Wednesday, October 05, 2011

We Have the Wrong Roswell Crash Site?

This one is so funny that I have to laugh. I got into a discussion with someone about the location of the debris field as described by Bill Brazel. I was told that I had the wrong location.

How can this be?

Bill Brazel took me there himself.

It was early morning and we, and by we, I mean Don Schmitt and I, meant Brazel at a café in Capitan. He was driving an old red pickup and we left my car at the café. As we drove out of town, Brazel asked us if we wanted a beer. Don said he didn’t and I thought that one of us ought to have one with Brazel so I said, “Sure.”

Ah, there is nothing I like more than warm beer at eight o’clock in the morning.

Anyway, we drove out toward Corona, taking the back roads and arrived at the location where the thing, whatever it might have been, hit.

Brazel got out of the truck and pointed to the ground at his feet... No, there wasn’t a bit of debris there now. He just said that this was where he’d found a couple of the scraps.

I took a couple of pictures with Don and Bill standing there (which might be the only pictures of one of the prime witnesses on the actual debris field... and the pictures have been copyrighted, reproduction is prohibited.)

Brazel then explained where it had hit, how it had scraped along the ground, leaving a narrow neck that widened to about ten feet and then tapered again as if it had skipped. The ground was scraped to about a foot or so deep and Brazel said that it had taken a couple of years to grass back over.

No, I really don’t want to discuss all the variations about this and how Jesse Marcel never said anything about a gouge... Though “Reluctant,” Karl Pflock’s witness who was really Walt Whitmore, Jr., talked about an area of disturbed ground he had seen in one of his versions of events.

Anyway, it was Bill Brazel who showed me the site so I figure that I must have it right. (Please note these are two different pictures, though taken about the same time.)

When CUFOS did their archaeological site survey out there, we planted those little “utility” flags along the ground in a line about a half mile long where it seemed that Brazel had said the thing skipped. When we left, we pulled up all those flags, not wanting to leave anything behind that would annoy the ranch owners who had kindly allowed us to make the survey.

Archaeological dig on the ranch..

Sometime after that, Bud Payne, a Lincoln County judge who said that he had seen the military out there doing something, took us, meaning Don, Paul Davids, Robert Hastings, and me out to the site. As we got out of the truck, I looked down and saw one of the flags we had missed.

In other words, Bud Payne put us on the same stretch of New Mexican desert as did Bill Brazel. That would seem to confirm the location as given to us earlier.

Tommy Tyree, who worked for Brazel, told us of riding the range with Brazel when he pointed down into a sinkhole that had water in the bottom. Floating on it was a bit of debris... and before you ask, no, we didn’t find the sinkhole, Tyree didn’t know precisely where it had been, and the water would have been long gone (and the hole probably filled in). But he gave us directions out there and it was on the same bit of range as that shown to us by Bill Brazel.

(Off on a tangent, because I know people are going to start asking all sorts of questions... We were unable to locate the sinkhole and figured the sides had collapsed in the forty years or so before we got there. When we did the site survey, we dug around the roots of plants that looked old enough to have been there when the crash happened... We looked into animal burrows, hoping to find a scavenger that had found a bit of the debris... We used metal detectors and even tried an aerial survey in a rented plane... and no, we had no success in any of that.)

The real point here is that I’m certain we were in the right place because it is the place the witnesses took us to... independently of one another. True, there could have been some discussion over the years about the location among these various witnesses, but the point is Bill Brazel showed it to Don and me. I am not aware of him showing it to anyone else (though he certainly could have, I’m just not aware of it).

So, when people tell me I’ve got the wrong place, I wonder what is the source of their information. It didn’t come directly from Bill Brazel as did the information that I have. It didn’t come from a first-hand source, as did my information. It might have been derived some something that was told to me, or something that I, or Don, said, or from people we took out there said, but as far as I know, the two of us are the only two Brazel took out there. We have the right place.

70 comments:

Mike from Adelaide said...

These are not the droids you are looking for....

cda said...

OK you have located the site. You are convinced a spacecraft from elsewhere crashed there. So why not put up a large noticeboard at the site proclaiming this fact? It being such a large area, maybe it needs two or three.

There must be funds somewhere for doing this.

Of course it would have made far more sense if someone had done this in July '47, but nobody thought it relevant then, or cared about it.

So get to it Kevin. A hugely important event like this cannot possibly go without some indication of its occurrence on site, can it?

KRandle said...

CDA -

I thought I had used neutral language. I thought that I had made it clear that this was the place whatever it was had crashed. I did not give it an identity because, for this posting, that wasn't important. I was just pointing out that I knew where it, whatever it was, had been found. You, as usual, missed the point.

cda said...

Whatever it was? Do you mean that after all your books, articles and lectures, it might NOT have been a spaceship after all? Slight signs of doubt creeping in?

You are getting jittery, Kevin. But no doubt you are in good company.

Nick Redfern said...

CDA:
Today, there is indeed a stone plaque at the site on the Foster Ranch that celebrates the event. I went out to the site in January of this year and was given a tour of the area and of the old building into which Brazel hauled some of the wreckage. I'll upload the photo of the plaque to one of my blogs and then post the link here.

Lance said...

Hi guys,

So was Frank Kimbler looking in this same spot as well? The one that all you guys have tramped through, that has a plaque, the one that was supposedly otherwise untouched and in near pristine 1947 shape?

If you out of towers have all been there, is it possible to imagine that other folks might also have been there as well? A lot of other folks? And maybe, as Kevin relates above, they also left stuff behind.

And yet when Kimbler finds an unremarkable piece of metal, this gets the full on alien debris treatment and no one seems to be willing to point out the silliness of it all?

Lance

Sourcerer said...

Kevin: "I thought I had used neutral language."

Many skeptics cannot discuss anything UFO without bringing in ET, just like some atheists can't stop talking about God.

Using neutral language just means you are hiding your conclusions they are dedicated to excorciating. How devious of you!

Of course lots of believers do the same thing.

Both sides' theses are their conclusions. Bad science, at least.

Regards,

Don

KRandle said...

CDA -

Once again you slide over the top. Nope. For this posting I wanted to avoid the argument about alien ships. I wanted to show that those who suggested that we (Don and I) didn't know the location were wrong because Bill Brazel had showed it to us...

This wasn't about spaceships, it was about location.

Lance -

This has nothing to do with Frank Kimbler either. It was about how we were able to locate the debris field...

Nick Redfern said...

CDA:

Here you go:

http://nickspicoftheday.blogspot.com/2011/10/roswell-plaque.html

Lance said...

So Kevin can you confirm that this is the same place that Frank Kimbler searched?

Lance

KRandle said...

Lance -

Can't you read? This isn't about Kimbler and where he was... it is about those who suggest that Don and I do not know the exact location, though Bill Brazel took us out there.

If you have questions for Kimbler, address them to him.

Lance said...

Calm down, Kevin!

I just learned something from your piece that I think has some interest.

You did support (as I recall) the idea that Kimbler was at the one true crash site (amen). Kimbler tries to suggest that the land was untainted to make his story sound more plausible.

Now we find that this supposedly untouched pristine site has people crawling all over it, leaving flags and monuments, etc.

Isn't it rather absurd to even entertain the idea that Kimbler found anything (as you also did here) that wouldn't much more likely have come from the UFO believers swarming the site?

Best,

Lance

Lord Balto said...

Copyrighted. Not "copywritten."

David Rudiak said...

The plaque or "monument" to the debris field & crash was deliberately placed about a mile from the true site for the very purpose of keeping the unwashed from crawling over the real site.

This, of course, doesn't mean any debris of some sort from the real site is alien, but it does substantially decrease the chance of outside contamination.

cda said...

