Saturday, September 19, 2015

Bessie Brazel Schreiber and the Roswell Crash

The skeptics believe they have a slam dunk on the Roswell, coming at us with information that simply is not proven as we look at it. Much of it is single witness that we are accused of not mentioning and often contradicts that given by many others. One of the best examples of this is the testimony provided by Bessie Brazel, who seems to have been a very nice woman but who stood nearly alone in her testimony for many years.

In the early 1990s, the Fund for UFO Research, FUFOR, initiated a program to gather testimony and affidavits from Roswell witnesses. Naturally, one of those was Bessie Brazel Schreiber. In her affidavit, she said:

William W. “Mack” Brazel was my father. In 1947, when I was 14, he was the manager of the Foster Ranch in Lincoln County, New Mexico, near Corona. Our family had a home in Tularosa, when my mother, my younger brother Vernon, and I lived during the school year. The three of us spent the summers on the Foster place with dad.

In July 1947, right around the Fourth, dad found a lot of debris scattered over a pasture some distance from the house we lived in on the ranch. None of us was riding with him when he found the material, and I do not remember anyone else being with him. He told us about it when he came in at the end of the day.

Dad was concerned because the debris was near a surface-water stock tank. He thought having it blowing around would scare the sheep and they would not water. So, a day or two later, he, Vernon and I went to the site to pick up the material. We went on horseback and took several feed sacks to collect the debris. I do not recall just how far the site was from the house, but the ride out there took some time.

There as a lot of debris scattered sparsely over an area that seems to me now to have about the size of a football field [or about an acre]. There may have been additional material spread out more widely by the wind, which was blowing quite strongly.

The debris looked like pieces of a large balloon which had burst [When balloons burst do they shatter into dozens or hundreds of tiny bits?]. The pieces were small, the largest were small, the largest I remember measuring about the same as the diameter of a basketball. Most of it was a kind of double-sided material, foil-like on one side and rubber-like on the other. Both sides were grayish silver in color, the foil more silvery than the rubber. Sticks, like kite sticks, were three inches wide and had flower-like designs on it. The “flowers” were faint, a variety of pastel colors, and reminded me of Japanese paintings in which the flowers are not all connected. I do not recall any other types of material or markings, nor do I remember seeing gouges in the ground or any other signs that anything may have hit the ground hard.

The foil-rubber material could not be torn like ordinary aluminum foil can be torn [A small bit of information that the debunkers tend to overlook]. I do not recall anything else about the strength or other properties of what we picked up.

We spent several hours collecting the debris and putting it in sacks. I believe we filled about three sacks, and we took them back to the ranch house. We speculated a bit about what the material could be. I remember dad saying “Oh, it’s just a bunch of garbage.”

Soon after, dad went to Roswell to order winter feed [which is not what the newspaper articles claimed]. It was on this trip that he told the sheriff what he had found. I think we all went into town with him, but I am not certain about this [which is another fact often overlooked], as he made two or three trips to Roswell about that time, and we did not go on all of them. (In those days, it was an all-day trip, leaving very early in the morning and returning after dark. [Please note the travel time given by someone who made the trips.]) I am quite sure that it was no more than a day trip, and I do not remember dad taking any overnight or longer trips away from the ranch around that time.

Within a day or two, several military people came to the ranch. There may have been as many as 15 of them. One or two officers spoke with dad and mom, while the rest of us waited. No one spoke with Vernon and me. Since I seem to recall that the military were on the ranch most of a day, they may have gone out to where we picked up the material. I am not sure about this, one way or the other, but I do remember they took the sacks of debris with them.

Although it is certainly possible, I do not recall anyone finding any more of the material later. Dad’s comment on the whole business was, “They made one hell of a hullabaloo out of nothing.”


Since she gave that affidavit, she has been interviewed by others. The story told to them is substantially the same as that in the affidavit, though, when interviewed by John Kirby and Don Newman on March 8, 1995, she told them, “I wasn’t terribly excited or interested in it [the debris recovery] when it happened and I haven’t really gotten any more interested in it.”

She did say that her father had found the debris sometime before July 4 and that she, her father and her brother Vernon, collected it. She said, “We had three or four sacks... we stuffed the sacks and tied [them] to the saddle... Dad just stuck it [the sacks of debris] under the steps.”

It was the following week that her father took the debris into Roswell. She confirmed to Kirby and Newman that she, her mother and brother had gone with him. While he was in the sheriff’s office, they were in a nearby park. She said, “He was there quite a while because it was late afternoon or early evening when we started back to the ranch.”

According to her, when they returned, they were not followed by any civilian or military vehicles. That means that the testimony of Jesse Marcel was in error if we accept this. It also means that Sheridan Cavitt and his testimony is in error, if we accept this.

The Debris Field as identified by Bill Brazel as it appeared in the early 1990s.
She said, “They didn’t go with us. They came up, I don’t know, if it was the next day or a couple of days later.”

She also said that they had cleaned the field and picked up all the debris. She said that they had it all. There was nothing for Marcel or Cavitt to see when they went to the field. In fact, in talking with ranchers in the area about this debris, whether from a Mogul balloon array or an alien spacecraft, I learned that they would not allow this sort of thing to remain out there. The animals had a habit of eating things like that as part of their grazing and if the animals ate it, it would make them sick. Brazel would clean it up as quickly as possible.

If we believe Bessie, then her father did not clean it up right away, but did within a couple of days. She said that it took several hours and that she and her brother Vernon had helped. Yet, we know that when Marcel arrived, there was a large field filled with debris. And, if we want to reject the testimony of Marcel, there is Cavitt. While his description of the debris field suggests it was smaller than that suggested by Marcel, he still said there was debris out there for them to find and for him to identify as the remains of a balloon.

So, Bessie’s story is contradicted by Marcel and Cavitt, one who later thought it was a spacecraft and one who said it was a balloon after saying he had never been involved in a balloon recovery. It doesn’t matter which side of the fence you come down on, there is testimony to contradict what Bessie remembers about the cleaning of the debris field. She is stand alone on this.

Bessie also said that her father didn’t return to Roswell a day or so after his initial trip and there is nothing in her affidavit to suggest otherwise. She added, telling Kirby and Newman that if he had gone to Roswell and didn’t return for three or four days, there would have been hell to pay. There was no reason for him to return to Roswell after they all had gone there earlier in the week especially if the Army had arrived to take charge of the debris stored under the steps.

But once again, there is evidence that such is not the case. First, and probably best, is the article that appeared in the Roswell Daily Record on July 9. Mack Brazel was photographed while there. He gave an interview to two AP reporters at the newspaper office in Roswell. Clearly, he returned to Roswell at some point. Bessie’s memory of the events is wrong about his not returning as documented in the newspapers.

Major Edwin Easley was the provost marshal in Roswell in 1947. He told me that Mack Brazel had been held in the guest house for several days. Brazel said he was in jail and I suppose that if you’re not allowed to leave without escort and that the doors are locked, then being in the guest house is about the same thing. This information was corroborated by a number of Brazel’s neighbors.

Bill Brazel, Bessie’s older brother told me that he saw an article about his father in one of
Brazel on the front page of the newspaper.
the Albuquerque newspapers [Kal Korff incorrectly claims that there were no pictures of Mack or articles about him on the front pages of any of the newspapers at the time] and realized that his father needed help. When Bill arrived at the ranch, his father was not there and didn’t return for three or four days. In fact, according to Bill, there was no one at the ranch at that time.

Neighbors like Marian Strickland told me that Mack had complained to her about being held in jail. Although she didn’t see Mack until after the events, she did say that he sat in her kitchen complaining about being held in Roswell. While there is some second-hand aspect in this, Strickland was telling me that Mack complained to her and her husband that he had been held in Roswell.

Walt Whitmore, Jr., son of the KGFL radio’s majority owner, told me that he had run into Brazel early in the morning after Brazel spent the night at his father’s house. This was before Brazel was taken out to the base. Whitmore claims that Brazel told him about the debris and Whitmore said that he then drove out there to see the field. He claimed to have picked up some of the debris, which he said was part of a balloon. He kept it for years, he said, but when the time came to produce it, he could not. This information was in conflict with what he told to Bill Moore and published in The Roswell Incident. I will note here that I do not find this testimony to be reliable but mention it because it puts Brazel overnight in Roswell.

Here’s another important point. Bessie said that she recognized the material as a balloon. So, we have a 14-year-old girl who knows a balloon when she sees one, but the air intelligence officer, not to mention several others, are incapable of this. If the material was so readily identifiable to some, especially civilians, why were so many in the military fooled? And why the high powered effort to recover it and get samples of it to Fort Worth if it was only a balloon?

But she told Bill Moore when he asked her if it was some sort of a weather balloon, she said:

No, it was definitely not a balloon. We had seen weather balloons quite a lot – both on the ground and in the air. We had even found a couple of the Japanese-style balloons that come down in the area once. [This might be a reference to the Japanese balloon bombs of World War II but there is no evidence that one ever landed in New Mexico, which is strange since they had landed in the states all around New Mexico.] We also picked up a couple of those thin rubber balloons with instrument packages. This was nothing like that. I have never seen anything resembling this sort of thing before – or since… We never found any pieces of it –afterwards – after the military was there…

Karl Pflock suggested that Bill Brazel had corroborated that the family was at the ranch at the time, implying that they participated in the cleanup. He wrote:

In a 1979 interview, Bessie Schreiber’s older brother Bill recalled other members of his family being on the ranch with his father at the time the debris fell there. “Dad,” he said, “was in the ranch house with two of the younger kids [presumably Bessie and Vernon [insertion made by Pflock]] late on evening when a terrible lightning stormy came up… [T]he next morning while riding out over the pasture to check on some sheep, he came across this collection of wreckage.” Bill mentioned specifically that, on the way to Roswell with some of the debris, his father dropped off the children with their mother in Tularosa.

This means, simply, that while Bessie and Vernon might have been on the ranch for the thunderstorm, they did not accompany him into Roswell, weren’t there when the military came back with Mack and wasn’t there for the cleanup that took place later. Bill Brazel certainly does nothing to corroborate that Bessie or Vernon were there for the events in the following days.

There are a number of witnesses and newspaper articles that shows that Mack was in Roswell overnight. It means that Bessie’s memories of July 1947 agree with nothing else. It means that when all the evidence is aligned against a specific claim, we must reject the claim even if some of the evidence is from the decades old memories.

This takes another turn sometime later, and I’m sure the allegation will be hurled that the UFO researchers pressed her into recanting her story at that time. She told Don Schmitt and Tom Carey, “It was another occurrence altogether. I had helped my dad gather up weather balloons on a number of occasions. I have come to the conclusion that what my dad found back at that time was something else altogether.” They added, “It is accepted that she and her brother Vernon were at the ranch at the time of the incident, but the ranch house was almost 10 miles from the debris field …” Her brother, Bill, referring to the debris field said, “She wasn’t even there.”


While we are aware of the testimony, and while I’m sure that she was sincere in what she said, it is clear that she was mistaken. When we compare the written record with her testimony, we can see the errors. If the conflict in the testimony was just between Bessie and her brother, Bill, we would have a “he said/she said” argument, but others who were there corroborate what her brother said. Then, we have her recanting the testimony, which by itself, should eliminate it from the record. But the real point here is that we did investigate her claims, did make sure she was interviewed, and have provided information about it. She wasn’t ignored, just found to be in conflict with too much other information that was corroborated.

Photographs copyright by Kevin Randle.

209 comments:

1 – 200 of 209   Newer›   Newest»
Gilles Fernandez said...

Bessie said that she recognized the material as a balloon. So, we have a 14-year-old girl who knows a balloon when she sees one, but the air intelligence officer, not to mention several others, are incapable of this.

Kevin,

Why you forgot to mention or quote Bessie in your post, when "you" invited Bessie in one your ufo "thing" and presented her radar targets materials photographs and what she said/wrote after? In my humble memories it was for the International UFO Reporter November/december 1990? What she said when "you" presented her radar-target phototographs? You fogotten?

Again, and it is a pity for you but you must admitt, you, Stanton, Tom or Don are maybe cute guys, but not formed to interview witnesses (cognitive interview new standards, now adapted for UFO testimonies as it is done by CNES/GEIPAN recently). As you confessed yourself, you have been victim of some your "star witnesses" or yourself have attaked Don's methodology.

I regret, but "X told you "or told X that or this" in "ufology" (to prove extraordinary things) have ZERO value. What you are doing in your last threads? To oppose some witness statments the ones to the others like the poor Rudiak? Cool, Brothers Rudiak & Randle? What else and new in your Roswell myth?

Provide hard dataes for your myth, your last threads only are mere and desesperated attempts, "déjà vu" concerning your Roswell myth. No offense, but dunno who you want to convince: Roswell afficionados are already convinced, as skeptics (even if I'm sure facing the mirror you are doubting an ET craft crashed in Roswell).

So, produce hard dataes, and not "déjà-vu" and Xth version of a myth and how you want to narrate it :p


Regards and sincere respect,

Gilles.

KRandle said...

Gilles -

I'm afraid I don't understand here. I never met Bessie Brazel, showed her no pictures, and didn't talk to her on the telephone.

Second, not sure why I should be condemned for not using techniques that were that didn't exist at the time of the interviews.

All I have attempted to do in the last few posts are clear up some of the confusion about what happened and why... not to prove that Roswell was an alien craft... Maybe if we can end some of the confusion, we might be closer to a real answer... Oh, that's right, the nonexistent Mogul Flight No. 4 is the answer. I forgot.

Gilles Fernandez said...

Kevin,

You well know there was a cluster of balloons launched June the 4th and what means "cluster" in Crary's diary or in NYU documentations. Again playing with "number 4, "#4", "research flight and test ones", nothing new in the myth... You well know CLUSTER of balloons flight 2 drawed in NYU documentation & depicting radar targets embarked (then the previous apparatus for balloons cluster in Alamogordo I expedition, etc. We will not make another "revival" of past debates?

I dont condemn you for not using techniques that didn't exist at the time of you interviews (you were and remain an honnest investigator), but you guys used interview "methodology" now totally depassed and proven to be the worst to collect good dataes/testimonies, and mainly concerning very old memories... That's all.

In that 1990 (?) conference I pointed before, Bessie was invited by "you" (I meant the ufologists). She was presented photographs of radar targets. Later, she confessed "The debris shown does look like the debris we picked up."

BTW, in your article, Kevin, you wrote: "So, we have a 14-year-old girl". I suppose that following your own "logic" concerning the age of Bessie, you will now discard all testimonies, quotes of Jesse Marcel Junior who was only 11 years old? Or double standard (again)? Not cool^^ :(

Regards,

Gilles.

David Rudiak said...

The debris looked like pieces of a large balloon which had burst [When balloons burst do they shatter into dozens or hundreds of tiny bits?]. The pieces were small, the largest were small, the largest I remember measuring about the same as the diameter of a basketball. Most of it was a kind of double-sided material, foil-like on one side and rubber-like on the other. Both sides were grayish silver in color, the foil more silvery than the rubber.

This is NOT the description of a polyethene balloon or neoprene meteorological balloon nor a foil-paper (think chewing gum or candy bar wrapper--same stuff) covered radar target, the ONLY possible stuff it could have been from the June/early July 1947 time frame if you are talking Mogul balloon construction material. Thus it is NOT the description of a possible Mogul balloon from the ROSWELL time frame.

Could it have been another Mogul from some later date? Even Bessie later later acknowledged that maybe she had confused ANOTHER event from the June/July 1947 time frame.

If you go through the 1995 AF Roswell report with all the reproduced Mogul documents, only one possible balloon material roughly matches what Bessie described. This was a neoprene coated nylon or silk balloon (unclear if coated on only one side or both) made by the Seyfang, a few of which were experimented with, but not until 1948. They were also coated with metallized paint to help reflect sunlight.

One big problem with this theory is there is no record of any of these experimental metallized-rubber-nylon balloons coming down anywhere near the Foster ranch in any time frame. Another big problem is it doesn't seem likely, or even possible, that a nylon or silk cloth balloon could burst into numerous small pieces.

Many years ago I also put together a graphic of every single Mogul mentioned in this report and where it was reported crashing, either in New Mexico or outside of N.M.:

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

As you can see, there was one, and only one Mogul through 1949 that came down anywhere near the ranch. This was Mogul #38 from Nov. 4, 1947, recorded only as coming down "50 mi. N. of Roswell AAF". If this was literally not due north, but NW of Roswell AAF, then this would have been in the vicinity of the Foster Ranch.

The big problem here is there is still nothing that closely matches Bessie Brazel's debris description. This was another experimental balloon made of one large neoprene balloon (2000 gram) enclosed in a nylon shroud, the theory being the shroud would keep the neoprene balloon inside from overextending from solar heating and bursting. The neoprene in this case was a balloon separate from the nylon shroud and not coating it, plus no metallic paint coating.

Another problem is no record of any radar tracking on this flight (as was true of the vast majority of Mogul flights), thus very unlikely to have carried radar targets for Bessie to find.

Grasping at more straws, perhaps Bessie remembered a balloon crash, not from the Foster Ranch, but in the vicinity of Tulerosa where she actually lived. The only recorded candidate here is Flight #14 from Sept. 6, 1947, which came down halfway between Alamogordo and Tulerosa. But this was a more common large polyethene plastic balloon, again with no evidence of any radar tracking.

The only other possibility I see here is an unrecorded equipment test flight (i.e., not intended as a constant-altitude flight) of one of the Seyfang neoprene-coated nylon/silk balloons. Still doesn't explain how nylon or silk cloth could shatter into a multitude of pieces, and, of course, totally undocumented. I only throw it out as a remote possibility.

But it is clear, whatever Bessie thinks she saw, her material description does NOT match any Mogul balloon type from the June/July 1947 time period, whether unrecorded test flight or recorded constant-altitude one.

Larry Holcombe said...

Kevin:

An excellent recap on this part of the Roswell Story, well stated!

I would like to add an additional thought since your post involves weather balloons, kite sticks and so forth. There is so much minutia that has accumulated with this story, minutia that on numbers of occasions you have attempted to cut through, I once again offer this:

The Air Force in their 1994 (final word) on Roswell, "The Roswell Report: Fact Vs. Fiction the New Mexico Desert" and their 1997 SECOND final report, "Roswell Report: Case Closed" admit they lied in 1947 saying the debris was not a simple weather balloon. The report(s) said it was the now a declassified "Project Mogul" crash debris. So we must ask what was the heart of Project Mogul, was it balloons and Rawan radar reflectors? No, it was the electronic equipment, radio receivers, that at the time used vacuum tubes and circuit boards, microphones, and batteries and special equipment to hold the balloon train at a set altitude.

In all the discussions there is no mention of radio equipment, and that material wouldn't not have blown away. Marcel was a HAM with an FCC license. He knew radio equipment as I'm sure Cavitt would also have recognized. Where is the data that what was found included radio equipment, why is it all on tin foil, rubber and balsa wood that has been discredited by so many?

No, fact or fiction in the New Mexico desert is not "Case Closed."

Gilles Fernandez said...

And a last word, because too much "dejà-vu":

If Kevin, David, as skeptics and dunno who admit testimonies are not reliable in this case (or in general), or only a sterile thing here consisting to send testimonies the ones against the others, why not a deal?

The deal would be that UFO proponents/ UFO Skeptics never use testimonies to defend dunno what concerning Roswell.

And when you amuse yourself to play this "game" or exercice, ask you what it is remaining/convincing for an ET craft crashed in Roswell...

The F.W conference press photographs, people photographs where are exhibited radar-targets and thinking to have a flying saucer at hand, etc. Wow!

Regards,

Gilles.

David Rudiak said...

Gilles feebly argues:
You well know there was a cluster of balloons launched June the 4th and what means "cluster" in Crary's diary or in NYU documentations. Again playing with "number 4, "#4", "research flight and test ones", nothing new in the myth... You well know CLUSTER of balloons flight 2 drawed in NYU documentation & depicting radar targets embarked (then the previous apparatus for balloons cluster in Alamogordo I expedition, etc. We will not make another "revival" of pas"t debates?

Wow, Gilles, you just don't give up with your "flight #4" religious beliefs, do you? Crary's diary made it very clear the flight was CANCELLED. The FACT that it also does not exist, even as a mention, in the Mogul reports and flight summaries also PROVES the flight never happened. Instead, e.g., the flight summary tables leave out ALL CANCELLED Mogul constant-altitude flights, including Flights 2&3.

Why are they not recorded in the summary tables and flight records? Because they literally never left the ground. In the case of the equally non-existent Flight #2, Mogul records indicate this flight was cancelled because of high winds and radio equipment failure on the chase plane, also indicating the non-reusable weather balloons were cut loose and all reusable equipment stripped off.

When they again tried to launch May 8, Crary's diary again indicates a cancellation because of high winds. This would have been Flight #3. Again Crary indicates "instruments did not go up", i.e. stripped off again for later reuse. However it seems they conducted a test flight of the radiosonde tracking because Crary also indicates that the chase plane with its "recording equipment" followed the balloons that were cut loose with the rest of the instruments stripped off. But again, this was NOT a constant-altitude flight, but a limited test of a particularly piece of equipment.

This brings us to June 4. Crary again very clearly indicates a CONSTANT-ALTITUDE flight cancellation, this time for excessive cloud cover. As with flights #2 and #3, all reusable equipment would have been stripped off (including radar targets, had they been attached). Again, like the equally cancelled flight #3, a test flight of the radiosonde was again made with the cut-loose balloons.

This the USAF and Charles Moore exaggerated into the truly mythical "Flight #4", which NEVER EXISTED. Without its constant altitude equipment attached, the balloon cluster would have quickly risen to high altitude, the balloons would have started quickly popping, and the remaining mess would have quickly come down. In fact, this is exactly what happened with the real Flight #6 three days later. The constant altitude equipment was noted as damaged on launch, it went straight up and straight down, not getting very far from Alamogordo. It was listed as a failure, but LISTED nonetheless in actual, real Mogul flight summaries, because it was an intended constant-altitude flight that was NOT cancelled, and actually left the ground with its full complement of instruments.

So what you and other debunkers have done, when it is pointed out that Flight #4 NEVER EXISTED, is try to argue a remaining test flight of radiosonde reception into an actual unrecorded, complete Mogul constant-altitude flight with all necessary paraphernalia, which it clearly could not have been. (Including rapidly going up and down with no hope of getting anywhere near the Foster ranch.)

It is not "saucer-proponents" who have claimed there had to be such a FULLY RIGGED constant-altitude flight. It was USAF counterintelligence agents and Charles Moore, who claimed such a flight was NECESSARY to account for various debris described and the ability of the balloon to fly as far as it did. Thus they invented a totally NONEXISTENT constant-altitude flight to try to explain Roswell, including Bessie Brazel's debris descriptions (which are a lousy match at best).

KRandle said...

Gilles -

I'm afraid that you misunderstand. I was saying nothing about Bessie Brazel because of her age, merely pointing out that a 14-year-old was able to recognize a balloon while the trained officers of the 509th Bomb Group (apparently with the exception of Sheridan Cavitt who didn't bother to share that knowledge with anyone) failed to do so. I was not suggesting we reject her testimony at that point because of her age.

And since you bring it up, Flight No. 5, the first launched in New Mexico, had no rawin targets on it. Charles Moore said it was because of poor reception, but the note in Crary's diary actually referred to the detention of the detonations and not the tracking by radar.

And a cluster of balloons, was a cluster with a radio receiver attached and nothing more. And even if you wish to postulate a full Mogul array, the launch time originally scheduled for dawn was cancelled according to the documentation... Charles Moore said it was launched at two or three in the morning... a bit of a problem. How was it launched before it was cancelled and wouldn't the documentation reflect that? It does not.

KRandle said...

Gilles -

I have been through my files, looked through Karl Pflock's book, checked his footnotes and found nothing about this 1990 meeting... Going through the Carey and Schmitt book I notice they reference personal interviews with her in 1990 and 1991 but the footnote is useless because it doesn't tell us who interviewed her or what the circumstances are. So, I say again, I simply don't know what you're talking about. I have nothing in my files, records, taped interviews or notes about an interview with her. It wasn't until 1995 that John Kirby and Don Mitchell sat down with her to talk about the case. This suggests to me that she was around the Portland, Oregon area, which would encompass the southern part of Washington. I do see that Carey and Schmitt interviewed her a number of years after this, but that interview only produced the claim that she had changed her story as I noted in the post.

So, I say again. I just don't know what you're talking about here.

David Rudiak said...

Larry Holcombe wrote:

In all the discussions there is no mention of radio equipment, and that material wouldn't not have blown away. Marcel was a HAM with an FCC license. He knew radio equipment as I'm sure Cavitt would also have recognized. Where is the data that what was found included radio equipment, why is it all on tin foil, rubber and balsa wood that has been discredited by so many? No, fact or fiction in the New Mexico desert is not "Case Closed."

Indeed. If we use the schematic of flight #2 as a model for the fictional “flight #4” (which Charles Moore and the USAF did, so why shouldn't I?), there were various cutoff devices for releasing balloons on ascent and ballast on descent, the ballast being at the very bottom. So the ballast would be expected NOT to be found with the anything else. (Nonetheless, as part of their ghost Flight #4 argument, the USAF tried to argue that part of Bessie Brazel's debris description included something that "matched" the ballast tubes.)

Directly beneath the train of lifting balloons were 3 radar targets, then a radiosonde tracking transmitter (with batteries), then three meteorological paper parachutes (which the USAF again tried to argue "matched" the descriptions of "parchment-like" debris), then a radiosonde tracking transmitter (with batteries), the "payload" (presumably a sonobuoy microphone, again with batteries), then another cutoff to release the ballast at the very bottom.

Thus as balloons at the top popped, buoyancy was lost, and the whole thing started descending, remaining balloons, radar targets, parachutes, radiosonde, sonobuoy, and about 300 YARDS OF BALLOON RIGGING should all have come down together and been in the debris field.

But if we go by contemporaneous reports (and the debunkers keep insisting we must go solely by these and not depend on the recollections of witnesses decades later), then almost none of this was reported.

Yes, the photos in Gen. Ramey’s office show a SINGULAR radar target and balloon (which is what Ramey and his weather officer Newton said was all that was there, and which Newton said could have come any of dozens of weather stations that used them), but where is everything else? In fact, Ramey also added there were NO INSTRUMENTS found. Let’s note further what Ramey displayed (one balloon, one radar target) would have weighed less than 2 pounds total.

