tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post7024828811332839061..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: The Size of the Debris FieldKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger130125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-6054150089723212512020-05-24T14:44:14.241-07:002020-05-24T14:44:14.241-07:00Not many comments of late but I'll leave one r...Not many comments of late but I'll leave one regardless . . . It seems obvious to me that the only accounts of the size of the debris field that should register are those from individuals who actually saw the site before it was sanitized. Second-hand reports should be dismissed no matter how relevant or factual they may seem. Human memory is a malleable thing and even amongst eyewitnesses can be faulty, a reality that sharpens the defining boundary between experience and recountal.kw19193https://www.blogger.com/profile/03063354472439834913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-86658712374172859772015-10-17T11:02:44.120-07:002015-10-17T11:02:44.120-07:00John's Space -
While assigned to the school i...John's Space -<br /><br />While assigned to the school in 1947, that did not absolve him of other responsibilities. Often in these circumstances, the student would still have a role in the normal operations of the base. As an aside, Exon, to maintain his currency on flight status, not to mention his flight pay would have been required to get a minimum of fours of flight time a month.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-19309621228775410842015-10-13T19:24:10.891-07:002015-10-13T19:24:10.891-07:00Kevin,
Do you have any information that would exp...Kevin,<br /><br />Do you have any information that would explain the role of then Lt. Col. Exon in 1947 given his status at that time? I think that have raise a relevant question above.John's Spacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08241028519082710381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-7935479828183862862015-10-12T14:24:02.879-07:002015-10-12T14:24:02.879-07:00Brian -
Since this is now in your fall back posit...Brian -<br /><br />Since this is now in your fall back position of arguing pointless semantics and since this has nothing to do with the size of the debris field, this particular branch of the discussion is now closed... please note that I gave you the last word (well, almost.)KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-2590641257019497032015-10-12T12:23:28.242-07:002015-10-12T12:23:28.242-07:00I'll clarify, but actually Kevin you stand cor...I'll clarify, but actually Kevin you stand corrected.<br /><br />As you wrote above, I didn't say they were "denied the Purple Heart" as in someone said you can't have it. I wrote:<br /><br />"...but they were never awarded the Purple Heart when it was created in the 1930's. That's a historical fact."<br /><br />A commendation is awarded....given and recieved... It means they didn't get one. It doesn't mean they were denied one.<br /><br />There's a big difference in how you interpreted what I wrote and what you are claiming.<br />Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-39497853754811083322015-10-10T18:36:14.122-07:002015-10-10T18:36:14.122-07:00Brian -
You say, “Unless you served in WW1 I woul...Brian -<br /><br />You say, “Unless you served in WW1 I wouldn't go around claiming your Vietnam experience is sufficient to know exactly what the Great War was like in all aspects.”<br /><br />Please point to the place where I made any such claim. You invented this statement yourself but then I could say that since you have no military experience you have no way of knowing exactly what the Great War was like in all aspects.<br /><br />You say, “I have spoken to leading historians on this matter (have you?) and they do say the volume of gas attacks were so wide and many that it was common for soldiers not to be recognized for this due to the fact they were treated in shaby rear line make shift hospitals. No one kept any records.”<br /><br />This is another invention by you. Your original, inaccurate statement suggested that soldiers injured in gas attacks were denied the Purple Heart. I pointed out that the regulations, put into place a decade and a half after the end of the war provided for those injured in the attacks with a means of receiving the award.<br /><br />For retroactive awards, there are various ways to prove that a soldier is eligible, but in these cases, the soldier must take action to do it. While it is true that many soldiers injured might not have been treated in a hospital in a rear area, it is also true that records were kept even if those records were sporadic, incomplete and sometimes misplaced. We have records for soldiers that go back to the Revolutionary War (which is how I know that my great-great whatever grandfather died in the service of the Continental Army) so your claim that no one kept any records is untrue.