Thursday, September 27, 2012

The Nuns Story - Roswell Edition

It has been a matter of controversy, only on this blog, as one of the critics has demanded information about a footnote in The Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell. I believe he suspected some deceit on my part, and I have refused to bow to his demand to answer his questions simply because I didn’t care for the tone of his comments on the blog, not to mention that I had supplied most of that information to him in the past. I had planned to hold off on this until we were ready to publish all our results, but that doesn’t seem to be close at hand, so, I decided to explain this here and now and address it in a footnote later, if we publish.

The offending paragraph, on page four of the hardback is, “In Roswell proper at Saint Mary’s Hospital, Franciscan Catholic nuns Mother Superior Mary Bernadette and Sister Capistrano making routine night observations, saw a brilliant light plunge to earth, due north of their location. They believed it was a disabled aircraft of some kind and recorded the passage in their logbook. The entry noted the sighting was late on the night of July 4, between 11:00 and 11:30 p.m.”

The footnote said, “Records held by the Franciscan Catholic nuns,” which, by the way, isn’t overly helpful.

So, what do I know now?

The information originated with Bill English, who had come to see a lecture by Don Schmitt and me in Alamogordo in the early 1990s. He approached Don after the lecture and told him about a nun, Sister Day, who was over in Roswell. He said that she had seen the diaries of the nuns mentioned above and gave him the information which he passed along to us. English, it seems, was a former Special Forces officer or so he claimed, and seemed to be a reliable source.

We were in Roswell the next day, or maybe a day later, and had a chance to chase this down. Sister Day was quite candid about what she had seen, and since information about the Roswell case was now being widely circulated, she remembered the entry quite well. She said that she had seen it herself, had told English about it, but that the diaries were no longer housed in Roswell. We’d have to follow the trail from there.

Since Don is Catholic, it seemed natural for him to follow up on this. He learned that the diaries have been sent to Oklahoma, and was in communication with church officials there in an attempt to find the right diaries. He talked to someone who said these records were in disarray. I believed that at some point the entry had been corroborated by church leaders, but neither Don nor I, had not seen it.

Using the information we had, based on what we had been told, I wrote the offending paragraph, but in the manuscript, the footnote is actually a little longer. Originally it said, “Records held by the Franciscan Catholic nuns as viewed by Sister Day.” Somehow that last bit was left out of the book… and yes, I had a chance to review the page proofs and didn’t catch the deletion.

Here’s what I know now. The records we want were sent from Oklahoma to Wisconsin, but we learned that they only went back to 1960. Where the diaries from 1947 are is, at the moment, the question that I can’t answer. We’re still trying to get that information.

Now for some of the other, worrisome, bits of this. Bill English, it seems, was not a Special Forces officer as he claimed, and if the documents I have seen from St. Louis Army Records Center are accurate, and this is the same guy, he was not an officer and not in Special Forces. That certainly taints any information that he supplied. That he was not an officer or in Special Forces does not change the underlying information because it was confirmed for us, by Sister Day.

At the time that the information was gathered, I was under the impression that some of the data we had was not known outside our small group. That is to say, our working hypothesis about the times and dates was known to a few people, but we weren’t being overly secretive about it. In other, clearer words, there were those outside our group who knew what dates and times we suspected as being accurate. Some of this information might even have been included in our lectures… and before anyone asks, we rarely wrote a script for those. We used the slides as our outline, spoke to them specifically as they appeared on the screen, and each lecture was different than the last.

English might have been aware of this information and it was English who provided the lead. We did talk to the nun, and she did give us the information. Don did attempt to verify it through the available records, and I thought that he had. That was my error.

In the end, this calamity of errors resulted in a footnote that seemed to suggest that I had seen the entry when I had not. The qualifier was left off, which I should have caught but did not. I should have been more careful in producing this bit of information, but then, I had three other sources for it, including a written record that supported it… That record, I’m sorry to say, was probably a forgery and is something that I now consider useless. The two other sources are still reliable.

In the end, here is where we are on this. I erred in not making sure we had the exact quote and could point to the exact place where the diary could be seen… and in the last twelve months of attempting to resolve this, have failed. I had a source who said she had seen the entry, remembered it because of the Roswell case, and because she was a nun, I had no reason to doubt her. If I had it to do over again, I would have made sure that it was understood that the information was reported to us, but that we had not seen the actual diary entry.

Here’s what I can say for certainty today. According to Sister Day, she saw what she was told were the diaries of Mother Superior Mary Bernadette and Sister Capistrano. She said that there was an entry in the diary about a bright light in the sky they believed to be a disabled aircraft. Sister Day believed this was on July 4, 1947.

The thing here is that as we work on our reinvestigation, this information, because of the initial source (English) is less credible would have been evaluated differently. We would give the benefit of the doubt to Sister Day, believing that she was accurately reporting what she saw, but until we could confirm it by finding the diaries ourselves, would be less forceful in our reporting of it. We would not overlook the possibility that English had contaminated the source before we had a chance to interview her. The diary entry would certainly answer that question.

But then, this was one of the purposes of the reinvestigation. See what has changed in the last decade or so, see what more has been learned, and see where we (and here, by we, I mean me) might have erred. This is the chance to correct those errors, look at everything closely with the magnifier of much better information, and see if we can reach some conclusions that would satisfy the majority of those who are interested in UFOs in general and Roswell in particular.

56 comments:

Steve Sawyer said...

"I had planned to hold off on this until we were ready to publish all our results, but that doesn’t seem to be close at hand, so, I decided to explain this here and now and address it in a footnote later, if we publish."

[bold emphasis added]

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the emphasized portion of the sentence above, but is there some current question as to whether the "dream team" will eventually publish its reinvestigation findings?

I had assumed that the current "meta-investigation" by the 5-member team would take some considerable amount of time, perhaps a few years, given the very large volume of prior and new data to be vetted and cross-evaluated, but I have to ask if the intended plan is to still publish a book at some future point?

And, if so, a very rough guessitimate as to when that might be -- are we talking about another year or two, or something like 3 to 5 years from now, or what?

Conversely, what might preclude publishing the results of such an extensive reexamination of the Roswell incident, if anything?

Lance said...

Thanks for the above, Kevin.

I never suspected deceit by you. I suspected it of someone else, someone known for deceit.

The manner in which you say you actually planned to cite the information is unacceptable as well, of course. The best you could have done is to have cited the second hand interview itself. That is if you wanted to use accepted practices for these sorts of things. I'm surprised that you don't seem to realize this.

In this story where so many of the participants are liars and idiots and where real evidence is almost nonexistent, you can perhaps see why I thought it was important to try to pin down a piece of actual evidence?

I'm not surprised to see that that evidence is not in hand and cannot be said to exist (and certainly cant be cited).

That, in the course of trying to track it down, you managed to find yet another apparent Roswell liar adds some humor to the story (and ought to give pause before accepting people's stories without evidence, huh?).

Lance

KRandle said...

Steve -

We are working to get the information gathered and into a publishable format. Once it goes to a publisher, it could take a year before the book appears. We have completed some areas of the investigation, but are working on others. I spent about six hours yesterday on Irving Newton who said, in 1947, that rawins were in widespread use, but said, much later that they were very rare.

Lance -

I see your reading comprehension has not improved. You complain that the footnote you find so horrible wouldn't have been "acceptible" had it all been there the way I intended it to be. You are surprised that I don't realize this.

However, you seemed to have missed this. "If I had it to do over again (which, BTW, I do after a fashion), I would have made sure that it was understood that the information was reported to us, but that we had not seen the actual diary entry." In other words, the source of the information and how it was gathered would have been understood from not only the context of the book, but also in the footnote. Sometimes it seems you criticize just to criticize.

Nor would I consider English as another Roswell liar. He did provide a lead that checked out, meaning that Sister Day does exist and she did say she had seen the diary entry. To add him to the list of Roswell liars is in error.

Lance said...

Kevin,

I reply to say that I truly do appreciate your mea culpa.

Unfortunately, the erroneous claim appears on a multitude of web sites and I suspect it will never disappear from the mythology.

Lance



cda said...

What I cannot understand, and never did after reading "The Truth about...." is why anyone should suppose the nuns' sighting and diary entry (if it exists) has any value in supporting the ET theory, or the Roswell UFO at all.

We have two nuns reporting they saw a bright light late at night. They thought it was a "disabled aircraft". Big deal! What height? Which direction? How fast? We don't know and never will.

So what has this got to do with the Roswell UFO? The July 4 11:30 pm date & time does not tally with anything known about the case. The sighting itself sounds like a meteor or possibly an airplane. The whole thing is useless as evidence. Even if the nuns were right and saw a disabled plane, how would this be useful testimony? Brazel found the debris on June 14 according to contemporary sources (or July 2 if you want to accept some of the post-1979 sources). Neither fits the nuns' scenario, does it?

