Sunday, April 12, 2015

Colonel Thomas Ferebee and the Roswell Crash


Terry Lee Arbegust has posted an interview with a Colonel Thomas Ferebee who has said he was assigned to the base at Roswell in 1947. You can listen to the interview here:


In keeping with tradition, the first thing I did was look to see if he was in the Roswell Yearbook, but he is not. I do remember that Walter Haut told me that ten to twenty percent of the people assigned to the base were not included in the Yearbook, so this is not a fatal error. I did look in the base telephone directory and he is there in 1947 grouped in with the other majors. For a lark, I did look him up in the Roswell City Directory and he’s there too, showing that he was in the Army and that his wife’s name is Ann. So, we now know that his claim to being assigned to the base is an accurate one.

He told Arbegust that he was a friend of Blanchard and that, “I don’t think there was anything to it [the crash] myself. I never have. So we all have our own opinions.”

Ferebee mentioned that he was aware of the various books so he was aware of the various theories but that he hadn’t seen or read the books. He didn’t think it was a weather balloon, but did say, “I’m just saying I think it was something of ours we were testing. That’s what I’ve always figured.”

He also said, “I never bothered to go any further with it… I was aware of a lot of things that went on but I don’t know what it was.”

He said that he had no idea what they could have been testing in 1947 that would remain a secret today.

He confirmed that he was in Roswell in 1947 but then said that he had been at Sandia on TDY (Temporary Duty Assignment) for three months. He was attending some sort of training in Albuquerque so that he might not have been physically present in Roswell in July 1947.

All we learn from this is that Ferebee was a major assigned to the base in July 1947, he didn’t know much about the crash whatever it was but didn’t think it was a weather balloon. He thought that it was some secret equipment being tested but doesn’t know why it is still a secret… and importantly, he isn’t sure that he was there in Roswell in July and though assigned to the base at the time, he could have been TDY in Albuquerque. 

52 comments:

Stephen Jackson said...

If I was based elsewhere and returned to the stories being published in the press or rumours, I'd be looking further into things.

Yet he states he just never bothered or has never read any books on the subject. I find it hard to believe his human nature of curiosity, in the face of such stories, never made him ask questions or read about it

starman said...

He may be like Patrick Saunders, who outwardly dismissed the affair but was secretly interested.

KRandle said...

Starman -

That was sort of my thought as well, but we'll never know. All we can say is that he believes that whatever fell was some kind of US test. Maybe he knew nothing at all and was just reacting to what he heard from friends. Besides, he said he might not have been physically present at the time, being on TDY for part of 1947.

John's Space said...

I don't buy the still secret U.S. project being responsible for the Roswell Incident. Given the controversy I can't think of anything that old that would be worth protecting other than the ET answer. The government as admitted to some very embarrassing things.

However, I recently came across something interesting that Haut had said. This seems to be relevant to what the explanation is.

In a July, 1990 video-taped interview with Haut conducted by Fred Whiting for the Fund for UFO Research, Whiting asked Haut if he could remember Col. Blanchard ever mentioning the "flying saucer" matter after the official weather balloon line was established. Haut replied that he did, at a staff meeting a week or two later. He recalled Blanchard opening the meeting with a comment something like this: "Well, we sure shot ourselves in the foot with that balloon fiasco. It was just something from a project at Alamogordo, and some of the guys were here on our base later, too. Anyway, it's done and over with."

This seem to have Blanchard clearly stating that it was something of U.S. origin and from Alamogordo. It also may indicate that it was a balloon.

Larry Holcombe said...

John Space Said:

"I don't buy the still secret U.S. project being responsible for the Roswell Incident. Given the controversy I can't think of anything that old that would be worth protecting other than the ET answer."

Well, I think you have your answer!

The cover-up was in place and Blanchard was doing what a good officer, and later to be Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force would do. It's really not a complicated issue.

Tony Stark said...

Sir:

What continues to puzzle me is that your research efforts ignored for about a quarter century this individual:

"Fulton was then sent to Roswell, New Mexico, where the 320th Troop Carrier Squadron was based. After winning a slot as copilot on Douglas C-54s, Fulton played a supporting role in Operation Crossroads, an atomic weapons project for which an armada of captured and surplus warships had been assembled in the lagoon of the Bikini atoll in the Marshall Islands. The first test, on July 1, 1946, would detonate a Fat Man plutonium bomb a few hundred feet above the lagoon to see what a 20-kiloton airburst would do to the ships and tethered animals below. A few weeks later, a second bomb would be detonated underwater.

For Fulton, Crossroads meant long hauls from Roswell to Kwajalein, the largest of the Marshall islands, ferrying the accoutrements of nuclear warfare. But the flight that stands out for him took place the day after the first bomb test, when he flew a C-54 carrying scientists and Air Force brass out to see what the bomb had done. Flying over the lagoon at about 200 feet, Fulton toured the affected area. It hadn’t occurred to him that the flight might expose him and his passengers to harmful levels of radiation. His attention was fully on the fleet of ruined warships."

http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet-history-flight/meet-fitz-fulton-180947760/?no-ist

'Fitz', who is in the much mentioned "Roswell 1947 yearbook", later went on to be the landing test pilot for the Space Shuttle:

http://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-fitz-fulton-20150207-story.html

Why did you and your various research partners over more than 25 years spend time on chasing silly things like "nun's diaries" instead of interview Fulton?

starman said...

@John's Space and Larry Holcombe:
Blanchard would've avoided further mention of an ET craft, but I suggest he didn't really insult the intelligence of his colleagues like that. They were there, they knew what it really was. Haut couldn't really be trusted, and misled people on some occasions.
Btw there has been testimony from Fulton.

cda said...

Tony Stark:

Randle & others may well have interviewed Fulton but, unless Fulton said something supporting ETH, it is very likely his testimony was ignored.

Larry H:

If you want to see a review of your recent book, go to the Magonia website. But I doubt that you'll take kindly to what you see there.

KRandle said...

Tony Stark -

Do you have any information that Fulton had any specific knowledge of the case? If he did not, then what would be the purpose?

As for the nun's diary, I was told that it contained an entry that would have given us a precise time and date with an observation of what had been seen. Wouldn't that information have been useful, especially in a document written in July 1947? I was told that Don had seen the entry in Oklahoma, which made it an important bit of information... that we can't verify it today means that it has been rendered useless... and until or unless it can be verified, that's where it will remain.

