tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post5218528018193211608..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Jesse Marcel, Sr., Bob Pratt and the InterviewKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-27339557898884474712013-09-20T14:21:44.943-07:002013-09-20T14:21:44.943-07:00DR; With whom does the wild CLAIM originate?
Here...DR; With whom does the wild CLAIM originate?<br /><br />Here's a tip, when Friedman says: ...he [Smith] quotes you as saying....<br /> <br />Sarbacher responds: I don't have the slightest idea why.<br /><br />And then Sarbacher says: It seems silly to me.<br /><br />Sarbacher never confirms Smith's CLAIM. He says it's silly.<br /><br />I never said Smith was silly. I said he was a flying-saucer crackpot, which is completely true. Smith most probably made up the ridiculous claim for which Sarbacher refused responsibility, despite Friedman's irritating leading questions, and which the aged Sarbacher refused to corroborate. Sarbacher's frank tone is obvious. And when Friedman tries "Smith" again, Sarbacher gives him a blunt "No."<br /><br />Are you getting it, DR? You might try to look at these patently false articles of the flying-saucer faith more objectively instead of blindly accepting them as inviolate truths and repeating. In no way did Sarbacher confirm Smith's "silly" flying-saucer claims. And neither did Sarbacher provide "information" to Smith in any other way, as you falsely claimed. Got it now?<br /><br />Here's another tip, when their false beliefs are exploded, rational people learn—not attack others.<br /> <br />Now, other than style and focus, there's not a dime's difference between what the knowledgeable and rapier-witted cda has said and what I'm telling you, or what the Skeptics here think of DR "Occultist's" worthless flying-saucer belief-before-facts and house-of-cards Internet-conspiracist style of woo presentation. Other than Don you're not fooling anyone.<br /><br />ufoolery is history, make belief in the "UFO" myth and delusion history as well.zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-31931786476743910962013-09-20T12:56:43.845-07:002013-09-20T12:56:43.845-07:00Merci, Gilles! Vive Scepticisme Scientifique! Vive...Merci, Gilles! Vive Scepticisme Scientifique! Vive L'hypothese Sociopsychologique!zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-64082690546204354072013-09-19T15:00:43.750-07:002013-09-19T15:00:43.750-07:00Mouarf "Doctor" Rudiak.
If you have pre...Mouarf "Doctor" Rudiak.<br /><br />If you have presented one time "your findings" to the scientific community and received positive aknowlegements, rewards or dunno what, you could be in a posture to state about what is rationale or not, against the "Skeptics". You are irrational about this myth, disguishing your long speeches as rational only. <br /><br />You (as the so-called DreamTeam) have prooved nothing your extraordinary claim (an alien spececraft crashed in the desert in 1947 with bodies, materials, etc.) requires ;) NADA.<br /><br />For the moment, you have ZERO publication or scientific consensus about your Chimera... I'm sorry to wake up your dream :(<br /><br />and Yes, Zoam was right when stating such UFO crashes, alien bodies, wreckages, hieroglyphic writtings, etc. were already present "50 years" before the Roswell myth. <br />But Don Maor have "kicked into touch", despite he didnt believe in it! We saw nothing, Don ;) You didn't believe in it, but believe to the Roswell myth! It speacks for itself imho...<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Gilles<br /><br />Gilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-65233963783127491932013-09-19T08:39:28.142-07:002013-09-19T08:39:28.142-07:00Don Maor wrote:
For example zoamchomsky took out o...Don Maor wrote:<br /><i>For example zoamchomsky took out of context the word "silly" from the Sarbacher's 1950's interview and later converted it to that "fact" that Smith was "silly", then went even further to believe that "Silly Smith" converted to "Dishonest Smith" able to falsify an interview. </i><br /><br />Which was so far out an "interpretation" (nicer word than lying) of what was actually written, even our own CDA chose to correct the ZoamTroll a few posts up:<br /><br />"Sarbacher does not actually attribute any 'silliness' to Smith during that phone call. The 'silliness' was in the high classification of the saucers."<br /><br />CDA got that, if he got nothing else, but not the ZoamBot, which is funny and ironic. The man ain't got no reading comprehension.