Monday, July 13, 2015

Lee Reeves and the Roswell UFO Crash

I know that this might seem to be piling on, but in the last couple of weeks, I have been asked about the story of Lee Reeves who supposedly accompanied Dan Dwyer out to the crash site where the alien creatures were found. Reeves’ tale appears in Witness to Roswell where it says, “When the call came in to the fire station that there had been a crash north of town, Dan Dwyer and Lee Reeves were dispatched
Dan Dwyer and members of the Roswell Fire Department.
with the station’s “tanker” (a pickup truck with a large, cylindrical water tank in the back) to the crash site. Arriving before the military could secure the site, Dwyer and Reeves got to see what had crashed. It wasn’t an airplane at all, but an egg-shaped vessel of some sort that they did not recognize. And the bodies! ...”

From that point, Carey and Schmitt described, from Dwyer’s point of view (which is not to say they were quoting him, only using information that had been supplied by Frankie Rowe about what her father had said), that the creatures were small and that eventually Dwyer saw one that was still alive. When he got home that night, he told the family what he had seen and was asked what the creatures looked like. His “answer was succinct, ‘Child of the Earth,’” which is another name for the Jerusalem Cricket. That statement has an endnote that says, “Son (anonymity requested) of Dr. Foster’s housekeeper (anonymity requested), personal interview, 1992.”

That endnote tells us nothing and seems to reference a tale told later in that chapter of the book. It is clear from my interviews with Frankie Rowe that it was her father, Dan Dwyer, who made reference to the Child of the Earth. The
Frankie Rowe
description of seeing the two dead aliens and the single survivor is also from Frankie Rowe.

Lee Reeves, according to the information that I have, died in 1971 and therefore is not an original source for this information. He had been a laborer at the Malco Refinery in 1947, but he was also a member of the Roswell Police Department and had worked as a fireman at the Orchard Park prisoner of war camp south of Roswell and for the city of Roswell Fire Department at some time, so he did have a connection there.

The trouble arises when the testimony of J. C. Smith, a firefighter in Roswell in 1947 is recalled. He was first interviewed by Karl Pflock and Smith made it clear in that interview that the Roswell Fire Department had not made a run out to the crash site, even in a piece of make-shift firefighting equipment.

Later when Tony Bragalia and I interviewed Smith separately, he made it absolutely clear that the fire department had not gone to the crash site. When I asked Smith if he had known Dan Dwyer, he said that he had and that Dwyer had gone out in his personal car. Smith told me that an Army colonel had come into the fire station and told them that they didn’t have to worry about the crash. They, the Army, would take care of it.

Dwyer, however, drove on out on his own, according to Smith, and not in one of the fire station’s vehicles and not with someone else. There was no discussion of Reeves at all until his story surfaced sometime in the last decade or so and was apparently relayed by his son, though there is nothing in the Carey and the Schmitt book to tell us that. It is my deduction given the information available.

Where does that leave us? Well, with the Dan Dwyer story, we learn from family members that he did go out there and said that he did see the bodies. We learn from J. C. Smith that Dwyer did go out there, but in his own car. We learn from the fire department records that there is nothing to suggest that any of the fire station’s equipment was dispatched on a run outside the city limits in the time frame necessary to corroborate the Reeves’ part of the story. Given the nature of the log, had some of their equipment been dispatched, there was no reason not to mention it. And we see that the Reeves’ tale is contradicted by the first-hand testimony of J. C. Smith.


It is my guess that the Reeves’ tale was told by one of the Reeves children or grandchildren, most likely Lewis Lee Reeves. When confronted with this sort of problem, the best case scenario is to rely on the first-hand testimony, which is Smith and which was told some sixty years after the event (which doesn’t make it true, only that it is of a better quality). The second-hand testimony is not properly sourced, is clearly not from a first-hand source, and is in conflict with other information and documentation. It now falls into the category of a “friend of a friend” tale and we all know how that works out… (and to prevent someone from stating the obvious here, I realize that it is technically the son of the man, but then, given the way the information is published, we really don’t know that either.)

120 comments:

ufodebunker said...

Kevin:

If the Army wanted to keep things under wraps and maintain secrecy why was the colonel sent to the fire station to tell them that their services would not be needed as the Army had planned to handle the crash? It's apparent that someone had already informed the fire department that a crash had occurred. How did the fire department find out about the crash and if it was the Army that informed them why did they change their minds about employing the fire department's services?

Best Regards

cda said...

Not exactly a reliable piece of evidence concerning the Roswell crash tale, is it? Tell me this Kevin: Is there ANYTHING you consider the least bit reliable to substantiate the claim that a crash occurred anywhere near Roswell at that time, apart from the one site we all know about i.e. the Foster ranch?

Do you consider that any of the other claimed crash sites have any validity whatever? I do not.

But of course I wasn't there.

starman said...

I believe one account mentioned a burned area but none mentioned a fire so the Army didn't need the RFD.

starman said...

There might've been a minor initial fire which quickly bu
rned out.

Brian Bell said...

@ all

Well it's pretty clear that the Reeves story is just that....a story. Seems everyone even remotely associated with a Roswell area family member now deceased wants to claim, or has claimed, that their grandfathers, fathers, or uncles were somehow "witnesses"to this event. These second, third, and sometimes fourth hand stories have typically been reported by current Dream Team members as "first hand witness accounts" numbering nearly 600-700 in total. Clearly no truth to that claim at all.

Since the Reeves story is false, but imbedded into the Dwyer story which is also considered by some to be "factual truth", I believe this also brings serious doubt to the already strained claims of Frankie Rowe.

I might also add that serious and documented medical research in the area of memory has proven that with age comes the propensity to fabricate and embellish memories based on some real event, but also sometimes just made up altogether. The witness will claim it's true because they really believe it to be so - but it never really happened. That's what real medical science has demonstrated.

These firemen may simply be recalling one of the handful of aircraft crashes that occurred outside RAAF base - real events - but now hyped up and imbedded in a failing memory that to them, or family members today, seems connected to the false and yet to be proven claims of an alien saucer crash.

cda said...

Brian Bell:

You refer to "current Dream Team" members. Does this team still exist? Or are they now to be numbered as 'has beens'? Or even 'never weres'?

I cannot believe they are still functioning as a 'team' of any kind. But I better watch out as I may be infringing Kevin's latest rules.

KRandle said...

Ufodebunker -

There seem to be a number of things that the Army did that don't make sense. The press release is one. I would suspect that the "colonel" (and why is it always a colonel and never a captain or major?) was sent so that the entire Roswell Fire Department didn't respond. No sense in sending out a fire crew if the situation was in hand.

Starman -

The tale of the burned area came during the first interviews conducted with members of Sheriff Wilcox's family. Later former members of the sheriff's department also said the same thing, but there has been no documentation located that would validate the claim.

Brian -

Frankie Rowe had been telling us about her father's experience since the early 1990s. Her sister confirmed it, which is to say, that her sister supported what she said. Later former firefighter, J.C. Smith confirmed parts of what Rowe had said, so that we can conclude that she was not lying, which again, is not to say that it is based in reality. The Lee Reeves tale, embedded in the Dan Dwyer narrative is the result of editorial choices made by Carey and Schmitt in the way they presented the material. The Reeves story has little to do with what Frankie Rowe said. It was injected into that story two decades later by an unidentified source. You can reject Frankie Rowe, but not for that reason.

CDA -

I am unsure why you believe that you administer this blog. I have been quite clear on the rules and if you wish to refer to the Dream Team as has beens, and given the situation that developed after May 5, that is your opinion and not necessarily nasty. Of course your continued complaints about the rules are becoming tiresome.

Paul Young said...

Starman..."I believe one account mentioned a burned area but none mentioned a fire so the Army didn't need the RFD."

"There might've been a minor initial fire which quickly bu
rned out."


The thing is, the Fire Brigades of the world tend to help out in any number of situations other than a fire. From getting a cat out of a tree to getting a kids thumb out of a coke bottle. So if you have a fireman, like Dwyer, who gets wind that there's been some kind of an accident, then a blend of conscientiousness and the very human trait of being nosey, makes it perfectly feasible, to me, that Dwyer would have chomped at the bit to visit the scene...fire or no fire.


KRandle..."There seem to be a number of things that the Army did that don't make sense."

For me this is the crux of the whole Roswell thing. From day one, right to the present, they simply have not known how to handle the situation. And the obvious lies that they STILL keep peddling, (Project Mogul...give us a break)... all points to something absolutely jaw-dropping happening there.

ufodude2010 said...

Kevin, feel free to pull this comment out if you see fit. I won't be upset about that since this is your domain.

@cda - Please cease with the constant, non-stop, condescending attitude. It seems you are skeptical about pretty much everything brought up here. Can you name any case in ufology you believe to be true, or is your goal purely to ridicule? Regarding the Roswell incident, too many witnesses have come forward indicating there was much more to this case than a purely military explanation. Yes, there may not be any physical evidence you can hold in your hand. I expect the only way you would be satisfied a given case was real is if you have physical evidence as verification. Good luck with that when dealing with advanced extraterrestrial races. We may be out of our league.

Rusty Lingenfelter said...

For numerous AC's and Paul, I have been an officer on a small town fire department. The FD is called out for many happenings other than fires. I would posit this occurs for (at least) two reasons, they have some equipment the police don't have and they aren't there to arrest anyone (although I wrote a few tickets). For example, the FD in my town ran the response to the flood of '93, so I don't find it unreasonable that the FD would have been involved in a response that didn't require law enforcement. That doesn't mean it explains what happened in Roswell in '47, but it is consistent with my experience.

I hope that Kevin will hammer the AC who continues to offer inane criticism, but rarely if ever adds to the discussion. Certainly plenty to question about this story, but the knee-jerk, smart-ass comments definitely bring down the level of discussion here. I think the three-letter AC provides a great example of why anonymity detracts from rather than enhances the quality of debate. I vote him off the island. Extinguish his torch and send him on his way. Just a suggestion...

Brian Bell said...

I agree with Rusty that at that time, 1947, and even today in smaller towns, the FD - volunteer or otherwise - do tend to respond to calls on their own volition.

I haven't looked into it, but if the Roswell FD responded to other military incidents, both before and after July 1947, there would be a good case for saying some or all members might have responded. But we are left just with the Dwyer story second hand and with elements (Reeves) imbedded into it.

There are many problems with this, even if people recall he did go out on his own...when? What day and time? Why was he allowed inside the reported cordon? How did he know where the second crash site was where bodies were supposedly found? What about the very long drive out there where few roads existed?

People may have recalled he went out there - but maybe they just recall what has been said already....he tended to go out TO EVERY incident anyway....and that's just what people remember correctly.

cda said...

Kevin:

Let me repeat my question: do you accept any of the various claimed crash sites as genuine (in the sense that a UFO crashed or landed there)? We can agree on the Foster Ranch. But what about the other 2 or 3? Maybe you are still thinking it over.

I am not complaining about your rules, but I do admit to occasionally deviating from them.

