In
his Kodachrome documentary, Adam Dew interviews a man (and since his name is
well known, I see no point in repeating it here) who was in Roswell in 1947 who
said that the body in the slides resembled that he had seen in Roswell. Dew
doesn’t give the name (though we all know it now) and said that he had been a
lieutenant. The Yearbook produced by Walter Haut in 1947 has a picture of the
man and shows that he was only a PFC, a low-ranking enlisted man.
Here’s
what the records tell us. He served from March 14, 1946 to September 15, 1966
and that he retired from the Air Force as a Technical Sergeant (E-6). He is
technically a veteran of WW II since the war wasn’t declared officially over
until later in 1946. He does have a military pension but there is nothing in
the record to show that he was ever commissioned. He arrived in Roswell on
October 10, 1946 as a PVT (E-2) and on January 27, 1947 was promoted to PFC. On
November 17, 1947 he was promoted to corporal (E-4) which is the lowest of the
NCO grades (For those interested in these things Specialist (Spec 4, E-4) is
not an NCO and technically a corporal outranks a Specialist).
His
military career was honorable but not spectacular (as we can say about almost
everyone). He apparently served in French Morocco, England and Greenland. His
awards and decorations are those than everyone would receive during a military
career.
So,
where did Dew get the idea that he had been a lieutenant? I don’t know. Everyone
who has interviewed him, with the exception of Dew, seemed to understand that
in 1947, during the events in which we are all interested, he was a PFC. He
ended his career as an NCO. Dew must have misunderstood something and the only
place I have ever seen him referred to as an officer is in Dew’s preview of his
documentary.
Although
an exaggeration or inflation of a military rank would certainly be cause to
question a witness testimony, in this case, it seems to be a mistake made by
Dew rather than by the soldier. At any rate, it is quite clear that he was not
a lieutenant in Roswell in 1947, that he was never a lieutenant and that he
retired as a technical sergeant.
Kevin.
ReplyDeleteAnd your point is?
Where does that get us? does that say hes genuine or not?
If this is a honest mistake by Dew then so what, this witness still could of saw what he claims he did.
Al12 -
ReplyDeleteThe point is simply that you can't reject the story because Dew said the guy was an LT. Story might be true or not, but the guy served for 20 years and was in Roswell at the right time. That's really all.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteif thats the case, would his rank at the time ( whatever it was ) had given him authority to have witnessed what he claims he did?
Thanks for getting to the bottom of this.
ReplyDeleteBut I am sure that Dew will just say that he must have been mistaken.
I suspect we will never actually learn where the false claim came from.
Lance
What rank in the US military do you have to be in order to be allowed to view what are assumed to be alien bodies?
ReplyDeleteIs there any directive on this, in the military of the US or indeed any other nation?
CDA:
ReplyDeleteAssuming that the recovery of a downed UFO was run like any other Special Access Project that the US has run in the last 70 years or so, rank wouldn't have anything to do with it.
The defining criteria as to whether someone is allowed access to knowledge within a particular compartment is 1) having the appropriate security clearance and 2) having a need-to-know the knowledge.
The security clearance level that is necessary to access some particular compartment of classified information is set up by whoever the authority is that created the compartment in the first place. There are only a relatively handful of individuals in the US Government who can classify some subject at the Top Secret or above level. In the military, they tend to be the flag officers at the head of uniformed services and very senior civilian managers at the head of certain agencies. (For example, I believe the NASA Administrator has the authority to classify something at the Top Secret level--but no one else in NASA does.) So, only a few very senior individuals can classify something TS or above.
However, once a subject has been appropriately classified (at any level) the security clearance to access that information and the certification of need-to-know can be granted by the security manager of that subject to anyone who passes the appropriate background investigation and has some genuine need to be exposed to the subject.
Such individuals can range from the very mighty to the very humble and can be military or civilian, by the way. For example, Vannevar Bush obtained a War Department security clearance for Albert Einstein a week or two after the US entered WWII so that Einstein's great intellect could be used in the War effort. What some people never seem to think about is that even highly compartmented subjects can need a very wide range of skills and abiities to operate--all the way from janitors to generals.
For example, a few years ago I had occasion to observe a technology test at a particular, very sensitive nuclear weapons facility within the Nevada Test Complex. In order to be on the staff at the Complex, everyone had to have at least a "Q" clearance. This particular clearance is a combination of a Top Secret (TS) clearance issued under the authority of the executive branch, together with a Restricted Data (RD clearance) issued under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act. The Q clearance has always been viewed as a particularly exclusive clearance since it requires scrutiny by two different agencies. As we were going through the lunch line in the cafeteria during the noon hour, I couldn't help but notice that even the short order cook behind the counter who was preparing my hamburger was wearing a Q-cleared badge.
Given his attachment to the Military Police at the nation's only atomic bomb air base at the time, I would guess that the Private under discussion here had a Q clearance.
I hope that helps.
I think what will be most important about the witness is how he describes the circumstances under which he viewed any so called alien bodies. He may be telling the truth, or he may be embellishing the truth like so many of the other witnesses have since then. Very few people actually claim to have seen bodies and some who have claimed so have either lied or are simply telling second hand stories they heard from someone else. The testimony is so varied one from the next while everyone assumes these beings were typical "greys" when in fact the descriptions coincide more like Asian children or men who had undergone previous radiation treatments.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally - the witness should have been treated like any other crime witness in that a "line-up" of photos should have been given to him so that his recollections and testimony might have been validated. These slides combined with semi-blurry color and black and white photos of Asian children with hydrocephulous including child mummies might have helped establish some confirming facts. Obviously if he said they were all like what he saw there would be some problem with his recollections.
ReplyDeleteBrian,
ReplyDeleteso the victims of the Roswell crash were Asian children with hydrocephaly who underwent nuclear radiation procedures, and who later got mummified?
Would not it be the greys a lot simpler explanation?
Larry:
ReplyDeleteYes, your explanation helps a little.
Don Maor:
No the victims of the Roswell crash were not children with hydrocephalus. There were NO victims of the Roswell crash (except in the minds of the ETHers).
By the way, someone, maybe yourself, will one day establish that the beings depicted in the slides had some connection with the Roswell crash. But at the moment this looks a very distant prospect.
Until then I will stick with my statement above - that there were no 'victims' (earthly or non-earthly) of this crash.
None whatever.
And May 5 will be a good money spinner for someone but a complete flop as far as science is concerned.
I agree with CDA. I've never read anything conclusively linking bodies to the debris found by Marcel and Brazel. There are stories of debris, and stories of bodies, but never the two together in a way that can be verified.
ReplyDeleteThis is why determining the date for the "Lieutenant's" testimony is so important. A number of scenarios(plane crashes, car accidents, fires, radiological accidents) could conceivably produce gruesome-looking corpses, but connecting them to the Roswell crash requires more than assumption. I believe too many people have fallen into the trap of thinking "strange looking bodies, therefore Roswell." In fact, this very line of thinking by Adam Dew and others is what started this entire slides controversy in the first place.
The issue of plane crashes, V-2 crashes, etc., in this time frame, has been thoroughly researched, including by the modern Air Force, and there are simply NO RECORDS of any such CONVENTIONAL crashes, much less explain reports of unusual debris or bodies.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few witnesses connecting strange debris with body sites. Here is one not-well-known witness (a Roswell ET skeptic) found by another Roswell ET skeptic, Joseph Stefula. The witness' story convinced him that something highly unusual did indeed happen. (It also fits extremely well with other witness stories of a craft/body site about 45 minutes north of Roswell.)
Stefula SPECULATED that maybe it was the crash of something like a B-29 experimenting with something like a dirty bomb, but admitted he had absolutely no evidence to back this up. (The witness, 1st Lt. Chester Barton, also speculated maybe a B-29 with A-bomb aboard, but there is again absolutely no records of such a crash at that time.)
http://www.roswellproof.com/barton.html
Commander Chronus
ReplyDeleteI think the first connection between bodies and debris was (informedly) made by militaries themselves. Roger Ramey for example. When he was debunking the debris story, photos were taken. In his hand, a paper, the now called Ramey Memo, has the phrase "the victims of the wreck" and other words such a "disc" "balloon", etc.
I first saw David Rudiak's webpage claiming he could read words on the photographed paper. Although I then was convinced about the correctness of the ETH, I remember I laughed and said, "come on, nobody could read something so blurry". I left the webpage that time. Months or years later I analyzed Rudiak's analysis on the Ramey Memo and what was written there, and found it to be conclusive. The phrase "the victims of the wreck" is most likely written there.
CDA said
ReplyDeleteBy the way, someone, maybe yourself, will one day establish that the beings depicted in the slides had some connection with the Roswell crash. But at the moment this looks a very distant prospect. .
Just maybe CDA, but probably 5, 10 or 15 years in the future.
I think another important thing to note is that the Army Air Force press office at the Pentagon was specifically denying that the flying discs were "space ships" in a press release that went out just before Roswell base issued their PR that they had captured one.
ReplyDeleteAnd over in Fort Worth, Gen. Ramey "scoffed at the possibility that the object could have been piloted or that it could have obtained the supersonic speeds credited to the "flying saucers" allegedly spotted in recent weeks.
He reported that the object was too lightly constructed to have carried anyone and that there was no evidence that it had had a power plant of any sort."
A week before, Ramey and his intelligence chief had already been scoffing at the possibility that the saucers represented spaceships from Mars.
Or, in other words, the military, itself was raising the question of ET origins, including crews, by making statements to that effect, but in the NEGATIVE.
(Unfortunately, Ramey and Pentagon spokespeople INITIALLY let slip that the alleged weather balloon, flimsy foil box-kite from Roswell would ALSO have been 20-25 feet in diameter if reconstructed, hardly the description of a four-foot diameter foil radar target kite. Later they changed that dimension to the alleged balloon suspending the radar target, also bunk.)
David,
ReplyDeleteAll of the above supports the skeptical scenario.
Lance
Don - I didn't say the "bodies" were Asian children with hydrocephulous or were mummies (obviously). Simply saying those have similarities to the alleged witness testimony (Asian children with hydrocephulous or radiation treatment), or mummies (the slides). The witness might think all of them are aliens which points to problems. And no the Greys are not an easier explanation because they are fictional characters created from blurry abduction account descriptions. Are you not aware the US Government covered up radiological and biochemical warfare testing in the 1940's? It's documented fact and it doesn't come from fake MJ12 memos either.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete1947: Col. E.E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issues a top-secret document (707075) dated Jan. 8. In it, he writes that "certain radioactive substances are being prepared for intravenous administration to human subjects as a part of the work of the contract" (Goliszek).
1947: A secret AEC document dated April 17 reads, "It is desired that no document be released which refers to experiments with humans that might have an adverse reaction on public opinion or result in legal suits," revealing that the U.S. government was aware of the health risks its nuclear tests posed to military personnel conducting the tests or nearby civilians (Goliszek).
The reason Ramey scoffed at the idea that the saucers came from Mars was because (I don't know the exact source) someone had suggested this possibility, maybe tongue in cheek, that Arnold's nine 'saucers' were interplanetary craft.
ReplyDeleteThe 'military' only raised the matter of ET origins because one USAF guy (again maybe facetiously) made this suggestion. It was NOT a 'military suggestion', and certainly not an official one.
Why DR attaches such importance to this 'military suggestion' or 'military contradiction' baffles me. But, as in any other walk of life, various people in the military choose to air their personal opinions like anyone else. Hence the conflicting statements.
Finally, does DR really suppose Ramey took this great secret to his grave? That is the implication of it all.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe fact of the matter is JUST BEFORE (same day) that Roswell base issued a press release that they had an actual flying disc, the Pentagon issued their own press release denying the flying discs could be "space ships".
ReplyDeleteCDA inanely claims the Pentagon did this because "one USAF guy...made the suggestion." Maybe CDA could ID that one USAF guy, because I sure don't know who he is, and I've read hundreds of newspapers from that time period. (Certainly he doesn't mean Marcel, does he?)
I also wonder why the Pentagon would care what "one USAF guy" said, unless it was maybe a well-known general.
No, the Pentagon issues press releases like that when there has been considerable buzz to that effect in the overall media, including their denial that the flying discs were one of their own secret weapon projects or Russian biological warfare weapons. They might ALSO issue such a denial not only over the current buzz, but the ANTICIPATED Big Buzz Boost when Roswell's press release soon came out that they had captured one.
Arnold's report about his highly unusually shaped and high-speed flying discs was IMMEDIATELY connected with the POSSIBILITY that they might be from space, including by Arnold himself. It certainly did get some buzz in the newspapers and I suspect on the radio at the time. (Surviving recordings, however, are almost nonexistent.) The country was flooded with flying disc reports post-Arnold (hundreds, maybe thousands).
It was no accident that Ramey and the Pentagon were quickly issuing denials that they were men from Mars. The newspaper stories do indicate a small degree of public panic in the air over this new development. Arnold himself brought it up. (It was only two years after the end of WWII, the A-bomb and its prospects for ending the world also had people on edge, the Cold War loomed, etc., and now, maybe invading Martians in their flying saucers?)
Thus, I do not see it as mere "coincidence" that just before Roswell issued its press release of having a flying disc that the Pentagon issued another PR denying they were space ships (or Russian).
Nor do I see it as a coincidence that that morning AAF acting Chief Vandenberg cancelled a pre-schudeled meeting and substituted a lengthy meeting of the Joint Research and Development Board, the same group fingered by Wilbert Smith's documents 3 years later as housing some super-classified group trying to figure out the saucers. That meeting overlapped exactly with the morning meeting at Roswell, where witnesses tell us they were likewise trying to come to grips with how to publicly deal with the crash.
Certainly any sort of balloon crash would not need this sort of attention from the authorities.
(There is still zero evidence of a plane or missile crash in that time frame, much less one conducting radiological experiments, much less one conducting experiments on deformed children, etc., etc.)
You should read my last post - there was an order in April not to disclose testing on unwitting human subjects both civilian and military. 1994 USAF says documents about Roswell were all destroyed and hence "missing". You expect the government to admit a crash of a weapons test where they had hazardous material intentionally spread on people or soldiers? And crafted by Nazis or Japanese scientists on our payroll? Not...
ReplyDelete"There is still zero evidence of a plane or missile crash in that time frame, much less one conducting radiological experiments, much less one conducting experiments on deformed children, etc., etc."
ReplyDeleteQuite right.
There is also zero evidence of the crash of an extraterrestrial craft in the same time frame.
(Unless, of course, you wish to believe the wild and conflicting tales told by certain 'witnesses' between 30 and 60 years after the event.)
Brian Bell wrote:
ReplyDeleteYou should read my last post - there was an order in April not to disclose testing on unwitting human subjects both civilian and military. 1994 USAF says documents about Roswell were all destroyed and hence "missing". You expect the government to admit a crash of a weapons test where they had hazardous material intentionally spread on people or soldiers? And crafted by Nazis or Japanese scientists on our payroll? Not...
Brian,
Yes, there was a coverup of these unethical and illegal radiation experiments for decades. No one denies that. But the coverup shattered into pieces 20 years ago with the airing of very considerable dirty laundry, including release of over a million pages of classified documents that were NOT destroyed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_radiation_experiments
Small portion:
Experiments performed in the United States:
Numerous human radiation experiments have been performed in the United States, many of which were funded by various U.S. government agencies[3] such as the United States Department of Defense and the United States Atomic Energy Commission. Experiments included, but were not limited to:
* irradiating the heads of children[4]
* feeding radioactive material to mentally disabled children[5]
* exposing U.S. soldiers and prisoners to high levels of radiation[5]
* irradiating the testicles of prisoners, which caused severe birth defects[5]
...On January 15, 1994, President Bill Clinton formed the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE)... One of the primary motivating factors behind his decision to create ACHRE was action taken by his newly appointed Secretary of Energy, Hazel O’Leary, J.D. One of her first actions on taking the reins of the Department of Energy was to announce a new openness policy for the Department. The policy led almost immediately to the release of over 1.6 million pages of classified records. The records made clear that since the 1940s the Atomic Energy Commission had been sponsoring tests on the effects of radiation on the human body. American citizens who had checked into hospitals for a variety of ailments were secretly injected with varying amounts of plutonium and other radioactive materials without their knowledge. Most patients thought it was "just another injection," but the secret studies left enough radioactive material in many of the patients' bodies to induce life threatening conditions. Such experiments were not limited to hospital patients, but included other populations such as those set out above, e.g., orphans fed irradiated milk, children injected with radioactive materials, prisoners in Washington and Oregon state prisons. Much of the experimentation was carried out in order to assess how the human body metabolizes radioactive materials, information that could be used by the Departments of Energy and Defense in Cold War defense/attack planning....
So if Roswell was some sort of radiation experiment that was covered up back then, what was so different about it from other, now very public, even horrific radiation experiments, that ONLY Roswell got all its paperwork destroyed?
And where is your evidence that Nazi and Japanese scientists conducted these experiments?
(We have strayed a bit from the military background of our Roswell body witness.)
Brian Bell wrote:
ReplyDeleteYou should read my last post - there was an order in April not to disclose testing on unwitting human subjects both civilian and military. 1994 USAF says documents about Roswell were all destroyed and hence "missing". You expect the government to admit a crash of a weapons test where they had hazardous material intentionally spread on people or soldiers? And crafted by Nazis or Japanese scientists on our payroll? Not...
Brian,
Yes, there was a coverup of these unethical and illegal radiation experiments for decades. No one denies that. But the coverup shattered into pieces 20 years ago with the airing of very considerable dirty laundry, including release of over a million pages of classified documents that were NOT destroyed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_radiation_experiments
Small portion:
Experiments performed in the United States:
Numerous human radiation experiments have been performed in the United States, many of which were funded by various U.S. government agencies[3] such as the United States Department of Defense and the United States Atomic Energy Commission. Experiments included, but were not limited to:
* irradiating the heads of children[4]
* feeding radioactive material to mentally disabled children[5]
* exposing U.S. soldiers and prisoners to high levels of radiation[5]
* irradiating the testicles of prisoners, which caused severe birth defects[5]
...On January 15, 1994, President Bill Clinton formed the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE)... One of the primary motivating factors behind his decision to create ACHRE was action taken by his newly appointed Secretary of Energy, Hazel O’Leary, J.D. One of her first actions on taking the reins of the Department of Energy was to announce a new openness policy for the Department. The policy led almost immediately to the release of over 1.6 million pages of classified records. The records made clear that since the 1940s the Atomic Energy Commission had been sponsoring tests on the effects of radiation on the human body. American citizens who had checked into hospitals for a variety of ailments were secretly injected with varying amounts of plutonium and other radioactive materials without their knowledge. Most patients thought it was "just another injection," but the secret studies left enough radioactive material in many of the patients' bodies to induce life threatening conditions. Such experiments were not limited to hospital patients, but included other populations such as those set out above, e.g., orphans fed irradiated milk, children injected with radioactive materials, prisoners in Washington and Oregon state prisons. Much of the experimentation was carried out in order to assess how the human body metabolizes radioactive materials, information that could be used by the Departments of Energy and Defense in Cold War defense/attack planning....
So if Roswell was some sort of radiation experiment that was covered up back then, what was so different about it from other, now very public, even horrific radiation experiments, that ONLY Roswell got all its paperwork destroyed?
And where is your evidence that Nazi and Japanese scientists conducted these experiments?
(We have strayed a bit from the military background of our Roswell body witness.)
Lance said:
ReplyDeleteAll of the above supports the skeptical scenario.