Most damning however, was what Brazel said. Although at first indicating he found “rubber strips” and sticks and foil and tape that sure sounded like remains of a radar target, he claimed that when all of it was rolled into two bundles it weighed at most 5 pounds. But the remains of a true Mogul would have weighed in the neighborhood of 30-50 pounds.

Brazel likewise says nothing about anything resembling instruments or batteries. But what really gets me, is Brazel denying the existence of a single shred of balloon rigging. “NO STRINGS OR WIRE WERE TO BE FOUND but there were some eyelets in the paper to indicate that some sort of attachment may have been used.”

This is the magically disappearing Mogul balloon rigging. Yet if you look at the #2 schematic, there should have been around 300 yards of main line and side line rigging.

This alone PROVES this was not a Mogul balloon crash, if you go by the recorded testimony of the main witness, Brazel.

The missing rigging did not go unnoticed by AF debunker McAndrew when he interviewed Charles Moore. He asked Moore if it could have disintegrated in the sun, Moore said no, and the embarrassing subject disproving the AF Mogul theory was then swept under the debunking rug.

So much too little debris described and displayed, no instruments described, and magically disappearing balloon rigging, all of which should absolutely have come down with any surviving balloons, radar targets, parachutes, and instruments. Case indeed not closed!

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

But the remains of a true Mogul would have weighed in the neighborhood of 30-50 pounds."

Because, of course, when someone finds debris that has been busted up and dragged across the brush for miles, you ALWAYS find every scrap of it!

That statement is so misleading that it it borders on being a lie. This is why this silly farce gets nowhere. You can thank guys like Carey, Schmitt and Ruidak.

This is the kind of thing I was talking about, Nitram.

Additionally, there is nothing to say that they didn't simply cut the string off of the components and separate it out (so that it didn't inhibit packing or seperating the stuff).

There is no reason for anyone to assume (much less stamp their little foot as though they are proving something) that the Army felt compelled to put every scrap of the junk in front for the cameras. They only needed enough to demonstrate for sane people that basic idea of what they found.

This is a point that has repeatedly been mentioned to Rudiak. He has NEVER had a response.

Lance

Unknown said...

Dear Kevin,

Forgive me if my question might have been answered years ago. I just wanted to know what the complete name of the Master Sargent that was referred to in the June Crain interview in the 90's. She stated she sent a photograph of herself at the wedding of Clarence (last name she couldn't remember). I just started reading stuff on UFO's but I was fascinated by her interview. Thank you for your time.

Brita

KRandle said...

Okay, guys, the Mogul discussion here ends now. Lance, you get the last word because the Iowa game is at halftime so I thought I would see what was going on. Mogul is out. This post was an attempt to clarify part of the story about Bessie Brazel.

Wind Swords said...

Kevin,

Thanks for posting this but it would been nice if you could just print her statement without making editorial comments, especially this: "The debris looked like pieces of a large balloon which had burst [When balloons burst do they shatter into dozens or hundreds of tiny bits?]." I know she is not an aeronautical expert like yourself but you could just print her statement as is and make your comments afterwards.

Also: "The foil-rubber material could not be torn like ordinary aluminum foil can be torn [A small bit of information that the debunkers tend to overlook]."

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have always pointed out that Marcel and his son thought the foil material was unusual. Now we have Bessie's statement also.

There is no doubt that Bessie Brazel did not remember the sequence of events correctly. This does not mean we throw out anything else she said. She is not Frank Kaufman. She has nothing to gain by lying or exaggerating. When she says things like "Most of it was a kind of double-sided material, foil-like on one side and rubber-like on the other. Both sides were grayish silver in color, the foil more silvery than the rubber. Sticks, like kite sticks, were three inches wide and had flower-like designs on it. The “flowers” were faint, a variety of pastel colors, and reminded me of Japanese paintings in which the flowers are not all connected. I do not recall any other types of material or markings, nor do I remember seeing gouges in the ground or any other signs that anything may have hit the ground hard"; or "I remember dad saying “Oh, it’s just a bunch of garbage.” - I don't think she is making a false or misleading statements. I think she is describing accurately what she saw. The fact that she couldn't remember if her dad stayed overnight in Roswell or if Marcel and Cavitt followed her dad to the ranch does not mean her testimony of WHAT she saw is unreliable.

All,
I think it does us no good to hurl accusations around when discussing this case. We all have strong opinions about what happened but in the end we want to get at the truth. Calling one another liars, disingenuous, debunker, UFO religionist or any number of other things does not get any closer to the truth.

Lance said...

Wind Swords,

Well said.

And I accept my own shortcomings mentioned above.

Lance

KRandle said...

All -

The Iowa game is over so I have reviewed the comments... you all can see what I have done. The Mogul discussion in this comments section is over. If I have the urge to open it up again, I will post the problems with it and let you all have at it.

Wind Swords -

Understand your concern but the flow of the narrative sort of drove the insertion of the comments... besides, it would be nice if you used your real name as opposed to hiding behind a pseudonym.

Lance said...

And Larry clearly said that this was a lie.

You guys are so busy calling people liars that it is hilarious when it backfires! Are you just ignoring Kevin, now, David?

Lance

Wind Swords said...

Kevin,

I understand your point, it was just distracting.

I've been Wind Swords on the internet since 1997 and have been posting in a number of forums (not UFO related). I don't care to change now. If you want see anything I've posted just google windswords or wind swords (Google may not differentiate between the two, but just in case). I will tell you that I do not nor ever did work for the government or military. I'm not a media person. Frankly my life has been pretty boring. If you want to know anything just ask, I have nothing to hide.

By the way I'm currently out of the US, did Iowa win?

KRandle said...

Wind Swords -

My point was simply that there are many little irritations here. There are many people who post using pseudonyms. I prefer to have people sign their names to the comments, but most of the time the comments are beneficial and I let them stand. When they degenerate into name calling and bad manners, I delete them.

Since you asked, Iowa won on a last-second 57 yard field goal. The kicker missed the first attempt but time had been called in an attempt to "ice" the kicker. He made the second one. I have seen this happen before. Icing the kicker rarely works (or if it does, we really don't know) but I have seen these calling time outs fail a couple of times.

And now back to our regularly scheduled post...

cda said...

Is a game of football ever as important as debating "the greatest event in history"?

Bessie's testimony is no better or worse than anyone else's in this endless debate (or investigation as Nitram insists it is). I do wonder, following what I wrote earlier, just how many times SHE has been subject to these repeated questions & interviews from people who inevitably want to slant things towards ETs. In her case she seems to have resisted all this, but this still does not make her testimony any more reliable.

In the end we are back to square 1 (maybe 2) in resolving this case. Kevin only brought up Bessie to show another facet of the story, but where does it lead in the end? Absolutely nowhere.

If Bessie says 15 military guys were at the base this helps to prove Kevin is right about all those armed guards standing around, keeping civilians out. Or does it?

As for me, I merely stick to my oft-repeated statement that there is no chance whatever that this damn junk, whatever it was, was a crashed ET craft with bodies and so on, from Zeta Reticuli or anywhere else.

And still top secret after 7 decades, hidden from the scientific world! Just think of that great secret, taken to their graves by a few guys at the top.

That's Roswell.

cda said...

DR writes:

"In fact, Carey/Schmitt told me that had spoken to a few people in Capitan telling them Brazel was passing around debris samples to the various cowboys there. (I mention this only in support that Brazel probably went to this big annual event.)"

OK, so if this is true, we have yet more private citizens who at one time possessed pieces of what the ETHers insist were parts of a visiting craft from some distant planet. And precisely what did these cowboys do with their fragments - did any of them ever produce them to scientists or others who could analyse them and inform the world?

No they did not. (Surprise!)

The only real question that need be asked is why Carey & Schmitt should present this laughable piece of gossip as evidence at all. Yes it is laughable, and no it has no value whatever to the story of "greatest event in history".

If perchance these fragments were only "passed around" and not retained, we can only have the greatest sympathy for these cowboys, who were allowed to handle this momentous stuff but never kept any of it. Poor chaps!

Bob Koford said...

I don't remember if anyone ever related whether or not this particular information was ever followed up on? How would this writer know it was cancelled?

I got the quote from this person's site:
http://kenny.anomalyresponse.org/47Circleville.html

From July 9th,

"For a time officers planned to bring the “disc” to Wright Field, Dayton, O., by plane. Its identification as remnants of a weather balloon cancelled those plans."

Brian Bell said...

Fugo Balloons -

Just for the record Bessie's claim to having seen downed Japanese Fugo Balloons isn't that strange. While there is no proof of one landing near Roswell, bear in mind historians estimate more than a hundred probably went unaccounted for combined with the fact the media was asked (not ordered) not to report on any landings.

KRandle said...

Brian -

There is no evidence that any of the Fugo Balloons landed in New Mexico. The best source for information on these Balloon Bombs is the Smithsonian Annals of Flight - Number 9, "Japan's World War II Balloon Bomb Attacks on North America," written by Robert C. Mikesk which contains a map of all those found. Most landed in the Pacific Northwest, three made it to Iowa. Two were found in Arizona, three in Colorado, five in Utah and two in Texas. None were reported to have been found in New Mexico. There is an article in the August 1950 issue of Reader's Digest, "Those Japanese Balloons (23 - 26); The Albertan (Canada) Weekend Magazine, "The Secret Weapon that was to Set Canada Ablaze" and Collier's on January 17, 1953, "Japan's Balloon Invasion of America," by Lincoln LaPaz (yes, that Lincoln LaPaz) and Albert Rosenfeld.

Her affidavit mentioning the Japanese balloons was signed on September 22, 1993, or some two years after the great Balloon Bomb debate played out in a couple of arenas including a national magazine...

Oh, BTW, the order was rescinded after six people were killed by one in Oregon. Then a quiet campaign was initiated to alert the public to the dangers of these bombs.

But again, there is no evidence that any of the Balloon Bombs fell in New Mexico, so if she saw one, it wasn't in New Mexico and more likely in the pages of a magazine or a museum and not on the ranch.

And you still haven't said if you still support the false statement by Kal Korff that Marcel told a radio audience he didn't think the debris was alien until after UFO researchers contacted him.

cda said...

Kevin:

"And you still haven't said if you still support the false statement by Kal Korff that Marcel told a radio audience he didn't think the debris was alien until after UFO researchers contacted him."

Without disputing your claim that Kal Korff made a false statement about Marcel, can I please put the following to you:

Have YOU any evidence, in the form of an interview or written statement, that Marcel ever thought that what he saw and gathered up in 1947 was from an extraterrestrial craft BEFORE his meeting with Friedman in Feb 1978? Do you know for sure that he did seriously think (maybe after the film CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND) that he had indeed recovered parts of a true ET craft? If so, please give the source. I mean real source, not post-1978 hearsay from his son.

David Rudiak said...

CDA bloviates:
"In fact, Carey/Schmitt told me that had spoken to a few people in Capitan telling them Brazel was passing around debris samples to the various cowboys there. (I mention this only in support that Brazel probably went to this big annual event.)"

...The only real question that need be asked is why Carey & Schmitt should present this laughable piece of gossip as evidence at all. Yes it is laughable, and no it has no value whatever to the story of "greatest event in history".


Unfortunately Kevin is deleting my posts which provide full context, while not deleting responses to my deleted posts, leaving me at a big disadvantage. Thus CDA or Lance can make insulting and asinine retorts to my deleted posts. Not fair!

I brought up the Carey/Schmitt anecdote about Mack Brazel being at the rodeo in Capitan going on July 6-8 only in passing, making no comment about the debris he allegedly passed around, much less it being ET. I noted only that it supported the idea he would have been there, the big regional cowboy event of the year (he was a real cowboy, after all), and likely would have picked up his family in Tulerosa, whom he didn't see that often, and taken them to it.

This was also mentioned in the following context:

1. Why Brazel would be in Corona the night of July 5 and first hearing about the flying saucers there, what allegedly prompted him to head to Roswell and report what he found (this WAS in the 1947 newspapers).

2. Brazel claiming in his RDR interview that on July 4 he and his family gathered up quite a bit of the debris. But the family lived in Tulerosa. What were they doing at the ranch? I proposed he picked them up in Tulerosa to take them to the big rodeo, then brought them up to the ranch.

3. I then proposed that on July 5, he took them back to Tulerosa, and that is why he was in Corona the night of July 5 on his way back to the ranch.

4. This was done to reconcile Bessie Brazel's comments in her affidavit of helping her father pick up debris. I noted under this scenario, it seemed feasible she might have been there BEFORE Brazel went to Roswell.

5. Although I didn't mention it, this would also help reconcile some Bill Brazel testimony of his father dropping his family off in Tulerosa first before heading for Roswell. The testimony sounded like Bill Brazel was saying this all happened on one day, but under this scenario more likely this happened on two separate days.

6. However, it doesn't reconcile Bessie Brazel's comments of going to Roswell with her father, and returning with her father and the Army investigators. Not only did Marcel never mention Brazel's family, he stated Brazel was living alone in the middle of nowhere. In addition, when Bill Brazel found out from the newspapers about his father being in the middle of the ruckus in Roswell, he said he headed to the ranch to help out and found the ranch empty, i.e., neither Brazel nor the rest of the family there.

7. My other points had to do with if you are evaluating testimony then with now, in this case Bessie Brazel, how does her testimony line up with various theories of the case? If you want to compare it to the saucer theory, then how can you avoid comparing it to the alternate skeptical theory of Mogul? If it was a Mogul, then what would be expected to be found? I noted that neither Mack Brazel nor Bessie Brazel noted finding any of the hallmarks of a real Mogul, namely the distinctive equipment and the large amounts of balloon rigging, her father, in fact, going out of his way to deny finding any such thing back in the RDR interview.

Nitram Ang said...

CDA

Is a game of football ever as important as debating "the greatest event in history"?

Too right - if your the All Blacks! (Google "All Blacks" CDA)

Is a game of football ever as important as INVESTIGATING "the greatest event in history"?

Absolutely not...


Question:
Have YOU any evidence, in the form of an interview or written statement, that Cavitt ever thought that what he saw and gathered up in 1947 was from a weather balloon BEFORE his meeting with Weaver in the early 1990's? Do you know for sure that he did seriously think that he had indeed recovered parts of a true mogul balloon train? If so, please give the source (excluding cover-up newspaper articles). I mean a real source, not post-1990 hearsay.

Wind Swords said...

CDA:
'Is a game of football ever as important as debating "the greatest event in history"?'

Depends if you're a fan of one of the teams playing! And don't tell you Brits don't get worked up about your "football" (which I will readily admit is more "football" than the American game). I've seen your countryman get very intense over games.

Now, as to the rest of your post you said:

"Bessie's testimony is no better or worse than anyone else's in this endless debate".

I agree wholeheartedly.

"... just how many times SHE has been subject to these repeated questions & interviews from people who inevitably want to slant things towards ETs. In her case she seems to have resisted all this, but this still does not make her testimony any more reliable."

This brings up a good point and to be fair, it can go both ways. Pro ET'rs can push a witness towards their view and on the same token skeptics can push them towards the mundane/misidentification.

"If Bessie says 15 military guys were at the base this helps to prove Kevin is right about all those armed guards standing around, keeping civilians out. Or does it?"

Maybe, but as Kevin says we would need corroborating testimony of the soldiers coming to clean up the debris. Do we have that from Mack Brazel, or Bill, or anyone else? Also did Marcel, who was the Intel Officer, ever testify about a cleanup crew going out to the ranch? I would think he know about it. As I stated before Bessie's memory maybe faulty about the dates and sequence of events but it should be mostly accurate about what happened.

So to recap, in my mind she has made two assertions that make the ETH side happy: The foil had unusual properties and there was a military team that came and took the remainder of the stuff away. On the skeptic side, she is very clear that the remainder of the debris was as mundane as they come, including the flower symbols, sticks and rubber.

As I also stated before I believe that the earliest testimony/interviews are the most accurate and "unpolluted" so I give them more credence than later ones. The affidavit above is from the early 1990s as Kevin says. Then he alludes to one in March 1995. Kevin, is there any recorded statements she made in the 1980's or even 70's? I would be very interested to know what she said then.

David Rudiak said...

CDA inanely bloviates some more:
Have YOU any evidence, in the form of an interview or written statement, that Marcel ever thought that what he saw and gathered up in 1947 was from an extraterrestrial craft BEFORE his meeting with Friedman in Feb 1978? Do you know for sure that he did seriously think (maybe after the film CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND) that he had indeed recovered parts of a true ET craft? If so, please give the source. I mean real source, not post-1978 hearsay from his son.

The only reason Friedman sought out Marcel was because Friedman was being interviewed on radio and television in Baton Rouge. As Friedman comments in "Crash At Corona," one of the TV station directors over coffee told Stan, "The person you really ought to talk to is Jesse Marcel. He handled pieces of one of those things. [said in the context of crashed flying saucer] We're ham radio buddies. I've known him for years; he's a very reliable person."

Friedman then got Marcel's phone number and called him up the next day.

The point is Friedman never would have made the call if Marcel hadn't obviously told the station director previously that he had handled pieces of a real flying saucer. By 1978, everyone knew of the popular public association between flying saucers and alien spacecraft.

Of course, we could invoke an alternate CDA-type theory, such as Friedman finding Marcel by some alternate route, planting the alien meme in Marcel's head, who never thought of it before, Marcel then getting in a time machine and speaking to his ham buddy station director in the past, so the station director would mention this to Friedman, leading to Marcel on an alternate time line, etc., etc.

The much simpler theory is that Marcel was already talking about crashed saucers before Friedman found him.

Also Roswell base back in 1947 DID issue a press release that they had recovered a real flying saucer, like those in the news. The skeptics try to finesse this rather damning FACT by claiming nobody knew what a flying disc was, much less associated it with alien origins.

Hardly the case. In fact, THE Kenneth Arnold, whose sighting two weeks before gave rise to the terms flying disc/saucer, was already opining that he thought what he saw was ET if they weren't some secret military experiment. Similarly, THE Gen. Ramey who was to debunk the press release starting only an hour later as a weather balloon, over a week earlier was already publicly opining that people like Arnold must have been mistaken and what people were seeing definitely were not "men from Mars". Ramey was interviewed along with his intel chief Kalberer, and they were obviously very much aware of Arnold's sighting and his report of the unusual shape and supersonic speed, plus obviously being aware that the public to some extent was thinking along ET lines. Otherwise, why bring it up?

One newspaper article mentioned that while nobody knew the origins of the discs, people reporting them generally agreed on them having a disc-like shape and flying at very high speeds. Nobody knew what was behind them if they were real, but there was no shortage of theories if they were, including the ET one.

Further to the point, just BEFORE Roswell released its press release, the Pentagon issued its own specifically denying three popular theories of saucer origins, including them being "space ships."

So again, one has to invoke drooling idiot theory that the officers at Roswell didn't listen to the radio, didn't read the newspapers, didn't read the memos flowing across their desks, and had no idea what a flying saucer might represent, much less it possibly being ET. Under this ignorance blackout, even extremely flimsy balloon material might be mistaken for some nebulous idea of a "flying disc", rather than the high performance aircraft flying at high speeds and displaying extreme maneuvers as was being commonly reported, starting with Arnold.

Wind Swords said...

Brian,

I can back up what Kevin says about the Fugo balloons, as WWII history in general and Japanese military in WWII is a special interest of mine (like I said my life is pretty boring). The balloons landed in AZ & TX but not NM. By the way Robert C. Mikesh (last letter is an h) is a great author. I have several of his books. He has even been interviewed on the History Channel (back when it was actually about history!).

Brian Bell said...

Fugo -

I wasn't suggesting what was found in 1947 was the remains of a WW2 Fugo. By the way you didn't mention some far flung states like Nebraska, Kansas, the Dakotas and even Michigan. Obviously if they landed in Texas it would appear they drifted over NM.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin -

"And you still haven't said if you still support the false statement by Kal Korff that Marcel told a radio audience he didn't think the debris was alien until after UFO researchers contacted him."

As soon as you publically denounce Haut as any sort of "credible witness" to an ET event and stop clinging to the fantasy anything the guy said over the years was factual.

Deal?

Brian Bell said...

Rudiak -

"The point is Friedman never would have made the call if Marcel hadn't obviously told the station director previously that he had handled pieces of a real flying saucer."

Yes obviously. The point really being that Friedman REINFORCED the idea and cemented it as the only possible explanation. The guy had always claimed it was unusual (to him). And let's not forget the testimony of other people who stated Marcel, in July 1947, was said to have been TRYING to convince everyone what he found wasn't from this planet.

Larry Holcombe said...

David:

You said: "Unfortunately Kevin is deleting my posts which provide full context, while not deleting responses to my deleted posts, leaving me at a big disadvantage. Thus CDA or Lance can make insulting and asinine retorts to my deleted posts. Not fair!"

David, I agree, and I have tried to reach you privately by email with no success. I wanted to explain that my comments were not directed to you but to Lance Moody who used the Phil Klass approach to stir the pot so to speak. I am in total agreements with your posts and can be reached at www.larryholcombe1@gmail.com.

Kevin:

I hope you will let this message stand as I wish to have a private conversation with David to set the record straight.

KRandle said...

Brian -

No deal because it is not the same thing. Korff made up a quote to discredit Marcel and you continue to pedal it as reliable. Besides, we all know that Haut wrote the press release and was in Roswell in July 1947. Korff just made up stuff to discredit people, lied about his sources and did very little research himself. He just took what others had done and passed it off as his own. And I noticed that you dodged the question which is a wonderful debating tactic but doesn't do much for your argument.

As for Fugo, I thought I made it clear that there were no landings in New Mexico... and how do you know that if they landed in Texas they flew over New Mexico and wouldn't that be irrelevant because none landed there. I didn't mention all the states where they were found because that wasn't the point. So, just what sort of fantasy Japanese balloons are you suggesting?

David -

I said that I wanted no more discussion on Mogul on this posting and you kept putting in comments about Mogul. Your other points were fine, but the stealth mention of Mogul was out of line. Say what ever you want but don't bring up Mogul.

Jim Bender said...

Hi

Brian's angle is the Typically skeptic/debunker gibberish, lol Kevin good job putting them in their place, their Skeptic/debunker default answers come from a short list and once they run out the skeptic/debunkers tend to bottom out.

when is the launch off UFO dossier book?

Looking forward to the following movie launch and hoping you will be able to discuss the following unexplained UFO encounter someday.



http://www.arielphenomenon.com/

Nitram Ang said...

In view of the earlier posting:

"As soon as you publically denounce Haut as any sort of "credible witness" to an ET event and stop clinging to the fantasy anything the guy said over the years was factual. Deal?"

It is now clear to me that to argue with BB & CDA who have both renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead...

Kevin:

Not sure about your post to David:

"Say what ever you want but don't bring up Mogul" - looks& sounds like you're inviting a "Ramey Memo discussion" with no holds barred!

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

Ha ha Larry!

When you mistakenly thought a statement was from me, you labeled it a lie.

Then you find out that it was from fellow Saucerspiracist buff, David, and you are in suddenly in agreement.

The irony is just too great.

Such a shame that you have exposed the true way that you saucer buff true believers actually work. Wasn't it more fun when you could pretend that you actually cared about facts?

Lance

cda said...

Kevin & DR:

I am still waiting for some kind of hard evidence (not hearsay after 1978) that Marcel, between 1947 &n 1977, believed what he gathered up was from an ET craft.

The radio station's manager's tale to Friedman, unfortunately, is just more hearsay since we have no idea of Marcel's actual words or when he uttered them. Another point is that if Marcel genuinely thought he had participated in such a recovery, he was perfectly able to inform any of the news media or the large UFO organisations (NICAP, APRO, etc) about it. They would have lapped it up with glee. Alas he never did. Neither did he keep ANY of the press reports.

Nobody can say for certain what Marcel's thoughts were during those 30 years, but it is reasonable to assume he was NOT persuaded that the stuff was ET. Neither can we rely on what, if anything, he told his son. Obvious question: why didn't his son take the matter further and contact APRO or NICAP himself?

There is simply no written or recorded pre-1978 statement we can use. Unless Kevin can supply one. Can he? Until then, Marcel's thoughts and ideas are simply grounds for endless speculation, and nothing else. Once again, we are getting nowhere (surprise!).

Nitram:

You rewrote my remarks with Cavitt's name substituted for Marcel. My answer is that I am not persuaded that Cavitt was ever involved at Roswell in July 1947, despite all that has been written about him. Why not reread everything he said over the years and decide for yourself. Was Cavitt really there or not?

And yes, football, whether British or American, is far more interesting (to most people) than this tiresome, endless and fruitless investigation of this not-so-great event in human history.

KRandle said...

CDA -

You know that this is an exercise in futility. No matter what is presented, you'll reject it, not to mention setting of parameters that are impossible given the history of the various investigations...

I note that Frank Edwards mentioned the Roswell case in 1965 but then he didn't mention Jesse Marcel.

Lydia Sleppy was interviewed in the early 1970s with her story being reported in SAGA's UFO Report in 1974, but it doesn't mention Jesse Marcel.

Jesse Marcel, Jr. told me that he and his father periodically talked about the crash and their conclusion was that it was alien, but I didn't talk to him until 1989.

Other relatives of Jesse Marcel said that Jesse had told them about the crash but none of them were interviewed until after 1978.

I could go on with those who had talked to Jesse Marcel, but all of that is after 1978 and even if we approached Jesse's ham radio buddies, those interviews would take place in 2015 and be rejected.

Finally, Cavitt said in his interview with Colonel Richard Weaver that he was there in 1947, assigned to the base (in June) and traveled to a crash site. He said that he recognized the debris as a balloon immediately but no one asked him why he didn't mention this important fact to Marcel. Since Cavitt changed his story on numerous occasions, do you reject all that he said, part of it, or none of it?

David Rudiak said...

Brian Bell Babbled:
I wrote: "The point is Friedman never would have made the call if Marcel hadn't obviously told the station director previously that he had handled pieces of a real flying saucer."

BB: Yes obviously. The point really being that Friedman REINFORCED the idea and cemented it as the only possible explanation. The guy had always claimed it was unusual (to him).

