Sunday, October 07, 2012

Roswell Minutia - The Press Release

While plowing through the piles of documents and the nearly endless video and audio tapes compiled in the Roswell investigation, we have been able to solve some small and relatively unimportant questions. Take, as an example, the claims by George Walsh of Roswell radio stations KSWS and Frank Joyce of KGFL that they had broken the flying saucer crash story in 1947. It is a point of trivia that means little in the overall scheme of things, but we do know the answer of who did it.
According to the testimony of Walter Haut, he made it a routine to rotate, among the four media outlets in Roswell, the news releases that he prepared. He didn’t want anyone to accuse him of favoritism in his job. Today, it matters little who he gave the release to first. Given the timing of events, we can conclude who broke the story. I suppose I should note here that in a technical sense, that honor goes to Haut. Without his press release, there would have been no story, so, he was the one who broke it.
Let me take a moment here to point out there is a very good possibility that there was a single, written release, meaning that he called the various media outlets and read it to them over the telephone. I say this for a couple of reasons. First is that George Walsh said as much, which, of course, doesn’t make it right, though that it his memory.
Art McQuiddy, editor of the Roswell Morning Dispatch, on the other hand, remembers Haut coming into the office with the release. We now devolve into a “he said… he said” situation. Without the written release, the nod goes to Walsh on this. There is, however, another bit of evidence. Frank Joyce had saved, for 45 years, the teletype messages that went out. There is a query from the Denver office of the United Press for the text of the press release. The response, from the Santa Fe office is, “Army gave verbal ann[oun]c[ment. No text.”
There is one other, circumstantial proof here. The Associated Press quote of the press release is substantially different than that of the United Press. This would suggest that those who received the verbal release made notes and then wrote the story based on those notes. Again, this suggests there was no written release, other than the one that Haut had out at the base.
This does not, however, answer the question of who broke the story… Walsh or Joyce? Here we move into another point that has come up. Walsh, at KSWS had a teletype machine that allowed for both transmission and reception. Joyce, at KGFL, could only receive. To put a story on the wire, he needed to go to the Western Union office and send it that way…
Which, in today’s world, seems cumbersome and archaic. In today’s world, where I can communicate almost instantaneously with friends around the world, send them photos, text, and video, it seems strange that a radio station would have to rely on Western Union to communicate with its office in a different city.
It makes no difference, who Haut told first in this instance. Any advantage that Joyce might have had would have been lost during his trip to Western Union. But, the newspapers of the time including the Daily Illini, which published an almost minute by minute account of what happened on July 8, gives us the answer. Associated Press beat the United Press by about fifteen minutes and that gives the nod to Walsh.
In the end, the answer to this question, in the world today, means little to anyone, including both Walsh and Joyce. The answer is interesting, only for the historical perspective it gives us. But, we did manage to answer this question. It was really Walter Haut.


David Rudiak said...

Indeed minutia. It is possible that UP beat AP in the announcement by a little bit, but we may never know. The Daily Illini said AP first put out the story at 2:26 p.m. (MST) Frank Joyce's collection of surviving UP telexes has the time of his first telex as 2:41, but also notes "MORE FLYING DISCS (DXR 53)", whereas this bulletin was DXR54, suggesting DXR53 had preceded it with some original information.

I'm not sure George Walsh could transmit. I thought he called in the story to Albuquerque where Jason Kellahin took it down and sent it out from there.

More puzzling is the Roswell Daily Record stating that the base announced at noon that they had acquired the disc, which is also everybody's memory of when Haut came around. Why the 2-1/2 hour delay?

I know Don Ecsedy has suggested maybe Haut called everybody on the phone saying he had such an announcement, but maybe the details would come in a written release. Maybe this also partially explains why Walsh thought the information had been phoned in to him whereas everybody else, including Joyce, has a distinct memory of Haut hand-delivering the release, Joyce also recalling that he directly questioned Haut before he left over the wisdom of putting out such a release.

Joyce also told me (and others I think) that he has a memory of the teletype going dead for several hours. In this scenario, did Haut deliver the release around noon, but then they couldn't get the release out until around 2:30 because the teletypes weren't working?

Then there is the puzzlement of why all the differences in the three versions of the press release (AP, UP, and Roswell Daily Record)?

AP and RDR mention Marcel, but not UP. AP has that Marcel "loaned" the disc to higher headquarters (which is preposterous), whereas UP correctly reported the disc was "flown" to higher headquarters.

UP mentions in its first known telex (DXR 54) that neighbors of the rancher reported a "strange blue light" in the area several days before, but AP and the RDR say nothing about this. Where did it come from? I asked Joyce about this, since he put the press release information, and he said he didn't know how it got there!

Were the news outlets given differing versions of the press release to deliberately increase the confusion, or is it as Kevin suggests the release was phoned in and then reconstructed from notes? Then why do the principles of three of the four news outlets (excepting Walsh) remember Haut hand-delivering the press release?

I asked Haut why the differences in the press versions, and even he didn't know. When I asked him if maybe they all got different versions, he said that standard operating procedure was that everybody got the same PR and the same information.

In the end, I don't think the confusion over the differences in the press release and the true reason for the big time gap before it finally went out will ever be unambiguously cleared up.

cda said...

The "loaned" and "flown" difference can be explained by someone at the end of a phone mishearing the word. It is a strong indicator that the release was indeed telephoned and not delivered in writing.

David Rudiak said...

cda wrote:
The "loaned" and "flown" difference can be explained by someone at the end of a phone mishearing the word. It is a strong indicator that the release was indeed telephoned and not delivered in writing.

I agree, but the story from Walsh is that he phoned the story to the main AP office in Albuquerque, so the "lost in translation" could have happened at that end, not back in Roswell.

Walsh also said Haut phoned the story into him, but nobody else from the other three news outlets in Roswell concur. Instead, they all remember Haut hand-delivering a written press release.

Another story from Haut is that he was asked if Marcel actually flew the disc to higher headquarters, wherein he substituted "loaned". I don't find that explanation very convincing however. A transcription error over the phone seems more likely.

Lance said...

Thanks for the above Kevin.

Your description of Haut's routine fits into my scenario (and perhaps other skeptics) in which the press release was seen as trifle for local interest only.

Under this scenario, the Foster Ranch find represented, for the gentlemen involved, a low tech solution for the flying disk stories that were a national rage. The lack of identifying markings and the strange tape "symbols" contributed to the idea.

My suggestion is that the find wasn't seen as particularly important or perhaps even really definitive, just interesting. The press release was somewhat tongue in cheek, intended for Haut's or Blanchard's friends in the local press.

The "find" is hugely important, I realize, to buffs but that doesn't mean that it was to our cast of characters in 1947.

CDA (or anyone), does this resonate for you?


David Rudiak said...

Nice revisionist history Lance. In the REAL world, bases like Roswell and C/O's like Blanchard don't put out "tongue-in-cheek" press releases for their personal amusement, nor would Blanchard find it necessary (under Gen. Ramey's orders it was reported) to fly your "low-tech" find of a rubber balloon, balsa wood, and aluminum foil to Fort Worth on a B-29, no less (and by the base deputy C/O), for General Ramey's personal viewing, nor would it be necessary to fly it on to Wright Field for still further examination and identification, as it was also reported. (Such as in the FBI Dallas telex saying Wright Field told them they didn't agree with the supposed weather balloon/radar target ID.)

Nor would it be necessary that such a nothing find be highly classified with a "security lid" slapped on it from Washington, as Gen. Ramey was quoted saying it was, until it was supposedly identified as a weather balloon.

Basically we have yet another enunciation of the skeptics' "drooling idiot" theory of Roswell, that the people at Roswell couldn't make a simple ID of a weather device or would confuse flimsy materials like a rubber balloon and a small balsa wood kite as coming from the reported large and supersonic flying discs being reported. Then to compound their stupidity, they put out a press release that they had a genuine flying disc, must knowing that such a release would cause a sensation given the massive national publicity to the mysterious new phenomenon barely 2 weeks old and subject of enormous speculation in the media.

Lance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KRandle said...

Lance -

I find, again, your tone offensive. Disagee if you must, as you will, but I really don't care for your attitude. Tone it down or find your postings deleted.

You can make you points without the snide comments and frankly, I've about had enough of it.

Lance said...

I have revised my offensive post and repost below:

No, the scenario I proposed is not that the authorities mistook the debris for something exotic.

I propose that just that they thought is was an answer (or more likely a possible answer) for the reports of flying discs. And, of course, they were right in a sense: there's good evidence that balloons were the cause of some flying saucer reports. I'm not saying it was a joke (any more, I once suspected that but no longer) just that the press release was intended for local consumption and was a bit tongue in cheek.

We also have good evidence that other folks did mistake weather debris (that we KNOW was weather debris) for flying disks and that the military did it for similar debris. Those folks weren't drooling idiots. They were just mistaken.

cda said...

As I have said endless times, the stuff was identified (with say 90% certainty) BEFORE it left Roswell.

No, I do not think Haut's press release was a joke, but it was issued too hastily.

Why can't DR and Kevin see the context, and the 'war nerves' times of the 1946/48 period? Flying discs were buzzing around for two weeks. This odd looking stuff was found on a ranch. It could have come from Russia. Any AF base at the time would naturally be keenly interested to grab it and examine it. Those who did examine it may have been baffled briefly but would soon have realised what it was. The scare was then over, but just before it was over a press release went out in a hurry to indicate that a disc had actually landed and had been found.
The release was intended for national distribution, and was almost certainly sent by phone initially.

The press release said "landed", not crashed, and was put out BEFORE all the facts were known (such as date/time of discovery, object size, shape, construction, and so on). These had to wait until the following day.

Once this release hit the wires Blanchard obviously had no option but to forward the stuff to 'Higher headquarters' WHATEVER it was. The recovered debris was simply too important to be ignored.

We know the stuff went to Ft. Worth. The question of whether it went on to Wright Field has never been satisfactorily resolved.

Lance said...

Yeah, by tongue in cheek, I just mean that they knew that the "disc" wasn't anything to get excited about, that it was a collection of sticks, foil and balloons and that the "many rumors" were all about something that was pretty silly but still possibly a "flying disc".

