some people opinionating about the saucers being interplanetary. Arnold ALSO expressed that opinion, as quoted in the Chicago Daily Times on July 7, 1947. Arnold said he hoped they were some secret military experiment, but if not, he thought they weren't from planet Earth.

I just threw up a still-unfinished version of this research on my website. See:

http://www.roswellproof.com/ETH-in-1947.html

What I find real interesting is the military bringing up and attempting to debunk the interplanetary angle. There would be no need for this unless there was serious discussion in the public domain that the military wanted to discourage. An early example of this was none other than Gen. Roger Ramey, of Roswell weather balloon infamy, and his intelligence chief, Col. Alfred Kalberer, who starting June 30, were already debunking the saucers, including referring to them as "Buck Rogers stuff" and Kalberer saying "we're not being invaded by little platter-like planes from Mars."

http://www.roswellproof.com/Ramey_and_Kalberer.html

But the very best example IMHO was the Pentagon on July 8 putting out a press release just before the announcement from Roswell of having a flying disc in their possession. There were three things the military was sure the saucers were NOT. They were NOT a secret military project, a bacteriological weapon of a foreign power, and they were NOT "space ships."

Again, why even raise the possibility and deny it if nobody was paying much attention to the idea? And putting out that press release just moments before Roswell is another one of those many amazing Roswell "coincidences."

Jesse Marcel certainly wasn't alone in the military considering the possibility that the saucers were "not of this Earth."

I'm traveling now, so more later on Marcel and the character assassination against him in order to discredit Roswell. Robert Todd was the original and worst pathological Marcel hater and most of the debunker slime after Todd was just citing Todd, even though at least 95% of what he accused Marcel of was made up, gross distortions of his record, or flagrant lying by Todd.

KRandle said...

Geez guys, is any body home. I am sitting in a hotel in Roswell at the moment...

CDA:

According to Jesse Marcel, Jr., and I mentioned this, his father told him that he might have been the first person to see writing from another world on the night they examined the debris...


Now, clearly, Marcel told me this many years after the event since I wasn't born in 1947 but it was clear in my very first conversation that Marcel believed the material was of alien manufacture.

Friedman does not figure into this, other than as the first to talk to Marcel. He didn't plant the idea. Marcel was talking to his friends on the HAM radio circuit of picking up a flying saucer, which at that point meant alien craft.

It is also clear that Marcel Sr., didn't save the clippings about this and that he didn't write any of it down in a journal or diary. Not everyone thinks that way.

It does seem that we all agree that Marcel has gotten a rotten deal on this from those who have never served and who label anyone who suggests that there has been alien visition as hucksters, liars and frauds for no other reason that we disagree with them.

cda said...

Marcel was an honest guy, OK.
I think it extremely unlikely he ever, in the 1940s and 50s, thought the material he recovered was from an ET craft. The idea may have 'grown' on him as the years passed, but this is pure conjecture. And no, I do not accept that he told his son Jesse jr, in the aftermath of Roswell that "he might have been the first person to see writing from another world on the night they examined the debris". He very likely did tell his son this sometime post-1978.

This sort of anecdotal tale is so often cited as evidence, and is useless as such. Had Marcel sr really thought or said this he could have easily told NICAP or APRO in the 50s (both flourishing at the time). Keyhoe and Lorenzen would have lapped it up, and it would provide suitable evidence for the Congressional hearings NICAP desperately wanted. There was also the Scully tale. Marcel had the perfect riposte to that. The crash did occur, but at a different location (i.e. Roswell not Aztec). In fact there were endless opportunities for Marcel, sr or jr, to speak out.

If Marcel was so loose lipped with his radio ham buddies in the 70s, there was nothing to stop him repeating his story to NICAP or APRO, or any other UFO groups active during the period, or to a reputable scientific institution, had he so desired. What about the Condon committee?

Marcel's actions in the years 1947-70 are not those of a man who recovered an ET craft. Absolutely not. But they ARE the actions of someone who quickly forgot the episode, until decades later when an over-zealous investigator dropped by and planted (or considerably enhanced) a seed in his head.

Lance said...

I certainly agree with CDA above.

Kevin, I don't find your arguments dispassionate, quite the opposite, but I do understand where you are coming from.

The evidence is clear that Marcel, like many of the folks that you so admirably found and interviewed, inflated some portions of his background. If you choose to forgive him, so be it. I can only remind you that the same kindness you showed to many other "witnesses" proved to be undeserved.

Mr. Rudiak's research above is interesting but his analysis seems unsupported. Why would it be a surprise that the government addressed a national mania in regards to flying discs? We were in the middle of intense public interest in the subject. To also somehow connect this to Roswell is particularly ill-concieved.

Lance
notaghost.com

starman said...

cda: It's not surprising that Marcel didn't keep press reports--why remind himself of the time he was made to look like a cretin who couldn't tell the difference between "balloon" trash and something exotic? No doubt part of the reason for his long silence was the denoument of the affair in '47.

Sourcerer said...

CDA: "a certain highly persuasive nuclear physicist"


Yeah. He's a real Svengali. You can tell just by looking at him...such an imposing figure, that deep melodious voice, those soulful eyes.

You must have some interesting conversations with the skeptics who think Marcel was a real Svengali, ensorcelling Haut to issue a press release for him.

I can see SF and JMsr squared off against each other, eyes shooting lightening bolts at each other.

Regards,

Don

cda said...

Don:
Don't confuse STF with SF.
The former is a person, the latter is science fiction. Of course, it may be that the two are indistinguishable anyway.

Sourcerer said...

There is nothing in the 1947 national news stories that point to Marcel as having misidentified the Foster Ranch object or as having referred to it as a flying disc. No story blamed Marcel for anything. He wasn't "made to look like a cretin".

In the press release, he is notified by Wilcox, picks up the object and accompanies it to "higher headquarters". In Ft Worth, Marcel was a participant in the cover-up.

ET advocates who invent a tragic role for Marcel in 1947 simply encourage the skeptics to cast Marcel as an hysteric with a chip on is shoulder, or as being emotionally susceptible to the mesmeric potency of Stanton Friedman.

Regards,

Don

Sourcerer said...

Kevin quotes Corley: ""Well, I knew most of what he said was previously published material, given on other interviews, so I figured that this was only his way of trying to prevent me from using the information given me."

"Most"? Was there something he told her that was not in his other interviews?

I haven't read her book, but this Marcel quotation from it is common enough on the web: "There is a hell of a lot that I haven't said for the sake of my country." Possibly he said something that trespassed the boundary he had set for himself, or had set for him by others.

Like others, Marcel participated in the cover-up, and we cannot say with certainty when or if they 'came clean', if any did. We don't what part of Marcel's statements were still the cover-up. Same for Haut, too. In fact, the same for everyone in Roswell, the RAAF, and in Lincoln County who might know that the Ft Worth story was not true, and were therefore, 'persons of interest' to a cover-up operation.

Regards,

Don

Kooky said...

cda states: "What really matters is whether at any point in 1947 (i.e. soon after the event) he ever considered the debris he handled was extraterrestrial."

I'm confused by the above comment since a press release was issued by the RAAF base stating that they had recovered the remains of a flying saucer. Therefore somebody must have concluded that the items were extraterrestrial. Duh.

My take on Marcel is that he probably extensively embellished his military record with tall stories. Since Americans worship military men, this would undoubtedly have helped him with his business relationships and customers. Telling tall stories is also the great American pastime so there is nothing particularly or individually bad about it in Marcel's case.

To me the great mystery is how that the junk said to have been recovered, ie foil, sticks etc, could have been confused with an actual extraterrestrial craft, yet the press release proves that it was.

If nothing else was found, such as engine, windows, seats etc (after all these are military men and they would be expecting these items to turn up somewhere) then surely this indicates that something must have been strange about the foil, sticks etc.

Am I missing something here, if so what is it?

Kooky said...

Oops, I am a bit out of date. That was the 1991 version of the story, but according to the 1994 version:

"Brazel was said to have given his news conference on July 9, and his press conference and the initial news release announcing the discovery of a "flying disc" were all part of an elaborate ruse to shift attention away from the "true" crash site."

I had better catch up with the latest version of the alleged events before commenting further. I ask your forgiveness.

Sourcerer said...

Kooky wrote: "Am I missing something here, if so what is it?"

That in 1947 'spaceship' was not the exclusive referrent for 'flying
saucer'. This is discussed in Kevin's article and in comments by David Rudiak and myself.

(btw, David, I think I found another one, a Cleveland July 6 UP story quoting Dr J. J. Nassau, Case Institute observatory: "We can conclude the objects in question are not visitors from outer space"). It is just a squib and I haven't found a full version of his comments. He might be referring to meteors, but I doubt it.

In June 1947 a disc could be anything. One could say 'the flying disc was a reflection from a balloon', but soon enough the army is saying 'It wasn't a flying disc. It was just a balloon'. The army had a definition for the discs and were applying it. They were also propagandizing against the ETH even though you would be hard pressed to find people or groups advocating it.

"1991...1994..."true" crash site".

Yeah...just follow the white rabbit.

Regards,

Don

cda said...

Kooky:

"To me the great mystery is how that the junk said to have been recovered, ie foil, sticks etc, could have been confused with an actual extraterrestrial craft, yet the press release proves that it was."

You cannot confuse objects found on earth with 'an extraterrestrial craft'. There was, and still is, no such thing as an exterrestrial craft. Therefore nobody involved in the recovery knew what an ET craft looked like, therefore no 'confusion' would arise.

There is likewise nothing to indicate anyone (Marcel or anyone else) had ET craft in mind at that early date. The term 'flying disc' meant a strange aerial object, nothing else, in those very early days.

starman said...

"No story blamed Marcel for anything."

Still, to be photographed with balloon trash, after finding something exotic, implying he couldn't tell the difference, was hardly the high point of his career. It wouldn't be surprising if his reluctance to discuss the case later resulted in part from that.

David Rudiak said...

Don (Sourcerer) wrote:
That in 1947 'spaceship' was not the exclusive referrent for 'flying saucer'. This is discussed in Kevin's article and in comments by David Rudiak and myself.

(btw, David, I think I found another one, a Cleveland July 6 UP story quoting Dr J. J. Nassau, Case Institute observatory: "We can conclude the objects in question are not visitors from outer space").


All I can find on Nassau so far are comments that he thought the saucers were imaginary.

As for what people thought the saucers were, there were all sorts of hypotheses, little different from today, including ET, interdimensional, & demonic, clear to secret military experiment, Russian, mass hysteria, weather balloons, spots before the eyes, etc.