This is getting a bit silly. The monument, or plaque, is there but not at the true site. Instead it is a mile or so from the true site, according to DR. But the wording on the plaque is "a craft of unknown origin spread debris over this site".

The plaque was put there in July 2003 after a team of scientists from the Univ of New Mexico had investigated the place (and trampled all over it) the previous year.

So it has already been 'contaminated' as DR put it. It was already severely 'contaminated' by the USAF in 1947 when they allegedly secured the site and recovered each and every fragment, large or small, under the threat of death to any interfering busybodies.

Kevin claims he and others have located the site. One Frank Kimbler may or may not have been there, CUFOS have been there (in 1989), teams of scientists have been there, perhaps several times. Odd bits of junk have been recovered since.

Yet there are still other claimed crash sites. What about them? Have they all now been discarded?

Nobody ever thought the site important enough in '47. Nobody cared one iota.

Yet by 2003 the story has reached such a pitch that we get the inscription: "Humankind has forever been drawn to the stars".

Sourcerer said...

Is there any value to knowing where, more or less, Mac Brazel gathered up some debris -- 'more or less' because I assume a 200 yards by 1 mile fan-shaped possibility.

About the only value I can see is in an approx. long/lat for the purpose of making a few calculations.

For those looking for foil, I suggest looking downwind.

Regards,

Don

KRandle said...

Lance -

"Now we learn...?"

The CUFOS archaeological survey took place in 1989 and was reported in my book and in the IUR.

The Sci-Fi Channel (now known as SyFy for some bizarre reason) took lots of people out there for their archaeological dig which was reported in both a documentary and in a book...

So, why are you now "learning" about this...

And again, if you have questions for Frank Kimbler, ask him. This is posting was about how I learned where the site was located.

CDA -

This wasn't about other crash sites, but about this particular one. Maybe I'll address that issue later... than maybe I won't.

Lance said...

Hi Kevin,

I do admit that I don't necessarily have the whole skinny on the "crash sites" but I am now getting a better picture.

In an earlier post you confirm that Kimbler was at your favored site. I am just pointing out the silliness of Kimbler's "find", considering that the place was/is overrun by saucer enthusiasts. You and Kimbler make the pretense that the "site" is obscure but I am willing to bet that plenty more folks have been out there regularly.

How big an area are we talking about here? Since the absurd Kimber claim is that he could still see the scratch marks from the site (on old satellite photos that he subjected to an unknown [and probably unscientific] process), I would assume that the area can't be that large. A few acres?

What I am seeing here, Kevin is a tacit collusion between you and Kimbler. You confirm that he was at the right site but then get mad when asked for more detail.

With UFO witnesses we often see an effect in which Witness A "confirms" a detail given by Witness B when actually Witness A never reported that detail originally.

I am not saying that happened here but when you confirm that Kimbler was at the right spot, just how big is that spot and could you go right out there within 50 yards today?

I know it is useless to get you to see the folly of relying on Bill Brazel's location of the "crash site". He never saw anything of the debris on the ground, correct? So he must know the "site" only from what...and how accurate?

It's funny how when some claim is confirmatory for paranormal belief, it is seen as precise to 10 digits!

Lance

KRandle said...

Lance -

You go too far and I grow tired of your deductions (or maybe I should say delusions). There is no collusion between Frank and me.

I am not defending Kimbler. I am saying that I was taken to the site by Bill Brazel. He pointed out where he had found bits of debris and where the gouge had been.

To be precise, I wrote, "Brazel got out of the truck and pointed to the ground at his feet... No, there wasn’t a bit of debris there now. He just said that this was where he’d found a couple of the scraps."

Frank Kimbler, using information provided by the UFO museum and using information taken from the internet and others, surveyed a number of sites... including the ridiculous Gerald Anderson site.

I have never said that the site is secret. I don't supply the coordinates because I do not own the land and there are too many people out there who feel they are entitled to trespass, tear up the landscape, and leave trash behind.

If you have an issue with Kimbler, address those issues with him. I merely reported what he said he had found, the testing of some of that material and the results. I reported that he was on the location that had been identified by Brazel... but the area is huge, given what we have been told, and I do not know the precise location of his finds.

If you remember, Jesse Marcel said it was a three quarters of a mile long and several hundred feet wide... and if you know anything about these sorts of things, you'll know that the debris could be scattered over a much wider area.

I have attempted to take a neutral stand on this, waiting for the results from Kimbler that we all know we're going to get.

I also realize that you do not have any reading comprehension. I said that Brazel got out of the truck, looked down... this was where he had picked up a couple of the scraps of material. So, yes, he did see something on that site.

I mentioned that he saw the area where the ground was disturbed, where he believed the object hit, slid, and then lifted off again.

I simply did not want this to degenerate into a discussion of what Frank Kimbler found... It was not about Kimbler. It was about the Debris Field as described by Bill Brazel who did find material on it and who saw the ground. I keep repeating this so that you'll understand it.

Now I realize that you debunkers will accept nothing as accurate or legitimate unless it confirms your point of view. How else to explain the acceptance of Mogul when flight four was cancelled, and Charles Moore, with his biased calculations could get it no closer than 17 miles? But hey, he remembered flight four disappeared near Arabella (yes, I know that I have just widened the argument, but I get tired of being accused of all sorts of things when all I have tried to do is report, fairly, what I have learned myself.)

So, Lance, take you allegations and leave them out of this. Please try to understand what you read, and don't leap to conclusions.

David Rudiak said...

cda wrote:
So it has already been 'contaminated' as DR put it. It was already severely 'contaminated' by the USAF in 1947 when they allegedly secured the site and recovered each and every fragment, large or small, under the threat of death to any interfering busybodies.

Then later, contradicting himself, wrote:

Nobody ever thought the site important enough in '47. Nobody cared one iota.

So they you have a typical illogical skeptobunker argument, trying to have it both ways. It was heavily contaminated by the military crawling all over it in 1947 recovering every scrap, but at the same time not important at all in 1947. "Nobody cared one iota." Whaaaa...?!

Oddly, it was so "unimportant" back in 1947 that Col. Blanchard wasted the time of the two senior intel/counterintel officers at the base, Marcel and Cavitt, sending them out to the middle of nowhere to investigate. Brazel must have told Marcel and the Sheriff one helluva shaggy dog story to sucker Marcel and Blanchard into that. Why didn't he just bring in the pound or so of weather balloon and radar target remains that Gen. Ramey would later display in his office, what Ramey would claim was all of it?

And remember, the AFOSI counterintelligence agents in 1994/1995 in their Roswell report would second that, saying that was ALL of the debris, and the stories of a massive military recovery that followed were made up by lying Roswell authors and senile/lying old witnesses. It never happened.

Yet Marcel was quoted in 1947, not just 30 years later, saying debris was scattered over a "square mile." Try getting a weather balloon, or even a Mogul balloon to do that. Even a balloon that thinly scattered would be considered nothing but minor littering that Brazel could have easily dealt with on his own. No need to report to the military for help.

So it WAS a big debris field, which would explain why Brazel couldn't easily pick it all up on his own, as would be true of even a Mogul balloon crash. And that would also help to partly explain why Marcel and Blanchard would be intrigued by the story (in addition to samples or descriptions of exotic debris) and why you would need at least two guys to go out and investigate and bring as much debris back as one could. All of this is completely consistent with actual historical events reported in 1947 as well as the story Marcel told 30+ years later, as well as other debris field witnesses such as Brazel Jr., Tommy Tyrell, Bud Payne, Lewis Rickett, Earl Fulford etc., who likewise indicated a large debris field. It would also be consistent with sending out additional men to complete the cleanup.

