tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post621561673606463337..comments2024-03-18T16:51:50.688-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: The Roswell UFO and Jesse MarcelKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger105125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-66410618533390576232022-04-23T06:39:58.683-07:002022-04-23T06:39:58.683-07:00interestinginterestingJason Chapmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951671601073044426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-66093096916576433792016-09-26T14:22:22.110-07:002016-09-26T14:22:22.110-07:00I realize this is an old thread. However, I have s...I realize this is an old thread. However, I have something for all of you to contemplate.<br /><br />The 1947, infamous picture of Marcel and the debris, has been argued for decades. Lets change it up a bit. Lets look at the physical evidence itself. Your answers are in the evidence itself. <br /><br />From the era of WWII, through the vietnam conflict, weather and surveillence ballons were made from a rubber material off white or beige in color. My guess, latex. Not the shiny substance you see here. <br /><br />What you see here, would appear to be tin foil. <br />Tin foil for obvious weight and tinsil strength limitations are not condusive to materials needed for the purpose of balloon making.<br /><br />However, a material called Mylar, in which I have used in business since at least the seventies is used for all types of balloons. In fact, Mylar fits the bill perfectly in the sense that it is nearly identicle as the material Marcel discribed in the first place. <br /><br />Its light weight, incredibly strong, has a mirror finish and most interestingly, if you crumple it up, it will lay flat again on its own. Sound familiar? <br /><br />The problem is, NASA created this material in 1950. Interestingly, 3 years after the Roswell incident. Even more interesting, it was developed for space exploration. It was designed to be light weight, high tinsil strength and solar reflecting. These were all the things discribed for a material not yet invented. Likewise, unless you think tinfoil is a good material to make a ballon from, then what exactly is the material in the photo. What this also does, is prove that the government did in fact cover up whatever it was they collected. Because this was no surveillence or weather balloon as they would like you to believe. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07000679170583157535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-57608873342132710752009-10-30T10:27:27.332-07:002009-10-30T10:27:27.332-07:00Part 2
cda wrote
What nobody can ever answer is e...Part 2<br /><br />cda wrote<br /><i>What nobody can ever answer is exactly when that phone call [to the FBI] was made. The FBI teletype was at 6.17pm but that does not mean the phone call immediately preceded it. Neither does the word 'urgent' on the teletype really convey anything since the FBI often used this in their messages. If the phone call came, say, an hour or so earlier, this would create the impression that the FBI were not too concerned about the matter. But we shall never know the answer.</i><br /><br />I actually agree with cda here. (Shocking, but it does sometimes happen.) However, we can get a fair idea of the time from the wording. We have Ramey’s strange, inexplicable “hexagon” description for the torn-up radar target, what Major Kirton, who was talking to the FBI, had earlier given Reuters. However, Reuters was told that that supposedly nobody at the base knew what it was, though it was “possibly” weather equipment. The ID is much more positive in the FBI telegram, namely that the object “resembles” a radar reflector suspended from a balloon, plus the information that they were flying it on to Wright Field (information that didn’t become public until just before 5:00 p.m.) My inference from this is that Kirton spoke to the FBI later than Reuters and around the time Ramey was putting out the more definitive ID (which from newspaper articles, was around 4:30-5:00).<br /><br />By around 5:30, Kirton told the Dallas Morning News that the ID was final, now using “rawin” to describe the device (with correct spelling), and describing it as a six-pointed star, as weather officer Newton had (earlier hexagon description vanishes). But Kirton told the M. News the flight to Wright Field was canceled. The FBI telegram says otherwise, and even the USAF debunkers in 1994 agreed the flight went on to Wright, but putting additional spin on the story saying that a Col. Duffy, former project officer for Mogul, then positively IDed it as coming from Mogul. (Turns out this was probably entirely fabricated, since Duffy was at Mogul HQ in N.J., not at Wright Field at the time, plus never really identified the debris in 1990s letters, but talked all around the question. Sordid details at: http://www.roswellproof.com/RoswellSummary11.html )<br /><br />Another indication that there was a Wright Field flight was the ABC News radio story, which reported: "A few moments ago I talked to officials at Wright Field, and they declared that they expect the so-called flying saucer to be delivered there but that it hasn't been delivered yet."<br /><br />So brief time line: ~3:30: Roswell base flying disc press release; ~4:30: Reuters told Ramey’s “hexagon”and possibly weather device; 4:30-5:00 Ramey begins to change the story to more definitive radar target/balloon; ~5:00: AP bulletin that Ramey flying “disc” to Wright Field; LA Herald Express carries Ramey’s probable radar target ID; Colorado Senator also says radar target; 5:30: Dallas Morning News told definitely radar target; 6:17 FBI telegram; 6:30 AP carries weather balloon story.<br /><br />So when did the FBI talk to Kirton? Putting all together, probably sometime between 5:00 and 5:30, so one hour before the FBI telex was sent is not a bad guess. The lack of urgency in sending the telex is not too surprising given the mundane nature of the debris described to the FBI, plus the FBI being assured their office in Cincinnati would be further informed of whatever Wright Field discovered, something the GAO could not show ever happened after researching documents. The FBI seems to have been cut out of it.<br /><br />David RudiakDavid Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-78759624112920416502009-10-30T10:26:26.056-07:002009-10-30T10:26:26.056-07:00cda wrote:
A few corrections to DR:
The FBI telety...cda wrote:<br /><i>A few corrections to DR:<br />The FBI teletype was not secret. </i><br /><br />Allow me to me be specific. It was internal and not for public consumption. The public was not aware of it at the time. Its existence didn’t come to light for another 30 years, and then only because of a lawsuit filed under FOIA. Up until then, the FBI had denied having any UFO files.<br /><br />So it may not have been classified “secret”, but for all intent and purposes, it was secret, just like all the other FBI UFO files.<br /><br /><i>The reason that Wright Field (i.e. probably one person there) disagreed with what was described to him over the phone as a balloon plus radar reflector was because of the excitement generated by Haut's press release, and the obvious desire to see the debris for himself (or themselves). Nothing more than that. Too risky to allow a purported 'flying disc' to be thrown away!</i><br /><br />How does personal speculation become a “correction?” It’s another, it’s so because I say so argument by cda, anything to allow him to stay in his comfort zone. I guess it wasn’t enough to have a rubber balloon described to them and balsa wood sticks covered with white paper foil. Or the fact that the weather officer unequivocally identified it. No, some corporal at Wright Field wanted to see it, so Gen. Ramey had to comply.<br /><br /><i>Also, nobody at Wright Field had seen the Ft Worth photos at that time, so they only had a telephonic description to go on.,</i><br /><br />Yeah, rubber balloon, balsa wood, paper and foil. Not exactly exciting stuff. The aero-tech experts at Wright Field weren’t going to have a lot of problems figuring it out. They certainly weren’t going to think they had a real flying saucer on their hands, no more so than Marcel or Blanchard. Remember, the experts knew exactly what “flying disc” meant. It was Kenneth Arnold’s large disc-shaped craft flying at supersonic speeds, or similar sightings, such as the even more publicized United Airline sighting of 9 more discs on July 4.<br /><br />Obviously something a bit more exotic was described to them (which could have included, e.g., some specific piece of equipment exclusive to the Mogul Project, not just ordinary radar target weather balloon debris). <br /><br />(continued next post)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-37388817142241751412009-10-30T03:52:15.729-07:002009-10-30T03:52:15.729-07:00Happy 100th posting Kevin!
