Friday, July 31, 2015

The Nuns Diaries and the Anatomy of an Investigation

As I was looking for something else, I stumbled across a diary page that had been given to me some twenty years ago. It was one of the very few documents that suggested that what fell outside of Roswell was something alien or that was what I had been told it meant. The two entries that were relevant said, “7-4-47 Object down – 2317 – Radar Target Gone,” and “7-5-47 Found Wreckage 0200…”

Diary page suggesting the UFO crash.
I also interviewed a former member of the 1395th MP Company who had been stationed in Roswell in July 1947. Leo Spear told me on June 3, 1994, that he was a PVT E2 (according to him but the Yearbook identifies him as a PFC) in July 1947, but that he had been with the military police company. He had not been assigned to guard duty involving any of the material recovered, but did talk about it with his friends who had been involved. He said, “…it was the next morning when they came in with a cock and bull story… they said, ‘You know what? They brought in some stuff from a UFO. And that it had crashed north of Roswell.’”

Yes, he did say UFO but then, in 1994, that is not surprising and I would suspect that in 1947 they had said flying saucer. To me it wasn’t much of a problem. The important point here is that he said that he thought they were crazy until the next day when he saw in the newspaper that they had picked up pieces of a flying saucer. He realized that it wasn’t a cock and bull story, but that something had happened.

There was also Corporal E.L. Pyles, who said that while he and a friend were out walking on the base when they saw something streak across the sky. He did say that it was in a downward motion, and according to the information he had given Don Schmitt, this was during the first week or so of July 1947.

This fits, generally, with what William Woody had said. Woody told me that it was a white light with red streaks in it. He said that it glowed brightly and unlike the other meteors he’d seen, it took a long time to fall. Given what we had been told, and with the documentation that we had been given, we dated this to July 4, 1947. Woody did say that a few days after seeing the object he and his father had attempted to go find it, but the roads to the west of the main highway north out of town were blocked by military vehicles. This helped establish the time frame for the sighting.

The nun’s story came from a man who said he was a former officer in the Special Forces, meaning the Green Berets, and he had talked with a nun or a former nun in Roswell, who had seen a diary enter. According to what we were told, the nuns’ diary entries dated the event to July 4, sometime prior to midnight. I believed, back in the early 1990s that Don Schmitt, chasing the diaries, had actually seen them. He says now that he did not.

Look where we are on this. I have a document that was allegedly created in 1947
Leo Spear from the
509th Yearbook.
giving me times and a date. I have testimony from two men who saw an object in the air in the right time frame. I have testimony from another man who reported that friends in the 1395th MP Company had talked about recovery of a flying saucer and was able to date it in the right time frame. And I have others who mention the nuns’ diaries, at least two of whom claimed to have seen them, giving me a time and a date for their observations. All this seems to be pretty strong evidence… but let’s now look at it with our different perspective of twenty years.

The document was given to me with instructions not to show it around because it was still considered classified, so I didn’t mention it. I thought that it was unnecessary because of the other evidence. That document, unfortunately, came from Frank Kaufmann and it is not the only document he had altered or created. He supplied other documents that seemed to corroborate his tale, including his official Army discharge papers that listed him as a master sergeant with some specialized intelligence training. We all now know that many of those documents had been altered or created out of nothing at all. When we received his official records from the Army, we learned that he had been a staff sergeant and his training had been as an administrative specialist and a clerk/typist. There was nothing to suggest he had ever been involved in any intelligence functions, and no reason to believe the documents he gave me had not been created by him to support his tales. The diary page was just one more fake and that the supporting evidence could be rejected.

Corporal Pyles was reported by Karl Pflock as being unable to remember what month he had seen the object, though he did put it in 1947. In what I think of as an incredibly inept bit of copy editing, in the paragraph that followed the one in which Pyles couldn’t give a month of the sighting, he said, according to Pflock, “A ‘few days later,’ he saw the ‘RAAF Captures Flying Saucer’ story… and he wondered if what he and his friend had seen had anything to do with it.”

That seemed to date the event to the first week in July, just as the information from Leo Spear had done. Spear, of course, hadn’t seen anything, and Pyles had just seen a streak of light in the night sky. Pyles told Pflock that it was before midnight, which is an interesting detail for him to remember when he had suggested he couldn’t even remember the month.

Pflock, in his book, suggested that William Woody might have seen the same object as that seen by Dan Wilmot at about 10:00 p.m. on July 2 when the Wilmots had their sighting as reported in the Roswell Daily Record. There is nothing to tie the reports together, other than both Wilmot and Woody said the object was moving toward the north. Of course, there is nothing to suggest that what Woody saw was what crashed either other than proximity in time. But it does add an element of documentation to the whole case, even if we don’t know if the object seen was the one that crashed or even anything of alien origin.

Finally, we return to the nuns’ diaries. As near as I can tell, based on the credibility of the witnesses, meaning that the Green Beret officer was not, and I saw nothing to suggest the nun or former nun was what she claimed to be, the diaries do not exist. I was told about them, told what they said, and was told by some that they had seen the diaries themselves. Given the other information I had at the time, there was no reason to reject the evidence. With the collapse of some of that information, I simply do not believe this anymore.

So, where is this once strong bit of the Roswell UFO crash tale? Well, the documentation is reduced to a newspaper clipping about Dan Wilmot that might have nothing to do with the crash. Both the diary page submitted by Frank Kaufmann and the alleged diary pages written by the nuns are either faked or nonexistent. Since the nuns were never interviewed and their diaries never found, anything said about them can be properly rejected. It is as if it never existed because it probably never did.

On the other hand, we have two men who saw something strange in the sky in early July 1947. The descriptions offered, decades after the fact, match generally, which means it could be the same object. It was traveling generally to the north, and the debris found by Mack Brazel was to the north of Roswell. We can suggest that this is the object that crashed, but the links are fairly weak, but at least they are something.


This once strong aspect of the case has been reduced to some testimony offered decades after the fact, a newspaper clipping, and an MP who remembered his pals talking about picking up pieces of a flying saucer but who had seen nothing himself. It is just not very persuasive evidence when stripped to its bare bones and we are left with very little to bolster the case.

77 comments:

Jeff Miller said...

The earliest known use of the term "UFO," at least to the dictionary publishers, is in 1953. Merriam-Webster dictionaries show this year, and the Oxford English Dictionary shows the first known use by Donald Keyhoe in 1953 in the magazine Air Line Pilot.

If you check dictionary.com you will see the date range 1950-55 for "UFO." This is taken from the Random House unabridged dictionary which has a policy of putting a five-year date range around many earliest known uses on the theory that the actual first use is probably earlier than the first known use, for most words. For very old words, the date range is greater. This policy unfortunately results in the date range 1945-50 for "flying saucer," when we know 1947 is the first use. Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary give 1947 for "flying saucer."

Jeff Miller said...

By the way, in my earlier comment I was not intending to question the credibility of Spear since in 1994 one would probably say UFO rather than flying saucer. I was just adding some (I think) interesting information. If anyone can find a use of "UFO" before 1953, Merriam-Webster and Oxford University Press would appreciate being informed of it.

Brian Bell said...

@ Jeff:

I believe you are correct in that Keyhoe was likely the first to coin the term "UFO".

Nick Redfern said...

I don't know when the term "UFO" was first used, but "Unidentified Flying Object" was used in 1947, specifically in a UFO context. It appears in a 1947 document concerning a military UFO encounter in Guam. You can find the document in the UFO section at the FBI's website, The Vault.

cda said...

Kevin:

Why are you now discrediting some of your own evidence as presented in your and Schmitt's first two books? Has something finally persuaded you into having serious doubts about what you first insisted was strong evidence for Roswell? You have recently been presenting things on this blog that seem to blow apart things you previously thought convincing. Maybe this is a good sign.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin, I'd also be interested in hearing your perspective as to WHY these once iron clad witnesses lied about their experiences. In your estimation why did they? What was their motivation?

William Strathman said...

b"h

"Pyles told Pflock that it was before midnight, which is an interesting detail for him to remember when he had suggested he couldn’t even remember the month."

I would suggest that people mentally "catalog" memories in ways that may not seem strictly logical. I, along with many others, witnessed a spectacular object crossing the night sky more than 20 years ago (which seemed to me to be a slowly re-entering satellite) and which was then reported in the media though never identified. I can vividly recall the time in the evening and the day of the week because of the particular week-end day that if occurred on. But after some two decades I had to look up online the actual date and the month it occurred. I am just not a savant automaton who remembers months and days. So Mr. Pyles inability to remember the month of his sighting may not be such a big deal, especially since he says that that particular memory was linked to the news report a few days later, which does yield the approximate time frame. That said, I have no opinion one way or the other about Roswell, and I'm glad you are scrutinizing the evidence Kevin.

Sue Johnson said...

I really like reading stuff with this level of detail about data points and also about the thought process behind evaluating the sources and what they contribute to a given narrative. This is the way things should be done, to my mind.