In other words, Kevin, the nuns' observation is totally useless to your team and never will be anything else, even if you find the diary.

If some amateur astronomer in Roswell happened to see a bright light crossing the sky on July 4, logged it in his notes and produced these notes 45 or so years afterwards, would you consider this to be useful evidence for your cause?

I would not.

You are, or were, trying desperately to cling on to anything & everything that might conceivably be supporting evidence. Such is Roswell!

David Rudiak said...

CDA carelessly wrote:
Brazel found the debris on June 14 according to contemporary sources (or July 2 if you want to accept some of the post-1979 sources). Neither fits the nuns' scenario, does it?

Since there is all the usual skeptical bitching about Kevin's lack of precision vis a vis the nun's fireball story, let me AGAIN take CDA to task for oversimplifying how the story was REALLY reported back then.

First of all, there are not multiple contemporary sourceS for the debris being found on June 14. There is only one, the Roswell Daily Record story of Brazel's interview in their office on the evening or night of July 8. BEFORE that we had:

Noon to 2:30 p.m. The base press release saying the rancher had found the "disc" "sometime last week" (or early July). This had to have come originally from Brazel, reported to Marcel/Cavitt, relayed to Blanchard, and ultimately in the press release.

UP simultaneously reported that "residents near the ranch on which the disc was found reported a strange blue light several days ago", implying a connection between the found "disc" and the "strange" light only a few days before.

General Ramey in Fort Worth about three hours later would change the INITIAL reported story to "three weeks ago" or "a couple of weeks ago".

Sheriff Wilcox contradicting himself, immediately after the press release would tell UP "about 3 weeks ago." But one AP story quoted Wilcox as saying "two or three days before" Brazel first came to see the him. (Wilcox was also quoted by AP as saying he was "working with those fellows at the base" when he refused to answer further questions about what the "disc" looked like.)

Which "source" is the "correct" time of discovery? How do you reconcile the press release of "sometime last week", which must have been based on information provided by Marcel/Cavitt to Blanchard after spending a day at the ranch and talking to Brazel, with Ramey changing the story to "three weeks before", which again would have had to be based on information from Roswell base, i.e. from Brazel to Marcel/Cavitt to Blanchard?

So the nun's fireball story is NOT ruled out. Kevin and Don Schmitt also named two other witnesses to such a fireball from early July, namely William Woody and Corp. E. L. Pyles. Woody's affidavit can be found here:

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

Also I have collected a large number of UFO reports from the N.M. area for the Roswell time period, including some dismissed as meteor fireballs.

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

If you go through the sightings, the point is there seem to have been a large number of unusual "meteors" being reported in a concentrated area in a short period of time.

One widely reported sighting on June 27 in the White Sands missile area had commanding officer Lt. Col. Harold Turner calling it a meteor, then adding the rather stupid claim that the meteorites were "coming closer to the surface of the earth" at that time of year making them "appear much larger" and they "might look like a shiny disc if caught at a certain angle in the sun's rays."

If you believe that ridiculous "explanation", you'll believe anything.

Lance said...

Of course in conspiracy world there are no such thing as meteors. All "meteors" (be sure to put the term in nutty quotes!)=OMG! Aliens!

Everyone knows that!

Dr,. Rudiak proves the point that the nun diary story is part of the saucer religion and even after being exposed by Kevin himself will never be relinquished.

Rudiak calls the fact that no one has ever seen the diaries as simply a lack of precision! They still exist in his mind and that is good enough! This is saucer scholarship by an expert!

Kevin is honest enough to admit that he was wrong. Sadly, his team of true believers and nutty buffs don't possess that kind of moral fortitude.

Lance

KRandle said...

Lance -

You once again prove your "anti-saucer" logic by misunderstanding or misinterpreting what has been said.

David didn't say there were no meteors, and he didn't say that meteors are not sometimes the answer to UFO sightings. While he may disagree (and I say that because I have not asked him about this specific case), it is clear to me that Chiles-Whitted is a bolide.

And I didn't say that the diaries don't exist. I said that I had not seen the entry, I said that I had spoken to a nun who said she did, I said that we had traced some of these diaries to Wisconsin but that they are telling us that those records only go back to 1960, and I did not say that we had given up the search. It is just taking much longer than I thought it would.

CDA -

You really don't know if we can connect the lights in the sky to the crash. You assume that since there is no alien visitation, such a connection cannot be made. I say, let's see where the evidence goes. Who knows what we might learn.

Lance said...

Kevin,

I am only anti-saucer because the evidence is so crappy!

As I said in an earlier post, most of the "evidence" for Roswell consists of believers screaming about how people would have acted or nutty conspiracy buffs seeing "VICTIMS" in tea leaves.

All of the actual existing evidence leads away from the OMG! Saucers! explanation.

I knew 20 years ago that there was a reason you didn't quote the diary entry.

But I realize that for you and the others believers there is still a diary entry. There will always be a diary entry even if you have never seen it.

Let me put it this way...

I have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. I do not believe except what I see. I think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by my little mind.

Yes, Kevin, there is a Nun Diary Entry. It exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to our life its highest beauty and joy.

No Nun diary entry? Thank God it lives and it lives forever. A thousand years from now, maybe 10 times 10,000 years from now, the Nun diary entry will continue to make glad the hearts of children.


Lance

KRandle said...

Lance -

You see, this is the problem. You take on holier-than-thou attitude. You know there is no diary entry. I say there may well be and the search has not ended... yet. If we can get to the end, we may learn there is an entry that shows I was essentially correct, we may learn that there is a diary entry and I was essentially incorrect. We may learn more about it that helps us connect to the crash, or we might have to just step back and say that it could be referring to a meteor or bolide (which is not quite the same thing as a meteor... well, a bolide is an unusually bright and sometimes loud meteor).

In the end we might learn that the diaries are gone for good. Or we might find the diaries and search through them and find no entry.

But here's the thing. At the moment we don't have the final answer, and that is what you can't seem to understand. I am going to play this thread out to the end, meaning, I will search for them until I see them or learn that they have vanished into the great maw of yesteryear... That they might have existed once, but they are now gone.

So, Lance, climb down off the high horse... you just might be wrong on your assumptions. At this moment you seem to have won the debate and I don't know why you can't accept that with some grace. Nobody loves a poor winner.

cda said...

The nuns' diary is worthless evidence, even if it exists. How can a vague light seen at night on a date/time unassociated with anything connected with the Roswell 'disc' have any value?

It is the same with the Wilmot's sighting on the evening of July 2. No connection whatever, unless you WANT there to be one (as some ETHers do).

I also suggest that the reason some of the press reports gave 'several days ago' as the day the 'disc' was found is that they fastened onto the hasty Haut press release, and not the later story by both Brazel at Roswell and by Marcel at Ft Worth.

By the way, Marcel was NOT so silent at Fort Worth as Kevin and the ET gang would have us believe. He was not told to keep his mouth shut.

In the 2nd morning edition of the "Ft Worth Star Telegram" Marcel is quoted as saying that: "Brazel dug up the remnants of the kite and balloon" and "we spent a couple of hours Monday afternoon looking for any more parts of the weather device. We found a few more patches of tinfoil and rubber".

These are Marcel's words, not the journalist's.

Earlier, Marcel told how Brazel "bundled together the large pile of tinfoil and broken wooden beams about one-fourth of an inch thick and half an inch wide and torn mass of synthetic rubber that had been the balloon and rolled it under some brush". (i.e. a bit more detail than in the first edition, and more or less what Brazel told the press in Roswell).

In other words, Marcel was not muzzled. He told the story as it was.

But the conspiracy brigade will tell us otherwise, of course.

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

Greetings,

June-July is an excellent period for meteors showers (sporadic or not, ones).
In other words, it probably exists many annotations in diaries or records: in personal, amateur or professional ones ; Among the world and probably in the vincinity of Roswell too.

If each time, the DreamTeam find or have sound of such a personal diary, of such vague annotation, and link it to the Roswell case, you will multiply witnesses as One multiplied the breads.

Such proceedings sound as (are?) confirmatory bias or myside bias, imho.
Same : quantity of such anecdotes gives no one quality of the file instructed again.

ie: Wilmot anecdotical observation is allegued taking place the 2th of July and the allegued nurses' ones, the 4th. I suppose the two "lights in the night" anecdotes will be part of the Roswell myth files, despite they concern two different nights. Accumulation of anecdotes which I see noone link with the Roswell event for my part, and probably concerning two totaly independant and different stimuli.

Regards,

Gilles

starman said...

June-July is an excellent period for meteors showers"

No, August (Perseids) and November (Leonids).

JAF said...