I think what I am suggesting, CDA, diverges from your estimation in the sense that I am postulating that the lack of identifying marks (and perhaps the odd tape) may have led to an idea that the collection of junk WAS something unusual and not a normal weather balloon.

The recollection (which is not contemporaneous and thus not wholly reliable) that Marcel was still trying in Ft. Worth to suggest that the markings on the tape were unusual plays into this.

Additionally, many years later Marcel was STILL operating under the impression that the stuff he found was part of something unusual when he admitted (twice) that the stuff he found and the stuff in the pictures is one and the same.

I'm trying to present a scenario that is internally consistent.

Tim Printy's excellent recent Roswell timeline reveals a clincher for supporting this scenario that has apparently been overlooked (or more likely ignored) by the Roswell supporters.

But I will discuss that later.


David Rudiak said...

cda mostly thoughtlessly wrote: (part 1)
As I have said endless times, the stuff was identified (with say 90% certainty) BEFORE it left Roswell.

If it was identified as simple balloon material with "90% certainty" (and what else would you ID as if all they found is in Ramey's pictures since an obvious major component is a WEATHER BALLOON), then there NEVER would have been a press release that they had recovered a "flying disc". But you apparently want to have it both ways.

No, I do not think Haut's press release was a joke, but it was issued too hastily.

What exactly does that mean? Haut would only issue the press release under Blanchard's orders, and, as he explained to me, anything he wrote up would go back to Blanchard's office for review and final OK.

Further Haut said Blanchard had him working on the release that morning and the release didn't finally hit the wire until about 2:30, so HOURS for Blanchard to retract the whole thing if they knew with your "90% certainty" what it was. Again your “certain” theories make absolutely no logical sense.

Why can't DR and Kevin see the context, and the 'war nerves' times of the 1946/48 period?

We are dealing with seasoned war veterans at Roswell, all of whom had been in combat, not nervous Nellie drooling idiots, what you and other skeptics keep portraying them as. Guys like Marcel and Blanchard had been on numerous combat aerial missions, highly dangerous stuff. Blanchard was the backup pilot for the first A-bomb drop on Hiroshima, said to have nerves of steel.

But according to your ridiculous portrayal, they find a rubber balloon and a balsa wood kite (all that is shown in Fort Worth), they have numerous hours to ponder what they have, yet with absolutely no pressure on them at all to publicly announce anything they instead go to pieces and rashly put out a press release that they have one of those supersonic "flying discs" everybody is talking about. How absurd!

Flying discs were buzzing around for two weeks. This odd looking stuff was found on a ranch.

"Odd looking stuff?" According to the Fort Worth photos, they had a large rubber balloon that could only be a weather balloon and an obvious balsa wood kite covered with foil paper, same stuff used to wrap candy bars and chewing gum. Marcel was also a radar intelligence officer and the previous year primary briefing officer for the 8th AAF and 509th at Operation Crossroads, the A-bomb tests in Bikini, whose prime piece of intelligence were the winds, determined by sending up the same damn RAWIN targets multiple times a day on the same tiny flat island they were on (Kwajalein). He probably saw these things go up every day.

So Marcel almost undoubtedly knew what a rawin target was, probably Blanchard too, Cavitt claimed he instantly knew they were dealing with a weather balloon (but apparently forgot to tell Marcel and Blanchard), but apparently they were nervous Nellie drooling idiots instead, who instant jumped to the conclusion of "flying disc" and “hastily” put out a press release to that effect.

It could have come from Russia.

Yeah, right! In your dreams! More of your drooling idiot theory.

Any AF base at the time would naturally be keenly interested to grab it and examine it.

Dream on Christopher. Do you really think these highly experienced officers would get in a big kerfluffle over a used weather balloon and broken balsa wood kite? Russian? Back to your drooling idiot theory.

David Rudiak said...

response to cda (part 2)
Those who did examine it may have been baffled briefly but would soon have realised what it was.

Yet fail to retract a "flying disc" press release with hours of time to do so. More drooling idiot theory.

The scare was then over, but just before it was over a press release went out in a hurry to indicate that a disc had actually landed and had been found. The release was intended for national distribution, and was almost certainly sent by phone initially.

You are always so "certain" about everything. However Haut delivered the press release, it was only to the LOCAL media. And one (Walsh) of AP then phoned it into the AP office in Albuquerque. Joyce of UP sent it out at the local Western Union station.

The press release said "landed", not crashed, and was put out BEFORE all the facts were known (such as date/time of discovery, object size, shape, construction, and so on).

So let's see... Both Marcel and Cavitt had spent an entire day with Brazel, questioned him, examined the debris field, picked up the debris, yet STILL didn't have any idea about the date/time of discovery, object size, etc., etc. Back to the drooling idiot theory.

These had to wait until the following day.

At which time they had no more information then they would have had when Marcel and Cavitt returned to Roswell and reported to Blanchard. They were both seasoned intelligence officers, yet somehow both neglected to collect the most basic intelligence. More drooling idiot theory.

Once this release hit the wires Blanchard obviously had no option but to forward the stuff to 'Higher headquarters' WHATEVER it was. The recovered debris was simply too important to be ignored.

Baloney. Now you are just making up "facts" clearly in contradiction to what is known historically. First of all, the press release itself mentioned that the "disc" had already been “flown” to “higher headquarters”. I guess in your world they used a time machine to go back and insert that into the statement retroactively because of the press reaction that followed afterward. Brilliant logic CDA.

Second, Marcel was already at Fort Worth in a photo shoot within two hours after the press release first went out. It takes about two hours to fly from Roswell to Fort Worth, and you CAN'T just instantly order up a B-29 for transport, like you are magically claiming.

Marcel was obviously already in the air or at FW when the press release went out and the flight had very obviously been ordered some hours before for this to happen, giving time to prep the B-29 for flight. In addition, the newspaper reports said as much, that Blanchard had called Ramey and the flight had been ordered that morning.

So back on planet Earth, the reaction to the press release had absolutely NOTHING to do with the flight from Roswell to Fort Worth. Sheesh!

David Rudiak said...

Response to cda (part 3 of 3):
We know the stuff went to Ft. Worth. The question of whether it went on to Wright Field has never been satisfactorily resolved.

The newspapers reported Ramey said the flight to Wright Field was canceled once the debris in his office had been definitively IDed as a weather. But was the flight really canceled as Ramey said it was?

The newspapers also reported that the disc “HAD” been sent to Wright Field before Newton did his ID and Ramey said it was canceled. ABC News radio (probably around 7:00 pm EST) said they called Wright Field, who said the flight hadn't arrived yet but they were expecting it.

And the FBI telegram, which included the ID given to them by one of Ramey's intel officers of a radar target held up by a balloon, said they had contacted Wright Field, who disagreed with that assessment, which would suggest the flight would continue on for their personal examination. Furthermore, the Dallas FBI was told in that telex that the Cincinnati FBI would be told the results of Wright Fields examination. (The GAO in 1994 went looking for that promised FBI report and couldn't find it.)

Given the FBI telex, the USAF counterintelligence team in 1994 conceded that the flight to Wright Field probably happened and had been viewed by Col. Duffy (previous project officer of Mogul and an inventor of the rawin target) there that night as definitively coming from Mogul. They cited letters to Robert Todd from 1992 and an interview with Col. Trakowski, Duffy's successor at Mogul, that they had a conversation a few days later where Duffy told him that.

Problem is the actual Todd letters have no such positive ID, instead Duffy talking all around what it was he supposedly viewed, and a telex from the evening of July 8 that later turned up has military intelligence at the Pentagon referring a reporter to contact Duffy in New Jersey (NOT Wright Field, Ohio) for more information on radar targets. So Duffy was apparently in two places at once.

For more information about how AFOSI shamelessly spun the Duffy story in their Roswell report:

cda said...


Yes, I concede your point on the timing of the press release. It was most likely put out during the Ft Worth flight, not before it. However, it may well have been drafted before and gone out after take-off. There is no final answer on this.

Just as there is no final answer on whether the debris went on to Wright Field. Can you tell from the FBI teletype what it really means?

"Disc and Balloon being transported to Wright Field by special plane...."

Does this mean: "going to be transported to WF" or "has already left for WF"?

Do you know? It is still an open question. You say that no answering teletype from Wright Field to the Cincinnati FBI was uncovered by the GAO in their searches. Exactly. I claim that this is strong evidence that the stuff never went to Wright Field, thus accounting for no AF response to Cincinnati FBI.

But, as I say, there is no final answer on this. All we have is distant memories, which differ (surprise!).

The RDR reports how Brazel, Marcel and Co. tried to make a kite out of the debris. This indicates their minds were focussed on a balloon- borne kite-like object (and certainly NOT an ET craft!)

Yes, the press release may well at first suggest to people, including Blanchard & Ramey, that the odd looking stuff may have come from another nation such as Russia. Why not? Perhaps even Marcel believed this when he first saw the debris. (But not for long).

I wrote: "Any AF base at the time would naturally be keenly interested to grab it and examine it." Yes indeed they would. I was referring to when Marcel was first told by phone from the sheriff's office and showed an immediate interest, as did Blanchard etc. This was naturally prior to going to the ranch. A possible flying disc? Let’s get it, fast!

The press release went out in a rush to be ‘firstest with the mostest’. “Here folks, we have at last recovered one of those things, found by a local rancher”. Excitement & enthusiasm abounded. A brief period of publicity ensued for Roswell AAF, despite the strong suspicion of its true identity.

Then all calmed down, as it should. Blanchard goes on leave (inconceivable had he for one moment thought the stuff might be ET).

Nobody cared one iota after this. It was a non-event. That is, until a certain ETH zealot came across the scene 32 years later. Then what a yarn it grew into.

starman said...

"Nobody cared one iota after this."

Then why did Edwards mention Roswell in his '67 book? He also mentioned that people weren't talking which suggests it's not that they didn't care but had been silenced.

"..a certain ETH zealot came across the scene 32 years later."

But as KDR once noted, Stan was told about someone who had "handled flying saucer pieces." Seems the material was associated with the ETH before he came to LA.

Lance said...

