Friday, October 09, 2015

Chester Barton and Roswell

It seems that we keep coming back to some of the same tired questions. No matter what is presented in the way of testimony, it seems that someone has an objection
Chester Barton in 1947.
to it. Lately it has been the idea that all the witnesses were contaminated by the publicity surrounding the Roswell case. Even when I was the first to talk with a witness, the comment seems to be that they had heard about or read about or seen something about the UFO crash so that their testimony is “born” contaminated.

In August 1995, Joe Stefula, who seems to be a skeptic for the alien visitation solution for Roswell was drawn into the investigation because, according to him, “I was retired, and Roswell seemed a chance to ‘play detective’ once again.”

Although he had been given a list of names by a fellow researcher, William P. LaParl, he had learned that most were dead but he did manage to “get Chester P. Barton on the telephone.”

Barton, though only a first lieutenant in 1947 had actually joined the Army in 1929 as an enlisted man. He was assigned to the 509th Bomb Group and he served in the Army until 1954 when retired as a captain. According to Stefula, Barton “Had read none of the books, seen none of the TV programs and seemed entirely unaware of the controversy.”

Yes, I know. It does seem strange that a guy who had been assigned to the 509th Bomb Group in Roswell in 1947 would be so completely unware of the stories about the UFO crash. I was watching Bar Rescue a few months ago when they renovated a bar near Fort Bragg and one of the pictures of military operations they hung on the wall in the background was from the 116th Assault Helicopter Company. I knew this because I recognized the insignia on the nose of the aircraft and I had been assigned to that unit. This was in the background and sort of flashed by but I caught it… Barton said he was oblivious to all that had been said about Roswell in 1947. I guess some people just don’t pay close attention.

Barton said that he had been ordered to report to Major Edwin Easley, who, as we all know, was the provost marshal in 1947. Easley told him to head out to the crash site to find out what was going on. He took a jeep carryall and drove out, taking about forty-five minutes to get there. He said that he passed through a checkpoint and the guards were apparently from the 1395th MP Company which was stationed at Roswell.

He said that he was never really close to the wreckage. He saw parts that he believed were from a B-29 and that there was a burned area associated with the wreckage which suggests this was not out on the Brazel ranch (okay, Foster ranch). He said that no piece he could see was identifiable as parts of an airplane. He picked up nothing because the MPs warned him about possible radiation contamination which might have been a way of convincing people not to handle the wreckage.

He made a verbal report to Easley and there was nothing in writing. Easley told him to forget about the incident but he was not required to sign anything or given a verbal oath for secrecy. Just Easley’s comment about forgetting about it.

Barton, it seems, believed that what had happened was a B-29 crashed that had been carrying atomic bombs. He didn’t see any wreckage he recognized and I have never found an aircraft accident, whether experimental, civilian or military that crashed near Roswell at that time.

While Barton did not participate in the clean-up, he did drive out to the field, did see wreckage and formed his opinion on what had happened. He mentioned there wasn’t enough wreckage if it had been a B-29 unless it had broken up or that some of it had already been removed from the field. The Air Force, during their mid-1990s investigation determined that there was no aircraft accident that would account for the wreckage which eliminates Barton’s belief that it was a B-29.


But the point here is that people want to hear from others who were in the field and talked about what they saw. Barton is just another voice who saw something strange in 1947, didn’t get close enough to see if the wreckage was extremely unusual but did provide some information about the distance to the impact site, did mention debris, did suggest a burned area and that he wasn’t supposed to talk about it. Just another voice that provided a little in the way of first-hand testimony. 

193 comments:

cda said...

So Chester Barton drove out there but did not take part in the recovery. He did see some wreckage which he believes was from a B-29. How, therefore, does his evidence help reinforce the ET crash thesis?

There is nothing to show that the site he visited was the Foster Ranch at all. Chief evidence against this was his alleged 45-minute journey, when Kevin and others claim it would be a 3-hour drive from the town. There is also nothing to show he made this journey in July '47.

Sorry, but I just cannot see what connection there is with Roswell. Do we know what years he served in the 509th? Were there any genuine B-29, or other, accidents at about that time (give or take 2 or 3 years) that might account for it?

cda said...

"No matter what is presented in the way of testimony, it seems that someone has an objection."

How right you are!

Tell me: What is it about Barton's testimony that leads you to think it had anything to do with the Roswell event, either at the Foster ranch, or at one of the other claimed sites? The guy assumed it was a US B-29 bomber! Most people would, or should, regard it as "end of story".

Evidently for you it is not "end of story", but further evidence of a different, but totally worn out and exhausted, 'ET story'.

KRandle said...

CDA -

Did you read the post? It is clear that Barton drove out to the location that was closer to Roswell as described by Bill Rickett and seconded, sort of, by Sheridan Cavitt. The sheriff sent deputies out who came back talking of a burned area that was closer to Roswell.

I also mentioned that there were no B-29 crashes in that area in that time frame. Even the Air Force conceded that there were no aircraft accidents that account for this event so while Barton thought it was a B-29 crash, he was in error. He said that the wreckage didn't look like aircraft parts and no matter how smashed it might have been, had it been a B-29, something would have been recognizable.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

And he said that there didn't appear to be enough wreckage for it to have been a B-29 crash. Could this location, 45 minutes from RAAFB, have been the Corona site that Stanton Friedman writes about? Are there others you've encountered in your years of investigating the Roswell event who had received orders to go to a crash site from Easeley? One more question: where I can read about the actual number of personnel that were stationed at RAAFB in the summer of l947 [also is there a map of the base indicating distances from one area to the other]? And still one more question: have you interviewed any personnel who were members of the 1395th MP Company which I gather was also located at RAAFB? Thanks.

cda said...

Kevin:

This guy Barton tells Joe Stefula by phone sometime in 1995 that he knew absolutely nothing about the Roswell controversy, despite having been stationed at the base in 1947. Barton tells Stefula that he was at one time (presumably c. 1947) called out by Easley to a crash site some 45 minutes drive from the base. Barton drives there but has to go through a military cordon. (This means there was a cordon round this second crash site as well as the Foster ranch). Barton tells Stefula, in 1995, that he presumed the crash was that of a B-29 with atom bombs. Never once does or did he suspect it was an ET craft, and he never heard anything about a saucer crash in '47, despite all the publicity at the time. He now (i.e. in 1995) is fairly sure what he saw, but never handled, was debris from a B-29, although some of it looked strange.

This story is related to you sometime after 1995. Therefore it sounds like third-hand testimony. No matter, you take it as further evidence of an ET crash at Roswell, and write: "Just another voice that provided a little in the way of first-hand testimony".

Which is it: first-hand testimony for an ET crash or second/third-hand testimony for a B-29 crash?


Jeanne Ruppert:

If Stan Friedman said there was another crash site near Corona, this would mean anyone driving from RAAF would need even longer to get there than by going to the Foster ranch, which is estimated as 3 hours. But Barton says he did it in 45 minutes!

David Rudiak said...

More on Chester Barton and interviewer Joseph Stefula's take on it:

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

As noted, Stefula was no wild-eyed "believer" but actually a big Roswell skeptic. Yet after speaking with Barton, he found him 100% credible and concluded something truly bizarre had happened at Roswell.

Stefula still did not want to believe Roswell was an extraterrestrial event, but maybe the crash of something that still was being covered up, perhaps the test of a "dirty bomb". But he also acknowledged not having a single piece of evidence to support the theory.

That's the problem with these other theories of secret military or government experiement. After nearly 70 years there is zero evidence of it--no witnesses, no documents, etc. As Kevin noted, even the Air Force when they investigated in 1994 found no evidence of a plane crash in the time frame or area that could possibly be involved.

As I note, Barton's testimony reinforces testimony of other witnesses about a nearer crash site north of town with heavy security, discovered by archeologists (which he called a rumor), and recovery of a crew taken to the base hospital then flown to Fort Worth. He also said he knew of the rumor that the crash site was that of a space craft with the recovery of its alien crew.

One unique item was Barton reporting he was told the crash site was radioactive. In fact, he had to go to the hospital upon return and get checked out for radioactivity. Provost marshal Edwin Easeley instructed him not to talk about but he was never made to sign papers or given an oral oath.

cda said...

DR writes, referring to Chester Barton:

"He also said he knew of the rumor that the crash site was that of a space craft with the recovery of its alien crew."


Kevin writes:

"According to Stefula, Barton “Had read none of the books, seen none of the TV programs and seemed entirely unaware of the controversy.” "


So in one case Barton, in 1995, knew nothing of the event. In another, Barton knew about rumors that an ET craft, with its alien crew, had crashed.

Can anyone make sense of this? Should we try to make sense of it?

Jim Bender said...

How about the military check point that was set up just before the wreckage site?

I guess crashed weather balloons were a huge significant event in 1947. (Another dagger in the skeptic/debunker fantasy of Rosewell being a weather balloon crash that was piloted by crash dummies)

Paul Young said...

Barton's testimony is incredibly interesting. The US air force has confessed to other accidents on home soil involving their aircraft carrying A-Bombs, so presumably, this mustn't have been a B29 carrying one. Like the other incidents, it would have been declassified by now.
So even though Barton's testimony in no way suggests the ETH, it completely refutes the Mogul excuse.

So what are they STILL hiding?

Brian Bell said...

Rudiak claimed:

"One unique item was Barton reporting he was told the crash site was radioactive. In fact, he had to go to the hospital upon return and get checked out for radioactivity."

Well you ETers continue to play mental gymnastics around your evidence once again and forever.

You can't have it both ways.

You've been claiming the site was tested for radioactivity and found "not to be hot" as your other eye witnesses claimed, but now you want to tell the world it was radoactive?

Selective evidence cherry picking to fit your reasoning?

David claims it all exploded over the Marcel/Brazel site, now it's one, two and three sites.....

Stop playing these ridiculous games with verbal testimony to prove it was what you think it was.

Gee, if it was radioactive what is more likely, a USAF test project (undisclosed to you) or "men from Mars"?

What posses people to make the mental leap from what he said to bonafoed definitive evidence of extraterrestrial life?

"I saw some wreckage and a burned spot..." Oh my gosh...aliens have arrived!

cda said...

Brian:

Like you I am trying to make sense of Barton's testimony, but have given up. It is the weakest, poorest, most useless piece of second (or third?) hand testimony from a Roswell witness that I have ever read. And all from someone who, by his own admission 50 years later, had apparently never even heard of the case!

Zak McKracken said...

CDA


"He also said he knew of the rumor that the crash site was that of a space craft with the recovery of its alien crew."

I think Barton was referring to the rumors whitch apparently were floating around the Base AT THAT TIME and not the stuff which was in the books, etc.

This has been confirmed by other witnesses like Arthur Osepchook, who didn´t know what had been recovered but remembered the excitment and the talks inside the base about space aliens and a flying saucer which had been recovered.

John's Space said...

This even occurred in 1947 but did Blanton give any indication of when exactly? In the summer or July even? This could help the story.

One thing is seems to be a little bit of a problem with the Blanton story is that the nuclear bombs in 1947 were in the custody of the AEC and not the Army Air Force. So the idea of B-29 crashing with one on board seems unlikely in that time period. There were some missions where bombs were flown when they were going to be dropped in tests like the Bikini Test in 1946. Perhaps he wasn’t informed about all of this of course.

On the 45 minute trip. Does that seem about right for the second crash site?
Doesn’t it seem strange that Easley would send Blanton out to a crash site to “check on what is happening” when he had no idea what to check or what questions to ask?

On the favorable side of the Blanton story is that he claim to know so little and yet it fits into the general narrative. If he was making things up why not tell a bigger tale?

David Rudiak said...

Zak McKracken said...

CDA
"He also said he knew of the rumor that the crash site was that of a space craft with the recovery of its alien crew."

I think Barton was referring to the rumors whitch apparently were floating around the Base AT THAT TIME and not the stuff which was in the books, etc.

This has been confirmed by other witnesses like Arthur Osepchook, who didn´t know what had been recovered but remembered the excitment and the talks inside the base about space aliens and a flying saucer which had been recovered.


Zak, that is exactly right. He was referring to rumor floating aroiund in 1947 at the base, not from reading books decades later. (CDA comes up with the weirdest things to protest about.)

One interesting thing about Barton was that he was an ET skeptic, and instead assumed even into the present that it was the crash of something like a B-29 carrying nuclear material. He never got close enough to handle debris, see any bodies, or any sort of craft. But there had definitely been some sort of aircraft that had crashed, burning the area, leaving metal debris behind that he could only see from a distance.

Barton also knew from what he had seen that the balloon story that appeared in the newspapers back in 1947 was total nonsense and something else entirely had happened.

Another interesting part of his testimony is that he was also in the crypto unit and thought it very strange that nothing ever appeared about what happened in any of the message traffic afterward, which to him indicated it had been very deeply covered up. As Stefula wrote: "Barton was very surprised that the interviewer even knew about the crash, given the extent of the effort made at the time to keep it secret. He had never discussed it with any other person, including his wife." Clearly Barton wasn't reading any of the Roswell books or the National Enquirer.

Yep, large burn area, metallic debris, radioactivity, bodies taken to the base hospital and flown to Fort Worth, deep coverup: obviously a Mogul balloon. And this testimony from a skeptic interviewed by a skeptic, not the Svengali-like Stan Friedman hypnotizing his weak-willed witnesses into telling Friedman's ET narrative.

Brian Bell said...

Rudiak says:

"Yep, large burn area, metallic debris, radioactivity, bodies taken to the base hospital and flown to Fort Worth, deep coverup: obviously a Mogul balloon."

Yes...absolutely...and it sure sounds like aliens to me.......

.....I mean it couldn't possibly be a secret USAF test flight of a manned aircraft which crashed and produced....what?

Yep, large burn area, metallic debris, radioactivity, bodies taken to the base hospital and flown to Fort Worth, deep coverup.

It can only be aliens right?

KRandle said...

Brian -

During the Air Force investigation into the events, they had access to all the necessary records and found no secret USAAF test flight or a manned aircraft.

Wind Swords said...

Hi Kevin,

Could you (or anyone else) help clarify something for me?

You stated: "Barton said that he had been ordered to report to Major Edwin Easley, who, as we all know, was the provost marshal in 1947. Easley told him to head out to the crash site to find out what was going on."

So he is ordered out to a crash site.

"He said that he was never really close to the wreckage. He saw parts that he believed were from a B-29 and that there was a burned area associated with the wreckage which suggests this was not out on the Brazel ranch (okay, Foster ranch). He said that no piece he could see was identifiable as parts of an airplane. He picked up nothing because the MPs warned him about possible radiation contamination which might have been a way of convincing people not to handle the wreckage.

He made a verbal report to Easley and there was nothing in writing."

So he is told to go out to a crash site, has to go thru a checkpoint. But he can't get close to the wreckage or handle any pieces because of radiation. So... why was he ordered out there again? You said he then makes a verbal report Easley. A report about what? Easley it was said wanted to know what was going on - but Barton can't get close to see or touch anything. What was he going to tell Easley? "Well sir, there are lot of MP's out there and they say the stuff might be radioactive."

It just sounds strange to me, or am I missing something? Also no reports in writing - that seems strange too. And why wouldn't Easely just ask Marcel?

Speaking of Marcel, where was he when this was happening? He was the intelligence officer. Should he not have been involved? Yes I know he went to Ft Worth but he could have been back the same day/night. Assuming that this other crash site was secured and cleared after the Foster ranch discovery and the infamous press release, I would expect that Marcel would be back at his post doing his job. Has he EVER been ID'd as one of the personnel at the 2nd crash site?

I'm not trying to make an argument, just trying to understand the sequence and timeline if the testimony will support it. Thanks for your answer.

David Rudiak said...

Brian Bell inanely wrote:
Well you ETers continue to play mental gymnastics around your evidence once again and forever. You can't have it both ways. You've been claiming the site was tested for radioactivity and found "not to be hot" as your other eye witnesses claimed, but now you want to tell the world it was radoactive? Selective evidence cherry picking to fit your reasoning?

More STOOPID commentary from Brian Bell. Put this along side another of his recent dumbo criticisms that it would take a one to two mile wide space craft to create a square mile debris field.

In the REAL world, you CAN easily have it both ways when you are talking about TWO DIFFERENT SITES.

Marcel interviewed by Stringfield said he and Cavitt checked the debris for radioactivity and found none. Marcel, of course was talking about the Brazel debris field and debris, about a 4 HOUR drive from Roswell, not Barton's 45 minutes drive.

Barton site was a second site, about 35-40 miles north of town near the highway, thus only a 45 minute drive (also descried by others, such as MP Ed Sain, photographer Frederick Benthal, and Walter Haut). According to Barton, that OTHER site WAS radioactive (or at least that is what he was told).

David claims it all exploded over the Marcel/Brazel site, now it's one, two and three sites.....

Yeah, genius, that is quite common in air crashes. Parts of a plane will be found in widely different areas, as can bodies. Look up, e.g., the 1988 Lockerbie crash or TWA 800, both planes exploding in midair, with tail, wings, main cabin, engines, cockpit, etc. coming down miles apart in some case.

So yes, explosion over the Foster Ranch creating the large debris field, but perhaps an escape cabin (which humans utilize too on some aircraft) managed to get away from the main explosion, but damaged crashed some miles away, creating a second site closer and more accessible to Roswell, with crew and mostly intact craft found.

cda said...

Kevin:

I am baffled by this Barton affair. You wrote that Stefula first spoke to Barton in 1995, by phone. According to Stefula, Barton knew nothing of the Roswell affair and “had read none of the books, seen none of the TV programs and seemed entirely unaware of the controversy.”

I presumed from this that Barton, until Stefula phoned him, was totally 'green' on the story, i.e. nobody had spoken to him before about it and that he knew literally zilch about it. This indicates to me that Barton was even unaware of the rumors going around the base in '47 (otherwise he would have told Stefula he was aware of them). Now we are told, by Zak, that Barton WAS aware of these 'spaceship' rumors.

I think Kent Jeffery also wrote somewhere that many personnel at the time seemed completely unaware of the story, either in '47 or decades later, so it hardly comes as a surprise that Barton was one of them.

So what is going on? Did Barton know anything or not? If he did, was it purely from rumors dating back 50 years or had someone else spoken to him before Stefula, and if so, who? I suppose it is impossible to answer this now.

I retract what I said about Barton's evidence. His is NOT the weakest, poorest and most useless - it is the second weakest, poorest,... etc. The first belongs to Edwin Easley who spent the whole interview, with Kevin Randle, saying that he couldn't say anything! From the viewpoint of the information given, this must rank as the most useless interview of the lot.

Brian Bell said...

Rudiak -

You're not talking about two different sites, people are now referencing three different sites and your buddies Schmitt and Carey claim that's the case (see Witness to Roswell for more dumb claims supported by Rudiak).

Besides, in a previous post you claimed it total disintegrated but now you support two sites, three? Funny you never bother to explain your inconsistent dancing fantasies. Just keep making it up as you go...it's entertaining.

Kevin wrote:

"During the Air Force investigation into the events, they had access to all the necessary records and found no secret USAAF test flight or a manned aircraft."

True, but then again your claim is an alien spaceship crashed and they didn't find that either, or did they?

If they wanted to cover up aliens then clearly they could also cover up something prosaic.

John's Space said...

cda,

I wouldn't call the Easley interview completely useless. When someone who is that far removed from official responsibilities as he was at the time of Kevin's interview says that he can say anything that is saying that the subject was very sensitive. Otherwise, he could say that there was nothing to it at all for example.


cda said...

John's Space:

Had Easley chosen to say literally nothing and kept his mouth shut, Kevin would probably have given this a very brief mention in his books, but nothing more. By Easley constantly repeating that he couldn't tell what he knew, and Kevin including the transcript (whole or part?) in his book, the reader is led along the path towards believing a great secret is being kept, i.e. the crash of an ET vehicle.

Maybe a great secret WAS being kept, namely the crash of a B-29 with or without an atomic bomb. True, no official record of such a crash was ever found but, as Brian Bell says, neither was any record of an ET craft. Which of these options, if any, do you prefer? Both look very improbable, but one is still a great deal more improbable than the other.

David Rudiak said...

Maybe a great secret WAS being kept, namely the crash of a B-29 with or without an atomic bomb. True, no official record of such a crash was ever found but, as Brian Bell says, neither was any record of an ET craft. Which of these options, if any, do you prefer? Both look very improbable, but one is still a great deal more improbable than the other.

Unlike flying saucers, military planes like the B-29 are heavily documented, from the time they come off the production line to when they crash or end up on the scrap heap. It would be extraordinarily difficult to make an entire B-29 suddenly disappear from public records without a trace. Likewise very difficult to explain the disappearance of crew members. So you are indeed speaking of a highly improbable event.

In contrast, making a flying saucer disappear requires no massive coverup of prior production and flight records, since none ever existed.

Likewise, very difficult to make an entire nuke disappear, though these records would be much more secret than those of B-29's in service. Why was this nuke accident different from all other similar nuke accidents (broken arrow incidents), dozens of which are now in the public record, like the B-29 crash with a nuke out of Kirtland AFB in 1950? That used to be supersecret, but no longer.

BTW, though Chester Barton thought that MAYBE a B-29 with a nuke had crashed, his testimony also included statements that there was no recognizable B-29 parts to be seen, and much less debris than would be expected from the crash of a B-29

Perhaps you can also explain how you determine the probability or improbability of ET spacecraft being here. It all depends on ones assumptions. The Fermi paradox is only a paradox if one assumes no evidence of alien visitation now or in the past. Otherwise scientists like Fermi did not consider interstellar travel impossible, rather almost inevitable for very technologically advanced civilizations. Once that is achieved, that can colonize much of the galaxy in a few million years, so why weren't they here? (Hence Fermi's question, apparently with Fermi believing there was no convincing evidence of ET visitation)

In contrast, read Ruppelt's chapter on the green fireballs, where he speaks of visiting Los Alamos in early 1952 and speaking to scientists and technicians, most of whom had seen the green fireballs. According to him, most of them were in agreement they were ET probes sent into our atmosphere by an orbiting spacecraft. These were Fermi's colleagues, obviously all a bunch of ET nutters.

David Rudiak said...

Brian Bell Bellowed:
.....I mean it couldn't possibly be a secret USAF test flight of a manned aircraft which crashed and produced....what? Yep, large burn area, metallic debris, radioactivity, bodies taken to the base hospital and flown to Fort Worth, deep coverup. It can only be aliens right?

Brian comes off like the Belligerant Bar-room drunk always looking to pick a fight.

Of course, the prosaic plane crash theory was thoroughly mentioned by me and Kevin in discussing Barton's testimony. I even have a whole web page devoted to Barton's story and interviewer Joseph Stefula opinions, both "anti-ET". Barton believed it was the crash of an aircraft like a B-29 carrying nuclear material.

Stefula was a big Roswell skeptic before speaking to Barton, thinking nothing of significance had happened. But Barton's testimony shook him, he said, and convinced him something highly important had happened at Roswell, and clearly not a balloon crash (which BB paradoxically has also tried to argue in the past while accuse us of trying to have it both ways). Again the link to Stefula's article on Barton:

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

Stefula said MAYBE it was the test of a dirty bomb dispersal system. But unlike BB, Stefula had the integrity to admit he had zero evidence to support such a theory.

If Belligerant BB wants to advance a similar theory, he is of course free to do so. But anyone can dream up theories. BB NEVER produces a single item of evidence to back them up, and he has the responsibility to do so if he wants to be taken seriously.

Where are the witnesses to support such a theory? If the crew was human, where are the witnesses that a human crew was recovered, instead of clearly nonhuman bodies? Where are the records of the airmen who died in the crash? Why would they be shipped to Fort Worth instead of someplace like Los Alamos? Where are the records of the missing B-29 or whatever plane it was? Where are the records of the project? Where are the plane crash records (even the modern USAF admitted no possible crashes to explain what happened)? What produced the large debris field tens of miles away? Why would other witnesses report exotic debris that human technology clearly could not produce back then? If it existed, why don't we see any evidence of it being incorporated into other technology of ours soon after? Why would such a secret project be so far removed from some test range? Why wasn't anyone out looking for it when it was lost? (Seems remarkably careless and cavalier with a nuclear test.) Why still all the great secrecy? Many other plane crash nuclear accidents which were highly secret at the time are now in the public record. What was special about this one that it still has to be kept secret?