UFOdude2010:

There are plenty of cases I believe to be true. Roswell is one. I just don't believe it was an ET craft, that's all. Yes, to have any chance of proving ETs are visiting us it will be necessary to capture one, or at least portions of one (either the craft itself or the beings who pilot it).

William Strathman said...

b"h

Kevin said:

"There seem to be a number of things that the Army did that don't make sense."

What bugs me is that the 509th apparently flew at least one or two B-29's with debris to FW, I think? Perhaps Kevin you can clarify that more if you like. It just seems insanely inefficient to use a high-altitude combat bomber for a C-47's / C-54's work. But if the debris was more than just trashed radar reflectors of a balloon then using a B-29 could start to make a little more sense. I agree with those who suggest that natural curiosity and sense of offering aid might be enough incentive to cause a firefighter to go to a site where assistance was not needed. If they had been told assistance was not needed, that would be one thing. If they were forbidden from going to the site, that would be another. It doesn't sound like they were forbidden, from the little I've read.

Neal Foy said...

Kevin,
Did Reeves know Dwyer? Assuming he did is it possible that some elements of his story came from Dwyer, and he inserted himself into the story for some reason? I've done a brief internet search and can't find any reference by Rowe of a description of the craft. I can only find a description of the material and the cryptic description of the ETs.

Are there other descriptions of the craft and how do they compare with Reeves' egg shape tale?

Brian Bell said...

B-29's.......

Regardless of the "reported" number flown to Fort Worth (the flight records apparently no longer exist to verify witness claims), we know Marcel did fly there in one as ordered with what witnesses actually claim is more like a shoebox and paper wrapped package of actual debris.

That would be normal given the fact that no large debris was even collected and loaded into the B-29. This was an easy flight to and fro.

If large sized debris was actually collected, the B-29 is NOT the aircraft that is best used for such a task as the debris would need to be special loaded into the bomb bay taking great effort and time. B-29's are not transport aircraft.

Yes, they would have naturally loaded such a large "space craft" (or parts there of) into a C-54 or C-47 because they were there and that's what their function was.

Other than one B-29 flight to Fort Worth, and possibly another to Wright (speculative and still never proven), there is no solid evidence to support aircraft transport of "saucer" debris of any kind to anywhere. Thus "believers" have conveniently inserted "truck transport" and even a B-25 into the story line.....


Paul Young said...

Part 1 ...ufodebunker...

"It's apparent that someone had already informed the fire department that a crash had occurred. How did the fire department find out about the crash and if it was the Army that informed them why did they change their minds about employing the fire department's services?"

In the early 80's I had a shore draft to RNAS (Royal Naval Air Station)Culdrose, the major base for the Fleet Air Arm. We had our own in-house fire section; well trained and well equipped to look after any incident that would happen on base or to our aircraft in the (near) surrounding area.
They also worked hand in glove with the local civvy fire brigade, the Cornwall Fire Service, who participated with the base fire service in exercises. The main gist being that they practiced giving a helping hand if something massive happened and the base fire section couldn't manage it alone.

Now I know we're talking about a different nation in a different era but I'm presuming the Air Base at Roswell had a similar in-house fire brigade with a similar agreement with their local civilian fire service.

Now this is PURE SPECULATION, but is it possible the army air base brigade got the order to go out to a "crash" and because it was a fair distance off-base, their doofer who liaises with the doofer over at the civvy brigade, thought it might be a great idea to ring him to get his boys to give a helping hand.

Paul Young said...

Part 2,

Very soon after, some head honcho realised that the civvy fire brigade were inadvertently getting in on the act, hence someone was hastily sent down to their fire station telling them to "stand easy", because everything was under control.

Then a conscientious and curious Dywer decided, off his own bat, to take a cheeky look at what was going on.

Pure speculation on my part, of course.

Tony Stark said...

for Kevin Randle:

"CDA -

I am unsure why you believe that you administer this blog. I have been quite clear on the rules and if you wish to refer to the Dream Team as has beens, and given the situation that developed after May 5, that is your opinion and not necessarily nasty. Of course your continued complaints about the rules are becoming tiresome."

And I think that we all can see here just why "cda" is such a 'favorite son' over at Rich Reynold's UFO Blog...

ufodebunker said...

Paul:

That's one possible scenario that fits the facts. Because the Dwyer story was 2nd hand through Frankie Rowe its impossible to determine what happened beyond what Frankie was told as a child. That of course assumes she's on the level. It's hard to catch an alleged 2nd hand witness in a lie because they can always say that's what they were told and make an irontight case out of it by limiting the facts. On the hand an alleged first hand witness has a more difficult job deceiving the investigator as he can be crossexamined and a contradiction is easier to spot. I have my doubts about her because she said Dwyer told her that he was threatened that if he ever divulged anything he could or would wind up in the desert never to be found. That sort of intimidation technique is likely to have the opposite affect due to the outrage it would incite in the recipient. All he would have to do to protect himself is to have a statement in his will that authorizes a document to be opened and published in the event of his death or disappearance under unusual circumstances. Plus I find it very difficult to believe the Government would resort to that sort of threat especially in late 40s America! Back in those days Americans had a much clearer understanding of their Constitutional Rights than the folks do today. Off topic I know but I have to say that's why a lot of the protection of our unalienable rights in America is slipping away!

Best Regards!

cda said...

Ufodebunker:

It was not Frankie Rowe saying her father had told her HE was threatened if he said anything about what he saw. It was Rowe herself who claimed SHE was threatened in this way. See her affidavit in Karl Pflock's book p.276. Not only that but the other children (i.e. Rowe's siblings) were thus threatened. Thus these dreadful military guys apparently thought nothing of making death threats, even to children, in 1947. At least that is what we are being asked to believe. Presumably you do not believe such threats were ever made. Neither do I (surprise!). But it is all part of the great Roswell 'legend'.

ufodebunker said...

CDA:

I thought that it might have been her rather than Dwyer. That makes it even more difficult to believe. Why would they threaten her after the cat was already out of the bag? Following through on a threat like that would confirm that what she told was true. The renegade agent would have to be a total moron! It makes no sense of all. If she left that part out her story might have been believable!

ufodebunker said...

CDA:

If it was so critical to hush this thing up why didn't they nip it in the bud by threating Dwyer at the site in that way they would have shut him up before he told the kids. To levy a threat like that is plain stupid. I'm certain it didn't happen!


Lance said...

UFOdebunker,

You have hit upon some of the many reasons that so many of us think that the Roswell story is simply a conspiracy theory that instantly mutates to account for any inconsistencies that crop up.

Consider for a moment the sieve-like leaking that we are expected to believe happened: where the base privates, cooks, nurses, civilian firemen and morticians all know about the basic facts BUT the base intelligence officer? He doesn't even know there was any sort of recovery...never even heard rumors of it.

It only makes sense to a conspiracy theorist.

Lance

Paul Young said...

Lance...

"Consider for a moment the sieve-like leaking that we are expected to believe happened:..."

Going along with the story for a moment, the "sieve-like leaking" does go along with the impression that the military personnel, based at Roswell, had a dreadfully inept first 24 (maybe even 48) hours. So inept that it took a while for them to recover.
From Mac Brazel finding the Foster wreckage onward,the main civilian players always seemed to be a step in front of the main military players, who seemed to be operating at almost a Keystone Cop level. The original newswire points to total confusion.

The leaks were a direct result of the military seemingly being in shock in the first 24 hours...they just didn't get their act together.

ufodebunker said...

With all the leaks of earth shattering testimony how are to believe that shortly thereafter the tale remained fallow for more than 30 hears?? I believe something happened but not dramatic enough to retain interest beyond the days immediately following the crash. Doesn't that speak volumes?


Jeanne Ruppert said...

Paul Young wrote: "Now this is PURE SPECULATION, but is it possible the army air base brigade got the order to go out to a "crash" and because it was a fair distance off-base, their doofer who liaises with the doofer over at the civvy brigade, thought it might be a great idea to ring him to get his boys to give a helping hand."

I had been thinking the same thing. It makes sense of the visit from a Roswell base officer to call off the civil fire brigade within a matter of hours, perhaps less. I also see no reason why Dwyer wouldn't have felt free to go to the scene himself, or why he wouldn't have been warned not to speak of what he saw.

I also agree with your general estimate of the situation here:

"Going along with the story for a moment, the "sieve-like leaking" does go along with the impression that the military personnel, based at Roswell, had a dreadfully inept first 24 (maybe even 48) hours. So inept that it took a while for them to recover."

I think that ineptitude went all the way up to Ramey, who I've read authorized the press release from Roswell and then, of course, had to find a way to undo the damage done by it. The evident chaos, confusion, and ineptitude in itself suggests that the event was overwhelming as details of it became known.

Nitram Ang said...

Lance wrote:

"Consider for a moment the sieve-like leaking that we are expected to believe happened: where the base privates, cooks, nurses, civilian firemen and morticians all know about the basic facts BUT the base intelligence officer? He doesn't even know there was any sort of recovery...never even heard rumors of it.

It only makes sense to a conspiracy theorist."

Lance, again your selecting facts to suit a theory...

Some of the people you mentioned HAVE been discredited e.g. the mortician who we know you are referring too...

Doesn't mean that "maybe" some of the other people are not telling the truth.

As Paul stated earlier...

"From day one, right to the present, they simply have not known how to handle the situation. And the obvious lies that they STILL keep peddling, (Project Mogul...give us a break)... all points to something absolutely jaw-dropping happening there."

Regards
Nitram.

Rusty Lingenfelter said...

As long as we are engaging in speculation on top of speculation, why in the name of Sonia Henie's tutu would Ramey authorize a press release. What would be his motivation. Most of the General's get where they are by being risk averse concerning press releases. Unless Ramey was interested in an immediate retirement at a lower grade, I highly doubt he authorized a release. As I mentioned, I was an officer on a volunteer FD for a number of years. It was common for an officer or member to meet the rest of the crew at a fire, etc. in their own car. So, I don't find it implausible that a fireman would have reported to the incident directly in their own vehicle. I find it reasonably plausible that an officer from the base caught the rest of the crew at the station before they deployed and called them off. Paul described "mutual aid". Every department I know of, including military bases have mutual aid agreements. In addition to agreements with neighboring FDs, my department had a mutual aid agreement with the fire team at the local nuclear power plant. It is unfortunate that the AF couldn't come up with something better than their ridiculous Mogul explanation.

Brian Bell said...

Press release -

According to some, Ramey was "gung ho" - arrogant - looking to "make his mark". He also knew higher-ups, who after kicking his butt, then later let him off the hook chalking it up to his "over eagerness" and professional "adolescence" so to speak. That's why he MAY have authorized a press release.

Then there are some, like Marcel, who claimed Haught did the press release on his own - or "over did it" so to speak. Then there are those who claim Haught did as he was ordered and didn't overstep his authority.

In any case, there is no proof of any draft press release created by Ramey and given to Haught. Some say Ramey dictated it via phone to Haught, but I am pretty sure his words didn't just easily flow from his mouth verbatim as printed. Haught would have had a hand in shaping them even though he claims he "just followed orders" and nothing else.

