tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post5581610415714611939..comments2024-03-18T16:51:50.688-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Reports of the Roswell Crash before Jesse Marcel's RevelationKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-40988442095618285682019-01-06T06:59:58.125-08:002019-01-06T06:59:58.125-08:00@Unknown
The debris was not covered but the soldi...@Unknown<br /><br />The debris was not covered but the soldier didn't want anyone to see it? Your dad told you this important story but apparently only to you? Though he died recently, at age 90+, you didn't ask more questions, ever? And you are Mr. Unknown, claiming to know about crashed debris at Roswell while offering not a single verifiable detail of any kind?<br /><br />How convenient for you.Terry the Censorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361088223337740598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-53585408321186105632019-01-03T00:40:33.339-08:002019-01-03T00:40:33.339-08:00My father, who was a worker with a roofing crew in...My father, who was a worker with a roofing crew in Roswell, says that while they were on top of a building near a warehouse, saw trucks with metallic debris entering the warehouse. When the trucks were driving inside, the MP's noticed the roofing men watching and one of them climbed their ladder and said something like "You didn't see nothing, you understand? You didn't see this!" Dad said he saw greenish blue pieces of metal in the trucks. I wish I'd asked more questions; he died a couple of years ago.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09007932612368626620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-38986461701853559862016-04-05T20:22:50.579-07:002016-04-05T20:22:50.579-07:00An early mention of alien bodies possibly related ...An early mention of alien bodies possibly related to Roswell is included in the book "The Search for Life on Other Worlds" (1967) by USN captain David Holmes. It is a book about astrobiology, space exploration, etc. On page 12, the book says: <br /><br /><b><i>"Perhaps they will even quote the rumor that somewhere in Wright-Patterson Air Force Base there are hidden away the embalmed bodies of several small humanoid figures who were allegedly pulled from the wreckage of a space craft which crashed in the south West a few years ago"</i></b><br /><br />This rumor might be related to Scully's book, but is more likely related to Roswell. It seems hard to believe that an extremely knowledgeable David Holmes would be ignorant that Scully's book story was declared to be a hoax long before 1967. Additionally, Scully's book does not mention embalmed bodies, so the rumor quoted by Holmes is more likely to be consistent with more realistic accounts, such as Stringfield's research on alien bodies being analyzed by medical people in Wright-Patterson AFB.<br /><br />Later in the book, Holmes clarifies that he does not feel inclined to believe in conspiratorial scenarios of government cover-ups, but nevertheless he also seems to be pretty knowledgeable on UFOs, and admits UFOs constitute an enigma that requires more research. In general, Holmes seems to be dialectical in all his judgments.<br /><br />In another part of the book, curiously, Holmes makes the strong bet that <br /><br /><b><i>"it is quite likely that we will someday discover in outer space someone quite man-like. We are the product of a precise and inexorable selection system -the survival of the fittest. Similar conditions on other worlds may very possibly produce a creature similar to man"</i></b><br /><br />He certainly wrote that with confidence which makes think that maybe the rumor of the embalmed little figures was not that farfetched in Holmes’ opinion.<br /><br />We can say with certainty that THERE INDEED WERE, long before 1978, rumors of aliens bodies recovered by MPs.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-36000975252188471692016-04-05T15:02:28.932-07:002016-04-05T15:02:28.932-07:00Gentlemen:
Let's not forget that in the New M...Gentlemen:<br /><br />Let's not forget that in the New Mexican desert a burned mark can be found in various places due to brush fires and lightning strikes not to mention human initiated burning activity (like brush clearing)..<br /><br />A "burned spot" in the desert does not automatically imply a crashed alien craft with bodies.<br /><br />https://nmfireinfo.com<br />Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-77595470353496112902016-04-05T14:55:02.146-07:002016-04-05T14:55:02.146-07:00I'm surprised no skeptic has raised the point ...I'm surprised no skeptic has raised the point that if there were any crashed saucer stories before Marcel, they were mostly inspired by Frank Scully's 1950 book. I found it odd that Scully never mentioned Roswell, in fact may have written it off as actually being a weather balloon. (E.g., Scully mentions another crashed saucer story that came out in March 1950 from a California businessman named Raymond Dimmick, who claimed he was told about a recent saucer crash in Mexico with a dead two-foot pilot. Scully wrote that off as a hoax.) Scully was very familiar with newspaper saucer stories, in fact included a large section at the end of his book summarizing such stories since 1947. But nothing about Roswell.<br /><br />Ironically, Scully's debunker and nemesis, journalist J. P. Kahn, was very familiar with Roswell, and used it as an example of a pre-Scully "fallen saucer" story:<br /><br />http://www.roswellproof.com/post-1947-roswell-references.html<br /><br /><i>Sept. 1952<br />TRUE Magazine<br />“The Flying Saucers and the Mysterious Little Men”,<br />by J. P. Cahn<br /><br />"...Fallen-saucer stories weren't, in fact, new even at that time. Back on July 9, 1947, only two weeks after private-flier Kenneth Arnold had alerted the nation with his nine disks seen skipping "saucer-like" near Mt. Rainier, Southwest newspapers headlined that captured disk that had fallen on a New Mexico ranch was a dud. That one, when delivered to the Eighth Army Air Force, was identified as a tinfoil-covered reflector from a weather balloon." </i><br /><br />I commented: "A quibble with the accuracy is the statement that the story was confined to Southwest newspapers, when in fact it was nationwide and even international."<br /><br />Kahn clearly treated Roswell in the same vein as Scully treated Aztec, namely a crashed saucer story, even if Kahn used "fallen" instead of "crashed".David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-59220362786923620082016-04-05T14:34:35.172-07:002016-04-05T14:34:35.172-07:00Don earlier wrote:
Owosso Argus Press, 1947-07-09...Don earlier wrote:<br /><br /><i>Owosso Argus Press, 1947-07-09<br />Fort Worth. Tex. (AP)<br /><br />Headline: "Crashed Disc" Is Weather Balloon</i><br /><br />I was just reworking my web page of post 1947 Roswell references (adding an illustration from a 1963 book of a crashing saucer), when I re-read my section on Ted Bloecher's botched Roswell recounting in his classic 1967 "Report on the UFO Wave of 1947" based on a large review of 1947 newspaper reports. Bloecher wrote:<br /><br />www.roswellproof.com/post-1947-roswell-references.html<br /><br />"Through a series of clumsy blunders in public relations, and a desire by the press to manufacture a crashed disc if none would obligingly crash of itself, the story got blown up out of all proportions that read ‘Crashed Disc Found in New Mexico.’"<br /><br />Well maybe Bloecher actually found another headline with "Crashed Disc", but if he did he didn't reference it. Do note, however that Bloecher was discussing Roswell as being a "crashed disc" story (even claiming the press back then was itching for it) long before the evil and gifted mind-control expert Stanton Friedman implanted the meme in his weak-minded witnesses (who CDA assures us had never ever considered it before).David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-81921894038072099442016-04-05T13:18:54.517-07:002016-04-05T13:18:54.517-07:00Zak,
I can find no mention from any witness of a ...Zak,<br /><br />I can find no mention from any witness of a large burned area at the Foster Ranch itself, but there is mention of such a burned area at the second, closer site north of town, where an actual craft and bodies were supposedly found. One of the more interesting and credible such reports was from a little-known witness, 1st Lt. Chester Barton:<br /><br />http://roswellproof.homestead.com/barton.html<br /><br />Barton was interesting because he was found by a very skeptical researcher named Joseph Stefula, who was so convinced by Barton's story that it totally switched his thinking on Roswell. Although he still didn't think a saucer had crashed, he became convinced that something extremely sensitive and unusual had happened that was still being covered up, maybe a nuke accident. Barton himself thought it the crash of a B-29 and some sort of nuke accident, but there is no historical evidence of that. But Barton also, from his personal observations at the burnt north site, totally dismissed the idea of a the published balloon story. Much of Barton's story lines up completely with that of other witnesses, including the site being found by archeologists, bodies being taken to the base hospital and then flown to Fort Worth.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-54580384250466958752016-04-05T10:26:38.270-07:002016-04-05T10:26:38.270-07:00" The Wilcox family also described the Sherif..." The Wilcox family also described the Sheriff and his deputies finding a large burned area (quite incompatable with a balloon crash)."<br /><br />Afaik the family was talking about a baked field , with a circular touched down. <br />I found this interesting , because according to Lewis Rickett such a field was discovered 2 months after this incident. This touchdown point hadn´t been discovered earlier because there were still debris laying there. If that´s the same field, it would suggest that Wilcox didn´t report his findings to the base. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08869512804072910852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-52313237240461621152016-04-04T16:31:52.541-07:002016-04-04T16:31:52.541-07:00Kevin,
We have it first-hand from Wilcox himself ...Kevin,<br /><br />We have it <i>first-hand</i> from Wilcox himself in that Roswell-datelined AP article, that after saying the object Brazel found was about three feet across (and elsewhere, about the size of his safe, or 3 ft. by 4 ft.), Wilcox refused to say more with the explanation that he was "working with those fellows at the base."<br /><br />Brian Bell tries to spin this as a totally innocent cooperation between the Sheriff and the base while they continued to investigate, or like a "no comment". But that makes no logical sense. What was left to investigate if all that was found was the displayed weather balloon and torn-up balsa radar kite in Ramey's office? Why couldn't the Sheriff comment about that? What's the big secret here? <br /><br />This is where the memories of witnesses like the Sheriff's family, Inez Wilcox's written story, and AP reporter Kellahin come in, however fallible such old memories might be. Here too we keep getting the same story that, at the very least, the Sheriff was instructed (or "admonished"--Inez Wilcox's word, meaning warned or advised strongly) by the military not to talk about it. And from daughter Phyllis McGuire, a statement (yes, second-hand from her father), that the metal Brazel brought in WAS exotic, namely the "memory foil". The Wilcox family also described the Sheriff and his deputies finding a large burned area (quite incompatable with a balloon crash).<br /><br />I also asked what I think are very pertinent questions about why the Sheriff would have brought the military into this to begin with? What was it about Brazel's story or the debris that would be of concern to the Sheriff or the military? Otherwise it would have been just commonplace balloon junk. The weird "memory foil" would be one thing, and Brazel talking about a huge area of debris would be another (Marcel also mentioned Brazel talking about this, as did reporter Frank Joyce and there's Marcel's "square mile" quote form 1947).