<br /><br />Yes we are dealing with skeptoid zealots here who will invent any "silly" rationale to dismiss testimony that goes against their religious beliefs. But at least CDA in real life goes by the name of Christopher Allen and is presumably mostly human and not a reptilian. But who the hell is "Zoam Chomsky"? Whomever, he doesn't have the guts to post under his real name.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-53350250844153858732013-09-19T06:10:16.530-07:002013-09-19T06:10:16.530-07:00I am really baffled to see how different can be th...I am really baffled to see how different can be the interpretation of what is written in the same document.<br /><br />For example zoamchomsky took out of context the word "silly" from the Sarbacher's 1950's interview and later converted it to that "fact" that Smith was "silly", then went even further to believe that "Silly Smith"<br />converted to "Dishonest Smith" able to falsify an interview.<br /><br />Then, in the Sarbacher's 1980's interview <br />the word "vaguely" was magically made equivalent to the word "grudgingly".<br /><br />Another guy, CDA, advanced his concern that 1950' Sarbacher himself was pretty much able to confound reality and fiction (insect like beings from a book were supposedly inserted by sarbacher into his own view of the reality. (apparently CDA did not provide evidence that Sarbacher really have had read that book, which was released in 1951)<br /><br />Generally speaking, the skeptics view on Roswell seems to be one of a complete, brutal, and implacable denial of positive testimonies, or of the mental sanity of participants. These are extremists.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-35072607535555903012013-09-18T13:35:03.516-07:002013-09-18T13:35:03.516-07:00Zoam:
It is obvious from both the Friedman-Sarbac...Zoam:<br /><br />It is obvious from both the Friedman-Sarbacher phone call and the Sarbacher-Steinman letter (both were in the last few weeks of 1983) that Sarbacher recalled very little of those events of 1950. Smith's handwritten notes of Sept 1950 indicate he did not speak directly with Sarbacher. <br /><br />As regards the names of the people involved in analysing the supposed 'crashes', Steinman had to supply Sarbacher with the names, Sarbacher only using the names Steinman had previously suggested to him.<br /><br />As regards Wilbert Smith, again Sarbacher had no memory of whom he actually spoke to - in his letter to Steinman he says it was Lt Col Bremner (who was mentioned by Steinman first), whereas in his phone call with Stan Friedman he thinks he spoke with Smith (but only because Friedman had put Smith's name in his head beforehand!).<br /><br />As I wrote before, take your pick which is correct - and forgetting for the moment Smith's later propensity for communicating with ETs via telepathy - you may take both Smith's utterances in 1950 and Sarbacher's in 1983 with a large pinch of salt.<br /><br />You can also learn a lot about Smith from his pseudo-scientific writings in FSR during 1958-62.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46283706417328953152013-09-18T13:04:56.714-07:002013-09-18T13:04:56.714-07:00Correction
Meaning: If Smith asked such a question...Correction<br />Meaning: If Smith asked such a question and I answered that <i>"I can't tell you"</i> it was because--as I just said--it's a silly claim.<br /><br />Meaning is the same.zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-22758167400548206332013-09-18T12:07:59.346-07:002013-09-18T12:07:59.346-07:00Contactee Wilbert Smith could claim anything, howe...Contactee Wilbert Smith could claim anything, however ridiculous. He claimed he was in telepathic communication with space aliens. He stamped his insane "flying saucer propulsion" speculations "TOP SECRET" when they were nothing of the sort. And on the words of this crackpot--Wilbert Smith--you place so much faith? <br />Utterly Ridiculous! Now, let me help DR with his English reading comprehension.<br />About STF's interview with Sarbacher, in which STF attempts unsuccessfully to lead and coax information from the elderly Sarbacher using Smith's ridiculously insane and unfounded claims about a purported Q&A from over thirty years before, I wrote: <br />"Sarbacher only grudgingly admitted to having ever met Smith and said his claims were 'silly.'"<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/mptjv6k<br /><br />F: He asked you a question that you didn't answer at that time which was rather fascinating (??) maybe you've just given me the answer in a sense, ah he quotes you as saying " Yes it is classified two points higher even than the H Bomb. In fact the most highly classified subject in the US government at the present time." and...<br /><br />S: I don't have the slightest idea why. <br />Meaning: [Grudgingly] I don't have slightest idea why Smith or anyone would make such a claim. And I don't appreciate someone putting words in my mouth.