Let's see if I have this right. You agree that Friedman never would have learned of Marcel had Marcel not been talking to the station director about handling FS debris. Since this is now 30+ years later and literally everybody knew of the popular idea that they were ET. Marcel obviously would have believed HIS flying saucer was ET, particularly since subsequent interviews had him always discussing the highly unusual physical properties of the debris.

But now it becomes Friedman "reinforced" the idea. Again witnesses are just brainless automatons incapable of having opinions of their own. What alternative "explanation" exactly was going to satisfy Marcel if his opinion was based on the anomalous physical properties of the debris? There would have had to be some secret project utilizing highly advanced materials that still weren't in the public domain 30+ years later. What project was that?

Marcel was an intelligent man able to draw his own logical conclusions. This is, in fact, noted in his performance reviews, such as the one written by Blanchard soon AFTER Roswell. E.g., under "The degree to which he is able to discriminate and evaluate facts to arrive at a logical conclusion", Blanchard gave him a score of 9 out of 10.

Now if Marcel was some idiot who somehow convinced Blanchard that "balloon debris" was from a flying saucer, leading Blanchard to authorize a recovered flying disc press release, do you think Blanchard would be giving Marcel high marks in this category?

And let's not forget the testimony of other people who stated Marcel, in July 1947, was said to have been TRYING to convince everyone what he found wasn't from this planet.

Oh yes, let us not forget "the testimony of other people". Please name all of these "other people". Please show us where this was being mentioned back in 1947, not the testimony of people like Korff decades later.

Off the top of my head, I can think of one and only one person in the PRESENT who ever made this claim, and that was Ramey's weather officer Irving Newton. Originally interviewed in the "Roswell Incident" in 1979/1980, his story made no mention of this, instead being the very basic, straightforward story of Ramey ordering him to his office, where he IDed the weather balloon, he was then dismissed and returned to his post.

By 1994 when AFOSI interviewed him, his story was now embellished with an anecdote about Marcel supposedly chasing him around Ramey's office trying to convince Newton of "alien writing" on the sticks.

Both Newton and Marcel were quoted from fairly extensively in news articles. You would think newsmen would have loved to add such a juicy item to their news story, but all they have Marcel telling is the weather balloon story, nothing even about any writing on the debris. And nothing quoted from Newton either, just that it was a standard rawin weather balloon like hundreds of others he had launched.

OK, so maybe reporters weren't there at the time. But Gen. Ramey was there. How do you think Ramey would have reacted had Marcel really done this, defying his orders to kill the story? It would have been an extremely bad career move for Marcel, don't you think? Instead, Ramey a year later was praising Marcel as "outstanding", command officer material, and protesting his transfer to higher commands, saying he had nobody to replace him.

I would think an over-imaginative intel officer exaggerating mundane balloon material into something alien, plus having trouble following orders, would be very easy to replace.

cda said...

DR:

I share your view that Marcel, in 1947, was probably NOT trying to persuade anyone that the debris was ET in nature. However, I do believe that he WAS doing this post-1978. He was trying to convince some later interviewers after he himself had been subject to a full indoctrination by Friedman.

But as I said before, we have no way of knowing Marcel's inner thoughts during this 30-year 'quiet' period, so my ideas are no more than that.

One thing that does bother me more than a little is this: if Marcel ever really entertained the idea that what he handled were fragments of an ET craft he had plenty of time to inform whoever would listen, such as APRO & NICAP. He had plenty of time to put his thoughts in writing (think of all the 'zines and other printed stuff on UFOs during this period). He could have contacted Keyhoe, Lorenzen, Ruppelt and a myriad of other big time authors as well. WHY DIDN'T HE? There was radio & TV as well. He appeared in the film UFOS ARE REAL (1979) in which Friedman was a consultant (surprise!), but nothing before this. WHY NOT, if he had such a big story to tell?

(If at this point anyone says Marcel was under a strict oath of secrecy, this would imply he should never have spoken to Stan Friedman in 1978. You can't have it both ways).

Why did it take Friedman's persuasive manner to get Marcel to come forward at all?

Lastly, where are all the reports Marcel, Cavitt and Rickett allegedly wrote after the events of 1947? True, Rickett DID write one short report on UFOs, but this was about the green fireballs 18 months later (worked with La Paz).

Amazing!

Don Maor said...

CDA said:

He appeared in the film UFOS ARE REAL (1979) in which Friedman was a consultant (surprise!), but nothing before this. WHY NOT, if he had such a big story to tell?

Naaa, the story by Marcel was not that big. He spoke about materials with strange properties, which can be suggested to be from a flying saucer. On the other hand, things happen for first time. I had my first serious girlfriend when I was 21. Yes, I could have had a serious girlfriend before, at 19, or 17, but I just did not, and it is frankly stupid to ask me why I did not had a girlfriend before. The same goes for Marcel, he just did not speak about his experience before 1978 and that is it. Period.

(If at this point anyone says Marcel was under a strict oath of secrecy, this would imply he should never have spoken to Stan Friedman in 1978. You can't have it both ways).

Marcel might have decided to speak just a little bit, just about materials with strange properties. If he was under oath of secrecy regarding the recovered saucer and bodies, he might have decided that, 30 years later the event, it was fair enough to speak about his own participation on the story, which was related to the strange debris found. And yes, Frank Edwards indeed wrote in 1965 about unnamed witnesses highly reluctant to speak about what really happened in Roswell.


Why did it take Friedman's persuasive manner to get Marcel to come forward at all?
That is the ability of good ufologists, but of course, the fact that an ufologist was persuasive enough as to make a witness go speak, does not mean that the ufologist has hypnotic brain washing powers. That is just your fallacy CDA.

cda said...

Don:

Thanks for your wise remarks. I am quite certain that if at age 17 you had an experience handling very strange material that you considered came from an ET vehicle, you would NOT wait around for 4 years until you were 21 before announcing it to the world.

Regarding Marcel, yes that is it, period. He handled plain common balloon & radar reflector material, period. That's why he never talked about it for 3 decades. Period.

Brice said...

CDA said :

"(If at this point anyone says Marcel was under a strict oath of secrecy, this would imply he should never have spoken to Stan Friedman in 1978. You can't have it both ways)."


Don Maor said :

"Marcel might have decided to speak just a little bit, just about materials with strange properties. If he was under oath of secrecy regarding the recovered saucer and bodies, he might have decided that, 30 years later the event, it was fair enough to speak about his own participation on the story, which was related to the strange debris found . And yes, Frank Edwards indeed wrote in 1965 about unnamed witnesses highly reluctant to speak about what really happened in Roswell."


Indeed, this is a relevant point. There are lots of witnesses that were reluctant to speak about anything that could have blown their career while active, but 30 years later might be willing to come forward (still some needed to be really assured that nothing bad would happen to them and others might have never said anything if nobody has come to them to ask for it...). An example among others : Charles Halt, involved in the rendlesham incident, said he might have never said anaything if the memo he had written would'nt have been found, and in anycase he never came forward before years.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin wrote:

"Please identify those investigators who had concluded Haut's mental faculties were gone..."

Not clear why you asked for this - you know it already.

Dennis Balthaser and Wendy Connors interviewed Haut on-camera in 2000. They both quote, "doubted that the same man interviewed could have written the affidavit he signed".

They stated their videotape shows a man that couldn't remember where he took basic training, names, dates, etc., while his 2002 deathbed affidavit is very detailed and precise with "alien" information.

Bear in mind Haut's daughter, director of the Roswell UFO museum, threatened both Conners and Balthasar if they aired the videotape or made any disclosures about what her father said in that interview.

I guess keeping a myth alive and making money for a small town museum is more important? Let's not forget Schmitt has financial interest in the museum also.

Both Conners and Balthaser claimed Haut couldn't accurately remember any of the details presented just two years after he was video taped.

Schmitt later admitted that the affidavit was not written by Haut (as did Haut's daughter) but prepared for him by Schmitt to sign based on statements Haut made privately to Schmitt and Carey "over a period of years."

Now that's "cooking the books" for you.

Balthaser also stated neither Schmitt nor Carey were there when Haut signed the affidavit and the witness' name has never been revealed, casting serious doubt on the circumstances of the alleged signing of the document.

So tell me why Haut is a serious contender in the "most viable" witness category in your mind? Because he wrote a press release?

Brian Bell said...

Brice wrote:

"There are lots of witnesses that were reluctant to speak about anything that could have blown their career while active, but 30 years later might be willing to come forward (still some needed to be really assured that nothing bad would happen to them and others might have never said anything if nobody has come to them to ask for it...)."

If true, why was Kevin not demoted during his military career? Clearly he served when exposing a strong belief in aliens?

If Roswell really was the most monumentous event in human history, don't you think one of those people would have made it known before Friedman et.al. came bumbling around for alien evidence?

cda said...

Brian:

Re Haut: Why was he ever coerced into writing a 2nd affidavit anyway, his first one being back in 1993? He had already written in in the first one that "I am convinced that the material recovered was some type of craft from outer space". Now go back through all the literature pre-1993 and count the number of times he was questioned/interviewed over & over again. This evidently was not enough for Carey & Schmitt. They wanted something big and overpowering from Haut, so a new series of interviews followed, until... You know the rest.

Go back further to when Haut was first interviewed (by Moore or Friedman in 1979), when he originally gave fairly innocent answers, and draw your own conclusions. Haut suffered from what I call the 'overkill' syndrome, which may be described thus: "if we don't get the pro-ET answers we want, keep repeating the questioning until we do".

I would love to see the complete record of each and every transcript of the Haut interviews in chronological order. They might prove quite an eye-opener. Similarly for Jesse Marcel.

Lance said...

Right on, CDA.

Now that Kevin seems to be interested in clearing up the record, I wonder if he might do those of us interested in this modern myth a favor and make available the transcripts of ALL of the interviews he and dapper Don conducted? And including those that were completely negative in regards to the Roswell tale would be super enlightening.

From the very early days (see the way the Nun's diary was foisted upon us) the bias of those who are trying to sell the myth has gotten in the way of the truth.

I'll know for sure, having seen some transcripts, that there are some howlers in there. I'm sure it would be pretty embarrassing but Kevin is likely the only one who might consider such a step.

Lance

Brice said...

Brice wrote:

"There are lots of witnesses that were reluctant to speak about anything that could have blown their career while active, but 30 years later might be willing to come forward (still some needed to be really assured that nothing bad would happen to them and others might have never said anything if nobody has come to them to ask for it...)."

Brian said :
If true, why was Kevin not demoted during his military career? Clearly he served when exposing a strong belief in aliens?


My answer would be that mostly direct witnesses of sensible events would subjected to personnal consequences on their careers if they revealed things that they should have kept secret. Democracy and freedom of ideas would also means you can't go to any end with everyone who doesn't conform to the army's official position and views. Now this is not to say that one could not undergo pressures or even personnal consequences if going to far while being in the army. But Kevin is far better placed than me to answer on this.

ps : my native language is not english, so sorry if there are some mistakes or things that don't make sense though I do my best to be intelligible.

Brice said...

Brian Bell said :

If Roswell really was the most monumentous event in human history, don't you think one of those people would have made it known before Friedman et.al. came bumbling around for alien evidence?

Most probably no, I believe most people care about their life, career and family caring. So IMO there would be hardly anyone willing to risk their life's career for an isolated testimony. Clearly it would bring nothing but dire consequences on anyone's life.

Brian Bell said...

Lance & CDA -

I do agree most heartily on both accounts.

Schmitt and Carey NEED more evidence to prove their case. In the abscense of it people tend to make it up or get others to say it for them to bolster their hypothesis.

On the missing counter testimonies...I too would like to see some of the transcripts that Kevin and Don collected from what they claimed were about 1,000 interviews with some 500 people?

And despite these interviews, it seems it always come back just to the usual characters, Haut, the Marcel's, Ramey, Blanchard, Joyce, Dennis, etc.

cda said...

Brice:

"Dire consequences"?

Was it really as bad as that? Mind you I do recall Glenn Dennis' claim that he would be buried in the desert or used as 'dog food' if he talked too much! And he was only a civilian.

Brian Bell said...

Threats:

Yes we are supposed to take it on faith they were all sworn to life-long secrecy and told they would be killed if they didn't remain silent. Military and civilian. According to Schmitt and Cary that's why the MP's "raided" every home and cellar after dozens of civilians ran out to the crash site to collect souveniers, one also displayed at a local July carnival (Witness to Roswell).

Yet not one can recall signing a document which is generally the way anything official like that happens. But of course the military ALWAYS follows protocol except when we cherry pick our facts.

So once again we are supposed to ignore this insignificant detail based on the words of witnesses and their present day followers that it all went down EXACTLY as they claimed without a hitch.

Right.

I suppose that entire platoon of MP's running around Roswell and Corona were former members of the Gastspo too.

And so if they WERE threatened, why wasn't every single witness murdered between 1979 and 1982? Huh?

KRandle said...

All -

This discussion is now seriously off the rails. The original post was about Bessie Brazel and what she said over the years, a fact that some of you might have missed (and I note, the interviews that were conducted with her).

And for those who wonder, for the military, every classified briefing begins with a reminder that the information is classified and is not to be shared with those not cleared to hear it. Top Secret and some Secret material is only declassified on review, the rest of it is downgraded at three year intervals, which means that Secret becomes Confidential and Confidential becomes For Official Use Only, which isn't much of a classification. Upon discharge, soldiers are reminded that any classified material to which they were exposed is not to be discussed with anyone in the civilian world. They may be told that unauthorized revelation of classified material is punishable by fines and jail time, which can be construed as a threat.

Now, when Pappy Henderson saw the National Enquirer story about the Roswell crash, he told Sappho that now it was in the newspaper, he could tell her about it. Technically, he was wrong. He shouldn't have said anything to her about it because, as far as he knew, it was still classified. That's the thing about all this. Those who have the knowledge or were in a position to have the knowledge shouldn't verify it for civilians. Of course, most aren't schooled on the finer points of all this, hence, Henderson's belief that he could share the information.

I might point out here that I have discussed Bessie Brazel (well, mentioned her name anyway) Pappy and Sappho Henderson, which are three additional people who were interviewed. I might also point out that neither Ramey (though I did talk to his widow, a very nice lady) nor Blanchard (though some members of his family were interviewed) were interviewed, but are mentioned in the context of their positions in July 1947. There is Frankie Rowe, Edwin Easley, Bill Brazel, Sheridan Cavitt, Lewis Rickett, Beverley Bean and a host of others who are mentioned in the various articles and books.

For those interested, I interviewed Stanley Muelling on January 18, 2012. When I asked about the events of July 1947, without mentioning what it was, he said, "That was all highly classified and we were never to talk about it."

When asked if he had seen anything, he said, "If I did, I already forgot about it... everything was highly classified at the time and I don't remember it now." Is this the sort of thing you all are after? ... oh, for the record, he was 87 at the time I talked to him and I don't think anyone had ever talked to him about this before I did.

David Rudiak said...

(part 1 of 2)
Since Brian Bell is playing the dementia card (naturally) regarding Walter Haut when he started talking about the alien nature of what happened, let me add my PERSONAL observations, since I actually spoke to Haut for 2 hours between 2000, when Wendy Connors and Dennis Balthauser filmed Haut, and 2002 when he signed his second affidavit.

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

Being around aging people as I and no doubt others here have, one gets quite experienced picking up signs of cognitive disability. Even early dementia is usually obvious after a few minutes because the person has problems with their long-term and/or short-term memory, or are easily disoriented, or obsess over even minor things, or can’t do simple tasks, or are extremely moody, and so on. I found that to be the case, e.g., with Robert Shirkey (the asst. operations officer in 1947) when I spoke to him by phone. He was obviously struggling to remember things. In contrast, Ramey's weather officer Irving Newton, who I also spoke to by phone on his 80th birthday for some 2 hours, was very lucid and fluent, though also admitting he didn't remember everything (like the names of the people he was working with at the time).

The Walter Haut I spoke to in August 2001 at the Roswell museum (at about age 75) was like Newton, very clear-headed, fluent, and also somewhat cagey in his answers. I would characterize him as a reluctant witness who was tired of endless interviews over a dozen years and also didn't know me from a hole in the wall. I was not exactly a close confidante. Don Schmitt had arranged the interview in the hope that I could get some significant admission from him, but Haut played his cards close to the chest. If I tried to ask him pointed questions about what exactly happened, his answer would be anybody who tells you they can remember exactly what happened 50 years before is lying.

Now was this Haut admitting he had age-related memory problems or just expressing a truism or dodging a question he didn't want to answer? I think the latter two are the correct read on what Haut was doing.

As to how the affidavit was written and signed, it is not at all unusual for affidavits to be prepared by someone else based on prior interview(s) and reviewed by the witness before signing. In fact, I believe all the affidavits in the AF Roswell Report were prepared this way. None of the witnesses they interviewed wrote their own affidavits. They are also less legally stringent than Haut's (discussion below), were also signed by aging witnesses (who I will assert because of their age must have all been senile), so I guess we can toss those affidavits out as well.

The process by which Haut signed the affidavit sent him was described in detail by his daughter Julie Shuster:

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

Notaries work under stringent legal guidelines. Allowing someone to sign a document knowing them to be unwilling, manipulated, incompetent, or coerced is a serious matter, leading to fining, loss of license, and worse. Sure, the museum notary may have ignored the law, but it is unlikely. The witness was visitor to the museum, thus had no connection to Haut or Shuster.

I don't see Brian Bell having he same scruples about possible manipulation of AF Report witnesses like Trakowski, Cavitt, Moore, and Newton in their signed statements. Not only did they not write their own affidavits, the AFOSI interviewers generally also acted as witnesses and notaries (not really notaries but noted as being authorized to administer oaths). They are called "statements", not affidavits, and given the circumstances would not have the same legal binding force of a true affidavit. In Cavitt's and Spilhaus’ statements, their wives acted as witnesses, not disconnected strangers

Brice said...

Since that was brought up, thanks Kevin for making things a whole lot clearer on these discretion rules regarding classified informations, and additional informations.

David Rudiak said...

(part 2 of 2)
Haut was also seen by his physician prior to signing his affidavit and judged to be of sound mind at the time. (Were the AF witnesses?) Note, this was a little over a year from when I spoke to Haut and also found him to be mentally competent. Of course, a lot can happen in a year, like a stroke, but still I have seen no REAL evidence that Haut was mentally incompetent at the time. This was also 3 years before he died.

As for Haut being manipulated by not writing the affidavit, he had the opportunity to independently review the statements and alter them if he took exception. (Note, for example, AF witnesses like Moore, Cavitt, Newton, and Spilhaus obviously did some sort of review of their PREPARED statements and initialed sections to indicate approval.)

Haut also admitted to a lot of the same things when interviewed by Wendy Connors two years before. I have heard the relevant portions of the interview which Connors sent to me and prepared a transcript:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Haut_2000_interview.html

Connors questions were based on multiple private pre-interviews (just as Don Schmitt said the affidavit was prepared based on numerous private conversations over the years). Connors only tried interviewing Haut on this subject matter after she and Balthauser heard him first admitting privately to a French film crew the same details that Connors later questioned him on, hoping to get him to admit to it on the record.

As you can see from the transcript, and I comment on, Haut is again extremely cagey in his answers, like he was with me at times. Being reluctant to answer directly and giving only tacit approval to the questions does not mean he had dementia and strikes me more of the response of a reluctant witness who didn't want to get into a firestorm he knew such statements would create when eventually made public. Similarly, Haut only agreed to a signed affidavit admitting to the ET details of Roswell if it was to be released after his death.

I also note some differences between the Connors interview and the later affidavit, though still basic agreement on key points. In both, Haut admits to seeing a body or bodies, a craft, and being at a staff meeting in Roswell the morning of the press release at which both Gen. Ramey and his chief of staff Dubose flew in, and discussions on how to handle the event took place.

The key point here is that Haut was already talking about his personal knowledge of an ET event privately with MULTIPLE people before the 2002 affidavit was written and signed.

Brice said...

cda said...
Brice:
"Dire consequences"?

Was it really as bad as that? Mind you I do recall Glenn Dennis' claim that he would be buried in the desert or used as 'dog food' if he talked too much! And he was only a civilian.

Not that I wouldn't answer you but I believe Kevin answered your question far better I would have been able to.

KRandle said...

Here's something else for everyone. I published the relevant comments from an interview with Jason Kellahin who was the reporter sent from Albuquerque to Roswell for the story.

Rather than discuss that issue, we end up in a discussion who was the first to interview him. The point here is that I published much of the transcript of my interview with Kellahin, who said he saw the balloon in the field. I've published other information of a similar kind... And I have lots of interviews in which nothing of importance developed. For example, I interviewed Suzy Manes, who was 64 at the time, who claimed to have some diaries and other relevant information about the case... but those diaries have never surfaced. Do you really need a transcript of that interview? It contained nothing of value.

Oh, and in listing other witnesses I forgot to mention Loretta Proctor, Tommy Tyree, Peter Tytell (though he is a questioned document examiner who looked at the original MJ-12 papers so he might not count)... and what about the guys at a couple of rock shops in New Mexico who told me that moss agate was not found on the Plains of San Agustin... or Alice Knight who gave me Ruth Barnett's diary... I think I will just periodically mention various names that I have talked to during the search for the truth in this and wait for those who sit in their armchairs and read a lot of stuff to mention the names of those they actually talked to...

KRandle said...

Gilles -

I have been trying to find a reference to an interview with Bessie Brazel in 1990 or there abouts. The only thing that I can think of was that she had been invited to the meeting in Washington, D.C. that was hosted by the Fund for UFO Research, but I don't believe she made it. Don Schmitt might have arranged to talk to her, but I have nothing in my files to validate that. I do have an interview with her conducted by John Kirby and Don Mitchell but that was a couple of years later. So, I just don't know what you're talking about on this.

cda said...

Kevin:

You have published some transcripts in ROSWELL UFO CRASH UPDATE, and these are very useful. But these are only partial ones. We would of course also need the transcripts from all the interviews with Moore, Friedman, Pflock, Carey, Schmitt and indeed anyone else over the whole post-1978 period. Obviously this is quite impossible now, but I did say it would be a real eye-opener if we could see (or hear) all, or most, of these, even at this late date.

Your remarks about too many in armchairs who have never spoken to anyone are relevant, but I must remind you that it is YOU (and colleagues) who are trying to persuade the world that a manned ET craft crashed in the desert. It is not up to us to disprove this idea. If you want to convince the scientific world, the ball is certainly in your court. All we skeptics can do is point out some very obvious and serious discrepancies. We cannot ever entirely disprove your hypothesis.

Those top secret papers proving your case MIGHT (conceivably might) be in those secret vaults after all!

Brian Bell said...

CDA wrote:

"...must remind you that it is YOU (and colleagues) who are trying to persuade the world that a manned ET craft crashed in the desert. It is not up to us to disprove this idea."

I was about to post the very same thing verbatim. It isn't a skeptic's job to disprove anything or to prove aliens didn't crash at Roswell.

If anything, a robust challenge of your concepts, ideas, facts, guestimations, and so forth should be WELCOMED as means to ferret out the details that can be validated as true - there is no peer evaluation of any kind in ufology, so this is as close as it probably comes.

But no, believers must attack skeptics because skeptic's press them hard about their conclusions.

KRandle said...

CDA -

No one is denying that it is up to those of us who suggest the solution to the Roswell crash is alien are the ones who must prove it. I understand the concept completely. However, there are some who will accept anything that suggests otherwise as the truth without critical comment. Kal Korff was famous for inventing stories about the witnesses and confusing fact and fiction, though there is little fact in his book.

I will also point out that many of the interviews were captured on video tape for the Fund for UFO Research, many of the tapes were shared with CUFOS. I have provided various individuals with copies of taped interviews, some on a confidential basis only to see that confidentiality violated and the tapes show up on YouTube or used by others with neither credit nor attribution. And just who do you think will pay for the copies, the transcriptions and everything thing else? There are, literally, hundreds of interviews. Some of them are interesting but in the end shed no light on the Roswell case.

But the point is that I have shared a great deal of information with others for no return other than criticism about methodology and a suggestion that I reject the negative to embrace the ETH and have all sorts of motives ascribed to me that are the invention of others. Just look at how the post about Jason Kellahin degenerated into a discussion of who interviewed him before I did when all I was attempting to do was not make a claim that might have untrue... and look how I have been trashed in other books. Why should I bother?

Lance said...

Kevin, surely you understand confirmation bias?

Your statement:

"Do you really need a transcript of that interview? It contained nothing of value."

makes me think that you do not.

Yes, you did a lot of work in this. You did the interviews--folks like me didn't. I do sit from an armchair and criticize. What did you expect for the claim that you have evidence for FLYING SAUCERS FROPM OUTER SPACE? Mute acquiescence?

Since these interviews are the only "data" in this tawdry little circus, YES, of course, non-confriming ones ARE important, too.

If you can't see that, I am surprised.

Not surprised to hear of yet ANOTHER diary that never came through. As far as contemporaneous evidence goes, you are batting zero on that. On confused, dubious, conflicting, often lying testimony, you are batting 1000!

Releasing ALL transcripts would help to bury this myth (which is already sinking fast).

Lance


KRandle said...

Fine Lance, I'll send you a bill...

Don't understand your comment revolving around the Suzy Manes interview. Just what do you mean "Makes me think that you do not..."

And your bias is showing with "Releasing ALL transcripts would help to bury this myth (which is already sinking fast). Again, I'll send you a bill.

Lance said...

Kevin,

What I was saying is that an interview with someone making a claim to have diaries that confirm some portion of Roswell, a claim that later proved to be unsupportable IS evidence. It's just not the kind of evidence you desire. Disconfirming evidence is evidence. Saying that such an interview is not of importance is confirmation bias.

I am well aware that releasing transcripts of your interviews is wholly up to your own generosity. And I wouldn't even imagine such a thing happening with any other Roswell personality. Can't think of any one of them honest enough to do that.

Lance

Wind Swords said...

Let me add my 2 cents on this with the hope that it may bring some clarity to this never ending debate. I am skeptical of the Roswell event being ET but I am open to being persuaded. The core of this debate in my humble opinion is what happened from the time that Brazel went to Sheriff Wilcox to when Haut put out the press release. That is when the whole question of what the debris on the ranch was became an issue 30 odd years later. That is when the first hand witnesses to the debris saw what they saw and handled what they handled. Before talk of a second (or third) crash site, before the army nurse, before the bodies, before the Ramey memo, before the child size coffins.

