Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Who Put the Roswell Press Release on the News Wire?


In the last day or so, I have been asked about the press release issued by Walter Haut concerning the discovery of a flying disk near Roswell. We can argue all day about what it was, but that term was used in the press release. The Roswell Daily Record reported that military had “captured” a flying saucer in the Roswell region. What is interesting now is that some are wondering if the Roswell Daily Record put the press release on the news wire and the source of that information is quoted as evidence is Philip Klass.

In his book, The Real Roswell Crashed Saucer Coverup, Klass wrote, on page 16 (of the hardback), “The newspaper sent its blockbuster story out over the Associated Press wire service, resulting in a deluge of inquiries.”

In a world where the slightest mistake that I have made, even those of more than 40 years, are broadcast today to prove I’m a sloppy researcher, those of the skeptics and debunkers are often overlooked. I point this out because, I’ll now give you the sequence of events and how the story made it into the national press (the term for media at the time).

After a staff meeting held at the 509th Bomb Group on Tuesday, July 8, 1947, the base public affairs officer, First Lieutenant Walter Haut, received a telephone call from Colonel William Blanchard, the Group commander. Haut would later say that he didn’t remember if he was given the details over the phone or if he went to Blanchard’s office. He didn’t remember if Blanchard gave him the completed press release or just the details with instructions to write it. He was then to deliver it to the four media outlets in Roswell, that is, the two radio stations and the two newspapers. In another relatively unimportant discrepancy to this basic story, Haut would say that he drove the release into town, or he would say that he used the telephone and dictated it to them. Either way, the press release went out to the media, and then was put on the news wire by Frank Joyce of radio station KGFL and George Walsh of radio station KSWS. Who got it on the wire first doesn’t really matter to us here because the point is that the Roswell Daily Record did not put in onto the Associated Press wire but we can answer that question as well.

Walsh remembered that Haut had telephoned the press release to him “about mid-day.” He copied the press release exactly or almost exactly, as Haut read it to him over the phone. According to what Walsh told me, he in turn called it into the Associated Press in Albuquerque. From there the release was put on the AP wire and that story was published in a number of newspapers.

Joyce, on the other hand, told me that Haut had brought the press release to him at the radio station. He said that he put it on the United Press news wire and he kept the press release. Fearing that someone would return to confiscate it, he hid it but to no avail. It has since disappeared.

Art McQuiddy, who was the editor of the Roswell Morning Dispatch told me, “I can remember quite a bit about what happened that day. It was about noon and Walter brought in a press release. He’d already been to one of the radio stations, and I raised hell with him about playing favorites.”

Unfortunately for McQuiddy, the Dispatch was a morning newspaper, so there wasn’t much for him to do with the story. He said, “By the time Haut got to me, it hadn’t been ten minutes and the phone started ringing. I didn’t get off the phone until late afternoon… The story died, literally, as fast as it started.” MQuiddy’s timing is slightly off as we’ll see later.

There is a document, created in 1947, that provides the exact times for some of this and helps us understand what was going on. According The Daily Illini, the first of the stories on the Associated Press wire appeared at 4:26 p.m. on the east coast. That would mean that the stories went out from Albuquerque, sometime prior to 2:26 p.m.

The Associated Press version, as it appeared in a number of west coast newspapers said:

The many rumors regarding the flying disc became a reality yesterday when the intelligence office of the 509th Bomb Group of the Eighth Air Force, Roswell Army Air Field, was fortunate enough to gain possession of a disc through the cooperation of one of the local ranchers and the sheriff’s office of Chavez County.
The flying object landed on a ranch near Roswell sometime last week. Not having phone facilities, the rancher stored the disc until such time as he was able to contact the sheriff’s office, who in turn notified Major Jesse A. Marcel of the 509th Bomb Group Intelligence Office.
Action was immediately taken and the disc was picked up at the rancher’s home. It was inspected at the Roswell Army Air Field and subsequently loaned by Major Marcel to higher headquarters.

At 4:30 p.m. (EST), there is the first “add” to the AP story, which mentioned “Lt. Warren Haught [Walter Haut],” who was described as the public information officer at Roswell Field. This new information suggested that the object had been found “last week” and that the object had been sent onto “higher headquarters.”

The original United Press bulletin, which went out fifteen minutes later, at 4:41 p.m. (EST), according to newspaper sources, said:

Roswell, N.M. – The army air forces here today announced a flying disc had been found on a ranch near Roswell and is in army possession.
The Intelligence office reports that it gained possession of the ‘Dis:’ [sic] through the cooperation of a Roswell rancher and Sheriff George Wilson [sic] of Roswell.
The disc landed on a ranch near Roswell sometime last week. Not having phone facilities, the rancher, whose name has not yet been obtained, stored the disc until such time as he was able to contact the Roswell sheriff’s office.
The sheriff’s office notified a major of the 509th Intelligence Office.
Action was taken immediately and the disc was picked up at the rancher’s home and taken to the Roswell Air Base. Following examination, the disc was flown by intelligence officers in a superfortress (B-29) to an undisclosed “Higher Headquarters.”
The air base has refused to give details of construction of the disc or its appearance.
Residents near the ranch on which the disc was found reported seeing a strange blue light several days ago about three o’clock in the morning.

Here’s what all this minutia tells us. Walsh put the story out first with Joyce following by fifteen minutes. The Roswell Daily Record had nothing to do with that. There are two versions of the story that differ enough to suggest that Haut dictated them over the telephone to Walsh and Joyce. What we don’t know is how long the vetting process took, meaning simply, that the time of the two press releases does not reflect the time they arrived in the news wire offices. McQuiddy could be right about the time Haut got there, but it wasn’t all that long after the stories arrived that they were put on the wire.

What’s all this prove? Very little, really. We have been able to assemble, from various documents and newspaper stories, a timeline for the release of the information. Doesn’t mean it was a flying disk from another world, only that we have been able to trace, to a fair degree of accuracy, the sequence of events.

We haven’t been able to learn if Haut met with Blanchard in person or talked to him on the telephone. We don’t know if Haut wrote the release or if Blanchard dictated it to him. I’m not sure that these questions are important today because we do have the release as it appeared in two forms in the newspapers and we do know that it originated with the 509th Bomb Group… Oh, and we know that Philip Klass made up the comment about the Roswell Daily Record putting it on the news wire.

90 comments:

Lance said...

This all seems pretty solid, Kevin.

I would add that we also don't know what was added by Joyce or Walsh.

This sentence:

"The many rumors regarding the flying disc became a reality yesterday when the intelligence office of the 509th Bomb Group of the Eighth Air Force, Roswell Army Air Field, was fortunate enough to gain possession of a disc through the cooperation of one of the local ranchers and the sheriff’s office of Chavez County."

could easily be the work of Joyce. Having been in the position of both delivering news by radio and directing news on TV, I can easily see how the sentence might have been added by a newsman.

As we can see, many of the details given by memory about the how, when, where of the release are garbled by the mists of time.

You can say that Klass made it up (with no discernible gain--such a trifling point) or you can say he made a mistake. Which would you prefer is used when a mistake you made comes to light?

Lance

Frank Stalter said...

A little rip and read with some artistic sizzle added in. Pretty standard right to this day.

I note it's a common conspiracy theory talking point to point exactly the same wording in the same story from different news sources and say, "They all answer to the same master and are under control," when they all subscribe to the same wire service and rewrite very little if anything.

Steve Sawyer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steve Sawyer said...

I'd like to see what Don Ecsedy has to say about the chronology noted and the varying versions of the Haut press release.

He seems to be sort of an expert about this aspect of the Roswell incident, so I wonder if his research tallies with Kevin's.

Steve Sawyer said...

"In a world where the slightest mistake that I have made, even those of more than 40 years, are broadcast today to prove I’m a sloppy researcher, those of the skeptics and debunkers are often overlooked."

Overlooked, that is, by the self-same pseudo-skeptics and evangelical debunkers, that is. A case of "do as I say, not as I do," or, complete and utter hypocrisy.

David Rudiak said...

Two points Kevin:

Haut told me in 2001 that whether he wrote the press release dictated to him by phone by Blanchard or his adjutant, or rewrote what was handed to him at Blanchard’s office, any final version would have gone back to Blanchard or his adjutant for final review and approval for release. Haut could not put out any release of any import on his own. That was just SOP. It was Blanchard’s release, not Haut’s, and definitely not Marcel’s, even if based on information provided by him to Blanchard. UP called it Blanchard's release, while AP laid it at Haut's feet.

I also asked Haut why the AP, UP, and Daily Record versions differed as much as they do. Was more than one release put out? Haut said that wouldn’t have been SOP.

Point 2: In Frank Joyce's UP collection of bulletins, the first item was at 2:41 p.m. (DXR 54--Denver UP office), but immediately references "MORE FLYING DISC (DXR53)", which has not survived. DX54 also seems to start into the story part way instead of at the beginning. Joyce’s telexes:

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

However, we do have a version of the early UP announcement published in a few western newspapers the evening of July 8, such as the Tucson Daily Citizen and Alameda (CA) Times-Star.

http://www.roswellproof.com/UP_Earliest_July8.html

This story began:

ROSWELL, N. M., July 8.--(U.P.)--Possession of a "flying disc" was disclosed today by the intelligence office of the 509th bomb group of the Roswell army airbase.
Officers at the base say that the "disc" was flown in a Superfortress to "higher headquarters" undisclosed.


The next two paragraphs of the story are then nearly identical to DXR54's start, up to "THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN TURN NOTIFIED A MAJOR OF THE 509TH INTELLIGENCE OFFICE.", which was omitted, as was half of the next sentence (action was taken immediately), which then concluded with a rewritten version of the disc being flown in the superfortress to higher headquarters.

Then it was back almost word for word to to DXR54 for the remainder of the story (including the mysterious UP item not found elsewhere about residents near the ranch reporting a strange blue light several days before at 3 a.m.)

So my guess is that DXR54, what we normally call the UP version of the press release, was preceded by a bulletin DXR53, which was close to the first 2 paragraphs we find that evening in a few newspapers, that is a very brief announcement lacking in most details.

Maybe this is what Don likes to call the short noon announcement he believes was telephoned by Haut to the four Roswell media outlets, followed by a written release taken in person to them later. (Forgive me Don if I've got this wrong.) But I still find the whole varying press release versions very confusing.

David Rudiak said...

Lance wrote:
I would add that we also don't know what was added by Joyce or Walsh.

This sentence:

"The many rumors regarding the flying disc became a reality yesterday when the intelligence office of the 509th Bomb Group of the Eighth Air Force, Roswell Army Air Field, was fortunate enough to gain possession of a disc through the cooperation of one of the local ranchers and the sheriff’s office of Chavez County."

could easily be the work of Joyce. Having been in the position of both delivering news by radio and directing news on TV, I can easily see how the sentence might have been added by a newsman.


Interesting theory Lance. Too bad you’re quoting the AP version of the press release while Joyce was the UP stringer. Whoever wrote the AP version that way, it WASN’T Joyce

As we can see, many of the details given by memory about the how, when, where of the release are garbled by the mists of time.

As we can see, many details given by memory about the how, when, where of the the release are garbled by the myths of skeptics based on sloppy “research” they attribute only to Roswell researchers.

Nitram Ang said...

DR wrote:

"As we can see, many details given by memory about the how, when, where of the the release are garbled by the myths of skeptics based on sloppy “research” they attribute only to Roswell researchers."

