Saturday, September 12, 2015

Who Told Walter Haut about the Debris Field?

Since this debate about the press release has gained a little traction here, I thought I’d add a few facts and perspective to see if we can’t reach some sort of a reasonable conclusion. We do have a great deal of information and while some of it is in dispute, there are aspects of it on which we all seem to agree.

Given the testimony we have and the articles that appeared in the newspapers of
Jesse Marcel, Sr.
the time, it seems that Major Jesse Marcel, Sr. and Captain Sheridan Cavitt followed Mack Brazel out to the ranch sometime on Sunday July 6. Marcel, in his interview with Linda Corley suggested they had left in the early afternoon, but I think it was more likely they headed out later in the day. In today’s world, it takes about three hours to drive from Roswell to the ranch. In 1947 the roads wouldn’t have been quite so good and the route might not have been quite so direct. It might have taken four or five hours. With sunset coming sometime around 9:00 p.m., and Marcel’s suggestion they arrived about dusk, it seems they might not have left Roswell much before four in the afternoon.

There is also a question of where they stayed the night. We had heard that it was the “Hinds” house which in the 1990s was a one-room shack that was used to store hay. It was some five or six miles from the actual debris field. If, on the other had they stayed at the ranch house (which, I believe had been, at the very least, remodeled in the 1980s or so) then they were some fifteen or twenty miles from the debris field.
The Hinds house near the Debris Field.

Marcel said that they had cold beans and crackers for dinner. He said nothing about the time they might have gotten up the next morning which is July 7. We know, ironically, based on the Mogul records that sunrise was about five and in similar circumstances, meaning outside my comfort zone, that I would have awakened about dawn. Marcel said nothing about breakfast, what time they got up, or what they did before they went out to look at the debris field.

Given all this, I would suspect that they arrived at the field no earlier than eight, but hell, that’s a wild ass guess. If I was Marcel or Cavitt, I’d want to get home as quickly as possible, so the earlier, the better. As I said in another post, Brazel saddled two horses and he and Cavitt rode out while Marcel drove his car. If they were at the Hines house, the travel time might have been thirty to sixty minutes. If they were farther north, at the location of the ranch house, travel time could have been longer. No one asked about that and there is no one to ask in the world today. All we can do is guess based on other timing.

Bill Brazel showing us the Debris Field
Marcel said that the debris field was three-quarters to a mile long and a couple of hundred feet wide. Bill Brazel, when he took us out to the field showed us basically where it started and where it ended. We later measured that at about a mile long. This was based on what Brazel said was the length of the gouge, which is a detail that Marcel never mentioned.

We have no idea how long they spent on the field. Cavitt told Colonel Richard Weaver that he recognized the debris as the remains of a weather balloon
An older Sheridan Cavitt.
immediately, but no one asked Cavitt why he hadn’t mentioned that to either Marcel or to Blanchard. (I will note here that according to what Cavitt told me, he hadn’t been there… this was after he had given his interview to Weaver.) Anyway, Marcel eventually told Cavitt to head on back to the base. He stayed, and according to what Marcel told Corley, stuffed his car with the debris, which, of course, suggests something more than a weather balloon.

As I’ve said, I don’t understand how they could have spent more than an hour or so at the field, but if they were walking the whole thing to make sure they saw everything around there, it might have taken longer. I have no idea how long it might have taken Marcel to load his car, and we have no information if they had eaten breakfast. I mention this simply because if Marcel, on his way home, stopped for lunch, then that adds time to the trip. Again, according to what Marcel told Corley, he got home late, but we don’t know exactly what that means either. All we really know is that Marcel did not go out to the base that night. He went in the next morning, that is, July 8.

So now we come to the point of this long recap. How did Walter Haut learn about the debris recovery? Haut said that Blanchard had called him and either dictated the press release to him or gave him the major points and Haut wrote it. Marcel
Walter Haut
said that they had an “eager beaver” press officer which tells us nothing about how Haut learned about the recovery or if he made a habit of issuing press releases on his own.