For you who hold to ETH to explain Roswell, you are going to have to explain how foil, rubber, sticks, and paper make an interstellar vehicle. Heck even an scout ship or an escape pod you should have something more solid. But there wasn't. There has never been proven to have been a gouge in the earth at the crash site either. But even if the ship explodes into "million of pieces", why foil, paper, rubber and sticks? Then you have to explain if Marcel really thought it "was not of this earth" why did his CO have a press release issued that said they had "captured" a flying disc, indicating it was intact. How do you capture something that is scattered over 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile, with no piece bigger than a beachball? Why wasn't this clamped down as top secret from the get go? Why did Blanchard go on leave soon after?

For those who hold that Roswell was mundane, you are going to have to explain why Marcel thought foil was unusual, even fantastic. But it wasn't just him, but his son as well. You could certainly think that his son would just want to back anything his dad said, but we have Bessie Brazel saying the same thing. One witness is significant, two is better, but three means that you just can't discount it. You are also going to have to explain how Marcel couldn't recognize balloon materials. It doesn't have to be a Mogul or weather balloon per say but just mundane balloon materials. If Marcel showed the material to Blanchard, why didn't he realize it was from a balloon or other mundane stuff? Could Blanchard have thought that this was possibly one of the flying discs that had been in the news as Kevin believes?

Forget the Ramey memo, it will never be conclusive barring a technological breakthrough. Forget the nun's diaries, they never will be found. Stop arguing over flight No 4, none of you were there and no really knows what they launched and when - only what they said. And know one really knows what the exact weather conditions were either. Geez, they can't even predict the weather today with computers and doppler radar, I'm not gonna put faith in 65 year old weather reports.

So that's what it comes down to in my opinion. Everything else is a distraction. The truth is there somewhere in those first few days. We can progress if ask more questions. Did Blanchard see what Marcel picked up on the ranch, did Marcel ever talk to Haut before the PR went out, if Bessie said the metal was unusual when did she see its peculiar properties, and why did her dad they say it just a bunch of "junk", didn't he see how unusual the metal was? I like what Paul Young suggested in an earlier post, that maybe the ship collided with a weather/non-Mogul Mogul test cluster. I don't think that happened but he's thinking outside the box instead of going over the same ground.

But we won't get to the truth by arguing minutia and saying this or that person is deceitful, crazy, blind, bloviating, etc.

Just my 2 cents, but from the length of this post it looks like inflation has driven it up to 25 cents.

Nitram Ang said...

Hello Kevin & Lance

Have enjoyed reading your last few posts - you both should be in the entertainment industry...

On a serious note however, you re correct of course Kevin - photocopying, postage etc all cost time and money. Lance is right though - you would gladly release the transcripts or information if I asked you for them - Lance is really giving you a compliment and I don't know anyone who doesn't consider you to be 100% honest in relation to your work as an investigator.

Which isn't to say that Lance (or I for that matter) agree with your "final conclusion" in relation to Roswell - (but I think I can speak for Lance also when I say) we certainly appreciate the honest and objective work you have done (and continue to do) with this "ongoing investigation"

Best wishes
Nitram

Lance said...

Wind Swords -- I will attempt to address the points you raised that seem addressed to skeptics:

"For those who hold that Roswell was mundane, you are going to have to explain why Marcel thought foil was unusual, even fantastic. But it wasn't just him, but his son as well. You could certainly think that his son would just want to back anything his dad said, but we have Bessie Brazel saying the same thing."

Skeptics look upon the story of the miraculous foil as coming post-1979 after UFO believers had already planted the seeds of what has become the mythology. We put much more stock in the 1947 evidence. There is no indication of any of this idea in 1947, quite the opposite. Indeed Marcel himself said that the stuff he picked up on the ranch is the same stuff we see him with in the photos. Twice. Then when he realized that this wasn't working for the UFO crowd, he made up a lie about there being SOME of the real stuff at the photo sessions but he hid it behind some paper. The indication that he was changing his story to suit the UFO believers is so obvious that you have to simply be in denial to ignore it. Naturally that is what the buffs do.

As far as putting aside multiple witnesses, let me remind you that there were (at one time) multiple witnesses to seeing a crashed craft, too. It's just that all of those witnesses proved to be liars and frauds (as stipulated by the pro-Roswell side).


===

"You are also going to have to explain how Marcel couldn't recognize balloon materials. It doesn't have to be a Mogul or weather balloon per say but just mundane balloon materials."

We don't say that he didn't recognize it. He undoubtedly did. But he came to the conclusion that the materials he found were part of one of the flying saucer contraptions that were all over the paper. This was before UFOs had become a low rent religion so people didn't always connect them to space brothers or whatever. There was apparently no identifying text, there was the odd tape with flowers or whatever. All this must have contributed to the misidentification.

The very idea that the dumb magical debris JUST HAPPENED to look JUST LIKE foil paper and balsa wood sticks is one of the most hilarious parts of the story that the believers try to pass off with a straight face.

==

"If Marcel showed the material to Blanchard, why didn't he realize it was from a balloon or other mundane stuff? Could Blanchard have thought that this was possibly one of the flying discs that had been in the news as Kevin believes?"

Don't know for sure if Blanchard was part of it. Possibly he was. Possibly he agreed that this was one of the disks. It sounds somewhat like the disk in Texas recovered by authorities that Blanchard may have read about in the Roswell paper that morning (!): melted foil or celluloid. We know for sure that folks in Circleville, OH found a similar device that WAS clearly marked AND STILL thought that it might have something to do with the disk mystery.

==

So that is it in broad strokes. Happy to answer any more detailed questions.

Lance

Wind Swords said...

Lance,

Just to be clear, is it your contention that Bessie Brazel's statement about the metal properties was also a result of the post 1979 "seed planting"?

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

Actually reading her testimony above, it seems consistent with prosaic balloon debris. If the interview was in 1990, then the some of the mythology was already in place. The foil could not be torn like ordinary foil--okay--could it be torn like paper laminate backed foil? This is weak stuff.

Lance

Nitram Ang said...

Lance dishonestly wrote:

"The very idea that the dumb magical debris JUST HAPPENED to look JUST LIKE foil paper and balsa wood sticks is one of the most hilarious parts of the story that the believers try to pass off with a straight face."

Lance, it has been explained to you many times, that the "dumb magical debris" in Ramey's office was switched with the real stuff. If the stuff shown in the photographs was the stuff (and only stuff) recovered - then we have no ET explanation (Kevin/David - you are most welcome to confirm)

You comment therefore that the "supposed flying saucer recovered" was made of foil and basa wood is misleading to put it politely.

I therefore politely request that you correct your earlier statement or are you not going to admit your mistake like some of the "believers" you criticize for the same sort of "research"?

Regards Nitram

Lance said...

Martin, you misunderstand.

The joke is that the magical stuff, the space foil and saucer sticks that is promoted as the "real" debris STILL happens to look just like regular foil and balsa wood sticks. We are asked to believe that this is just a coincidence.

Did you really never realize this?

Lance

Nitram Ang said...

Lance

It is not accepted that the "real debris" looks like regular foil and balsa wood sticks...

I might agree that the "real debris" looked a bit like "silver metal", but was thinner and lighter - this was how a "first hand witness" described it to me.

The real point is that you maintain that the stuff in the photos is the real stuff, however, this is NOT ACCEPTED by the believers as what was really recovered by Marcel, Cavitt and others.

I trust this now makes things clearer Lance...

Regards
Nitram

Brice said...

@Wind Swords : I'm by no way any expert on Roswell (just read 2 books about it and some internet) but even though your questions are relevant IMO, they have long been debated and I'm not sure it's worthwhile to go through them all once again...

---

Wind Swords said:
"You are also going to have to explain how Marcel couldn't recognize balloon materials. It doesn't have to be a Mogul or weather balloon per say but just mundane balloon materials."

lance said :
We don't say that he didn't recognize it. He undoubtedly did. But he came to the conclusion that the materials he found were part of one of the flying saucer contraptions that were all over the paper.

Lance, are you suggesting here that Marcel thought that the flying saugers things were made of mundane balloon materials? I can't believe you're serious

---

Lance said :

"There is no indication of any of this idea in 1947, quite the opposite. Indeed Marcel himself said that the stuff he picked up on the ranch is the same stuff we see him with in the photos. Twice. "

could you please provide your sources for this ("twice")


I would just add that's it not only about Marcel's incapacity to recognize mundane balloon materials (which I personnally don't believe), but you (mean not personnally) have to explain how his superiors couldn't neither, why Cavitt's identification of a balloon didn't come through, and how could it be linked with any flying saucer idea. IMO, this scenario (misidentification of ballon materials) relies not only upon total incapacity of the army at any level, but also some crazy silliness for messing it up with a flying disc and issuing a PR. IMO it doesn't stand up.

cda said...

Nitram:

You would not expect the believers to accept the stuff displayed in the photos as the real recovered debris, would you? To do so would destroy their pro-ET case forever.

In fact Marcel did say (when shown two photos by Moore/Friedman) that ONE of them showed the real thing, the other the ersatz debris. In other words, Marcel was already beginning to give M & F a 'way out' of their dilemma, since the stuff looked so ordinary. Later, of course, the whole story changed and ALL the debris became substituted debris, to fool the photographer & any possible reporters present.

Now the 'accepted' gospel (accepted by whom?) is that this stuff was all phony and the real stuff was hidden away. Well, it would have to be, wouldn't it? Otherwise the 'Roswell as ET' thesis would crash to earth, just like the original saucer is said to have done.

If the only available photographic evidence contradicts what you are trying to prove, then this evidence must be fake. Simple isn't it?

Again, if we could see ALL the interview transcripts we might get an inkling of how this myth of the substituted debris arose. Don't forget that there is a version that says the damn substituted debris was shipped from Roswell to Ft. Worth, along with the real debris! Can you beat that?

cda said...

I should add that Brazel described the junk, in his interview, more or less exactly as was shown in the Ft. Worth photos (which he could not possibly have seen at that point). But the believers have a simple answer to this too - Brazel merely told the press what the military instructed him to say. Simple, again, isn't it? But that's Roswell.

Brian Bell said...

Given the FACT Marcel said the photo in Ramey's office was the real debris, then said it was MIXED some real and some switched, and then CHANGED to say it was all switched and everything there was not the real debris is a real problem you can't just ignore.

You'll also need to explain why Haut's deathbed affidavit said Ramey and Dubose flew to RAAF on July 7 to have a staff meeting on the morning of July 8 where Marcel was present and the decision was made to conceal the real debris with a cover story, and then why Marcel claimed he was so upset that the real debris was switched. If the guy was at the meeting where it was decided to make up a cover story why was he so "upset" that he was asked to take photos with switched material?

Did he really think he would pose for photos with the real stuff in Ramey's office after just attending a meeting where Ramey ordered a cover story?

The early reports from everyone including Bessie are consistent with what was shown in the photos.

The only thing you don't like is that 30 years later people claimed the debris was unusual.

Well unless they had seen many downed balloons with Rawin targets attached they wouldn't have any reference point. RAAF didn't fly those targets and Marcel had never handled one before.

So it just all seemed odd to some people at the time. Later it all became "alien spaceship" material.

cda said...

Brian:

Yes, simple earthly debris suddenly metamorphosed into a spaceship 30 years later. And some took this terrible secret to their graves. God bless them!

But I guess Kevin would say we have strayed way off topic. He's right too.

Lance said...

Brice:

Here is Kevin's "explanation" of the inconvenient fact of Marcel's ever changing story:

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

Spoiler alert: Marcel later changed his story so everything is still okay for the believers (somehow).

As far as your second point, you may want to read Kevin's last few posts. Because he now admits this same basic scenario as proposed by skeptics for years. In 1947, flying disk didn't mean the same thing as it does now. It had not become a religion for non-critical thinkers at that time. At that time, it was perfectly reasonable to assume that the disks could be some homemade contraption (and as I mentioned) people were misidentifying similar junk as disks all over the country. So you may not believe I am serious but I am supported by actual 1947 facts.

Lance

Wind Swords said...

Brian,

RE: Haut's deathbed affidavit

I think we can all agree that Haut's final affidavit was very exaggerated to say the least. He was the base PIO officer, a Lt who would not have access to everything he claimed. He put more of himself into the story as time went by. I'm not going to toss out his earliest statements since I believe the earlier the testimony the better. Doesn't mean I think everything he said is gospel either, I'm just not going to disregard everything a man says over the years based on an affidavit made when he was not well health wise and may have been overly influenced by those who shall not be named.


Brice,

RE: Cavitt's identification of a balloon

You bring a up a good point here. IF Cavitt was there, and IF he knew it was a balloon, why didn't he report it to Blanchard? Did he not go back to the base with or without Marcel and say something?

I'm going to take some inspiration from Paul Young and think a little outside the box. What if Cavitt never reported to Blanchard? He wasn't under Blanchard's command IIRC. Maybe he thought Marcel knew what it was and he left it at that. Then the PR hits the news wires and HE calls General Ramey, "Sir, it's a freaking [weather] balloon!". He may not have known what kind of balloon it was. So Ramey is thinking "Oh crap, the press is in an uproar thinking we have an Alien/Nazi/Soviet flying disc in our possession". And Ramey tells the press it was just a weather balloon.

And maybe, because the real material is so shredded/messed up (which is why Marcel couldn't ID it in the first place and why Brazel said it was "junk") he displays a fairly pristine looking weather balloon and RAWIN for the press to take pics of. He tells Marcel to keep his mouth shut, not because he instigating some sinister government cover-up, but because he wants the press off his back and doesn't want the soon to become independent Air Force to be embarrassed anymore than it is.

Lance said...

Wind Swords says:

"You bring a up a good point here. IF Cavitt was there, and IF he knew it was a balloon, why didn't he report it to Blanchard? Did he not go back to the base with or without Marcel and say something?"

Sigh. Do you not understand the the skeptical scenario. I am really not doing my job!

Under our scenario EVERYONE recognized the component parts. It is just that they STILL decided that this was one of the disk contraptions they were reading about. All the pure speculation about who reports to who, etc. etc. is needlessly multiplying entities.

Lance

Wind Swords said...

Lance said:

"Under our scenario EVERYONE recognized the component parts."

We will have to agree to disagree. I believe it was a misidentification in some form. I don't see how Marcel could recognize mundane materials or parts and still say flying disc, even if flying disc did not mean from outer space.

cda said...

Wind Swords:

The point is that Marcel NEVER USED the phrase 'flying disc' in '47. If you doubt me, please show me the 1947 source where he uses that phrase. He may well have used that phrase decades later, but this is not the point.

Another telling point is that Marcel & Brazel were at one point trying to fit the debris together to make a kite. This is clearly stated. The 'disk' reference is in quotes in the same article in RDR; this was not Marcel's terminology but the journalist's.

The idea that Marcel couldn't identify what he found stems from the fact that it had to be sent to Ft.Worth. It was sent there at Ramey's request, not because nobody at RAAF could identify the stuff. Ramey wanted to play 100% safe and see it for himself, that's all.

Lance said...

Hi Wind Swords,

That is fine. But you are telling me what you "believe" without support.

I, on the other hand, can show you several unrelated examples in 1947 of people misidentifying prosaic material and calling it a flying disk. What you are saying is that "my people were special snowflakes who would never make such a mistake".

Lance

Wind Swords said...

CDA,

Well we are back to: why did Haut's press release say "flying disc"? You are saying that Marcel didn't say flying disc to Blanchard and either Blanchard said it to Haut or Haut came up with it on his own... unless you have another idea. This is the one thing I don't understand about the case. I get bad memories, confabulation, "seed planting" etc. But how does "junk" as Brazel described it turn into a "captured flying disc"? Lance is cool with it, because he has examples of people misidentifying mundane materials as a flying disk, but correct me if I'm wrong, they were not Air Force officers.

David Rudiak said...

Wind Swords wrote:

"For you who hold to ETH to explain Roswell, you are going to have to explain how foil, rubber, sticks, and paper make an interstellar vehicle."

The "ETH-ers" contend the above description of materials is NOT what was found but was the cover story given to the press. Gen. Ramey's chief of staff, Brig. Gen. Thomas Dubose, said as much in his affidavit and in interviews. They put out a weather balloon story to get the press off their backs.

The original base press release had no description of debris (in fact stated this was being withheld). Gen. Ramey started changing the story to weather balloon, now with some descriptions like foil and box-kite (but also with the "box kite" being 25 feet across if reconstructed! Some "box-kite"!). This story became official 3 hours after the press release once Ramey brought in his weather officer.

Meanwhile, Marcel, saying he was following Ramey's orders (corroborated by Gen. Dubose), also gave a balloon debris description widely quoted the next day. (Easy to do, with such debris right under his nose in Ramey's office. Unfortunately, Marcel also gave the game away back then saying the tiny quantity of debris was scattered over a "square mile.")

Sheriff Wilcox was also putting out a balloon story, claiming Brazel came in saying maybe he had found a "weather meter" (contradicting Brazel who would soon claim he told the sheriff maybe he had found a "flying disc"). Wilcox would also say what was found was only about as large as his safe, or three by four feet. In one story, however, when pushed for a more detailed description of what Brazel found, Wilcox was described as refusing, explaining he was "working with those fellows at the base"(AP story). Family members decades later tell us this wasn't a friendly relationship, but Wilcox being coerced with actual death threats.

Finally, Brazel, SEVERAL HOURS LATER, was in the office of the Roswell Daily Record, giving the above description of balloon debris. Reporters at the scene (including the just-discussed Jason Kellahin of AP) and friends of Brazel's in town say he was surrounded by a group of military officers. Multiple other testimony has Brazel in military custody and being coerced.

So it all comes down to what you believe. There are certainly other well-documented historical instances of the government putting out cover stories through the press. (E.g., the 1960 U-2 incident) What is in print is not necessarily what really happened, only a documentation of what was reported at the time.

If you think there was no coercion and testimony was freely given, then flimsy balloon debris was described and found. (But those who hold this theory also can't come up with a causative balloon that fits all the testimony and the historical record.)

If witnesses were coerced and instructed to give such descriptions (or else), then something else entirely was found. The vast bulk of later witness testimony says the latter (something else) happened.

Paul Young said...

As an aside, is there any knowledge about the condition of any "definite" mogul balloons that have ever burst, during flight, and been recovered?
The description of the Foster ranch "balloon" debris suggests that it was absolutely obliterated.

Do they all completely disintegrate into a thousand pieces when popped?

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

Lance wrote :

"Here is Kevin's "explanation" of the inconvenient fact of Marcel's ever changing story: http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2009/10/roswell-ufo-and-jesse-marcel.html"

ok, thanks for the link, I will read that entry

Lance wrote :

"As far as your second point, you may want to read Kevin's last few posts. Because he now admits this same basic scenario as proposed by skeptics for years. In 1947, flying disk didn't mean the same thing as it does now. It had not become a religion for non-critical thinkers at that time. At that time, it was perfectly reasonable to assume that the disks could be some homemade contraption (and as I mentioned) people were misidentifying similar junk as disks all over the country. So you may not believe I am serious but I am supported by actual 1947 facts. "

and

"RE: Cavitt's identification of a balloon

You bring a up a good point here. IF Cavitt was there, and IF he knew it was a balloon, why didn't he report it to Blanchard? Did he not go back to the base with or without Marcel and say something?

I'm going to take some inspiration from Paul Young and think a little outside the box. What if Cavitt never reported to Blanchard? He wasn't under Blanchard's command IIRC. Maybe he thought Marcel knew what it was and he left it at that. Then the PR hits the news wires and HE calls General Ramey, "Sir, it's a freaking [weather] balloon!". He may not have known what kind of balloon it was. So Ramey is thinking "Oh crap, the press is in an uproar thinking we have an Alien/Nazi/Soviet flying disc in our possession". And Ramey tells the press it was just a weather balloon. "


Well wasn't it Blanchard who sent both Marcel and Cavitt to the crash site ? So I guess Cavitt should have reported to Blanchard the result of his investigations (moreover as he went back to the base before Marcel). Now since your hypothesis is that Marcel also recognized the materials as of weather balloons remnaints, whether Cavitt reported or not to Blanchard is of unimportance as there would have been no difference with Marcel's report under this hypothesis - Where it pauses a problem is that if Marcel didn't recognized the remnaints of weather balloons (and neither Blanchard apparently) then Cavitt's report should have got in the way (which apparently didn't). So now we go onto another problem on which I disagree with you here.

I'm also willing to say that in 1947, there were lots of doubts about what were the flying saucers, and that they were not automatically thought of as alien spaceships though it might still have been considered some uncertain possibility. Now, to be fair one should examine the conditions around which some crashed stuff would have been labeled a flying disc. For example, it's understandable that in the Circleville case, newspapers would carry on stories about a flying disk as a recall about Campbell thoughts that it might looks like one while aloft (let's not forget newspapers are looking for attractive titles), but it's one big step further to assert high ranking military officers would make the remnants of some mundane weather balloons a flying saucer to the point of publicly announcing it. You might believe this, but I for myself find this idea totally irrealistic.

Lance said...

" but correct me if I'm wrong, they were not Air Force officers."

That's right, as far as I remember. But now we are throughly into conspiracy type thinking. If I found officers, you might say, well, they weren't a certain kind of officer, etc. I can show that people did make such a mistake. The rejoinder that your people were special is rather weak (as evidence for Flying Saucers).

Additionally, I should at least address the logical fallacy of your earlier summation. David also makes the same mistake over and over:

Those claiming that the junk recovered near Roswell was flying saucers from outer space have the FULL burden of providing robust evidence to prove the claim.

Skeptics aren't under the same constraints.

Every single bit of contemporaneous evidence points to the mundane. And since this is the case, the myth makers have had to construct a hilariously crazy story to account for the howlers (space sticks that look and feel just like balsa wood, their main witness DIRECTLY refuting the whole thing twice on camera and then concocting a silly lie to get things back into saucerville, subsequent top secret documents that specifically say that no disk has ever been recovered. multiple frauds etc. etc.).

If you cannot see the artifice then carry on in the direction you like.

Lance

Brice said...

Paul Young said :

"As an aside, is there any knowledge about the condition of any "definite" mogul balloons that have ever burst, during flight, and been recovered?
The description of the Foster ranch "balloon" debris suggests that it was absolutely obliterated.

Do they all completely disintegrate into a thousand pieces when popped? "

Indeed, I personnally don't think so (the rawin targets and sticks neither) and I believe most of the materials would have been found somehow broken but still recognizable in their shape (if that was a mogul balloon).

Lance said...

Paul says:

"The description of the Foster ranch "balloon" debris suggests that it was absolutely obliterated. "

Well one description did. But not all of them. The actual contemporaneous descriptions in the newspaper and most of the later recollections describe more intact balloons, very like the one(s) seen in the photographs. That material has been out in the sun for some time> 10 days (see the work that Tim Printy did on neoprene deterioration in the sun).

Lance


Lance said...

"Indeed, I personnally don't think so (the rawin targets and sticks neither) and I believe most of the materials would have been found somehow broken but still recognizable in their shape (if that was a mogul balloon)."

Great, that is just what we see in the photographs.

cda said...

Here is a perfectly feasible and plausible scenario: (fantasists will of course say otherwise).

1. Blanchard phones Ramey on the 8th saying debris has been recovered. He and Marcel both believe it was a balloon of some kind plus an attached radar reflector (or reflectors). Maybe more than one call takes place.
2. Haut's press release goes out shortly afterwards. It refers to a 'flying disc' but without any description of the 'disc'.
3. Ramey, not having seen the object, expresses some doubts and, bearing in mind the intensity of the cold war in '47 and fear of a Russian craft, requests Blanchard to forward at least some of the debris to him at Ft.Worth.
4. Blanchard does this and sends Marcel (& maybe one other) with the debris in an AF bomber.
5. Ramey has his weather officer examine it and they agree it is balloon plus radar target debris.
6. The press are told and photos are taken in Ramey's office of this debris.
7. Brazel gives a short report to the press in Roswell, while Marcel gives a similar one in Fort Worth. The times of these interviews differ a bit, but so what?

End of story.

No I cannot prove the above, nor am I going to try. But it is still a plausible scenario.

Granted, the narratives told between 35 and 50 years later can, and will, give a different impression, if selected portions of the interviews are taken and witnesses are gently 'coached'. Then repeat these interviews over and over again and eventually white elephants will turn into pink ones. The only true way of resolving this is to see and listen to the complete transcrips in chronological order. Alas, this will never happen. Meanwhile, even after 68 years, the alleged ET hardware, bodies and documentation remains hidden and elusive as ever. Remarkable.

Brian Bell said...

Brazel initially reported the debris had been in the field since around June 24.

Given the supposed thunderstorms and other elements at hand, an array of Rawin targets (not just one) may have drifted downward, dragged on the ground for some time, in which those targets would shred.

Let's not forget if they were out there in the wind and storms it would have widened the debris field to some degree.

And if Brazel and Marcel tried to assemble portions into a kite (meaning radar target), it clearly wasn't large portions of an alien space ship they found. By the way why wasn't Cavitt there helping to assemble the kite?

One can ask if Rawin targets and balloons can burst into shreds, but let's apply the same logic to an alien space ship.

Do alien spaceships made out of liquid memory metal also shred into hundreds of tiny pieces?

And if it really was a "square mile" of debris this spaceship would have been about one or two miles in diameter itself.

Brice said...

David Rudiak said :

"What is in print is not necessarily what really happened, only a documentation of what was reported at the time."

just wanted to say that this is quite a fairly levelheaded statement every skeptic should kept in mind.

BTW Thanks David for sharing so much information here. It happens I have quite some time now to go through some many previous Kevin's blog entries & comments, and I found your posts to be the most informative and detailed ones, with Kevin's, on this Roswell case. It's just great to be able to read so much on here.

David Rudiak said...

Brian Bell continues with his assault on the facts and, yea human reason itself: (part 1 of 2)

Brazel initially reported the debris had been in the field since around June 24.

June 14, Mr. Roswell Expert, but who's counting?

Given the supposed thunderstorms and other elements at hand, an array of Rawin targets (not just one) may have drifted downward, dragged on the ground for some time, in which those targets would shred.

But then all these allegedly shredded radar targets and "rubber strips", according to how Brazel's story was reported, he rolled into two distinct bundles of rubber strips and "foil and sticks"

But in Fort Worth all those "shreds" reassembled into a slightly used but otherwise intact singular weather balloon and a SINGULAR radar target, as Ramey and his people said they were in 1947 and the photos show..