As continuously advised David.... the correct word is "debunkers" not skeptics...

Lance, if you want to avoid getting a "pasting" in future might I suggest you "ask a question" rather than making a statement of fact about Roswell for which you are self confessed "enthusiast" as opposed to an "expert" or "authority" on the matter.

Sorry, but your giving us skeptics a bad name here.

Lance said...

Yes, I meant Walsh.

Thanks David for the not at all petty or pedantic response,

Lance

KRandle said...

Well, Lance -

Since I have been accused of many "false claims" just like that, accussed of writing a "revisionst history," accused of making mistakes that I did not make, the question becomes moot... and Klass was one of those who leveled those claims.

And why did I know you'd leap to his defense on such a "trifling point?"

Lance said...

I'm not really leaping to his defense. He was wrong. I think you did a good job of outlining that.

Saying that he made it up, however, has a different context, doesn't it?

Best,

Lance

Don Maor said...

Yes Lance, it has a different context, but it may in fact be the truth in such different context. Your god Klass is known for his non-fair play.

Don Maor said...

is/was

David Rudiak said...

Don Maor wrote:

"Lance... your god Klass..."

Don, just a friendly English tip: when addressing Lance, the proper deity to use is not "god". Instead say "your Jesus Klass..."

David Rudiak said...

Friendly English tip to Lance:

When putting me down in the future as believing in a "Saucer Jesus", could you please respect my Jewish heritage (and especially with great deference to my aging mother who would be most offended). You may use something like "Saucer Jehovah" or maybe "Saucer Moses", which I think would be suitable substitutes.

Thanks.

Nitram Ang said...

Ok Ok - I think and hope that someone has learnt their lesson now.

Dr Rudiak

Would you be so kind as to answer my earlier post in relation to the Roswell witnesses - I will re post it here – “Would it be fair to say that Whitmore's story regarding handling of the debris and what he did with it for so many years, is a "little less believable" than evidence provided by other first hand witnesses to the debris say, Marcel junior?”

Thank you.

Regards
Nitram

cda said...

Nitram:

I will give you my answer to the question you put to DR.

Yes it would be fair to say that Whitmore's story regarding the debris he saw and handled is just as (un)believeable as Marcel jr's story.

Both stories are equally useless as far as determining what the debris really was.

But I do not expect DR to agree on this.

David Rudiak said...

Concerning Whitmore Jr., the specifics of his changing testimony on debris:

(Friedman/Berliner) "[It was] very much like lead foil in appearance but could not be torn or cut at all. Extremely light in weight."

(Berlitz/Moore, 1979) ...He did see some of the wreckage brought into town by the rancher. His description was that it consisted mostly of a very thin but extremely tough metallic foil-like substance. ...He added that the largest piece of material that he saw was about four or five inches square, and that it was very much like lead foil in appearance but could not be torn or cut at all. It was extremely light in weight.

(As "Reluctant", Pflock, 1992) "Most of what I found was white, linen-like cloth with reflective tinfoil attached to one side. . . . Most of the pieces were no larger than four or five inches on a side, although I found one or two about the size of a sheet of typing paper . . .One of the larger pieces of foiled cloth, measuring about 8 by 12 inches, had writing on the cloth side. Someone had used a pencil to do some figuring, arithmetic. There were no words, only numbers. I did not see any writing or marking on any of the other debris. I collected some of the foiled cloth material, including the piece with the writing on it, and a few of the sticks, filled a large, 9 by 12, envelope with it . . . I still have the material I collected on the ranch site in July 1947 . . . in a safe and secure place."

In 1979, his testimony was in line with others about the extremely tough, foil-like substance like lead foil that could not be cut or torn. There is no mention of any sort of white backing.

In 1992, and concealing his identity, his testimony changed drastically. Now it was more like a white cloth with a bright foil backing.

Superficially that sounds like radar-target material, except they did not use cloth but foil-paper, the same thing used to wrap candy bars and chewing gum. It is the exact opposite of extremely tough and uncuttable. It is shiny on one side, not dull gray like lead foil.

Why the drastic change of description I don't know, but the key things are it is a big flip and that the descriptions are unique among debris witnesses. It has no corroboration (unlike say Marcel). More importantly, he couldn't produce the goods he claimed to have, which might have settled the matter.

Other flips in his debris field testimony were not getting out there until the military had left and finding it heavily damaged (1979) to getting there before the military and not finding it heavily damaged (1992).

So, yes, we have to discount his varying debris/debris field descriptions because of the big changes. On the other hand, he didn't flip on Mack Brazel staying at the Whitmore home, an interview being recorded, and the recording never played because of a warning call from Washington. That story has corroboration from KGFL co-owner Jud Roberts.

We also know that it was reported his father was in the presence of Brazel when he went to the Daily Record the night of July 8 to be interviewed after being left at the ranch by Marcel/Cavitt the previous night. That's a given. That gives credence to his story of the father hearing of Brazel's story and going out to the ranch to bring him back for the interview, hence staying at their house, etc. Whatever happened, Brazel WAS immediately back in Roswell, in line with Whitmore Jr.s story.

I tend to take a more nuanced approach to witnesses. If they flip big-time and/or have no corroboration for their stories, I am less likely to accept what they say. I also look at possible motivations for changes of story. Say “pro-Mogul” Charles Moore who also flipped, started hoaxing and changing Mogul data to make himself the star of Roswell. I don’t accept his lies and hoaxing, but also don’t discount other things he might have to say when there is no obvious motivation for him to lie.

Larry said...

David:

I think some kind of nuanced approach is required when considering the testimony of witnesses (more or less regardless of the subject of the testimony).

I have often seen it stated in these kinds of discussions (more often by skeptics/debunkers--but not exclusively) that because individual X was found to have made an incorrect statement or seemingly deliberate false statement, then every statement that individual X ever made must be assumed false.

While that kind of absolutist position is no doubt very emotionally satisfying to the individuals who hold it, a little reflection will show it is not really logically defensible. It is virtually impossible for every single statement that someone makes to be false.

My first university degree was in Psychology and I studied this kind of stuff pretty intensively a few decades ago. I haven't kept up with all the recent research in lying and memory distortion (two entirely different phenomena, BTW) so I don't consider myself an expert. My understanding, however, is that recent research shows that essentially everybody lies at some times. In the vast majority of cases, lying is done for some instrumental purpose--to achieve some desired outcome on the part of the liar. This is in distinction to sociopathic lying which is a psychopatholgy in which the liar is primarily motivated by hostility to and the desire to cause harm to the one being lied to. (They want to mess with the mind of the ones they're deceiving.) It's my understanding that sociopathic lying makes up a tiny minority of all lies told. If we literally applied the criterion that anyone who has ever lied cannot ever be believed on any subject, I think all social interaction would come to a screeching halt. In reality, in our every day lives we recognize that there is always some possibility that any particular statement that someone makes could be a lie or a mistake, but, on the average, probably not, so life goes on.

I guess the principle I am proposing is that whatever degree of lying and mental mistakes occurs around the subject of UFOs, there is no good psychological reason to expect that those lies and mistakes would be any different in quality and quantity than those surrounding any other subject. To claim otherwise, I would find to be an extraordinary claim.

cda said...

DR omits to emphasise the most important contradiction in Whitmore jr's story, which is that when he first spoke to Moore and Friedman he claimed his father (Whitmore sr) was turned back by armed guards when he tried to visit the ranch. Thus Whitmore sr got nothing, no debris at all.

Several days later Whitmore jr also ventured out to the site but found it had been cleaned out - so he too got nothing. The only pieces he ever saw were those brought back by Brazel.

However, when Whitmore jr spoke to Karl Pflock a decade later he stated that he himself collected pieces of debris from the ranch. Moreover, he still had them in safe storage, after 40+ years!

It is not the description of the stuff that matters, it is the question of whether he ever saw the stuff at all. And if he DID see and handle the stuff did he collect it himself or did he get it from Brazel?

We simply do not know and never will.

As for the limited fragments Marcel jr saw and possibly handled, he was only 11 at the time yet seems to have formed all sorts of conclusions of the structural damage and great stress endured by the so-called crashed (exploded?) ET craft some 30+ years afterwards, as evidence by a letter he wrote to a Bill Moore associate named Lee Graham in 1981.

Now just where do you suppose Marcel jr got those ideas from? Perhaps I should ask: WHO did he get them from?

No prizes offered for the answer.

Don said...

Steve: "I'd like to see what Don Ecsedy has to say about the chronology noted and the varying versions of the Haut press release."

I haven't read the further coments yet, but have read Kevin's op which is an accurate account of the stories told about it. I'll also say the same for his article in January 2013 about the July 8 chronology, which is very well referenced (and I'd say the same of his overview of the Rhodes case in a book whose title I do not recall).

Both Lance and David know my opinion from emails over the years.

The press release is a response to the gossip about the RAAF having a flying saucer.
Where that came from is worth finding out.

For some reason Blanchard didn't just identify it right then and there in the pr. I seriously doubt he could not recognize a weather balloon and rawin. He could have said we think its a weather balloon and its kite, but we're sending on to the experts to confirm since its such a big deal (the "many rumors")

Haut in one of his affidavits notes about the morning meeting and the press release that the press already had the story.

In B&M, Marcel refers to reporters nosing about his house, I think, long before the pr.

On July 9, 1947, Dick Pearce wrote in the San Francisco Examiner about his phone call to Ramey about an hour after the pr.

He quotes 'Haughts Statement", and calls it "the first sober" Roswell story.

That implies there was an earlier story that he did not consider sober.

If the Daily Record got on the phone to the AP and told them a Roswell story, as Klass wrote, it wasn't the press release, but something else.

Likely: RAAF Captures Flying Saucer In Roswell Region

Which explains why Blanchard's pr didn't identify the "object". It was deferred until Ramey could present it to a national (and international)venue because the story was already out. It was no longer a local Roswell matter.

That's what the press release was about, imo. Today.

Regards,

Don

Don said...

Continuing...

The AP and UP versions are about identical. The difference is in the way they were written. The AP tended to set off Haughts Statement from the adds, while the UP (as in the telexes) mixed them together. But the order of the words and phrases are similar.

This is not true for the Daily Record story.

It appears the AP and UP versions were from the same source. The UP is missing the opening, but we're also missing an earlier referenced telex, and first telex does not have a full citation of the RAAF (as I recall), as does the AP.

Regards,

Don

Lance said...

Larry writes"

"I have often seen it stated in these kinds of discussions (more often by skeptics/debunkers--but not exclusively) that because individual X was found to have made an incorrect statement or seemingly deliberate false statement, then every statement that individual X ever made must be assumed false."

Often, huh?

Can you provide 2 examples of skeptics doing this? Please be sure the part about "every statement that individual X ever made " is clear in your example.

Lance

Don said...

I don't know if it is significant, but the comment by Klass made me think of it.

There is one identical version of the pr that is labled the Roswell Statement and does not mention Haut, Walsh, or KSWS.

Regards

Don

David Rudiak said...

CDA:
I certainly DID mention most of the contradictions in Whitmore Jr.'s story, about when he saw debris, what it was like, when he collected it or didn't collect it at the debris field, the differing condition of the debris field, and claiming to still have collected balloon debris that he couldn't or never did produce.

Because of the big flip-flopping and contradictions in the debris/debris field side of the story, I said we had to discount it.

But then I noted he had some corroboration for more of the story of Brazel staying at their place, recording an interview, the interview being pulled after a call from Washington, etc.