However, one wire service article wrote that there were certain characteristics of the saucers generally agreed upon, including them appearing metallic, usually disc-like, and flying at high speed, in other words, generally some strange high-speed aircraft. In particular, high speed is not something one would associate with a balloon of any type, not the sort of thing experienced people at Roswell would confuse with the characteristics of the reported flying saucers.

In the process of trying to find that story, I stumbled across yet another ET reference, this time from Australia:

http://tinyurl.com/http-news-google-com-newspap

It started with this description of the saucers:

"Americans are baffled by reports of 'Flying Saucers' which, according to observers, are round metallic discs racing high across the sky singly or in groups."

And later listed various theories, starting with "Signals from Mars":

"...Explanations include:--(1) Signals from Mars, (2) 'saucer hysteria' by people possibly emotionally upset by fear of atomic war, (3) new experimental navy planes known as 'flying pancakes,' (4) weather kites released by meteorological bureaus, (5) something to do with atomic experiments, (6) reflections from motor car spotlights, and (7) meteors."

I think I've barely scratched the surface of these stories. Maybe 1% or 2% of any time period's newspapers are currently digitized and we have barely any idea what was being discussed on the radio, little of which survives.

Sourcerer said...

One can go back to the 1930s, even back into the late 19th century and find articles in newspapers and magazines speculating about ET life, even intelligent life.

The arch-debunker, Menzel (who had his own sighting) was published in Amazing Stories in the 1930s and in the 1970s was an editor of another sf magazine. Such speculation was not unknown to him. Tombaugh reported his sighting. So did La Paz. Is it possible none of them considered the possibility that the discs could be ET? During the wave, they would not be deterred by the spectre of interstellar distances because both Venus and Mars were not yet believed to be unsupportive of life.

The Army's pre-emptive strikes against the ETH, and other social pressures, must have been intense on academics, military officers, scientists, editors, publishers, and writers. But why?

If there was any evidence of "mass hysteria" during the Wave, it is to be found among them, rather than the public-at-large.


Regards,

Don

cda said...

La Paz's July 1947 sighting was not publicised until it appeared LIFE Magazine 5 years later; and when it did appear, his name was omitted. By then he had been heavily involved with the green fireballs and did, for a while, seriously entertain the ET hypothesis. Whether he did so as early as July '47 is doubtful. Tombaugh was open-minded on UFOs and his sighting also appeared in LIFE (don't know which issue). Again, we do not know what his views were and if they were altered
by his own sighting.

I doubt anyone seriously considered ETs as coming from Venus (except Adamski), but certainly Mars was taken seriously by perhaps a few (not many) astronomers, before the '47 UFO wave, and after.

But it is unknown what Marcel's true thoughts were. We can only go by his subsequent actions which, as I have shown, were decidedly disinterested ones. Nobody has turned up a recorded quote, or a written text, from him in this period that could settle the matter. I therefore opine that Marcel, however much ETHers insist otherwise, had forgotten all about his experience and attached no importance to it until about three decades later. The same can be said of his son Jesse jr.

KRandle said...

Don -

Yes, the piece was less than dispassionate, but I tried. My motivation was the assault on Marcel by a guy who claims to be a colonel in some mythical organization. He lies constantly and has the nerve to call Marcel a liar.

I spent the morning looking through the unit histories again. Some of them were quite detailed with lots of names, but it seems that sometime before Marcel arrived in the South Pacific they changed the format. I would have loved to find something in the narratives that confirmed what Marcel said... oh, I saw where on one mission the bombers were credited with shooting down 16 Japanese aircraft, but the names of those who did it were not recorded. I read where one of the bombers damaged it's landing gear and all were ordered to bail out... and no one was killed, but only the pilot's name was recorded. All this means is that the things that Marcel described happened, but there is nothing to attach Marcel to any of these incidents. I will continue the search.

For those interested, it seems that the interplanetary was considered, but my point was most of those who offered an opinion thought of terrestrial explanations. My favorite was the scientist who thought that walking out of a dark theater into the bright would cause you to see objects... actual spots before the eyes.

CDA -

Yes, we all know that you accept nothing that suggests Marcel thought in the extraterrestial in 1947. No one interviewed him after the trip to Fort Worth. We do have his son saying that periodically, over the years, they talked about it briefly and we know that he talked about it to his ham radio buddies.

There is simply nothing we can do about this. marcel didn't save the clippings and not everyone behaves as you believe they should.

But again, this piece was generated because a man with a history of lying about his accomplishments and his threats to sue everyone who ever disagreed with him called Marcel a liar. Frankly, the only real problem seems to be the claims of his college work...

Yes, I have not been as active as I would like here, but I have returned from Roswell.

Sourcerer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sourcerer said...

I'm not so certain that Marcel Sr didn't have an interest in Roswell until STF showed up. In The Roswell Incident he recalls Brazel's family didn't live on the Ranch, but in Tularosa or Carrizozo. That is a very minor point to recall (and hardly worth the effort for STF to "suggest" it). He refers to Haut as an "eager-beaver". That's how the AP described "Haught". Had he read the AP news story that hung the label on Haut? Did he at one time keep news clippings or visited a library or newspaper to read the old stories? The "eager-beaver" and the "shave-tail" lieutenants were minor military stereotypes from the war, so he might have used it without having read the story.

He describes materials that could not be marred by hand, a cigarette lighter, or a hammer. But obviously the materials were not indestructable if the object had exploded into tiny pieces.

From UP 7/9/47:

"Maj. Jesse A. Marcel, intelligence officer of the 509th bombardment group, reportedly told Brazel, the finder of the object, that "it has nothing to do with Army or Navy so far as I can tell.""

Make of it what you will. I doubt he meant it was 'civilian'. Maybe he thought it might be foreign. I don't know when the ET possibility occured to him.

In any event, in 1947, Brazel (in both the Kellahin and the Daily Record interview reports), and Marcel, as above if accurate, did not concur with the balloon and target story.

Regards,

Don

Sourcerer said...

Kevin, unless there is a personal reason for debating slanders against Marcel Sr, I think the pursuit is a waste of time. Vets, especially combat vets and maybe especially Vietnam combat vets, can be sensitive to the sort of provocation you describe. He's just a little boy playing Rambo.

Regarding military or academic records -- actually, any government, military, corporate, medical, legal recordkeeping: some skeptics have a simple-minded faith in their inerrancy. Studies of recordkeeping indicate something else.

For example: "A 2004 study by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group found that 54% of
all credit agency reports contain errors. Twenty-five percent of these
errors were considered "serious," meaning the reports include erroneous
listings of delinquencies, accounts in collection, bankruptcies and other
information that could result in a denial of credit.

Similarly, a 2003 Government Accountability Office report, citing statistics
from the Consumer Federation of America, found that 78% of credit-agency
files omitted account information, 82% had inaccuracies regarding revolving
accounts or collections, and 96% had bad credit-limit information."

http://www.baselinemag.com/c/a/Projects-Security/ChoicePoint-Blur/


Skeptics who are very alert to any evidence of "false memories" should also be as alert to the inevitable errors in recordkeeping. I speak as someone who worked in the field for decades. There is no "case closed" based on recordkeeping.

Discussing Marcel Sr's (or anyone's) military and academic records is misdirection away from the issue of the wreckage. Such misdirection is commonplace on these issues. A good example is the Lydia Sleppy story. Write an article here on it, and instantly the skeptics will bring up "the switch", this and that brand of teletype etc. What they will not do is consider the John McBoyle issue. It is once again misdirection away from the "wreckage".
(On my "To Do" list is research into tapping and hacking teletype machines. Phone companies were very cooperative with agencies doing surveillance such as the FBI).

Mogul is misdirection, too. The weather balloon and radar target story covered up...weather balloons and radar targets. It is worth an appreciative chuckle at those counter intelligence guys, but it is not worth wasting time on.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don (Sourcerer) wrote:
Skeptics who are very alert to any evidence of "false memories" should also be as alert to the inevitable errors in recordkeeping. I speak as someone who worked in the field for decades. There is no "case closed" based on recordkeeping.

Discussing Marcel Sr's (or anyone's) military and academic records is misdirection away from the issue of the wreckage.


Initial attempts to get Marcel's service file (including by Marcel Jr.) were met with the response that it was destroyed by the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center.

But when Robert Todd requested it with a FOIA, suddenly it existed, then Todd misused the information to slime Marcel in an extraordinarily viscious way. Nobody could refute the charges at the time because only Todd had the file.

Eventually the file got into circulation. I got my copy of this file from Kevin (thanks again Kevin), and as soon as I started reading through it I could tell most of Todd's charges were false, grossly exaggerated, made up, or just plain flagrant lying.

Among Todd's arguments was if it wasn't in the file, but Marcel mentioned it as happening, then Marcel must have been lying. But it is obvious that there are many things missing in this probably reconstructed file.

E.g., there is only about 15 pages total for his year and half in the South Pacific. He was promoted to Captain there, but there is no paperwork. He received a Bronze Star, but only one page for that with no prelimary paperwork. An evaluation mentions an attached favorable communication about Marcel from higher headquarters, but that is missing. Maybe that had something to do with Marcel's stories of having to bail out, or shooting down Japanese planes when the regular gunner was killed. But who knows?

Marcel said he was inducted into the AAF in Washington D.C. and briefly worked for Gen. Hap Arnold before being transferred to the intel school in Pennsylvania. Todd neglected to mention (though two documents he cites clearly mention it) that he was indeed assigned to intelligence school in Washington, then there is a gap in his record, before it shows him graduating from the school in Penn. So how long was he in Washington? Who knows? But he was there initially and conceivably could have briefly worked as an aide to Arnold, who was very interested in aerial photointelligence, Marcel's specialty.

Yet Todd accuses him of lying about all of this, yet there is a complete absence of evidence to support the claim. It's at best mind-reading, clairavoyance, deliberate omission of evidence and argument by assertion.

There are also inconsistences in Marcel's record, such as listing 1 air medal in one place and 2 everywhere else (there are 2 actual air medals in the record). One place has 1 year of college, most places 1-1/2. Todd made an issue of that too, yet it was probably nothing more than some private clerk-typist making an error.

There are many examples of Todd trying to make a Federal case out of nothing, and we haven't even gotten to his many examples of lying and misrepresentation.

Todd was clearly mentally unstable later in life (like you say about Korff, a wannabe Rambo), yet what these low-lifes said about Marcel has been taken as unassailable truth by the debunkers, all in order to discredit Roswell.

But regardless of whether Marcel was a perfect human being, he was who he said he was at Roswell and his Roswell story had a lot of backing by others, including the descriptions of the debris and a cover-up taking place.

cda said...

We have agreed and established that Marcel was not a liar and an inventor of tales.

The question is: does this advance the case one iota for Roswell being ET?