<br /><br />I’m not sure what your point is here. I merely pointed out that your original claim misrepresented the situation and since you have proved in the past that you are a stickler for precise language that you might want to qualify your statement, especially when presented with information that shows that you were in error.<br /><br />You asked, “…why do you insist your knowledge is sufficient to claim in the trenches those records were all nicely typed and filed?”<br /><br />Where did I suggest anything like that? Isn’t this another example of your over-the-top hyperbole (yes that is redundant) designed to avoid the real questions and historical evidence that I presented.<br /><br />Before you go off on another tangent, it is quite clear from the record that thousands of soldiers were killed in gas attacks, thousands more were injured in those same attacks. Many of those injured were awarded wound chevrons which could be used as evidence for the awarding of the Purple Heart. No one suggested the records were complete or that all soldiers received the recognition they deserved. However, it is also true that some of those soldiers did not apply for the award; others failed to gather enough evidence to prove their injuries and even more never realized their eligibility. Finally, apropos of nothing, I would have been eligible for a Purple Heart had the doctor checked the proper box on a form.<br />KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-31532671280376059932015-10-10T00:14:08.564-07:002015-10-10T00:14:08.564-07:00Kevin -
With all due respect you have no clue on...Kevin - <br /><br />With all due respect you have no clue on this one.<br /><br />Unless you served in WW1 I wouldn't go around claiming your Vietnam experience is sufficient to know exactly what the Great War was like in all aspects.<br /><br />You really don't know what you're talking about in this case. Clueless.<br /><br />I have spoken to leading historians on this matter (have you?) and they do say the volume of gas attacks were so wide and many that it was common for soldiers not to be recognized for this due to the fact they were treated in shaby rear line make shift hospitals. No one kept any records.<br /><br />Gee, their records weren't correct or even written down, and since you claimed in a previous post clerks couldn't get the paper work right on Marcel or you, why do you insist your knowledge is sufficient to claim in the trenches those records were all nicely typed and filed?<br /><br />You don't know so don't pretend your reserve commission makes you an expert in all things military.<br /><br />Go back to UFO's - that's your specialty isn't it?Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-61641112487369549532015-10-09T15:15:28.430-07:002015-10-09T15:15:28.430-07:00Brian -
You know, maybe you should just give up. ...Brian -<br /><br />You know, maybe you should just give up. Your facts are often in your world but not that shared by the rest of us.<br /><br />You wrote, "Besides, during WWI many troops were exposed to Mustard Gas which burnt their lungs, but they were never awarded the Purple Heart when it was created in the 1930's. That's a historical fact."<br /><br />It is a historical fact that those who were gassed during WW I were awarded a Purple Heart. The first Army regulations established the eligibility for the Purple Heart as those in possession of a Meritorious Service Citation Certificate issued by the C in C of the AEF. Those certificates had to be exchanged for the Purple Heart. It also authorized that those who had been awarded a wound chevron were eligible for the Purple Heart and could exchange those chevrons for the award.<br /><br />And, in case you didn't know, the wound chevron denoted wounds received in combat against an enemy force or hospitalization following a gassing. This seems to suggest that your comment was in error. And that's a real historical fact.<br /><br />Oh, and since I receive compensation for combat related injuries, I probably know a little more about this than you do.<br />KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-40794612208187290622015-10-09T15:13:36.675-07:002015-10-09T15:13:36.675-07:00I missed out on the Gen. Exon discussion but I'...I missed out on the Gen. Exon discussion but I've been wondering about one issue. Based on his official bio, it is true that he was stationed at Wright-Patterson in the 1947 period and was there sometime after. But it seems he was actually attending a two-year course in industrial administration at the Air Force Institute of Technology graduating in 1948. So he was in a student at the time so why would he be assigned to fly over the Roswell crash site? It doesn't seem like that would fit his role as a student or the field he was being groomed didn't seem in anyway related to the areas of expertise required to work such an investigation. This has been puzzling me.John's Spacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08241028519082710381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-90268344283472076202015-10-09T09:23:36.860-07:002015-10-09T09:23:36.860-07:00Brian -