CDA -

If someone is interviewed and has nothing to contribute to the discussion, then what is the point of mentioning the name? Stanley Julius who is 90, told me, "If I did [see anything] I already forgot about it." Is this valuable information? Guy was there in 1947 and denied he remembers anything. I have no reason to doubt him.

I interviewed retired General Cruikshank who told me, "I don't know who you are and I don't know what is still classified." That was the end of the conversation. Does this add to our knowledge?

If you look at my work, you'll see that not only have I interviewed people who do not believe in the extraterrestrial, but have reported on what they said. If they didn't see anything or didn't hear anything, then they really don't provide "testimony." Your point is in error.

David Rudiak said...

"If someone is interviewed and has nothing to contribute to the discussion, then what is the point of mentioning the name?"

My analogy is a crime is committed and the police canvass the neighborhood looking for witnesses and clues. They find that most people were watching "Dancing with the Stars" at the time and didn't hear or see anything. They are non-witnesses and don't somehow prove a real crime wasn't committed.

The people that can help the police are the ones that did hear or see something while taking out the garbage or walking the dog.

I live a block from a Safeway supermarket that had an armed robbery and didn't know a thing about it until I read about it in the local newspaper. The employees at the store weren't gossiping about it either.

A liquor store across the street from the Safeway burned up one night and I slept right through it. My son, a real night owl, was up, and told me about it the next morning. We lived in the same house, but he was a witness and I was a non-witness.

I once witnessed a police arrest where the suspect was subdued with force after he struggled to get away. He later filed a police brutality complaint. The police found out I was a witness some 6 months later and questioned me about it. (I remembered the basic arrest event very vividly, but didn't remember the small details, like what they struck the suspect with and exactly how many times. What you remember depends a lot on what you consider important at the time and where you focus your attention.)

Brian Bell said...

Kevin - The purpose of interviewing Fulton would have been to go into the case without an agenda of proving that the incident was an alien crash. Despite what Rudiak claims, if the crime is so heinous that it goes to court, fact finders and police actually do dig deeper than just first hand witnesses as means to validate their claims.

Like I said, few investigators did this preferring rather to chase down only those who claimed knowledge of aliens and those referred to you and others who they claimed would support their testimony. Need I remind everyone these witnesses have been proven to have lied all along?

Chasing a premise without a balanced investigation produces false claims and the tendency for interviewers to alter their own findings to suit their agenda (like Schmitt and Carey are doing now).

You did the same and admitted it in 2012 regarding Kaufman's testimony- you claimed "In fact, once his watch had been established, he set up a system of mirrors so that he could see the screen even when he needed to use the latrine." Then you admitted you embellishmed that story with the mirrors addition which Kaufmann never claimed - there are other examples as well...a couple's car gets translated by you and Schmitt as "a military jeep" which was never in their original testimony.

David Rudiak said...

Brian Bell wrote:
Despite what Rudiak claims, if the crime is so heinous that it goes to court, fact finders and police actually do dig deeper than just first hand witnesses as means to validate their claims.

Despite Brian Bell's usual sweeping generalities and unsupported opinions, in the real world, only a minority of crimes have ANY forensic physical evidence recovered, many crime labs have been found to be incompetent and/or corrupt with high error rates and even faked evidence. Overall, studies show that physical evidence has almost no bearing on conviction rates. Most cases instead rely on eyewitness testimony, however unreliable one might consider that to be. One sample article and excerpts:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/11/07/the_case_against_evidence/

A study, reviewing 400 murder cases in five jurisdictions, found that the presence of forensic evidence had very little impact on whether an arrest would be made, charges would be filed, or a conviction would be handed down in court.

A mere 13.5 percent of the murder cases reviewed actually had physical evidence that linked the suspect to the crime scene or victim. The conviction rate in those cases was only slightly higher than the rate among all other cases in the sample. And for the most part, the hard, scientific evidence celebrated by crime dramas simply did not surface. According to the research, investigators found some kind of biological evidence 38 percent of the time, latent fingerprints 28 percent of the time, and DNA in just 4.5 percent of homicides. “Forensics had no bearing on the outcome at all...”

In research yet to be published, the California professors say they have made similar conclusions regarding the small role that forensic evidence plays in solving other crimes as well. In assault, robbery, and burglary cases, investigators collect forensic evidence less than a third of the time, the researchers have found, and only a small fraction of that evidence ever gets submitted to a lab for study, making it essentially “a nonfactor, a rare phenomenon.”

...forensic evidence, while compelling, isn’t nearly as important to a murder case as other factors. Analyzing 400 murder cases committed in 2003 in California’s Los Angeles County, Indianapolis, and three smaller Indiana cities, the researchers found that cases were more likely to end up in court if witnesses came forward or if the victim and the suspect knew each other. Such factors made cases easier to solve and, apparently, easier to prosecute, according to the research, while, on the other hand, forensic evidence was “not a significant factor.”

"...it’s not determinant in the vast majority of cases. It does not significantly impact the conviction of cases. And I think the other point is, few cases actually have forensic evidence.”

In Fresno, Calif, this year, police have investigated 38 murders, but found DNA in just four... What matters in the immediate aftermath of a murder, he said, is finding eyewitnesses — just as the new research concludes.

"...in the vast majority of extremely serious cases, you need a mix of percipient witnesses and corroboration through forensic evidence. If all you have is forensic evidence — even if it’s ultra-definitive on its face; DNA matching the defendant and it’s in a critical place — jurors still want to hear from people.”

“they’re still convinced by someone else testifying that they saw it.”

Despite all our scientific know-how, jurors weighing life and death decisions still crave... the “human element:” the act of watching another person testify and deciding if they’re telling the truth.


Even when physical evidence is available, it does not stand on its own. Witnesses who collected and analyzed the evidence are sworn in and cross-examined, just like all other witnesses.

Witness testimony is far more important than debunkers give it credit for.

Brian Bell said...

Rudiak - I never mentioned "forensic evidence" as the basis for my claims -YOU DID in your last response. There is no real "forensic evidence" in the case of Roswell, hence no need to mention it. And if there was, based on what you just wrote, your "telegram" is no evidence at all....ha.

Your point on witnesses testimony is important, but it has to be TRUTHFUL testimony which is not the case with testimony on dead aliens and saucers at Roswell. Witnesses must also have testimony that corroborates the case and is not only convincing but matching to other testimony.