People pick and choose their "facts" to fit their belief in this case. Marcel is a "hero" and saw crashed alien debris....but when he says Haught did something he wasn't authorized to do......then Marcel's testimony on that matter is ignored and dismissed.

Roswell is a "cherry picker's" paradise for the storyteller.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Re 'the press release', there is some interesting analysis concerning the apparent sequence of events at this link:

http://www.foreshadower.net/roswell-flying-disc-press-release/

cda said...

Brian Bell:

"Roswell is a "cherry picker's" paradise for the storyteller."

How right you are! And this has been the case right from the very first book release in 1980 (and maybe even before then).



UFOdebunker:

"With all the leaks of earth shattering testimony how are to believe that shortly thereafter the tale remained fallow for more than 30 years?? I believe something happened but not dramatic enough to retain interest beyond the days immediately following the crash. Doesn't that speak volumes?"

Yes it certainly does, and supports my own firm view that nobody, whether military or civilian, was the least bit interested in this affair until Stan Friedman happened, by chance, to meet a radio station manager who once knew Jesse Marcel.

As for it being a "jaw dropping" event, it is strange that everyone's jaw stayed firmly in place until about 1980.

William Strathman said...

b"h

@Brian Bell

"Marcel did fly there in one as ordered with what witnesses actually claim is more like a shoebox and paper wrapped package of actual debris."

This is precisely the point I was attempting to clarify. Why use a Silverplate B-29 to transport a shoebox of trash?! Above I was not talking about the bomb-bay size of a Silverplate vs a cargo bay, I was talking about preflight maintenance, operational/crew costs and turn-around of a B-29 vs the same for a C-47. But if the 509th was used to hopping around the country on a moment's notice in B-29's then okay, I'll buy it even for a box of trash. Just seems to me to be on the hard-to-believe extravagant side, which is why it seems strange to me.

Neal Foy said...

B=29 vs. C-47

One possible reason they used a B-29 to transport the material was because the B-29s were under Blanchard's direct control and transport aircraft were under the control of the Air Transport Command. Blanchard may have decided to use the most expedient way to get the material to Fort Worth rather than asking for a flight from a separate command.

What records show Ramey as the originator of the press release? I've always been under the impression that the order came from Blanchard. Why would Ramey order Haut to issue the release instead of using his own press officer?

Brian Bell said...

@ William - B-29's

I'm sure Kevin or someone else has already done the unit history research, but perhaps it's because the 509th was technically it's own unit supported by the 1st Air Transport Group. Both were part of the 58th Bombardment Wing, reporting to SAC, at Forth Worth. Thus, combined but seperate groups.

509th crew probably did just fly the B-29 when they needed to rather than crossing commands, although technically the 1st Air Transport was their DEDICATED support group at that time.

I think the fact that none of the 1st Air Transport Group aircraft (or personnel?) were directly involved is good indication no large, space craft like alien ship was brought to or transported from RAAF base. It was their mission to support the 509th with this very type of task.

If a ton of 1st Air Transport Group personnel were involved, then Kevin can correct me.

I'm sure some will say that the 1st Air Transport Group was "purposely excluded" for "secrecy" reasons......which makes no sense at all. No one would ask a bomb unit to do its own transportation of aircraft wreckage when a unit with that sort of mission support role is sitting literally 100 yards away with aircraft ready to go - no matter what the secrecy level was....after all this very transport group was chosen to support the 509th because of their prior secret role in supporting the initial use of the A-Bomb.

Brian Bell said...

PS - my error.....meant "Blanchard" on the press release....not Ramey on the initial. Carry over error from last comment.

Neal Foy said...

Brian,
The only reference for flying crash related debris anywhere was the flight from Roswell to Fort Worth. The evidence for a flight from Fort Worth to Ohio may be a little sketchy but the FBI memo seems to confirm that flight. Hoover was annoyed for being left out of the loop. If the flight from Fort Worth to Wright Field was actually made then why on earth did they fly debris from a Rawin target all the way to Ohio? Ramey's meteorologist had confirmed that it was part of a weather balloon. You would think if that was true then the higher ups would take Ramey's word and not bother to fly it to Wright Field.

Getting back on track, is there any semi reliable description of the craft allegedly seen by Dwyer? Is it possible that Reeves had some things right but wasn't telling the truth about actually being on the site with Dwyer? What other descriptions of the craft were offered by other witnesses?

Don Maor said...

CDA wrote:

"As for it being a "jaw dropping" event, it is strange that everyone's jaw stayed firmly in place until about 1980."

Come on CDA, you know there were rumours regarding the Roswell crash, and also regarding recovered bodies well before 1980.

Greetings.

Brian Bell said...

Regarding Haut:

I think it important to note that Haut, Kaufmann, and Dennis were all best buddies referring researchers to one another to help embellish the story line. Sometimes they concocted elements which conflicted with one another as they inserted new items to the story line as time went on. Haut never claimed to see the alien craft until his post mortem affidavit was released - a document driven in context by Dream Team members and approved by Haut's daughter. And don't forget that all three had financial interests in the Roswell Museum, which was driven by Schmitt, who also has interest in the financial success of this museum and its entire backstory.

Haut once recanted his position on the entire event, then recognizing his mistake "took it back" and claimed as misquote by media....save for the fact it was HIS words from HIS mouth that said "it was a balloon".

"Also noted in the KTVU story is the fact that Walter Haut, former press officer for the 509th Bomb Wing at Roswell AAF who issued the famous July 8, 1947 press release claiming recovery of a flying disc, now says he had learned a few days after the announcement that "it was a screwup." Though widely quoted in recent years as believing an unusual craft had been recovered, the FOX news story showed Haut saying he thinks it was just a balloon.(Stepkowski)"

As for shape of the supposed craft, Haut's post mortem affidavit claims:

"(12) Before leaving the base, Col. Blanchard took me personally to Building 84, a B-29 hangar located on the east side of the tarmac. Upon first approaching the building, I observed that it was under heavy guard both outside and inside. Once inside, I was permitted from a safe distance to first observe the object just recovered north of town. It was approx. 12 to 15 feet in length, not quite as wide, about 6 feet high, and more of an egg shape. Lighting was poor, but its surface did appear metallic. No windows, portholes, wings, tail section, or landing gear were visible."

I think it interesting that Haut AND Reeves both claimed a relatively small "egg shaped" craft....but clearly one story followed on the other much later. It was well known Haut had health problems and failing memory at his later stages.

None of the claims regarding the "craft" have ever been identical, save for Haut's last comments and Reeves' description. Kaufmann described something he concocted from a magazine cover that was illustrated by Mark Mcandlish regarding the TR3 or Aurora or some other defense project.

I might add given the size descriptions given on the "egg" it would be near impossible to fit four, 4 ft aliens inside.

Neal Foy said...

@Don Maor,

My father was a civilian employee of the Army at Aberdeen Proving Ground 1939-1956, he was employed by the Air Force at Tyndall AFB 1956-1965 as a radar a maintenance technician.

In 1960 he told me that Army soldiers who had transferred in from New Mexico in the late 1940s told him and some of his co workers that the weather balloon story was BS. They said that strange debris was recovered in New Mexico. He didn't say anything about bodies though.

My father also said that he and some of his co workers were sometimes told to examine and most times completely dismantle radar equipment that had picked up bogies over the Gulf of Mexico. The Air Force was very serious about these reports and he and his co workers were very unhappy about being sent out to check perfectly good gear.

This immunized me to the giggle factor from MSM. I knew there was more to it than just a laugh.
.

Neal Foy said...

@Brian Bell

Here are the dimensions of the Apollo Command Module that fit three full size humans in bulky space suits.

Apollo 11 Command Module "Columbia" ... alloy, Stainless steel, Titanium; Dimensions: Overall: 10ft 7in. x 12ft 10in., 13000lb.

Not a lot larger than the "egg". The Apollo dimensions are actual the "egg" dimensions were an estimate.

Paul Young said...

CDA...

"Not only that but the other children (i.e. Rowe's siblings) were thus threatened. Thus these dreadful military guys apparently thought nothing of making death threats, even to children, in 1947. At least that is what we are being asked to believe. Presumably you do not believe such threats were ever made."


So military people would never dare threaten someone just because they were a civilian???

Chuckle...your naivety is quite endearing.

Do you think some staff sergeant or provost marshal who barks at his men all day and night, turns into a pussy cat when civilians are around?

I suppose you think that the person chosen to visit Frankie and her family was selected for his ability to appeal to their better nature. "We don't want to alarm the public dear, so be a good girl and promise to say now't. Here..have a lollypop. Must dash"

Either way...if there is some American rule that military people must treat civilians with kid gloves, at all times...what was Frankie Rowe going to do about it if someone had stepped over the mark and threatened her with death?
Who could she complain to and where's her proof?

It's not like she could have recorded it all on her iphone....and then dobbed on him to the Army Complaints Department.

Lance said...

As I mentioned, the rationalization above is characteristic of the paranoid style of conspiracy fantasists.

Some folks above readily accept that from the bottom to the top there was gross incompetence (only for the first magical 24 hours according to the above narrative).

BUT these same folks can't accept that upon seeing the debris that was collected at the ranch, in the face of a frenzy of other newspaper reported disk "recoveries" (which all turned out to be prosaic) that the same folks (whom have already been characterized as incompetent!) couldn't have simply made a mistake about the nature of that debris!

It's so ludicrously obvious what is going on here.

Lance

Don Maor said...

@Neal Foy

Thanks for sharing your experience Neal.

I was referring to a book by Frank Edwards (Flying Saucers - Serious Business") from 1967, in which he clearly refers to Roswell as a difficult case, noticing an extreme reluctance of some witnesses to speak about the incident.

Another book (The search for life on other worlds) written by a very knowledgeable Navy guy, David C. Holmes, also from 1967, mentioned rumors of crash-recovered in the South West, and that small bodies were kept embalmed in W.P. AFB. The author did not lend much credibility to such stories, but nevertheless, the rumor existed anyway.

Paul Young said...

Lance...

"Some folks above readily accept that from the bottom to the top there was gross incompetence (only for the first magical 24 hours according to the above narrative)."

You asked why there was a "sieve like leaking".

If you believe the "Mogul" thing Lance, then if the army mistook a balloon for a flying saucer, then how else can you describe them, other than "inept"? An organisation inept enough to mistake a balloon made of rubber with a spaceship is inept enough not to be able to prevent the story from "leaking like a sieve".

But,like I mentioned earlier in the thread,it wasn't "(only for the first magical 24 hours according to the above narrative)" It's been from day one, right to the present. They've not really ever had a grip of the situation.

That first 24-48 hours simply set the ongoing trend.

Brian Bell said...

@ Neal - Command Module vs Egg

Yes, but for a guy who worked at NASA you're also leaving out some important details.

The Apollo Command Module can't fly on its own - no propulsion system. It relies on the Service Module for everything including propulsion. In fact, it can't even sustain life support for extended periods without the Service Module attached. The astronauts can't move about freely much - they are basically stuck in a sitting position.