Yep, any dumbass can propose some theory. A real investigator goes beyond that and develops actual evidence to support it, if it has ANY merit. Of course, thee main reason nobody can develop such evidence is this supersecret military project never existed. If it did, it should be possible to RATIONALLY answer the questions above. E.g., start with why such a secret project would be so removed from a test range and why nobody was tracking it or looking for it? Good luck.

Bob Koford said...

About the Green Fireballs...


1. After the Top Secret Los Alamos meeting of 1949, Colonel Oder requested to his superiors at CIA/CRD that Lincoln LaPaz be retained as an expert on the subject. LaPaz's position was that if the Fireballs were ours, which is what he assumed, there should be no special investigation. If the Army had information proving they WERE NOT ours, then there should be a special investigation.

2. La Paz's answer came with the creation of a special investigation.

3. La Paz announced he had pinpointed 3 different areas where the green phenomena were actually emanating FROM:

Vaughn, NM
North of Soc.
West of Soc.

I many be mistaken, but it makes a triangle that could possbly represent coordinates. And TWINKLE proved absolutely that they weren not ours.

/Bob

cda said...

Bob:

The Twinkle project proved nothing of the kind. I believe it came to no firm conclusion about the fireballs, whether they were natural or manmade, but have not checked to see.

DR:

In saying the ET solution (to Barton's testimony) is greatly more improbable than the B-29 one, I was mainly emphasising that had the crash genuinely been verified as being of an ET craft, irrespective of Fermi's ideas, the scientific world would have known of this long, long before now. This sort of knowledge would NOT still be secret after 7 decades. That is my firm view; I have said it numerous times. You, Kevin and some others obviously do not accept it, which is why you are such a dedicated conspiracist (and probably will be for decades to come).

Why not "get real" as the saying goes? Scientific discoveries such as this are not, repeat not, hidden for decades by a few top military brass of one country.

Bob Koford said...

I mentioned this not to drive it off course, but to counter a much heard statement of their being no reason to think it is anything out of the ordinary.

What I said was, the fact that the TWINKLE project happened at all was proof enough that they didn't know what it was.

Nitram Ang said...

CDA continuously writes:

"This sort of knowledge would NOT still be secret after 7 decades.
That is my firm view; I have said it numerous times. You, Kevin and some others obviously do not accept it, which is why you are such a dedicated conspiracist (and probably will be for decades to come)."

As has been explained to you numerous times, your OPINION is not necessarily correct.
People do keep secrets and believing someone has kept a secret for years doesn't necessarily make you a conspiracist.

Like BB we can only imagine how many fights you get into at the pub.

Nitram Ang said...

KR wrote:

"During the Air Force investigation into the events, they had access to all the necessary records and found no secret USAAF test flight or a manned aircraft."

BB replied:

True, but then again your claim is an alien spaceship crashed and they didn't find that either, or did they?

Of course they didn't find an alien spaceship - but if they did, (and that is a massive IF) would you really expect to have read about it in that 1994 report! (LOL)

John's Space said...

Everyone,

One key thing is the time of the year in 1947 the Barton even occurred. I haven't heard that it has been established that it was in early July 1947. If not this is not related to the Roswell Incident.

Second, it doesn't seem that a simple B-29 crash would be considered to be a national security secret decades later. Also, as I mentioned above it was very unlikely that a B-29 in that time period would be carrying a nuclear bomb since they were in the custody of the AEC during that time period.

Yet, it doesn't make since to send someone to the a crash site to see what was going on if they had no knowledge of what was at issue. It would seem that you would only send someone who was part of the recovery or you wouldn't want them there at all.

cda said...

Nitram, or Martin:

"Of course they didn't find an alien spaceship - but if they did, (and that is a massive IF) would you really expect to have read about it in that 1994 report! (LOL)"

Had they found an alien spaceship they would not have needed the 1994 report at all (and Senator Schiff would never have instigated the USAF into action), as it would all have been public knowledge at least 45 years earlier.

Yes that is my opinion. If you disagree, please supply a better opinion (and stop hiding behind the 'I'm still investigating' screen). Nobody is 'investigating' this anymore, they are merely digging up old stuff and regurgitating it.

But, as I say, if you have something better to offer, like time travel or multi-dimensional space travel), please say so. You may even get a few followers!

Brian Bell said...

Pubs & UFO's

First of all I don't drink often and I don't go to bars.

DR said:

"Yep, any dumbass can propose some theory. A real investigator goes beyond that and develops actual evidence to support it."

Yes Rudiak, indeed. Such with the example of ufology in general, not just Roswell.

And David since you believe yourself to be a 'real investigator' where is your "actual evidence" of an alien spaceship crash?

These things I mean:

- Alien Bodies?

- Photos of the crash debris and aliens?

- Movie camera film?

- Audio recordings with aliens speaking or investigators discussing what was found?

- Telegraphs that can actually be read and not blurry in some press photo?

- Official government investigation documents stating it's true?

- Diaries, paper notes, journals, notebooks?

- Radioactivity test documents and results?

- Debris collected at the three different sites?

- The craft itself?

So a real investigator wouldn't claim aliens arrived without some of these things right?

But you don't have any of them and you claim it's fact, right?

Or perhaps what you're really saying is any dumb ass can proclaim aliens arrived without evidence and expect the world to believe it because he says so.

Brian Bell said...

Nitram:

"Of course they didn't find an alien spaceship - but if they did, (and that is a massive IF) would you really expect to have read about it in that 1994 report! (LOL)."

Well that's probably where you would look for it. No, whatever evidence was real and pertinent would have been found - and it wasn't unless you're hiding new revelations from us about your time travelers.

Conspiracy minded people tend to see everything as a world wide coverup from governments bent on destroying them.

Well not everything is a conspiracy.

Sometimes people make mistakes and find mundane debris and think it's special. Then decades later people with conspiracy minded mentalities come along and just stick to it like flypaper, buzzing their wings trying to get some attention.

cda said...

Brian B:

You're right, any dumbass can claim such things. The critical point is, as DR has emphasised time and time again, that all the details you list ARE THERE. It is just that your government (mainly a few dumbasses at the top of the military) will not release it. Simple, isn't it? And these people can, if they so desire, sit on it until the sun cools off and the solar system ends.

At least, that is the message DR and his kind are desperately trying to put across to us dumb jerks.

Brian Bell said...

@ CDA

Indeed. And I always ask believers that if they know this to be true (despite evidence) why push for disclosure? If you know they are here what do you want by official proclimation? Vindication?

What will these supposed aliens bring us after disclosure that they could be bringing us now.....but aren't?

KRandle said...

Jim Bender -

You were fine until you introduced a political comment. I have removed your post.

KRandle said...

CDA -

If we follow your logic to the end, we can reject most of what is found in newspapers because it is second hand and maybe even third hand. The person leading a press conference tells the reporters what someone else said, so at best that is second hand. Reading it from the reporter, who wasn't at the original event being discussed makes it third hand. We can now reject much history that is based on the word of those who participated.

I will also note that when United States Senator Jeff Bingaman asked the Air Force about Project Moon Dust he said that there was never such a project based at Ft. Meade. Lieutenant Colonel John Madison said, "Those missions (Moon Dust and Operation Blue Fly) have never existed."

When confronted with documents proving that the did, the Air Force response was that they had never been used. This too was a lie, told to a United States Senator.

KRandle said...

All -

This was originally a discussion about what Chester Barton had said and not this other issues. Let's see if we can drag it back to its original position.

David Rudiak said...

Just to give everyone some idea of how many military nuclear accidents have occurred and which are now in the public record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

So if Roswell was some sort of U.S. military nuclear accident, it is hard to explain why it wouldn't be known of now. Lots of dirty-little-secrets U.S. military and intelligence projects are now public knowledge. What was so special about Roswell?

Chester Barton's interviewer Joseph Stefula proposed the idea of a the test of a dirty bomb disposal system. One problem here (aside from no record of such a project) is that a dirty bomb wouldn't be all the different from a number of known accidents where radioactive material was dispersed into the environment when non-nuclear detonators exploded during the nuclear weapons accident. That amounts to essentially the same thing as a dirty bomb.

Another problem, I already brought up, is such a system would not be tested way outside of some remote test range. It would certainly be carefully monitored and tracked (including chase planes), not somehow get loose and get badly lost. Then nobody seemingly bothers to look for it, and it takes civilians to report something amiss.

It would also make zero sense to have a crew likely to be contaminated by such a test. Radio-controlled drones were used during Operation Crossroads A-bomb tests the year before for more dangerous instrument flights. Such remote-controlled drones have been around for a LONG time and are basically model airplanes on a bigger scale. That is how you would logically build a flying dirty bomb disperser, using remote-control, not have a flight crew in the same craft dispersing the radioactive material.

And did we mention already that there are zero records of any plane crashes in this time frame or area when records were checked, including by the USAF? The possibility that this might be explained by some long-ago military project like an errant V2 rocket or crashed experimental plane, or something weirder like a Japanese Fugo balloon or Russian surveillance plane, has already been checked out and found completely lacking in evidence to support it. (It is hardly some new idea that Brian Bell conceived of.) Even the modern USAF debunkers had to concede the point, but, in desperation for some patsy to take the fall, framed a nonexistent balloon flight for the crime.

In fact (correct me if I am wrong about this Kevin), Kevin and Don Schmitt started out as flying saucer crash skeptics. Read their early stuff and it says they went into this thinking it WAS some old project, they would quickly figure it out, and that would be the end of Roswell. Instead, all evidence they developed kept leading away from that conclusion.

David Rudiak said...

I just wrote:

"Chester Barton's interviewer Joseph Stefula proposed the idea of a the test of a dirty bomb disposal system."

I meant obviously a dirty bomb DISPERSAL system.

Nitram Ang said...

CDA blindly wrote:

"Nobody is 'investigating' this anymore, they are merely digging up old stuff and regurgitating it."

This sweeping statement is simply incorrect. Please reread the "Ramey Memo posting" earlier and you will note that David, Kevin and their team are still attempting to make progress (yes, it is frustratingly slow and not helped by time wasted responding to comments from "self professed dumb jerks").

Should you have anything constructive to ad please let them know.

goldfive said...

Lets not also forget that the Air Force had a golden opportunity to come clean with the truth about any such "secret project" in 1994 when they preempted the GAO Roswell inquiry with their own report.

If whatever crashed in '47 was "prosaic", It's hard to fathom a plausible reason for them to double down on secrecy and put out yet ANOTHER cover story featuring Project Mogul.  And, by doing so, let the whole 'saucer crash with alien bodies' myth continue to fester. 

It makes no sense.  What 1940's-era secret could still be so important?

I can not think of any project so scandalous, hideous, and unethical that it would still have serious national security ramifications 50+ years later.

All's one has to do is google "unethical human experimentation in the United States" and the Wikipedia entry lists DOZENS of examples of such projects which the public now knows about.  Some of them are truly sickening in their cruelty and total disregard for innocent victims.

In my opinion, if the Roswell event was caused by a project such as this (even with a military technology aspect), there's no compelling reason why the government would.continue to cover it up.

It can't possibly be as bad as, say, promising to treat patients with syphilis but instead just observing the progression of the disease over a 40 year period (The Tuskegee Experiment)-- which again, we know about.












Brice said...

goldfive said :

"Lets not also forget that the Air Force had a golden opportunity to come clean with the truth about any such "secret project" in 1994 when they preempted the GAO Roswell inquiry with their own report.

If whatever crashed in '47 was "prosaic", It's hard to fathom a plausible reason for them to double down on secrecy and put out yet ANOTHER cover story featuring Project Mogul. And, by doing so, let the whole 'saucer crash with alien bodies' myth continue to fester.

It makes no sense. What 1940's-era secret could still be so important?"

Sure, it seems they just lack any explanation -one they may want to release- so they pulled out the mogul balloon as their best attempt. Too bad it has so many flawed issues. So they just fanned on the flames again.

Wind Swords said...

Kevin:

"All -

This was originally a discussion about what Chester Barton had said and not this other issues. Let's see if we can drag it back to its original position."

Well, I asked some questions earlier in this thread that were on topic but neither you nor anyone else cared to address and we went right back to same old arguments between the same cast of characters, only this time with even more name calling. If you would like to get back on track maybe you could look at my earlier posting and respond. Just a thought.

John's Space said...

It seems to me that we are faced with two possibilities with Roswell. Either some relatively mundane event occurred, e.g., a balloon, etc., and perhaps it was so unremarkable that no real record was available in 1994. Or, it was a real ET event that has been covered up every since. I agree with those who say that there is no plausible conventional national security event that could justify not revealing it to end the controversy by 1994.

There is a strong case for the mundane possibility in that Gen. Twinning clearly states in his memo requesting the start of Project Sign that the Air Material Command had no physical evidence of flying discs. The simple conclusion is that if a UFO crashed at Roswell then this would not be the case. Therefore there was no flying disc crash at Roswell
.
The other possibility is Kevin’s concept that those comments in the Twinning memo are disinformation to protect the “ultra secret” reality that UFOs are real and extraterrestrial. That is a more complex possibility.

cda said...

Wind Swords:

It is up to Kevin to answer your points, but I will try my hand. Edwin Easley, Provost Marshal (i.e. the one who told Kevin that he couldn't say anything except to say he couldn't say anything) never went to any crash site. He virtually admits this in his interview with Kevin as given in the book ROSWELL UFO CRASH UPDATE, p.157-161.

Chester Barton was told by Easley to go to one of the crash sites, presumably not the Foster ranch site, but finds it cordoned off. He sees debris that looks like a B-29 parts but does not handle it. Other wreckage looks strange. We don't know how near he got. He is told to forget the whole thing by Easley (who wasn't there even though Kevin says he was). Never at any time does he consider that he might have glimpsed an ET craft until someone puts the idea into his head c. 1995. He forgets the episode (as instructed by Easley) for 48 years then suddenly gets a phone call from a researcher. Barton tells his 'story' but in reality there is no reason to connect it with Roswell, nor is the month or even the year known of his visit to any 'crash site'.

Oh, and don't forget that despite Easley's non-presence at either site, he actually told the President of the US that he would NEVER divulge what he had seen! (It's in the 2nd Randle/Schmitt book, p.14)

End of story? No, not quite: it is further evidence, according to some, of an ET crash near Roswell in July 1947.

I expect Kevin, if he responds to you, will have a very different slant on things, but we shall wait and see.

John's Space said...

Oh, and don't forget that despite Easley's non-presence at either site, he actually told the President of the US that he would NEVER divulge what he had seen! (It's in the 2nd Randle/Schmitt book, p.14)

President Truman actually came to Roswell to talk to the troops and personally swear them to secrecy?

On the other hand, how do we explain the clash between Gen. Lemay and Sen. Goldwater over the latter's request to get into a facility at Wright-Patterson where the Roswell crash artifacts were being kept? This isn't rumor because there actual is a recording to an interview in which Goldwater relates this story.

goldfive said...

Wind Swords,

Yes, the purpose of Easley sending Barton, apparently ,"unbriefed" to one of the crash sites is a bit odd.

I suppose one possible explanation is  'extreme compartmentalization'. Basically, maybe Easley just needed to know how close the clean up teams were to completing the assigned task.  This information ***could** be gleaned from a visual inspection of the debris field from its perimeter, i.e. is there a lot of metallic debris still on the ground, or is it mostly gone?  Or perhaps by getting a verbal report from the OIC on site ("how much longer do you need?).

In either of these instances, knowing whether the debris was from Mogul, an overturned Reynolds Wrap truck, or alien spacecraft might not have been critical.

Maybe Easley did not want to risk communicating via radio with the team on site (assuming the site was not out of range) for security reasons.  Barton mentioned in his testimony that he was very surprised he didn't see/hear ang crypto traffic about the crash at the time.

I'm not crazy about this hypothesis, but there it is.

Regarding Marcel and the clean up, he was no longer involved in the recovery operation once he returned to RAAF with his initial carload of debris on the morning of July 8th.  His role in Roswell morphed shortly after that point into one of being a puppet/patsy in General Ramey's weather balloon photo op.  

If one accepts the multiple crash site scenario, then Marcel's overall role in the Roswell event becomes less significant;  he said in his various interviews that he only saw debris, never saw bodies, and no complete machine.   

If there was indeed another site or sites with the main vehicle or escape pod and bodies, the Foster Ranch site that Marcel and Cavitt investigated was the less important of the two sites.  Going back to the 'extreme compartmentalization' theory above, Marcel, frankly, had no need-to-know about the other crash sites; although he was the senior Air Intelligence officer at Roswell, his expertise was in domestic and foreign military aircraft.  The crash involved neither.

Marcel readily admitted (in the late 70's/early 80's) "I didn't know what it was".  LSo, after reporting back to Blanchard on the 8th with the debris, there probably wasn't much more expertise he could contribute.

Also regarding Marcel, it's not often mentioned, but in interviews he said that he was very busy with other duties, that he had "little time to spend on this", and something about his main job involving clearing people to work at the base security-wise.   

Marcel was an important player, certainly, but he seems like he was taken out of the loop for indeterminate reasons.  The CIC seems to have taken over the intelligence end of the retrieval.

If you recall from Bill Rickett's testimony---when Marcel got back from Ft. Worth, he asked Cavitt to see his report on the recovery;  Cavitt refused, again seemingly on the basis of Jesse not having a 'need-to-know'. 

cda said...

John's space:

Look again at that Goldwater-LeMay stuff. Some constituent of Goldwater, in NM or Arizona, asked Goldwater to enquire about UFOs and Project Blue Book. This was about 1975. Goldwater replied that he had already asked his friend General LeMay about UFOs some ten years earlier (!) but was refused entry to the so-called 'blue room'. This 'blue room' was alleged to contain all the UFO 'exhibits' Blue Book had supposedly collected over the years. In fact all it had was loads of documentation (as far as we know; nobody has ever proved otherwise).

Neither Roswell nor any other crashed saucer ever formed part of Goldwater's request to LeMay in 1963. In fact, Roswell was not even heard of at the time, nor in 1975. It may be that in later years Goldwater did refer to Roswell, but this was only after he had heard of it through books and the media. The original 1975 request from his constituent had zilch to do with Roswell.

So if Goldwater is heard (on a recording) telling about once trying to get access to the Roswell crashed saucer, he has clearly got his facts wrong and his memory is faulty.

Brian Bell said...

"President Truman actually came to Roswell to talk to the troops and personally swear them to secrecy?"

Schmitt references a witness matching Easley's silent routine in some of his talks - specifically when he is speaking of "Witness to Roswell".

There he claims a witness (with Easley's story line) was told to be silent but in this case Truman was supposedly in Fort Worth, or at least his "emissary" who swore Easley in.

Let's not forget there are also claims Lindbergh and Von Braun were taken to the crash site too. KR says Lindbergh was known to visit RAAF (he said this in a previous post), but according to the record it seems Lindbergh only visited Goddard there in the 1930's during early rocket tests.

Just pick a famous American aviator or rocket scientist and you can probably connect them to the Roswell myth.

(PS: Kevin that's a cynical remark, so don't ask me for proof of this).

cda said...

Just as cynical and dotty as the idea that Easley ever spoke to the President about Roswell. But it is still there in the second Randle-Schmitt book, so it is 'documented' in a way. There is even a footnote on it.

Brice said...

@goldfive :

lots of compelling questions came to my mind from your last post.

you said : " Marcel was an important player, certainly, but he seems like he was taken out of the loop for indeterminate reasons. The CIC seems to have taken over the intelligence end of the retrieval."

" Regarding Marcel and the clean up, he was no longer involved in the recovery operation once he returned to RAAF with his initial carload of debris on the morning of July 8th. His role in Roswell morphed shortly after that point into one of being a puppet/patsy in General Ramey's weather balloon photo op."

I personnally find this odd. Since Marcel was the intelligence officer at RAAF and the one who first investigated the debris field, wouldn't he be the one up to manage the cleaning operation ? If we hypothetize there was no other country involved in the incident (for example assuming an ET crash), I guess the CIC wouldn't need to be involved in the leading of the operations (even so, who in the CIC could have been charged of this?). Why Marcel wasn't more involved in the following operations? Maybe the idea of compartmentalization is of value, still Marcel was the intelligence officer and was already in the loop. So who took the control of the cleaning operation(s)? And who was running the base if Blanchard was on leave by then? Sorry I'm no expert on Roswell so I certainly miss some of who did what... Was Easly more up to Marcel to handle some of the cleaning? I have no military experience but I feel an intelligence officer would have been best placed for this. Now if we assume there was no other crash recorded near Roswell on this time frame (around 1947), it would indicate Barton was well refering to the Roswell incident.

You said Marcel said he never saw bodies and other wreckage than the one he saw, this also appears to me somewhat odd for the same reason. It's difficult to imagine he wouldn't note at least some activity going on the base due to his position if there was the cleaning of 2 sites. Now, if I'm not mistaken, Marcel also said there were things he would never talk about so that may fit here (?).

"If you recall from Bill Rickett's testimony---when Marcel got back from Ft. Worth, he asked Cavitt to see his report on the recovery; Cavitt refused, again seemingly on the basis of Jesse not having a 'need-to-know'."

This, I don't really understand, from Pratt's interview of Marcel, he had 3 CIC agents under his orders he would send to investigate and who later would make a report to him. Cavitt was there as one of these men so he should have reported to Marcel, shouldn't he?

cda said...

More oddities on Easley:

In an old (2007) blog entitled "Edwin Easley and Roswell" Kevin writes quite a lot about Easley. There is then a comment by one 'kensolar' who claims he spoke to Easley about a decade before Kevin first did in 1990. Easley told this 'kensolar' everything about what he saw, including structure of the craft, crash site, bodies and so on. Easley even managed to poke his head through a gaping hole in the craft.

Yet this is the same man who, ten years later, couldn't tell Kevin anything at all, because he had been sworn to secrecy!

Brian Bell said...

Goldfive wrote:

“Let’s not also forget that the Air Force had a golden opportunity to come clean with the truth about any such "secret project" in 1994 when they preempted the GAO Roswell inquiry with their own report.”

>>> Yes, but as I pointed out so did EVERYBODY else still remaining silent keeping their 1947 oaths of secrecy including the unit deployed to clean it up, medical personnel who inspected the alien bodies, MP’s who guarded the saucer debris, and so on. BUT these people never came forward. NEVER came forward. Why? Because a more likely explanation is that none of these events actually happened.

“If whatever crashed in '47 was "prosaic", it's hard to fathom a plausible reason for them to double down on secrecy and put out yet ANOTHER cover story featuring Project Mogul. And, by doing so, let the whole 'saucer crash with alien bodies' myth continue to fester.”

>>> Several possibilities here:

1) It really was Mogul, or some other prosaic balloon related object, in which case they are describing what they actually believe it to be based on all evidence. Recall that KR stated the US Weather Service was flying balloons with Rawin targets too (see his previous post).

2) It was another classified project of some sort using a balloon lifting device, but that project for whatever reasons remains classified OR the documents really were tossed and are lost in the deep paperwork archives of the US Government. The GAO did state that Roswell records were destroyed – that doesn’t mean conspiracy per se, but it might be if they wanted to forever hide whatever they were doing.

3) Because the so called ET event is actually still a good cover story for something prosaic they don’t want released. Why clear it up if the alien myth helps to keep the secret thing hidden?

What could possibly be classified to this day?

Well the JFK records from the 1960’s are still classified, and so are records pertaining to Nazi underground bases from 1945. That’s at least 70 years in one case alone. Add to these other documents from the 1940’s which sound mundane and could easily be released but won’t:

1) Death of Himmler – not up for release until 2045.
2) Imprisonment of Rudolf Hess and circumstances of his death in the UK.
3) RAF attack on ship carrying Jewish camp survivors – 2045
4) Mafia support of US during invasion of Italy.