In the case of Roswell, for example, "eye witnesses" have described a "saucer" that is "saucer-like", "triangular shaped", "delta-wing shaped", "manta shaped", and "egg shaped". Five completely different descriptions. You claim that means they are all correct in that a UFO must have crashed because they all say something crashed. But you pay no attention to what they are describing.

Now let's try that in a real criminal case (which Roswell is not); let's suppose five separate witness see a murder take place. On the stand each describes the accused (who is not in the room) in detail. Not only do they swear what they are describing is truthful by words, but they also produce written affidavits that the person they saw committing the crime is who they say it is. When asked each describes "a man" but they describe him differently - one says he is "a black man", the other says he was "an Asian man", the other "a Hispanic man", and the last says he was " a Caucasion man". The only thing in common there is that he is "a man" - any jury convicting a accused person based on that testimony (and since you threw out any hope of forensic evidence yourself), is WRONG on all accounts.

This is exactly what you are claiming in your nonsensical defense of witness testimony. Now let's say all of the witnesses are found to be liars and proven exaggerators as in the case of your Roswell witnesses. Is the jury still going to convict? No.

KRandle said...

Brian -

First, I never said that I embellished his story. I said that I misunderstood what he said. He talked of bouncing a flashlight signal off a mirror when something showed up to alert those not in the room and I envisioned something that involved more than one mirror... a notion that Kaufmann did not dispute until others quizzed him about it.

Second, as I pointed out, I interviewed a number of people who had no specific knowledge of the events... if they said they remembered nothing about it, what is the purpose of going on about it and at this point, no one has said that Fulton knew anything good or bad. I interviewed Cavitt on several occasions, as I did Charles Moore. Both had comments about the event that did not lead to the ET which seems to refute you here.

If you go back through postings on this blog, you'll see that I interviewed Milton Sprouse, who was not involved because he was off base during early July, so your point is irrelevant...

Finally, there are literally hundreds of men who were assigned to the base in 1947 I didn't interview becaue I couldn't find them, they had died, or they refused to say anything. I have a file filled with broken leads, but since the information is not interesting or relevant, I have published nothing about...

Now, do you, or anyone else, have information from Fulton that would be relevant? If not, what is the point of all this? Just an opportunity to lecture from your keyboard? Where were you twenty-five years ago? You just demonstrate that you don't know everything I did, or Schmitt did, as we worked on the case. It seemed pointless to report that someone had no knowledge of the case which is not to say that I didn't interview them to see what they might know.

Larry Holcombe said...

cda:

Strange, but I thought this blog thread was about Ferebee and Roswell, and not a review of my book. I've been careful not to mention my book work here, but thanks for the plug. Anyone who writes a book on controversial subjects can expect some negative reviews, especially when the reviewer gets his facts wrong.

John Space:

I think your reply is reasonable and I understand your point of view. However, I think Blanchard's statement was simply a quick CYA statement in view of the controversy swirling around the base at that time and he had been given his orders to kill the story. It is likely that he would have made a quick statement like that to an assembled group that included those in the know and those out of the loop.

Rusty Lingenfelter said...

@Brian, you say "Witnesses must also have testimony that corroborates the case and is not only convincing but matching to other testimony.", but it seems that you are criticizing Kevin for not having done some kind of straw poll of the town of Roswell. Maybe I am missing your point.

I don't doubt your examples although they don't seem too egregious. I'm not sure how much of Kevin's work you have read, but one of the things I have always appreciated (and found frustrating) is that he rarely (if ever) makes a conclusion. He presents the evidence and lets the reader make their own conclusions. I assume your point is that you don't think he presents a balanced selection of the evidence.

The skeptical point of view that rejects any evidence that supports not only the ET hypothesis, but even the possibility of an ET explanation is almost intellectually bankrupt. I agree with the skepticism of the differing witness accounts, but summarily labeling them all liars is a little weak and resembling our favorite 'alien autopsy' proponent.

Rusty Lingenfelter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KRandle said...

Brian -

As I think about this, I wonder about your point. I spent a great deal of time at WSMR tracking the missile firings and experimentation that might have accounted for the debris. I spent time at the Space Museum in Alamogordo attempting to learn if there were any experiments in the right time that might have included chimpanzees. I won't mention the thousands of documents I reviewed to see if I could find anything that might explain what fell... nor all work researching the Flying Wing because that had been proposed as an answer... specifically the N9M which was a two-engine craft that didn't fly after 1946 and the XB-35 which had been grounded in June 1947 because of gearbox problems...

So, I ask again, does anyone have any information to suggest that Fulton would have had any special knowledge of this event?

John's Space said...

Larry,

That is one way to look at it. If we assume that the base had been involved in the recovery of an alien spacecraft and the high level of command had chosen to cover up the event as being due to a recovered weather balloon then Blanchard’s comments could be exactly as you say. It tells those that know what they are to say if it comes up and it tells those out of the loop to never mind.

I hadn’t been aware of Haut’s statement on this until recently. But, one thing stands out to me and that is Blanchard is claimed to have stated that “we sure shot ourselves in the foot with that balloon fiasco” and “it was just something from a project at Alamogordo.” That is years before the Air Force put out the Operation Mogul theory. So this statement could be taken as evidence for the official Air Force explanation. After all Haut wouldn’t have known this in 1990.

Starman,

If Larry’s theory is right then Blanchard was basically giving an order on how to treat the previous week’s events.

KRandle said...

Brian -

In looking for something else yesterday, I came across the transcript for Jason Kellahin, one of the reporters dispatched to Roswell. It was his belief that what fell was a balloon of some nature... This again, refutees your point about only interviewing those who believed that Roswell was an alien craft. I will now stop beating this dead horse.

Jim Bender said...

Mr. Randle

This question might be slightly off topic, but I was wondering what your gut feelings were of your interview of Ruben and Pete Anaya.
They were drivers for Lt Governor Joseph Montoya. The rumor is that they picked up Lt. governor Montoya after he witnessed the Roswell alien bodies at the Roswell army base in 1947.
Did the brothers seem creditable? and do you believe this event happened?

thanks for your input Mr. Randle

Brian Bell said...

Kevin - I do realize that you did some interviews with people who claimed it wasn't a crashed saucer. My point is this - why only a few? (Less than 5?) You only chased those who reported mysterious saucer debris and dead aliens. The few people you interviewed who claimed nothing happened were identified by you while you pursued ET, then you dropped them because what they had to say, even if nothing, didn't fit the story you wanted to sell in TV I terviews, book sales, and speeches.

