tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post4216400555733709847..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: The Roswell Slides and the "Lieutenant"KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger193125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-22018588982029989152015-04-09T16:13:38.701-07:002015-04-09T16:13:38.701-07:00Brian
Your last posting sounds like it was writte...Brian<br /><br />Your last posting sounds like it was written in some sort of drunken rage...<br /><br />Yes, I am fully aware of who Frankie Rowe is. I thought she was probably the Fireman's daughter you were referring to.<br /><br />I met her during a visit to Roswell a few years back - she very kindly provided me with some details of what happened to her and her family back in July 1947.<br /><br />You stated...<br /><br />"Kevin even has a 2007 post on this blog where he states how unfortunate it is that "skeptics" have torn apart her claims. Kevin still backs her story 100% despite claiming in the 1990's that he no longer believes there were bodies - his comments taken at the time of his split with "you know who"."<br /><br />Most of what you wrote above is incorrect - Dr Randle was already saved me having to deal with your confusing statement about the bodies... the other stuff hardily deserves a comment either, its so poorly written also.<br /><br />I agree that she has been seen on a few documentaries, but there is nothing like speaking to someone directly and discussing the matter one on one, with the added advantage of being able to ask you own questions...<br /><br />But like CDA you wouldn't know that, having never been to Roswell and never having spoken with any of the first or secondhand witnesses.<br /><br />Regarding the recognized experts on Roswell, I also been privileged to meet and talk with most members of the "Dream Team".<br /><br />Kevin Randle was kind enough to sign his books for me - one of which was inscribed with "could not have done it without you".<br /><br />Here endeth the lesson.<br />Nitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-67089798981251780682015-04-09T05:49:44.602-07:002015-04-09T05:49:44.602-07:00Brian -
I would be more impressed with your comme...Brian -<br /><br />I would be more impressed with your comments if you could actually spell my name correctly...<br /><br />I acknowledged a number of years ago, as we learned that some of the witnesses were less than candid, that some of the testimony was quite poor. I have always found Frankie Rowe as credible, telling us what she believes to be the truth. In recent years, other testimony has tended to corroborate what she had to say.<br /><br />I will also note that every member of Colonel Blanchard's staff we interviewed, with a single exception suggested the object was of extraterrestrial origin.<br /><br />I don't believe that I said there weren't bodies... I believe I was concerned with the quality of the testimony that we had gathered and how some had not told the truth... and that I don't believe there was an event on the Plains of San Agustin in 1947...<br /><br />But this is about, or was supposed to be about the lieutenant who said that the bodies he had seen in Roswell looked like that in the slides... and give some data on his military background.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-15690189973318461952015-04-08T21:16:14.784-07:002015-04-08T21:16:14.784-07:00Nitram/Martin ANG - you write:
"Brian...just...Nitram/Martin ANG - you write:<br /><br />"Brian...just where are you getting your "information" from?" (Implying my sources are bogus)<br /><br />I can barely keep from from laughing! I have to ask have you ever even read ANYTHING on Roswell? You seem to know little to nothing about the details behind what you claim to be true. My source?<br /><br />THIS VERY BLOG (and the books written by those who researched Roswell including your very own KEVIN RANDALL - by the way he runs this blog...)<br /><br />Read the books - do your homework.<br /><br />Witness? (Second hand of course):<br /><br />FRANKIE ROWE<br /><br />Kevin even has a 2007 post on this blog where he states how unfortunate it is that "skeptics" have torn apart her claims. Kevin still backs her story 100% despite claiming in the 1990's that he no longer believes there were bodies - his comments taken at the time of his split with "you know who".<br /><br />If you want a quick hit, and since it seems you watch vids for most of your information, watch Larry King Live on YouTube from shows dating back to the 1990's. She's also been interviewed in just about every documentary on Roswell claiming or supporting the ET hypothesis.<br /><br />Ok...better get back to your Roswell studies...Mr. "I am the Real Newbie".<br /><br />Wow...!<br /><br />Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-59003465869686270832015-04-08T20:08:43.470-07:002015-04-08T20:08:43.470-07:00John - you asked:
"When did Haut go on the r...John - you asked:<br /><br />"When did Haut go on the record with his claims about what happened at Roswell? Was it before July of 1990?"<br /><br />1979....Berlitz and Moore interviewed him first I believe, then Friedman then KR and his "partner who shall go unnamed".<br /><br />He didn't start talking about bodies until 2000. Then his stories and affidavits continue to expand on this claims mirroring Kaufmann and Dennis who were proven to tell lies about their confessions.<br /><br />Blanchard's comments in the post event staff meeting did take place weeks after the incident as claimed. <br /><br />Originally Roswell authors Randall and Schmitt claimed he "disappeared" July 8 to avoid media attention on the saucer and bodies, and took to the field to personally direct the crash retrieval. It was then discovered that Blanchard had really planned to take leave for three weeks on July 9 and had also left base to meet with the Governor for a presentation on Air Force Day. <br /><br />Blanchard got the call to hastily gather debris and fly with Marcel to Ft. Worth because of the goofy press release that a Haut verbally released. <br /><br />Blanchard then did take leave for three weeks. If this was the monumental event this millenium you got to wonder why they guy took a normal vacation.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-28505889757570464182015-04-08T19:16:28.323-07:002015-04-08T19:16:28.323-07:00Lance said
"The very few details he includes ...Lance said<br /><i>"The very few details he includes (most of them absolutely wrong) appear to have been created using the same methods that he used for many of his silly stories: taking a basic fact (like perhaps a newspaper clipping) and embellishing it to increase the ooga booga for his audience."</i><br /><br />But you are speculating Lance. Speculation+Denial is name of your game.<br /><br />Aditionally, the wrong details are not relevant here. Not even now we can agree what happened at Roswell and here you come with your psychic powers to claim he got all facts wrong. The factws mentioned correspond undeniably to what we know is the Roswell case.<br /><br />CDA is another one immersed in a frenzy of denial. CDA denying everything that you don't like does not make you a "rational thinker", two years-old toddlers also can naysay all the day.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-27420688336927751182015-04-08T17:46:50.163-07:002015-04-08T17:46:50.163-07:00When did Haut go on the record with his claims abo...When did Haut go on the record with his claims about what happened at Roswell? Was it before July of 1990? <br /> <br />The reason I ask is because in July of 1990 in an interview he was asked if Col. Blanchard ever mentioned the incident again and Haut said that he did in a staff meeting a week or two later Blanchard stated (based on Haut’s memory), “Well, we sure shot ourselves in the foot with that balloon fiasco. It was just something from a project at Alamogordo, and some of the guys were here on our base later, too. Anyway, it’s done and over with.”<br /><br />Now that seems to me to indicate that the Roswell incident was due to a balloon that was launched from Alamogordo? If not what else could it mean?<br />John's Spacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08241028519082710381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-73994158905582053222015-04-08T17:41:46.263-07:002015-04-08T17:41:46.263-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.John's Spacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08241028519082710381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-61942387939242520672015-04-08T14:57:14.105-07:002015-04-08T14:57:14.105-07:00Newbie Brian Bell wrote:
"It even produced s...Newbie Brian Bell wrote:<br /><br />"It even produced stories from a fireman's daughter who claimed the entire Roswell Fire Department was called out to the crash site to help save little grey men who spoke to people's minds...really? How did that fire truck get to such a remote location given that Marcel said it took hours to find just a debris field?"<br /><br />Brian - just where are you getting your "information" from?<br /><br />I DON'T believe you have "dreamed this stuff up" as some of which you have said is PARTLY true (but not generally well known)! But again - what websites have you been looking at or what is your source??<br /><br />Regards<br />Nitram Nitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-30732041578788690652015-04-08T14:52:45.576-07:002015-04-08T14:52:45.576-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-51083775430028746742015-04-08T14:15:25.267-07:002015-04-08T14:15:25.267-07:00Part 2
Al12 asked:
“Does the AEC have any overs...Part 2<br />Al12 asked: <br /><br />“Does the AEC have any oversight at Tonaphah or Nevada test sites?”<br /><br />The Tonopah and other Nevada sites were originally established by the Atomic Energy Commission. The Atomic Energy Act has been amended several times since 1946, with the effect of distributing the functions of the AEC among several successor agencies, including the Department of Energy in 1975. Currently, the Nevada National Security Site is run by the National Nuclear Security Administration--a subunit of the Department of Energy. Even with all of the name changes, the basic provisions of the Atomic Energy Act are unchanged.<br /><br />“Is this a situation which exists thereby the ufo sci program is compartmented within the AEC itself?”<br /><br />As I said above, my suspicion is that the UFO topic was originally classified in the same way nuclear weapons are; part of it was within the AEC and part of it was within the executive branch agencies. The part that was within the AEC would be referred to as Restricted Data (RD); the part that was within the executive branch would be referred to as National Security Information (NSI) today. In July 1947, the National Security Act had not yet been passed, so the terms NSI and SCI had not been coined. At that point in time, executive branch secrets would presumably have been referred to as “Military Secrets” and would have been classified either under the War Department or the Department of the Navy. There are many divisions and subdivisions of RD within the AEC/DOE. These serve the same function as SCI compartments but, as I said above, should not be confused with SCI compartments as defined under the National Security Act.<br /><br /><br />“Why would a ufo sci program fall under the AEC? Is this because of the supposed propulsion is nuclear ie neutronic engine?<br /><br />That’s a good question, to which I do not have a single, obvious answer. <br /><br />If the supposed propulsion were found to be nuclear (as defined in the Atomic Energy Act), then there is no question that it would fall under the purview of the AEC. If the debris were found to contain any of the Special Nuclear Materials (SNM) that are called out in the Atomic Energy Act (Uranium, Plutonium, and a few others), it actually wouldn’t be debatable. The AEC would have been required to assert its authority and take control of the material.<br /><br />The gray area would be if there was nothing in the debris that was instantly identifiable as SNM, but there was some reason to believe that the object operated on some advanced physical principle—such as antigravity. Some AEC commissioner might decide that that was reasonably a manifestation of “Atomic Power” and assert authority.<br /><br />Alternatively, there are a couple of loopholes in the Atomic Energy Act. The Act spells out specific materials that are REQUIRED to be SNM and spells out <br />specific kinds of knowledge that is REQUIRED to be RD. However, there are a couple of sentences in the Act which specify that the new AEC will receive all assets 1) of the Army’s Manhattan Project and 2) anything else the President wants to give them. <br /><br />So in other words, the AEC took over responsibility for any secret material and knowledge the Manhattan Project had plus anything that President Truman may have secretly assigned to them. That leaves a lot of waterfront.<br /><br />Robert Hastings has documented a long history of apparent “interest” being shown by UFOs in our Nuclear Weapons facilities dating back to the immediate post WWII period. I have had conversations with “Old Timers” from Los Alamos who claim that such “interest” did not begin after the War, but had been known to Los Alamos Security during the War (only a few years earlier). If that’s true, then the connection of UFOs to Nuclear Weapons (for whatever reason) was built in from the beginning and knowledge of that connection would have been transferred from the Army to the AEC.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-86165208201073592012015-04-08T14:07:12.065-07:002015-04-08T14:07:12.065-07:00Part 1