Hard to believe 4 or 5 aliens traveled across the gallaxy in a tiny tin cone with no room for equipment for extended Earth exploration - and no room for a propulsion system of any kind.

And before someone says "mothership" let me remind that you have no proof of that whatsoever. That's a Hollywood invention.

And the debris field? As big as people claim with an egg shaped craft recovered intact??? What was on the debris field then? Oh I know...the egg was an "ejection pod" only the bodies were found OUTSIDE of it.....supposedly. Little grey guys who can't even use their ejection pod correctly?

I don't buy it. The "egg" idea seems crafted directly from Reeves' supposed claims....false claims....picked up by Carey, Schmitt, and Haut then conveniently "inserted" into the story line.

cda said...

Don Maor:

As far as I can tell from "THE ROSWELL INCIDENT" book in 1980, NOBODY claimed to have seen any bodies at Roswell. True there is a description of bodies allegedly recovered from other crashes, including the Plains of San Augustin, in chapter 5, but none of these were from the Foster Ranch. Thus even in 1980 there was no mention of any bodies being found. Moore & Berlitz try to imply there were bodies but it is clear from the text that they are bringing in other crashes (via Stringfield's papers) to do this.

Therefore the first such mention of bodies at Roswell must have come from the witnesses Randle & Schmitt interviewed a decade later. So it seems Randle/Schmitt 'discovered' these bodies whereas Moore/Berlitz/Friedman did not, at least not at the Foster ranch site.

Therefore I stick to my contention that the whole idea of 'bodies' at Roswell arose only in or after 1980. I assume that whatever Frank Edwards wrote did not mention any bodies. Don't forget Aztec (with its bodies) was a well known tale since 1950. Remember also that although some Roswell witnesses say that they (or their friends or relatives) saw bodies in 1947, these tales were not told until AFTER 1980.

Can you point to a reference to bodies at Roswell that is known to have been published before 1980, either in a book or an article? I am ready to be disproved - if you can locate such a reference.

Lance said...

Paul,

What was a "flying saucer" in the summer of 1947? Well, we know FOR SURE that several folks mistook prosaic things to be "flying saucers". The newspapers carried numerous stories of these false id's. One of these was FOR SURE a radar target (much like those we see the Roswell photos). This happened in Circleville, Ohio.

On the very day of the press release, there was story in the Roswell paper about a "disc" recovered in Texas. That turned out be something like melted foil paper or plastic. There are other similar stories.

So we know with certainty that folks (including police and other authorities) were mistaking crappy stuff like that to be one of the discs they heard about in the newspapers.

At this time, UFO's had not become the low-rent religion that is it now. No one was sure what the things were. It was quite reasonable to think that they could have been some contraption made of sticks and balloons. There was an absolute frenzy of interest and mania in the topic.

So when the Roswell faithful deny that it is possible that a mistake was made and some otherwise unidentified foil paper and sticks and rubber were briefly thought to be one of the flying discs, they don't have evidence on their side. We know that it is possible for such a mistake to be made. Because it happened several times!

This farce reaches its apex when we see that the believers actually have somehow managed to rationalize (due to pesky witness testimony) that the supposed "real" flying saucer debris JUST HAPPENS to look like foil paper and balsa wood sticks!

They take it on faith that it actually is Space Foil and Saucer Sticks.

Best,

Lance

Neal Foy said...

Brian,
The egg wouldn't have to be an ejection pod. It could be more like the cockpit of a Formula 1 race car. The car is designed to disintegrate around the cockpit dissipating the energy and protecting the driver. That's known as applied physics. What happens after a crash? If the driver can he gets out ASAP they don't always wait for assistance. Would you suggest he doesn't know how to use his safety gear. That would account for the debris field and the egg. It's said that the egg shape is one of the strongest shapes found in nature.

As for evidence of motherships, there are plenty of sighting reports of larger craft with smaller craft entering and leaving them. I realize that's not proof but it might suggest they are more than a Hollywood invention.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Neal Foy said...

"What records show Ramey as the originator of the press release? I've always been under the impression that the order came from Blanchard. Why would Ramey order Haut to issue the release instead of using his own press officer?"

Plausible deniability? That might explain the lack of relevant records available from Ramey's office and of course, in toto, from the Roswell base itself.


Neal also wrote:

"As for evidence of motherships, there are plenty of sighting reports of larger craft with smaller craft entering and leaving them. I realize that's not proof but it might suggest they are more than a Hollywood invention."

Air Force pilots and radar technicians in the US and in Japan witnessed such phenomena involving small craft returning to and merging with larger craft, and also larger craft diverging into smaller separate craft. Reported by Keyhoe in his 1952 book based on his working with AF Intelligence at the Pentagon during the previous year.

Brian Bell said...

@ Neal - Eggs and such....

Yeah, I get the applied physics piece, but now you are designing the alien space craft from a human perspective based on fictitious assumptions....no facts. I just need to point out that sort of hypothetical rationale turned into plausible explanation is what Roswell has suffered from when it comes to people "explaining" what "probably" happened.

On the egg shape and nature....that may be true, but that sort of conjecture is a big, big leap. The aliens built an ejection module based on the shape of an egg, an earthly egg mind you, because they knew it to be one of nature's strongest designs? That's a stretch for sure.

@ Neal and Jeanne - motherships....

Yes there are reports, but none associated with Roswell and none prior to Roswell that is on record. So you really can't apply a 1950's sighting report to a 1947 incident that had no such report associated with it.

Brian Bell said...

@ CDA - bodies....

I have to agree with your statements here. Second crash site, bodies, etc. seems like something clearly made up post 1980. If it was that spectacular, why hold your tong for 30+ years? Why choose to tell UFO researchers of all people? Just go to the press...get a lawyer and tell the story...

Might I also say that Marcel himself said that he never thought anything "out of this world" about this incident until he was approached by UFO researchers which pushed him closer to this conclusion. He said it on a live radio show out of Chicago.

Brazel and Marcel reported they found balloon debris - it's in their very first media reports before any supposed alterations to their statements ever took place.

Brazel was looking for some UFO reward cash....Marcel looking to make something big happen for himself, Blanchard to impress his superiors to get a leg up. The rest, just looking to cash in or be part of something big themselves....write themselves "into history" if they could.

ufodude2010 said...

@Brian Bell -- Can you point me to documentation that supports your statement that Marcel never thought it was 'out of this world' until he was approached by UFO researchers? I'm listening to an interview with him on youtube as I'm typing this and am not hearing him claim anything of the sort. What's interesting about your claim is, in effect, that someone at his age would say, 'I never thought it was other-worldly until UFO researchers basically pushed me to that conclusion.' I'm not saying you're making this up, I would just like you to point me to the relevant documentation. Thanks!

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Blogger Brian Bell said...

"@ Neal and Jeanne - motherships....

Yes there are reports, but none associated with Roswell and none prior to Roswell that is on record. So you really can't apply a 1950's sighting report to a 1947 incident that had no such report associated with it."


I don't see why not. If 'motherships' and associated smaller craft were witnessed and described in Air Force reports in 1950, what great leap is required to suppose that such phenomena might also have been around in 1947?

cda said...

To return to the Frankie Rowe story, it is noticeable that none of the pro-ET Roswell writers ever say whether Rowe had been exposed to the Roswell story before they interviewed her.

Her testimony is highly unreliable in that she first says it was her father who was warned not to talk about seeing the ET craft, then in her affidavit says it was SHE who was warned not to talk about it (just after a "state trooper" had visited her and shown her some debris from the crash!). Her claim of being "taken out into the desert never to return" sounds very much like what the now discredited Glenn Dennis told interviewers (the 'dog food' episode) maybe two years earlier.

Had Frankie heard of Dennis' tale or not? The pro-EThers do not say. So I put this to Kevin: had Rowe heard or read about Dennis' tale before writing her affidavit?

Paul Young said...

Jeanne's reply to Brian...

"If 'motherships' and associated smaller craft were witnessed and described in Air Force reports in 1950, what great leap is required to suppose that such phenomena might also have been around in 1947?"

I was thinking much the same as Jeanne.




Brian..."Yes there are reports, but none associated with Roswell and none prior to Roswell that is on record. So you really can't apply a 1950's sighting report to a 1947 incident that had no such report associated with it."

Admittedly the sightings of the more massive UFO's (potential "motherships") came in the years after. Then again, your train of thought...
("Hard to believe 4 or 5 aliens traveled across the gallaxy in a tiny tin cone with no room for equipment for extended Earth exploration - and no room for a propulsion system of any kind.")

...would suggest that the "aliens", despite their obvious intelligence, only hit upon the idea of travelling inter-stella in a "mothership" AFTER 1947.

They must have had a "eureka moment"?

KRandle said...

All -

Of course Frankie Rowe was exposed to the story prior to our first interviews with here. Just look at the dates. Our first interview with her was November 1990. Given the interest generate by the story, it would be nearly impossible for her to not to have been exposed to it. Frankie Rowe is telling the truth as she knows it which is different that saying it is the absolute truth... and remember, J. C. Smith, one of the Roswell firefighters interviewed by Pflock, does corroborate parts of her story, which again, only means that she is telling the truth as she knows it.

If you look at the tales of the bodies, we can say that Moore had information about them around 1980, based first on his unpublished novel about MJ-12, and later the MJ-12 documents themselves, if you believe Moore had a hand in constructing them.

Neither Moore nor Friedman had interviewed the family of George Wilcox which would have given them the story of bodies on the Roswell side of the case. Inez Wilcox wrote an article, "Four Years in the County Jail," which is about Sheriff Wilcox's tour as sheriff. In it she mentions the crash and talk of little people. There is no date on the article, the part about the crash was obviously added later, and since she died after the publication of The Roswell Incident, she surely could have been influenced by it.

If you track the offers of rewards in the newspapers in 1947, you'll find that most of those stories were printed after Brazel had gone to see Wilcox. There is no evidence that Brazel knew of the rewards prior to that. He had no electricity at the ranch house, had no radio, and no indication that he subscribed to any newspapers, so the odds that he knew about the offers are extremely small, next to impossible.

Finally, if you look at the Circleville story, you see that the farmer who found it was able to identify it as a weather balloon, the sheriff identified it, and the newspaper that reported it in Ohio knew what it was... not exactly the same as those in Roswell being fooled by a similar find, if that was what it was. (BTW, many of the newspaper stories identified the woman holding the radar reflector as the wife, but in my interview with her, I learned she was the daughter... I mention this only because I have talked to the family.)

cda said...

Kevin:

Thanks for answering my query about Frankie Rowe's prior knowledge of the case.

I cannot agree that Frankie was telling the whole truth as she knows it. One of your big points has always been the high secrecy of the whole Roswell incident. Nobody not directly involved was to be told about it. Yet here we have a 12-year old child being visited by a "state trooper" who not only told her about this crash but showed her a piece of the debris! This is a preposterous idea, but is precisely what Frankie states in her affidavit, a legal document. (It is surely doubtful that even a state trooper would have been privy to this secret.)