<br /><br />The same questions need to be asked of the base and Marcel/Blanchard's response. After interviewing Marcel at the Sheriff's office, Marcel said he returned to the base to confer with Blanchard, and both agreed it sounded like the crash of an exotic aircraft of some sort. Blanchard told him to take Cavitt along because Brazel said there was a large debris field and Marcel would need help. <br /><br />There is also the question, if it was simple balloon debris, why would Blanchard send out his two top intel people instead of small detail of low-ranking flunkies? Again none of this testimony (exotic nature, large debris field, use of top officers) points to a balloon crash.<br /><br />Even a real Mogul balloon would not remotely have created that much. Typical Mogul balloon trains--balloons, sonobuoys, altitude control equipment, etc.--started out on launch at only 50-60 pounds, much less at crash sites, not all that much to pick up. Brazel could easily have cleaned it up himself. I can't think of a single documented example where a Mogul crash EVER created a large debris field, certainly not scattering debris over Marcel's "square mile".<br /><br />We already have an example of Mogul Flight #6 from June 7, 1947. Rancher Sid West directly contacted Alamogordo AAF (probably because of ID tags that Moguls routinely carried, what Brazel curiously seems to have NOT noticed) and Crary's diary indicates they sent out two guys to pick up the remains.<br /><br />I know we are drifting back into a Mogul debate here, but this all began when I mentioned Inez Wilcox's memoir predating the revival of Roswell. This included mention of her husband being told by the military not to talk about it, in fact something he never spoke about again ("a secret well kept" she wrote), not just while the base allegedly was still investigating. Inevitably this involves questions about what the big "secret" might be that husband George wasn't to talk about--ever. Surely not Ramey's pictured weather balloon debris.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-16671232337260452192016-04-03T19:38:19.497-07:002016-04-03T19:38:19.497-07:00> Bernard Newman's 1948 novel "The Fly...> Bernard Newman's 1948 novel "The Flying Saucer" ...a covert MJ-12-type organization of scientists and intelligence agents<br /><br />Point of information.<br /><br />The only resemblance to MJ-12 was that Newman's group contained scientists and intelligent agents (as David correctly noted), and that both groups are works of fiction. Newman's freelancers did not act on the orders of any government or military group, but colluded to dupe their various governments and military forces into peaceful coexistence. (Newman's group got their funding by blackmailing a gangster -- not from a government black budget.) And Newman's group publicly promoted an elaborate and horrifying alien invasion hoax; they did not work to suppress the idea of saucers and alien contact.<br /><br />But I suspect we can agree the book is a quality satire of the politics and foreign relations of the time.<br /><br />> The story includes the "saucers" being made of a previously unknown exotic, hard metals extremely difficult to cut through and thin metal sheets on the inside with “hieroglyphics” that needed to be decrypted.<br /><br />I suggest this was imagination. From a narrative standpoint, alien space tech would be more convincing dramatically if it were superior to the pre-spacefaring human tech of the time. The alien rockets could not have been made from recycled tin cans and Victrola parts; that would dampen the alien effect. And we should not be surprised that an off-world language would need to be decrypted, especially as this required Newman's scientists to take possession of the found rockets and control their investigation and testing. So there is no warrant here to reason that fiction is really fact.Terry the Censorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07442516952399215568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-24058675522009404492016-04-03T16:26:20.597-07:002016-04-03T16:26:20.597-07:00David wrote:
"Why in the world would Wilcox ...David wrote:<br /><br />"Why in the world would Wilcox be told not to talk about it if all that was found was what Gen. Ramey was to display (weather balloon/radar target)? Even a Mogul balloon, had it existed, would not elicit such a demand, since there was nothing at all sensitive about the debris."<br /><br />A logical explanation could be that Mack found stuff he hadn't seen before with other balloon landings he stumbled on (for example did he ever say he saw dozens of Rawin targets prior to the incident?)<br /><br />Tape or no tape, lightweight wood, and flexible reinforced foil wasn't the same as the sun burnt or torn apart neoprene balloons he had seen previously.<br /><br />He's going into town anyway so brings some of the junk with him including probably one of the triangular portions (which later gets paper wrapped and sent to Fort Worth).<br /><br />Wilcox took his report seriously and at his word that something crashed - and since it was airborne he thought best to call the army air base. Wilcox was just doing his job. He put the samples in the safe, and not long after the army arrives and collects it.<br /><br />Wilcox was just doing his job. He didn't know what it was either (was he versed in aerial technology?) and properly alerted the military based on Mack's curiosity or concern.<br /><br />The army told him to be quiet about it because they were still in the process of investigating it - sure, maybe some at the base even thought Mack's junk was common looking debris - but based on orders and protocol they were told to be quiet about it until they knew more and collected it as part of their responsibilities.<br /><br />While just speculation, this seems like a logical set of reasons as to why Wilcox called the base and showed some interest in the stuff Mack brought in.<br /><br />Decades later, memory fails. Others connected to primary witnesses, now having been influenced by decades worth of speculative suggestions that it really was a saucer (rumors and stories of a coverup etc.) these people repeat what they THINK happened and become convinced they are right. It's why Phyllis said "In my opinion..." when explaining what she knew in the video interview.