Only a handful of first hand witnesses ever claimed anything truly sensational happened, and only after they were approached 37 years later by Ufologist investigators trying to prove aliens exist. The "hundreds of witnesses" are actually second and third hand witnesses to stories they were told by others from memories decades ago. They really aren't witnesses at all but you and Don presented them this way as did others.

If this was a non-biased investigative process from the beginning, you would have said to yourself "something weird happened here but I don't know what it was"..."better verify what a wide spectrum of folks military and civilian have to say to see what's up". Instead you tracked the story tellers and never got the other people's testimony - the hundreds of serviceman and many local ranchers who claimed all along the story was fabricated.

You claim if they couldn't remember anything or didn't have anything of value to add (to your ET pursuit) then it was a waste of time following up with them. What if 95% of the uninterviewed claimed it never was anything special just a big foul up and a secret coverup of a US-Soviet survellience program? Wouldn't the balance seem then to indicate there wasn't much to the story about aliens? According to you NO...

David Rudiak said...

Larry H. wrote:

I think your reply is reasonable and I understand your point of view. However, I think Blanchard's statement was simply a quick CYA statement in view of the controversy swirling around the base at that time and he had been given his orders to kill the story. It is likely that he would have made a quick statement like that to an assembled group that included those in the know and those out of the loop.

Yes, upon return to the base 3 weeks later after his leave, all Blanchard had to do was play along with the official story that balloon/radar targets, including those at Alamogordo, explained what had happened at Roswell and other flying saucer reports around the country. Details follow.:

Starting only about an hour after the base press release went out on July 8 of recovering a flying disc, the unofficial explanation from Gen. Ramey in Fort Worth became weather balloon/radar target (though claiming he wasn't sure). That became the official explanation within 3 hours after Ramey later brought in his weather officer to make official ID, but that was all for show by that point.

Starting that evening, we know that military intelligence at the Pentagon was telling at least one reporter that they thought balloon radar targets explained all the flying disc reports:

http://www.project1947.com/roswell/wkzo.htm

Starting the next day (July 9), multiple military weather balloon/radar target demonstrations were staged to firm up the story that this explained the flying discs and Roswell.

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

In fact, it was the lead sentence for both UP and INS stories on Roswell the next day (July 9) that the Army and Navy were running a "concentrated campaign" to kill interest in the saucers:

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

Two key military radar target demonstrations were held at Fort Worth AAF July 10, Ramey's command:

http://www.roswellproof.com/FWSTJuly11.html

(which, among other things, shows that Ramey would have had easy access to weather balloons and radar targets, use them for his photo op, and claim that was what was found at Roswell)

...and Alamogordo AAF, where Mogul balloons were launched.

http://www.roswellproof.com/Alamogordo_July9a.html

In the Alamogordo demonstration, they had two targets attached to two balloons. It was claimed that the recent launches there and similar ones at other military bases, probably explained recent flying discs in the area and further beyond, even the Pacific Northwest (Kenneth Arnold, etc.), not to mention the one recently found at Corona.

Note this story ran in a number of newspapers, with photos, including the Roswell Daily Record a week later.

Again, all Blanchard had to do 3 weeks later was play along with this already well-established story and indicate this to his staff with a wink.

(Head slap) "Can you believe it guys? We thought some dumb balloon from Alamagordo was one of those supersonic flying disc thingees. What idiots we are! Good thing Ramey and the Pentagon decided to let our monumental screw-up slide and let clowns like us continue to run their A-bomb base. Let's not bring this up again--right?"

"Yes sir!"

KRandle said...

Brian -

This is about all I will have to say on this because you keep changing the rules. I have said that in the very beginning, I believed that we would find a prosaic explanation for the case and that would be that. I talked to or inteviewed dozens of people who had alternative explanations from the crash of experimental aircraft to the crash of aircraft on classified missions. I talked to officers and soldiers of the 509th in July 1947. I followed leads on all sorts of stories and theories and just didn't bother to report all that simply because thay added nothing to our knowledge... not because they didn't take us to the extraterrestrial.

Now we're back to just being in it for the money. Stick to the aliens because that is where the money is and people will buy my books and attand my lectures... except if you look at a history of my writing, you see that I explain many of the cases rather than endorse something which I find to be untrue.

I am not going to supply a list of everyone I interviewed about this, but I did chase many leads that did not stand up to scrutiny... Kellahin, for exmaple, said that he talked to Brazel in a field near his ranch where a number of officers were standing around a downed balloon... except there was no way for him to have seen Brazel in the field given the timing of his trip from Albuquerque to Roswell and no way to see the fields from the highway. Some of that is explained in the books and some is not. You'll also notice that I interviewed George Walsh about the case as just another example of someone who doesn't accept the alien theory.

I do not understand why you believe that if someone said that he remembered nothing or knew nothing about the case I should have followed up on it. Should I just harrass people until they confess all? I have chased leads all over New Mexico for all sorts of reasons and talked to many, many people. I tried to find a plausible explanation for what fell and have yet to do that... which does not default to the alien.

But you fail to answer my question which is simply did Fulton ever say anything to suggest that he was a witness to anything at Roswell, or was he one of those who said nothing about the event.

Larry Holcombe said...

David:

A very well reasoned synopsis of the Blanchard issue in question.

John's Space said...

David,

I admitted that you theory is a possibility in the second paragraph of my last post. However, I think it is also notable that Blanchard came close to stating the Air Force’s mid-1990s story in a staff meeting shortly after the 1947 incident. It doesn’t mention a weather balloon like the official story but rather a project from Alamogordo.

But, you have demonstrated that the military seems to have over reacted in putting down a story if it was just a misidentified balloon. The Haut recollection does have one other little nugget and that is the statement that people from Alamogordo were on site at Roswell in connection with the incident. That tends to support either the ET theory or the Mogul theory but not a conventional weather balloon.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin - I didn't raise the Fulton topic, "Tony Stark" did it earlier on this thread which began with Ferebee. I don't know Tony but my take on his point is that when you have a "superstar" potential witness like Fulton, you would have thought that you and the other investigators might have at least researched the guy to see what he might have said. My hunch is he would have said the same thing as Ferebee, which was that he didn't give any credibility to the claims of aliens and crashed saucers, and that he didn't think it was a balloon as stated by Ramey, and that it was more than likely just another secret project test in the desert. He did state that he new testing of various projects was taking place all over NM in 1947 - something that when pointed out to Roswellians gets dismissed as not being a related aspect of what was really going on in the NM desert at that time.