I never said I was a police officer. I sa...Brian -<br /><br />I never said I was a police officer. I said that I served with the Provost Marshal's office which is not the same thing. My advance course was for military police, but as a captain at the time, the training was for administration, supervision, overall analysis, the law and a whole bunch of military oriented details that have to do with combat operations that have no civilian counterpart.<br /><br />I have been diagnosed with PTSD and receive minor compensation for it so I am completely familiar with it and the symptoms of it. Obviously your thinking here was in error. When you say read the papers, I will assume you mean the newspapers as opposed to the medical and psychological journals on the subject. You might wish to climb down off your high horse when discussing things you know nothing about.<br /><br />Finally you said Patton slapped a wounded soldier and I said that he slapped a soldier who suffered from battle fatigue which is not the same thing. I know the history of the event and that Patton lost his command because of it. Apply your 2015 sensibilities to it all you want but in 1943 this was not recognized as a "wound" suffered in combat.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-25492451519781061772015-10-09T09:02:24.714-07:002015-10-09T09:02:24.714-07:00CDA said:
I submit that:
1. Marcel really had no...CDA said:<br /><br />I submit that:<br /><br />1. Marcel really had no idea of the debris field's true size.<br /><br />>> Correct. We only have his words which don't jive with the media summaries attributed to him in the first hours of the incident. From the testimony alone, we have an endlessly growing field starting with some 22 square feet in one location and at the greatest one square mile at another location, with unkown sizes at a claimed two other sites.<br /><br />2. Gen Exon never flew over the actual debris field at all. Which of the 3 (at least) debris fields was it anyway?<br /><br />>> Don't be silly, it was the one with the tracks!<br /><br />3. Nobody is any the wiser about the size as a result of Marcel's and Exon's evidence.<br /><br />>> And we will never know either, so why go on debating it? It's not an investigation anymore because we have nothing to go on in regards to the field itself other than varied and unprovable testimony.<br /><br />-----<br /><br />"But as I wasn't there..."<br /><br />Correct. But let's point out neither were any of the people who are proponents of a possible one mile square field, three crash locations, heavy trucks, tents, security, and a lot of men on their hands and knees.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-54011550500048055962015-10-09T08:02:30.508-07:002015-10-09T08:02:30.508-07:00Kevin -
"Besides, if those suffering from PT...Kevin -<br /><br />"Besides, if those suffering from PTSD are combat wounded then why aren't they awarded a Purple Heart. Your opinion that Patton abused a wounded soldier boils down to your opinion which wasn't shared by Patton."<br /><br />The point of my original comment was I DIDN'T SAY Blanchard and Marcel were "druling idiots" - I said like most military men with character or elite notoriety they ARE FALLIBLE.<br /><br />Do you even know anyone with PTSD? I'm thinking you don't.<br /><br />For a former officer you seem a bit dumbfounded on the issues of PTSD in today's world. Read the papers Kevin it's a very big issue inside the military despite top brass claiming it's all BS.<br /><br />Your comment seems supportive of the sad state of the US Army's leadership who ignores PTSD and veterans' needs chiming ridiculous drivel about Purple Hearts needing to be awarded to legitimize PTSD as a REAL type of mental disorder with physical effects that comes from combat. You don't need a medal to confirm a combat injury, a medical diagnosis is sufficient.<br /><br />Besides, during WWI many troops were exposed to Mustard Gas which burnt their lungs, but they were never awarded the Purple Heart when it was created in the 1930's. That's a historical fact.