I believe much of the old classified information is due to risk or fear of national embarrassment rather than national security.

As some have stated, including myself, they may have been testing or developing comonents for radioactive, chemical or biological weapons that for whatever reasons is so heinous that it still hasn’t come out or never will. After all, the 1997 Clinton Advisory Committee Report uncovered things we didn’t know before 1997, and those would have remained hidden to this day unless a deep inquiry was made from high authority.

Personally, I believe that a government can more easily conceal its own activities from public eyes and we have verifiable proof that they can – even up to 50 years post event.

What about keeping the secret about crashed alien saucers?

Well as CDA has stated it would be much harder to cover up a real crash of this kind (and multiple crashes afterwards) because of the cosmic nature of the event. Not only would it leak prior to the 1980’s, but people would openly talk about it decades later; they would come forth and their stories would be consistent. That didn’t happen. It took a UFO investigator to make an inquiry for them to spill their beans.

Much of what is claimed is second hand information, and we have discovered that key witnesses have lied or have significantly expanded and altered their testimony over the years to suit their circumstances.

And as I have stated there isn’t one shred of physical evidence to back those claims.

Brian Bell said...

@ CDC

Yes. And I get the impression that after the testimony of Kaufmann et.al fell down and went boom in the 1990's, that true believers now place their confidence in another set of military witnesses whose claims "prove" aliens bumped their noggins in NM.

These include:

1) Easley
2) Dubose
3) Exon (who saw tracks on the desert floor)

I'm sure there are others.

KRandle said...

Man you people are all over the board here. Is there some sort of conspiracy to attack this blog?

Okay, it was Frank Kaufmann who brought von Braun into the discussion by suggesting that he knew about because he and Frank had talked about it. Frank provided documentation in the form of a Congressional Recognition that put von Braun in Roswell at the opening of the museum display that dealt with space exploration. Frank, as a wheel in the Chamber of Commerce at the time would have been involved in that... so, it is conceivable that Frank did meet von Braun in Roswell. Did they talk about the UFO crash? Well, since Frank didn't know a thing about it at that time, the answer is, "No." I would have thought that when we eliminated Kaufmann from the list of viable witnesses, this particular story would have been eliminated with it.

Robert Goddard preformed his rocketry experiments in Roswell in the 1930s. He was certainly in Roswell as history and documentation proves. Was he involved in the recovery of an alien craft? No.

No one suggested that Truman ever went to Roswell in relation to the crash (of whatever you want to believe it was). It is clear to me that Easley's promise to the president not to talk about it came through a representative of the president (not to mention they had telephones in 1947 and they even had secure communications between Washington, D.C. and Roswell at the time). Finally, everyone keeps referring to the first interview I had with Easley, but that was not the only time that I spoke to him... and our investigation began not all that long before he became very ill.

Marcel, as the intelligence officer had a specific role at the base. Easley had another. Once Marcel returned to report what he had seen, the situation shifted. Easley, as the provost marshal was now responsible for the security at the site (or sites). Lewis Rickett put Easley on one of those sites, as did Sheridan Cavitt did in the first in person interview I conducted with him (and yes, Don Schmitt was there). Once the site had been located, Marcel's role in that was over. Besides, he had been sent to Fort Worth, which got him out of Roswell.

When Blanchard left the base then the chain of command would have been altered with the executive officer operating in the name of the commander (Blanchard). With everyone today plugged into the cell phones it would seem that no one seems to remember that they had telephones and radios in 1947, so even if Blanchard was off site, he certainly was still in communication with the base.

cda said...

Kevin:

"...so even if Blanchard was off site, he certainly was still in communication with the base."

Are you really trying to tell us that Blanchard would STILL have gone on leave had he known, or even suspected, that a crashed extraterrestrial craft, with bodies, had been found? Get real!

And Easley's promise to the president, or even to a representative thereof, sounds way over the top. All others merely swore, or say they swore, an oath of secrecy. Easley was different: he swore his oath (or whatever it was) to President Truman, no less. Amazing.

KRandle said...

CDA -

Same song, same tune... Can't say anything without you twisting it around. Blanchard did not go on leave. It was a cover, according to his operation's officer. I just didn't want to get into this argument when all I had done was post information that came from Chester Barton.

Neal Foy said...

cda

You are persistent in your complete lack of knowledge of the US military. There are a few good reasons for Blanchard to take his leave as scheduled. First leave is considered almost sacred in the military. They plan all year for their leave. Secondly it may have raised questions if he suddenly cancelled his leave, for what? A stupid weather balloon? Third it may have been considered a good idea to put him away from the press because he was a prime candidate for the drooling idiot label.

You make a big deal of Easley's promise to the President yet in the British military they often are quoted as swearing allegiance to the Queen. Have all of those British soldiers actually spoken to Her Highness with their oath? And don't forget your hero in this story, Cavitt made similar statements on oaths.

cda said...

Kevin:

I see. Even though Blanchard was off site, he was still in touch at all times, owing to the urgency of dealing with an unexpected ET visit. I suppose if he had stayed on site to deal with the emergency this might have aroused suspicion amongst his staff that something sinister was amiss.

So naturally he goes off site but keeps secretly in touch with all the developments. A likely story! Presumably he also took this great secret to his grave.

cda said...

Neal:

I guess DR will have something to say about you writing that Blanchard was "a prime candidate for the drooling idiot label". Wasn't Blanchard later considered for the post of USAF Chief of Staff?

Neal Foy said...

cda,
Have you ever heard the expression "taking one for the team". That's exactly what Blanchard and Marcel did. Both were either rewarded or considered for rewards for being team players. Certainly neither was punished.

Barton was simply mistaken in his assessment of the crash site. The radiation story was just a scare tactic to keep him away from actually seeing anything of importance. Who would go any further if they thought they would be in danger?

Brian Bell said...

Barton & Rudiak –

Like CDA I don’t find Barton’s testimony useful. Obviously documented but not noteworthy.

Many ETer’s use such comments as “evidence” without merit. False claims go like this:

Gets orders + Goes to second crash site + Sees burned spot + Sees wreckage + Thinks B-29 + Wreckage not entire aircraft = ONE MORE CONFIRMATION ALIENS CRASHED

We don’t know what Barton really saw. He may be recalling a plane crash mixed with memories of B-29’s.

For fun, let’s say whatever Barton saw wasn't alien or a conventional aircraft recognizable to servicemen – but, the super-secret can’t really exist aircraft Rudiak claims is impossible.

Rudiak doesn't have a legitimate paper trail confirming an alien crash, but there are documents supporting secret projects that aren’t in history books.

SOURCE: July 1, 1947: Medical Research Division: Air Surgeon’s Office:

“Distinct progress has been made in aero medical research during the past year (1947)…There have been two highly successful human ejections during flight at about 260 miles per hour…experiments will be greatly extended over the next three months….much of the data collected in other ejection experiments will apply…progress has been much slower and less distinct in human studies directed toward capsule ejection at very high speeds.”

>>> Clearly the USAAF tested human subjects in 1947 in both seats and pods in aircraft, drones, or other vehicles. These were done in Albuquerque; Kirtland Field. Is Haut’s “egg” possibly a human ejection capsule? Are we certain wooden crash dummies weren’t used until the 1950’s?

“A partial pressure suit has been developed…The pilots of the S-Aircraft have been fitted with models of the suit to permit full altitude exploitation of the experimental aircraft…”

>>> Pilots of an “S-Aircraft”? The official designation by the USAAF from 1946-47 for “S-Aircraft” was “S-Supersonic/Special Test (to X)”. In 1962 this changed to “S-Spaceplane”.

The memo states “the experimental aircraft”. What supersonic experimental aircraft was being tested in ‘47 that had pilots using experimental altitude suits? It wasn’t the F-86 Sabre because its first trials were in August ‘47 and it never went supersonic until the ‘50’s. It’s the Bell X-1 because it was tested in FL and CA, not NM. Where was the S-Aircraft tested? Kirtland Field.

September 1947: Analysis of Factors Contributing to Pilot Error Experiences in Operating Experimental Aircraft Controls.

“As to the actual causes of the two incidences on 25 March and 4 July 1947, of the loaned S-Aircraft, P9 personnel and AEC consultants in conjunction with advisory people from AAF Scientific Advisory Group, and Armed Forces Special Weapons Project…”

>>> Undocumented S-Aircraft crashes – one on the day many claim aliens crashed.

There’s evidence the USAAF was testing ejection seats and crew pods prior to July 1, 1947 in NM with human test subjects. That’s not referenced in the usual flight history books, but in these official documents. Roswell may be an episode where altitude ejection went wrong; ejected bodies on the desert floor – human bodies, maybe even wooden dummies prior to 1952.

There’s evidence the USAAF tested supersonic experimental aircraft of unknown type in the early part of ‘47 prior to July 1, 1947. Not recorded in crash logs but referenced in official memos. That aircraft had pilots who were fitted with experimental high altitude suits. The only hypersonic plane known prior to ’47 were the odd looking British M.52, French Luduc 0.10, and German Lippish D-1 or Silbervogel. You can argue it was the XP-86 (which could only fly 570 MPH at the time), or the Bell X-1, but were supersonic prior to July ‘47, and X-1 wasn’t tested in NM.

There‘s evidence two S-Aircraft crashed with one on “4 July 1947”. Undocumented in recovery logs. Now isn’t it possible that Barton recalls seeing a crashed secret test project?

Neal Foy said...

Brian,
Are you sure the tests for the ejection seats and pods were done on actual flying aircraft? The procedure for testing is usually mounting them to a rocket sled, not to sacrifice an aircraft. How do I know this? A guy I worked with at NASA took part in the tests of the Sidewinder missile, they were mounted on rocket sleds at Eglin AFB. He told an amusing story of how the mounting cradle became loose during a test and they all ran for cover because they knew the missile's target had become to whom it may concern.They also tested ejection seats this way.

Brian Bell said...

Summary from Above:

We have documentation that human subjects were used in high altitude tests in NM where some used ejection seats and crew pods and where others wore experimental high altitude suits all prior to 1 July 1947. Not the 1950's. High altitude tests usually use advanced balloons, and ejection seats often tested on actual aircraft.

We have documentation an experimental supersonic aircraft without any known named designation was built, flown, and crashed at least twice, possibly using the ejection seats being tested (or a pod), and one happened to crash on 4 July 1947.

All based out of Albuquerque.

All before other known advanced supersonic aircraft were developed and shown to be flyworthy.

All likely built on aircraft designs held in secret but designed during WWII or before.

All with human subjects.

So let's not go around spewing verbage that such things don't exist, couldn't exist, or have no documentation because someone has "searched all the records and they couldn't exist".

This all happened prior to July 1947. Obviously there were other secret projects flying through the air in NM at the same time as V2's and Mogul Balloons.

Brian Bell said...

Neal -

In the 1940's they didn't use the sleds we have today. The testing was done with dummies, and then real test subjects. First on the ground, then in the air.

I'm referencing the aerial tests, not the ground tests. Here is a vid of a 1940's ejection seat test in England. They are using rockets, but gunpowder blasts and compressed air was used prior to the testing of rockets.

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/testing-an-aircraft-ejection-seat

Obvioulsy this doesn't look too threatending and more like a carnival ride, but they would also need to test it on live subjects eventually.

The first reported live subject aerial test was in 1946 in England flying a Gloster Meteor.

The seats didn't become standard until 1948.

Brian Bell said...

Blanchard's Vacation:

Technically "leave", but oh well.

My comment is that I have a very hard time believing that any commander of the world's only atomic bomb group would, during the emergence of the cold war, soviet threats and spies, and concern over "discs" in the media, would "take leave" of the situation if an actual alien space ship crashed.

That makes no sense.

Yes I know it's because "he really didn't take leave" but that isn't backed by any evidence.

Something totally unknown crashes; little grey people with big heads, silvery suits, and Asian type eyes are found, one living mind you; and space junk is littered all over the desert with full blown recovery operation in play, troops deployed from other bases, cover-ups being planned and stories hushed with death threats, and this guy just says; "Hey Mack, I'm off...see ya later. Given me a ring or send me a messenger if you need anything."?

Really? What an idiot for an officer. Unless you can prove he was ordered to leave I'm not buying it.

For all he knew it was the advance unit of a full scale military invasion from Mars...but no, the guy just goes on vacation.

Not very believable.

What is believable is this. Nothing really happened and the guy didn't bother to change his plans.

Neal Foy said...

Wrong as usual Brian, the rocket sled track at China Lake opened in 1940, at Edwards opened in 1944. And the usual procedure is to do dangerous tests first on the ground. Also have you ever been to Albuquerque? It's a long way from Roswell a testing in flight is done with chase planes equipped with instrumentation cameras and other gear. You're saying one of these tests got away and nobody noticed?

David Rudiak said...

Brian Bell wrote:
September 1947: Analysis of Factors Contributing to Pilot Error Experiences in Operating Experimental Aircraft Controls.

“As to the actual causes of the two incidences on 25 March and 4 July 1947, of the loaned S-Aircraft, P9 personnel and AEC consultants in conjunction with advisory people from AAF Scientific Advisory Group, and Armed Forces Special Weapons Project…”

>>> Undocumented S-Aircraft crashes – one on the day many claim aliens crashed

There‘s evidence two S-Aircraft crashed with one on “4 July 1947”. Undocumented in recovery logs. Now isn’t it possible that Barton recalls seeing a crashed secret test project?


Brian Bell shoots himself in the foot yet AGAIN. I don't know if he even knows it, but his "documentation" of the alleged "S-Aircraft" crashes is from one of the so-called "Majestic Documents" collection of one Tim Cooper, supposed received in the mail from his mysterious source "Cantwell".

http://majesticdocuments.com/documents/pre1948.php

While BB is trying to represent this is some sort of "official" document of known provenance, it is NOT, no more so than any of the other Cooper "Majestic Documents", some of which have been 100% proven to be total fakes, basically rewritten versions of known genuine documents:

http://majesticdocuments.com/documents/pre1948.php

(See: Lt. Col. Tucker Memo to Office of Air Surgeon, 22 September 1947 toward bottom)

And if BB wants to insist that THIS particular "document" is genuine, what about all the other Cooper "documents" which say there really was a flying saucer crash, indeed, multiple such crashes in this time period? Talk about wanting to have it both ways.

So more worthless "documentation" from BB, right up there with his Kal Korff "source" that Marcel didn't believe in an alien crash until he met Stan Friedman.

Show us a REAL government sourced document of these alleged S-aircraft and then there might be something to talk about. But using Cooper's "documents" as some sort of conclusive evidence is just garbage. Also it makes absolutely no sense that such a conventional aircraft crash would still be kept secret. Lot's of experimental aircraft crashed killing pilots or crew, now all part of the historical record of aviation, since there is nothing remotely sensitive about this many decades later.

cda said...

Kevin:

You have not commented on another (yes it is important) contradiction I pointed out awhile back. Provost Marshal Easley told a guy called 'kensolar' all about the Roswell crash in c. 1980, yet by 1990 when he was speaking to you he could tell you nothing at all since he had been sworn to secrecy.

Question: do you believe ANYTHING Easley said? If so, what? Have you any explanation for his remarks to this other guy being in flat contradiction to what he told you (or rather did not tell you)?

One answer might be that he was only sworn to secrecy sometime after 1980.

But wait a minute. In another version of the story, he gave his secrecy oath to either the President or the latter's emissary in 1947, didn't he?

KRandle said...

CDA -

To what point? I have no evidence that this comment is true. It reeks of the Friedman scenario of the collision between two UFOs, and contains information that seems to be drawn from the Barnett nonsense over on the Plains of San Agustin, unless, of course, it was a triple collision with two coming down in the Roswell area and the other flying on to the Plains. Yes, you've done your best to marginalize Easley and anyone else you don't believe but cling to the tales told by Charles Moore... oh, damn, I just expanded this useless conversation.

All -

It seems that most of this has come around to me again but I'll skip my turn because we're covering ground that has been covered in so many other posts and comments that I just don't feel like cutting and pasting those articles together. If anyone has something to say about Barton, that would be interesting.

goldfive said...

Kevin,

Getting back to Chester Barton as you requested, one can look at his dissociation with the ET saucer crash explanation as a positive or negative... sort of.       

First, the "positive":

1.  Based on his his low-key, "non-ET related" testimony (he never sought limelight, never wrote a book, never appeared on TV) Barton is in all probability telling the truth about what he saw and heard.  He's no "true believer".

2. Barton's memory at the time of Stefula's interview seems excellent, in that he was able to instantly recite his military ID numbers, numbers he hadn't needed since retiring from the service in 1954. 

3.  If we accept, then, that based on the above, he is being truthful and his memory is accurate, then his parts of his testimony establishes:

A.  What crashed was not a balloon of any kind.   'POP' goes Mogul once more.

B.  There was a considerable recovery operation and heightened security  & secrecy were involved... including an unusual absence of crypto radio traffic.

C.  There were at the very least "rumors" AT THE TIME of the incident about alien bodies and civilian archaeologists being involved, which disproves the debunkers' contention that these elements of the Roswell Incident are the result of a post -1978 evolution of "the myth" (or the result of influence from unscrupulous UFOlogists.)

On the other side of the coin, all the above is balanced out by the fact that Barton claimed no direct knowledge of a saucer crash, and he thought the crash invloved a downed B-29.  The story of his involvement and interaction with Easley is rather vague, and admittedly, it doesn't make a ton of sense he wasn't told what was being recovered--but was told to check on the progress anyway.

I speculated in a previous post above as to why Barton might plausibly been kept in the dark about the ET-origin of the debris, but frankly it's rather thin and I'm not super comfortable with it. 

Brian Bell said...

Wrong Neil -

China Lake and Edwards AFB are not located in NM. Perhaps you have Betty Hill's map instead?

Neal Foy said...

Brian,

You said that rocket sleds didn't exist in 1947. But they did. I never said they were in New Mexico, they were in California. What difference does it make? You were wrong once again. Brian, please stop spreading the stuff you shovel out of the bull stalls at those rodeos you've been to.

The main problem I see with Barton is that there is little to confirm the time frame for his trip to a debris field.

KRandle said...

Neal -

Bingo... the real problem is the time frame. I was waiting for someone to point that out precisely. It was my thought as well...

Brian Bell said...

DR:

Yes we all know the "Majestic Documents" saga.

My comment was about Barton and what he may have seen based on a document that has nothing to do with fantastic claims about EBE's and MJ-12 conspiracy.

And now you're claiming every document in the entire batch is bogus to prove no prosaic explanation is possible, yet the collection was clearly intended to SUPPORT belief in ET.

I'm referencing one document that has nothing to do with aliens or MJ-12. Nothing.

The only documents known to be bogus are those specifically referencing aliens and MJ-12. We all know that.

And since you claim ALL documents in the batch are fake, you would do well to read Mike Heiser's linguistic evaluation sampling some of the most critical documents of which only one was found to be authentic, although it had nothing to do with alien crash recoveries or MJ-12.

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/MJ%20Test%20article.pdf

Obviously there are SOME authentic documents thrown into the collection mixed with the fake drivel. Those are the ones containing nothing about aliens and MJ-12.

Besides you're on record for previously stating on this blog quote:

"Yes, exactly. People get so focused in invalidating the "Majestic" papers or the possible code name “Majestic” that the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater, namely the good evidence that such a UFO oversight group existed."

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2014/11/majestic-found.html?m=1

So you claim the entire batch is bogus but that its message and content are authentic and memos contained therein which do not validate aliens or MJ-12 are bogus.

Go ponder that mind bending set of contradictions.

You also said:

"The MJ-12 papers as they emerged in the 1980's could be complete frauds, but an actual MJ-12 organization headed by Vannevar Bush and operating initially inside the Research Development Board could, have very much been a reality".

http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2001/jun/m04-007.shtml

You publicly reject the documents but completely accept their message concerning aliens, crashes, and MJ-12.

Weird.

goldfive said...

Kevin, Neal,

I'm afraid I'm not quite getting the "time frame" issue regarding Barton's crash site inspection.

Are you guys thinking he confused another crash event, involving an aircraft of some sort with the Roswell crash he was being questioned about?

Stefula seemed to establish Barton's long term memory was good, based on his instant recall of his officer and enlisted ID numbers.

And Barton, in his terstimony, seemed to tie the weather balloon news story, rumors of alien bodies and spacecraft, as well as archaeologists being involved to the timeframe of crash he visited.

Doesn't the fact that he read nothing/watched nothing about Roswell in the decades following his crash site visit eliminate the "witness contamination factor"? If he's being truthful about his ignorance of the "Roswell Incident controversy", then doesn't it stand to reason that the only way he could have known about "the archaeologists", the bodies and the spacecraft is if he heard about them at the time, back when the incident happened?

Wind Swords said...

Part 1 of 2:

All,

Sorry I haven't commented since late yesterday. Been busy and I had to get my fill of post-season baseball (go Cubs!).


Goldfive said on Easley's assignment to Barton.

"I suppose one possible explanation is 'extreme compartmentalization'. Basically, maybe Easley just needed to know how close the clean up teams were to completing the assigned task.:

It's possible I suppose, but not probable. As you said you were not crazy with the hypothesis. You would think that Easley would have told Barton directly to find out how close the cleanup team was to being done. But the way Kevin described it his post he seems to not really know why he was sent out there. Of course this could be do to failing memory but others have commented that he was very lucid in his interview.

On Marcel's lack of a role in the "second" crash site Godfive said:

"If one accepts the multiple crash site scenario, then Marcel's overall role in the Roswell event becomes less significant; he said in his various interviews that he only saw debris, never saw bodies, and no complete machine."

Again it's possible but I find it hard to believe the guy who discoverd and reported crashed alien debris would be told to stick to his business on the base while the PIO (Haut) got to pretty much see everything (I'm being a little facetious here since I don't believe Haut's later stories of seeing the crashed ship or Alien bodies). And how is he going to miss bodies being brought into the base hospital? Even if his office was on the opposite side of the base from the infirmary he would have heard about it somehow.

Goldfive later said:

"...he [Barton] wasn't told what was being recovered--but was told to check on the progress anyway."

It seems surreal to me if that was the case.


Neal Foy said:

"The main problem I see with Barton is that there is little to confirm the time frame for his trip to a debris field."

Agreed. It seems that there is nothing in Barton's testimony that is "hard" evidence. To borrow a phrase from Kevin, there is no documentation to put him at the site in the time frame, just his say so that he was there.


Brice said:

"I personnally find this odd. Since Marcel was the intelligence officer at RAAF and the one who first investigated the debris field, wouldn't he be the one up to manage the cleaning operation?"

"So who took the control of the cleaning operation(s)? And who was running the base if Blanchard was on leave by then?"

Brice makes a good point. None of this makes a lot of sense to me. Let's step back and think it through logically:

Suppose an alien craft did crash, and there were two crash sites. The first had strange debris: foil, sticks, rubber, memory metal (maybe the "rubber" was some type of synthetic insulation, or, as Paul Young suggested, the ship collided with a Mogul or some other type of balloon). The second site has a complete craft, more or less and bodies. Maybe it's a smaller "scout" ship, or maybe it's an escape pod or capsule.

If the 2nd site is only about an hour from the base then it's the base personnel who are gonna handle securing and cleaning up the site, even if General Ramey was contacted right away. Maybe help came from nearby bases but Roswell would provide the majority of the clean up crew. The closest bases to Roswell were Alamogordo (now Holloman AFB) and Hobbs Army Air Base which closed in 1948. It would be interesting to know if the records of these two bases were searched for unusual activity in July 1947. I guess White Sands could also have helped in clean up operations. But that would take time and the Roswell men would be the primary and first responders to the scene. You can't wait around for other bases to respond when you got this alien stuff laying out there for the civilians to stumble upon (as some claimed they did).