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-7734706231703929742016-04-03T15:01:28.229-07:002016-04-03T15:01:28.229-07:00There is a big difference between being "told...There is a big difference between being "told, or ordered, not to talk about it" and being "advised not to talk about it". <br /><br />DR naturally assumes these were actual commands and threats from the military to civilians, but it is just as likely that the military personnel merely said to Wilcox, and maybe his wife as well, that to avoid too much publicity they ought to say as little as possible about the debris, especially if it was, at that point, still unidentified. <br /><br />Many years later this bit of advice turned far more sinister and, with the Roswell legend rapidly developing, the advice transformed into an order, accompanied by death threats. Hence the interpretation, in the 1980s, that the military were threatening civilians in '47. <br /><br />Kevin is right on this. I simply cannot see how anyone can trust people's supposed emotions (in the 80s) about an affair 35-40 years earlier, particularly when the person relating the tale was only a child or not even present at the original time. This sort of evidence is, to put it bluntly, worthless.<br /><br />I also cannot see anything in the reports of 1947 saying that Wilcox was told, or even advised, by the military to shut up about the case. If he did shut up, it only indicates that he chose to do so himself.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-32382624957005824342016-04-03T13:53:24.603-07:002016-04-03T13:53:24.603-07:00Brian -
You do love to take things out of context...Brian -<br /><br />You do love to take things out of context or report things from a single source when so much else is available...<br /><br />In her first interview with Bill Moore (and we don't have transcripts or anything else) as published in The Roswell Incident, Loretta doesn't say much about this at all. It was Floyd who did the talking. He said that there were designs on it that looked like Chinese or Japanese figures. He said it wasn't paper because you couldn't cut it. He said that they were pastel colored.<br /><br />When I talked to Loretta on April 20, 1989, she said, "...he did bring a little sliver of a wood looking stuff up but you couldn't burn it... just a little sliver of, or about the size of a pencil." Which isn't very much at all.<br /><br />She did say, "But he said there was some more stuff in there, like a tape that had some sort of figures on it..." But she didn't see this and said it was "like tape" not that it was tape. Splitting a hair to be sure but that's what she said. I'll note here that Floyd hadn't seen any of this either. He was just repeating what Mack had told him.<br /><br />In an interview conducted much later, she said that Brazel mentioned hieroglyphics on some of the other debris... she said that the hieroglyphics were in the material and not attached to it... which means little because she only saw a small piece that apparently had no writing on it. She was telling us what Brazel had told her and her husband... so the point about tape doesn't actually corroborate what Charles Moore had said.<br /><br />If you wanted some corroboration, you should have gone to the Bessie Brazel Schreiber testimony in The Roswell Incident. She said, "Some of the metal-foil pieces had a sort of tape stuck to them, and when held up to the light they showed what looked like pastel flowers or designs. Even though the stuff looked like tape it could not be peeled off or removed."<br /><br />So, here is some corroboration for what Loretta said, but then we have to remember that Bessie repudiated much of her testimony in later years. And no, I don't know if she did that to make peace with her brother or that she realized she had confused two events.<br /><br />And you have to wonder about this holding it up to the light because if it was reinforcing tape on the balsa members and the foil of a rawin the light wouldn't have passed through it. <br /><br />Where does all this leave you?KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-10184035416907374622016-04-03T13:21:41.735-07:002016-04-03T13:21:41.735-07:00Brian -
I'm saying that Inez Wilcox wrote the...Brian -<br /><br />I'm saying that Inez Wilcox wrote the article and the "add," and not Phyllis. I don't remember if I got the copy from Phyllis or Barbara Dugger. I am saying that after the publicity about the Roswell crash, that Inez added the long paragraph because it would be of interest to a wider range of people. It was not disinformation or anything else. Just a remembrance of an event decades in the past. I see no ulterior motive in it. <br /><br />David -<br /><br />Now you wish to argue over whether something is second hand or third hand when the real point is that the original source is unavailable.<br /><br />There was never any question that Brazel brought some of the debris to the sheriff's office. That's been acknowledged from the very beginning and the fact that Jay Tulk told me he had see some of it doesn't actually add much to this. <br /><br />Yes, Dugger suggested that her grandmother took the threats seriously, just as she told me when I first interviewed her. But this idea that she had to be some incredible actor to pull this off means very little in the great scheme of things. Let's say, for whatever reason her grandmother made up the death threats but if Dugger believed that to be true, then that might have been sufficiently traumatic for her, so her emotions are real... but what if, over the years, a request by the military not to say anything about this morphed into something more sinister, maybe inspired by some of the things said in all those documentaries... well, we have the military telling the sheriff to keep quiet, maybe threatening with prosecution under the Espionage Act which would be quite serious, but that has now begun something even more serious... especially when we're dealing with something that wasn't heard first hand.<br /><br />My problem is that almost all of this is second hand at best. The first-hand statements are all things that can be verified through documentation. Even the article that everyone loves to quote bits of about the "Harassed Rancher" mention the material brought to the sheriff's office.<br /><br />Finally, I do not take Dugger's statements at face value. I want additional evidence, which is not to say she isn't telling the truth as she knows it, only that the truth might have been garbled in the telling or by the years. KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-88664439353680554812016-04-03T10:34:55.113-07:002016-04-03T10:34:55.113-07:00Kevin wrote:
So where are we on this... The daught...Kevin wrote:<br /><i>So where are we on this... The daughters can talk about the military in the office on a first-hand basis but little else. Jay Tulk had seen the military and the debris in the office, but had not seen anything beyond that.</i> <br /><br />The fact that Jay Tulk recalls debris in the Sheriff's office is itself very significant, and corroborates the written Inez Wilcox account and granddaughter Barbara Dugger's story that Inez Wilcox told her Brazel brought debris with him that was quickly confiscated by the military (one reason why the military would be in the office). <br /><br />Wilcox daughter Phyllis McGuire also recalled her father telling her Brazel brought in strange material that he thought significant, namely the infamous memory foil, thus at least one reason why Wilcox would bother to investigate and most likely why he called the base, and why the base ultimately investigated. While Marcel never mentioned Brazel bringing debris, he did say that when he discussed the matter with Col. Blanchard, they agreed it sounded like the crash of an exotic aircraft. Why would they think that if all Brazel brought in was balloon debris?<br /><br />And it also ties in with Gen. Dubose's account of Gen. McMullen calling him up at Fort Worth with Ramey away and ordering him to fly debris samples from Roswell to Fort Worth, then to Washington, which could only happen if Brazel had brought in debris to the Sheriff's office<br /><br />So the Wilcox family may not have seen most of this first-hand, but what they did know are important clues as to what happened.<br /><br /><i>Barbara Dugger does get emotional about it, but then she is only relating what her grandmother told her, which seems to be based on what George Wilcox said and we are now far from the original source.</i><br /><br /> If you take Dugger's testimony at face value, Inez Wilcox told her she was also with her husband when the death threats were made against the two of them. That would make the statement second-hand, not third-hand.<br /><br />Dugger also indicates her grandmother took the threat very seriously, in fact was reluctant to even tell her the story. That would be a good reason why Inez Wilcox would not go into complete detail about what happened when she wrote down the story.<br /><br />I would agree that the written account seems like it was written years later, not "right after" the incident as per Dugger. There are too many mistakes in it, particularly compression of several days of events into a few hours, what might happen if recalled years later. I brought it up, because Inez Wilcox's account AGAIN states that her husband was told not to talk about it, the same as George Wilcox was quoted by AP in 1947, I assume direct from his own mouth. That was also AP reporter Jason Kellahin's recollection of his conversation with Wilcox at the time.<br /><br />Bottom line, Wilcox was clearly told not to talk about it, death threats or no death threats. Why in the world would Wilcox be told not to talk about it if all that was found was what Gen. Ramey was to display (weather balloon/radar target)? Even a Mogul balloon, had it existed, would not elicit such a demand, since there was nothing at all sensitive about the debris. Why would Wilcox even bother to call the base, and why would Marcel and Blanchard even think it worth investigating? Why would George and Inez Wilcox never talk about it again with their own daughters, with Inez Wilcox still reluctant to tell her granddaughter Dugger about it decades later?<br /><br />Note that Dugger explains she was living with her grandmother at the time and the two of them were very close. I can understand why Dugger would get very emotional about it as she recalled the story because she strongly empathized with the fear of her grandmother. Unless Dugger is some incredible actor, the emotion struck me as entirely genuine and lent a strong degree of authenticity to her account. Not all the nuances of testimony come through written down in black and white.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-9636381673321154112016-04-03T08:29:48.510-07:002016-04-03T08:29:48.510-07:00CDA:
Even though we don't know the exact date...CDA:<br /><br />Even though we don't know the exact date it as written, if it was written in say 1988 it still says a lot - or better - it says a lot by why of what it doesn't say.<br /><br />Kevin - <br /><br />Are you suggesting this is just some random discrediting attemp typed and handed out, or that Phyllis just chose to cobble some jibberish together to reinforce her claims?<br /><br />NOTE: No comment on the "tape" Proctor said Brazel described himself? It's right in the videotaped interview and corroborates Moore's claims about "flower" tape. Perhaps Brazel had seen common balloons before, but not ones constructed with this tape, hence his reason for thinking it was something unusual.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-43621812010293407142016-04-03T07:31:22.907-07:002016-04-03T07:31:22.907-07:00I do not believe ANY death threats were ever made ...I do not believe ANY death threats were ever made by the military against civilians, and that any such tales are just plain fiction. <br /><br />If Inez Wilcox's original article, whenever it was written, made no mention of the flying saucer, this can be for one of two reasons:<br /><br />1. She omitted all mention of it due to fears of being persecuted or prosecuted by the military.<br /><br />2. She omitted all mention of it because it either never happened, or was a very insignificant happening in the general run of events at the time.<br /><br />I go for option 2, but am certain there are others who prefer 1. Take your pick. Exciting stuff, eh?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-16894880848654275442016-04-03T05:38:19.331-07:002016-04-03T05:38:19.331-07:00All -