Here are a few facts that are new. Based on information in the Roswell airfield telephone directory, I know that Blanchard’s office was in building 810. Marcel had his office in building 31 and Haut’s office was in building 82. What this means is that Haut wouldn’t have run into Marcel in the hallway or near a coffeepot as they came to work or went about their duties. There is no evidence that they would have mingled in a professional sense other than both would have been in attendance at the staff meetings but Marcel would have been considered a member of the primary staff and Haut on the secondary. That means Haut’s job was not essential to the main operation of the bomb group but that Marcel’s was.

So again the question that must be asked is, “How did Haut learn about the recovery?”

And the only answer that works is that Blanchard told him. Cavitt, as the counterintelligence guy would not have wanted to talk to the PIO, nor would he want to be associated with any sort of investigation that would call attention to him, his subordinates or his duties. In fact, in 1947, even his rank was classified so that no one knew what rank any of the counterintelligence guys held or as Cavitt said to me, “You didn’t really want anyone to know that a sergeant was investigating a colonel so our ranks were classified. No one knew what rank we were.” The exception to that would have been Blanchard and some of the senior officers but not many.

Although Marcel lived on the same street as Haut, their houses were a few blocks apart and it seems they didn’t socialize that much. Since they worked in separate buildings, there is very little chance that they ran into each other on the morning of July 8 so that Marcel could tell Haut that he had picked up the debris. Even if they had met, it is unlikely that the topic would have come up. Marcel would have been reluctant to talk about it given the nature of his job. If you had no need to know, then you were outside the loop.

That leaves us with Blanchard. Haut told us that Blanchard called him and told him to issue the press release. Blanchard was the one to make that decision and Blanchard was the only one who had the information and the contact with Haut. There were only three people who knew about the recovery (and I exclude Brazel here because on that morning he was still at the ranch) and two of them wouldn’t have said a word about it to Haut if for no other reason than they wouldn’t have seen him that morning.

I think that we can now end the discussion of who authorized the press release. Without Blanchard telling Haut about the recovery and providing details, Haut wouldn’t have had the information. If Blanchard gave him the information, then it was a tacit approval of the press release. If Blanchard had not dictated it to him but only gave him the basic information, Haut could easily have called back to read him the final draft but, no matter how you slice it, Blanchard is the common denominator here.

I can see no other way, given the facts, which Haut would have learned about the recovery. He could not decide on his own to write the story because he didn’t know about it. He was given the information by Blanchard and told to issue the press release. This should stop the endless speculation about Haut issuing the release on his own.

(Note: All pictures copyright by Randle except those of Marcel and Haut.)


Brian B said...

The discussion really can't end here unless you want to discount Haut's personal testimony that on July 7 (same day as Marcel's find) he was also informed that a "second" crash site was found revealing a flying egg and dead alien bodies AND that Haut claimed he was briefed at a staff meeting on July 8 where Ramey (who Haut claimed flew in on July 8) said only to reveal to the public the Marcel debris field discovery. According to Haut it was more than just Blanchard who "told him".

Never mind the fact that Haut's claim about Ramey doesn't fit the timeline, nor the fact that there never were any documents found that proved Blanchard literally wrote the press release himself or even dictated it directly, word for word, from his mind real time via phone so Haut could release it.

"Ordering" a press release and actually writing it and using words like "disc" are another.

If you think the buck stops with Blanchard then have both Haut's and Blanchard's writing style analyzed against the actual words used in the press release.

I bet you'll find the entire thing was written by Haut.

Again ordering a press release and actually writing one are two different things. There's no evidence the words used were approved or reviewed by Blanchard despite the claim that no such thing could ever happen in the military without thorough oversight and personal review by the commanding officer himself.

I believe you still have Haut shaping what went out and then later embellishing the entire story to cover his own mistakes.

jim bender said...

So sorry brian your completely wrong 100%, Colonel Blanchard wrote the PR and haut distributed to the newswire, I know it is terrible news, and your your mind set will have great difficulty with this but it is the truth!!!!!!!!