Wind Swords said...

Part 2 of 2:

Now who would be in the know about this recovery of an alien spacecraft? Col. Blanchard would, he's the guy running the show from Roswell, even if he just following Ramey's orders. The base XO would also be "in the loop". The provost marshal should be in the know, because it's his men that are going to secure the site. The intelligence officer should also be involved. Look at it this way - if something unusual but earthly crashed at Roswell, let's say a secret US project, or a Soviet spy plane, or even something left over from the Nazi's wouldn't it be logical for Marcel to be involved in his role as the base intel officer? So why not for a crashed ET vehicle? The last one I can think of would be the counter intellegence officer. If bodies were found the head doctor would be involved if not at the crash site then back at the base. So you have the CO, XO, provost marshal, intel officer, counter intel officer, and chief medical officer. But not the press information officer.

Nothing about this 2nd crash site sounds right. Civilians find out about it but the base intelligence officer doesn't seem to know much about it. Easley's men must have helped secure the site if not played the primary roll in locking it down and yet if Barton is to be believed he was sent out by Easley to find out what was going on or how the cleaup was progressing. And if his men were providing all or primary security he should have been out on site himself for at least part of the operation.

As an engineer I was taught to look at things in a systemic way as well as a detailed way. We all know the saying about not seeing the forest for the trees. When I read all the posts of this blog going back to 2005 and visiting other sites such as Dave Rudiak's I tried to pull back out of the detail and minutia once in while to have a "30,000 foot view" of the case.

Besides the lack of hard evidence, there are two major problems I have with the ET hypothesis: One is the disconnect between what was found as stated in 1st hand testimony at the Foster ranch and the press release which led me to hypothesize that Haut overdid the PR or that Marcel misidentifed the wreckage. The second is that there is no proof of a 2nd crash site, only testimony that it existed. We know the first one was there. Brazel reported it to the sherif who called up the base who sent Marcel and probably Cavitt to investigate triggering the press release and the transport of some of the material to Ft Worth. This is all documented.

But nothing like that for the second site. No debris souvenirs kept by military or civillians, no photos, news clippings, official government documents - not even records of movements and assignments of base personel and equipment for an unknown reason.

This is a huge problem as I see it because for Roswell to be ET you need the second (or third) crash site. There is not enough "stuff" from the first site to make a space ship - no rigid metal, equipment, engines, and no small bodies. Without a 2nd site Roswell doesn't work as ET event.

As for Bartons story, unless it was part of the interview that was not related in Kevin's blog post I don't see anything to convince me that assignment given to him by Easley happened in July 1947. He says it did but he could be confusing his dates. I know, no B-29's crashed in the late 1940's at Roswell but there may have been other accidents. He did say that he couldn't get a close enough look at it to be sure what it was. Maybe it was a different aircraft and a different date.

Brice said...

@Kevin : thanks for answering some of the questions raised. (though I still personnally have some interrogations and doubts)

you said : "Blanchard did not go on leave. It was a cover, according to his operation's officer. I just didn't want to get into this argument when all I had done was post information that came from Chester Barton."

This makes more sense to me. I wished I could review some books I have on this case to be more knowledgeable of the case before I raise some questions, but unfortunately I just can't get a hand on them for some time. But I understand you don't want to repeat an nth times something that has been adressed countless times before. But it's so easy to disgress either, because anything is somehow linked to something else and one question brings another...

---

Neal Foy said:
"The main problem I see with Barton is that there is little to confirm the time frame for his trip to a debris field."

kevin said :
"Bingo... the real problem is the time frame. I was waiting for someone to point that out precisely. It was my thought as well..."

Has the time frame of Barton's affectation at RAAF been checked? My thought is if during his affectation at RAAF no other crash had been recorded near Roswell than we might conclude Barton's testimony could only relate to the july 1947 Roswell incident (if we trust his testimony)

cda said...

Wind Swords:

You have hit the nail on the head. Things just do not add up.

I have already pointed out the shambles of Easley's testimony. He, having told some guy in 1980 all about the crash, then tells Kevin in 1990 that cannot say anything because he is under an oath of secrecy! OK so maybe the anonymous guy he spoke to is inventing his tale, but it still leaves a mighty big contradiction.

Barton's tale could literally refer to anything within some 2 to 3-year period. The only reason to link it to the Roswell 'crash' is because Kevin wants to provide another piece of evidence, however trivial, to the great Roswell mythos. The date of Barton's site visit is unknown and he claims that before his phone call from Stefula he had never known anything about the crash affair. But because some (how much?) of the debris he saw looked strange, Kevin and a few others WANT it to further the ET crash thesis.

I have never been persuaded that there were two sites. There was no such report at the time and you would expect another site NEARER to the town would get more attention from the press than the Foster ranch, 75 miles away. Yet it was never mentioned. If dozens of armed guards had to patrol both sites, a convoy of army trucks would have to roll through the town, inevitably witnessed by numerous people. Again, no report of this. And a third site would, of course, be even more unlikely!

Both Barton's second-hand testimony and Easley's non-testimony are equally worthless. But the ET brigade will, of course, disagree. Both testimonies are yet more evidence for the most amazing discovery in the history of science, so we are told.

Brice said...

cda said :

"I have already pointed out the shambles of Easley's testimony. He, having told some guy in 1980 all about the crash, then tells Kevin in 1990 that cannot say anything because he is under an oath of secrecy! OK so maybe the anonymous guy he spoke to is inventing his tale, but it still leaves a mighty big contradiction."

Since what you refer to here is an anonymous internet statement, I personnally wouldn't give a shred of confidence in it until that person would openly come forward, reveal his identity and tell his entire story and his relation with Easley so it could be checked. It's way too easy to discredit someone just with a anonymous hearsay.

Brice said...

Wind Swords said :

"Again it's possible but I find it hard to believe the guy who discoverd and reported crashed alien debris would be told to stick to his business on the base while the PIO (Haut) got to pretty much see everything (I'm being a little facetious here since I don't believe Haut's later stories of seeing the crashed ship or Alien bodies). And how is he going to miss bodies being brought into the base hospital? Even if his office was on the opposite side of the base from the infirmary he would have heard about it somehow."

This is a bit of questionning for me too...

"if something unusual but earthly crashed at Roswell, let's say a secret US project, or a Soviet spy plane, or even something left over from the Nazi's wouldn't it be logical for Marcel to be involved in his role as the base intel officer? So why not for a crashed ET vehicle? The last one I can think of would be the counter intellegence officer."

I'm not sure here, if something foreign but earthly was involved it makes sense to me that the CIC officer would be involved but if it was unearthly I would have better think of the intelligence officer (but maybe Marcel was busy elsewhere, ie Fort Worth, and something had to be done rapidly and since Cavitt had been to the site he could have been designated to handle it). Still, whether one or two sites I feel someone should have been in charge for the handling of the operations and I don't see the CIC officer apt and fit for this responsability.

"One is the disconnect between what was found as stated in 1st hand testimony at the Foster ranch and the press release which led me to hypothesize that Haut overdid the PR or that Marcel misidentifed the wreckage."

I'm not sure to understand what you're refering to here. Are you talking about Brazel interview or Marcel testimony? (to me Marcel/Rickett are first hand and stated the unusualness of the material)

"But nothing like that for the second site. No debris souvenirs kept by military or civillians, no photos, news clippings, official government documents - not even records of movements and assignments of base personel and equipment for an unknown reason."

Aren't there any testimonies of army soldiers for this 2nd site?

"This is a huge problem as I see it because for Roswell to be ET you need the second (or third) crash site. There is not enough "stuff" from the first site to make a space ship - no rigid metal, equipment, engines, and no small bodies. Without a 2nd site Roswell doesn't work as ET event."

I don't follow you on this. The absence of a second site doesn't rule out an ET hypothesis. The debris field could have originated from a secondary apparatus (device of some sort?) or part of a craft that could have still managed to escape even if damaged.

KRandle said...

CDA -

I have pointed out that there is a timing issue with Barton, not to mention his suggestion that it was a B-29. It is interesting because it suggests another site closer to Roswell as mentioned by Rickett.

I am astonished that you accept that comment suggesting that Easley told all to some guy in 1978 without a single bit of evidence that it is true. Instead you just reject Easley because it fits into your world view. You offer nothing but opinion yet demand the rest of us provide evidence. I already pointed out that the comment was more suggestive of the Friedman scenario. The comment was made sometime long after the Roswell case exploded on the scene, something that you would be quick to point out, suggesting that it was all contaminated... nice double standard.

Brian Bell said...

Not TWO sites but THREE sites:

Just to be clear we aren't talking about two crash locations - Schmitt and Carey (Your Dream Team) clearly state it was THREE locations.

Yup..Three. 1-2-3...

Now which one did Barton go to?

1) The "explode in the air yet bounce on the ground" location (Brazel discovery site and Marcel's collection point).

2) The "egg shaped ejection pod" location where two dead and one live alien were found (the Cavitt and Rickett site)

3) The site where Brazel was said to have found an intact dead alien presumably ejected from the pod or the explosion (Dee Proctor site).

So Wind Swords claim there isn't enough debris to account for at least two locations is reinforced by the belief there were actually three locations.

I believe Rudiak supports three debris sites too - and of course the acclaimed and world renowned Roswell experts Schmitt and Carey also believe this.

So you best start hypothesizing and explaining the three locations if you want to convince anyone your belief in aliens is justified.

cda said...

Kevin:

Notice that I did say this anonymous guy may have invented his tale, implying that I do not automatically accept it. In fact I obviously reject it since I reject the ETH. I was merely pointing out the very obvious contradictions in Easley's testimony (or non-testimony). The 1978 date is clearly wrong anyway, since Roswell had not got into the news until 1980, with Moore & Berlitz.

You spoke to Easley, I did not. You spoke to someone who spoke to Barton. I did not. Therefore, logically, you ought to be better informed and better able to give an opinion on either person and their evidence than me.

So when I say, based on what I have read, that BOTH have given testimony which, as far as bolstering the case for an ET crash, is totally worthless, you are perfectly free to disagree and chastise me.

But you are, in the end, not one iota nearer to your target and are clutching at straws.

edward gehrman said...

Brian,
There are three locations for two craft:
1) ten miles SW of Socorro known as the "Plains" site (aka the alien autopsy crash site), one month before the Roswell crash.
2) The Foster ranch crash site on July 2nd about two miles SE of Mac's cabin where the debris from an exploding craft were scattered as described by witnesses.
3) The final crash site of the same craft that exploded over the Foster ranch, but with a large hole in its side, about five miles SE from Mac's cabin, behind the twin wind mills. This is the craft the MP says split apart when it was loaded and that two men were able to lift it. (that makes sense since all the debris was described as having little weight.)
Creatures were found at site one and three.
Ed

Jeanne Ruppert said...

KRandle wrote:

"Is there some sort of conspiracy to attack this blog?"

Without a doubt there is. I admire your patience for putting up with it at the lengths you do and even moreso for your patience is clarifying matters that would be clear in the minds of your critics if they had read and remembered all that you have developed in the continuing sequence of your (and others') publications about Roswell.

CDA’s sneering remark about one item of information (since corrected by you in writing) that is for him lamentedly still extant in a published source made me laugh. In what other serious field of inquiry are critics unable to recognize the development of information, the need for changes in it when that information is discovered to be misinformation, the need to respect the gains in accuracy attained by continued research and investigation – especially in an inquiry such as this one where the ‘documents’ the critics demand have been destroyed or hidden.

Some skeptics, more properly designated as ‘skeptic-bunkers’, no matter how disgruntled they might be by the continuation of Roswell research, lack a reasonable level of respect for the difficulty of finding out what happened at Roswell – and for the researchers who continue the investigation despite the daunting obstacles placed in their way. It’s plain that several of the skeptics active here are not interested in further research and possible discovery. They are interested only in rhetorical debates for the purpose of shooting down the inquiry itself before it can be carried further. This is not a contribution to intelligent discourse on the subject but an unworthy attempt to short-circuit productive discourse about it and in my opinion deserves no respect.

Brian Bell said...

Jeanne -

"This is not a contribution to intelligent discourse on the subject but an unworthy attempt to short-circuit productive discourse about it and in my opinion deserves no respect."

Thanks for your lengthy proclimation before final judgement and sentencing.

1) What do you consider "intelligent discourse" on a subject with a cold trail of evidence or more importantly conclusions without sufficient evidence?

2) What have you gleaned from the discourse which you feel is productive furthering the evidence for ET? Barton's testimony?

Finally, some say it's necessary to first show respect before being given it.





Jeanne Ruppert said...


Brian Bell wrote:

“As to the actual causes of the two incidences on 25 March and 4 July 1947, of the loaned S-Aircraft, P9 personnel and AEC consultants in conjunction with advisory people from AAF Scientific Advisory Group, and Armed Forces Special Weapons Project. . . . .”

Since you’re apparently quoting memos rather than public records, it appears that you’re holding back the rest of the sentence above for some reason. Can you cite a source where the rest of us can see this and other memos and ‘official documents’ on which you attempt to build a case for a very hush-hush human crash near Roswell? It strikes me that -- in all the years that Roswell has been publically discussed by citizen researchers (and their research countered by a series of balloon stories from the Air Force) – the families of any pilots dying in crashes in NM around July 4, 1947, would have asked questions of the Air Force, and failing to get answers, would have taken their questions to the press. Any sign of that having happened?

Wind Swords said...

CDA said:

"If dozens of armed guards had to patrol both sites, a convoy of army trucks would have to roll through the town, inevitably witnessed by numerous people. Again, no report of this. And a third site would, of course, be even more unlikely!"

Are you sure? If the 2nd site could be accessed by roads that did not go thru the town then most of the populace would not see them. If "all roads lead to Roswell" (hub & spokes type of arrangement) then yes, people would see the equipment being moved. You would have to look at a road map of 1945-50 vintage to see what was there at the time. More telling is that there is no record of equipment being allocated at the base or other nearby bases.

Brice said:

"I'm not sure here, if something foreign but earthly was involved it makes sense to me that the CIC officer would be involved but if it was unearthly I would have better think of the intelligence officer (but maybe Marcel was busy elsewhere, ie Fort Worth, and something had to be done rapidly and since Cavitt had been to the site he could have been designated to handle it)."

Yea, it gets confusing between inteligence and counter intelligence but someone from the Roswell base would be in charge, at least initially. Do we know when Marcel got back from Ft Worth? He could have come back as early as that day, or early the next day. I don't see him staying longer than a day. Even if he stayed overnight and left late the following day and went home that night and didn't get back to the base the next morning (gone for two days) I don't see how a recovery and cleanup could have been finished by then. I would think as the base intel officer he would briefed on the status of the new site.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Wind Swords wrote:

“If the 2nd site is only about an hour from the base then it's the base personnel who are gonna handle securing and cleaning up the site, even if General Ramey was contacted right away."

Not necessarily. Depending on who discovered and reported the crash site -- or one of two crash sites -- containing bodies, Ramey might have been informed first and sent a crew of his own to investigate and secure the site, probably later calling for additional clean-up personnel from Roswell and/or other nearby bases. Obviously a crash site containing anomalous bodies would call for higher security than the Brazel field. Easley might have been farther out of the loop concerning recovery and cleanup at a site where bodies were found by Ramey's people and thus he sent Barton to observe the site and report back on what was happening.

Moreover, if a second (or even a third) crash site was discovered on or before the day Marcel was sent to the Brazel site (or the day when he returned to duty and was ordered to fly the debris to Fort Worth), Blanchard and Easely would have been alerted to prepare response teams in Marcel's absence. We need to recognize the extent to which compartmentalization would have been involved in these unfolding circumstances. Indeed, if Ed Gehrmann is correct in establishing the date of the third site as discovered one month before Roswell, it seems most likely that Roswell personnel were never informed about or involved at that site. In that case Ramey would be the one to oversee that cleanup, and if so he would have been well-informed about the nonterrestrial origin of some of the flying saucers observed in the Southeastern US and elsewhere in the country in the weeks preceding Roswell.

If the above is valid, he might well, then, have been the one to order the press release from the Roswell base concerning the discovery of "a crashed disc” at a nearby ranch, anticipating more bodies, more witnesses, and some form of unavoidable disclosure about it. Having ordered the press release, it seems that he was very quickly ordered to kill that newsstory by his superiors in Washington. This is, of course, just my conjecture in an attempt to relate the events involving key RAAFB personnel and their higher commands in Ft.Worth and Washington. My impression is that the days following July 4 were utter chaos at Roswell and at Ft. Worth, not to mention Washington, and that the total complement of information being accumulated was far from being generally shared among the leadership at all bases involved.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Wind Swords also wrote:

"Maybe help came from nearby bases but Roswell would provide the majority of the clean up crew. The closest bases to Roswell were Alamogordo (now Holloman AFB) and Hobbs Army Air Base which closed in 1948. It would be interesting to know if the records of these two bases were searched for unusual activity in July 1947.”

It would indeed be interesting to know whether personnel at the other nearby bases possibly involved in crash site security and clean-up have yet been identified and interviewed (and indeed who we might hear from yet).


“Nothing about this 2nd crash site sounds right. Civilians find out about it but the base intelligence officer doesn't seem to know much about it. Easley's men must have helped secure the site if not played the primary roll in locking it down and yet if Barton is to be believed he was sent out by Easley to find out what was going on or how the cleaup was progressing. And if his men were providing all or primary security he should have been out on site himself for at least part of the operation.”

Again, it seems to me that a succession of discoveries of crashed materials and alien bodies most likely occurred around the first week of July, but it's possible too that there was a similar discovery made a month earlier. On the other hand, if the three sites we've been talking about were all near-contemporaneous discoveries, it makes sense that Easley would had had to remain at the Roswell base to organize personnel to respond to possible further discoveries in the area. No one knew where this would end while they were in the midst of it.

Wind Swords said...

Brice said:

' "One is the disconnect between what was found as stated in 1st hand testimony at the Foster ranch and the press release which led me to hypothesize that Haut overdid the PR or that Marcel misidentified the wreckage."

I'm not sure to understand what you're referring to here. Are you talking about Brazel interview or Marcel testimony? (to me Marcel/Rickett are first hand and stated the unusualness of the material)"

If you re-read some of my previous posts I said there was a disconnect between what was found by the original witnesses at the ranch and what the press release said. Brazel, Marcel, Bessie and Bill said it was sticks, paper, foil and rubber and that the condition of it was that it shredded in small pieces. They did say that the foil or metal had unusual properties. Cavitt said it was a balloon, so no strange metal. Then the press release says they have captured a "disc" and are transporting it (singular) to "headquarters". It doesn't make sense. They didn't say "pieces of a disc" or "remains of disc" or "possible disc". Either Haut is jumping the gun in writing this release or Marcel and possibly Blanchard do not understand what they found. Also Blanchard may not have had the kind of input into the PR that we assume because he was getting ready to go on leave.

One thing is for certain to me - they don't have a space ship. Look, the guy on the street thinks that Roswell is ET because the Air Force issued a press release saying they had captured a "flying disc", which some papers and newscasts reported as a "flying saucer". Then they said no it's a "weather balloon". So to someone 50-60-70 years later it looks like a coverup. But what the average Joe doesn't know is that it was not the Air Force that issued the release but the local air base and it was based on the testimony of one man, his CO, who was fixin' to go on leave and a eager junior PIO officer as described by Marcel. But even more telling is that what was reported found was sticks, paper, foil and rubber, all shredded into small pieces. When you say Roswell to the average Joe today he thinks "Earth vs the Flying Saucers" (by the way one of my favorite movies). What he doesn't know is that in 1947 a flying disc was a contraption to some people or a secret weapon of another government or maybe a craft from another world. But it wasn't automatically alien. I don't see how Marcel and Blanchard would conclude alien from what was found. I understand about the metal and some said the sticks could not be cut, so I'm not cherry picking but from the debris describe by these witness you can't even tell what the shape of this thing was originally. But we get a PR that says "flying disc". WTH? It's a disconnect to me. And it's not alien, not until you get testimony about the 2nd site.

Wind Swords said...

Brice said:

"Aren't there any testimonies of army soldiers for this 2nd site?"

Only testimonies, no hard evidence like with the Foster ranch. We don't even know for sure where the 2nd site is, or they would have gone there searching for debris missed in the clean up of 1947, like they did on the ranch (remember the pic with the blue marker flags?).

' "This is a huge problem as I see it because for Roswell to be ET you need the second (or third) crash site. There is not enough "stuff" from the first site to make a space ship - no rigid metal, equipment, engines, and no small bodies. Without a 2nd site Roswell doesn't work as ET event."

I don't follow you on this. The absence of a second site doesn't rule out an ET hypothesis. The debris field could have originated from a secondary apparatus (device of some sort?) or part of a craft that could have still managed to escape even if damaged. '

If you hypothesize that Roswell was caused by a damaged space ship and pieces fell off and the ship flew away I can see your point. But the witnesses say it was crashed but recognizable as a vehicle and that there were bodies. Only a 2nd site can provide this.

Brian Bell said...

Again I will quote Schmitt and Carey's story as it relates to the hoopla of the crash retrieval:

1) It took three days to clean up the different debris fields.

2) Carey says the military literally "vacuumed" up the desert floor to get as much as they could if not all of it. But he's certain there is still some out there.

3) The large hanger at RAAF was the site of "intense activity". I mean INTENSE...

4) Haut and Marcel WERE somehow disuaded from continuing a military career because "one became a TV repair man and the other an insurance salesman" when "they both could have followed Blanchard to at least a single star".

5) Some witnesses claim the lone surviving EBE was shot or captured after running through Roswell scaring citizens.

Yup....that's correct. Scaring citizens.

Man...no wonder people didn't talk about this for decades...creepy!! LOL

Nitram Ang said...

CDA wrote:

"You spoke to Easley, I did not. You spoke to someone who spoke to Barton. I did not. Therefore, logically, you ought to be better informed and better able to give an opinion on either person and their evidence than me."

You are correct on this CDA, but don't limit your statement to just Easley & Barton - instead include everything related to the Roswell investigation.

Brian Bell said...

Nitram -

By your last comment to CDA I take it on your word that you not only have visited Roswell but have interviewed more than once all 700+ "first hand witnesses" which Kevin states is more like 1,000 interviews conducted over decades.

Right? You've met and interviewed every witness there ever was from Marcel Sr. to Exon? Correct?

Signifying Nothing said...

Has one independent witness ever confirmed anything that another has said (including our friend LT Barton here)? To clarify:

I would exclude family members
Not worry about minor variations in details
Ignore anything that became 'lore' in the media and could have simply been regurgitated
Look only at information more substantial that the basic balsa wood, laminated foil, and I-beams that is generally recounted

KRandle said...

Brian -

The very next time you misquote me or misquote a statement that you attribute to me I will delete that post as well. I told you that no one has talked of 700+ first-hand witnesses, nor did I suggest that it was more like 1000. And apropos of nothing at all, there are taped interviews with both Marcel, Sr. and Brigadier General Exon...

And you have absolutely no evidence that either Marcel or Haut were dissuaded from continuing their military careers... you just don't believe what they said because it doesn't fit your world view.

goldfive said...

If I'm not mistaken, Marcel left the military because his sister could no longer care for their ailing mother back in Louisiana, and she wrote to Jesse imploring him to come home and take over caring for her.

Which, I believe he did. A noble decision, giving up a promising military career to take care of a loved one.

Seems like the character assassination of Jesse Marcel never abates, as skeptics just find novel ways to trash the man's reputation.

As for Haut, he learned that he was going to be transferred to another station, but wanted to raise his family in Roswell, a town he clearly loved. He was not drummed out of the service either.

cda said...

Jeanne:

A while back you said there was a conspiracy, by certain people, to attack this blog. You also referred to a statement of mine that made you laugh.

Which is more laughable: that there is a conspiracy against Kevin's blog, or that there is a conspiracy, at the highest level by a few people in the military of just one country, to withhold from the scientific world the fact that ETs exist and have visited this planet? I should remind you that it is this latter conspiracy that Kevin has been advocating for the last 25 years (and shows no signs of abandoning it).