Either her affidavit is a lie (in whole or in part) or she is remembering things that simply did not occur. A further possibility is that she is confusing this visit, and the debris, with something else entirely. Therefore it surely means her claim to have been warned that if she 'talked' she would be taken out into the desert and left there is fiction.

In view of this, why should we take ANYTHING she said or wrote about Roswell as worthy of consideration?

Lance said...

Kevin,

Thanks for the mention of the Circleville "saucer". I enjoyed reading some of the old articles.

Those articles support and underline the skeptical scenario laid out above.

Here we have documentation that folks who believe that what they found was probably related to weather science but STILL think that the debris might have something to do with the saucer "mystery". From one article (thanks to David Rudiak for transcribing):

" Although generally believed to have been sent aloft in connection with weather observations the possibility remained that the queer contraption may be one of those strange objects identified thus far throughout the nation merely as "flying saucers."

This is exactly what I outlined above.

The misguided meme that anyone would have to be a "drooling idiot" to make this connection seems particularly weak in the face of this.

Needless to say, here we have actual evidence of how folks responded to junk like that found at the Foster ranch during the saucer frenzy. On the believer side, all we have is the pure speculation of how someone might have acted coming from committed UFO believers (no doubt utilizing some of the same scientific rigor as practiced by lead "researchers" Carey/Schmitt).

So knowing this, Roswell believers are left with the rather weak sauce of saying that their particular witnesses (Marcel, for instance) were too smart to make that kind of inference.

Lance

Brian Bell said...

@ Kevin - Brazel reward....

Didn't one of the family friends he showed the debris to, initially, also tell him to go and report what he found mentioning the reward? I've seen this on video, and also read it.

Not disagreeing with you on the fact the guy had no way of knowing that initially, but later became aware of it which may have been motivation to present the material as "strange" and "unworldly" getting others to think the same initially as well.

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul and Jeanne - motherships...

Well my point is there are no reports connected to Roswell or before. After sure, but in some ways this is like taking the crash dummy 1952 story and using it to explain bodies in 1947. If you reject that technique, you have to reject 1950's mothership sightings as 1947 explanations.

I still would contend the smaller craft, if it were an "egg", is too small with no room for propulsion systems. I'm sure someone would say "Well the mothership controlled it so they didn't need a propulsion system"....but that's hollywood thinking again ala "Independence Day".

Also - Arnold did not report "eggs" flying through the air. The Foo Fighters were not reported in egg shapes either.

The only photo we have that is unexplained right about the time of Roswell is shaped like the heal of a boot - very close to what Arnold saw. I don't recall any saucer reports claiming egg shapes.....then or even now. Acorn or bell shaped yes....but not egg.

cda said...

Brian:

We know Brazel went into Corona on the evening of July 5, having already gathered up some of the strange ranch debris on the 4th. It seems it was in Corona that he first heard of the 'flying discs', from people he met there. Whether any of them told him about the reward being offered I do not know, but it seems probable. This of course would precede his visit into Roswell.

Brian Bell said...

More on the Reeves and Haut egg-shaped alien craft......

While I don't believe either man saw anything at all.....in the odd event they did, I would also consider the fact that high altitude pressurized gondolas were typically round or pill shaped in the 1935-1955 time frame. We know high altitude testing (including with human subjects) were conducted in this time frame and using balloons.

Since such projects were classified and compartmentalized even then (due to concern over Soviet intelligence), one possible "egg-shaped" explanation COULD be a manned high altitude gondola.

Sounds like nothing much at all and not even worth secrecy, but consider the fact that equally mundane 1947 projects such as the USAAF's "Project Thunderstorm" (weather research) was classified and given second highest priority after the Bikini Atol tests, such a "mundane" series of experiments might explain "bodies" and "egg-shaped" craft.

Of course in Haut's case, he may simply be recalling seeing one of the atom bombs (round or oblong) sitting in a hanger.

Most here don't like Redfern's theory, but if they were testing captured Japanese balloon projects, aerial dispersed chem weapons, and high altitude tests using human unfortunates, such an explanation MAY hold weight.

Brian Bell said...

@ CDA

Yes before or after Corona he met with Loretta and Floyd Proctor and showed them pieces of what he collected. I've seen Loretta interviewed saying she told Brazel about rewards being offered through the newspapers for saucer information. I believe it was then he went back, picked up parts he collected from under the bush he hid them, and went into town to report his find.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

"“n September, 1947, two months following the crash down, when famed astronomer and meteor expert Dr. Lincoln La Paz was recruited by the U.S. Army Counter-Intelligence Corps to determine the speed, direction, and trajectory of the craft prior to its impact --- which was especially interesting in the fact that the party line was telling the public the object was nothing more than a mere slow moving wind blown weather device --- La Paz kept running into what has been described as a "sea of reluctant witnesses." It was difficult for him to pinpoint much of anything initally, accurate trajectory or otherwise. To get around the "reluctant witness" problem La Paz interviewed a fairly large number of spanish speaking people in and around the general Roswell-Corona area, especially along the suspected flight path, a group that was somehow collectively overlooked by the powers that be.

Interesting as well, on July 10th, 1947, La Paz, who had thousands and thousands of hours of scientific time observing celestial objects, reported seeing a huge eliptical-shaped object flying in the sky near Fort Sumner, New Mexico, while driving by car with his wife and children. He saw a luminous unknown object sort of oscillating beneath the clouds. Its brightness was stronger than the planet Jupiter and its shape regular and elliptical. The nature of this object was unknown to the astronomer.

In a Life Magazine article dated April 7, 1952 La Paz is quoted as saying: 'The object "..exhibited a sort of wobbling motion" and then disappeared behind some clouds. It reappeared and "projected against the dark clouds gave the strongest impression of self-luminosity." The object then moved slowly from south to north and two and a half minutes behind a cloudbank. According to La Paz's calculations, confirmed by his wife, the object was huge, as large or larger than the infamous "Battle of Los Angeles" object as presented in UFO Over Los Angeles seen by thousands in February, 1942, being some 235 feet long and 100 feet thick (NOTE: according to reports as cited in the above link, the Los Angeles UFO was, however, thought to be closer to 800 feet in length). Its horizontal speed ranged between 120 and 180 miles per hour and its vertical rise between 600 and 900 miles per hour.' See: COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS, U.S. House of Representatives, July 29, 1968, Case 21.”

http://www.angelfire.com/indie/anna_jones1/daily_record.html

cda said...

Jeanne R:

The 3 cases you quote are not connected. The first is to do with La Paz's involvement in a spectacular green fireball case occurring on Jan 31, 1948. The writer of the article you cite has lifted this story (with the wrong date) from another source, probably giving Bill Rickett's jittery memory of the September date decades later. Rickett was also involved in the fireball case. La Paz spent several days trying to locate witnesses to it.

In the LIFE magazine article, La Paz's name is not given, although it is assumed, probably correctly, that it was him. Why the 'Battle of Los Angeles' case is brought into the story I do not know.

This is the trouble with witnesses trying to recall events of decades earlier.

KRandle said...

CDA -

I'm not sure why you insist that Frankie Rowe was lying... confabulating, sure, possibly, but she seemed to be telling the truth as she knew it. According to her, she was at the fire station, or in that area waiting for her father to give her a ride home when the state trooper came in to show off the bit of debris he had. The military then visited with those who had seen it, suggesting, strongly, that they not reveal what they knew.

Brian -

According to my notes and interviews, it was Norris Proctor who introduced the notion that Brazel had attempted to get the rewards for information or proof of the flying saucers. It seems to me that most of those stories appeared after Brazel had gone into town, and one of them had a very short time limit on it which meant it would be virtually impossible for anyone to collect it.

Lance -

I think the "drooling idiots" refers to them being unable to recognize this as something mundane and terrestrial when others, confronted with similar evidence, recognized it for what it was.

All -

The point here was to suggest that the Lee Reeves tale had little in the way of support, it was second hand at best, and is in conflict with both the documentation available and the testimony of the first-hand witnesses (namely J. C. Smith). If you all wish to discuss these ancillary issues, have at it and I'll provide commentary when what I learned during the interviews I conducted and the documents I searched provide relevant information.

Brian Bell said...

@ Jeanne - La Paz

Also don't forget he was one of, if not the principal, experts on Japanese Fugo balloons during the war. He might have easily been brought in, if the stories are true, for the mere fact what they wanted him to do was also comment on a secret balloon mishap....Mogul or otherwise.

@ Kevin - thanks for the clarification on Brazel and rewards

Jeanne Ruppert said...

cda said...

"Jeanne R:

The 3 cases you quote are not connected."


I posted that extract primarily for its references to two large 'mothership' phenomena that had been sighted five years before and contemporary with Roswell, and secondarily for the likely significance of what La Paz was tasked by the CIC to determine two months after Roswell.

If it serves your interests to compartmentalize all ufo sightings and events of the 1940s in separate and mutually exclusive little boxes, you're hardly going to be interested in a slightly larger viewpoint on what was happening. Your choice.



Lance said...

Hi Kevin,

You said:

"I think the "drooling idiots" refers to them being unable to recognize this as something mundane and terrestrial when others, confronted with similar evidence, recognized it for what it was."

Sure. But you don't have contemporaneous evidence that this is what happened.

As demonstrated by the Circleville case (and others!) folks WERE likely to recognize material such as that we see on Ramey's rug as prosaic but STILL attempt to connect that material to the flying saucer mania they were reading about in the papers. Skeptics, like me aren't saying that the foil paper, sticks and balloons weren't recognized as such component parts.

There is nothing in any of the 1947 Roswell accounts that suggests that anyone involved thought the material was super exotic or otherworldly. In fact, it is striking that the Roswell story reads A LOT like many other accounts from July 1947 of prosaic material being connected to flying saucers. It was happening all over the place.

The whole UFO from another world stuff is baggage brought to the story by committed UFO believers decades later.

These contemporaneous reports destroy the believer meme that no one would be so stupid as to call the stuff on Ramey's rug a flying saucer. We have clear proof that people did just that.

Lance

cda said...

Lance:

"The whole UFO from another world stuff is baggage brought to the story by committed UFO believers decades later."

Yes, perfectly correct. And it was all initiated by one famous ufologist, named Stanton T. Friedman, who has not changed his stance one iota since then.

But I feel I am going over well trodden ground in saying this.

Woody said...

cda, I would give Kevin some room to evolve in the direction that us hard-core sceptics would like him to evolve. Another big 'smoking gun', the slides, has come and gone, stripped bare by the truth seeking efforts of sceptics. Kevin's experiences have presented to him likelihoods, doubts and data that must be seen not only through a critical filter, but through the sieve of decades of mounting case history and testimony added long after the event, mounted on again and again.
You and I and a number of sceptics have seen in his writings not just descriptions of cases, but his own turmoil in evaluating the evidence.
My feeling is that he is going over these things and allowing himself the chance to look at the evidence again and to look at his own interpretations, how they appear to him and how they appear without the established focus of an investigation.
My thoughts on this may be without any basis, but so are most crashed saucer reports.

All the best, to all of you investigators,
Woody

ufodebunker said...