(Cavitt would be the lying exception to the large debris field, who after denying for years any Roswell involvement told AFOSI debunker Col. Weaver the old singular weather balloon story with a debris field no bigger than his living room).

Lance said...

Hi Kevin,

"Collusion" was too strong a word. What I mean is that by supporting Kimbler's identification of the site, you, perhaps unintentionally, support his story.

If all you mean is that Kimbler was in the right state or county or even 10 mile square area then I hope you see the problem with his story?

If you recall, Kimbler claims that he found the EXACT spot where the crash happened. Even you, I suggest, don't know the EXACT spot. This is part of what makes Kimbler's story so absurd and the reason I am chiding you for supporting it.

I forget what happened to the debris Bill Brazel picked up (I have to fight against lots of different UFO stories not just Roswell) but I suppose like any other piece of hard Roswell evidence, it has since disappeared.

That is very interesting about Kimbler going to the other bogus sites. I wonder if he found the same satellite "support" for going to those or if that part of the story got concocted later.

As you can tell, I don't think much of Kimbler's tale but this is no reflection on my very high opinion of you or your work. I'm sorry you seem to be taking it that way.

Lance

Sourcerer said...

David: "Cavitt would be the lying exception to the large debris field, who after denying for years any Roswell involvement told AFOSI debunker Col. Weaver the old singular weather balloon story with a debris field no bigger than his living room."

I'm not comfortable with dismissing Cavitt's interview comments as being that of a liar. Bruce Maccabee once offered the argument that Marcel Sr might have been wrong recalling going to the field with Cavitt, following Brazel, and that Cavitt accurately recalls going out there with Rickett.

Short of organic dysfunction, both Cavitt and Rickett should both have been intelligent and a bit creative as befits former CI Special Agents.

It doesn't weaken your point. It even strengthens it since it is evidence Brazel's find was worth sending out another group after Marcel reported back to Blanchard.

Considering it doesn't affect Marcel's credibility (he didn't recall much about Cavitt). I think what we are told he said in B&M about the debris field is good. I don't think he was entirely forthcoming, though, then or later. Maybe he had been out there with someone else.

I need to re-read the interview about the small debris field Cavitt reported. I recall there was a trivial detail that I'd marked with a '?'.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don,

Maccabee was trying to be charitable with Cavitt, giving him the maximum benefit of doubt, saying _maybe_ Cavitt was confusing things with another event when he did go out and recover a weather balloon with Rickett. But this had nothing to do with the Roswell incident.

Even if you dismiss Marcel's recollection, the papers back in 1947 reported Marcel not going alone with Brazel to his ranch. And Brazel himself noted that Marcel was accompanied by a man in plain clothes, who would have been Cavitt (the CIC officers typically wore civilian clothes, like FBI agents or police detectives, not military uniforms).

Cavitt did go out with Rickett to the debris field, but according to Rickett this was the day after Marcel and Cavitt returned, there was now a large recovery operation in effect when they got there and high security, with guards and men picking up debris scattered over a wide area. (Also Rickett said they had to go with checkpoints with armed guards.) The two men weren't exactly alone, again a very different story from Cavitt, but highly consistent with Marcel and his large debris field with strange debris that required further recovery.

Cavitt's story of the small balloon crash no bigger than his living room is ridiculous on multiple levels and contradicted by everybody else, then and now. Marcel's quote in 1947 was a square mile, and even Brazel's story was of a debris field 200 yards across, not the size of a living room. It is also totally inconsistent with a Mogul balloon crash, something the skeptics like to sweep under the rug. Cavitt was simply reciting the old 1947 singular weather balloon cover story used by Ramey.

Skeptics also like to complain about Roswell investigators supposedly leading the witnesses. But Col. Weaver, who interviewed Cavitt, did a classic bit of leading when he told Cavitt about their new giant Mogul balloon theory and the "flower tape". Cavitt didn't take the hint, and stuck to his small balloon crash, also denied seeing anything like "flower" patterns, even accusing Roswell authors of making up such stories about hieroglyphics in order to sell books.

Again not exactly sterling testimony for the alleged crashed Mogul balloon, which never existed anyway, a fabrication of modern AFOSI debunking agents and Mogul enginneer Moore, contradicted by actual Mogul documents and aviation histories which say Mogul Flight #5 was the actual first NM balloon, not the mythical "#4" of the debunkers.

Lance said...

"Skeptics also like to complain about Roswell investigators supposedly leading the witnesses. "

Hi Dr. Rudiak,

My bigger complain is witnesses leading the investigators! :)

Lance

Sourcerer said...

David,

There's a point in the Cavitt interview when Weaver asks him "How did you get the report that the material was out there?"

Cavitt begins reconstructing how it might /must have been, then: "and then...more and more thinking back on it now he must have been...I must have been with him [Marcel]..."

Weaver attempts to clarify and Cavitt says he is not sure if he was with Marcel. Cavitt's certainty is broken. Then Weaver changes the subject for a page and a half or so, and then comes back to the debris field.

That's were I have the "?".

cda said...

DR:
We shall be going over the same old ground again (and I do not mean the debris field either) if we don't watch out.

Yes the military did go over the site once and perhaps recovered 5 or 10 per cent of the debris. That is pure guesswork, I admit. Nobody can ever say how much of the debris was recovered. I put the word 'alleged' into my previous posting because it should be obvious that I do not accept any of the wild tales of 30-50 years later about the USAF, the death threats, the armed guards, the gathering up of every scrap and so on. Nor do I go along with all the other alleged crash sites either. San Augustin or anywhere else. Pure fantasy.

And no, there was NO interest whatever in 1947 (i.e. after the brief USAF visit) by anyone else in the debris site. None by civilians, none by scientists, none by journalists or private investigators. And nobody knows how big the site really was, either then or now.

Of course what stories emerged decades later is another matter. As Don indicates, there is every reason to doubt that Cavitt and Rickett were present at the site at all. The same can be said of others.

The reason Blanchard sent out two AF personnel is perfectly obvious, namely, that based on Brazel's description, it was a suspected 'flying disc', and therefore of possible interest to the AF. This would have happened even if Brazel had said he was almost certain it was balloon debris. The AF could not take any, even small, chances during a critical post-war, and early cold-war, period, that it might be some downed enemy craft, or even an unknown US one.

But we are diverging from Kevin's post, again.

Sourcerer said...

CDA: "As Don indicates, there is every reason to doubt that Cavitt and Rickett were present at the site at all".

You might get that from it, however, I meant it might indicate two trips to the Brazel site. I understand the reason you put forward, though.


"The reason Blanchard sent out two AF personnel is perfectly obvious, namely, that based on Brazel's description, it was a suspected 'flying disc', and therefore of possible interest to the AF".

Brazel's description? How did Brazel describe the debris so that Blanchard suspected it was a flying disc?


Regards,

Don

Sourcerer said...

Marcel Sr is the source on this. He thought Brazel's report sounded like something might have gone down on his ranch.

It would be perfectly normal for both intelligence and CI personnel be sent to check out the facts. Marcel's reconstruction was that something travelling fast had exploded low to the ground, leaving a distinct trail of debris.

And that's what I would expect an intelligence officer to conclude, given the evidence for the likelyhood.

That's really all we have, I guess.

Regards,

Don

cda said...

Don:

"Marcel's reconstruction was that something travelling fast had exploded low to the ground, leaving a distinct trail of debris"

This was Marcel's version when Friedman & Moore interviewed him in 1979. It was NOT his version in 1947.

But that's Roswell for you.

KRandle said...

