tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post5659027173404619573..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Jesse Marcel ConundrumKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-9777651287643371222016-02-04T13:30:36.245-08:002016-02-04T13:30:36.245-08:00Kevin:
I thought this thread had finished, but lo...Kevin:<br /><br />I thought this thread had finished, but looked again after 9 days and saw Paul Young's asinine comment about a certain sense of humor being unique to someone in "The Potteries" region of the UK. I'll repeat: it is an ASININE comment. Not that I really care as I do not originate from this region, and do not even reside in it.<br /><br />Then a certain Nitram Ang (is he Chinese?) describes me and someone else as "clowns" (or was it "comedians"?) Perhaps he should change this to refer to a certain Paul Young. The latter ought to improve his geography for a start.<br /><br />I presume this Marcel/Roswell topic is now closed. But I am certain it will reopen sometime. Where would we be without it?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-8493578823638822902016-01-26T18:42:15.458-08:002016-01-26T18:42:15.458-08:00Don Maor wrote:
"(Some debunker - name remov...Don Maor wrote:<br /><br />"(Some debunker - name removed), when I read your posts, I frequently feel that your discourse is about proposing the very first theory that pops up inside your mind in that precise milisecond."<br /><br />Well put Don - the person in question is following the same rational as the 509th in 1947 - apparently he also likes to see his name in lights for writing such truly crazy postings.<br /><br />I think this latest effort surpasses the one about the Ramey memo being a sci-fi novel.<br /><br />David - have enjoyed reading your last few posts too (a bake sale!) - but please don't waste much valuable time responding to such clueless nonsense from the comedians.<br /><br />Regards<br />Nitram<br />Nitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-70835656816369322712016-01-23T11:52:45.241-08:002016-01-23T11:52:45.241-08:00(part 2 of 2)
Yes he DID tell a radio announcer th...(part 2 of 2)<br /><i>Yes he DID tell a radio announcer that he once handled strange debris, but couldn't recall when. This is a very long way from saying that he handled ET debris.</i><br /><br />More of CDA's revisionist "history". According to Stan, the station manager told him his ham radio buddy Marcel said he had been an AF intelligence officer and had handled pieces of a crashed flying saucer. The reason the station manager even brought it up was because Friedman had been lecturing about UFOs (not "strange debris"), and therefore the manager thought he would be interested in talking to Marcel. So clearly Marcel continued to be thinking this (crashed flying saucer) well BEFORE he ever spoke to Stan, otherwise Stan never would have heard of him. QED!<br /><br /><i>And the reason no mention of it appears in Marcel's military record is that his superiors regarded it as an insignificant event.</i><br /><br />Because CDA says so, using his amazing psychic abilities. Yet another example of CDA's religious beliefs being treated as incontestable fact. The more likely reasons no SPECIFIC mention of Roswell would be in Marcel’s records would be: 1) military records rarely mention specific events, more generally assignments, awards, military occupations/specialties, and performance evaluations, 2) an event like Roswell might be classified out of the record, e.g., there is also no mention in Marcel’s record of him being involved in planning the A-bomb attacks on Japan. However, what DOES appear in Marcel’s record clearly contradicts the usual debunker propaganda that Marcel was a screw-up intel officer who couldn’t ID simple, common rubber balloon material, balsa wood sticks, and aluminum foil.<br /><br /><i>This is despite the brief 24-hour period when it made a lot of publicity.</i><br /><br />Yes, a LOT of publicity, front page news, headlines, probably 80-90% of the nation’s newspapers, many international papers, with the end result being the impression that the one U.S. atomic bomber base was run by a bunch of idiots, i.e., a PR nightmare. Should have sparked an investigation to get to the bottom of it, kick out incompetent officers from command, but none of this happened. Why?<br /><br /><i>On what grounds would Marcel ever have claimed it was "not made by us" anyway? Did he know of literally EVERY aerial device the US and Russia had produced? Of course not.</i><br /><br />Didn’t need to. He said he was familiar with nearly everything we had flying, which was probably true, but more importantly, flying thingees made by us are made of RECOGNIZABLE materials (aluminum, steel, wood, plexiglass, etc.) with known physical properties. What impressed Marcel was the debris had physical properties well beyond anything he had ever seen or which could be manufactured at the time. (Other witness reported the same thing.)<br /><br /><i>DR can decide for himself why the press release went out. I know my answer: publicity for the base. Too bad it backfired.