John Steiger said...

While interesting, this particular blog topic "The Nun's Diaries and the Anatomy of an Investigation," remains extraneous to the Roswell crash event. The real beginning of Roswell stems from Mac Brazel's discovery of the alien debris field. Whether the debris field came from the object sighted by Wilmot, by the nuns, or by whomever in the sky really matters little in comparison to the fact of a field of debris comprised of nonterrestrial material found on the Foster Ranch in July, 1947. Questioning this aspect does not negate the significance of the Roswell crash.

cda said...

John Steiger:

Mac Brazel did NOT describe the stuff as "alien debris". What he found was decidedly terrestrial debris. See the press reports. The debris only became alien because over 30 years later, two investigators (mainly for profit-making motives) decided to put a different interpretation on this debris.

The other supporting 'evidence' (such as the nuns' sighting) is only put forward to try and bolster the spurious claims that what was gathered up was extraterrestrial.

The only extraterrestrial debris known to science is meteorites.

John Steiger said...

cda: Save for the original RAAF press release and initial news story, the subsequent press reports are military-fabricated lies, which have been exposed by numerous investigators (with truth-seeking motives, not that there is anything wrong with honest profit-making) despite the worst machinations of the military, the government, and their crony debunking-supporters.

Scientists have covertly studied the extraterrestrial debris (including the alien cadavers) in addition to meteorites.

P.S. to Dr. Randle: cda started this (see above), so I felt compelled to respond. JS

cda said...

Kevin:

It was John Steiger who first mentioned Brazel's debris, not myself. He merely responded to my response to his initial mention.

The idea that "scientists have covertly studied the extraterrestrial debris (including the alien cadavers)" is poppycock.

I propose this diversion is ended now, otherwise we shall be going over topics discussed a zillion times before.

John Steiger said...

cda: While I vehemently disagree with your assertions herein, I accept your gentlemanly proposal to end our argument on the topic here and now.

Brian Bell said...

John - you said "the press reports are fabricated lies".

Well the facts are the AP newsman actually interviewed Brazel first, on July 8, before the second and supposedly revised Roswell paper issued the "weather balloon" explanation on July 9.

Your claim is what everyone makes - but incorrectly. They claim the Roswell paper story was done after Brazel was supposedly sequestered, threatened, held by military police for 24 hours to a week (impossible given the timing of the press release).

The Roswell paper simply gave more details as to what Brazel said to the AP reporter on July 8. Same details about "sticks", "rubber" and "foil".

If he was interviewed on July 8 for the AP press release, we can rightfully assume what he said there was accurate - before "coerced" by the Army as claimed.

The AP release came out July 9, but was taken July 8 - it said:

"He described his find as consisting of large numbers of pieces of paper covered with a foil-like substance, and pieced together with small sticks much like a kite. Scattered with the materials over an area about 200 yards across were pieces of gray rubber. All the pieces were small.
"At first I thought it was a kite, but we couldn't put it together like any kite I ever saw," he said. "It wasn't a kite." Brazel related this story: While riding the range on his ranch 30 miles southeast of Corona, on June 14 he sighted some shiny objects. He picked up a piece of the stuff and took it to the ranch house seven miles away.
On July 4, he returned to the site with his wife and two of his children, Vernon, 8, and Bessie, 14. They gathered all the pieces they could find. The largest was about three feet across. Brazel said he hadn't heard of the "flying discs" at the time, but several days later his brother-in-law, Hollis Wilson, told him of the disc reports, and suggested it might be one.
"When I went to Roswell I told Sheriff George Wilcox about it" he continued. "I was a little bit ashamed to mention it, because I didn't know what it was."
"Asked the sheriff to keep it kinda quiet," he added with a chuckle. "I thought folks would kid me about it."

See......no liquid memory metal ....no dead aliens....no space craft......the early reports are accurate.

Brian Bell said...

Also note Wilcox, when he first saw it, thought the debris part of a weather balloon - not parts of an alien space ship.

While Brazel said he didn't know what it was, and had seen balloons before, probably means he found portions of the balloon train this time around instead of the large balloon itself in times past (or of some balloon train maybe not even a Mogul one).

Brazel was a cowboy rancher - not a guy who was versed in radar targets or large high altitude balloon arrays. Note he says he originally thought it was a "kite"...as in literally KITE....not "radar reflector" like people assume he meant.

Poor Brazel....previously found large balloon bags on the ground, now stumbles across material used in the balloon array, doesn't know what it is, hasn't seen it before (just like he said), thinks it's a kite, but is confused it's too much debris to be just a common kite. Reports it - is embarrassed he can't figure it out - then gets mad about all the fuss about it. As far as "little green men go" that is a fictitious thing Joyce made up...his story like the others just got bigger over time. Like a balloon...inflated.

David Rudiak said...

Brian Bell, as usual, bogusly wrote: (part 1 of 2)

Well the facts are the AP newsman actually interviewed Brazel first, on July 8, before the second and supposedly revised Roswell paper issued the "weather balloon" explanation on July 9.

Your claim is what everyone makes - but incorrectly. They claim the Roswell paper story was done after Brazel was supposedly sequestered, threatened, held by military police for 24 hours to a week (impossible given the timing of the press release).

If he was interviewed on July 8 for the AP press release, we can rightfully assume what he said there was accurate - before "coerced" by the Army as claimed.


This a pretty good example of how Brian Bell is often ignorant of WELL-established HISTORICAL facts and instead badly mangles them.

HISTORICAL FACT: The story first broke on the AP and UP newswire (the Roswell base press release that they had recovered a "flying disc", not a "weather balloon") about 2:30 Roswell time (or 3:30 Fort Worth/Gen. Ramey time, or 4:30 Washington/Pentagon time).

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

HISTORICAL FACT: The weather balloon story was FIRST put out by Gen. Ramey and the Pentagon starting only about an hour after the press release hit the wire (thus about 3:30 Roswell time). In fact, it was put out early enough that it made it into some of the major west coast newspapers before they went to press that afternoon for evening editions. The EARLY development of the weather balloon story can be followed by reading the various major newspaper (e.g., Washington Post, NY Times, Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Examiner, Los Angeles Herald-Express, Dallas Morning News) and wire service accounts of the day (AP, UP, Reuters, INS), also FBI Dallas telegram (which was informing the Washington FBI of the weather balloon story by 6:17 p.m. EST or 4:17 Roswell time)

Example west coast newspaper story: LA Herald-Express, Sunset Edition, headline story, July 8: "Army Finds 'Flying Saucer':General Believes It Is Radar Weather Gadget

Example quote from Herald-Express coverage: (INS) FORT WORTH, Texas, July 8--Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey... asserted tonight the purported "flying disc" found in eastern New Mexico is "evidently nothing other than a weather or radar instrument of some sort."

San Francisco Examiner story (July 9—the Examiner was a morning newspaper, not an evening one):
“WITHIN AN HOUR, telephone lines into sparse New Mexico were jammed... (The Examiner did not call Sheriff Wilcox. Surmising that the find had been flown to Brig. Gen. Roger M. Ramey, commanding general of the Eighth Air force at Fort Worth, Tex., The Examiner telephoned him. (FIRST TO REACH HIM, The Examiner got a complete description of the "disc" from him, together with his expressed suspicion that it was just part of a weather balloon. His description tallied with that of radar reflectors sent up with weather balloons every day at Oakland.) (As a result the Examiner was able to give a prosaic name to the Army's saucer long before the Army itself corrected the boner of its public relations officer at Roswell.)”

(NOTE: The reporter, Dick Pearce, knew Ramey, thus knew to call him instead of trying to get through to Roswell, hence got a scoop on the story by being the first reporter to talk directly to Ramey, with Ramey telling him the weather balloon story right off the bat.)

www.roswellproof.com/press coverage.html
www.roswellproof.com/FBI_telegram.html
www.roswellproof.com/LA_HeraldExpress_July8.html
http://www.roswellproof.com/SFExaminer_July9.html

David Rudiak said...

(part 2 of 2)

HISTORICAL FACT: The AP newswire stated they were going after the story about 45 minutes after first announcing the base press release, or about 3:10 p.m. Roswell time. (see AP Chronology link above) The AP guy who later interviewed Brazel in Roswell (Jason Kellahin) was then dispatched FROM ALBUQUERQUE to cover the story in Roswell, a distance of 200 miles. I'll let Brian Bell do the math on the minimum time it would take Kellahin to drive 200 miles on old 2-lane highways (no Interstate back then), but you can figure he wouldn't have arrived in Roswell until 6:30 pm at the very earliest, more likely at least 7:00 or later if you also accept Kellahin's later story of diverting to a site off the main highway where he found Brazel with the military at a crash site.