<br /><br />I guess to you that means they were never wounded?<br /><br />And I don't give a crap about what Patton thought about slapping soldiers. Just because they have PTSD in 1943, when it wasn't a diagnosed medical condition, doesn't mean it's not a form of "battle fatigue" deserving recognition. Patton was severely reprimanded for his actions and similar stunts by Eisenhower.<br /><br />That links back to my original post - These people can make mistakes.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-52200742297715469822015-10-09T05:29:44.543-07:002015-10-09T05:29:44.543-07:00Yes the discussion is about the size of the debris...Yes the discussion is about the size of the debris field (or fields?). There are far too many rough and ready answers to this, and none of them are the least reliable unless the person estimating it not only actually went out there and saw it, but went round its perimeter and, approximately, measured it. As far as I know, nobody ever did this. <br /><br />Even General Exon cannot help here, as he only flew over it (according to Kevin) but we don't know when. But wait: Karl Pflock says that Exon only flew over certain unknown and unconnected areas of New Mexico, and this was some years afterwards; he saw some tire tracks at one of the sites. This is supposed to bolster the idea that the General saw the aftermath of an ET crash at the Foster ranch!<br /><br />I submit that:<br /><br />1. Marcel really had no idea of the debris field's true size.<br />2. Gen Exon never flew over the actual debris field at all. <br /> Which of the 3 (at least) debris fields was it anyway?<br />3. Nobody is any the wiser about the size as a result of Marcel's and Exon's evidence.<br /><br />But as I wasn't there I agree that my conclusions may be wrong.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-80589249713538016492015-10-08T19:59:30.314-07:002015-10-08T19:59:30.314-07:00All -
Once again we have slid badly off the rails...All -<br /><br />Once again we have slid badly off the rails on this which was a discussion on the size of the debris field. And for those who just have to criticize everything, yes, I too have participated in this trip through the weeds.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-6486356843763994382015-10-08T17:42:45.646-07:002015-10-08T17:42:45.646-07:00(Part 2 of 2)
DR said:
"Marcel had various h...(Part 2 of 2)<br /><br />DR said:<br />"Marcel had various high ranking officers (Generals and Colonels) giving him evaluations post-Roswell with top-notch ratings. Four of the people rating him after Roswell, who definitely or probably knew exactly what happened, were or became Generals (Ramey, Blanchard, Ryan, Dubose). Two became 4-star generals and were the top-ranking officers in the AF (Ryan, Blanchard). Ramey "only" attained 3-star status (had to quit early because of heart attack). Ryan and Ramey both described Marcel as "outstanding". Two (Dubose and Ramey) stated he was command officer material."<br /><br />That doesn't mean anything. I have been evaluated by Senior Managers and Vice Presidents. It's their job to evaluate me. It was these generals job to evaluate Marcel. Doesn't mean he was some kind of special officer. They did hundreds of them. Marcel's highest scores while he was at Roswell and with the 509th were "6" for "physical activity and endurance" and "attention to duty". In a later eval he got a "6" for "cooperation", while being downgraded on initiative. Even I can see what that means. These do not strike me as being "top notch ratings". He is being commended for hard work and long hours but not for the things that make for a good flag officer candidate (or even a full bird Colonel) and not for things that are supposed to be his specialty. Marcel didn't rate as one of the top Majors at that base despite the importance of his position and the fact that he discovered that ET's existed and were visiting planet earth. Dubose could not even remember who Marcel was ten months later after the Roswell event. Don't tell me THAT was part of the cover up.<br /><br />Marcel was not incompetent. He was not a bad officer. He was "hard working", "loyal", competent, and any number of other very good qualities. But not superior. He was important to the operation of the unit (as any technical specialist would be), but not a "walk on water", "smartest man in the room", kind of guy who couldn't possibly, not in a million years, make a mistake and think some debris were the remains of a "flying disc" (what ever they thought a "flying disc" was at the time).<br /><br />It is more probable to me that Marcel could mistake debris for a "flying disc" than it is probable that actual ET spacecraft debris were recovered by him.Wind Swordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13360675127446078149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-38814289429995790892015-10-08T17:40:03.747-07:002015-10-08T17:40:03.747-07:00(Part 1 of 2)