And no, there are no hidden or destroyed documents on the case. If you insist there are, you need to show that those memos/teletypes the USAF admitted to have been destroyed (in the 1945-49 period from the Roswell base) had any connection with the Roswell affair.

Nitram:

What are your own views on what happened at Roswell? Are you ever going to tell us (preferably in plain English)? And are you a 'conspiracist'? By which I mean that certain factions of the US government have known the truth for 68 years but are still covering it up.

Also, do you think that Kevin's ETH conclusion on the case is correct?

A await your response. You seem remarkably reluctant to 'lay your cards on the table', to coin a phrase.

Brice said...

Wind Swords said :

"Yea, it gets confusing between inteligence and counter intelligence but someone from the Roswell base would be in charge, at least initially. Do we know when Marcel got back from Ft Worth? He could have come back as early as that day, or early the next day. I don't see him staying longer than a day. Even if he stayed overnight and left late the following day and went home that night and didn't get back to the base the next morning (gone for two days) I don't see how a recovery and cleanup could have been finished by then. I would think as the base intel officer he would briefed on the status of the new site."

From some testimonies, Marcel flew back to Roswell with soldiers who did the trip the same day and was back to Roswell in the evening of the 9th (flight from Roswell to FT Worth departure time at 4PM and round trip 3h15 hrs, got it from DR's site : http://roswellproof.homestead.com/b29_flight_july9.html). The time duration of the cleaning would only rely on witnesses testimonies I guess so we can assume there would be some variability on its estimation (maybe between 2 and 4 days?). Maybe the cleaning was over when Marcel was back to Roswell, maybe not...What bother me is that I feel the cleaning/recovery of an ET craft crash would be a matter of intelligence. So I find it odd that Marcel who was already involved in the beginning wouldn't follow up on the matter.

On the other hand, this 9th july flight was supposed to have carried recovered ET bodies (so from this 2nd site). It would explain why Marcel couldn't see any of this activity going on at RAAFB since he was not there at this time, but Haut could witness some of it.

Brice said...

Wind Swords said :

"If you re-read some of my previous posts I said there was a disconnect between what was found by the original witnesses at the ranch and what the press release said. Brazel, Marcel, Bessie and Bill said it was sticks, paper, foil and rubber and that the condition of it was that it shredded in small pieces. They did say that the foil or metal had unusual properties. Cavitt said it was a balloon, so no strange metal. Then the press release says they have captured a "disc" and are transporting it (singular) to "headquarters". It doesn't make sense. They didn't say "pieces of a disc" or "remains of disc" or "possible disc"

Thanks for clarifying your thought, I better understand now. As to me, I don't necessarily see a disconnection and I could think of two reasons for this. First, I don't give credence to Cavitt's and early Bessie's testimonies because Cavitt has shown he couldn't be trusted and Bessie's recollections were in too much contradiction with other testimonies/evidence as Kevin has pointed out in a recent post. Brazel testimony was done later (the 9th), after there were indications he was well handled by the army and still suffer some contradictions in his RDR interview. I found Marcel testimony more trustworhty and in accordance with others (Bill Brazel, Rickett, Jesse marcel Jr,...) on the unusualness of the material. Since the country was undergoing flying discs sightings at the time, it makes sense to me that if the material that was recovered was so special that it couldn't be identified to anything known at the time, they assumed it was one the flying discs that were seen at the time that had crashed. Now I understand the nuance that the PR spoke of a "flying disc" and not of "pieces of a flying disc" or "remnaints of a flying disc" and the latter ones would have been more appropriate terms if we can relate the PR to this scenario (meaning the idea of a flying disc was related only to the Brazel debris field), so that leads us to another possibility being that there was a 2nd site where which a flying disc was recovered (maybe damaged but still recognizable in an overall shape) so that the PR was (implicitly) relating more to this other finding. To resume, I see 2 possibilities :

1) the PR relates to the Brazel debris field but is not very accurate in its wording
2) the PR relates to another site from which a disc was recovered (and confirmed by the unusual material found on the Brazel site)

" Either Haut is jumping the gun in writing this release or Marcel and possibly Blanchard do not understand what they found. Also Blanchard may not have had the kind of input into the PR that we assume because he was getting ready to go on leave."

As for me I don't believe Haut nor Blanchard wouldn't have been that careless on issuing such an incredible PR without any valuable reason. Even if they (Blanchard, Marcel, Cavitt) didn't understand what they found (assuming it was mondane material), why would they come up with the idea of a flying disc and issue a PR about it in such a hurry/rapidity? On the contrary, it would tend to show they were pretty confident in themselves. My initial thought was that the material from Brazel's Ranch was so special that they assumed it was coming from one of these flying discs, but maybe Blanchard (not Marcel apparently but it's not sure since he said he was withholding some information) also knew of the finding of a disc on another site, which then completely explains the flying disc notion and the wording in the PR.

Brice said...

Wind Swords said :

" I don't see how Marcel and Blanchard would conclude alien from what was found. I understand about the metal and some said the sticks could not be cut, so I'm not cherry picking but from the debris describe by these witness you can't even tell what the shape of this thing was originally. But we get a PR that says "flying disc". WTH? It's a disconnect to me. And it's not alien, not until you get testimony about the 2nd site."

We don't know if at the time they immediately conclude it was alien (meaning ET), but maybe so. As I explained just before, it makes sense to me they could infer the material was coming from a crashed flying discs because of the very unusualness of the material and the context of numerous sighings at the time, though I agree with you the wording in the PR does not relate very accurately to the state of what was found (if it relates only to the debris from the Brazel site)

cda said...

Kevin:

"Blanchard did not go on leave. It was a cover, according to his operation's officer."

If you are a conspiracist (as you are) then everything that people did was a cover for something else, wasn't it? It happened at Ft Worth, it happened at Roswell. If it wasn't the press, it was the photos; if it wasn't Ramey it was Blanchard or Haut, etc, etc. Someone cannot even go on leave without another guy, decades later, saying this leave was "a cover" for something other action.

And if perchance Generals Vandenberg or Spaatz, or even the President had visited the RAAF base during this period as a courtesy or social visit, or perhaps to see the personnel, this too would be said by some to be a "cover" for secret talks about the ET crash. It just HAS to be.

That's Roswell for you. A right merry-go-round.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin (on troop deployments and Marcel's and Haut's careers):

Everything I just stated about Marcel and Haut and their careers gone short was confirmed by Carey in the interview here in 2012.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mPswb6kWdJs

I didn't make the claim there was evidence, Carey is claiming that was the case in his own words.

This is the Dream Team speaking, not me. You work with these guys (Carey indicates that in the interview when he states you and others go to Roswell and hold conferences seemingly together or at least at the same time).

These guys are saying it whether you like it or not. And if they are your peers and you don't agree maybe you should tell them that (again).

As far as troop deployments go, do I need to find again and pull your comments to me on this blog related to how motor pool forms are filled out, why they aren't kept, and why troops assigned daily duty don't need hard documentation?

It's right here in your blog.

What I'm pointing out is the silly irony that takes place when believers choose to dance around certain issues that are difficult for them to explain, should have documentation but doesn't, and therefore erodes their conclusions which they then whitewash or dismiss as not significant.

Paul Young said...

Goldfive...
"Regarding Marcel and the clean up, he was no longer involved in the recovery operation once he returned to RAAF with his initial carload of debris on the morning of July 8th. His role in Roswell morphed shortly after that point into one of being a puppet/patsy in General Ramey's weather balloon photo op."

I've also wondered about this. Marcel was quickly taken out of the loop once "higher headquarters" received shipment of the wreckage. His last act was being wheeled out for the photo shoot with the obvious balloon gear. You'd think that with all he saw, and the strange materials he had handled from the Foster Ranch, he'd be too important a witness to be discarded...which all points to the Foster Ranch site being trivial in comparison to the site referred to by Barton. It would appear that a team, or at least a protocol, was already in place to act if ever a disc was recovered, but were simply not aware of the Foster Ranch situation and didn't manage to get their act together before Blanchard ordered the press release. All the time, the big panic was happening at the Barton site.

Goldfive..."If you recall from Bill Rickett's testimony---when Marcel got back from Ft. Worth, he asked Cavitt to see his report on the recovery; Cavitt refused, again seemingly on the basis of Jesse not having a 'need-to-know'."

Yes, Cavitt was seemingly working to a very different script to that of Blanchard and Marcel, from the very beginning. A fascinating character in all of this.
******

Wind Swords..."Nothing about this 2nd crash site sounds right. Civilians find out about it but the base intelligence officer doesn't seem to know much about it."

I speculated about this problem a few threads back. I can only imagine that the 2nd site came to the attention of the military immediately AFTER Marcel and Caviit were dispatched to the 1st site, and were incommunicado, blissfully unaware of the hoo-ha unfolding on discovery of the 2nd site. Though Marcel was excited by the material he found and brought back to Blanchard, it paled in comparison to what was found at the 2nd site, and his usefulness now only extended to being the stooge at the staged "material swop" photo-shoot.
*****

Jeanne Ruppert... "Easley might have been farther out of the loop concerning recovery and cleanup at a site where bodies were found by Ramey's people and thus he sent Barton to observe the site and report back on what was happening."

My thoughts exactly.
Easley would have been having a pretty stressful time of it already! Marcel and Cavitt had already been dispatched to Foster Ranch, With there now being multiple sites (at least two at this stage) it might have been considered best that Easley remain central, at the Roswell AAB. He sends Barton to the 2nd site instead of going himself because he wants a sitrep. And the reason he didn't give Barton much of a brief, is because he wasn't too sure HIMSELF as to what was going on there.
(There's me speculating wildly again!)

Jeanne Ruppert..."We need to recognize the extent to which compartmentalization would have been involved in these unfolding circumstances. Indeed, if Ed Gehrmann is correct in establishing the date of the third site as discovered one month before Roswell, it seems most likely that Roswell personnel were never informed about or involved at that site."

Exactly! This is where the compartmentalisation strategy worked against them. Because Blanchard wasn't given an need to know, he didn't see anything wrong about issuing a press statement. That's when the crap hit the fan.

*******

Paul Young said...

Brian..."What could possibly be classified to this day?

Well the JFK records from the 1960’s are still classified, and so are records pertaining to Nazi underground bases from 1945. That’s at least 70 years in one case alone. Add to these other documents from the 1940’s which sound mundane and could easily be released but won’t:

1) Death of Himmler – not up for release until 2045.
2) Imprisonment of Rudolf Hess and circumstances of his death in the UK.
3) RAF attack on ship carrying Jewish camp survivors – 2045
4) Mafia support of US during invasion of Italy."

This is the exact point I've used to counteract cda's argument that The Roswell Incident" could not possibly be kept secret after so many decades. Us "little people" are only allowed to know what is deemed we are allowed to know by faceless people. I've been extremely interested in the whole Rudolph Hess mystery for years...and for the life of me I can't understand why I'm NOT ALLOWED to know what's in that particular file until I'm about 80...) But I digress.

The scary thing is that even the people who are safeguarding these old files, probably have no idea what is in them either!

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul -

I agree. To me those WWII documents would be interesting to review. Personally I think your government secretly proposed a truce with Germany, Hess flew over to discuss, it went bad, they retained him, and then later imprisoned and killed him. I think those WWII documents have to do with "national embarrasment" more than anything.

I also agree that governments can hide things indefinately, if they so wish. As I stated though I am not certain if they could contain such a cosmic event like ET.

I just feel people would rat on them and sell out being it so spectacular. But then again it could be possible I grant you that.

It has been said in various government circles that so many documents are classified daily that the deluge is beyond belief. The older documents get shuffled around and boxed up, misplaced, and even destroyed.

A reasonable claim, from inside government, is that once a document is classified it sort of gets forgotten in the mass of paperwork getting archived. Once its in that vault it never comes out. Not necessarily hidden intentionally, it just is forgotten and boxed so far back into records they never see the light of day.

One way to ensure government documents are kept forever from the people is to hand the work over to contractors. As private companies they are not subject to FOIA. There are a multitude of things hidden this way I believe and the evidence is clear in current and former USAPs hidden in black budget projects.

If you had a legitimate crash of an alien space vehicle in a remote desert area today, it would be hidden easily by having one of the many major government contractors do the clean-up under existing contracts. The military would be present, but any document trail would be in the hands of the contractors.

KRandle said...

CDA-

Someone said that there was no evidence that Blanchard's leave was a cover for what he was actually doing. While I understand that you reject as evidence any testimony gathered in the 1990s that doesn't change the fact that the operations officer, Lieutenant Colonel Joe Briley, told me that it had been a cover. I mentioned this only to refute that original statement and not to refire an argument that started 20 years ago and has been discussed at length in many arenas including here. I see no point in revisiting this.

Brian -

I'm tempted to delete your comment because, once again, you misquote me and misunderstand what I have said. It seems pointless to give you facts when you'll just take off in another direction believing you hold the keys to the truth and that no one else knows much of anything.

Citing Carey's opinion is not the same thing as relying on the statements made by Marcel and Haut. You have provided no evidence, merely a quote by someone who is ignoring what the men said themselves, not to mention some of the documentation available. Marcel requested a hardship discharge to care for his ailing mother. Nothing more sinister than that.

I have said, repeatedly, I do not work with these guys. I was not part of the slides investigation, I ended my association with them, publicly, several years ago, and I hadn't worked with either Don or Tom since the end of the 1990s until Carey approached me in 2011.

And we move into the area of nonsense... why in the hell would a motor pool trip ticket be saved beyond the end of the fiscal year? It merely lists the distances traveled by a vehicle. What could you determine from that?

The morning reports provide information about the soldiers assigned to the unit. If everyone is present, then it says, "Officers, No Change; Enlisted No Change." Of what value is that? If there is a permanent change of station, the soldier's name, serial number and the orders number is included. If the soldier goes on leave, that is noted but there isn't much additional information. Interestingly, Blanchard's leave is noted on July 9 (not on July 8 when he supposedly went on leave) and mentions the 8th Air Force Headquarters as the unit issuing the order for leave. For those interested, a number of soldiers came off leave. There is nothing to suggest that any of the soldiers were engaged in cross country flights for example, yet there were obviously flights going on in which they RON.

Here's an interesting point... Payne Jennings, according to the 18 July 1947 morning report had assumed command on July 8... no explanation why this took ten days to note.

And I found a note or two about TDY but nothing to suggest what the assignment might be or where that TDY was located. So your conclusions about the morning reports based on a magazine article is not as persuasive as you might believe.

Brice said...

@Wind Swords :

After rereading the PR, it's clear that it associates the disc as to what was found at the Foster ranch, so the 2nd possibility to explain the terming of a disc I put up a few posts before (my 2)) actually doesn't work. Sorry I should have checked or thought of this earlier but better later than never ;-). So we're left with a somehow inaccurate or imprecise wording in the PR as to the state of the materials found. Is this significant and/or is there an interpretation for it? I don't really know...

Brice said...

@Wind Swords :

Here's another imprecise term in the PR : "The disc landed on a ranch near Roswell sometime last week." A better word than "landed" would have been "crashed".

Does the AP retranscripted word by word Haut's text or did it change a little of some of the words or expressions (for example to make it shorter to fill in a space) ? Since we don't know, it's difficult to draw some conclusions IMO. Even so, it might not be of great importance.

cda said...

Brian:

I hardly think government contractors would be brought in to gather up debris from a suspected ET crash. This is because it would mean many other outside people (maybe civilians) would inevitably be brought into the 'great secret', which would, in turn, make it far more difficult for the secret to be kept for decade after decade.

The point is that if you really intend to maintain a secret such as this, you need to restrict it to as few people as possible. Bringing in outside contractors would thus be a very serious risk. Even the presence of the military would not reduce this risk.

cda said...

Kevin, or anyone:

Re Blanchard's leave, it occurred to me that Gen. Spaatz (Chief of Staff) was also on leave, according to the press, at the very time the Roswell 'disc' was reported. Is there any evidence that Spaatz immediately cancelled the remainder of his fishing holiday to return to Washington to take charge? If not, why not?

Or did he leave Vandenberg to take complete charge? Are we to believe the Chief of the USAF was kept out of the affair through being on leave? I simply don't believe it.

I expect the conspiracists will, somehow, contrive an answer. Here is one answer: Spaatz had no interest in ET visitations and thus declined the request to return to duties. His holiday was of greater importance.

A far better answer: nothing of import happened and therefore Spaatz was never told.

Brian Bell said...

@ CDA

In the case of Roswell most certainly no contractors were brought in as you and I certainly agree on that point.

I do know black projects worked through today's contractors can be compartmentalized in such a way that the contractors are actually treated like government employees in all regards and thus subject to the same laws applied by the government especially when dealing in defense or military matters.

In such cases a person faces life imprisonment for disclosure of national security secrets even if a civilian. If not, then Snowden has nothing to worry about and should come back to the US.

The Skunk Works is an obvious example but there are many others not so well known like Halliburton and Booze Allen.....dozens.

A Skunk Works engineer could not disclose national security secrets but can be working on them at a commercial facility or military location. Say goodby to them if they disclose what they are working on.

But in this regard, since believers tend to champion the "death threats" scenario as the major reason for silence back in 1947, I find it odd they never claim civilian contractors know something about Roswell or other UFO cases.

The military and government leads are a dead end. If anything cosmic happened at Roswell a person's best course of action would be to investigate the five major conglomerates that control most of the world's economy and thus have extensive government contracts as a result.

Decades of research on Roswell from a conventional approach has yielded nothing proven.

In fact, a hairbrained scheme would be to finance and organize a clandestine citizens CIA to uncover if any truth is out there. It would take a few years, but such a group would need to develop people who can obtain jobs or get access inside these government contracted companies as a form of corporate espionage. Get a good law firm too.

If the U.S. or any other country actually has crashed saucers from ET's they would most certainly exploit that technology and would require external contract support to do it; and it helps keep the black budget flowing and information thus unobtainable by FOIA and politicians and military higher ups clueless.

Now I am not claiming they have such craft or that ET is real, but clearly if it were true that info is also in the hands of major contractors imbedded in USAPs.

Rehashing details of old testimonies from deceased first and secondhand witnesses will not solve this puzzle.

KRandle said...

Okay, once again we slip deeply into the weeds and are not progressing at all. Let's see if we can get back on track here.

cda said...

OK Kevin, so what is your response to my questions about General Spaatz? Please, don't try and dodge it.

Brian Bell said...

To get back to Barton and his testimony, we may have said it all.

The man testifies he saw something which includes a burn mark, some type of aircraft debris which did not amount (in his estimation) to a complete aircraft.

He thought it was a B 29, but he doesn't really know. Furthermore he was given instructions to check on cleanup progress without any additional information whatsoever.

Besides that being odd, the debris field he visited was relatively close to Roswell, and not as far out as others may have claimed.

If he couldn't pinpoint the exact location, or it does not correspond with other witnesses claims, his information becomes inconclusive and therefore irrelevant when it comes to specifics.

He may have seen a crashed alien spaceship, a crashed military aircraft, or simply is blending old recollections with other memories which for him, seems to be a real event.

The only place to go from there is to a discussion about where the actual crash sites are, whether there are the supposed 11 different competing sites that some have claimed, and whether or not it is 1, 2, 3 or possibly more individual crash sites.

While archaeological dig's have taken place, it is unclear to me if anyone truly had the right site or sites identified.

Moreover, any conventional aircraft leaves debris long after it is thoroughly collected or when an attempt to do so is made.

If it was really a space ship that crashed, no doubt somewhere on those multiple debris fields would be something left in the ground which could be identified.

If financed properly a multi site longitudinal archaeological excavation should be done and funded to evaluate if anything is truly there.

If not, then I would say there is even less evidence for an alien crash. However believers always have their escape hatch ready, in that their claim is wreckage was precisely and neatly vacuumed up from the desert floor.

If it was an alien spaceship, they would have been wise to throw a bunch of B 29 parts out there and bury them in the ground. That would have concluded the massive cover-up just in case 70 years later people came looking for parts.

KRandle said...

CDA -

Spaatz, as Chief of Staff of the Army Air Forces would have been in the loop... Just as Stuart Symington as the first civilian in that chain of command would have been in the loop,just as Dwight Eisenhower, as the Chief of Staff of the Army would have been in the loop, which makes the Eisenhower Briefing Document irrelevant... and don't ever demand an answer again. I am not obligated to you or anyone else and sometimes I don't have time to go over the same thing over and over.

KRandle said...

Brian =

The archaeological digs took place on the spot identified by Bill Brazel. I have published pictures of Brazel on that site. He pointed at the ground and said, "This is where I found little bits of that material."

Signifying Nothing said...

I guess not.

Wind Swords said...

Jeanne:

RE: your response to my posting concerning the timing of the crash sites.

A very interesting theory and it would explain a lot of things. But do you notice the twists of logic you have to engage in to cover all the issues? We have multiple crash sites at different times with more than one recovery team from more than one base and one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. All because of extreme compartmentalization. And then the possibility of the PR being ordered in anticipation of more crashes and bodies being discovered by civilians and hence, impossible to cover up anymore. It sounds like the plot of a Hollywood movie.

"We need to recognize the extent to which compartmentalization would have been involved in these unfolding circumstances. Indeed, if Ed Gehrmann is correct in establishing the date of the third site as discovered one month before Roswell, it seems most likely that Roswell personnel were never informed about or involved at that site."

You have to ask how probable it would be for a crash site within a 45-60 minute drive of the base to have not been noticed by the personnel stationed there. Possible but not probable IMO.

It seems improbable that it could have went down like you stated but I have admit it is possible. It would explain some of the issues I brought up. You have as Paul Young so eloquently stated put a square peg into a round hole.


Brice said:

"To resume, I see 2 possibilities :

1) the PR relates to the Brazel debris field but is not very accurate in its wording
2) the PR relates to another site from which a disc was recovered (and confirmed by the unusual material found on the Brazel site)"

Number 2 would dovetail nicely with Jeanne's idea above. but, as you said in a later post the PR talks about the ranch and only the ranch - unless the 2nd crash was also on a ranch. Again possible.

"Here's another imprecise term in the PR : "The disc landed on a ranch near Roswell sometime last week." A better word than "landed" would have been "crashed".

Does the AP retranscripted word by word Haut's text or did it change a little of some of the words or expressions (for example to make it shorter to fill in a space) ? Since we don't know, it's difficult to draw some conclusions IMO. Even so, it might not be of great importance. "

I forgot about the landed part. I don't think the AP quoted the PR verbatim but it was essentially correct. I seem to remember Dave Rudiak posting both the AP and UPI press releases a short while back. So now the press release is even stranger.

Wind Swords said...

Paul Young said:

' "Wind Swords..."Nothing about this 2nd crash site sounds right. Civilians find out about it but the base intelligence officer doesn't seem to know much about it."

I speculated about this problem a few threads back. I can only imagine that the 2nd site came to the attention of the military immediately AFTER Marcel and Caviit were dispatched to the 1st site, and were incommunicado, blissfully unaware of the hoo-ha unfolding on discovery of the 2nd site. '

IF a 2nd site was discovered during the time that Marcel and Cavitt were at the ranch it would explain a lot. But we know so little about the 2nd site, we don't even know for sure it existed, let alone where it was.


CDA said:

"I hardly think government contractors would be brought in to gather up debris from a suspected ET crash. This is because it would mean many other outside people (maybe civilians) would inevitably be brought into the 'great secret', which would, in turn, make it far more difficult for the secret to be kept for decade after decade."

It depends on who the contractor is. Outfits like Blackwater are made up ex-military personnel. They can keep a secret. Technical contractors like Lockheed's Skunkworks could keep secrets. So it's possible today. Back in 1947 I don't think we had such in the way of private contractors of that type. So IMO only the military could have handled the situation. But there are no records yet of troop or equipment being assigned.

KRandle said...