CDA -

Please give us Marcel's 1947 version. Where did you read it? And no, I don't want paraphrase. I want direct quotes.

David Rudiak said...

Don (Sourcerer) wrote:

Marcel Sr is the source on this. He thought Brazel's report sounded like something might have gone down on his ranch.

It would be perfectly normal for both intelligence and CI personnel be sent to check out the facts. Marcel's reconstruction was that something travelling fast had exploded low to the ground, leaving a distinct trail of debris.


Marcel said he interviewed Brazel at the Sheriff's office, then went back to the base to confer with Blanchard. According to Marcel, both men agreed it sounded like the crash of an unusual craft of some kind. The big question is what could Brazel have shown or described to make Marcel and Blanchard think this? A few shards of fragile and very mundane rotten rubber weather balloon, balsa wood, Scotch tape, and aluminum foil isn't going to do it.

And why did Cavitt come along? Again, according to Marcel, Blanchard thought Marcel would need help because Brazel also described a large quantity of debris strewn out over a large area. Further, Marcel said he and Cavitt went in separate vehicles to collect the debris. Again, you don't need two men and two vehicles to collect a weather balloon, or even a complete Mogul balloon, which even when intact typically weighed only 50 or 60 pounds and could easily fit in one vehicle.

And finally, we have the newspapers back then saying Marcel had help, and Brazel was more specific saying Marcel was accompanied by a man in plain clothes, which squares exactly with Marcel saying Cavitt came with him. There was insufficient time for Marcel to go alone, get back to the base, and have Cavitt & Rickett go a second time for a second recovery, and have this all reported in the newspaper stories originating that afternoon after the story exploded and Ramey took control. It also doesn't square with Rickett's story of he and Cavitt going out the next day, where Rickett witnessed a large recovery operation with heavy security in place.

And further the newspapers (widely carried AP story) have Marcel saying debris was scattered over a square mile (which contradicts other Marcel newspaper quotes and Ramey's story of a singular weather balloon crash and mundane balloon debris, not to mention Blanchard's "flying disc" press release.

Again the central questions remain why Blanchard and Marcel thought what Brazel reported required investigation at all and why Blanchard thought it necessary to send two top intel officers out there in two vehicles to collect it. A balloon crash of any type isn't going to do it.

Sourcerer said...

"This was Marcel's version when Friedman & Moore interviewed him in 1979. It was NOT his version in 1947."

Well, considering Friedman and Moore knew squat about Roswell in 1979, I doubt they could have suggested it to Marcel. Marcel knew more than they did and probably more than anyone living about what happened at the ranch and at the RAAF.

What we do have from 1947 from Marcel comes from Mac Brazel:

From the UP: "Marcel...reportedly told Brazel, the finder of the
object, that "it has nothing to do with army or navy so far as I can
tell."

Since it is doubtful Brazel or the reporter knew of Marcel's time with the Navy, this seems a likely accurate quotation.

Lance asked what happened to the debris Bill Brazel collected. In B&M, he is reported to have said he turned his collection over to an officer who asked for it. There is an unproved (to my knowledge) assumption the officer was from the RAAF. I doubt it.

How did Bill know the site since he hadn't been there? Because his dad, kid brother and sister were there. Bill disputed the story that his mother was at the ranch. I don't think the location was kept secret from him by the family.

Kevin, do you know whether Bessie and Vernon were at the ranch for the summer school vacation? Hard to believe that Mac would haul the kids up from Tularosa just to make them pick up trash in a field on the 4th of July.

Regards,

Don

Sourcerer said...

David: "Again the central questions remain why Blanchard and Marcel thought what Brazel reported required investigation at all and why Blanchard thought it necessary to send two top intel officers out there in two vehicles to collect it. A balloon crash of any type isn't going to do it."

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 Wright Field via Ft Worth.

I like Maccabee asking the question regarding Cavitt. These things should be looked at from all angles. I think Cavitt's interview is significant and it should not be dismissed because of seeming obvious lies anymore than an advocate's favorite witness should be considered a mess of false memories, and dismissed.

Unlike Marcel in 1979, Cavitt had 15 years to read what had been written about Roswell and prepare himself to be found. I keep that in mind.

What I suspect I am seeing is that the whole thing was a CIC engineered cover up, an "official hoax". Not just Ft Worth, but the RAAF press release as well, including the "flying disc" language.

This doesn't preclude ET. If 'flying disc' had no common connection with ET in early July 1947, then calling a crashed ET craft one of those mysterious 'flying discs' might have seemed pretty damn clever at the time. 8-)

Regards,

Don


Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don wrote:
Kevin, do you know whether Bessie and Vernon were at the ranch for the summer school vacation? Hard to believe that Mac would haul the kids up from Tularosa just to make them pick up trash in a field on the 4th of July.

The yearly rodeo in nearby Capitan was going on, starting July 4 and lasting several days. This might explain why Brazel would drive to Tulerosa to pick up his wife and younger kids. This was the big event of the year in them thar parts. Take them to the rodeo on July 4, and then, since they were already halfway there, drive up to the ranch.

The time problem here is that I don't think they could go to the rodeo, get to the ranch, and still have daylight left to pick anything up.

Another scenario would be to take them to the ranch first on July 4, go to the Capitan rodeo on July 5, return them to Tulerosa that evening, then on his way back to the ranch Brazel stopped in Corona, showed them some debris, and was told about the flying saucers. The time sequence works out a little better this way.

Point is there is a possibility his family was with him at the ranch on July 4, as reported in his interview, and might have picked up debris, but unlikely they would have been there when Marcel and Cavitt visited 2 & 3 days later, despite what Bessie Brazel Schreiber later said. Marcel was quite specific that Brazel lived in the middle of nowhere and his family wasn't there when he visited.

David Rudiak said...

Don wrote:
From the UP: "Marcel...reportedly told Brazel, the finder of the
object, that "it has nothing to do with army or navy so far as I can
tell."

Since it is doubtful Brazel or the reporter knew of Marcel's time with the Navy, this seems a likely accurate quotation.


And Bill Brazel interviewed 30 years later said his father told him the Army told him it nothing to do with the Army or Navy.

In general, Brazel Jr.'s testimony about what happened matched Marcel's almost exactly right from the beginning, such as descriptions of the debris field, the anomalous debris, and an explosion, yet Brazel Jr. and Marcel didn't know one another and had never met when they were later interviewed.

It's truly amazing how such key witnesses can coordinate their testimony so well without ever talking to one another, and "lead" gullible Roswell researchers into believing the crashed flying saucer fairy tale. Maybe they had a psychic connection.

Sourcerer said...

David, "It's truly amazing how such key witnesses can coordinate their testimony so well without ever talking to one another..."

B&M (and to whatever degree he was involved, Friedman) didn't know much about Roswell and it shows in The Roswell Incident. On their own they are barely better than Bloecher.

The interview material (despite its paraphrasing style) is different, more detailed and accurate, especially when the interviewees are speaking from experience rather than what they heard or read (which couldn't have been much in 1979). Marcel is rock solid on everything he was directly involved in, but shows uncertainty and is inaccurate about what he'd heard about (such as how the press release came about). Hearsay, really.

It might seem a trivial issue, but I think it important to know whether, in fact, the kids spent summer school vacation at the ranch...whether anyone among the rancher families said something like "the kids were up here for the summer as usual" or the like.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

It might seem a trivial issue, but I think it important to know whether, in fact, the kids spent summer school vacation at the ranch...whether anyone among the rancher families said something like "the kids were up here for the summer as usual" or the like.

Brazel did bring his family to the ranch now and then, and the July 4 rodeo in Capitan would have been a good time for him to have done it.