BTW, this isn’t just what was reported back then or my ignorant say-so. I have done an actual scientific analysis of the debris in the photos, reconstructing the scene and debris with a 3D raytracer. The balloon in the photos could fit into a shoebox and the radar target adds up to exactly one radar target, not multiple shredded radar targets mixed together.

Let's not forget if they were out there in the wind and storms it would have widened the debris field to some degree.

Yes, perhaps, but with all those rain storms, you would think the white paper backing of Ramey's radar target would show some evidence of water staining (or early morning dew staining), instead being a pristine, even white in all the photos, like would be expected of a NEW radar target taken out of a box and broken up by hand for a photo op.

Another problem is that a balloon train plus radar targets would be held together with high-strength balloon rigging snarled in brush and terrain. The parts don't all magically untie themselves, fly off separately in the wind to be scattered over a wide area, and then leave no trace of the rigging behind. (Brazel also specifically denied finding ANY rigging.)

And if Brazel and Marcel tried to assemble portions into a kite (meaning radar target), it clearly wasn't large portions of an alien space ship they found. By the way why wasn't Cavitt there helping to assemble the kite?

Cavitt denied in his AF interview ever going out with Marcel or ever meeting Brazel. Instead, he said he went out with his assistant Rickett and all they found was a TINY balloon crash no bigger than his living room.

The huge discrepancies in the stories just keep piling up. Marcel (1947), debris scattered over a "square mile"; Brazel (1947); debris scattered over a region 200 yards across; Cavitt (1994), debris scattered over "20 feet square"; (or even Bessie Brazel’s more modern “acre” or football field size). These debris field size descriptions vary by several orders of magnitude.

Yet, even in this thread, BB keeps telling us the descriptions are all "consistent" with one another and the photos in Ramey's office.

David Rudiak said...

(part 2 of 2)

One can ask if Rawin targets and balloons can burst into shreds, but let's apply the same logic to an alien space ship.

Human aircraft blowing up while flying in the air shred into thousands of pieces scattered over a wide area (which is what Marcel believed happened). Examples below. So, indeed, let’s apply the same logic to an “alien space ship”. What would happen if one of those blew up while flying in the air? Perhaps the same sort of thing as a human aircraft—thousands of pieces scattered over a wide area?

Do alien spaceships made out of liquid memory metal also shred into hundreds of tiny pieces?

Yet ANOTHER example of BB’s USUAL misrepresentation of testimony: "memory metal", yes; "liquid" memory metal no. The only mention of a “liquid”-like property came From Frankie Rowe. Rowe said a piece she saw flowed like water and flattened out when crumpled up and released, a metaphor, not literally meaning it was "liquid".

And if it really was a "square mile" of debris this spaceship would have been about one or two miles in diameter itself.

Now BB is descending steeply into beyond stupid territory.

TWA 800 blew up in midair and shredded into many thousands of pieces scattered over a roughly linear debris field about 3 miles in length and covering at least 1 square mile. Lockerbie Pan Am Flight 103 blew up in mid-air and had debris scattered over 800 square miles. Malaysia Flight 13, recently blown up over the Ukraine, had a debris field approximately 10 miles across and perhaps 100 square miles in size. Space Shuttle Columbia started disintegrating about 40 miles up flying thousands of miles an hour and had debris scattered from west Texas through Louisanna over tens of thousands of square miles.

However, by BB expert reasoning, the size of these human-made aircraft would need to be on the order of the debris field size itself.

In the REAL world, however, debris field size is determined by the speed and altitude of the craft when it breaks up, how rapidly and in what manner the craft breaks up into smaller pieces, the winds, and the lightness and shape of the debris shards themselves. It has little relation to the actual size of the aircraft. (The total quantity does, but not the area over which it is scattered.)

The Brazel debris field was much smaller than those produced by the above described high-altitude aircraft disasters, and according to Marcel was a primarily linear debris field with debris concentrated in an area roughly 200-300 yards wide by 3/4 to 1 mile long (though lighter concentrations of outlying debris may have covered his reported 1947 one "square mile"). Marcel thought it was caused by an aircraft flying at high speed exploding at low altitude to produce the more confined linear debris field. Both Marcel and Bill Brazel reported Brazel Sr. reporting a loud explosion at night in a violent thunderstorm.

So yes, even alien spaceships made of high-strength materials have physical limits. Explosions will tear ANYTHING apart, and it doesn’t have to be that big a craft to produce a large debris field if up in the air and flying rapidly, just like human aircraft.

I’ve overcharged a small capacitor the size of a thimble and had it explode into its mostly foil pieces scattered over probably a hundred square foot area. The area of this “debris field” was many thousands of times larger than the exploding object itself, which is typical of things that explode.

Nitram Ang said...

Hi David

Great response - no doubt quite time consuming though.

As mentioned earlier, you don't need to respond to every silly statement made by every Roswell novice who chooses to post here...

Maybe you should follow Kevin's example and send them a bill too.

Regards
Nitram

Brian Bell said...

@ DR

I said "around June 24" but thanks for clarifying as it stands your correction furthers my point.

--

"The huge discrepancies in the stories just keep piling up. Marcel (1947), debris scattered over a "square mile"; Brazel (1947); debris scattered over a region 200 yards across; Cavitt (1994), debris scattered over "20 feet square"; (or even Bessie Brazel’s more modern “acre” or football field size). These debris field size descriptions vary by several orders of magnitude."

Exactly DR, exactly. So why is it that you post only the exaggerated description of Marcel to make your point? Big difference between 20 square feet, football field, and one square mile don't you think?

--

"Rowe said a piece she saw flowed like water and flattened out when crumpled up and released, a metaphor, not literally meaning it was "liquid"."

Did you ask her to clarify for you personally before assuming she meant to describe metal using a liquid metaphor? "Flowed like water" was her description which sounds very "liquid" to me DR.

--

"TWA 800 blew up in midair and shredded into many thousands of pieces scattered over a roughly linear debris field about 3 miles in length and covering at least 1 square mile."

Yes it did. And it left more than "sticks, tape, bakelite, metal rings, thread, and foil". If your spaceship "exploded" over that one mile debris field then as with TWA 800 where exactly are the seats, instrument panels, engines, buttons, knobs, wire, fuel tanks, burned fuselage, luggage, foodstuffs, life preservers, and alien pass time reading material in your spaceship's debris field? Oh I know, you're saying it entirely "exploded" over the Foster ranch leaving none of that, but according to you also left a huge skid mark on the ground, but was then also found largely intact at the non-existent "second and third" crash sites. So which is it again?

--

"So yes, even alien spaceships made of high-strength materials have physical limits."

Good to hear that. Now which alien told you that or what craft did you inspect personally to determine this?

--

Regarding Bessie and her testimony, despite what people claim newspapers didn't get right at all (laughable really), her initial description matches the sticks and foil thing.

Funny that with every critical objection of your theory comes back a reason to completely falsify everything. Now the newspaper men were all idiots who consistently misquoted or exaggerated what witnesses said.

Lance said...

In a post full of fact and fancy, David said:

"Marcel thought it was caused by an aircraft flying at high speed exploding at low altitude to produce the more confined linear debris field. Both Marcel and Bill Brazel reported Brazel Sr. reporting a loud explosion at night in a violent thunderstorm."

He did! Gosh!

So he thought an aircraft had crashed with possible loss of life or injury but he took his time gathering up sticks and foil and then took his time going back home to to show the flying disk to the kids?

Not one mention from him of worrying about the unfortunate "Victims of the Wreck"!

Seems legit.

Just as it it seems legit that virtually every person on the base (as the myth makers would have it) knew all about the supposed recovery effort of the OMG Flying Saucer!! Except one person.

The freaking base intelligence officer, Jesse "I'm only lying to make the story better" Marcel.

"Both Marcel and Bill Brazel reported Brazel Sr. reporting a loud explosion at night in a violent thunderstorm."

They did?

Gosh!

Thunderstorm, you say. Violent one, you say? With lightning and.... oh wait.

Lance

KRandle said...

Gentlemen (and I use the term loosely, this is getting out of hand. Tone down the rhetoric or I begin deleting again... and I love how everyone just cherry picks the facts of invents interpretations of them to suit their own purpose.

cda said...

DR writes: "Cavitt denied in his AF interview ever going out with Marcel or ever meeting Brazel. Instead, he said he went out with his assistant Rickett and all they found was a TINY balloon crash no bigger than his living room."

Which all helps towards my own feelings that Cavitt was never at the crash site at all. Instead he and Rickett were together on one of the 'green fireball' episodes some 18 months later. (Rickett even wrote a brief report on this, though Cavitt's name does not appear). This is another problem with these distant memories (as if there were not enough problems already).

The ONLY reason Cavitt is assumed to have gone with Marcel to the ranch is that Marcel, who initially could not remember his partner's name, eventually came up with the name 'Cavitt' or 'Cabot' decades later. But if you read through all of Cavitt's testimony from when Bill Moore first located him (1982 I believe) to when he spoke to the AF in 1994 it all sounds 'fishy', a bit contrived and contradictory. He is simply inconsistent in what he recalls, almost as if he is recalling another event entirely.

Never mind, Cavitt is long 'established' so there is no way I can disprove his presence at the ranch.

I do agree that the absence of any rigging is a bit of a mystery. Is there any shown in the Ft Worth photos? If not, then this adds to the thesis that what is depicted in the photos IS what was recovered at the ranch.

After all, it is only the 'spaceship' fantasists who claim otherwise, isn't it?

Neal Foy said...

cda

How does the absence of rigging detract from the spaceship theory. It would instead be an argument against the balloonacy theory. The balloonaticts can't explain how there is no rigging of any kind described by witnesses. Think about it, if there was any string or cord present wouldn't it be handy to tie up the alleged bundles of rawin target material?

And no there is none shown in the pictures.

Bessies' description of the material is suspect in that she describes sticks wider than those used in the construction of the targets. I don't think she was at the debris field in question at all. She is merely inserting herself in the story using what she heard from family.

cda said...

I merely said that as there is no rigging mentioned in the printed accounts and no rigging in the photos, this supports the idea that the stuff shown in those photos is indeed the same as that recovered from the ranch. I presume the ETs have progressed far enough not to need such things as ropes or rigging in their craft, but the absence of such does not in any way support the spaceship theory, neither does the presence of it detract from this theory.

Perhaps the ETs use a kind of rigging we earthlings have never heard of; there again perhaps they don't. Rather pointless discussion, don't you think?

Neal Foy said...

Actually it isn't pointless to talk about the rigging or lack of it found. Are you suggesting that the balloon and the target somehow formed a symbiotic relationship that allowed the target to follow the balloon where it went. Hmmmm, no strings attached huh?

Lance said...


"The string? Yeah, we cut that off and put it over here."

Rudiak would have us think that such a scenario is absolutely impossible. In the real world, it's simply a possibility.
The string means nothing.


Lance

Nitram Ang said...

Seeking fame and fortune somebody wrote:

"Which all helps towards my own feelings that Cavitt was never at the crash site at all."

Lance - I invite your comment on the above statement please.

Regards
Nitram

Wind Swords said...

CDA,

In your 8 step scenario it sounds like you think that Haut came up with the flying disc even though Blanchard thought it was balloon debris. I think it's definitely a possibility. Remember I said a few blog posts before that the key for me was what happened between the time Marcel reported back to Blanchard and Haut put out the PR. But there may be other explanations.

Brice said:

"Well wasn't it Blanchard who sent both Marcel and Cavitt to the crash site? So I guess Cavitt should have reported to Blanchard the result of his investigations (moreover as he went back to the base before Marcel)."

You would think so. But let's say that Cavitt was there and recognized it as balloon stuff. Maybe he did not talk to Marcel. Maybe he thought Marcel recognized it as well. When it got back to the base he thought Marcel had it all handled and so he did not say anything to Blanchard. Cavitt was the Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC)officer, Wiki's definition says "Counterintelligence (CI) refers to information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted for or on behalf of foreign powers, organizations or persons or international terrorist activities, but not including personnel, physical, document or communications security programs." So it is reasonable to think he was there in case what Brazell had discovered was some kind of spy plane or contraption from a foreign government. Since Roswell was the only atomic weapons base in the US it would be a reasonable concern that other governments would like to collect intel on the place. But since there is nothing there for Cavitt to be concerned about he doesn't report anything to Blanchard. A bunch of balloon debris is not a concern for the CIC officer. Marcel will handle it.

Marcell says to Blanchard he doesn't know what this stuff is (does he say anything about the weird metal?). Either Marcel or Blanchard or both wonders if this has anything to do with the flying saucers that are in the news. Blanchard tells Haut to issue a PR and all hell breaks loose. So afterward Cavitt contacts Ramey or he contacts Blanchard and Blanchard contacts Ramey to tell him Cavitt thinks it's some kind of balloon.

There is a lot speculation here I will admit. But it does explain the events and how we go from sticks, foil, rubber to flying disc and finally to weather balloon.

But there is so much we don't know:
Did Cavitt report anything to Blanchard? When? (after Marcel?) What did he say?
What did Marcel say to Blanchard?
What did Blanchard say to Haut?
Did Marcel say anything to Haut? When? (after Blanchard?) What did he say?

The only other (non-ETH) explanation is that Haut over did the press release. Blanchard was too busy to really review the PR and didn't give it due diligence. Possible but I think the other scenario above is more tenable.

Larry Holcombe said...

I promised myself I wouldn't get mixed up in this mess but here I go again:

DR said:
"Yes, perhaps, but with all those rain storms, you would think the white paper backing of Ramey's radar target would show some evidence of water staining (or early morning dew staining), instead being a pristine, even white in all the photos, like would be expected of a NEW radar target taken out of a box and broken up by hand for a photo op."

Now folks that is simple basic logic that is conveniently overlooked by the debunkers.

Now on a more minor technical note. Lance, you and others have mentioned the "string" that held the balloon train together. Well I'm almost certain it was "Shroud Line" the very tough woven cord that held harnesses to parachutes. It's about the size in thickness of your little finger, or of you have big hands a little smaller. It's hard to cut, it's heavy and would be hard for the wind to blow around, it's instantly recognizable to anyone in military aviation and it would be present in any Mogul crash, and in quanity.

Brian Bell said...

Pure speculation but a situational picture begins to take shape based on recent posts.

What if the debris Brazel found was only a part of the balloon train and not ALL of it? This would explain a few things:

1) Brazel found and Marcel inspected what he really said was a relatively smaller debris field containing one or two Rawin targets and bursted balloon rubber from one or two of the balloons.

2) It explains why he said he picked up the larger pieces, bundled them, and stuck it under a bush as the papers quoted him,

3) No "rigging" was found because the balloon train sailed off yonder and actually produced a second landing site explaining why the rumors grew into testimony.

4) Brazel's find was Rawin targets consisting of sticks, flower tape, rubber, eyelets and string.

5) Marcel saw that debris and smaller pieces of foil and couldn't identify it because he never saw a Rawin target in the first place, and neither did Brazel which is why he said he hadn't found any balloons that consisted of this material.

6) Cavitt didn't go out, or went with Marcel, or went out with Rickett. But as stated there wasn't much to see and he left it in the capable hands of Marcel. Explains why Marcel couldn't recall exactly who went out with him in the first place.

7) Meantime Blanchard issues a press release because Marcel can't explain what he found at the first debris site after bring in the larger pieces.

8) Word gets back that a few locals heard something crashed and are looking for it while the base sends out more to look around and secure anything found.

9) Blanchard calls Ramey and says they may have found one of those disks people say they see. Ramey says fly the guy up to Fort Worth with some of the stuff he found so I can see it.

10) The full array is found broken up at the second crash site with rigging, remains of the other Rawin targets, and balloon rubber baked in the sun looking a little burned.

11) Ramey sees the stuff and says it's not a saucer it's a portion of a radar target - does a press release rescinding the initial PR sent out by Haut because it's not really a disk. Ramey learns of the second crash site confirming his suspicions, and has the debris flow to Wright because that's were the material needs to be sent because he knows there is a secret project under way and follows protocol to send everything back for examination just in case.

12) Marcel is photographed on the floor with the real debris (just as he first claimed) consisting of the larger pieces but of course not everything, but because he has no need to know about the project is left wondering what he found. Note he is SMILING in those photos too.

13) Moore said no Rawin targets were available in NM other than his project, so no switch actually happened in Ramey's office and Newton did confirm it was a Rawin.

14) Because Marcel was never told what was behind the find, suspects that it's still odd stuff leaving doubts in his mind flushed with the flap of '47 lingering in his thoughts.

15) Blanchard reports to staff it was a foul up and a balloon, but doesn't reveal the project, leaving Marcel still guessing and eventually claiming it must have been saucer material.

Brice said...

Wind Swords said:

"You would think so. But let's say that Cavitt was there and recognized it as balloon stuff. Maybe he did not talk to Marcel. Maybe he thought Marcel recognized it as well."

Not impossible I would say but it would have been rather awkward. Due to the time they spent together, I would rather believe they have talked about it somehow (whatever was the material)

"When it got back to the base he thought Marcel had it all handled and so he did not say anything to Blanchard. Cavitt was the Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC)officer, Wiki's definition says "Counterintelligence (CI) refers to information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted for or on behalf of foreign powers, organizations or persons or international terrorist activities, but not including personnel, physical, document or communications security programs." So it is reasonable to think he was there in case what Brazell had discovered was some kind of spy plane or contraption from a foreign government. Since Roswell was the only atomic weapons base in the US it would be a reasonable concern that other governments would like to collect intel on the place. But since there is nothing there for Cavitt to be concerned about he doesn't report anything to Blanchard. A bunch of balloon debris is not a concern for the CIC officer. Marcel will handle it.

Marcell says to Blanchard he doesn't know what this stuff is (does he say anything about the weird metal?). Either Marcel or Blanchard or both wonders if this has anything to do with the flying saucers that are in the news. Blanchard tells Haut to issue a PR and all hell breaks loose. So afterward Cavitt contacts Ramey or he contacts Blanchard and Blanchard contacts Ramey to tell him Cavitt thinks it's some kind of balloon. "

Here's the problem here :

Cavitt would have identified the material as of a weather balloon but not Marcel (BTW why did Marcel loaded his entire vehicle and stepped to show it to his family if it was some mundane weather balloon?) nor Blanchard, and they came up with the idea of a flying disc only upon some mundane weather balloon and then issue a PR. Doesn't seem very plausible to me


"But there is so much we don't know:
Did Cavitt report anything to Blanchard? When? (after Marcel?) What did he say?
What did Marcel say to Blanchard?
What did Blanchard say to Haut?
Did Marcel say anything to Haut? When? (after Blanchard?) What did he say?"

For sure, the problem is that we can go to no end speculating about all of this. That's why we should look at the testimonies, and try to come up with plausible answers. It doesn't mean every aspect could be explained, but at least there should be an overall coherence (doesn't mean it is easy by any means)

"The only other (non-ETH) explanation is that Haut over did the press release. Blanchard was too busy to really review the PR and didn't give it due diligence."

Personnally, as I said previously, I don't believe Haut would have issued such straightforward PR by himself without measuring its consequences and refering to his superior. (And still you would have Marcel and Blanchard that couldn't identify some weather balloon materials)

Brice said...

Larry Holcombe said :

Now on a more minor technical note. Lance, you and others have mentioned the "string" that held the balloon train together. Well I'm almost certain it was "Shroud Line" the very tough woven cord that held harnesses to parachutes. It's about the size in thickness of your little finger, or of you have big hands a little smaller. It's hard to cut, it's heavy and would be hard for the wind to blow around, it's instantly recognizable to anyone in military aviation and it would be present in any Mogul crash, and in quanity.

I do agree (and the balloon material would have been recognizable by anyone in the military too)

Lance said...

Larry said:

"Now on a more minor technical note. Lance, you and others have mentioned the "string" that held the balloon train together. Well I'm almost certain it was "Shroud Line" the very tough woven cord that held harnesses to parachutes. It's about the size in thickness of your little finger, or of you have big hands a little smaller. It's hard to cut, it's heavy and would be hard for the wind to blow around, it's instantly recognizable to anyone in military aviation and it would be present in any Mogul crash, and in quantity."

Moore's memory was that they started with parachute cord but mostly used lobster twine (as used in lobster nets).

But what does any of that matter?

As I said above, who is to say that the cord wasn't simply removed, cut away from the debris and set aside (and not displayed for the photos)?

The paper portions of the debris do not show any obvious blemishes (in fairness, much of the paper is blown out quite a bit-over exposed and this may mask such marks).

I don't put any stock in David's claim that there is only one balloon--it looks like more than that to me.

As someone who works with 3D programs for a living, his statement about 3D ray tracers is nonsensical. Let's see the work.

Lance

Nitram Ang said...

Lance

Still waiting for you to give "an assessment" relating to post I referred to earlier please.
Thank you.

Regards
Nitram

Wind Swords said...

Brice,

I agree with you that it would be strange that Marcel and Cavitt would not talk (or very little). Maybe Cavitt did say that it looked like a balloon to Marcel and he didn't say anything or much of anything in return. The reason I came up with this train of thought is that in the testimonies of Marcel and Cavitt they don't say much if anything about talking with each other about it.

But you are right, that just like Marcel not being able to recognize balloon debris for what it was why wouldn't he and Cavitt talk about what they are looking at? That's what makes this case so unusual, even if it is not ET stuff. And then the press release that follows. But I do think this is the area that holds the key to what really happened. Once the press release is out this case heads down a rabbit hole from which there is no way out.

Wind Swords said...

Brian,

Your scenario is plausible to me [as is mine :-)], but I have to question #5. I know Marcel was never a weather officer but don't you think he would have seen the Rawin target before? Maybe not, if the Army Air Force was very compartmentalized.

As I said before there is so much we don't know. This gets back to the "drooling idiots" issue and I would agree with the ET believers on this, but now I'm wondering if Marcel A. had never seen a Rawin before or B. it was so shredded up it was unrecognizable. That's why in my theory Ramey did switch materials to something recognizable as rawin/balloon not because he was instigating some sinister government cover-up, but because he wanted the press off his back and didn't want the soon to become independent Air Force to be embarrassed anymore than it was.

Wind Swords said...

Brian,

Addendum: I forgot to mention in reference to #5 that Brazel had claimed he had seen weather balloons come down on the ranch before and according to his daughter he said this stuff was “... just a bunch of garbage.” That indicates to me that it was so torn up it wasn't recognizable to him as well as Marcel.

Brian Bell said...

Wind Swords -

Yes agreed. What I recall is:

1) Marcel's specialty (during the war) was photo analysis of bomb damage. Of course this had nothing to do with high altitude balloon devices.

2) That the Rawin targets came out in mid 1945 and were still quite rare in their use and distribution throughout the military two years later.

3) As Moore said there weren't any in use in NM at the time other than his and neither RAAF or Ft. Worth had use for them. Sure they flew balloons but not with long Rawin arrays and multiple clusters.

This would give at least a plausible reason as to why Marcel still thought the stuff odd. He hadn't seen one and they weren't using them either. All these scraps, sticks, and string made them think just maybe it was a kite as the paper reported, but attempts at assembling it didn't yield anything.

So while he may have recognized string and balloon rubber, he found mainly sticks with tape markings (which bled off onto the sticks; also probably not balsa as we think of it but something like cherrywood with same light weight as balsa and tougher wood).

All this seemingly odd to him made him conclude, without finding the full array, that MAYBE this stuff was from one of those silver "disks" people were seeing. Thinking it more like a kite or light weight flying apparatus (not necessary alien) he reported his find as very strange with marking that made no sense. But in the back of his mind was the thought that just maybe this stuff was "not of this earth". After all, by that time Kent Arnold had already been written up in the paper just a few days before saying he had himself concluded what he had saw was probably "from outer space" since there was no other explanation at hand.

He wasn't a drooling idiot, he just didn't have enough data to connect the dots and some of the stuff was totally unfamiliar to him. That coupled with a documented tendency to exaggerate things, he pushed hard on the notion that the material was "foreign" just as Newton claimed. He had the Cold War fever in mind coupled with newspaper reports of unknown and possibly alien spaceships clouding some judgement.

Again no ESP, just speculation.

Lance said...

Nitram,

I don't know if we can tell enough about Cavitt to know one way or the other what he did or didn't do.

Lance

Brice said...

Wind Swords said :

"But you are right, that just like Marcel not being able to recognize balloon debris for what it was why wouldn't he and Cavitt talk about what they are looking at?"

which make me think one version is bogus

"This gets back to the "drooling idiots" issue and I would agree with the ET believers on this, but now I'm wondering if Marcel A. had never seen a Rawin before or B. it was so shredded up it was unrecognizable."

According to Marcel, he was acquainted with "about every method of weather observation devices used by the military" (http://kevinrandle.blogspot.fr/2013/09/jesse-marcel-sr-bob-pratt-and-interview.html, page 6, highlighted). A rawin target made of aluminium foil with balsa wood sticks wouldn't be difficult to identify for a trained military officer. Even shredded up, it is just made of mundane materials, not to add there would also have been the balloon debris which would have suggested at least that it would have been some special balloon assembly, nothing to suggest or jump to a flying disc IMO. So yes, the weather or mogul balloon gets backs to the "drooling idiots" theory.

Brian Bell said...

"According to Marcel, he was acquainted with "about every method of weather observation devices used by the military"

Yes ACCORDING to him decades later. Bear in mind "according" to him:

1) He also won five Air Medals for shooting down enemy aircraft (which he didn't).

2) He was a pilot (which he wasn't because he only flew a plane and was never certified as a civilian or military pilot).

3) Ramey's photo showed the actual debris, then a mix of real and replaced, then all replaced or substituted.

His testimony decades later is unreliable due to age, time, and personality.

Paul Young said...

I'm surprised anyone wastes their time over ANYTHING Cavitt has ever said.

He was a counter-intelligence officer for heavens sake!
By definition...obfuscating, deflecting and confusing the situation was his trade in stock.

Paul Young said...

Brian Bell....
"2) He was a pilot (which he wasn't because he only flew a plane and was never certified as a civilian or military pilot)."

You've got me scratching my head here. If he could fly a plane, then doesn't that mean he was piloting it?

Brice said...

Brian said :

"Yes ACCORDING to him decades later. Bear in mind "according" to him:

1) He also won five Air Medals for shooting down enemy aircraft (which he didn't).