I think it supports the skeptical scenario if you are a lawyer, and your goal is to win a court trial no matter what the real truth is.
But if you are a normal, lay and relatively smart person, it would strike you as strange such vehement and specific denials on UFOs and ETs coming from Ramey. (Why did he make such denials?)
If you are a lay person, a normally intelligent one, It would naturally strike you as strange to see Roger Ramey scoffing at the extraterrestrial explanation for UFOs in a moment in which he was supposed to be debunking the Mogul project.
If you were a lay person , it would strike as strange to know that Ramey went to considerable efforts such as making public demonstration of weather balloons to supposedly debunk the “Mogul explanation”, a project which nobody cared for at that time, and nobody even proposed it as an explanation at that time.
Of course, I am asking too much.
Don Maor,
ReplyDeleteRamey (along with intel chief) was already debunking the extraterrestrial explanation for the flying saucers only 4 days after Kenneth Arnold's sighting went nationwide (June 26) and over a week BEFORE Roswell broke (on July 8):
http://www.roswellproof.com/Ramey_and_Kalberer.html
Arnold's highly unusual aircraft description was immediately associated in the press and public with something possibly not of this planet, such as the San Antonio (Texas) Light headline on the Kenneth Arnold sighting June 26: "Men From Mars? Sky Whizzers Seen!"
Or this UP story June 27: "... Army and Navy aviation spokesman... conceded today that they have nothing in their aeronautical bag of tricks to equal the flying saucers an amateur pilot “saw” scooting across southwestern Washington state at 1,200 miles an hour. These “saucer-shaped” planes are strictly out of this planet, military experts agreed."
On June 27, Kenneth Arnold also was describing his encounter with a hysterical women thinking he had seen "men from Mars". Ten days later, there were two more Arnold ETH stories, one with Arnold saying he thought they were not from this planet, and another where Arnold said he had received considerable fan mail, including many who thought they were extraterrestrial.
Now, I have to ask myself the question, why was a no-doubt busy general like Ramey giving a press interview so soon after Arnold, the sole purpose seemingly to debunk the idea that Arnold had seen anything like he reported, much less "men from Mars?" Surely, if the saucers were nothing and of no concern to the military, Ramey had better things to do with his time.
However, in context, there had been a number of well-publicized disc sightings in the White Sands Missile Range area and El Paso. Ramey wasn't the only military officer already debunking the sightings. White Sands commander Col. Harold Turner was doing likewise, claiming people were at first seeing jet planes, then claiming they were seeing meteors "coming closer to the surface of the earth" making them "appear much larger" and they "might look like a shiny disc if caught at a certain angle in the sun's rays." (Yes, that is what the man was quoted as saying.)
Turner's ridiculous pseudo-scientific "explanation" probably would have passed for "scientific skepticism" back in 1947, or even today for that matter. (Inside joke for Don Maor)
DR asks why Ramey would, in effect, waste his time debunking the saucers so soon after Arnold.
ReplyDeleteThe simplest reason is that Ramey was asked, either by a reporter or some wire service man, what his views were on the saucer wave. He gave his response by phone.
Other generals would likewise have been asked (since it was known the AF was getting interested in the discs). Thus they gave their responses. Big deal.
And Ramey's response is in no way related to what he said about Roswell a few days later. Or does DR think Ramey knew in advance that the Roswell disc event was going to occur?
A case of trying to link two completely separate pronouncements by an AF general. Ramey gave his first statement because he, along with a few others, was asked for his views.
That is my take anyway.
Addendum:
ReplyDeleteWhere in the press reports does it say Ramey (or Kalberer) gave his answer at a press conference? Was there a press conference or not?
It conjures up an image of several dozen or more members of the press attending a big conf and the two AF spokesmen desperately trying to downplay the saucers. But it didn't happen, did it?
David - Are you willing to ignore Paper Clip altogether when the White Sands was used as s testing base before WW2, or that some of these exoeriments occurred or where authorized in Los Alamos? Or that the Nazi scientists were housed in El Paso and White Sands the same timeframe? Or that the CIC /AG already issued memos to hide from the public WMD tests on the public? Arnold even changed is story over time due to influence of other UFO observers saying that one was different than the others - but he never said initially. What he described was near identical to the AVRO Y Spade already in predesign phase befit the US contracted in 1952. Nazis had already developed RFTG tech - Mach 2.5 so yes they had things that could travel that fast. 1950s quote:
ReplyDeletePrecautions must be taken not only to protect operations from exposure to enemy forces but also to conceal these activities from the American public in general. The knowledge that the agency is engaging in unethical and illicit activities would have serious repercussions."
Ramey gave his real opinion on UFOs and lied about a weapons testing project mishap.
The news stories make it clear that BOTH Ramey and his intel chief Kalberer were answering questions from some AP reporter or reporters.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't matter if it was over the phone or in person. Normally questions from reporters like this are referred to and fielded by the public information office, not the high-ranking officers at the base, who normally have more important matters to attend to.
That the reporter/reporters could connect directly with Ramey and Kalberer means that both men intentionally wanted to answer the questions and debunk the Arnold and other saucer reports.
Kalberer wasn't done. Read the articles. The next day he continued with his debunking, now very explicitly bringing up the topic of them NOT being men from Mars. He also brought up the Orson Welles' War of the Worlds radio scare with a two-for-one debunk, that any thought of them being men from Mars was nothing but mass hysteria, like the results of the radio broadcast.
(The previous day Kalberer touched on the space theme, saying he liked the Buck Rogers aspect.)
Again, Kalberer had a co-debunker, not Ramey, but an amateur astronomer of note named Oscar Monnig, who echoed some of Kalberer's remarks. The write-ups again suggest the two of them were commenting together, again suggesting that this was a pre-arranged and deliberate PR effort. It's doubtful a civilian like Monnig would just happen to accidentally be with Kalberer at the moment some reporter called.
And AFTER Roswell, Kalberer changed his tune a bit, not directly addressing Arnold's sighting, but the even more widely reported Pacific Northwest United Airline pilots' 9 disc sighting of July 4. Now he claimed that they had maybe seen a distant secret missile test, no doubt more "scientific skepticism" at work, since there was no such test (much less multiple missile flying together, as reported by both Arnold at the UA pilots).
Ironically Ramey was separately also asked about such secret weapons, and flatly denied we were doing anything like that, i.e. contradicting Kalberer's newest, completely fabricated debunking story.
David - You state that Ramey and Kalberer both intentionally wanted to debunk the saucer sitings and the crash. That is pure speculation and unprovable. How do you know they weren't just sharing their personal opinions?
ReplyDeleteLet's assume they were deliberately trying to go way overboard and debunk even more via ongoing press interviews - like in Ramey's office, with Marcel. It's just more of the same media misdirect even if both say different things.
That doesn't prove the "saucers" we're alien at all. The memos from 1947 radiation testing clearly say they were to deliberately misdirect the public in such cases were experiments might be revealed to the public. In this case they chose "weather balloons or missle tests"....the thought of misdirecting people towards a fictional alien explanation would not have been wise given what Kalberer stated about War of the Worlds...They misdirected to balloons and rockets not because they were hiding aliens but rather real weapons tests that involved potentially illegal activities exposing people to various agents that were dangerous.
What if there were no aliens and they falsely announced as a misdirect to the world that aliens had arrived and they were controlling our skies? Public reaction would have been just as disastrous as stating they hired Nazis to develop weapons and were using Japanese research on biochemical weapons that were collected from research done on tortured and killed US GIs, paid the Japs for it and never prosecuted them, and were paying Nazis to build weapons previously built by the same men who 24 months earlier were killing Jews? Not going to happen...
When you say there is no proof of these tests or proof of captured Nazi tech being used ...well of course not. That wasn't reported either. Of course Ramey is going to deny that any tests are going on...
b"h
ReplyDeleteA possible additional reason for military officials to quickly and publically dismiss a "men from mars" scenario might be related to memories from only nine years earlier of Orson Wells' "War of the Worlds" broadcast that caused civil upheaval and even some deaths if memory serves.
David:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the information on Ramey's debunking mania. It is clear now that his debunking trend predated Roswel. However, it seems that the debunking campaign strenghtened during the Roswell days.
Was it Ramey the man who participated in the infamous debunking press conference with general Samford, as related by Donald Keyhoe?
It seems Ramey is the grandfather of modern debunkers.
Brian said
ReplyDelete"What if there were no aliens and they falsely announced as a misdirect to the world that aliens had arrived and they were controlling our skies?"
Sorry Brian, but what kind of webpages have you been reading lately?
Don:
ReplyDeleteRamey began debunking well before Roswell, as you say. His 'debunking' of Roswell had nothing to do with what he said earlier.
He merely told the press (i.e. the one press man at the base) what the recovered object was, based on Newton's identification. This was not a 'debunking'. It is exactly what the object was identified as.
Unless you subscribe to the dotty idea that a balloon was quickly substituted for the real debris and Ramey covered up the latter and took the great ET secret to his grave. Just plain laughable.
Sure he was at the Washington press conference in '52 and spoke a few words of wisdom, but the only real debunker there was General Samford.
Don - I see now the ONLY explanation for you is ET. Well you'll need to prove it. No one has yet. Produce a living alien and I might agree. But for now the dearth of evidence immediately before and after Roswell suggest clearly a non-ET explanation.
ReplyDeleteBrian Bell
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly worth thinking about a denarii along the lines you suggest. A dirty little secret might account for the need to continue to lie, such as NYU flight 4, and the occurrence of victims. The problem is this was a crash of something and those attending the debris survived for many years...so not so dangerous then...
I wondered about this a couple of years ago once it became clear to me I had to factor in 'victims of the wreck' and had to rule out flight 4. Unfortunately (?) there is no evidence in favour of this idea and some against
Don't you just love predictive text...denarii!. That should read scenario ( I am usually typing quickly so apologies for typos)
ReplyDeleteI am liking the denarii comment. I know it's a Roman coin, but it SOUNDS like something demonic, which might, after all, fit in with the Roswell slides topic. ;)
ReplyDeleteWith a few more seconds to type...
ReplyDeleteJust to expand on the earlier brief comment. What we do not have here is a scenario that fits some sort of controlled experiment on a population... This was in the middle of nowhere with a very low population density.
Considering the possibility of an accident Of some sort to account for debris we are left wondering what could be so sensitive so many year later. There evidently was no atomic explosion and the area is not contaminated radiologically, chemically or biologically as far as I am aware. Those who came into contact with the debris or visited the site suffered no unusual pathologies.
A near disaster? We have learned of some very close calls that happened after this date, so there is precedent for such information coming out eventually and it would have been better to pass such an event off as a 'normal' air crash than stir up interest with the flying disc press release etc.
No, tempted as I was by the possibility of some dirty little secret being behind the secrecy around Roswell, I have to conclude that there is currently no evidence to support such a scenario.
Hypothetically speaking - the dirty little secret may have been biological weapons of some type on a non piloted drone vehicle - after the crash it was determined the payload did not disperse or perhaps not fully. Given the cordon and the number of GIs that supposedly cleaned up the mess (even many years later with terrain modifications), we really don't know what happened to them afterwards. Only a few have come forward to say they were in the immediate cleanup detail - what they desribe is a company or two of men. For all we know they passed away a long time ago from cancer or related respiratory disorders hence no more witnesses coming forth. It also explains why Brazel's son had his material from the crash confiscated two years later. If the debris were to be tested it may have revealed something. Also know that the AEC had already been testing air dropped radiological contaniments all across remote New Mexico in the same time frame. There is evidence the U.S. was attempting to determine if it could drop biohazards on the USSR from a drone or balloon since planes could not reach that distance in 1947.
ReplyDeletePaperClip employed both Nazis and Jap scientists - if it were biological in nature then it most likely was attributed to what we paid those scientists for and their research. And the fact we hid this from the public. Know also it's a fact that the Soviets had spies in the White Sands area and El Paso, so it would have been prudent to cover up the story.
The documentation for Roswell was said to be destroyed many years ago according to the 1994 GSA investigation ordered by Clinton. In 1947 they did circulate a memo that all public knowledge of such tests were to be hidden because of the ethicacy and also military secrecy not to mention secrecy from our Allies.
The real conspiracy may actually be that the townspeople in Roswell decided it best to accommodate the Ufologists who were investigating a crashed saucer with stories they wanted to hear (that the Ufologists suggested in the first place), thus producing plenty of false witnesses purely interested in generating revenue for the town and themselves.
When the 509th pulled out of Roswell it left the town as a remote nothing in the desert. What better way to reinvigorate the town than to embellish the stories researchers wanted to hear. This explains all the fake and late testimonies now all proven to be false - especially where bodies are concerned.
Brian Bell,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that there are several possible and much more likely explanations for what became put in the context of UFO activity during 1946-47 than the often championed ETH. In my opinion, the UFO community would be well advised to collectively increase its knowledge of other circumstances which took place during the same time frame. Correlations are likely in order.
Personally, I think the discussions and arguments surrounding the ETH would be much more interesting if ETH supporters would do a better job of accepting they are ultimately limited to expressing an extremely unlikely opinion. They seem to often be unaware that is the case, opting instead to express anger and frustration at those who fail to accept the torch. It's as if they think they have presented proof of their beliefs, rather than accepting they are simply trying to persuade others to share their interpretations of how the dots connect, an interpretation that, absent extraordinary and conclusive evidence, is in all likelihood incorrect.
Anthony:
ReplyDelete"No, tempted as I was by the possibility of some dirty little secret being behind the secrecy around Roswell, I have to conclude that there is currently no evidence to support such a scenario."
What was secret about Roswell? No such 'secret' was reported at the time, was it?
The so-called 'secret' stems from interviews made 30 to 50 years afterwards, mainly with people who were not even there in the first place.
Is there any evidence (i.e. real evidence) to support the ETH scenario? Again, none whatever, except some decades-old testimony mostly from people who were never there. And I do not need to tell you who began to put this whole ET idea into people's minds.
Please remember - there is no such thing as an ET. Nobody knows what they look like, do they? Therefore any 'witness' who alleges they either saw an ET or knows someone who did is talking garbage.
Whatever the many flaws in Brian Bell's hypothesis, he is still far more likely to be right than the ETHers.
CDA -
ReplyDeleteThe flip answer is that we'll know what they look like on May 5...
And remember this is April 1.
Brian Bell wrote:
ReplyDeleteProduce a living alien and I might agree
Produce your living, deformed, mutant, radiological human experimental subject, or whatever, and I might agree. Same sort of preposterous demand.
Even putting aside the question of "the victims of the wreck" in the Ramey memo and what they represented, there is still very consistent independent military and civilian testimony of debris with physical properties that did not exist back then (i.e., made by us), and maybe only now can be somewhat reproduced by our modern materials' technology.
Even if you assume we had such material and ALL records of this craft were destroyed, they would not destroy the materials technology itself. Any evidence of such materials existing back then, or soon used by the military? Nope.
You also cannot explain how your hypothetical, super-secret drone could get so lost. Any experimental secret craft like this would be carefully tracked, including by a chase plane or two, and would not be allowed off the test range.
And even after supposedly losing it, they couldn't seem to find it until a rancher came to town to report it. Have you ever been out there? It's a vast desert plain, not some mountainous jungle that might swallow up such a crash and conceal it from aerial searches, which undoubtedly would have been conducted in spades if this had really happened.
No, nobody was out looking for anything, much less a super-secret craft with deformed humans, or whatever, manufactured by your Nazi and Japanese scientists.
Many, many embarrassing and illegal experiments or accidents have been declassified, such as feeding radioactive substances to retarded children I already mentioned. We have had numerous nuclear, "broken arrow" incidents, including one 3 years later out of Kirtland AFB when a B-29 carrying a nuke to Roswell crashed in the nearby mountains after takeoff. The fact that it was a crashed B-29 and highly classified (area cordoned off) was in the newspapers. Now we know the big secret was it carried an A-bomb and the area had to be cleaned up.
But absolutely nothing still in the public record about your super-secret drone, or radiation weapon, or carrying mutated kids, or whatever. Why is that? How horrible could it have been? More horrible than experimenting on helpless children that has already been admitted to? And what actual evidence do you have other than hand-waving and proclamations? Do you have even one credible witness to such an event? (And I'm not talking about Nick Redfern's mostly anonymous, retired counterintelligence, alleged "leakers" who couldn't tell a consistent story to save their lives and are obviously lying). Even Roswell debunker Karl Pflock couldnt' swallow that "BS in the Desert" scenario.
Hi CDA, sorry for the late answer, I was traveling.
ReplyDeleteCDa wrote:
Ramey began debunking well before Roswell, as you say. His 'debunking' of Roswell had nothing to do with what he said earlier
And you knew it with your psychic powers or your crystal ball?
He merely told the press (i.e. the one press man at the base) what the recovered object was, based on Newton's identification.
Interesting. So "Merely telling" to only one press guy includes taking photos of a balloon and making later public demonstrations of weather balloons? Nice definition of "merely telling". Perhaps with your psychic powers + your crystal ball you can tell us why so much effort on the part of Ramey.
This was not a 'debunking'. It is exactly what the object was identified as
Of course Newton identified it as what it was. Newton saw what was fed to him by Ramey.
Unless you subscribe to the dotty idea that a balloon was quickly substituted for the real debris and Ramey covered up the latter and took the great ET secret to his grave. Just plain laughable.
I don’t get what you mean by “quickly substituted”. When and where you say it was quickly substituted? The radio announcement said that the real stuff was carried to “higher head-quarters”. It probably never went to Ramey’s office. Only the false stuff was on Ramey’s office and that was identified by Newton. I don’t see your point, but it’s probably because you have no point at all.
And yes, Ramey took the secret to his grave, which is more likely as he died relatively young. Of course given that Walter Haut did not take the ET secret to his grave, and instead of it made an affidavit confirming the reality of bodies recovered, you can accuse him of being affected by senile madness without even moving your humanity from your armchair. Just another case of skeptic’s irrational “heads I win, tails you lose”.
Sure he was at the Washington press conference in '52 and spoke a few words of wisdom, but the only real debunker there was General Samford.
I was checking the press conference transcription. Both Ramey and Samford were there as a team, as both were presented at the conference as UFO experts. On the other hand, David Rudiak has shown that Ramey was debunking UFOs even before Roswell, so I conjecture that probably Ramey became a USAF “UFO expert” (and grandfather of debunkers) before Roswell. The good question here is how the heck did he know so early that UFOs were not extraterrestrial? Was Ramey another case of a psychic scientific skeptic owning a cristal ball and a ouija table?
David.
ReplyDeletei agree, also this is exactly what said before, if this was some hideous experiment such as what Brian is offering, then why hasnt the government admitted it? since its admitted alot of hideous experiments before today, ones of which youve noted.
Its either the Governments experiment was even worse than that in ways that the public wouldnt imagine or it wasnt an experiment at all.
Given that Arthur Exon amongst others cited very unusual properties of heat conductivity and strength of the materials recovered and also of the various memory metal statements is seems v unlikely this was an experiment of kind.
The Manzano/Kirtland B-29 crash of 1950 is hardly a comparable "cover-up" story to Roswell. You state that if Roswell were really a secret weapons test than it would have been revealed like Manzano. Your comparing apples to organges and here's why:
ReplyDelete- The B-29 was a well known aircraft to the common public since 1945. It wasn't secret.
- It was well known that the B-29 carried the atomic bomb.
- Atom and Hydrogen bombs were known to the public and not secret.
- The incident involved the deaths of 13 active duty servicemen who had real wives, children, and friends - hardly something you could keep secret.
