tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post124086211807764259..comments2024-03-18T16:51:50.688-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Jesse Marcel - A Dispassionate LookKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-31835496387362830952012-01-05T01:03:22.075-08:002012-01-05T01:03:22.075-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.heobeohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10153079497244193352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-16736156157025751512011-07-25T19:36:06.649-07:002011-07-25T19:36:06.649-07:00I doubt CDA will respond and discuss Cavitt's ...I doubt CDA will respond and discuss Cavitt's closeness to Marcel, Blanchard, and Ramey. It is a rare experience for me to have a Roswell skeptic respond to anything about Roswell that is not ET-centric.<br /><br />It is very suspicious that there is no official documentation on Roswell, no matter how innocuous. There should be something because something happened. Bureaucracies can hardly avoid making records.<br /><br />If it was a spaceship and crew, it is merely an opinion that a ton of documentation would necessarily be produced. Imo, it is more likely that no records would appear in bureaucratic recordkeeping -- and that includes the classification system.<br /><br />No reports would be written because no one who knew about it would order or request one.<br /><br />It would be held very close, I think.<br /><br />That's the thing about recovering a spaceship and crew. It is extraordinary and there is no SOP. There is only CYA -- and to grab for the brass ring if you've got the reach.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-29924881780238043982011-07-23T15:03:29.971-07:002011-07-23T15:03:29.971-07:00CDA: "And where is the mountain of official d...CDA: "And where is the mountain of official documentation on it? Still stashed away?"<br /><br />Enough said."<br /><br />I am always amazed at your simple faith in the honesty and transparency of counter intelligence organizations. It there was a cover-up of what wafted down from the heavens onto the Foster Ranch, it follows they were also covering up crimes committed during the cover-up. Domestic operations directed at civilians was a bit of an issue in regard to the CIC in the 40s.<br /><br />So, what about the Cavitts and Ramey and Blanchard?<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46542588237255224572011-07-23T11:45:21.973-07:002011-07-23T11:45:21.973-07:00Don:
"As to your impatience about ET re Rosw...Don:<br /><br />"As to your impatience about ET re Roswell prior to '78...you and everyone else. Why? Because, afaik, nobody asked. When all these Roswell story principals were alive and kicking, nobody asked."<br /><br />Let me put this to you: nobody asked because nobody considered there was anything to ask. The reason for this was that nobody considered anything of substance ever happened. At least after July 8. <br /><br />Do you really suppose those few (how many?) first-hand witnesses to a crash-landing of an extraterrestrial spaceship on our planet, together with alien bodies, would have held their tongues about it until 31 years later? Do you suppose any of the many second-hand witnesses would do so? <br /><br />They do not need asking! If you or I are positive we have seen a genuine tyrannosaurus rex, we do NOT stand around 30 years before informing anyone. Or at least I don't. Look at the case of the coelacanth. (I forget date.) <br /><br />And it does not matter one iota whether the witnesses are civilian or military. It just ain't on. Period. <br /><br />Yet this is precisely what the ETHers are telling us about Roswell. Kevin, DR, Friedman and countless others. I know, so many of the witnesses went to their graves with this great secret.....<br /><br />And where is the mountain of official documentation on it? Still stashed away?<br /><br />Enough said.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-6392782232747401862011-07-23T07:04:45.835-07:002011-07-23T07:04:45.835-07:00CDA: "Also, the Ramey AFB in Puerto Rico ment...CDA: "Also, the Ramey AFB in Puerto Rico mentioned by Don, is named after another Ramey, Howard K.Ramey who was no relation."<br /><br />You have me confused with Col. Richard Weaver.<br /><br />See Kevin's original post:<br /><br />"it’s not going to lead us to flying saucers and alien bodies, but it might teach us something about the case anyway."<br /><br />I do not understand skeptics' lack of interest in Roswell. <br /><br />Then:<br /><br />KR: ""Given what I have read in the newspapers and magazines from that era, it would seem to me that flying saucer meant any sort of object, mirage, or apparition seen in the sky. It didn’t necessarily mean spacecraft and I think that it rarely meant spacecraft."<br /><br />David and I think it is not so cut and dry. We point to the army's referring to the saucers in the popular sf terms of the day when hardly (imo) anyone else was (until Hal Boyle); that the army air forces had a spec for a flying disc -- it meant something specific to them in 1947.<br /><br />Then on to Pratt and his story about the absence of a bio for Ramey and I pointed out it was still the case, the USAF does not have his bio.<br /><br />As to your impatience about ET re Roswell prior to '78...you and everyone else. Why? Because, afaik, nobody asked. When all these Roswell story principals were alive and kicking, nobody asked.