A few corrections to D...Happy 100th posting Kevin!<br /><br />A few corrections to DR:<br />The FBI teletype was not secret. The reason that Wright Field (i.e. probably one person there) disagreed with what was described to him over the phone as a balloon plus radar reflector was because of the excitement generated by Haut's press release, and the obvious desire to see the debris for himself (or themselves). Nothing more than that. Too risky to allow a purported 'flying disc' to be thrown away! <br /> <br />Also, nobody at Wright Field had seen the Ft Worth photos at that time, so they only had a telephonic description to go on. <br /><br />What nobody can ever answer is exactly when that phone call was made. The FBI teletype was at 6.17pm but that does not mean the phone call immediately preceded it. Neither does the word 'urgent' on the teletype really convey anything since the FBI often used this in their messages. If the phone call came, say, an hour or so earlier, this would create the impression that the FBI were not too concerned about the matter. But we shall never know the answer.<br /><br />[Looks like Gilles beat me to the century!]cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-74619421335423946052009-10-30T03:43:56.707-07:002009-10-30T03:43:56.707-07:00100th ! ^^
Greetings David Rudiak,
TY for welco...100th ! ^^<br /><br />Greetings David Rudiak,<br /><br />TY for welcome me to be back from vacations ^^<br /><br />You writed :<br /><br />"To UP, Brazel found the object several days before. To AP, it was three weeks before."<br /><br />The DXR54 UP depeach, as discussed before is very vague : no name of Brazel ie. In AP releases, the date comes from Brazel own "mouth" and this is a testimony. Why to prefer the first one ?<br /><br />Bessie testimony (affidavit) mentionned start of july discovery too, but if you continue to examine her testimony, you understand the chain of events she related taking place just after (one or 2 weeks after the discovery they go to Roswell ie) is impossible to be realized in the dates of real events.<br /><br />Then suggesting middle of june is the date of the discovery too.<br /><br />You writed "According to Brazel, he didn’t think much of it and ignored it for three weeks because he was busy with chores, then picked it up with his family on July 4."<br /><br />1947's flying saucer wave started by press releases in N.O states june the 25. A posteriori, and only, people related experiences testimoned taking place before (49 cases IMHO, NO ONE reported before<br />K.A. in the press). Socio-psychological complex phenomenon initiated by press ?<br /><br />June the 14, and IMHO until he visites Proctor, discussing about "flying saucer" and about the press reward (3000 dollars), Brazel have no one motivation to report those things the press is speacking (without E.T. semantic BTW). <br /><br />So, he have NOW legitimated motivation to report a posteriori his discover "what could be a flying saucer", which is in that context "all which have sufficient "insolism" to be a Flying <br />saucer". <br /><br />His discovery have enough "insolism" details (tapes, purple pink symbols, no words, etc) in order to be one "those things press is speacking and is offering reward". Period ?<br /><br />"The press release said they had a real “flying disc” you writed : What is a "flying saucer or disc" in june/july 1947 wave sociological context, without "our" ethnocentrism semantic (E.T.) ? <br /><br />All and nothing. Those "things" the press is speacking. Each thing with enough "insolism" could be a flying saucer, even if prosaïc. <br /><br />NYU ballons he found (?) were good candidat IMHO to report it legitimaly as a possible "flying saucer".<br /><br />"the strange blue glow reported near the ranch" is coming UP DXR54 release ? <br /><br />There are direct testimonies or <br />"names" of those ranchers in press releases ? Only a man and his wife in Roswell city IMHO. <br /><br />They are 853 cases in that wave using press releases, sign, bluebook and other NICAP ie archives. <br /><br />"3154 witnesses". So to find one in Roswell is statisticaly probable. Does it must surprised us ? <br /><br />They are 17 taking place in New Mexico, during that "wave", one only at night, 51 witnesses.<br /><br />"Well according to later witness testimony from Judd Roberts and Walt Whitmore". Yes, but one more time "later" sounds important IMHO (and later other testimonies are in contradiction with "the FCC threatened to pull the radio station’s license", story "added" a posteriori, too. <br /><br />I conced we can probably find little contradictions here or there alimenting speculations (only). The problem IMHO is that to explain those "contradictions", some must use "ad hoc" explanations not realy "economic" and lacking parcimony principle, in order to have the "spaceaircraft".<br /><br />Spacecraft added a posteriori near 1989 by Glenn Dennis ie, and all you know about Dennis, Ragsdale,Kauffman/McEnzy serious testimonies (hoaxers).<br /><br />On the other hand, one more time, to replace those events in Roswell in the sociological context where the press seems to be the only motor of those Flying Saucers is really "rich" IMHO for the investigator. <br /><br />Helping us to avoid "ethnocentrism" biais when we speculate.<br /><br />Best Regards,<br /><br />Gilles F.Gilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-5771396352155168412009-10-29T17:22:23.194-07:002009-10-29T17:22:23.194-07:00(part 3)
Governments cover-up things on grounds of...(part 3)<br />Governments cover-up things on grounds of national security. E.g., when the Soviets shot down the U-2 spy plane in 1960, the CIA thought the plane and pilot (the physical proof) had been totally destroyed and tried to bluff their way out of it. They put in place a cover story that it was really a NASA weather plane that had gone off course, the pilot having passed out from oxygen deprivation. They had NASA release phony transcripts of the pilot’s last moments. At Edwards AFB, a U-2 was repainted with a NASA logo and a false ID number. So they lied and manufactured evidence. Sound familiar?<br /><br />It didn’t work because the Russians had a very live pilot and an only partly destroyed spy plane with intact spy cameras. This is different from Roswell because U.S. authorities didn’t have total control over the physical evidence, the witnesses, and what came out in the media. They were dealing with a hostile power that did. The cover story fell apart within days.