None of this is comparable to Roswell under the premise that it was a secret weapons test of materials being used on citizens of servicemen.
Reason for the 1947 cover-up:
ReplyDelete1) A weapon of mass destruction being tested that would have even greater consequences and perhaps even more hideous than what has already been revealed in the 1994 NEC’s release of Nuclear Radiation Tests on US citizens.
2 That we sent around internal 1947 documents stating very clearly the CIC/CIA/AEC knew they were conducting unethical research in violation of US Constitutional Law, and exposing the government to embarrassment and lawsuits well beyond what was discovered in the 1994 findings and disclosure – hence AEC/CIA position that it must be kept secret at all costs from the US public.
3 That we sent around internal 1947 documents that we had and were already secretly spreading containments across Utah and New Mexico in repeated airborne experiments to develop offensive radioactive and biochemical weapons of mass destruction.
4 Fear that the Soviets would discover that we were conducting experiments on biochemical weapons and nuclear radiation to create OFFENSIVE weapons that we could use secretly against the Soviets in such a way that they would have no idea they were even being exposed to them.
5 Fear the Soviets would confirm exactly what we were developing using, evaluating, and back engineering captured Nazi advanced weapons and Japanese bio toxin science.
6) That we were creating these weapons without the knowledge of our trusted Allies.
7 That if exposed, the government would have then needed to come clean on their Soviet offensive exposure plan (a plan that if disclosed may have sparked WWIII.
8) That we would have to tell the American public that we had already been exposing them and US soldiers (repeatedly in some cases) to experiments that caused serious illness without their consent or knowledge (not just a handful of ‘child unfortunates or prisoners’ but thousands of people perhaps.
9) That the research we were conducting was being done by the enemies we just defeated, because we chose not to prosecute them for wartime atrocities against our soldiers and other people, and that we even brought them here to the U.S. in secret with high paying jobs, homes, cars and whatever they wanted in exchange for their knowledge.
10) That all during WWII we had sold our citizens on the concept that the Nazis and the Japs were our mortal enemies, but now, just 24 months later, had decided they were really our friends and that we wanted to be just like them in this regard, even now doing the very same hideous things to our own citizens that they did to theirs and others.
Materials:
ReplyDeleteDespite the claims these materials were “exotic” and “not of this earth”, the truth is these materials were already in development at the close of WWII if not already in production much earlier. There is no reason they would have chosen to admit these materials were in use for advanced weapons development – and yes, despite the claims, they were put to use and were indeed integrated into weapons after 1947 some now long surpassed by newer materials.
For now, let’s just start with the “light weight sticks” described by witnesses to the 1947 debris field items:
1)The Nazis had already begun to use Bakelite infused wood in aircraft structures in 1944 and 1945. The result was a tough, heat resistant, lightweight wood-like material that was uncuttable and difficult to break. Lippish (a Nazi Paper Clip scientist) had already built and test flown advanced aircraft designs that integrated this material by the end of the war – not paper designs, but actual aircraft.
Roswell witness claims in their own words:
Proctor – “Hard, uncuttable, unburnable, balsa wood like dowels”
Brazel Jr. – “Hard, uncuttable, balsa wood like sticks”
Marcel Sr. – “Hard, uncuttable, unburnable balsa wood like beams with hieroglyphics”
Schmid – “Large wood like beams with flowers on them”
Collins – “Metal like wood”
Whitmore – “Wood like beams with writing”
Brazel Scrieber – “Kite like sticks with rubber foil attached”
Cavitt – “Bamboo like sticks”
Newton – “Tough balsa sticks with purplish symbols”
FACT: The 1997 USAF revist to Roswell effort DID NOT examine the NEC records from that time - so if they exist they were not included in the report and perhaps, still classified and hence not in the 1994 NEC report. Better yet, they have long since been destroyed for the reasons stated and declared by the GSA.
Bakelite was patented in 1909. I doubt that was a exotic mistifying thing in 1947.
ReplyDeleteBrian Bell:
ReplyDeleteMOGUL was a classified program to try and detect acoustic signatures of Soviet nuclear tests - this was accomplished by lifting microphones into the atmosphere aboard weather balloons. My question is...were there any other methods of detection tried using weather balloons? Was there ever a program to try and collect radioactive particulate isotopes in the atmosphere, and if so, how would such material have been dispersed?
Brian
ReplyDeleteIt is refreshing to hear from someone trying to look logically at the situation from a sceptical point of view rather than repeating the falsified mantra of NYU flight 4.
It may be worth thinking about how your suggestion could be tested. Ideally predictions of currently unknown facts that could potentially be discovered should be made. If things pan out that would begin to add strength to the argument.
The following are just possible ideas:
a) FOIA may be a potentially useful route as we are 20 years on from the Roswell Report and almost 70 yrs on from the events themselves...that may alter the logic of the need to keep such a hypothetical event secret if we are dealing with purely terrestrial issues.
b) it should be possible to identify the programme or programmes from which the lost aircraft or missile could have come.
c) the Ramey memo should contain information consistent with your hypothesis.
d) there would ( ex hypothesis) be effects on human or animal health. As the personnel of the 509th at the time are known ( from the year book) it should be possible to track down dates and causes of death for many of them. Does this data suggest unusually high mortality rates? Perhaps Marcel, Cavitt, Blanchard etc were just lucky. Ditto for local civilians. Local newspapers may have snippets on unusual animal diseases.
Whilst at the moment I am very unconvinced for the reasons I mentioned earlier I would not want to appear totally dismissive. This is probably the most constructive sceptical proposal regarding Roswell that I've seen since Moore first put forward the NYU flight 4 idea. At first sight that looked like a likely solution. The devil as always is in the detail. I wish I could falsify the ETH for Roswell...it is one of relatively few awkward little facts that require me to go beyond something like Ruppelt's 'organised confusion' hypothesis and at the moment accept the ETH as the most credible explanation of the data in its totality.
Roswell has proved remarkably resilient to my attempts to falsify it, but perhaps a fresh look will come up with some key new data. Personally I now doubt that will be the case...but you never know...
Best wishes for your further endeavours.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that you are attempting to come at this looking by at the contemporaneous evidence and matching it to various historical developments.
But, I think you are giving the basics Roswell yarn far too much credibility because you have missed some of the most important data: the initial story of Jesse Marcel.
Marcel sinks Roswell completely in his first interviews. In those he clearly states that the stuff he is seen with in the photos is the same stuff he picked up on the ranch. And he said this several times.
As you may know, the stuff in the photos is foil paper, balsa wood sticks and neoperene which has been in the sun for weeks.
Later Marcel attempted clear deception by claiming that the real saucer stuff was there on the floor but that he was hiding it behind some paper.
As you see, it isn't necessary to offer Bakelite sticks or anything else to explain the Roswell claims.
Roswell was dead from the start.
How do the Roswell believers explain the above? Well, they really don't. They just sort of look away from it and pretend that it doesn't exist, saying that Marcel must have been mistaken at first. How do they explain his deceptive cover story? By ignoring it.
Roswell belief isn't based on fact. It is a conspiracy-based belief system unfettered by facts. As you see by the comments above, there is no coincidence in this worldview. Everything means something. And it all relates back to the main conspiracy. Here supposition is indistinguishable from fact.
Lance
Lance’s last post was almost correct; he only made one mistake I could find. It should read:
ReplyDelete“Roswell skepticism isn't based on fact. It is a conspiracy-based belief system unfettered by facts. As you see by the comments above, there is no coincidence in this worldview. Everything means something. And it all relates back to the main conspiracy. Here supposition is indistinguishable from fact.”
There, fixed it.
Lance -
ReplyDeleteI have said repeatedly, which is ignored or belittled that Marcel was not looking at the photographs taken in Ramey's office when he said those things. When shown those specific photographs by WWL-TV reporter Johnny Mann in the early to mid-1980s, he said that those photographs were not of the stuff that he had brought from Roswell... And yes, I know that the claim is that he was somehow briefed or induced to make that statement later, but it was made to a disinterested third party. So there is an answer that comes not from the Roswell faithful but from so there is information out that.
I also agree with the notion that the material Marcel Sr. collected was swapped out at Ramey's office for the press shots and press "conference" of sorts.
ReplyDeleteThere is legitimate eye witness testimony that what went into the cabin of the B-29 was some original debris field items, and the infamous brown paper sack substituted balloon material.
The substituted material was not collected from Ramey's office in Ft. Worth, but collected at Roswell and packaged there. Marcel would have questioned why no original material was being transported if he was told a paper bag hiding a kite was being taken instead. He probably thought what was inside was also original material. It wasn't until Ramey told him to substitute it that he became aware it was not the real deal.
As far as the bulk majority of the real material goes, and any sort of "craft" along with it, it was obviously transported elsewhere on different B-29's.
However I will contend that the so called "alien saucer debris" was actually advanced human engineered material, thus swapped out for common airial target kites (balloons but not a Mogul Balloon).
The ordinal material, probably now thought NOT contanimated (based on Marcel's claims the field was tested for radioactivity), remained in Ft. Worth. Their real mission for going to Ft. Worth was not for transporting debris, but to do the press conference.
Plutonium in granulated form for airborne dusting would have been the concern now alleviated since the debris field did not get exposed to the real contaniment at the "crash site". Bear in mind we don't know if they tested the crash site for radioactivity, the payload may have been intact. If it wasn't and it had the big gash in the side as some suggest, the Plutonium may have dispersed locally. They had already put GIs into hazardous radioactive exposure in the past with out their knowledge - no reason to tell those guys picking it up they were being exposed (or they may not have done it).
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteYou don't mention the obvious attempt at deception that Marcel committed about hiding the debris. How do you explain that away.
Do people have to be looking at photographs to answer questions about them?
Here we have an event that should have had great import to Marcel's life. He appeared on the front page of many newspapers in this embarrassing episode.
Additionally, if your scenario is correct, the supposed switching would have been a traumatic experience, unlikely to be forgotten.
But you would have us believe that he forgot about all that and said that he was photographed with the saucer stuff.
And the subsequent lie about trying to hide the debris--how does that fit in?
On the other hand, it all tracks perfectly with the idea that he spoke the truth from the beginning and only changed his stories as saucer people began to "help" him recover memories.
Larry--I know you imagine that your retort is clever...if only it was supported by fact.
Brian, okay I'll let you debate with the saucer buffs then. You both have the same poor grasp on reality (and the same evidence, which is none).
Lance
We now have the following:
ReplyDeleteKevin says that balloon material was substituted for the real debris and only the substituted stuff was photographed in Ramey's office. Thus Kevin more or less repeats what he wrote in his books.
Don Maor tells us that the real stuff never reached Ft Worth at all, but was flown straight to Wright Patterson AFB (In which case Ramey never saw the real stuff, poor chap). Yet Ramey still took this great ET secret to his grave even though he never saw the object!!
Brian Bell says there was indeed a switch of material at Ft Worth, but that the original material was "advanced human engineered material", i.e. definitely not ET. Presumably this was because the originals were too secret to be shown to the press photographer.
Jesse Marcel claims (according to Moore & Friedman) to have been photographed with the original recovered material in one photo only, but that later ones show him (or du Bose) with substituted material. This even though others insist all the photos depict the same object (whatever it was).
Boy this scenario gets crazier and crazier, doesn't it?
Never mind folks, rest assured that the May 5 conference in Mexico City will answer everything. Wait and see!
Oh by the way Don: Haut's second affidavit was NOT written by him. It was witten by Don Schmitt and Haut appended his signature at Schmitt's request.
CDA wrote:
ReplyDeleteDon Maor tells us that the real stuff never reached Ft Worth at all, but was flown straight to Wright Patterson AFB (In which case Ramey never saw the real stuff, poor chap). Yet Ramey still took this great ET secret to his grave even though he never saw the object!!
Hi CDA, although I got it somewhat wrong, I never suggested that Ramey did not see the Debris, so please stop clowning.
It is always good the hear again the radio bulletin. Here it is http://www.roswellproof.com/ABC_News_July8.html
The radio bulletin says they disc was inspected in Roswell and SENT to Wright Field, Ohio. So Ramey could have seen the material, but not necessarily in his office.
On the other hand, it seems very unlikely to me that the garbage presented in the Ramey's photo would have been ever sent to Wright Field for further inspection. Therefore, the stuff sent to Wright Field must have been the real stuff, and what was shown in Ramey photos was bogus and irrelevant weather ballons.
Ergo, Marcel was ordered to act and pose in the photos of the bogus debris in Ramey's office. Later interviews with Marcel may reflect his conflicts regarding the strange material and the orders given to him to shut up. I guess probably he made up the story of the substitution in order to somehow resolve such conflicts, but as sometimes happens to humans, he failed.
The point is that contradictions in a witness testimony must be analized properly, and a case cannot be killed because we have found some contradictions. If a witness weakens, we must use the testimony of other witnesses to contrast things. And the descriptions of other witnesses point to a strange material, which was sent to Wright Field. Period.
Another extract from the bulletin says:
ReplyDelete"In Fort Worth, Texas, where the object was first sent, Brigadier General Roger Ramey says that it is being shipped by air to the AAF research center at Wright Field, Ohio."
So Ramey was at Fort Worth, not at Roswell as I thought. But question remains: Why did Ramey send the object to Wright Field, Ohio, if he had determined in his own office that it was just the remains of a weather balloon?
"Why did Ramey send the object to Wright Field, Ohio, if he had determined in his own office that it was just the remains of a weather balloon?"
ReplyDeleteBecause it wasn't really just the remains of a weather balloon. It was a classified weapons test other than Mogul.
You may recall Nazi Paperclip scientist not working on rockets were housed at Wright Field along with technical materials command (like Lippish and others).
Basically they needed to analyze what went wrong.
You may also recall that the original testimony from Marcel Sr. stated they also found a "black box" in the debris field. Marcel never really stated there were "I beams" either - he described metal like bars some with cross points as in standard aircraft design. It was his son who said there were I beams and you may note the symbols he described on them changed over the years too. Marcel Sr. Also stated the material he found "had symbols and numbers" on them. Do aliens use Latin numbers?
CDA wrote:
ReplyDelete"Oh by the way Don: Haut's second affidavit was NOT written by him. It was witten by Don Schmitt and Haut appended his signature at Schmitt's request."
Oh, BTW CDA, there was a bit more to this than Haut "appending his signature" like he was an automaton with no independent thinking or no say in this.
Yes, Schmitt wrote the affidavit for Haut WITH HAUT'S PERMISSION (as is often done with affidavits--see end). It was also based on years of conversations Schmitt had with Haut, and other statements made by Haut to others, such as Wendy Connors, who in a recorded interview two years earlier had Haut admit that he had seen small bodies and a craft in a hangar. This was after Connors heard Haut speaking to a German documentary film crew about the same things.
Schmitt emailed the affidavit to Haut FOR HIS REVIEW. He first reviewed it with his daughter Julie Shuster item by item and point by point. Then he reviewed it privately. He made no changes, which he could have done had he had disagreements with it. Then he signed it before a notary with his daughter present as a witness and an outside witness.
Before this was done, a doctor had reviewed Haut's health and declared him to be of sound mind. A year before this, I had also spoken to Haut for 2 hours and also found him to have all his faculties, even though often reluctant to talk to me about certain matters (I was a complete stranger to him).
Haut's affidavit and more details of the affidavit process can be found at my website:
http://www.roswellproof.com/haut.html
http://www.roswellproof.com/Haut_affidavit_process.html
And BTW, CDA, none of the witnesses interviewed by AFOSI for their Roswell debunking report wrote their own affidavits either. They were written afterward by the interviewing officer. Each, no doubt, blankly "appended their signature" at the officer's requests without any thought as to accuracy. Therefore we can dismiss these affidavits in their entirety.
Don Maor:
ReplyDelete"Why did Ramey send the object to Wright Field, Ohio, if he had determined in his own office that it was just the remains of a weather balloon?"
Although Brian Bell gives a plausible answer, there is another, simpler answer: because Wright Field specifically requested that Ramey forward the debris to them. This is revealed in the FBI teletype of July 8.
Wright Field were not prepared to accept a telephone description of the object as the answer. They wanted to see it for themselves, hardly surprising when you consider the high state of anxiety at the time over the Cold War.
However, in spite of this, it appears likely that the debris was never forwarded to Dayton, either from Ft Worth or from Roswell. There is, unfortunately, no documentation to definitely settle this matter. Ramey's broadcast said such forwarding was, in the end, considered unnecessary.
If you still believe the 'real stuff' was sent to Wright Patterson, please tell us what became of it since then. Surely not destroyed? This was, after all, debris manufactured on ANOTHER PLANET (according to the ETH brigade).
But again, maybe May 5 will reveal all. Maybe.
CDA wrote:
ReplyDelete"This is revealed in the FBI teletype of July 8"
In which specific clause?
"Ramey's broadcast said such forwarding was, in the end, considered unnecessary."
What part?
If you still believe the 'real stuff' was sent to Wright Patterson, please tell us what became of it since then. Surely not destroyed?
I can't help you here, I am not a psychic.
I was searching the web and found this interesting read:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nicap.org/roswell/Reluctant_Roswell_Widows2.doc
It tells about the rumors surrouding the widows of Ramey, Blanchard and Dubose. The author is not mentioned.
Don - the author is Bob Durant. As he describes the widows of these men, including Ramey, they never stated anything openly. We have to take the words and opinions of the women who knew these widows as second hand sources, which in the case of Roswell, has presently led nowhere in that the majority of second hand testimonies end up being false, fabricated, or misunderstood and passed along snippets of information now distorted.
ReplyDeleteFor all we know the two women who said they were told by the widows that their husbands told them it was an alien craft, in fact are passing along important snippets of a conversation long forgot - that being these widows describing that their husbands had been involved in an incident in 1947 where it was mistakenly thought that a spaceship had crashed with bodies.
When they state that "they recalled" that these widows said something about Roswell, they provide no other information which leads us to a dead end. If the widows chose to be silent after being contacted, they may have chosen to do so for valid reasons - not because they were maintaining a top secret conspiracy, but rather they preferred not to get involved with even more people who wanted to press the issue that it was alien in nature - when it wasn't.
The problem with your theory Brian, is that you are obligued to deny many rumors, second hand testimonies, and a few first hand testimonies.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't have to deny your theory or witnesses, they simply don't exist.
Don - second hand testimonies, rumors, death bed confessions, fagricated documents, and false witnesses don't add up to a case admissible in court. ET is dead because he never crashed at Roswell.
ReplyDeleteDavid - regarding Haut:
ReplyDeleteJust because a man signs an affidavit doesn't mean what is in the document is factual. In court, every day, someone swears to tell the truth and then lies or manipulates facts.
Haut's story changed and evolved over time as other people came forth building on the same fictionalization stories. Haut's two best buddies, Dennis and Kaufmann, were both found to be liars and Haut told investigators to speak with them because what they had to say was fact and "golden".
Real story here? Haut jumped the gun and published a paper falsly claiming a saucer had been found without doing due diligence and drawing needless attention to what higher ups knew was a highly secret weapons test. It ruined his career and he resigned in 1948.
Refusing to admit blame and also miffed about how he was treated, it became highly convenient to leverage the story - his story - away from his mistake and to claim bodies were involved. He mistakenly took reports from civilians and Marcel as definitive proof a saucer crashed during the hype of the 1947 UFO flap.
What better way to deflect the truth of your error than to embellish a fictional story covering your own mistake? His testimony is invalid.
Brian Bell said
ReplyDelete"ET is dead because he never crashed at Roswell."