Did Marcel ever so much as whisper off the record to Hap Arnold that he had helped recover an ET craft? Did he ever say to anyone at all between 1947 and the late 70s that he had partaken in such a mission? Did he ever make written notes of such? I have said all this before, so I shall close by reiterating the simple fact that in the intervening 30 years there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to show Marcel ever gave a moment's thought to being a witness to an ET landing on planet earth.

Truly a man who could be trusted to keep secret his involvement in the greatest scientific discovery ever made.

Sourcerer said...

The press release (Haughts Statement) is form without substance. In The Roswell Incident Marcel provides the substance, and does so flawlessly. The authors could not have written it or even "suggested" it to him. The book proves they were nearly clueless about Roswell 1947 (see page 28 for an example). It indicates that Marcel had thought long and carefully about his participation, and had his story down to nuances. His reported comments on the how and why of the press release are not as confident. I wonder whether those parts were manipulated by the authors because they display a lack of 'internalization' of the chronology and logic of the 1947 story which is a fingerprint of the authors.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

cda wrote:
Did Marcel ever so much as whisper off the record to Hap Arnold that he had helped recover an ET craft?

Since Marcel's only claimed contact with Hap Arnold was in 1942, how or why would he "whisper off the record" to Arnold about something that didn't happen until 1947?

Methinks another debunker time travel theory at work, like crash dummies from the future.

KRandle said...

Don -

The purpose of going through all this again was because a fellow who claims to be a colonel in some mythical organization believes he has the right to slander Marcel. I take offense at this because unlike the play colonel, Marcel served during the Second World War. Just because the pretender to high military rank does not like Marcel's conclusions, he has no right to call him a liar. Especially when the pretender lies about everything. I believe that if you asked him the time he would lie about that.

Anyway, that is the reason for going through this again. I will not allow the lies to go unchallenged.

Sourcerer said...

CDA "...I shall close by reiterating the simple fact that in the intervening 30 years there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to show Marcel ever gave a moment's thought to being a witness to an ET landing on planet earth."

Heck, I can do better than that. I don't know* of a quotation from him, besides a sentence-fragment in The Roswell Incident, that even implies Marcel Sr referred to ET in the years after those 30.

So, why do some anti-ETH skeptics attack Marcel?

* Haven't read everything, of course.

Regards,

Don

cda said...

I wasn't attacking Marcel. Far from it. And if you cannot find anything he said referring to ETs, even after 1978, this only reinforces my premise, which is that Marcel simply never considered the 'great event' an ET matter at all.

Perhaps after all the hullaballoo and rush-to-secrecy at the time, he didn't realise what he had missed. Poor guy. Even STF couldn't convince him!

And yes, DR, I got the timescales wrong. Assuming Marcel ever met Hap Arnold of course.

Sourcerer said...

CDA, I wasn't referring to you, but to the person Kevin refers to, and also what I wrote earlier in this discussion about the anti-Marcel skeptics I've encountered.

I do disagree with your dismissal of Marcel -- another matter.

Marcel's reputation is collateral damage in the argument over ET. The attacks on him have more to do with ET advocates latching on to Marcel to support their position, drawing the ET skeptics to dispute it, than anything Marcel had said.

The significance of Marcel's statements, and the significance of Marcel himself regarding Roswell, is obscured by all this.

In 1947, and today, thirty years after 1980, we know of only four men who knew enough to write the press release: Ramey, Blanchard, Marcel, Cavitt.

That is why Marcel is important and should not be dismissed from consideration.

Marcel is just about unique among witnesses for not violating the chronology and logic of the 1947 story. That is significant.
It is also significant that Roswell investigators could not keep it straight, including STF.


Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Marcel not saying anything about ET, even after contacted by Svengali T. Friedman? First of all, Marcel described highly anomalous material which he said was unlike anything available at the time, referring to it as being "not of this Earth." He also indicated in his last interview with Linda Corley that there were things he would never talk about concerning Roswell "for the sake of my country." Sounds a bit more important than a balloon to me.

Rickett, who went out on a debris field with Cavitt and examined some debris, also said "there was talk about it not being from Earth."

Haut, who also played a part in the press release, in his affidavit and interview also said "I am convinced that what I personally observed was some type of craft and its crew from outer space" and that it was a real flying saucer that crashed.

Marcel in AP stories from 1947 spoke of the debris being scattered over a square mile, totally incompatible with the weather balloon story then or the later Mogul story, but completely compatible with what he told Svengali and Leonard Stringfield 30 years later about the large debris field which he thought was from an exploding craft traveling at high speed.

Ramey and the Pentagon were initially quoted as saying the "disc" was 20-25 feet across if reconstructed. Then all Ramey showed as the "disc" was a 4-foot radar target. Where did 25 feet come from?

Ramey also made the point of saying, "Nothing in its apparent construction indicated any capacity for speed and there was no evidence of a power plant. The discs construction seemed too flimsy to have enabled it to carry a man." That to me indicates an attempt to dismiss any idea of a crew or bodies or high-speed aircraft, what the popular conception among many at the time of what constituted a "flying saucer," whether ET, US, or Russian.

The Roswell press release also followed immediately another press release from the Pentagon denying that the flying saucers were "space ships" (or U.S. or some foreign power).

Ramey and his intel chief Kalberer the week before had similarly tried to laugh off the saucers as "Buck Rogers stuff" and scoffed at the ET angle: "we're not being invaded by planes form Mars."

So lots of indications from 1947, not 30 years later, that something other than a "Mogul balloon" was involved, the official story was highly inconsistent, with lots of dismissal by the military at the time of the ET angle (or, if you prefer, the other idea of a manned, high-speed aircraft).

But according to cda, there was no discussion of ET by anyone, including Marcel, until Svengali T. Friedman stared in Marcel's eyes and planted the ET idea in his gullible brain.

Sourcerer said...

The "not of this Earth" is the sentence fragment I referred to. It's not in the interview portion. What is there is evidence Marcel could have concluded it was ET or that ET was as plausible to him as anything else. I do not think he said it was a spaceship or anything direct like that. Marcel in 1980 supports what Brazel quoted him as saying in 1947. So, no one suggested anything to him in an interview, and I seriously doubt (having the evidence of their books) anyone involved in writing Incident was capable of it. Marcel Sr knew more than they did.

I haven't read everything Marcel Sr may have said, but in Incident he tells the press release story as, in substance, the SOP for investigating a report that an aircraft may have crashed.

It's as much of the cover-up story that is consistent with his belief in the unusualness of the materials. It is about sticks and foil. He recalls things that make the "eager-beaver" solely responsible for the press release. This is cover-up material. The cover-up is not solely the weather balloon story put out by Ramey's office.

What is absent from his account is what happened between the time he and Cavitt returned to the RAAF with the "object" and the flight to "higer headquarters". Marcel's account is interrupted by the questions about the materials. Then he retraces back over his story before continuing it, "Anyway, that next afternoon we loaded everthing into a B-29 on orders from Colonel Blanchard and flew it to Fort Worth."

What is missing is his reporting to Blanchard and getting orders for the flight. Maybe the authors didn't ask, or perhaps they had to fill in the space because Marcel would not reveal anything about it. This 'missing time' is also when the press release was conceived, that is, after the decision for the Fort Worth flight.

Marcel Sr tells his story without using the words "flying disc".

I believe him if he said "There's a hell of a lot I haven't said for the sake of my country".

If he actually said to Ms Corley that everything he told her was a lie, he might not have meant what skeptics think.

Regards,

Don

cda said...

As Kevin brought up the matter of Marcel's military record, perhaps we should examine it to see if it mentions that he once took part in the recovery of a crashed extraterrestrial ship.

Something of this nature, if it happened, is clearly far too important to be omitted from Marcel's military file.

Naturally the same would apply to the files of all others (Cavitt, Rickett, Easley, etc) involved in this momentous event. Remember this was a vitally important military recovery, and of the highest importance to the security of the US.

Come to think of it, I dare say it is even in Blanchard's and Ramey's files, somewhere. They were the guys in charge.

So, what about it Kevin? Any chance of locating these files and perusing them for this vital info? Come on now, you surely don't think it would have been excised from the files?

Sourcerer said...

"Come on now, you surely don't think it would have been excised from the files?"

Can't answer your questions (and am not interested in doing so), but this might be of interest:

Back in 1997 the AFHRA site had archives of personal papers of officers, including Blanchard.

And, yes, everyone has already guessed it -- no records were available from 1947.


Regards,

Don

Sourcerer said...

Do the personnel records from 1947 for Marcellus Duffy and Albert C. Trakowski refer to Top Secret Mogul? They don't have bios on the official USAF website. Neither does Ramey.

I'm interested in how the army in its personnel records refer to the subject's performance on top secret projects.

Regards,

Don

Kooky said...

Well if the central mystery is not why some of the base officers (since more than one of them must have seen the material) thought that the foil, sticks etc were from a crashed disk, then the central mystery is why the press release?

Simple scenario 1 implies that Blanchard was not indoctrinated into any notion that crashed extraterrestrial disks were supposed to be a state secret and therefore naively authorised the press release. This caused a flap amongst the higher hq who were then forced to go into coverup mode. Thus this press release was a blunder by Blanchard.

Complicated scenario 2, the press release followed by denial was a calculated operation designed to direct attention from a much larger bodies/material retrieval not at the original site. This implies that Marcel was duped as Blanchard etc knew in advance that something more was going on.

The problem I have with this complicated scenario is that nobody in a sane mind frame of mind would want to cover up the super secret recovery of a crashed disk by advertising in the press that you had just found one. It would be simpler to say nothing at all, but if pressed to explain various goings on, merely refer to weather balloons. Thats what they did anyway.

Thus I would go for the simple scenario 1 above. This would also consistent with complicated scenario 2 if the hypothetical bodies site was discovered after the initial press release was announced.

If simple scenario 1 is correct, then at least Marcel, Cavitt and Blanchard must have agreed that the material appeared to be extraterrestrial. Or if the material was ordinary weather balloon material, then they must have been deeply incompetent to make that sort of mistake.

Sourcerer said...

Kooky wrote: "...the central mystery is why the press release?"

Your scenario #1 would mean Blanchard decided to authorize a pr, but failed to mention it to Ramey when they made the arrangements for the flight to Ft Worth. Since the purpose of the flight was to move the story to Ft Worth and for Ramey to handle the press, I would think Blanchard would not have been motivated to authorize a statement without Ramey's approval. Scenario #1 is like one in Crash At Corona, which the author called "quite possible".

Since scenario #2 involves multiple crash sites, I've nothing to say about it. Too, too many unsupported assumptions for me.

But, yes, if they wanted to maintain secrecy, and to keep the press off their backs, a press release, whether the "object" was Mogul or a spaceship, seems counterintuitive. Emphasis on 'seems'.