Signifying Nothing -

Your question got buried in some of the stuff I think of as nonsense, but as the Magic Eight Ball would say, more or less, "The answer is there for those who search..." or maybe that would be a fortune cookie which means that some of this has been covered in older posts.

To answer your question... Bill Brazel took us to a point and said that he had found bits of debris at that place. When we did the archaeological site survey, we put flags down through the area for about three quarters of a mile using the figure given by Jesse Marcel. When we left, we thought we'd pulled them all. Bud Payne, who had seen some of the clean up operation, took us out to where he thought the debris field was. When I got out of the truck, I saw that we were inside that three quarters of a mile area, or in other words, he had put us on the same field as Brazel, just at the other end of it.

Bill Brazel talked of the debris that would unfold itself. He showed it to Sallye Tadolini who described, independently, what she had seen. Her affidavit is found in Pflock's book. The Air Force quoted from a single paragraph that made the debris sound unusual, but they ignored the following paragraph that mirrored what Bill had said making the debris extraordinary. And no, I don't have a sample of it so no one needs to ask.

Sheridan Cavitt said that he'd taken Bill Rickett out to see the wreckage. Rickett talked of a ride of about 45 minutes or so. Barton talked of a ride of about 45 minutes. Rickett mentioned the military cordon as did Barton. Barton said that he had seen, heard or read nothing of the Roswell case.

There are other examples, but I think this proves the point and answers the question. Before the skeptics attack again, let me point out that this does not prove that what fell was alien, only that we have independent testimonies about some of the same things. These are the ones I thought of immediately... I didn't mention Robert Slusher and what other members of his flight crew said, or what Richard Harris said about his experiences with Walter Haut.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Wind Swords said...
Paul Young said:

' "Wind Swords..."Nothing about this 2nd crash site sounds right. Civilians find out about it but the base intelligence officer doesn't seem to know much about it."

I speculated about this problem a few threads back. I can only imagine that the 2nd site came to the attention of the military immediately AFTER Marcel and Caviit were dispatched to the 1st site, and were incommunicado, blissfully unaware of the hoo-ha unfolding on discovery of the 2nd site.'

IF a 2nd site was discovered during the time that Marcel and Cavitt were at the ranch it would explain a lot. But we know so little about the 2nd site, we don't even know for sure it existed, let alone where it was.”


It seems reasonable to suppose that there was at least a second site contemporary with the news concerning Brazel’s debris field, a site at which bodies and a damaged craft, or part of a craft, were found and then transported to RAAFB (and possibly another air force base in the region).

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Wind Swords said...

“Jeanne:
RE: your response to my posting concerning the timing of the crash sites.
A very interesting theory and it would explain a lot of things. But do you notice the twists of logic you have to engage in to cover all the issues? We have multiple crash sites at different times with more than one recovery team from more than one base and one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. All because of extreme compartmentalization. And then the possibility of the PR being ordered in anticipation of more crashes and bodies being discovered by civilians and hence, impossible to cover up anymore. It sounds like the plot of a Hollywood movie.”

It does sound the plot of a Hollywood movie, but such a movie is not what’s needed. What’s needed is obviously a lengthy documentary taking account of all the accounts of witnesses concerning the debris and crash sites and of events at the air force bases involved in the sequence. Do the issues we need to cover require “twists of logic” or recognition that there had to be more than one debris field/crash site involved in the events that were publicly associated only with RAAFB? Is it illogical to suppose that the near-contemporaneous discoveries of both the Brazel debris field and another nearby crash site including anomalous bodies (one still alive and walking around) would bring the ufo wave to a major crisis point for the military in the region, especially at higher headquarters in Fort Worth and at still higher headquarters in Washington.

If Ed Gehrmann’s research is correct, there might have been still another crash site with bodies discovered in the region a month beforehand. What we need to know is what was known and when it was known, and by whom. Whether the responses of those individuals having knowledge of these events were logical or rational, consistent or inconsistent, is another question. I would expect that the succession of these discoveries would produce turmoil for those at the top as they attempted to control the information they received and to decide upon the best way to keep the reality from leaking through to the public. It’s even possible that some individuals involved at higher levels considered that it might become necessary to disclose what had been learned on the ground at three sites over a month in New Mexico and were talked down from that position by others . . . and that in the circumstances the RAAFB press release was ordered for the purpose of containing the news coverage to that base with the intention of rescinding the reference to a ‘disk’ almost immediately by claiming that the debris was that of a Rawin balloon.

It’s actually quite a logical choice to proceed that way, restricting information to the Brazel debris field while more significant sites were being cleaned up and covered up. The Brazel field debris could shortly be blown off as fragments of a prosaic listening device. End of story. But not the end of what actually happened.

Re “putting a square peg in a round hole,” it seems to me that we don’t yet know the shape or extent of the hole, so we don’t know what kind of peg would fit...

David Rudiak said...

"Wind Swords" wrote:
"I forgot about the landed part. I don't think the AP quoted the PR verbatim but it was essentially correct. I seem to remember Dave Rudiak posting both the AP and UPI press releases a short while back. So now the press release is even stranger."

Comparison of AP, UP, and Roswell Daily Record "press release" announcements can be found at my website:

http://www.roswellproof.com/RoswellSummary5.html

Don Ecsedy ("Sourcerer"), who has contributed here, had also done his own extensive analysis of the various announcements on his website, but his very interesting website is no longer there (and I don't find the relevant parts archived on webarchive.org).

As I (and Don) note(d), there are a number of important differences in the three announcements, among them being the RDR saying the intelligence office had announced coming in possession of a flying saucer at noon, all media participants interviewed later remember Haut delivering the release around noon, but AP and UP didn't put out their announcements until around 2:30 (MST). A lot of discussion has already occurred on Kevin's blog trying to explain the "missing time".

UP also uniquely announced that residents near the ranch reported seeing a "strange blue light several days ago" about 3 a.m., again in line with the UP and AP stating the object was found "sometime last week". The source of this item has never been found. Don Ecsedy suggested maybe a UP stringer in Carrizozo, closer to the ranch, may have added it between the noon announcement and the national wire story ~2:30.

UP was also unique in announcing the disk was flown to "higher headquarters" in a "superfortress" or B-29. Decades later, witnesses to the flight, Marcel and Sgt. Robert Porter (passengers) plus asst. ops. officer Lt. Robert Shirkey all stated the flight was a B-29 (begging the question why use an expensive B-29 to fly a tiny bit of balloon garbage). Porter and Shirkey independently stated it was piloted by supposedly new acting base commander Lt. Col. Payne Jennings (begging the question why the acting base C/O would personally fly the plane instead of any number of other perfectly qualified pilots).

Both Porter and Shirkey recalled being told it was the remains of a flying saucer. However when Porter got to Fort Worth, the story changed that they had transported a weather balloon, which Porter didn't believe.

Shirkey got a good look at metallic debris in boxes being loaded onto the B-29 with Blanchard supervising, including an I-beam with embossed purplish symbols on (similar description of Dr. Jesse Marcel Jr.).

Shirkey added he was abruptly transferred to the Philippines 9 days later to a post that didn't exist. Jennings, still acting C/O, personally flew him to San Francisco on another B-29. Shirkey commented he couldn't for the life of him think of why the C/O would personally chauffeur him on an expensive plane flight to hurry him to his next posting. (With all this personal piloting Jennings was doing, apparently Blanchard didn't leave him much to do while he was on his leave.)

This was obviously the most mysterious and important old weather balloon and balsa radar target kite in human history!

Brice said...

Jeanne Rupert said :

"It’s actually quite a logical choice to proceed that way, restricting information to the Brazel debris field while more significant sites were being cleaned up and covered up. The Brazel field debris could shortly be blown off as fragments of a prosaic listening device. End of story. But not the end of what actually happened."

hum, it doesn't sound right to me because if you'd wish to hide something you'd be better to not say anything or rightly speak from the beginning as of something mundane, but not something as extraordinary as a flying disc which would bring the curiosity of the medias and need to back up from this first announcement. It seems to me more of spontenaous announcement in what was really thought to be recovered.

David Rudiak said :

"Porter and Shirkey independently stated it was piloted by supposedly new acting base commander Lt. Col. Payne Jennings (begging the question why the acting base C/O would personally fly the plane instead of any number of other perfectly qualified pilots)."

"Shirkey got a good look at metallic debris in boxes being loaded onto the B-29 with Blanchard supervising, including an I-beam with embossed purplish symbols on (similar description of Dr. Jesse Marcel Jr.)."

I may be splitting hair but Jennings being the new C/O while Blanchard was still on the base seems a bit complelling (since Blanchard was supposed to be on leave the 9th, I was assuming he was still the C/O the 8th, but maybe he allready had Penning to take this responsability?)

David Rudiak said...

Brice wrote:
I may be splitting hair but Jennings being the new C/O while Blanchard was still on the base seems a bit complelling (since Blanchard was supposed to be on leave the 9th, I was assuming he was still the C/O the 8th, but maybe he allready had Penning to take this responsability?)

UP's primary Roswell story, written too late for publication on July 8, but published the following morning, stated:

"Efforts to contact Col. Blanchard brought the information that 'he is now on leave.'"

http://www.roswellproof.com/UP_Standard_July9.html

There have been long prior discussions on Kevin's blog as to when Blanchard's leave was supposed to have begun, but it wasn't July 8, but earlier:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-roswell-time-line-july-8-1947.html

For one thing it would be highly atypical for the base commander to take off in the middle of the work week (in this case Tuesday July 8) instead of the very end or beginning. For another, Jennings signed the order to assume command July 6 (Sunday), not July 8. Maybe something important came up that delayed Blanchard in his leave (wonder what that could have been?).

Kevin puts Blanchard's leave starting 2:30 p.m. July 8, exactly when the press release went out nationally on the news wires. Saying he was on leave when reporter's did follow-up calls would serve the purpose of keeping pesky reporters away from him. (Just like flying Marcel to Fort Worth July 8 for over a day kept him away from reporters until everything cooled off the next day.)

Blanchard's op officer Joe Briley said Blanchard really went out to the recovery areas to make a personal assessment. He had been scheduled for some time to meet with the N.M. governor the next day (July 9) to sign a proclamation for Air Force Day Aug. 1, but the pre-planned meeting never came off. Why not?

Then there is the added weirdness of Blanchard's replacement, Jennings, personally piloting Marcel's B-29 to Fort Worth to meet Ramey on July 8, just before Blanchard publicly went on leave. Why? Some other equally qualified pilot couldn't do it? They had dozens to choose from. Wouldn't the new, acting base commander more logically stay at the base with the base commander on leave?

David Rudiak said...

Wind Swords wrote: (1/2)
I speculated about this problem a few threads back. I can only imagine that the 2nd site came to the attention of the military immediately AFTER Marcel and Caviit were dispatched to the 1st site, and were incommunicado, blissfully unaware of the hoo-ha unfolding on discovery of the 2nd site.

According to Walter Haut's 2002 affidavit, he was aware of Marcel being sent by Blanchard to investigate the 1st site soon after his return to duty on Monday July 7. Later that afternoon, he learned of a 2nd site about 40 miles north of Roswell being reported by other civilians.

At the staff meeting early the next day (Tuesday, July 8), Marcel and Cavitt briefed everybody about the Brazel debris field and Blanchard briefed everybody about the second site north of town. Strange crash wreckage was passed around that nobody could identify.

IF a 2nd site was discovered during the time that Marcel and Cavitt were at the ranch it would explain a lot.

Yes, Marcel and Cavitt were unaware of the 2nd site, maybe until the next morning when Blanchard briefed them about it. According to Haut, Marcel should have known about the craft and bodies at the second site from the staff meeting. But he would not have had time to visit the site, much less supervise cleanup, because soon after the meeting, Blanchard ordered him to accompany debris to Wright Field, stopping in Fort Worth to show him some of the stuff he and Cavitt had found.

But we know so little about the 2nd site, we don't even know for sure it existed, let alone where it was.

Actually we know quite a bit about the second site now, with many witnesses. It is where some sort of small craft (generally described as circular or eliptical) crashed killing most of the crew (3 or 4 dead bodies usually reported), but with several witnesses reporting a survivor. Cleanup and recovery of bodies began late on July 7, craft and bodies were removed by the afternoon of July 8 and taken to base hangar 84/P3. They were then moved to the base hospital (including the live one), but the dead were moved back to the hangar because of the horrific smell, crated up the night of July 8, then loaded into the bomb bay of a B29 the afternoon of July 9 and flown to Fort Worth, the flight being met by an undertaker. (Most crew members of this flight have been interviewed and agree on the details.) Marcel came back to Roswell on that flight, meaning he had been gone from Roswell to Fort Worth for most of July 8 and July 9, thus uninvolved in any further cleanups.

There are multiple other 1st and 2nd-hand witnesses to the north site besides Haut and Chester Barton. Cavitt's assistant Lewis Rickett, said Cavitt took him to a site about 45 minutes north with heavy security, where there was a cleanup still going on. He got to handle one piece of debris, a very thin metal that he could not bend.

Army photographer Frederick Benthal said he was flown in from Washington and driven to a site about 45 minutes north (and another 45 minutes west), where he was taken to a tent and photographed four dead, non-human bodies. MP Ed Sain said he and fellow MP Raymond Van Why were driven by ambulance to a crash site about ½ hour north of town, then west and stood guard that night (probably July7/8). Sain guarded a tent with instructions to shoot-to-kill any unauthorized person to enter it. Son Steven said his father doesn’t like to discuss it because of a security oath and fear for his life, but privately told him the tent contained the bodies from the crash. Van Why was dead, but his widow said he told her the story in 1954 of guarding the site where a flying saucer crashed, which he described as a “round disc”.

In Barbara Dugger’s affidavit (granddaughter of Sheriff George Wilcox): her grandmother Inez Wilcox told her the Sheriff had gone to a crash site in the evening with a large burn area (burn area also described by Barton) and debris. He saw four space beings, one alive.

David Rudiak said...

2/2 (north site)
Frankie Dwyer Rowe said her fireman father Dan Dwyer went to the crash site about 30 miles north and saw a lot of debris scattered around and two dead aliens and one live one walking around. (Rowe also described seeing and handling the so-called memory foil back at the fire station and the military threatening the family.)

Larry Rowlette and sister Carlene Green said their father Sgt. Homer Rowlette, 603rd Air Engineering Squadron, on his deathbed told them of being part of cleanup crew at the north site (he described two more near Corona); saw bodies & “spaceship”; craft was “somewhat circular”, saw three little people, large heads, at least one alive; handled thin foil, including “memory material”.

Rolland & Michael Menagh, sons of MP PFC Rolland, said their father told them of guarding north site, saw the ship and bodies (three dead bodies, round/egg-shaped, seamless craft). He escorted the tarped craft on 18-wheeler flatbed truck back to base hangar, driving through center of town

By 3:30 Tuesday afternoon, July 8 (about 1 hour after the press release went national), multiple 1st-hand witnesses in Roswell told researchers of a flat-bed 18 wheeler truck with a tarped object and accompanied by gun-toting MPs driving down Main St. Roswell headed south toward the base. Debris field eyewitness Sgt. Earl Fulford saw the truck about 4:00 p.m driven by a friend of his with the tarped object headed for the hangar, where Haut reported Blanchard soon took him to see the egg-shaped object and several small bodies.

There are even more stories like this, of the north site with craft and bodies. It wasn’t just Chester Barton talking about it. Barton’s story, though from a non-ET perspective, matches in details extremely well what we’ve been told by a multitude of other witnesses.

As for when Barton would have gotten involved, the most likely time would have been late on July 8 or maybe the next day, after the craft and bodies had been removed and taken to the base hangar. What remained to be cleaned up was the other scattered crash wreckage reported by many. Rickett reported seeing provost marshal Easley there when Cavitt took him to the site and like Barton did not report a craft or bodies, so again he would have been out there probably late July 8. At some point, Easley returned to the base, and then would have dispatched Barton to give him an update on the remaining cleanup effort. Barton reported Easley sent him again the next day, but he got called back to the base before he got there because the cleanup was finished, so probably July 9 or July 10.

Clearly Barton was describing the SAME event as many other witnesses and not some hypothetical other crash from a completely different time. There’s the burn area, the heavy security, the scattered metallic wreckage, provost marshal Easley’s involvement, the crew being taken to the base hospital, later flown to Fort Worth. There were the rumors at the base that it was the crash of a flying saucer and alien crew (which he didn’t believe) and the associated weather balloon story that came out (which he also did not believe)—clearly the Roswell incident.

I do not see any problems in the timing of when Barton would have been dispatched there, as long as it was late in the cleanup, late on July 8, or on July 9/10, after Easley came back to the base and craft and body had been already removed (by mid-afternoon, July 8).

The only major discrepancy was Barton saying he was told the site was radioactive or “hot”. But Rickett and Haut said they were told it was not. One possibility was a deliberate attempt later on in recovery to discourage unauthorized personnel from more closely examining remaining debris or handling it. (E.g., in the A-12 top-secret spy plane crash in 1963, the pilot, who had just bailed out, told civilians who picked him up that the plane carried a nuclear weapon, to scare them away from the crash site.)

cda said...

DR:

With four very long posts in the above, going into the minutest detail, plus all the stuff on your website, have you any thoughts of writing a book - maybe the definitive book - on the whole affair?

I raise two points:

1. Lt. Col Payne Jennings later mysteriously vanished on a flight through the Bermuda Triangle (according to Berlitz & Moore). Was this possibly connected with the Roswell affair?

2. Why was Haut's 2002 affidavit so vastly different from his 1993 one? Was it possibly because the 2002 one was written by someone else? Or did his 'lost memory' in 1993 suddenly return nine years later?

Brice said...

David Rudiak said :

"For one thing it would be highly atypical for the base commander to take off in the middle of the work week (in this case Tuesday July 8) instead of the very end or beginning. For another, Jennings signed the order to assume command July 6 (Sunday), not July 8. Maybe something important came up that delayed Blanchard in his leave (wonder what that could have been?).

Kevin puts Blanchard's leave starting 2:30 p.m. July 8, exactly when the press release went out nationally on the news wires. Saying he was on leave when reporter's did follow-up calls would serve the purpose of keeping pesky reporters away from him. (Just like flying Marcel to Fort Worth July 8 for over a day kept him away from reporters until everything cooled off the next day.)"

I see a discrepancy here and I understand that it has already been discussed before though I didn't follow this discussion. My problem with Jennings being the CO from the 6th is that Marcel, in this interview to Bob Pratt said that after he talked over the phone with Brazel asked his CO for some advice, and named Blanchard, which should have been Jennings if was the CO.

Also, if we assumed there were 2 ET crash sites and one with bodies, and that Blanchard was on duty and aware of it, it seems (very) doubtful he would go on leave (now Kevin suggested it was a cover and that may make more sense to me). Such an event would require him cancelling any plan to have leave IMO. But why was Blanchard on duty at the time if Jennings signed the order to assume command July 6th?

"At the staff meeting early the next day (Tuesday, July 8), Marcel and Cavitt briefed everybody about the Brazel debris field and Blanchard briefed everybody about the second site north of town. Strange crash wreckage was passed around that nobody could identify."

what is odd if we assume this, is that the PR spoke only of the Foster ranch (Brazel's site), which would suggest some information was already being withold. Now if they (RAAFB) wanted to remain discreet they would have better said nothing at all or in the worse talked about something mundane.

In a previous post Kevin suggested that a 2nd site would have been known after the PR went out, which IMO makes more sense, but that would mean the cleaning would not have begun until july 8th afternoon, which is in contradiction with the timeline of the witnesses.

So either the PR was withholding some information or the timeline is incorrect if the PR was releasing all they knew.

cda said...

Brice:

Since you mention that Haut's 2nd affidavit states that the "wreckage was passed around" among those at the meeting, perhaps you too can answer why Haut forgot to mention this in his first affidavit in 1993.

If Haut ever thought it was ET debris, it seems a VERY strange thing to forget, doesn't it?

While on the subject, maybe Kevin has the answer to this strange conundrum.

David Rudiak said...

CDA wrote:
I raise two points:

1. Lt. Col Payne Jennings later mysteriously vanished on a flight through the Bermuda Triangle (according to Berlitz & Moore). Was this possibly connected with the Roswell affair?


Yes, Christopher, the ET's bushwacked him in the Bermuda Triangle to keep the cover-up going and to give Berlitz another book to write. (Not to mention another language manual: "Berlitz: Speak Gray in 10 Easy Lessons")

2. Why was Haut's 2002 affidavit so vastly different from his 1993 one? Was it possibly because the 2002 one was written by someone else? Or did his 'lost memory' in 1993 suddenly return nine years later?

The following has both Haut affidavits:

www.roswellproof.com/haut.html

The 2002 affidavit is an expansion on his 1993 one. In 1993 his involvement was limited to PIO putting out Blanchard's press release, but notice he also says neither Blanchard nor Marcel could have made a mistake and he was convinced the material recovered was from some craft from space. He does not exactly say why he was so convinced. He would use the same line in speeches he gave to the effect he was convinced it was the crash of a space craft, just don't ask him why. The way it put it to me when I interviewed him in 2001 was Blanchard and Marcel were not flaky people. In the second affidavit, why he was so convinced is much more obvious: Because he saw the damn thing and the bodies, and personally handled the material.

Of course, one obvious answer to why the 2nd affidavit has more detailing, especially his personal knowledge of the debris, the crash sites, and seeing the craft and body is that this is explosive information. The 2nd affidavit, though dated 2002, was meant as sort of a "death bed" confessional, not to be publicly released until after his death and only upon the family's choosing. Haut died in 2005 and the affidavit didn't come out until 2007 in the Carey/Schmitt book "Witness to Roswell".

Although written by Schmitt, it was based on numerous interviews over the years, and included information Haut was already admitting to others, such as in a 2000 recorded interview with Wendy Connors and a German documentary film crew. Haut carefully reviewed the written affidavit (with Schmitt not present) and was free to change details if he felt they were inaccurate.

If you want to complain about the accuracy and independence of affidavits being written by others, you should include all of the ones in the 1995 USAF Roswell Report (Moore, Newton, Trakowski, Cavitt), in general written, notarized, and witnessed by the same USAF counterintelligence agents who conducted the interviews. That would be considered very iffy in court as to independence of testimony.

Thus I could similarly raise questions as to why Cavitt waited until 1994 to state he was indeed at Roswell at the time and involved in debris recovery, while denying it numerous times before to researchers like Kevin. Did he suddenly recover his "lost memory", or was it because his affidavit was written by someone else? Why did Newton suddenly recall that "Marcel" chased him around Ramey's office trying to convince him of "alien writing" on the sticks? More suddenly recovered "lost memory?" This game can be played both ways.

David Rudiak said...

CDA wrote:
Since you mention that Haut's 2nd affidavit states that the "wreckage was passed around" among those at the meeting, perhaps you too can answer why Haut forgot to mention this in his first affidavit in 1993.

If Haut ever thought it was ET debris, it seems a VERY strange thing to forget, doesn't it?


Who says he "forgot"? More like a deliberate omission to hide that he knew a great deal more that he didn't want to talk about at the time of the first affidavit.

However, Haut does hint in the first affidavit that he was "convinced" the debris was ET, first saying he "believed" Blanchard had seen the material because he seemed certain about what it was, that both Blanchard and Marcel absolutely could not have misidentified a weather balloon, and Marcel confessed to him that there had been a debris swap in Fort Worth and what was shown was not what he found at Roswell:

(7) I believe Col. Blanchard saw the material, because he sounded positive about what the material was. There is no chance that he would have mistaken it for a weather balloon. Neither is their any chance that Major Marcel would have been mistaken.

(8) In 1980, Jesse Marcel told me that the material photographed in Gen. Ramey's office was not the material he had recovered.

(9) I am convinced that the material recovered was some type of craft from outer space.


The key difference between the 2002 and 1993 affidavit is that we learn specifically why Haut was so "convinced" it was ET. It was a LOT more than just having total trust in Blanchard and Marcel's competence, honesty and judgment. It was because he was an actual 1st hand witness: in on the briefings about the crash sites, had personally handled the debris, and seen the craft and bodies in the base hangar.

cda said...