2) He was a pilot (which he wasn't because he only flew a plane and was never certified as a civilian or military pilot).

3) Ramey's photo showed the actual debris, then a mix of real and replaced, then all replaced or substituted."

Not sure you got all that right (some of your asserts have been adressed by David Rudiak in the aforementionned Kevin's blog entry)


"His testimony decades later is unreliable due to age, time, and personality."

Although one could not trust at 100% a testimony, neither could it be carelessly discounted, but should be put in perspective with others, which might higlihgt what could be trustworthy and what could not.

Brian Bell said...

@ Brice -

Of Marcel's testimony, given he has exaggerated and was documented as exaggerating in at least one military performance eval, how do you go about determining what he said about Roswell was real or false? Which parts are confabulation versus honest to goodness truth?

@ Paul -

He said he was a pilot because he did take some lessons, but he never flew a plane in combat and never recieved USAF flight training or wings. That means he was never a certified, liscensed or commissioned pilot officer. Yet he stated he was a "pilot" along with 5 Air Medals.

I have piloted a Stearman mid air for about 20 minutes - stick and rudder, bank, roll, turn, dive, climb. Does that make me a "pilot"? If I said I was that would be misrepresenting the facts. I may have flown the aircraft but that doesn't make me a pilot.

Brian Bell said...

@ Brice -

You can say DR has addressed all the concerns properly, but your ignoring facts when you do so.

Marcel said himself that the debris in the photos was the real stuff, then he changed his story two times afterwards to say it was then switched. That's a fact no matter what DR says did or didn't happen.

How exactly does that seem explained by DR, or in error on my part?

Does DR have an explanation for why Marcel claimed he had (earned) five Air Medals?

Larry Holcombe said...

It is really unfortunate that so much has been said by so many that do not know the facts or bend the facts to fit their point of view.

I give one example: Brian Bell wrote:

"2) That the Rawin targets came out in mid 1945 and were still quite rare in their use and distribution throughout the military two years later.

3) As Moore said there weren't any in use in NM at the time other than his and neither RAAF or Ft. Worth had use for them. Sure they flew balloons but not with long Rawin arrays and multiple clusters.

This would give at least a plausible reason as to why Marcel still thought the stuff odd. He hadn't seen one and they weren't using them either. All these scraps, sticks, and string made them think just maybe it was a kite as the paper reported, but attempts at assembling it didn't yield anything."

Interesting statement of fact Brian but totally un-supported. Listed below is an exact excerpt from Jesse Marcel's Jr. Book, The Roswell Legacy.

"Just after victory over Japan my dad enrolled in radar school at Langley, VA, where he studied advanced radar technology, becoming an expert on the state-of-the-art radar devices of that time. While there he studied all varieties of Rawin radar targets including the ML-307 reflector used on the Mogul device later alleged to be the source of the material found on the Roswell site."

It's not a complicated process to get your facts straight, but it does take some work.

Another thought, why all the discussion about the photos in Ramey's office? The Air Force admits it was staged, it was a cover up of Project Mogul, or so they say. It wasn't the real debris from the Foster Ranch, the Air Force, in so many words, admits that. The question is was it a Project Mogul crash or something more far more exotic. I think the facts indicate the latter.

cda said...

Larry:

Where did you get the idea that the Ft Worth photos were admitted to be "staged"? The AF 1995 report says, quite plainly, that the debris shown IS the stuff from the Foster ranch. The author(s) even go into some mensuration, i.e. measurements, taken from what is depicted in these photos, to try and prove it was genuine balloon/radar reflector material.

Are you suggesting that the AF writers (McAndrew or Weaver) admitted the stuff was substituted debris but still tried to do some measurements on it to prove it was the real debris from the ranch?

If Marcel, speaking in 1979, said the photos were staged, he is certainly speaking for himself and NOT the USAF. As Brian Bell says, his story changed from time to time anyway. His initial tale, to Moore & Friedman, was that one photo showed the real thing and the other showed the substituted thing. But the two photos shown to him were cropped. It was only when all six UNcropped photos appeared a decade later that Marcel's thesis became untenable and the story had to be changed.

I have no doubt that Jesse Marcel jr has his facts right about his father's career, but that does NOT mean we should trust his memories of what happened that day in 1947. He was only 11 or 12 at the time, yet it was some 35 or so years later that his memories suddenly sprang forth and the material became unearthly.

Wind Swords said...

"Just after victory over Japan my dad enrolled in radar school at Langley, VA, where he studied advanced radar technology, becoming an expert on the state-of-the-art radar devices of that time. While there he studied all varieties of Rawin radar targets including the ML-307 reflector used on the Mogul device later alleged to be the source of the material found on the Roswell site."

Jesse Marcel Jr

Larry,

Do you think that when Jr wrote his book that he asked for documentation of the course curriculum for the radar school at Langley in late 1945-1946?
And specifically that it covered ML-307 radar reflectors? I know you want to believe what he says but if there are no footnotes that he searched this out we are left with maybe he did study them or maybe he didn't. If Sr had said that he did learn about the ML-307's I would give that more weight because it comes from the primary source (Sr). I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that we can't assume anything in this case, especially if it comes from non-primary sources. Then there is also the possibility that the material was so shredded/deteriorated that he could not recognize it. I have seen piles of twisted metal, glass, and plastic that were once automobiles but were in wrecks with trains/semis etc., that were no longer recognizable as automobiles and I'm a self-confessed "car-nut". Again I'm not saying you/JR are wrong just that we have to be careful, be naturally skeptical and avoid assumptions where ever possible.

Brice said...

(1/2)

Brian said :

“Of Marcel's testimony, given he has exaggerated and was documented as exaggerating in at least one military performance eval, how do you go about determining what he said about Roswell was real or false? Which parts are confabulation versus honest to goodness truth? “

As I said, a testimony should put in perspective with others to sort out what might be reliable or not. Of Marcel's, it stands out that the high strangeness/unusual properties of the materials found is back up by many other witnesses and fits within a coherent scenario (incapacity to identify the materials, idea of flying disc, materials flown to Fort Worth/higher commands), whereas a balloon materials aren't (much) supported and lead to a complete umprobable scenario (no mogul balloon #4 launched to account for the crash, the drooling idiots – still being well rated afterwards by their superiors and their careers being promoted, material flown to Fort Worth – for what reason?).

Brian said :

“You can say DR has addressed all the concerns properly, but your ignoring facts when you do so.

Marcel said himself that the debris in the photos was the real stuff, then he changed his story two times afterwards to say it was then switched. That's a fact no matter what DR says did or didn't happen.

How exactly does that seem explained by DR, or in error on my part?

Does DR have an explanation for why Marcel claimed he had (earned) five Air Medals?"

Brice said...

(2/2)
@Brian : (continued)

Please, do not say what I didn't. I said part of what you said was adressed by DR. I was mostly thinking at you 2). Marcel didn't say he was a pilot, meaning he was certified as one but that he flew as pilot, which as DR suggests, could mean he would occasionnaly act as a pilot (which does'nt seem unreasonnable during airflight missions in wartime - how do you do if your colleague is wounded or temporarily occupied?). It is even more understandable if you you read the proper context, Marcel saying just before he was an intelligence officer, but not he was a pilot (http://kevinrandle.blogspot.fr/2013/09/jesse-marcel-sr-bob-pratt-and-interview.html, page 8)

Let's assume Marcel said he was awarded 5 medals (could you please provide the source?). DR mentionned in the above entry Marcel has (at least?) two medals. Since his record has burnt, it is not unreasonnable to think confirmation of some of his claims could be missing. Now I recall that in his book, his son was speaking of quite a few rewards so maybe we could have some information here (I don't have currently the book by now so can't check for myself)

Regarding the debris, I understand that Marcel said “where he's in the photos, it is the real the stuff” but he was not shown the specific photos at these times (the “twice” Lance previously refered to I guess), and later being shown the Ramey photos said it was not the stuff he found (http://kevinrandle.blogspot.fr/2009/10/roswell-ufo-and-jesse-marcel.html). So even there seem to be a discrepancy here, since he was not shown the photos in the first two instances, one can not assume for sure which photos he was thinking of/refering to then. That we will never know...

Brian Bell said...

Larry wrote:

"It's not a complicated process to get your facts straight, but it does take some work."

True Larry. But you didn't attempt to answer these facts which made up the bulk of my post:

1) Why Marcel claimed 5 Air Medals he hadn't earned?

2) Why he claimed to be a pilot when he really wasn't?

3) Why he originally claimed the Ramey press photos were the real material he found?

So you found facts supporting Marcel was post war trained in all things meteorological as they relate to devices used for radar. Good.

But these facts do remain, those above and these below:

1) ML307/AB targets were a post 1944 variety of device as shown by examining 1944 TM's. Newton confirmed their use in 1945.

2) Moore did say none were used in NM.

So we are back to your notion of collecting facts. Can you prove factually that Marcel found:

1) Sticks, foil, string, and rubber used in an ALIEN spacecraft?

2) Wasn't eager to be the first officer to actually find a "flying disk" to claim some notoriety?

3) That he NEVER exaggerated events prior to his supposed find?

Probably not. You might want to check your own "facts "again. Just because he went through training doesn't make him an expert on these devices especially since he never handled one or worked with one afterwards.

Lance said...

Larry opines:

" It wasn't the real debris from the Foster Ranch, the Air Force, in so many words, admits that. "

As far as I am aware, not even the most rabid of Roswell fans supports this idea. Because it directly contradicts the truth.
Larry demonstrates how one can never be surprised at the way true believers will grasp at straws to further their religion. This extremely low level of scholarship is typical of the UFO believer/writer.


Brice mentions:

"So even there seem to be a discrepancy here, since he was not shown the photos in the first two instances"

Sure Marcel forgot about the pictures THAT HE APPEARED IN ON THE FRONT PAGE OF PAPERS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY!

Seems legit.

And you ignore the absolute lie that he later made up about hiding some of the real debris.

Brice, just state outright that you are already a believer. Don't pretend to be gathering facts if all you are gonna do is twist them to support your already made up mind.

Lance

KRandle said...

Brian -

You have finally provided me with an opportunity to show why it is sometimes important to have served in the military to understand some of the nuances of that service. At least you have learned that these awards are earned rather than won.

Marcel didn't claim five Air Medals he didn't earn. At best you have a case for three. His personnel file carried the citations for two but since these things sometimes don't make it from one unit to the next, I acquired a copy of the Unit History and found citations for two Air Medals. By checking the dates and the citations themselves, I saw that they were the same as the two I already had found.

I will note here that I received the first oak leaf cluster for the Air Medal three times, which makes for four awards. Clerk-typists often don't do the work they should which means that there is a problem with my record. These awards should have been for the first through third oak leaf clusters, so there is a possibility that the record was actually inaccurate.

I will further note that in discussions with fellow officers, we often find similar discrepancies with the "official file." In fact, if you request from St. Louis my Air Force record, it will show promotion to first lieutenant but not promotion to captain. Oh, I have all the relative documents and remember what I was told upon entering the Army so long ago. Save these documents so that you can prove the points because records do get lost, destroyed or are in error.

In Marcel's record, I also found two citations for the Bronze Star Medal... The dates of the award were different, but by examining the citation itself, it seems to be the same award, meaning one as opposed to two.

I can see no reason that Marcel would suggest five Air Medals rather than the two documented unless he believed that to be the truth. I did call Bob Pratt about this about twenty years ago to find out if he still had the tape of the interview. I thought we might be able to clear up some of these problems by reviewing the tape. Pratt said that once the story ran, he reused the tape.

So, here is what the documents tell us. Marcel received two Air Medals, both for meritorious service. He might have received three others but I find no evidence of it. We can argue all we want about what the record shows and what Marcel said but in the end, we are stuck with the idea he was only awarded two.

I will note that Marcel didn't claim to be a pilot, but said that he had flown as a pilot, which is a different thing. I can say that I flew as a door gunner in Vietnam, which is true but there is no record of it. Often those assigned to aviation units flew in various positions if for no other reason than to gain some insight into the position. On this one, Marcel gets a pass, because the wording doesn't claim to be a pilot, only that he had flown as one.

The point about the Air Medals doesn't bother me as much as the claimed college education. There really is no room for error here. Though the quotes in the Pratt interview are confusing, it seems that Marcel made a claim that simply was untrue. If we are going to make a case for Marcel inventing tales or inflating his resume, this is the place that the case can be made. There is no way to suggest that he was in error or there was a mistake in the record. This one is blatant.

Brian, you wrote, "[We] spent a couple of hours Monday afternoon [July 7] looking for any more parts of the weather device", said Marcel. "We found a few more patches of tinfoil and rubber." I have been unable to find the quote in the RDR, can you supply the date and page number.

You also said that Charles Moore said they weren't using rawins in New Mexico in 1947, but the RDR for July 9, page six, has a story suggesting that such things were launched from Albuquerque... and apropos of nothing at all, the story also mentions the Japanese Balloon Bombs.

cda said...

Kevin:

The quote you asked Brian for is from the "Fort Worth Star Telegram" (later edition) July 9, 1947. This edition contains extra data and quotes not present in the first edition. The report was written by J. Bond Johnson. Those exact words of Marcel are in the report. His preceding words are "The ranch is out in the middle of nowhere". Sorry I don't know the page number.

Brice said...

Lance said :

"Sure Marcel forgot about the pictures THAT HE APPEARED IN ON THE FRONT PAGE OF PAPERS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY!

Seems legit."

This I don't know, but it's not what I said. I said we can not assume for sure which photos he was thinking of/refering to.

"And you ignore the absolute lie that he later made up about hiding some of the real debris."

could you please provide the source for this?

"Brice, just state outright that you are already a believer. Don't pretend to be gathering facts if all you are gonna do is twist them to support your already made up mind."

Strange that you don't seem able to discuss without the need to categorize someone, as if some would have it all true and others wrong...Now if you want me to be a “believer” because I don't believe a mogul/weather balloon stands as a plausible explanation for the recovered material, be it like that. (I might call you a believer of another sort as well, but what's the point...)

One thing you get wrong though, is my mind is not made up without looking and pondering the evidence/testimonies/logical sense. As I said, I didn't know a lot on Roswell (nor pretend to do so) when I began to read quite a few Kevin's blog entries about it recently. Now, thanks to Kevin's entries, and David Rudiak extensive posts, I think there is indeed enough documentional/testimonial evidence and nonsensical issues to reject the mogul/weather balloon explanation. Had it been otherwise, I would have gone with it (though there didn't seem to be any logic at first), but it's simply not the case.

KRandle said...

CDA -

Thank you... once again someone else has to answer the question for Brian Bell.

I don't have that later edition of the article, but I suspect that J. Bond didn't write that. Someone else probably updated his story, not that it matters all that much.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin -

Thanks for your thorough explanation of "errors" (or omissions?) that occur in official military records which we all think should be accurate but as you state yourself, often are not. Previously your posted responses have differed.

By pointing this out you have provided counter testimony to your own commentary on previous posts, mainly that:

1) Military people ALWAYS follow strict policy or protocols without "error". Obviously these clerks were not.

2) Official records can indeed be inaccurate, or even with glaring error because of transcription problems or insufficient notation.

Hence, your own explanation goes to show that Flight #4 diaries referenced by Moore may have INDEED been in error due to simple transcription problems between records, just as he claimed. You have previously written that wasn't possible.

After all if air force and army folk are making these errors even in your service time, then clearly what Moore stated about the diary entries is more than possible. Then Flight #4 might have actually flown, correct?

It also points out that military people may think one thing is true when it really isn't. Meaning what some witnesses THINK happened never did regarding some finer points of the Roswell story. More simply their testimony on alien crash debris was based on mistaken information.

Also, regarding Rawin targets in NM, if Moore was operating out of Alamogordo then who was flying Rawin targets from Albuquerque? Moore or the military? If you are now in support of the fact they may have been flown frequently in NM, then more opportunities open up.

If you go down that line of reasoning then might we conclude that what Brazel found may NOT have been Flight #4 but another simple balloon array that someone else was flying bearing Rawin targets?

If so are you now agreeing that what may have been found on the Foster Ranch was indeed simple debris of common origin, that military records regarding Roswell events could be in error, and military personnel may have been operating on false information thought confirmed?

Please explain.

KRandle said...

Brian -

I am tempted to delete your comments as you drift into Mogul again, which is, more or less irrelevant to this particular discussion...

Please point to the place where I said that these records are ALWAYS accurate. I provided the SOP which you continue to ignore.

And it wasn't just Dr. Crary's diary that eliminates Mogul but the other documentation that goes along with it... Moore's memory and his "cooking the books" by changing times notwithstanding.

It was the weather service using rawins in Albuquerque, not to mention that rawins were used in Operation Crossroads in which the 509th (and Jesse Marcel) were heavily involved.

But note here, again, discussion of Mogul, even stealth mentions will be deleted.

Larry Holcombe said...

Lance Said:
"As far as I am aware, not even the most rabid of Roswell fans supports this idea. Because it directly contradicts the truth.
Larry demonstrates how one can never be surprised at the way true believers will grasp at straws to further their religion. This extremely low level of scholarship is typical of the UFO believer/writer."

Now Lance, do you really need to resort to a personal attack on what you call my "extremely low level of scholarship?" It seems to be your SOP when faced with logic. Logic like in DR's reasoned post about how debris that lay one the desert floor in the rain, wind and heat for a period of time would show ill effects. Yet the material in the photo's in Ramey's office seem pristine except they were broken up. I might add that neoprene balloons have a very short life in the desert sun before becoming something akin to burnt paper. As far as your statement:
"As far as I am aware, not even the most rabid of Roswell fans supports this idea."
That's an idiotic statement! Not speaking for DR but from the post I mentioned above I believe he's one, and I can give you a long list of many others.

Brian:

I think Kevin has answered most your of your questions. I will say that in all of my research I can find no hint that Marcel wanted notoriety from the Roswell incident. I believe he was deeply scared by the Air Force (Air Corps) that he loved and that made him lie and to look like a fool. He lived that lie for 30 years, it ate at him, and when Friedman found him he was ready, as an old man, to talk.

Good Day!

Brian Bell said...

Larry -

Not really. As typical KR relies on capping a conversation point when he chooses not to provide a complete response. Convenient isn't it?

On your statement about Marcel, not clear to me how you can say you never found a hint that he was looking for notoriety and then state (without any documentation) that he was "deeply scarred from his experience" and "ready as an old man to talk."

Did he tell you this personally? If not let's call a spade for what it is - pure conjecture on your part.

In all of my reading I have never once found a hint he was scarred from his experience because he was forced to lie about anything. If you have something more please share it - a personal quote would suffice.

And if he was so angry about being asked to lie then once again explain why is he smiling in the Ramey photos?

Was he happy to do it at the time but later miffed? Was he ordered to smile and look proud about his recent find?

Of course you won't answer this or any other questions, your preference is to simply say whatever you believe has to be the truth.

cda said...

Yes I agree with Brian that neither Marcel nor his son was "deeply scared" (or is it "scarred") by the incident at any time. In fact both of them simply forgot about it for over 30 years until Stan Friedman located them and plied them with questions and his own pro-ET printed material. Yes Marcel sr did tell the radio station manager at some point, and the story flowed from there, but to suggest either was in any way affected by this affair of long ago in the desert is, quite simply, false. I would go further and suggest it was a 'non-event' to both of them (until 1979 that is).

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

Larry said:

" the material in the photo's in Ramey's office seem pristine except they were broken up. I might add that neoprene balloons have a very short life in the desert sun before becoming something akin to burnt paper."

Here once again, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. You obviously don't know that I was part of an experiment to determine just how Neoprene behaved in the sun (see the Sunlite article for details.) We determined that the material does take on that ash-like quality but only after weeks in the sun.

Interestingly this experiment also allowed me to perform another experiment on the way believers respond to disconfirming evidence. Tim kindly first reported only on the result he (in New England) and I (in Ohio) got. David Rudiak immediately responded with his long multipart posts that 'plained how we had messed up the experiment by not doing it in New Mexico. There was much talk of sea level and wind speed and so forth. We were all idiots. It all sounded very sciency!

Except the part I asked Tim to hold back was that we ALSO did the experiment in New Mexico with the exact same results! I knew that David would take the bait and prove a point for me.

So when UFO believers come on and mention how they think David's posts are so wonderfully scientific, I always laugh a bit. UFO believers only need a VENEER of science: some jargon, a few numbers, and they become convinced that their religious belief is supported by fact.

Bottom line is the neoprene in the photos has been out in the sun for some number of weeks (>2, it looks more like our 30 day results).

As for the paper, as I mentioned, much of the paper is overexposed, washing out details that could include blemishes. If you knew anything about photography you would understand this point instead of mindlessly repeating the same claim over and over again.

Lance

Brian Bell said...

Lance wrote:

"bottom line is the neoprene in the photos has been out in the sun for some number of weeks (>2, it looks more like our 30 day results)."

And Larry, we can easily then conclude that Brazel's claim of finding debris on June 14 would indicate by the time he brought it in on July 6 nearly 22 days would have passed.

That is nearly the one month mark Lance refers to, and there isn't anything that says it came down on June 14 either, meaning it could have been there a few days before making it just about the 30 days Lance and crew demonstrated.

This is so painfully obvious that truly it boggles the mind as to why believers insist it can't be true.

David Rudiak said...

Lance driveled (part 1 of 2):
As I said above, who is to say that the cord wasn't simply removed, cut away from the debris and set aside (and not displayed for the photos)?

To cite AGAIN the Roswell Daily Record interview with Brazel:

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

"”No strings or wire were to be found but there were some eyelets in the paper to indicate that some sort of attachment may have been used."

Here Brazel specifically denies finding ANY sort of balloon rigging, saying this this is the course of describing what he allegedly found and collected BEFORE going to Roswell. He does not say, "I also found a helluva lot of twine, but after first rolling debris into those two bundles I described, I brought back Major Marcel, who cut the twine away so that future Lance would have some incredibly dumb, illogical “explanation” for why none was found.”

Instead Brazel says, "NO STRING OR WIRE WERE TO BE FOUND.” PERIOD! Around 300 yards of your alleged "Mogul" balloon rigging magically vanished. And you keep telling us we HAVE to go by what witnesses were quoted as saying in 1947, not what witnesses tell us decades later.

But wait, no witness even decades later mentions anything about balloon rigging, NOBODY, NADA. Not Marcel, not Marcel Jr., not Brazel Jr., not Bessie Brazel, not Cavitt, not Walt Whitman Jr. (who in Pflock as "Reluctant" claimed he made it out there and claimed he found balloon debris), not Rickett (who Cavitt claimed was with him when they found his TINY balloon crash). NOBODY!

Marcel also said nothing about it in 1947 when quoted. The photos of the weather balloon and radar target in Ramey's office show no evidence of anything like string, and they can be viewed at various angles in high res.

The paper portions of the debris do not show any obvious blemishes (in fairness, much of the paper is blown out quite a bit-over exposed and this may mask such marks).

Or this is a brand new radar target, also consistent other evidence in the photos. (Discussed more later.)

I don't put any stock in David's claim that there is only one balloon--it looks like more than that to me. As someone who works with 3D programs for a living, his statement about 3D ray tracers is nonsensical. Let's see the work.

Why is it "nonsensical"? Because you don't like the result? How can you claim it is "nonsensical" when you have done NO work of your own to counter what I said? Is this an example of how YOU document your claims—your eyeball estimate? Come on Lance, PROVE that I am wrong. Let’s see YOUR work!

The AF high-level government lab also did some analysis of the photos and looked at the radar target pieces. Doing only a partial analysis (only 7 hours total are noted as being spent, not nearly enough), they came up with only sticks from about HALF a radar target, not even one (but more sticks can be found).

Is their work also "nonsensical". Yet Charles Moore is quoted in Pflock saying it looked like multiple radar targets in the photos. Like you, his eyeball estimate is apparently superior to actual, meticulous measurement.

As for my work, some of it is already on my website. One 3D ray-traced reconstruction of the debris overlapped on the actual photo showing the approximate dimensions of the balloon mass is here:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Rameys_balloon.html
http://www.roswellproof.com/Ramey_debris_anim.gif

David Rudiak said...

(part 2 of 2)

As noted in the text: "...the approximate dimensions of the balloon heaped on the ground can be determined and the approximate volume computed. The balloon shape is approximated by a half-ellipsoid, with dimensions of ~2.2' long x ~1.1' wide x ~.35' high. The volume of the ellipsoid would be about 0.44 cubic feet, or the volume of a "shoe box" only 12" x 10" x 6" (30 x 25 x 15 cm)." This is my “shoebox claim” or one weather balloon, I have previously given on Kevin’s blogs. It is not based on superior Lance eyeball measurements, but actual meticulous reconstruction and measurement, something Lance can’t be bothered to do.

Here is more on my RAWIN construction page, showing how to construct a RAWIN target.

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

The top of the page describes how to build an ML-307 radar target, showing stick dimensions and layout and how they were inserted into foil-paper panels. An important part of this, for the purposes of this discussion, is how the targets were made to fold down into triangular panels for shipment. Two edge sticks had to be left out of an otherwise assembled radar target (with other sticks already glued into sheaths or glued to foil-paper panels). These were packed separately from the radar targets, with the flattened triangular targets packed 24 to a carton, with at least 48 BARE edge sticks thrown in on top. This subtle point addresses another piece of evidence in the photos as to why I think this is a brand new radar target in the photos. (It turns out there are 2 or 3 extra BARE edge sticks in the photos that have never been inserted and glued into an assembled radar target.)

My debris reconstruction work on what is in the photos is toward the bottom of the page. One graphic (an extension of the AF lab stick-measuring work from 1994) has an extensively labeled marking of the “Ramey memo” photo noting the various sticks visible or partially visible in the various photos. The color coding used to ID the various sticks components is the same as in the upper part of the page describing how to build the radar target. The central three core balsa sticks pieces are IDed with primary colors (red, green, blue), while the six diagonal pieces between ends of the core pieces are color blends (yellow, violet aqua).

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Stick_layout.gif

Another graphic again shows the animation of the 3D ray tracing reconstruction scene overlapped on the Ramey photo. The point here is that to get proper overlap from the proper perspective, the dimensions have to be accurately portrayed in the ray-tracing model. This is another way of saying the lengths and dimensions of things like sticks or the balloon envelope can be ACCURATELY measured within the model.