"...Marcel, Cavitt and Blanchard must have agreed that the material appeared to be extraterrestrial"

Cavitt was under no obligation to report anything to Blanchard (or Ramey). According to Rickett, Cavitt wrote a report to whomever he reported to, and that Cavitt would not show it to Marcel when he asked (if Marcel did so, he should have known better).

The CIC in the 1940s should not be underestimated.


Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Concerning the controversy over Marcel possibly (but ambiguously) saying he had 3000 hours of private piloting time and had flying experience since 1928...

1928 would be when Marcel was in the Louisiana National Guard (confirmed when Marcel retired from the Air Force, since it affected retirement pay). He could have started flying then in some capacity. Or maybe he flew a crop duster, for all we know, in rural Louisiana where he lived.

This was the very early days of aviation. There was little licensing. The CAA wasn't established until 1926, and it would have taken many years for the bureaucratic machinery took hold and required licensing of all pilots. I honestly don't know when this became a regular practice or how long it took to penetrate into more remote areas..

Marcel also had considerable experience prewar as an aerial cartographer and perhaps aerial photographer for Shell Oil and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. In private conversations, he apparently indicated that he flew unofficially in a copilot capacity in his job, or had "bootleg" piloting experience. I did attempt to contact Shell Oil in Houston through a confederate, but they indicated that records from the 1930s and 1940s had been tossed out in the 1960s. So nothing could be confirmed one way or the other.

Another point is that his aerial work for Shell could also have taken place in foreign countries where there was no licensing requirements. Shell Oil resources back then were almost entirely Middle Eastern.

Marcel only tersely alluded to having civilian piloting experience before the war, but didn't elaborate. Robert Todd made a big deal of Marcel not listing this on his initial application to the Air Force Reserve and mocked him for listing other things such as hobbies and sports activities.

What Todd didn’t tell you is that the application specifically asked for such trivial activities like hobbies, which is why Marcel put them down. Furthermore in the form Todd referred to, it asked strictly for civilian job titles and descriptions, but did NOT ask for any military much less piloting experience. (Marcel, e.g., said nothing about being in the National Guard--it wasn't asked for.) Todd, therefore, grossly misrepresented the contents of the form. It was his civilian aerial cartography work for Shell that caught the eye of AAF intelligence and led to him to being inducted into the Army as an aerial intelligence officer. (Few people at the time had such appropriate training for the work.)

Todd also claimed that Marcel didn't list any flight experience on any of his military forms. Again Todd didn’t tell you is that the forms he referred to ask specifically for military flight training and ratings, not civilian. Unless personnel have military aviation ratings, they necessarily must leave this blank. Furthermore, Marcel never claimed to have official pilot training or rating in the Air Force. He did, however, fly extensively in the AAF. as part of his job as intelligence officer, such as on combat bombing missions during WWII or during Operation Crossroads in the Marshall Islands in 1946.

Marcel's extremely brief mention of his military and pre-war civilian flight time was simply to emphasize that he was familiar with nearly everything flying, foreign and domestic at the time of the Roswell events. Supporting Marcel’s assertion is the documented fact that a year following Roswell, the Strategic Air Command briefly made Marcel chief of a foreign air technology intelligence division before Air Force command brought him to Washington to work on the top secret Special Weapons Program, which ironically included any intelligence on Soviet A-tests that Project Mogul may (or may not) have collected.

KRandle said...

David -

I'm wondering if Marcel's comment about having been flying since 1928 related to his work as a map maker and not as a pilot. I'm thinking that in the world of the early 1940s there wasn't much in the way of commercial airlines and flying was an experience worthy of note, even if you were only a passenger..

I wonder this because he said he had been flying since 1928 but didn't really say that he had been piloting an aircraft since 1928. The nuisance here might be important.

Given the rest of the interview and Marcel's lack of claiming piloting experience in his military records, we all might have read too much into that comment.

In the end, we can see that in the remainder of that interview, and in other interviews conducted later, he never said that he had been a pilot, only that he had flown as one.

CDA -

For the record, I have a piece of video tape of Jesse Marcel, Sr. walking about in the New Mexico desert in which he says that the object came to Earth but it wasn't from Earth...

David Rudiak said...

Kevin,

I don't have most of my Marcel materials handy, but as I recall Marcel didn't start any mapmaking until he worked for the Army Corps of Engineers around 1932, and then Shell Oil around 1936-1942.

In 1928 he was in the La. National Guard, so my guess is that his statement that he "started flying" in 1928 refers to flying in some capacity when in the N.G.

Pilot, passenger, aerial reconnaissance? Who knows? Marcel's very terse comments about starting to fly in 1928 and being a "private pilot" before the war (not to mention during the war and afterward) were not a brag, but merely to emphasize that he had been very familiar with aircraft and everything flying for a long time, and he was quite sure the material he handled and observed on the Foster Ranch had nothing to do with anything made by us.

Sourcerer said...

Kevin wrote: "For the record, I have a piece of video tape of Jesse Marcel, Sr. walking about in the New Mexico desert in which he says that the object came to Earth but it wasn't from Earth..."

I'm watching a video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcONLgqe-RQ

of Marcel Sr walking about in the New Mexico desert in which he says "As of now, I don't know what it was." He also says "It was not anything from this earth -- that, I am quite sure of".

He bases his certainty on his knowledge and experience. But he does not say what it was. He does not say it was a spaceship, for example. He says he doesn't know what it was.

At the minimum, I think he considered the ETH plausible. He may have believed it was ET.

Btw, anyone know when he got interested in electronics?

Regards,

Don

cda said...

Kevin & Don:

You both know that the comment by Marcel whilst being filmed in the desert was made post-1979. In other words, useless as testimony, for the reasons I gave before.

Find me a recording made pre-1950, or even pre-1960, where he says the same thing.

What about this latest alleged hardware analysis (from a Mr. Kimble) - some real physical evidence perhaps, or...

Sourcerer said...

CDA wrote: "Kevin & Don"

Surely, after all our discussions here and elsewhere you know I am not interested in proving or disproving ET in "Roswell"? I like a mystery, but not ones I know I can't resolve, and ET Roswell is one of those.

I'm more interested in knowing where Brazel's quotation of Marcel came from than using it to prove or disprove anything about ET.

It is more interesting to me to learn just when Marcel Sr became interested in electronics than whether he was of the opinion what he recovered was ET, prior to whatever date you require.

I'd like to know whether the Ft Worth flight was arranged before Blanchard could have seen what Marcel brought back from the Foster Ranch, more than knowing what it was.



Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don, from what I remember off the top of my head Marcel (who was born in 1907) was building radios from when he was a kid and was a ham radio operator in the 1920s or 1930s. He was familiar with the electronics of his day.

Marcel Jr., recalling his father bringing the debris home, said they looked for anything that might resemble conventional electronics, like wires or batteries, but couldn't find anything.

As for cda's usual drumbeat and mindreading that Marcel and others couldn't have considered Roswell important or ET until Svengali T. Friedman came along, there are a number of references in the media to Roswell prior to Marcel, including Lydia Sleppy's story. Svengali only found out about Marcel by accident, being told by a radio station manager that Marcel was a ham radio buddy and Marcel had talked about handling a real flying saucer, therefore Friedman should talk to him.

As for decades going by, people, particularly those with high clearances, security oaths, and government pensions, often keep their mouths shut about sensitive events or jobs for many decades. E.g., in the UK, the wartime Enigma decryption effort at Bletchley Park, involving thousands, was a secret for around 30 years. Everybody literally kept their mouths shut, and some still won't talk about it 70 years later (if they are still alive).

Same is true of what went on at Area 51. The people who worked there kept their mouths shut or didn't write anything down for 40 or 50 years.

The Corona spy satellite program was likewise secret for over 30 years.

There are many other examples like this. Obviously, with cda illogic, this proves that nothing of significance could have been done at Bletchley Park or Area 51 or with spy satellites because nobody talked about it. Investigators who say otherwise were clearly planting false memories in the heads of their aging witnesses.

David Rudiak said...

Sourcerer (Don) wrote:
I'd like to know whether the Ft Worth flight was arranged before Blanchard could have seen what Marcel brought back from the Foster Ranch, more than knowing what it was.

The very fact that Blanchard sent out the two top intel officers at Roswell alone indicates he considered something of great significance had crashed. As Marcel related, after talking to the Sheriff and Brazel, he returned to base and conferred with Blanchard. Both agreed that some unusual type of aircraft had come down. Blanchard told him to take along Cavitt to help him because Brazel had indicated that the debris field covered a large area (a "square mile" Marcel was quoted as saying in 1947, not 1978 when Svengali T. Friedman found him).

Now would Brazel's later story of two _small_ bundles of rubber strips, balsa sticks, Scotch tape, and tinfoil prompt such a response or conclusion from Marcel or Blanchard? This is one of the central enigmas of Roswell which the debunkers try to sweep under the rug. Were Blanchard and Marcel drooling idiots?

And why didn't Sheridan "weather balloon" Cavitt at least report back to Blanchard that it was nothing, just a small balloon, or discuss this with Marcel? Again no plausible answer from the debunker camp.

Unusual aircraft and the need for Cavitt suggest to me Blanchard knew all along about anomalous debris and a large debris field. That is why he sent out Marcel and Cavitt and not some buck private to investigate further and pick up any remains.

This also suggests to me that Brazel did indeed bring debris samples with him, as indicated by the Sheriff's family and Dubose's story of the highly secret debris flight that passed through Fort Worth on the way to Washington.

Dubose recalled he got the call from Roswell about the find when Ramey was away from the base and relayed it on to McMullen in Washington. McMullen ordered the flight by "colonel courier", which turned out to be Col. Alvin Clarke, the deputy base commander.

Where were Gen. Ramey and the base commander, Col. Hewlitt T. Wheless? According to Dallas and Denton, TX newspapers, they were at an airshow in Denton on July 6, Denton being Ramey's home town where his parents and other family members still lived. That is why Dubose was handling things and why Clarke ended up the colonel courier.

I would suspect Blanchard would have waited for Marcel/Cavitt to get back from the field and report before Marcel's debris flight was ordered. This would have been the morning of Tuesday, July 8. The newspapers said Blanchard contacted Ramey around 10 a.m. about the find and Ramey ordered the flight, but I put limited faith in the accuracy of the newspapers, which were just printing what they were told, and that was often contradictory.

All this over rubber strips, a few balsa sticks, and tinfoil. Wow!

Sourcerer said...

David, thanks for the info on Marcel's interest in electronics. An intelligence officer during and after WWII with such an interest -- what are the odds he was interested in radar, all about radar, radar generally, even radar that did not have to do with the specifics of his current post? Even weather radar and radar targets?

"I put limited faith in the accuracy of the newspapers, which were just printing what they were told, and that was often contradictory."