<br /><br />Did Keyhoe even make a passing reference to Roswell? Did Edwards ever check the story by flipping through some old newspapers and getting some names and making some phone calls? And Bloecher and McDonald did flip through some old newspapers, did make some phone calls, only not in the case of Roswell. <br /><br />So, nobody asked, and if one doesn't ask, CI won't tell, even to lie. <br /><br />Speaking of Col Weaver, what do you think of the Cavitt's statements about their association with Blanchard and Ramey?<br /><br />Are there any degrees of separation at all among our 'Roswell incident' army principals?<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-30287684280577814622011-07-23T02:48:07.155-07:002011-07-23T02:48:07.155-07:00Is this discussion about Ramey really getting us a...Is this discussion about Ramey really getting us anywhere? <br /><br />I have found out a few things on Google, such as Ramey being president of The Permanent Filter Corporation of Los Angeles, once vice-president of Northrop Corp, once vice-president of the Commercial Standard Insurance Company, etc. Ramey died in 1963.<br /><br />But presumably these are well-known to DR and Don.<br /><br />What are we driving at?<br /><br />Is DR telling us that Ramey, who learned about ET craft and ETs crashing onto planet earth in July '47, kept this vital addition to our scientific knowledge secret ever after, and never breathed a word of it to anyone?<br /><br />All we seem to get is hints that Ramey accepted ETH was possible at one time, but later changed his mind (or vice-versa). Ramey did this and that while in the USAF, some of it (i.e. a TINY portion of it) connected with UFOs. <br /><br />So what?<br /><br />There is also reference, in the Ramey notes, to a researcher named Dr David Rudiak. <br /><br />Also, the Ramey AFB in Puerto Rico mentioned by Don, is named after another Ramey, Howard K.Ramey who was no relation. <br /><br />I don't doubt that ETs may at various times, even before Roswell, have entered Ramey's mind. Neither do I doubt that he may indeed have suspected ETs were behind some of the UFOs, particularly after Washington '52.<br /><br />I flatly refuse to accept Ramey (or indeed anyone connected with Roswell) was in possession of this 'great secret' on July 8, 1947 and, as part of his AF oath of secrecy, kept it under his hat for the next 16 years. Was it worry about this secret that caused his eventual heart attack? (Keyhoe would probably agree that it was; after all Ruppelt suffered in the same way). Come to think of it, what about Blanchard? He too had a heart attack, didn't he? <br /><br />As for "the victims of the wreck" phrase, words fail me. If that sheet of paper, and the message on it, is of such vital importance to the case and to all of science as well, where the hell is it?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-73629343254825102872011-07-22T16:30:58.673-07:002011-07-22T16:30:58.673-07:00Don, Ramey retired from the USAF because he had ha...Don, Ramey retired from the USAF because he had had a serious heart attack. I have one news article indicating he told friends immediately after the heart attack that it meant the end of his AF career.<br /><br />I have seen no indication that internal AF politics had anything to do with his retirement. If anything, he had just assumed command of the Air Defense Command when he had his coronary. Ramey's star, if anything, was still on the rise until his health problems.<br /><br />The ADC, interestingly enough, had secretly been tasked in 1953 with investigating the more serious UFO reports with national security implications, something the public did not know about, instead being misled into thinking all investigation was being done by the more public Project Blue Book. Thus Ramey, as head of the ADC, would have been overseeing the more significant UFO cases.<br /><br />This is right in line with the 1952 newspaper reports referring to Ramey as the AF "saucer man" and allegedly one of their top two UFO experts, along with Gen. Samford. Ramey was quoted saying in 1952, that he had been investigating UFOs for the past 6 years, which would mean clear back to 1946.<br /><br />Ramey, as USAF chief operations officer in 1952, was also in charge of the jet scrambles to intercept UFOs during the big 1952 UFO flap. Ramey seems to have been up to his eyeballs in UFOs, even before Roswell.<br /><br />This would support Brig. Gen. Exon's statements that Ramey was one of a clique of top Pentagon generals (the "Unholy 13") he ran into in the 1950s when Exon was at the Pentagon. <br /><br />This is one reason I have speculated maybe Exon was the "brig. general" who tipped off the National Inquirer that Ramey was an ET believer, setting Bob Pratt off on his fruitless quest to track down Ramey, a year or two before the evil STF stumbled across Marcel and reopened the Roswell case.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-14545829527669952212011-07-22T13:48:12.654-07:002011-07-22T13:48:12.654-07:00David, a search on General Roger Ramey turns up a ...David, a search on General Roger Ramey turns up a site in Denmark (with bios of allied generals). It's the first hit on the search. Hits 2 through 6 are your site. Several hits down is findagrave's.<br /><br />I don't know why the USAF ignores him. It might be political. When the USAF was being created, there were factions in the air<br />forces with differing opinions about what the doctrine and mission of the new branch should be. Those differences continued well into the 1950s...from Mig Alley to Sputnik and the founding of NASA. I don't know where Ramey stood in the debate. Call it aerospace force (satellites, space platforms, satellite surveillance, lifting bodies, flying wings, flying discs) vs air force (big bombers carrying lots of big bombs).<br /><br />Ramey retired at age 54, I think, in 1957 (according to the Danish site), the year of Sputnik when the USAF was caught flatfooted with no response. Soon after, NASA was created.