<br /><br /><i>What is pointed to ridiculize that testimony, or to point the reader he must doubt about the only one recorded in place and time of an event ? "an (imaginary) Cover-up" making Brazel testimony, in place, in time, as a non-sens. Even if the essence of that testimony (its conclusion, the mention of the tapes with pink-purple symbols, etc) is against, is the inverse, of the own thesis of the ones claiming a cover-up. I missed something ?</i><br /><br />You seem to be unaware that there was much more than just Brazel’s testimony, which is itself contradictory. There was much more reported back in 1947, described above, again very contradictory about what really happened, and some of it suggesting much more than a balloon crash, such as the base flying disc press release, the strange blue glow reported near the ranch, and Marcel’s “square mile” debris field, all reported in the 1947 press. In addition, there was the secret FBI telegram that didn’t come out until much later about a continued flight to Wright Field, with Wright Field disagreeing with the balloon/radar reflector ID. Why would they disagree, if the photos show all that was found, according to Ramey himself?<br /><br />(Looks like we're about to break 100 posts)<br /><br />David RudiakDavid Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-71921958415125509332009-10-29T17:19:10.173-07:002009-10-29T17:19:10.173-07:00(part 2)
But why would Brazel be back in Roswell i...(part 2)<br />But why would Brazel be back in Roswell immediately after just being in Roswell to report his find? Didn’t he have a ranch to run and livestock to tend to? Well according to later witness testimony from Judd Roberts and Walt Whitmore Jr., Whitmore Sr. had heard about Brazel’s story (probably from Frank Joyce) and drove out to the ranch to bring him back for an exclusive wire-recorded interview (which never aired, because the FCC threatened to pull the radio station’s license). But why would Whitmore drive 4 hours to the ranch and 4 hours back if all Brazel had found was his later reported rubber strips, tinfoil, paper, Scotch tape, and sticks? Think about it. Would you drive all the way out there if that’s all Brazel had found, then bring him all the way back for an interview? Does that make any sense?<br /><br /><i>What is described ? An ET-spacescraft or extraordinary things ? OR prosaic wreckage ?</i><br /><br />Generally prosaic wreckage, but not entirely. For example, we also have Marcel quoted saying the debris covered a square mile (this is 1947, not 30 years later), Ramey saying the supposed foil/stick object had a diameter of 25 feet, both of these totally at odds with what was shown. The press release said they had a real “flying disc”, not a balloon of any kind.<br /><br />Ramey’s intel officer Major Kirton told the Dallas FBI was nothing but a radar reflector and balloon. But then it says that conversations with Wright Field had them disagreeing with that assessment. So Wright Field was saying it WASN’T a balloon/target. Hmmmm. Further the debris was being flown on to Wright Field for analysis. But Ramey told the press the flight to Wright Field was canceled.<br /><br />Prosaic wreckage description don’t prove anything other than this is what the press was told, not necessarily what really happened. Quoted military officers like Ramey, Dubose, and Marcel, were under orders, and if they had found real saucer debris weren’t going to tell the press about it (unless they wanted to be court-martialed). Controlling what Brazel had to say was easy once he was in military custody (much testimony to that effect, including base provost marshal Easley). Even Sheriff Wilcox in 1947 admitted to working with the military.<br /><br />(last part next post)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-81037109208297914552009-10-29T17:13:58.145-07:002009-10-29T17:13:58.145-07:00Sorry, another long series of posts to detail argu...Sorry, another long series of posts to detail arguments.<br /><br />Welcome back Gilles from vacation.<br /><br /><i>What is the only one testimony concerning Roswell event, but the only one taking place and time of the event ? Brazel one.</i><br /><br />No, this is not true. We also have Blanchard’s press release, quoted statements from Marcel, Sheriff Wilcox, Gen. Ramey, Ramey spokespeople (e.g. Major Kirton), Col. Dubose, Pentagon spokespeople, the FBI telegram, a Colorado Senator, and others, often providing information that is seriously contradictory.<br /><br />E.g., was it really found “sometime last week” and neighbors near the ranch also reporting a strange blue light near the ranch several days before at 3 in the morning (as reported originally by AP and UP)? Or was it the middle of June, the story that came out of Fort Worth later and then in Brazel’s press interview? Sheriff Wilcox reported both, depending on who he was talking to. To UP, Brazel found the object several days before. To AP, it was three weeks before.<br /><br />What did Brazel do when he found it, supposedly mid-June? According to Brazel, he didn’t think much of it and ignored it for three weeks because he was busy with chores, then picked it up with his family on July 4. According to Marcel in Fort Worth, Brazel also found it mid-June, and immediately picked it up and threw it under some brush 7 or 8 miles from his ranch house. When he first found out about the saucers on July 5 in Corona, he rushed back out the next morning to retrieve it. And then the original base press released, no doubt based in part on what Marcel reported back at the base, namely Brazel found it “sometime last week.” These stories are wildly inconsistent with one another.<br /><br />Or what did Brazel report finding? Brazel said he told the sheriff that maybe he had found a flying saucer. But UP quoted Wilcox saying that Brazel came in reporting that maybe he had found a “weather meter.”<br /><br />Brazel, after seemingly describing a balloon and radar target, then recanted, saying what he found didn’t resemble in any way the other weather balloons he had previously found on the ranch. So why would he tell the Sheriff that maybe he had found a “weather meter?” AP also had Wilcox confessing that he was “working with those fellows at the base,” which might explain why he would put out a weather balloon story of his own.<br /><br />How much debris was there and how big was the debris field? Ramey said only a singular balloon and radar target and no other equipment. (Weight less than 2 pounds) Brazel said debris was scattered across an area 200 yards across and all the debris he gathered in 2 bundles was maybe 5 pounds. But Marcel was quoted saying it was scattered across a square mile! We are talking many orders of magnitude differences in the size of the debris field described in 1947.<br /><br />So things aren’t so simple as Brazel’s story back in 1947, which itself is contradictory. E.g., Brazel was also quoted saying that after Marcel returned to Roswell, “ that was the last he heard of it until the story broke that he had found a flying disk.” How could he possibly hear the story break back at the ranch with no phone or radio, then additionally hurry back to Roswell to set the story straight? The only way he could have done all these things was if he was already in Roswell.<br /><br />(continued next post)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-87642224031341856282009-10-29T14:56:07.505-07:002009-10-29T14:56:07.505-07:00Eya,