On the contrary, the ETs were found dead because their ship indeed crashed!
Show me the photos, the debris, the craft, and produce a "J-Rod" to prove it. Chances are there were never any bodies (as Kevin states), and if there were they happened to be humans, either under testing or exposed to the crash debris, but certainly not 509th Air Corps personnel.
ReplyDeleteBrian Bell... "Refusing to admit blame and also miffed about how he was treated, it became highly convenient to leverage the story - his story - away from his mistake and to claim bodies were involved. He mistakenly took reports from civilians and Marcel as definitive proof a saucer crashed during the hype of the 1947 UFO flap."
ReplyDeleteI know they say that revenge is a dish best served cold...
...but!
If Haut was so miffed with the military and wanted to deflect his mistakes...then why did he wait the best part of 30 years to exact his revenge.
Why wasn't it more effective for him to "save face" in the years immediately after his military career was "ruined"?
Paul - good question. Because he had no story to hang his hat on....and embarrassment....and an unwillingness to admit his mistake.
ReplyDeleteFlip side to your question - If he knew he was right why didn't he resign in 1948 and tell the world? Why not in the 1960's?
Behold....convenient reason walked into Roswell in 1970's already purporting that aliens had crashed and that a saucer had actually been found - he saw his opportunity and he took it. His buddies did also maybe for him, for themselves and a bit of fame, and for the town.
Did he ever know what was really going on?; probably not.
Brian... "Haut jumped the gun and published a paper falsly claiming a saucer had been found without doing due diligence..."
ReplyDeleteBut here you're suggesting that Haut sent out the recovered disc story off his own bat! By doing that he would have broken every protocol... This also goes against most timelines I've seen on the Roswell story.
I'd say that after doing something like that, his career wouldn't have been "ruined" in 1948...it would have been in ruins about 5 minutes after the broadcast. (he'd been cleaning the parade ground with a toothbrush)
Hello,
ReplyDeleteBrian is right and I applause his effort to contectualize the non-event in an historical perspective and not the ufologists one.
Haut have had a debt to the Roswell town medias. Kevin, himself knows it, as Haut confessed it.
Regards,
Gilles
Gilles wrote:
ReplyDelete“Haut have had a debt to the Roswell town medias. Kevin, himself knows it, as Haut confessed it.”
I’m not sure exactly which “debt” you are referring to. Haut did say at some point that he felt obligated to treat the two newspapers in town equally, so that he would not be accused of favoritism. That means that he would try to make sure that he didn’t give a story to one paper and withhold it from the other. This is actually standard US government policy and not subject to Haut’s whim.
I hope that is not what you are referring to as a “debt”; that would be a very poor translation of the term.
Gilles... "Haut have had a debt to the Roswell town medias. Kevin, himself knows it, as Haut confessed it."
ReplyDeleteThis is sheer gibberish. (like your usual posts, to be honest.)
Haut didn't send out a story of this magnitude off his own bat just to give the "town medias" a tasty morsel.
He would have been briefed,exactly on what to let out and he consistently said that Blanchard ordered the word to go out that it was a flying disc.
Haut was simply the messenger...which is why I picked up on Brian's suggestion earlier that Haut had more or less originated the "disc recovery" story.
That would insinuate that Marcel brought back what he knew was a balloon...showed it to Blanchard, who agreed it was a balloon...then Haut had a brain-fart and told the media that it was a flying saucer...
And then Haut was "miffed" with the military for not being happy about it!
Unlikely.
Paul - actually it fits the timeline most often described by Haut himself. Bear in mind he changed his story repeatedly over the years in facts and details with contradictions he himself made but swore were the truth. Once he even admitted it was a ballon and a screw-up while on TV...but recanted it to ensure money would flow into Roswell for the 50th.
ReplyDeleteThere is not a shred of evidence Blanchard or anyone else ordered the press release. You only have Haut's word on that. You do have Marcel who said this:
"We had an eager beaver PIO (Public Information Officer) who took it upon himself to call the AP on this thing…I heard that the brass fried him later on for putting out that press release, but then I can’t say so for sure… (Berlitz and Moore 74)".
In his final closed after death affidavit his story changed again with even more details that conformed to the already established fake comments by Dennis and Kaufmann.
About the only one still defending Haut is David...who insists that Haut was purposely telling half-truths to honor his sworn military statement to remain silent only to come forth in a post death story which has proven nonfactual elements. In his own words:
He saw the debris...he didn't see any debris...Ramey was at a morning Roswell meeting...but originally he wasn't...he never saw bodies...but then he did.
Haut jumped the gun based on non-verified information - he screwed up. But he never wanted to admit it. Don't forget, he also started the Museum in Roswell...and with 20,000 visitors a year at $10 a pop he and friends were making good money from this story in a little town in the desert.
Now let's hear David blast me...LOL
Dear Paul,
ReplyDeleteYou only are here the one not contextualizing Haut's statement, having a "debt" to the Roswell Town medias, as he confessed in a TV show.
Not me.
Regards,
Gilles
Brian Bell
ReplyDeleteI am curious - have you ever seen the movie "The Roswell Incident"?
Can't help but laugh about the number of debunkers who have never seen this movie - one in particular until I emailed him the YouTube link earlier this year had never ever seen it!
So, to repeat the question Brian - Have you seen the movie "The Roswell Incident"?
It doesn't matter what Haut's reputation was, or that he started the Roswell museum, or that his story changed over time. None of that really matters. The real reason to be skeptical of his story is the simple fact that it leads nowhere. His affidavit did nothing to further research into these events, or lead to disclosure or any kind of smoking gun. Show me a witness that does, and I'll change my mind.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBrian Bell wrote
ReplyDelete"Show me the photos, the debris, the craft, and produce a "J-Rod" to prove it"...
Brian - these sort of comments fall into the clowning around category...
While I agree that what happened at Roswell was almost certainly not ET, you are being a bit unreasonable to expect someone to show you a body of a dead alien.
Following the same logic you could argue that Jesus wasn't around 2000 years ago either (where are the "photos" to prove it)...
Nitram, the problem with Brian is that he does not realize he asks for things he also lacks for his own "theory".
ReplyDeleteBrian has no photos, nor debris, has not "produced" a deformed asiatic kid, has not got the downed secret technology, etc.
Yet Brian has the impudence to ask such evidences from me.
I am frankly fascinated to read him.
Brian:
ReplyDeleteThe order "produce an alien" also amuses me.
How in the world am I supposed to "produce" an alien, when I am only human? I was thinking in eating a lot of waffles and cornflakes for the breakfast, but I believe it won't be enough.
Nitram - Yes I have seen the documentary you describe. Is there something in there you want to reference as proof of a particular theory on Roswell? Proof that aliens landed?
ReplyDeleteAs reference - my comments may indicate to some I am a classic debunker. I'm not. Something did happen at Roswell but it wasn't a crashed Alien vessel with dead and or alive Greys, Grays, Reptilians, Ashtar Command, Valient Thor, or Tall Nordics. The point is the ET theory is invalid in the face of evidence that more serious and top secret events where occurring in NM than the 509th knew or even had a clue about.
The Pentagon surely knew as did the CIC and quite possibly the newly formed AEC which operated out of NM and was conducting tests there already. The Pentagon and the CIC were also privy to Paper Clip which for almost everyone involved was still classified meaning they had no idea former enemies were testing weapons in the NM desert and also based out of Wright Field. That's not fiction - it's fact despite that some on this list keep indicating there is no proof of that.
Kevin:
ReplyDeleteDo you think we might, er, just possibly, have diverted a bit from the original topic? But then this is standard practice with anything connected with Roswell.
Meanwhile we still await, breathlessly, two things:
The Mexico City 'revelations' and Nitram Ang's true identity, although I am positive neither will advance the Roswell case one iota.
Just a couple of specific points
ReplyDeleteWhilst I am interested in seeing if Brisn Bell's proposal can be developed further:
a) I hsve never encountered a press office that would put anything out without 'sign off' from a senior manager ( my experience is civilian but I would be amazed if this was different for the military)
b) to develop the proposal further we need something a bit more concrete than we currently have
For example:
What specifically was it that crashed that was so sensitive it was still classified in 1995, bearing in mind the release of extensive information on nuclear accidents and various ghastly experiments?
If this involved an actual crash of an aircraft or a rocket then we would need to consider either weapons systems or something being transported. The former hardly seems ghastly enough...is it possible to create a concrete 'shortlist' of candidate programmes and then to look to test them.
Morris ally I doubt this idea goes anywhere in practice but in theory it is a sensible idea to pursue...but it needs to become more than just an assertion.
All -
ReplyDeleteWhile we have drifted far off topic and I have let the discussion rage, I will note that some of the "facts" presented in these comments are little more than speculations.
Walter Haut never told me that he believed he owed a debt to Roswell. What he did say was that he rotated the releases among the four media outlets meaning that he would take it first to a different one each time.
If Haut had issued the release on his own authority we would have documentation to prove it, meaning that Blanchard would have let him know about it and a letter or other document would exist not to mention that Blanchard would have ordered a retraction himself. It wouldn't have to come from 8th Air Force.
Some seem to have overlooked the fact that Haut didn't bring this to our attention but it was Jesse Marcel. Haut was searched out in attempts to learn more about the Roswell case.
Patrick Saunders told of covering up the flights to Wright Field and other activities, not because he jumped on the bandwagon but because I found him. Edwin Easley talked of being sworn to secrecy after I located him and interviewed him. He did mention some very interesting things in the course of those discussions.
For those who don't know, as Don and I worked aour way through the information, we followed the alternative paths and I have a complete reocrd of all the missile and rocket launches from White Sands, for example. When John Keel claimed he had a solution, I was able to guess he was talking about the Fugo Balloons... When Karl Pflock said it was a prototype of the flying wing, I already knew that it had never flown after 1946 and that the full-sized four engine XB-35s had been grounded in June 1947 and weren't flying in July.
When everyone hoped on the Mogual train (pun intended) I already had many of the records about it and even if you claim it was the cancelled flight No. 4, Brazel was in that particular field every other day and nothing was found there until July... so where was the array until Brazel found it.
Finally, I will note that the PIO would not issue a press release without the approval of the local commander. Haut was always clear that the information about the crash came from Blanchard, who apparently had seen the debris but couldn't identify it (though Cavitt apparently knew the moment he saw it that it was a balloon), so he ordered the press release. The idea that Haut did it on his own is ridiculous.
The point of the post was to show that the witness used to verify the look of the bodies was assigned to Roswell in 1947, that he was a PFC, and that he had never been commissioned. That is a hole in the story that was apparently introduced by Dew who knows little or nothing about the military... just as some of the commentators here have demonstrated that they know little or nothing about the military.
I’m noticed a new trend amongst the critics, i.e. Haut just put out the flying disc story all by himself without authorization. This did raise a little question about the balance of Haut’s military service. He did leave the Air Force in 1948. Is there any information available that supports the claim that he was disciplined in anyway or given a bad performance report for what would have been a serious mistake given the high level visibility it generated?
ReplyDeleteI agree with the spirit of Paul Young’s comment:
I'd say that after doing something like that, his career wouldn't have been "ruined" in 1948...it would have been in ruins about 5 minutes after the broadcast. (he'd been cleaning the parade ground with a toothbrush)
I would think that at a minimum he’d have been relived as POI immediately. I could see why formal charges would have been pursued just because the whole thing was an embarrassment to the service. Also, if that was the case I’d think someone would know of it along the lines, “Yeah, that Lt. Haut really got in trouble for putting out the fake flying saucer story!” I’ve heard nothing along those lines.
I’ve done a very superficial internet check on Lt. Haut and other than the fact that he left the Air Force in 1948, I found this little piece of information on the Roswell Files:
In a July, 1990 video-taped interview with Haut conducted by Fred Whiting for the Fund for UFO Research, Whiting asked Haut if he could remember Col. Blanchard ever mentioning the "flying saucer" matter after the official weather balloon line was established. Haut replied that he did, at a staff meeting a week or two later. He recalled Blanchard opening the meeting with a comment something like this: "Well, we sure shot ourselves in the foot with that balloon fiasco. It was just something from a project at Alamogordo, and some of the guys were here on our base later, too. Anyway, it's done and over with."
http://www.roswellfiles.com/Witnesses/hautstory.htm
Any thoughts about this?
One last set of comments on Brian Bell's proposal...
ReplyDeleteBrian...I've been going back over my thinking along these same lines from a couple of years ago. For what it's worth this is where I got to...
a) there were no plane crashes in the June -July 1947 time period in the continental USA ( if you do a search on air crashes in 1947 you'll find a complete worldwide listing). As any aircrew killed would have next of kin some sort of cover story would be needed even if exact time and location were falsified. This rules out a crash of a crewed aircraft.
b) As Kevin notes above rocket tests and a variety of other possibilities have also been ruled out. I even wondered about a primate on a V2 but these flights did not begin until 1948 and are fully documented.
c) personnel we know who came into direct contact with the debris and / or crash site survived for years later with no obvious ill effects ( e.g Marcel, Cavitt, Brazel etc). The site is not contaminated and no convincing evidence of major removal of soil has been found.
d) as noted above it is inconceivable that the press release would not have been authorised by Blanchard or an officer close to that rank ( or above). Either way, why would Haut think of flying discs two days after the 509th secured the first elements of the debris? What purpose could that release have had other than the one Haut later claimed for it?
Overall therefore I can see no evidence to support a conventional but exceptionally sensitive crash, and some evidence against it. Factor in those elements of the Ramey memo I think can be quantitatively tested and line up wit Dr Rudiak's work and we have 'victims of the wreck'; 'Fort Worth'; 'disc' and some discussion of Rawin balloons.
On balance I have to go with the ETH, but if you can find a concrete fact or two which argues the other way I'll very happily reconsider.
Once again best wishes and I hope this come across as being constructive rather than critical...it is certainly meant in that way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"If Haut had issued the release on his own authority we would have documentation to prove it, meaning that Blanchard would have let him know about it and a letter or other document would exist not to mention that Blanchard would have ordered a retraction himself. It wouldn't have to come from 8th Air Force."
ReplyDeleteThis statement is easily shown to be false.
Kevin, you suggest that every document related to Roswell in 1947 is available to you.
So can you produce the actual original press release? No? Well using your claim above, why don't you have that document?
Or for instance, can you please produce the supposed flight clearance documents filed for each of the Mogul flights that you likewise insist should exist.
==
I ask once again how Kevin reconciles the obvious attempt by Marcel to lie about the debris seen in the photographs?
===
I would so love to debate Roswell in a live back and forth. In that sort of format, the artifice of the myth could be played bare for a lay audience.
===
Anthony Mugan, whose shtick is to pretend that he is not a hardcore true believer, cannot imagine that an unapproved press release could ever exist anywhere!
Incredible.
It is amazing to observe the worldview of the conspiracy buff...everything is just as they imagine that it must be at all times, people do exactly what they think they would do, and events can only develop in a way that supports the conspiracy worldview.
===
Lance
Lance is 100% correct.
ReplyDeleteAnd...since Kevin and the others on this list insist that, and are totally unwilling to consider any other alternatives than the ET hypothesis, despite factual documentation that NM was a hotbed of covert postwar testing...you are left with one obvious conclusion.
It really was just Mogul balloon.
Don't fling the "disk" and "victims" thing at me...as Kevin has gone on record that Rudiak's interpretation is incorrect since the memo is unreadable.
Just to be clear, Dr. Rudiak's interpretation of the Ramey memo is possible,
ReplyDeleteSo are several other interpretations.
The problem is when he goes beyond that, for instance, presenting a poll as somehow being evidence that proves the text.
It doesn't.
You can't vote on things to make them true.
The best indicator that something is amiss in David's full text interpretation is that, when read in full, it is near gibberish--words that sort of go together but not in any sort of plausible syntax (even considering the shorthand way that teletypes were formulated.
Lance
Lance,
ReplyDeleteHow is it credible that Ramey would let the officers of the 509th Bomb Group take the blame for this fiasco if it was really the work of a rouge public information officer? They would in effect be letting it stand that these officers couldn’t identify a weather balloon when they saw one. I think hanging Haut out to dry would have been temping if he had caused the problem on his own.
Anthony:
ReplyDelete"On balance I have to go with the ETH, but if you can find a concrete fact or two which argues the other way I'll very happily reconsider."
You do not need a "concrete fact or two". Nor do you need to have been in the military (of the US or any other country), as Kevin suggests.
Do you really think that the (literally) tons of official paperwork, minutes of high-level meetings, scientific analyses of bodies and wreckage, impact of it upon our knowledge of life on earth and the inevitable involvement of large numbers of scientific and military personnel would STILL be top secret after 68 years?
Amazing!
I suggest you seriously "reconsider" the ETH idea, whether happily or unhappily.
I suggest you also spare a thought for those poor astronomers and exo-biologists the world over who have wasted their time these last 7 decades searching for evidence of ETH, when the USAF had the answer all along (but chose to keep it secret, of course).
John,
ReplyDeleteI don't mean this in a disrespectful way, but what you think might have happened or should have happened is immaterial.
It is hard for the Roswell faithful to imagine that their myth isn't wasn't as important to the real the world as it is to them.
But the actual evidence shows that it was essentially nothing: a one day event, immediately forgotten until a saucer buff resurrected it decades later. The great embarrassment that Roswell enthusiasts posit isn't supported by any evidence. Just like the rest of the case.
Lance
cda wrote
ReplyDeleteI suggest you also spare a thought for those poor astronomers and exo-biologists the world over who have wasted their time these last 7 decades searching for evidence of ETH, when the USAF had the answer all along (but chose to keep it secret, of course).
This an interesting point raised by cda. I always think about it. Poor SETI and friends. It will be finally resolved as a funny situation, or bizarre? embarrassing? Well, life simply doesn't care; things just happen the way they happen.
Lance -
ReplyDeleteYour illogic is showing. Please point to the place where I said that every document related to Roswell was available to me. I suggested, for example, that I have copies of the firings and tests from the White Sands Missile Range and none of those events accounted for the debris found by Brazel. This was to suggest that I have looked in lots of places for information about the case.
There are two versions of the press release available. One was communicated to George Walsh and the other to Frank Joyce. From the descripancies between the two, it is clear that Walter Haut read them over the telephone with the men taking notes. There would then be one original and several carbon copies filed in various places and since the press release was not classified, when the units moved, much that material would have been destroyed. The base was closed after the 1964 election because NM voted for Goldwater.
I made it clear, through the documentation that they were required to file NOTAMs, not flight clearance documents... and there is no respository for NOTAMs. They were destroyed when the NOTAM was no longer current. Charles Moore said they filed no NOTAM for Flight No. 4, which was in violation of the rules under which they operated in June 1947.
And I have answered that question repeatedly, but you seem to miss the point.
Brian -
I can turn the point around on you by pointing out that you completely ignore the ETH because it doesn't fit with your world view... or that the Mogul Flight in question was cancelled. So, I ask you and Lance how you reconcile the fact that Charles Moore lied about the time the flight was launched and changed other information to corroborate his narrow point of view.
CDA -
I suggest that a military background would help prevent conclusions that are drawn on speculation... such as Haut issued the release on his own authority.
Oh, and for those interested, not long after this event, Haut was promoted to Captain but in 1948 he was to be transferred from Roswell in a normal rotation. He thought of Roswell as his home and asked to be discharged... since the sevice was being contract, his request was granted.
Lance,
ReplyDeleteGranted your theory is possible in the sense that it doesn’t violate the laws of physics. However, it doesn’t seem very likely considering what is the general behavior of military organizations as Kevin has pointed out.