</i><br /><br />Were they holding a bake sale and trying to attract more customers? More confusing personal belief with fact, etc., etc. <br /><br />But back on planet Earth, if that was the real reason for the press release, the resulting public relations fiasco for the Army Air Force would have resulted in a few heads rolling at Roswell. The brass would kick some ass. Instead, no known investigation and no evidence of anybody even getting a slap on the wrist. That is why Marcel's subsequent military record is important. His performance reviews were highly laudatory (including by officers who definitely knew what happened, like Blanchard, Dubose, and Ramey) and his career didn't seem damaged in any way. As for Blanchard, became a 4-star general and vice C/O of the USAF. Even Blanchard's flunky PIO Haut, who put out the press release and got most of the ridicule for it in the 1947 press, stayed on for another year and was then promoted to Captain when he left the service.<br /><br />However, in CDA’s Looking Glass universe, all the Roswell drooling idiots naturally fell upwards in their careers.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-28322558568970581312016-01-23T11:46:29.059-08:002016-01-23T11:46:29.059-08:00CDA fantasized:
DR just cannot or will not admit ...CDA fantasized:<br /><br /><i>DR just cannot or will not admit that Marcel never said the debris was "not made by us".</i> <br /><br />Well he certainly said that the debris was so strange in its properties and unlike anything he was familiar with, that it was "not of this earth" (direct quote). And he was apparently telling his ham radio buddies that too, in fact calling it the remains of a flying saucer. That is how Stan Friedman found out about him to begin with, from one of his ham buddies. (more below)<br /><br /><i>As I have repeatly pointed out, he was more or less convinced the debris was indeed made by us, namely that it was a shattered balloon and radar target. </i> <br /><br />You have repeatedly pointed out that you BELIEVE that. But can you point out where Marcel ever said any such thing? (CDA has a VERY long history of confusing his personal beliefs or disbeliefs with actual facts.) <br /><br />The closest Marcel came to saying anything like this was when he was acting under Ramey's orders in Fort Worth and reiterated the weather balloon story Ramey had already been putting out for about an hour before Marcel ever arrived. But if Marcel actually believed “more or less” that it was a balloon all along, why was the press release from Roswell about recovering a "flying disc" instead of balloon? Did Marcel forget to tell Blanchard he already knew it was just a balloon and radar target? (How about Cavitt, who was with Marcel, and later claimed he knew all along it was just balloon wreckage? Why didn’t he tell Marcel that, and Blanchard too upon his return?) Nope, Roswell base instead announces they had recovered one of those “rumored” “flying discs”.<br /><br /><i>(else why spend time trying to make it into a kite?).</i><br /><br />Where did Marcel ever say he tried to make it into a kite, then or in the present? CDA is mixing up BRAZEL's statement of 1947, but Brazel said a lot of things, including that it didn't resemble the other weather balloons he had found "in any way". (And of course, about a dozen witnesses have told us Brazel was held in military custody and coerced at the time, including the guy in charge of holding him, base provost marshal Edwin Easley, who told Kevin they held him at the base for several days against his will).<br /><br />If it was a "shattered balloon", why don't we see a "shattered balloon" (i.e., only balloon fragments) in the Fort Worth photos, only a largely intact balloon? (Remember the one that Ramey and people always referred to in the singular, and when I measured it by 3D ray tracing reconstruction of the scene found would fit in a shoe box?)<br /><br />And remember, Marcel in 1947 (and decades later) was also quoted saying debris was scattered over a “square mile”. One thing Marcel did comment on decades later is that one reason it couldn't have been a balloon is because even a "shattered" balloon wouldn't have created such a large debris field. Do you think Ramey's singular balloon, even "shattered" into many tiny fragments, would elicit a comment that it was spread of a square mile? Good luck even finding the fragments extremely sparsely distributed like that over such a wide area.<br /><br /><i>Therefore Marcel NEVER said it was anything else, until the magic moment 30+ years later when a certain Stanton Friedman tried hard to persuade him otherwise, and succeeded.</i><br /><br />Stereotypical CDA response, again confusing his personal beliefs with fact. The amazing Stan Friedman used his Jedi mind tricks to convince Marcel (and everybody else) of something they previously never believed in.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-40184073827934125782016-01-23T11:15:18.105-08:002016-01-23T11:15:18.105-08:00CDA -
Do you have any evidence that Marcel never ...CDA -<br /><br />Do you have any evidence that Marcel never said anything about the debris not being made by us? His son told me, repeatedly in our discussion that he and his talked about this in the years after it happened and before the evil Stan Friedman talked to him, and they were of the opinion that it was otherworldly. Yes, I know you'll say that we gathered this information after Friedman talked to him, but there is no evidence that Friedman influenced him.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-3057868969595386592016-01-20T09:41:14.459-08:002016-01-20T09:41:14.459-08:00Brian Bell wrote...