What is the only one testimony concerning Ro...Eya,<br /><br />What is the only one testimony concerning Roswell event, but the only one taking place and time of the event ?<br /><br />Brazel one.<br /><br />What it is described ?<br /><br />An ET-spacescraft or extraordinary things ? <br /><br />OR prosaic wreckage ?<br /><br />What is pointed to ridiculize that testimony, or to point the reader he must doubt about the only one recorded in place and time of an event ?<br /><br />"an (imaginary) Cover-up" making Brazel testimony, in place, in time, as a non-sens.<br /><br />Even if the essence of that testimony (its conclusion, the mention of the tapes with pink-purple symbols, etc)<br /><br /> is against, is the inverse, of the own thesis of the ones claiming a cover-up. <br /><br />I missed something ?<br /><br />Best Regards,<br /><br />Gilles F.Gilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-72348174451797085022009-10-29T09:58:34.567-07:002009-10-29T09:58:34.567-07:00cda:
Even if the public photos show only a fracti...cda:<br /><br />Even if the public photos show only a fraction of what was supposedly collected from the Foster ranch, the condition of what was shown would tend to rule out Mogul. Actually, had the bulk of putative Mogul material remained unseen and uncollected (a very dubious scenario given recon flights etc)a small quantity is contradicted by Marcel's testimony. Kudos to David Rudiak, not only for his enlightening posts, but for his admirable restraint in the face of repeated and vicious personal attacks. He knows better than to dignify them with a response.<br />Good post, Bob.<br />cda, with regard to the supposed implausibility of a "scientific discovery" being thoroughly covered up for 6 decades, Roswell was far from an ordinary "scientific discovery." It involved proof of a far advanced ET civilization. The coverup makes great sense, considering the potential impact. Roswell occurred less than a decade after the 1938 broadcast about a Martian invasion. And outright panic is just one possible consequence of disclosure.starmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09884942748644499035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-35601035213097741322009-10-27T03:32:46.807-07:002009-10-27T03:32:46.807-07:00To Bob Koford:
There is nothing impossible about t...To Bob Koford:<br />There is nothing impossible about the ET hypothesis, as applied to Roswell, or anything else. If such ETs exist, a visit to our earth is always possible. It is the surrounding actions of the military, the witnesses, the official 62-year silence and the total lack of hardware or documentation that defies belief. <br /><br />The endless 'deathbed confessions' (see Joe Capp) the actions of people like Ramey, Blanchard and others who supposedly took this great secret to their graves all sound so idiotic to me. <br /><br />I cannot think of any other scientific discovery that has caused such an aura of secrecy and cover-up (6 decades now) as this Roswell UFO case. The lengths to which officials supposedly went (and are still going) to cover up this highly important scientific discovery, as I said, simply defies all commonsense and logic. Where is the hardware? Where are the alien bodies? Where is the documentation? Can you find any of it? Nobody can and I predict nobody ever will. It just AINT THERE, is it?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-65683959054650708242009-10-26T20:44:18.598-07:002009-10-26T20:44:18.598-07:00For what it's worth, the reason I consider the...For what it's worth, the reason I consider the ET Hypothesis, in the Roswell case, over the seemingly explained (to folks like CDA, and Lance) version of the mistaken identity of balloons, and Rawin targets, is because of the combination of the several other testimonies to the contrary, which are bolstered by then Colonel DuBose's own testimony, in combination with the over-whelming data easily referenced via the files turned over to the National Archives, by the Air Force. <br /><br />These files show to all who take the time to read through them that the Non-Terrestrial Hypothesis must be considered in some cases.<br /><br />Let's face it...the cost in man-power, and possible danger, that presented itself in many of the intercept cases would never have come about...no -not even once, if everything was so easily explained.<br /><br />We would NOT have wasted our time chasing ourselves around. Think about it. If even one individual --Base Commander, or otherwise-- knew what we were dealing with, at any point in the many years we investigated it, and chased these objects around, it would have been over...END OF STORY!! But the truth is, nobody knew...NOBODY!!<br /><br />And everytime someone "out of the loop" would push for closure, because it was all just a waste of time, something would happen that would be just enough to keep it going. Usually, this "something" was kept slightly hush-hush...from the press, anyways. <br /><br />No one could ever say, "they arrived from HERE, and they left for HERE".<br /><br />No one could say for any certainty where they arrived from, or where they "fled" to. That's the other thing. They DID (or DO) flee when persued. But when both pilots, and RADAR operators say things like, "it shot straight up, presumably into outer space", then who are we dealing with?