Steve Sawyer said...

"Bill Brazel, when he took us out to the field showed us basically where it started and where it ended. We later measured that at about a mile long. This was based on what Brazel said was the length of the gouge, which is a detail that Marcel never mentioned."

I've always been somewhat curious about this lengthy "gouge" -- was it supposed to have been filled in and obscured as part of the debris recovery / cover-up? If it was simply filled in, wouldn't there still be geophysical evidence of soil stratum layer disturbance?

Did you find that to be the case, Kevin, or has any solid evidence of "about a mile long" gouge been previously determined, or not? Was Marcel ever asked about the gouge, and if so, what did he say?

It also occurs to me that, as you have concluded, and seems solid, if it was Blanchard who gave Haut the info used to prepare the press release, when and from whom did Blanchard receive that info to then provide to Haut?

The timing of Marcel and Cavitt's return from the debris field to RAAFB, given when the PR was issued by Haut, suggests that Blanchard many have had another, earlier source of data than what Marcel or Cavitt would have been able to provide. What is your opinion about that speculation, Kevin?

Frank Stalter said...

It would be interesting to know who, if anyone, Blanchard talked to from above.

KRandle said...

Brian -

Haut may well have written the press release and he said he didn't remember if Blanchard had dictated it to him or if he had been given the information and wrote it himself. There is no real way to learn which it is. I would say that it is likely that if Blanchard didn't write it, Haut would have called him to read him the final draft before giving it to the media... and I say likely here simply because that is the way it would normally work. Of course Blanchard might not have cared to have the final release read to him, or he might have just told Haut to distribute it when he finished with it. There is really no way of learning that today. And your hyperbole about something "never happening" is your interpretation and not necessarily endorsed here...

The problem with analyzing the press release for writing style is that we don't have an original copy. What we have seem to be what Haut read over the telephone to George Walsh and Frank Joyce so we see variations in the two versions... then we don't know what sort of rewrite was done before the stories were printed so that additional variation might have crept in.

What I'm saying here is that it is clear that Haut learned of the event from Blanchard on the morning of July 8. I am not a big fan of Haut's affidavit which, of course, tips this idea on its side in which case the press release that lacks so much detail makes absolutely no sense.

KRandle said...

Steve -

Bill Brazel said that he took about two years before it grassed over again and was no longer visible. During the Roswell Dig for the Sci Fi Channel (which is now SyFy for some reason, probably so they can move away from their original purpose) they attempted to find some geological evidence for the gouge, but didn't really come up with anything. Infrared photography might yield some results but then, it might not.

Lance said...

"What I'm saying here is that it is clear that Haut learned of the event from Blanchard"

Well, it's clear if we accept the ton of assumptions you made...just like the rest of the case. Assumptions are enough for this crowd, of course. I see at least one true believer above saying that your scenario (which is only slightly removed from an absolute guess) is 100% right. So I guess your target audience would agree.

In the UFO world it's ALWAYS 100% fact if it means flying saucers!


KRandle said...

Lance -

I think at one point I mention a wild ass guess... of course these are assumptions. I thought that was obvious. We have very little consistent testimony on this. We have Haut's affidavit which seems to contradict everything he said for decades. I just wanted a reasonable theory of how the press release came about. If the second site was reported on Monday, if they were passing bits debris around at the staff meeting, then the scenario collapses and the press release goes back to being nearly inexplicable.

I said nothing about this being alien or anything else. All I'm saying is that this indicates that Blanchard told Haut to issue the press release and not that the press release referred to alien spacecraft, only that it referred to flying disks which isn't the same thing.

Brian B said...

About the alleged "gouge"....

"Infrared photography might yield some results but then, it might not."

Isn't there an infrared satellite photo floating on the Intranet reportedly showing the so called gouge having a different coloring?

Not that I put any credibility in it.

KRandle said...

Brian -

Please don't tell people to put up or shut up on my blog...