Jul4 can be an abbreviation for either June l4 or July 4. I can easily see a reporter trying to figure out what he had scribbled down in his notes and not being sure which date was correct.

Gilles Fernandez said...

Starman wrote :
Me: June-July is an excellent period for meteors showers"
Him: No, August (Perseids) and November (Leonids).

***
It is a joke, Starman?

Occuring in june/july, you have for example the June Bootides shower (JBO) occuring approximativaly from the 23 june to the 2 july (with 7P/Pons-Winnecke comet associated). It can extend of course.
Hight rate have been already observed in 03/05 july, for example in Japan in 1921.
They are renown, reputed and catalogued as particulary BRIGHT and as particulary SLOW(18 km/s only) in any meteores/meteorides shower calendar.
The slow speed is particulary interresting for the sighters, because they have time to appreciate them. They are reputed as "unpredictable" too, even if 2h T.U. seems the best time to observe them. http://meteorshowersonline.com/showers/june_bootids.html or http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/sciences/ephemerides/ciel/d/maximum-de-lessaim-meteoritique-des-bootides-de-juin_2518/

Regarding 1947, there was an intense meteores night in USA occuring the 27 june (Popular Astronomy, 1948, p.39.40).
Ted Bloecher mentionned it in his study as possible good candidat to explain some or all the 19 cases of this day of the 1947 UFO Wave in his study.

There exist other UFO cases where the meteor/meteorite pist was considerated as the good one in the UFO casuistic, occuring in July. Some examples:

The 4 July 1947 23:45 - West Trenton, New Jersey, USA case seems explained by a meteor, as the 7 July 1947 23:00 - Arlington, Virginia, USA - case too. Or another one the 10 july 1947 00:30, but in Canada.

I know too the 8 July 1947 21:00 - Cudahy, Wisconsin, USA case explained by a meteorite.

So please, dont state june/july is a bad period to observe meteor/meteorites.

Regards,

Gilles

++

starman said...

So, did any observer anywhere besides the Roswell area--perhaps in Santa Fe, AZ or TX report a bright meteor on July 2-4? Brazel said the crash occurred during a thunderstorm, which would rule out an astronomical explanation for the light allegedly seen by nuns and/or Woody if it was the same object. If it was just an ordinary plane coming down, investigators would've found out about it.

cda said...

Starman:

Brazel had no idea when the crash occurred. His son merely told investigators 32 years afterwards (!) what his father said at the time. You assume both that Brazel jr remembered correctly what his dad had said, and that his dad recalled correctly that it was during a storm.

But unless Brazel senior had extraordinary hearing he could not possibly have known when the crash occurred if it was during a thunderstorm. Brazel sr knew only ONE thing - namely the date he first discovered the stuff (and even that is disputed). For all he knew the thing came to earth many days before he discovered it.

Can't you see how wobbly and full of holes all this testimony is - full of 'could be' and 'might be' by people narrating their stories 30+ years afterwards?

And I repeat: the nuns' tale is worthless as evidence for anything, even if their diary is eventually found.

Yes, I do agree that if a plane had crashed, it would have been in the newspapers and publicised as such.

KRandle said...

Starman -

I would say that what the weather near Corona was has little to do with what the weather in Roswell was. In other words, a storm and low clouds near Corona doesn't mean the same in Roswell where the sky could be clear.

CDA and all -

I will now give up the search for the nuns' diaries because you have convinced me there is nothing of relevance in there. Why, without having seen it, without having talked to Sister Day, with nothing other than yhour superior knowledge of the world around us, you have declared it worthless, so there is no need to find it. Thank you for saving me all this time...

And before you all get your panties in a bunch, let me say that even if we found the diaries, I doubt that it will resolve anything... however, I'll take a look before deciding...

And CDA -

Actually, Brazel, Sr. could say that the debris had not laid in the field for days... given where it was, and given that one of the major points for water was nearby, he was in the field every other day at a minimum.

And rather than keep making the same points... that there is some documentation that allows us to track dates fairly accurately, I will merely say that not everything is relegated to human memory.

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

Starman wrote :
So, did any observer anywhere besides the Roswell area--perhaps in Santa Fe, AZ or TX report a bright meteor on July 2-4?

Dunno for now, Starman. But, even if we locate a bright meteor on that period in any cosmography or astronomical handbook or review, etc. it will launch an eternal controversy.

There are other streams/showers that the one (JBO) I mentionned for that period (Sagitarrides, Alpha Scorpides, etc) for which, even if it is not the "peak" of such streams/showers in the beginning of July, you can have occasionnal meteor cause "essaims diffus", which mean the stream/showers continue "long" time after the maximum and they are then occasionnal (bright or not) meteors.

In the Roswell Saga, W. Woody have observed a bright meteor the 2 July, or Mister Pyles another "meteor" July the 4th, and the two anecdotes have already made a sterile controversy between skeptics and ETH proponents by the past. I will not start it again here, it will be a "deaf people's dialogue".

Regards,

Lance said...

Kevin,

I think you may be missing the point.

There are so many other things that OUGHT to exist: stuff your witnesses have told you about. Looking for the Nun diary seems a bit like looking for particular branch on a particular tree while ignoring the forest. If it was a tangible bit of evidence, certainly it would be interesting. But your account of someone who claims to have once seen a diary entry (and remembered the date, yet!) must surely take the back seat for the many other stories that have been told to you. All of those people (possibly) aren't liars.

As you and CDA point out, the entry wouldn't prove much. And if it is high on your list of leads, then you can surely see how sadly revelatory that is about the state of the whole myth. I never thought it meant much EXCEPT as an example of the methodology of the researchers.

Isn't there anything else substantial?

For instance how about one shed of documentary evidence of the massive military recovery effort that you postulate. There ought to be tons of paperwork behind such an effort. No one at the newspaper noticed the herculean effort to rope off numerous roads?

Incidentally, such a recovery effort appears on the face of it to be absurd. The rapid location and securing of the "crash site" vastly exceeds the efficiency of even modern search and rescue capabilities.

Instead the account reads like something from a novel.

Unfortunately, knowing the proclivities of your comrades (excluding Chris) , I am quite certain that any new research will travel down the same worn paths of shoddily procured "testimony" (perhaps now it will be revealed that Haut piloted one of the saucers?), untenable conclusions based on that testimony, misunderstanding of real (but always unrelated to Roswell) documents, and conspiracy buff proclamations. In other words, nothing new and nothing real.

Kevin you aren't stupid and you are not a nut (indeed you have worked hard against some of the nuttiest claims of some of the "Dream Team"). I think you have always behaved honorably and your above post is an example of that. It is a testament to your sense of fairness that you haven't (yet) asked me to stop posting here!

It's not the "close-mindedness" of skeptics that affects the status of Roswell.

It's the sh@t evidence.

And the confederacy of dunces (excluding Chris, always) doesn't help either.






cda said...

Kevin writes:

"Actually, Brazel, Sr. could say that the debris had not laid in the field for days... given where it was, and given that one of the major points for water was nearby, he was in the field every other day at a minimum."

Are you positive? The Roswell Daily Record says that he went back to the same spot on July 4, in other words 20 days after he first noticed the debris.

True, he may have gone back between those dates and decided to ignore the stuff, but the contemporary sources (i.e. the RDR) does not support your idea at all. You are relying on distant memories again, and on his son's memory, not his own.

The Foster ranch was vast, and Brazel would not have covered it all regularly every two days.

David Rudiak said...

Gilles wrote:
Starman wrote :
Me: June-July is an excellent period for meteors showers"
Him: No, August (Perseids) and November (Leonids).

***
It is a joke, Starman?

Occuring in june/july, you have for example the June Bootides shower (JBO) occuring approximativaly from the 23 june to the 2 july (with 7P/Pons-Winnecke comet associated). It can extend of course. Hight rate have been already observed in 03/05 july, for example in Japan in 1921.


Isn't the year under discussion 1947, not 1921? A joke Gilles?

Aren't the Bootides known for being a very unremarkable meteor shower with a typical rate of only 1 or 2 an hour, with years like 1921 being very unusual? Another of your jokes Gilles?

Regarding 1947, there was an intense meteores night in USA occuring the 27 june (Popular Astronomy, 1948, p.39.40). Ted Bloecher mentionned it in his study as possible good candidat to explain some or all the 19 cases of this day of the 1947 UFO Wave in his study.

Ted Bloecher mentions the Pop. Astron. article about ONE meteor fireball reported in the Montreal Star over upper NY state and into Canada, hardly an "intense meteor night" over the entire USA.

More joking Gilles, or just your usual gross exaggeration?

Bloecher mentions at least 18 OTHER reports from June 27, including 8 over N.M. (which I will go into more detail elsewhere) which he DOESN'T attribute to meteor activity.