Woody:

I can't resist responding to your arrogance. Are you the Grand Poobah of all truth? It takes humility to discover truth and I think Kevin has demonstrated that quality over and over. You will never get their from your vantage point. I suggest you expand your reading list. It seems a little one-sided to me.

KRandle said...

Lance -

You fail to see the point... The Circleville (Ohio) Herald on July 7, 1947, reported, "While 'flying disc' stories spread over the nation, hundreds of people viewed the Pickaway county version in The Herald office and wondered. Some believe the 'contraption' found by Sherman Campbell... could be one of the gadgets reported in various parts of the country. Others say it is not.... General belief is that the six-pointed apparatus which had been attached to a balloon is used by the weather service..."

So, yes, it is linked to the flying saucers and Campbell said that while airborne it might spin giving a saucer-like appearance. But the point is that he knew what it was and others knew what it was but some didn't believe it was responsible for the flying saucer sightings (though some probably were).

Compare that with the first article in the Roswell Daily Record that Walter Haut provided. Similar theory, that they had a flying saucer, but no description of it in the original press release. The newspaper's first story 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."

Or, in other words, no one there identified it which, of course, they should have been able to do so.

Debris is ordered to Fort Worth where a balloon and radar target, in a highly degraded state are shown. Clearly the remains of a balloon... which we have testimony from two, Marcel and Dubose that this isn't the real stuff... but we ignore this because it came after decades...

The FBI memo, with a time of 6:17 p.m. was actually transmitted at 5:17 p.m. because the FBI used Washington, D.C. time because Hoover didn't want to deal with time zones... which is, of course, before Newton actually identified the debris as a weather balloon.

So, in 1947, we do have some evidence that all was not black and white and we don't get a description of the debris until after the Army has had a chance to chat with Brazel. We learned of sticks and such that make a small bundle and we have Brazel saying that he had found weather balloons on other occasions but this didn't look like that. So, we do have some evidence of all this in the 1947 documentation.

Lance said...

Kevin,

First off, that "Many rumors..." sentence sounds like a newsman's intro and doesn't appear in all accounts and it very well may be an addition made by a newspaper writer. Regardless, it is immaterial.

I perfectly well understand the situation: some folks looked at the debris in Circleville (which apparently was clearly labeled unlike the Roswell junk!) and some STILL thought that it might be connected to flying discs. And the same kind of thing happened elsewhere with other junk (in TX for instance on THE SAME DAY as the Roswell press release).

There is no wriggling out of this. It is CLEAR evidence that folks did exactly what Roswell believers say they would never do: look at weather balloon and radar target debris and connect it somehow to flying saucers.

This is evidence that actually exists.

On the other hand, all the believer side offers is their conspiracy-laden speculation about what this person would do or that person might do. That isn't evidence. It has never been evidence.

Sure, by all means let's talk about Marcel's "testimony":

Marcel's testimony is that the stuff we see him with in the photos is the same stuff he picked up at the ranch.
Or his testimony is that he was hiding some of the "real" stuff behind a piece of paper.
Or his testimony is that the debris was switched.

This is the kind of foundation that you and lesser researchers built the Roswell myth upon. Anywhere else, except in the unimaginably credulous world of the paranormal, this kind of stuff would only foster laughter.

In a real and honest discussion or debate on this, I would be happy to lay expose the threadbare fabric of what is left of the Roswell myth (if there is anything).

I am happy to address real points. Present a clear question and I will try to answer it, (and offer a correction if I am misunderstanding something).

But your rejoinders here have danced around the points raised (in my estimation) and not addressed them at all.

Lance

cda said...

Kevin:

Did I read you right? "Hoover didn't want to deal with time zones". So the 6:17 pm teletype was actually dispatched at 5:17 pm local time?

If this is so, it would mean that each and every teletype or memo sent by field offices to FBI HQ would have had to quote local events in Washington DC time (i.e. EST or EDST, whichever applied). Is this really so? It is the first I've heard of it and I do have severe doubts about it.

It would also imply Hoover, wherever he was in the US, always used Washington time in his own communications. I find this very hard to believe. Can you supply further evidence of this?

I grant you the military sometimes used Greenwich Mean Time (Zulu?) in their communications, but if so, they always stated this.

If you consider this to be off topic, I agree, but would still appreciate clarification.

Neal Foy said...

Lance,
First, it's clear that the people who examined the reflector found in Ohio knew exactly what it was. It doesn't matter that someone else thought it was related to flying saucers.
The object found in Texas that you cling so dearly to as proof was an admitted hoax. I thought you liked hoaxes. Apparently not when you can use them to support your view.

Let's talk about Marcel. The debris he described is nothing like what was on Ramey's rug. He said nothing about a cloth backing, just metal he said was light as a feather. He also said he didn't know what it was, strange that you do know and you weren't there. Hmmm, who do I believe, Lance, who wasn't there, or Marcel who was. This is from his actual statements on video tape, not filtered through reporters or authors.

You claim to be associated with film making, have you ever seen cloth backed metalized reflectors? Are they light as a feather? They look more like the stuff on Ramey's rug than metal, thin as foil used in cigarette packs and light as a feather.

Do you know the difference between a witness and a debunker? The witness usually says they don't know what they saw. A debunker always knows exactly what they saw. Something wrong with that picture.

Woody said...

ufodebunker - No I am not the 'Grand Poobah of all truth'.
My 'reading list' has included many pieces from proponents and sceptics and philosophers alike, including some of Kevin's own. It was his material, as I've mentioned here before, that played a large role in rising within me the sceptic that I am today.
I was addressing cda. I'm sorry to Kevin and everyone else that I used this thread to share these thoughts with cda, thoughts that were mostly unrelated to the post.
Earlier comments in this thread may have inspired them.
Your desire to respond to my 'arrogance' seems fired from an aggressive source.
Was it the particular thoughts I was sharing with cda?
Was it merely my mention of the slides that set you of?
Was your response a general effort to push down sceptics in general?
I'm not sure, but then again, i'm no Grand Poobah.

Woody

Lance said...

Oh Boy, I looked through some old posts here and see that this (the implication of Circleville and other recovered "discs") has all been discussed before (three years ago!). I'll leave the discussion unless someone has a question for me. I note that there was the same dancing around the real implications there--something that probably wouldn't happen in a face to face discussion.

Lance


Jim Phelps said...

In Navajo the Jerusalem Cricket means Red Skull insects. In telling of bodies it suggests they were burned in a nuke flash. Child of the Earth speaks to their being humans.

In 1947, the Neuremberg Trails were hot and human experiments became against the International Laws.

Alien said...

Lance ,
Before you leave this discussion , why posting in the first place when your mind's made up long ago on this topic ?

Lance said...

"Before you leave this discussion , why posting in the first place when your mind's made up long ago on this topic ?"

And believer's mind's aren't? Let me introduce you to Mr. Carey or Mr. Schmitt.

I have thought Roswell was dubious for a long time but there were still a few good questions (The why of the press release is the best one). Over time and relatively recently, I think we have formulated and understood answers that are satisfactory for those questions.

And everyone loves me here.

Lance

Nitram Ang said...

Lance wrote:

"Sure, by all means let's talk about Marcel's "testimony":

Marcel's testimony is that the stuff we see him with in the photos is the same stuff he picked up at the ranch.
Or his testimony is that he was hiding some of the "real" stuff behind a piece of paper.
Or his testimony is that the debris was switched."

I would prefer if David or Kevin responded to this. It is interesting that they haven't as yet...

Firstly, we can all agree that if what was recovered at the ranch was "exactly" what was shown in the photographs then Lance you are 100% correct - there is nothing unworldly displayed on Ramey's rug. However, there is testimony that supports the theory that the real material recovered was switched - you know this very well Lance and while there may be conflicting testimony that says otherwise, it is hard to believe that Marcel was so incompetent, he didn't recognize the material for what it was...

Marcel Junior also stated (and you know this also Lance...) that he didn't know what the material was "BUT I DO NO WHAT IT WASN'T" (in other words - it was no weather balloon).

But again, your selecting facts to suit your theory...

Regarding your point "Or his testimony is that he was hiding some of the "real" stuff behind a piece of paper."

I can only surmise that Marcel was getting confused - there is no way that any of the real stuff would be in the room with the reporters etc.

Regards
Nitram

PS and files posted to you last week...

Lance said...

"it is hard to believe that Marcel was so incompetent, he didn't recognize the material for what it was..."

And skeptics do not say that he didn't recognize the components. As I have painstakingly outlined above.

So above Marcel offered three conflicting versions of the what we are seeing on the rug.

You reject the first two and apologize for his crazy testimony and choose the last one of his ever evolving tales. But I am the one cherry picking?

Lance


Neal Foy said...

Lance,

Marcel also said that it took the better part of a day to collect the debris he brought back to Roswell. If it took the better part of a day to collect what was on the rug then we have to believe that Marcel was the slowest goldbrick the Army ever had.

Nitram Ang said...

Lance

Can we try and be a little bit more "objective" on this please. I agree with you that what crashed at Roswell was "almost certainly" not ET but Neal has also made a good point so I'll repeat it again...

"If it took the better part of a day to collect what was on the rug then we have to believe that Marcel was the slowest goldbrick the Army ever had."

You didn't comment on my earlier post "Marcel Junior also stated (and you know this also Lance...) that he didn't know what the material was "BUT I DO NO WHAT IT WASN'T" (in other words - it was no weather balloon)."

Again, I invite your comments on both points please...

Regards
Nitram...

Lance said...

Nitram

I don't put a lot of stock in decades-old "testimony" procured by committed UFO believers, that is true.

Your other question reveals a common believer supposition that is likewise unproven. Who are we to say that every scrap of debris is displayed on that rock. There is no reason to think that. It isn't an issue.

Lance.

Lance said...

"Rug" above. Not "rock"

Sorry,

Lance.

Neal Foy said...

Lance,

Who are you to decide it isn't an issue. An objective investigator would most certainly think the amount of debris collected is an issue. How many of those radar reflectors do you think it would take to fill a 1942 Buick and an Army carry all? How long would it take to collect them?
Do you really believe that dozens of reflectors fell on the ranch?

Typical Lance, when you're losing you resort to evasion, name calling and calling the witnesses liars.

I guess that's why everybody "loves" you... Yeah right.

Lance said...

Neal--there are so many false or unproven suppositions in your replies that it's impossible (for me) to talk with you.

Which names did I call anyone?

Lance

Neal Foy said...

Lance,
Sorry, I was referring to the pre new rules Lance, so no recent name calling. Evasion and calling witnesses liars. Yes, that's clearly what you have done in recent posts. By not wanting to talk to me and retreating to your cozy little world where everything can be explained. I would call that evasion. I really don't care if you don't want to talk to me Lance. I have less respect for you and your opinions than you can possibly imagine.

Lance said...

It's not that I don't want to talk with you. It's just that if you pile on 50 unproven claims and false accusations, it's hard to know where to start.