<br /><br />In research on the aerospace issue, I haven't come across his name. So, all I've got is bare speculation, fwiw.<br /><br />Regards.<br /><br />DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-1637118648280706372011-07-22T13:02:29.192-07:002011-07-22T13:02:29.192-07:00On the missing Gen. Roger Ramey in USAF biography ...On the missing Gen. Roger Ramey in USAF biography of generals, Don (Sourcerer) wrote:<br /><br /><i>Some things never change.<br /><br />http://www.af.mil/information/bios/alpha.asp?alpha=R</i><br /><br />Yes, for some reason, Ramey has been turned into a nonentity by the USAF, though I don't understand why.<br /><br />Last December, I was contacted by Charles Lewis, who compiles military biographies. Lewis was trying to do a biography on Ramey, and wrote me because he also couldn't find anything on Ramey from the Air Force. I had previously gone to old newspapers and other sources to do my own Ramey biography, which I put up on my website, which is why Lewis contacted me.<br /><br />In email, I expressed my puzzlement as to why the AF had nothing on Ramey and asked him, in his experience, if this was unusual, given Ramey was a 3-star general and fairly important in his day:<br /><br />"Which raises a question that maybe you can answer based on your experience on writing up the careers of senior officers who seem to have fallen through the cracks. How common is this, particularly for the Air Force? The Air Force website has bios on about 2000 of their generals, but Ramey is missing. Lesser generals, such as his 1947 chief of staff Brig. Gen. Thomas Dubose and chief intelligence officer, Brig. Gen. Alfred Kalberer,<br />have their bios there. But not Lt. Gen. Ramey, who at various times headed up the 8th and 4th AF's and the ADC. As I mentioned, reporter Bob Pratt ran into this in the 1970s when he was trying to locate Ramey, and was told by the Pentagon that they had nothing. I find that very odd, but maybe it isn't that unusual." <br /><br />Lewis' response was (and incidentally, Lewis is a bit skeptical about Roswell):<br /><br />"Based on my experience, I find the lack of biographical data for Gen Ramey to be very unusual - especially for the Air Force and for a general officer of Ramey's stature. Overall, the Air Force is better than the other military branches in providing biographical material but, as you stated, you generated more data on him than anyone else. I think it's entirely possible that the Air Force used Ramey as a 'sacrificial lamb' and took the position that, in putting material about Ramey out there, 'the less said, the better' for the Air Force."<br /><br />Lewis also commented he was coincidentally trying to compile a detailed bio on Gen. Clemence McMullen. He was shocked to find very little information from the USAF on McMullen, who was even more important than Ramey. McMullen, as Roswell buffs are well aware, was the one Gen. Dubose said handled the operation and ordered the cover-up.<br /><br />Lewis' biography on Ramey:<br /><br />http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=59658498David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-30122715138787477262011-07-22T11:27:17.382-07:002011-07-22T11:27:17.382-07:00"PRATT: Son of a gun. An Air Force public aff..."PRATT: Son of a gun. An Air Force public affairs guy (at the Pentagon) went through his list of generals the other day and could find no reference to any such man (Ramey).<br /><br />KEYHOE: Oh, for– (laughs)<br /><br />PRATT: That’s curious. But he said the list was almost complete but not quite. I’m not quite sure what that meant. He had all living and dead generals but he couldn’t come across any by that name."<br /><br /><br />Some things never change.<br /><br />http://www.af.mil/information/bios/alpha.asp?alpha=RAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-9315499279512078932011-07-22T11:05:34.918-07:002011-07-22T11:05:34.918-07:00cda wrote:
"But we have strayed a lot from th...cda wrote:<br />"But we have strayed a lot from the original topic, as usual."<br /><br />Yes, indeed. Instead of addressing the points I raised, you deliberately took the discussion off on a tangent, ranting about Donald Keyhoe's opinions, when Keyhoe had nothing to do with the topic.<br /><br />Just to remind you, the topic YOU raised, is did anybody back in 1947 or even later raise the subject of ET origins:<br /><br />cda:<i>Please produce evidence that ANYONE (Marcel, Brazel, Cavitt, Blanchard, Ramey, etc.) connected with the case ever considered ET craft and bodies in '47, '48 or at any time, say, up to 1960.</i><br /><br />So I listed the following items, showing that the military and Ramey in particular was raising or responding to the ET topic, if only to deny it or ridicule it:<br /><br />1. June 30 & July 1, 1947: A week before Roswell, only a few days after Kenneth Arnold's sighting went nationwide, Ramey and his intel chief Kalberer were mocking the ETH for the saucers, calling them "Buck Rogers stuff" and denying we were being invaded from Mars.<br /><br />2. July 8, 1947, morning: The Pentagon put out a press release absolutely denying the saucers were "space ships" (or Russian or ours). "Coincidentally," that afternoon, the Roswell press release came out that they had a flying disc in their possession.<br /><br />3. Same day, Ramey was denying that the Roswell "disc" had any capacity to carry a man, thus an indirect denial of a flight crew, bodies, casualties, etc.