Finally there is a graphic showing a reconstruction of how the sticks and stick fragments in the photos fit into the foil-paper panels. The sticks attached to the torn panels add up to only one radar target. There are also 2 or 3 BARE sticks with no foil-paper shards glued to them, as should be there even if we assume they were torn out of another assembled radar target. As noted, the most economical explanation is that they are best explained as being some of the extra edge sticks from a packing crate separate from the folded-down targets.

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Analysis2.gif

I probably spent at least 200 hours doing this 3D reconstruction and true QUANTITATIVE analysis, but Lance can put in ZERO time and determine it is all “nonsensical” just because he says so. Such is Lance’s Debunker”Science”.

Lance said...

David,

I know you use UFO-style citations here but you do realize that putting quotes around something does not magically make it so that the person you are falsely quoting said the thing you wish for him to say?

So when you write:

Brazel says, "NO STRING OR WIRE WERE TO BE FOUND.”

you are essentially stating a falsehood.

The newspaper account says that but they do NOT quote Brazel as saying it. I know this distinction will be lost in Flying Saucer Land but it is considered important in the real world.

Even so, hilariously every single other thing mentioned in the account matches the Mogul debris.

I see further examples of your complete disingenuousness:

"A balloon that had flown then lain on the ground exposed to the sun for a month should instead of the very tattered appearance of Charles Moore's demos, including all sorts of small black flakes lying all over the ground, which Moore said could happen after only a few days."

You are well aware that Moore only misspoke and everywhere else said a few weeks instead of a few days. And you aware that this was tested but leave your page there to mislead the stupider Roswell believers who might frequent it (if any).

AND the small black flakes are ALL OVER THE PLACE in the photos, something you have been made aware of but never revise your nutty pages because pseudoscientists never admit when they are wrong. The nature of the balloon debris in the pictures matches that of a balloon that has been in the sun for some time >2 weeks.

Lance






David Rudiak said...

Lance blustered: (part 1 of 2)
Here once again, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. You obviously don't know that I was part of an experiment to determine just how Neoprene behaved in the sun (see the Sunlite article for details.)

Interestingly this experiment also allowed me to perform another experiment on the way believers respond to disconfirming evidence. Tim kindly first reported only on the result he (in New England) and I (in Ohio) got. David Rudiak immediately responded with his long multipart posts that 'plained how we had messed up the experiment by not doing it in New Mexico. There was much talk of sea level and wind speed and so forth. We were all idiots. It all sounded very sciency!

{more blah, blah, blah, brilliant junior scientist Lance, proving the evil Rudiak wrong}


There is much to rebut here with the very arrogant and clueless Lance. I have previously held my tongue on Kevin’s blog when Lance has made similar boisterous claims that he has supposedly refuted me here about the effects of prolonged neoprene balloon sun exposure, but it always seemed way off topic and inappropriate to comment. But I’m getting sick and tired of Lance and his stupid arrogant comments attacking me. I hope Kevin allows me to post this instead of removing it for being off topic.

The REAL bottom line is that instead of supposedly refuting me, they got the SAME result I said they would based on neoprene experiments by Mogul engineer Charles Moore. Moore on multiple occasions exposed neoprene balloon material in summer desert sun at his residence in Socorro, N.M. I said Moore’s results and words were that the neoprene deteriorated into a blackened, tattered, brittle, ash-like mass after 2 to 3 weeks such exposure. Lance and cohorts supposedly “refute” me by finding, “We determined that the material does take on that ash-like quality but only after weeks in the sun,” or exactly what I said.

Much is already explained and illustrated on my website:

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

See especially a demonstration of Moore's on a 1997 Roswell debunking program on Scientific American Frontiers:

http://chedd-angier.com/frontiers/season8.html (Episode 802, "Beyond Science")

The relevant section is 26:55 into the program where Moore shows one of his neoprene experiments with the material exposed 2 to 3 weeks. They are trying to make the debunking point that the blackened material supposedly "matches" the "smoky gray" color that Brazel described. But look at what Moore is holding. It is in complete tatters (compare to photos of Ramey's balloon like on my web page which instead shows very still-elastic-looking balloon with pleats and folds, nothing like what Moore is holding) You can even hear the material rustle and crinkle like cellophane, proving it is no longer elastic like rubber.

http://www.roswellproof.com/1997_Moore_Sci_Amer_Frontiers_demo2.jpg

Moore in his AFOSI interview with Lt. James McAndrew (not the evil Rudiak) also showed McAndrew neoprene balloon material he said he had left in the sun for "three weeks." McAndrew compared it to looking just like "PAPER ASH".

In Moore's Air Force affidavit (initialed twice for each paragraph by Moore certifying his agreement), it was written, "Some of the material would almost look like dark gray or black flakes or ashes after exposure to the sun for only a few days."

To emphasize the point, the AF Report included a photo (reproduced on my website) of such recovered "flakes" adjacent to a pristine weather balloon:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Neoprene_debris--USAF_Roswell_repor.jpg

Note this would represent neoprene material actually flown in the upper atmosphere where it would have received much more intense UV radiation that would have more quickly degraded the neoprene than solely ground-exposed neoprene.

David Rudiak said...

(part 2 of 2)
Another Moore demo of 2 weeks exposure, photo by Wendy Connors:

http://www.roswellproof.com/2000_Moore_demo.jpg

Experiment of engineer James Galganski of New York, who shows just how quickly neoprene balloon material darkens, stiffens, and mottles after ONLY 5 hours exposure at ground level in much less harsh conditions than New Mexico:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Neoprene_sunlight_exposure_experiment--Galganski.jpg

Galganski sent me his demonstration photos in color. I also converted them to black and white showing that even after only 5 hours ground exposure, the material has a mottled appearance very similar to Ramey’s weather balloon B&W photos. In fact, I think in B&W, Galganski’s briefly exposed neoprene could also be described as a “smoky gray” of Brazel’s description, not the deeply blackened material of the Moore demos of 2 to 3 weeks sun exposure.

If you read Tim Printy’s Sunlite reports, you will see them likewise admit that after only one day exposure they also found the material had significantly darkened. Gee, I guess the evil Rudiak misled the readers about that as well when I reported this long before our debunking junior scientists.

Galganski also showed how quickly the neoprene began to stiffen and lose elasticity. The key reason these weather balloons pop to begin with when exposed to sunlight at high altitudes is that UV radiation degrades the neoprene causing it to quickly lose its elasticity and become brittle (aggravated by the extreme cold). Balloons can only be blown up without popping if they are highly elastic. Again, we are talking only a few hours sunlight exposure, not several weeks.

So in the end, they got essentially the same damn result I originally reported, a degradation into a brittle, blackened, tattered, ash-like material after about 3 weeks exposure to sunlight at ground level, just like Moore repeatedly demonstrated. If you compare results with Ramey’s balloon, any objective, sane person can see that balloon is in MUCH better shape, with pleats and folds like an elastic material, NOT fully darkened, NOT in tatters, not broken into “flakes” but a coherent mass, and certainly not Brazel’s report of lots of small “rubber strips”. Remember also that Brazel reported not cleaning up the “rubber strips” for a full 3 weeks AFTER he supposedly first found them and rolled them into a bundle (where the brittle, ashlike material should break up even further). Please show us all the badly tattered balloon envelope in Ramey’s office instead of what is REALLY shown.

Lance said...

Again David only misleads.

Notice the flip flop. Now it's okay to only look at the balloon to make a judgement.

I actually handled the neoprene material. In my experience the stuff that we see in the photos (and I know that Tim agrees with me) looks like the stuff we got after several weeks in the sun.

The balloon we see in the photos looks very degraded and the tiny flakes of it are all over the place on the floor.

By the way, notice how in David's refutation that he doesn't address at all the silly pretend saucer science that he tried to use to initially refute our experiment. Now he admits that we were completely right! What about all those multi-part idiocies that you first typed, David? Would you like for me to quote some of those to demonstrate you pure disengenuousness?


Lance

David Rudiak said...

Lance (whose arguments get stupider by the minute) wrote:
I know you use UFO-style citations here but you do realize that putting quotes around something does not magically make it so that the person you are falsely quoting said the thing you wish for him to say?

So when you write:

Brazel says, "NO STRING OR WIRE WERE TO BE FOUND.”

you are essentially stating a falsehood.

The newspaper account says that but they do NOT quote Brazel as saying it. I know this distinction will be lost in Flying Saucer Land but it is considered important in the real world.

Even so, hilariously every single other thing mentioned in the account matches the Mogul debris.


Lance, you are completely two-faced with this argument. The whole damn RDR article never directly quoted Brazel about debris descriptions. Since these are all paraphrases, by your hypocritical, self-serving "logic", NOTHING about the debris descriptions are therefore valid, including your supposedly "matching" Mogul debris description.

Here AGAIN is what the RDR wrote:

According to Brazel they simply could not reconstruct it at all. They tried to make a kite out of it, but could not do that and could not find any way to put it back together so that it could fit.

...Brazel said that he did not see it fall from the sky and did not see it before it was torn up, so he did not know the size or shape it might have been, but he thought it might have been about as large as a table top. The balloon which held it up, if that was how it worked, must have been about 12 feet long, he felt, measuring the distance by the size of the room in which he sat. The rubber was smoky gray in color and scattered over an area about 200 yards in diameter.

When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long and about 8 inches thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot would have weighed maybe five pounds.

There was no sign of any metal in the area which might have been used for an engine and no sign of any propellers of any kind, although at least one paper fin had been glued onto some of the tinfoil.

There were no words to be found anywhere on the instrument, although there were letters on some of the parts. Considerable scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed upon it had been used in the construction.

No strings or wire were to be found but there were some eyelets in the paper to indicate that some sort of attachment may have been used.


Any direct quotes Lance? Huh Lance? Therefore no "smoky gray" rubber (not direct quote), no "tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks" (not a direct quote), no "tape with flowers" (not a direct quote), no "tried to make a kite of it" (not a direct quote), etc., etc., ALL of it paraphrased.

Therefore by Lance psychological denial, cherry-picking logic ("if I think the paraphase description agrees with Mogul its 100% golden, but if it disagrees then it can be rejected as invalid.")

Who's the one really essentially stating a falsehood here Lance? You can't with any intellectual integrity arbitrary accept most of the paraphrases and reject the one (Brazel says he found no balloon rigging) that clearly disproves a description of a Mogul. (And we still await all that historical Mogul documentation showing one actually existed instead of the well-documented, accounted for REAL ones that came nowhere near the debris field.)

Wind Swords said...

Dave,

I probably shouldn't get involved in this (you and Lance arguing reminds me of myself and my ex-wife!) but I have an honest question. If Brazel said there was no rigging but some of the paper had eyelets then would it not be logical for some rigging to have existed at some point, otherwise why have eyelets? So it would seem yes there was at least a little rigging, but what happened to it? This does not mean it was Mogul or an unofficial Mogul test cluster (I don't have a dog in that fight), but it was something that would have had some type of rigging.

David Rudiak said...

I wrote in response to Lance:
Therefore by Lance psychological denial, cherry-picking logic ("if I think the paraphase description agrees with Mogul its 100% golden, but if it disagrees then it can be rejected as invalid.")

I should have completed with something like, "everything paraphrased can be rejected as questionable statements, including everything supposedly supporting Mogul".

KRandle said...

Gentleman -

You are skating dangerously close to being overly rude. Tone down the rhetoric or I wilol be forces to invoke my delete button.

Brian Bell said...

Rudiak:

Sometimes I think your goal is to rewrite your entire website here on Kevin's blog in two part entries.

What I find odd about your argument with Lance (which quotes the RDR) is that you are using the news article in defense of your position while you also have rejected the article entirely for its content. This makes no sense at all.

Either you agree the content is accurate or not. It can't be both.

As pointed out, if the debris was described by Brazel verbally and written by the press (even without direct quotes) as being balloon parts, why argue that the debris actually found was alien spacecraft parts? Tell me what alien spaceship uses foil or parchment with eyelets? Your only defense is "it's all paraphrased and therefore false". Gee, I guess every news article past and present is false if it contains no quotes.....

A shoe box worth of material wrapped in brown paper was flown to Fort Worth. You admit what is on the floor in those photos is exactly that amount and you admit the news article said there was no rigging while you also agree what is in the floor has no rigging visible.

You can argue the article doesn't reference rigging, but let's keep in mind it doesn't mention memory metal, purple alien hieroglyphics, nonbreakable I-beams, magic foil, dead aliens, and so on.

Besides you ignored my conjecture that not all of it landed on the debris site and the bulk drifted to a second landing site with the rigging intact. What got dumped there may have been only a portion of the array broken up and spread out over 200 yards just as Brazel claimed.

Notice I did not use the forbidden word for the project that shall not be mentioned - although you did and got a pass as usual.

David Rudiak said...

Wind Swords wrote:
I probably shouldn't get involved in this (you and Lance arguing reminds me of myself and my ex-wife!) but I have an honest question. If Brazel said there was no rigging but some of the paper had eyelets then would it not be logical for some rigging to have existed at some point, otherwise why have eyelets? So it would seem yes there was at least a little rigging, but what happened to it? This does not mean it was Mogul or an unofficial Mogul test cluster (I don't have a dog in that fight), but it was something that would have had some type of rigging.

Yes, exactly. The way the RDR reported it indicated that Brazel deduced it must have had some sort of rigging: "No strings or wire were to be found but there were some eyelets in the paper to indicate that some sort of attachment may have been used."

Likewise, "The balloon which held it up, if that was how it worked, must have been about 12 feet long, he felt..."

Other radar target recoveries reported at the time also generally reported the deflated balloon or burst remains of the balloon (the neck) still attached to the radar target, meaning it was still tied to the balloon by rigging. The radar targets were also suspended at three points (at the eyelets), so even if one assumes the main line snapped or all three secondary lines snapped, some rigging should still be tied to the eyelets.

Examples of other radar target crashes with reported attached balloon:

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

http://www.roswellproof.com/Bakersfield_July9.html

http://www.roswellproof.com/Oxford_Ohio.html
(Doesn't report a balloon, but does report string attached to the eyelets)

http://www.roswellproof.com/White_Plains_NY.html
(Specifically reports deflated balloon still attached to "kite-like object" with "cord")

A radiosonde balloon crash with described attached parachute and balloon remnant:
http://www.roswellproof.com/Jefferson_City_July12.html

Same thing with large attached balloon (with good photo):
http://www.roswellproof.com/NewJersey_July09.html

Here is the only example I could find where the description said no balloon was still attached (had no accompanying photo):
http://www.roswellproof.com/Brawley_July9.html

Thus the overwhelming norm is for the payload (radiosonde or radar target) to still be attached to the carrier balloon (and other equipment like parachutes). But since the Mogul theory demands multiple balloons, targets, and parachutes (not to mention other equipment like radiosondes and ballast equipment), what are the odds that all such balloons, targets, parachutes, etc. could completely detach from one another and leave not a trace of balloon rigging behind? (The proposed Mogul design had roughly 300 yards of such rigging, not the small quantity of a typical meteorological weather balloon.)

This is why the Brazel statement that he found no such rigging is so damning to the Mogul theory (and why Lance is doing his logical contortions to try to sweep it under the rug).

I think a much simpler and completely plausible theory of why no rigging was described is that Brazel never found a balloon or target, much less a Mogul, therefore no rigging to describe. He was instead in military custody when he gave his statements and maybe coached on what to describe, or maybe shown an unflown radar target (thus no rigging) and told to describe it when he was at his press conference. (Brazel already knew what flown weather balloons looked like since he had found them on his property before. Therefore no need to dream up a "smoky gray" appearance which they quickly assumed exposed to sunlight.)

David Rudiak said...

Brian Bell wrote:
As pointed out, if the debris was described by Brazel verbally and written by the press (even without direct quotes) as being balloon parts, why argue that the debris actually found was alien spacecraft parts? Tell me what alien spaceship uses foil or parchment with eyelets? Your only defense is "it's all paraphrased and therefore false". Gee, I guess every news article past and present is false if it contains no quotes.....

Uhhh, Brian, do you know how to read? That was Lance's argument, not mine, to rationalize away a part of the RDR article that Lance didn't like (Brazel specifically denying finding any balloon rigging, which I pointed out was death to any Mogul balloon crash). Lance said that since the denial was paraphrased, not a direct quote, it could be rejected. I merely threw the argument back in Lance's face that since the entire debris description is paraphrased, the same logic would demand the entire balloon description that Lance accepts is also untrustworthy.

The actual argument of the "pro-ET" crowd is the balloon debris described by Brazel is not what Brazel actually found but was a cover story of a coerced Brazel then in military custody, according to large numbers of witnesses.

Testimony in a court of law is valid only if freely given without coercion. Same principle applies here. Same argument for everyone telling a balloon story in Fort Worth under Ramey's orders, as Marcel and Gen. Dubose said was the case, with Dubose flat-out declaring the weather balloon in the photos was a cover story to get rid of the pesky press.

Sheriff Wilcox in a 1947 AP story, when pushed to give a more detailed description of what Brazel found, refused to answer, explaining he was "working with the fellows at the base." At the very least that shows Wilcox was not a totally free agent. Years later family members stated it was not a friendly cooperation with the military, with Wilcox being threatened with death if he refused to cooperate.

If you believe no coercion happened and large numbers of witnesses speaking of same are all liars, then balloon debris was described. If you believe witnesses quoted by the newspapers were not speaking freely in 1947, then this definitely leaves a LOT of room for something else entirely being found.

Let me AGAIN repeat a truism: News stories only document what was publicly reported, not what necessarily happened. If you think cover stories are never issued and what appears in the newspapers is always true, you are historically naive. A good example was the 1960 U-2 spy plane shoot-down by the Russians. The CIA believed the pilot self-destructed the plane, the pilot was dead, and the Russians couldn't prove a thing.

Read the newspapers the first few days and you will discover the CIA used NASA as a shill. NASA claimed it was one of their weather planes, the pilot passed out from oxygen deprivation, the plane drifted into Russian territory and crashed. NASA even put out an official "transcript" of the pilot's last conversations before passing out. At Edward's AFB, they repainted a U-2 with a NASA logo and false ID #, and showed it to the press as a NASA “weather plane.”

The U2 “NASA weather plane” cover story collapsed because the crash happened in hostile territory where debris and witnesses could not be controlled. The Russians merely had to show the very alive captured pilot and pictures of the crashed U-2, complete with spy cameras.

Another case with a lot of similarities to Roswell was the 1963 crash of a top secret CIA A-12 spy plane prototype flying out of Area 51. The press was told it was instead the crash of an F-105 out of Nellis AFB, the pilot allegedly based at Wright-Patterson (all lies). There is much more now admitted to now as to what they did to cover it up, including witness and press intimidation and a tightly controlled crash site cleanup. The point is, when national security is involved, cover stories are the norm in the newspapers.

cda said...

DR (and Lance):

I'll put it to DR this way: If Ramey did indeed deliberately deceive the press and public, please tell us what his motive was for doing this. I can understand his motives if the thing recovered was a top secret military vehicle, or even a suspected Russian vehicle. In either case it would be wise to shield the public from such knowledge. It would be wiser still NOT TO ALLOW any photographs to be taken, or even anyone from the press to be present. Instead of which he allowed both.

Yet DR is asking us to believe that Gen. Ramey orchestrated the cover-up of a crashed ET vehicle (or at least a highly suspected one) by substituting a common terrestrial balloon & radar reflector in its place and then allowed the press to photograph it! How did he manage to decide on this so quickly? WHO told him to do this? I suggest that if Ramey genuinely thought he had an ET vehicle, plus maybe bodies, on his hands he would have been so shocked and surprised, literally, out of this world that he would have had no idea what to do.

Such a cover-up would in any case NOT be in Ramey's remit. This sort of thing would be decided at presidential level, upon advice from a scientific committee. To assume Ramey could, or would, make such a snap decision (i.e. on a suspected ET craft) is, quite simply, baloney.

To suggest that a higher-up general (Vandenberg maybe) could do this is also baloney. These generals do NOT have any remit over things like ET crashes. It is not part of their daily operations, nor in their job description either!

Yes, I know we keep hearing that Marcel was instructed what to say at Fort Worth and Brazel in Roswell. Exactly who 'instructed' them and for what reason? If the damn stuff really was from another world, nobody in the US military had any authority to tell others what to say about it. Brazel was perfectly free to tell whoever he wished at any time he wished.

If it was so top secret, why were ANY photos taken at all, and why was the civilian J.Bond Johnson even allowed on the base (thus risking something might leak out)? The idea is preposterous. As is the whole ET thesis.

DR and other ETHers are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Neal Foy said...

cda speculated:

"Yes, I know we keep hearing that Marcel was instructed what to say at Fort Worth and Brazel in Roswell. Exactly who 'instructed' them and for what reason? If the damn stuff really was from another world, nobody in the US military had any authority to tell others what to say about it. Brazel was perfectly free to tell whoever he wished at any time he wished."

You seem to know a lot about the US military or is just the usual bluster? According to General DuBose, Ramey was ordered to get the press of their backs. If Ramey ordered Marcel to lie to the press then Marcel had little choice. The only choice he had was to consider the order unlawful, according to my 45 year old memory of a course on UCMJ. A soldier must obey any lawful order from a superior officer. There are severe penalties if he doesn't. My instructor told us that to call an order unlawful is a very dangerous thing to do and is very rare. Kevin will correct me if I'm wrong.

cda said...

I specifically said that Brazel (a civilian) was perfectly free to tell whoever he wished at any time he wished. There was no law to stop him relating his 'discovery' of a crashed ET craft to any of the numerous outlets (i.e. newspapers or UFO groups) in later years, if that is what he really believed. He never did so. By my reasoning that indicates he had nothing useful to tell. By certain others' reasoning he had to shut up because the military told him to. Pure baloney!

Neal Foy said...

cad

This was less than two years after WWII and the beginning of the Cold War, posters that said "Loose lips sink ships" among other things were everywhere during WWII. A civilian who was patriotic would need little convincing if he was instructed by the military to keep his mouth shut. And others have stated that they were threatened by the military.

Nice sidestep on Marcel being ordered to lie. Avoidance must mean it hurts your thin case.

Neal Foy said...

Oops, I meant cda. cad would be an insult I didn't intend.

Brian Bell said...

David:

Yes I know your point of view on this. And sure we all know the military has concealed various programs via cover stories.

Of course, as you state, those cover stories are used to conceal various clandestine weapons projects in development or certain top secret missions.

As far as we know, they have never been used to obfuscate information related to flesh and blood alien spaceship crashes.

If anything, the cover story used at Roswell would have been used to cover some project that the military didn't care to reveal at the time. Just like the referenced examples you provided.

Indeed they did say they found a simple weather balloon because they were concealing a top secret surveillance project that used simple balloons but with a classified mission.

As far as Wilcox goes, all he did was tell the media he couldn't comment because he was working with base representatives.

That does not mean he was threatened with death by anyone. His family's testimony is second hand post event commentary provided decades later.

If Wilcox was told to be quiet but also assist, it could have easily been that the military was just ensuring their project was not disclosed. And you might suspect they would work with local authorities in doing so. Such is the case even today.

Note Wilcox never said, "I can't answer that question because the military threatened my life because they found little men from Mars.." Or any such thing.

As any police professional would, he declined comment and said he was cooperating with base authorities.

Plain and simple.

Brian Bell said...

Neil blurted:

"And others have stated that they were threatened by the military."

Yes they did nearly 30 some years AFTER the event happened. Doesn't make it true.

And other than their testimony, some of which is second hand too, they have no proof those threats ever happened. Nothing.

So tell me why in your brain you think someone like Rowe, a teenager, was told she would be killed but the following people who actually knew something never were:

1) Brazel and his son were never told they would be killed.

2) Marcel and his son and wife were never told they would be killed.

3) Haut claimed he displayed debris on his desk for years, but he wasn't threatened with death.

I can go on but why. These people handled your so called spaceship material and they were never threatened with death.


cda said...

Neal:

The whole idea of witnesses being told to lie (in 1947) stems from the fact that the ETHers, of which you are one, have to have a fallback. If two separate interviews are given, one in Ft Worth and one in Roswell, BOTH giving the story of finding balloon/radar reflector-like debris and both strongly suggesting that what was recovered was something fairly simple and definitely earthly, then obviously BOTH these people were told what to say by the US military, and both therefore told lies (so the story goes)

It is pure poppycock, but there is no way out for the ETHers, is there? They HAVE to propose this conspiracy to get round their obvious dilemma.

As to Sheriff Wilcox being threatened with death - I do not believe a word of it. Pure fiction, but again it adds to the Roswell 'legend'. I repeat what I said. Brazel never told anyone about his ET 'experience' during the years 1947-63 because there was nothing to tell. Marcel never did either, until he had a bit of 'coaching' from a certain Stan Friedman, in 1979. Perhaps if Brazel had lived he would have been subject to the same coaching. We shall never know.

KRandle said...

All -

The original post was about Bessie Brazel and not all these ancillary issues.

CDA -

Please provide the evidence that Friedman coached Marcel into the ETH... all you have is speculation.

And yes, I just violated my own suggestion we move back to the original theme of the post.

Neal Foy said...

Brian,
Where is your proof that they weren't threatened by the military? You are a virtual font of misinformation on this blog. You have been corrected by Kevin more times than I care to count.
Why should anyone believe you?

I've never said anything about spaceships. In fact I find the second site and body reports to be very much in doubt. The material does seem to be strange and not from a radar target. That was a cover story then and still is.

Brice said...

@Kevin : sorry to continue going off the rails, but it seems the discussion went off the rails pretty early...Feel free to delete my post if you want

@Brian :

Brian said :

"So tell me why in your brain you think someone like Rowe, a teenager, was told she would be killed but the following people who actually knew something never were:

1) Brazel and his son were never told they would be killed.

2) Marcel and his son and wife were never told they would be killed.

3) Haut claimed he displayed debris on his desk for years, but he wasn't threatened with death.

I can go on but why. These people handled your so called spaceship material and they were never threatened with death."