Bloecher actually mocks the attempts of various people commenting at the time to try to explain away many of the various sightings as "meteors", including those of Col. Turner at White Sands, who I previously mentioned trying to explain away sightings there, whom Bloecher writes, "It is perfectly clear that Colonel Turner did not know what a meteorite was, let alone flying saucers."

http://nicap.org/waves/Wave47Rpt/ReportUFOWave1947_SectionI.htm

here exist other UFO cases where the meteor/meteorite pist was considerated as the good one in the UFO casuistic, occuring in July. Some examples:

The 4 July 1947 23:45 - West Trenton, New Jersey, USA case seems explained by a meteor, as the 7 July 1947 23:00 - Arlington, Virginia, USA - case too. Or another one the 10 july 1947 00:30, but in Canada.

I know too the 8 July 1947 21:00 - Cudahy, Wisconsin, USA case explained by a meteorite.


Nobody denies that meteor "shooting stars" occur every night of the year or that some fraction of cases from June/July 1947 might be explained by them. But you mention a handful from Bloecher's study whereas Bloecher collected over 800 sighting reports from this period, of which he thought about 200 highly interesting and not readily explained away.

So please, dont state june/july is a bad period to observe meteor/meteorites.

Sorry, but late June/early July (height of the UFO wave of 1947) is generally a very bad time to observe meteors as there are no major meteor showers at the time. All your handwaving, "joking", and exaggeration won't change that.

David Rudiak said...

Brazel had no idea when the crash occurred. His son merely told investigators 32 years afterwards (!) what his father said at the time. You assume both that Brazel jr remembered correctly what his dad had said, and that his dad recalled correctly that it was during a storm.

How quickly you forget! Marcel INDEPENDENTLY told the same story of Brazel hearing a tremendous explosion in the middle of a thunder and lighting storm, then found the debris the next day when he went out to investigate.

According to conversations I've had with Don Schmitt, they have also located a few nearby ranchers who remember the same explosion, including, I believe Loretta Proctor.

But unless Brazel senior had extraordinary hearing he could not possibly have known when the crash occurred if it was during a thunderstorm.

Thanks again for your revisionist rewriting of the testimony. According to BOTH Brazel Jr. and Marcel, Brazel Sr. heard a loud explosion during the thunderstorm that was different from thunder, not the sound of something crashing into the ground.

Brazel sr knew only ONE thing - namely the date he first discovered the stuff (and even that is disputed).

Yep, disputed. For somebody who also commented he didn't think much of it at the time, it's somewhat remarkable he could remember the exact date of June 14 over 3 weeks later, don't you think?

I've also checked the weather records--no N.M. thunderstorms until late June and early July, when the monsoon season typically arrives there. There was no no storm activity around June 14.

For all he knew the thing came to earth many days before he discovered it.

Not according to what Brazel Jr. and Marcel INDEPENDENTLY remember Brazel Sr. telling them. He found the stuff the next morning after hearing the huge explosion.

Can't you see how wobbly and full of holes all this testimony is - full of 'could be' and 'might be' by people narrating their stories 30+ years afterwards?

But Marcel back in 1947 was also quoted saying the debris was scattered over a square mile (a story he repeated 30+ years later of a huge debris field), also consistent with what might be expected of some flying object exploding in the air (with debris being further scattered by high winds). No wobbly "ancient memories" here. So how do you explain that?

Oh, I forget--nonexistent Mogul balloon flight.

David Rudiak said...

Lance hysterically wrote:
Of course in conspiracy world there are no such thing as meteors. All "meteors" (be sure to put the term in nutty quotes!)=OMG! Aliens! Everyone knows that!

Of course in skeptical conspiracy world there are no such things as OMG! Aliens! All "flying saucers" (be sure to put the term in nutty quotes!) are = OMG! Swamp gas, Venus, meteors, weather balloons, nonexistent Mogul balloons, lenticular clouds, unknown secret military projects, Japanese Fugo balloons still circling the planet, midget Japanese Kamikaze pilots in Horten flying wings, hoaxes, mass hysteria, flying lighthouses, naked monkeys in errant V-2 rockets, yada, yada....! Everyone knows that!

But back to what I was really saying. Nobody, including me, would deny that SOME reports were probably due to nothing more than shootings stars, but other reports hardly fit into that category:

www.roswellproof.com/NM_UFO_reports.html

Let's look at just two of these, where an object was seen diving for earth, but then leveled off and streaked away horizontally. Can “meteors” do the following?

July 1, Phoenix, AZ: At 9:00 p.m., two witnesses reported a "bright object streaking earthward... When it seemed to be not far above the earth, it stopped suddenly, paused a second, and then took off eastward at incredible speed." Two other witnesses at the exact same time in another part of the city INDEPENDENTLY reported to the newspaper seeing a seemingly trail-less object again headed east "moving too fast for an airplane and not fast enough for a falling star. It was larger than a star and appeared in the moonlight to be yellow in color." Unlike Lance, who just knows this must be a “meteor”, the newspaper also reported a local astronomer, given the unusual description of motion, ruling out a natural astronomical object. (Obviously a nutcase thinking “OMG! Aliens!”)

June 27, White Sands area: Totally independent witnesses at the same time (9:50-10:00 a.m.) from Albuquerque, San Antonio, N.M., Pope Siding (S. of San Antonio), and Capitan all reported a bright white, silver, shiny or pale blue object object generally described as diving to the ground. (Putting all the reports together and triangulating, the object would have been coming down in the vicinity of Carrizozo and Ruidoso, only about 25 miles from the Brazel debris field). This was probably followed (within minutes according to one story) by a Capt. Dyvad from White Sands flying in a small plane near Tulerosa and Oscura (or about 20 miles S of Carrizozo) of a "ball of fire with a blue fiery tail" falling from the skies near Tulerosa and disintegrating about 2000 feet BENEATH him.

OK says Lance: "meteor" diving for the ground and burning out. Well that might be true, except for the following reports.

A Capt. Detchmendy was about 60 miles SW of Dyvad as he was coming through the Organ Mt. pass E. of Las Cruces of a "ball of fire" streaking SW over White Sands Missile Range.

But it didn't end there. Another independent report at 10:00 a.m. Came from a woman in Mesilla Valley S. of Las Cruces of a white object with a yellow tail coming out of the NE (or in the direction of White Sands and the other sightings), appearing to fly at high speed and very low, and then disappearing to the SW.

These are the reports that Capt. Turner at White Sands tried to explain away as a “meteor” (yes, I'm again putting it in "stupid" scarequotes), and adding they came closer to Earth at this time of year and might therefore be mistaken for discs as they brightly reflected the suns rays.

But, again, how does a “meteor” dive for the ground and seem to disintegrate, but then seem to go streaking horizontally out over WSMR and finally disappear to the SW of Las Cruces, a distance of about another 100 miles?

Lance said...

Esteemed Roswell Dream Team member Dr. David Rudiak writes:

"But Marcel back in 1947 was also quoted saying the debris was scattered over a square mile"

Here we see the conspiracy buff mindset:

"scattered over a square mile" in conspiracy buff world=1 square mile FILLED with debris.

The evidence means whatever the nutty believer wants it to mean.

In the real world, among sane people, a small amount of debris (such as that recovered according to ALL contemporaneous reports but ignored by believers) could still be "scattered over a square mile."

Just the most simple logic sometimes escapes the pious believer.

Lance

cda said...

DR:

You are very trusting of the Moore/Friedman interviews (given in THE ROSWELL INCIDENT) if you believe the interviews with Marcel and Brazel jr were independent. You capitalise the word as though they were indeed independent. I agree, I cannot disprove they were independent, but neither can you prove they were.

These interviews were conducted during 1979 and cross-contamination is entirely possible.

After a lot of hesitation and saying he was told to keep his mouth shut Brazel sr did slowly tell his 'story' to his son "in bits and pieces" down the years, whereas Brazel sr apparently told Marcel straightaway on July 7 or 8).

It is perfectly possible Brazel was referring to his second visit to the ranch (July 4), not his first. There is no mention of any thunderstorm activity in the RDR for either date.

We simply do not know what suggestions Moore/Friedman made to either witness after speaking to the first one. Neither do we know, since M & F don't say, whether they showed either witness the RDR for July 9.

And there is absolutely no mention of an explosion, whether in the air or on the ground, in either the RDR or the Ft. Worth newspaper. My own view is that M/F planted this 'explosion' concept in the witnesses' minds, but DR will doubtless disagree.

So the evidence is a bit shaky and dubious.

And yes, Brazel can easily recall a date 3 weeks previously if he knew when he rode his ranch. A bit different for anyone 30+ years afterwards.

Steve Sawyer said...

It's interesting, and typical, of both Lance and CDA to ignore and not respond to the kind of reports in New Mexico, near White Sands, that David Rudiak cites above.