DR said:
"I think you're m...(Part 1 of 2)<br /><br />DR said:<br />"I think you're missing the point. Printy claims his military background gives him the authority to judge Marcel as a not very good officer but it doesn't."<br /><br />I'll let Printy speak for himself in this matter. From his site: "Having written more awards and evaluations in my 20-plus years in the navy than I care to think about, I think I am at least somewhat qualified to understand Marcel's evaluations and his awards. Writing such evaluations is an art that takes some effort on the part of the grader. Not only are you trying to praise the individual for his good performance, you also want to make it clear what problems he/she still needs to improve upon. This becomes more important as a persons paygrade increases (this goes for enlisted as well as officers). The most important aspects of mid-level officers (O-3 to O-5) in an evaluation are the leadership categories, where initiative and action taken are required. The military does not like to promote individuals who are timid decision makers and can't inspire others in a crisis."<br /><br />So yes, I think he can speak on this with some authority, certainly more than you or I. Also Printy doesn't say that he was not a very good officer, just an average to good one, but not outstanding. For those who care to read the whole thing to get an understanding of his views (he can speak for himself better than I can) please see http://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/Marcel.htm<br /><br />The nature of a performance eval does not change because of the specialties involved or the level of the officer. The basics do not change even in the private sector. The basic question is - is this candidate performing at a superior level or not? Printy also tackles the problem of grade inflation, also a problem in the private sector as well as the armed services by citing a Rand study. His conclusion is that Marcel did not stand out in the key areas of leadership and initiative.Wind Swordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13360675127446078149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-2095074618827433762015-10-08T17:04:53.515-07:002015-10-08T17:04:53.515-07:00CDA -
I do not know and neither do you. Your conc...CDA -<br /><br />I do not know and neither do you. Your conclusion is the same sort of rank speculation that you often accuse us of... He did not seem to have prior knowledge but it is certainly a possibility.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17201150881363376882015-10-08T15:55:07.102-07:002015-10-08T15:55:07.102-07:00Kevin:
This time I will put it to you as a straig...Kevin:<br /><br />This time I will put it to you as a straight question:<br /><br />Did General Exon read the Berlitz-Moore book at any time? More specifically, did he read it before you or Don Schmitt interviewed him?<br /><br />If you know the answer, please say yes or no. If you don't know the answer, I accept that you don't. I will, however, state my own conviction that he DID read this book before you or Don interviewed him. And THAT is how he learned of the hammer blows to the metal and the fact that it returned to its original shape after being bent. In other words, I am saying that Gen Exon had prior knowledge of the case, through reading and maybe TV shows, well before you spoke to him.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-32013434121945338862015-10-08T15:03:09.532-07:002015-10-08T15:03:09.532-07:00CDA -
Of course we must accept all that Karl said...CDA -<br /><br />Of course we must accept all that Karl said because he didn't have an agenda...<br /><br />Exon said, on tape, on June 18, 1990 (which was the second interview with him), Stuart Symington... Carl Spaatz, all these guys were at the top of government. They were the ones who knew the most about Roswell, New Mexico. They were involved in what to do about the residue from that, those two findings."<br /><br />Question: You say those two.<br /><br />"Probably part of the same accident but two distinct sites. One, assuming that the thing, as I understand it, as I remember flying the area later, that the damage to the vehicle seemed to be coming from the southeast to northwest but it could have been going the opposite direction but it doesn't seem likely. So the farther northwest pieces found on the ranch, those pieces were mostly metal..."