<br /><br />S: It seems silly to me.<br />Meaning: It's silly, it's a silly claim to make. It's very obviously a silly claim.<br /><br />F: Well, his next comment, that was supposedly what you said and then his next comment was ah "May I ask the reason for the classification" and you said " You may ask but I can't tell you." Well think that (cut off)<br /><br />S: Well probably cause I didn't know.<br />Meaning: If Smith asked such a question and I answered that "I didn't know" it was because--as I just said--it's a silly claim. If Smith claims that I answered in such a way, it IS because I neither had nor have knowledge of such a classification or that it actually was classified as such.<br /><br />DR's bizarre misinterpretation: "So when you read the actual transcript, Sarbacher WASN'T saying Smith's "claims" were "silly", but instead he thought "it", the extremely high classification, was "silly" and he didn't know the reason why it was so high."<br />So it's not that crackpot Smith's claim that the reality of ET flying saucers was the most highly classified subject in the US government was "silly" but Sarbacher's belief that a real US government classification was "silly?" That's Ridiculous! The subject of that part of the conversation is what Smith had claimed in a note--not what Sarbacher believes. And what sort of "confirmation" is that? Your misinterpretation only impugnes Sarbacher's credibility, and on which Smith's supposedly depends!<br />Yet another example of the "Occultist's Razor:" The most convoluted and ridiculously preposterous explanation--even if worthless and self-defeating--is probably the best.<br />Now, what would Sarbacher have said about the rest of Smith's "SILLY" claims? (g)zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-77538908340997508182013-09-18T11:12:16.041-07:002013-09-18T11:12:16.041-07:00CDA wrote:
"Do you not realise that ... Larr...CDA wrote:<br /><br />"Do you not realise that ... Larry, Kevin and DR ... have spent a quarter of a century now on examining every aspect of Roswell in order to try and square the circle and have failed miserably."<br /><br />That sure doesn't feel like what I've been doing. <br /><br />Can you state for the record exactly which aspect of the matter is the circle and which one the square? Your metaphor is too obscure to even understand what claim you are actually mqking.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-40232245518963536182013-09-18T10:09:58.552-07:002013-09-18T10:09:58.552-07:00"No, it's woos' habitual primitive &q..."No, it's woos' habitual primitive "If [twisting of facts] then [some upside-down unreality]" style of tortured logic, general irrationality, and intentionally stupid ignoring of the real-world facts that's irrelevant. In what venue has this sort of behavior been productive for you?" <br /><br />|| No comments here.||<br /><b>Because the answer is "None." Woos' inveterate "ignore the obvious facts and appeal to ignorance, the negative," is always completely worthless.</b> <br /><br />"Sarbacher only grudgingly admitted to having ever met Smith and said his claims were "silly."" <br /><br />||"silly" is equivalent to "dishonest" or "false".||<br /><b> It is, it means not only "false" but ridiculous, nonsensical, having no value.</b> <br /><br />"There were "UFO" crash stories of all kinds in practically every state beginning fifty years before 1947."<br /><br />|| I don’t believe you.||<br /><b>Ignorance of the subject is no excuse. Here's an article by Nigel Watson describing the completely fictional origins of the "crashed saucer and alien bodies" myth, and containing two dozen early examples from a catalogue containing dozens of other crashes or aerial explosions, producing wreckage, bodies, mysterious metals, parts and heiroglyphics from nearly every US state that experienced mass-media manufactured Airship mania.</b> <br />http://magonia.haaan.com/2009/down-to-earth/<br /><br />“You seem to be confused about the simple facts of these matters: Scully's 1950 book—a fraud inspired by older hoaxes—was nearly thirty years before the 1978 emergence of the "crashed saucer and alien bodies" Roswell fiction—a reinvention of Scully's fraud and promoted as real à la Palmer."<br /><br />|| Scully's book also appeared three years AFTER the army admitted by radio to have recovered a crashed flying saucer.||<br /><b>No. Ramey was on local radio the night of the press release saying the material was definitely NOT a "flying disk." And there was no mention of "alien bodies" in any of it, that fantasy was part of Scully's--completely unrelated--fiction book three years later. And by his own admission, Scully's book was part of a larger fraud by two conmen, whose "crashed saucer and alien bodies" fantasy was inspired by previous "crash" fictions and hoaxes.