As far as whether they were there, we have three witnesses who have said no, at least by the time Marcel arrived and afterward. Neighbor Loretta Proctor said Bessie Brazel got her story all mixed up, and Bill Brazel said nobody was at the ranch when he read about his father being in trouble, and journeyed to the ranch from Albuquerque to try to help him out. Marcel said Brazel lived there alone in the middle of nowhere and gave no indication that the family was there when he visited.

David Rudiak said...

As to whether Marcel told all, according to his last interview with Linda Corely maybe not. He said there were other things he knew but would never talk about "for the sake of my country."

Must have been that super top-secret Mogul #4 made of rubber, paper, foil, balsa wood, string and Scotch tape. Yeah, that's it. Mention of that would have thrown the public into a panic.

Sourcerer said...

David, it's been awhile, but I believe in B&M, Bill says Brazel drove Vernon and Bessie back to Tularosa (and to their mother). Mac then drove to Roswell and spoke to Wilcox.

Speaking of "amazing" things, the Daily Record and the AP reporter, Kellahin, both failed to quote Brazel directly on the important points in the "interview". No quotations about flying discs, or rubber, or foil, or sticks. or June 14 -- the very heart of why there was any interview at all. That is amazing, especially in two independent stories.

I'd like to know whether Mac got the kids off the ranch because of what he found before he reported it. If it wasn't any kind of balloon or kite (for which opinion the interviewers did quote Brazel), he may have wanted them safely back home. It would also indicate the June 14 date for the find and the July 4th cleanup are not true. Brazel isn't quoted on either date.

Regards,

Don

Nick Redfern said...

CDA:

Yep, the picture I took of the plaque in January of this year is indeed not exactly at the site. But, it's quite within easy walking distance.

In fact, when I went out there (this was a pre-planned thing, not a case of me trespassing or turning up unannounced), the chap working the ranch was happy to point out where the actual site was in comparison to the location of the plaque.

There was no attempt by any of the people there to prevent access to the precise place, when it was pointed out to me where it was in relation to the plaque.

He even opened up for me the old building into which Brazel took some of the wreckage, and let me poke around. Not that I expected to find anything at all of course.

cda said...

Kevin:
There are no direct quotes in 1947 from Marcel about the debris. This indicates to me that Marcel had nothing of interest to say on the matter. But it indicates (I assume) to you that Marcel realised the stuff was very likely extraterrestrial and was ordered to keep his mouth shut.

DR:
"Bessie Brazel got her story all mixed up, and Bill Brazel said nobody was at the ranch when he read about his father being in trouble...".

Where did Bill read about his 'father being in trouble'? Which newspaper? The truth is he only heard of his father allegedly 'being in trouble' decades later after the Friedman/Moore interviews. He probably read the press reports at the time, but these do not mention anything about his dad 'being in trouble'. According to THE ROSWELL INCIDENT Bill first read it in the Albuquerque Journal on July 9 or 10. Check the text and I doubt you will find any mention of 'trouble'.

A likely case of suggestibility by STF or Moore. Also, we do not really know if Bill had seen the press report at all; he may have been shown it by Moore and imagined he had read it 32 years earlier. There is also no mention (I believe) of his dad being escorted round the town by AF personnel. This also is an 'extra', added decades later.

So often these things come down to what is being recounted 30-40 years afterwards to ET-oriented interviewers, not what was reported at the time.

Sourcerer said...

CDA, page 75, The Roswell Incident Bill: Actually, we first learned about it when we picked up a copy of the Albuquerque Journal...Shirley said: "My God, what's he got himself into now?", and I said: "I don't know but maybe we had better go over to the ranch tomorrow and find out".

I hope this recollection is accurate on the point of Mac having a penchant for getting into "trouble", because otherwise there is no explanation for why he might avoid making his report to the Lincoln County Sheriff's Office.

CDA: "He probably read the press reports at the time, but these do not mention anything about his dad being in trouble"

CDA...how can I put this? The very fact he was front page news was evidence of "trouble".



Regards,

Don

cda said...

Don:
You are hoping that Bill was accurately recalling what he read in 1947, in both the cited newspapers. The alternative, which I prefer, is that Bill had not read either of them but was shown them by Friedman or Moore 3 decades later, and then 'remembered' seeing them in '47.

If he really went "over to the ranch tomorrow" (i.e. July 9 or 10) and found nobody there, as per the quote in the book, it puts paid to any idea that the USAF spent several days at the ranch with armed guards and so on (this is the very period that his dad was supposedly held in custody at the AF base).

Sourcerer said...

"You are hoping that Bill was accurately recalling what he read in 1947..."

No. I am hoping it is true that Mac might have had reasons for not going to the law in Lincoln County and that is why he did not report his find to them.

Your concerns about this matter really have nothing to do with it. Instead it is about the detention issue and no doubt other things. I don't care about that here. So, you construct a story which is pure fantasy in order to rebut it.

In the meantime, in the real, not the rhetorical world, Mac Brazel travels to Chaves County to report something that occurred in Lincoln County.

Nobody knows why. In fact, no one ever asked the question before as far as I know.

Regards,

Don

cda said...

Don:
Brazel going to Roswell instead of Carrizozo (Lincoln County sheriff's office)? Convenience pure and simple. He was going into the town anyway for other reasons, on the Monday, and decided to inform Wilcox then and there. Otherwise he would have to make an extra journey to Carrizozo.

So your little conundrum is solved.

Think of the consequences if he had instead gone to Carrizozo. Perhaps that sheriff wouldn't have bothered with the military, and the entire Roswell tale from then on would never have existed.

David Rudiak said...

Don: I am unaware of Brazel ever being in trouble with the law. If anything, I think it was his grandfather who headed the posse that hunted down Billy the Kid, who had killed two deputies while escaping from prison in the town of Lincoln.

I think the most reasonable and straightforward reason Brazel went to Roswell to report is that it was the nearest town of any size, also a place where he could most easily get errands done, such as purchasing supplies. Even back then it had about 25,000 people. Carrizozo, the county seat of Lincoln County, has only about a thousand people today.

CDA: Where did Brazel Jr. read about his father? Both Albuquerque papers carried the story. The Journal carried a very rare regional AP version on the front page the morning of July 9, datelined July 8, which also had Sheriff Wilcox saying a number of interesting things, such as the fact that he was "working with those fellows at the base" (his explanation of why he wouldn't further answer questions about what the object looked like) and Brazel making his discovery only "two or three days before."

www.roswellproof.com/AP5_July9.html

The Tribune carried Brazel's AP interview on page 2 that afternoon.

www.roswellproof.com/brazel_interview.html

Either way, his father was in the middle of some media firestorm, which included being in Roswell instead of being at the ranch tending the livestock.

A reasonable son might conclude that maybe his father needed help, or the ranch needed tending in his absence. Is that much of a stretch, even for a hardened skeptic? Really, you're endless unsupported allegations that these memories were planted in witnesses' brains by the nefarious Friedman and Moore are tiresome and laughable. Maybe they give you some sort of skeptical thumb-sucking comfort.

As to when Brazel Jr. went to the ranch in support, I would guess the next day, or July 10, but that's only a guess. It would also depend as to when exactly he found out and what personal business he might have to tend to before going. That might explain why the military had left by the time he arrived--finished cleaning up the place on July 8 & 9.

Sourcerer said...

Rather than make a multi-part response on the validity of reporting to Carrizozo, I'll just say that above is the evidence that both skeptics and advocates share a Roswell-centric viewpoint. If that viewpoint is incorrect, then Roswell-centrism is the fatal flaw in all theories about the "Roswell Incident", pro-Et or not.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don, the reason Roswell is "Roswell-centric" is that historically Brazel did report there and the local base got involved in a big way. Most of the action occurred there. Whether Brazel "should" have reported to the sheriff in Carrizozo because it is the county seat of Lincoln I consider largely academic.