All the above discussion of exactly how people would have acted, etc. is amusing and necessary in order to defend the Roswell mythology.

Unfortunately real contemporaneous facts show us that it is disconnected from reality.

Overlooked by believers (or ignored) is a very interesting item in Tim Printy's Roswell Timeline.

On the very morning of the press release, the Roswell paper featured an article about recovered discs in Texas.

While the article strongly suggests that at least one of the cases was a hoax, it still says that the disc was under investigation by the military. The other "disc" likewise sounds very dubious.

Both of the "discs", were apparently aluminum, one of them sounds more like a ball of foil paper.

While we don't know that the staff at the base read this article (I won't pretend to know everything that folks did since there is plenty of that kind of thinking in the above voluminous multi-part comments), it's a reasonable assumption that they might have.

It takes much willful denial to imagine that after reading such a story in the paper ON THE SAME DAY that one of your officers has brought back debris (with some strange markings upon it but otherwise unidentified) that these officers might not have thought that this material could easily have fit into the flying saucer story.

It's not that they were "drooling idiots" (a straw man argument, created to divert attention away from common sense), it's just that they may have thought that they had found one of the (possibly hoaxed) discs and wondered if it was worth the attention of higher command.

It was apparently.

Roswell proponents wrongly assume that flying saucers held the same importance for these folks in 1947 as the near religious significance it holds for them.

Perhaps the Roswell junk was treated with more interest (sending a plane, etc.) because command felt now that the "discs" were popping up all over and they wanted to be sure that there wasn't something more important to the story.

At any rate the above scenario does not require ANY of the false presuppositions that Ruidak offers above. It presupposes only that the folks involved operated in a prudent manner when one considers the atmosphere of that time period.


cda said...


Yes, your remarks indeed make sense. I find it VERY hard to believe that the commanding officer, Gen Blanchard, of a USAF base that had just recovered an ET craft with 3 or 4 alien bodies (this being the first known such instance in modern times) would immediately take 2 weeks leave of absence!

If you want a strong indicator that this whole Roswell ET story is a fantasy to end all fantasies, you need look no further than that.

By the way, who else went on leave during this critical period? Presumably nobody in on the great secret lest they spill the beans through over-enthusiasm. All leave would be cancelled, surely, in case another such crash occurred and there were insufficient personnel on hand to deal with the unknown.

You know, fencing off the area again with armed guards, several refrigerated trucks, handling more corpses and debris, etc, etc.


KRandle said...

Lance –

First, thanks for the link...

How about you turn that high powered magnifying glass on Printy here? I have just scanned his time line (meaning that I have not studied it in depth) and noticed a few things. It’s not Jay Bond Johnson, it’s J. as in James Bond Johnson or as he said to me, “I’m the original.” (Yes, a trivial point.)

How about his implication that Marcel was the only one who talked of multiple reporters, apparently overlooking the statements of Irving Newton to the Air Force in the 1990s? I know he read the report because he quotes from it. Newton said, “Several people were in the room when I went in, among them, General Ramey, a couple of press people…”

I could suggest that the photographs taken also suggest other reporters. Johnson said he had taken four (well, originally two, then four, then six and then back to four) and he didn’t know who had taken the pictures of Marcel. Analysis of the pictures suggest the two of Marcel were not taken by Johnson (though I’m not sure that the analysis is accurate) and then one of Newton that clearly was taken by someone else.

He mentions we “crashed spaceship proponents” who say the debris was switched and then quotes Jesse Marcel words which he attributes to Walter Haut and quoted by me in my first book. He then quotes Linda Corley who reported in a fairly ambiguous statement that suggests to Printy that the stuff hadn’t been switched. He almost ignores the words of General DuBose, who was in the office and said it was switched, and Marcel’s words to Johnny Mann that the stuff in the pictures was not the stuff he had brought from Roswell… Oh he does quote Shandera, but Shandera took no notes and made no recording. He notes that we never asked the question about the switch, but we have video tape of DuBose saying exactly that. The debunkers who accuse me of cherry picking the information apparently have overlooked the DuBose interviews that are on tape. Who has the better evidence here? Shandera without notes or tapes, or us who have had our report corroborated by others, and who have a video tape? Which do you accept as accurate?

He also quotes a wire story in which Haut was quoted as saying he had been reportedly told reporters that he had been “shut up be two blistering phone calls from Washington”… Overlooking the ambiguous statement “reportedly told,” Haut told me (when I found the statement in the Las Vegas Review Journal in 1989) that he had not received any telephone calls from Washington, and had he received them, it was something that he, as a first lieutenant, would have remembered.

He said that “The media stated that Brazel never brought any debris with him into town and had left it back at the ranch.” He quotes the newspaper, “Brizell did not bring the object to the sheriff’s office but merely drove 75 miles from the ranch to Roswell to report his finding.”

Well, it doesn’t say that Brazel didn’t bring debris, it says that he didn’t bring the object. Not quite the same thing.

In other words, Printy’s review of the time line is not without its problems… such as ignoring Bessie Brazel’s statement that her father did not return to Roswell in the middle of the week (when it is clear that he did) or that she had repudiated her statement sometime later, saying she had confused the dates. This simply is not as cut and dried as you seem to believe, and that there are areas of interpretation of the statements. These are some of the things that we hope to clarify as we complete our work.

Lance said...

I think Tim's timeline (which may have some mistakes, I think he asked for corrections, etc.) is intended to rely upon contemporaneous evidence for the most part. Tim has always tried to correct any errors as far as I am aware and he publishes the corrections front and center.

Your points are well taken but, from my perspective, your decades-later testimony is less reliable than you imagine it to be.

I have read a transcript of an early interview you conducted which I thought you were leading the witness. I'm not faulting you for that. I know that you are probably the best at it in the field and I'm sure you improved upon your technique over time. I am sure I did the same thing when I was working on the Otis Carr stuff. Sometimes it's hard not to.

My many interviews for that 1959 event showed me clearly that such testimony is HIGHLY unreliable. Or more specifically that you cannot tell who is or is not reliable. On many occasions I located multiple people who were at the same unusual event, in the same room who had diametrically opposed views of what happened in that room.

On Marcel and the debris, I can't imagine how you don't see the rather obvious problems for the Roswell story after he TWICE said that the debris in the pictures was the SAME stuff he picked up at the ranch. I am flabbergasted that you can't imagine why he might change his story after being lead into that change by a believer coaching him that his statement didn't fit the mythology. Your answer for this problem is exceedingly weak: you choose to believe Marcel's new claim, the one that holds the mythology in place. I couldn't reconcile that kind thinking and I don't know how you do.

Kevin, we argue about this stuff endlessly and I don't imagine that I am convincing you of anything. I know that you undoubtedly think that skeptics like me are just out to debunk Roswell at any cost. If so, then I don't think you understand skepticism. I would be delighted and fascinated to see any kind of compelling evidence for the case. But the evidence that is uncovered is always so lousy--so non-definitve, so speculative.

Only recently have I managed to sort of crystalize the skeptical scenario (to my own satisfaction, anyway). That article I point out above helps answer for me the one nagging question I had left: Why the press release?

I think that the scenario I outline above is internally consistent and fits the contemporaneous data we have.

All of the other stuff, particularly the stuff like J. versus Jay Bond Johnson doesn't move things one way or another. Nor does someone pretending to know with great precision where a balloon would land if you release it into the wind. Nor does someone calling an elderly person a liar because they deny that they were stationed at Roswell. Nor does feeding text into an online lie detector. Nor does making up data as to how quickly a balloon would deteriorate in the sun. Nor does claiming to see words in an indecipherable blur.




cda said...

In the end the most damning argument against Kevin's, and others', ET idea is the complete lack of ANY documentation of such an event, over the last 65 years.

There would be literally tons of paperwork, yes tons, of all kinds ranging from official reports from on-high to scientific analysis reports, minutes of meetings, collaboratons with universities, scientific institutions (Battelle to name one - are you listening Tony Bragalia?)

There exists absolutely NOTHING. Yet we are supposed to believe it is all still top secret, known only to the select few.

Enough said.

starman said...

cda: There must have been tons of ULTRA documents pertaining to U-boat and IJN sub movements etc. Many have been cited by various authors after declassification in 1975. Did you see any prior to then?
As for the "recovered (TX) disc" story in the RDR,
even if another report of a hoaxed/misidentified disc was worth bringing to the attention of higher command--which I doubt--the press release wouldn't have been necessary for that.

"Perhaps the Roswell junk was treated with more interest (sending a plane, etc.) because command felt now that the "discs" were popping up all over and they wanted to be sure that there wasn't something more important to the story."

They couldn't trust the (putative) word of Marcel, Blanchard and others that this was worthless junk? Marcel showed the stuff to his family before reaching the base. According to the recollections of his son, he obviously felt it was highly unusual, long before being "coached" by the "ETH zealot"....

Don said...

David Rudiak wrote: "I know Don Ecsedy has suggested maybe Haut called everybody on the phone saying he had such an announcement, but maybe the details would come in a written release. Maybe this also partially explains why Walsh thought the information had been phoned in to him whereas everybody else, including Joyce, has a distinct memory of Haut hand-delivering the release, Joyce also recalling that he directly questioned Haut before he left over the wisdom of putting out such a release."

Hi, David.

It seems like Haut leaked the story to the two radio stations around noon, assuming the story was planned for release around 2:30. Since the radios at the RAAF would be tuned to those stations -- both Blanchard and the CIC had reasons (and responsibility) to notify the higher ups.

A leak would explain some things about Lydia Sleppy, Joyce receiving a phone call from the Pentagon, and the stories that Haut was reprimanded. Those are things that only make sense if the story got out before it was intended.

A table comparing the UP, AP, and RDR versions of the press release can be found here:

I think it is clear the AP and UP versions use the identical words, phrases and order, while the RDR does not. Since there was no time for one wire service to copy the other (as they did later), I have to conclude both KSWS and KGFL had identical copies of a document we call the press release, but that the RDR did not.

McQuddy's affidavit is confused. Haut could not have visited the RMD a little before noon while McQuddy is seeing the KSWS AP story on the wire.



KRandle said...