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

HISTORICAL FACT: The Roswell Daily Record interview with Brazel stated that Brazel was interviewed "LATE YESTERDAY":

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

POINT: Brazel could not have been interviewed until around 7:00 pm Roswell AT THE EARLIEST, and Ramey had already first put out the singular weather balloon story/radar target SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE.

Therefore the following Brian Bell statement that Brazel was interviewed BEFORE the weather balloon story is utter HISTORICAL RUBBISH:
"Well the FACTS [sic] are the AP newsman actually interviewed Brazel FIRST, on July 8, BEFORE the second and supposedly revised Roswell paper issued the "weather balloon" explanation on July 9."

[If you confine the story strictly to the Roswell papers, the statement is true, but that is hardly the point. The REAL FACTS are, the Kellahin ACTUALLY interviewed Brazel WELL AFTER the NATIONAL PRESS (and the FBI) FIRST reported that Ramey issued the "weather balloon" explanation on the afternoon of July 8 (NOT July 9).

More inconvenient facts for Bell and fellow skeptobunkers: AP reporter Kellahin, plus two other newsmen at Brazel's interview when interviewed later. stated that Brazel was indeed accompanied by military officers to that interview at the RDR. Several fellow ranchers likewise stated seeing Brazel surrounded by military people in Roswell, including being led away from the RDR. Base provost marshal Easley admitted to Kevin holding Brazel at the base under armed guard for several days. In fact, about a dozen people knew of Brazel being held by the military and/or admitting to being coerced and being forced to change his story.

Another good example of a witness being tainted by the military was Sheriff Wilcox. When asked in one AP story originating from Albuquerque to further describe what Brazel supposedly found, it was reported: "Wilcox said he did not see the object but was told by Brazell it was 'about three feet across.' The sheriff declined to elaborate. 'I'm working with those fellows at the base," he said.

John Steiger said...

Brian Bell: Thank you for writing.

David Rudiak: Thank you very much for your assistance and clarification.

JS

Brian Bell said...

David: you said:

"If you confine the story strictly to the Roswell papers, the statement is true, but that is hardly the point. The REAL FACTS are....."

That was my point David, as follow up to CDC's point that the early paper reports stated debris like a balloon. That's it plain and simple. Thanks for agreeing with my statement as being correct (as you wrote above).

What's confusing is that you agree with my point as accurate, but then go on about your "facts". Odd.

By the way - your tone about me and accusation is derogatory, but since Kevin apparently approves of this you must be exempt from his rules.

Nitram Ang said...

Hi David

I understand your frustration which is clearly showing in your posts.
Unfortunately there are a couple of people here (debunkers who will remain nameless) who have never been to Roswell, have never interviewed any of the witnesses that were present in Roswell in 1947, clearly know very little about the whole thing and yet are self proclaimed experts on this event.

Try not to let their silly posts get you down - some of them ain't worthy of a reply.

And yes, we should all try and remember the blog rules...

Regards
Nitram

Al12 said...

Brian

Ive asked this before but didnt get much of a responce.

Why would it then be nessesary to transport flimsy pieces of material ie rubber, wood etc that make up a weather balloon or a mogul ( whichever balloon u want ) on huge Bombers to be transported to Wright Field for analysis.

Why would they go to thoses huge lengths to pick stuff up which is mundane n most probably broken and useless?

I have yet to read a logical answer to that and most probably because no ones got one, also why soldiers were on there hands n knees for days clearing every last speck of debris left.

are we really to believe they went to thoses extreme efforts for flimsy pieces of weather balloon material? yeah right!

cda said...

Nitram:

Do you really think it matters whether a debater on this blog has actually been to Roswell, or has ever interviewed a witness (between 30 and 50 years after the event)? We do not need to do either of these to be able to advance a perfectly logical and reasonable argument that what was recovered at or near Roswell was NOT an alien spaceship or the remains thereof. And after nearly 7 decades that ought to be obvious to anyone. But apparently it still is not.

Oh, by the way, we are supposed to be talking about those non-existent nun's diaries.

Which brings me to another topic. Isn't it strange that NOBODY kept any diary of this earth-shattering event at the time it happened? It was all so unimportant and just plain boring that not a single witness, military or civilian, bothered to make diary notes. Amazing. (It is not even in General Vandenberg's daily log).

cda said...

AI 12:

Your points require an answer. I suggest that there never were any "huge bombers" taking stuff to Ft Worth (or Wright Field). There was certainly ONE such plane, which was probably carrying other freight as well. Beyond that we cannot say. As for all those military guys on their hands and knees for days or weeks clearing up the site, this is most probably fiction, told decades afterwards by certain people purporting to be witnesses.

So I've answered your points, but of course you are free to disagree.

Brian Bell said...

@ CDC

"It's not even in General Vandenberg's daily log."

True.

In fact in June of 2003 Popular Mechanics did an expose of the official Roswell airbase "daily records" from July 1947 and discovered not a single unusual or eventful thing happened.....nothing. Just mundane daily base operations. Read here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=AdEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=frank+kaufmann+dies&source=bl&ots=WhU1IR77jG&sig=edDsrvI8iXCBA7AuswDmuQvA_AI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBmoVChMIo6nrwebxxgIVhdOACh3qmQ6U#v=onepage&q=frank%20kaufmann%20dies&f=false

Of course ET advocates will claim that those records are false, edited, rewritten, or replaced to hide some mysterious coverup. Or that editors at Popular Mechanics were given fake files to examine, or were bribed, or perhaps were aliens themselves seeking anonymity..? Yet there is no evidence the RAAF records were ever tampered with...ever.

William Strathman said...

b"h

The Popular Mechanics article says, "As we worked through the Morning Reports line by line, we came to a simple realization: Absolutely nothing extraordinary had happened at Roswell that Fourth of July weekend." But from what little I know, Marcel did not even get to the debris field until Mon July 7, which was after the July 4th weekend. So I guess nothing would have been eventful for the weekend. Maybe the writer of the article just didn't express himself very well. . . It would also be interesting to know which "Morning Reports" they reviewed. A base with various activities -- squadron maintenance, base support, personnel, ordnance, medical, security, etc., etc. -- would have various "morning reports" and all would be sent up the chain. It would have been helpful to identify which reports were reviewed, but the PM article does not even get to that level of information. I am not impressed that the PM article is any better a source of info about Roswell than "pro-crash" articles. Again, I have no iron in the fire either way.

Brian Bell said...

AI 12:

Sorry you didn't get a response previously, but to add to what CDC has stated this is my take on things:

"Why would it then be nessesary to transport flimsy pieces of material ie rubber, wood etc that make up a weather balloon or a mogul ( whichever balloon u want ) on huge Bombers to be transported to Wright Field for analysis."

Answer: Military protocol, confirmation and verification of events, and if it were a classified military program then to return any debris (even if mundane) back to Wright Field where ATC was HQ'd. That protocol happens via chain of command so the first stop would have been Eighth AF HQ (Ramey) in Fort Worth. As CDC said, at least one B29 flew to Fort Worth. No evidence exists to prove any other flights occurred. If they had, the supposedly large amount of alien craft debris would have been flown by the 509th's dedicated tactical transport group with cargo planes - but it wasn't. B29's are not cargo planes.

"Why would they go to thoses huge lengths to pick stuff up which is mundane n most probably broken and useless?"

Answer: As stated above. If a military plane, drone, or helicopter crashes today, or even way back then, in airspace outside military controlled areas (like a private ranch) whether classified or not, they go and clean it up. They don't just leave the junk there regardless of how broken or mundane the stuff is. "Oh..that F117 that crashed on your farm? Meh...you can have it..the pilot ejected. The rest is just junk..." Not a correct assumption.

"I have yet to read a logical answer to that and most probably because no ones got one, also why soldiers were on there hands n knees for days clearing every last speck of debris left."

Answer: I just provided a logical answer which is already proven by military protocols in existence today, and past and current military behavior concerning similar crash events. As CDC said, there is no proof that soldiers (how many? A squad? Platoon? Regiment or Brigade?) crawled on their hands and knees for days. That was the claim of Kaufmann who everyone believed until he was proven to have lied about that very claim.

"are we really to believe they went to thoses extreme efforts for flimsy pieces of weather balloon material? yeah right!"

Answer: Yes as demonstrated above. The material (again initial claims were rubber, sticks, foil, and paper) was not classified, but the purpose was. A large tubular microphone was also recovered which is the kind used on a Mogul balloon. It was not displayed. Even if it was not Mogul, it clearly appears to be an aircraft with balloon-type apparatus which is not odd in that some aviation tests back then included testing advanced designs attached to weather balloons.

In other words...terrestrial, human made...and prosaic.

Brian Bell said...

@ William:

My take on the article is that they had access to ALL of the reports on file for that time period (July). Specifically it seems they looked at the base operations records, which would have reported mobilization, deployment of troops, aircraft or vehicles to any type of crash. But nothing of the sort was recorded other than "business as usual".