Further more, Roswellians have adopted the term "weather balloon" in any and all references to Mogul which was not a weather balloon but a classified top secret espionage platform doing serious business over the Soviet Union.

The constant use of "weather balloon" is just one more demonstration that ET'ers will say and do anything to draw attention away from facts that contradict their precious theory on Roswell.

It wasn't a weather balloon - it was the equivalent of what we would call today a DoD COMSAT - not a simple weather balloon. Call it what the USAF claims it was - Project Mogul.

Brian Bell said...

Rudiak - Of all the people to claim that I am the one making "sweeping generalizations", you follow with "sweeping generalizations" of what you think was in Blanchard's mind, his motives, and why balloon demonstrations were all part of some kind of government conspiracy to debunk saucers and dead aliens.

All the references you just posted can also be read and interpreted the other way too - if the saucer wave of 1947 was so prevalent, which it was, the military might have just been attempting to explain to the public that there could be other explanations for some of what they are seeing - and the demos were to reassure them that the military was paying attention while also to keep people from getting nervous about all the sitings.

At the same time they may have also wanted to deflect attention away from citizen inquiry on top level secret projects, since obviously some of their own people jumped the gun thinking a secret project was actually a crashed saucer.

The memo you cite does not say the military wanted the media to state everything that people claim to see should be explained away as balloons - rather it appears to clearly be the Pentagon proposing to the media that some of the cases may be weather balloons. Why? Because a day or two before they got first hand experience in mis-identification when their own people got equally confused.

Paul Young said...

Brian...

"It wasn't a weather balloon - it was the equivalent of what we would call today a DoD COMSAT - not a simple weather balloon. Call it what the USAF claims it was - Project Mogul."

From what I can gather, the only significant difference between mogul and a weather balloon, besides its size and array, was the microphone fitted, and the small radio transmitter that relayed what the microphone was picking up. I know the principle material was polyethylene as opposed to rubber but
I'll never understand why something like this could have so badly confused the intelligence officer of a military base that was used seeing cutting edge stuff.

Paul Young said...

@ John...

Concerning the comments here on later occasions that Blanchard spoke about the incident.

The story that he was at some kind of reunion and was asked about what it was he saw and he answered along the lines of "It was the damnednest thing I ever saw", always pricked my attention.

It implies that he was STILL left completely in the dark over even the most basic information on Project Mogul years after the event.

I'm fully aware of the military concept of "need to know"...but I would have thought that someone in Blanchards position...someone who had made a complete mug of himself by sending out the news wire...and was then expected to make a humiliating u-turn,and back up the "cover story"...did, at this stage, have a "need to know" about Mogul. Even if only a layman's knowledge of it.
Yet when William Brainerd asked him, it appears he was still completely baffled.
I can understand why Blanchard wouldn't have a "need to know" about flying saucers, but surely, under the circumstances, he might have been given the heads up on Mogul....if only to keep him onside with the weather balloon cover-story.

David Rudiak said...

John's Space wrote:
... I think it is also notable that Blanchard came close to stating the Air Force’s mid-1990s story in a staff meeting shortly after the 1947 incident. It doesn’t mention a weather balloon like the official story but rather a project from Alamogordo.

The Pentagon's AFOSI office, which investigated Roswell in 1994, was well aware of the Project Mogul explanation because Robert Todd, had been pushing it since 1991. They referenced Todd and his work in their Roswell report. They also referenced Karl Pflock, who in 1994 was likewise proposing Project Mogul in his "Roswell in Perspective."

If you go back to the Moore/Berlitz 1980 "Roswell Incident", you will also see that they bring up the Mogul balloon launches (only they didn't know the project name), since they interviewed Mogul engineer Charles Moore, who discounted it originally as an explanation. You will also see one of the Mogul balloon schematics in the book, probably provided them by Moore.

And on July 9, 1947, a saucer debunking demonstration was held at Alamogordo. The press was told that they ran a project using balloons with radar targets training people there in radar tracking. That story was also carried in the Roswell Daily Record. The press was also told that these training balloon flights probably explained the balloon allegedly found near Corona on a ranch (obviously referring to Brazel's ranch and the widely carried story of Gen. Ramey debunking what was found as a weather balloon and radar target).

AFOSI in 1994 was also well aware of this balloon demo at Alamogordo supposedly explaining Roswell as one of the balloon launches from there, since they specifically referenced it and reprinted the article from the Alamogordo News.

The point is, it is not some amazing coincidence that AFOSI in 1994 picked up on Project Mogul and ran with it as the new, improved balloon explanation for Roswell. That explanation dated back to 1947. They simply revived it and made it official.

But, you have demonstrated that the military seems to have over reacted in putting down a story if it was just a misidentified balloon. The Haut recollection does have one other little nugget and that is the statement that people from Alamogordo were on site at Roswell in connection with the incident.

I'm unaware that Haut ever said that. Maybe provide a quote or reference?

The last Mogul balloon launch for the summer had been July 7. The team immediately packed up and flew out. At best, maybe a tiny skeleton crew was left behind who had assisted, but not the main Mogul team. They could NOT have been at Roswell when everything blew up July 8.

That tends to support either the ET theory or the Mogul theory but not a conventional weather balloon.

All Ramey showed and claimed what was recovered was a singular weather balloon and radar target, just like used all over the country by multiple weather stations, not a multi-balloon, multi target Mogul. There was also no Mogul equipment, in fact Ramey disclaiming any equipment being found.

And finally, a few hours later when Brazel was interviewed at the RDR, he denied finding any sort of balloon rigging, when a real Mogul would have left hundreds of yards of rigging behind. He only surmised that a balloon held up his foil and sticks box kite, because all he found were small rubber strips, not an intact balloon that Ramey displayed. Besides, he said, he knew what a weather balloon looked like, because he had previously found two on the ranch, but this didn't resemble those in any way.

If you compare Ramey's balloon display to Brazel's description of what he allegedly found, to what a true Mogul should have left behind, there are multiple, irreconcilable discrepancies in quantity, condition, and descriptions of debris, plus no unaccounted for Moguls that could have gotten there.

Brian Bell said...