</b><br /> <br />|| Sorry for looking at rthing from other angle.||<br /><b>Again, woos' ignoring the facts and ways of the real world and appealing to ignorance, the negative, and the fantastic (convicted conmen might sometimes tell extraordinary but true "crashed flying saucer" stories) is worthless, period. The suggestion--barely possible but utterly implausible--is laughable.</b>zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-91064488787382886742013-09-18T04:19:13.375-07:002013-09-18T04:19:13.375-07:00Thanks David for clarifying the comment with the w...Thanks David for clarifying the comment with the word "silly" from Sarbacher.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-34990705300102087162013-09-18T02:17:45.510-07:002013-09-18T02:17:45.510-07:00Nitram (or Martin):
Do you have that feeling that...Nitram (or Martin):<br /><br />Do you have that feeling that we are way off topic? <br /><br />I am curious about Kevin and DR having their "doubts about the ET hypothesis". It is certainly news to me.<br /><br />It would probably be unwise for either of them to comment on this, as it would not only take us even further off-topic but consume an awful lot of time & space on this blog.<br /><br />But it is a start (perhaps) to better times ahead.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-47934566699261652052013-09-17T18:58:56.830-07:002013-09-17T18:58:56.830-07:00CDA
Unfortunately I feel compelled to respond bri...CDA<br /><br />Unfortunately I feel compelled to respond briefly to your last post.<br /><br />I have reworded Larry's post to you slightly <br /><br />"Have you ever bothered to think about or research anything before dashing off the first thought that pops into your mind?"<br /><br />Just quickly dealing with your comment "Do you not realise that the reason Larry, Kevin and DR spend so much time commenting on mine or other people's "ridiculous posts" is that they have spent a quarter of a century now on examining every aspect of Roswell in order to try and square the circle and have failed miserably."<br /><br />I cannot comment on Larry as I have never met him or seen any of his work, but I have been fortunate enough to have read material kindly provided/sourced to me by both Kevin & David and while I am disappointed that neither of them has shown me the memory metal or the aliens, I commend them for their work.<br /><br />Despite what you believe, they also have their doubts about the ET hypothesis and would be prepared to consider an alternative explanation - but in that regard they have failed - they can only offer one possible solution - and it ain't Mogul.Nitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-37294482489911562552013-09-17T16:48:35.363-07:002013-09-17T16:48:35.363-07:00The highly dogmatic and dishonest "Zoam Choms...The highly dogmatic and dishonest "Zoam Chomsky" wrote:<br />"Sarbacher only grudgingly admitted to having ever met Smith and said his claims were 'silly.'"<br /><br />To which Don Maor responded:<br />"Irrelevant (again). Only in the parallel universe in which you live 'silly' is equivalent to 'dishonest' or 'false'."<br /><br />Quite right, both a dishonest and false representation of what Sarbacher REALLY said. First of all, what Sarbacher said in his interview with Stan Friedman is that he "vaguely" remembered Smith, not that he "grudgingly" remembered, which is something else entirely, like Friedman beat the confession out of him. Transcript:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/mptjv6k<br /><br />The "silly" comment was in the context of the extreme high-security surrounding the subject, which came from Sarbacher, not Smith:<br /><br /><i>F: He asked you a question that you didn't answer at that time which was rather fascinating (??) maybe you've just given me the answer in a sense, ah he quotes you as saying " Yes it is classified two points higher even than the H Bomb. In fact the most highly classified subject in the US government at the present time." and...<br /><br />S: I don't have the slightest idea why.<br /><br />F: Well<br /><br />S: It seems silly to me.<br /><br />F: Well, his next comment, that was supposedly what you said and then his next comment was ah "May I ask the reason for the classification" and you said " You may ask but I can't tell you." Well think that (cut off)<br /><br />S: Well probably cause I didn't know.</i><br /><br />So when you read the actual transcript, Sarbacher WASN'T saying Smith's "claims" were "silly", but instead he thought "it", the extremely high classification, was "silly" and he didn't know the reason why it was so high. ("You may ask but I can't tell you," per the original Smith notes of the interview.)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-89853608424932930192013-09-17T13:28:24.384-07:002013-09-17T13:28:24.384-07:00Zoam said:
"The well-known facts of these mat...Zoam said:<br /><i>"The well-known facts of these matters are irrelevant?"</i><br /><br />Well, the facts mentioned by you effectively are irrelevant. <br /><br /><i>"No, it's woos' habitual primitive "If [twisting of facts] then [some upside-down unreality]" style of tortured logic, general irrationality, and intentionally stupid ignoring of the real-world facts that's irrelevant. In what venue has this sort of behavior been productive for you?" </i><br /><br />Oh. No comments here.<br /><br /><i>"Sarbacher only grudgingly admitted to having ever met Smith and said his claims were "silly."" </i><br /><br />Irrelevant (again). Only in the parallel universe in which you live "silly" is equivalent to "dishonest" or "false".<br /><br /><i>"There were "UFO" crash stories of all kinds in practically every state beginning fifty years before 1947."</i><br /><br />Yeah right. I don’t believe you.<br /><br /><i>“You seem to be confused about the simple facts of these matters: Scully's 1950 book—a fraud inspired by older hoaxes—was nearly thirty years before the 1978 emergence of the "crashed saucer and alien bodies" Roswell fiction—a reinvention of Scully's fraud and promoted as real à la Palmer."</i><br /><br />Yes, but suspiciously enough, Scully's book also appeared three years AFTER the army admitted by radio to have recovered a crashed flying saucer. Sorry for looking at rthing from other angle.<br /><br />Should I be HORRIFIED by the factoid that Scully's book was inspired by two evil and horrible "Conmen"??? Well not necessarily . In the real world, bad guys tell the truth sometimes, and many, many times, bad guys take economic advantage of things that really happened. In your parallel universe it may happen that bad guys lie 100% of the times. In your parallel universe the "good" guys tell the truth 100% of the times. <br /><br />Greetings.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-19709279453344212592013-09-17T03:42:22.578-07:002013-09-17T03:42:22.578-07:00Nitram (or Martin):
Do you not realise that the r...Nitram (or Martin):<br /><br />Do you not realise that the reason Larry, Kevin and DR spend so much time commenting on mine or other people's "ridiculous posts" is that they have spent a quarter of a century now on examining every aspect of Roswell in order to try and square the circle and have failed miserably.<br /><br />Before they took over, another gang had spent a decade on the case, and failed even more miserably.<br /><br />But if you think any of them have the minutest chance of ever proving their fantasies, why don't you join in or, better still, join the dream team? Your research and investigation experience would be invaluable. <br /><br />And if you ever go so far as to discover an extraterrestrial craft, be sure to claim it has to be hushed up (with death threats made against you) so that you don't have to breathe a word of it to the scientific community, won't you?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-13105022839343029042013-09-16T16:37:08.760-07:002013-09-16T16:37:08.760-07:00Larry wrote (referring to CDA):
"That's ...Larry wrote (referring to CDA):<br /><br />"That's because you"re an idiot. In saying this, I am of course, using the classic Athenian definition of idiot as someone "characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private—as opposed to public—affairs".<br /><br />If you ever bothered to think about or research anything before dashing off the first thought that pops into your mind, you might learn that it is standard operating procedure for military personnel to not have classified references placed into their official records."<br /><br />Well said Larry, I appreciate your frustration - what I don't really understand is why you, Kevin Randle & David Rudiak (& possibly others) spend so much time commenting on CDA's ridiculous posts; many of which are bordering on the ludicrous!<br /><br />Regards<br />Nitram Nitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-65287242834324555772013-09-16T15:09:22.017-07:002013-09-16T15:09:22.017-07:00DR:
"There are NO inconsistencies here in Sa...DR:<br /><br />"There are NO inconsistencies here in Sarbacher's various statements..."<br /><br />Oh yes there are.<br /><br />Sarbacher told Steinman, in his letter, that he spoke with Bremner. Sarbacher told Friedman, by phone, that he spoke with Smith.<br /><br />Which was it?<br /><br />There is nothing to indicate both Smith and Bremner were present. And the Q & A as per Smith's handwritten notes do not read like those of a face-to-face interview. They read more like a series of questions Smith put on paper for Bremner to read to Sarbacher, and the replies Bremner got and passed on to Smith. Moreover it looks like it was done at more than one meeting. <br /><br />"Verbatim" can mean from the spoken word or the written word. <br /><br />Note Smith's memo (on Geomagnetics) where he says "I made discreet enquiries through the Canadian Embassy in Washington, who were able to obtain for me the following information." Thus indicating that Smith himself did not obtain the information; he did it through a third party, i.e. Bremner. <br /><br />DR would have us believe that Brenmer put the questions to Sarbacher, with Smith (who is the one who really wanted the information) sitting nearby in the same room (within earshot?) but keeping silent. Sounds a mighty unusual situation to me! Makes no sense.<br /><br />Smith claims it was "written out from memory following the interview....as nearly verbatim as possible", which can mean either Smith was present and within earshot or that he merely copied Bremner's notes as near as possible afterwards.<br /><br />But the real point is that everything Sarbacher said, either in the phone call with STF or in the letter to Steinman (after numerous previous letters and phone calls from Steinman) is based on hints & reminders. Sarbacher simply did not remember what took place 33 years earlier or even whom he spoke to. All the names of those involved in the crashed saucer analysis had to be suggested to him first.<br /><br />No, his memory certainly cannot be trusted. Still less can it be used as evidence that he had ever heard of Roswell back in 1950. (He HAD of course heard of Aztec, from Scully's book).<br /><br />But of course if DR, or anyone else, can find a Sarbacher reference to Roswell from that timeframe then we might at last be able to make some real progress.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-74197245083393795442013-09-16T12:29:38.122-07:002013-09-16T12:29:38.122-07:00CDA thoughtlessly wrote:
Re Wilbert Smith, Dr Sarb...CDA thoughtlessly wrote:<br /><i>Re Wilbert Smith, Dr Sarbacher told Friedman by phone in 1983 that he thought he met Smith. But just before then (in Nov 83) he told Steinman in that famous letter that he (Sarbacher) had spoken to a Col Bremner, not Smith at all.<br /><br />This is confirmed in Smith's handwritten notes made at the time in 1950. It seems clear that Sarbacher never met Smith in person. The meeting was with this guy Bremner who must have supplied Smith with Sarbacher's answers to the questions Smith had prepared beforehand. Presumably it was decided that Smith should not meet Sarbacher firsthand.<br /><br />Thus by 1983 Sarbacher was giving two versions of his 1950 meeting. One version (to Steinman) was that he spoke to Bremner, the other version (in the phone call from Friedman) was that he met Smith, although he is rather vague about this.</i><br /><br />As I wrote in some detail in the comments of a previous Kevin blog, it was pretty explicit from the notes that Smith was in the room while Bremner asked Sarbacher Smith's questions. For some reason, protocol required Bremner to act as an intermediary. As the notes read:<br /><br />http://www.roswellproof.com/Smith_9_15_50.html<br /><br />Beginning comment: "Notes on interview THROUGH Bremner with Dr. Robert I. Sarbacher"<br /><br />Question initials: "WBS" (Wilbert B. Smith)<br /><br />End note: "The above is written out FROM MEMORY following the interview. I have tried to keep it as nearly VERBATIM as possible."<br /><br />Now applying just a tad of reading comprehension and logic (try it sometime), Smith could hardly write out the interview "nearly verbatim" "from memory" if he wasn't there in the room, now could he?<br /><br />This means that Sarbacher certainly DID meet BOTH Bremner and Smith, but spoke only to Bremner during the interview for some sort of protocol reasons. <br /><br />There are NO inconsistencies here in Sarbacher's various statements, only ones contrived by one either nonthinking or disingenuous CDA, again trying to debunk a witness.<br /><br />And, yes, these are Smith's handwritten notes, not Bremner's. That's easily determined by comparing the handwriting against other Smith handwriting, some of which I have.<br /><br /><i>Take your pick which is correct. You may also wonder whether Sarbacher's memory in 1983 can be trusted on anything.</i><br /><br />Take your pick which is correct. You may also wonder whether Christopher Allen's ability to think or relate anything accurately in 2013 can be trusted on anything.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-7978155137212480892013-09-16T12:22:28.046-07:002013-09-16T12:22:28.046-07:00Larry:
Yes, I am very certain that if Marcel, as ...Larry:<br /><br />Yes, I am very certain that if Marcel, as part of his military duties, had really taken part in the recovery of an ET craft in the desert, then this would indeed be noted in his personnel file. It would constitute a unique achievement - both for him and the few others involved.<br /><br />And if not inserted at the time, then it would be soon afterwards when the truth was realised. <br /><br />And it would not be classified, at any level. The reason the affair was omitted from Marcel's file is that it was a piece of trivia, i.e. not worth a passing mention.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-42433663125516319342013-09-16T11:36:41.278-07:002013-09-16T11:36:41.278-07:00Zoam:
Re Wilbert Smith, Dr Sarbacher told Friedma...Zoam:<br /><br />Re Wilbert Smith, Dr Sarbacher told Friedman by phone in 1983 that he thought he met Smith. But just before then (in Nov 83) he told Steinman in that famous letter that he (Sarbacher) had spoken to a Col Bremner, not Smith at all.<br /><br />This is confirmed in Smith's handwritten notes made at the time in 1950. It seems clear that Sarbacher never met Smith in person. The meeting was with this guy Bremner who must have supplied Smith with Sarbacher's answers to the questions Smith had prepared beforehand. Presumably it was decided that Smith should not meet Sarbacher firsthand. <br /><br />Thus by 1983 Sarbacher was giving two versions of his 1950 meeting. One version (to Steinman) was that he spoke to Bremner, the other version (in the phone call from Friedman) was that he met Smith, although he is rather vague about this. <br /><br />Take your pick which is correct. You may also wonder whether Sarbacher's memory in 1983 can be trusted on anything. <br /><br />As to whether the saucers were classified "two points higher than the H-bomb", again Sarbacher seems to think this was "silly", but notice how often Friedman has to prompt him throughout the conversation. Sarbacher seems to remember very little.<br /><br />Sarbacher does not actually attribute any 'silliness' to Smith during that phone call. The 'silliness' was in the high classification of the saucers.<br /><br />But in the end that phone interview reveals very little in the way of useful historical UFO information. And nothing at all relevant to Roswell, no doubt a great disappointment for Friedman.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-62990198877017256762013-09-16T10:42:37.274-07:002013-09-16T10:42:37.274-07:00Larry wrote:
This is especially true if the operat...Larry wrote:<br /><i>This is especially true if the operations, projects, or programs that the personnel were involved in were classified at the "Special Access" level. In that case, even the existence of the operation is required to be kept secret. Personnel files are after all, unclassified records.</i><br /><br />Marcel being part of the 509th from the beginning and participating in the A-bombing of Japan is nowhere to be found in his personnel file, so I guess it never happened. About the only official allusion to it is in the Roswell yearbook calling Marcel one of the "old men" of the 509th who had been with it since its inception.<br /><br />Marcel Jr. mentions his father's involvement with planning the A-bomb attacks, but I haven't seen this any any official records, at least the surviving military file, which was probably reconstructed from other sources after the original was probably destroyed in the 1972 St. Louis fire of military personnel records. <br />There is obviously a lot of things missing from Marcel's file, such as his promotion to captain when he was in the South Pacific--nada. Marcel was in the South Pacific for 22 months and there is only about 15 pages of material for the entire period out of a surviving 200 page file. There is no way to document his day-to-day activities.<br /><br />If Marcel had mentioned in his Pratt interview his involvement with the 509th when they bombed Japan, no doubt Robert Todd would have again accused Marcel of lying and having "delusions of grandeur".