Lance – Part One

I get the difference between skepticism and debunkerism… Skeptics ask questions and follow the evidence regardless of where it leads. Debunkers reject, out of hand, that evidence which does not fit into their preconceive notions. There was no crash of an alien craft at Roswell, ergo, anything that leads in that direction is wrong and anyone who suggests it is lying. I truly get it.

I also understand that Marcel said, TWICE, that he was in pictures of the real debris. I reject one of those simply because it came from Bill Moore and Bill Moore altered the Marcel testimony, at least twice, to make it fit facts. In the second case, Marcel is on film saying it, and there is no disputing he said it… of course Stan Friedman was right there… maybe leading the testimony.

As far as I know, only one person showed Marcel the pictures taken in Ramey’s office, and when looking at those pictures, Marcel said it wasn’t the stuff that he had brought from Roswell.

So, what do we do about this little conundrum? Well, we can say that the material in Ramey’s office was not that which had been found by Brazel… We can say that Marcel was mistaken about it when he saw the actual photographs… We can say that Marcel was photographed with some of the real debris at a separate location… If we didn’t have Marcel’s statement, based on his examination of the photographs taken in Ramey’s office, then we have some real problems… Of course that is overlooking DuBose’s statements that the material on the floor was not the stuff brought from Roswell (meaning that it was switched). I do not understand how you can reject what Marcel said when he saw the pictures… other than to suggest he had been coached by a true believer at some point… without evidence that he was coached by any of us.

I also object to your opinion that I was leading the witnesses… I realize that my technique with some of the earlier witnesses wasn’t the best. In my first conversation with Bond Johnson, I was trying to understand what was happening, not leading him because I didn’t know where it was going to go. I just wanted the trip to be accurate.

Yes, I get that memories are often flawed, but then not all of them and not always. Mahala Douglas was on Titanic and gave testimony to the senate in the days (five) after the sinking. Later interviews with her were consistent… even thirty years later, so sometimes they are solid. Debunkers reject all old memories, unless they support their points of view… Edwin Easley can’t be trusted, though no one had provided any evidence to suggest he was not both honest and correct… But Charles Moore can be trusted, even when he says he remembers flight #4 disappearing near Arabela… It is always best to corroborate memory with hard evidence… Such as using the Barnett diary to prove that Barnett had nothing to do with the Roswell case in 1947.

And yes, getting Johnson’s name wrong is trivia, as I noted, but I have been hammered for just that sort of thing.

KRandle said...

Lance - Part Two

The real problem I have is that too many treat this as a debate rather than a search for the truth. I am fully aware of the various theories about the case and am often astonished at how one side or the other ignores that which does not support them. How they cherry pick the facts (of which I am often accused)? I have not called elderly former or retired service members “liars,” though those on both sides have done so… and of course it was Moore who suggested how fast a balloon would deteriorate in the desert, and if you remember, James Houran and I conducted a scientific experiment about priming… and words can be seen in the text as any kid with a magnifying glass will tell you… the real question is if some of the critical words can be read (and please, let’s not get involved in a long discussion of that at this time).

The point here is that you can sling allegations but you need to look in the mirror. Much that you find abhorrent in those of us on this side of the fence can be applied to those on the other. In the world of ufology a simple mistake is a lie, a typo becomes a distortion, and a disagreement in the interpretation of facts becomes some sort of attempt to hide the truth.

Lance said...

Hi Kevin,

I agree with much of what you say above. Most of my complaints at the end of my comment above weren't directed towards you, but the members of what you call the dream team.

I am well aware that you not skeptics have been responsible for debunking many questionable claims, for instance the dubious claims for the memo.

If you make a factual claim, I know that it can be counted upon. We differ on interpretation, certainly.

I try to see both sides even through my own imperfection. That's why I had a nagging question about the skeptical scenario.... For me, we had not explained the why of the press release.

Now I think we can with good evidence.

I don't think you'll find me calling witnesses liars or frauds, etc. (with the exception of those we both agree are such) but trying to find a post by Rudiak that doesnt do just that is difficult.

I am all for trying to raise the level of discourse (even if that might not be my strong suit!) but I sometimes see such egregious posts here that an annoyed response seems necessary.

You really ought to consider some of the work that skeptics have done recently....I was surprised that you had not read Tim's Roswell issue--there was a lot of interesting stuff in there, I would think, for believers and skeptics alike.

For instance Tim's experiment with neoprene leaves no real doubt about how long the stuff takes to deteriorate (which, despite a spectacular display of speculation by one poster here, is about the same in New Mexico as it is anywhere else).

The specks of material I found in the Ft. Worth photos speaks strongly that the balloon material depicted was shedding and had been in the sun > 16 days.

So yes, by all means, lets try to communicate. I am happy to know when I have gone over the line and happy to correct it. But if you are only looking on this side of the fence for infractions, then you aren't seeing the whole picture.



David Rudiak said...

(part 1)
Regarding Printy and the two "discs" stories out of Texas, this is old news. One from the newspaper reports sounds like it could have been foil-paper backing from building insulation blowing in the wind, and was so suggested at the time. (Contrary to usual skeptical historical revisionism, aluminum foil and foil-paper were common consumer products in 1947, such as for wrapping candy bars and gum, hardly "exotic" or "strange" as our resident skeptics try to make it. Foil-paper also made up such things as radar-jamming chaff, which again the people at Roswell would have been well-acquainted with.)

The other “crashed disc” story was an obvious hoax out of Houston. Gen.'s Vandenberg and LeMay were dealing with it the day before (July 7), with Vandenberg's daily log having Vandenberg ordering his man down there to "explode" the story. This is gone into in some detail in the log.

Immediately after this, Vandenberg canceled a previously scheduled dental appointment, left the Pentagon to personally pick up AAF Secretary Symington at the airport and drive him back, where they conferred in Symington's office about something. Over 1-1/2 hours elapsed, but there is is no detailing at all about why Vandenberg personally had to rush to the airport to see Symington or what he spoke to him about.

At the same time, N.M. Senator Carl Hatch's office (actually his son) called the White House and asked for a personal meeting with the President, which was granted early July 9. The Truman Library lists absolutely no details here either as to what the meeting was about.

The skeptics will no doubt claim that nothing was going on here, but I think it is pretty obvious SOMETHING of import was going on. High brass like LeMay and Vandenberg would not be dealing with otherwise low-level incidents like the phony disc story out of Houston (which got very little publicity BTW, quite unlike Roswell) unless they were concerned that this newspaper story of a crashed disc owned by the AF might be taken seriously. But why would they be this concerned?

And why would Vandenberg suddenly cancel his dental appointment to act as chauffeur to Symington? Again, this is something that underlings would routinely take care of (or Symington could have taken a cab). Instead this series of events speaks of something of great urgency suddenly coming up, with Vandenberg wanting face-to-face with Symington to discuss it ASAP. And quite unlike the previously detailed log of the phone discussions about Houston, absolutely nothing is detailed about what Symington and Vandenberg discussed.

Likewise, why SIMULTANEOUSLY would the NEW MEXICO Senator call the White House to ask for a private meeting with Truman?

Perhaps it's because of what Walter Haut said in his affidavit; he became aware of the craft-body site on the afternoon of July 7, or exactly when Vandenberg starts behaving rather strangely and Hatch wants to see Truman. (Remember, Marcel and Cavitt were still out on the debris field with Brazel at this time and had not yet reported back.)

The following morning, Vandenberg changed his schedule AGAIN, canceling a previously scheduled meeting and instead substituting a suddenly-called meeting of the Joint Research and Development Board chaired by Vannevar Bush. (Yes, the same Bush in genuine Canadian documents from 1950 said to be heading a super-secret saucer group inside the RDB.) LeMay briefed Vandenberg before the meeting and the meeting ran for 2-1/2 hours. Of course, absolutely no details about this meeting either.

This JRDB meeting was also SIMULTANEOUS with the staff meeting at Roswell where Walter Haut's affidavit indicates Ramey and Dubose had flown in, discussed the two sites and handled debris, with Ramey saying they were going to cover it up.

David Rudiak said...

(part 2 of 2)
Then followed the Pentagon putting out a press release, that the flying discs were NOT "space ships" (in addition to being not ours or Russian). Wow, of all things to deny what they were not, at that exact moment! What another amazing "coincidence"! The Executive Director of the JRDB also made a public statement ridiculing the saucers published in the same article.

And right after this in the afternoon of July 8 we have the sequence of events starting with the flying disc press release from Roswell with Ramey quickly debunking it as a weather balloon starting only an hour later. Starting the following day, news articles explicitly stated the military was running a saucer debunkery campaign to kill public interest.

Guys like Lance and cda will dismiss all this as indicating nothing (probably also using their usual knee-jerk buzz-words like "conspiracy theories"), but I think a police detective looking at this would get suspicious of all these "coincidences". And there are a lot more "coincidences" in the public record surrounding Roswell, none in isolation proving anything, but getting mighty suspicious when large numbers of them pile up.

E.g., another newspaper article in the Roswell Morning Dispatch from a week earlier already had Gen. Ramey debunking the saucers along with his intel chief Kalberer, claiming they liked the “Buck Rogers stuff” but ridiculing the idea that they were men from Mars. So yet another military dismissal of extraterrestrial origins for the saucers. See:

Ramey and Kalberer instead said people were probably seeing jet planes or “heat waves”. In addition, they referred to and dismissed the supersonic speeds attributed to the saucers (probably from the Arnold sighting just a few days before) and Kalberer dismissed the idea of them being Russian.

(This debunkery by Ramey and Kalberer over a week BEFORE Roswell followed on the heels of some of those well-publicized sightings at White Sands and El Paso that I discussed in Kevin's previous blog. There Col. Harold Turner at White Sands likewise starting debunking the disc reports as jet planes and shiny “meteors” coming unusually close to Earth and brightly reflecting the sun's rays.)

So let's see, over a week before Roswell, Marcel's and Blanchard's superior officers at Fort Worth are ridiculing the saucers as being either ET or Russian. You would think the bozos at Roswell would have gotten the memos from their 8th AAF superiors Ramey and Kalberer, or read the local newspaper, that flying discs were NOT to be discussed seriously, at least publicly. I guess they also missed the news article in the Morning Dispatch July 8 where Ramey's op officer John Ryan was suggesting that radar targets might explain the saucers--another Roswell "coincidence."