Paul - As the military has pointed out, as well as the plastics industry, polyethelne was not in wide use or even sold as a commercial product until 1949. Mogul was the first use of this plastic in high altitude balloons. In addition, Tyrelene, which was also discovered a few years earlier (known today as Dacron), was polyethelne extruded as a thin clear "angel like" fiber or "hairs"...it had not been employed in any commercial or military products until then. Tyrelene is used in the manufacture of ropes, ties, cord or string, etc.

None of these guys would have known about these products since they were not being used prior in commercial or military use. Today they are common as dirt, but back then they were not.

As stated previously, but ignored by others, is a previous post were one witness involved in the clean-up of the debris field was asked to select which material he thought was best representative of what he collected - he picked silver acetate (plastic) and Marcel Jr. did the same test and chose the same material but said it was "lighter".

Of course it was, because a thicker version of polyethelne did not come out for about two years later.

The original testimony that Brazel, his friends, and Marcel Sr gave to the media prior to the printed retraction desribes the material as silver like foil, tough balsa wood type sticks, a type of rubber, parchment paper with latin numbers and symbols, tough bakelite, a black metal box, and some kind of string.

These can hardly be the stuff of an intergallactic or interplanetary vehicle.

With all the hype about saucer sitings and a group of military men who to their credit, wanted to figure out if these things had any threat potential to the US (and presumably thinking they could be Soviet), no doubt thought they had found material that might have come from a saucer, because to them this material was unfamiliar and very strange. Plus they did not know at the time of discovery about any balloon operations in NM.

KRandle said...

Brian -

None of the balloons in the June 4 array contained those materials... they were neoprene... the other materials were used after July 1.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin - I assume that's from the official Mogul documents, right?

KRandle said...

Brian -

July 2, 1947... 20 - 350 gram meteorological balloons.

July 3, 1947... 10 General Mills 7' polyethylene...

Flight No. 10... "This flight was the first to use a large plastic balloon as the lifting vehicle."

Flight No. 4 (June 4, 1947) had it been launched, would have used neoprene... the cluster of balloons was neoprene...

All the documentation suggests that no polyethylene was used prior to July 1947 and therefore was not responsible for the debris recovered.

Information from the official Air Force report and the records of the Mogul team in New Mexico.

The display in Ramey's office is of a neoprene balloon and the torn up remains of a rawin radar reflector.

John's Space said...

David,

I'm unaware that Haut ever said that. Maybe provide a quote or reference?

Here is the source for this. It is all in the first paragraph.

http://www.roswellfiles.com/Witnesses/hautstory.htm

In a July, 1990 video-taped interview with Haut conducted by Fred Whiting for the Fund for UFO Research, Whiting asked Haut if he could remember Col. Blanchard ever mentioning the "flying saucer" matter after the official weather balloon line was established. Haut replied that he did, at a staff meeting a week or two later. He recalled Blanchard opening the meeting with a comment something like this: "Well, we sure shot ourselves in the foot with that balloon fiasco. It was just something from a project at Alamogordo, and some of the guys were here on our base later, too. Anyway, it's done and over with."

Larry Holcombe said...

Although against my better judgement I'll slip in here with a couple of comments.

Maj. Jesse Marcel from a very young age was intrigued by radio and radio's. He built a primitive radio at a very young age. He went on to become a amateur radio operator (HAM) requiring an FCC license and a solid background in radio equipment. He was also schooled at Langley AFB on radar and rawin radar reflectors.

The point here is that he stated what he found on the Foster ranch was like nothing he had ever seen. At that time Project Mogul used a daisy chain of neoprene weather balloons, something Marcel would have known (although they would have deteriorated quickly on the desert floor) radio equipment with Vacuum tubes in a circuit boards, balsa wood and aluminum foil. It's beyond the pale to think that Mogul debris was nothing like Marcel had ever seen before.

Now one poster mentions "tough balsa wood," don't know that I've ever heard of tough balsa wood, especially balsa wood wood that can't be cut, burned or bent!

As Kevin says General Mills did use polyethylene balloons, sure but as he noted, the time line doesn't fit.

Another tidbit, in 1949, when the Navy was using polyethylene balloons for Project Mogul, Dr. Charles Moore, head of the project, while tracking a balloon flight saw a UFO in the theodolite he was using to track the balloon flight. Moore wrote a report to the Air Force and became incensed when he found out they tried to debunk his report.

Brian Bell said...

Larry Halcombe - regarding witness debris descriptions.

Of all places, David Rudiak's website is a place where you can obtain each witness's description of the debris material. These aren't my words they are theirs - sticks, foil, rubber, tape etc. See for yourself.

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

Brian Bell said...

So here are my thoughts on the debris not matching a Mogul neoprene array launched early June.

1) It's pretty clear that Charles Moore didn't keep great records to begin with / even Ufologists agree on that.

2) He was a early 20's grad student - if you have ever worked with grad students you may recall that not everyone documents properly - many make mistakes or don't recall accurately what they did. Furthermore not everyone is a great student either meaning I would not consider Moore an impeccable scientist extrodinare at that time of his life.

3) Sure - he has changed his story and reasoning on things, but only in response to changing details brought forth by Ufologists. The gouge for example is one place he states that his balloons couldn't have done that - well the gouge has never been proven and even Marcel and Brazil never said there was one, so Moore's response has to be taken in the context of bad information given to him.

4) Ufologists claim that he and the NYU team had "great UFO sightings" only to be ignored by the military - probably true - and that he was miffed as a result. But then they claim he deliberately fudged his date to support the direction of Flight 4, to help the military in their coverup - sounds contradictory to me. Can't have it both ways.

5) His data was forced by him to fit landing area near Roswell - maybe, but maybe he is t that great with math anyway or didn't care to do it properly for other reasons.

6) To verify neoprene vs polyethylene flights, has anyone ever interviewed anyone else on the NYU team to verify Moore's notes on types?

7) His log book is a record of attempted official flights - there isn't anything ruling out that they didn't launch some unofficial polyethelne balloons without the white box but with battery box attached as pre-flight trial runs with the new material.

8) Bear in mind these are college students, not Q clearance military personnel.

9) What are the chances that a July 1-2 polyethelne unofficial test simy got caught up in the thunderstorm and was forced down 12 hours after launch? In such a case they may not have recorded it or cared to go look for it because it wasn't an official flight with full equipment?

cda said...