Just about all of the material is from the army: the RAAF, Ft Worth, Washington. Since the single balloon and single radar target is a cover for something else, anything that supports the cover is not true, no matter who it is attributed to.

The remainder is interesting and often significant.

On Blanchard ordering a detail of his intelligence officer and a CIC investigator. I'm not certain he ordered the CIC presence. If they didn't know, I'd think he'd inform them. It would be normal at that time and place for the CIC to investigate a reported crash of an unidentified aircraft, or even any military crash . There is the issue of sabotage or espionage to address.

Cavitt in his USAF interview mentions Rickett's knowledge of airplane mechanics. I'd expect he might be on-site at some point, too.

Both Blanchard and Marcel were subjects of interest to Cavitt and he would likely file a report on their behavior. It would be in his job description to do so.

I wish I knew if Cavitt's story about being a newly minted CIC officer only a few days into his first assignment was true or not.

My wondering about when the Fort Worth arrangements were made -- it's in a 'missing time' point in the story. The only hard point on it is the decision was taken before the press release was written. We know when the pr was propagated, 2:36pm MST, 7/8/47, but when was it written (or authorized)? Obviously, after the Ft Worth flight was ordered. Reasonably, after Blanchard saw what Marcel and Cavitt brought in. I just wish I had more than "reasonably" to go on.



Regards,

Don

Sourcerer said...

David: "Now would Brazel's later story of two _small_ bundles of rubber strips, balsa sticks, Scotch tape, and tinfoil prompt such a response or conclusion from Marcel or Blanchard?"

No, but a chunk of wreckage the size of a table top (let's say about the dimensions of the Sheriff's safe) and another chunk about 12 feet in length might. We know he's not describing a balloon and its kite because that's the cover.

Regards,

Don

Bob Koford said...

One thing that has been puzzling me for some time has to do with the fact that I haven't heard anyone ever mentioning Harold Watson's name, in association with the find.

Is there such reference?

It is puzzling because he was the guy in charge of back engineering, and other related FTD stuff at WF.

It is perhaps a topic for another article?

/Bob

cda said...

"There are many other examples like this. Obviously, with cda illogic, this proves that nothing of significance could have been done at Bletchley Park or Area 51 or with spy satellites because nobody talked about it. Investigators who say otherwise were clearly planting false memories in the heads of their aging witnesses."

Does David Rudiak really suppose the capture of an extraterrestrial craft and its occupants is on a par with preserving wartime military secrets?

One is of long-standing interest to scientists the world over, the other of short-term interest to the military of one country, principally during wartime.

DR talks about my 'illogic'. Where is his logic?

The 'aging witnesses' who speak about Area 51 and Bletchley Park know what they are talking about and speak of perfectly credible happenings (all right, I exclude Bob Lazar). The 'aging witnesses', and hangers-on, who talk about ETs at Roswell do NOT know what they are talking about and speak of incredible happenings.

No such things as ETs are known to science, that's why.

And no, Marcel and Blanchard were not 'drooling idiots'. They knew, with perhaps 90% certainty, what the debris was before it went to Ft Worth.

And yes, I have repeated this ad nauseam, as have the ET proponents repeated their version ad nauseam.
Nauseating subject isn't it?

Sourcerer said...

Bob: "Is there such reference [to Watson]?

Not to my knowledge, but I'm not a good resource for it.

Here's the timeframe from the USAF bio

"One year later General Watson entered the Armed Forces Industrial College at Washington, D.C., and graduated in June 1947. He was then an industrial and economic adviser to the secretary of War, and five months later was appointed chief of the Strategic Targets Division at Air Force Headquarters. Returning to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, in October 1947, he was chief of the Air Technical Intelligence Center. "

Between June and October 1947 it states "He was then an industrial and economic adviser to the secretary of War" and then "returning to Wright-Patterson".
Any evidence he returned to Wright in July?

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Sourcerer (Don) wrote:

David, thanks for the info on Marcel's interest in electronics. An intelligence officer during and after WWII with such an interest -- what are the odds he was interested in radar, all about radar, radar generally, even radar that did not have to do with the specifics of his current post? Even weather radar and radar targets?

Marcel took a 120-hour course at the end of the War and thereafter was a certified radar intelligence officer.

Marcel Jr. in his book said his father scored high enough that he was asked to teach radar intelligence thereafter, but apparently turned down the offer.

Marcel also became an instructor in aerial photointelligence when he first entered the service and graduated from aerial photointelligence school.

Also according to Marcel Jr., his father was one of the intelligence officers with the early 509th who planned the A-bomb attacks on Japan. None of this, however, appeared in Marcel's surviving military record and Marcel never talked about it.

Marcel recalled hearing about the bombing of Hiroshima while taking his radar intelligence course in Washington.

Marcel also should have been exposed to weather reports based on weather balloon radar targets when he compiled intelligence for the 509th and 8th AAF during the Bikini A-bomb tests in 1946. He ran the briefing room and received a commendation from Gen. Ramey for his outstanding briefings and intelligence work.

I guess the main points here were Marcel was no dummy, was well regarded by superiors both before and after Roswell, and certainly knew about radar and radar targets.

One thing I do agree with Philip Corso was that somebody like Marcel could not have misidentified a weather balloon even on a very bad day.

Sourcerer said...

"Marcel could not have misidentified a weather balloon even on a very bad day."

David, for that matter, if what Brazel found on the ranch was foil, sticks, and neoprene, there was no reason for him to report it to the sheriff of Chaves Co.; no reason for Wilcox to call the RAAF intelligence office; no reason for Marcel to drive into town and interview Brazel; no reason for Marcel to report to Blanchard; no reason for Blanchard to inform the CIC and order a detail; no reason for Blanchard, examining what Marcel and Cavitt returned with, to call Ramey; no reason for Ramey to order the debris to Ft Worth.

The press release takes us up to the point where Marcel's Ft Worth ride is, at least, in the air.

Then, it is distributed to, and published by, the wire services.


Regards,

Don

cda said...

Don:
The accounts tell us that Brazel virtually ignored the stuff at first. He only changed his mind after hearing about flying discs during a visit to Corona. It was there that he also (so we believe, although there is nothing in print on this) learned of the $3000 reward for anyone who could lay their hands on a flying disc. The stuff looked a bit unusual to him. Hence his trip into town to see the sheriff. Etc. etc.

Sourcerer said...

CDA, I don't know if the accounts you refer to are true. I don't know if the press release storyline is true. Besides Marcel being photographed in Ft Worth, I don't know of any hard evidence for it.

Maybe David has found a national news story about the rewards before July 8, 1947.


Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don:
There were news stories before July 8 of a reward for finding a real flying saucer. However, there is no indication from the Brazel interview stories published July 9 that Brazel knew anything about the reward after first allegedly finding out about the flying saucers the evening of July 5 in Corona (or was it from his neighbors the Proctors or both?). As I remember, maybe Floyd and Loretta Proctor, in later testimony, told him about the reward, but this wasn’t in the newspapers as Brazel’s motivation in reporting it.

Cda:
Which news stories do you want to believe, since they are full of contradictions?

1. The one from Brazel where he allegedly first came across the debris on June 14 but didn’t think anything of it because he was too busy with chores, and didn’t collect it with his family until July 4? Or Marcel’s story in Fort Worth of Brazel immediately collecting it when he first found it and rolled it under some brush? Then when Brazel first found out about the saucers in Corona on July 5, he “rushed back” and collected it Sunday morning (July 6)?

2. What did Brazel really think it was? Was in the RDR’s Brazel interview version that Brazel whispered “kinda confidential like” to the Sheriff that maybe he had found a flying disk? Or was it AP’s Brazel interview story that he didn’t know what it was, but at first he thought it might be some kind of kite? Or was it UP’s story that Sheriff Wilcox said Brazel came in saying he thought he had found a “weather meter”? Or do we believe RDR’s Brazel story that Brazel was quite sure it wasn’t any sort of weather observation device since he had previously found two weather balloons on the property?

I’ve pointed out other contradictions in the official story, including the time of discovery, which started as “sometime last week” in the base press release, then varied with Sheriff Wilcox from “2 or 3 days ago” to about three weeks ago, to the final Fort Worth and Brazel version of three weeks before or June 14.

The point is, the stories do NOT universally support your statements that Brazel found it mid-June, did not think anything of it until hearing about the saucers in Corona July 5, only maybe thought he found a flying saucer, and did not come to Roswell to collect a reward (at least it was never reported as his motivation). And after all this, nothing was said about him bringing even a simple debris sample with him, though you think if he “rushed back” to collect his debris after hearing about the saucers, he would.

The circumstantial evidence suggests he did bring debris with him to support his story, be it the testimony of the Proctors that Brazel showed them debris beforehand, the Wilcox family that he brought debris to the Sheriff’s office (thus seen by both Wilcox and Marcel and then Blanchard), or Gen. Dubose and his super-secret debris flight. Or the simple fact that Marcel and Blanchard thought it significant enough for Marcel plus Cavitt to travel 70 miles to the middle of nowhere to investigate. Why the top two intelligence officers, instead of some unlucky underling, if the small quantity of balsa/foil radar target and weather balloon in Ramey’s office was all that was found? Brazel could easily have brought everything (his two small bundles he rolled under some brush and then recovered after hearing about the saucers) if that was everything. And who cared about a few remaining scraps of balloon debris?

And finally there is the simple fact that Blanchard DID put out an official AAF press release that they had recovered a real “flying disc.” This would require complete idiocy on the part of Blanchard, Marcel, and Cavitt to think that Ramey’s very obvious rubber balloon plus flimsy balsa kite sticks and foil-paper somehow equated to the reported large, high-speed flying saucers, starting with the descriptions of Kenneth Arnold.

Sourcerer said...

David, I'd guess there were news stories in the originating locales (Spokane, LA, Chicago) about the rewards, which is why I asked about national news stories, which could have been printed in a New Mexico paper (Alamogordo, Albuquerque, Roswell) that might have been read by someone in Corona the weekend of July 4th. I haven't found a national story before 7/8.

The June 14 story referenced by CDA, does not say Brazel did nothing after discovering it. The RDR has "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..."

So, he talked about it, told others about it. It was on his mind.

"...and on July 4...etc".

As for what Brazel thought it was (Kellahin's story says he didn't know what it was), he is never directly quoted calling it a flying disc or similar. The RDR interview has:

"...he went to see sheriff George Wilcox and "whispered kinda confidential like" that he might have found a flying disk. " No quotation marks around "flying disk".

In their Brazel interview stories, both the RDR and Kellahin pin the disk language on the army period, not Brazel. The UP flat out says it was Blanchard's.