It could be that there was nothing incriminating on in the 18 ½ minute gap on Nixon’s tapes. Perhaps his secretary did accidentally make the erasures. And, perhaps Hillary Clinton didn’t have anything to hide by conducting her official business on a private server. But, I don’t think any reasonable person believes either of those. Similarly a PIO could have gone public with the flying disc story and escaped discipline but I don’t think most reasonable people buy that either.
"Please point to the place where I said that every document related to Roswell was available to me."
ReplyDeleteI did post your actual quote that implied that. But I admit that perhaps you meant that any document that you dream up would be available to you and if it isn't then Roswell is true, It's hard to parse exactly what you meant.
Lance
John,
ReplyDeleteWhen you have the worldview: "Doesn't seem very likely THEREFORE flying saucers!!!" there isn't much need for discussion of lowly evidence and so forth.
Lance
Kevin said:
ReplyDelete"I suggest that a military background would help prevent conclusions that are drawn on speculation... such as Haut issued the release on his own authority."
You mean like the military background that Marcel had?
"We had an eager beaver (public information officer) on the base who had taken it upon himself to call the (Associated Press) on this thing."
--Jesse Marcel
You're losing your touch,Kevin.
Lance
Lance -
ReplyDeleteI will give you limited credit, since I was referring specifically to Haut's ill advised press release that some of you insist was done on his own rather than on order... if such was the case, we'd have found that when we looked at Haut's record (at Walter's house). Had Haut done this, there would be a paper trail because of the breech of military protocol.
Kevin - I never said the ETH didn't fit my world view overall - I said it didn't happen at Roswell. Given that fact, I remain skeptical about ET since almost everything in the ET believers' worldview hinges on Roswell.
ReplyDeleteAnd so know it wasn't a Mogul Balloon...my point being that if "believers" refuse to consider any other path, given that the bulk majority of data proving it was "aliens" has literally been falsified - then YOU are left with Mogul as your only reasonable answer.
Also - as former intelligence officer and LTC are you suggesting that EVERYONE at ALL TIMES follows a strict military code and procedure? Give me a break Kevin...that ain't true.
CDA,
ReplyDeleteI think that it is very possible that the government would keep UFO information secret from the SETI project. Remember how LeMay had a very hostile to Goldwater when he tried to get into a room at Wright-Patterson AFB where artifacts from the Roswell crash were supposed to be stored. There is some indications that Goldwater might have been talking to Blanchard about this as LeMay told Goldwater not to ask again but to stay clear of Blanchard too. Anyway if they would keep it secret from Goldwater who they shared a lot of secrets why not SETI.
Brian Bell wrote:
ReplyDeleteThere is not a shred of evidence Blanchard or anyone else ordered the press release. You only have Haut's word on that.
Brian, you have a lot of OPINIONS about what supposedly happened, but always end up showing your complete ignorance of the actual, you know, facts.
IN REALITY it was reported back in 1947 by United Press that the press release was indeed put by Blanchard. So there is your “shred of evidence” you claim doesn’t exist. (Yes, AP usually blamed Haut, but UP got it right, knowing that Haut was the underling just following orders. Nobody back then blamed Marcel, despite what some modern debunkers have claimed.) Example UP stories:
"The first announcement of the discovery of the 'flying saucer' was made by Col. William H. Blanchard, commanding officer of the Roswell Army Air Base... In his statement, Blanchard specifically referred to the object as a 'flying disc.'" (Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/9/47)
“The announcement of the discovery came from Col. William H. Blanchard, command officer of the Roswell Army Air base, who specifically described the object as ‘a flying disc.’ He said the disc had been forwarded to high headquarters--the 8th Air Force at Fort Worth, Tex. Blanchard would reveal no further details." (Clovis, New Mexico Press, 7/9/47)
"Colonel William Blanchard, commanding officer of the Roswell Army Airbase, specifically described the object as a 'flying disk.' He said the disc had been forwarded to high headquarters--the 8th Air Force at Fort Worth, Tex. Blanchard would reveal no further details." (Nevada State Journal, Cheyanne Wyoming Eagle, 7/9/47
“Colonel William H. Blanchard, commanding officer of the Roswell (N.M.) Army Air Base announced the discovery, describing the object as a ‘flying disc/disk.’” (Charleston, S.C., News and Courier, 7/9/47; New York Herald-Tribune, Paris, 7/10/47)
“Lt. Warren Haught, public relations officer at the Roswell base, released a statement in the name of Col. William Blanchard, base commander.” (Main UP story, many papers, 7/9/47)
Gee, Brian, maybe Haut also climbed in a time machine and planted those UP stories to clear himself. That’s about as sensible as your imaginary drone made of highly advanced, exotic materials that simply did not exist back in 1947, except in your imagination.
Also if you knew anything about military procedure, Haut would have been in extremely deep trouble if he had put out the release on his own. (And where, or where, did he get the information to begin with?) His buddy Blanchard would not have been able to protect him from the wrath of Ramey or the Pentagon generals over such a collosal screw-up and breach of protocol that would have caused them national and international embarrassment. Marcel would have been likewise in deep trouble, probably Blanchard too. There definitely would have been an investigation into what happened at our only nuke bomber base. You don’t want incompetents, insubordinates, and screw-up officers running things. Careers would have come to immediate halt. No more promotions or choice positions for any of these morons.
But none of this happened. Blanchard went on to become a full general and vice-chief of the USAF. Marcel got a promotion in the Reserve to Lt. Col. a few months later (fully endorsed by Blanchard and Dubose, Ramey’s right-hand-man and fully aware of what happened), Blanchard boosted his ratings (endorsed by Dubose, who also recommended command officer training). Ramey called him “outstanding”, command officer material, and irreplaceable as he was being transferred to higher intelligence work in Washington the following year. Haut got a promotion to Captain when he left the serviced the next Spring so that he could raise his family in Roswell, instead of riding on his buddy Blanchard’s coattails to the very top. None of this adds up to officers being reprimanded for screwing up big-time. Those are the real facts.
John Space wrote:
ReplyDeleteRemember how LeMay had a very hostile to Goldwater when he tried to get into a room at Wright-Patterson AFB where artifacts from the Roswell crash were supposed to be stored. There is some indications that Goldwater might have been talking to Blanchard about this as LeMay told Goldwater not to ask again but to stay clear of Blanchard too.
Another witness of high repute to indicate that Blanchard discussed an alien spacecraft crash was Chester Lytle.
http://www.roswellproof.com/Chester_Lytle.html
Lytle was a Manhattan Project engineer, ran his own engineering firm in Albuquerque, and designed and built the first implosion device trigger for the first A-bomb. After the War he continued manufacture of nuclear components and worked with the AEC in the transfer of nuclear devices to forward bomber bases.
According to Lytle, in a recorded interview with Robert Hastings, described by Hastings in his 2008 book "UFOs and Nukes", while doing this A-bomb supervision work at Eielison AFB in Alaska, Blanchard flew him back to Chicago. (Lytle indicated he was good friends with Blanchard.) The subject of UFOs came up, since there had been a number of recent sightings at Elmendorff AFB near Fairbanks. As I wrote on my website:
"Lytle related that Blanchard then told him that an alien spacecraft had indeed been recovered near Roswell in July 1947 along with four dead humanoid bodies.
"Astonished by Lytle's unexpected revelation, Hastings followed by asking, 'Blanchard actually told you that the Roswell object was an alien spacecraft?' Lytle responded, 'Oh, absolutely!'" (p. 511)
Out of the literally hundreds of interviewed witnesses, civilian or military-related, not one has ever claimed it was a covered=up secret weapons project like a dirty bomb, or reported seeing deformed humans. Any talk of bodies is ALWAYS of nonhuman ones.
CDA wrote: “Do you really think that the (literally) tons of official paperwork, minutes of high-level meetings, scientific analyses of bodies and wreckage, impact of it upon our knowledge of life on earth and the inevitable involvement of large numbers of scientific and military personnel would STILL be top secret after 68 years?”
ReplyDeleteThis is why you are clueless; it is not a matter of “thinking” whether it is possible or not. There are many, many tons of classified documents currently in existence in the Top Secret-Restricted Data vaults in the National Archives. This is a matter of fact; it is not a matter of your or my opinion. They contain classified information about matters big and small and a proportionate fraction of them date from before WWII. I know because I have personally seen about 50 pounds of them.
However, the really sensitive stuff that is compartmented comes under special rules that exempt it from the normal governmental rules for record keeping and allow and in some cases require, the destruction of the paper trail.
You need to seriously face and accept the fact that you are uninformed about how, why, and by what means the US national security apparatus maintains classified information.
Larry:
ReplyDeleteWhilst the USAF or US government may well be keep certain information classified for long periods of time, this is information over which they can control as they wish.
In the case of an ET crash the government would have absolutely no control and would thus be in a highly vulnerable position. For all they knew the next 'crash' would be a planned one on the White House lawn, or in Red Square in Moscow. Then what?
There is simply no comparison between one and the other. I repeat: I do not have to serve even one day in the US military to realise this.
Certain secrets CAN certainly be kept; others cannot (at least not without ET co-operation).
It is as simple as that.
And nobody has ever demonstrated that an ET crash would be kept top secret at all, let alone for 7 decades.
DR:
ReplyDeleteFrom your website it appears that Lytle first heard this story from Blanchard in Feb 1953 (before Roswell was even publicly known about). Lytle then decided to tell Robert Hastings in 1990 (when it was a hot topic).
Why did Blanchard break his oath of secrecy in '53?
And why did Lytle (who had no such oath of secrecy, at least on Roswell) decide to wait for 37 years to pass on such important and highly interesting news?
We could also wonder why it took Hastings another 18 years to 'reveal'.
Brian Bell- "I remain skeptical about ET since almost everything in the ET believers' worldview hinges on Roswell."
ReplyDeleteThat's not necessarily true. Plenty of "ETH's", (me being one of them) would say that the Roswell Incident isn't the strongest case. Its greatest significance is by the way the US military/Govt have dealt with it...and still seem to be at a loss on how to deal with it.
What are these flying saucers that reliable people have seen,that can seeming zip here and there with impunity...going from silent hover to 5000 mph in a second? If they are American , then they'd make fantastic weapons delivery platforms...so why don't they use them when they are needed? (I can't understand why your Govt would take a humiliating slap in Vietnam if they had these fabulous vehicles at their disposal)
Also Brian... I think Anthony Mugun puts it best "What specifically was it that crashed that was so sensitive it was still classified in 1995, bearing in mind the release of extensive information on nuclear accidents and various ghastly experiments?"
If I shared you view, this would be the question I would have the most difficulty answering.
**********
Gilles..."Dear Paul,
You only are here the one not contextualizing Haut's statement, having a "debt" to the Roswell Town medias, as he confessed in a TV show.
Not me."
I'll just have to nod my head and politely agree with you because I haven't got a clue what you're talking about... (In fact, I doubt the late, great Alan Turing could de-code your posts.)
One word of advise Gilles...if you're going to use English words, it might be helpful if you learn what they mean...and then figure out a meaningful order to write them in.
I definitely agree with what Paul Young said. I don’t think the case for UFOs at all rests on the facts of Roswell. The evidence is much stronger for UFOs in general than for the Roswell case itself. Roswell is significant because if true it would prove that the government knew for sure about UFOs from practically the beginning of the modern era of the subject. Researchers like Kevin have hoped that one day their FIOA requests might uncover documented proof of this.
ReplyDeleteI first came to this site tacitly accepting the official Air Force line on the subject of Roswell. I also held that the Twining Memo showed that Roswell wasn’t a crashed saucer but that based on other information the Air Force secretly was operating under then belief that UFO were real. Kevin made the counter argument that this wasn’t necessarily true and that because of clearance levels the statements that the Air Force did not have physical artifacts might be put in a secret report to suppress rumors that in fact they did.
In defense of Kevin’s view I would point out how the security of British Ultra intercepts were handled. Even people in the intel community had to be given cover stories before actionable intel could be sent to operations forces. If they couldn’t come up with a plausible fake source, the intercept couldn’t be disseminated to the broader intel community. So in the post-World War II era similar measures could be have been used on Roswell incident.
So I’ve come to a “50/50” view of Roswell itself. It is somewhat incredible that such an event could have been covered up so long. At the same time it is notable that the government can’t explain what happened either without their explanation fall apart. I would look at the cases detailed in Leslie Kean’s book for stronger support for the UFOs than the Roswell case.
CDA -
ReplyDeleteYour lack of understanding of military protocol and intelligence is showing. Back when I was a young intelligence officer, I received a telephone call from a reporter chasing a story. He had the facts right and I knew it, but I also knew that I couldn't tell him he was right because I had access to classified information. So I told him that I didn't know what he was talking about which enraged him. He called me names, but had I verified the story, my name would have appeared in print as verifying the inforomation. So I told him nothing.
The philosophy is that you do not worry about what the other guy might do, you worry about what you can control. While you are correct that at any moment something will happen that reveals all, you follow the protocol and keep the secret.
Remember when President Eishower told the Soviets that we were not flying spy planes over the Soviet Union? He knew at the time that what he said wasn't true and that at any moment the Soviets might gain the evidence... but he maintained the secrecy even knowing that one of the aircraft was down somewhere over the Soviet Union.
So, the military would maintain the secrecy as long as it was viable and not worry about what might happen tomorrow.
RE; Lytle
ReplyDeleteSo second-hand testimony, decades old, as reported by a notoriously unreliable UFO zealot.
Sounds legit.
What CDA is getting at is an important disconfirming detail of the Roswell myth:
Believers must maintain that an absolutely perfect wall of secrecy has been erected around the Roswell story.
As a conspiracy theory, this perfect magical wall is required in order to explain the reason that there is not one single bit of tangible evidence to support it.
But then we have the secrecy broken all the time. Blanchard gave it up easily. A base cook knew all about the bodies, Pappy Henderson blabbed about it, etc etc. The monumentally silly new slides witness, a freaking private (!), says he heard additional details about the dispensation of the bodies at Wright Patterson just through base scuttlebutt!
That is some secret!
Yes, this Top Secret Majic Ultra Secret is one of the most unusual state secrets of all time in that everyone knew about it and spoke about it at will! Indeed the conspiracy theorists' Roswell concoction is both the most inept and the best ever secret conspiracy at the same time.
It's two conspiracies in one!
Fortunately it has one additional magical feature. While the secrecy can be broken at will by anyone with no repercussions, anything tangible that supports the witness claims magically disappears. Never a single document. Never a single old diary entry. Never a photograph. No leftover debris.
Nothing.
Ever.
Thank goodness for the magic!
Lance
CDA wrote:
ReplyDeleteFrom your website it appears that Lytle first heard this story from Blanchard in Feb 1953 (before Roswell was even publicly known about). Lytle then decided to tell Robert Hastings in 1990 (when it was a hot topic).
First of all, let's get the details straight (which you could have done had you read my website more carefully). Hastings specialty is UFO incidents at nuclear sites. Hastings first met Lytle in 1990 and Lytle told him he knew of such incidents, but didn't elaborate.
Hastings then pursued him for the next 8 years to go on the record, which finally Lytle did in 1998, not 1990. Hastings was not interviewing him about Roswell, but about the nuclear UFO incidents, when in the middle of the interview Lytle unexpectedly blurted out the information about Blanchard and Roswell.
Why did Blanchard break his oath of secrecy in '53?
I don't have your amazing psychic and omniscient powers Christopher. Why don't you conduct a seance and ask Blanchard yourself?
If I were to hazard a guess, Lytle held multiple top-secret clearances with the AEC, DOD, and CIA, Blanchard was a friend, and Blanchard felt comfortable discussing the matter with him, feeling he would keep it confidential, which he did for another 45 years.
And why did Lytle (who had no such oath of secrecy, at least on Roswell) decide to wait for 37 years to pass on such important and highly interesting news?
45 years, not 37 years, but who's counting? Lytle held his tongue longer than some other witnesses, like Oliver Henderson, who started blabbing to friends and family about alien bodies and his role of flying crashed saucer to debris to Wright-Patterson around 1980 when the first modern Roswell stories came out. (Though apparently he had confided the matter to a friend and business partner back around 1977, before Roswell became a "hot topic", much like Blanchard to Lytle. Blanchard apparently told his family very little, other than it wasn't a balloon.)
As for your claim that Lytle had no oath of secrecy about Roswell, implying he felt free to talk about it anytime, that is your usual incredible naivete at work again. His engineering business was built around government contracts. Lytle knew what Blanchard told him was very highly classified (and as my website indicates, Lytle claimed he later found out much more about the alien bodies studied at Wright-Patterson). Had he started blabbing about this from the beginning, he would have lost all his clearances and most of his business.
In fact, Hastings said he tried to get followup interviews with Lytle, and Lytle, now much more guarded, told him he had spent a lifetime building up his business, which he was passing to his son, and didn't want to jeopardize it. Lytle refused to speak to him anymore.
We could also wonder why it took Hastings another 18 years to 'reveal'.
10 years, not 18, before he PUBLICLY revealed the information in his book. PRIVATELY, he had spoken of Lytle to other researchers, like Carey and Schmitt.
Also, quite unlike you and your instant, absolute knowledge of everything from your armchair overseas, Hastings is a careful, methodical researcher who spent over 30 years interviewing witnesses to UFO nuclear incidents, which he finally set down in a book. It takes time to do the research, time to write it up, time to find a book publisher. That's why.
Lance frantically wrote:
ReplyDeleteRE: Lytle. So second-hand testimony, decades old, as reported by a notoriously unreliable UFO zealot. ... Never a single document. Never a single old diary entry. Never a photograph. No leftover debris. Nothing.
RE: Mogul Flight #4. So second-hand testimony, decades old, as reported by AF counterintelligence and other notoriously unreliable anti-UFO zealots.
Never a single document to show it ever existed. Never a single old diary entry (other than to say it was cancelled). Never a photograph. No leftover debris. Nothing.
Case closed. (Gee, I just love these simplistic, killer debunking arguments.)
The comments about Blanchard is interesting in that he is also the likely source that tip off of Sen. Barry Goldwater about Roswell. As I understand it, not only did Gen. LeMay tell off Goldwater about his request to see the evidence but he also told him to stay away from Blanchard as well.
ReplyDeleteI think Lance is missing a key point that is front of us all. As far as Roswell is concerned (if it really happened) the secret is out and has been since 1980. But unlike some secrets such as Mr. X is a CIA source in Russia in which with the revelation the damage is done. So there is no reason not to prosecute the leaker to the full extent of the law. In the case of UFOs, the prosecution would actually confirm the revelation while doing nothing would tend to discredit the leaker.
We already know about as much about Roswell as the layman would care to know. But, what is lacking is any official confirmation from the government or properly sourced government documents that tell us it is real. As long as that is the case the mainstream media and science communities are not going to consider this seriously.
However, as long as we have TV shows like Hanger 1 presenting things like President Nixon personally drove Jackie Gleason to an Air Force base in the middle of the night to view the alien bodies and the like the subject sort covers up itself. Why is MUFON endorsing something like this?
David,
ReplyDeleteYou probably picked a bad example.
And I still have no idea how you can justify saying that Flight 4 didn't exist. There was a flight--you don't have to call it Flight 4 but it is exceedingly dishonest to keep saying that there was not a flight.
AND we have documents proving that (unlike ANYTHING for your Roswell saucer). What we argue about is the composition of that flight.
It has become a silly mantra for Roswell believers. And by repeating the falsehood, you diminish yourself. Fortunately (as we see above) not that many folks even know the basics of the case so they are unlikely to notice the game you play and will blindly accept the dogma.