I'm not necessarily calling all Roswell witnesses liars (there is MORE than ample evidence that Marcel didn't tell the truth in every instance, however). Instead, what I think has often happened are instances where:

1. UFO investigators primed witnesses as to what they wanted to hear.
2. Folks misremembered or mischaracterized decades old events.
3. Some guys just wanted to be part of the story.

I have respect for any rational discussion. If any of your comments happen to ever fall into that realm, I'll be happy to talk with you.

Lance

cda said...

Nitram:

You insist that the real debris (i.e. the actual stuff from the ranch) would not be on display in those photos. Why are you so certain of this? Was it so secret that nobody outside a select few military guys was allowed to see it, despite the fact that several civilians at Roswell had already seen it?

I remind you that the Top Secret memo that Gen Ramey is supposedly holding in his hand is also on display, for super sharp photo-analysists like David Rudiak and others to decipher and tell the world about decades later!

If the debris was top secret then the Ramey memo was too (or should have been).

I do not think Marcel had any serious doubts about the identity of the debris as soon as he saw it at the ranch. If he had, he and Brazel would hardly have tried to assemble it into a kite (as reported in the RDR). Most probably the 'flying disc' fever caught up with him and he wanted to go along with it and perhaps get a little publicity as well. The same applies to Ft Worth and the photos. It was simply an initial over-reaction, but fizzled out within the next 24 hours.

Brian Bell said...

@ All

I am pretty certain what was on the floor was what was really found, or knowing that it was a balloon Ramey simply gathered up similar material for display while the small package of real stuff (balloon material too) was shipped to Wright. Some ask why they would send mundane baloon material to Wright.....PROTOCOL...and Mogul was a top secret project at the time. Even if you don't like the Mogul launch dates and time sequences....almost everything points to balloon debris. That's what Marcel and Brazel initially reported....foil....sticks....rubber. I doubt Brazel could have dragged by horse or by hand a full fledged saucer all that way to hide it under a bush.

Read these early reports:

July 9, Ceylon Journal

Army Air Force Headquarters said later that the officer who had seen the object held a strong opinion that it might be a meteorological device. "There is some indication that the object might have been attached to a balloon which squares with the description of meteorological equipment we have in use," it was stated.

July 9, Wyoming Eagle

"Wilcox said that Brazel does not have a telephone and so did not report finding the disc until the day before yesterday. Brazel told the sheriff he didn't know just what the disc was, but that at first it appeared to be a weather meter.

The sheriff's office notified the army, which sent intelligence officers to pick up the object. Then today the army announced possession of a disc. The sheriff quoted Brazel as saying the object "seemed more or less like tinfoil." The rancher described the disc as about as large as a safe in the sheriff's office. The safe is about three and one-half by four feet.

Neal Foy said...

Brian,
Here's a quote from MUFON investigator Mark O'Connell:
"Ambiguity is more convincing than certainty"

With all the contradictions surrounding Roswell that statement makes a lot of sense to me.

The articles you quoted came after the Army was trying to get the press off their backs, by any means necessary according to testimony by General DuBose. He was in a position to know much more than any of us.

Kevin said that Brazel never described the material until after meeting with the Army. It's said that Brazel was never one to talk a lot but apparently he was a virtual Chatty Cathy before he met with the Army and was more like Silent Bob afterwards.

What officer was the newspaper account referring to? Was it Marcel or Newton? Newton was an NCO but sometimes they were called officers, despite technically being non commissioned officers.

KRandle said...

Brian -

I'm about to call a moratorium on Project Mogul because it wasn't top secret, only the purpose was classified. The equipment used in New Mexico was off-the-shelf neoprene balloons and rawin radar reflectors (easily recognizable for what they were). Pictures of Mogul arrays appeared in newspapers starting on July 10. Albert Crary used the named, Mogul, in his unclassified field notes. The CAA required that the balloon arrays be launched under specific conditions and Flight No. 4, the culprit, was cancelled according to the available documentation. Charles Moore gave different versions of what the cluster of balloons meant and the launch time of that cluster that flew on June 4.

If, as Cavitt claimed, he recognized the debris in the field, then there was no reason for it to be collected by Marcel and driven into Roswell (and remember that Cavitt told me in 1991 that he had NEVER participated in the recovery of a balloon because he was too busy).

I could go on, but now the skeptics are going to have to twist everything around (as they often accuse the rest of us as doing) so that the Mogul explanation works but the documentation of the time tells us what we need to know.

And if we're going to reject Jesse Marcel because of his changing story, then we must do the same with Moore... and I think Moore knew what he was doing, which makes it even worse. Mogul is not the explanation, the reaction of the military tells us that it's not the explanation, the lack of photographs in Roswell of the debris when the AP had a photographer there to take pictures of the sheriff on the telephone, and reporters transmitting pictures over the wire tells us that it's not the explanation. But no pictures of the balloon debris until some of it gets to Fort Worth and had it been a Mogul array, there just wasn't enough of it in the pictures taken in Ramey's office.

CDA -

The information about the FBI time stamps came from a former FBI agent who, when he and I were discussing the FBI Telex told me that. I have been trying to verify the information.

All -

We are coming close to my arbitrary line here on civility. Let's keep that in mind.

Brian Bell said...

@ Kevin -

Interesting comment about Cavitt - had not heard that before. Not saying you're wrong, but Cavitt"s claim about not picking up balloon debris would still be accurate if he went out there, saw a balloon, and went back and didn't participate in the recovery. Marcel thinking it was still odd starting the clean up anyway.

Was there any indication from your investigations that photos of the debris were ever taken? On base or in the field?

Most aircraft crashes are photographed even back then. I would presume that if this was something "unworldly" someone would have been detailed to photograph it. Probably out of Haut's area?

Many false claims to movies taken, but in reality it probably would have been B&W photos.

Brian Bell said...

Well…if we put a moratorium on Mogul then I would propose more consideration be given to alternate theories on what actually happened there other than ‘aliens’ since there isn’t any more data that can or has been collected to discuss other than reported bits and pieces of metallic type magnesium which proves nothing really.
Again…while most here hate to even consider Redfern’s theory, it might be worthwhile exploring a clearly rational hypothesis a bit further.

Why? There is clear evidence that testing on human subjects, generally unfortunates, was being done for high altitude and radiation exposure research. The documents he cites in his book are real. If you couple that with other facts not included in his book that precede what he describes, you get the following in a nut shell:

1) 1947 – A race in the early stage of the cold war to extract as much as you can from captured Japanese and German technology, including chemical and biological weapons coupled with research on human radiation exposure.

2) Documents just three months prior to Roswell stating that all human test research is classified ultra-secret, and that under no circumstances can the public know about what they are doing to humans illegally (yes the documents exist- research it). Furthermore if the public does discover it, they are to be discredited and misdirected.

3) US weapons research on high altitude disposal of radioactive material as an offensive weapon over the Soviet Union using balloons, since development of sub-orbital aircraft and intercontinental rockets were not sufficiently capable of doing the job at the time.

4) Documents stating that in summary, the research conducted on the human unfortunates involved in the high altitude tests resulted in aerial crashes – and that the crashes were due to very specific reasons – cited include: a) the unfortunates could not reach the controls, b) the unfortunates could not understand the purposely created “symbols” used to help them fly the craft (Humm…remember the geometric symbols on Marcel’s debris?), etc.

5) Documents stating that the tests also included aircraft flown in the prone position...humm…the only US aircraft that ever flew in prone position in the late 1945-1948 time period was Northrup’s XP-79 flying wing – which was reportedly cancelled after several flight tests and a fatal crash. So…what were they still flying in a prone position then…??? A Horton wing contraption? Or did they continue to develop the XP-79 and variants?

6) There are documents that attest to the fact that there was concern over what the outcome would be from the Nuremburg trials on human research….and that since those involved in doing it secretly in the US for military purposes would be “found out”, they had to cover it up even further or abandon it based on the trial and its outcomes.

7) Documents even show that we were flying full scale aircraft as remotely controlled “drones” from trailing aircraft at this time and even before.

8) Advanced German aircraft materials were being tested and evaluated at that time – specifically wood and resin composite material, plastics, and lightweight and heat resistant metals like magnesium alloys which were being used in the development of the 1944 blue-prints of the F-86 prototype flown in 1948..…is it possible they were testing these materials even before 1948?

Sounds like another very plausible hypothesis with some supporting facts that may indicate what we have at Roswell is a secret project buried in another classified project that was not connected to anything else that can be traced or tracked easily. In other words a prosaic explanation.

cda said...

Kevin:

I like your comment that had the debris been of a balloon then photos would have been taken of it at Roswell before it was flownt to Fort Worth. Really?

Suppose such photos had been taken, and they showed the same debris as the Fort Worth ones show. The conspiracists (i.e. the proposers of the 'switch' thesis) would STILL be telling us the same story, namely that the switch was done, but at Roswell instead of Fort Worth. So we would be exactly where we are now.

Instead of duBose telling us of the switch, someone at the Roswell base would doubtless have told us. And Marcel would say much the same as he did at Ft Worth, i.e. virtually nothing of value.

Your argument about the lack of photos at Roswell only indicates to me that nobody there thought the debris was important enough to photograph; the reason being that Ramey had ordered it flown to Ft Worth and Blanchard (or whoever) decided to do that immediately. Photographs were considered unnecessary! Ramey obviously took a different view and had a press photographer come out for this purpose, hoping to satisfy public opinion. The whole 'switch' idea is just fiction, and always was. But it forms a major role in the great conspiracy thesis.

Lance said...

Kevin,

Yes none of what you lay out above is in conflict with the skeptical position. Is it possible that you do not understand that position? Are we talking past each other?

Lance

Nitram Ang said...

Slightly off topic somebody wrote

"I remind you that the Top Secret memo that Gen Ramey is supposedly holding in his hand is also on display, for super sharp photo-analysists like David Rudiak and others to decipher and tell the world about decades later!"

The centre of the universe is not in the Ramey memo, as continuously advised.

I have respect for any rational discussion. If any of your comments happen to ever fall into that realm, I'll be happy to talk with you.

Brian Bell said...

@ CDA - photos

Personally I am of the same opinion. Toy knowledge no witnesses ever testified to even seeing a photographer at the scene for what is supposedly the greatest discovery of the 20th century.

I find that odd when just two years prior GI's, and even individual German soldiers were snapping B&W photos in the tens if not hundreds of thousands during WW2. And they are still out there readily found.

How is it that not a single "witness" thought to take a few personal snapshots....and no officer thought of ordering someone to record the "discovery"? And are we supposed to believe that not one of the so called 600-700 "witnesses" claimed by Schmitt and Carey didn't own a camera?

GI's during WWII were souvenier hunters - they brought more junk back from Germany and Japan than in any recorded time in war history - personal souveniers. And not one of these guys bothered to slip a tiny piece into his boot while on his hands and knees cleaning it up - after he was told it was from outer space? Really?

Neal Foy said...

Brian,
The debris Brazel brought to the Sheriff's office didn't stay there very long, by all accounts the Army took it to the base as soon as they were notified. There was a short window to take any pictures of it. In 1947 people didn't have cell phone cameras in their pockets like today. Even if some civilian visited the office during the time the debris was there they would have a hard time taking a picture without a flashbulb attachment on their camera. It's very unlikely that would happen.