I don't see our so-called “skeptics” like cda, Lance, or Printy discussing THOSE news articles anywhere. Instead they advance the rather preposterous theory that the Roswell officers selectively flipped out over only the “crashed disc” articles in the Morning Dispatch, even considering that a rubber balloon and a balsa wood kite might be Russian or could account for the mysterious aircraft said to travel at supersonic speeds, i.e., a weather balloon and balsa wood kite "explained" the flying discs and they wanted to take credit for it. Ha, ha, ha!

Like I keep saying, all of these skeptical “explanations” for Roswell amount to nothing more than “drooling idiot” theories, that Roswell was staffed by incompetents and fools for senior officers.

And I notice they keep dodging discussion of another point I made, that these fools suffered no career repercussions as a result of their alleged colossal mistake that embarrassed the Air Force nationally and internationally. I guess the Air Force ran a really loose ship back then after just beating Germany and Japan.

Lance said...

Dr Rudiak,

I was going to respond to the above but I wanted first point out something.

You say above:

"Contrary to usual skeptical historical revisionism, aluminum foil and foil-paper were common consumer products in 1947, such as for wrapping candy bars and gum, hardly "exotic" or "strange" as our resident skeptics try to make it."

Ok, I'll bite. Can you point our a few instances where the resident skeptics say this?

The problem with unraveling your long comments is that they often start with a false premise that needs to be skewered before a discussion of the rest can even proceed. It's frustrating and tiresome so most of the time I suppose most folks don't even bother to try.

So can you do that first? Can you support your own words?

Can show where I, CDA or any other resident skeptic says that aluminum foil was "exotic" or "strange"?

Thanks, I'll be waiting.


cda said...

DR wrote:

"And I notice they keep dodging discussion of another point I made, that these fools suffered no career repercussions as a result of their alleged colossal mistake that embarrassed the Air Force nationally and internationally."

This is DR's idea, nobody else's. It is preposterous to suggest that the USAF suffered any "embarrassment" either nationally or internationally as a result of the Roswell case.

And perhaps he will now claim that Blanchard went on leave to escape this 'embarrassment' rather than stay on base and be around for all the ensuing conferences, investigations & research into ETs visiting the planet for the first time in recent history!

Please point to a news item that states or suggests this 'embarrassment' to the AF. (I mean embarrassment comparable to, say, the U-2 affair of 1960).

And no, there was NO need to demote or severely reprimand any of the personnel involved in the case. They had done nothing to deserve such treatment. Also, there was nothing "colossal" about their mistake. Just a bit of over-enthusiasm at a time of a frenzy of 'flying disc' reports.

The only 'colossal' mistake is the ET crash idea trotted out by certain investigators since 1979.

I also suggest DR is creating 'coincidences' where they don't exist. These connections exist only where & when people want them to exist.

cda said...

"Likewise, why SIMULTANEOUSLY would the NEW MEXICO Senator call the White House to ask for a private meeting with Truman?"

A perfect example of making a false connection between two unconnected incidents. The NM senator was calling Truman in the same way other congressmen, senators and numerous military chiefs and cabinet members call the president for, say, a 5-minute meeting. We don't know what the topic was - perhaps about some legislation affecting NM.

It is very easy to pick out some events on a given day and link them together as if they were part of an imagined grand scheme, when in fact they were all separate unrelated incidents.

A keen investigator should locate Vandenberg's and Spaatz's logs for the rest of July. They should be full of high-level conferences, urgent phone calls and telexes with top scientists, military personnel and politicians (including Truman), together with loads of accompanying documentation. That is, if the ET story has any truth.

Come on 'dream team'. Find it all.
The GAO could not, but you guys can!

Lance said...

CDA is exactly right about looking of details in someone's life and creating mystery where there is none.

It's like the practice of finding coincidences between Presidents Kennedy and Lincoln:

Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth at Ford's Theatre; Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald in a Lincoln automobile, made by Ford.
Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy who told him not to go to the theatre; Kennedy had a secretary named Evelyn Lincoln who warned him not to go to Dallas.

To the conspiracist this MEANS something. They don't know what it means but they know it's important.

It's the same situation above with Dr. Rudiak's comments. He doesn't know the actual details of the appointments and meetings of these people THEREFORE it's Roswell.

Starting with false premises, adding in unsupported conclusions and attributing EVERYTHING to your conspiracy is probably not helpful in the search for truth that Kevin mentions above.



KRandle said...

Lance –

You and Tim Printy have revealed yourselves. Much of what you have criticized here can be found in Printy’s timeline. He says that DuBose said the stuff in Ramey’s office was not switched and he bases this on a story in the MUFON Journal written by Jaime Shandera. Shandera quotes DuBose, but he took neither notes nor did he record the conversation (which DuBose told us when he complained about the way Shandera conducted himself). We are left with his interpretation of it with nothing to back it up… yet is seems to be accepted as accurate and the only reason would be is that Shandera reports what you and Printy wish to believe.

On the far side of this, is DuBose saying that the stuff in the office was switched. Billy Cox heard it, as did Kris Palmer, she of Unsolved Mysteries, and yes, I have a letter from her about this. There is also Don Ecker who talked to Dubose… but let’s set the stage.
Shandera called Ecker and said that he would arrange for Ecker to talk to DuBose to get the story of the non-switch straight from the general’s lips. Ecker didn’t wait for that but called DuBose himself and got the story that there was a switch. He then called Shandera and told him that DuBose said the stuff was switched. Shandera said wait a minute and that he would call Ecker back. He did this and said that he had just talked to DuBose and for Ecker to call him now… AH, coaching the witness… getting him in a frame of mind to say what Shandera wished for him to say… and now we read from Printy that Shandera said that DuBose said the stuff wasn’t switched. Who do you believe? And why should we believe any of this from Shandera?

But wait, there’s more. I have a video tape of DuBose talking about what went on in Ramey’s office and he says the stuff was switched. On tape… DuBose telling us something different than he told Shandera. In fact, it is only Shandera who says there was no switch and Shandera has an agenda. He believes that some real debris was mixed in with the balloon crap, but if it was switched, his real debris theory tubes… But Printy believes this to be accurate information anyway.

It seems to me that both you and Tim Printy accept Shandera’s uncorroborated tale as the truth, even though the memories are 45 years old but reject what DuBose said to the rest of us, as recorded on tape, as being inaccurate because… well the memories are 45 years old. Talk about eating your cake and having it too.

So, how do you get out of this conundrum?

And yes, I try to keep up with what the skeptics have to say about this… Sometimes it’s hilarious.

Oh, are you going to demand that Shandera share his notes or tapes with you to prove the accuracy of his statements?

cda said...


What exactly are you getting at?

DuBose can ONLY say the stuff was definitely switched if he saw both the original debris AND the ersatz debris.

Did DuBose see both? If so, how did he describe the original, and how did it differ from the substitute?
(Sworn to secrecy I suppose!)

We can assume the original debris must have resembled the substituted debris. You are surely not claiming that the original stuff was so entirely different (i.e. parts of an advanced interstellar machine) that Ramey then replaced it all with a flimsy earthly balloon, and hoped he could get away with it! That is pure fantasy.

Therefore the ersatz stuff must have had SOME resemblance to the real stuff (assuming there was a switch at all). Now look at the RDR report. The stuff described there by Brazel is more or less identical to what is on display in the Ft. Worth pics, which is also what Marcel described at Ft Worth. That was good enough for the USAF in their report, and is good enough for me and any reasonable outside observer.

Why is it not good enough for you and your 'gang'?

We can all agree that Shandera is an unreliable source (especially after his involvement in MJ-12).

Do you really trust ANYONE's memory after 45 years? I suggest you cannot and dare not relinquish the ET craft idea, and want to cling to it at all costs. As do others, of course.

Lance said...


I'm happy to tell you what I accept or don't.

I don't accept or reject either the switched or not switched story. It doesn't matter to me because either way the testimony is questionable.

Again, there was AMPLE chance for Dubose to come to understand the answer you guys were looking for, for him to change his testimony to make it more palatable or for him to just have a bit of fun with the thing (as many other witnesses have done).

The fact that there is reasonable evidence that he did change the testimony ought to cause some sort of reflection.

Kevin said:

"And yes, I try to keep up with what the skeptics have to say about this… Sometimes it’s hilarious. "

Now, now...I have put the sarcasm aside (and you know I'm much worse about it than you!).


Larry said...

Kevin :

I know this is off topic, but you may want to check out the story at

if you haven’t already.

It seems that a BBC film crew was recently out visiting Area 51 and trespassed some distance into the area (past the warning signs). The security team, apparently considering this to be a serious security threat, put the entire crew on the ground at gunpoint for several hours while checking their identities.

One of the guards was quoted by one of the BBC crew (UFO expert Darren Perks, 34) as saying: “Listen, son, we could make you disappear and your body would never be found.”

It seems that this guard was somehow unaware of CDA’s 100% certainty that military guards don’t make death threats to civilians.

Lance said...

In reference to the story Larry referenced above...

These guys were making a conspiracy TV show and , according to the Daily Mail, "It is the same 'documentary' team that caused outrage in Britain last week when they suggested that the 7/7 London bombings were part of a government conspiracy to boost support for the Iraq war."

If you aren't familiar with the special kind of craziness related to this conspiracy theory (that includes the idea that the generators on the tube were overloaded and intentionally exploded) you really ought to treat yourself and take a look.

So, this doesn't exactly seem like a reliable source, but, hey, it does support (with no evidence at all) your assertion so I see why you got right on to post it!


Lance said...


Someone just shared a history of Dubose interviews with me.

Would you like to discuss this?

Because I can just take your own work and show that Dubose said lots of things, changed his story NUMEROUS times and basically make a case that says whatever I want it to...since he is on record with so many stories.

Do you really feel like the Dubose information is a rock solid part of your Roswell evidence?

This is what I was talking about when I mentioned how terrible the evidence really did above, it seems to me, leave out a bunch of stuff that Dubose said TO YOU that contradicts your premise.