Several reports from multiple witnesses near the White Sands missile range in the late 40's and early 50's involved numerous objects, clearly observed through theodolites (and which had visual characteristics and anomalous motions in flight that could not have been any kind of known meteor or other prosaic atmospheric phenomena, before or since) were reported many times [including by Dr. Charles B. Moore of Mogul "infamy" himself, who was in the company of 4 Navy technicians on April 24, 1949 while tracking a balloon test by theodolite when a clearly seen UFO was observed by Moore and the others].

See: http://bit.ly/NZbOia

The obvious question in these kind of cases, involving sober scientists, military personnel, and government-employed technicians, is just what did they observe?

In some cases reported, even films taken of these objects through theodolite systems were made, and yet as far as I know, none of these films have ever surfaced in the public realm.

So, I would ask LM and CDA to respond how they might explain such sightings. Aren't these kind of incidents a form of evidence that something other than meteors or other natural phenomena were involved?

And, to David, do you know if FOIA's or MDA's have been submitted in the past to attempt to unearth the films of these objects taken at WSMR, and if so, what the results were?

David Rudiak said...

I wrote:
"But Marcel back in 1947 was also quoted saying the debris was scattered over a square mile"

Lance commented in his usual charming way:
Here we see the conspiracy buff mindset:

"scattered over a square mile" in conspiracy buff world=1 square mile FILLED with debris.


Here we see the conspiracy buff disbeliever mindset:

"scattered over a square mile" in conspiracy disbeliever buff world-1 square mile NOT filled with debris.

The evidence means whatever the nutty believer wants it to mean.

The evidence means whatever the nutty disbeliever wants it to mean.

the real world, among sane people, a small amount of debris (such as that recovered according to ALL contemporaneous reports but ignored by believers) could still be "scattered over a square mile."

Marcel was also quoted back then claiming Brazel had immediately collected the debris and rolled it under some brush. Further, he was quoted saying they spent a few hours looking for more pieces of the "weather device" and found a few more patches of tinfoil and rubber.

In other words, Brazel had already collected most of it, but Marcel and Cavitt had nothing better to do with their time than spend hours scouring a "square mile" of desert in the hot summer sun looking for the last few shards of junk of that "weather device" since those last few pieces of "tinfoil and rubber" were obviously so damn important to find.

But back in the real real world, among truly sane people, such a tiny amount of residual debris would not even merit comment much less such an extensive search by two intelligence officers if truly "scattered over a square mile."

Just the most simple logic sometimes escapes the pious believer.

Just the most simple logic sometimes escapes the pious disbelievers.

Lance said...

Steve,

The bottom line is that lights in the sky reports lead nowhere. Much of that which is reported as "evidence" as above turns out to be conflated and misrepresented. That which is left, who knows?

A skeptic can only say that there is no evidence that it is OMG! Aliens. Indeed, in cases where the evidence is copious, you are very likely to find a prosaic explanation.

I, along with other skeptics have looked into many cases and tried to address some of the so-called "best ones". All of the top ten best lists contain a motley collection of cases, virtually all of which have real problems.

One of the biggest problems is the way believers exaggerate, misrepresent, overlook, and conflate the actual data.

If we find a problem with a case, the true believer won't be discouraged, he simply points to another case.

I took a look at the conspiracy buff site you link and notice that each case is told in conspiracy-speak with a sneering discussion and hand waving dismissal of official explanation. Anyone who questions the data is just a debunker.

Look above and tell me, is David Rudiak now suggesting that his June 27th "meteor" sighting is the real Roswell crash date--he takes pains to put the report near the Foster ranch? Or maybe that is another crash since other Roswell buffs insist upon several other dates? Kevin fancies July 4th, I think. They can come up with up "facts" that support any date you want. This is the paranoid style.

And for a certain mindset, that is good enough. Feel free to enjoy their "science"! You may want to reread the original article this comment is linked to before you complain about MY response time.

Lance

Lance said...

David, your creativity is impressive.

Have you tried, "I know you are but what am I?"
Who am I kidding, of course you have!

The point is that in the desert, a few pieces of debris could easily be spread over a wide area. Just as you get to one, you might then see another bit further along and in that way you could cover a large area and yet still find a very small amount of debris.

Nowhere but in saucer believer land would anyone dispute the above. How is Rudiak disputing it? Why just by saying so, of course.

Lance

David Rudiak said...

Steve Sawyer asked:

And, to David, do you know if FOIA's or MDA's have been submitted in the past to attempt to unearth the films of these objects taken at WSMR, and if so, what the results were?

Steve, the most extensive analysis of the White cinetheodolite sightings can be found at Bruce Maccabee's website:

http://brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html

In one of the sightings, from the film and triangulation from at least one other theodolite station, there were four objects about 30 feet in diameter, at about 150,000 feet altitude, and traveling at an indeterminate but high speed.

Obviously "meteors."

As can be seen, much of the evidence was misrepresented and suppressed in the final Project Twinkle report. The original Twinkle head, a Dr. Mariarchi, became one of Lance's "nutty believers" and "conspiractor buffs", even going public the following year to rebuff the Navy's claim that people were just seeing Skyhook balloons.

Another one of those nutty White Sands conspiracy buff believers was Commander Robert McLaughlin, the head of the Navy's missile program there, who went public in 1950 saying the object's being seen in the area were extraterrestrial. He had seen one himself during a missile launch along with a bunch of people at various tracking stations. He also mentions the Project Mogul/Charles Moore sighting through a theodolite of another object:

http://www.nicap.org/true-mc.htm

Here's a letter McLaughlin wrote earlier to Dr. James van Allen (of van Allen radiation belt infamy) mentioning his sighting and that of Moore's, plus Clyde Tombaugh:

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

(You'll also notice McLaughlin calling Moore the head of "Project Mogul", despite Moore's later dubious claim that he never knew the supposedly super "top secret" project name until the 1990's.)

A listing of other balloon project related UFO sightings:

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

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

There were other interesting cases around White Sands in June/July 1947 in my list, such as the three Naval missile scientists on June 29 of seeing a bright, silvery disc traveling at high speed that seemed to suddenly disappear after they had watched it for about one minute. This got national press coverage on July 8 because one of them (Zohn) reported the sighting to the newspapers when he was back in Washington.

The official "explanation" in this case was not that these expert witnesses had seen a "meteor" but a "balloon".

Another set of sightings I find very interesting was on the night of July 8. This started in El Paso at 9:40 p.m. when three witnesses reported a "disc" over the city that disappeared over the mountain north of town.

This was followed by a group of people in Las Cruces, who said they saw the following (as I summarized):

"Mr. and Mrs. E. B. Farmer with friends Mr. and Mrs Enoch Hughes and daughter Lilly saw a large light coming from the south (from direction of El Paso). Mr. Farmer said the object appeared larger than an automobile head light and was traveling at a terrific rate of speed. It left a tail similar to a comet. As it traveled north between Las Cruces and the Organ Mountains to the east, it burst into three pieces. Immediately search lights went up from the White Sands Proving Grounds east of the mountains and 'searched the skies for an indefinite length of time.'" (Las Cruces Citizen, 7/18/47)

Apparently White Sands Proving Grounds went on alert for one of Gille's and Lance's "meteors".

Steve Sawyer said...

@LM:

Part 1 of 2

"The bottom line is that lights in the sky reports lead nowhere. Much of that which is reported as "evidence" as above turns out to be conflated and misrepresented. That which is left, who knows?"
~ ~ ~
"One of the biggest problems is the way believers exaggerate, misrepresent, overlook, and conflate the actual data."

Well Lance, there you go again.

Doesn't being such a vehement pseudo-skeptical debunker ever become a bit... tiring? 8^}

In the reports I referred to above, we are not simply looking at "...lights in the sky reports" as you deliberately and falsely mischaracterize them. Talk about paranoid style.

C.B. Moore definitively stated, in both 1949 and again later in 1986, in reply to a query by Dr. Bruce Macabee about his sighting, that he observed an object, not simply a light in the sky, and as you would know if you'd read the details of Moore's statements and report of the incident.

Specifically, Moore said the following in his original 1949 letter to the U.S. Air Force (excerpted): "I saw a rapidly moving object while making a pibal wind run."
~ ~ ~
"The object was moving too fast to crank the theodolite around, therefore one of the men pointed the theodolite and I looked.

"The object was an ellipsoid about 2½:1 slenderness ratio, length about .02 degrees subtended angle, and white in color, except for a light yellow of one side as though it were in shadow. I could not get a hard focus on the object due to the speed at which the angles changed. Therefore I saw no good detail at all."
~ ~ ~
"The object was not a balloon and was some distance away. Assuming escape velocity, a track was figured which put the elevation about the station of about 300,000 feet over the observed period. If this is true, the flight would have probably gone over the White Sands Proving Ground, Holloman Air Force Base and Los Alamos.