Rusty wrote: “…part of the way they keep ...Part 1<br /><br />Rusty wrote: “…part of the way they keep SCI programs quiet is that they don't preemptively read someone on.” <br /><br />I agree that a lowly PFC would probably not have been read in to an SCI program “preemptively”. <br /><br />I see now how I contributed to the confusion here. In an earlier posting, I think I used the term “compartment” somewhat generically to refer to a body of classified information that is organized around some particular theme (such as cryptography, overhead reconnaissance, low observable stealth technology, etc.) and which requires special access to be granted by the guardian of that compartment. I was thinking of Nuclear Restricted Data (RD) when I used that term, because it has all those generic characteristics. However, strictly speaking, RD is NOT a “compartment” in modern classification terminology. As far as I know, the term “Compartment” should only be used in relationship to the SCI access program, which is strictly on the executive branch side of the government, not on the nuclear side. My mistake. I was discussing my thought that being cleared for RD, within the AEC system appears to have been a prerequisite for having close access to the material. Having a “Q” clearance—which grants access to RD--was a known prerequisite for employment in the 509th and so would have been granted to our private “preemptively”.<br /><br />Rusty further said: “I don't think it would be the same program that covers the nuke business, that goes against the idea of "compartmented". <br /><br />Rusty: I am speculating that the UFO topic would have been treated in a manner analogous to the way the nuclear weapons topic was treated. The reason the “Q” clearance was invented is because the official state secrets surrounding the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons are shared between the executive branch (DOD) and the AEC. This situation was created by the passage of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, which was in full effect in July of 1947. Under that Act, the AEC was the sole repository of the nuclear science and engineering knowledge (RD) contained in a nuclear weapon. That includes such data as exactly what materials are used, how much, what geometric arrangement, how much energy is released, where the weapons are stored, etc. This is usually referred to as "the Physics Package". On the other hand, the details of how nuclear weapons would be used by the armed forces in war fighting was a military secret, and protected by the usual Confidential-Secret-Top Secret spectrum of National Security Information (NSI) designations. It became obvious at some point that the execution of a large national nuclear weapons program would require some people to have access to both RD and NSI. <br /><br />A good example might be June Crain, one of those who claimed to have handled some of the “memory foil”. June was involved in designing drag parachutes for the hydrogen bombs to be dropped by B-52s. To do that job, you had to know the performance envelope of B-52s (how high, how fast, how much payload) as well as the performance envelope of the "Physics Package" (how much energy release, environmental control requirements, etc.) That’s why she had a “Q” clearance—a Top Secret issued by the Air Force and RD access issued by the AEC. You might think this violates the whole principle of compartmentalization, and you might even be right. Nevertheless, this is how it works because of the Atomic Energy Act.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-84624026490211364602015-04-08T11:39:47.436-07:002015-04-08T11:39:47.436-07:00As for the thought in this thread that Roswell was...As for the thought in this thread that Roswell was a cover up for some secret operational accident...the question still remains... What could it possibly have been?<br /><br />Larry describes the two rings of security sentries surrounding the clean-up of the debris field.<br /><br />Were these guys wearing NBCD suits? If not...why not? <br /><br />If this was an NBC accident...who got hurt?<br /> Was there a spike in premature deaths in NM in the days/weeks/months...years after the incident?<br /><br />Here in the UK we had a foot and mouth outbreak on some farms in Cumbria and Essex...so the authorities killed over 10 million (that's not a typo) cattle and sheep in UK and Ireland...just to make sure it didn't spread... But as far as I know, Mac Brazel's cows were allowed to continue with their interesting lives, grazing on the ranch at their leisure. <br /><br />If it was nuclear...wouldn't some of the main players have reported radiation sickness? <br /><br />Brazel carted the stuff around. Marcel Sr took the stuff to the family kitchen with him!<br /> As far as we know, it was so dangerous...it didn't even make them sneeze!<br /><br />If this was some kind of catastrophe that can never...ever be spoken of...then it must have been the most benign catastrophe in history. <br /><br /> Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-18515746093023824402015-04-08T11:07:40.219-07:002015-04-08T11:07:40.219-07:00Sorry to keep harping on about this Brian, but I t...Sorry to keep harping on about this Brian, but I think it's worth remembering that although Marcel Sr and Haut didn't stay on as full-career airmen, that doesn't mean that after leaving the military they wouldn't have been very careful not to break any secrecy obligations. They still had plenty to lose if they shot their mouths off, even though they had become civilians. I was only a low level rating in the Royal Navy, (Leading Seaman, equivalent to Corporal)and during my "leaving routine" after only seven years, I had to re-sign all sorts of forms. Basically, I was being reminded, in no uncertain terms, that I could face discipline under the Official Secrets Act.