Is that really the way you think that a search for truth. should be conducted?

Ask me if you want quotes and I am happy to provide them.


cda said...

"It seems that this guard was somehow unaware of CDA’s 100% certainty that military guards don’t make death threats to civilians."

My actual remark was that the military do not make death threats against those who have seen visiting ET craft from either another planet or another dimension.

They might make death threats (very very occasionally), but not for this reason.

David Rudiak said...

Well, we're getting way off-topic again, but allow me to dispose of one of Lance's usual gross distortions of reality:

For instance Tim's [Tim Printy's] experiment with neoprene leaves no real doubt about how long the stuff takes to deteriorate (which, despite a spectacular display of speculation by one poster here, is about the same in New Mexico as it is anywhere else).

Here we have Lance's pseudo-skeptic posturing at work again. For Printy's experiment to have merit in determining rate of balloon deterioration in hot, dry New Mexico, he would have to closely reproduce the actual conditions (what in real science they call controlling the variables). He did not do this. I pointed out numerous IMPORTANT differences between where and how Printy conducted his experiment (Manchester, New Hampshire) and conditions in N.M. where Charles Moore conducted his experiments and conditions one would expect at the Foster Ranch in June:

Foster Ranch/Socorro in June: Hotter, drier, clearer and sunnier, windier, much higher altitude with more UV radiation, all of which will cause neoprene to deteriorate much faster than in rainy, cloudy, cool/warm New Hampshire in June and July, where Printy did his experiments. (Rate of deterioration depends on rate of evaporation of solvents in neoprene rubber which keep it pliable, also UV intensity which breaks chemical bonds, all of which are higher in hot, dry, sunny, high-altitude New Mexico in June.)

This isn't "speculation" on my part, but scientific FACTS. One can look up average temperatures and cloud cover, humidity, UV with altitude, etc. I even checked the weather records for where and when Printy said he did his experiment. It was raining and cloudy most of the time. June is the rainiest month of year where Printy lives and July isn't far behind. Manchester is at 200 feet altitude; the Foster Ranch 6000 feet. Printy said he ran his experiment for 38 days, vs. the at-most 30 days for the Foster Ranch debris (or was it Marcel's 10 days when he said Brazel immediately picked it up?) vs. the “two to three” weeks that Moore said he did his neoprene balloon experiments in Socorro (wherein the balloon rubber was reduced to a brittle, blackened, and shredded ash-like material--is Lance going to accuse Moore of hoaxing this?).

But according to the ever-spinning Lance, the conditions Printy used were "about the same in New Mexico as it is anywhere else." Oh really? Where did Lance get his "science" training? I suppose if it furthered his debunking agenda Lance would argue that clothes dry “about the same” hung on a hanger vs. thrown in a clothes dryer. This Lance calls skeptical thinking. More like skeptical, self-serving nonthinking.

I also pointed out that Printy was totally inconsistent in how he treated the debris, where he assumes it was shredded into little pieces to try to “explain” the large debris field (also presumably to be consistent with Brazel's “rubber strips”), but leaving his test balloon totally intact, which shielded the bottom part from the sun and elements, thus less deterioration. Same story with the radar target, which he assumes was shredded into little pieces on the debris field but only slightly so along with the seemingly intact weather balloon that Ramey displayed. So the usual debunker trying to have it both ways: largely intact in Ramey's office but shredded and widely scattered in the field. More debunker-”science” at work.

What we have is a classic example of confirmation bias by Printy and Lance, which they, naturally, are always accusing the “believers” of being guilty of.

David Rudiak said...

Larry wrote:
It seems that a BBC film crew was recently out visiting Area 51 and trespassed some distance into the area (past the warning signs). The security team, apparently considering this to be a serious security threat, put the entire crew on the ground at gunpoint for several hours while checking their identities.

One of the guards was quoted by one of the BBC crew (UFO expert Darren Perks, 34) as saying: “Listen, son, we could make you disappear and your body would never be found.”

It seems that this guard was somehow unaware of CDA’s 100% certainty that military guards don’t make death threats to civilians.

A super-secret A-12 spy plane prototype flying out of Area-51 crashed in 1963 near Wendover, Utah. According to A-51 security personnel who have talked about it in recent years, civilian witnesses to what happened were threatened. They said it was also routine to bribe them into silence. The news media was monitored. A cover story was put out about a conventional jet crash that is still the official explanation on the books. A newsman who took pictures had his pictures confiscated and his story killed. A-51 personnel also said their work records were phonied to hide where they really worked.

Similarly a super-secret stealth prototype flying out of Area 51 crashed near Bakersfield in 1986. The area was cordoned off. Civilian police, firemen, and rangers involved had to sign security oaths. The newspapers put out a warning that any civilians who tried to overfly the site risked being shot down.

But CDA, is 100% certain that such things would never happen to civilians involved in the crash and recovery of an incredibly sensitive alien craft, so it must be 110% certain that it could never happen in the crashes of highly sensitive more-conventional aircraft.

Lance said...

I notice Dr. Rudiak didn't bother to support his earlier false premise.

His above discussion of the neoprene experiments shows the extent that a conspiracist will go to hold onto their religion.

When Tim started the experiment, he had it conducted it in three main locations. His home in New Hampshire, at my home in Mason, Ohio AND in New Mexico by James Carlson.

I encouraged him to withhold the Ohio and New Mexico data because I wanted to conduct another experiment. I wanted to demonstrate how far a committed conspiracist will make up data in order to support his point. Tim published our data in the next issue.

Dr. Rudiak did not disappoint.

In addition to the voluminous stuff you see above, Rudiak offered up more in a separate comment.

Here's some of what his fevered imagination conjured up:

"Of course in the real world there were a few major differences between how Printy conducted his tests and Moore, or how a neoprene balloon would deteriorate at the Foster Ranch. The main ones affecting deterioration are altitude, sunny days, temperature, and wind, which strongly effect amount of UV breaking chemical bonds and evaporation of solvents in neoprene rubber, drying it out.

1. Printy was in New Hampshire (but does not specify where, though presumably Manchester where he lives); Moore was in Socorro, N.M., a bit closer to the actual weather conditions one might encounter at the Foster Ranch. (Printy also conducted a shorter test in Florida, but we'll skip that for lack of details. Printy also admits being away for 12 days from his N.H. experiment, which affects his estimates of sunlight exposure.)

2. Socorro, N.M. is 4600'; the Foster Ranch is over 6000'; Manchester, 200'. This affects the amount of UV radiation hitting the neoprene material, which contributes to the deterioration. All things being equal, roughly 6% increase in UV radiation for every 1 km (3200') increase in altitude, or roughly 8% higher UV in Socorro, 12% higher Foster Ranch (not to mention roughly 3x higher UV while any balloons were flying in the stratosphere before coming down).

3. But UV also affected by amount of cloud cover, which is much higher in N.H., absorbing more U.V. E.g., rainy/cloudy weather absorbs about 2/3rds of UV. Printy ran his test for 38 days between May 28 and July 4. Looking up 2012 weather records for Manchester on WeatherUnderground, 18 of those days it rained (June is the rainiest month in Manchester), 1 day had fog/haze, 3 days were mostly cloudy, 13 days were partly cloudy/mostly sunny, 3 days were sunny. In other words, most of the time it was clouded over. Printy estimates from his records the equivalent of 21 days of full sun, but it was probably less than that (remember he wasn't even there for 12 of those days to record anything). Probably full sun was hitting the ground no more than 50% of the time, vs. 83% of the time average for places like Roswell or Albuquerque in June. The much sunnier climate in N.M. more than compensates for the fact that Manchester has about 7% more daylight hours (which Printy mentions). Bottom line, maybe conservatively another 25%-30% LESS UV overall for Printy's test because of clouds and rain.

4.New Hampshire has much cooler average temperatures in June/July, both of which reduce deterioration by decreasing evaporation of organic solvents. Difference in average June high and average temperatures between Socorro or Roswell and Manchester around 15-20 deg. F. Similarly, the N.M. desert has higher average winds, especially a full exposure place like the Foster Ranch. Hard to say how much the heat and wind speeds up deterioration, but think warm air hair drier or hand drier vs. no drier, or paint drying much faster in the sun and heat. I'll take a wild guess that the higher heat and wind increase the rate of neoprene deterioration 50-100%"

Lance said...


Wow, it sounds like a balloon would fall into ashes in seconds in the New Mexico sun!

The actual results (now published in SUNlite) show virtually no difference in deterioration regardless of location (My test was in Mason, Ohio). The New Mexico material may have had a one day lead on the other locations but basically the material deteriorated at almost the exact same rate.

We all found that, after about 16 days, much of the exposed neoprene is brittle and flaky while other material protected by just one outside layer of neoprene, retained some degree of elasticity and compositional integrity. Further it looked EXACTLY like the stuff displayed in the famous Ft. Worth photos which seem to show variations in texture from brittle and ragged (including, I discovered, flecks of material on the rug) to plastic and pliable.

This has all been published.

Kevin, I know you think skeptics are hilarious sometimes. Can you make any comment on the above?


Lance said...

By the way, I assumed that Dr. Rudiak had read the second report and just been embarrassed into silence about it.

I wasn't going to discuss it because it's almost like kicking a puppy.

I had no idea he would again show publicly how a conspiracy buff makes stuff up.

Will such a denouement give even one moment's pause for the Dream Team?


KRandle said...

Lance, CDA -

You both, of course, missed my point. I was not arguing for the veracity of DuBose's testimony, I was pointing out the double standard at work here. Tim Printy used Shandera's alleged inteview with DuBose, including fabricated dialogue, as if it was accurate and true. No where did he mention that Shandera had not taken notes or used tape to record the conversation. We are treated to his version of events with no citical commentary. He uses it to prove that the material was not switched.

He also mentions only Billy Cox's story about this, but in a short paragraph and seeming to imply that his reporting doesn't add much to the discussion. He does not mention Ecker's findings, nor that we can prove that Shandera coached DuBose to his, Shandera's point of view.

What we do get is speculation that those who interviewed DuBose from the alien side of the fence engaged in leading the witness and coaching, but there is no evidence for that... other than a belief that nothing alien happened, and if nothing alien happened, then suggesting otherwise proves coaching.