Before ranting on that I didn't address topics, please do the courtesy to read what I actual wrote where I certainly did address them.

And whether or not his father was turned back by military guards being the most important part of Jr.'s story is your opinion, not mine. I think Brazel being back in Roswell and the recorded interview being killed is the most important part because of the implications that the government was acting to cover it up. And that part doesn't just come from Whitmore Jr.

And now you are trying to drag Marcel Jr. into the discussion. I already hear Kevin gritting his teeth because we have wandered so far from the thread topic. Sorry Kevin.

David Rudiak said...

(part 1 of 2)
Don wrote:
It appears the AP and UP versions were from the same source. The UP is missing the opening, but we're also missing an earlier referenced telex, and first telex does not have a full citation of the RAAF (as I recall), as does the AP.

Don, I would say the wording is similar on most points, indicating the same source, but certainly not the same, with some major differences. E.g., AP mentions Marcel by name, but not UP. Marcel by name doesn't enter into UP bulletins for about another 45 minutes. UP identifies the sheriff by name (but curiously misspells it) while AP only mentions the sheriff.

Most mysterious is UP's "strange blue light near the ranch" part seen by nearby residents, which doesn't show up in either AP or the Daily Record stories. Sounds like somebody at UP was making some quick phone calls after receiving the initial information, maybe to the Lincoln County sheriff's department. I asked Joyce about it and he said it didn't come from him, yet he was the UP stringer who took the Blanchard/Haut release down to Western Union to put it out on the UP news wire.

But what I would like you to comment on is my first post, where I note that the first surviving Joyce UP telex bulletin we have seems to be missing the first part of the story and references an earlier related one, which we don't have. I then speculated from the first UP news stories about Roswell, published in a few western newspapers that evening, that the first two paragraphs of those stories were from the earlier missing bulletin. The rest of those stories was almost word-for-word from the existing known bulletin, except with some from the middle missing.

Part of the missing central part was redundant information from the story's first two paragraphs. This would be typical if the story was derived from two successive bulletins, the second one going into more detail but with redundant info from the first one in the body of the bulletin. A UP copy editor might delete the redundant information and just run with the original short announcement as the opening of the story.

The rest of the omitted information was about the sheriff contacting the unidentified major at the intelligence office and action being taken immediately.

I also speculated that maybe those first two paragraphs briefly announcing the find and flying it to "higher headquarters" might been the original noon announcement we have discussed might have been phoned into the Roswell media, followed by a later hand-delivered, more detailed written one.

Thoughts?

David Rudiak said...

Part 2 of 2:
Some more speculation: part of Joyce's recollection to me was after first putting the story out on the wire, the teletypes went dead for several hours. I thought maybe it was one of those old, shaky memories that didn't track well with most of what I thought I knew. But if there was a short noon announcement, someone then killing the wires in Roswell but AP and UP elsewhere then doing their due diligence by making phone calls to check the veracity of the story, this might go part way to explaining the ~2 hour delay between everyone's recollection of when they first got the story until everything first went crazy at ~2:30 p.m.. So maybe there might be some truth to Joyce's admittedly shaky recollection.

Except for one news story, however, I don't see any support for that idea. The almost universal reporting is that the initial story lasted for only about 3 hours, starting at ~2:30 with AP and ending ~5:30 with the official weather balloon story out of Fort Worth.

The sole exception is the New York Herald-Tribune, July 9, which claimed the AAF thought it had a real flying disk for 7-1/2 hours and the excitement began at 1:00 p.m. (time zone not specified):

"The flurry of excitement created by the A.A.F. began at 1 p.m. when Colonel William H. Blanchard, commanding officer of the Roswell Army Air Base, reported a 'flying disk' had been found and forwarded to 'higher headquarters.' He would add no details."

That is very similar to the bare-bone details of the first two paragraphs of the July 8 UP story in the western newspapers. The main difference is the announcement was credited to the "intelligence office" instead of Blanchard.

See:

http://www.roswellproof.com/NY_HeraldTribune_July9.html

Don said...

David: "Don, I would say the wording is similar on most points, indicating the same source, but certainly not the same..."

They aren't identical, but their 'bones' are the same. I began comparing the versions after reading Tim Printy's Haut Hero Or Mythmaker? which was based on some comments by Pflock in Saucer Smear. I put them in a table and the UP and AP shared words and phrases in the same order. The surprising thing was the Daily Record noon announcement story, although, the same subject as the other two, did not track with the other two and that enhanced the similarities for me between AP and UP.

Also the Daily Record in its several stories didn't refer to Haut or to any statement from the RAAF. It did not name the source of the noon announcement.

One difference between the AP's Haughts Statement and the Daily Record's noon announcement is the AP tells us that the field reports that its Intelligence Office had a disc. The Daily Record tells us that the Intelligence Office reports that the field had a disc.


I do not think the IO could speak for "the field" unless it was delegated. The "field" is the Commanding Officer. As in the AFOSI Roswell Report, it was "the field" that sent out Marcel and a CIC detail. That is, Blanchard or his authorized to do so delegate.

A few years ago when I had heard Dennis Balthaser had spent a lot of time with Haut, I asked him about it. He said Haut indicated the Daily Record was his press release and that he didn't know where the extra detail in the wire stories came from. Since Mr Balthaser indicated he had no more to say on the subject, I did not push the matter and ask him if his "he didn't know" meant Haut or himself.

That's a lot of ground to cover, David, in your post, so I'll continue in another.

Btw, I like Saucer Moses, but suggest a more on topic Saucer Ezekiel 8-)

Best Regards,

Don

Steve Sawyer said...

Is the term "Saucer Buddha" taken yet?

If not, then... well, you know. I kinda like it. 8^}

Don said...

Lance's comment has brought to mind something. He sees Haughts Statement as possibly a composite. David may recall that twitch and I slogged our way through a 15 rounder about it (about three days after I had first heard of Roswell and the press release. So, how was your day, the time you first argued Roswell?).

Twitch and I agreed it was a composite. The aporia is at the point the transfer is made from the civilian to the military authority:

"the sheriffs office, who notified..."

Lance thinks a reporter may have written part of it and he means the part before the join. So may have twitch, but I think they are both from the Army because of the content. The bit about "the field", the reference to the cooperation between the sheriffs office and the RAAF -- A2 and a CIC detail had no business in this civilian matter. The Army's involvement had to have been requested by the civilian authority, and there was no FBI office in Roswell. That's what that part of Haughts Statement attests to. I don't think a reporter would bother with these pro formas, assuming he or she had a clue about them.

Regards,

Don

Lance said...

Well, my suggestion may only go as far as adding the introductory phrase "rumors became reality etc.". That braggy part doesn't sound that much like what I imagine would be a military press release.

But I am only guessing, supported by the fact that it only appears the one version.

Lance

Don said...

Lance, my assumption is a PIO writes press releases not military reports for the public. The last part, which does have a military style to it, is the odd part of it, then.

It may have been like this. Haut makes notes of what Blanchard wants in the pr. Blanchard reviews it and makes some changes.

The original might have named the sheriff thus: "Sheriff Wilcox, who". It's decided not to name any civilians (the rancher isn't named) and that is changed, leaving a flaw: "the sheriff's office, who".

The Army part, beginning with Marcel having been notified -- the journalistic style applied to the Army activity didn't appeal to Blanchard and so rewrote it or had it rewritten.

Regards,

Don

Don said...

Lance, I realize I didn't quite answer your point specifically.

Let's say that I agree with you that opening sentence is unusual. I kinda admire it just as I admire the style of another Lance, Lance Cornine, to William Steinman about the IPU.

There is a nuance about it that is so nice I cannot imagine why any reporter could write it except by sheer happenstance.

It is a sweet bit of prose and utterly obscures what its point is. It stumbles over its own elegance. Not really professional reporter-like. It's Freshman English Comp.

Regards,

Don

Regards,

Don

Don said...

Continuing with David's: "Most mysterious is UP's "strange blue light near the ranch" part seen by nearby residents, which doesn't show up in either AP or the Daily Record stories. Sounds like somebody at UP was making some quick phone calls after receiving the initial information, maybe to the Lincoln County sheriff's department."

The blue light story implies the author knew the ranch involved before it was on the wires, as far as I know. I assume it was someone from Lincoln County, but I wonder how could there be "residents" near the ranch? I thought Brazel's nearest neighbors were 15 or more miles away. Not sure about that, though. The Proctors?

I don't think the sheriff's would call the UP. They'd call the CIC if there were unusual lights in the fields at night, or if someone reported an explosion and something falling from the sky. Two years later, a Lincoln County Sheriff called AFOSI with the story someone saw a fireball over Capitan. If they had an AFOSI Special Agent in their rolodex in 1949, I guess they'd have the CIC in 1947.

"But what I would like you to comment on is my first post, where I note that the first surviving Joyce UP telex bulletin we have seems to be missing the first part of the story and references an earlier related one, which we don't have. I then speculated from the first UP news stories about Roswell, published in a few western newspapers that evening, that the first two paragraphs of those stories were from the earlier missing bulletin. The rest of those stories was almost word-for-word from the existing known bulletin, except with some from the middle missing."

We know there was a '53' and it was about discs, and probably about Roswell. We don't know if there was an earlier one we have no record of. I'd like to see the four Western UP papers as they were printed rather than transcriptions, not that the transcription might have errors, but because the story in the context of the page itself, may tell us something.

I'd like to discuss it in email with you, get all the ducks lined up, and speculate wildly 8-)

(Reply tbc)

Best Regards,

Don

Don said...

"Maybe this is what Don likes to call the short noon announcement he believes was telephoned by Haut to the four Roswell media outlets, followed by a written release taken in person to them later. (Forgive me Don if I've got this wrong.) But I still find the whole varying press release versions very confusing."

Marcel in 78-80, and Haut in at least one affidavit (the last, I think. I'm not at all certain about details in later witness accounts) indicate there was a story known to the press before any pr was distributed or any phone call made.

In 1947, Pearce calls Haught's Statement the "first sober" Roswell story, which implies there was an earlier one, one he did not consider "sober".

For the skeptics: Haut's and Marcel's comments don't seem to serve any invidious agenda of the ever mesmeric Stanton Friedman, and I don't think any Roswell investigator was much concerned with these minor details about the local press

The reaction of the national press to Haughts Statement seems really overwrought. Despite the squirrely first sentence, there is no big deal in it, and it was "sober". Did something prime the pump?

The trace would be any early account that says the RAAF had a "flying disc" or "flying saucer" in its possession, rather than "a disc" (which is what is in Haughts Statement).

That's what I'm referring to.

No one outside of the immediate Roswell region saw the July 8 Daily Record -- and according to the Albuquerque Journal, it was on the street at 3:30 -- an hour after the first AP wire.

Best Regards,

Don

Don said...

I think I've caught up. Thanks for the air time.

Regards,

Don

Don said...

One more:

David: "The sole exception is the New York Herald-Tribune, July 9, which claimed the AAF thought it had a real flying disk for 7-1/2 hours and the excitement began at 1:00 p.m. (time zone not specified)

"The flurry of excitement created by the A.A.F. began at 1 p.m. when Colonel William H. Blanchard, commanding officer of the Roswell Army Air Base, reported a 'flying disk' had been found and forwarded to 'higher headquarters.' He would add no details."

Yes, David, like that.