To get away from Roswell-centrism, Friedman called his book "Crash at Corona" because Corona was the nearest N.M. "town" to the ranch, even though Corona was tiny and hardly involved at all. Now I put "town" in scare quotes, because in sparsely populated central N.M., a "town" is often little more than a bar and gas station for the nearby ranchers to congregate at--and I'm not kidding.

That being said, I think you are right that investigators have largely ignored, though understandably, other towns and other nearby military facilities. E.g., one story I heard from Don Schmitt is that he learned before going to Roswell, Brazel had taken some of the debris to Capitan during the rodeo and shown it to some of the other cowboys. If that was the case, these guys may all be dead by now and it might also be difficult to track down family members who might have heard about it from them. (No, I don't recall where Schmitt said he got his information, if he mentioned it to me at all.)

KRandle said...

All -

We fight the same fights over and over and it seems that no one listens.

Bill Brazel told me that his father went to Roswell because what his father found was something that came from the sky and they dealt with stuff in the sky. He was looking for someone to clean up the mess.

Bill said that he saw the stories about his father in the Albuquerque newspapers and thought his father would need help. He thought it was two or three days before he went on down to the ranch.

Oh, wait, never mind, Bill told me this in 1989 so it doesn't count...

Jesse Marcel said nothing about this in 1947 because he was told not to talk about it then...

Oh, wait, never mind, Jesse Jr. told me this in 1990 so it doesn't count...

Edwin Easley told me that Mack Brazel had been held in the base guest house...

Oh, wait, never mind, Easley told me this in 1990 so it doesn't count...

Brazel went to the Chavez county sheriff because he needed someone to call out to the base...

And, according to history, Wayne Brazel killed Pat Garrett in 1908. Historians don't know what happened to Wayne because they never asked th Brazel family. I did. Wayne, after being aquitted of murder, moved to Arirona. Bill told me that he and his father visited Wayne in the 1930s.

But remember since I learned all this in 1989, 1990 and 1991, none of it counts...

Sourcerer said...

David,

"Don, the reason Roswell is "Roswell-centric" is that historically Brazel did report there and the local base got involved in a big way. Most of the action occurred there."

Most of the action that was reported. The rest of the action reported was in Ft Worth and a little bit of the Pentagon.

Carrizozo (and Corona) may have been small towns, but they were small towns right on the main corridor of the army occupied Southwest, unlike Roswell. Road distance between them and Alamogordo AAF and the RAAF is about the same, except the roads are better to Alamogordo.

The Lincoln County sheriffs had experience working with the army. The same sheriffs were in office during the Mt Rudioso bomber collision in 1943 (I think), they were there for Trinity, and would still be in office a week after the Roswell Incident during the nearly as weird Carrizozo P-80 Incident.

If you believe Bill Brazel's story about the fate of his box of debris, then you know the CIC was in Corona, and therefore assuredly in Carrizozo. The CIC had their 'stringers'.

How did a UP story about a balloon and foil disc reported from Carrizozo get on the wires at the same time the SF Examiner wrote that Ramey was telling them about it?

My point has nothing to do with Friedman's Corona. He just wandered off in another direction, while keeping as Roswell-centric as he could without accepting a Chaves County crash site.

There was no compelling reason for Brazel to go to Wilcox rather than Carrizozo if it was a jurisdictional matter, a property, contract, and business matter. Population size, doesn't matter in such cases. It's the legal jurisdiction that matters. The paper trail. If I've got trash blowing into my yard from a vacant lot here in Pittsburgh, I am not going to drive to Cleveland to file a complaint about it.


"Whether Brazel "should" have reported to the sheriff in Carrizozo because it is the county seat of Lincoln I consider largely academic."

It is not a matter of 'should', but 'why didn't he?'. Look at the issue of June 14/July 4. Why drive the kids up from Tularosa to pick up trash, weeks after it had blown all over the desert, and then drive them back? Why didn't he, on June 15, give Dee Proctor a nickel to pick up Bessie's three feed bags worth of trash?

There is just no way to accept the dates. They can't be made to make any sense. The skeptics have all sorts of rationales for it, but that is just what they do, and their rationales can be ignored.

Brazel must have had reasons to report it to Chaves Co. sheriffs. It can't be matter of convenience. If that were the case, a short trip to a pay phone in Corona would do. He could call any sheriff he wanted to.

If it is true that it was just more convenient to stack a trip to Tularosa to drop off the kids and say "Hi" to the wife, then shop for supplies, and sell wool, and try to buy a truck, and try to collect a reward, and call Frank Joyce, and do anything else I haven't heard about yet, and then make a quick stop to the sheriff's department to say there's some debris on his ranch in Lincoln County, then I guess the skeptics win.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Kevin wrote:

"But remember since I learned all this in 1989, 1990 and 1991, none of it counts..."

That's right, and if it wasn't reported in the newspapers in 1947, then it never happened. Or if it was reported in the newspapers but doesn't agree with skeptical dogma then it never happened. Or if multiple things were reported in the newspapers that contradict one another, than only the ones that agree with skeptical dogma count, and don't even ask questions about why they contradict.

Thus if Wilcox kept contradicting himself as to when it happened or when Brazel reported, also throwing a comment that he was working with those fellows at the base, ignore that. Or if Wilcox contradicted Brazel's story of what he reported to him. (Wilcox: "weather meter", Brazel: "flying disc" and definitely NOT a weather device)

Or if Marcel was simultaneously quoted as endorsing a mundane weather balloon but also saying debris was scattered over a square mile, ignore that. Also ignore Marcel directly contradicting Brazel as to when he cleaned up the debris when he found it. (Marcel: immediately; Brazel: 3 weeks later with his family)

All-knowing skeptics know nothing of significance happened and nobody like the Sheriff or Brazel was coerced into cooperating. That was all made up 30 or 40 years later, so it doesn't count.

Sourcerer said...

Kevin: "Brazel went to the Chavez county sheriff because he needed someone to call out to the base..."

Why the RAAF? If he had just been in Tularosa, how far south is Alamogordo from there? Why not go to the Otero County Sheriff's? For that matter, what is the most convenient route to Roswell from Tularosa?

Roswell-centrism is unproven and very questionable.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don wrote:
"Brazel must have had reasons to report it to Chaves Co. sheriffs. It can't be matter of convenience. If that were the case, a short trip to a pay phone in Corona would do. He could call any sheriff he wanted to."

Well, the more I think about it Don, the more it seems you have a good point. Why indeed did Brazel go to Roswell if all he had was a balloon crash?

According to Kevin, Bill Brazel told him the reason was it came from the sky and Roswell had the big air base there capable of cleaning the mess up.

But balloon crashes don't make much of a "mess". They are relatively easy to clean up, even Mogul crashes. E.g., the earthly remains of Mogul #6, launched June 7, were found by rancher Sid West. He notified Alamogordo base, perhaps through the local sheriff, and Mogul sent out 2 or 3 guys in a jeep to pick up what was left. There is no reason why Brazel couldn't have done the same, through the county sheriff, in which case no reason to go to Roswell.

The skeptics try to make it sound like these Mogul balloon trains were unimaginably gigantic because they were up to 600 feet in length. But there really wasn't much there there. The 600 feet was made up mostly of weather balloons and twine, therefore 99.99% air. The total weight of these balloon trains, including ballast and payload, was typically only about 50 or 60 pounds when intact (and much less after many of the balloons had popped and ballast automatically cut loose on descent). It wasn't exactly the World Trade Center coming down and littering the desert floor. Likely it could all be gathered up in an hour or two, and all easily fit in one vehicle.