That is my point... not what DuBose said, but what Shandera said and how it was accepted without critical comment. Shandera cannot prove what he claims, he is not challenged to produce his notes or recordings... his information is referenced to the MUFON Journal as if that validates it... No, it gives the source of Printy's information, but it doesn't prove that DuBose said the things Shandera claims he did.

Now we're off on another tangent about the degradation of the neoprene balloons in the July desert in New Mexico... but the question that hasn't been touched on is if the formula to create neoprene used today the same as that used in 1947?

And, of course, the real question is where did the balloon envelop in Ramey's office originate if it wasn't in New Mexico? I actually asked Newton if he knew where to find such a balloon since he seemed of the opinion that they were not readily available to FWAAF in 1947... But I digress.

cda said...

The reason I am certain the US military have made no death threats against civilians who have seen a craft from either another planet or from another dimension is that no such craft exist, period. Science has no knowledge of such craft.

And if these craft do not exist it becomes impossible for the USAF to make death threats (or any other threats) against those who claim to have seen them.

I trust this point is now clear.

Lance said...


My discussion above is not at all about neoprene deterioration. It's about the conspiracy mindset. It's about how the people you have chosen as your "dream team" create "facts", proffer false premises, and in general have no idea what constitutes evidence.

You are upset that Tim Printy didn't use the exact quote you wanted but you have nothing to say about the obvious silliness of Rudiak's comments above--shown clearly and definitively to be ravings spoken from a world disconnected from this one.

Indeed since every excuse Rudiak created above has proven to be false, you decide to offer a new one! Amazing!

I said above that Dubose should simply be set aside.
Good Lord! He changed his testimony like 50 times! Why do you guys discuss minuscule details like this when you should be dealing with actual facts?



Gilles Fernandez said...

Lance wrote: "Because I can just take your own work and show that Dubose said lots of things, changed his story NUMEROUS times and basically make a case that says whatever I want it to...since he is on record with so many stories."

In 2010, I have been adressed "about Dubose" by an ETH proponent. I replied and I share with you Dubose changed his story several and numerous times.

I think the so called DreamTeam have fogotten the burden of proof: Those nice guys of the so called DreamTeam are "the claimants" - an Et craft crashed in Roswell in 1947 -, and the more extraordinary a claim, -and it is - the heavier is the burden of proof demanded.

They like to call us 'pseudo-skeptics', but they have noone proof to present really. Doctor Rudiak have? No.

That's ufology!


KRandle said...

Lance -

You dodged the question, changed the drift of the posting and wish that I respond to your claims here. I was not responding to your fight with David, but to Tim Printy's timeline which you brought up originally. I have no obligation to get into the fight between you and David and will allow him to speak for himself.

BTW - my reponse to you was written earlier in the day and not in resonse to what you and David are fighting about... I will stay out of that one...

Gilles -

The point was, once again, the double standard applied here. No real commentary about Shandera's claims or methodology, just an embracing of it because it speaks to the skeptical point of view.

I get that we have the burden of proof on our shoulders. I get that memory is often unreliable, but also point that this is frequently quite reliable, so I do not dismiss it simply because it comes from someone old and remembering a time long past... I do attempt to corroborate it with other information and documentation...

The original post was about who broke the Roswell story... Joyce or Walsh because both claimed to have done so... we drifted to other topics.

cda said...

We drifted to other topics. Surprise!

I am still waiting to hear whether DuBose, or anyone else, saw both the original debris and the substituted balloon (if the switch was indeed done).

If nobody saw this switch or actually did the switch, how does anyone know the switch took place? DuBose, we can assume, did NOT see the original, neither did Newton. So who did? Marcel did, but he was sworn to secrecy (so we are told), and allowed himself to be photographed, but only with the ersatz junk.

Who saw the original stuff and why has he never been located? Gen. Ramey, as a 4-star general, would not have done it himself.

Were any photos taken of the real debris? If not, why not? Where are these photos now? The only pics we have are of the substituted junk. Big deal!

Please, someone, please locate the person who did the switch or who saw the switch. And I don't mean some second or third-hand person either.

So come on Kevin: HOW did DuBose, or anyone else, describe the real stuff? You know, the exciting stuff that came all the way from Zeta Reticuli?

Lance said...


I really thought I addressed the question: Dubose should not be part of the Roswell discussion. I would recommend to Tim that Dubose should not even be mentioned--his testimony is utterly worthless.

But I am sure that Tim was just just trying to respond to the fact that you guys still dredge him up--you have done so over and over throughout the years, even though you have to know that this is extremely poor form, bad scholarship and ridiculous.


KRandle said...

CDA, Lance -

When all else fails, retreat into semantics and innuendo. Attack the witnesses you don't believe because if what they say is true and accurate, then your position becomes weaker. The objections raised about Thomas DuBose elsewhere are inaccurate, unobjective and untrue. The controversy arises because there are those who believe that the balloon and debris in Ramey's office contains some remenants of real debris, not because DuBose changed his story or that his memories are inherently flawed.

I have tried to make it clear that this is really not a debate but a search for the truth... but for some, it is only true if it leads to where they want to go.

Lance said...


I really don't understand your point. It's like talking to someone through a looking glass. I'm attacking Dubose because he made stuff up not because he didn't say what I wanted him to (although, if you caught him on the right day, he would say whatever I or you fancy).

Dubose changed his story multiple times (and related accounts that are diametrically opposed to one another). My position is that someone who does this should prudently be set aside.

This is just common sense 101.

I have no idea what point you are trying to defend.

I sometimes really wish that a public debate could take place because it might give you the opportunity to see that regular people understand when a case like this is comprised of nothing but mistakes, innuendo and pious belief, even if that ability escapes believers.

I am flabbergasted that you are advocating holding onto Dubose's testimony (if that is what you are doing--you are so unwilling to just plainly state your position on Dubose!).


JAF said...

Lance, I could be way off base, but there is the possibility that Kevin is baiting you. He seems to know just what to say to get you really steamed. He pulled out his trump card, DuBose on tape, but can't do much with it but wave it around and annoy you. Let it go.

What's really missing from the skeptical argument is a motivation for Marcel's beliefs. If the balloon in Ramey's office is one that Marcel himself picked up, then why has he forgotten this? He flat out denies to Linda Corley that there was a balloon found. He says there was a fabric, but it couldn't hold air -- he could blow right through it when held to his mouth.

Karl Pflock rates Marcel as being prone to exaggeration. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it with me. If the skeptical case is to be believed, this isn't exaggeration. It's more like delusion.

The Air Force left DuBose out of their report on Roswell. For an outsider like myself, that didn't make things better. I'd rather hear about DuBose, warts and all, than have him ignored. Can you flesh out some of those warts for me?

I apologize for interrupting you two. You can go back to arguing if you like. Sometimes I find it bothersome, but sometimes I find it amusing. And sometimes both at the same time! Like now. :-)

Lance said...


I will try to remember to post a link for additional stuff about Dubose shortly.



KRandle said...

Lance -

I certainly hope it is not going to be an analysis of the situation by Kal Korff... he once an imaginery "colonel" in the imaginary Special Secret Services, who now is an "international" journalist who apparenly only publishes on some web site that encourages people to post their stories... Kal Korff who said there were no African-American sergeants at Roswell because some unidentified Air Force historian told him that the services were segregated but didn't know that meant they were assigned to their own units... I could go on but you should have gotten the point by now.

And I hope it won't by that Jaime Shandera nonsense that is at odds with every other interview conducted with DuBose... and in which there are no recordings or notes so we are left with his interpretation of that interview and no way to verify any of it.

Just a couple of random thoughts about this...

Lance said...

"I could go on but you should have gotten the point by now."

No, I don't get the point at all...have you EVER seen me cite or use Korff for anything? I hate it when people lie about their background, whether they are imaginary colonels or real postmen! Do you get that point?

Dubose can be shown as worthless JUST using your own interviews. Someone else collected the interviews and I don't have permission to post them yet. I will post here when I do.


cda said...

Korff once claimed he had 7 new books on Roswell coming very soon. That was about 4 years ago and not one has appeared. Some guy!

Re DuBose, I seriously wonder if anyone's testimony on the supposed 'balloon switch' can be taken seriously. Here's why:

1. Marcel told Moore & Friedman that he was photographed with the real debris and again with the substituted debris. (Believe this if you can!) This was because at that time (1979) the photos were so cropped that readers could not tell that they depicted the same debris. It was only when Randle & Schmitt obtained the full photos, and it was obvious they all showed the same thing, that Marcel recanted and said it was all substituted. But even then he repeated, to someone, that he only saw what was picked up from the ranch.

In other words, Marcel is inconsistent in his testimony; therefore it becomes virtually useless as evidence.

2. Newton never saw the real thing, only the substitute. (This is assuming the switch took place, of course).

3. DuBose ditto, but claims he did see a sealed box containing the real debris! (Pity he never peeped inside). As Lance says, DuBois has been interviewed far too many times and every time he seems to give a different story. Result: more confusion.

4. Ramey, as a 4-star general, would hardly do the switch himself. Anyway he was dead well before the Roswell story was resurrected.

5. J Bond Johnson likewise seems to have got thoroughly confused, through being interviewed too often I presume. Does anyone still take him seriously?

So absolutely nobody has been found who saw BOTH sets of debris (real and substituted) with any reliability at all.

Yet the myth persists (for those who want it to) that the great switch took place.

Oh really? Please, will someone prove that it did, and not just quote from the above personnel's dodgy memories decades afterwards.

Then we may begin to take the ET protagonists and the conspiracists seriously.

cda said...

In case anyone points out that Marcel was dead before Randle & Schmitt entered the fray, I agree. But Marcel's revised scenario still took place, through testimony by DuBose. Gradually the idea of being photographed with BOTH sets of debris (what a lucky guy!) became untenable.

And Marcel jr only saw the 'real' stuff, not the substitute. At least that is what he believes he saw.

And I'd love to know how much of this witness testimony came through hypnotic regression.

Lance said...

It's all so absurd when the history of Marcel's comments are laid out.