The Brazel interview covers three things 1) Brazel's opinion about the national interest in the story. He is quoted. 2) His opinion of what he found. He is quoted (not a weather balloon. Not a kite). 3) The description of what he found (neoprene, sticks, foil). He is not quoted. Brazel is not quoted supporting the cover story.

Marcel Sr's story is the only plausible one. Brazel's story suggested an aircraft crash. That's why Wilcox called Marcel, why Marcel and the CIC investigated. Whatever they brought back to the RAAF convinced Blanchard to call Ramey, and Ramey was convinced it was worth shipping off to Wright Field for analysis.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Part 1
Don wrote:
David, I'd guess there were news stories in the originating locales (Spokane, LA, Chicago) about the rewards, which is why I asked about national news stories, which could have been printed in a New Mexico paper … that might have been read by someone in Corona the weekend of July 4th. I haven't found a national story before 7/8.

Quite right. I’m not home to look over my news clippings, but on my website, I have 3 Roswell stories 7/9 mentioning the $3000 reward, perhaps from the day before, but too late for Brazel have heard about it in Corona on 7/5 or on his ranch on 7/6. Nothing mentions Brazel reporting the find to collect a reward, which was cda’s rationale for Brazel going to Roswell.

The June 14 story referenced by CDA, does not say Brazel did nothing after discovering it. The RDR has "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..." So, he talked about it, told others about it. It was on his mind. "...and on July 4...etc".

But the story also says he took only a piece, and didn’t get around to collecting most of the rest of it with his family until July 4. This was VERY different from Marcel’s newspaper story saying Brazel immediately collected the material and rolled it under some brush, nothing about collecting it with his family on July 4, and only went back to recover it “bright and early” on July 6 after hearing about the saucers in Corona July 5. According to Marcel in the FW Star-Telegram:

"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."

As for what Brazel thought it was (Kellahin's story says he didn't know what it was), he is never directly quoted calling it a flying disc or similar. The RDR interview has: "...he went to see sheriff George Wilcox and "whispered kinda confidential like" that he might have found a flying disk. " No quotation marks around "flying disk".

This is the only place I’ve seen where Brazel indicates he thought that maybe he found a flying disk. Elsewhere Brazel said he didn’t know what it was, though not a kite or meteorological device of any kind. Wilcox, on the other hand, contradicted Brazel saying he came in reporting a “weather meter.” Of course, the base press release said “flying disc”.

Point is the stories in many details were highly inconsistent, to me suggesting a hastily concocted cover story and confused, coerced witnesses maybe not sure what to say. Wilcox, was all over the place, and quoted by AP saying he wouldn’t answer more questions about the object because he was “working with those fellows at the base.” (CDA alleges the evil STF magically planted alien ideas in witness heads, but Wilcox was admitting clear back in 1947 that he his "weather meter" story was not independent of military “suggestion”.)

David Rudiak said...

Part 2:
Marcel Sr's story is the only plausible one. Brazel's story suggested an aircraft crash. That's why Wilcox called Marcel, why Marcel and the CIC investigated. Whatever they brought back to the RAAF convinced Blanchard to call Ramey, and Ramey was convinced it was worth shipping off to Wright Field for analysis.

Marcel in 1947 and 30 years later indicated an extremely large debris field, one of the reasons for his and Blanchard’s interest (and one of the reasons why Blanchard also sent out Cavitt, according to Marcel).

Brazel certainly had not collected most of it into two small bundles, which he could easily have brought to Roswell with him.

The other reason had to have been the debris descriptions, if not the debris itself that I suspect Brazel would have brought to support his story. Frank Joyce also said Brazel was telling of non-human, smelly bodies when Joyce spoke to him when he first came to town, though Marcel never said a thing about it. Maybe this was one of those things Marcel said he would never talk about “for the sake of my country.”

Sourcerer said...

Kellahin's version of the interview quotes Brazel: "When I went to Roswell I told Sheriff George Wilcox about it" he continued. "I was a little bit ashamed to mention it, because I didn't know what it was."

"Asked the sheriff to keep it kinda quiet," he added with a chuckle. "I thought folks would kid me about it."

When he'd heard about the flying disc stories, he would have learned that nobody knew what they were, including the army and scientists. So, he wasn't alone in his ignorance. It might have encouraged him to report it, wondering whether what he found was a flying disk.

I think both you and CDA know my opinion about the pr's "rumors", and a June 14 date is very obliging with a timeframe for local rumors to spread. But I am suspicious because it is so specific a datapoint in a sea of information that is so ambiguous, contradictory, and unsourceable. I can understand why he'd recall the 4th of July, but not the 14th of June, unless it was significant, like a birth or anniversary date.




Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

cda wrote:
"It was there that he also (so we believe, although there is nothing in print on this) learned of the $3000 reward for anyone who could lay their hands on a flying disc."

"We believe?" I've searched Google News and the first stories about rewards didn't appear until July 8.

So unless we accept your usual time-travel theories and certainty in your own beliefs, Brazel could not have heard about any rewards July 5 in Corona when he supposedly first heard about the flying saucers. Nor could he have heard about them July 6 or July 7 back at his ranch, since he had no electricity, radio, or phone.

Yet Brazel either came to Roswell July 6 or 7, too soon to have heard about any advertised reward. Yet you continue to insist this was his motivation for reporting what he had found.

But, please don't let me confuse you with facts.

cda said...

DR wrote:

"Frank Joyce also said Brazel was telling of non-human, smelly bodies when Joyce spoke to him when he first came to town, though Marcel never said a thing about it."

Yes but Joyce only told this tale post-1980. Please produce the evidence that Joyce ever said such a thing in '47.

Please produce evidence that ANYONE (Marcel, Brazel, Cavitt, Blanchard, Ramey, etc.) connected with the case ever considered ET craft and bodies in '47, '48 or at any time, say, up to 1960. All this ET stuff came after STF and Moore started nosing into the case in 1979. By then ETs were all the rage.

Concerning press accounts and their inconsistencies, this is what you would expect, especially when reporters were running all over the place to get their hands on the latest 'flying disc' story.

I accept that the $3000 reward probably was unknown to Brazel when he came into town (with or without a small sample of the debris). But he was still motivated by what he heard at Corona and decided he just might have stumbled upon one of those things people were so agog about.

The June 14 date was not 'planted' by anyone. It came from Brazel himself, and there is not the slightest reason to doubt it. And yes, Don, Brazel could indeed recall it exactly (as could you or I). As for what Marcel said at Fort Worth, his own involvement began on July 7 so he cannot relate first-hand what occurred before that date. He can only repeat what Brazel told him. Perhaps Brazel merely said to him that it was 'about 3 weeks earlier'. I have said before that the recovery date was confused with the discovery date in some of the reports.

No you do not expect newspaper accounts, mostly written in haste, to be perfectly accurate, or to agree with the rushed teletypes of the previous day either. The June 14 date is taken first-hand from the primary witness.

Sourcerer said...

CDA: "And yes, Don, Brazel could indeed recall it [June 14] exactly (as could you or I)."

Sure, he could have, and I don't know of another source for the date. I've an issue with the Brazel interview. I think it is an amalgam of what Brazel said and what was already available from the army sourced to Ramey. Ramey's information was probably third hand -- from Brazel to Wilcox or Marcel to Blanchard to Ramey. If it is an amalgam, that might explain why Brazel is never directly quoted about it in either version of the interview. June 14 is fine for me, but not quoting Brazel on what anyone would think was the whole point of the interview is odd.

I realize the date is disputed because it has something to do with Mogul. Not my bailiwick.

Regards,

Don

Kooky said...

After further reading I came across the stunning (to my mind at least) revelation that Marcel was originally quoted as believing that it was Haut who had made the press release without higher authority:

"an eager beaver PIO who took it upon himself to call the AP on this thing" (Berlitz and Moore p 74).

So Marcel originally believed for 30 years that Blanchard had not authorised the press release, it was Haut.

Also notice in Haut's statements that he is always vague about the exact details of who wrote the press release etc. And finally read the Roswell Daily Record article itself about who authorised the press release:

"According to information released by the department, over authority of Maj. J. A. Marcel, intelligence officer, the disk was recovered on a ranch in the Roswell vicinity, after an unidentified rancher had notified Sheriff Geo. Wilcox here, that he had found the instrument on his premises" -RDR 8th June 1947

No mention of Blanchard in the article at all. It looks to me like Haut, after talking with Marcel, authorised the press release himself.

As far as I am concerned, the mystery of the press release is solved. It was a cockup by Haut. Blanchard had nothing to do with it at all, but presumably took the rap on the chin for the ineptitude of his underling.

Yep, you know it makes sense.

Sourcerer said...

Kooky:"As far as I am concerned, the mystery of the press release is solved."

Well, no, not really. Nothing is so simple and uncontradicted about Roswell. Please, keep that in mind.

Haut as an "eager beaver" is the signature of the 1947 AP stories. AP was the dominant wire service and its stories the most widely propagated. The UP stories flatly state the press release was Blanchard's including the term 'flying disk'.

Except for the events he was involved in, Marcel's opinions are no more accurate or true than anyone's might be.

I doubt Haut and Marcel knew each other in 1947.

All the versions of the press release state that the flying disc was in possession of the RAAF's intelligence office. Obviously, Marcel as the head of the IO is a source for the information in the press release. It doesn't mean he wrote it.

It is a common mistake to think any major would order any lieutenant to do something, as Marcel might order Haut to distribute a press release. Hierarchies are horizontal as well as vertical; they are peer-to-peer, as well as compartmentalized, and those compartments are often jealously protected. For an enlisted man or a junior officer caught in such a situation, the rule is to follow SOP.

If Marcel had so ordered Haut, Haut might have said "Yes, sir", and then do exactly that -- the first step being to get authorization from Blanchard, or whomever Blanchard saddled with the task of checking press releases.

In other words, even if Jesus ordered Haut to distribute the press release, he'd still follow SOP, and run it by Blanchard.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don wrote:
I doubt Haut and Marcel knew each other in 1947.

Not true. Haut told me and others that they lived less than a block apart in Roswell town. They would sometimes even drive to the base together. However, they weren't close friends nor did they fraternize in their private lives, such as bridge parties. There was a large difference in age and rank.

Haut was actually much closer in age to Col. Blanchard, and Blanchard treated him somewhat like a kid brother. They were friends. Haut told me Blanchard would often call him into his office and "vent" at others, knowing that Haut would keep his mouth shut about it afterward.

Haut's opinion of Marcel and Blanchard was that neither one of them was a "flake". In other words, neither one was capable of some monumental screw-up, which is the standard skeptical theory about what happened at Roswell.

It is a common mistake to think any major would order any lieutenant to do something, as Marcel might order Haut to distribute a press release... For an enlisted man or a junior officer caught in such a situation, the rule is to follow SOP.