DR:

Your justification for why Haut's 2002 affidavit differs so much from his 1993 one is pathetic. Of course I cannot disprove your attempt at rationalising the matter. I can only say that whereas you are convinced that Haut withheld important things from his 1993 affidavit which he latter added to his 2002 one I take the view that Haut, egged on incessantly by pro-ETHers, was more or less forced to 'super-inflate' his tale from a fairly modest one into a massive endorsement of ETH.

By 1993 he had already had 13 years of ET 'exposure' to the Roswell case, measured from the time of the Berlitz-Moore book (and maybe even a few months before). By 2002 he had had even more such exposure, and I really do wonder how many repeated statements he had given over and over again to every conceivable kind of interviewer. In his declining years someone (Don Schmitt?) coaxed him into writing, or uttering, an affidavit adding a mountain of extra verbiage to make it sound 'better' and even more pro-ET. In other words, his story has improved with the telling.

That is my take. Your take is clearly the opposite, namely that for some unknown reason he kept quiet about certain things the first time, but told the full story the second time.

Of course you MAY be right and I MAY be wrong. But I do recall Haut saying early in the investigation that he had never, repeat never, seen the wreckage himself, let alone any 'bodies'. Even by 1993 he had not. Yet by 2002 he became very 'over the moon' with his affidavit, and had not only seen the debris but handled it! Had he lived a bit longer and written a third affidavit, the mind boggles at what he might have said.

Is this supposed to be the kind of evidence that will convince scientists and the public that Roswell was ET?

Brice said...

cda said:

"Since you mention that Haut's 2nd affidavit states that the "wreckage was passed around" among those at the meeting, perhaps you too can answer why Haut forgot to mention this in his first affidavit in 1993."

I'm not well versed on the Roswell case so I don't know exactly what Haut said in his 1993 and 2002 affidavits and can't answer you on these particularly. On a general basis I would be very cautious with testimonies evolving with time, worst ones contradicting their previous statements. Now it's also possible someone would withhold some information for some reason (for example due to a secret military oath).

Nitram Ang said...


With reference to David Rudiak, CDA wrote

"With four very long posts in the above, going into the minutest detail, plus all the stuff on your website, have you any thoughts of writing a book - maybe the definitive book - on the whole affair?"

I have also asked David this question... it does take time to write a book however and there is a possibly not a lot of stuff to be written that hasn't already been published. But David is a good writer for sure!

Perhaps when the case is finally "solved" the time will have come...

CDA off topic but with food for thought also wrote

"Why was Haut's 2002 affidavit so vastly different from his 1993 one? Was it possibly because the 2002 one was written by someone else? Or did his 'lost memory' in 1993 suddenly return nine years later?"

Like Brice, CDA, you are not well versed on the Roswell case, but your question is a fair one. It reminds me a bit of Jim Ragsdale who also "improved his story" and in the words of KR, as a result - "we have no choice but to reject it".

I therefore, like CDA, would not place any weight on the second affidavit, regardless of who actually wrote it.

But again we are off topic...

Brian Bell said...

If you believe in Haut's second death-bed affidavit, then please explain why he claimed he had a piece of the wreckage displayed for some years after the event? In his base office?

When other people were threatened with death, Haut was the exception?

Based on this alone it sounds like the second affidavit is a "gap filler" - fictionalized designed to fill gaps where facts don't add up and to present a modified and fictional pro-ET story.

So where did his special display of debris go?

David Rudiak said...

Brain Bell confabulated AGAIN:
If you believe in Haut's second death-bed affidavit, then please explain why he claimed he had a piece of the wreckage displayed for some years after the event? In his base office? When other people were threatened with death, Haut was the exception?

Brian, Brian, you just can't help making stuff up, can you?

"Years"? Really? Here is what Haut's affidavit REALLY says:

www.roswellproof.com/haut.html#anchor_8

"(17) I would be allowed to make at least one visit to one of the recovery sites during the military cleanup. I would return to the base with some of the wreckage which I would display in my office."

I don't see anything about "years" there. Does anyone else? Not even "months" or "weeks". Sounds like AT THE TIME of the Roswell incident (i.e. during the military cleanup operation), he visited one of the sites and displayed debris in his office while this was going on. Then it would probably be collected with all the other debris retrieved from the field and shipped to someplace like Wright Field.

Twisting this into "years" is just another example of how you like to shoot off your mouth without doing even the tiniest bit of fact-checking.

Based on this alone it sounds like the second affidavit is a "gap filler" - fictionalized designed to fill gaps where facts don't add up and to present a modified and fictional pro-ET story.

Based on this alone, it sounds like your alteration of the second affidavit is a yet another of your fictionalized twistings of witness's words to create Brian Bell "facts" that again don't add up in order to create a modified and fictional anti-ET story.

Of course, there are other examples of this by you, like twisting Bessie Brazel's affidavit into saying Brazel's sheep were confined to a "favorite path" blocked by debris, in order to try to shrink a large debris field into a tiny one that the sheep wouldn't cross to water. Or claiming that Marcel admitted to never thinking anything ET happened until researchers came along. Turned out to be an anecdote from one Kal Korff, probably the most mistrusted researcher in the business (though you seem to want to challenge his title).

So where did his special display of debris go?

Into Brian Bell's collection of deliberately twisted witness testimony. For one caught repeatedly making things up, you are not one to be casting stones at witnesses for allegedly false testimony.

Now let's see how Brian tries to BS his way out of another of his "distortions"--probably by changing the subject again. It doesn't seem to be in him to apologize about anything he says.

cda said...

DR:

Wait a minute. Are you saying that Haut was allowed, or able, to collect and display some of the debris in his office FOR EVEN A FEW MINUTES?

I thought the whole recovery process was supposed to be above top secret and anyone violating this was either threatened with death (perhaps by being buried in the desert as Glenn Dennis claimed) or some other ghastly punishment.

Therefore, never mind the 'years' Brian mentioned. Even a few minutes would have been a very severe offense. Haut would have known better, I assume.

Come to think of it, didn't Bill Brazel manage to keep some of the debris, before finally handing it over after being requested to (but not threatened)? For either two years or a few weeks according to which account you believe. Very silly fellow was
Bill.

Brian Bell said...

DR:

The affidavit says:

"I would return to the base with some of the wreckage which I would display in my office."

"Display" is a key world here. He says he was "allowed" to go to one of the crash sites (notice he didn't say one of the three sites, but only one of the sites) during the clean-up.

If your storyline is correct, that's July 9, 10, or 11. Possibly the 8th but I doubt it.

According to you, by then it was all a hush hush secret cover-up. Bodies and the saucer largely already transported elsewhere under heavy guard, witnesses being threatened in their homes, and evidence being destroyed and hidden.

The meeting of the claimed cover-up decision that Haut said took place on July 8, with Ramey supposedly in attendance at RAAFB had already taken place.

So the question remains if your claim is this all happened just as he or you states (you obviously agree Ramey flew to RAAFB), then:

1) There was no reason for him to "display" anything in his office - the coverup was underway.

2) There were no more meetings happening in any of the witnesses testimony centered on Haut's office being the convening location where more inspection of said debris occurred.

3) To any normal person "display" means to show others. They had already seen it so just who is he displaying this wreckage to?

dis·play
dəˈsplā/
verb
1. make a prominent exhibition of (something) in a place where it can be easily seen. "the palace used to display a series of Flemish tapestries"
synonyms: exhibit, show, put on show/view;

So you can keep indulging your little fantasies as much as you like or perhaps you should take it up with Webster's Dictionary.

The guy is saying he took a souvenier and placed it in his office for show.

So again, were did this little souvenier go after it was all said and done?

You can't answer that question and neither could he or Schmitt who basically wrote this nonsense for him.

Since you work collaborately with Schmitt, is it a possibly you are he has this little alien artifact?

KRandle said...

Brian -

Your last sentence makes no sense. Can you clarify?

Brian Bell said...


"Tom Carey put together a Dream Team to produce the ultimate Roswell book. The project got sidetracked, but Carey continued to work with his writing partner Don Schmitt, assisted by Anthony Bragalia and David Rudiak, who both had provided help for the Witness to Roswell book."

http://www.blueblurrylines.com/2015/03/roswell-slides-or-fraud-prints.html?m=1

----

Roswell Slides Statement by Tom Carey with Note from Don Schmitt (2015)

"So, we sent copies of the slides to Dr. David Rudiak,"

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2015/05/roswell-slides-statement-by-tom-carey.html?m=1

----

The Roswell Slides and the Mummy's Placard

"The experts list presented at the Mexico City event include Dr. David Rudiak, an expert in photographic analysis,"

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-roswell-slides-and-mummys-placard.html?m=1

---

Why it makes no sense to you I don't understand exactly. But maybe it's just the tone or semantics once again or knits about a word or two.

If you worked on the DreamTeam, with the DreamTeam, were asked by the DreamTeam to contribute expertise, and we're listed as a contributing expert at a DreamTeam sponsored and endorsed event, aren't you "collaborating" with the DreamTeam?

Are you going to tell us that Rudiak has absolutely no contact or association with Schmitt or has never corresponded or collaborated with him? Really?

goldfive said...

I’ve thought long and hard about Haut’s 2002 affidavit, and honestly I don't know what to make of it. Since his first interview back in the late 70’s, Haut certainly ‘played dumb’ about Roswell. He stuck like glue to the “I just put out the press release” line, and frequently doubled down on his lack of knowledge by claiming he didn't remember if he actually wrote it, or Blanchard wrote it, or if Blanchard dictated it to him. From the 1980’s up until his death, he seemed to pick one version of the genesis or the other, but it vacillated from interview to interview...always careful to reinforce the fragility of his long term memories of the event.

The main thrust of his claims, regardless of the details of how the PR came to be, is that he was just a bit player, did what Blanchard instructed, and it all blew over in a few days.

Unfortunately, Mr. Haut’s legacy and reputation were complicated by his early endorsement of hoaxer Frank Kaufmann (Kevin said Haut told him Kaufmann’s word was “golden”), as well as his UFO museum partnership with Glenn Dennis, whom nearly every Roswell researcher has since concluded was also a fraud.

Haut was not exactly in stellar company there.

There are A LOT of reasons to be skeptical of the 2002 affidavit (and, I don’t think the 2000 Wendy Connors/Balthaser videotaped interview is supporting evidence in any way-- it has even more issues than the affidavit).

ALL THAT BEING SAID, the one '02 affidavit claim that always struck me as odd is the account of Ramey and Dubose being at RAAF for the Tuesday, July 8th morning staff meetin--where, allegedly, the initial stages of cover story were discussed.

IF Haut or someone influencing him (post-2000) wanted to make up details to inflate his role in the Roswell incident, or to perhaps “stem the bleeding” from the cavalcade of imploding witnesses (Kaufmann, Ragsdale, Dennis, Corso, etc)-- then adding this story to the Roswell narrative accomplishes NOTHING.

It’s a pointless, unnecessary “factoid” to create, because it fails to advance the story or bolster believability in the ETH. It wasn’t as if there was even speculation on this aspect of Roswell, merely awaiting some evidence or corroboration. As far as I know, no Roswell “expert” has ever so much as implied Ramey and Dubose were present at the 7/8 staff meeting.

There was nothing in the body of literature to even suggest the Ramey/Dubose visit.

Which, to me, begs the question: “why would Haut or his “enablers” invent this pointless ‘fact’?”

Despite the lack of corroboration, it’s not outside the realm of possibility; Ramey & Dubose COULD have easily made the trip.

It even makes a bit of sense-- the crash of an ET craft would certainly be a big deal and something that might warrant a 45 minute flight from Fort Worth to RAAF for an in-person pow-wow on the matter.

BUT, if instead, the claim is an outright lie, then contrary to what Mr. Bell posted above, making up the bit about Ramey and Dubose being at RAAF doesn’t make the ETH more plausible, and doesn't even give Haut a more important role (he was just a ‘spectator’ at the staff meeting, and did not even lay claim to being part of the decision-making process). The Ramey/Dubose visit also does nothing to “fill a hole” in Schmitt/Carey’s revised, 2007 Roswell narrative.

It’s not like the Roswell story desperately “needed” the general and his adjutant to be at RAAF or some aspect of the case would collapse.

Instead of discussing the cover story over the phone, according to Haut's account it was done in person. Big deal. Same end result, Roswell-story-wise.

I just can’t help but ask, if it’s NOT true-- why invent this tidbit of information from whole cloth?

Nitram Ang said...

Kevin asked:

Your last sentence makes no sense. Can you clarify?

BB has trouble responding to questions but I think what he meant to say was...

"Since you work collaboratively with Schmitt, is it a possibly you or he has this little alien artifact?

Kevin, what is your opinion on the 2nd affidavit? - I support CDA's view on this and believe that it is as reliable as Jim Ragsdale changing testimony but I invite your comment please if you don't mind us going "slightly" off topic.

Regards
Nitram.

Nitram Ang said...

Goldfive wrote:

"Glenn Dennis, whom nearly every Roswell researcher has since concluded was also a fraud."

Oh really, most of the "pro ET" researchers still seem to support the tales of Glenn Dennis I think (Kevin Randle excepted).

Please give me the names of "five pro ET researchers" who have concluded GD as a fraud?

Regards
Nitram

David Rudiak said...

As I predicted (not hard), Brian Bell is trying to change the subject after being caught red-handed telling another BB whopper, as follows:

BB: "If you believe in Haut's second death-bed affidavit, then please explain why he claimed he had a piece of the wreckage displayed for SOME YEARS after the event? In his base office?"

Except that is not what Haut's affidavit said at all. It says he made it to one of the sites while debris was being cleaned up and displayed some debris in his office. Doesn't specify any time, and sounds like to me a very short time until the cleanup was over or before, then put in with all the other debris and shipped off somewhere.

But "SOME YEARS"? Another BB "fact" pulled purely out of his rear end, insinuating that if Haut displayed anything, it could not have been important if it was displayed for years and years. Must have been radar target foil-paper or some such.

Now, for one thing, if BB knew 1% of what he thinks he knows about Roswell, he would know that Haut retired from the USAF the following April, being promoted to Captain at termination (I guess another incompetent officer like Marcel and Blanchard being promoted for screwing up so badly). That makes "some years" displayed in his office rather impossible, since he wasn't there "some years". Details, details. Who cares about actual facts when you can just make up your own, like BB is constantly doing, and being absolutely brazen and shameless about it?

Nitram Ang said...

Hi David

Doesn't CDA have a point here?

It would seem that the 2nd affidavit is a "big jump" on the first one!

Yes, I understand he may not have wished to disclose everything while he was still alive but geez, it does seem a bit much - how much credibility do you give it (say a mark out of 10)?

Regards
Nitram

Brian Bell said...

Not only is Haut's second affidavit a "big jump" it's also a "major leap" away from other witness testimony.

It appears to me that Schmitt and Carey took their last opportunity to push the story they wanted to sell by cultivating a decades long relationship with Haut to eventually get him to sign such a document.

The proof is there when you listen to any Schmitt conference talk on Witness to Roswell when he says things like "...and we continue to work on him to get him to admit what he saw....and someday we'll get him...."

Clearly they appear to stalk a witness till he/she is old enough and sufficiently memory deficient to sign such documents.

cda said...

To answer 'Goldfive', I surmise that Haut did not invent the meeting at Roswell (with duBose and Ramey present) on the morning of July 8 out of whole cloth. There was, we may assume, SOME kind of meeting there early that day, before Marcel flew out to Ft.Worth. I assume that Carey & Schmitt, in their constant and repeated interviews, gradually swayed Haut into believing Ramey and duBose were present. This would not have been difficult to do, hence the new affidavit and all its ramifications. It is clear to me that Haut, over the years from 1980, was heavily leaned on repeatedly by pro-ETHers, and finally more or less 'caved in' to Schmitt & Carey.

But I am still puzzled why Haut was ever permitted to display ANY of the damn wreckage in his office, even for a few hours (never mind "some years"), considering the alleged top secrecy that permeated the whole affair. Any ideas, David Rudiak?

Bill Brazel, as I said before, also severely violated this secrecy, by holding on to some of this stuff for periods up to two years (so he claimed)!

Oh and Nitram, thanks for supporting me on the Haut affidavits - a welcome change from the past.

KRandle said...

CDA -

Bill Brazel was under no obligation to the military because he had not been interviewed by them in 1947. His discovery of small bits came in the months after the event. He held onto them until the military learned of them and then surrendered them on their request. Say what you will, but Bill Brazel did not violate the secrecy. This point in your analysis is in error.

Brian Bell said...

No one has answered what became of Haut's souvenier and its current whereabouts. If they guy was allowed to collect it and display it in his office for whatever period of time, post decision to cover it all up, why was he allowed to do this and where is it today?

Zak McKracken said...

There is a guy whose name is Loyd E. Nelson. He was a PFC at that time and Haut was his boss. According to his testimony Haut and Marcel apparently came from the crash site. They brought pieces of the debris into Hauts Office. Marcel and Haut were showing the pieces of debris around in Hauts office. Nelson even was allowed to take this stuff in his hands. But they advised the people(`?) in Hauts Office not to tell anybody. I think that´s the thing which Haut was referring , when he "displayed it",which was only temporary.


Wind Swords said...

Dave Rudiak:

"But we know so little about the 2nd site, we don't even know for sure it existed, let alone where it was.

Actually we know quite a bit about the second site now, with many witnesses."

We don't know anything. We know what the witnesses said. But we have no hard evidence. No documents, no photographs, no newspaper stories, no one who can take us to the site and say "this is where it was". Nothing like the Brazel site. No chance to dig for missed debris. Testimony 30-40 years later does not a second (or third) site make, to coin a phrase.

Without hard evidence of the 2nd site it cannot be assumed there was one. I'm not ruling it out as a possibility but it is far (very far) from a absolute fact. Very far because the behavior of the military we knew was involved at the base in the beginning doesn't seem to have much in the way of anything to do with it (the 2nd site).

Then there is the civilians. They kept there mouths shut all these years, including in the 1947 when the newspaper printed that the "flying disc" Brazel reported was a weather balloon made of sticks, foil, rubber and paper. They didn't say anything in 1947 to the press or government officials that there was another site with the craft all because the military threatened them - but not Marcel or the others directly involved with the case in the beginning. They were out of the loop for the 2nd site, it's clean up and the spreading of fear of reprisals to the civies for talking to anyone about what they saw/handled. It just doesn't hold water for me. Without the 2nd site we don't have ET. So somebody better get some hard evidence - at least a location so they can dig and sift for crash evidence. At this point without further evidence I can only conclude there were no additional sites.

Wind Swords said...

KR said:

"His discovery of small bits came in the months after the event. He held onto them until the military learned of them and then surrendered them on their request."

Curious. Do you know how the military found out about the debris Bill had in his possession?

Brian Bell said...

Bill claimed Air Force personnel came to see him having heard he had debris from other people he had spoken to about it. That implies someone he knew or someone else overheard and reported him.

Like all testimony there are problems here - one of the officers he claimed contacted him was named Armstrong, but there is no record of such a person stationed at Roswell airbase. He also claimed a black sergeant was involved, but none was stationed there either.

More fiction.

I'm sure believers claim they were from Washington or some other location as means to explain away the contradictions.

Of course, I'm still wondering why two MIB didn't come see him instead.

Nitram Ang said...

BB copied and pasted:

"Like all testimony there are problems here - one of the officers he claimed contacted him was named Armstrong, but there is no record of such a person stationed at Roswell airbase. He also claimed a black sergeant was involved, but none was stationed there either."

Great thing about the "web" - all the stuff in the world for people to surf!

KRandle said...

Brian -

At no time did Bill Brazel ever claim that one of the men who visited him was African-American.

There was an NCO named Armstrong assigned to the base in 1947, but Bill told me that the visitation came in 1949... and it is possible that the men were dispatched from either Kirkland or Holloman. Bill had no way of knowing from where they came.

You need to stop posting things that are wrong and easily checked.

KRandle said...

Brian -

Caught you in another Korff bit of nonsense. There were, at least, 24 African-American sergeants assigned to the base in 1947. You need to throw away Korff's book before it leads you into additional embarrassment.

John's Space said...

Bill Brazel was under no obligation to the military because he had not been interviewed by them in 1947. His discovery of small bits came in the months after the event. He held onto them until the military learned of them and then surrendered them on their request. Say what you will, but Bill Brazel did not violate the secrecy.

There was an NCO named Armstrong assigned to the base in 1947, but Bill told me that the visitation came in 1949

Since none of these little facts are likely settle the Roswell case. But, isn't the governments interest in this at so late a date, i.e. 1949, suggestive of the ET hypothesis. If it was just scraps of a balloon and that had been determined, why would they still be interested? Didn't Ramey say case closed nearly two year earlier? So this marginally shifts the needle toward ETH.

Brian Bell said...

KR wrote:

"At no time did Bill Brazel ever claim that one of the men who visited him was African-American."

I didn't say he did. I said he claimed a black NCO was involved. That idea came from Stan Friedman's book, not Korff's.

Stan claims Brazel said it; Korff claims it's not possible (but for different reasons than you).

I understand you have an issue with that, which is fine. My point being that Friedman referenced a black sergeant, and Korff obviously disagrees (and you with both of them on your own research).

The point being you have three different people making different claims which makes the testimony "problematic" with regards to what Brazel Jr. said, All of them claiming their opinion is the correct one.

Step back and see the larger picture rather than the minutia. The testimony of all of the witnesses is problematic due to many factors, one being that researchers can't even agree upon what they did or did not say.

Nitram -

You can mock all you want (apparently with Kevin's blessing), but you've offered little to these conversations when all is said and done.

You have failed to show one iota of evidence that Roswell was what you claim - a time machine from the future. In fact, you have failed to respond to any inquiry about it. You just ignore it.

I think this proves a very basic and obvious point. You have no real idea what you're talking about. And you hide behind a fictitious name.

Now why should anyone really listen to what you have to say?

Nitram Ang said...

BB wrote:

"You have failed to show one iota of evidence that Roswell was what you claim - a time machine from the future. In fact, you have failed to respond to any inquiry about it. You just ignore it."

I do not know what fell at Roswell - the "time machine" solution you mention is the first choice of one pro ET researcher you mention.

Once again your copying and posting stuff from various web pages and getting your "facts" fixed up...

Having said that I don't rule out any possibility (including time travel) - it's important to keep an open mind.

Roswell is a complicated subject and I appreciate that David & Kevin (and others) have kindly shared their knowledge with me over the years. I guess unlike you, I don't get my arse kicked because I don't argue with them - If I'm unsure or think they could be mistaken, I politely ask a question - their knowledge of Roswell is superior to mine and they know this - you of course (and maybe CDA) think your superior to them on the subject which again - is highly entertaining.

I don't therefore tend to respond to a lot of your nonsense and I'm surprised that Kevin & David continue to bother correct so much of it.

You also state "but you've offered little to these conversations when all is said and done."

Lately that's true, but then again, I can think of anything rather helpful you have had to add either...

By the way, you state "I said he claimed a black NCO was involved. That idea came from Stan Friedman's book, not Korff's."

Which book are you referring to (Stan may have written more than one)? You should ALWAYS give your source - saves the "authorities" having to ask for it later...





KRandle said...

Brian –

In the Army we called this stepping on your dick. You have jumped up and down on yours.
You said, “He also claimed a black sergeant was involved, but none was stationed there either.”

I said, “At no time did Bill Brazel ever claim that one of the men who visited him was African-American."

To which you replied, “I didn't say he did. I said he claimed a black NCO was involved. That idea came from Stan Friedman's book, not Korff's.”