I know the question wasn't adressed to me, but as the answer seems to me pretty obvious, I'll answer as well if you don't mind. The answer is because Marcel, Haut or any military men could be handled by army rules of discrecy and subjected to a reversal on their career if they spoke. The army not being able to impede on civilians by this mean, threats that would scary people enough would be only mean left to prevent them from speaking. So death threats wouldn't be unbelievable at all (though IMO the army would never go to this end, the goal would have been only to scare people sufficiently). Regarding Brazel, having being handled for some days by the military, they might have insured that he wouldn't speak (but in the end we don't know if wasn't subjected to similar threats, do we?).

Now if one assume people claiming having being threat to death weren't, they should be called liars. So the question would be why so many people would say the same lie with actually gaining no benefit from it?

David Rudiak said...

From the expected comments of CDA and BB, as I said, if you are of the belief that nobody was coerced back in 1947 (Brazel, Wilcox) or given military orders to lie (Marcel, Dubose, maybe Ramey, some of Ramey's men quoted back then, and Pentagon spokespeople), then you believe balloon debris was found because that is what they printed in the newspapers. That was the real, unvarnished story of what was found, and no cover story (what the government often employs for national security reasons, or just to cover their ass).

Still doesn't explain the serious contradictions in the various versions of the balloon stories told by some of the principles (or the balloon photos). That is why you guys ignore these, instead making sweeping declarations that everything is "consistent". E.g., Brazel story of only a lot of small pieces of "rubber strips" vs. the seemingly used but largely intact singular weather balloon in Ramey's office and photos, vs. Brazel's reported comment (note to Lance, quoted, not paraphrased) "I am sure that what I found was not any weather observation balloon." Or Brazel's debris field only 200 yards across vs. Marcel's "square mile" debris field (vs. Cavitt's modern day debris field no bigger than his living room).

Brazel's story of "flower tape" vs. no flower tape in Ramey office photos. (Photos have been carefully scrutinized by a lot of people, including the high level government photo lab used by AFOSI back in 1994 to find the "flower tape". Conclusion: Couldn't find it.)

Is it really asking too much to at least produce Brazel's damn "flower tape" in the photos if that was actually the same stuff Brazel found?

As for Brazel not being coerced, you have only to read the Brazel interview versions from 1947, where Brazel at the end of the interview declared he would only report something again if it were a bomb: RDR: "...if I find anything else besides a bomb they are going to have a hard time getting me to say anything about it." AP (Jason Kellahin): "If I find anything else short of a bomb it's going to be hard to get me to talk," he told the Associated Press yesterday.

That does not sound like somebody who was pleased with how he had been treated. Don't tell me he was being harassed by news people. There is no evidence of that, but there is considerable evidence from testimony of about a dozen people that he was coerced by the military, marched to his interview by military escort, and held against his will at the base for several days. Even provost marshal Easley admitted to Kevin they held Brazel there. (Please note, Brazel's interview was several hours AFTER Gen. Ramey had the find officially declared as a weather balloon and radar target. That leaves plenty of time to coach Brazel in what to say, maybe even show him a radar target they brought from White Sands or Alamogordo or maybe even left over at Roswell from Operation Crossroads the previous year.)

Of course the skeptobunkers have to psychologically deny even the possibility, because it doesn't make logical sense for Brazel to have been treated this way if all he found was what was shown in Ramey's office.

But then again, what was shown was a poor match to the story Brazel told. Again, the only way for the skeptobunks to deal with this is to ignore the poor match of story to shown debris and declare everything is instead "consistent", when it is clearly NOT.

Brian Bell said...

Brice:

There are factors you didn't cover based on the mythos of Roswell. Believers state everything from one day to one week in "jail" by the military. Which is it? Others claim he was simply sequestered by Whitmore and he got miffed feeling like he was jailed. And who gave him the physical exam people claimed he recieved?

So when you and others claim Brazel was held, threatened, and programmed what to say that makes no sense. The timeline doesn't support it.

Getting back to Bessie, I know you all claim she was never there and saw nothing, but again that's not what the newspapers said at the time. She wasn't threatened or sequestered either. Nor was Bill Brazel who kept some debris. Now you can't go and claim because witnesses said they were threatened it must be true, but then say if Bessie claimed she saw debris her claim should be ignored. The proverbial pick and choose what to back versus what to ignore is classic Roswelian.

Neal:

Any proof needs to come from those making the claim that people were threatened or that aliens crashed. Unless you intentionally chose not to read previous posts by Lance or others, the burden of proof is on the claimant. That's YOU.

You and they can claim all you want that aliens or time travelers ditched their spacecraft in the dirt in 1947, but you have not a shred of physical proof to verify it.

That is the basis for the argument against this being the biggest cosmic event of history.

You have your opinion that you think is right because you want it to be right.

So the question should be who would believe you or others if you have no physical evidence? It's just your words nothing more.

Neal Foy said...

Brian,

You said: "You have your opinion that you think is right because you want it to be right"

Look in the mirror when you say that!

Actually there is physical evidence that Bessie Brazel's description of the material was wrong, it doesn't match what was in the pictures from Ramey's office. Of course there's nothing fishy about that to baloonaticts.

cda said...

Neal:

Bessie's description may not exactly match the debris in the photos but it is a reasonably good approximation to it.

Following on from Brian, I put it to you: is there anything about Bessie's description of the debris to lead you into thinking it came from a craft travelling light years of space? Also, is there ANYTHING from Brazel or Marcel's description to lead you to think the same? Everything, yes everything, pointing to an ET craft being recovered stems from the early Friedman/Moore interviews, which began in 1978 with one phone call, and 1979 when their investigation took off. Before then, nobody ever gave ETs a thought regarding Roswell. But of course, I cannot prove this to the satisfaction of ETHers. Can YOU prove otherwise? And neither Marcel nor Brazel ever kept any of the newspaper reports (which is why Marcel had no idea of the date until F & M finally located the papers in '79).

Brice said...

Brian said :

"There are factors you didn't cover based on the mythos of Roswell. Believers state everything from one day to one week in "jail" by the military. Which is it? Others claim he was simply sequestered by Whitmore and he got miffed feeling like he was jailed. And who gave him the physical exam people claimed he recieved?

How long, it seems there is no clear answer, but there are at least some testimony(ies?) that Brazel was held by the army (Major Edwin Easley's just recalled by Kevin in this entry) and coerced (seen by neighbours in Roswell accompanied by army soldiers, quotes cited by DR above).

"So when you and others claim Brazel was held, threatened, and programmed what to say that makes no sense. The timeline doesn't support it."

Why so? According to some witnesses, he was seen in Roswell accompanied by army soldiers the same day he told his story to the RDR (july 9th)

"Getting back to Bessie, I know you all claim she was never there and saw nothing, but again that's not what the newspapers said at the time. She wasn't threatened or sequestered either. Nor was Bill Brazel who kept some debris. Now you can't go and claim because witnesses said they were threatened it must be true, but then say if Bessie claimed she saw debris her claim should be ignored. The proverbial pick and choose what to back versus what to ignore is classic Roswelian."

I don't know to who your "all" is adressed but this is not what I got from Kevin's article, just that her testimony contradicts others and that she contradicted herself later (the fact of witnesses claiming being threatened or not not being an issue here)

Wind Swords said...

David said:

"This is why the Brazel statement that he found no such rigging is so damning to the Mogul theory (and why Lance is doing his logical contortions to try to sweep it under the rug)."

My point was that eyelets indicate rigging, and sticks, foil, rubber etc. indicate balloon, though not necessarily a Mogul balloon. A better question than how can it be a balloon (instead of a spacecraft) is what happened to the rigging? There are prosaic answers to this question that do not invoke ET. Lance has proffered one, that the entire balloon array did not come down in one place, which would lend credence to a second crash site.

"I think a much simpler and completely plausible theory of why no rigging was described is that Brazel never found a balloon or target, much less a Mogul, therefore no rigging to describe. He was instead in military custody when he gave his statements and maybe coached on what to describe, or maybe shown an unflown radar target (thus no rigging) and told to describe it when he was at his press conference. (Brazel already knew what flown weather balloons looked like since he had found them on his property before. Therefore no need to dream up a "smoky gray" appearance which they quickly assumed exposed to sunlight.)"

I believe by this statement you mean the Brazel found something ET. This does not strike me as "...much simpler and completely plausible theory of why no rigging was described...". This along with the idea that Sheriff Wilcox was threatened instead strikes me as rather fantastical. Could it have happened? Sure. Is it probable? No. Especially the threats to the sheriff. Even today sheriffs are directly elected by the citizens and are independent of state and federal law enforcement agencies and are in the opinion of some the last best guardian of the Constitution. They were probably more, not less independent long ago than they are today ("What you doing here in my county, boy?") If soldiers or "Feds" made a threat to Wilcox they would find themselves cooling there heals in the county jail.

Neal Foy said...

cda

First I'm ET agnostic, I'm sure you know what that means. I do hold ET as one of the possible explanations for UFOs. Maybe the best explanation. I do know that UFOs exist, not only have I seen one up close and personal myself but the evidence for strange unknown craft in our atmosphere is overwhelming. It doesn't however prove ET visitation IMO.

Here's a statement I believe is true because it's been proven true many times throughout history. "WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DON'T KNOW" That applies to Roswell and the overall UFO question.

I think that Bessie Brazel was heavily influenced by her family and others and that she never visited the debris field in question but I offer that as an opinion and not a statement of fact.

cda said...

Kevin:

You asked: "Please provide the evidence that Friedman coached Marcel into the ETH... all you have is speculation."

Well, I have no hard evidence (just as you have none of ETs at Roswell). I will say that Stan Friedman's modus operandi is to steer witnesses towards ETH. He also admitted that he usually sends promising witnesses (certainly Marcel was one) plenty of his pro-ET UFO papers to gently coax their minds in that direction. Included in such papers are strong hints about government cover-ups. I have seen many of these papers, as have you. From this I would say there is no doubt whatever that STF did indeed steer Marcel towards a belief in ETH, although I concede that I have no hard evidence to support this.

Wind Swords:

I do agree about sheriff Wilcox. The idea that he was threatened at all, let alone with death, strikes me as just poppycock. Do we really believe the military make such threats against police chiefs (what about the FBI?), even back in '47? These wild tales were told decades later by friends and associates who may 'remember' vague things about the sequence of events but who are really just speaking to their questioners/interviewers to try and impress them with some 'dark revelations' about the events of long ago. It all adds to the mystique, but means nothing at all. Of course it is (very) remotely possible, but far more likely a gross exaggeration of what really took place.

Brian Bell said...

For the agnostic among us:

Objectively, the bulk majority of information taken as a whole points to a prosaic explanation.

Whether balloon or otherwise, the simple logical conclusion points to a failed balloon attempt launched from somewhere on this planet.

If not the project that shall not be named, then another device or apparatus hung from a balloon. Even Kevin admitted the weather service was flying balloons with Rawin targets at the same time.

So an agnostic to say ET "may be the best explanation" is admitting he's no longer agnostic. You can't have it both ways.

If you presented all of the known data to a completely unaware bystander who knows nothing about the incident, you no doubt would find that logic leads them to a prosaic explanation.

Of course believers would need to toss the inconsistent, fraudulent, and inflated testimony of characters like Dennis, Kaufmann, and others.

Which of course they would never agree to. While they are happy never mentioning their names again they still hold their faulty testimony as rock solid evidence.

Yet they can't produce any supporting documents to prove their case, neither can they produce photos, bodies, or debris from their acclaimed alien saucer crash.

Neal Foy said...

Brian,

You said "So an agnostic to say ET "may be the best explanation" is admitting he's no longer agnostic. You can't have it both ways.

It's apparent that you can read and write but your comprehension skills are highly questionable. MAY is the operative word in my statement. It means I still question ET visitation. Therefore I don't know and remain agnostic.

I don't agree that an objective person would go to the prosaic balloon theory. Instead it's far more likely with all the inconsistent testimony that they would throw up their hands in disgust and just walk away. It doesn't fit your mindset but that's the way I see it.

David Rudiak said...

Brian Bell fantasized (part 1/2):
Believers state everything from one day to one week in "jail" by the military. Which is it?

Please tell us which "believers" have said "one day"? The actual usual account based on actual eyewitness testimony (not what "believers" want to believe) is that Brazel was held at the base for several days to a week. Key witnesses here are Brazel's son Bill and provost marshal William Easley.

Others claim he was simply sequestered by Whitmore and he got miffed feeling like he was jailed.

Who are these mysterious "others" Brian? I would be considered a Roswell expert and have NEVER heard such a claim, that Whitmore "sequestered" Brazel. How did Whitmore keep Brazel against his will--chain him in his basement?

Rather, the story, via Whitmore Jr. and KGFL radio co-owner Jud Roberts, is that Whitmore Sr. had gotten wind of the story, driven out to Brazel's place and brought him back to Roswell (probably the night of July 7) for a recorded interview, staying overnight at Whitmore's house. This would explain why Brazel was back in Roswell the following evening for interview instead of still back at his ranch tending his sheep, where Marcel and Cavitt had left him the previous night.

And who gave him the physical exam people claimed he recieved?

Duhhh, the military of course, or do you think "believers" also claim Whitmore Sr. did this while he had Brazel "sequestered" at his house?

So when you and others claim Brazel was held, threatened, and programmed what to say that makes no sense. The timeline doesn't support it.

What timeline Brian? Your badly garbled BB version of testimony and events? The usual, actual proposed "believer" timeline:

1. Whitmore Sr. brings Brazel back to Roswell for interview the night of July 7. (why Brazel back in Roswell on July 8).
2. Whitmore Jr., returning from college, finds Brazel sleeping like Goldilocks in his bed. Brazel makes breakfast, leaves Whitmore house and goes into Roswell.
3. In Roswell, he goes to coffee shop where he speaks to reporter Johnny McBoyle, telling him about debris field. McBoyle goes out to look for himself. (Based on testimony of Albuquerque teletype operator Lydia Sleppy, who said McBoyle called her station to tell them to put out a story of him seeing the crashed disc being removed by the military. This was just BEFORE the base press release went out, therefore early afternoon of July 8.)
4. At some point, military finds Brazel in Roswell and takes him into custody. Rancher friends report seeing him paraded around in Roswell during daytime with head down refusing to acknowledge their presence.
5. ~2:30: Base press release first hits the wire.
6. ~3:30 to 5:30: Ramey puts out weather balloon story in Fort Worth.
7. ~6:30-7:00: AP reporter Jason Kellahin arrives in Roswell from Albuquerque (200 mile drive) after being dispatched there by AP ~3:15.
8. Brazel gives interview at Daily Record "late in the day" (6:30-8:00?), with Kellahin there. Kellahin later reports Brazil accompanied by military officers, as does RDR editor Paul McElvoy. Friends and neighbors Floyd Proctor and Lyman Strickland see Brazel being led away from RDR by military escort.

POINT: Ramey put out the weather balloon story mid-afternoon, Brazel interviewed several hours LATER in the evening, giving at least several hours for the military to coach Brazel in what to say. I'm afraid I don't understand BB's imaginary timeline which supposedly doesn't allow this to happen.

David Rudiak said...

More inaccurate and hypocritical Brian Bell ranting: (2/2)

Getting back to Bessie, I know you all claim she was never there and saw nothing, but again that's not what the newspapers said at the time.

"You all?" Not me. I said it was plausible she was there BEFORE her father went to Roswell because of the annual big rodeo in Capitan going on at the time, which her father may have taken the family to, then hither to the ranch, then back to Tulerosa to drop off the family before heading back to the ranch via Corona July 5 and first hearing about the flying saucers, triggering his trip to Roswell. But she isn't quoted in 1947, was she, and her testimony ~30-40 years later is no different than other old testimony you routinely dismiss.

One proper way to deal with such testimony is to compare it looking for consistency between witnesses and also established facts, not pick and choose based on personal prejudices, like YOU do.

She wasn't threatened or sequestered either.

Nobody said she was. The civilians that seem to have gotten the worst treatment from the military are the ones the “believers” think knew something about bodies: Brazel, Wilcox, the Dwyers, the Anayas, etc.

The problems with Bessie’s testimony (what this thread is supposed to be about) is that it is highly inconsistent with the testimony of nearly everybody else and well-established facts. Her debris descriptions also are generally an extremely poor match with what her father said and what Ramey eventually showed. Nobody I know of believes she is lying, but, as neighbor Loretta Proctor put it, her story got all mixed up. Toward the end of her life, Bessie agreed that maybe she had gotten multiple events mixed up.

Nor was Bill Brazel who kept some debris.

Gee, but Bill Brazel also told researchers that when he showed his few samples in Corona, the Army came out the next day and confiscated the debris. They weren't threatening, but they took it nonetheless. Perhaps you can explain why they would care if all he had were a few remaining shards of your alleged radar target foil and balsa wood?

Bill Brazel had few more things to say, which you also selectively ignore or dismiss. (Why do you keep doing that Brian? Or is it just the "believers"?) His father was held at the base for days and given a physical before he left, complaining about being treated badly by the military. His father refused to talk about what happened in any detail afterward and told him he promised the Army he wouldn't talk. However his father did tell him a few things, such as hearing an unusual explosion in a thunder storm before finding the debris (same story as Marcel). Also like Marcel, Bill Brazel described a large, linear debris field. He also gave virtually identical debris descriptions as Marcel but highly unusual physical properties. All this agreement about what happened, yet Marcel and Brazel Jr. never knew one another.

Again can mundane balsa wood, tape, rubber strips, and aluminum foil debris explain all this?

Now you can't go and claim because witnesses said they were threatened it must be true, but then say if Bessie claimed she saw debris her claim should be ignored. The proverbial pick and choose what to back versus what to ignore is classic.

Talking about your MO again Brian?

KRandle said...

Brian -

Your overblown hyperbole strikes again. I tossed the Glenn Dennis testimony in 1997. See The Randle Report for my discussions of him'

I also tossed the Ragsdale testimony in that same book. I tossed it reluctantly but only because before we discovered that Ragsdale could not be trusted, I could begin a presentation by saying, "This starts like every science fiction movie you've ever see. A couple out where they're not supposed to be when this object streaks low overhead." A nice dynamic beginning which, unfortunately I haven't been able to use for nearly twenty years.

And I note that while you (debunker, I figure if you can sling around terms in an attempt to intimidate people, I can do the same) dismissed Kaufmann because you knew there was no alien visitation so Kaufmann had to be lying, you didn't prove it. Don Schmitt, Mark Rodeghier and Mark Chesney, discovered the documentation that lead to that conclusion and we checked it out to be sure it was accurate. Once we knew the absolute truth, Mark Rodeghier and I exposed him in the pages of IUR. I don't see how you can say that we'd never agree to that because we exposed these people ourselves. Much of what you cite you wouldn't know if not for the work we had done.

And who are these believers who you accuse of still holding "their faulty testimony as rock solid evidence." Names please. I'd like to see you make a point or two with solid information and not your speculation or evidence lifted from the likes of Kal Korff.

Brian Bell said...

Neal -

My point wasn't necessarily about you but about people who claim they are neutral one way or the other on Roswell evidence but then choose to post counter positions that fall on a theistic side (believer).

Perhaps you don't really understand the definition of the Agnosticism you claim so dearly.

Huxley who coined the term stated,

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

So when you or other Roswell Agnostics post strong objections to known evidence or refuse to examine logical prosaic conclusions based on fact that makes you pro-ETH, not neutral.

As Huxley defined it, it also means you are not following any logical intellectual reasoning and you aren't following the method because you reject conclusions that are demonstrable (as with the non-ETH positions stated on this blog).

Perhaps what you're trying to say incorrectly is that you, "Are a fence sitter and don't know or don't care one way or the other if Roswell were ET or prosaic."

But that's not Agnosticism especially when you post statements pro-ETH (and you always do).

Using William Rowe's definition, and inserting "alien" for "God", he states, "Agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that ALIENS exists or the belief that ALIENS do not exist."

So if you claim to be Agnostic but lean toward ET by ignoring rational prosaic conclusions based on evidence you're actually pro-ET.

It means you're ignoring rational and demonstrable evidence.

Neal Foy said...

Brian,

I found it amusing that after having your socks blown off by David and Kevin you chose to pick nits over the definition of agnostic. Here's the first and most commonly accepted definition.

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God

Substitute ET for God and it's close to how I feel.

Since you want to define me I'll give you a good old Texas definition of you. ALL HAT AND NO CATTLE!

Brian Bell said...

Neal -

Once again your dilapidated mindset misses the point. I found it amusing that you don't even know the genesis of the definition of agnostic and that you preach it but don't live by it in regard to Roswell religion. I know you worship the comments of Kevin and David and that just proves the point - you're Pro-ET plain and simple. Just admit it and we can move on.

Here's another Texas saying for you - "This ain't my first rodeo", but apparently it's yours.

Brice said...

@Kevin :

Has an testimony/affidavitt been made by her brother Vernon? How old were Bill, Bessie and Vernon at the time of the events?

Paul Young said...

Brian's response to Neal Foy..."I know you worship the comments of Kevin and David and that just proves the point - you're Pro-ET plain and simple. Just admit it and we can move on."

For myself, I can't help being impressed with KR's and DR's knowledge and attention to detail on the whole "Roswell Incident" subject.
I think many people visiting this blog, who are still on the fence, would be much more swayed by the arguments put forward by them than by, say, arguments put forward by cda, that basically boils down to "it can't have happened...because the govt wouldn't keep it secret after 70 odd years...because they're so honest about, errr, stuff"

And to be fair...sitting back and watching you attempt to joust with David...is akin to watching a one legged man in an arse kicking contest.

That's not to say that on occasion, you make some very good points...and like yourself, I don't count out Nick Redfern's take on the incident.

Either way, it makes for wonderful pantomime.

And here's a good ole' Lancashire saying, for the next time you feel down and out after a DR drubbing..."Keep plugging away, lad."

cda said...

DR said:

"Also like Marcel, Bill Brazel described a large, linear debris field. He also gave virtually identical debris descriptions as Marcel but highly unusual physical properties. All this agreement about what happened, yet Marcel and Brazel Jr. never knew one another."

If this is so, it only reinforces the idea that both saw and described the same debris, independently of each other. It certainly does NOT support the idea that both were coached separately by the military into saying the same thing! For one thing, it was a different set of military people at Ft Worth who supposedly coached Marcel from those in Roswell who supposedly coached Brazel. Did these military personnel confer secretly beforehand to agree on what should be said at each press interview? And if so, how?

The whole preposterous tale of the military coercing the two main witnesses as to what they should tell the press is just that - preposterous. But again the ETHers have to resort to this to maintain their thesis of a grand cover-up.

I repeat: Brazel, as a civilian, was perfectly free to relate his story to whoever he wanted and at any time he wanted, up to his death in '63. The fact that he never did seriously suggests that the debris he picked up was NOT part of a crashed spaceship from afar.

At least that is the common sense conclusion.

cda said...

Paul:

Do YOU seriously believe any government, if it had the hard ET evidence, would still be sitting on it and keeping it under wraps after 7 decades? If you do, please give your reasons. Please also remember that there would be enormous prestige in one country, if it had the real evidence, of getting in first and announcing it to the scientific world.

What you are in effect saying is that the world's scientists, some of them desperate to discover intelligent extraterrestrial life on another planet (or perhaps even visiting earth) are being denied this knowledge by a few top military guys in one country. Or do you think a conspiracy exists between several countries?

Think about it for a moment. Is your, and others', scenario really credible?

starman said...

cda, I don't now how many times we've been over this before. Evidence of ADVANCED ETs (as opposed to say microbes) would impact far more than just science!
If a T. rex skeleton were found in Antarctica that would be a bombshell in the paleontological community, believe me. Would it affect our view of geographical ranges? Absolutely. Would it have a bearing on the extinction question? Quite likely. Would it affect the stock market? Unlikely. International relations? Nope. Current politics, religion? Unlikely. Would it cause panic in the streets? No way.
In sharp contrast, advanced ETs have the potential to turn our society upside down and inside out. The consequences could be extremely profound and virtually unpredictable. Unlike T. rex it wouldn't be a purely academic matter. FAR from it. That's the difference. Our government, and others, have a very strong incentive to keep proof of ET under wraps, for many years.

Neal Foy said...

cda said:

"The whole preposterous tale of the military coercing the two main witnesses as to what they should tell the press is just that - preposterous. But again the ETHers have to resort to this to maintain their thesis of a grand cover-up.

I repeat: Brazel, as a civilian, was perfectly free to relate his story to whoever he wanted and at any time he wanted, up to his death in '63. The fact that he never did seriously suggests that the debris he picked up was NOT part of a crashed spaceship from afar"

Maybe to you in your little world it is. It's true that the military without a declaration of Martial Law had no control over civilians it doesn't mean the couldn't coerce them unofficially. Who was Brazel going to complain to? Various highly placed elected U.S. officials have tried to look into Roswell and all were stonewalled. To cover up a stupid balloon recovery? Yeah, right. Sen. Barry Goldwater asked his friend Gen. Curtiss Lemay for permission to visit secret areas at Wright- Patterson AFB and Lemay became enraged and told Goldwater to never mention it again. Yeah, nothing to see here folks, just move along.

Neal Foy said...

Correction:

While looking for the correct spelling of LeMay's name I came across Kevin's blog on the subject. Kevin said that this couldn't be specifically linked to Roswell it certainly was related to UFO's.

I saw cda's whining post on the blog so I didn't want to hear that stuff about Roswell being unknown at the time. Of course Goldwater was alive living in a bordering state and old enough to read newspapers in 1947 but that wouldn't matter to cda.

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul -

Very true. But honestly if Roswell "experts" stand any chance of convincing the world what they claim happened actually did happen, and without any physical evidence of any kind, they must be willing to hear criticism of their theories based on whatever expertise they have. You can know every detail of Roswell but that doesn't mean your viewpoint is correct or true. It just means you have the knowledge.

How did their conclusions come to stand as the only correct version without evidence? Rudiak decided to run a poll to let believers validate his data. That's not science it's BS.

Did they approach the research with an open unbiased mind or did they say to themselves "I believe there are aliens so therefore I will view this incident as means to prove they exist"?

Pflock, Moore and Jeffries were once believers too with a lot of knowledge and investigative time, and they chose to conclude nothing of an ET nature ever happened at Roswell.

The point here is there is no proof of any kind, and these experts will claim because they know so much about it that anything (and I mean anything) they say is correct and trumps any challenge of any kind.

So if their minds are made up, why investigate any further? My guess is they know they really sit on unproven ground despite their claims they are 100 percent correct about ET and what they know proves it.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 209   Newer› Newest»