But Brazel seemed unable to do that, though he should have been able to handle the debris problem easily if it was the remains of a Mogul. He needed major help, which is one major reason why he reported to Roswell, not locally.

I do remember that when I spoke to Frank Joyce about his early conversation with Brazel when Brazel had first come to town, that one of Brazel's major concerns was the large quantity of debris, and saying something like "How am I going to clean it all up?" That is NOT a description of a Mogul balloon crash.

Let us all remember that the military and Brazel had also tried to minimize the amount of debris, which again begs the question why Brazel needed to go to Roswell to get the air bases help. Marcel's story in Fort Worth, contradicting Brazel's story to some extent, is that Brazel had IMMEDIATELY cleaned up the debris when he found it mid-June, rolled it into some bundles, and threw it under some brush. (Marcel also contradicted this back then, however, saying debris was scattered over a square mile, implying something much, much larger.)

So why did Brazel go to Roswell and why didn't he take his already collected debris with him to show what he had? The latter question I have asked myself over and over again, especially since the other part of Marcel's cited story back then is that Brazel had rushed back to collect his bundles of debris after first hearing about the flying saucers in Corona the night of July 5. So he rushed back to collect them, but didn't bother to take them to Roswell??? And if he had already collected it, why did Marcel and Cavitt need to go out there at all? None of this adds up.

Brazel's contradictory story was he was too busy to bother with the debris and waited until July 4 to collect some with his family. He indicated it was scattered over 200 yards, but this is something a cowhand like Brazel could easily deal with on his own. Again the question, why bother going to Roswell for help and why not bring what he had already collected with him?

Bob Koford said...

David:

And this isn't even including the piece of the whatsit that he stored in the "shed". Do we have a more complete description of this piece? Was it a box, a can, a tube? I don't recall.

Again, for the zillionth time any other piece that seemed to be from a Mogul flight would have been easily recognizable.

Why is this stuff wrapped up in such mystery?

It just seems obvious by now that the "stuff" was so out-of-this-world the rancher just couldn't handle it alone. Wilcox certainly didn't calm everything down for everybody.

cda said...

The questions why Brazel, Marcel, Wilcox and others did this or that, or why they did not do this or that, can go on forever.

Where are we getting? Answer: nowhere.

Because we simply do not know basic matters, we do not know what people were thinking, saying or doing in '47. We only know what was reported at the time and what they told investigators between 32 and 50 years later.

I opine that Brazel initially disregarded the debris as junk, nothing else. Then he thought about it and collected a small portion. Then he heard about flying discs in Corona and thought he might have stumbled across one. Then he took the easiest course of action. He was going into Roswell for personal reasons and decided to visit the sheriff, in case the stuff was important.

Authors seem to differ on whether he took any debris with him to Roswell. Again, we only have testimony acquired decades later on this point.

If anyone has a better prosaic answer, please give it (preferably without invoking either conspiracy theory or ET crashes).

Otherwise this thread is getting nowhere, fast.

Sourcerer said...

David: "Well, the more I think about it Don, the more it seems you have a good point."

Thanks, David. There were several 'convenient' ways to make a report about some balloon junk, but really there would be no compelling reason to do so in the first place.

My disagreement with the skeptics isn't over ET, but about their opinion that the Roswell events were normal. I find hardly anything reported about it in 1947, whether the subject or the way it was reported, to be "normal".

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

cda wrote:
The questions why Brazel, Marcel, Wilcox and others did this or that, or why they did not do this or that, can go on forever.

Where are we getting? Answer: nowhere.

Because we simply do not know basic matters, we do not know what people were thinking, saying or doing in '47. We only know what was reported at the time and what they told investigators between 32 and 50 years later.

I opine that Brazel initially disregarded the debris as junk, nothing else. Then he thought about it and collected a small portion....


You can opine all you want, but the newspapers clearly do tell us the following:

1. Brazel thought it important enough to report and went to Roswell to do it.
2. There the Sheriff, Wilcox, thought it important enough to contact the base, though later telling UP Brazel reported nothing but a "weather meter".
3. The base intelligence officer, Marcel, and the base commander, Blanchard, thought it important enough to investigate Wilcox's "weather meter".
4. Blanchard thought investigation of a "weather meter" required another person, and not some private, but the head of the CIC, Cavitt, to assist Marcel, also another vehicle to collect whatever was left of the "weather meter".
5. Upon return from the field, Blanchard was somehow convinced that they had not a "weather meter" but a "flying disc" and issued a press release to that effect.
6. The story was quickly changed to singular rawin weather balloon in Fort Worth and said to have been highly classified before allegedly being positively identified.
7. Principles could not agree on simple basic facts of the case: when Brazel discovered it, when and how he collected it, when he reported to Wilcox, what he told Wilcox he thought it was, how big it was, how big the debris field was, etc.

It was a weather meter (Wilcox) or a flying disc and definitely not a weather device (Brazel); it was only 3 or 4 feet across and no bigger than Wilcox's safe (Wilcox, Ramey), or it was 20-25 feet across if reconstructed (Ramey); it was a box-kite (Ramey) or not a box-kite (Brazel), it was "hexagonal" (Ramey) but also too torn up to determine a shape (Ramey, Brazel); it was scattered over a square mile (Marcel) or 200 yards (Brazel) but could also be completely laid out on a piece of paper on Gen. Ramey's floor; it was recovered immediately by Brazel (Marcel) or Brazel thought it unimportant and waited 3 weeks to collect with his family (Brazel); it was found sometime last week (press release, Marcel, Blanchard) or 2 or 3 days before (Wilcox), or 3 weeks before (Wilcox, Brazel, Ramey, Marcel); Brazel reported Sunday (Wilcox) or Monday (Wilcox, Marcel), etc., etc.

The point is the official story was all over the place, a good indication that a lot of lying was already going on. You couldn't get a straight story right from the beginning. It's like alibis that don't agree with one another on key points. A detective is going to smell a rat.

So I don't need to opine anything here. There were already too many holes in the story back then to know that the official story was too inconsistent and never made sense indicating something was being hidden from the public. That is one reason I am strongly inclined to believe the stories 30 & 40 years later that there was a cover-up in effect.

And no, there was no effort to hide the "top-secret" Mogul balloon launches at Alamogordo. In fact, they were already being used to help explain the flying saucer reports and Brazel's find in particular. That was the Alamogordo balloon demonstration of July 9.

Sourcerer said...

One thing to point out about how people might behave or think in 1947...these people, the ranchers and residents near the ranches, were a unique population. There's the term "Atomic Veterans". These people were 'atomic civilians'. They very well might have responded to the incident on the Foster Ranch, quite differently than you imagine you and your friends would, CDA.

Regards,

Don

Sourcerer said...

David: "The point is the official story was all over the place, a good indication that a lot of lying was already going on. You couldn't get a straight story right from the beginning. It's like alibis that don't agree with one another on key points. A detective is going to smell a rat."

Exactly.

If you refine your list to group the allusions to a single balloon and radar target, you'll have a source worth calling 'the army' or 'the CIC'.

Pull those out, no matter who is supposed to be the source, and things become, not clear, but a lot less muddy.

Regards,

Don

KRandle said...

All -

We have testimony as to why Mack Brazel went to Roswell but it doesn't matter. The documents from 1947 put him in Roswell.

We know that Jesse Marcel was involved because we have the documents from 1947.