"We made another pibal wind run 15 minutes later. This balloon burst after an 88 minute flight of 93,000 feet only 13 miles due south of us. Therefore this object could not have been a free balloon moving at such angular speed below 90,000 feet."

So in this rather pertinent case, we have an experienced senior scientist, in the company of 4 Navy technicians, who reported he saw an object, not a balloon, not a "light in the sky," but what appeared to him as an "ellipsoid about 2½:1 slenderness ratio," primarily white in color, flying at an estimated 7 miles per second while exhibiting several anomalous changes in angular motion so rapidly he could not keep his theodolite focused on the object, and against the prevailing winds.

In Moore's letter to Maccabee from 1986, he reiterated the following:

"What I saw was not a mirage; it was a craft with highly unusual performance. It was not a balloon; at the time we were the innovators and manufacturers of the new balloons and I certainly would have known about any new developments as I was newly in charge of General Mill's Balloon operations. It was not the X-1 that was in its hangar at Muroc [Edwards AFB, California] that Sunday. It was nothing from White Sands nor from Alamogordo. ...We were in contact with Range Control and were informed our operation was the only one active on Sunday. For these reasons I am cynical about Dr. Menzel and his approach to science."

According to Dr. Allen Hynek, Moore also told him he was "disgusted" with the Air Force for its lack of attention to the sighting. Interestingly enough, the U.S.A.F. concluded Moore's sighting was an unknown, or UFO.

See further detailed documentation at:

http://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/arrey49.htm

Lance said...

Steve,

I am certainly aware of the Moore case. It isn't much more that a light in the sky but I admit that it is a no detail object in the daylight sky.

As I said, this seems to lead nowhere. There is nothing to hang onto and no avenue for further investigation (that I am aware of). You pointed me to a page of many cases, quite a few of which were just lights in the sky

You may well conclude that there is something exotic about the case and I certainly will suggest that there is more likely a prosaic cause.

That's why I try to focus on cases that involve more actual evidence. And almost without exception, that stuff leads to a prosaic cause.

It is infuriating when such evidence supposedly exists but the mystery mongers work against coming to a solution. The current Frank Kimbler nonsense is an example that comes to mind.

I realize that you don't agree with the skeptical side but you aren't standing on much when it comes to evidence.

And as far as Roswell goes, the entire idea is a farce.

Lance

cda said...

Steve Sawyer:

"So, I would ask LM and CDA to respond how they might explain such sightings. Aren't these kind of incidents a form of evidence that something other than meteors or other natural phenomena were involved?"

I have never claimed to be a 100% skeptic, in the sense I can explain each and every sighting.

The one by Charles Moore is exceptional and I have no desire to even try, considering that the blog is supposed to be about what two nuns saw one evening in July (and whether it can be used to confirm Roswell).

So my answer to you is "I do not know". Period.

We are discussing aspects of Roswell and possible confirmation or disconfirmation thereof.

I agree with Lance that the whole of Roswell is a shambles, from start to finish, if you regard the 'start' as being when Friedman first met Marcel in early 1978.

And to re-emphasize what I said before: there is no documented thunderstorm or explosion at the supposed time of the event. None whatever.

Steve Sawyer said...

Part 2 of 2:

[Sorry for the long delay in posting this part 2 -- I got distracted by something else while composing it, and forgot to post it earlier.]

So here we have a case involving someone who was quite obviously qualified and equipped to accurately observe and report something that even the debunking U.S.A.F. at the time could not explain away, and Moore is a well-known skeptic in regard to UFOs in general (as far as the ETH is concerned) and specifically a debunker of Roswell, as you are also.

But, when he had his own sighting, he could not dismiss it, and was upset when others, like Menzel, apparently tried to refute it or dismiss it.

Did Moore "...exaggerate, misrepresent, overlook, and conflate the actual data" in your opinion? Or was he truthful and objective in his observation and reported recollections of it?

I guess my point here is that you can't have it both ways, now can you?

If even a skeptic and Roswell debunker such as Moore says he and four others observed for about a minute an "ellipsoid" object that appeared so anomalous and whose motion was so fast and erratic that even Moore would tell Hynek he was "disgusted" that the U.S.A.F., in his opinion, showed a "lack of attention" to such a UFO report, doesn't it begin to at make you at least partially consider that in some reported UFO cases, particularly multiple-witness cases involving presumably objective observers (although, granted, relatively rare within the overall history of reported UFOs), that even though there was no "hard" evidence to follow-up on, something significant may have transpired?

"As I said, this seems to lead nowhere. There is nothing to hang onto and no avenue for further investigation (that I am aware of). You pointed me to a page of many cases, quite a few of which were just lights in the sky

"You may well conclude that there is something exotic about the case and I certainly will suggest that there is more likely a prosaic cause."


More likely a prosaic cause? Isn't that a presumption? What does Moore's description logically suggest to you?

[And, actually, I pointed you to a page in an earlier comment here listing a variety of cases from the period under discussion (and which note daytime sightings of various disc, egg, spherical, and cigar-shaped "objects", not simply "lights in the sky"), but the cite in Part 1 of my comment here was exclusively in regard to additional documentation of only Moore's case.]

I would agree that, with the observation Moore reported in 1949, that there "is nothing to hang onto and no avenue for further investigation," as it seems no contemporaneous sightings on that particular day, time, and area were reported, but Moore did report what he apparently observed, and I think an important point is that the Moore case should be considered as part of series of New Mexico UFO reports in that timeframe by qualified military personnel and civilian scientists, not just yokels or "believers," and possibly indicative of a _pattern_ of similar regional sightings in that era that were determined after some investigation as "unknowns," not meteors, balloons, or other prosaic phenomena, and remain unexplained, not just due to the variegated morphology of the objects seen, but also their anomalous in-flight motions or "behaviors," which in some even rarer cases of rapid retreat from aerial pursuit suggest reactivity to attempts at close observation, and thus, potentially, some form of intelligently-controlled flight.

That, to me at least, is suggestive of an ongoing phenomenon of unknown nature which should have been investigated much more thoroughly, given the nature of such cases.

I chose Moore's case as an illustration of someone skeptical of the UFO phenomenon (or at least the ETH interpretation), except when it came to his own observation of it.

That often seems to make all the difference in attitude.

Lance said...

Steve,

Thanks for the above well reasoned comments.

Yes, it is a presumption to assume that reports like Moore's are likely prosaic. I am aware that I could be wrong. What I do know is that there is good evidence that witnesses get their descriptions wrong or miss details that later explain their sightings in prosaic terms...and even very good and qualified witnesses do this.

I can not say that this happened in Moore's case. The skeptical response is just that a prosaic explanation is the most likely answer.

From experience, I don't accept the witness accounts as a final authority on sightings.

It's just betting on the odds or Occam's razor.

I wish that could tell you what Moore saw but I can not.

Nor can you tell me.

Best,

Lance

BooneH said...

Lance,

Please! Just stop it. You're coming across as and being such a jerk here. I don't know you, and I probably don't want to. I don't know anyone involved in this whole thing except for J. Marcel Jr. who was my neighbor in Montana for a number of years. I also knew or know of Law Enforcement Officer Wilcox as he is a cousin of mine. What I want to say is this: Look what the Government spooks did to Mac Brazel. The man was just a normal cowboy who happened to find something odd and strange on the ranch he was taking care of. The Government threatened this man and his family with death if he talked about what he had seen. Would they do that if The Roswell Crash" as it is called, was a meteor or a stupid weather balloon? No. I don't think so. I wish you people would look at the larger picture here. It's so plainly obvious that something not from this world or perhaps dimension did in fact crash on the ranch outside of Roswell. Two somethings if you include the Aztec Crash or perhaps it was part of the same ship/vehicle that crashed on the ranch. I know enough to know what is true and what is BS. Lance, my dear man, you're merely poking and prodding at these investigators because YOU don't believe it was anything but a meteor or a balloon. These investigators are not stupid. Why not just stop poking and prying at them? I think they have got your hint by now. You keep repeating it over and over like some Government disinfo agent. I know that's not what you are but you sound like it because you keep going in circles. What you need to look at and what everyone else needs to remember is that Mac Brazel was a really nice, humble man and after the meeting with the Government thugs, he became withdrawn and somewhat hostile. He wouldn't ever talk about what he had found ever again. Same goes with a few other people who were involved at that time. It's just clearly obvious that something of a great magnitude did indeed happen at Roswell and our Government went to great lengths to hide it and terrorize anyone and everyone who had anything to do with it except those who were part of the whole cover up. Hey, maybe I'm not the most eloquent guy but it just gets really tiring reading your comments ( and I mean all of you ) and you all just keep trying to either defend yourselves or poke and prod at each other. Is that getting any answers to the big question? No, it's not. So, can we please stop this back and forth bickering and concentrate on what is important? What is important is getting and finding the correct and right evidence and proving that the Roswell Crash was exactly what we all ( well, most of us, anyway! ) think it was. The crash of an Extraterrestrial or other dimensional ship.? By all means continue arguing if that makes you all feel better but jeez, let's not forget what this is really about! Thanks and I apologize for just butting in like I did. It's just been painful watching you all go back and forth here. All I know is that Roswell happened and it was exactly what the majority of us think it was. A ship or some kind of vehicle from somewhere not on this planet or dimension. I'll tell you one thing, it's easy for someone like me to tell who is an old soul and who is a rather new soul. Cheers, Regards Etc - BH

Lance said...