<br /><br />4. Shockingly, I neglected to add the Ramey memo of July 8, where Ramey mentions the "victims of the wreck" and something "in the 'disc'" being shipped, which may be "aviators" by my best-guess interpretation (too bad Ramey's thumb is covering half the word). In any case, there it is in black and white, the word "victims" tied in with the Roswell 'disc', despite Ramey's public denial.<br /><br />5. Five years later (Aug. 3, 1952), Ramey, as USAF head Operations officer in Washington, was being questioned by reporters on TV about the flying saucers, including possible ET origins. (Ramey was called the USAF "saucer man" and one of their top two experts.) Ramey said he was very skeptical, but didn't completely rule it out. He also said he was convinced they had no "hostile intent", rather peculiar wording for something he said was not material, maybe natural phenomena, etc.<br /><br />6. In 1977, the National Inquirer was tipped off by a brig-general who had worked with Ramey in the 1950s that he believed they were from outer space. Inquirer UFO reporter Bob Pratt therefore tried to locate Ramey, but after getting the runaround from the Pentagon (who denied his existence), contacted Donald Keyhoe, who had covered the big Washington press conference of July 30, 1952, led by Gen. John Samford, with Ramey also answering a few questions.<br /><br />That is where Keyhoe got into the story, but Keyhoe wasn't the person saying Ramey was a closet ETH "believer". Keyhoe had nothing to do with it, and the real topic, raised by you, was did anybody associated with Roswell breathe a word about ET origins before the evil STF hypnotized everybody into believing it?<br /><br />Yes indeed. Gen. Roger "weather balloon" Ramey was secretly talking about the Roswell "victims" while publicly denying ET origins clear back in July 1947.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-90276180404852463582011-07-21T08:42:26.903-07:002011-07-21T08:42:26.903-07:00DR:
I had a look at the website you gave. I have ...DR:<br /><br />I had a look at the website you gave. I have not read all of the Pratt-Keyhoe interview, but here is an extract.<br /><br />KEYHOE: "Yeah, well, too bad about Ruppelt. See, he came out with that book and it caused the Air Force a lot of trouble. He had made some statements in public, articles and so forth, and newspaper interviews, and they put the heat on him. Well, after he had gone on inactive, he got a job with an aerospace company, and the Air Force put the heat on him and also the company. If he didn’t renege on some of these things he said, they were not going to have anything more to do with the company. So he added three new chapters to the (revised edition of the) book . . . and he completely reneged on the whole thing and said there was no evidence. It was a ridiculous thing and all that which crucified him. He died of a heart attack shortly after that, and I think that had a lot to do with it."<br /><br />This is just Keyhoe at his worst. Everything is part of a conspiracy. Therefore Ruppelt's heart attack was engendered by changing the stance of his book, which in turn came about because the AF applied pressure on him to do so, (and also applied pressure on the Northrop company, his employers!). The first edition "caused the Air Force a lot of trouble". So they "put the heat on him". <br /><br />Typical Keyhoe dottiness. Agreed this has zilch to do with Ramey, but it is a useful example of Keyhoe going off into the wild blue yonder. <br /><br />There is a better account in the Hall/Connors book about Ruppelt, which gives the lie to Keyhoe's ravings. <br /><br />It looks like Pratt got in touch with Keyhoe about Ramey because of his close involvement with the Washington '52 flap, and had nothing to do with Roswell. <br /><br />I am still baffled why Pratt wanted to talk about Ramey "whose name meant nothing to me at the time". (Oct '77). I assume it was because Ramey attended the Washington '52 press conference. But it certainly had nothing to do with Roswell, which Pratt had never heard of. <br /><br />Later on, Keyhoe again:<br />"He [Ramey] was under orders like all the rest of them, but after that time I don’t recall having any other contact with him".<br /><br />More Keyhoe hyperbole. In Keyhoe's world anyone and everyone in the military was always under orders from someone above, when speaking about UFOs. Nobody could possibly have had a mind of their own. Even Hillenkoetter's resignation from NICAP was due to pressure from above! (Like where?)<br /><br />I am also puzzled why a guy who the USAF knew was in on the great secret would ever have been allowed to appear at a press conference 5 years afterwards. <br /><br />No you are not confusing me with facts. Your facts, as far as providing support for 'Roswell was ET', amount to zero.<br /><br />How long before someone digs out a Ramey 'deathbed confession'? Oh yes, it's entirely possible, even now.<br /><br />But we have strayed a lot from the original topic, as usual.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-69544052245193080562011-07-20T10:45:35.538-07:002011-07-20T10:45:35.538-07:00cda wrote:
Yes but Joyce only told this tale post-...cda wrote:<br />Yes but Joyce only told this tale post-1980. Please produce the evidence that Joyce ever said such a thing in '47.<br /><br />We're back to the usual dumb debunker dirge that if it wasn't written about at the time in the newspapers, then it never happened. This is some incredible skeptical fantasy that newspapers are told everything, are 100% comprehensive in their reporting, are never deliberately misled by authorities, etc.<br /><br />In the real world, as others have put it, newspapers are only the first draft of history.<br /><br /><i>Please produce evidence that ANYONE (Marcel, Brazel, Cavitt, Blanchard, Ramey, etc.) connected with the case ever considered ET craft and bodies in '47, '48 or at any time, say, up to 1960.</i><br /><br />Well, for starters, as I've written many times before, Ramey and his intel chief Kalberer were debunking the ET angle to saucers a week before Roswell, laughing at the "Buck Rogers stuff" and Kalberer saying "we're not being invaded by little platter-like planes from Mars."<br /><br />http://www.roswellproof.com/ramey_and_kalberer.html<br /><br />And very shortly before the July Roswell PR about having an actual flying disc, the Pentagon issued their own PR (reported by UP) denying that the saucers were "space ships".<br /><br />Ramey later the same day was quoted making the denial that the Roswell object could have carried a man, because it was too flimsy. (Therefore, an oblique denial of a crew, casualties, or bodies.)<br /><br />And I know of at least one newspaper expressing relief at the weather balloon ID of the Roswell object, since what if it really were true that it was "men from Mars."<br /><br />Despite your denials, there was indeed a lot of speculation, even some strong belief in June/July 1947 that the saucers might be ET. That included Kenneth Arnold, BTW. The military was obviously trying to downplay the idea to calm the public, regardless of what happened at Roswell.<br /><br />If one fast-forwards to 1952 and the Washington UFO overflights of July, followed by the big press conference to again calm down the panicky public, Ramey was there again, now as chief operations officer of the USAF. He was called one of the top two AF experts on saucers and the AF's "saucer man." A few days later he appeared on CBS TV and again denied the "interplanetary" angle, though he also didn't totally discount it. As the NY Herald-Tribune reported, "He did not rule out the possibility that the objects were interplanetary visitors, but he was exceedingly skeptical." <br /><br />Another evasive response about ET origins, as reported by AP, was "'I still believe they are some phenomena that is not easily explained.' This was in reply to a query whether, if flying saucer reports do not originate from anything made in Russia or the United States, they could be from some other world."<br /><br />And curiously, he also stated he was convinced the saucers had no "hostile intent", which implies consciousness and intelligent control.<br /><br />See:<br /><br />http://ww.w.roswellproof.com/ramey_1952.html<br /><br />So whether you like it or not, Ramey was responding negatively from the very beginning about ET origins. The subject WAS being raised and then denied by the military.<br /><br />Now and then the truth is hidden in the denials. No need to deny the ET angle unless a lot of people are already thinking it.<br /><br />Reporter Bob Pratt of the National Inquirer was also hot on the trail of Ramey several years before the evil STF found Marcel. Pratt said that some brig.-general (Exon?), who had known Ramey from the 1950s, tipped off the Inquirer publisher that Ramey definitely believed the saucers were from outer space.<br /><br />http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1999.htm<br /><br /><i>All this ET stuff came after STF and Moore started nosing into the case in 1979. By then ETs were all the rage. </i><br /><br />No, but again don't let me confuse you with facts.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-10054960028258862742011-07-20T09:58:50.634-07:002011-07-20T09:58:50.634-07:00David, thanks for the correction as to whether Hau...<i>David, thanks for the correction as to whether Haut and Marcel knew each other. I think in 1947, Haut was 25 and Marcel 40.</i><br /><br />Don, correct. Blanchard was only 31, a very, very young colonel, and much closer in age to Haut.<br /><br />The only exception I know of to Marcel not being blamed for anything was I think the Boston Globe. The reporter or editor took the standard AP Roswell story and rewrote it for laughs and sarcasm--very unprofessional. In that Marcel was portrayed as an idiot who misidentified a weather balloon, but again this was a deliberately altered wire-service story by a paper practicing yellow journalism.<br /><br />I've read nearly a thousand newspapers from that period, and this is the only instance I've ever come across like this. Everywhere else it was either Haut or Blanchard, or unspecified "officers at Roswell".David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-68595038434054864222011-07-20T09:34:13.127-07:002011-07-20T09:34:13.127-07:00David, thanks for the correction as to whether Hau...David, thanks for the correction as to whether Haut and Marcel knew each other. I think in 1947, Haut was 25 and Marcel 40.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-38350931892852622982011-07-20T09:18:39.062-07:002011-07-20T09:18:39.062-07:00Don wrote:
I doubt Haut and Marcel knew each other...Don wrote:<br /><i>I doubt Haut and Marcel knew each other in 1947.</i><br /><br />Not true. Haut told me and others that they lived less than a block apart in Roswell town. They would sometimes even drive to the base together. However, they weren't close friends nor did they fraternize in their private lives, such as bridge parties. There was a large difference in age and rank.<br /><br />Haut was actually much closer in age to Col. Blanchard, and Blanchard treated him somewhat like a kid brother. They were friends. Haut told me Blanchard would often call him into his office and "vent" at others, knowing that Haut would keep his mouth shut about it afterward.<br /><br />Haut's opinion of Marcel and Blanchard was that neither one of them was a "flake". In other words, neither one was capable of some monumental screw-up, which is the standard skeptical theory about what happened at Roswell.