So we should ask ourselves why base operations would have no clue that the "event of the millenium" happened on their watch, that troops, vehicles, aircraft, and resources were deployed rapidly in response to an alien crash which for all intensive purposes could have been assumed to be a Soviet attack or planetary invasion from Mars. Their base was supposed to be at high alert.

Blanchard sent two people to inquire about the debris after hearing from Marcel the story from Brazel. If the report was really that they had indeed found alien space craft debris, bodies, and interplanetary hardware, why didn't Blanchard deploy more troops in defense of what clearly could have been an attack on the US? Was he a fool? Did he forget Pearl Harbor? The Cold War?

No..he left it up to his intelligence officer to clean up...because it wasn't anything important after all...then he took a vacation a few days later.

cda said...

Brian:

Yes you make another important point. Blanchard going on leave the very same day (or possibly the day after) an earth-shattering scientific discovery is made at his very base.

Absolutely incredible! Even more incredible than the total lack of any diary entries documenting the event.

And don't forget, Vandenberg forgot all about it in his log and even General Spaatz was still on a fishing vacation. Fantastic stuff!

But I digress.

KRandle said...

Brian -

I found nothing in David's response that would warrant it being removed. You might not like the tone, but he didn't call you names or raise allegations that were untrue. I freely admit that I am arbitrary and capricious with the rules and delete at my whim, but then it is my blog and if you don't like the way I administer it, you are free to take your point of view and comments elsewhere.

If Popular Mechanics read the morning reports line by line, then they were wasting their time because the morning reports were designed to alert the higher headquarters who was available for duty and who was not and the reasons for it. The paper trail would not be found there... and as Patrick Saunders (the base adjutant) said, they worked very hard to hide the facts, something that I have covered in other postings and information in the base.

Oh, and I suspect that your experience in with the military is extremely limited, given some of your suggestions here.

CDA -

The purpose of the posting was not only about the nuns' diaries, but how that information had folded nicely into other information. Additional investigation and revelations showed that it was all build on sand... but it took time to find the sand. Most of this would not have been learned if my colleagues and I hadn't discovered it and reported it.

David -

Easley never said that Brazel had been held under armed guard, only that he had stayed in the guest house on base... Brazel said that he had been held in jail, but the guest house is hardly jail, but then if you are not allowed to leave, the accommodations, no matter how nice, are still, basically jail. And, according to the information, he arrived at the base on the morning of July 8.

All -

Let's get passed this idea that the material, if it was from a Mogul balloon array, was highly classified. It was off-the-shelf material that was so unimportant that they didn't bother to recover other balloons when the terrain was too rough. The project operation in New Mexico was not classified... and Brian, while the military will clean up any mess they make, they do not go to the extraordinary efforts that were reported in New Mexico.

Gilles Fernandez said...

Hello there,

Long time to see you here and converse with notable ufologists of the Roswell Myth.

How do you explain, dear David Rudiak, the conclusion made by W. Brazel himself in his interview IF he was forced, "tainted by the military", etc, as you are defending:

I'm sure what I found was not any weather obervation balloon".

How do you explain, dear David Rudiak this quote from his son :

Strangely enough, when Dad first got into Roswell, it was the weather bureau he called first about the stuff he had found. (The Roswell Incident, UK edition, p.85)


Regards,

Gilles

David Rudiak said...

Brian Bell wrote: (1 of 2)
"If you confine the story strictly to the Roswell papers, the statement is true, but that is hardly the point. The REAL FACTS are....."

That was my point David, as follow up to CDC's point that the early paper reports stated debris like a balloon. That's it plain and simple. Thanks for agreeing with my statement as being correct (as you wrote above).

What's confusing is that you agree with my point as accurate, but then go on about your "facts". Odd.


Brian,

Thanks for another demonstration of you dancing around the truth. You implied quite clearly that rancher Brazel was supposedly interviewed by the AP guy (Kellahin) BEFORE the weather balloon story went out. This supposedly proved that his story could not have been coerced or concocted by the military, who you claim LATER put out the weather balloon story.

But this is factually inaccurate. There are are no ifs or buts about this. It is not a matter of biased interpretation on my part or "psychic abilities". It is just DOCUMENTED HISTORICAL REALITY.

The military (primarily Gen. Ramey in Fort Worth) started putting out a weather balloon story only about an hour after the base press release of a captured flying disc first went out on the newswire (about 2:30 p.m. Roswell time, or MST). This was OFFICIALLY the story reported in the Dallas FBI telegram (4:17 p.m. Roswell time), the Dallas Morning News (~4:30 p.m. Roswell time), and AP wire bulletins (5:30 p.m. Roswell time). All in all, the weather balloon story was the military official final story in less than 3 hours from the first newswires broke the story.

The "AP guy" who LATER interviewed Brazel in the office of the Roswell Daily Record (Jason Kellahin) had to be dispatched from Albuquerque first (AP bulletins said they were going after the story at 3:10 p.m.), AFTER the story became public on the newswire (2:30 p.m.), and then drive 200 miles to Roswell (roughly 3-1/2 to 4 hour, even ignoring his later claiming to have diverted from his route to find Brazel and the military in the field outside of Roswell).

AP guy Kellahin could not have interviewed Brazel until 6:30 p.m. Roswell time at the VERY EARLIEST, whereas AP had already announced AN HOUR BEFORE the official Army weather balloon story, which Ramey and the Pentagon through various news outlets had already been giving out for a full two hours before that.

Thus what can be unequivocally DOCUMENTED as true is the EXACT OPPOSITE from the Brian Bell skeptobunker version, that Brazel was interviewed BEFORE the official weather balloon story and thus could not have been coerced in any way.

But Brian Bell does not see a problem with his version. Instead, he claims since the Roswell papers did not (indeed COULD NOT) have published the weather balloon story until the next day, none of this matters, since supposedly Brazel could not have heard of the weather balloons story yet. In the Brian Bell official Roswell history, nobody in Roswell knew what the outside world already knew until the Roswell papers were published the next day.

Nope, even the news guys in Roswell interviewing Brazel hadn't heard the official story yet, despite it being reported for hours and Roswell having such modern conveniences as telexes and telephones connecting them with the outside world (and the Roswell media being flooded with phone calls from the outside world seeking more information).

David Rudiak said...

(Part 2 of 2)

This doesn't even get into the question of how and why Brazel would be back in Roswell to begin with to supposedly clear things up, or as the Roswell Daily Record reported in their interview of him, "Then Major Marcel brought it to Roswell and THAT WAS THE LAST HE HEARD OF IT UNTIL THE STORY BROKE that he had found a flying disk, or the AP Kellahin version, "I didn't hear any more about it until things started popping. Lord, how that story has traveled!"

So this begs the question how could Brazel possibly hear about it out at his isolated ranch (where he was left the previous evening by Marcel) with no phone or electricity (thus no radio)? Obviously not possible.

Thus to hear the story “when it broke”, he he had to be back in Roswell leaving his ranch and livestock AGAIN unattended, but why? This gets us into the additional story of KGFL radio owner Walt Whitmore hearing of the story, driving out to the ranch the previous evening to get Brazel for an exclusive interview, and Brazel staying at the Whitmore house that night in Roswell. And this begs even more inconvenient questions, such as what was so damn important about Brazel’s supposed story of a tiny bit of balloon debris to get Whitmore to do this (7 or 8 hour hard round-trip drive over bad roads), get Brazel back off his ranch to talk about it, why Whitmore would let a media rival (RDR) scoop him on his own exclusive story and never air the recorded interview well before the story even broke on the newswire, etc., etc.

And, of course, there are the additional inconvenient questons raised by witness testimony of Brazel being brought to his interview by the military (even AP reporter Kellahin said this) and being held at the base (e.g., provost marshal Easley’s and Brazel’s son, Bill Brazel’s testimony).

All this over a tiny bit of rubber, foil, sticks, and tape reported in the Brazel interview? How does that make logical sense?

David Rudiak said...

Kevin wrote:
"If Popular Mechanics read the morning reports line by line, then they were wasting their time because the morning reports were designed to alert the higher headquarters who was available for duty and who was not and the reasons for it. The paper trail would not be found there... and as Patrick Saunders (the base adjutant) said, they worked very hard to hide the facts, something that I have covered in other postings and information in the base."

That has been my experience as well. E.g., I tried checking out the Oct. 7, 1965 Edwards AFB UFO incident with up to 12 UFOs being spotted visually and on radar, at least one interceptor being scrambled by the base UFO officer, 40 hours of audio tapes being made, etc. We know about it because some witnesses talked and the AF finally declassified the official UFO report (or part of it) and a fraction of the audio tapes.

But when I went to the Edwards AFB history office, the base historian knew of the incident but told me I wouldn't find anything in the written base records, such as the daily base log. He was right. I also checked the base newspaper, which had nothing.

But the incident DID happen, as proven from other now-declassified documentation. But if you went strictly by written base records, NOTHING officially happened.

cda said...