Boone,

Thanks for the comments. I'm sure that some of what you say is true (especially the part about me looking like a jerk).

I'll probably continue to keep forwarding the skeptical side of things. You might consider the idea that I come across as particularly nasty because you don't agree with my opinion?

Every once in a while, though, it is good for me to consider how hostile a counter opinion can seem to someone on the other side. I think that is just the way it is.

Lance

cda said...

I've read your personal data. You say you should have been born in the 1850s. But if you had, think of all the crashed saucers you would have missed, as these didn't occur until the 1940s and 50s.

And by the way, the government does NOT make death threats against people who have seen craft from other planets, other star systems or other dimensions (in time or space).

No world government (even the USA) knows anything about such things. Not even so-called 'intelligence officers' in the military. They simply don't have the intelligence to understand it.

KRandle said...

CDA -

Before we move onto something else, let me say that I have been reviewing documentation in the last few days, documents with a known provenance, documents from a variety of sources, and I believe that we just might be able to link the object in the air with the crash on the Foster ranch...

This is, of course, if the diaries exist, if we can find them, if we are allowed to read them and if they contain descriptions with enough detail, then a connection might be made.

But, that's a lot of "ifs" and at the moment, we only know of the specific diaries that are not nearly old enough. The serach continues. My point, however, is you can't say they are worthless without knowing what they say, specifically... with enough detail, we just might be able to connect the two events.

BooneH said...

Hey guys,

Sorry about the post yesterday. I really should have edited myself before posting my comment, I see that now. I sure didn't mean to come across as a sh*thead like I did. I really shouldn't be trying to get up in your all's business anyway. I apologize and especially to Lance. I'm sorry, sir. It wasn't right of me to go off on you or anyone. I guess what it comes down to is that I'm very tired of all the BS that has gone on for years regarding this case. I still think the majority of us know exactly what happened at Roswell. Mainly, I wanted to apologize for butting into something that was not my business. Sorry guys. Carry on by all means and I'll keep my mouth shut from now on! I will now go sit in the corner where I belong. - BooneH

Steve Sawyer said...

@BooneH:

Part 1 of 2:

I'm glad you came came back to apologize, since I was perplexed by your initial comment here, and was wondering just how to respond, or if I should, since it was mainly directed at Lance, even though you did say:

"...it just gets really tiring reading your comments ( and I mean all of you ) and you all just keep trying to either defend yourselves or poke and prod at each other. Is that getting any answers to the big question? No, it's not. So, can we please stop this back and forth bickering and concentrate on what is important? What is important is getting and finding the correct and right evidence and proving that the Roswell Crash was exactly what we all ( well, most of us, anyway! ) think it was." and "It's just been painful watching you all go back and forth here. All I know is that Roswell happened and it was exactly what the majority of us think it was. A ship or some kind of vehicle from somewhere not on this planet or dimension."

[bold emphasis added]

How does someone, from either the debunking pseudo-skeptical school, honestly skeptical, or even "crashed vehicle" Roswell advocacy faction rationally and coherently respond to such comments? Let me try:

You may be convinced that the Roswell incident was the crash of a "flying saucer" as they were originally termed, or as you put it, the "crash of an Extraterrestrial or other dimensional ship," but that's simply your belief, _not_ an established or proven fact, as yet, if ever.

It it were, a proven fact, then I suspect we wouldn't be so strenuously arguing these issues, now would we?

Ask yourself, honestly, precisely why do you think that? What is it based upon? Where is the concrete, vetted evidence that is so convincing to you?

Or, as actress Clara Peller once famously asked in an old Wendy's hamburger commercial, "Where's the beef?" 8^}

This all goes to the critical question of ontology, or how and why we think (or believe) or know something, or better, what is or is not, or the nature of reality, and the bases for belief vs. proof and substantiated evidence.

How and why do we really know what we think we know?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

And that's exactly why these debates and conflicting opinions are still ongoing -- because the proof, either way, is still not sufficiently established or available (to the public, at least). In other words, you may be right. But, you may also be wrong. I don't know, for a fact, and you don't either.

As a famous (and honest) skeptic, Marcello Truzzi once said (and as Carl Sagan later paraphrased and popularized), "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." Nothing less.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi

And when you say, "What is important is getting and finding the correct and right evidence and proving that the Roswell Crash was exactly what we all ( well, most of us, anyway! ) think it was," I'd have to differ, and suggest that what that statement reveals is a form of "confirmation bias."

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

The point is not to attempt to gain the evidence that confirms what we may already think or believe, but to empirically try to objectively determine by what the testable facts in this case are, either way, and regardless of what we may think, be predisposed to, or conditioned to believe beforehand, in order to derive the truth.

Anything less is not science, and is only circumstantial, at best.

cda said...

Boone H:

There is no need to be "sorry" about anything. You believe what you want and debate it here. It is all part of the game.

I am a bit puzzled by this idea of the Roswell saucer coming from 'another dimension'. If this were the case, surely it should never have crashed at all. But these are probably matters beyond the understanding of any of us (including the top USAF intelligence officers who looked into the case). It would be safer to stick to the dimensions we know, i.e. 3 of space and one of time.

Apart from that, by all means join in the debate, but beware - we often, very often, stray from the topic.

starman said...

"I am a bit puzzled by this idea of the Roswell saucer coming from 'another dimension'."

Other dimensions should be verified before anyone attributes anything such as UFOs to them.

Lance said...

I'll just unnecessarily also say I am in complete agreement with Steve's above comment...thanks Boone for your comments and don't worry about it...skeptics have to have a thick skin to discuss the paranormal amongst enthusiasts because we start from what is seen as a hostile position.

I could definitely be more polite and I'll strive to remember that and actually do it!

We do argue a lot here (and elsewhere on this topic). I'm not totally sure if any of it does any good but here we are so...often if it looks like a bunch of folks talking past each other, unfortunately it often is!

Best,

Lance

Steve Sawyer said...

Part 2 of 2:

I guess what I'm trying in a general sense to get at here, Boone (and to others here), is that we all, as humans, inherently have some degree of belief and confirmation bias operating, whether we're conscious of it (or willing to admit it), or not. It's part of our human nature.

The Roswell incident, whatever it truly was, is a crucial "inflection point" in considering the foremost and most ponderous question that confronts ufology (and science, in ways), which is whether we are "alone" or not, and if not, has any form of advanced non-human intelligence (ANHI), regardless of whether you use the convenient terms of interpretation like extraterrestrial, interdimensional, cryptoterrestrial, or simply an unknown "other," actually been here in the past and/or may be here now, and if there is in fact any form (or forms) of ANHI present today, or not.

That is the sine qua non and prerequisite first question that must be addressed and resolved before we can progress, IMHO.

Beyond that, if one speculates, as I do, that the historical UFO record, and circumstantial evidence, suggest that ANHI may very well be the case, then the penultimate questions are how and why, and what are "they" doing here, especially in regard to our species and this planet? And how do you prove it?

To me, the possible nature(s) and origins of such an "other" is, while important, secondary to the unresolved preliminary question of whether "they" truly exist or not.

That is why scientifically and objectively investigating the Roswell incident is so essential and critical.

We must not become trapped by and should avoid what Vallee calls "first-level" interpretations or anthropocentric belief systems about UFOs. We must use the tools and technology of science to derive evidence independent of anecdotal or recollected experience in order to develop logical hypotheses or theory, not the other way around.

Or, as Sgt. Joe Friday in "Dragnet" used to say, "Just the facts, ma'am." 8^}

[Which also reminds me of Paul Kimball's motto or imperative: "Don't believe. Don't disbelieve. Think." And to which I'd add, "And then question what you may think." In this field especially, you have to be your own “devil’s advocate,” and challenge any presumptions that may arise.]

How might we better approach these questions, reducing as best we can bias and belief to an absolute minimum, in order to more properly explore and investigate this potentially world and paradigm changing matter, or "challenge to science," as Vallee put it?