We don't know that Cavitt was involved because the documents from 1947 don't mention him... but it seems that everyone accepts his statements that he was there... well, his first statements were that he wasn't there, hadn't arrived and even told Don Schmitt in me that he had NEVER participated in a balloon recovery. Why would he say that? I asked him about it because there was that weather balloon story flying (pun intended) around.

My point is that we can argue about some of the motivations, but the documents available prove who was there and some of what they were doing.

And now back to other irrelevancies that have nothing to do with the original post.

SJ Reidhead said...

I live in Lincoln County. From the stories I've heard since moving here about 12 years ago, the Corona location is far more fascinating. Keep digging and keep visiting with people, especially area ranchers. There are some very interesting tales.

SJR
The Pink Flamingo

Sourcerer said...

Kevin: "We have testimony as to why Mack Brazel went to Roswell but it doesn't matter. The documents from 1947 put him in Roswell."

Nobody is disputing Brazel went to Roswell (not to say that you ought to have paid more attention to documentation). I'm disputing that he would have done so for a couple bags of detritus. His behavior is evidence for the abnormalness of the situation, as is Marcel's, Blanchard's, and Ramey's.

Say goodbye to all the conveniently closer to Roswell crash sites and all their witnesses, as you have Ragsdale, Kaufman, Shirkey, and Dennis. Might as well do the same for Haut, and Frankie Rowe and McNight, too.

Say goodbye to Roswell centrism.

I don't recall what Brad Sparks was referring to, but it stuck in my mind...words to the effect that if your theory leads you to Roswell, it is wrong.

Holding onto maybe a 3rd or 4th hand witness will "come forward" about the McDaniel crash site is just intellectual suicide, imo.

There is nothing left but Brazel's Foster Ranch and whatever it was the army didn't want known.

Everything else has proven to be misdirection. It was simple, cheap and sweet and everybody has fallen for it since day one.

Regards,

Don

Sourcerer said...

McKnight rather than McDaniel, of course.

UFO investigations have nothing more to contribute about Roswell. It was only a UFO case because the army used the term 'flying disc'. Brazel is never quoted saying flying anything by the press. Nor is he quoted saying anything about sticks, foil and rubber. "Documents" are only as good to the degree you read them correctly.

When there is a mass of documentation that documents Brazel was never quoted on anything of importance in the matter, I think it is worth considering that the documentation is contrived.

So, it is all suspect until proven good.

I'll leave this discussion with that.

Regards,

Don

Bob Koford said...

We should talk about the weather...oh and the price of tea in China ;)

OK-sorry Kevin.

Lance said...

Kevin, please forgive me for asking Dr. Rudiak if he received a private email from me about another matter. I am not sure if I have his correct address.

Lance

JimmyinOklahoma said...

Gee, so much said about so little. No wonder we can not learn the truth about so many things.
Leon Panetta was just the head of the CIA and he use to have a great interest in the truth about UFOs and Roswell? Now he is Sec.of defense and we still will not learn anything. Who shuts these folks up? Thats what is important. I did not waste my time in seeing more land that all looks the same while I visited Roswell. Whats the point? I have heard that not even the President can visit area 51. Is that the truth?

andyboy said...

Kevin, I am troubled by two seemingly contradictory "facts" in the Roswell incident as we all have come to understand it. First, we are told the debris was ALL of a lightweight material (foil, paper-like material, "balsa-type" material, optical type fibers, etc). If this is so, it seems extremely unlikely to me that a vehicle constructed of this material could possibly have created deep gouges in the earth, much less crash and penetrate "into" the ridge. Yes, it might have had the structural strength but it could not have had the MASS. So what are we missing here? Something on the craft would have had to add significant mass to its total weight. It couldn't have been the small occupants (if indeed there were any). Perhaps it was some sort of interplanetary drive device. Which leads me to contardiction #2. Several references in your and others serious research have the military, and FBI communiques or at least their off-the-record comments referring to what they picked up at the crash site(s) as a "device" ...not a saucer, not a craft, not a vehicle. But a "device". This word does not connote a vehicle in which anybody or anything would be transported through the air, through space or anywhere else. Unless the "device" they refer to is the all-important part of the craft... again... the drive! Otherwise, "device" sounds pretty much like it could refer to the rawind sonde or some such mundane thing. No?

Why would Brazel tow the major part of whatever it was he found and store it under his cattle shelter UNLESS even he, examining the wreckage intuitively recognized the core "device" and rekoned that it was of some extreme importance.

KRandle said...

andyboy -

I have always been puzzled by the lack of various types of debris. Bill Brazel talked of three types that he had recovered and Jesse Marcel talked of some parchment-like material. I always thought that there should be other types of debris... In a plane crash get get lots of things from cloth to huge engines.

I have wondered if there wasn't some kind of outer shell that was shed, which would explain the lack of diversity of debris and would cover the problem of mass.

In modern aircraft many of the components are light weight and lacking in mass but in combination, they do have the mass necessary to create a gouge.

Without more information about the components, I can only speculate.

As for your second point, Bill Brazel said that when he showed the material he had found to his father, his father said, "That looks like some of the contraption I found."

While this doesn't completely address your point, it does move us away from "device."

Edwin Easley suggested that the object was extraterrestrial which would be some kind of vehicle.

Hope this helps.

David Rudiak said...

Kevin wrote:
"I have always been puzzled by the lack of various types of debris. Bill Brazel talked of three types that he had recovered and Jesse Marcel talked of some parchment-like material. I always thought that there should be other types of debris... In a plane crash get get lots of things from cloth to huge engines."

Kevin, one point is that as technologies get more advanced, the materials typically get more integrated. Modern TVs, radios, computers, e.g., have far fewer materials and components than earlier versions. I would similarly expect aircraft and spacecraft 100 years from to have far more integration and fewer components than today.

An example of where such electronic integration is going, I have read predictions of where electronics will soon be printed out with ink-jet technology, so a complete video display, e.g., could be printed out on a flat substrate. Unless you examined it in a lab, you would have no idea examining it by naked eye that it had the equivalent of transistors, diodes capacitors, resistors, wire connectors, etc. It would instead look like a uniform material. It could even be the wallpaper and also be used as a room light, a phone, contain sensors to activate various appliances, etc.

In the case of Roswell, I have speculated that many of the properties of the described Roswell material might be based on carbon nanotube-based materials, which are super-light, super-strong, and highly heat resistant.

But in addition they have many possible electrical properties, ranging from near super-conducting to semi-conducting depending on how they are tweeked.

That means carbon nanotubes or composites could be used to construct not only basic structural components such as framework beams and skin (e.g., a fabric weave, much like described by Marcel for some of the memory material) but the various electronics could in principle be built right into the structural components. Pick it up in the field and you wouldn't even know it was there.

To quote from your second Roswell book: "The metal, according to Kromschroeder, was gray and resembled aluminum but was harder and stiffer. He couldn't bend it but had to be careful because the edges were sharp... Kromshroeder said that Henderson told him that the metal was part of the lighter material lining the interior of the craft. He said that when properly energized, it produced perfect illumination. It cast a soft light with no shadows. That piece of debris apparently came from Major Ellis Boldra."

That sounds like an example of electronics integrated into a structural material, but invisible to the eye.

As for variety of debris described, I have categorized it into at least 6 different types on my website. For anybody interested:

www.roswellproof.com/debris_main.html

For my speculation about carbon nanotubes as Roswell debris:

http://www.roswellproof.com/debris9_nanotech.html

Brittany Proctor said...

This is true. I'm the great granddaughter of Lorreta, my name is Brittany Proctor I've been to the actual site. From what I've been told there's two sites. One is a fake. And they are on private land still. My family still has a ranch out there and my granny whom turned 98 this year is still alive and kicking!