Kevin:

You state the paper trail (of the Roswell event) "would not be found here". Meaning it would not be found in the base daily reports.

Considering the very high importance and relevance of such an event (if it was indeed an ET crash), please tell us where the said paper trail IS to be found. Or has it mysteriously disappeared or been destroyed? Or is it still classified, even after 7 decades? And if Patrick Saunders is right, what 'facts' are still being hidden?

Where is this documentation? (Apart from being brushed under the carpet).

David Rudiak said...

Gilles wrote:
How do you explain, dear David Rudiak this quote from his son :

Strangely enough, when Dad first got into Roswell, it was the weather bureau he called first about the stuff he had found. (The Roswell Incident, UK edition, p.85)
[quoting Bill Brazel]

Ha, ha, ha Gilles. Your great evidence is one of those (what you have repeatedly claimed) highly unreliable decades-old memories quoted in a claimed highly unreliable book by highly unreliable authors.

But when I point out Brazel Jr. was one of the earliest witnesses (including in "The Roswell Incident") telling us of finding highly unusual debris such as "memory foil" or his father being held at the base for days against his will, you have previously blown off all off these claims as "witness contamination" and "false memories. This is a classic example of your double standard of evidence. You ONLY accept ancient, unreliable memories that agree with your biases of what happened.

Now here's evidence that doesn't have anything to do with ancient memories, but supposedly that more reliable contemporary evidence from 1947. Brazel when interviewed July 8, 1947, says nothing about thinking he found a weather balloon (or going first to the weather bureau), in fact specifically denies it, as in the Roswell Daily Record version: "Brazel said that he had previously found two weather observation balloons on the ranch, but that what he found this time did not in any way resemble either of these. 'I am sure that what I found was not any weather observation balloon," he said."

And before this, they reported: "The next day [July 5, Saturday] he first heard about the flying disks, and he wondered if what he had found might be the remnants of one of these. Monday he came to town to sell some wool and while here he went to see sheriff George Wilcox and 'whispered kinda confidential like' that he might have found a flying disk."

Hmmm, nothing here about Brazel thinking in any way maybe he found a weather balloon of some kind, rather a "flying disk", thus rather odd he would visit the weather bureau first. I suppose it could have happened, maybe Brazel being thorough by checking with the weather people first, even though he was clearly extremely doubtful that he had found something like that. It is also rather odd that had he actually visited the Roswell weather bureau, he wouldn't have been informed THEN that he had found a weather balloon, specifically a radar weather target. Indeed, it was reported on July 9 in the Roswell Daily Record, that Roswell weatherman L.J. Guthrie knew all about radar targets in great detail:

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

Guthrie also says NOTHING about Brazel popping in two days earlier to report what he found.

Yes, you can also find UP stories of Sheriff Wilcox claiming Brazel came in reporting to him that maybe he found a "weather meter", but this is in direct contradiction to what Brazel himself was reported saying in the RDR interview with him.

For sure, Roswell base first put out no story of finding a "weather meter", instead reporting that they had recovered an actual "flying disc". To accept this as a mistake requires the adoption of tried and true skeptobunker "drooling idiot theory", that the base was staffed by fools like Marcel and Blanchard and any others they likely would have consulted with (like radar and weather experts at the base, if there was any question). Not only couldn't they recognize an OBVIOUS weather balloon (like the one that shows up in Gen. Ramey's office) for exactly what it is, nobody had ever heard of a weather radar target either, or assumed a simple, flimsy balsa wood kite could be equated to the reports of large, high speed "flying discs".

cda said...

DR:

There is another way of looking at the incident of Oct 7, 1965 at Edwards AFB. It is that nothing indeed happened. Or at least nothing of significance. The AF decided it was simply not worth recording in their base diary. If the AF declassified the case then that appears to be the end of it. They would hardly declassify something of huge national security implications, would they?

This case does not appear in the final Blue Book list of 'unknowns'. (But, come to think of it, neither does Roswell).

cda said...

DR:

Again, there is a simple answer to what Brazel told the RDR. He was describing the radar reflector, not the balloon. He had never seen a rawin target before. All right, I cannot prove this, but it is a reasonable assumption. Why do you think he and Marcel tried to assemble the stuff to make a kite? Because it seemed to RESEMBLE a kite, that's why. They failed because it was too broken up. At least that is how my mind sees it.

Have you got any better ideas? Do ET visitors use terrestrial kites to travel to earth? Do they take them on board as possible earth scout craft?

William Strathman said...

b"h

@Brian

he left it up to his intelligence officer to clean up...because it wasn't anything important after all...then he took a vacation a few days later.

In my limited enlisted experience, you probably wouldn't send the intel officer to command the trash cleanup detail. Then too, after the site was secure and debris collected and passed on, what difference does it make if the base commander goes on vacation or not. The "Out of the Blue" interview with Gordon Cooper makes precisely the appropriate comment. After Cooper made sure that the film his crew had taken was on its way up the chain of command to the proper activity it was no longer his responsibility. So too with Blanchard. Since the debris was collected and sent, why not go on vacation?

Gilles Fernandez said...

Another David "epic fail" to explain the two quotes I gived, as a pro-crash defender :p

InBeforeANewWallofTextIn2Parts...

W. Brazel: I'm sure what I found was not any weather obervation balloon

Looking to David Rudiak oldgeezer crashologist and creative scenario, Brazel was briefed, tainted, menaced, dicted, to say exactly the opposite ;)

Now, wait how David Rudiak will compose a new wall of text because totally wrong.

KRandle said...

CDA -

The morning reports had a specific function and that was to do a head count of the soldiers available for duty that day. It listed the names of those who were on leave (and therefore unavailable), it listed those who had transferred to other bases and units (and therefore were unavailable to the 509th but would have been available for duty at their new stations and this would be a one time notation), those in the hospital (and therefore unavailable for duty), those on a three-day pass (and therefore unavailable for duty), those who had transferred in and were currently available for duty. Only the names of those whose status had changed were listed on the morning report. This was a way to count the number of soldiers that were available and nothing more. If they had gone out to the debris field to assist in cleaning it up, they would not be mentioned in the morning report because they had reported for duty and were assigned a task. If they had been on a flight crew that was engaged in a cross country flight, they would not be listed because they were on duty with the unit. If one of them became sick and entered the hospital, his name would have been in the morning report because he was no longer available for duty...

So, if Popular Mechanics reporters had reviewed the morning reports looking for a clue about what had fallen at Roswell, they were looking in the wrong place. There would be nothing there for them to find given the nature of morning reports.

There would be other documents created at the time that would cover all of this but those documents, if the crash was alien, would have been created as classified and just because a long time has passed, it doesn't mean that they aren't still classified. There are classified documents from WW I that cover troop movements that are still classified, though any potential intelligence value is long gone.

Anyway, the morning reports are not useful in learning what fell in July 1947, only who was assigned to the 509th but not present for duty.

Brian Bell said...

@ William -

Possibly, but then again would Blanchard send a lone PFC in a Willies to check it out himself and report back personally? No.

Would Blanchard delegate it to an officer under his command? Yes.

We could argue Blanchard could have sent a team of MP's out there first, but he didn't.

He could have simply ordered a fly over....but he didn't.

He sent Marcel on foot because Marcel was the guy Wilcox called first - and because Marcel saw the debris first and reported it to Blanchard.

If Ramey knew classified projects were in operation in NM, which he would have, then Blanchard probably knew projects were out there too even if not told specifically what they were. After all we are talking about the commander of the world's only A-Bomb group during the birth of the Cold War.

So, why not send Marcel? Sending anyone else didn't make a lot of sense in the event what came down might have been classified.

Unlike the Cooper film episode, he was talking about odd looking gun camera footage. With Roswell we are speaking of (supposedly) the "biggest event in human history"...and that happening on Blanchard's own turf. So the guy gets bored and says to himself "it ain't so muckin futch" my vacation is more important? He assumes "nah...dem dare Mars men ain't attackin us...and neither are the Soviets"...because leave was more important? If so the guy must have been the most incompetent officer ever.

If a saucer crashed in your back yard tonight with dead aliens scattered around, would you say to yourself "nothin special...time for a vacay"? Not very convincing.

Steve Sawyer said...

Side note:

Brian, it's "CDA," not CDC, for Christopher D. Allen.

cda said...

Kevin:

"There would be other documents created at the time that would cover all of this but those documents, if the crash was alien, would have been created as classified and just because a long time has passed, it doesn't mean that they aren't still classified."

This is precisely the answer I expected. Thank you for clearing this up. The idea that they are still classified always provides a useful fallback for why we, the public and countless interested scientists the world over, will never learn the dreaded 'truth' about ETs visiting our planet.

If this is your genuine belief, then so be it. But it sounds very much like an excuse for the complete lack of documentation of any kind. I only hope that with the passage of time you will eventually realise how wrong you were.

Nitram Ang said...