Best Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

I wrote about the New York Herald-Tribune article of July 9, 1947:

"The sole exception is the New York Herald-Tribune, July 9, which claimed the AAF thought it had a real flying disk for 7-1/2 hours and the excitement began at 1:00 p.m. (time zone not specified)

First note that the AP wire story broke at about 4:30 EST in NYC or 2:30 MST in Roswell. (The wire services seemed to use local Standard time for reference since adoption of Standard and Daylight time was not universal in various states and cities. All of Frank Joyce's UP telexes are MST.)

1:00 p.m. EDT (Note Daylight, not Standard time) in NYC, assuming that is what the Herald-Tribune was using, would be 11:00 a.m. MDT in Roswell or 10:00 MST. The point here is that various AP stories confusingly claimed the story began at 10:00 a.m. when Blanchard allegedly first contacted Ramey and Ramey ordered the "disc" being flown to Fort Worth (either at that time or when word later went out from Roswell, or that afternoon):

"The weather device was flown to Fort Worth army airfield by a B-29 from Roswell army airfield at 10 a.m. Tuesday at the command of Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey, 8th Air Force commanding officer here... After Col. William H. Blanchard, 509th Commanding Officer, reported the incident to Gen. Ramey, he was ordered to dispatch the object to Fort Worth Army Air Field immediately. About that time word broke from Roswell that a flying disc finally had been found."

As I say, contradictory and confusing. 7-1/2 hours later (after 10:00 a.m. CST) was when the story was killed in Fort Worth by Ramey as a weather balloon.

This is the best I can do to try to reconcile what the NY Herald-Tribune says with other more widely held chronologies of the story breaking at about 2:30 p.m. (MST) and ending at 5:30 p.m (MST).

The problem is there was no PUBLIC "flurry of excitement" starting at 1:00 EDT or 10:00 MST. So the only way this would work is if the "flurry of excitement" referred to the AAF internally (Blanchard contacting Ramey) at 10:00 a.m. that they had a "flying disc", with the public "flurry" not beginning until around 2:30.

At the very least, this shows that the cast of "drooling idiot" officers at Roswell extended beyond Marcel to C/O Blanchard thinking they had a "flying disc" on their hands, being so bold as to call Ramey and tell him as much.

This gets back to the question of what did the AAF think a "flying disc" might be. The more fundamental question is what would the military be interested in regardless of what you called it? They would be interested in something that had military significance.

IMHO, Mack Brazel's alleged 5 pounds of rubber strips, sticks, foil, and tape had no obvious military significance, not enough for Blanchard to dispatch his top two intel people to investigate to begin with and certainly not to notify his superior Ramey once Marcel and Cavitt allegedly retrieved it. Otherwise we are right back to drooling idiot theory. Obvious flimsy balloon junk is balloon junk, not a supersonic "flying disc" aircraft as reported in the newspapers. (Which WOULD be of military interest--Marcel said from whatever Brazel showed him or told him at the Sheriff's office, both he and Blanchard thought it the crash of an advanced craft of some type). It seems inconceivable Blanchard would label it a "flying disc" under the circumstances, both to Ramey and later in a press release.

Bob Koford said...

David,
From Hilley's diary: "MINUTES OF STAFF MEETING
           July 8, 1947
               9:00 AM

DIRECTOR...The Director opened the meeting by stating that General Wright was away on a trip."

9:00 there would be 10:00 for Roswell folks? Perhaps the exitement was generated at the Top Secret staff meeting?
/Bob

Miller said...

I'm not sure whether this is significant, but AP had a separate wire service for radio stations separate from that for newspapers, beginning in 1941. I don't know when UP started its separate broadcast wire, but the UP material linked to in an earlier comment looks to me like it might be for broadcast, not newspapers. When I worked in radio in the 1970s, radio stations would sometimes give news items to the state UPI bureau which would appear on the broadcast wire as very short items and I presume the longer stories came from newspapers. So it could be that both the radio stations and the newspaper gave the Roswell story to the wire services.

Don said...

Miller: "I don't know when UP started its separate broadcast wire, but the UP material linked to in an earlier comment looks to me like it might be for broadcast, not newspapers."

Because of their lengths, as you had mentioned? Are there other features that would identify a wire as one or the other?

I think the wires you refer to were from a radio station.

Regards

Don

Jeff Miller said...

The UPI material has the look of a broadcast wire. The main reason is that it is printed in all capital letters, and the UPI broadcast wire was in all capital letters, I suppose because it was thought to be easier for the announcer to read. Radio advertising scripts used to be written in all caps also. I've never seen what newspapers receive, but surely it wouldn't be sent in all capital letters, as someone would have to go to through all the text and fix the capitalization. Also, the punctuation seems designed to make it easier to read. Notice the frequent use of three hyphens in a row to set off certain parts of sentences. I think a newspaper article would use mostly commas instead rather than dashes.

David Rudiak said...

Teletypes back then sent only capital letters, so you can't distinguish newspaper from radio wires that way. Also the text of the all-caps UP telexes that Frank Joyce saved show up almost word for word in UP newspaper stories that evening and the next day, even though Joyce was at a radio station.

Doesn't mean the exact same telexes would not be read out over the air in one form or another, but almost nothing recorded survives from that time, so we largely don't know how the story was reported on the radio. (There is a surviving ABC news recording from that evening, which I have on my website.) Recording was not common; wire recorders were about the only thing around unless you cut a recording with a record maker.

Don said...

Just a guess, but I think lower-case became available several decades after. Teletype keyboards were common on computers, unix terminals, early home computers. If so, I'd guess conventions of use changed from earlier days, too. Miller's experience may be too recent to apply to 1947.

Just a guess.

cda said...

Don:

Why do you keep changing Haut's name spelling to 'Haught' and back again?

We know his true name is 'Haut' and that some of the press reports give it as 'Haught', but there is no need to repeat this early confusion now. Other misspellings of names indicate carelessness in phone calls and transcripts. And there is the disc being 'loaned', presumably misheard, which should have been 'flown'.

It is a reasonable assumption that people were also careless in their timings, so you cannot rely on things like "about 3 pm" and without time zone specification, the narrative becomes even more confused.

A case of too many tring to outdo each other with the hot news, i.e. 'firstest with the mostest'.

Don said...

CDA because an important story was labeled "Haughts Statement". When I write "Haught" rather than "Haut", I am referring to the statement. So as not to confuse it with anything Haut might have said.

Just because a narrative is confused is no reason not to attempt to diassemble it to unconfuse it. I think it is a better approach than the skeptics Its a madhouse! A madhouse! approach, and then coming up with a simple dismissal of the confusing bits with some potted 'plausibility'

Regards,

Don

Don said...

Lance's questioning of the first sentence of Haughts Statement (hereinafter HS) is a good place to begin a critique, and I'd agree with him if the content didn't address army concerns that would not concern a reporter.

Dick Pearce called HS the first "sober" Roswell story and then quotes the sentence.

Without the first sentence, all HS is is the AP story up to the information from Wilcox about the rancher, bringing the story up to 2:55pm.

And then the AP is off to Washington and Ft Worth.

A good example of a very early AP story is the Milwaukee Journal final edition, July 8.

Its headline (above the banner) Army Finds A Flying Saucer. The story in it, according to the Daily Illini pm is the first add, naming Haught, "sometime last week" and "higher headquarters. It also mentions Marcel (who is not named in the Illini pm, and also not in DXR54).

It is pretty much what the Daily Record had said was announced at noon, although without telling us how it was announced. It is important, I believe, that the Daily Record story doesn't mention Haut, although Haught is in the AP wires in the first add.

There is also the slightest hint that the story was known outside of Roswell at noon or even earlier, and not at 2:26pm MT.

So, when and how did any HS get into the AP stream and then into the papers? Maybe David can answer that.

The Daily Illini pm does not attribute the very earliest story: the army had found a flying disk or saucer to Haught. He is mentioned in the first add four minutes later. It names him as the source for "some time last week" and "higher headquarters".

The information about the development of the story is sparse, and the Illini pm is not a transcription of each AP wire.

The UP DXR54 is no help. One thing missing from it is a citation to the RAAF. It mentions the airfield and its Intelligence Office as if it had already identified the RAAF (it begins: "The Intelligence Office reports"). I assume that was in the missing DXR53. The full citation in HS is in the questionable first sentence, so that sentence may have appeared in 53. We don't know. Off the top, I can't recall when Haut first mentioned by the UP.

What all this might mean is that the Roswell furor did not begin with any press release from the RAAF. The Daily Illini doesn't mention any pr or statement from the RAAF or Haught. The first sentence of HS is, as Pearce wrote on July 9, the "first sober" account for that reason, I believe. It came after the original story that the army had found a flying saucer/disk, and I think as a response to it.

Regards,

Don

Lance said...

Hi Don,

You say:

"Lance's questioning of the first sentence of Haughts Statement (hereinafter HS) is a good place to begin a critique, and I'd agree with him if the content didn't address army concerns that would not concern a reporter."

My experience is that you can't judge such a thing as an all or nothing proposition. It would be very common for the prose to be mixed with portions from the source and portions from the newsperson. As I mentioned above, the introductory phrase "The many rumors regarding the flying disc became a reality yesterday" sounds very like the kind of wrapper a newsman might give.

Of course, I could be wrong. We have no way of knowing (at this time) how it all went down.

Lance

Don said...

Lance: "As I mentioned above, the introductory phrase "The many rumors regarding the flying disc became a reality yesterday" sounds very like the kind of wrapper a newsman might give."

Sure, it is possible. But where did the rest of the sentence come from, that the RAAF had "a disc" distinct from the rumored "flying disc"? Do you agree with me or not that a distinction between them is made, and that's why Pearce called it the first sober account?

The earliest stories (2:26pm MT) it seems have it that the army found a flying saucer/disc on a ranch. HS has it the army found "a disc" on a ranch. I see nothing in HS to indicate that means it found a flying disc like those in the rumors (and any rumors you like, including national ones we call the 47 wave).

Do you think I'm reading to much into it?

What I don't find in HS is the earliest reported story. If that's the case, then HS is either not the press release, or the first story wasn't a RAAF press release.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

First for reference to what Don has been discussing:

Dick Pearce/S.F. Examiner account ("first sober announcement"):

http://www.roswellproof.com/SFExaminer_July9.html

2:41 p.m. UP/DXR54 telex bulletin with part of press release but missing a previous bulletin (DXR53):

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

Earliest UP stories, with introduction different from surviving DXR54 (maybe wording of the missing DXR53, or a short initial announcement, followed by the more detailed one of DXR54):

http://www.roswellproof.com/UP_Earliest_July8.html

Daily Illini AP chronology of how story unfolded:
http://www.roswellproof.com/AP_Chronology.html

Earliest AP stories, reflecting info of earliest part of D. Illini chronology:
http://www.roswellproof.com/AP_Earliest_July8.html

Possibly contrarian account of when story started (1:00 p.m. time zone?):
http://www.roswellproof.com/NY_HeraldTribune_July9.html

First let's begin with the D. Illini AP chronology. It reports the first AP bulletin was at 4:26 p.m. EST and the story died at 7:30, or it lasted just over 3 hours.

According to this, the big kerfluffle in the press began at 4:26. So to answer one of Don's questions, I have seen no good indication in all the reporting of that time that the national press was aware of anything going on in Roswell before that first AP bulletin.