Seems beneath Kevin to keep doing the same thing but religious belief in Roswell makes you guys act funny.
Lance
John,
ReplyDeleteI agree with much of what you say above.
I'll just mention that, if we believe the Roswell myth as presented, the secret was leaking like a sieve from the very beginning (not just post-1980), I mentioned several examples of this above--there are many more.
But while it was perhaps the worst kept secret in military history, it was also magical so that there are absolutely no documents or any other sort of evidence that support the basic idea despite the fact that everyone "knew" about it.
Lance
Paul wrote: I'll just have to nod my head and politely agree with you because I haven't got a clue what you're talking about...
ReplyDeleteWell, in fact F. Joyce confessed Haut have "a debt" with Roswell medias.
if you're going to use English words
If my English is not your cup of tea, use Google, learn about the "Roswell case" or exchange with me in French if I can help you for the two before and then an update about the case ^^
Regards,
Gilles
David wrote: other than to say it [fight #4] was cancelled
ReplyDeleteDr. David,
You have an excerpt, something historiographical that flight #4 was cancelled? Please, share here...^^
Erf no,, you are as usual playing with the #, etc. Sorry for you, but there was flights before flight #5 during "Almogordo 1 expedition".
Call them as you want, but there were and it is in a diary...
Regards,
Gilles
PS: Gee, I just love these simplistic, killer debunking arguments ===> Gee, I just like these simplistic, killer Roswell mythmaker arguments.
Regarding rumors or second hand tales about someone seen bodies in Roswell: Blanchard/Lytle, Haut (first hand), Henderson, Exon, such testimonies add up to constitute a considerable load, that although not definitive proof, is impossible to deny.
ReplyDeleteIf we include also some first hand witnesses, such as Benavides, then the act of vehemently DENYING them is more like a schizofrenic and paranoic debunker sickness of the style "every one wants to deceive me, arggg!!".
Actually the story of Chester Lytle is even weaker than I thought.
ReplyDeleteLook at UFO CRASH AT ROSWELL (Randle & Schmitt), p 221-2 and you will find NO MENTION of any such Blanchard-Lytle meeting, even though Randle and/or Schmitt had interviewed Lytle several times during 1989-90. In fact there is zilch about Lytle's Roswell hearsay. All that we read is that Lytle said (to R & S) that he once saw a movie of a 'cat and mouse' chase between a jet interceptor and a UFO one day in the late 1950s. Where is this movie now, I wonder?
R & S describe Lytle as "one of those impeccable sources".
No mention of what he was (supposedly) told by Blanchard about Roswell. Yet a few years later Lytle apparently told this highly secret tale to Hastings.
R & S do not say how they located Lytle in the first place and, as I say, he apparently never told them about Roswell, even though that was the very topic they were writing their book about!
I wonder what the transcripts of the R & S interviews with Lytle show.
I will stick my neck out and say Blanchard never told Lytle that Roswell was ET, and Lytle never told R & S or even Hastings, either. 'Impeccable sources' just don't reveal top secrets (or ought not to).
Come on Kevin - please tell us: did Chester Lytle ever inform you that Blanchard had once told him (in 1953) about Roswell being an ET crash? Did he?
And have you any idea why Blanchard would break his security oath over this? It was all supposed to be top secret, wasn't it?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDon Maor,
ReplyDelete1) You have a first hand testimony by Blanchard claiming to have seen (alien) bodies? Or by Jesse Marcel? Bessie Brazel? Brazel Senior? Second hands, by Loretta Proctor quoting Brazel, or something like it?
2) Do you have something BEFORE 1978 and the mythtellers/makers at play?
I mean despite several influent privated UFO networks in the USA, like CUFOS (to name one) one of their reports collected where one such your first hand or second hand introduced in the myth narrative post-1978 made a legacy, a report, something, regarding the Roswell post-78 myth/case?
Please, share here!
Regards,
Gilles
In Randle/Schmitt's 2nd book we read of Steve Lytle's remark about his father, Chester Lytle, trying to decipher the symbols on an I-beam from Roswell, given to him for analysis.
ReplyDeleteStrange that he was given this I-beam at all. But it appears, again, that Lytle senior (an "impeccable source") told his son about it, even though it was all top secret. Perhaps he also told his son about Blanchard's 1953 revelations, although there is no indication of this in the above book.
Kevin: Have you any ideas as to why Lytle senior should have divulged to his son ANYTHING about Roswell?
David Rudiak -
ReplyDeletePerhaps you've been looking at blurry little letters for too many decades?
You (and others) are funny in that you "cherry pick" details to support your hypothesis, and like so many Roswell witnesses contradict yourselves in the process.
Example: You consider Marcel Sr. a star witness, but when he states that Haut "jumped the gun" you discard his testimony. Then you say that anyone who would do so (like Haut) would be prosecuted by the military; but then you say it was really Blanchard who jumped the gun, but yet Blanchard was never prosecuted - was he?
Let's take your telegram for example - did you approach the evaluation of it with an open mind or the preconceived notion that "dad gum mitt" you would demonstrate to the world it proved "aliens" had landed?
If the military follows strict protocols 100% of the time without error as you and Kevin say....then why does your telegram NOT conform to standard miitary protocol?
Furthermore - have you forgotten your English grammar? When words are placed in parenthesis it means to place emphasis on the fact that someone else said it - especially in the sentences you claim PROVE that a "disk" and "victims" were ALIENS.
The plural noun "victims" has a specific context and meaning - it isn't used much in military language unless it refers to civilian casualties.
If there were victims, and they were alien (or human military test pilots), the wording would most likely have been "crew", or "pilot", or in the case of humans "officers and men" etc. If they were really aliens why not just refer to them as "odd looking people...aliens...space creatures...or little space people"? Perhaps "victims" refers to the fact that they were unwilling test subjects?
Why would they call aliens "victims"?
And don't say it was a code word for a coverup - because that would mean "disk" would refer to something other than a saucer.
Definition of the noun victim:
1. One who is harmed or killed by another, especially by someone committing a criminal or unlawful act: a victim of a mugging.
2. A living creature slain and offered as a sacrifice during a religious rite.
3. One who is harmed by or made to suffer under a circumstance or condition: victims of war; victims of an epidemic; victims of poverty.
4. A person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of: the victim of a cruel hoax.
Brian:
ReplyDeleteYou have a good point about use of the word 'victims' in such a teletype. David Rudiak was obviously trying to fit it into a 7-letter grouping and had decided the initial letter was established as 'v'.
But it looks very contrived to me. Also, if this teletype really contains the text DR says it does, it would rank as one of the most important military documents of the time (or of any time). Therefore, the last thing we would expect is for it to have been destroyed.
So where is it? I know what answer the conspiracists will give.
It's short-sighted (and somewhat bigoted) to dismiss someone speaking outside their native language and trying to communicate with you in English just because you don't understand what they are trying to say to you.
ReplyDeleteYou could ask for clarification, you know.
Lance
Hi cda...
ReplyDeleteConcerning people like Blanchard or Lythle Sr breaking security oaths. I'm only speculating but it could simply be a case of the human condition known as gossip.
People enjoy sharing information that they shouldn't, every now and then. Can you imagine the blanks in our history if everyone had the discipline to keep everything to themselves.
A few specific queries and comments...
ReplyDeleteBrian...do you have a reference for that ( re: victims)? Could I also ask for clarification on what you think the point is? We have established that there were no military victims and whilst Ramey may not have been totally clear on what they were dealing with as of 8th July I am not sure if 'alien' falls neatly into 'civilian' or 'military' categories.
Gilles...in a sense both you and David are tight at the same time. A flight 4 occurred. The relevant technical report states that it includes all flights for which altitude control was attempted. Flight 4 is not listed so it did not have altitude control which rules it out of consideration for Roswell ( along with many other reasons). Crary's diary plus weather data and launch regulations tie in nicely to confirm the reason for this.
Lance...you raised a question around secrecy.. How do you hide a secret that, in terms of the wider phenomenon, is in plain sight over a multi-generational timespan? Leaks would and have occurred but what is key to this is ridicule to keep most people from considering the issues. Whilst conventional secrecy is no doubt important on the deeper studies the key issue is to stop people accepting the ETH with all the social, political and geopolitical implications of that. Ridicule, helped hugely by the instincts of normative science and the nonsense of the lunatic fringe.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteYour assumptions about the UFO question contain far too many unproven points for me to agree with you.
And, as with most paranormal claimants, you create an insurance against falsifiability.
Lance
Hi Lance
ReplyDeleteWhilst there is little point in debate I suspect, I would like to put forward some things that, if falsified, woukd rule out the ETH for me.
1. A development in our understanding of the origin of life which shows we are an extreme fluke.
2. A coherent explanation for 10 of the cases I recently listed as particularly evidential ( even 5 would be quite persuasive)
Other tests that would not be totally decisive individually but would be highly persuasive would be a coherent explanation for Roswell that doesn't rely on blatant nonsense such as Tlight 4 and a model of the interaction of atmospheric plasmas with EM fields in the presence of aircraft that predicted some of the approach, interact, depart pattern of behaviour in ultra high reliability cases ( e.g Fukuoka, USS Gyatt etc etc).
up for the challenge? It would be more interesting than the slanging match that usually goes on, but then I guess the slanging match is part of the point from your perspective, isn't it
Anthony:
ReplyDeleteA "coherent explanation" for Roswell is given in the numerous press reports of the time. Note: I said 'coherent' not 100% certain. The explanation does NOT have to be absolutely perfect to satisfy the normal enquiring mind.
The ET explanation only, yes only, arose because a certain researcher (Stanton Friedman) implanted the idea in the minds of some witnesses he interviewed between 32 and 40 years later, and the whole ET (plus the inevitable official conspiracy) ideas stemmed from this. The late 70s and early 80s was a totally different era from '47.
It is no good claiming that a few witnesses saw, or know someone who saw, actual ET bodies, because there is no such thing as ET known to science, either then or now. But I agree that there were, and are, ETs depicted in science fiction.
However, I do not expect you to agree with the above.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteYour points above are nonsensical and non-scientific to me.
Even if we were to find out that life on Earth was a fluke, that wouldn't rule out another fluke somewhere else. So this point is meaningless.
I put quite a bit of time (as have other folks) in on famous cases. Every UFO believer has his own pet set of top ten cases. Every time I have looked in on these prized caes, I have found them wanting (or I have found there is so little data that there is nowhere to go).
Your fundamental mistake is operating from the state:
I already believe in saucers....prove that they don't exist.
The only reasonable way to approach the topic, from where I sit, is to ask to see the compelling and unambiguous evidence that overturns the status quo.
And I know of no case that can muster any of that stuff.
I noticed above that you seemed to speak disparagingly of "normative" science. Paranormal believers often do that, pretending that they are aware of new ways of searching for truth that are better than silly old science, it only when asking for details of this new improved super science that things get vague,
And glimpsing your worldview, I undersand why,
Lance
Brian Bell states:
ReplyDelete"Yes I have seen the documentary you describe".
Ok that's a start Brian. I suggest you should probably watch the whole thing again...
Your next couple of questions:
1. How many times have you visited Roswell? and
2. How many of the witnesses have you spoken to?
Regards Nitram
Hello,
ReplyDeleteAnthony Mugan wrote: Flight 4 is not listed so it did not have altitude control which rules it out of consideration for Roswell ( along with many other reasons). Crary's diary plus weather data and launch regulations tie in nicely to confirm the reason for this.
Yes, because no dataes obtained it cant be listed as a research flight (and then cant be labelled as flight 4). But it flews or at least an apparatus flown and sent by NYU this day and this is historiographically documented. Same for a flight in end of May 1947 concerning "Alamogordo 1" expedition.
So, it is a flight (well two) in consideration for Roswell, (in time and space) despite all you have to counter-argue.
Launch regulations changed after and this subject/controversy have been already discussed here or there by "skeptics". We will not again discusse it? Or?
In other words, the 4th June flight is in no case "out consideration" to potentially explain "Roswell", as the flight of the end of May.
**
Roswell myth have been generated/implemented in the UFO sub-culture by Stanton Friedman, Berlitz and Moore book/first Gospels...
You will not find any testimony (or point me several) concerning the "Roswell case" deposited in the influent private UFO networks, associations, groups, like CUFOS/NICAP and so on, prior the release of the first Gospels books. Period, cool and zen^^.
Where were such +600 more witnesses before the Roswell Myth becoming an important part of the UFO-sub-culture and prior 1978? How do you explain this iatus?
Why they were silencers despite so many reports proposed, deposited in the gold age of UFO????
Regards,
Gilles
Lance's mentor wrote
ReplyDelete"if this teletype really contains the text DR says it does, it would rank as one of the most important military documents of the time (or of any time). Therefore, the last thing we would expect is for it to have been destroyed.
So where is it? I know what answer the conspiracists will give."
Unfortunately we cannot help you here either, none of us posting at this blog are psychic (as far as I know).
Another reason why you are clueless... If we knew where the document was we wouldn't be spending vast amounts of time and resources trying to read the thing...
Gilles...
ReplyDelete"Why they were silencers despite so many reports proposed, deposited in the gold age of UFO????"
Probably for similar reasons as to why Marcel Sr didn't talk about it too much pre-1978.
Many of the main players in this were military boys who had quite a bit to lose if they opened their mouths when specifically told not to. By 1978, they were probably well into retirement and felt they had much less to lose. (Am I correct in saying that Marcel Sr was already terminally ill at this stage???)
The prominent civilians in this case pretty much all say that they were read the riot act and didn't dare say anything in public.Some suggest they were under the threat of death.
I can understand why small town farming people would take that seriously.
No doubt they murmured amongst themselves...but until Marcel Sr broke the dam, no one had the stomach to be the first leak. Probably for very good reason.
Nitram - The old documentary you refer to has all the same characters in it that this blog is referencing - Marcel Sr. and Jr., Dennis, Kaufmann, etc. Perhaps even worse the documentary presents Santilli's "Alien Autopsy" film, a proven hoax in every regard, as factual and genuine.
ReplyDeleteYou don't need to have been to Roswell to be correct about aspects of Roswell, nor do you have to have previously interviewed witnesses....who by the way later confessed to tellings lies, falsifying records, or simply contradicting their own stories and updating them as time goes on.
Besides - who bothered to interview the 100's of soldiers at the 509th who state clearly nothing at all happened at Roswell. Not too many and not the ones attempting to defend their ET theory.
Are you REALLY defending that documentary as something momentous???
Wait Nitram - about that telegram - it's already been stated, implied, and argued by KR, DR, and others on this list, that 100% of the time all military personal of all ranks 100% follow SOP with zero error....so if that memo was so precious why wasn't it filed away properly in the correct correspondence drawr in Ramey's or Blanchard's office? What? They didn't follow military protocol???
ReplyDeletePaul - your facts aren't correct. Marcel was never threatened by anyone in the government and he had nothing to lose because he resigned his cmission before he hit the retirement mark. The same for Haut.
ReplyDeleteIf these guys wanted to spill the beans about dead aliens they could have done it before UFO buffs approached them.
In his own words Marcel was quoted as early as 1978 that he never even considered the ET hypothesis until it was mentioned to him by UFO investigators. He did state the material was highly unusual and unknown to him at the time, and even then.
You forget that what he described in his initial statement in 1947 about the debris was that it included an unusual black box, balsa wood like sticks, and parchment paper that had numbers and symbols on them. His own description. That hardly constitutes it being "alien".
And you say he was dying of cancer? Humm...perhaps that was related to his handling of some toxic debris perhaps? Hard to know but possible.
Also look what Haut wrote in his own press release - are we to assume that Brazel was in fact Hercules in that he "stored the disc" after he found it? How big was this thing? Sounds pretty small by Haut's account:
"The flying object landed on a ranch near Roswell sometime last week. Not having phone facilities, the rancher stored the disc until such time as he was able to contact the sheriff's office, who in turn notified Maj. Jesse A. Marcel of the 509th Bomb Group Intelligence Office.
Action was immediately taken and the disc was picked up at the rancher's home."
Wow, what a lot of discussion. I've been busy with other things (beltway bandit) for a few weeks so I missed a few things.
ReplyDelete@Larry (I assume Larry H), that is a shockingly (no disrespect intended) accurate description of the relationship between a TS and a Q clearance. Bear in mind I'm no expert, but know a bit from a DoD background and having the NNSA as a customer. Where you left me in the dust is your seeming assumption that an SCI program existed that covered the Roswell Incident before it occurred. I can't say that one didn't exist, but the idea that the folks at Roswell (down to PFC's) were read on to this program is not very likely (to me incredible). I don't dispute your facts in principle, but in practice, incidents (like believers assert happened at Roswell) happen and an SCI is created. Witnesses are debriefed and either sworn to secrecy or read on to the program with attendant warnings.
@Brian, while my own "world view" is pretty close to yours, you don't seem to acknowledge the dividing line between fact and speculation in your "belief system". There seems to be an intellectually shallow habit (on both "believer" and "debunker" sides) by many here to classify everyone rather than recognize that many of use are in the middle considering the evidence. The facts are not conclusive so we are left to do the "reasonable person" test, however, that is a subjective standard.
I advise KR to give @Lance a hug next time he sees him as Lance seems to be able to bring criticism of Kevin into nearly every point, no matter how obscure. I don't understand it, but OK. While I think Lance (and cda) make some good points, the invective (as well as cda's anonymity) really undermine their credibility. I'm not sure anyone is attempting to convince anyone so maybe, as my Mom would say, they are just "talking to hear their head rattle".
Based on my military experience (31 years, 10 in and around the Pentagon, combat command, confirmed for BG [footnote, search the Senate records for 2010], yadda, yadda.) I don't think Haut made the release on his own. If I had to account for Marcel's comment, it might be that Haut was approved for a press release and took the extra step of calling the AP. You've got to love Lieutenants (and Privates) they do the craziest things. I tend to agree with Kevin's account that he didn't like his next assignment and got out, but I don't discount that Blanchard could have thrown him under the bus for a release that he (Blanchard) authorized. I have witnessed a couple of releases that were later "clarified".
My only point is that there are some of us who are willing to be convinced one way or the other. Please drop the personal attacks and the thinly veiled slights and just stick to your points. If your goal is to convince someone, you might accomplish that. Hopefully, I've covered this without creating a half page diabtribe. Cheers.
Brian Bell wrote:
ReplyDelete"if that memo was so precious why wasn't it filed away properly in the correct correspondence drawr in Ramey's or Blanchard's office?..."
Brian, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and will accept the possibility that you didn't read my earlier post to Lance's mentor (see below)...
Unfortunately we cannot help you here either, none of us posting at this blog are psychic (as far as I know).
If we knew where the document was we wouldn't be spending vast amounts of time and resources trying to read the thing...
Gilles wrote/insulted:
ReplyDelete"Roswell myth have been generated/implemented in the UFO sub-culture by Stanton Friedman, Berlitz and Moore book/first Gospels..."
There are commentaries about the Roswell case well before 1978. Frank Edwards was able before 1966 to get some details about the Roswell case from some unknown witness or witnesses.