For the record, Don Schmitt and I were appa...All -<br /><br />For the record, Don Schmitt and I were apparently the first to interview any of the Wilcox family about this. We were the first to receive the document which is not part of a diary but apparently an article she wrote with an eye to publication. The original article did not contain anything about the flying saucer, which I see as significant. The paragraph you all are so excited about is an addition written sometime after the article and was to be added into it. So, even if the original article was written in 1952 (which is about the only indication of a date based on Inez running for sheriff after George's term had expired) we have no idea when the addition was written. I would suggest it was written sometime after 1980 when The Roswell Incident was published.<br /><br />With the Wilcox family, we did not interview Inez because by the time we started, she had already died... We interviewed Phyllis first and she said that she had been in the office when the Army arrived (the Air Force as a separate branch did not exist in July 1947) but was chased out.<br /><br />Both Phyllis and Elizabeth provided some first-hand testimony... as did Elizabeth's husband, but none of it was significant. Jay Tulk did see the military in the office and saw some of the debris that Brazel brought in (and BTW it's MACK nor Mac).<br /><br />So where are we on this... The daughters can talk about the military in the office on a first-hand basis but little else. Jay Tulk had seen the military and the debris in the office, but had not seen anything beyond that. Barbara Dugger does get emotional about it, but then she is only relating what her grandmother told her, which seems to be based on what George Wilcox said and we are now far from the original source.<br /><br />The real point is while the article written by Inez Wilcox is interesting and housed in an archive, though lots of copies exist and I have one given to me by the family, it is basically all hearsay (the flying saucer part) and was clearly written years after the event.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-35683002186274427422016-04-02T22:12:35.949-07:002016-04-02T22:12:35.949-07:00Reading upwards I see that the date of Inez's ...Reading upwards I see that the date of Inez's comments are in question...<br /><br />Even if Inez Wilcox wrote this in 1952 (just five years after the incident) she clearly would have mentioned death threats.<br /><br />So for any reader here or elsewhere to suggest it was (or is) irrelevant ignores the very thing she wrote herself in her own words very close to the event itself (if not actually in 1947 anyway).<br /><br />For the record the diary came from Phyllis Wilcox and the paragraph I provided was the only commentary Inez had about the incident at that time. Bill Birnes is on record for stating that this paragraph from her diary was provided to him first for a magazine write up by Phyllis who stated it was her mother's personal and very private diary. Birnes states that he was given this paragraph before Jesse Marcel ever came forward and before Friedman ever interviewed him (See Birnes' UFO Magazine UFO Encylopedia).Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-90661574745690591892016-04-02T21:51:37.810-07:002016-04-02T21:51:37.810-07:00CDA wrote:
Have I understood this right? Are those...CDA wrote:<br /><i>Have I understood this right? Are those very handwritten words by Inez Wilcox now at the Roswell Historical Society, as claimed by Kellahin? And if so, can visitors view them? Or is it something written years or decades afterwards?</i><br /><br />Where did you get the idea that Jason Kellahin claimed this. What I DID write is that Kellahin's affidavit ALSO stated that when he spoke to the Wilcox after interviewing Brazel (evening of July 8), Wilcox indicated that the military said he shouldn't talk about it, just like Inez Wilcox's write-up. I also wrote that the 1947 AP article quoting Wilcox saying he was "working with those fellows at the base", to explain why he wouldn't answer further questions about what Brazel found, had a Roswell July 8 dateline, and I guessed was based on AP Kellahin's talking to Wilcox and then phoning in his story.<br /><br /><i>This is a serious claim, because if so, we at last have a contemporary handwritten account available for public viewing.<br /><br />For the sake of accuracy we need to get to the bottom of this. Did Inez indeed write the alleged words in July 1947 or not?</i><br /><br />We don't know exactly when she wrote this up, but according to her granddaughter Barbara Dugger in her affidavit, "She wrote an article about the event right after it happened to see if anyone else knew anything about it." (www.roswellproof.com/dugger.html)<br /><br />I don't know if it was really "right after", because it is a somewhat garbled recollection of everything happening very quickly over hours, rather than several days. More of Inez Wilcox's writeup at: www.roswellproof.com/post-1947-roswell-references.html<br /><br /><i>"One day a rancher north of town brought in what he called a flying saucer. There had been many reports all over the United States by people who claimed they had seen a flying saucer. The rumors were in many variations: The saucer was from a different planet, and the people flying it were looking down over us. The Germans had invented this strange contraption, a formidable weapon... Since no one had seen a flying saucer (up close) Mr. Wilcox called headquarters at Walker Air Force Base (formerly RAAF) and reported the find. Before he hung up the telephone almost, an officer walked in. He quickly loaded the object into a truck and that was the last glimpse that any one had of it."