CDA wrote

"Do you really think it matters whether a debater on this blog has actually been to Roswell, or has ever interviewed a witness (between 30 and 50 years after the event)? We do not need to do either of these to be able to advance a perfectly logical and reasonable argument that what was recovered at or near Roswell was NOT an alien spaceship or the remains thereof. And after nearly 7 decades that ought to be obvious to anyone. But apparently it still is not."

Firstly, as continuously advised, this is not a "debate" but an "investigation" - I'm sure you know the difference...

Interestingly I do agree with you that on balance (and based on a best guess) what happened at Roswell was not ET - however the official version (which has changed several times!) also appears to be highly unlikely...

"Isn't it strange that NOBODY kept any diary of this earth-shattering event at the time it happened? It was all so unimportant and just plain boring . Amazing. (It is not even in General Vandenberg's daily log)."

Well done... what you have written here makes sense! Let's forget about the General's daily log for a moment... Even KR has admitted concerns about the lack of a single diary note or drawing from any of the witnesses...

SO let's throw this one to DR and maybe we can get him to concede a point to the skeptics...

David - do you not find it strange that not a single witness, military or civilian, bothered to make (or at least keep) notes/drawings of this event?

(David, please don't use drawings of the aliens that were never found as an example).

More to come...

Regards
Nitram

Nitram Ang said...

CDA wrote


"Considering the very high importance and relevance of such an event (if it was indeed an ET crash), please tell us where the said paper trail IS to be found. Or has it mysteriously disappeared or been destroyed? Or is it still classified, even after 7 decades? And if Patrick Saunders is right, what 'facts' are still being hidden?

Where is this documentation? (Apart from being brushed under the carpet)."

These are the sort of clueless comments that you get hammered for. People do keep secrets and hide things away... it is not therefore possible to obtain information, even if we know where it might be kept.

Do you not thing it possible that CEO's of large corporations know more about their businesses than they disclose to the media? Give me a break...

Brian Bell said...

@ cda - My Appologies...auto correct for Center for Disease Control (CDC). Thank you Steve.

Brian Bell said...

@ Nitram -

Yes...perhaps the world's longest "investigation" driven by people who won't conceed that their continued belief in a non-event is based on false testimony snowballed into urban legend fueling a money making enterprise by certain UFOlogists.

The rest of us, where Roswell is concerned, have long since established the event was clearly prosaic and terrestrial in nature.

David Rudiak said...

Nitram wrote:
"David - do you not find it strange that not a single witness, military or civilian, bothered to make (or at least keep) notes/drawings of this event?"

First of all, we do not know for an absolute fact that literally no one kept notes, diaries, etc. of this event, only so far none have been found (though I have heard unverified stories to the contrary).

In point of fact, we know of one thing from the period that definitely was saved, namely radio reporter Frank Joyce's collection of original UP telexes describing the early stages of UP's reporting of the story up through about the first hour. He also kept some old UP telexes of the weather balloon/rawin target demo at Alamogordo the next day:

www.roswellproof.com/United_Press_Telexes.html
www.roswellproof.com/Alamogordo_July9a.html

These he deliberately kept for decades, and at the very least shows that Joyce did indeed attach great importance to what happened. Joyce never viewed Roswell as the "nothing" event skeptics claim.

As for military people not keeping notes/drawings, etc., that is SOP if anything is classified or if you are simply instructed to forget about something. Few are willing to risk the consequences if they are found out (though we have certainly heard a few stories of some military people keeping samples of the debris, none of it being verified, however.) Even Sheridan Cavitt in his AF interview, related the story of Marcel keeping one sample of foil, which he saw at a barbeque hosted by Marcel. Cavitt said he told Marcel he should get rid of it, and they buried it in Marcel's back yard. From what I've heard, a concrete porch was later poured over it.

The British Enigma code project employed thousands of people, yet when WWII ended, nobody spoke a word of it for over 30 years and nobody kept notes, drawings, etc. In fact, the computers were all destroyed (including the world's first all-electronic one) and nearly all diagrams as to how they were constructed. I was told this in a public tour of Bletchley Park. Destruction of records was done to prevent the Russians from discovering just how advanced the British decoding efforts had become. Everybody was told to shut up and forget about it for national security reasons, and they did.

Brian Bell said...

Rudiak:

Speaking of your previous reference to "drooling idiot theories"...it seems you are lost in your own little world of supposed "alien explanations" and drool yourself.

Your assumption, claim and "historical facts" regarding the July 8 news reports NEVER included a description of the debris found by Brazel. The FACTS you claim are false bear testimony that Kellahin did the AP interview with Brazel on July 8, where Brazel described the debris as balloon related.

What Haut released under authority from Blanchard (and according to the press also Marcel) simply referred to the find as a "disc" with no specifics.

Get it straight. Yes, Kellahin did a mid- to late afternoon (or evening) interview with Brazel on July 8 (Haut did not). Debris was described as sticks, rubber, foil, and paper. That AP report was printed July 9 simultaneous with what you claim is a bogus army "doctored" Ramey debunk article which stated the same thing Brazel described to Kellahin on the 8th. They match.

The original AP wire that went out earlier, as you correctly stated, referenced a disc had been found, but no specifics. That's why Kellahin went to do the interview on July 8.

Kevin:

You claim the army spent at lot of time cleaning up the debris...much more than usual. Prove it; got documents showing troop deployments? No. Records of military personnel sent from other bases to assist? No. Truck deployments to the Foster ranch? No. Routine operatations at the base delayed? No. Cargo plane transport records? No.

You have "700 first hand eye witness claims" I suppose? Verbal testimony but no records? Aren't you relying once again on Kaufmann's now proven false claims? Other than "verbal witness claims" there is not one original document proving a massive, secret military clean up operation above and beyond the usual ever happened. No drawings. No photos. No diaries. No debris pieces.

Nitram Ang said...

I guess I'm just adding fuel to the fire but Geez, taking on two of the worlds most respected researchers on an event that you quite clearly know very little about - good one BB

(and it's Mr Rudiak to you)...

David

You state:

"First of all, we do not know for an absolute fact that literally no one kept notes, diaries, etc. of this event, only so far none have been found (though I have heard unverified stories to the contrary)."

Well so far no such notes, diaries have been discovered and therefore it is most unlikely that they will be forthcoming in the future and I maintain on the balance of probabilities that there were never any such notes/diaries in the first place.

OK this is only my opinion but if your "final conclusion" is correct (and maybe I am wrong and you are right), then I would still have expected some of these sorts of notes etc to have been discovered by now... Remember of course that there were a lot of civilians who knew a thing or two (not just the military).

Regarding the "unverified stories to the contrary", how many stories have you heard exactly?
I figure maybe 1 or 2, but again you know a lot more about this than me so just asking...

Regards
Nitram

Paul Young said...

Brian Bell...."Unlike the Cooper film episode, he was talking about odd looking gun camera footage."


I know we are straying well beyond the subject of KR's OP here but I have to say that from what I remembered reading, it was slightly more than just "odd looking gun camera footage" that Cooper was describing.

Both still, and motion camera footage of a hovering flying saucer that then landed less than 50 metres away! Taken by experienced cameramen!!!

People always complain about the out of focus, grainy,jumpy snaps and footage we always seem to get when it comes to images of UFO's....but if Cooper was telling the truth (and why would such a highly regarded man lie?)...then that's because we're never allowed to see the "good quality stuff"

Paul Young said...

CDA..." The idea that they are still classified always provides a useful fallback for why we, the public and countless interested scientists the world over, will never learn the dreaded 'truth' about ETs visiting our planet."

I was reading an article, a couple of years back, about a "Ripperologist" who was trying to gain access to classified files concerning the "Whitechapel Murders". He was refused, point blank! Despite the last confirmed murder by "Jack the Ripper" was in 1888...the files are STILL classified!

cda said...

Nitram:

"Do you not think it possible that CEO's of large corporations know more about their businesses than they disclose to the media?"

Yes it is certainly possible.

But do YOU think that if a CEO of a large corporation happened to know that his company employees stumbled across a crashed ET craft and its occupants he, or the company, would be keeping it under wraps in company vaults for 68 years?

DR:

Re the teletypes kept by Joyce. I assume he kept many, perhaps most, of the teletypes (on all manner of subjects) produced by his office during his time there. Some people just love collecting paper. So I do not attach any importance to the Roswell papers he kept. Notice how none was secret in any way.



Paul Young:

I suggest that the retained Jack the Ripper files are not "classified" at all. They are held back, possibly, out of respect for the descendants of the victims (or maybe they show up the incompetence of Scotland Yard at the time), though I concede it is a very long time since 1888. I did once read that there were files relating to General Gordon of Khartoum (c. 1885) which were still secret. What about these?

Neither is really on a par with the scientific discovery of an ET visit to earth, is it?

Brian Bell said...

@ Nitram:

"...guess I'm just adding fuel to the fire but Geez, taking on two of the worlds most respected researchers on an event that you quite clearly know very little about - good one BB."