<br /><br />He also said about the metal, "You could wad it up, you could change the shape but it was still there... there were other parts of it that were very thin but awfully strong and couldn't be dented with heavy hammers and stuff like that..."<br /><br />This and my May 18, 1990 interview with him was the first time that anyone had asked him about any of this. It was before the publication of my first book and before all the publicity about Roswell really blew up... Yes, the Roswell Incident came out a decade earlier and Unsolved Mysteries did a segment in November 1989 but the explosion came after that.<br /><br />I will mention, once again, that his attitude changed when I met him at Wright-Patterson. It was clear that he was being very careful in what he said because he had begun to qualify his statements with a lot of "weasel" words. He didn't want to lie to me, and he didn't really change anything that he had said earlier, he just began to add levels of qualification, and that he had been making guesses, but that it not the tone he took in the original interviews.<br /><br />To coin a phrase, "You attach too much value to what Exon told Pflock."<br />KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-1395334525016547642015-10-08T14:43:40.717-07:002015-10-08T14:43:40.717-07:00Brian said :
"Despite all of this supposed a...Brian said :<br /><br />"Despite all of this supposed activity, dozens upon dozens of soldiers have never come forth claiming it really happened. They had the opportunity to do so when the story broke in the 1980-90's.<br /><br />Why didn't they?"<br /><br />I very rarely agree with you, but on this particular point, I also find odd that very few testimonies of former soldiers who participated to the cleaning have surfaced. If many more would have (let's say up to 10), it would have given (much) more weight to the other testimonies. I asked previously somehow that same question and would have been happy to have Kevin's thought on this point. <br /><br />Wind Swords said :<br /><br />"That's why I believe either Haut jumped the gun on the PR or Marcel and Blanchard didn't know what they were looking at. If we believe Marcel's own testimony years later then he thought it was something extraordinary at the time he found it - metal that resumed it's shape. Did he show it to Blanchard, or did he just tell him about the properties and Blanchard believed him? Did Blanchard dictate the PR to Haut or did he give him a general outline? (I know what Haut said later, but based on his later affidavits I not inclined to accept what he said at face value). What if Blanchard told Haut to get with Marcel on the details to write his PR? "<br /><br />Personnally, I don't believe Haut would make such a important announcement on his own nor Blanchard would overlook verifying by himself the nature of the debris before agreeing to release the PR (Cavitt and Marcel brought 2 vehicles full of debris and wouldn't show any of it? it really doesn't make much sense).<br /><br />"I'm still scratching my head wondering how a Colonel and a Major would think that a crashed spaceship (with or without alien bodies) would warrant a press release and not a security lock down and a call to HQ for further instructions."<br /><br />You're reasonning in our current worldview point and restrospect here. But by that time, flying saucers were not specifically thought of alien spaceshifts, and for the yet non-briefed military people to keep any of this secret (whatever they rank) , there would have been no particular reason to conceal any of it. On the contrary, I feel their deep sense of patriotism and proudness would have driven them to make that announcement. <br /><br />Now I feel we keep debating on very narrowed points (lots of if and if...), but one has to consider all the picture, and for me there are too many testimonial/documentational evidence and inconsistencies with a weather or mogul balloon explanation.Bricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15256342379584886357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-75700544327166323462015-10-08T13:47:59.009-07:002015-10-08T13:47:59.009-07:00DR:
Please see Karl Pflock's book, p.124. You...DR:<br /><br />Please see Karl Pflock's book, p.124. You will find there a few things that differ from what you wrote above. Exon's flight over NM were on missions that had nothing to do with Roswell and were not even over the debris field but over "several sites quite some time after July 1947". He did see vehicle tracks at one location. Big deal.<br /><br />Also, the control group "Unholy 13" was comprised of "educated guesses as to who likely would have been selected for such a group", nothing else. <br /><br />Like Kevin, you attach too much value to what Exon told Randle & Schmitt. Of course we can never be sure who is right and who is wrong in all this. But it is only fair to point out the contradictions and anomalies that exist.<br /><br />Also, Exon was being less than honest if he ever claimed that what crashed was an ET craft. There is no way he could have known this (if it happened) as his information, as Pflock says, was based entirely on rumors among colleagues at Wright Field.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-78572259586587093082015-10-08T12:51:01.962-07:002015-10-08T12:51:01.962-07:00Since the discussion has evolved into what Gen. Ex...Since the discussion has evolved into what Gen. Exon knew, long ago I put up a compilation of quotes and descriptions of his testimony:<br /><br />http://www.roswellproof.com/exon.html<br /><br />Yes, he does deny direct knowledge, but talked to men that he knew and trusted who were directly involved (photographers, people who analyzed Roswell debris, people who knew something about the bodies). He WAS stationed at Wright-Patterson (or just Wright Field) in July 1947 where even the modern AF admits debris was taken.<br /><br />He said he DID have direct knowledge of the appearance of the debris areas because he flew over them a short time later, noting many tire tracks and gouges, indicating a major recovery operation. (Thus not just two guys picking up a few pieces of "balloon debris" that Mack Brazel missed.)<br /><br />Exon also commented on seeing two distinct sites.<br /><br />Other direct knowledge about crash retrievals came when he was the C/O at Wright-Patterson from 1964-66, because he said he provided logistic support to crash retrieval teams from Washington that used W-P as the staging area.<br /><br />Finally he said he had some direct knowledge of a high-level UFO control group ("Unholy 13") made up initially of the Sec. of Defense (Forrestal), Sec. of the Air Force (Symington), CIA (probably represented by CIA director Rear Adm. Roscoe Hillenkoetter who later went public that UFOs were quite real), and other sundry generals like AF C/S Spaatz (probably Ramey was involved when he was made Pentagon AF Op Officer in 1950 and did such things as order jet UFO intercepts). No elected officials were involved other than the President. (E.g., Truman's AF aide Gen. Robert Landy admitted when interviewed that Truman ordered him to provide quarterly ORAL briefings on UFOs based on "central intelligence", which he did from 1948-1953.)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-61319836706066656242015-10-08T11:54:18.392-07:002015-10-08T11:54:18.392-07:00Wind Swords wrote:
"It's just a different...Wind Swords wrote:<br />"It's just a different track. Tim Printy's WO rank is a badge of honor, not an indication of mediocrity."<br /><br />I think you're missing the point. Printy claims his military background gives him the authority to judge Marcel as a not very good officer but it doesn't. On top of that (and much more important) he didn't know the man, quite unlike the high officers involved with Roswell who rated Marcel after Roswell and all giving him excellent and superior marks, you know, guys who actually knew him and watched him perform.<br /><br />Printy was in a completely different service (Navy) in a completely different time period (modern peacetime vs. WWII), worked in a small environment (submarine with small crews), and never attained rank officer grade after 22 years. His specialty was nuclear reactor technician on submarines. Not saying he didn't serve honorably or was incompetent. But his background was very narrow (doesn't begin to compare with Marcel's), and his experience in much lower rank in a completely different service and time period does not begin to give him the chops he thinks he has to judge someone like Marcel.<br /><br />Marcel was in the Army Air Force, in combat, in units with thousands of men (if not tens of thousands in some case), had multiple top-secret jobs, rose from 2nd Lt. to Major in only 2 years (retired a Lt. Col.), and had military specialties (MOs) of photo-intelligence officer, combat intelligence officer, and radar intelligence officer. He was an aerial cartographer before the war working for Shell Oil and the Army Corp of Engineers. The reason he went into the AAF as an officer (2nd Lt.) was because the military wanted him for his aerial cartography expertise and sent him to intelligence school. After graduating intelligence school, he taught aerial photo-intelligence for 1-1/2 years before being sent to the South Pacific as combat intelligence officer. <br /><br />So you could say Marcel was also basically a techie at heart, but his experience was much broader and greater and with a LOT more responsibility than Printy's. E.g., when the 509th was formed toward the end of WWII specifically for the purpose of dropping the A-bomb, Marcel was one of the guys planning the air drops on Japan (again that aerial photo-intelligence and combat intelligence background).