<br /><br /><i>It is a common mistake to think any major would order any lieutenant to do something, as Marcel might order Haut to distribute a press release... For an enlisted man or a junior officer caught in such a situation, the rule is to follow SOP.<br /><br />If Marcel had so ordered Haut, Haut might have said "Yes, sir", and then do exactly that -- the first step being to get authorization from Blanchard, or whomever Blanchard saddled with the task of checking press releases.<br /><br />In other words, even if Jesus ordered Haut to distribute the press release, he'd still follow SOP, and run it by Blanchard.</i><br /><br />That is exactly what Haut told me would be SOP. Any PR of any importance would be returned to Blanchard or his adjutant for review before being sent out, even if Haut had written the PR by himself.<br /><br />Haut has always maintained that the PR was either dictated to him by Blanchard over the phone or he picked it up ready-written at Blanchard's office (usually the former), and that he isn't sure because it happened in the distant past. But Marcel has NEVER been a part of his story of where the PR came from (even if the info in the PR originally came from Marcel, which it likely did). It was always Blanchard as the source of the PR.<br /><br />UP did indeed blame the PR on Blanchard, while AP curiously made the case that Haut alone was to blame. I believe it was the San Francisco Chronicle in an editorial that called Haut an "eager beaver" PIO. Haut was also blamed in some other newspaper editorials. <br /><br />The blame for the PR was never pinned on Marcel in the wire stories or editorials. He was just the intel officer who went out and picked up the object.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-67342339560964499092011-07-20T08:43:25.548-07:002011-07-20T08:43:25.548-07:00Kooky:"As far as I am concerned, the mystery ...Kooky:"As far as I am concerned, the mystery of the press release is solved."<br /><br />Well, no, not really. Nothing is so simple and uncontradicted about Roswell. Please, keep that in mind.<br /><br />Haut as an "eager beaver" is the signature of the 1947 AP stories. AP was the dominant wire service and its stories the most widely propagated. The UP stories flatly state the press release was Blanchard's including the term 'flying disk'.<br /><br />Except for the events he was involved in, Marcel's opinions are no more accurate or true than anyone's might be.<br /><br />I doubt Haut and Marcel knew each other in 1947. <br /><br />All the versions of the press release state that the flying disc was in possession of the RAAF's intelligence office. Obviously, Marcel as the head of the IO is a source for the information in the press release. It doesn't mean he wrote it.<br /><br />It is a common mistake to think any major would order any lieutenant to do something, as Marcel might order Haut to distribute a press release. Hierarchies are horizontal as well as vertical; they are peer-to-peer, as well as compartmentalized, and those compartments are often jealously protected. For an enlisted man or a junior officer caught in such a situation, the rule is to follow SOP.<br /><br />If Marcel had so ordered Haut, Haut might have said "Yes, sir", and then do exactly that -- the first step being to get authorization from Blanchard, or whomever Blanchard saddled with the task of checking press releases.<br /><br />In other words, even if Jesus ordered Haut to distribute the press release, he'd still follow SOP, and run it by Blanchard. <br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17076549948771836402011-07-20T07:46:00.700-07:002011-07-20T07:46:00.700-07:00After further reading I came across the stunning (...After further reading I came across the stunning (to my mind at least) revelation that Marcel was originally quoted as believing that it was Haut who had made the press release without higher authority: <br /><br />"an eager beaver PIO who took it upon himself to call the AP on this thing" (Berlitz and Moore p 74). <br /><br />So Marcel originally believed for 30 years that Blanchard had not authorised the press release, it was Haut.<br /><br />Also notice in Haut's statements that he is always vague about the exact details of who wrote the press release etc. And finally read the Roswell Daily Record article itself about who authorised the press release:<br /><br />"According to information released by the department, over authority of Maj. J. A. Marcel, intelligence officer, the disk was recovered on a ranch in the Roswell vicinity, after an unidentified rancher had notified Sheriff Geo. Wilcox here, that he had found the instrument on his premises" -RDR 8th June 1947<br /><br />No mention of Blanchard in the article at all. It looks to me like Haut, after talking with Marcel, authorised the press release himself. <br /><br />As far as I am concerned, the mystery of the press release is solved. It was a cockup by Haut. Blanchard had nothing to do with it at all, but presumably took the rap on the chin for the ineptitude of his underling. <br /><br />Yep, you know it makes sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-91689067562595180512011-07-19T07:30:01.533-07:002011-07-19T07:30:01.533-07:00CDA: "And yes, Don, Brazel could indeed recal...CDA: "And yes, Don, Brazel could indeed recall it [June 14] exactly (as could you or I)."<br /><br />Sure, he could have, and I don't know of another source for the date. I've an issue with the Brazel interview. I think it is an amalgam of what Brazel said and what was already available from the army sourced to Ramey. Ramey's information was probably third hand -- from Brazel to Wilcox or Marcel to Blanchard to Ramey. If it is an amalgam, that might explain why Brazel is never directly quoted about it in either version of the interview. June 14 is fine for me, but not quoting Brazel on what anyone would think was the whole point of the interview is odd. <br /><br />I realize the date is disputed because it has something to do with Mogul. Not my bailiwick.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-75115348976991630272011-07-19T04:20:37.398-07:002011-07-19T04:20:37.398-07:00DR wrote:
"Frank Joyce also said Brazel was ...DR wrote:<br /><br />"Frank Joyce also said Brazel was telling of non-human, smelly bodies when Joyce spoke to him when he first came to town, though Marcel never said a thing about it."<br /><br />Yes but Joyce only told this tale post-1980. Please produce the evidence that Joyce ever said such a thing in '47.<br /><br />Please produce evidence that ANYONE (Marcel, Brazel, Cavitt, Blanchard, Ramey, etc.) connected with the case ever considered ET craft and bodies in '47, '48 or at any time, say, up to 1960. All this ET stuff came after STF and Moore started nosing into the case in 1979. By then ETs were all the rage. <br /><br />Concerning press accounts and their inconsistencies, this is what you would expect, especially when reporters were running all over the place to get their hands on the latest 'flying disc' story. <br /><br />I accept that the $3000 reward probably was unknown to Brazel when he came into town (with or without a small sample of the debris). But he was still motivated by what he heard at Corona and decided he just might have stumbled upon one of those things people were so agog about. <br /><br />The June 14 date was not 'planted' by anyone. It came from Brazel himself, and there is not the slightest reason to doubt it. And yes, Don, Brazel could indeed recall it exactly (as could you or I). As for what Marcel said at Fort Worth, his own involvement began on July 7 so he cannot relate first-hand what occurred before that date. He can only repeat what Brazel told him. Perhaps Brazel merely said to him that it was 'about 3 weeks earlier'. I have said before that the recovery date was confused with the discovery date in some of the reports. <br /><br />No you do not expect newspaper accounts, mostly written in haste, to be perfectly accurate, or to agree with the rushed teletypes of the previous day either. The June 14 date is taken first-hand from the primary witness.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-37538038130354594892011-07-18T23:05:24.001-07:002011-07-18T23:05:24.001-07:00cda wrote:
"It was there that he also (so we ...cda wrote:<br />"It was there that he also (so we believe, although there is nothing in print on this) learned of the $3000 reward for anyone who could lay their hands on a flying disc."<br /><br />"We believe?" I've searched Google News and the first stories about rewards didn't appear until July 8.<br /><br />So unless we accept your usual time-travel theories and certainty in your own beliefs, Brazel could not have heard about any rewards July 5 in Corona when he supposedly first heard about the flying saucers. Nor could he have heard about them July 6 or July 7 back at his ranch, since he had no electricity, radio, or phone.<br /><br />Yet Brazel either came to Roswell July 6 or 7, too soon to have heard about any advertised reward. Yet you continue to insist this was his motivation for reporting what he had found. <br /><br />But, please don't let me confuse you with facts.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-25074264301331705932011-07-18T15:06:07.753-07:002011-07-18T15:06:07.753-07:00Kellahin's version of the interview quotes Bra...Kellahin's version of the interview quotes Brazel: "When I went to Roswell I told Sheriff George Wilcox about it" he continued. "I was a little bit ashamed to mention it, because I didn't know what it was."<br /><br />"Asked the sheriff to keep it kinda quiet," he added with a chuckle. "I thought folks would kid me about it."<br /><br />When he'd heard about the flying disc stories, he would have learned that nobody knew what they were, including the army and scientists. So, he wasn't alone in his ignorance. It might have encouraged him to report it, wondering whether what he found was a flying disk.<br /><br />I think both you and CDA know my opinion about the pr's "rumors", and a June 14 date is very obliging with a timeframe for local rumors to spread. But I am suspicious because it is so specific a datapoint in a sea of information that is so ambiguous, contradictory, and unsourceable. I can understand why he'd recall the 4th of July, but not the 14th of June, unless it was significant, like a birth or anniversary date.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-16734675540819280352011-07-18T11:34:29.443-07:002011-07-18T11:34:29.443-07:00Part 2:
Marcel Sr's story is the only plausibl...Part 2:<br /><i>Marcel Sr's story is the only plausible one. Brazel's story suggested an aircraft crash. That's why Wilcox called Marcel, why Marcel and the CIC investigated. Whatever they brought back to the RAAF convinced Blanchard to call Ramey, and Ramey was convinced it was worth shipping off to Wright Field for analysis.</i><br /><br />Marcel in 1947 and 30 years later indicated an extremely large debris field, one of the reasons for his and Blanchard’s interest (and one of the reasons why Blanchard also sent out Cavitt, according to Marcel). <br /><br />Brazel certainly had not collected most of it into two small bundles, which he could easily have brought to Roswell with him. <br /><br />The other reason had to have been the debris descriptions, if not the debris itself that I suspect Brazel would have brought to support his story. Frank Joyce also said Brazel was telling of non-human, smelly bodies when Joyce spoke to him when he first came to town, though Marcel never said a thing about it. Maybe this was one of those things Marcel said he would never talk about “for the sake of my country.”David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-50158088314731350612011-07-18T11:32:55.166-07:002011-07-18T11:32:55.166-07:00Part 1