If Marcel had so ordered Haut, Haut might have said "Yes, sir", and then do exactly that -- the first step being to get authorization from Blanchard, or whomever Blanchard saddled with the task of checking press releases.

In other words, even if Jesus ordered Haut to distribute the press release, he'd still follow SOP, and run it by Blanchard.


That is exactly what Haut told me would be SOP. Any PR of any importance would be returned to Blanchard or his adjutant for review before being sent out, even if Haut had written the PR by himself.

Haut has always maintained that the PR was either dictated to him by Blanchard over the phone or he picked it up ready-written at Blanchard's office (usually the former), and that he isn't sure because it happened in the distant past. But Marcel has NEVER been a part of his story of where the PR came from (even if the info in the PR originally came from Marcel, which it likely did). It was always Blanchard as the source of the PR.

UP did indeed blame the PR on Blanchard, while AP curiously made the case that Haut alone was to blame. I believe it was the San Francisco Chronicle in an editorial that called Haut an "eager beaver" PIO. Haut was also blamed in some other newspaper editorials.

The blame for the PR was never pinned on Marcel in the wire stories or editorials. He was just the intel officer who went out and picked up the object.

Sourcerer said...

David, thanks for the correction as to whether Haut and Marcel knew each other. I think in 1947, Haut was 25 and Marcel 40.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

David, thanks for the correction as to whether Haut and Marcel knew each other. I think in 1947, Haut was 25 and Marcel 40.

Don, correct. Blanchard was only 31, a very, very young colonel, and much closer in age to Haut.

The only exception I know of to Marcel not being blamed for anything was I think the Boston Globe. The reporter or editor took the standard AP Roswell story and rewrote it for laughs and sarcasm--very unprofessional. In that Marcel was portrayed as an idiot who misidentified a weather balloon, but again this was a deliberately altered wire-service story by a paper practicing yellow journalism.

I've read nearly a thousand newspapers from that period, and this is the only instance I've ever come across like this. Everywhere else it was either Haut or Blanchard, or unspecified "officers at Roswell".

David Rudiak said...

cda wrote:
Yes but Joyce only told this tale post-1980. Please produce the evidence that Joyce ever said such a thing in '47.

We're back to the usual dumb debunker dirge that if it wasn't written about at the time in the newspapers, then it never happened. This is some incredible skeptical fantasy that newspapers are told everything, are 100% comprehensive in their reporting, are never deliberately misled by authorities, etc.

In the real world, as others have put it, newspapers are only the first draft of history.

Please produce evidence that ANYONE (Marcel, Brazel, Cavitt, Blanchard, Ramey, etc.) connected with the case ever considered ET craft and bodies in '47, '48 or at any time, say, up to 1960.

Well, for starters, as I've written many times before, Ramey and his intel chief Kalberer were debunking the ET angle to saucers a week before Roswell, laughing at the "Buck Rogers stuff" and Kalberer saying "we're not being invaded by little platter-like planes from Mars."

http://www.roswellproof.com/ramey_and_kalberer.html

And very shortly before the July Roswell PR about having an actual flying disc, the Pentagon issued their own PR (reported by UP) denying that the saucers were "space ships".

Ramey later the same day was quoted making the denial that the Roswell object could have carried a man, because it was too flimsy. (Therefore, an oblique denial of a crew, casualties, or bodies.)

And I know of at least one newspaper expressing relief at the weather balloon ID of the Roswell object, since what if it really were true that it was "men from Mars."

Despite your denials, there was indeed a lot of speculation, even some strong belief in June/July 1947 that the saucers might be ET. That included Kenneth Arnold, BTW. The military was obviously trying to downplay the idea to calm the public, regardless of what happened at Roswell.

If one fast-forwards to 1952 and the Washington UFO overflights of July, followed by the big press conference to again calm down the panicky public, Ramey was there again, now as chief operations officer of the USAF. He was called one of the top two AF experts on saucers and the AF's "saucer man." A few days later he appeared on CBS TV and again denied the "interplanetary" angle, though he also didn't totally discount it. As the NY Herald-Tribune reported, "He did not rule out the possibility that the objects were interplanetary visitors, but he was exceedingly skeptical."

Another evasive response about ET origins, as reported by AP, was "'I still believe they are some phenomena that is not easily explained.' This was in reply to a query whether, if flying saucer reports do not originate from anything made in Russia or the United States, they could be from some other world."

And curiously, he also stated he was convinced the saucers had no "hostile intent", which implies consciousness and intelligent control.

See:

http://ww.w.roswellproof.com/ramey_1952.html

So whether you like it or not, Ramey was responding negatively from the very beginning about ET origins. The subject WAS being raised and then denied by the military.

Now and then the truth is hidden in the denials. No need to deny the ET angle unless a lot of people are already thinking it.

Reporter Bob Pratt of the National Inquirer was also hot on the trail of Ramey several years before the evil STF found Marcel. Pratt said that some brig.-general (Exon?), who had known Ramey from the 1950s, tipped off the Inquirer publisher that Ramey definitely believed the saucers were from outer space.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1999.htm

All this ET stuff came after STF and Moore started nosing into the case in 1979. By then ETs were all the rage.

No, but again don't let me confuse you with facts.

cda said...

DR:

I had a look at the website you gave. I have not read all of the Pratt-Keyhoe interview, but here is an extract.

KEYHOE: "Yeah, well, too bad about Ruppelt. See, he came out with that book and it caused the Air Force a lot of trouble. He had made some statements in public, articles and so forth, and newspaper interviews, and they put the heat on him. Well, after he had gone on inactive, he got a job with an aerospace company, and the Air Force put the heat on him and also the company. If he didn’t renege on some of these things he said, they were not going to have anything more to do with the company. So he added three new chapters to the (revised edition of the) book . . . and he completely reneged on the whole thing and said there was no evidence. It was a ridiculous thing and all that which crucified him. He died of a heart attack shortly after that, and I think that had a lot to do with it."

This is just Keyhoe at his worst. Everything is part of a conspiracy. Therefore Ruppelt's heart attack was engendered by changing the stance of his book, which in turn came about because the AF applied pressure on him to do so, (and also applied pressure on the Northrop company, his employers!). The first edition "caused the Air Force a lot of trouble". So they "put the heat on him".

Typical Keyhoe dottiness. Agreed this has zilch to do with Ramey, but it is a useful example of Keyhoe going off into the wild blue yonder.

There is a better account in the Hall/Connors book about Ruppelt, which gives the lie to Keyhoe's ravings.

It looks like Pratt got in touch with Keyhoe about Ramey because of his close involvement with the Washington '52 flap, and had nothing to do with Roswell.

I am still baffled why Pratt wanted to talk about Ramey "whose name meant nothing to me at the time". (Oct '77). I assume it was because Ramey attended the Washington '52 press conference. But it certainly had nothing to do with Roswell, which Pratt had never heard of.

Later on, Keyhoe again:
"He [Ramey] was under orders like all the rest of them, but after that time I don’t recall having any other contact with him".

More Keyhoe hyperbole. In Keyhoe's world anyone and everyone in the military was always under orders from someone above, when speaking about UFOs. Nobody could possibly have had a mind of their own. Even Hillenkoetter's resignation from NICAP was due to pressure from above! (Like where?)

I am also puzzled why a guy who the USAF knew was in on the great secret would ever have been allowed to appear at a press conference 5 years afterwards.

No you are not confusing me with facts. Your facts, as far as providing support for 'Roswell was ET', amount to zero.

How long before someone digs out a Ramey 'deathbed confession'? Oh yes, it's entirely possible, even now.

But we have strayed a lot from the original topic, as usual.

David Rudiak said...

cda wrote:
"But we have strayed a lot from the original topic, as usual."

Yes, indeed. Instead of addressing the points I raised, you deliberately took the discussion off on a tangent, ranting about Donald Keyhoe's opinions, when Keyhoe had nothing to do with the topic.

Just to remind you, the topic YOU raised, is did anybody back in 1947 or even later raise the subject of ET origins:

cda:Please produce evidence that ANYONE (Marcel, Brazel, Cavitt, Blanchard, Ramey, etc.) connected with the case ever considered ET craft and bodies in '47, '48 or at any time, say, up to 1960.

So I listed the following items, showing that the military and Ramey in particular was raising or responding to the ET topic, if only to deny it or ridicule it:

1. June 30 & July 1, 1947: A week before Roswell, only a few days after Kenneth Arnold's sighting went nationwide, Ramey and his intel chief Kalberer were mocking the ETH for the saucers, calling them "Buck Rogers stuff" and denying we were being invaded from Mars.

2. July 8, 1947, morning: The Pentagon put out a press release absolutely denying the saucers were "space ships" (or Russian or ours). "Coincidentally," that afternoon, the Roswell press release came out that they had a flying disc in their possession.

3. Same day, Ramey was denying that the Roswell "disc" had any capacity to carry a man, thus an indirect denial of a flight crew, bodies, casualties, etc.

4. Shockingly, I neglected to add the Ramey memo of July 8, where Ramey mentions the "victims of the wreck" and something "in the 'disc'" being shipped, which may be "aviators" by my best-guess interpretation (too bad Ramey's thumb is covering half the word). In any case, there it is in black and white, the word "victims" tied in with the Roswell 'disc', despite Ramey's public denial.

5. Five years later (Aug. 3, 1952), Ramey, as USAF head Operations officer in Washington, was being questioned by reporters on TV about the flying saucers, including possible ET origins. (Ramey was called the USAF "saucer man" and one of their top two experts.) Ramey said he was very skeptical, but didn't completely rule it out. He also said he was convinced they had no "hostile intent", rather peculiar wording for something he said was not material, maybe natural phenomena, etc.

6. In 1977, the National Inquirer was tipped off by a brig-general who had worked with Ramey in the 1950s that he believed they were from outer space. Inquirer UFO reporter Bob Pratt therefore tried to locate Ramey, but after getting the runaround from the Pentagon (who denied his existence), contacted Donald Keyhoe, who had covered the big Washington press conference of July 30, 1952, led by Gen. John Samford, with Ramey also answering a few questions.

That is where Keyhoe got into the story, but Keyhoe wasn't the person saying Ramey was a closet ETH "believer". Keyhoe had nothing to do with it, and the real topic, raised by you, was did anybody associated with Roswell breathe a word about ET origins before the evil STF hypnotized everybody into believing it?

Yes indeed. Gen. Roger "weather balloon" Ramey was secretly talking about the Roswell "victims" while publicly denying ET origins clear back in July 1947.

Sourcerer said...

"PRATT: Son of a gun. An Air Force public affairs guy (at the Pentagon) went through his list of generals the other day and could find no reference to any such man (Ramey).