"CDA's entire post e...Brian Bell wrote...<br /><br />"CDA's entire post essentially matches my own view on Marcel. It sums up my position on Marcel quite well."<br /><br />Hmmm...you see, this where we differ.<br /><br />I have to admit that when I read cda's post about Roswell being considered an "non-event"...my first reaction was that cda had either been having a few too many afternoon pints in his local,or was simply expressing his sense of humour (unique to people from "The Potteries" region.) <br />(These being the only possible explanations for <b>anyone</b> to be thinking that way.)<br /><br />Then...bang on cue...you turn up and <b><i>agreed</i></b> with him??? WHAT!<br /><br />The thought of someone following another's ideas, (no matter how barmy that idea might be), forced upon me a mental image of you, as the rear-end (to cda's front-end) of a pantomime horse. <br /><br />Seriously...How can a situation where Generals, Admirals and staff at the Pentagon, rushing about in an attempt to damage-control the story, be considered an "non-event"?Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-43238500416437642542016-01-20T09:12:45.457-08:002016-01-20T09:12:45.457-08:00cda..."Therefore Marcel NEVER said it was any...cda...<i>"Therefore Marcel NEVER said it was anything else, until the magic moment 30+ years later when a certain Stanton Friedman tried hard to persuade him otherwise, and succeeded."</i><br /><br />This is, of course, patently untrue. <br />Marcel Sr says (as did Marcel Jr)that when he took parts of the debris back to his house and displayed it to his son, it was discussed between them that this could well be material from another planet. <br /><br />Whilst at Foster Ranch, attempting,and failing, to fashion the material into something resembling a kite only goes to show that Marcel Sr didn't simply stumble,closed minded, onto the idea that this stuff could only be ET. He was trying to make a prosaic sense of the thing...but he couldn't.<br /><br />Therefore Marcel Sr believed, in June 1947, that this was a flying disc that wasn't made on earth.<br />In the 70's he <i>still</i> believed that to be the case...as he told his radio ham friends. <br />In 1978 he was still believing it was a flying saucer.<br />And by all accounts he kept on believing it until the day he died. <br /><br />Unlike the US govt, the USAF and Cavitt, Marcel never changed his story. So quite why you keep peddling this bollocks that the ET Flying Saucer aspect of the story was something Freidman "mind-melded" over to Marcel in some Spockesque-like way is quite beyond me.Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-12552176344109176822016-01-20T09:09:26.408-08:002016-01-20T09:09:26.408-08:00Lance wrote...@Paul: So I explained earlier that t...Lance wrote...<i>@Paul: So I explained earlier that the skeptical story about Marcel isn't that: "someone like him could mistake a balloon for anything but a balloon" Did you not understand that. Do you keep repeating this because the straw man is comforting in your religion?</i><br /><br />Yes Lance; But as <i>I</i> explained earlier, this fourth scenario explanation that you are trying to push...<br />...ie, that Marcel reported he had found a flying saucer, but because he didn't <i>associate</i> flying saucers with ET spaceships, he never intended it to come out that way in the Haut press release...is total nonsense. (He specifically says, when showing his son, they mused over the possibility that this was from another planet.)<br /><br />So, much as it bugs you,and though you strive to distance yourself from the only other three scenario's...(1. Marcel was a moron... 2. Marcel was a liar... 3. It was a spaceship)...they're all that you're left with, my friend.Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-73403768065255054952016-01-19T09:49:44.792-08:002016-01-19T09:49:44.792-08:00CDA said:
DR can decide for himself why the press...CDA said:<br /><br /><b><i>DR can decide for himself why the press release went out. I know my answer: publicity for the base. Too bad it backfired.</i></b><br /><br />CDA, when I read your posts, I frequently feel that your discourse is about proposing the very first theory that pops up inside your mind in that precise milisecond.<br /><br />Now we have a new instantaneus theory: "The base was looking for publicity". No neccesity for a purpose for such publicity, for a tiny bit of evidence, any mention of it by a witness, or for an explanation about what happens now with the debunking effort by USAF regarding the Mogul Balloon explanation of Charles Moore.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-9372269038210069852016-01-19T03:44:01.700-08:002016-01-19T03:44:01.700-08:00DR just cannot or will not admit that Marcel never...DR just cannot or will not admit that Marcel never said the debris was "not made by us". As I have repeatly pointed out, he was more or less convinced the debris was indeed made by us, namely that it was a shattered balloon and radar target (else why spend time trying to make it into a kite?).<br /><br />Therefore Marcel NEVER said it was anything else, until the magic moment 30+ years later when a certain Stanton Friedman tried hard to persuade him otherwise, and succeeded. Yes he DID tell a radio announcer that he once handled strange debris, but couldn't recall when. This is a very long way from saying that he handled ET debris. <br /><br />And the reason no mention of it appears in Marcel's military record is that his superiors regarded it as an insignificant event. This is despite the brief 24-hour period when it made a lot of publicity. <br /><br />On what grounds would Marcel ever have claimed it was "not made by us" anyway? Did he know of literally EVERY aerial device the US and Russia had produced? Of course not.<br /><br />DR can decide for himself why the press release went out. I know my answer: publicity for the base. Too bad it backfired.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-90137790079622050932016-01-18T12:04:41.902-08:002016-01-18T12:04:41.902-08:00@Kevin : Thanks for your answer about the transcri...@Kevin : Thanks for your answer about the transcripts (I thought they might be precisely referenced with name of the interviewers, date...)<br /><br />"I believe Marcel confused the timing of some events... his return from the debris field and his return from Fort Worth. His wife said she had been contacted by the news media and the only time that makes sense is after the news release went on the wire and Marcel was on his way or in Fort Worth... but by the time he came back, no one cared because everything was identified as a balloon... at least according to what the press was told in Fort worth."<br /><br />It also seems to me Marcel confused his return from Fort Worth with his return from Brazel's ranch, his answers making perfect sense with the former.Bricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15256342379584886357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-70823165469457894122016-01-18T11:05:33.366-08:002016-01-18T11:05:33.366-08:00CDA wrote:
Marcel was promoted because of his undo...CDA wrote:<br /><i>Marcel was promoted because of his undoubted military abilities.</i><br /><br />Such as C/O Blanchard’s next performance review of Marcel: "The degree to which he is able to descriminate and evaluate facts to arrive at logical conclusions." Rated 9 out of 10 or superior. <br /><br />Or Ramey’s statement the following year that Marcel was “outstanding” and he had nobody to replace him as he was being transferred to higher intelligence work.<br /><br />Or the fact that among his military specialties was “radar intelligence officer”, so you might think he would know a little bit about weather balloons and radar targets.<br /><br />But according to standard debunker line: 1) Marcel was a total incompetent, blowing a simple balloon/radar target ID, leading Blanchard to somehow put out an official press release that they had recovered one of those rumored flying discs (meaning Blanchard had to be incompetent as well), or 2) the new improved CDA version that Marcel was NOT incompetent, (after I pointed out Marcel’s record does NOT remotely support debunker scenario #1) but a bit slow in doing a simple balloon ID—he eventually figured it out, but darn it, Blanchard still put out that annoying release instead of calling it the balloon Marcel now knew that it was.<br /><br />Of course, neither scenario makes any logical sense.<br /><br /><i>The little 'flying disc' incident</i> <br /><br />“The little FD incident” that involved: 1) Col. Blancard putting out a press release in the name of the Army AF that they had recovered one of those “rumored” flying discs, which 2) created a media feeding frenzy with Roswell, the Pentagon, and Fort Worth being inundated with telephone calls the rest of the day, which included 3) acting AAF chief of staff Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg interrupting his day, reported by newspapers going to the Pentagon AAF press room to personally handle the crisis, also 4) “higher headquarters” at Fort Worth, namely Gen. Ramey, having to likewise interrupt his day and spend much of the rest of it dealing with the fallout of the press release, eventually killing the story with his weather balloon, but not until 5) it was national/international front page news, with the Roswell 509th and AAF in general getting a black eye as being run by a bunch of nincompoops.<br /><br /><i>obviously played absolutely no part in his service record and was soon forgotten.</i><br /><br />Was soon PUBLICLY forgotten. Would the higher brass like Ramey or Vandenberg be so forgiving and forget all about it? That’s NOT the way the military works. At the very least, an internal investigation would have been ordered to discover how such a blunder could have been made by officers at such an important base. But there is no record of such an investigation into the Big Blunder being carried out, maybe because nobody blundered? And it should also have shown up, at least indirectly, in Marcel’s subsequent performance reviews and career, which it did not. You cannot make blunders of that magnitude without it hurting you down the line, either in military ratings or assignments.<br /><br /><i>One thing is clear: Nobody can use Marcel's exemplary military record and career as any kind of evidence that the object he helped recover was an ET craft.</i><br /><br />However, “Marcel’s exemplary military record and career” is extraordinarily difficult to reconcile with the standard debunking caricature of him as a bungling intel officer who mis-Ided a flimsy weather balloon made of very common materials as one of those Kenneth Arnold supersonic flying discs, supposedly leading to an AAF public relations fiasco. Highly competent at his job means Marcel had exactly the qualities to correctly ID the debris as “not made by us” and explains in part why the press release called it a “flying disc”, instead of the more logical press release that a rancher thought he had found a “flying disc”, but examination by intel officers concluded it was from a high-altitude balloon. That wouldn’t have attracted much attention at all.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-69255157086290876052016-01-18T03:38:55.036-08:002016-01-18T03:38:55.036-08:00If the pro-ETHers, such as DR, are now telling us...If the pro-ETHers, such as DR, are now telling us that there was an earlier shipment of debris both into Ft Worth and onward to, say, Wright Field, this is based SOLELY on one man's testimony decades later. This earlier debris, we are told, was the real (presumed ET) debris, whereas the stuff shown in the photos (i.e. the ersatz stuff) was somehow similar to the real stuff yet different. But in other versions of the story the REAL debris is in the same room as the substituted debris, but hidden from view! Marcel, presumably, took no part in this earlier recovery. Then who did?<br /><br />Sorry, but I just do not accept this scenario. It is plain dotty. We are also told that back at Roswell ANOTHER set of fake balloon debris might well have been shown to Brazel, together with the 'flower tape', so that his story tallied (more or less) with the debris pictured at Ft Worth!<br /><br />Just adding to the dottiness. When is this craziness going to end? <br /><br />Now we are being told that both the two top generals from Ft Worth were away from the base attending an air show on the very day when extraterrestrial debris arrived!<br /><br />Did I say craziness? Did these two generals have a brief look before they departed for their more important air show, or not? <br /><br />Boy, this is turning into comedy.<br /><br />Yes Kevin, you can make this Roswell story into a comedy film or stage show. There is no need for a script writer. The script is all there, written up by numerous writers over a 35-year period. But you do need a producer and director.<br /><br />When will tickets be available?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-83676277826791872192016-01-17T19:53:06.677-08:002016-01-17T19:53:06.677-08:00Brian -
Just what post of yours did I delete? The...Brian -<br /><br />Just what post of yours did I delete? They all seem to be here, even the one with your snarky comment about me deleting it.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-36501140626754043902016-01-17T14:47:40.725-08:002016-01-17T14:47:40.725-08:00(part 2 of 2)
Let's go to Dubose.