Frank Edwards (1966, in Flying Saucer Serious Business, Chapter 4) wrote:
"There are such difficult cases as the rancher near Roswell, New Mexico, who phoned the Sheriff that a blazing disc-shaped object had passed over his house at low altitude and had crashed and burned on a hillside within view of the house. The Sheriff called the military; the military came on the double quick. Newsmen were not permitted in the area. A week later, however, the government released a photograph of a service man holding up a box kite with an aluminum disc about the size of a large pie pan dangling from the bottom of the kite. This, the official report explained, was a device borne aloft on the kite and used to test radar gear by bouncing the signals off the pie pan. And this, we were told, was the sort of thing that had so excited the rancher. We were NOT told, however, how the alleged kite caught fire—nor why the military cordoned off the area while they inspected the wreckage of a burned-out box kite with a non-inflammable pie pan tied to it."
The next parapraph of the book by Frank Edwards is seemingly never quoted in the internet, and I was only able to read it in my spanish version of the book (printed in 1967). Translated, the next paragraph goes something like this:
Frank Edwards continued:
These were the gentle days of the flying saucers and nobody (or almost nobody) doubted about such ridiculous statements as the quoted (apparently Edwards was refering here to the debunking statement by militaries) I don't know what was really found in that field. And those who know are forbidden to discuss it publicly
The last paragraph is revealing. It tells us Edwards had tried hard to make some witnesses to tell him what happened and apparently found a wall of discretion. That's why he called it a "difficult" case. The answer to Gilles is ready. Witnesses were reluctant or even afraid to speak in the years that followed Roswell. Three decades later, the reluctance decayed and probably permitted Friedman and others to do the research. Happy now Gilles?
In the light of the presented information, saying that Friedman et al invented the Roswell myth is insulting.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDon,
ReplyDeleteYou apparently don't know much about Frank Edwards.
He published books that were basically collections of "true" paranormal stories.
That was just the way he wrote.
Many of his stories are demonstrably false or repeated howlers that no one believes...like the tale of the man who disappeared in his field (which Kevin looked into I think).
Using him as a source is like using the Brothers Grimm to prove the existence of fairies.
But, admittedly, that's all you got so I understand.
Lance
Rusty,
ReplyDeleteMy criticism of Kevin's Roswell blind spot is founded in my otherwise high regard for him. Kevin has done some absolutely fantastic work on this topic and I respect that. So it is done out of love.
Rusty, if you cant see that the invective (which I have been pretty careful to try to avoid in this thread and lately) goes both ways then you underline the problem. Take a look at the snarky comments above directed at me and Christopher (by the way everyone knows CDA is Christopher Allen)--he doesn't keep it secret at all.
There's a whole list above of fake named believers--I take it that doesn't bother you, which gets back to the double standard that I outlined above.
Best,
Lance
John said:
ReplyDelete"Now I understand that people who post here have investigated the Mogul Project and have concluded that Roswell [Mogul?] was not responsible for the Roswell event. Is there a contradiction here or am I missing something? Could it just have been some weather balloon?"
John, No,, skeptics believe that Mogul is a good fit for the material that Marcel picked up on the ranch.
Believers argue vehemently against that.
We don't find their arguments convincing.
They don't find ours convincing.
Sometimes each side assumes the worst about the other.
It has all been hashed out over and over here and elsewhere.
Lance
Hi Lance
ReplyDelete"skeptics believe that Mogul is a good fit for the material that Marcel picked up on the ranch"
about a month ago you rated Mogul a 50/50 bet - so your not that convinced about it either!
You also talk about the "whole list above of fake named believers"...
Hmmmmm the only believers as you put it, who contribute regularly on the site seem to be:
Kevin Randle
David Rudiak
Anthony Mugan
Larry
Don Maor
I apologize in advance if I have forgotten anyone but I gotta ask you Lance... how big is your list of "FAKED named believers"?!
Regards Nitram
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLance wrote/insulted:
ReplyDelete"Don,You apparently don't know much about Frank Edwards. He published books that were basically collections of "true" paranormal stories."
Lance, the paragraphs I quoted from Edwards don't look paranormal.Edwards collected stories, some could be false and some true. Sorry, but the book Flying Saucers a Serious Business is a must read, a classic.
For the actual discussion, Edwards could be wrong in everything else, but the point here is that Gilles is WRONG and LYING when he claims that Friedman invented Roswell.
So now you are quick judging Edwards is not it? Well, during all these years visiting Kevin's blog, I have seen David Rudiak repeatedly destroying your "facts" and those of other debunkers, showing hundreds of times how you Lance have been wrong. To be fair, I have detected some times in which Rudiak was wrong. In the balance, it seems to me that 95% or more of cases you have been wrong and 5% that you were right. I am speaking of a total of hundreds or maybe thousands of posts.
With that percentage of about 95% of being wrong, I should reach the conclusion that you are a drooling idiot. So why you judge so easily others, without seeing your own faults?
Don,
ReplyDeleteI do try to admit when I am wrong about a fact.
Can you list some of the facts I was wrong on?
While David and I do disagree on interpretation of many things, interpretation isn't fact. You may agree with him (many saucer believers do) but that does not settle the issue in the real world outside of your saucer fantasy.
Frank Edward's little item on Roswell did not have legs. It never became part of the culture. That came later--in the late 1970's.
And that is surely what Gilles was referring to. You misunderstood him...he wasn't lying...
Keel called Ray Palmer, the man who invented Flying Saucers. He didn't mean it literally. It is an expression.
Thanks,
Lance
Martin D.
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I changed that estimate to something else (maybe 90/10, can't remember such estimates are meaningless) a few minutes later.
You are right--there aren't that many folks using alias's here. I was wrong about that.
Lance
Rusty,
ReplyDeleteGee, I really agree with the main thrust of your last post.
If we can agree that Haut did act under orders with his press release and that those orders came for Col. Blanchard commander of the 509th Bomb Group then the question is why did the good Colonel give that order based on the examination of some sort of a balloon?
It makes no sense that Blanchard and his staff couldn’t tell balloon fragments for what they were. However consider the following statement make by Haut in 1990:
In a July, 1990 video-taped interview with Haut conducted by Fred Whiting for the Fund for UFO Research, Whiting asked Haut if he could remember Col. Blanchard ever mentioning the "flying saucer" matter after the official weather balloon line was established. Haut replied that he did, at a staff meeting a week or two later. He recalled Blanchard opening the meeting with a comment something like this: "Well, we sure shot ourselves in the foot with that balloon fiasco. It was just something from a project at Alamogordo, and some of the guys were here on our base later, too. Anyway, it's done and over with."
http://www.roswellfiles.com/Witnesses/hautstory.htm
That sounds to me like Haut is admitting that the whole thing was caused by some sort of a balloon and the balloon originated from Alamogordo. Now I understand that people who post here have investigated the Mogul Project and have concluded that Mogul was not responsible for the Roswell event. Is there a contradiction here or am I missing something? Could it just have been some weather balloon?
Or, is this just Blanchard stating the cover story to tell everyone what the Air Force line is and you better not say otherwise?
Also, at the time of Roswell event there was no formal compartmented program about the crash. If there was one it would have been created later for selected people at Wright Patterson and other higher command posts, etc. The Roswell people would be treated as people who had been exposed to classified they weren’t cleared for.
Lance
ReplyDeleteYes you did change it to 85% but that leaves 15% undecided, which is quite significant! True I did leave that bit out, but you get the point...
For what it's worth I would give Mogul 5% and ET 5% also - so that leaves 90% and quite a bit of uncertainty...
Your explanation (ridiculous as it is) is quite appealing in that we have all seen balloons and we know they exist... (LOL)
Thanks for conceding a point on the "faked named believers" - at least you were prepared to admit you made a "mistake" on this occasion.
Don Maor posted:
"I have seen David Rudiak repeatedly destroying your "facts" and those of other debunkers, showing hundreds of times how you Lance have been wrong. To be fair, I have detected some times in which Rudiak was wrong. In the balance, it seems to me that 95% or more of cases you have been wrong and 5% that you were right. I am speaking of a total of hundreds or maybe thousands of posts."
For what it's worth Lance I might be a little more generous than Don and give you 10% when your discussing things with DR and KR.
As for some other debunker, who will remain nameless, - I can't think of an example offhand when he has got anything right.
Regards
Nitram
Good morning Lance and Gilles (and Nitram)
ReplyDeleteIn one sense there seems little point in continuing the discussion - most people seem to talking past each other with little chance of anyone accepting any point against their overall preferred position. A few specific points though.
Lance - I would agree that setting a very high bar to accepting new ideas is necessary. In physics 5 sigma is usually stated as a threshold, for example. Normative science goes further however and acts in a sociological manner to reject any evidence for ideas outside the current paradigm until that paradigm itself collapses from internal contradictions. An example from a different subject might be the numerous 5 sigma + results obtained for psi effects. At the moment there is no convincing mechanism for how such effects might occur and so psi effects are not generally accepted despite phenomenally good laboratory data. I have some sympathy for that position, although my personal opinion is the mechanism will eventually be found (and from within physics, not from paranormal or spiritual perspectives).
Ufology is a little different. It doesn't lend itself to laboratory studies although there are some good statistical studies which show significant patterns. The theoretical context however seems entirely consistent with the possibility of advanced ETCs operating in our area.
And that brings us to the small proportion of good data in the subject...
Gilles - there seems little point in discussion on this subjects when you try to claim black is white. I appreciate that you are not working in your native tongue, but really, the claim the absence of Flight 4 from the record is that they lacked data for it is unacceptable as the documentation clearly states that all flights with attempted altitude control (successful or not) are included. This is very important as it then becomes a matter of physics as to what would happen to the balloon cluster without altitude control.
Nitram - I'd prefer not to be described as a 'believer'. I don't believe in anything. Belief is the unquestioning acceptance of an idea regardless of evidence. There are concrete tests that could lead me to reject the ETH for example.
Overall I think this discussion highlights one of the fundamental mechanisms by which the ridicule mechanism I was discussing earlier operates. Continuous refusal to accept hard data and personal invective serve to prevent any consensus developing. What I really do find hard to understand is the motivation for the extreme sceptical view that is happy to ignore or distort facts and call it science - and even more so the blind acceptance of weak or non-existant evidence that makes up much of ufology. (e.g. the 'slides')
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteYou once again reveal your bias towards the paranormal when you describe the lab data for so-called psi as "phenomenally good."
In actuality, most scientists are not convinced by the data at all, often citing flawed experiment construction.
Martin,
It's odd that in none of our phone conversations (which I quite enjoyed) were you able to lay out for me any of the errors you think I make in regards to Roswell.
You should have given that a go.
Lance
I don’t believe anyone is going to “convince” anyone on this blog – however I do suggest the following be undertaken if you really want to probe new areas regarding the Roswell story for other explanations beyond ET and Mogul.
ReplyDelete1) A more thorough and updated pass through of classified documents (via FOIA) on areas not previously probed regarding Nazi / Japanese Paperclip scientists and their research on WMD – specifically biochemical radioactive material tested in the NM desert in the 1940’s outside of existing research already declassified to include high altitude balloon tests, drone tests, remote controlled tests, animal tests, captured Axis material tests, and human subject tests (other than V-1 type material).
2) A thorough examination of any remaining witnesses who state that there was nothing going on in July 1947 and to their knowledge, the entire story was fictionalized by a few people. Local ranchers and many 509th veterans claim the entire story was fabricated in the 1970-80’s. There has never been a balanced viewpoint presented by Ufologists, and the few who have come forth stating that the debris was in fact balloon related material get little airtime and are highly minimized in the story (Brazel's daughter?).
3) Employing more rigid scientific and investigative procedures to ensure bias (one way or the other) is not artificially or knowingly introduced to defend one position or another. So far, those who have favored the ET hypothesis have been accused of influencing the outcomes of their research to support their claims. In addition, they have sought to profit from their research perhaps as means to recover their costs, but also to exploit a willing and gullible audience of believers through books, periodicals, speaking engagements, seminars, etc. For example, Heiser had the MJ12 documents evaluated for linguistic characteristics, something that could have been done long before he did it, only to find the pertinent documents pertaining to alien bodies and crash debris were not written by the people who they were attributed to, and that largely they had been written “by a single hand”. Interestingly much of the UFO community still maintains the authenticy of these documents. He never made a dime from his investment and published the details for free – like most scientists actually do.
I could write more but know it will just go ignored with claims that none of this proves anything, that I know nothing about military protocol, that there is no proof of human subject testing in NM, that Nazis were never involved in testing exotic materials or WMD, that since I have never been to Roswell that I couldn't possibly understand the story, etc. etc. etc. and will come to nothing because aliens really do exist and they crashed at Roswell nearly 70 years ago.
My impression of those on this blog, despite the claims otherwise, is that few are actually “in the middle” and most are on one side or the other.
Martin (or Nitram):
ReplyDelete"As for some other debunker, who will remain nameless, - I can't think of an example offhand when he has got anything right."
If you are referring to me, I hereby state that no such thing as an ET is known to science. Got it?
Since I have stated this many times, perhaps you will now retract your remarks in that I have at least got one thing right.
Unless you know otherwise, of course.
[If you were not referring to me, just forget the whole thing.]
As for the writer who said I was anonymous, you can find a short CV of me quite easily (not that it amounts to much). Now try the same with Nitram Ang.
Don Maor:
Reread Frank Edwards paragraph (the highlighted one) and see if you can count the number of mistakes in it regarding the Roswell event as it is known to be. Then decide for yourself how much value it has. By the way there were brief mentions of Roswell long before Edwards in 1966. But they too were a bit 'dodgy', to say the least.
Brian:
ReplyDeleteI am generally on your side. However, regarding your paragraph 1, hasn't Nick Redfern done much of this investigation already? His conclusions were mainly rejected by the Roswell devotees, be they pro-ET or anti-ET. Nick made a bit of a splash, but then faded out.
I agree 99.9% with your penultimate paragraph. Because we guys 'know nuthin' about US military matters or procedures, our opinions on Roswell are worthless. At least, so say the ET brigade.
Are you listening, Kevin?
CDA - Don't worry, he was referring to me not you.
ReplyDeleteNitram-Martin (or whatever).....you shouldn't point fingers behind an alias or whatever it is - diminishes your credibility.
CDA - On Redfern.....he has some research but I think there are still missing gaps that would lend credibility to a "Paperclip screwup" theory. The nuclear plane thing seems a bit of a stretch, although possible. I would however give stronger possibility to a biohazard/radioactive airborne dispersing drone or gondola based on jet stream Fugo experience.
ReplyDeleteHaut and others reported very early before the retractions that Brazel found and moved the disc until he later had time to report it (spun off later into the theory that he hid debris for himself). It was small in size only a few feet in diameter. There is also an FBI memo referencing that a small hexagonal shaped disc had been found at Roswell. I think if more work were done on this we might find out that there are shreds of truth in almost all of the stories, although perhaps not about any bodies (but that remains possible as well).
A larger high altitude balloon with a gondla device attempting to test biohazards or radioactive material dropped as dust from high altitude is very possible. In that case you would have both strange metallic debris and balloon debris found at the site - explaining both as reasonable notions to expand research on.
After all, if Brazel and kids came across this material as early as mid-June as Brazel first stated, but did not report it until 2 weeks later, how "exotic" was this material in the first place? If he saw dead aliens what took him so long to report such a monumental find? How did he, in his own words, move what ET'ers claim is an interstellar spacecraft that held 5 to 7 alien-nauts miles from a crash site for storage and later reporting to authorities?
Sounds like he found balloon debris and odd parts made of material he hadn't seen on other balloons that landed on the ranch previously. And then why did he get a physical examination after he was found and detained? Isn't it possible he was detained for observation for fear he may have contracted some of the biohazard material and was potentially spreading it throughout the town?
Of course those on this list will just say I am making off handed, unsupported claims with no factual evidence - on the contrary there is evidence such tests were possible, some done, and at least the components available.
But then again, coming from three generations of army and having worked with high levels in the federal government, including DoD, FBI, and SS, means I know nothing because I was not active military. I guess all those years around small aircraft including military aircraft means nothing too, especially since I've never been to Roswell..... Nitram...where are you?
@Lance, ironically and unintentionally, I think I illustrated my point that when you appear to show bias, it undermines your credibility. I do see the invective coming from both sides, but as the skeptic point of view is billed as being grounded in objectivity, I hold you to a higher standard. Maybe in the same way you seem to do with Kevin. I think we are both saying the same thing that when the criticism appears gratuitous, it undermines the message.
ReplyDelete@JS, the answer is that I don't know. From reviewing the few facts and trying to put myself in the position of the military players, I don't find the Mogul story plausible. Blanchard's misidentification certainly contributes to that speculation.
However, if it was an ET-mobile, I see no way that the Commander announces it, even to the community. He would have gone up the chain for guidance and in the interim certainly wouldn't have done anything to draw attention.
Based on review of the facts and maybe not unreasonable speculation, my sense is that any "event" was related to some cold war nonsense and it has not been divulged because it involves an ally or would otherwise damage diplomatic relations. Blanchard's message could have been disinformation. I say that because Blanchard's career continued and prospered afterward. He might have survived a misidentified balloon, but not spilling the beans about an ETC. You might say they kept him to keep him quiet, but I think he was so easily discredited that keeping him would not have been necessary.
So similar to Brian's point but a bit different.
@Brian, for what its worth, you certainly don't have to have served a day in the military to have an informed point of view and it sounds like you know more than most. I do get frustrated when folks with little or no military experience want to be perceived as authorities on the motivations behind every command or senior leader decision, but I certainly don't see you as doing that. My point in my message was that I consider myself as having some basis to speculate as I have been in similar positions as some of the key players in this little drama. I once had a PIO who could be a little hard to manage, but fortunately he now runs a blog where I can post my ramblings (thanks KR).
ReplyDeleteRusty and Brian
ReplyDeleteI very much liked both of your recent comments...both in tone and content.
Brian...in terms of developing your hypothesis I think you are right to look elsewhere than aircraft and rockets. If it becomes possible to identify a project along the lines you suggest, and it was operating in the general area at the time then I personally think that would need to be very carefully looked at indeed. Please excuse my scepticism...it is based simply on not seeing any concrete evidence of what that programme was.
Rusty...your comment about possible involvement of other nations made me sit up as that can indeed greatly add to the sensitivity of situations.
Both...
I'd appreciate your perspectives on the suggestion that the rationale for the press release from the 509th was to distract attention from a second crash site to the already largely cleared and more remote debris field, perhaps with the aim of killing the story later. At one level the psychology sounds right but the whole idea of actually putting out a PR acknowledging capture of a disc has always troubled me.
Secondly...the officers sent out to gather the debris were from intelligence and counter-intelligence. They were not first responders and were not equipped to deal with radiological, biological or chemical hazards. Whilst their roles may suggest Blanchard felt the situation needed sensitive handling the absence of first responders seems a little odd in either the ETH or ghastly experiment scenarios. To me this suggests they really didn't know as of 6th July 1947 what they were dealing with but any thoughts welcome.
Rusty Lingenfelter wrote: “…(I assume Larry H)…” No, I am Larry L. I should change my tag to reflect that. Some years ago, when I first started posting I was the only “Larry” around, so it didn’t make any difference.
ReplyDeleteAnd, “…Where you left me in the dust is your seeming assumption that an SCI program existed that covered the Roswell Incident before it occurred.”
Rusty: I can’t say for sure that there was a pre-existing SCI compartment for the flying disc topic, but some years ago I uncovered and investigated a WWII veteran who claimed to have had knowledge of the US involvement in that topic during the War years. This is unverified by a second source and I know it will be roundly dismissed, but this individual made the specific claim that he was given access to a classified section of the national archives and read documents discussing the fact that FDR was aware of and engaged in directing the subject (obviously, prior to his death in 1945). Kevin has written in previous blogs about the fact that the US military had had classified studies of the foo fighter and “Ghost Rocket” phenomena dating to well before July 1947. So, the idea that the Roswell event was the first occasion that the US security apparatus had to think about the subject is strictly an assumption, in my opinion.