The possibly contrarian N.Y. Herald-Tribune reported the "flurry of excitement" began at 1 p.m., which I speculated might refer to the internal military "flurry" back at Roswell when Blanchard supposedly called Ramey at 10:00 a.m. (local time) to report the flying disc find and Ramey ordered it flown to Fort Worth. This also assumed the NYHT was reporting local EDT in NYC, and Roswell was using local CST when Ramey was called. This would also account for the NYHT saying the Army thought it had a real flying disc on its hands for 7-1/2 hours.

In contrast the public media "flurry" began at 4:26 EST when AP was first to report the story on the wire and lasted only 3 hours.

UP's first known story came shortly thereafter in DXR54 at 4:41 EST. The referenced DXR53, therefore, was probably between AP at 4:26 and UP DXR54 at 4:41. Again, the reason I'm assuming this is I just don't see any indication that the press outside the Roswell area was aware of anything unusual going on before AP's 4:26 bulletin.

Dick Pearce's SF Examiner "first sober announcement of the discovery" wording I interpret differently from Don. I don't see this as Pearce referencing an earlier "non-sober" announcement, the "soberness" instead being the announcement came in the form of an official press release from a military base. Again, I base this on the absence of evidence that the world outside Roswell was aware of anything amiss there until the "first sober announcement" from Roswell of AP's bulletin.

Lance said...

Hi Don,

I think I agree with David's assessment above.

I almost always agree with David up until the point that he begins to make suppositions.

Don, I am very appreciative of your work on this but, from my perspective, assigning much weight to words in a news story is not going to deliver reliable results. You could very well be right in all your suspicions but I don't see how we can say one way or another.

I know from experience of this very thing (turing a press release into a news story) that words can be chosen carelessly and incorrectly just as often as they might be chosen precisely and properly.

Best,

Lance

David Rudiak said...

Correction...I wrote:

The possibly contrarian N.Y. Herald-Tribune reported the "flurry of excitement" began at 1 p.m., which I speculated might refer to the internal military "flurry" back at Roswell when Blanchard supposedly called Ramey at 10:00 a.m. (local time) to report the flying disc find and Ramey ordered it flown to Fort Worth. This also assumed the NYHT was reporting local EDT in NYC, and Roswell was using local CST when Ramey was called.

This should read, "...and Roswell was using local MST [not CST] when Ramey was called."

David Rudiak said...

Dick Pearce in the SF Examiner also wrote: "As a result [of Pearce's direct call to Ramey and Ramey describing a radar target to him] the Examiner was able to give a prosaic name to the Army's saucer long before the Army itself corrected the boner of its public relations officer at Roswell."

I have tried mostly in vain to find a trace in other newspapers of "the Examiner was able to give a prosaic name to the Army's saucer long before the Army....", in other words an early announcement that the object was supposedly a radar target from a weather balloon. The closest I've been able to come is the Los Angeles Herald Examiner in a special edition the evening of July 8, 1947:

http://www.roswellproof.com/LA_HeraldExpress_July8.html

The headline read:
Army Finds 'Flying Saucer':
General Believes It Is Radar Weather Gadget

This was followed first by AP reporting of the early part of the story. Then the H-E stuck in two INS bulletins with the radar target ID. INS stood for International News Service and was the wire service of the Hearst chain of newspapers, the SF Examiner being the flagship newspaper of Hearst.

The dateline of the first bulletin is given as "Fort Worth" and reads:

FORT WORTH, Texas, July 8--Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey, commanding general of the Eighth Army airforces field, asserted tonight the purported "flying disc" found in eastern New Mexico is "evidently nothing other than a weather or radar instrument of some sort."

My guess is that was an INS bulletin from the SF Examiner following Pearce calling Ramey in Fort Worth.

The second INS bulletin was identified as coming from Denver through the Denver Post, the Post being another Hearst/INS paper:

DENVER, July 8--Senator Ed C. Johnson, of Colorado, told the Denver Post by long distance from Washington today that the object found in New Mexico may have been "either a radar target or a meteorological balloon."

So here we have the radar target/weather balloon explanation coming from yet another source, a Senator in Washington, yet the military through Ramey was not going to make an official announcement to that effect for at least another 1-1/2 hours. The pictures of Ramey et. al. with the weather balloon hadn't even been taken yet. So this raises a number of other questions where Senator Johnson got the story so early? From official sources in Washington? From INS newswires from the SF Examiner?

I don't know. But the former strongly suggests a predetermined cover story that leaked too soon. Why Sen. Johnson would be told of it I also don't know (this is a unique bulletin regarding this of a U.S. government politician being involved) and why Johnson would feel the need to inform the main home-state newspaper to repeat the story I also don't know.

There's an interesting back story to Dick Pearce's comment that: "The Examiner did not call Sheriff Wilcox. Surmising that the find had been flown to Brig. Gen. Roger M. Ramey, commanding general of the Eighth Air force at Fort Worth, Tex., The Examiner telephoned him."

Why did Pearce "surmise" this? Because he knew Ramey and knew Roswell was his subcommand. When I examined the SF Examiner morgue files at the SF Public Library, I came across an article Pearce had written June 22 about Ramey and the 8th AAF getting new B-36 bombers to replace the B-29s. Included with the article was a photo of Pearce with Ramey, that obviously dated back to the previous summer when Ramey was in SF either to or from the A-bomb tests at Bikini (Operation Crossroads). The morgue file also had Pearce's obit from 1991, and from that I was able to find his wife, who still lived in SF. She was very familiar of the photo, since her husband was very proud of it and they had a large copy on their mantelpiece. From that I got a good copy of the photo, which you can see on my website plus more of the backstory at:

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Ramey_photos.html

cda said...

Instead of proposing another 'predetermined cover story' to explain Sen Johnson's early explanation, why cannot DR see this whole affair for what it is, namely that the debris had been identified with virtual certainty BEFORE Ramey even saw the stuff?

The guys at Roswell had more or less decided what the object was before it even left the RAAF base. But Ramey still wanted to see it (as did Wright Field later on) just in case. Not the least surprising in that early post-WW2 era.

No, I do not know how or from whom Johnson got his story, but I do know that there is absolutely no need to suggest any kind of cover-up.

DR has merely destroyed his, and many others', cover-up case and strengthened the case for the balloon-radar target solution being correct.

Don said...

There is only slight evidence there was an earlier story for Pearce to have referred to but there is sufficient evidence that he was referring to the first AP wire (Illini), and contrasting that to the "sober" HS. which amounts to the same thing concerning the distinction made between the RAAF having the flying disc and having "a disc".

The issue of an earlier story first appears in B&M.

Marcel Sr: "That afternoon [July 7] we headed back to Roswell and arrived there in the early evening.

When we arrived there, we discovered that the story that we had found a flying disc had leaked out ahead of us."

He then describes Haut and the press release story. He then describes some encounters with reporters. Marcel Jr also refers to it a few pages later.

Confused recollection is likely.

Then there is part 9 of Haut's 2002 affidavit.

"One of the main concerns discussed at the meeting was whether we should go public or not with the discovery...Too many civilians were already involved, and the press already was informed."

David: "I have tried mostly in vain to find a trace in other newspapers of "the Examiner was able to give a prosaic name to the Army's saucer long before the Army....", in other words an early announcement that the object was supposedly a radar target from a weather balloon."

Another interesting text from about the same time as Pearce's call to Ramey is found in Joyce's telexes, I think:

MEANWHILE, A REPORT FROM CARRIZOZO, NEW MEXICO, SAID THAT A DISC WAS FOUND 35 MILES SOUTHEAST OF CORONA. THE REPORT—WHICH WAS NOT
SUBSTANTIATED—MERELY SAID THAT IT WAS “A RUBBER SUBSTANCE AND TINFOIL ENCASE.” HOWEVER, IT WAS PRESUMED TO BE THE SAME AS THE ONE REPORTED TO ROSWELL.

CDA: "No, I do not know how or from whom Johnson got his story, but I do know that there is absolutely no need to suggest any kind of cover-up."

Abosolutely? I wouldn't be so certain about that.

Regards,

Don

Don said...

David: "Dick Pearce's SF Examiner "first sober announcement of the discovery" wording I interpret differently from Don. I don't see this as Pearce referencing an earlier "non-sober" announcement, the "soberness" instead being the announcement came in the form of an official press release from a military base."

So, then, you agree with me that the press release did not instantiate the public "furor"? There was a 'non-official' story before HS?

Who was its source?

Best Regards,

Don

Don said...

Lance: "I think I agree with David's assessment above."

So, then, you are reconsidering your intelligence guided by experience, and may accept the whole of the "official press release", which is what? HS?

Regards,

Don

cda said...

Don:

Lance said: "I almost always agree with David up until the point that he begins to make suppositions."

Precisely. The supposition DR made above is that there was a 'predetermined cover story'. This was needed to explain how Senator Johnson told a newspaper that the object "may have been either a radar target or a meteorological balloon".

In other words the senator merely said what the debris "may have been" and even then it was maybe one thing or maybe another. There was no certainty. Possibly the press reporter did not get the senator's exact words right anyway.

DR is concerned because this occurred before Ramey made his ID and announcement. Hence it was a "predetermined cover story". Well, it would have to be, for someone who is obsessed with cover-ups and conspiracies. Anything and everything unexplained about Roswell is due to a cover-up of some kind.

A simpler and more rational answer is that the identification of the debris was in fact virtually made at Roswell before it left for Ft.Worth, and while the stuff was at Ft.Worth an examination and a few extra enquiries were made before Ramey made the ID official.

I repeat: there was no need for any cover story, any cover-up or any secrets, and even to suggest this indicates the mindset of the person suggesting it.

Remember we are now 67 years after the event, and the conspiracy brigade STILL insist on a great big cover-up, of perhaps the greatest scientific event of all time.

Enough said.

Anthony Mugan said...

CDA
In terms of your suggestion that the debris was identified as a weather balloon before it left Roswell...
a) the 509th had possession of elements of the material from the afternoon of the 6th July, and larger quantities from late on the 7th. The press release came out around lunchtime on the 8th with the press conference at a Fort Worth around 5pm ( if memory serves). Allowing for flight time that leaves a very narrow time window for a sudden realisation in Roswell.
b) we know that the debris was not a weather balloon ( ref; the 1994 and 1995 USAF reports)!
c) we know the debris wasn't a NYU constant level assembly
d) we know that the veriis other mundane hypotheses ( rockets, Fugo balloons etc ) are also falsified.
e) the Ramey memo IMO almost certainly indicates that there were victims of the wreck

Unidentified debris, but quite probably extraterrestrial hardware in my blunt opinion.

cda said...

Anthony:

In response, I put it to you:

Regarding (c) and (d) you do not KNOW either of these, however much you would like to think so.

Regarding (b), hardly worth getting excited about, is it?

Regarding (e), the Ramey memo "almost certainly" does NOT contain the words DR claims it does.

Regarding (a) you are relying solely on the memory of one elderly man 40 years afterwards; there was no mention of anything happening on July 6 at the time. The July 7 debris (if it existed) was purely what Brazel may, or may not, have brought in to the sherriff, i.e. a very small quantity. Again, no mention of it in the contemporary accounts.

Re your final comment being your "blunt opinion" I repeat my equally blunt opinion, namely that if your blunt opinion is right and the junk really was extraterrestrial hardware, the scientific world and the public would have known this fact many decades ago, probably within a few weeks of the event.

But again, my 'blunt opinion' is open to dispute, as is yours.

But I better stop, or Kevin will soon be telling me off for yet another deviation from the topic.