Yes, let’s,...(part 2 of 2)<br /><i>Let's go to Dubose.</i><br /><br />Yes, let’s, please, but not your cartoon sketch of his testimony. I prefer “walls of text”.<br /><br /><i>Dubose says he never saw the "real" flying saucer debris. But he says he did see the container: "I only saw the container and the container was a plastic bag that I would say weighs 15 to 20 pounds. It was sealed. Lead seal around the top. Tied with a wire seal around the top. The only way to get into it was to cut it."</i><br /><br />A perfect example of you quoting completely out of context. If you are taking the above quote from Kevin’s second Roswell book, the NEXT sentence reads: “That, according to Dubose, was the only package. <b>He made it clear that the debris in the bag was different than the debris that would be displayed in Ramey’s office TWO DAYS LATER. The only flight with debris that Dubose knew about was the one on Sunday, July 6.”</b> <br /><br />Elsewhere it quotes Dubose saying this flight had happened “two or three days earlier”, i.e., BEFORE the press release of Tues., July 8, Marcel’s flight of retrieved debris, and Ramey’s photo op with the weather balloon (note, supposed wrapped in the brown paper also in the photos, NOT Dubose’s “plastic bag”). Note also Dubose estimating the debris in this one package weighing 15-20 pounds, thus NOT Brazel’s LATER statement of maybe 5 pounds, nor the less than 2 pounds of radar target and balloon in the photos (Ramey’s SINGULAR weather balloon and radar target). So clearly NOT the same stuff.<br /><br />In other statements, Dubose said Ramey was away from the base at the time (which was why Dubose, not Ramey was handling this) and the “base commander” Col. Alvin Clarke acted as Gen. McMullen’s ordered “colonel courier”. But Clarke was normally the Deputy base commander, and would only be the acting C/O if the actual C/O, Col. Hewlitt Wheless, was away from the base. There is a unique date when BOTH Ramey and Wheless were away from the base, and that was Sunday, July 6, when both were in Denton, Texas attending an air show (documented from the newspapers).<br /><br />Thus, again, an EARLIER shipment of debris from Roswell.<br /><br />And Dubose also stressed (following orders from McMullen), all this was to be carried out in the strictest secrecy (beyond top secret as he put it in one interview), yet another indication that this could not have referred to Ramey’s balloon material. I notice you are ALSO avoiding discussing that, the extreme secrecy Dubose said existed.<br /><br />And you are also avoiding the facts concerning Marcel’s subsequent military record which in no way supports your cartoonish sketch of Marcel being an incompetent and screwing up Roswell. Superior officers like Blanchard, Dubose, and Ramey knew better, and that is reflected in their comments about him AFTERWARD, which were highly laudatory.<br /><br /><i>How does that jibe, David with your quarter mile of debris? Such silly piffle.</i><br /><br />Such silly piffle Lance. MY “quarter mile of debris”? Where did you get that? I think you mean Marcel’s quoted statement from 1947 (that I like to cite, demonstrating that the LARGE debris field description dates back to 1947, not decades later) that debris was scattered over a “square mile”. This is again at total odds with Ramey’s singular balloon story or Brazel’s later “5 pounds” of debris.<br /><br />Well, Lance, Marcel was quoted July 8, but Dubose was talking about ANOTHER set of debris shipped July 6, thus BEFORE Marcel even had a chance to examine the debris field and report back. Sounds like you are again “creating new stories to explain the “fatal contradiction” in your version of the evidence.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-47791274987103732692016-01-17T14:45:12.196-08:002016-01-17T14:45:12.196-08:00Lance complained (1 of 2):
I only wish that I coul...Lance complained (1 of 2):<br /><i>I only wish that I could pin down David in a debate. Instead he drops in with walls of text</i><br /><br />“Walls of text” are actual detailed facts, not Lance’s simplistic, debunking talking points. Detailing the facts are what real debate should be about.<br /><br /><i>that contain innumerable misstatements and conspiracy buff insinuations that take forever to correct.</i><br /><br />Lances silly “innumerable misstatements” and “conspiracy buff insinuations” were my “walls of text” (FACTS) that Marcel’s actual military record shows no evidence that he screwed up anything, instead getting high praise afterward from Roswell in-the-know superior officers like Blanchard, Ramey, and Dubuse. I also noted with “walls of text” that Gen. Dubose completely backed up Marcel’s statements of a weather balloon cover-up in Fort. <br /><br />The reader will note, Lance still does not really deal with these crucial points below. (The reason it would take him “forever to correct” is because he CAN'T rebut them, only change the subject, as he has been doing.)<br /><br /><i>At least he does admit above, Kevin, that he creates new stories to explain whenever there is a fatal contradiction in the evidence.</i><br /><br />As usual, Lance grossly exaggerates something into a “fatal contradiction”. I speculated that Brazel’s testimony several hours AFTER Ramey put out a weather balloon story may have involved having him view a radar target, maybe even one brought over from White Sands or Alamogordo where they were used, which might account for the “flower tape” part of Brazel’s testimony. This assumes that the only place using the radar targets with reinforcing “flower tape” was W.S. or Alamogordo, but nobody actually knows this for a fact.