Know little about? Well aren't you the guy who claims Roswell was "humans from the future" as per your previous posts?. I think perhaps the opposite is really the situation here. Not a single point of evidence, witness testimony or otherwise, that your "time travelers from earth's future" fell down and hurt themselves in 1947. Nada. Why don't you provide this evidence, including photos, diaries, FOIA documents, and the like that prove to all of us that your hypothesis is the correct one? Can you do that please? Thanks.

Also, its important to note that just because DR and KR have published on this subject does not mean they are somehow elevated to a status beyond reproach concerning their conclusions or even their work. They have to provide as much evidence to back their claims as they demand of others who may disagree. And aren't you the blogger who just said this was an "investigation"? If so, then both men (anyone in fact) are subject to inquiry regarding their claims, just as any witness of the incident might be, and especially if they have done research on the subject. I fear too many "believers" elevate their Roswell heros to an almost "god like" status in such a way that these "persons of high stature" should never be questioned by anyone regarding their "gospel truth", as though they were some kind of "high priest" making up the basic foundation of a true believer's "religion".

@ cda - Yes as you state it has been shown conclusive that Joyce's testimony "evolved" over the years regarding any and all interactions with Brazel and the Roswell incident. While unproven, I would suspect like any news personality the better the story the more professional attention and potential advancement one brings to their own media career. The people who claim Joyce's testimony is "iron clad" are the same people who pummel and curse the news media as being "anti-UFO". Again...demonstration of a cherry-picker's paradise.

@ Paul - Yes, perhaps there was more to the quality of the still shots and gun camera footage. My point was that such things (photos etc.) are pretty common place in the UFO world...but the so called "holy grail" of all UFO cases, and the "biggest event in human history" pales in comparison to such evidence shot from a moving aircraft. After all, we are talking about dead and living aliens, crashed debris being supposedly strewn for miles, death threats, etc. Very different. I don't think Cooper is deliberetly telly a lie, I believe he is confused, and telling what he believes to be true. The same thing people claim when they say Frankie Rowe is a wonderful person and would never lie. Also, while clearly a national hero, let's remember that NASA does not endorse his opinions on these matters, and after all we are talking about a man who while stating his belief in ET did also claim that no astronaut, himself included, ever saw aliens in space or on the moon, contradicting any of the ET believers' stories that they did.

Brian Bell said...

@ Rudiak:

In your previous post you state "..I have heard unverified stories.." that some people kept notes or diaries. In addition you state "...though we have certainly heard a few stories of some military people keeping samples of the debris, none of it being verified, however." Once again it is important to point out that "unverified stories" are not evidence of anything. And yet you claim it is.

You also go on to write, "...Even Sheridan Cavitt in his AF interview, related the story of Marcel keeping one sample of foil, which he saw at a barbeque hosted by Marcel. Cavitt said he told Marcel he should get rid of it, and they buried it in Marcel's back yard. From what I've heard, a concrete porch was later poured over it."

Actually, if true, that flys directly in the face of Marcel's son's testimony, which more than once in taped interviews states that Marcel Jr. recalls his mother having swept small pieces of debris out of the kitchen the following morning because she thought it to be "junk". He stated that the concrete patio was later placed over the area right outside the kitchen door by other owners and that the whereabouts of any small pieces remains unknown. So who's story is right? Both? Some? None? Again these are STORIES that are unverifiable and provide no evidence whatsoever. Then again, I suppose perhaps your "liquid memory metal" may have just rolled out of the kitchen and under the door all by itself since no doubt it was a part of a "living machine" that just had to get back to mama...

And you state, "The British Enigma code project employed thousands of people, yet when WWII ended, nobody spoke a word of it for over 30 years and nobody kept notes, drawings, etc. In fact, the computers were all destroyed (including the world's first all-electronic one) and nearly all diagrams as to how they were constructed. I was told this in a public tour of Bletchley Park. Destruction of records was done to prevent the Russians from discovering just how advanced the British decoding efforts had become. Everybody was told to shut up and forget about it for national security reasons, and they did."

Your destruction comment is flat out wrong. Perhaps your tour guide had a little too much ale at the tavern the night before? While that museum often claims that, it isn't actually correct. The facts are the British destroyed some, but not all (again if you have technological advantage over a Cold War enemy why would you destroy it?. Here's why they didn't and why what you state is in error.

First - the US finally got UK permission to copy the machine in 1942, and by 1945 between the two countries there were and estimated 255 machines still in existance. The US kept theirs, and the British did this, quote:

"After World War II, some fifty bombes were retained at Eastcote, while the rest were destroyed. The surviving bombes were put to work, possibly on Eastern bloc ciphers. The official history of the bombe states that some of these machines were to be stored away but others were required to run new jobs and sixteen machines were kept comparatively busy on menus. It is interesting to note that most of the jobs came up and the operating, checking and other times maintained were faster than the best times during the war periods." - source: Smith, Michael (2007) [1998], Station X: The Codebreakers of Bletchley Park, Pan Grand Strategy Series (Pan Books, Revised and Extended ed.), London: Pan McMillan Ltd, ISBN 978-0-330-41929-1

Obviously they did keep diaries, notes, and the actual machines. You stand duly corrected..........so the question remains. Why none of this stuff for the Roswell incident?

cda said...

Brian:

Yes there are too many 'respected persons' involved in ufology. In fact almost everyone who has researched or written about UFOs is a 'respected person' to some, perhaps to many, other ET believers. They may indeed be genuinely respected in other fields, but in ufology, or other paranormal subjects, this need not apply. A good historical example being Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and his endorsement of the (in)famous Cottingley fairy photographs of long ago. After all, if someone like him says the photos are genuine, then they must be. Or must they?

Certain people, however, are 'disrespected', I regret to say. As far as commenters on this blog are concerned, the disrespected ones MAY include you and me. Think of that!

But I digress. Sorry.

Paul Young said...

CDA....I agree with you that neither the Whitechapel Murders, nor the deeds of General Gordon of Khartoum could be considered as momentous as the capturing of technology from another world...thereby proving intelligent ET life exists.

But can't you see that you're reinforcing my point?

If the "powers that be" can refuse access to files stretching back over 120 years, concerning subjects that we would consider trivial by comparison...then maybe they would also feel quite comfortable in denying us files on a much more far reaching an event, such as irrefutable evidence of visitation from ET's.

In short...If they can keep small stuff classified for over 100 years...what is so unbelievable about keeping big stuff classified since 1947?

........

Brian...I'm not sure where you get this notion that the images sent "up the chain" by Cooper was simply gun camera footage???

My understanding was that the photographers were a dedicated film crew, on land, all set up and ready to photograph and film other aircraft...when this flying saucer turned up and basically photo-bombed the event. Hovered silently, landed silently, then took off silently...seemingly for the benefit of the photographers.
Sounds crazy, I know, but it was practically posing for them.
Although Cooper wasn't there at the time, he saw the negatives of the "stills" and said they were outstanding quality. Cooper knew these guys and he certainly believed them...otherwise he wouldn't make an arse of himself and send them to the Pentagon. (or wherever this stuff goes.)

But it wasn't gun camera footage, unless we're talking about different events here?

William Strathman said...

b”h

Gordon Cooper’s experience to which I referred to above did not involve gun camera film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnWsKzVvTlc

Toward the end of this segment Fox asked Cooper if he’d kept up on what happened to the film. Cooper’s response is what I referred to above, that in the military the chain of command drives the daily show. It makes no difference if Cooper or Blanchard were curious about their respective events. Cooper explained that since he was not in the position of a need to know, then he was no longer privy to information about it. Same would hold true for Blanchard. Blanchard, by the way, was an old, grey 31 years old in 1947, had participated in low level fire bombings of Japan, was the alternate for Tibbets for the Hiroshima strike, and was involved in the post war atomic tests. So I don’t see Blanchard jumping out of his socks at strange reports.

cda said...

William S:

So you would expect Blanchard, having just participated in the discovery of the first ever visit (as far as is known) to earth of intelligent beings from elsewhere, would simply go away for 2 or 3 weeks on leave, as if nothing important had happened?

I do NOT think his age, plus his bombings of Japan are relevant in the slightest. Do you?

Of course it may be that Blanchard had read so much SF in his youth that he became immune to the idea of an ET visit and regarded it as an unimportant everyday occurrence. You never can tell!