Don said...

CDA, you wrote: "No, I do not know how or from whom Johnson got his story, but I do know that there is absolutely no need to suggest any kind of cover-up."

to David's "I don't know. But the former strongly suggests a predetermined cover story that leaked too soon."

I replied: "Absolutely? I wouldn't be so certain about that."

You are putting out of consideration an examination of Senator Johnson's behavior because you prefer to believe it was just one of those things, and without significance. To David it strongly suggests something.

What do you know about it that made you write there is absolutely no need to suggest a "cover-up" (you) or "cover story" (David)?

CDA: "A simpler and more rational answer is that the identification of the debris was in fact virtually made at Roswell before it left for Ft.Worth, and while the stuff was at Ft.Worth an examination and a few extra enquiries were made before Ramey made the ID official."

I have had it up to here with "simple and more rational" answers that are not grounded in anything but the supposition that the world goes on just exactly as the person thinks it should, and any suggestion of anything else going on instead, is crazy.

You are just telling yourself (and us) a plausible story with no evidence for it except your personal sense of incredulity.

This after attesting to your ignorance of the issue "No, I do not know how or from whom Johnson got his story", and then you affirm your faith.

Perhaps, rather than blowing it off and blaming David for it, you might consider backing up your opinion on the Senator story?

Regards,

Don

Don said...

CDA: "a few extra enquiries were made before Ramey made the ID official."

Do you mean Ramey or the AAF made a few extra inquiries? Or that others, such as the Senator, were making a few inquiries?

If the latter, I can't think of a reason a Colorado politician would inquire -- a Texas pol might, maybe.

If the former, why would they solicit the opinion of a Colorado pol?

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

CDA wrote his usual nonsense:
Regarding (a) you are relying solely on the memory of one elderly man 40 years afterwards; there was no mention of anything happening on July 6 at the time.

As is usually the case with CDA, the response is "not exactly."

Both July 7 (Monday) and July 6 (Sunday) WERE mentioned "at the time" as when Brazel came to town. Sheriff Wilcox was quoted saying both, the Sunday date in the form of "the day before yesterday" (as said to UP) and "Monday" (when he spoke to AP). Take your pick.

I've been over this with CDA before, but it just goes in one ear and out the other, like everything else. Back in 2006 he was writing the same dang thing and I was debating him. I added the following sources from "at the time" suggesting the July 6 date:

http://ufoupdateslist.com/2006/aug/m08-006.shtml

There was also the Washington Post story starting out with the "disc" being in "official hands" for "nearly two days" before being exposed as a weather balloon, again pointing to a July 6 date:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Washington_Post_July9.html

There was the New York Herald-Express article saying that "intelligence officers visited the ranch yesterday morning" and picked up the object, thus placing the "intelligence officers" already at Brazel's place on the night of July 6 (also quotes Wilcox's "day before yesterday"):

http://www.roswellproof.com/NY_HeraldTribune_July9.html


Another witness to support the July 6 date was Brig. Gen. Dubose who said he got the first call from Washington about Roswell while Ramey was away from the base. Ramey was away on Sunday visiting family and playing dignitary at an air show, as documented by the newspapers. The only weakness to this argument is I still can't place Ramey back at his job in Fort Worth by Monday.

Finally there are time restraints which make Monday less likely. Even if Brazel had been up at first daylight and driven immediately to Roswell, he wouldn't have gotten there until about 10:00. By the time Marcel got the story from the Sheriff and Brazel, drove back to the base to confer with Blanchard, rounded up Cavitt, met up with Brazel again, drove to the ranch, etc., probably couldn't get there until 4:00 p.m. at the earliest. That leaves only 4 hours of light to explore the debris field, which Marcel "at the time" was quoted as saying was a "square mile" in size. Then he would have had to head back.

The July 7 debris (if it existed) was purely what Brazel may, or may not, have brought in to the sherriff, i.e. a very small quantity. Again, no mention of it in the contemporary accounts.

Here is a very rare instance of where CDA actually gets something right. There was no mention of Brazel bringing any debris with him. (The Sheriff specifically denied it, but also admitted "working with those fellows at the base.")

However, this should raise critical thinking probing questions from an inquiring mind, namely "why not?" Brazel goes through the trouble of retrieving the debris he had supposedly thrown under some brush after he first heard of the flying saucers in Corona on Saturday night (Marcel's story in Fort Worth "at the time"), but he fails to bring a single scrap of it with him to prove his story of what he found. According to Brazel, it was only 5 pounds worth in two bundles, real easy to throw in back of his pickup truck.

Brazel must have been one hell of a BSer with his story to get the Sheriff to call the base and bring them into it. This has been Don's point--it should have remained a civil matter. Why would the Sheriff bring in the military over descriptions of 5 pounds of mundane balloon junk? And why would Marcel and Blanchard be the least bit interested, even if some rancher thought it might be a "flying saucer"? Inquiring minds want to know.

But not CDA.

Lance said...

Well, despite the tone of the above message, I'll try to keep this polite.

David, I can't speak for CDA but I think the skeptical position is that the frenzy of flying saucer news reports, including reports of the recovery of disks (which usually turned out to be junk not unlike the foil and sticks that were found at the Foster ranch) put things into an unusual collective mindset. We suggest that people were on the lookout for stuff that could be seen as an answer to the fascinating mystery.

The lack of identifying marks, perhaps the vaguely mentioned device(s), the weird tape all contributed to the stuff being seen as odd and thus possibly connecting to the flying disc craze.

We are not saying that the folks involved were stupid or drooling idiots. There is some (testimonial) evidence that Marcel was more intrigued by the stuff than other folks. But he still had some good reason to think that the prosaic stuff was unusual enough to be interesting in that context, specifically the context of the time.

The amount of debris keeps coming up over and over. David, I know you have estimated how much debris is seen in the Ft. Worth photos and you use that information to denigrate the prosaic explanation. I believe you have been asked before but let me clearly ask again, what allows you to determine that the stuff seen in the photos is being presented as ALL of the recovered debris. Why isn't it possible that only a representative selection of debris was laid out for the photos?

I recently reread some of Marcel's words and I continue to have trouble understanding how reasonable folks can accept his later words over his earlier testimony:

1. "Stuff in photos is same stuff I picked up."
2. "Stuff in photos is same stuff I picked up."
3. "Stuff in photos is same stuff I picked up."
Then after doubt is expressed to him:
4. "Stuff in photos is not what I picked up."

But after this, he makes up an VERY dubious story about hiding the real stuff behind some paper etc. Is it really not obvious to those of us here that Marcel was spinning things to keep himself part of the exciting story?

Best,

Lance





cda said...

Lance, DR and Don:

Kevin's blood pressure will soon be at a critical point, so I propose we abandon going further off topic. We must safeguard the health of our host, in addition to our own.

One final thought: when some press report uses the phrase "nearly two days" it usually means part of two consecutive days (and probably not the whole of each day). It does not mean 48 hours, nor does it mean overlapping a third day.

For travel companies in the UK a 3-day holiday is always 3 consecutive days, i.e. only half of the first day, all of the second and maybe half of the third.

Does DR now see the Washington Post story for what it is?

But we are way off topic, I fear.

Nitram Ang said...

Lance politely stated, in his opinion:

"We are not saying that the folks involved were stupid or drooling idiots."

Lance, surely we would all have to agree that if the answer to the mystery is Mogul then whoever put out the "ridiculous press release" would have to be in that category.
Maybe you want to reconsider this?

Regarding the testimony of Marcel, I understand your questions to David but suggest that Kevin has already hinted at a possible posting in the future on this very matter.

Suggest you wait patiently on this.

CDA correctly stated:
"Kevin's blood pressure will soon be at a critical point, so I propose we abandon going further off topic. We must safeguard the health of our host, in addition to our own."

And DR earlier posted:

"Here is a very rare instance of where CDA actually gets something right."

Correct once again!

Regards
Nitram

Don said...

CDA, I don't think we're too far off-topic, if at all.

Who put the Roswell Press Release on the News Wire?

We all know what the AP wrote at the time about it. Haut's account throughout most of his Roswell career, or perhaps through all of it, slots right into it. And if you care to read it that way, so does George Walsh's affidavit.

The UP also supports Haut by having written that the statement was Blanchard's. Thus, Haut was speaking for "the field".

Despite its peculiar stylizations, HS covers several...um..administrative issues. Ramey covered one in Ft Worth, if he, as I recall, was reported to have said the balloon and rawin were definitely the army's. Thus it really was an army case and not a civilian one, and thus they had every right to collect it from a civilian.

So, if HS is the official statement, then what is the Daily Record's noon announcement? If they had HS hand delivered by Haut, then they must have ignored it, and him.

If they got it off the wire, then they must have gone to press really really late that day. I'm guessing at that. The only time I know of is the paper was on the street at 3:30. How they knew that, they didn't say.

So, maybe the noon announcement was Haut's phone call, and HS the official document. If so, they are a bit different.

In the absence of any official statement that there had been an official statement, we can't really prove there was one. And if there was one, that is no reason to think it was the first ever account.

I don't know whether David can offer strong evidence that the first thing on the wires was an official statement.

Just to note: the news reports are the earliest witness, not Haut or Walsh. Marcel in B&M demonstrates familiarity with a summary of the AP story.

Regards,

Don

KRandle said...

CDA -

Sorry, but I run the blog and I decide when I am tired of a topic. If some of these postings bothered me, I would either delete them or suggest we rein it in.

As for Don's point (c)... it is clear that Mogul is not the answer. The flight was cancelled. It did not fly. A custer of two or three balloons carrying a sonobuoy does not a Mogul flight make. Even with Moore's suggestion that Flight No. 4 flew before it was cancelled (sometime around 3 a.m., rather than dawn) is just one more example of Moore's changing his tale to make it work. I mean, how do you lanuch a flight a three and cancel it a little after five?

Lance -

Thank you for your restraint. This isn't about Marcel (though thanks again for mentioning that he denied the pictures in Ramey's office were of the material he recovered, as reported by Johnny Mann of TV station WWL in New Orleans). And he said that long before there was all that much attention to Roswell and he would have been part of the story, just as Walter Haut was part of the story with his claim of only writing the press release. Marcel went out to recover the material. He would have always been part of the story.

Let me ask you for the citation for the note that Marcel said he hide the real debris under some paper.

Lance said...

Hi Kevin,

I got it from the book "For the Sake of My Country" by Linda Corley

Marcel: "What you see there [describing Ft. Worth Photo] is nothing but a piece of brown paper that I put over so the news media couldn't get a picture of what I had."

A bit later:

Linda: "They still told you to cover the stuff up?"

Marcel: "Right. Well, he didn't have to tell me that. I knew that."

Kevin, I know that you can see how ridiculous this is and I suspect you know exactly what Marcel is doing here.

And all of this is after the Johnny Mann interview, after he has reviewed the photos.

Thanks,

Lance

Don said...

I think Haut would have called all four. That would have been the solution to the complaints about who received what when that, for example, McQuiddy mentioned. I think Haut said something about Blanchard wanting him to resolve the issue.

Walsh in his affidavit wrote: "It was his [Haut] custom to phone us with news items."

The problem with McQuiddy's story is that he could not have had that conversation at noon with Haut, if he had already seen Walsh's AP story.

"...I gave him [Haut] a bad time...I was disappointed at not being able to break the story on the Associated Press wire. George Walsh, the program manager at KSWS, had already moved the story on AP"

And that had to have been after 2:26, not before noon.