<br /><br />Somehow Lance thinks this scenario couldn’t be arranged and the timing was impossible. Well, it might not be correct, but it was easily possible, and there are hardly any "fatal contradictions". It was also quite possible that someone wrote up a balloon script used for coaching Brazel rather than showing him actual debris.<br /><br />As for “creating new stories to explain whenever there is a fatal contradiction in the evidence”, this is Lance calling the kettle black. This, e.g., is exactly what Lance did when I pointed out the debris in Ramey’s balloon photos is much less than what Brazel described (or Marcel’s “square mile” of debris or the modern Mogul balloon “explanation” which Lance religiously adheres to). To this Lance “created the new story” that Ramey withheld debris, only showing “representative samples”. Even assuming this unlikely scenario was true, it still doesn’t explain the “fatal contradictions” between the stories in Fort Worth and what was shown in the photos, and Brazel’s LATER testimony. E.g., Brazel never described an intact balloon as shown in the photos, only numerous “rubber strips” (from which he said he deduced a balloon) and his “flower tape” cannot be seen in the photos.<br /><br /><i>And when I say evidence, I only mean the crappy interviews (the only evidence that exists)</i><br /><br />“The only evidence?” What about the newspaper articles, the photos, and a few related documents (like FBI Roswell teleegram)? Aren’t they “evidence”?<br /><br /><i>which are often contradictory and can often be made to say whatever one wishes.</i><br /><br />Gee, Lance, isn’t that exactly what YOU do, e.g. selectively quoting Marcel interviews where he said one picture of him showed him holding the real stuff? (Not noting that in these cases, Marcel was not told what photographs were being referenced.) Of course you ignore other interviews in person where Marcel shown specifically the newspaper photos stated those photos were “staged” and NOT the real stuff he brought from Roswell.<br /><br />And then you ignore the interviews where Gen. Dubose totally backed up Marcel statements of the weather balloon in the photos being brought in as a cover story for the real stuff that was recovered (which Dubose also said was HIGHLY classified).David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-73329465938855386242016-01-17T14:04:01.945-08:002016-01-17T14:04:01.945-08:00Brice -
I'm not sure of the source. They are ...Brice -<br /><br />I'm not sure of the source. They are part of a shot script for a documentary and I believe it was for UFOs Are Real.<br /><br />I believe Marcel confused the timing of some events... his return from the debris field and his return from Fort Worth. His wife said she had been contacted by the news media and the only time that makes sense is after the news release went on the wire and Marcel was on his way or in Fort Worth... but by the time he came back, no one cared because everything was identified as a balloon... at least according to what the press was told in Fort worth.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-38136045564787615902016-01-17T12:41:44.124-08:002016-01-17T12:41:44.124-08:00@Kevin : Thanks for going back through all the mat...@Kevin : Thanks for going back through all the material and this very informative post. So we now know that Marcel wasn't shown the photos during his early interviews by Friedman and Moore.<br /><br />There's definitely some contradictions in Marcel statements about the material and the photos. At the same time Marcel was saying that he was photographed by the press with the real debris but then that other photos were staged just after. It doesn't make any sense to allow photos of the real debris to the press only to have other staged minutes after (so screwing all up by showing different sort of materials), which by the way we know the first didn't happen since no other photos showing other material than the balloon and rawin wreckage had been published at the time. Your suggestion that Marcel was photographed with the real debris but not by the press may indeed explain the contradiction, either Marcel recollections about the photographer being some newsman was wrong or Moore wrongly paraphrased Marcel, but the timeline might get tricky then if assume JBJ took his photos around 5:15/5:30 pm... <br /><br />Btw Kevin, could you please precise from which interviews are these transcripts (“tape 2”, “tape 3”…) ? I thought they were from Moore's interview by phone, but in the end we see that the person asking the questions is showing Marcel a book with Newton's photo, meaning they're not from Moore. And then you say that Marcel is contradicting himself on his own in a film!? Which makes me lost here (why transcripts if it's in a film?)<br /><br />About Marcel waking up his family, I don't know about Marcel's statements about it, but his son Jesse Jr indeed said his father woke him up to show him the material he had found at Roswell. In his book “the Roswell legacy”, p. 52 : “He had left for work the previous morning and hadn't been home for dinner the previous night or this one. I don't remember what time it was when my father awakened me but I had been sleeping soundly for some time […] More than likely it was a little after midnight. My dad came into my room to tell me to come out and to see what he'd found. […] Of course, it wasn't normal for my father to wake me up late at night just to show me something, so I immediately put my robe on and followed him into the kitchen area.”