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul and William -

Thanks for clarification on Cooper. I recall reading somewhere the film was wing camera footage, but that must be incorrect and more associated with astronauts who claimed they had seen films, photographs, etc captured from their own aircraft or someone else's. If the event Cooper saw on the film did happen (probably did), I might ask the simple question as to how an alien crew from another star system would have the foreknowledge to "photo bomb" this planned exercise? Would it not be more likely that a covert unit already flying this craft (made by humans) was purposely flown there unanounced since other aircraft were also scheduled to be filmed? Sounds to me like someone ordered "take that thing out there and show them something they haven't seen, crash their party, and let's assess their reaction...". Before you say "that can't happen in the military and that proves you know nothing about the military"....let me remind you of the clip of the LTC who thought it would be interesting on the day of his retirement to take up a B52 and "show off" to family and friends just how well he could sport fly the bomber. It crashed headlong killing everyone after about 2 minutes. On his own authority he took a B52 for a joy ride....and don't remind me about "protocol this and that". If you have the proper authority clearly you can act within it.

@ cda

What? Those fairy photos AREN'T real? Oh man you just burst my paranormal bubble. And here I was thinking those little winged things were just another form of alien visiting here in shiny silver "UFO's. Oh well...got to go read HG Wells now...he said we are going to be invaded by men from Mars. I need to get my "bug out" gear in order.

KRandle said...

All -

This discussion is becoming unnecessarily acrimonious and that will cease now. It is also badly off track and that will end.

Brian -

The documentation you wish existed, in fact, never did. Soldiers who cleaned the debris field were from Roswell and therefore no orders would have been issued. The trip tickets for the trucks would have indicated the distance the truck drove but not the destination. Such documents would have followed the truck, if it was moved to a different military installation and would have been lost when the truck was replaced. Aircraft flight documents carrying material out of Roswell could easily have been called cross country navigation problems which tells nothing of the nature of any cargo carried, and once those aircraft were replaced, the documentation would have followed them as well. If the aircraft was destroyed through accident or combat (such as in the Korean War). Individuals deployed from other installations would have had orders and filled out travel vouchers, but again, those documents would have been destroyed long ago though some individuals might have retained copies. There would be nothing on those documentations to tell us what was going on other than a somewhat generic assignment. You'd need the names of those individuals to see if they retained them, or if the family still held them. So, your demand for some specific documents fails because those records, if found, would not provide the information you want.

I have never claimed 700 witnesses... and I have not used Frank Kaufmann as a source since we discovered beyond a doubt that he was not to be trusted. I will note here that we proved that while others merely rejected his testimony because they didn't like it.

Finally, I have testimony from the base adjutant about the steps taken to hide the information and how they altered records and the like... oh, wait, that is testimony was you'll reject it automatically as unreliable.

Paul Young said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KRandle said...

All -

This discussion is about the posting I made and not all these ancillary issues. I sid those other discussions would end.

cda said...

I would like to take Kevin's hint and return to the nuns' diaries and the diary entries Kevin presented in his initial posting.

Who wrote those diary entries? Any ideas, Kevin?

It was certainly someone very familiar with Roswell 'lore' in the early 1990s, who had probably read both Randle/Schmitt books and maybe several articles. So who was it? Who had the skills and knowledge to do it, and make it look like official notes?

Brian Bell said...

Kevin:

If you want to kill conversation fine.

This topic is dead.

Point made.

The Nun's diaries never existed. The Ufologist's who claim they did lied or never provided evidence they were real, and today's Ufologists need to stop referencing them because it's bad investigation.

Done. Summary complete.

KRandle said...

CDA -

The initial reference to them was made to us by Bill English. At the time, we had no reason to reject him... it was later that I learned his "credentials" didn't stand up to scrutiny.

Brian -

Thanks for your permission. My intent was not to kill the conversation about the nuns' diaries, but to kill the ancillary issues such as Gordon Cooper's UFO sighting.

And many of us who said the diaries existed did not lie. That was the point of the post. To show how we had gotten to the point where we believed the diaries existed. It wasn't just a single source, but a combination of sources... that fact that Kaufmann lied to us, and that Bill English lied to us, doesn't make us liars. Too trusting perhaps, but certainly not liars... so, once again, tone down the rhetoric, or go elsewhere.

Oh, you are correct. Everyone needs to stop making reference to them.

Nitram Ang said...

BB wrote

"Well aren't you the guy who claims Roswell was "humans from the future" as per your previous posts"

No BB, I never claimed that what fell at Roswell was humans from the future - this is the "first choice" of one pro-Roswell researcher when he discussed this with me in person in July 2012. Again - it is just his first choice.

I do not know what crashed at Roswell but I do not rule out the possibility of a time traveler (there a certain things that lead me down that path, but I have no hard evidence of this of course).

But again, you are off topic.

William Strathman said...

b"h

My apologies Kevin for bringing up either Cooper's remarks about chain of command or Blanchard's service record within three years of Roswell. Perhaps down the line you'd expand upon your comment about the base adjutant. I'd be interested to learn more.

William Strathman said...

b"h

Just did a little searching for the adjutant.

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.co.il/2009/03/roswell-ufo-crash-and-patrick-saunders.html

Brian Bell said...

Kevin: On Saunders....

You can't control the flip of the coin whenever you want and maintain objectivity.

You state:

"Finally, I have testimony from the base adjutant about the steps taken to hide the information and how they altered records and the like... oh, wait, that is testimony was you'll reject it automatically as unreliable."

First - In the past you have criticized others on this list for citing only ONE witness' testimony - and yet here you anchor all of your beliefs that a massive military cleanup took place to hide an alien crash because the man made odd notations in your book?

Second - Your book states that military personnel were deployed from many bases, not just Roswell, and that Saunder's penned note confirms this?

But then you brush off my request for documentation of deployment by saying it couldn't exist for Roswell personnel because it wouldn't be recorded, but then endorse other servicemen being deployed from other bases? Where's their documentation?

Why then criticize other people on your blog who also can't provide documentation?

I think this is a good example of a double standard that is intentionally trying to force an explanation that supports the ET hypothesis.

One witness...no documentation...your books....scribbled notes.... Really?

KRandle said...

Brian -

As usual, you assume way too much. I cited Saunders as a single example, not the only example.

Second, the documentation you wanted would have proved nothing. Have you ever filled out a military vehicle trip ticket? Seen flight records? TDY orders? You had mentioned the morning reports without understanding the meaning of them and that they were list the names of the soldiers whose status had changed, the reason for that change (on leave, on TDY, in the hospital, etc.) but not the duty assignment. That is why those orders are somewhat irrelevant... you would learn the soldier had been sent to the base, but not what he might do when he arrived. They certainly wouldn't say, "To assist in the recovery and clean up of an alien spacecraft."

Your assumptions are repetitive, uninformed, and irrelevant. I have documentation from the base adjutant that you reduce to scribbled notes. Reject them if you wish, but your reasoning is flawed.

Nitram Ang said...

Hello BB

I am surprised by some of your posts and even more surprised that some people are even replying (maybe their doing so as a courtesy?).

We are getting even further off topic but perhaps you can tell us a little bit about your background please?

Still, where would we be without a good laugh every now and again...

William Strathman said...

b"h

Just curious Kevin if you might have asked whether or not Saunders typically added marginal notes to his books. If he did not usually add notes to books he read, then that would also suggest an extraordinary stimulus for him to add the notes, not to mention the very subject of the book in this case.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin:

Leave requests - seen them. Flight records - yes. Trip tickets - no. I'm not the motor pool guy.

And since the morning reports are simply the equivalent of a headcount audit, or paper roll call, and because they do show where a person was deployed, then where exacy are the morning reports from the other bases in NM? Do they substantiate and verify MP's and additional troops were detailed to Roswell?

Clearly if the Roswell morning reports still exist then you have reviewed the reports from the surrounding bases as foundation for your claim they were deployed there. Right?

Look, you state you have documentation, but in reply you reference only Berlitz and Moore's book with a few, very few, scribbled notations that might have come from anyone. As CDC mentioned, the man bought dozens of these books for friends and family to say "look I was there." Suanders was smart enough to know how records can be fudged, but that doesn't mean they were.

You may consider my observation irrelevant, but IMO your conclusionsa are based on subjective info mainly based on the fact, as you stated, that Saunders was a competent officer. Looks like selective myopia to me.

But if you say it happened that way and one guy"s testimony and scribbled words in a book about an alien crash is sufficient to chuck all other possible conclusions then so be it. The man has spoken. Case closed.

Brian Bell said...

@ William

And we might add has that handwriting been authenticated as Saunders? Might be trivial but again anyone can pen a few words in a book.

KRandle said...

Brian -

Are you simply being obtuse or do you just wish to create trouble where there should be none. The family of Saunders said the writing was his... The friends that he supplied the books to said that it was his. There is no doubt that it was Saunders who made the notations.

And have you ever served in the military, or have you merely looked at some of the records? Did you know that the morning reports are filed in St. Louis but there are literally millions of them. They now charge for the privilege of searching them... and the results are often just another form letter. Twenty years ago it took 18 months to get the morning reports of the medical unit at Roswell and today the delays are even longer... not to mention that if a soldier was sent to Roswell on TDY, the notation might just give the name and "on TDY" without the base or location given.

And, once again you have dragged a conversation out into the weeds for no real purpose that I can detect.

William Strathman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.