<br /><br />And when you combine this wealth of data, with what some of the Roswell witnesses say, it is enough to at least consider the ET Hypothesis.Bob Kofordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739226809252915992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-61688476858798864222009-10-26T16:01:42.951-07:002009-10-26T16:01:42.951-07:00Sometimes I really wonder why Roswell proponents h...Sometimes I really wonder why Roswell proponents have to go into such minute detailabout what is depicted in the photos or what was recovered from the Foster ranch. What is the purpose of it all? These people make two false assumptions:<br /><br />1. That everything significant that was recovered from the ranch is shown in the Fort Worth photos. It almost certainly is not, and we can assume a lot of it, maybe more than half, is missing from the photos but maybe elsewhere. <br /><br />2. That the whole balloon plus radar reflector array plus large amounts of twine all came down in much the same area. This need not be so, and almost certainly was not so. Maybe lots of the debris was never recovered due to lack of time & manpower. This would be perfectly natural. Why bother to collect 20 shattered balloons when two or three would suffice? Again, maybe most of the twine came down elsewhere, maybe many miles away. So its absence proves nothing at all about Mogul flight 4, flight 3A, flight 3B, or whatever you want to call it. <br /><br />Further debate over these minutiae of detail is pointless. I agree that my comments are speculation, but perfectly valid speculation, not contradicted by anything we know, and vastly more 'down to earth' than the concept of an ET visitation!cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-19271390221747464102009-10-26T13:34:32.774-07:002009-10-26T13:34:32.774-07:00Gilles F. wrote
Circleville case : " “ It l...Gilles F. wrote<br /><br /><i>Circleville case : " “ It looked like a meteorologist's balloon, with a six-pointed kite-like contraption suspended from the balloon. 6 points shape is an hexagone. 6 pointed stars is an Hexagone (Newton description).</i><br /><br />Perhaps this is a language problem, but in English the average person would not equate a “6-pointed star” with a “hexagon”.<br /><br /><i>Hexagone in "popular" semantic means 6 segments shape, but in geometry, a hexagon is a polygon with six edges and six verticles.</i><br /><br />Most average American English speakers would take a “hexagon” description to mean the geometric definition of a polygon with six nearly equal edges and angles, like the Pentagon is the 5-sided polygon shape of military HQ.<br /><br />In any case, this is all academic. It avoids my repeated point that the descriptions in the newspapers were always of <i>intact, assembled</i> radar targets, not Ramey’s badly torn up one laid out flat on his floor. Again, how can one possibly deduce a “hexagon” shape of any kind from that (while at the same time claiming you don’t know definitely what it is, as did Ramey)? It’s nonsense.<br /><br /><i>How can taking place the "debunking campaign" already on in the country that July the 6th ? Before then "the capture of a flying saucer by the USAF" and the proprosed debunking campaign ?</i><br /><br />You are confusing the pictures of radar target crashes in the newspapers (such as Circleville on July 6), with the military saucer debunkery campaign that began July 9 with radar target demonstrations, such as the ones at Alamogordo, Fort Worth, and Atlanta.<br /><br />www.roswellproof.com/militarydebunk.html<br />www.roswellproof.com/balloon_demos.html<br /><br /><i> A telex IMHO is something you must be short and explicite, like "short notes" and fast description. I dont think a telex is a geometry description</i><br /><br />I don’t see how trying to be terse in one’s descriptions in any way explains how Ramey could possibly deduce a “hexagon” shape from a very badly broken and torn up radar target laid out flat on his floor.<br /><br /><i>But concerning the [missing] "twine" "“[There was] something on the order of heavy-gauge monofilament fishing line... The "string", I couldn't break it.”<br />W. Brazel J in Stanton Friedman and Don Berliner, Crash at Corona, 1991</i><br /><br />Brazel Sr. <i>explicitly</i> denied finding anything like that: “No strings or wire were to be found but there were some eyelets in the paper to indicate that some sort of attachment may have been used.”<br /><br />The official story of Charles Moore and the USAF is Brazel found the supposed Mogul Flight #4, a large neoprene balloon array made up of at least two dozen weather balloons, 600 feet tall, with radar targets, payload, and various equipment underneath, all strung together by balloon twine. Therefore at least 200 yards of high strength twine should have been found along with the alleged multi-balloon, multi-radar target debris. But Brazel himself said absolutely nothing like that was found. In fact, nobody ever mentioned this. <br /><br />And nothing holding the radar target to any balloon (what was attached to the “eyelets” of a real used radar target) is pictured in the Fort Worth photos either, despite intense scrutiny of multiple photos in high resolution (not just me, but by others). <br /><br />The few fragments like “monofilament fishing line”-like material that Brazel Jr. described cannot account for the hundreds of yards of missing twine, that should have snarled and been left at the site. It magically disappeared, along with all the other alleged Mogul gear.<br /><br />Incidentally Brazel Jr. also stated he couldn’t cut his thread-like fragments with his knife. He compared them to wire. Real monofilament nylon fishing line may have high tensile strength, but it is nevertheless very easy to cut.<br /><br />Enjoy your vacation Gilles.<br /><br />David RudiakDavid Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63581830238694852432009-10-26T10:33:29.231-07:002009-10-26T10:33:29.231-07:00(end of post)
The massively serious contradiction...(end of post)<br /><br />The massively serious contradictions in the official Roswell story don’t end here. For example, Marcel was also quoted saying that after hearing about the flying saucers in Corona on July 5, "Brazell then hurried home, and bright and early Sunday, dug up the remnants of the kite balloon," Marcel continued, "and on Monday headed for Roswell to report his find to the sheriff.”<br /><br />So after thinking he had found a flying saucer, Brazel is so excited he hurries home and first thing Sunday morning he rides 7 or 8 miles away to retrieve his small bundles of stashed saucer. But then when he goes to Roswell he fails to bring them with him, and instead has to drag Marcel and Cavitt all the way out to his ranch to retrieve them? Does this make sense?<br /><br />David RudiakDavid Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63279851892280219002009-10-26T10:32:46.079-07:002009-10-26T10:32:46.079-07:00cda wrote:
One little matter people forget is tha...cda wrote:<br /><br /><i>One little matter people forget is that the sticks shown in the Ft Worth photos supposedly look too 'clean' and pristine to have been laying about in the sun for 5 weeks. Who says they had lain about in the sun for 5 weeks? Brazel specifically says he gathered up some of the debris (more likely the beams or sticks since that was the most unusual stuff) and hid it under some brush (some reports say under a shed). If so, the sticks did NOT lie out in the hot sun for 5 weeks. I concede we can never be sure about this because, once again, the press reports do not give a consistent date for Brazel performing this action.</i><br /><br />Sorry, but that is NOT what Brazel said. Instead cda is citing what was attributed to Marcel in Fort Worth (along with the debris being scattered over a "SQUARE MILE"--that's one hell of a radar target.)<br /><br />"It had been found three weeks previously by a New Mexico rancher, W. W. Brazell [sic], on his property about 85 miles northwest of Roswell. Brazell, whose ranch is 30 miles from the nearest telephone and has no radio, knew nothing about flying discs when he found the broken remains of the weather device scattered over a square mile of his land.<br /><br />"He bundled the tinfoil and broken wooden beams of the kite and the torn synthetic rubber remains on the balloon together and rolled it under some brush, according to Maj. Jesse A. Marcel..."<br /><br />So it is Marcel who is quoted saying Brazel immediately picked up the stuff when he first found it and threw it under some brush, which is what a sheep rancher would do to keep his stupid sheep from perhaps eating the rubber and foil debris and killing themselves. <br /><br />But this isn't what Brazel was quoted saying in his Roswell Daily Record interview. No Brazel said he was too busy and paid no attention to it until the 4th of July when he picked up the stuff with his family:<br /><br />“Brazel related that on June 14 he and an 8-year old son, Vernon, were about 7 or 8 miles from the ranch house of the J. B. Foster ranch, which he operates, when they came upon a large area of bright wreckage made up on rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper and sticks.<br /><br />“<i>At the time Brazel was in a hurry to get his round made and he did not pay much attention to it.</i> But he did remark about what he had seen and <i>on July 4</i> he, his wife, Vernon and a daughter, Betty, age 14, went back to the spot and <i>gathered up quite a bit of the debris.”</i><br /><br />Since cda says we have to go with the Brazel’s story on the date of discovery, then we must also go with his story about when he finally gathered up the debris, a full 30 days after the alleged Flight 4 Mogul flight that supposedly accounted for it. It had been out in the sun and elements for that entire period.<br /><br />It is not the sticks that are too clean and pristine. It is the totally white paper backing of the radar target in the Fort Worth photos that is much too clean. And the pictured balloon’s condition is too good as well—still intact and still very pliable looking. One thing I do believe Charles Moore on are his demonstrations that the neoprene balloons deteriorated into a black, brittle, paper-like ash after only 2 to 3 weeks in the N.M. sun. Does the Fort Worth balloon look like flakes of paper-ash to anyone after a supposed 4+ weeks in the sun?<br /><br />(continued next post)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-5686377129454473982009-10-26T08:52:23.144-07:002009-10-26T08:52:23.144-07:00Since this disdussion is still raging, I thought I...Since this disdussion is still raging, I thought I would add that yes, the June 14 date is ceratinly preferable to "sometime last week" (meaning early July) in that a definite calendar date is given. Other dates are merely vague and are taken from AP dispatches before getting anythig first-hand from a known witness. And there is always the confusion between when the debris was first discovered and when it was recovered. So June 14 is perfectly acceptable as a date for the original find, as is the "three weeks previous" from the Ft Worth newspaper, even though they partially contradicted this in one article. <br /><br />Nor need we suppose the military put this date in Brazel's mind. Why on earth invent a false date anyway? <br /><br />One little matter people forget is that the sticks shown in the Ft Worth photos supposedly look too 'clean' and pristine to have been laying about in the sun for 5 weeks. Who says they had lain about in the sun for 5 weeks? Brazel specifically says he gathered up some of the debris (more likely the beams or sticks since that was the most unusual stuff) and hid it under some brush (some reports say under a shed). If so, the sticks did NOT lie out in the hot sun for 5 weeks. I concede we can never be sure about this because, once again, the press reports do not give a consistent date for Brazel performing this action. <br /><br />A complicated case indeed! But that is what Roswell is all about.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-71977712602940559632009-10-26T08:45:21.481-07:002009-10-26T08:45:21.481-07:00Gentlemen -
Please tone down the rhetoric somewha...Gentlemen -<br /><br />Please tone down the rhetoric somewhat. We can all make our points without resorting loaded words in our discussions.<br /><br />Please note that I have only removed two messages on this blog. In both those cases the authors crossed my arbitrary line. We haven't reached that point yet, but we are nearing it again.<br /><br />(Yes, I know that I have removed more than two, but in the other cases, they were in languages that I don't speak and I had no idea what they said. I will assume that they had to do with the discussions at had, but I don't know that. So I removed them.)<br /><br />So, please, continue the discussion, but leave out the loaded word. Thanks...<br /><br />BTW, this is the longest discussion to date on this blog.<br /><br />KRandleKRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-36483455717955137132009-10-26T08:37:08.625-07:002009-10-26T08:37:08.625-07:00This is what happens in all discussions of Roswell...This is what happens in all discussions of Roswell. We nit pick our way out of witness testimony. Every human frailty in a UFO witness is scrutinized, when on debnkers frailty doesn't matter.<br />Debate on how Roswell would been handled instead rather than those witnesses who are credible. The bottom line is this. If this was a top secret flying saucer those people who wanted to keep their oats or just believed they would lose their pensions have a greater expectancy to lie. So quoting those who are suppose to lie about as if it is gospel makes sense as. So nit pick it to death. I will always believe the orginal people of Corona and Roswell, those who there and had nothing to gain by reporting what happened. <br />Or do you debunking groupies think they were planing a Roswell festival back then.