In his affidavit, McQuiddy listed the order of Haut's visits, leaving out the Daily Record. He did that in a video account as well, I recall.

A lot depends on how one reads Walsh's affidavit. I'm not comfortable with what others have written about it, and think something more can be made of Haut's "indignant" second call to Walsh.

Walsh was just doing his job. Haut was just doing his job. Why get "indignant"? Why get chewed out?


Regards,

Don

KRandle said...

Lance -

I'm not sure that you have the timing right on this. Linda interviewed Marcel in early 1981, or about a year after the Moore book was published.

Lance said...

Kevin,

Yes, May 5,1981.

They discuss the Johnny Mann interview.

What did I have wrong about it? Were there several Mann interviews?

Lance

Don said...

So, why the 2.5 hours discrepancy? Neither Walsh nor Joyce could put the story on the wires. They did not have send capability to their wire services. Joyce wrote he sent it via Western Union to the UP, and Walsh called it in to the AP. It would be at the other end where it was put on the wire.

The only reason I can imagine it took so long, would be if the UP and AP attempted to confirm the story. Would they have published it if it had not been confirmed? Would they have done so without seeking confirmation?

The press certainly called in bunches after it was published wanting confirmation.

If various folk in the Roswell media and at the RAAF were being chewed out by Colonels and Generals, that doesn't sound encouraging for the editors and publishers getting confirmation.

So, if "the field" made a mistake, and Marcel made a mistake, and Haut made a mistake, then the whole frickin' Army made a mistake if they confirmed the story, or the whole damn free press of the United States didn't deserve that freedom if they didn't confirm the story and just published it, regardless.

Regards,

Don

Bob Koford said...

Excellent point, Don.

David Rudiak said...

(Part 1 of 2)
I put a more complete transcript of Corley's interview back in 2009 on Kevin's blog:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2009/10/roswell-ufo-and-jesse-marcel.html

Linda Corley's 1981 interview, also in person with Marcel, clarifies some matters further.

First Marcel told her he never met with either Berlitz or Moore and that all interviews with them were conducted on the phone. Thus Marcel was never shown specific press photos. His quoted remarks about having a photo taken with the "real debris" need to be taken in that context.

Then Marcel, shown the actual press photos by Corely, repeats (like the Mann interview) that the photos don't show the real debris.
(following quotes exactly as in Corely's transcript, including bracketed clarifying comments)

CORLEY: And this is what? Like that foil that they described in here [The Roswell Incident book].

MARCEL: What you see here is nothing but a piece of brown paper that I put over so that the news media couldn't get a picture of what I had. [Referring to above photo (Corely's uncropped photo of Marcel holding radar target) on page 34 of The Roswell Incident book (their highly cropped photo of Marcel)]

CORELY: Oh, you were covering the stuff?

MARCEL: I was covering it, yeah. But nobody knew that. I was told by my commanding General, "Just don't say anything. Don't show anything..."

Then Marcel pointed to the now famous photo of Ramey and Dubose:

MARCEL: You see this picture right here? [Photo of General Ramey on page 35 of the The Roswell Incident] That's a fake. ...He (Ramey) claimed that it was fragments of a weather balloon. So they took this [photo]. This is part of a weather balloon. ...I wasn't even there then. (My comment: probably meaning he wasn't there when Ramey photo taken) They had this photo taken, strictly for the press.

CORLEY: But when they let the press take this picture [Marcel photo] they still told you to cover the stuff up?

MARCEL: Right. Well, he didn't have to tell me that. I knew that.

CORLEY: Oh? You knew better than to show [debris]?

MARCEL: That's what I did.

CORLEY: But didn't they think that people weren't going to be stupid enough to believe that it was a weather balloon like that? [pointing to photo of weather balloon]

MARCEL: I knew it wasn't a weather balloon. And General Ramey knew it wasn't a weather balloon...

What we have here are the press photos directly in front of Marcel and Marcel specifically denying that they show the real debris. The photos showing the weather balloon were "fake" and done by Ramey strictly to deceive the press. Marcel also indicates "real debris" was still there but covered up by the brown paper, also seen in the photos.


Comments next post.

David Rudiak said...

(Part 2 of 2)
Comments:
Lance tried to claim that Marcel said he was photographed with the real debris three times. I know of two times: Bertitz/Moore “The Roswell Incident”, and interviewed for a TV documentary. Perhaps Lance can enlighten us on his alleged third time. (Or was Lance just exaggerating again?)

In the case of Berlitz/Moore, the Corely interview has him stating they didn’t interview him in person but over the phone. Thus he obviously could not be shown what pictures Berlitz/Moore were referencing. I think the same is true of the documentary when he is on camera ~1980. I doubt someone was waving the photos in his face.

We know of two times where Marcel WAS shown the photos in Berlitz/Moore and stated they were faked or staged and that isn’t what he brought from Roswell. That was Johnny Mann and Linda Corley.

As Lance well knows, I have proposed that if Marcel (and seemingly Blanchard who put out the flying disc press release) were so damned convinced it was from a flying saucer, that internal military photos as SOP would have been taken in Roswell, and probably Fort Worth as well. Ramey was even in dress uniform. So perhaps Marcel was simply confusing another photo sesssion with the one where he was photographed with the balloon and radar target.

Lance, of course, accuses me of making things up in my saucer zealotry. But Lance also makes things up in his “anti-saucer zealotry”, such as his recent Ramey witholding weather balloon debris for no obvious reason so that Lance can reconcile Brazel’s “5 pounds” of debris with the singular balloon and target that Ramey said was recovered. And behold, that is all that shows up in the photos: one balloon, one target. In addition, Brazel’s “rubber strips” turn into a seemingly intact weather balloon, Brazel’s “flower tape” nobody can find in the torn-up radar target, which also is suspiciously clean and not weather-stained, plus some other details indicating what Ramey showed and what Brazel said he found are NOT the same, therefore NOT what Marcel brought from Roswell.

Lance also seems to ignore the fact that Marcel had high-level corroboration for his story from Brig. Gen. Dubose, who we all know was there and also in the photos. Dubose confirmed that that an order came from Gen. McMullen to instigate a cover-up. He knew since he took the call. The weather balloon in the photos was a cover story to get rid of the press. Sample documented Dubose quotes:

"The material shown in the photographs taken in Maj. Gen. Ramey's office was a weather balloon. The weather balloon explanation for the material was a cover story to divert the attention of the press." (affidavit)

"Actually, it was a cover story, the balloon part of it... Somebody cooked up the idea as a cover story ...we'll use this weather balloon. ...We were told this is the story that is to be given to the press, and that is it, and anything else, forget it.” (recorded interview)

"There was a host of people descending on our headquarters seeking information from Ramey... I didn't know what it was. Blanchard didn't know. Ramey didn't know... Nobody knew. But I can tell you this — it damn sure wasn’t a weather balloon. ...McMullen said, Look, why don't you come up with something, anything you can use to get the press off our back? So we came up with this weather balloon story, which I thought was a hell of a good idea. Somebody got one and we ran it up a couple of hundred feet and dropped it to make it look like it crashed, and that's what we used...” (recorded interview)

In the following months, Dubose also recommended Marcel for promotion in the Air Force Reserve, signed off on Blanchard’s next performance review of Marcel (rated superior) and recommended Marcel for Staff Officer Training School, followed by Ramey calling Marcel “outstanding”, also calling him command officer material, and protested his transfer to higher intelligence saying he had nobody in his command to replace him. Quite a screw-up intel officer, that Marcel.

Lance said...

I'll continue to try to keep this polite despite the accusations and tone above.

In answer to David's first question, the third time was in the Mann interview. Marcel first repeated the same claim that the stuff in the photos was the same stuff he picked up. Then Mann showed him the photos and intimated that the stuff didn't look like saucer debris. Finally Marcel took the hint and changed the story (but he changed it to a new whopper--see below).

Earlier I asked David how we could be certain that the stuff we see in the photos represents all of the debris. Above he styles this as me making stuff up (it was just a question, seeking an answer!). I just wonder why the answer couldn't just be that they decided to present a representative sample of the stuff collected instead of dumping all the dirty stuff on the floor?

I don't see an answer for this.

So once again we are left with the fact that Marcel said 3 times that the stuff in the photos was the same stuff he picked up. Then he was advised that this didn't look good and he made up the story that he was hiding the real stuff behind pieces of paper. He tells this story WHILE looking at the photos. He was specific with this info and describes hiding the "real" saucer stuff from, the cameras. The conjuring up of another forgotten photo session to account for this whopper seems sadly grasping.

So the scenario is:

The Roswell conspiracists decided to create a cover story with fake debris. When taking the photos they threw all the stuff out on the floor, the fake debris and the amazing space sticks and magical astro foil. Luckily, Marcel hid the good stuff behind some paper. Ramey, said "Hold on a minute, let me get my telex that details the victims of the wreck so that the cameras can see that, too!

From my perspective, it doesn't seem to be the skeptics who are treating the Roswell military as drooling idiots.

Lance

KRandle said...

All -

The original posting was about the press release. I now stop the discussion about Marcel and all until I have a posting relative to that.

David Rudiak said...

Ah, darn, Kevin. Lance just made a lot of false statements and I had a detailed refutation written up. Yes, off-topic, but are you going to deny the readers Lance's well-deserved comeuppance?

For the short version, I refer readers back to a previous blog on this topic:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2009/10/roswell-ufo-and-jesse-marcel.html

Kevin cites the Johnny Mann story of showing Marcel "The Roswell Incident" photos while filming him near the debris field. Marcel responded that wasn't the stuff he found.

But in the Lance revisionist version, this was now the third instance where Marcel said he was photographed with the real stuff. This is a total fabrication by Lance. Nowhere does Mann indicate Marcel said this to him.

The probable context was Marcel at the debris field area describing the unusual nature of the debris and large quantities of it, as can be seen in this Youtube video:

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

Mann, questioning this as a reporter would, then brought up what was supposedly recovered, shown in the photos, which Mann commented looked suspiciously like a weather balloon. Marcel responded, that wasn't the stuff he found, or sticking to the story he was telling about the debris, not suddenly making up a "whopper", as Lance spun it.

Don said...

Bob: "Excellent point, Don."

So, from noon until the end, the story was known in and around Roswell because of KSWS news bulletins, and from noon until 2:26, there must have been at least two people besides residents near the ranch, a UP and an AP editor, who had the story.

Did they just sit quietly in their offices meditating on it, rather than having their Washington Bureau Pentagon beat reporters confirm it?

The Roswell media had their confirmation because they had the story from the Field PIO, and maybe that was enough for the AP, and it did nothing with it until 2:26pm MTZ.

The UP, though, like the Daily Record, does not get the story from the base PIO. The UP knows the AP story as they quote complete HS.
The UP wrote Blanchard made the announcement, which implies they confirmed it with someone.

I can't help wondering why a higher headquarters would confirm the story as true.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don,

According to Frank Joyce (UP stringer), he was the first one Haut delivered the press release to. In one Joyce version (related by Pflock) Joyce was concerned about the contents of the release and chased after Haut after he left. Haut reassured him he has Blanchard's OK. In Randle/Schmitt,
Joyce told Haut that he shouldn't send out the release because there were procedural errors in it. Haut was making statements in the name of higher headquarters without permission to do it. Haut, however, told him that Blanchard told him to release it. In another interview (Beyond Roswell), Joyce remembered he scarcely looked at the release for half an hour, being busy with other things, then when he saw what it was about, he immediately called Haut at the base to question the wisdom of releasing such a statement of fact without clearance from higher headquarters. Haut said that Blanchard had allowed it and he could sent it. Joyce then quickly took it down to Western Union and sent it over the wire to United Press.