<br /><br />This was an MO of Todd's. If it wasn't specifically documented in the file and Marcel casually brought it up when interviewed, then he was necessarily a liar, just because Todd said so. But it was all allegations based on absence of evidence and Todd's psychic superpowers to travel back in time and know with absolute certainty what Marcel "really" did instead of what he said he did. <br /><br />And the other thing I mentioned Todd doing was continually misrepresenting the content of military files and leaving out absolutely anything that might corroborate what Marcel said. This included citing documents for one thing to put a particular twist on his debunking arguments, but somehow failing to mention the rest of the documents that supported Marcel.<br /><br />Thus to accuse Marcel of lying about working as an aide for Gen. Hap Arnold and Arnold recommending he attend intelligence school in Pennsylvania, Todd claimed two pre-induction documents recommended Marcel for intelligence school, not Arnold. But these very same documents recommended Marcel go to intelligence school in Washington D.C., not Pennsylvania. These and other documents placed Marcel in Washington when he was inducted, and he was drafted as an intelligence officer from the beginning and made one only a week after induction. That is in the file, but Todd deliberately misrepresented it in order to smear Marcel.<br /><br />He also cut Marcel zero slack for any simple and normal errors of memory in an impromptu interview decades later. E.g., Marcel said he left Roswell and went to Washington at the end of 1947, instead of 1948. That was just a simple slip-up, but Todd tried to turn it into a Federal offense, then created some ridiculous psychobabble theory that Marcel was trying to make himself look better after his big boo-boo at Roswell by getting a quick transfer to higher intelligence work, not even realizing or caring about the absurdity of the argument. Why would the brass in Washington kick him upstairs if he was a big screw-up?<br /><br />As it was, Ramey registered a mild protest against the transfer, saying he had nobody to replace Marcel. (Of course, Todd left that out, plus Ramey saying Marcel was command officer material and "outstanding".) I guess competent intelligence officer just didn't exist back then.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-77016925872163324312013-09-16T10:23:55.645-07:002013-09-16T10:23:55.645-07:00Don; The well-known facts of these matters are irr...Don; The well-known facts of these matters are irrelevant? No, it's woos' habitual primitive "If [twisting of facts] then [some upside-down unreality]" style of tortured logic, general irrationality, and intentionally stupid ignoring of the real-world facts that's irrelevant. In what venue has this sort of behavior been productive for you?<br /><br />Sarbacher only grudgingly admitted to having ever met Smith and said his claims were "silly." There were "UFO" crash stories of all kinds in practically every state beginning fifty years before 1947. You seem to be confused about the simple facts of these matters: Scully's 1950 book—a fraud inspired by older hoaxes—was nearly thirty years before the 1978 emergence of the "crashed saucer and alien bodies" Roswell fiction—a reinvention of Scully's fraud and promoted as real à la Palmer.zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-18678438594273655322013-09-16T10:13:35.279-07:002013-09-16T10:13:35.279-07:00Larry is correct concerning not having classified ...Larry is correct concerning not having classified information in one's official military records/file.<br /><br />However, this omission does not prove one way or the other that someone may have been assigned to a clandestine operation or special assignment.Tim Heberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04816425882305963295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-8532781589005084292013-09-16T08:34:31.182-07:002013-09-16T08:34:31.182-07:00CDA wrote:
"I would expect that if he had in...CDA wrote:<br /><br />"I would expect that if he had indeed taken part in such an exercise this would receive highlighted paragraphs in his military files."<br /><br />That's because you"re an idiot. In saying this, I am of course, using the classic Athenian definition of idiot as someone "characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private—as opposed to public—affairs".<br /><br />If you ever bothered to think about or research anything before dashing off the first thought that pops into your mind, you might learn that it is standard operating procedure for military personnel to not have classified references placed into their official records. <br /><br />This is especially true if the operations, projects, or programs that the personnel were involved in were classified at the "Special Access" level. In that case, even the existence of the operation is required to be kept secret. Personnel files are after all, unclassified records.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.com