<br /><br />Marcel had various high ranking officers (Generals and Colonels) giving him evaluations post-Roswell with top-notch ratings. Four of the people rating him after Roswell, who definitely or probably knew exactly what happened, were or became Generals (Ramey, Blanchard, Ryan, Dubose). Two became 4-star generals and were the top-ranking officers in the AF (Ryan, Blanchard). Ramey "only" attained 3-star status (had to quit early because of heart attack). Ryan and Ramey both described Marcel as "outstanding". Two (Dubose and Ramey) stated he was command officer material.<br /><br />Again, these were men familiar with Roswell and Marcel. Tim Printy's claim that his background gives him authority to label Marcel a "not very good officer" rings exceptionally hollow. In essence, because Marcel was "only" getting mostly A's and A-'s (with a few A+'s) on his report cards instead of all A+'s, he was a mediocre officer who must have bungled things, because Printy says so. Really? And this is based on his knowledge of how naval personnel were rated on submarines 30-50 years later? Since Printy could only rate men below his WO rank (about the equivalent of rating privates, corporals, and sergeants), does this really give him special insight into how Admirals rated Captains or Commanders in his era, much less Air Force Generals and Colonels rating Majors and Captains in the WWII era? Completely different times, different ranks, different services, different standards.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-74383395120267582312015-10-08T11:13:37.597-07:002015-10-08T11:13:37.597-07:00Kevin:
There is the transcript of Don Schmitt'...Kevin:<br /><br />There is the transcript of Don Schmitt's interview with Exon in the same book with Exon's letter to you. Reading this transcript tells you virtually nothing, and most of it is about other unconnnected things. But he does mention the thin metal that couldn't be dented with a hammer, and kept returning to its original shape. Now where did he get this from? Hints dropped at a previous interview? Reading your IUR articles about Marcel and Roswell? I am NOT saying Exon was 'coached' but cannot help but have that feeling that someone has dropped him certain information beforehand. Also, although he says he did fly over the debris field, or maybe elsewhere in NM, he does not say when (years later?). There is also this little matter of the mystery group of 13 who handled the story. How did he come to the number 13? (suggested by someone tipping him off to the 12 members of MJ-12 maybe?)<br /><br />The transcript and letter do not sound the least like that of someone who knew anything about ETs. He also jumps from his days in 1945 to his days in 1965, again nothing to do with Roswell at all. All a bit incoherent, at least that is my impression. He saw nothing first-hand, yet you rely on him as a key witness. Karl Pflock takes a quite different view. <br /><br />The only way around this is to have the full transcripts of ALL the interviews you and Schmitt did with Exon. (Plus of course the transcripts of any interviews he had with your predecessors or anyone else). <br /><br />Yes you met him. I did not. But as things stand, his Roswell 'story' leaves a lot to be desired.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-51748672785692588882015-10-08T09:45:47.136-07:002015-10-08T09:45:47.136-07:00CDA -
I was the first to interview him and he mad...CDA -<br /><br />I was the first to interview him and he made it clear in that interview that he had spoken to a number of people in specific jobs who told him what they had observed (yes, it is second-hand testimony, but does address certain areas of controversy). Although he said he knew nothing first hand, it is also true that he said he had flown over the crash sites in 1947, which are his first-hand observations. And, you weren't with me when I met him at Wright-Patterson Air Force when it was clear that someone had mentioned to him that he had talked out of school. He is a much better witness than you give him credit for in your obvious attempt to belittle what he had to say.<br /><br />It is the same with Easley. You dismiss it, overlooking his clear discomfort in being asked questions about all this. He mentioned several times that he had been swore to secrecy, a claim you seem to dismiss with no reason whatsoever. And, you ignore his later conversations with me and the fact that I was the first to speak to him.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.com