Usually you can just outline this to a layperson and they instantly understand what Roswell is all about.


JAF said...

cda said, "1. Marcel told Moore & Friedman that he was photographed with the real debris and again with the substituted debris. (Believe this if you can!) This was because at that time (1979) the photos were so cropped that readers could not tell that they depicted the same debris."

Here is the text from page 75 of a paperback edition of The Roswell Incident:

"General Ramey allowed some members of the press in to take a picture of this stuff. They took one picture of me on the floor holding up some of the less-interesting metallic debris. The press was allowed to photograph this, but were not allowed far enough into the room to touch it. The stuff in that one photo was pieces of the actual stuff we had found. It was not a staged photo. Later, they cleared out our wreckage and substituted some of their own. Then they allowed more photos. Those photos were taken while the actual wreckage was already on its way to Wright Field. I was not in these. I believe these were taken with the general and one of his aides. I've seen a lot of weather balloons, but I've never seen one like that before. And I don't think they ever did either."

So you have the idea of a substitution being made, but with Marcel NOT in the pictures of the substituted stuff. Kenith Randle has previously criticized the authors of changing their quotes to fit the context, so I'm not sure who is at fault for any inaccuracy, the authors or Marcel's flawed memory.

Of course, the idea of the press taking pictures of both real and substituted stuff is quite lame and without purpose. I don't understand why one of Berlitz/Moore/Friedman didn't see that at the time and dig deeper to get a better grasp on what did happen. Having the press take pictures of real debris makes sense, having the press take pictures of fake debris makes sense (from a "conspiracy" point of view). Having the press take pictures of BOTH real and fake makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Lance said...


Yes, you can easily see why the Roswell believers want us to focus upon the later interviews, when Marcel finally got the story "right"!

I think this means that Marcel said 3 times that the stuff in the pictures was the real stuff.

Despite the believer pretense that Marcel might have just been confused, he seem very specific about this point.

Additionally, believers have the problem that, if the press saw both sets of debris and couldn't distinguish between them then the OMG Alien stuff must look an AWFUL lot like foil paper, rubber, and sticks! How fortuitous that space sticks look just like balsa wood sticks!

It's just a farce that people still believe in this. That's what fascinates me about it.

I love the extent that the hardcore buff will go: observe the numbers and data that Dr. Rudiak manufactured for neoprene decay above--all of that stuff shown to just be hot air.


JAF said...


I'm neither a believer nor a nonbeliever. This puts me at a strategic advantage. I can give everybody a hard time! :-)

As I understand it, the interviews with Marcel for The Roswell Incident were done over the phone. Marcel may have not had any photos to look at. He may have been recounting what happened entirely from memory. A couple of years later, he is handed a photo to look at and says something like, "That's not what we found." This is consistent with someone with an imperfect memory trying to state what he thinks is true. He remembers photos being taken. He's in some. Ramey and DuBose are in others. Some are with fake debris. It doesn't help me understand where he came up with the idea that some stuff is fake, nor with how when he looks at a photo he can tell a difference. He could have said, "Yeah, that's the real stuff in the picture with me. You can't see the fine detail, but there are little heiroglyphics on it which tell it apart from the fake debris." That would have been more consistent with his previous statements that he was photographed with the real debris and not the fake stuff. But he didn't take that route. So I have to allow for the possibility that maybe he's telling the truth and that it must not be too difficult to tell the real stuff from the fake (e.g. you don't need some high resolution images and a good imagination to see the difference).

cda said...

In THE ROSWELL INCIDENT there are only two photos showing the debris. One shows Marcel with "what he described as some of the less spectacular pieces of wreckage". (see photo caption).

The other shows Ramey and DuBose with the "substitute wreckage".

However, both photos are cropped by at least 75%. Talk about misleading the reader!

Probably most readers would accept that these do show different debris. It was only when the full uncut versions were printed by Randle & Schmtt that it became very obvious that they both show the same debris, along with the 4 other photos not shown in THE ROSWELL INCIDENT.

At that point a way HAD to be found around this dilemma. Naturally nobody could possibly accept that those photos showed an ET craft! Ergo, following Marcel's hint, all 6 photos had to be of the substituted balloon, and Marcel's memory was at fault.

The rest of the switch tale sprung from this dilemma.

Rather than go over all this again, I will merely add that Marcel said: "this material may have looked like tinfoil and balsa wood, but the resemblance ended there". He was thus saying that he was NOT pictured with the really interesting parts of the debris. (What a dreadful disappointment for him!)

In other words, an ET craft travelling maybe many light years of space just happened to be partly constructed of tinfoil, balloon fabric and balsa wood, or something resembling such.

At least that is what Marcel told Friedman and Moore.

I assume that Marcel was shown the 2 severely cropped photos (but not the others) and that Friedman supplied him with a good quantity of his UFO research papers, all biased towards ET.

JAF said...

cda, I've scanned the images you mentioned in your previous post and uploaded a comparison combined image to:

The Roswell Incident photos are on top. Scroll down for how they look in UFO Crash at Roswell.

There is no "The" in the title of UFO Crash at Roswell. It's not worth fixing my composite image for the sake of the one or two people who will look at it.

cda said, "I assume that Marcel was shown the 2 severely cropped photos (but not the others) and that Friedman supplied him with a good quantity of his UFO research papers, all biased towards ET." I would agree with your assumption, but note it is risky to assume anything in UFOlogy. Marcel could be holding a bedsheet, the image is so cropped and washed out. Very clever photo-editing, giving an aura of mystery to what Marcel is holding.

Lance said...

I wonder if it is more likely that Friedman would have shown the newspaper article photo or a photostat of that to Marcel?

The cropping likely happened when the book got laid out not before.


KRandle said...


I had planned not to respond to this any more because it's like talking to a bowling ball and I'm sure you'll just ignore this...

I do not know if Marcel was shown any pictures by Moore. I do know that Moore changed the quotes three times (or twice from what appeared in his book).

When Marcel was shown the cropped pictures as they appeared in Moore's book, he told reporter Johnny Mann (who had no dog in the fight) that they did not show the stuff he had found in New Mexico.

Your scenario fails because it implies some duplicity on my part or Marcel's part or Mann's part, to cover up the fact that the stuff on Ramey's floor is a balloon. No such invention was made. We looked for facts, and had it all come down to that stuff being what was found in New Mexico, then the argument ended there. I had no hand, nor did Don, nor did Friedman because we got to DuBose before he did (Moore, as I understand it, was the man who interviewed DuBose), so Marcel's words were his without coaching from us.

Reject them if you must, but Marcel was talking about a flying saucer, meaning spaceship before any of us talked to him... He was telling his Ham Radio buddies he had picked up pieces of a flying saucer in the mid-1970s, and in that context he meant spaceship.

cda said...


So DuBose told Moore one thing and Johnny Mann another. Marcel was pictured with the real debris in one picture (as told to Moore) and with the fake debris in another (as told to Mann).

DuBose told Moore (Sept 9, 1979) that the stuff from Roswell went directly to Wright Field by special plane (presumably after a stop at Ft Worth). So the great stuff never even got to Ramey's office. Except that DuBose got a glimpse of a sealed bag containing the stuff, but never saw the contents. But he still knew (he claims) what its contents were! He then told Shandera one thing and you another, and repeated his contradictory stories over and over.

This dotty 'switch' tale gets crazier and crazier. It is a monumental shambles. Lance has pointed this out as well.

And you still have never found anyone who did the actual switch, or in fact anyone who witnessed it done. But, according to Marcel, some of the real stuff just happened to resemble an earthly balloon, with its fabric & radar reflector!

As I said, the whole saga of the switch is a shambles.

One thing I do agree on. This debate is sterile and useless.

Time to say: END OF STORY.

JAF said...

Possibly he was not shown any photos at all. Somewhere in these posts I read something to the effect that the Berlitz/Moore interviews were done over the phone (Maybe David Rudiak wrote that? My memory is not sharp enough to be sure.) The photos could have been described to him over the phone.

Consider my zany hypothetical explanation. Marcel has a personal memory of being photographed with the debris. He probably also shares what I will call a collective memory that the debris was not a weather balloon and the balloon is just a cover story. That is a collective memory which built up over years.

I don't think the people at Roswell Air Base thought of the debris as a weather balloon. To them it was quite exotic and probably remained so even after the official explanation. (For example, why shouldn't Easley be willing to discuss it with Kevin Randle? It's just a balloon. But he continued to think it was much more, probably even hanging onto Brazel for a few days because Blanchard is on leave and not around to immediately correct the situation.)

One possible way to resolve the conflict created by this dual memory when told there are photos of Marcel in one photo and General Ramey with DuBose in another is to conclude that a switch had to have been made somewhere along the line. His personal memory of being photographed with real debris is quite accurate. It's the conclusion that the General & DuBose are in photos with fake debris which is inaccurate. When finally presented with an actual picture, he sees it's a weather balloon, but his collective memory tells him the real debris is not a weather balloon. So he deduces that it's a photo of substituted debris. No lying is involved in this explanation. No exaggeration. Only flawed memories and bad deductions.

Or my hypothesis could be nothing but hot air. Excuse me while I go get my crash helmet and flak jacket. If David Rudiak reads this post, he might explode into one of his enthusiastic attacks! :-)

Lance said...


I appreciate your ideas and the idea of trying to look at things from a different angle.



JAF said...

Thanks Lance. I noticed the earlier discussion about whether a balloon was found on Foster Ranch (see ). I don't think anyone has pointed out the possibility that Marcel was unaware of a balloon, but that one was found. If someone other than Marcel or Mack Brazel stumbled upon it, tossed it into a sack, which then got tossed into a vehicle, it might never have entered into Marcel's consciousness that a balloon was there. There is the tid-bit about trying to make a kite out of the "flying disk", a non-sensical attempt to make if the balloon is present as that would be the motive force for the disk and the disk could take any shape. You also have Brazel saying he found rubber strips but not saying he found a balloon. Marcel and Mack Brazel are not the only people who picked up debris. Cavitt did and maybe Mack's daughter did. So Marcel could look at a picture of a balloon and say "that's not what we found", be incorrect and not be lying.