<br /><br />By “waiting for me”, maybe Marcel was meaning he had been away from his home for some time so that his family was awaiting for him?Bricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15256342379584886357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-36771150963263470852016-01-17T05:03:49.947-08:002016-01-17T05:03:49.947-08:00I think DR is being needlessly protective of Marce...I think DR is being needlessly protective of Marcel's abilities. As I said before, Marcel was NOT a 'drooling idiot' at the time. He had identified the debris (perhaps not with 100% certainty but, say, 80%). The nature of it, i.e. fragmented and widely scattered, caused him to have slight doubts. <br /><br />It was a period where fears about Russia and possible new hostile aircraft & missiles were uppermost and the USAF had to be on guard. Hence the immediate request from Ramey to ship the debris to Ft Worth. <br /><br />Marcel was promoted because of his undoubted military abilities. The little 'flying disc' incident obviously played absolutely no part in his service record and was soon forgotten. <br /><br />One thing is clear: Nobody can use Marcel's exemplary military record and career as any kind of evidence that the object he helped recover was an ET craft. The evidence for it being an ET craft can come ONLY from the debris itself and from a thorough and lengthy analysis of it by scientists. Unfortunately the only testimony that such an analysis was done comes from 2nd and 3rd hand interviews done decades afterwards. There is no hard evidence for it, and never will be. <br /><br />Such is Roswellology.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-30458759965654332302016-01-16T21:00:27.653-08:002016-01-16T21:00:27.653-08:00I only wish that I could pin down David in a debat...I only wish that I could pin down David in a debate. Instead he drops in with walls of text that contain innumerable misstatements and conspiracy buff insinuations that take forever to correct. Suffice it to say that I don't agree.<br /><br />At least he does admit above, Kevin, that he creates new stories to explain whenever there is a fatal contradiction in the evidence. And when I say evidence, I only mean the crappy interviews (the only evidence that exists) which are often contradictory and can often be made to say whatever one wishes.<br /><br />Let's go to Dubose. Dubose says he never saw the "real" flying saucer debris. But he says he did see the container:<br /><br />"I only saw the container and the container was a plastic bag that I would say weighs 15 to 20 pounds. It was sealed. Lead seal around the top. Tied with a wire seal around the top. The only way to get into it was to cut it."<br /><br />How does that jibe, David with your quarter mile of debris? <br /><br />Such silly piffle.<br /><br />Lance<br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17195285026480472662016-01-16T18:05:52.876-08:002016-01-16T18:05:52.876-08:00I wrote: "This was not the case for other sim...<br />I wrote: "This was not the case for other similar radar targets reported found elsewhere, where mere farmers and reporters recognized them as some sort of weather device."<br /><br />Nitram asked: "My simple question is... how many times do we know of, that this sort of "material" was recovered by "farmers, reporters or other civilian folk"? (David, I just would like you to give me a number of such cases please.)<br /><br />Several examples circa Roswell incident time of where radar targets were reported coming down elsewhere and civilians and others were generally not too mystified, often thinking it some sort of weather device (usually because weather balloon or part therefore generally attached):<br /><br />http://www.roswellproof.com/balloon_crashes.html <br /><br />David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-15947948265651555682016-01-16T17:55:51.866-08:002016-01-16T17:55:51.866-08:00Kevin wrote: "Who are these believers who th...Kevin wrote: "Who are these believers who think a second set of debris was cobbled together to show Mack Brazel? It was always my opinion that they told him what to say in that interview."<br /><br />Kevin, it was just a theory of mine that one way that Brazel could have been coached in what to say would be to place actual debris in front of him. Or he could have been orally coached, or given a written script, or all of the above. <br /><br />(Lance also seems to be pretty clueless about the actual chronology of this, claiming above, "the timing doesn't work out", apparently not realizing that Brazel didn't tell his story until several hours AFTER Ramey put out the weather balloon story to kill the initial "flying disc" press release--thus PLENTY of time to coach Brazel and even procure a radar target for him to examine. The fact of the matter is, what Brazel described does NOT match, except in a very superficial way, the Ramey balloon/radar target photos in Fort Worth, another point Lance avoids, except to do his own theorizing that Brazel's 5 pounds of debris was "uncobbled", Ramey leaving most of it out and allegedly showing only "representative samples", that still don't match. Did they also glue Brazel’s “rubbers strips” into a largely intact balloon? How does even 5 pounds account for Marcel’s 1947 “square mile of debris”? Where, oh where is Brazel’s “flower tape”?)