And we are back to word games… And I didn’t say the comment was from Korff’s book. I am well aware that it comes from Stan’s book. If you look at pages 84 – 85, you’ll find quotes from Bill Brazel. It is on page 85 that Stan wrote, “he had a [black] sergeant with him…”

All these quotes from Brazel come from an interview that Don Schmitt and I conducted with Brazel in February 1989. Stan used them with neither credit nor attribution and made the alteration with no justification. Brazel said nothing about a black sergeant with those soldiers. I have the interview on tape but to make sure I called him when this first happened. Brazel told me at that time that none of those men were African-American and that interview is on tape.

Stan later said that he had altered the interview because Brazel had used a racially charged word. Again, since I was there and have the tape, I can say without fear of contraction that this is untrue. For more information see:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2008/09/black-sergeants-and-stan-friedman.html.

You said, “…one of the officers he claimed contacted him was named Armstrong, but there is no record of such a person stationed at Roswell airbase.”

But you don’t know that either because the best source for verification of someone at Roswell is the Yearbook. Walter Haut told me that some 10 to 15 or 20 percent of the soldiers there in 1947 do not appear in the Yearbook. Brazel suggested that this took place two years after the events, which means Armstrong could have been stationed there later … or that he came from another base in New Mexico… not to mention that Brazel wasn’t positive the name was Armstrong… but to be fair, I will note that Brazel also suggested that the visit came some two months or so later. But the point is your statement is not so much a fact as a guess.

You said, “He also claimed a black sergeant was involved, but none was stationed there either.”

This is the statement that comes from Korff’s book. He said that he had called some historian in the Pentagon (whom he does not identify) and said that the man said that the Army was segregated in 1947. Korff took to mean there were no African-Americans in the Army, not realizing that this meant they served in their own units, not that they didn’t serve. At the time there were, at least, 24 African-American sergeants stationed at Roswell. I say at least because, once again, not everyone appeared in the Yearbook and using Haut’s numbers there could have been an addition three or four.

You said, “The point being you have three different people making different claims which makes the testimony "problematic" with regards to what Brazel Jr. said, All of them claiming their opinion is the correct one.”

But this is not true. The evidence shows that Stan altered the quote with no justification. Korff said there were no African-Americans stationed at Roswell which means he is wrong. Therefore there is only one statement based in fact and not fiction, so that portion of Brazel’s statement is not “problematic” and the controversy does not exist. The facts show which statement is true.

The point being that sometimes the spin, interpretation and invention by the researcher changes the meaning. It has nothing to do with what the witness said but with the belief structure of those conducting the interview.

cda said...

Nitram:

"Having said that I don't rule out any possibility (including time travel) - it's important to keep an open mind."

I once thought the same of Adamski's claims. Which do you consider the least likely - that a being from Venus once landed in California or that a 'vehicle from the future' once crashed in New Mexico? I suppose you could reply that the former can be effectively disproved and the latter is still a faint, very faint, possibility (according to SF writers).

As to who has the most superior knowledge on Roswell, I agree that in this forum Kevin certainly leads the way, with David Rudiak a close second. But it is not always a matter of knowledge but of the conclusions derived from that knowledge. It is also a matter of whether this 'knowledge' is accurate.

If you are relying completely on distant memories of participants and their family or friends (as Kevin is), and have absolutely no hard evidence, you are taking a very big risk when trying to come to conclusions which fly in the face of established scientific knowledge. Moreover, after 68 years there is STILL no hard evidence. So Kevin, and others, have to fall back on their oft-repeated 'official cover-up' thesis to bolster their conclusions. A VERY poor & unsatisfactory way of doing research, when all is said and done.

Brian Bell said...

@ CDA

Very true. Meanwhile while discussing stepping on dicks and other military jargon, Kevin makes a good statement:

"The point being that sometimes the spin, interpretation and invention by the researcher changes the meaning. It has nothing to do with what the witness said but with the belief structure of those conducting the interview."

And this is exactly the problem with all of the research evidence presented by those who continue investigating this nearly 70 year old case.

Each researcher today brings to the table their own spin, and since the only folks still "researching" the incident are by majority viewing the case through their own ET lense, basically everything is justified as being "proof" the event was ET.

There's your spin.

Nitram Ang said...

Hello CDA

Your post is rather off topic and I don't really wish to comment further other than to say that we are not in total agreement...

One statement however should be corrected:

"If you are relying completely on distant memories of participants and their family or friends (as Kevin is)..."

Both Kevin (& David) are not relying COMPLETELY on witness testimony.
There are other avenues that are being explored and I will simply state that it is up to them, to disclose their findings, at a later date.

Regards
Nitram

cda said...

Nitram:

As to 'other avenues that are being explored' I am looking forward to the day when the press carries banner headlines "EXTRATERRESTRIALS HAVE VISITED EARTH" with a sub-headline "SUPER-ENLARGEMENT OF A 70-YEAR OLD TOP SECRET MEMO PROVES IT".

I can think of at least one person, and probably many others, who will then announce in a loud voice, and laugh at the skeptics: "We told you so".

I await, with bated breath, this great news.

Brian Bell said...

Nitram:

"Both Kevin (& David) are not relying COMPLETELY on witness testimony.
There are other avenues that are being explored and I will simply state that it is up to them, to disclose their findings, at a later date."

Ah yes....the old "we have proof but we're not ready to show you yet" routine. Sounds like a circus act. Perhaps more like the (Not) Roswell Slides debacle.

So...they have secret evidence while you also hide your identity and ongoing work all the while collectively accusing the goverment of hiding the cosmic event of all time.

Such hypocracy.

And CDA is correct when he says the ET conclusion is based on witness testimony (often hearsay and flawed). What else is there? Newspaper articles?

- no photos
- no film
- no craft
- no debris
- no alien bodies

But of course....that super secret memo!!

Brian Bell said...

And just to finish the thought....if the claim is everything about Roswell was a well planned cover-up with the centerpiece being a series of photos of deliberately substituted balloon pieces on Ramey's floor, what's to say the contents of that "memo" (or telegrah as KR would say) isn't just another prop in the fake debris episode?

"Hey Phil, type something out on telegraph paper so we can hold a memo about this stuff...it'll look more official that way."

Phil types out a few sentences from one of the press releases and hands it to Ramey.

Al12 said...

Nitram

I have to agree that "not relying COMPLETELY" on witness testimonies is implying that other evidence has been gathered, if your referring to the ongoing research into the ramo memo then Kevin has already mentioned that and secondly deciphering the memo wont in reality solve much anyways

Secondly weve been down this route for so long that unless some document turns up in a document dump leak from Snowden or some physical hard evidence then i really Roswell is dead and buried, having endless debates about doesnt change a thing and Brian is right that reserchers efforts should be concentrated on the main private sector industries not Governmental.

Siemans, Northrop etc all the big multinational institutions are probably were the answers and evidence are held and purged from all government records, thats if thers any answers to this at all, i dont know.

cda said...

Brian:

What an original idea. I never once thought of this.

Remember also that when the 'Ramey memo' was first displayed (in THE ROSWELL INCIDENT), Bill Moore told us it was merely the text of the speech Ramey was due to give on the local radio station later that afternoon. Boy that guy (Moore) had the most amazing super-duper vision to see all that detail. Since Dr Rudiak is an optometrist I am surprised he has not commented on Moore's remarkable visual abilities!

In spite of this, I still await the great 'reveal', sometime. Ha!

Brian Bell said...

@ CDA

I agree completely. Now I'm laughing...good point.

@ Nitram

Say what? You agree with me on something? Unbelievable.

But I do think if anyone wanted to prove anything about ET crashes they best infiltrate and procure documentation from private industry (if even possible).

Most notably the aerospace industry but certainly not them alone. Governments and the military in free world countries rely on private sector companies to research and build their material.

While I am uncertain if anyone here gives Mark McCandlish's ARV story any credibility, it's at least one indicator that such vehicles may have been built. That doesn't necessarily mean they were back engineered from alien hardware though.

Nitram Ang said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nitram Ang said...

Hello AI12

You may have missed my last comment:

"There are other avenues that are (currently) being explored and I will simply state that it is up to them, to disclose their findings, at a LATER date."

This is "not limited" to the Ramey memo and I am not necessarily privy to some of the work being undertaken by the researchers.

You also stated "weve been down this route for so long that unless some document turns up in a document dump leak from Snowden or some physical hard evidence then i really Roswell is dead and buried"

Yes, you have a point here and certain avenues that were followed up in the past should have brought results, but lead to nothing.

That said, there are several more avenues that are a "work in progress" which require considerable time (and cost) to fully investigate.

Regards
Nitram

Al12 said...

Nitram.

Thats fair enough and i will never knock someone for going all out for research on this.

I sincerly hope what your saying is true and these other avenues does provide something in relation to evidence that finally perhaps points to happened at Roswell.

Because rehashing decades old testimonies isnt to produce anything and as the researchers know and Kevin knows, most of the witnesses are unfortunately now gone anyway.

KRandle said...

Brian -

Really? I point out that your claim that Brazel's testimony is problematic is untrue based on the false information you presented and you ignore that... don't admit you were wrong but head off in another direction. This is not the first time you have employed this tactic. At least some of the skeptics here such as Lance Moody and CDA will admit their mistakes when they make them.

You don't seem to realize that you view the evidence through the prism that there can be no alien visitation therefore there is none. Anything that suggests otherwise is ignored or belittled.

And you continue to misquote people and I bring this up only as another example but where did I suggest that the document held by Ramey is a telegrah (which I will assume you meant telegram...) I have said teletype which is something different.

The information developed from the latest scans of the Ramey memo is not being hidden but is being shared with many. We must be careful of copyright laws. We are not claiming any secret that will be revealed, but have been transparent with a number of people including some skeptics. We took a lesson from the RSRG who did their work quietly until they had results and then posted them for all to see... This is something we are attempting to do but to this point (and David will disagree here, be warned) the newest scans have not cleaned up the text so that it can be easily read. Unfortunately, all we have done is marginally cleaned up the text. I tell you right now that I am not claiming any secret evidence, only better quality scans made from the original negatives with the latest in equipment and the assistance of those at the University of Texas. We hope to post the best of the new scans to the Internet so that many others will have the opportunity to work with them... but we must be careful of the copyright laws.

So what is your gripe here. Afraid we might find something? I fear that we will fail to resolve this discussion in any way. I had hoped for clarity, whatever that might mean, but we've failed to resolve it. Your scenario has only been suggested by you and no one else. It is just your way to belittle research...

Unless you can come up with something that is accurate, that is not sarcastic, that is relevant, I don't understand what you are doing here. You add nearly nothing to the discussions and as I say, when proved wrong, you take off in another direction... So, do you wish to admit that you were wrong about Brazel? Your reasons for rejecting him are proved inaccurate.

zoamchomsky said...

>> what's to say the contents of that "memo" isn't just another prop in the fake debris episode?"<<

The debris in the photos is hoaxed--they say--so the "memo" must be hoaxed as well.

Excellent!

It has been suggested here that the "memo" was just the first paper he saw on his desk and picked up as a prop for the photo--the most obvious and likely scenario by far--but the wicked suggestion that it was a "prop" for the impossible Roswell "flying saucer" conspiracy is a hoot!

Good One, Brian!

And above it's suggested that Ramey would hardly be holding a necessarily classified document relating to the "flying saucer" debris for a photo shoot. I agree, the idea is preposterous. There's no evidence that it's a classified document of any kind, much less "saucer crash" related.

If part of the document were ever unambiguously resolved, which I doubt very much will happen, it most likely would reveal some mundane base business--nothing extraordinary. Does that or would that satisfy fanatic Roswell ETHers? Most probably not. It satisfies me.

KRandle said...

Zoam -

I'm a little surprised by the negative reaction here. The results aren't in, yet there seems to be a trend to reject them. What if we all felt that way about the RSRG and rejected their findings without bothering to learn what they were?

It is clear to me that the document held by Ramey refers to Roswell given the words that can be read by anyone with a good quality photograph and a magnifying glass. Those words do not lead to the conclusion what fell was alien but certainly hints to a relation to Roswell.

There is nothing that obviously screams the document is classified, but if it can be "cleaned" up, the markings, if they are there, might become visible.

There is a precedent for high-ranking government officials inadvertently compromising highly-classified material in front of reporters, so it does happen... not often but it does. Think McGeorge Bundy here.

And while you are probably right that if the memo turns out to be something mundane, or if it was brought into the office as J. Bond Johnson claimed he had done (which means it is related to Roswell but came from a news wire) there will be those who reject it... just as if we find the classification markings and wording to suggest something alien, there will be those who reject that, no matter how clearly the wording becomes.

What I do not understand is how you can reject this effort without understanding how it was accomplished, what equipment was used and the expertise of those involved. We had hoped that we'd have things clarified by this time, but that hasn't happened yet. Everything will be released as quickly as possible regardless of the outcome.

Nitram Ang said...

Kevin

Any chance you could take all the Ramey memo posts out of the current article on Chester Barton and re-post the latest article about the recent work on the Ramey memo to the top of your blog please?

Thank you for your time.

Regards
Nitram.

Brian Bell said...

KR:

Ramey teletype (memo):

Personally I am not concerned or worried about anyone skeptic or otherwise looking deeper into its contents. I've stated that before including the idea that Rudiak had to examine it closer from the very beginning.

And based on his findings, and those underway, I don't believe much will come of it. Rudiak claims the "memo" is still proof of ET crashing. I don't.

Before analyzing its contents lets first ask the question why it appeared in the "hoaxed" coverup photos in the first place. If Ramey was the master mind behind a world wide coverup then clearly he wasn't such an idiot that he would take any evidence to the contrary into a photo shoot for the press.

It's a press release memo or its a prop.

My comment was never about the current examination of the contents, it was in response to Nitram's comment which didn't reference anything specific but hinted at further secrecy.

Other than that, Zoam has summarized it well. As for telegraph vs teletype my error, but that's so down into the weeds lets just keep calling it a "memo" for now.

"Both Kevin (& David) are not relying COMPLETELY on witness testimony.
There are other avenues that are being explored and I will simply state that it is up to them, to disclose their findings, at a later date."

Regarding Brazel Jr.:

I have my doubts. If Friedman hasn't recanted his error in saying "black" it goes to demonstrate there are still different opinions regarding what Brazel Jr. said or didn't say.

And you can't claim your position is correct based on Haut's confirmation that not everyone was printed in yearbooks.

It seems odd to say we can conclude one thing must be true because there are no records of it.

An NCO named Armstrong is now believed to come from another base yet unconfirmed, on the wrong year, but possibly years later from RAAFB itself confirmed by the lack of his photo in the RAAF yearbook because omissions in the yearbook make that true? Now that sounds like guesswork.

If there are records of black soldiers stationed there, than at least it supports Friedman's sentence and refutes Korff's.

KRandle said...

Brian -

J. Bond Johnson has said that he handed the document to Ramey so that he had something in his hand. He was setting up his shot to make it interesting. Johnson said that he had brought it with him and then said that he had picked it up off Ramey's desk (which makes us ask why Johnson was in the room with classified material exposed... it should have had a cover sheet on it and it should have been locked away but that's another problem for later).

My hope is that we'll be able to resolve the issue of what the document says. I hope that we'll be able to find a solution that will be accepted by a major of the people regardless of what it says... not unlike the placard of the Roswell Slides. I think that most everyone agrees that the placard has been accurately revealed.

We don't need Friedman to recant his error. He used an interview that I conducted on audio tape. He quoted that interview accurately until he inserted the word black into it. There was no reason for it. Brazel never said it and to continue to argue that this is a difference of opinions of what Brazel said or didn't say is irrelevant. I have the evidence on tape.

To be sure, after Friedman's book was published and we noticed that word inserted into the interview, I called Brazel and asked him about it. He told me, again on tape, that there had been no black people who came in that contingent to retrieve the material. Get it? Brazel never said it and I have the interview on tape.

Friedman's later claim, in an email he wrote, that he changed the word from a racially charged word as an excuse for inserting black into the interview is inaccurate. No racial identity of the team was ever made by Brazel. There were NO African-Americans who came out to the ranch. I can't make this any clearer. There is no difference of opinion of what Brazel said. I have the evidence on tape. You are free to reject what Brazel claims but this particular reason is bogus and there should be no more questions about it.

You said that there was no Armstrong at the base... I do not know the source of your information, but the fact remains that not everyone at the base appeared in the Yearbook. Pappy Henderson, who was clearly assigned to the base does not have an individual picture in the Yearbook... he appears with his flight crew in the back of the Yearbook. Darwin Rasmussen does not appear in the Yearbook, but does appear in the base telephone directory. The point is that there is no documentation for an officer named Armstrong at the base but is for an NCO, not that he was from another base, but he was from Roswell. He's in the Yearbook. ... Besides, Brazel wasn't sure his name was Armstrong, so this really proves nothing about his credibility.

There is no question that there were African-American soldiers at Roswell and if you look at my blog posting about this, you'll see that I have posted a page proving the point. It does not prove Friedman's allegation, only that it was possible but since Brazel NEVER said it, Friedman's comment is also in error.

Brian Bell said...

Thanks Kevin that's good enough for me. It appears Friedman is in error. As for Armstrong it just remains one more question unresolved.

David Rudiak said...

Kevin wrote:
J. Bond Johnson has said that he handed the document to Ramey so that he had something in his hand. He was setting up his shot to make it interesting.

As Kevin knows as well as any, Johnson turned into a flaky witness in his old age and kept changing his story, even accusing Kevin of "editing"/altering his early taped conversations with him that had him telling a different (and much more normal story) of what happened in Ramey's office.

Originally he was assigned by his editor to go out to the base and take pictures. When he got there, the balloon debris was already laying on the floor and he noticed the acrid burnt odor of the neoprene balloon, wondering why Ramey would have a smelly balloon like that in his office. Ramey came in, he took pictures, Ramey told him it was just a weather balloon, and Johnson said he even wrote the AP story about it. (Which he later denied when he accused Kevin of "editing" the tapes.) In fact, the national AP story was clearly directly derived from the more detailed story that ran in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram the next day.

What Johnson later wanted to "prove" was that he photographed the actual flying saucer debris brought from Roswell, making himself the center and hero of the story instead of a minor player. Thus more changes to his story, like Ramey didn't know what it was (instead of straight-out telling him it was a weather balloon, as he had already been doing for an hour before Johnson got there), he personally arranged the debris on the floor (even opening a package) in order to "stage" the photo shoot, personally brought the piece of paper with him, allegedly an AP teletype bulletin (though the wording structure bears NO relation to ANY AP or other wire service story), and being sent out to cover the story BEFORE the original press release from Roswell even went out over the AP wire (notice the contradiction), allegedly because Ramey owed the newspaper a favor.

Johnson said that he had brought it with him and then said that he had picked it up off Ramey's desk (which makes us ask why Johnson was in the room with classified material exposed... it should have had a cover sheet on it and it should have been locked away but that's another problem for later).

Later Johnson retracted the bit about bringing the bulletin with him, saying he was merely speculating. A lot of this nonsense by Johnson can be found in Dennis Balthauser's interview with him: www.truthseekeratroswell.com/james-bond-johnson.html

In this interview, he says the message was handed to Ramey as he entered the office (not saying HE was the one who handed it to Ramey), but more likely a military aide. (which I consider plausible) Don't know where he said he personally picked up the paper off Ramey's desk and handed it to him. If he said that, yet another elaboration to his original story.

The point here is that shifting Johnson's testimony concerning the "origins" of the memo need to be taken with a big grain of salt. At the end, his story was all over the place in order to make himself into the Roswell flying saucer debris photographer.

As for the memo necessarily being hidden by a cover sheet (or Ramey necessarily wouldn't have been holding a highly secret document), we've been over this before with known historical examples of where highly sensitive documents totally LACKING in cover sheets WERE photographed by civilian photographers, while being held by people in high positions (who should have known better since they routinely dealt with classified material). There are many other examples of big security slip-ups by people who should have known better.

Doesn't matter if it shouldn't happen in an ideal world. The FACT is it DOES happen on occasion through mere human carelessness.

cda said...

But DR still has not dealt with the suggestion made by BB (Brian Bell), which is this:

If General Ramey was so astute as to think of a massive deception and cover-up, in which he rapidly substituted balloon /radar reflector debris for parts of a recently recovered ET craft and allowed the former to be photographed in place of the latter, why couldn't he (Ramey) ALSO have had someone type a teletype containing the inserted phrase "victims of the wreck" (and other words) and displaying this to the camera to fool those researchers who would examine it in future years?

After all, he ran the risk of his deception being exposed in both instances, since both the debris and the teletype were plainly visible in the photos (even if one was a lot more difficult to decipher). Who is to say that the heading "Top Secret" (if it was really there) was also not a deliberate ploy on Ramey's part?

That man must have been AMAZINGLY clever and astute, with an IQ of 200. He pulled off not only one massive deception but another one, in the reverse direction!

By now we can see just how dotty, entirely dotty, this whole 'balloon substitution' idea really is.

KRandle said...

David -

I thought I made it clear that Johnson changed his mind when it was pointed out to him that his efforts to read the memo wouldn't amount to much if he had brought the document in with him. Of course he repudiated this story as he repudiated nearly everything he said to me in those first interviews, other than his name was James Bond Johnson.

I have also said that there is historical precedence for high-ranking officials compromising classified material in front of reporters. I merely commented that I found it somewhat odd that there had been no cover sheet on the document if it was, in fact, classified... or even stranger that Ramey would have left it on his desk knowing that a reporter was coming in. His aide, who is not obvious in the pictures or in any of the discussions, should have mentioned the classified material out... so, where was Ramey's aide in all this. I certainly don't know, but he should have been around somewhere.

cda said...

Kevin:

To be serious, is it not strange, if this vitally important memo contains the words and the great news DR and others insist it contains, that the person who typed it has never been identified? Or do you think Ramey typed it himself? To put it simply: how many others handled it besides Ramey? I have never read or heard such twaddle as some are putting out about this scrap of paper. Where are all the myriad of other official papers on the captured ET craft and bodies? And please don't pretend they are all, without exception, still top secret.

Rather than apparently sitting on the fence, you ought to come out and say firmly that this 'Ramey memo', whatever it contains, does NOT contain any evidence whatever that an ET craft crashed to earth near Roswell or anywhere else. If people want to spend further time and money 'analysing' it, by all means let them do so, at their own expense.

Unless you are still hoping for the miracle to end all miracles, of course....

Nitram Ang said...

CDA scribbled:

"To be serious, is it not strange, if this vitally important memo contains the words and the great news DR and others insist it contains, that the person who typed it has never been identified? Or do you think Ramey typed it himself? To put it simply: how many others handled it besides Ramey? I have never read or heard such twaddle as some are putting out about this scrap of paper.
If people want to spend further time and money 'analysing' it, by all means let them do so, at their own expense."

So, if DR is correct (and there is a good chance that he is) and the memo in part reads "the victims of the wreck" do you stand by your earlier statement that Ramey was writing a Sci-Fi novel or would you care to revise your earlier statement?

Brian Bell said...

@ Nitram -

If DR et al does manage to show the phrase you reference, it doesn't prove the ETH is correct.

As I have said before (and which continues to be ignored by ETers) is the word "victims" is not commonly used by the military to describe aliens or military flight crew.

Examples from military usages:

...victims of sexual assault...
...military crime victims...
...civilian victims...
...victims of collateral damage...
...mustard gas victims...
...victims of domestic abuse...
...victims of terrorism...

In each case above the use is describing someone or a group of people to which something was done unjustly or during wartime.

If the memo does say 'victims' then it points towards the military having done something to a group of people, or someone else having done something to a group of people.

Perhaps this was something done via Soviet espionage so it couldn't be released. Perhaps our military inadvertently caused a crash of some sort, or perhaps they were using civilians for some type of experiment.

Victims does not equal Aliens.


Don Maor said...

BB said: "Perhaps this was something done via Soviet espionage so it couldn't be released. Perhaps our military inadvertently caused a crash of some sort, or perhaps they were using civilians for some type of experiment."

Perhaps love is like a resting place, a shelter from the storm, it exists to give you comfort it is there to give you warm...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YnfCH7LNcM

Brian Bell said...

@ Don

And your point is that now you're in love?