Larry H:

There is no telling what Marcel thought or said at the time - none at all. This is because ALL quotes from Marcel (yes every one) are taken from what he told investigators, i.e. Moore, Friedman and others 30+ years afterwards.

We simply do not know any thoughts or ideas that Marcel had in '47, because there are no quotes from him at that time. He did say a few things at Fort Worth about his birthplace and perhaps VERY little about himself. Of course the conspiracists insist he was told to keep his mouth shut. Far more likely is that he kept silent to avoid looking a bit foolish at his seeming failure to identify a shattered balloon/radar target device).

And remember that he and Brazel are quoted in the RDR as trying to form a kite out of the material. Not the sort of activity you would do if you ever suspected it was the remains of an ET craft. (And Brazel would hardly have shoved bits of the debris under some brush if HE had such thoughts either!)

Larry Holcombe said...

I'm going to make this as quick as possible and then I'm through with it.

Brian: You are using smoke and mirrors to make your case and it isn't working. I simply stated that Dr. Charles Moore had seen a UFO or saucer while watching a balloon flight and filed a report that was debunked by the AF. You went into a long discourse to discredit Moore that had nothing to do with the simple point I made. Perhaps if I had challenged Moors attempt at debunking Roswell, which he did, you would be supporting him.

As far a the link you added. You've got me scratching my head as to why you put that up. It's the same data we've had for years. It doesn't support your sticks and rubber thesis it discredits it. "Beams like balsa wood that can't be cut, bent or burned." My wife has a bowl full of alabaster eggs, they look like eggs but I sure wouldn't try to eat one.

One other thing. Where is the radio equipment that Marcel would have been so familiar with? The Vacuum tubes, circuit boards, batteries, microphones etc. This is the heart of the Mogul Project and has anyone at any time mentioned this type of material in the debris?

CDA:

Christopher, I'll also try to make this brief. Marcel told his son, his wife and at least one HAM buddy who told Friedman about Marcel in the late 1970's. Remember, Stan found him, Marcel didn't contact Friedman. As far as feeling foolish, what about Blanchard? He went on to become a full four star.

The number of people who were told to keep their mouths shut could fill a phone book.

One final thing, as I said to Brian, in all the debris discussed, where was the heart of Project Mogul, the 1940's era radio equipment?

Brian Bell said...

Larry - did you read my comment? The link is what your witnesses said, not me, and yes you have had them for a long time. But read their initial comments for what they said, not what they didn't say. Sticks, balsa, bakelite, rubber etc. is what they described. I know what you're thinking..."That's the best description they could give for off world materials that were mysterious"... Right. How is that "my smoke and mirrors?" Simplest explanation is usually the right explanation... They described what they really saw. Please explain how an advanced intelligence could possibly manipulate the fabric of space to get here built in a spacecraft made of materials like that, or even something that looked like that?

Regarding Moore, what I said was you should indeed bank on the fact he made errors in his logs (something Ufologists all claim), and if he did, those errors may account for why he didn't properly log correctly a polyethelyne rather than neoprene balloon or even another sent up without equipment. How is that hard to understand?.

I never said all of the equipment was there, only the battery box Marcel and Brazel said they found (they called it a small black box). For all anyone knows if the array did have the white sound detecting box it could have been missing in another location or what you claim is the "crash site".

Did Ramey lie and also switch material in Fort Worth? Yes he probably did and placed a common weather balloon of neoprene on the floor. Why? He had orders to cover the real story (Mogul) with a common weather balloon and ship the real debris. He followed orders.

KRandle said...

Brian –

Thank you for proving that you just make stuff up when it doesn’t fit into your world view. So, let’s look at your thoughts.

Brian wrote:

"So here are my thoughts on the debris not matching a Mogul neoprene array launched early June.

1) It's pretty clear that Charles Moore didn't keep great records to begin with / even Ufologists agree on that.

"Well, we might agree except that the field notes and diary were kept by Dr. Albert Crary, the leader in New Mexico. The records are, for the most part clear… the areas of dispute are those identified by Moore decades after the events to support his claims.

"2) He was a early 20's grad student - if you have ever worked with grad students you may recall that not everyone documents properly - many make mistakes or don't recall accurately what they did. Furthermore not everyone is a great student either meaning I would not consider Moore an impeccable scientist extrodinare at that time of his life."

Again, the records were kept by Crary and not Moore so all this is irrelevant and your assessment of Moore at this time of his life is equally irrelevant.

"3) Sure - he has changed his story and reasoning on things, but only in response to changing details brought forth by Ufologists. The gouge for example is one place he states that his balloons couldn't have done that - well the gouge has never been proven and even Marcel and Brazil never said there was one, so Moore's response has to be taken in the context of bad information given to him."

Really, you want to stick with this reasoning? Moore changed the time of the June 4 launch of a cluster of balloons to 2:30 or 3:00 in the morning because of a weather front that passed through Alamogordo about dawn that changed the weather dynamics and his speculative balloon flight was in error… The field notes and diary make it clear that the launch was canceled and then the cluster of balloons was launched some time later. The record suggests Flight No. 4 was canceled about dawn and the cluster would therefore have been launched later.

"4) Ufologists claim that he and the NYU team had "great UFO sightings" only to be ignored by the military - probably true - and that he was miffed as a result. But then they claim he deliberately fudged his date to support the direction of Flight 4, to help the military in their coverup - sounds contradictory to me. Can't have it both ways."

Moore’s sighting was not ignored by the military and was carried by Project Blue Book as an “unidentified.” He was miffed at the guys in Roswell who told him and his colleagues that they didn’t have time for a bunch of “college boys.” The records, however, suggest that Moore might have been the only one who had this problem. Crary talks of refueling at the base as they surveyed the area. A week later, Moore claims that he was denied entry to the base. Your point seems to be untrue.

KRandle said...

"5) His data was forced by him to fit landing area near Roswell - maybe, but maybe he is t that great with math anyway or didn't care to do it properly for other reasons."

Wild speculation that is not backed up by any facts… Seriously, he might have been bad at math?

"6) To verify neoprene vs polyethylene flights, has anyone ever interviewed anyone else on the NYU team to verify Moore's notes on types?"

These weren’t Moore’s notes but Crary’s. Other documentation about the balloon flights and the acquisition of the equipment is spelled out in the reports, copies of which were published in the massive Air Force report on Roswell. Others involved were, in fact, interviewed.