<br />Joe Capp<br />UFOMMJoseph Capphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12428219762980782866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-16563823930022756152009-10-26T04:26:52.378-07:002009-10-26T04:26:52.378-07:00Isn't it possible that Ramey asked someone abo...Isn't it possible that Ramey asked someone about the debris before he made his statement about it? Perhaps he even asked someone at Roswell by phone what it was and by that time it had been (perhaps tentatively) identified. He could have simply been accepting what he had been told but still wanting a look at it himself.<br /><br />After all, believers insist that everyone should have know immediately what it.<br /><br />As for Rudiak's dubious descriptions of the Mogul flights, suffice it to say that there are serious doubts as to whether Rudiak even has the ability to honestly debate any issue. As I have shown clearly and unambiguously, Rudiak makes up stuff. That is the way he works.<br /><br />There are devastating refutations of the slimy things that Rudiak implies about Moore and the balloon flights:<br /><br />http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/rudiak.htm<br /><br />and<br /><br />http://www.nmsr.org/sf-gun.htm<br /><br />As when I caught him in an outright fabrication, he has no legitimate response. He simply moves on to rave about something else.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-67210052132000101602009-10-26T03:02:13.508-07:002009-10-26T03:02:13.508-07:00Greetings David Rudiak.
You writed :
"Do an...Greetings David Rudiak.<br /><br />You writed :<br /><br />"Do any look “hexagonal” to anybody?"<br /><br />Well, dunno but :<br /><br />Circleville case :<br /><br />" “ It looked like a meteorologist's balloon, with a six-pointed kite-like contraption suspended from the balloon.<br /><br />“ the Colombus Citizen ” July 1947, the 6th (before the debunking campaign then).<br /><br />6 points shape is an hexagone.<br /><br />6 pointed stars is an Hexagone (Newton description).<br /><br />Hexagone in "popular" semantic means 6 segments shape, but in geometry, a hexagon is a polygon with six edges and six verticles.<br /><br />This 6 frame is described in a July, the 6th, newspaper. So : <br /><br />"Clearly the military Rawin demonstrations that FOLLOWED deliberately tried to equate the Rawins to the reported flying discs being seen around the country."<br /><br />How can taking place the "debunking campaign" already on in the country that July the 6th ? Before then "the capture of a flying saucer by the USAF" and the proprosed debunking campaign ?<br /><br />A telex IMHO is something you must be short and explicite, like "short notes" and fast description. I dont think a telex is a geometry description exercice, and the writer or descriptor(s) (by phone ?) used what is the faster to describe the "disk" probably ?<br /><br />***<br /><br />Concerning the other very interresting questions, it would be a book to trie to propose possible explanation, and that's exactly how I'm humblely finishing to work on.<br /><br />But concerning the "twine"<br /><br />"“[There was] something on the order of heavy-gauge monofilament fishing line... The "string", I couldn't break it.”<br />W. Brazel J in Stanton Friedman and Don Berliner, Crash at Corona, 1991<br /><br />(150 to 300 pounds tension resistance twine - USAF source - is difficult to breack by our 2 hands ?)<br /><br />or :<br /><br />"There was some thread-like material. It looked like silk and there were several pieces of it."<br /><br />William Brazel Jr, in Charles Berlitz and William Moore, The Roswell Incident, 1980.<br /><br />I go on holliday for 2 days, to finish that work out the big city of Paris,<br /><br />and one more time thank's you very much for that cordial discussion. <br /><br />Sometimes, in our own forums and country, between different opinion protagonists, that's not the same ^^<br /><br />Best Regards to all,<br /><br />Gilles F.Gilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-86107300682281784242009-10-25T17:10:47.437-07:002009-10-25T17:10:47.437-07:00Gilles F. wrote:
But he recalls the flight of jun...Gilles F. wrote:<br /><br /><i>But he recalls the flight of june the 4th. Normal, he was here, and this flight is corroborated in Crary's diary.<br /><br />Those 2 last are the switched flights in annexe 27 of USAF report, cause the table summerizes research flights.<br /><br />Switched numbers are the "service" ones. Cancelled flights aren't labelled (May, the 8 or 9th, memory..) isn't or we must have at least 3 4 5 fights (before the research flight of june the 5th) if NYU labels cancelled flights.</i><br /><br />Gilles, you continue to avoid the main point. Moore and the USAF have insisted the Foster Ranch object was a fully assembled, equipped, large, constant-altitude Mogul balloon array, not some small "service flight" of a few weather balloons with some test equipment. Moore also insists they tracked it clear to Arabela. They have further argued you need the complete Mogul to account for what was described and found at the Foster Ranch. (Moore has further argued you needed a constant-altitude balloon just to get it there with the given winds, though he cheated outrageously to even get that do work.)<br /><br />So why isn't "Flight 4" listed in the Mogul flight summaries, just like every other such constant-altitude balloon flight that <i>actually went up and was tracked</i>? You too seem to be trying to have it both ways.<br /><br />It is not me, but Moore, who also claims that the attempted but failed #3 was actually May 3 in Pennsylvania, not your May 29 in New Mexico.<br /><br />Flights #2 & #3 in Pennsylvania never got off the ground because of equipment failure. That is why they are not in the Mogul summaries of <i>actual</i> flights. Flight #9 July 3 was canceled when a coordinated V-2 launch was canceled. It isn't in the flight summaries because it too never was.<br /><br />And "Flight #4" is missing too. Crary said it was canceled because of clouds. It never went up. Instead, they apparently sent up a simple, small "service flight", a balloon cluster with a sonobuoy to test reception. <br /><br />But that ISN'T what Moore and the USAF INSIST came down on the Foster Ranch. No, it was a real, full-fledged Mogul flight, but they never dare explain why it wasn't listed if there really was such a thing.