The commonality in the three versions (whether Joyce immediately chased after Haut or later called him) is that Joyce questioned whether the release should be put out and Haut assured him he had authorization from Blanchard. Whether this was enough for UP to call it Blanchard's release I don't know. I would still think higher ups in UP would want to do some follow-up phone calls to confirm the story, perhaps trying to reach Haut, the intelligence office, Blanchard himself, and/or the Pentagon.

We do know that there were extras in the UP version when it came out, such as the "strange blue light" seen by other residents near the ranch, suggesting some other calls were made and this information was added. We also know that there were quick follow-up bulletins quoting Wilcox, again suggesting calls were being made.

Joyce's alternate story of waiting half an hour before calling Haut could explains part of the delay. Taking it down to Western Union and them getting it out explains a little more. And maybe UP at the other end making more calls explains some more. But it is still hard to account for the ~2-1/2 gap between when Haut delivered the release and UP put it out.

As it was, AP seems to have beat them by a few minutes. George Walsh (AP stringer) at KSWS claims Haut called it in and then he called Kellahin in Albuquerque. Both Walsh and Kellahin claim they took it down as is, with Kellahin claiming he put it out as is, but still there are differences from UP and some rewriting seems to have been done somewhere down the line. In part, it could be partly a game of telephone going on with some transcription errors taking place with two phone calls.

One obvious one is AP claiming Marcel "loaned" the "disc" to higher headquarters, which is ridiculous, whereas UP got it right that the "disc" was "flown" by intelligence officers to HH. But that alone doesn't seem enough to explain the differences. AP has Marcel's name; UP doesn't, using "intelligence office" and "officers". Maybe more phone calling by AP to get more details, resulting in Marcel being put into the story. Same with the RDR putting Marcel into the story, maybe after some calls to the base. UP strikes me as more of straight version closer to what Haut delivered; AP more of a partial rewrite by some AP editor.

Don said...

David, I was surprised there is no affidavit from Joyce. He's the most difficult to 'work out' of the Roswell media witnesses.

But someone in Roswell was reporting to the UP, and Joyce is the only one I know of who assumed that role, but only for the press release, not the blue light story, nor probably a few other UP accounts of interest.

The UP never waivered from their story that "the announcement" was Blanchard's and that he "authorized" it. The AP story is far different as you know. I don't recall whether Blanchard's name appeared in the AP. I don't think Haut's does in the UP except when they quote HS, citing the AP.

One bit of evidence of the UP's approach to the story is that it did not approve for publication (at least, I've never seen it or heard of anyone who has) the Carrizozo story in the telexes which states that it was unconfirmed. But Blanchard and the blue light story, they published. I don't think Joyce was so well established as to be taken by the UP as a reliable source. Perhaps there is something I don't know.

Roswell's 'cognitive dissonance machine' is to present us with two incommensurable news stories, seemingly at every juncture. It is not just the local stories, but the AP and UP. The Brazel interview is like that, as well. The narrative dissonance is downright biblical.

Working out the Ed Johnson story seems fairly straightforward. Was it actually a story in the Post on the 8th (that would be extremely interesting)? The LAHE only has that he called the paper from Washington. If it went on the wire, I haven't found it elsewhere.

Best Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Rudiak said...

Don wrote:
Working out the Ed Johnson story seems fairly straightforward. Was it actually a story in the Post on the 8th (that would be extremely interesting)? The LAHE only has that he called the paper from Washington. If it went on the wire, I haven't found it elsewhere.

Don, I checked the Denver Post, but the Senator Johnson call to them with weather balloon explanation wasn't there. Odd, that they wouldn't report this from the local U.S. Senator, though obviously they did put it on the INS news wire July 8, hence it's appearance in the LA Herald-Express that evening.

I also checked a few other Hearst INS papers, like the SF Examiner--also not there. I think part of the problem was the lateness of the Roswell story to begin with July 8, with only some of the west coast papers with evening editions able to squeeze in some of the later bulletins before they went to press. The next day, most of these bulletins would have been old news.

You also see curious omissions in the newspapers that Roswell Sheriff Wilcox specifically mentioned talking to, such as the Milwaukee Journal. I looked into that hoping for some new Wilcox material, but they had nothing, running (as I remember) a standard AP article instead. The same was true with the London newspapers Wilcox said he spoke to.

There is some limited evidence that New Mexico politicians were also involved, people such as Lt. Gov. Joseph Montoya, Sen. Dennis Chavez, Sen. Carl Hatch, and Truman Sec. of Agriculture Clinton Anderson (formerly a Senator). Montoya, e.g., was supposed to have been at the Roswell hangar and saw the recovered craft and bodies (testimony of Anaya family members). I checked the N.M. papers trying to discover where Montoya was at the time, but couldn't find him anywhere, much less in Roswell. That too is a bit unusual, since during the 4th of July weekend, usually the politicians are making public appearances and giving speeches.

Another oddity was Gov. Mabry, who was scheduled to meet with Roswell C/O Blanchard the morning of July 9 in Santa Fe to sign an Air Force day proclamation. Never happened. Instead Mabry was reported by the Santa Fe paper taking off for the mountains. The proclamation was instead signed by Blanchard and Montoya a week later.

Back in Washington, I was able to document Sen. Carl Hatch's office calling the White House July 7 at about 4:00 p.m. asking for a special meeting with Truman. Hatch met Truman privately the morning of July 9, with no subject matter listed.

Gen. Vandenberg, early afternoon of July 7, was acting a bit oddly, first taking reporter calls about the flying saucers instead of letting underlings handle it, then trying to kill a hoax disc recovery story from the Houston Post, all done with Gen. Curtis LeMay advising him.

Then he cancelled a previously scheduled dental appointment to personally pick up AAF Secretary Stuart Symington at the airport, instead of again letting an underling handle this or letting Symington take a taxi. This strongly suggests to me a matter of great urgency had come up that Vandenberg thought couldn't wait. (Wonder what that could be.) About the time Vandenberg and Symington got back to the Pentagon, Hatch's office was calling the White House asking for a sudden meeting with Truman.

Thus lot's of suspicious things going on, far from proof, but curious nonetheless.

Don said...

David, thanks for the summary. I mentioned the Milwaukee Journal, above:

Its headline (above the banner) Army Finds A Flying Saucer. The story in it, according to the Daily Illini pm is the first add, naming Haught, "sometime last week" and "higher headquarters. It also mentions Marcel (who is not named in the Illini pm, and also not in DXR54).

I'm uncertain, but I had thought the Denver Post was a morning paper. That might explain why the Johnson story wasn't there on the 8th. They may have carried it on the 9th in a Roswell wrap. If it just was on the INS wire, it is gone.

Two issues: Why did the army write and distribute the story? An obvious reason would be tht others knew what happened and the army didn't know who they all might be (Lincoln County residents?, local media?), so they decided to "own" the story and take control of it.

The second: I read the press release as justifying the army's involvement in a civilian matter. Civilians requested the army's assistance and everyone cooperated. Then Ramey put the icing on the cake, declaring that it was definitely a United States army device.

I wasn't aware rawins or weather balloons were labeled property of the US Army, property of the US Weather Bureau, etc. You have looked at those photos as closely as anyone. Is there any indication of ownership on the debris?

The army may have been laying the groundwork for justifying their actions, but to whom? Who might they expect to question the account? I doubt it was within the army. It was more likely a civilian agency like the FBI or for that matter any of the congressional committees at the Capitol debating the fate of the US military. There were those at that time who believed the Wave was faked by the government, just as there were those nearly a decade earlier who believed the Welles WotW broadcast was a White House plot.

Best Regards,

Don

KRandle said...

Don -

Just to be clear, the Denver Post was an afternoon paper in 1947. The morning paper was the Rocky Mountain News. I know this because I was a paperboy for the News at one time. It was sometime later that the Post switch to morning publication.

David Rudiak said...

Don wrote:
I wasn't aware rawins or weather balloons were labeled property of the US Army, property of the US Weather Bureau, etc. You have looked at those photos as closely as anyone. Is there any indication of ownership on the debris?

Don't know. They were developed by the Army Signal Corp, but after the War were also distributed to civilian weather stations. According to the Roswell Daily Record on July 9, based on inforamtion from local weatherman L. J. Guthrie: "The weather service has been dabbling with radar controlled balloons and similar devices for some time. Guthrie said that a great deal of meteorological equipment and supplies had been given to the weather service by the army after the close of the war, and that among the equipment was some of the radar triangles and other radar controlled devices. 'These instruments are sent up daily and from scores of places all over the United States,' Guthrie said..."

According to the infamous 1949 Saturday Evening Post UFO debunkery article by Sidney Shallet: " ...At the very time the saucer sighings were at their height [in 1947], the Air Force had just turned over thousands of surplus RAWINS to Weather Bureau stations all over the country, so they were used in greater numbers than ever before."

In some 1947 news stories, lettering on the crashed radar targets was mentioned:

CIRCLEVILLE, OH (believed to be Army weather services) On wooden framework: "'LMYRCX210'. In another spot were the initials: 'W.V.V.' and what Ortman thought was either 'RIO' or the capital letter 'R' and the number 10 (R 10).

OXFORD, OH: "On one corner there is some writing, almost too fine to read with the naked eye. It reads this way: CC-7724-I."

ROSWELL (UP): "Those men who saw the object said it had a flowered paper tape around it bearing the initials 'D.P.'"

I have no idea what any of this mentioned lettering is supposed to mean, much less distinguishing Army from civilian.

It was also mentioned in another case that a "100" on a balloon indicated it was a 100 gm balloon.

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

Blogger Don said...
Thanks, Kevin for clearing up my uncertainty about the Denver Post.

There is not much to be gleaned from the original news stories. They appear from beginning to end to be a product of the army, with the AP version the purest of the story told. Except for two corrections of bad grammar (which may or may not have been in an autograph copy), HS appears whole without variance, even typos or rather, I have not found one.

Wilcox speaks his lines. Then shuts up. Then Ramey at Ft Worth. Then Brazel in Roswell, the Daily Record version of which manages to both confirm and deny the Ft Worth story without mentioning it or Ramey.

The army issues no public statement on the matter and doesn't refer to HS, which began the whole thing. Did any paper ever get Haut's name right? I found one Walter Haupt (even in the AFOSI report there are several William Hauts in their text).

Johnson, ranking member of the Senate Military Affairs Committee, and the Johnson in the May-Johnson Bill (based on Vannevar Bush's proposal for control of atomic energy), which led to the atomic energy act of 46, is of some interest if he had the Ft Worth story before it was "officially" announced by Ramey. Johnson, a Democrat, was not any kind of "yellow dog", but a swing vote with influence who could side with the Republicans who wanted to give the army a haircut down to the bone. Johnson strategy was to seek the middle ground, a compromise. But even a compromise would leave an officer corps whose captains might with luck retire in 15 years as majors.

Besides Johnson and some things in the UP such as the "diehards" among the "principals" who did not accept the Ft Worth story, there is nothing left. No loose ends that lead anywhere.

For me, it means moving forward in time to see if there are effects of which Roswell was the cause.

Regards,

Don

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