<br /><br />"Simultaneously the telephone began to ring, long distance calls from newspapers in New York, England, France and from government officials, military officials and the calls kept up for 24 hours straight. They would talk to no one but the Sheriff. However the officer who picked up the suspicious looking saucer admonished Mr. Wilcox to tell as little as possible about it and refer all calls to the base. A secret well-kept."</i><br /><br />You can hear some of the testimony of Wilcox's two daughters, Elizabeth Tulk and Phyllis McGuire, and granddaughter Barbara Dugger at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAsD4UpzVvo starting at about 4:00 min. ("Recollections of Roswell") Tulk also knew about her mother's article, but doesn't give a date for it. However, Tulk also states that the Air Force came to Wilcox's office to retrieve whatever Brazel had brought and "reprimanded" him not to ever talk about it, and she added he never did when she was around. Dugger again states her grandmother told her the MPs threatened her and her husband with death and the family too if they ever spoke about it, apparently because he had gone to one of the sites with the burned area and seen the four space beings. Recalling the talk with her grandmother, Dugger gets very emotional about it.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-90257550139785867842016-04-02T21:50:08.310-07:002016-04-02T21:50:08.310-07:00David states:
"BTW, although testimony from ...David states:<br /><br />"BTW, although testimony from the Wilcox family is mostly (but NOT all second-hand), it is not Brian Bell's "purported" testimony. E.g., here is the affidavit of Wilcox's granddaughter Barbara Dugger about what her grandmother Inez Wilcox told her, including the Sheriff personally seeing the spacecraft and bodies and the two of them getting death threats from MPs if they talked:<br /><br />http://roswellproof.homestead.com/dugger.html<br /><br />Well David this isn't first hand testimony, it's second hand testimony from his granddaughter (Dugger) restating third hand testimony from Wilcox's wife Mrs. Inez Wilcox (Dugger's long deceased grandmother).<br /><br />Barbara Dugger never saw a spacecraft, alien bodies, or was threatened in any way. She is REPEATING what she claims her grandmother told her.<br /><br />You call this first hand testimony?<br /><br />If we look at what Wilcox's daughter (Phyllis Wilcox) says, she states "I am of the opinion that..." and goes on to summarize what she THINKS happened. Opinion? Really?<br /><br />She never saw the material and simply came to ask her father if Haut's initial press release in the RDR was real. Everything she states beyond this is pure speculation in regards to an alien crash. In fact, she's speculating on what her father was speculating on concerning Brazel's reason for coming to town!<br /><br />Wilcox's other daughter, Elizabeth Tulk, has no additional details other than her dad was asked "not to talk about it". She didn't say he was threatened with death!<br /><br />More revealing is the fact that his wife, Inez Wilcox, initially wrote in her own private diary entitled "My Four Years in the County Jail" the following: READ IT<br /><br />"One day a rancher north of town brought in what he called a "flying saucer." There had been many reports all over the country by people who claimed they had seen a flying saucer. The rumors had many variations. The saucer was from a different planet, and the people flying it were looking us over. The Germans had invented this strange contraption, a formidable weapon. There were other tales, that one had landed and strange looking people all 7 feet tall or more walked from it, but quickly departed on sighting any onlooker. All of the papers played the story up and many people searched the skies at night to catch sight of one. Since no one had seen a flying saucer, Mr. Wilcox called headquarters at the Air Force Base and reported the find. Almost before he hung up the telephone, an officer walked in. He quickly loaded the object onto the truck, and that was the last glimpse anyone had of it. Simultaneously, the telephone began to ring; long-distance calls from newspapers in New York, England, France, government officials. They would speak to no one but the sheriff. The calls kept up for 24 hours straight. However, the officer who picked up the suspicious looking saucer admonished Mr. Wilcox to tell as little as possible about it and refer all calls to the airbase. A secret well-kept, for to this day we never found out if this was really a flying saucer."<br /><br />Don't you think in her personal diary written at the time of the incident she would state that if both she and her husband were threatened with death she would have made note of it?<br /><br />And we hear there "are no diaries" from that time....just not the ones you're looking for I suppose.<br /><br />Watch these very early interviews yourself (link below) and see them speak in their own words. Also please note Loretta Proctor stating Mac Brazel described "a sort of tape with writing on it". Tape...yes she said HE described it as tape! Sounds like Moore's flower patterned Rawin tape to me. Right?<br /><br />https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gEu2CxbccRk<br />Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-4360900260814449302016-04-02T21:05:59.402-07:002016-04-02T21:05:59.402-07:00Kevin: "I believe we have exhausted the Smit...Kevin: "I believe we have exhausted the Smith nonsense. Let's move back to the original intent of the post."<br /><br />I beg to differ. My discussion of the "Smith nonsense" was right on topic. Smith's collection of documents (plus public statements) were on recovered crashed saucers and alien debris long before (1950-1962) Marcel was first interviewed. If that isn't consistent with the original intent of the thread, I don't know what is.