<br /><br />And your postulated service flight of a small balloon cluster with sonobuoy can't possibly explain what happened at Roswell, even if one did somehow manage to get up there. How do you explain Brazel's 200 yards across debris field, or the absence of twine that necessarily would have been there? Why doesn't Brazel mention finding something like a sonobuoy? Why did he insist that what he found wasn't like any of the weather balloons he had previously found? If all he found was a singular balloon and radar target (what we see displayed in the Fort Worth photos), then why didn't he just take the whole thing to Roswell? Why did Marcel have to go all the way back out and spend a day to pick up more pieces? Why would Blanchard have insisted that Cavitt come along to help, because Brazel described so much more debris out there? Why was Marcel quoted then saying debris was scattered over a "square mile"? Why would they utilize a large B-29 to fly one balloon and radar target to Ramey? Is that consistent with a service flight or even a complete Mogul? Why is Ramey claiming the radar target appeared to be "25 feet in diameter"?<br /><br />And we've barely scratched the service of the many inconsistencies between what was actually reported then and now and the Mogul balloon or your service flight hypotheses.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />David RudiakDavid Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-14845861966793432782009-10-25T16:35:59.316-07:002009-10-25T16:35:59.316-07:00(more on Ramey's impossible "hexagonal&qu...(more on Ramey's impossible "hexagonal" description)<br /><br />I think Ramey was briefed on how to describe the targets if it came up. Maybe someone’s plan was to make the very non-disc-like Rawins seem more disc-like by calling them “hexagonal.” Clearly the military Rawin demonstrations that followed deliberately tried to equate the Rawins to the reported flying discs being seen around the country. <br /><br />There is also good evidence there was no target and balloon in Rameys office office when he was providing the descriptions and Marcel only arrived later. E.g., only about an hour after the press release, Ramey was also quoted saying it was like a box-kite, but it was in his office and he hadn’t seen it yet. Then he supposedly went to take, came back claiming that it would have been “about 25 feet in diameter”, a preposterous description, very much at odds with the real 4 foot Rawins and the small quantity of radar target debris in the photos.<br /><br />I’ll stop there.<br /><br />David RudiakDavid Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-74867013716396581412009-10-25T16:34:53.843-07:002009-10-25T16:34:53.843-07:00Some responses to Gilles.F on Ramey’s “hexagonal” ...Some responses to Gilles.F on Ramey’s “hexagonal” description and RAWIN target construction.<br /><br />1. Rawins folded down are triangles, not hexagons. <br /><br />Diagrams showing how Rawin ML-307s are constructed and how they fold down into triangles are at my website:<br /><br />http://roswellproof.com/rawin_construction.html<br /><br />Notice also the photos at the very bottom, showing various angles on an assembled rawin target, all of them very non-hexagonal. These are screen captures from a probable 1947 newsreel, again debunking the flying saucers and using the Rawin target as the explanation, one of a number of such debunking demos that followed in the wake of Ramey’s weather balloon debunking. Complete movie here (target never looks hexagonal):<br /><br />www.roswellproof.com/balloondemos.html<br /><br />Also have a look at photos of reported rawin balloon crashes at the time:<br /><br />www.roswellproof.com/balloon_crashes.html <br /><br />In all these cases, the crashed Rawins are not broken up and shredded, like in the Ramey photos, i.e., they are relatively intact. Do any look “hexagonal” to anybody?<br /><br />2. Unfolded, <b><i>fully assembled</i></b>, and <b><i> intact</i></b> (not broken, torn up, and laid out flat on the floor, as in the Ramey photos), they only appear hexagonal <i>in profile</i> if viewed from directly above or below (and if you ignore their obvious 3D structure, e.g. if viewing from a distance or if you close one eye). From all other angles, their profile is decidedly non-hexagonal. <br /><br />I’ve thrown up a quick webpage illustrating this plus detailing other arguments:<br /><br />www.roswellproof.com/rameys_hexagon_story.html<br /><br />The Rawin targets were built up around a central core of three balsa sticks at right angles to one another. Think of these as the diagonals of a cube, so it is a basic cubic structure. <br /><br />If the corner of a cube is viewed, the profile of the cube is also hexagonal, but this is an unusual perspective. Very few people would describe a cube’s shape as “hexagonal” if you asked them. And very few people would describe an assembled radar target as hexagonal either if asked. Irving Newton, Ramey’s weather officer, instead described them as resembling “six-pointed stars”.<br /><br />If very few people would describe a cube as “hexagonal”, how many could deduce “hexagonal” from 3 sticks crossed at right angles, or from a small metal hinge in the middle holding the sticks together and allowing the target to fold down? To me that argument makes no sense.<br /><br />Now imagine a paper cube; tear it up and throw it on the floor. Could anyone deduce this was a cube, much less might have a hexagonal profile from a particular angle?<br /><br />Only a specialist very familiar with the radar targets might ever describe them as “hexagonal”. For example, somebody launching them might take note of the hexagonal profile as the balloon went up and they viewed the Rawin at some distance and from directly below.<br /><br />But this isn’t what is depicted in the Ramey photos. This is not an assembled, intact radar target. It is broken and torn up into pieces, then laid out flat on the floor. How do you deduce the “hexagonal” shape from this? <br /><br />Ramey would have had to be an expert in weather balloon equipment to know this. Yet he was also mincing words about his tentative radar target identification. It resembled or it might be, but he would have to bring in a weather officer to make sure. But he couldn’t come up with a “hexagon” description unless he was sure and very familiar with the targets to begin with. No need for his weather officer and all the maybes. Just ID it and be done with it.<br /><br />(continued next post)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.com