<br /> It was quite involved...some of it to do with which countries I couldn't visit for the nest 12 years or so...USSR, China, Cuba,etc.<br /><br />The fact that I didn't know anything of importance,(besides the best,near dockyard, pubs to visit in places as obscure as Djibouti, etc)...didn't matter. <br /><br />So I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the office that Marcel Sr and Haut had their discharge debrief. (or whatever they call it in US military jargon.)<br /><br />In short...I reckon they would have faced some kind of kick-back if they had blabbed in the years after discharge.Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-45051122855275663032015-04-08T10:17:03.210-07:002015-04-08T10:17:03.210-07:00On Edwards - got to agree with CDA and Lance on th...On Edwards - got to agree with CDA and Lance on this one. Edwards did interesting stuff, but he was no investigator. He can best be described as another early SC-FI / Horror entertainer. A good one too, but not a serious researcher of crashed saucers.<br /><br />And...of course the "witnesses" we're alive and well prior to the 1970's....the point being that what they had to say did not come out and grow as a modern cultural cornerstone of Ufology until AFTER they were interviewed by Moore and Friedman who cam hunting for a story on crashed saucers employing little to no balanced scientific investigative procedures other than dig for the story they wanted to find while tossing aside contrary evidence that didn't fit their agenda.<br /><br />Bear in mind the first witness interviews and stories came out just 2 years or less from the worldwide blockbuster film "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". All of a sudden the "aliens" at Roswell took on the exact appearance of those depicted in Spielberg's film.<br /><br />The story grew arms and legs with fabulous and wild stories of dead aliens and exotic material creating one of the most dynamic catalysts that still fuels the ET proponent's belief system. <br /><br />It even produced stories from a fireman's daughter who claimed the entire Roswell Fire Department was called out to the crash site to help save little grey men who spoke to people's minds...really? How did that fire truck get to such a remote location given that Marcel said it took hours to find just a debris field? Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-21452582420963362862015-04-08T07:04:29.419-07:002015-04-08T07:04:29.419-07:00Don,
There is zero evidence that Edwards investig...Don,<br /><br />There is zero evidence that Edwards investigated Roswell. The very few details he includes (most of them absolutely wrong) appear to have been created using the same methods that he used for many of his silly stories: taking a basic fact (like perhaps a newspaper clipping) and embellishing it to increase the ooga booga for his audience. <br /><br />It really is a looking glass world in which someone would take that brief description (with no names or other means of following up) full of howling errors and discern the details that you pretend to see. One can never underestimate how low saucer believers will go to find "evidence" but this is surely approaching the bottom of the barrel.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-74163033962306243692015-04-08T06:55:14.704-07:002015-04-08T06:55:14.704-07:00Don Maor:
Why you quote Frank Edwards on Roswell ...Don Maor:<br /><br />Why you quote Frank Edwards on Roswell (twice now) I simply cannot understand.<br /><br />1. Edwards did NOT investigate case<br />2. Edwards did NOT interview any witnesses, or even name any.<br />3. Nobody was forbidden to talk before 1978, or before 1966 either.<br />4. Edwards was a known embellisher of UFO tales; he merely got his Roswell dope from what he saw in some old newspapers and made up the rest. It is trash writing.<br />5. Nothing Edwards wrote or said in his broadcasts about UFOs in general is worth anything at all. He was, however, a useful 'feed' for Keyhoe.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-24075756670949893612015-04-08T05:39:15.161-07:002015-04-08T05:39:15.161-07:00Lance said:
""Can you list some of the ...Lance said:<br /><br />"<i>"Can you list some of the facts I was wrong on?"."</i><br /><br />I could, but probably won't. See for yourself, it is all written.<br /><br />Lance added<br /><i>"Frank Edward's little item on Roswell did not have legs. It never became part of the culture. That came later--in the late 1970's."</i><br /><br />True but irrelevant to the point being discussed.<br /><br /><i>"And that is surely what Gilles was referring to. You misunderstood him...he wasn't lying..."</i><br /><br />I disagree. But now you are the translator of Gilles? Whatever Gilles wanted to say he intended to discredit. Whatever he meant is irrelevant now.<br /><br />What is relevant is that Frank Edwards investigated the case, he considered it was <i><b>difficult</b></i>, he failed on deepening his knowledge of it, but it is clear he found witnesses, reluctant ones. This shows two things: Witnesses existed before 1978 and they were <i>forbidden</i> or with fear to speak. The interesting question is: Why? ¿Unimportant Mogul Flight #4 who was so irrelevant nobody recorded its launching? Come on.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-85724218557411415772015-04-07T15:44:01.054-07:002015-04-07T15:44:01.054-07:00Larry L
Why would a ufo sci program fall under th...Larry L<br /><br />Why would a ufo sci program fall under the AEC? <br /><br />Is this because of the supposed propulsion is nuclear ie neutronic engine?<br /><br />Is this a situation which exists thereby the ufo sci program is compartmented within the AEC itself?<br /><br />Does the AEC have any oversight at Tonaphah or Nevada test sites?Al12https://www.blogger.com/profile/04587268951658892242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-13337039714685797202015-04-07T14:56:46.591-07:002015-04-07T14:56:46.591-07:00Nitram/Martin/Ang:
"just hope DR doesn'...Nitram/Martin/Ang:<br /><br /> "just hope DR doesn't sue me for <br />copyright..."<br /><br />If he does, you'll have to think up another anagram of your name. Quite a few are possible.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-68032203346250136312015-04-07T14:07:08.346-07:002015-04-07T14:07:08.346-07:00CDA - Don't worry, he was referring to me not ...CDA - Don't worry, he was referring to me not you.<br /><br />No Brian - I was not referring to you.<br /><br />Must say though you claim to know a lot about a place you've never been to and to an event that you're never discussed with anyone who was there at the time?!Nitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-64928518442852033642015-04-07T14:01:52.535-07:002015-04-07T14:01:52.535-07:00With a wide grin Lance wrote...
"It's od...With a wide grin Lance wrote...<br /><br />"It's odd that in none of our phone conversations (which I quite enjoyed) were you able to lay out for me any of the errors you think I make in regards to Roswell."<br /><br />Ok - I will concede you have a point here. Will answer this in due course - hope you don't mind but this will take a bit of time and will involve a fair bit of "copy and paste" - just hope DR doesn't sue me for copyright...<br /><br />Regards<br />Nitram<br /><br />Nitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-1348937054592199312015-04-07T12:51:10.046-07:002015-04-07T12:51:10.046-07:00@Anthony, I consider a second crash site a more re...@Anthony, I consider a second crash site a more remote possibility that the first one, which I see as nearly (but not completely) impossible.<br /><br />@Larry L, my point was that part of the way they keep SCI programs quiet is that they don't preemptively read someone on. I don't think it would be the same program that covers the nuke business, that goes against the idea of "compartmented". So, I am doubtful that some PFC at Roswell was read on to an SCI UFO program. If your point is that they had an equivalent level of investigation/clearance and with either a command decision or in coordination with the Pentagon soldiers were granted access, OK.Rusty L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02556831351656530532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-7488700494459786552015-04-07T11:13:28.119-07:002015-04-07T11:13:28.119-07:00Rusty Lingenfelter wrote: “…(I assume Larry H)…”...Rusty Lingenfelter wrote: “…(I assume Larry H)…” No, I am Larry L. I should change my tag to reflect that. Some years ago, when I first started posting I was the only “Larry” around, so it didn’t make any difference.<br /><br />And, “…Where you left me in the dust is your seeming assumption that an SCI program existed that covered the Roswell Incident before it occurred.”