<br /><br />Lance is going crazy on this (my theory of how Brazel might have been coached) because I gutted his argument that Marcel was some sort of highly unreliable witness (if not outright liar) trying to redeem himself decades later. Since he can't refute my points, he tries to change the subject. (In fact, he is so off topic, not to mention his usual grossly insulting tone, I don't understand why you are even allowing it.)<br /><br />In short, Marcel's military record PROVES he did nothing wrong and had nothing to redeem. If Marcel was really as incompetent as debunkers like Lance try to make him out to be, then why isn't this reflected in his subsequent performance reviews and career, especially from Roswell incident in-the-know superior officers like Blanchard, Dubose, and Ramey?<br /><br />Instead Dubose and Ramey thought him command officer material, Ramey called him "outstanding" (as did future USAF C/S John Ryan, also calling Marcel's career "most exemplary"), Blanchard and Dubose recommended him for promotion, Marcel was recommissioned, Marcel stayed on another year as head intelligence officer before being booted upstairs to higher intelligence work (with Ramey protesting his transfer, saying he had nobody to replace him), Blanchard upped his service ratings (including giving him a superior rating for his ability to arrive at logical conclusions), etc., etc. <br /><br />Is this the same guy who supposedly blew a balloon ID, miraculously leading to Blanchard issuing the embarrassing "flying disc" press release, and creating a national and international Army PR fiasco? <br /><br />This must have been a very sensitive, touchy-feely Army, with guys like Blanchard and Ramey (and the Pentagon, who wanted Marcel transferred there for higher intelligence work) running a VERY loose ship and not holding officers beneath them in the least way accountable for major screw-ups. In this version of the Army, ALL was quickly forgiven and forgotten. (No doubt, because Roswell was a “non-event” as the debunkers HAVE to spin it, even though it was clearly anything but a “non-event” at the time.)<br /><br />And a second point I brought up that Lance refuses to go near is how Dubose completely backed up Marcel's story of the weather balloon in the Fort Worth photos being a cover story and the debris in the photos was indeed NOT what was found at Roswell. In fact, more of Dubose's testimony was how the actual debris (in fact the whole incident) was cloaked in the highest of secrecy (saying it was beyond top secret).David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-33447034310102007922016-01-16T15:15:22.904-08:002016-01-16T15:15:22.904-08:00All -
When referring to a Provost Marshal or a to...All -<br /><br />When referring to a Provost Marshal or a town marshal or Marshal Dillon, the word marshal has one "L" and not two... and that is the end of the spelling lesson for the day.<br /><br />For those of you keeping score at home, for fun, just watch movies and TV shows and see how often they don't know this either.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-7706503426605652312016-01-16T14:51:49.460-08:002016-01-16T14:51:49.460-08:00Hi Kevin,
That is a Rudiak concoction (from 2011)...Hi Kevin,<br /><br />That is a Rudiak concoction (from 2011). He created this howler to try to explain why Brazel mentioned the flowered tape:<br /><br />"There really is a very simple, non-balloon crash explanation for all this. When Brazel was in military custody (part of Loretta Proctor's testimony you fail to mention below as well as numerous other witnesses, like Brazel Jr. and Provost Marshall Easley), they took a fresh radar target out of a box in preparation for his interview. Such a fresh target would NOT have string attached (same with a fresh target at Fort Worth). Maybe this particular target was brought in from Alamogordo and had the tape with purple patterns on it that Moore and Trakowski described, so Brazel described the target having Scotch tape and also tape with patterns."<br /><br />Just one of David's "simple" explanations...<br /><br /><br />Lance<br /><br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-68643978594578321022016-01-16T13:46:33.477-08:002016-01-16T13:46:33.477-08:00Lance -
Who are these believers who think a secon...Lance -<br /><br />Who are these believers who think a second set of debris was cobbled together to show Mack Brazel? It was always my opinion that they told him what to say in that interview.<br /><br />CDA/Brian -<br /><br />It seems to me that the argument was once that Marcel and Haut had suffered for the mistakes about this? Haut left the service the next year and Marcel left in 1950. That was the direction that the argument had taken... but now this was a non event that affected neither of them nor those in other positions...<br /><br />Of course, there are the newspaper articles that tell of a "blistering rebuke" of those in Roswell for causing the trouble, not to mention the Army and Navy attempting to limit reporting of flying saucers the next day.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.com