That’s on the executive branch side of the equation. Over on the AEC side, we have the seeming fact that there appeared to have been some decisions in place immediately regarding how to handle the recovered material. For example, not all guards were considered equal in guarding the site. If I’m recalling this correctly, there is testimony that guards with “Q” clearance were said to be the ones forming the first perimeter around debris recovery sites. They were allowed to face inward where they could provide security for the recovery process (to assure no diversion of material). Guards without such clearance were placed in a second perimeter around that one, facing outward, to prevent access to the site by uncleared personnel. Supposedly, the atomic bomb loading pit on the flight ramp was used for loading the recovered debris into what I think were Silver Plate B-29s. I believe that both the loading pit and the aircraft would have been considered AEC CAT I exclusion areas—again, requiring at least a “Q” clearance for access. In short, according to these different accounts, everybody was treating the actual debris in the same manner as if it were Special Nuclear Material (i.e., weapons grade Uranium 235, Plutonium 239, and certain ultraheavy transuranic isotopes). If these accounts are to be given credence, it implies someone high in the AEC chain of command made a determination very early on in the recovery process that at least some of the material came under their jurisdiction. I suppose it is conceiveable that that someone made the decision on the spot, but if so, on what basis? This also suggests to me that there was some pre-existing thought on the matter within the AEC.
@Anthony, I consider a second crash site a more remote possibility that the first one, which I see as nearly (but not completely) impossible.
ReplyDelete@Larry L, my point was that part of the way they keep SCI programs quiet is that they don't preemptively read someone on. I don't think it would be the same program that covers the nuke business, that goes against the idea of "compartmented". So, I am doubtful that some PFC at Roswell was read on to an SCI UFO program. If your point is that they had an equivalent level of investigation/clearance and with either a command decision or in coordination with the Pentagon soldiers were granted access, OK.
With a wide grin Lance wrote...
ReplyDelete"It's odd that in none of our phone conversations (which I quite enjoyed) were you able to lay out for me any of the errors you think I make in regards to Roswell."
Ok - I will concede you have a point here. Will answer this in due course - hope you don't mind but this will take a bit of time and will involve a fair bit of "copy and paste" - just hope DR doesn't sue me for copyright...
Regards
Nitram
CDA - Don't worry, he was referring to me not you.
ReplyDeleteNo Brian - I was not referring to you.
Must say though you claim to know a lot about a place you've never been to and to an event that you're never discussed with anyone who was there at the time?!
Nitram/Martin/Ang:
ReplyDelete"just hope DR doesn't sue me for
copyright..."
If he does, you'll have to think up another anagram of your name. Quite a few are possible.
Larry L
ReplyDeleteWhy would a ufo sci program fall under the AEC?
Is this because of the supposed propulsion is nuclear ie neutronic engine?
Is this a situation which exists thereby the ufo sci program is compartmented within the AEC itself?
Does the AEC have any oversight at Tonaphah or Nevada test sites?
Lance said:
ReplyDelete""Can you list some of the facts I was wrong on?"."
I could, but probably won't. See for yourself, it is all written.
Lance added
"Frank Edward's little item on Roswell did not have legs. It never became part of the culture. That came later--in the late 1970's."
True but irrelevant to the point being discussed.
"And that is surely what Gilles was referring to. You misunderstood him...he wasn't lying..."
I disagree. But now you are the translator of Gilles? Whatever Gilles wanted to say he intended to discredit. Whatever he meant is irrelevant now.
What is relevant is that Frank Edwards investigated the case, he considered it was difficult, he failed on deepening his knowledge of it, but it is clear he found witnesses, reluctant ones. This shows two things: Witnesses existed before 1978 and they were forbidden or with fear to speak. The interesting question is: Why? ¿Unimportant Mogul Flight #4 who was so irrelevant nobody recorded its launching? Come on.
Don Maor:
ReplyDeleteWhy you quote Frank Edwards on Roswell (twice now) I simply cannot understand.
1. Edwards did NOT investigate case
2. Edwards did NOT interview any witnesses, or even name any.
3. Nobody was forbidden to talk before 1978, or before 1966 either.
4. Edwards was a known embellisher of UFO tales; he merely got his Roswell dope from what he saw in some old newspapers and made up the rest. It is trash writing.
5. Nothing Edwards wrote or said in his broadcasts about UFOs in general is worth anything at all. He was, however, a useful 'feed' for Keyhoe.
Don,
ReplyDeleteThere is zero evidence that Edwards investigated Roswell. The very few details he includes (most of them absolutely wrong) appear to have been created using the same methods that he used for many of his silly stories: taking a basic fact (like perhaps a newspaper clipping) and embellishing it to increase the ooga booga for his audience.
It really is a looking glass world in which someone would take that brief description (with no names or other means of following up) full of howling errors and discern the details that you pretend to see. One can never underestimate how low saucer believers will go to find "evidence" but this is surely approaching the bottom of the barrel.
Lance
On Edwards - got to agree with CDA and Lance on this one. Edwards did interesting stuff, but he was no investigator. He can best be described as another early SC-FI / Horror entertainer. A good one too, but not a serious researcher of crashed saucers.
ReplyDeleteAnd...of course the "witnesses" we're alive and well prior to the 1970's....the point being that what they had to say did not come out and grow as a modern cultural cornerstone of Ufology until AFTER they were interviewed by Moore and Friedman who cam hunting for a story on crashed saucers employing little to no balanced scientific investigative procedures other than dig for the story they wanted to find while tossing aside contrary evidence that didn't fit their agenda.
Bear in mind the first witness interviews and stories came out just 2 years or less from the worldwide blockbuster film "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". All of a sudden the "aliens" at Roswell took on the exact appearance of those depicted in Spielberg's film.
The story grew arms and legs with fabulous and wild stories of dead aliens and exotic material creating one of the most dynamic catalysts that still fuels the ET proponent's belief system.
It even produced stories from a fireman's daughter who claimed the entire Roswell Fire Department was called out to the crash site to help save little grey men who spoke to people's minds...really? How did that fire truck get to such a remote location given that Marcel said it took hours to find just a debris field?
Sorry to keep harping on about this Brian, but I think it's worth remembering that although Marcel Sr and Haut didn't stay on as full-career airmen, that doesn't mean that after leaving the military they wouldn't have been very careful not to break any secrecy obligations. They still had plenty to lose if they shot their mouths off, even though they had become civilians. I was only a low level rating in the Royal Navy, (Leading Seaman, equivalent to Corporal)and during my "leaving routine" after only seven years, I had to re-sign all sorts of forms. Basically, I was being reminded, in no uncertain terms, that I could face discipline under the Official Secrets Act.
ReplyDeleteIt was quite involved...some of it to do with which countries I couldn't visit for the nest 12 years or so...USSR, China, Cuba,etc.
The fact that I didn't know anything of importance,(besides the best,near dockyard, pubs to visit in places as obscure as Djibouti, etc)...didn't matter.
So I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the office that Marcel Sr and Haut had their discharge debrief. (or whatever they call it in US military jargon.)
In short...I reckon they would have faced some kind of kick-back if they had blabbed in the years after discharge.
As for the thought in this thread that Roswell was a cover up for some secret operational accident...the question still remains... What could it possibly have been?
ReplyDeleteLarry describes the two rings of security sentries surrounding the clean-up of the debris field.
Were these guys wearing NBCD suits? If not...why not?
If this was an NBC accident...who got hurt?
Was there a spike in premature deaths in NM in the days/weeks/months...years after the incident?
Here in the UK we had a foot and mouth outbreak on some farms in Cumbria and Essex...so the authorities killed over 10 million (that's not a typo) cattle and sheep in UK and Ireland...just to make sure it didn't spread... But as far as I know, Mac Brazel's cows were allowed to continue with their interesting lives, grazing on the ranch at their leisure.
If it was nuclear...wouldn't some of the main players have reported radiation sickness?
Brazel carted the stuff around. Marcel Sr took the stuff to the family kitchen with him!
As far as we know, it was so dangerous...it didn't even make them sneeze!
If this was some kind of catastrophe that can never...ever be spoken of...then it must have been the most benign catastrophe in history.
Part 1
ReplyDeleteRusty wrote: “…part of the way they keep SCI programs quiet is that they don't preemptively read someone on.”
I agree that a lowly PFC would probably not have been read in to an SCI program “preemptively”.
I see now how I contributed to the confusion here. In an earlier posting, I think I used the term “compartment” somewhat generically to refer to a body of classified information that is organized around some particular theme (such as cryptography, overhead reconnaissance, low observable stealth technology, etc.) and which requires special access to be granted by the guardian of that compartment. I was thinking of Nuclear Restricted Data (RD) when I used that term, because it has all those generic characteristics. However, strictly speaking, RD is NOT a “compartment” in modern classification terminology. As far as I know, the term “Compartment” should only be used in relationship to the SCI access program, which is strictly on the executive branch side of the government, not on the nuclear side. My mistake. I was discussing my thought that being cleared for RD, within the AEC system appears to have been a prerequisite for having close access to the material. Having a “Q” clearance—which grants access to RD--was a known prerequisite for employment in the 509th and so would have been granted to our private “preemptively”.
Rusty further said: “I don't think it would be the same program that covers the nuke business, that goes against the idea of "compartmented".
Rusty: I am speculating that the UFO topic would have been treated in a manner analogous to the way the nuclear weapons topic was treated. The reason the “Q” clearance was invented is because the official state secrets surrounding the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons are shared between the executive branch (DOD) and the AEC. This situation was created by the passage of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, which was in full effect in July of 1947. Under that Act, the AEC was the sole repository of the nuclear science and engineering knowledge (RD) contained in a nuclear weapon. That includes such data as exactly what materials are used, how much, what geometric arrangement, how much energy is released, where the weapons are stored, etc. This is usually referred to as "the Physics Package". On the other hand, the details of how nuclear weapons would be used by the armed forces in war fighting was a military secret, and protected by the usual Confidential-Secret-Top Secret spectrum of National Security Information (NSI) designations. It became obvious at some point that the execution of a large national nuclear weapons program would require some people to have access to both RD and NSI.
A good example might be June Crain, one of those who claimed to have handled some of the “memory foil”. June was involved in designing drag parachutes for the hydrogen bombs to be dropped by B-52s. To do that job, you had to know the performance envelope of B-52s (how high, how fast, how much payload) as well as the performance envelope of the "Physics Package" (how much energy release, environmental control requirements, etc.) That’s why she had a “Q” clearance—a Top Secret issued by the Air Force and RD access issued by the AEC. You might think this violates the whole principle of compartmentalization, and you might even be right. Nevertheless, this is how it works because of the Atomic Energy Act.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteAl12 asked:
“Does the AEC have any oversight at Tonaphah or Nevada test sites?”
The Tonopah and other Nevada sites were originally established by the Atomic Energy Commission. The Atomic Energy Act has been amended several times since 1946, with the effect of distributing the functions of the AEC among several successor agencies, including the Department of Energy in 1975. Currently, the Nevada National Security Site is run by the National Nuclear Security Administration--a subunit of the Department of Energy. Even with all of the name changes, the basic provisions of the Atomic Energy Act are unchanged.
“Is this a situation which exists thereby the ufo sci program is compartmented within the AEC itself?”
As I said above, my suspicion is that the UFO topic was originally classified in the same way nuclear weapons are; part of it was within the AEC and part of it was within the executive branch agencies. The part that was within the AEC would be referred to as Restricted Data (RD); the part that was within the executive branch would be referred to as National Security Information (NSI) today. In July 1947, the National Security Act had not yet been passed, so the terms NSI and SCI had not been coined. At that point in time, executive branch secrets would presumably have been referred to as “Military Secrets” and would have been classified either under the War Department or the Department of the Navy. There are many divisions and subdivisions of RD within the AEC/DOE. These serve the same function as SCI compartments but, as I said above, should not be confused with SCI compartments as defined under the National Security Act.
“Why would a ufo sci program fall under the AEC? Is this because of the supposed propulsion is nuclear ie neutronic engine?
That’s a good question, to which I do not have a single, obvious answer.
If the supposed propulsion were found to be nuclear (as defined in the Atomic Energy Act), then there is no question that it would fall under the purview of the AEC. If the debris were found to contain any of the Special Nuclear Materials (SNM) that are called out in the Atomic Energy Act (Uranium, Plutonium, and a few others), it actually wouldn’t be debatable. The AEC would have been required to assert its authority and take control of the material.
The gray area would be if there was nothing in the debris that was instantly identifiable as SNM, but there was some reason to believe that the object operated on some advanced physical principle—such as antigravity. Some AEC commissioner might decide that that was reasonably a manifestation of “Atomic Power” and assert authority.
Alternatively, there are a couple of loopholes in the Atomic Energy Act. The Act spells out specific materials that are REQUIRED to be SNM and spells out
specific kinds of knowledge that is REQUIRED to be RD. However, there are a couple of sentences in the Act which specify that the new AEC will receive all assets 1) of the Army’s Manhattan Project and 2) anything else the President wants to give them.
So in other words, the AEC took over responsibility for any secret material and knowledge the Manhattan Project had plus anything that President Truman may have secretly assigned to them. That leaves a lot of waterfront.
Robert Hastings has documented a long history of apparent “interest” being shown by UFOs in our Nuclear Weapons facilities dating back to the immediate post WWII period. I have had conversations with “Old Timers” from Los Alamos who claim that such “interest” did not begin after the War, but had been known to Los Alamos Security during the War (only a few years earlier). If that’s true, then the connection of UFOs to Nuclear Weapons (for whatever reason) was built in from the beginning and knowledge of that connection would have been transferred from the Army to the AEC.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNewbie Brian Bell wrote:
ReplyDelete"It even produced stories from a fireman's daughter who claimed the entire Roswell Fire Department was called out to the crash site to help save little grey men who spoke to people's minds...really? How did that fire truck get to such a remote location given that Marcel said it took hours to find just a debris field?"
Brian - just where are you getting your "information" from?
I DON'T believe you have "dreamed this stuff up" as some of which you have said is PARTLY true (but not generally well known)! But again - what websites have you been looking at or what is your source??
Regards
Nitram
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen did Haut go on the record with his claims about what happened at Roswell? Was it before July of 1990?
ReplyDeleteThe reason I ask is because in July of 1990 in an interview he was asked if Col. Blanchard ever mentioned the incident again and Haut said that he did in a staff meeting a week or two later Blanchard stated (based on Haut’s memory), “Well, we sure shot ourselves in the foot with that balloon fiasco. It was just something from a project at Alamogordo, and some of the guys were here on our base later, too. Anyway, it’s done and over with.”
Now that seems to me to indicate that the Roswell incident was due to a balloon that was launched from Alamogordo? If not what else could it mean?
Lance said
ReplyDelete"The very few details he includes (most of them absolutely wrong) appear to have been created using the same methods that he used for many of his silly stories: taking a basic fact (like perhaps a newspaper clipping) and embellishing it to increase the ooga booga for his audience."
But you are speculating Lance. Speculation+Denial is name of your game.
Aditionally, the wrong details are not relevant here. Not even now we can agree what happened at Roswell and here you come with your psychic powers to claim he got all facts wrong. The factws mentioned correspond undeniably to what we know is the Roswell case.
CDA is another one immersed in a frenzy of denial. CDA denying everything that you don't like does not make you a "rational thinker", two years-old toddlers also can naysay all the day.
John - you asked:
ReplyDelete"When did Haut go on the record with his claims about what happened at Roswell? Was it before July of 1990?"
1979....Berlitz and Moore interviewed him first I believe, then Friedman then KR and his "partner who shall go unnamed".
He didn't start talking about bodies until 2000. Then his stories and affidavits continue to expand on this claims mirroring Kaufmann and Dennis who were proven to tell lies about their confessions.
Blanchard's comments in the post event staff meeting did take place weeks after the incident as claimed.
Originally Roswell authors Randall and Schmitt claimed he "disappeared" July 8 to avoid media attention on the saucer and bodies, and took to the field to personally direct the crash retrieval. It was then discovered that Blanchard had really planned to take leave for three weeks on July 9 and had also left base to meet with the Governor for a presentation on Air Force Day.
Blanchard got the call to hastily gather debris and fly with Marcel to Ft. Worth because of the goofy press release that a Haut verbally released.
Blanchard then did take leave for three weeks. If this was the monumental event this millenium you got to wonder why they guy took a normal vacation.
Nitram/Martin ANG - you write:
ReplyDelete"Brian...just where are you getting your "information" from?" (Implying my sources are bogus)
I can barely keep from from laughing! I have to ask have you ever even read ANYTHING on Roswell? You seem to know little to nothing about the details behind what you claim to be true. My source?
THIS VERY BLOG (and the books written by those who researched Roswell including your very own KEVIN RANDALL - by the way he runs this blog...)
Read the books - do your homework.
Witness? (Second hand of course):
FRANKIE ROWE
Kevin even has a 2007 post on this blog where he states how unfortunate it is that "skeptics" have torn apart her claims. Kevin still backs her story 100% despite claiming in the 1990's that he no longer believes there were bodies - his comments taken at the time of his split with "you know who".
If you want a quick hit, and since it seems you watch vids for most of your information, watch Larry King Live on YouTube from shows dating back to the 1990's. She's also been interviewed in just about every documentary on Roswell claiming or supporting the ET hypothesis.
Ok...better get back to your Roswell studies...Mr. "I am the Real Newbie".
Wow...!
Brian -
ReplyDeleteI would be more impressed with your comments if you could actually spell my name correctly...
I acknowledged a number of years ago, as we learned that some of the witnesses were less than candid, that some of the testimony was quite poor. I have always found Frankie Rowe as credible, telling us what she believes to be the truth. In recent years, other testimony has tended to corroborate what she had to say.
I will also note that every member of Colonel Blanchard's staff we interviewed, with a single exception suggested the object was of extraterrestrial origin.
I don't believe that I said there weren't bodies... I believe I was concerned with the quality of the testimony that we had gathered and how some had not told the truth... and that I don't believe there was an event on the Plains of San Agustin in 1947...
But this is about, or was supposed to be about the lieutenant who said that the bodies he had seen in Roswell looked like that in the slides... and give some data on his military background.
Brian
ReplyDeleteYour last posting sounds like it was written in some sort of drunken rage...
Yes, I am fully aware of who Frankie Rowe is. I thought she was probably the Fireman's daughter you were referring to.
I met her during a visit to Roswell a few years back - she very kindly provided me with some details of what happened to her and her family back in July 1947.
You stated...
"Kevin even has a 2007 post on this blog where he states how unfortunate it is that "skeptics" have torn apart her claims. Kevin still backs her story 100% despite claiming in the 1990's that he no longer believes there were bodies - his comments taken at the time of his split with "you know who"."
Most of what you wrote above is incorrect - Dr Randle was already saved me having to deal with your confusing statement about the bodies... the other stuff hardily deserves a comment either, its so poorly written also.
I agree that she has been seen on a few documentaries, but there is nothing like speaking to someone directly and discussing the matter one on one, with the added advantage of being able to ask you own questions...
But like CDA you wouldn't know that, having never been to Roswell and never having spoken with any of the first or secondhand witnesses.
Regarding the recognized experts on Roswell, I also been privileged to meet and talk with most members of the "Dream Team".
Kevin Randle was kind enough to sign his books for me - one of which was inscribed with "could not have done it without you".
Here endeth the lesson.