Don wrote:
David, I'd guess there were ...Part 1<br />Don wrote:<br /><i>David, I'd guess there were news stories in the originating locales (Spokane, LA, Chicago) about the rewards, which is why I asked about national news stories, which could have been printed in a New Mexico paper … that might have been read by someone in Corona the weekend of July 4th. I haven't found a national story before 7/8.</i><br /><br />Quite right. I’m not home to look over my news clippings, but on my website, I have 3 Roswell stories 7/9 mentioning the $3000 reward, perhaps from the day before, but too late for Brazel have heard about it in Corona on 7/5 or on his ranch on 7/6. Nothing mentions Brazel reporting the find to collect a reward, which was cda’s rationale for Brazel going to Roswell.<br /><br /><i>The June 14 story referenced by CDA, does not say Brazel did nothing after discovering it. The RDR has "At the time Brazel was in a hurry to get his round made and he did not pay much attention to it. But he did remark about what he had seen..." So, he talked about it, told others about it. It was on his mind. "...and on July 4...etc".</i><br /><br />But the story also says he took only a piece, and didn’t get around to collecting most of the rest of it with his family until July 4. This was VERY different from Marcel’s newspaper story saying Brazel immediately collected the material and rolled it under some brush, nothing about collecting it with his family on July 4, and only went back to recover it “bright and early” on July 6 after hearing about the saucers in Corona July 5. According to Marcel in the FW Star-Telegram:<br /><br />"Brazell then hurried home, and bright and early Sunday, dug up the remnants of the kite balloon," Marcel continued, "and on Monday headed for Roswell to report his find to the sheriff."<br /><br /><i>As for what Brazel thought it was (Kellahin's story says he didn't know what it was), he is never directly quoted calling it a flying disc or similar. The RDR interview has: "...he went to see sheriff George Wilcox and "whispered kinda confidential like" that he might have found a flying disk. " No quotation marks around "flying disk".</i><br /><br />This is the only place I’ve seen where Brazel indicates he thought that maybe he found a flying disk. Elsewhere Brazel said he didn’t know what it was, though not a kite or meteorological device of any kind. Wilcox, on the other hand, contradicted Brazel saying he came in reporting a “weather meter.” Of course, the base press release said “flying disc”. <br /><br />Point is the stories in many details were highly inconsistent, to me suggesting a hastily concocted cover story and confused, coerced witnesses maybe not sure what to say. Wilcox, was all over the place, and quoted by AP saying he wouldn’t answer more questions about the object because he was “working with those fellows at the base.” (CDA alleges the evil STF magically planted alien ideas in witness heads, but Wilcox was admitting clear back in 1947 that he his "weather meter" story was not independent of military “suggestion”.)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-36690829375211011612011-07-18T10:34:28.147-07:002011-07-18T10:34:28.147-07:00David, I'd guess there were news stories in th...David, I'd guess there were news stories in the originating locales (Spokane, LA, Chicago) about the rewards, which is why I asked about national news stories, which could have been printed in a New Mexico paper (Alamogordo, Albuquerque, Roswell) that might have been read by someone in Corona the weekend of July 4th. I haven't found a national story before 7/8.<br /><br />The June 14 story referenced by CDA, does not say Brazel did nothing after discovering it. The RDR has "At the time Brazel was in a hurry to get his round made and he did not pay much attention to it. But he did remark about what he had seen..."<br /><br />So, he talked about it, told others about it. It was on his mind.<br /><br />"...and on July 4...etc".<br /><br />As for what Brazel thought it was (Kellahin's story says he didn't know what it was), he is never directly quoted calling it a flying disc or similar. The RDR interview has:<br /><br />"...he went to see sheriff George Wilcox and "whispered kinda confidential like" that he might have found a flying disk. " No quotation marks around "flying disk".<br /><br />In their Brazel interview stories, both the RDR and Kellahin pin the disk language on the army period, not Brazel. The UP flat out says it was Blanchard's. <br /><br />The Brazel interview covers three things 1) Brazel's opinion about the national interest in the story. He is quoted. 2) His opinion of what he found. He is quoted (not a weather balloon. Not a kite). 3) The description of what he found (neoprene, sticks, foil). He is not quoted. Brazel is not quoted supporting the cover story.<br /><br />Marcel Sr's story is the only plausible one. Brazel's story suggested an aircraft crash. That's why Wilcox called Marcel, why Marcel and the CIC investigated. Whatever they brought back to the RAAF convinced Blanchard to call Ramey, and Ramey was convinced it was worth shipping off to Wright Field for analysis.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com