KEYHOE: Oh, for– (laughs)

PRATT: That’s curious. But he said the list was almost complete but not quite. I’m not quite sure what that meant. He had all living and dead generals but he couldn’t come across any by that name."


Some things never change.

http://www.af.mil/information/bios/alpha.asp?alpha=R

David Rudiak said...

On the missing Gen. Roger Ramey in USAF biography of generals, Don (Sourcerer) wrote:

Some things never change.

http://www.af.mil/information/bios/alpha.asp?alpha=R


Yes, for some reason, Ramey has been turned into a nonentity by the USAF, though I don't understand why.

Last December, I was contacted by Charles Lewis, who compiles military biographies. Lewis was trying to do a biography on Ramey, and wrote me because he also couldn't find anything on Ramey from the Air Force. I had previously gone to old newspapers and other sources to do my own Ramey biography, which I put up on my website, which is why Lewis contacted me.

In email, I expressed my puzzlement as to why the AF had nothing on Ramey and asked him, in his experience, if this was unusual, given Ramey was a 3-star general and fairly important in his day:

"Which raises a question that maybe you can answer based on your experience on writing up the careers of senior officers who seem to have fallen through the cracks. How common is this, particularly for the Air Force? The Air Force website has bios on about 2000 of their generals, but Ramey is missing. Lesser generals, such as his 1947 chief of staff Brig. Gen. Thomas Dubose and chief intelligence officer, Brig. Gen. Alfred Kalberer,
have their bios there. But not Lt. Gen. Ramey, who at various times headed up the 8th and 4th AF's and the ADC. As I mentioned, reporter Bob Pratt ran into this in the 1970s when he was trying to locate Ramey, and was told by the Pentagon that they had nothing. I find that very odd, but maybe it isn't that unusual."

Lewis' response was (and incidentally, Lewis is a bit skeptical about Roswell):

"Based on my experience, I find the lack of biographical data for Gen Ramey to be very unusual - especially for the Air Force and for a general officer of Ramey's stature. Overall, the Air Force is better than the other military branches in providing biographical material but, as you stated, you generated more data on him than anyone else. I think it's entirely possible that the Air Force used Ramey as a 'sacrificial lamb' and took the position that, in putting material about Ramey out there, 'the less said, the better' for the Air Force."

Lewis also commented he was coincidentally trying to compile a detailed bio on Gen. Clemence McMullen. He was shocked to find very little information from the USAF on McMullen, who was even more important than Ramey. McMullen, as Roswell buffs are well aware, was the one Gen. Dubose said handled the operation and ordered the cover-up.

Lewis' biography on Ramey:

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=59658498

Sourcerer said...

David, a search on General Roger Ramey turns up a site in Denmark (with bios of allied generals). It's the first hit on the search. Hits 2 through 6 are your site. Several hits down is findagrave's.

I don't know why the USAF ignores him. It might be political. When the USAF was being created, there were factions in the air
forces with differing opinions about what the doctrine and mission of the new branch should be. Those differences continued well into the 1950s...from Mig Alley to Sputnik and the founding of NASA. I don't know where Ramey stood in the debate. Call it aerospace force (satellites, space platforms, satellite surveillance, lifting bodies, flying wings, flying discs) vs air force (big bombers carrying lots of big bombs).

Ramey retired at age 54, I think, in 1957 (according to the Danish site), the year of Sputnik when the USAF was caught flatfooted with no response. Soon after, NASA was created.

In research on the aerospace issue, I haven't come across his name. So, all I've got is bare speculation, fwiw.

Regards.

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don, Ramey retired from the USAF because he had had a serious heart attack. I have one news article indicating he told friends immediately after the heart attack that it meant the end of his AF career.

I have seen no indication that internal AF politics had anything to do with his retirement. If anything, he had just assumed command of the Air Defense Command when he had his coronary. Ramey's star, if anything, was still on the rise until his health problems.

The ADC, interestingly enough, had secretly been tasked in 1953 with investigating the more serious UFO reports with national security implications, something the public did not know about, instead being misled into thinking all investigation was being done by the more public Project Blue Book. Thus Ramey, as head of the ADC, would have been overseeing the more significant UFO cases.

This is right in line with the 1952 newspaper reports referring to Ramey as the AF "saucer man" and allegedly one of their top two UFO experts, along with Gen. Samford. Ramey was quoted saying in 1952, that he had been investigating UFOs for the past 6 years, which would mean clear back to 1946.

Ramey, as USAF chief operations officer in 1952, was also in charge of the jet scrambles to intercept UFOs during the big 1952 UFO flap. Ramey seems to have been up to his eyeballs in UFOs, even before Roswell.

This would support Brig. Gen. Exon's statements that Ramey was one of a clique of top Pentagon generals (the "Unholy 13") he ran into in the 1950s when Exon was at the Pentagon.

This is one reason I have speculated maybe Exon was the "brig. general" who tipped off the National Inquirer that Ramey was an ET believer, setting Bob Pratt off on his fruitless quest to track down Ramey, a year or two before the evil STF stumbled across Marcel and reopened the Roswell case.

cda said...

Is this discussion about Ramey really getting us anywhere?

I have found out a few things on Google, such as Ramey being president of The Permanent Filter Corporation of Los Angeles, once vice-president of Northrop Corp, once vice-president of the Commercial Standard Insurance Company, etc. Ramey died in 1963.

But presumably these are well-known to DR and Don.

What are we driving at?

Is DR telling us that Ramey, who learned about ET craft and ETs crashing onto planet earth in July '47, kept this vital addition to our scientific knowledge secret ever after, and never breathed a word of it to anyone?

All we seem to get is hints that Ramey accepted ETH was possible at one time, but later changed his mind (or vice-versa). Ramey did this and that while in the USAF, some of it (i.e. a TINY portion of it) connected with UFOs.

So what?

There is also reference, in the Ramey notes, to a researcher named Dr David Rudiak.

Also, the Ramey AFB in Puerto Rico mentioned by Don, is named after another Ramey, Howard K.Ramey who was no relation.

I don't doubt that ETs may at various times, even before Roswell, have entered Ramey's mind. Neither do I doubt that he may indeed have suspected ETs were behind some of the UFOs, particularly after Washington '52.

I flatly refuse to accept Ramey (or indeed anyone connected with Roswell) was in possession of this 'great secret' on July 8, 1947 and, as part of his AF oath of secrecy, kept it under his hat for the next 16 years. Was it worry about this secret that caused his eventual heart attack? (Keyhoe would probably agree that it was; after all Ruppelt suffered in the same way). Come to think of it, what about Blanchard? He too had a heart attack, didn't he?

As for "the victims of the wreck" phrase, words fail me. If that sheet of paper, and the message on it, is of such vital importance to the case and to all of science as well, where the hell is it?

Sourcerer said...

CDA: "Also, the Ramey AFB in Puerto Rico mentioned by Don, is named after another Ramey, Howard K.Ramey who was no relation."

You have me confused with Col. Richard Weaver.

See Kevin's original post:

"it’s not going to lead us to flying saucers and alien bodies, but it might teach us something about the case anyway."

I do not understand skeptics' lack of interest in Roswell.

Then:

KR: ""Given what I have read in the newspapers and magazines from that era, it would seem to me that flying saucer meant any sort of object, mirage, or apparition seen in the sky. It didn’t necessarily mean spacecraft and I think that it rarely meant spacecraft."

David and I think it is not so cut and dry. We point to the army's referring to the saucers in the popular sf terms of the day when hardly (imo) anyone else was (until Hal Boyle); that the army air forces had a spec for a flying disc -- it meant something specific to them in 1947.

Then on to Pratt and his story about the absence of a bio for Ramey and I pointed out it was still the case, the USAF does not have his bio.

As to your impatience about ET re Roswell prior to '78...you and everyone else. Why? Because, afaik, nobody asked. When all these Roswell story principals were alive and kicking, nobody asked.

Did Keyhoe even make a passing reference to Roswell? Did Edwards ever check the story by flipping through some old newspapers and getting some names and making some phone calls? And Bloecher and McDonald did flip through some old newspapers, did make some phone calls, only not in the case of Roswell.

So, nobody asked, and if one doesn't ask, CI won't tell, even to lie.

Speaking of Col Weaver, what do you think of the Cavitt's statements about their association with Blanchard and Ramey?

Are there any degrees of separation at all among our 'Roswell incident' army principals?


Regards,

Don

cda said...

Don:

"As to your impatience about ET re Roswell prior to '78...you and everyone else. Why? Because, afaik, nobody asked. When all these Roswell story principals were alive and kicking, nobody asked."

Let me put this to you: nobody asked because nobody considered there was anything to ask. The reason for this was that nobody considered anything of substance ever happened. At least after July 8.

Do you really suppose those few (how many?) first-hand witnesses to a crash-landing of an extraterrestrial spaceship on our planet, together with alien bodies, would have held their tongues about it until 31 years later? Do you suppose any of the many second-hand witnesses would do so?

They do not need asking! If you or I are positive we have seen a genuine tyrannosaurus rex, we do NOT stand around 30 years before informing anyone. Or at least I don't. Look at the case of the coelacanth. (I forget date.)

And it does not matter one iota whether the witnesses are civilian or military. It just ain't on. Period.

Yet this is precisely what the ETHers are telling us about Roswell. Kevin, DR, Friedman and countless others. I know, so many of the witnesses went to their graves with this great secret.....

And where is the mountain of official documentation on it? Still stashed away?

Enough said.

Sourcerer said...

CDA: "And where is the mountain of official documentation on it? Still stashed away?"

Enough said."

I am always amazed at your simple faith in the honesty and transparency of counter intelligence organizations. It there was a cover-up of what wafted down from the heavens onto the Foster Ranch, it follows they were also covering up crimes committed during the cover-up. Domestic operations directed at civilians was a bit of an issue in regard to the CIC in the 40s.

So, what about the Cavitts and Ramey and Blanchard?

Regards,

Don

Sourcerer said...

I doubt CDA will respond and discuss Cavitt's closeness to Marcel, Blanchard, and Ramey. It is a rare experience for me to have a Roswell skeptic respond to anything about Roswell that is not ET-centric.

It is very suspicious that there is no official documentation on Roswell, no matter how innocuous. There should be something because something happened. Bureaucracies can hardly avoid making records.

If it was a spaceship and crew, it is merely an opinion that a ton of documentation would necessarily be produced. Imo, it is more likely that no records would appear in bureaucratic recordkeeping -- and that includes the classification system.

No reports would be written because no one who knew about it would order or request one.

It would be held very close, I think.

That's the thing about recovering a spaceship and crew. It is extraordinary and there is no SOP. There is only CYA -- and to grab for the brass ring if you've got the reach.

Regards,

Don

heobeo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.