<br /><br />Rusty: I can’t say for sure that there was a pre-existing SCI compartment for the flying disc topic, but some years ago I uncovered and investigated a WWII veteran who claimed to have had knowledge of the US involvement in that topic during the War years. This is unverified by a second source and I know it will be roundly dismissed, but this individual made the specific claim that he was given access to a classified section of the national archives and read documents discussing the fact that FDR was aware of and engaged in directing the subject (obviously, prior to his death in 1945). Kevin has written in previous blogs about the fact that the US military had had classified studies of the foo fighter and “Ghost Rocket” phenomena dating to well before July 1947. So, the idea that the Roswell event was the first occasion that the US security apparatus had to think about the subject is strictly an assumption, in my opinion. <br /><br />That’s on the executive branch side of the equation. Over on the AEC side, we have the seeming fact that there appeared to have been some decisions in place immediately regarding how to handle the recovered material. For example, not all guards were considered equal in guarding the site. If I’m recalling this correctly, there is testimony that guards with “Q” clearance were said to be the ones forming the first perimeter around debris recovery sites. They were allowed to face inward where they could provide security for the recovery process (to assure no diversion of material). Guards without such clearance were placed in a second perimeter around that one, facing outward, to prevent access to the site by uncleared personnel. Supposedly, the atomic bomb loading pit on the flight ramp was used for loading the recovered debris into what I think were Silver Plate B-29s. I believe that both the loading pit and the aircraft would have been considered AEC CAT I exclusion areas—again, requiring at least a “Q” clearance for access. In short, according to these different accounts, everybody was treating the actual debris in the same manner as if it were Special Nuclear Material (i.e., weapons grade Uranium 235, Plutonium 239, and certain ultraheavy transuranic isotopes). If these accounts are to be given credence, it implies someone high in the AEC chain of command made a determination very early on in the recovery process that at least some of the material came under their jurisdiction. I suppose it is conceiveable that that someone made the decision on the spot, but if so, on what basis? This also suggests to me that there was some pre-existing thought on the matter within the AEC.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-62354940156562704682015-04-07T10:45:50.350-07:002015-04-07T10:45:50.350-07:00Rusty and Brian
I very much liked both of your rec...Rusty and Brian<br />I very much liked both of your recent comments...both in tone and content.<br />Brian...in terms of developing your hypothesis I think you are right to look elsewhere than aircraft and rockets. If it becomes possible to identify a project along the lines you suggest, and it was operating in the general area at the time then I personally think that would need to be very carefully looked at indeed. Please excuse my scepticism...it is based simply on not seeing any concrete evidence of what that programme was.<br />Rusty...your comment about possible involvement of other nations made me sit up as that can indeed greatly add to the sensitivity of situations.<br /><br />Both...<br />I'd appreciate your perspectives on the suggestion that the rationale for the press release from the 509th was to distract attention from a second crash site to the already largely cleared and more remote debris field, perhaps with the aim of killing the story later. At one level the psychology sounds right but the whole idea of actually putting out a PR acknowledging capture of a disc has always troubled me.<br />Secondly...the officers sent out to gather the debris were from intelligence and counter-intelligence. They were not first responders and were not equipped to deal with radiological, biological or chemical hazards. Whilst their roles may suggest Blanchard felt the situation needed sensitive handling the absence of first responders seems a little odd in either the ETH or ghastly experiment scenarios. To me this suggests they really didn't know as of 6th July 1947 what they were dealing with but any thoughts welcome.Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-70692094486356087792015-04-07T10:28:15.452-07:002015-04-07T10:28:15.452-07:00@Brian, for what its worth, you certainly don'...@Brian, for what its worth, you certainly don't have to have served a day in the military to have an informed point of view and it sounds like you know more than most. I do get frustrated when folks with little or no military experience want to be perceived as authorities on the motivations behind every command or senior leader decision, but I certainly don't see you as doing that. My point in my message was that I consider myself as having some basis to speculate as I have been in similar positions as some of the key players in this little drama. I once had a PIO who could be a little hard to manage, but fortunately he now runs a blog where I can post my ramblings (thanks KR).Rusty L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02556831351656530532noreply@blogger.com