How do you know there were no pictures or motion pictures taken at the crash site? They would have been taken by the base photo unit and if the Army wanted to hide them they certainly could.

You're a huge fan of secret projects, where are all the pictures of those? I can certainly assure you that pictures would be taken for record purposes and to facilitate construction later if they ever went that far. Blueprints don't always reflect "as built" reality.

You're contention that Haut would be in charge of taking pictures is actually very funny and shows you to have zero knowledge of how a base photo unit is run. Haut would have absolutely no say on pictures for operations at the base. He could request pictures for his job as public information officer but operations wasn't in his pay grade.

As for the soldiers keeping anything, it's highly unlikely they would be told anything more than "Get your butts out there and pick up anything that doesn't look like desert. If you talk about it or keep anything you'll be spending the rest of your life in the brigg". The military doesn't operate under civilian law. They don't need a court order or a warrant to turn a barracks and everything in it upside down if they want to. No soldier in his right mind would try to keep anything under those conditions.

cda said...

Mitram/Martin:

"The centre of the universe is not in the Ramey memo, as continuously advised."

On the contrary, the centre (why not center?) of the universe, plus a great deal else about the universe we live in, is contained in that vital scrap of paper that only a select few can decipher. And who was it that "advised" us otherwise?

cda said...

Neal Foy:

Regarding your last paragraph, didn't Marcel bring a lot of that debris home for his wife and son to see, before returning to base? There was nothing to stop them from keeping a small fragment, or even a large one, if they really wanted to. And nobody would have noticed its absence, either. What does the fact that they did not retain any fragments suggest to you? It suggests to me is that it was junk - nothing else.

Brian Bell said...

@ Neal -

On Haut - I didn't say Haut was responsible for photos...the question mark (?) at the of my comment was rhetorical. If the guy was authorized to tell the world aliens had arrived was he also supposed to arrange photos? After all he did contact the media and they do take photos Neal....I was not referring to official base operational procedure...after all believers say they dropped all that "because they were panicked".

On debris - Ah...technically by military orders collecting souveniers during wartime is illegal. But they still did it constantly in WW2. If they followed protocols they had to get an officer to approve the trophy item. So if hundreds of thousands of guys didn't follow orders on that issue during wartime, why would they follow it when being lucky enough to be present at "the greatest discovery mankind has ever known?". Oh...I forgot. They were told by a big dark skinned MP they would be "shot"....right.

@ CDA - Oh....don't you recall the Roswell movie? Marcel's son kept a piece but his dad had to take it from him...orders you know. A little father-son conflict. Of course, that was all fiction in what people claim was an authentic movie recreation. Marcel Jr. claimed he never kept anything. Why was that represented in this movie?

KRandle said...

Brian -

To quote the director of that movie, Jeremy Kagan, "We're making a movie and not a documentary." Or, in other words, they were making much of it up as they went along for the dramatic effects in the movie.

Neal Foy said...

@cda
From what Marcel Jr. said in various interviews he was told to never say anything about what he saw that night. That could explain why they didn't keep anything. The time frame also seems to confirm Marcel Sr.'s account of taking the better part of a day to collect what they brought back.

I can relate to Marcel Jr. in a way because I too held a secret my father told me at about the same age. I should add that I had heard something I wasn't meant to hear in a conversation (more a bitching session) between two of my father's co workers. I bugged my father about it for several days until he told me the story I related earlier. He told me never to say anything about it because he and his friends might lose their jobs. Since many of my classmates were military dependents I'm sure he was concerned that if I said anything it might get back to the base. Marcel Sr. probably had similar concerns.

Brian Bell said...

@ Neal - Marcel Jr

Don't forget though, Marcel Jr is on record, more than once, for saying that small pieces of the foil were left on the kitchen floor and that his mother swept them outside the next day. He stated on video multiple times that today there is a concrete patio over that location. So if this stuff was so secret, why does he recall his mother sweeping bits and pieces outside the door without even a single bit of apprehension? Why would Marcel Sr leave bits and pieces of this "liquid memory metal" on the floor if it was so exotic and mysterious? Sounds to me that mom thought it to be nothing but simple junk, and young son was just interested in dad's excited work stories in the middle of the night.

Neal Foy said...

@Brian,
The answer to your last post is I don't know, you would have to ask the Marcels and they're all dead. If you really want to know you could ask the current owners of the property for permission to dig. For the right price they might let you do that.

After the war soldiers, including officers, did bring contraband home. My Uncle was a Marine Corps officer in the Pacific, he brought some contraband home too. You're comparing apples to oranges though, nearly everyone was doing it and you can only imagine the logistical nightmare of searching hundreds of thousands of duffle bags.In Roswell we don't know how many soldiers were involved but far less than hundreds of thousands can be safely assumed. Not to mention war trophies weren't secret and Roswell was.

cda said...

Neal & Brian:

That is exactly the point. Roswell was NOT secret. If it had been, Marcel would never have brought the stuff home and spread it out on the carpet! This proves that the ranch debris never was secret. The only way out of this dilemma is to assume Marcel was extremely, and criminally, neglectful. In which case he ought to have faced demotion and/or severe discipline, or worse.

But again and again we read in books & articles how hush-hush this Roswell operation was and how everything was top secret, and still is.

I brought up this point long ago. I believe Randle & Schmitt's response was to say the debris was indeed top secret but was only classified as such AFTER it arrived at the base! Before then, it was free for anyone to see, touch and photograph. So we are led to believe.

The same kind of argument applies to those Ft Worth photos. The real stuff is not visible, only substituted junk.

Perhaps Marcel was so clever that he only put substituted junk on his home carpet whilst leaving the real stuff in his truck. Perhaps.

Brian Bell said...

@ Neal - you said:

"The answer to your last post is I don't know, you would have to ask the Marcels and they're all dead."

Yes...and that's the usual response....."aliens crashed....it's a fact....no I can't answer your questions...don't ask...and all my sources are dead...but yes my alien theory is right and you're wrong".

It's easy to dismiss skeptical challenges to your reasoning with the excuse "my witness are dead". Why not evaluate what they did say or do rather than dismiss it?

Also - there is evidence of classified projects including photos - do some homework on McCandlish's ARV and the USAF photo of it over Utah that he discovered a decade later.

Neal Foy said...

@Bian

You do love to twist words and make up stuff. First of all, where did I say anything about aliens? I'm ET agnostic, literally I don't know. Unlike deniers I don't feel it's imperative to be able to explain everything.

I can't answer the question because I don't find an answer in any testimony. In other words, apparently it wasn't asked when they were alive. Simple as that.

I wasn't talking about declassified projects, there are plenty of pictures of U2s and SR-71s. You can probably find pictures of those craft under construction.

How many pictures of your TR-3B have you seen? And I mean production pictures like I used to take of the shuttle tank. It doesn't matter what the real name is either so don't use the dodge that you used before.

Lance said...

"Unlike deniers I don't feel it's imperative to be able to explain everything."

I suppose you mean skeptics when you say this. And here it is you twisting things.
Skeptics just say that the evidence for the things claimed in relation to UFO's and particularly Roswell is not compelling.
We don't have to explain everything. The paranormal believer has to.

Lance

Brian Bell said...

@ Neal - you said:

"You do love to twist words and make up stuff."

Ah.....What was I twisting or making up?

On your claimed "agnostic" position - my take on your posts is that you are ET favorable...and....anti-skeptic. Which is fine, but you do seem to refute ANY alternate theories always taking a slant favorable towards ET. I don't see you as agnostic at all. Just my take. Did your stay at NASA influence you towards ET? Why?

On classified projects - no, I wasn't referring to already declassified projects like the now very old SR-71 etc. I wrote that you should look up the "ARV" not the TR3-B or even the related TELOS.

Besides, haven't you seen the clearly authentic vids with the "TR3-B"? Those triangles are not alien made. They're made by us and they are used for surveillance monitoring. There aren't many original clips or photos, but the few that are there, are of US classified projects.

It continues to amaze me that people believe humans can't develop advanced aerial tech when the very same people are buying and trading up their advanced handheld devises every 18 months or so because processing capacity has tripled in that time.

Do you think everything that is currently unexplained should be attributed to the hypothesis that it all comes from people from "outer space?"

Neal Foy said...

@Brian

I can accept ET as possible explanation as well as dimensional, time travel, man made, spiritual, and maybe even something I've never heard of yet. Anti-skeptic? Anti closed minded is more like it.

Yeah sure, at NASA Bob Lazar and I used to hang out with a bunch of aliens. Did you know that they don't need a camera to take pictures? They do it with their minds. Amazing award winning stuff too. Actually, I don't remember the subject coming up.

Clearly authentic vids? Really? You say, but I'm too familiar with CGI to fall for any vids. If I could find some high resolution photos in raw format that I could download and examine then I might start to believe. Remember, I'm an advertising photographer I get paid to make pictures lie.

I'm sorry if I didn't buy your explanation for the Arnold sightings. It just didn't sound logical to me. I do believe that man made objects can explain some sightings just not all sightings.



Brian Bell said...

@ Neal

If you followed that train of thought you could argue every photo taken from the 1800's till today was "faked" by someone. Of course they weren't. Some of what's out there is real, certainly not a high percentage but some is legitimate as are older photos taken in the '50s or '60's.

If by chance you caught an object on your handheld today, a 2 min clip that showed a silver disc floating, zigzagging, and making right angle turns at unbelievable speeds, then showed us the film clip....how would you respond if we said ... "Right Neal...you are paid to make pictures lie...your film is fake...."?

Neal Foy said...

@ Brian,
I agree some of those pictures show real objects in the sky. It was more difficult to fake with film and fewer people could make a good fake. I do think they should be closely examined before calling them fakes. The same thing goes for the vids you mentioned earlier. It's possible they're real but faking does exist so they shouldn't be taken at face value.

Not to be contrary and maybe I shouldn't admit it but I would have to read the manual to use my camera in video mode. But either way, video or still, the reaction would be exactly what I would expect. And this would also be strike two for some because it would make me one of those dang repeaters.

I fear we're getting off topic here.

Brian Bell said...

@ Neal

Possibly off topic...but regarding Roswell, the lack of substantial photography and no mention of it being taken is suspicious.

Were photos shot and simply destroyed in the Roswell records purge, or was there nothing to photograph to begin with?

Neal Foy said...

@Brian,
I'm not dodging the question but I have no way of knowing the answer. Kevin would be the better person to ask. Of all the people the researchers interviewed were any of those from the base photo unit? I think it's a good question.

There are quite a few accounts of photos being taken and then disappearing from other places. Allegedly gun camera films were made, Gordon Cooper said a film was made while he was present.
We haven't seen any of those films.

Brian Bell said...

@ Neal

I didn't think you were dodging the question. Just saying that given other witnesses, as you stated, have often claimed photos were made but were taken away, seems odd that no witness to my knowledge even ventured a word or two about it during all the claims made in the Roswell investigation interviews.