<br /><br />Dr. Robert Sarbacher, who briefed Smith Sept. 15, 1950, through the Canadian embassy military attache, confirmed in a 1983 letter to William Steinem that the meeting had taken place. There were discussions of crashed saucers within the U.S. Research and Development Board that he had been invited to (but said he did not attend), had received written reports while he was at the Pentagon, and had discussions with some RDB members on the topic. He said Dr. Vannevar Bush was definitely involved, and confirmed some of the anomalous nature of the alien materials (very strong and very lightweight).<br /><br />1951 correspondence between Smith and Gordon Cox of the Canadian embassy is also very relevant, discussing an article that Donald Keyhoe was writing for TRUE magazine on Smith's theories of saucer propulsion, where it was clearly indicated that Vannevar Bush and the RDB needed to clear it for publication, as well as their Canadian counterparts, the Defence Research Board headed by Dr. Omand Solandt. If there was nothing to do this, why would such an article need clearance at all from high-level government agencies and officials of two nations?<br /><br />In fact, Smith indicates in his letter to Cox that it was Solandt who sent the Keyhoe article to him for review and revision. Smith also indicates that he was receiving full cooperation from the Canadian DRB and National Research Council and had 3 engineers and 2 technicians working full time on Project Magnet, classified Secret. Smith also states that Solandt insisted that they respect U.S. classification on the subject matter. <br /><br />This is the same Dr. Solandt who when contacted years later (including by CDA, who tries to make a big deal out of it) tried to pretend that he never treated Smith or the subject matter with any seriousness. Really?<br /><br />Cox wrote back stating that Smith's revised Keyhoe article was passed back to Solandt through Dr. Arnauld Wright, DRB Liaison Officer at the embassy, and Cox did not know what Vannevar Bush's response to it might be (AGAIN Bush being definitely involved) and hadn't heard from Keyhoe. Cox states that the Canadian ambassador's instructions were that only Cox and Wright were to discuss the matter with anybody and the official position of the embassy was that nobody knew anything about it. <br /><br />CDA tries to portray Smith as some lone nutcase with no support from any Canadian officials, including Solandt, but the documented record clearly indicates that NOT to be the case. The Canadian embassy was critical in getting the interview with Sarbacher through their military attache, was passing information from and to Solandt through the Wright/Solandt channel, and Smith's initial work most definitely got the green light and official support from Solandt and the Canadian RDB. On the U.S. side, Vannevar Bush and the RDB were up to their necks in this, Bush being mentioned as heading the highly classified group looking into the saucers in Smith's first memo to Solandt (Nov. 21, 1950), LONG before "MJ-12" in the 1980s reared its ugly head.<br /><br />I just don't see how anyone can claim this very important DOCUMENTED evidence long predating the revival of the Roswell case is not relevant to the discussion of crashed saucers and official secrecy.<br /><br />Again, anyone interested can see the Smith/Canadian embassy/Sarbacher/Solandt documents at my website: www.roswellproof.smith_papers.html<br /><br />Links and summaries of the documents are at the bottom of the page.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-51238486339163961112016-04-02T18:26:53.413-07:002016-04-02T18:26:53.413-07:00All -
Just looked up Inez Wilcox obit... she died...All -<br /><br />Just looked up Inez Wilcox obit... she died May 25, 1988.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-47205789547459847292016-04-02T18:13:29.353-07:002016-04-02T18:13:29.353-07:00CDA -
The quote does not come from Kellahin but f...CDA -<br /><br />The quote does not come from Kellahin but from an article that Inez Wilcox wrote called, "Four Years in the County Jail" which was about her experiences when her husband was the sheriff. It was not part of the original article (which was undated) but something added sometime later. There is no date on it either. Inez Wilcox lived until about 1989, or long after the book The Roswell Incident was published... which, BTW was reviewed in the Roswell Daily Record. Without a date on this, we cannot claim that it was some sort of document created in 1947...<br /><br />There is a part of the document that speaks of her attempt to run for sheriff once Wilcox's term expired which would put the date of the article in 1952 at the earliest. But, as I say, there is no date on this... it was typed on a typewriter as opposed to a computer, but that means very little...<br /><br />So, in reality we have an undated document that surfaced after Don and I began our investigation. I got a copy from either one of the daughters or the granddaughters but I don't remember which.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-60188924272113616892016-04-02T15:28:43.324-07:002016-04-02T15:28:43.324-07:00DR says that Jason Kellahin wrote:
"The Sher...DR says that Jason Kellahin wrote:<br /><br />"The Sheriff's wife Inez Wilcox wrote down some details soon afterward, which are now at the Roswell Historical Society. The last part read, "...the officer who picked up the suspicious looking saucer [which Inez Wilcox also claimed Brazel brought with him] admonished Mr. Wilcox to tell as little as possible about it and refer all calls to the base. A secret well-kept." "<br /><br />Have I understood this right? Are those very handwritten words by Inez Wilcox now at the Roswell Historical Society, as claimed by Kellahin? And if so, can visitors view them? Or is it something written years or decades afterwards? <br /><br />This is a serious claim, because if so, we at last have a contemporary handwritten account available for public viewing.<br /><br />For the sake of accuracy we need to get to the bottom of this. Did Inez indeed write the alleged words in July 1947 or not?<br /><br />[Re the Smith nonsense, Kevin: I couldn't agree more]cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.com