That is difficult to say, given what Billy Cox often refers to as the “Great Taboo” of seriously considering or recognizing that the UFO phenomenon deserves a concerted, full-scale and public scientific investigation, and why that is so.

Unfortunately, it would have taken (and still requires) a well-funded, multi-phasic, properly planned and major instrumented effort by qualified scientists in a variety of relevant fields, coordinated and authorized by the government to access and analyze confidential sensor data and other means to conduct a serious, high-level project over a number of years, and which is extremely unlikely to ever occur (at least in the acknowleged public realm), due to an apparent lack of genuine interest and consensus on the part of both the vast majority of the public and particularly those elements of government that, if the phenomenon does involve ANHI, would have and will continue to keep it secret, due to the potential implications for humanity and perceived national security concerns.

For some insight into these latter issues, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertson_Panel and http://www.cufon.org/cufon/robert.htm

Speculation is fine, and if so characterized as such, but assume nothing.

Caveat emptor.

Chuck Finley said...

so guys - think maybe the BH has taken over for the late KK?

BooneH said...

Oh now, Chuck. I haven't taken over for anyone. I am merely me and have my own beliefs. It's likely that I will not be joining in your discussions because I don't have the words or any proof ( btw, thank you for the pep talk, Steve. ) for what I believe in. It's better left to experts such as yourselves. I inserted myself where I did not and do not belong. I may have connections to the Wilcox Family as I said but that still doesn't justify anything. And yes, Jesse M. Jr. was my neighbor here in Helena and I went to school with his son. They are both great men who I look up to and respect. Just like I respect you guys. I really do. At least you have the balls to go after this case and write what you believe. It's actually good that you are arguing or rather, going back and forth. Like I said, I apologize and that's the best I can really do. I only hope something great comes out of all this ( maybe it already has! ). I wish you all the best and I'll be right here in beautiful Montana minding my business and digging old bottles like I usually do unless it's snowing! Take care you guys and cheers! No Chuck, I am not the new KK! - Boone

Steve Sawyer said...

@CDA:

Part 1 of 2:

"I am a bit puzzled by this idea of the Roswell saucer coming from 'another dimension'. If this were the case, surely it should never have crashed at all."
~ ~ ~
"It would be safer to stick to the dimensions we know, i.e. 3 of space and one of time."


"Safer"? I don't know about that, since "safe" hypotheses are not necessarily equivalent to either "more likely" or what might eventually turn out to be factually true, regarding the sources of propulsion and means of transport by any advanced entities.

More than one theory regarding the origins, nature, and subsequent methods of travel of "ANHI' may be true -- it's not a "binary" choice of one concept vs. another. We just don't know, as yet.

I can only speculate that Boone's references to "a ship" from "another dimension" is shorthand for one of the alternative theories of UFO origin, the EDH (aka IDH) as opposed to the standard extraterrestrial hypothesis.

Think of it this way: a "craft" could use interdimensional travel as a means of transport, and doesn't necessarily mean ANHI originated or resides there.

But the Vallee EDH does seemingly posit a form of potential ANHI co-existing with us on a parallel or ED "plane" local to our planet. I see this as an esoteric extension of the ETH, in a way, related to newish concepts of a "holographic universe."

See: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Universe

An inter or extradimensional form of ANHI would be an entity which could be "from anywhere or any time," and could employ the known fact (derived from quantum mechanics and QM physics/theory) that there are several additional dimensions, a prospective total of between 8 and 11, embedded within the first 4 (3 spatial dimensions integrated into spacetime), and might employ the equivalent of artificial wormholes or "spacetime bending/distortion" as a means to go from one place (or time!) to another.

Vallee has noted, speculatively, that he thinks the EDH, or "extradimensional hypothesis" is more likely than the "nuts 'n bolts school" of the more mainstream belief in the ETH, i.e., beings traveling to here over immense, interstellar distances in purely physical "spaceships" from another solar system, based on his field research and somewhat ambiguous interpretation of the UFO phenomenon.

But Vallee does not reject the ETH, either -- he wisely keeps his options open, since no one really knows for sure, and multiple possibilities may co-exist.

This also relates to string theory, quantum gravity, supersymmetry, and the idea of the universe as a stochastic information "system."

References:

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9pR0gfil_0

[Vallee's Brussels TEDx talk, "A Theory of Everything (else)"]

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdimensional_hypothesis

See also: http://bit.ly/1jgCex

["Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects" by Jacques Vallee, SSE/JSE, 1990)

Vallee has also developed the EDH theory more clearly and at greater length in his book "Dimensions."

Steve Sawyer said...

Part 2 of 2:

Vallee has argued that UFOs apparently can also affect and manipulate "local" dimensional spacetime, and gives examples of cases where UFOs seem to pop into "our reality" and transmute or shape-shift in appearance, and could also affect human perception and memory via very high-energy electromagnetic radiation, such as microwaves being emitted from some UFOs in CE cases, before popping back out to some other dimensional realm, leaving only the visual impression of something suddenly "disappearing" to the witness, which I guess suggests something other than a metallic craft or physical object as we understand it making its presence known.

Instead of an object, per se, think of a coherent form of extremely intense, mobile or directed energy, maybe like a kind of "mini-singularity" able to use the dimensional matrix for transport, a kind of framework for purposeful display.

BTW, while Vallee's perspective on the UFO phenomenon has made him somewhat of a "heretic among heretics" within the "UFO community" of researchers, such as it is, he's always been fairly careful to characterize his views regarding the possible nature, origins, and potential intent of genuine UFOs in encounter cases as speculation, or theory, based largely on his own research of nearly 50 years.

Vallee had his own very interesting UFO sighting in France at the age of 15 in his mother's company, and this "classic" UFO was also witnessed by a school friend through binoculars, who lived about a mile away, and which was the impetus for his own interest in both astronomy and the UFO phenomenon.

BTW, I initially met Vallee at Steve Wozniak's US Festival back in 1982, did some unpublished research on his behalf in the early 1990's on the infamous "Pentacle memo" first disclosed in his book of edited journals entitled "Forbidden Science," and have intermittent contact with him since then over the past 20 years, since I belatedly became interested in the UFO phenomenon myself as the result of learning some new data in late 1991 from someone who I had shared a UFO CE 1 experience with in a multiple-witness incident in late July of 1972 during a camping trip in Northern California.

Steve Sawyer said...

@CDA:

"And by the way, the government does NOT make death threats against people who have seen craft from other planets, other star systems or other dimensions (in time or space).

"No world government (even the USA) knows anything about such things. Not even so-called 'intelligence officers' in the military. They simply don't have the intelligence to understand it."


[bold emphasis added, above]

Oh, really?

Know that for a fact, do you now, CDA?

Care to enlighten us as to the evidential basis for your unqualified opinion?

When you say "the government," that's a pretty nebulous term.

Your blithe naivete about how some elements of government may have covertly acted in the past never fails to impress me, CDA.

These particular blanket statements of yours both perplex and almost amuse me, since, just how would you know, anyway? You don't, so please don't talk blather about such things.

There are unfounded personal opinions, and then there are those other thingies, you know, actual facts?

It would be nice if you were able to clearly distinguish between the two more often, IMHO.

cda said...

Steve:

Please give me a specific instance of a government official (military or civilian) who has made a death threat against anyone who has seen any of the following:

1. a visiting 'nuts & bolts' ET craft
2. a craft from another dimension in space
3. a craft from another time dimension.

I want full details of such threats. Remember that science does not accept that any of the above exist, so it is no good quoting Roswell witnesses who THINK they might have seen them.

The ball is back in your court. I live in the real world. At least I think I do.

Terry the Censor said...

Skipping over the usual arguments in the comments, I have to commend Mr. Randle for correcting the record and admitting an error. It took 18 years, and perhaps he had to be pushed into it, but it happened, which seems to be quite rare in this field.

Ufology needs a retraction process like science journals have (or try to have -- not all journals are forthcoming with details). When errors are corrected early, especially errors flagged by the investigators themselves, no shame need accrue -- and the less likely those errors are multiplied across internet pages, in documentaries, and in books.

Admitting errors -- or even changing one's opinion in light of new facts -- seems to be avoided by most of ufology, presumably because it gives aid and comfort to the enemy (this applies to skeptics too. Jason Colavito called out Ben Radford recently and Radford -- though completely in the wrong -- was a total dick about it).

Ufology can never be taken seriously as a science -- or even as a hobby -- if no one is ever wrong. Mr. Randle and others have busted some Roswell witnesses, for instance, but some prominent researchers, most television producers, and pretty much all of UFO fandom seem not to care the least about these developments. To these latter groups, evidence of fraud and error are written off as lies told by debunkers or MJ-12 disinformants.

I strongly recommend the Retraction Watch blog to those who enjoy learning about fraud and incompetence in science, and how science tries to correct the record.

retractionwatch.wordpress.com