"7) His log book is a record of attempted official flights - there isn't anything ruling out that they didn't launch some unofficial polyethelne balloons without the white box but with battery box attached as pre-flight trial runs with the new material."

I don’t even know what this means… except all the data show that the polyethylene didn’t arrived until July, too late for the June 4 launch. You can’t just make up something to fit your scenario without some sort of evidence, even if it is thin. This is wild, unfounded speculation.

"8) Bear in mind these are college students, not Q clearance military personnel."

“Q” clearances have nothing to do with it. It is clear that they knew the name of the project in 1947 since they used it in the field notes and documentation. The Air Force report said, “Professor Moore and certain other members of the group were aware of the actual purpose of the project but they did not know of the project nickname at the time.” So you point sinks here because Moore, without a “Q” clearance did know the purpose, according to him, he just didn’t know the project name… which clearly was not classified.

"9) What are the chances that a July 1-2 polyethelne unofficial test simy got caught up in the thunderstorm and was forced down 12 hours after launch? In such a case they may not have recorded it or cared to go look for it because it wasn't an official flight with full equipment?"

What is your evidence for this wild speculation…there is nothing to suggest this and the records seem to indicate that the polyethylene did not arrive until later.

None of your points are valid. They are just invention to prop up a weak theory… I have looked into this in depth, as I have other ideas in an attempt to learn what fell at Roswell… and I will note again that the debris photographed in Ramey’s office is not a polyethylene balloon but a neoprene balloon and a badly degraded rawin radar reflector.

Larry Holcombe said...

Brian:

"Simplest explanation is usually the right explanation... They described what they really saw. Please explain how an advanced intelligence could possibly manipulate the fabric of space to get here built in a spacecraft made of materials like that, or even something that looked like that?"

I subscribe to Occam's Razor and the simple explanation is these craft didn't "manipulate the fabricate of space" they were brought here by other craft and were probes, simple expendable research probes. I have never believed that crashed ETC flew across the vastness of space only to crash here. But expendable probes brought here by craft that could "manipulate the fabric of space" is reasonable and logical. It is important to think outside the box my friend.

As for Moore, he was a leader in balloon research and development for high altitude research. He was highly regarded until his death in 2010. His efforts to debunk Roswell with questionable means is, in my opinion, a blemish on a fine career.

Al12 said...

Brian.

Why then would it be nessesary to "ship off the real debris" debris such as Balsa, sticks, rubber, a balloon is just a balloon, mogul or otherwise.

Would it really be prudent to ship this junk off in bombers and then straight to Wright Field for analysis ( since they ought to know what this junk is )

Project Mogul was classified but the materials used wasnt and so i dont understand why they would need to be shipped to Wright Field.

Larry Holcombe said...

Brian:

AI12's comment is spot on. Why ship unclassified junk to Washington or Wright-Pat? Throw it in a dumpster or whatever they had then. Give me one solid report that Marcel or anyone else found a vacuum tube or any 1940's era electronic equipment in the Foster Ranch debris and I'll reconsider my position.

Brian Bell said...

AI12 - Actually there is some speculation (not from me) that the material actually wasn't shipped anywhere.

First hand witnesses claim material that resembles, if not directly identical to, polyethylene, parchment paper, string, Bakelite, tape and foil with memory type properties.

Kevin and friends claim that it was alien hardware, and despite there being some military men that told Marcel (when it was first brought in) that it was a balloon, he states they had nothing to add or knew nothing more about the things he was interested in, so he and Don chose not to highlight them in detail or at all.

Kevin maintains that the balloon material in Ramey's office was neoprene, which it was, but that it couldn't have been polyethylene that they found, because the real alien debris was swapped out. He backs that up by claiming Moore accurately reported the launch of a neoprene balloon array, but maintains that Moore deliberately fudged his data much later as part of the USAF grand conspiracy.

Brian Bell said...

Larry H: Now who's really blowing smoke? You claim that I am purely speculating? Let's take a look. You said:

"I subscribe to Occam's Razor and the simple explanation is these craft didn't "manipulate the fabricate of space" they were brought here by other craft and were probes, simple expendable research probes. I have never believed that crashed ETC flew across the vastness of space only to crash here. But expendable probes brought here by craft that could "manipulate the fabric of space" is reasonable and logical."

>> That is PURE speculation. Not a shred if any proof of anything you just said being real or demonstrated ever. Don't point the finger of speculation at me when these "wild ideas" have no basis in fact. That's your best guess - and nothing but a guess.

"It is important to think outside the box my friend."

>> I agree, but what you accept as legitimate "out of the box thinking" IS ONLY thinking that supports the ETH. Anything that is offered as potential explanations that clear up gray zones, but don't fit the ETH, is immediately attacked and rejected. Just look at the last string of rebuttals from both you and Kevin. You truly have no room for out of the box thinking. If you did you would walk your talk.

And Kevin.... You have a passion for avoiding answers to questions that bring attention to some of your work. And a habit of pointing out what you claim are errors of others while forgetting your own. Let's take a look:

1) UFO Crash at Roswell, you claim the crash took place on July 2nd and was located on the Foster Ranch, but then you state in The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell that the crash takes place on July 5th and is located just North of Roswell on what was then the McKnight Ranch. You changed your story...

2) Ragsdale and Truelove testimony - He said they were in a car - you changed their story to say they were in a WW2 jeep and also changed it into a "wild night with lightning and thunder; a 30 to 40 mile an hour wind driving dust and dirt." You changed the facts and the details of a witness's testimony...

3) Omni Magazine - Your 1995 letter - You state "It is amazing to me that so many rumors fill the air. Now we are being told that Don is a letter carrier… Of course, this rumor is no more true than the Gerald Anderson story." Then you say "I had believed that his lying related only to his personal life. Now I learn that it doesn't ....That said, let me now point out that I do not now believe anything that Schmitt says and neither should you…". You knowingly chose to work with a guy who you knew lied about his personal life, and defended him knowing that, yet dare to challenge me and others about research, facts, and conclusions?

Need I go on Kevin?

KRandle said...

Brian -

I now suspect you are a troll who attempts to hijack discussions. This was about Thomas Ferebee and all other conversation ends now.

KRandle said...

CDA -

Your comment was not relevant to the original post.

cda said...

Kevin:

Quite right, it wasn't. The irony of it is that in my deleted post I actually took your side and told off someone else for deviating from the topic!

So now you can have a light chuckle before deleting this posting too. Anyway, I'll shut up now.