There is an alleged infrared photograph but according to what Karl Pflock published, it could just as easily have been a path the cattle followed. I think he found an aerial photograph from 1946 that showed a path down through that area of the ranch. During the Roswell Dig the backhoe operator claimed he felt a change in the ground as he dug down and thought that have been caused by the craft hitting, skidding and bouncing up again. Please do not think that I endorse this idea, I'm merely reporting what others have said.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Who else would be expected to have been at that July 8 meeting? Have any of those people ever been identified and interviewed? I remember reading some Roswell research probably a decade ago in which individuals stationed or employed at RAAFB reported seeing a number of unusual and prominent visitors on the base shortly after the crash news was broken, perhaps before. If I recall correctly visitors from both Los Alamos and Washington were named. If this is creditable information, where can I read about it?

Brian B said...

Jeanne -

As the myth goes a number of prominent people are claimed to have visited at the time of the crash and specifically the "second" debris site. Charles Lindberg and Werner Von Braun are just a few. Heck, everyone famous traveled out there, don't you see?

KRandle said...

Brian -

Once again, I believe you are off base with your allegations. Charles Lindbergh was frequently at the base but I don't believe anyone put him at the second site. It was Frank Kaufmann who brought in Werner von Braun, but Karufmann merely said that von Braun knew about the crash and we were able to place Kaufmann in the same room as von Braun, which only meant they had an opportunity to talk, not proof that they talked about crashed flying saucers. Can you name a famous person who traveled out there since you said everyone famous did? Or is this just more unnecessary hyperbole?

Paul Young said...

The PR timeline gives me a headache too.

The way Kevin describes Marcel and Cavett heading off to the Foster Ranch,stopping overnight at either the main house or the hind shed...then in the morning Cavett and Brazel saddling up a horse and moseying off onto the range...then later on, Marcel stops off to spend a night with the family...

The lack of urgency was staggering!

But this might be a clue as to the timeline discrepancy.

Sheer speculation on my part but...well... I get the feeling that more or less the minute they drove out of the Roswell city limits and beyond contact from the air of the MAIN EVENT, ie, the second crash site, was relayed to Blanchard...and then real urgency kicked in.

Cavett and Marcel would have been blissfully unaware of what was going on back at the base and that there was a 2nd, far more interesting,crash site, which might explain why they seemed to go about their own mission so casually.

Whilst this is going on, Blanchard is back at Roswell,his phone ringing off the hook...and frantically directing orders out like the Lloyd Bridges character in Airplane!

Marcel and Blanchard are working in two different time dimensions. Marcel at site 1 is fairly relaxed...Blanchard's boys at site 2 are going at it hyper.

BEFORE Marcel even gets back to Roswell..Blanchard ALREADY knows he's got a "disc" situation on his hands, because of the feedback from site 2, and is already preparing what he wants Haut to tell the press!

Even though crash site 1 was known about and acted upon first (ie...the sending of Marcel and Cavett to investigate.)...what was happening at crash site 2 completely overtook events and the Press Release was based on what was happening there.

This scenario is my own speculation,but the only way I can square the circle as to the timeline.

goldfive said...

One glaring issue I see with the idea that Blanchard ordered the PR, but Haut, on his own, linked the debris field situation with the "flying disc" phenomenon is this:

We know very well that from all **appearances,** the debris found on the Foster Ranch looked like a bunch of unimpressive tinfoil and balsa junk.

So, unless Blanchard was specifically trying to inform the public about a significant development in the mystery of what exactly the flying discs were--

What exactly would have been the impetus for the press release?

What we had was a bunch of junk, scattered on ranchland some 40+ miles outside of Roswell city proper. It was not a public safety or health hazard that the civilian community needed to be informed of; It was nothing more than a nuisance to a local rancher who wanted someone to come and clean it all up.

Based on that information, there is absolutely nothing remotely newsworthy about the situation. A reporter or newspaper editor, maybe desperate to fill newspaper columns, might waste the time and print such a non-story as a filler piece.

But the Base Commander, and the PIO office at the 509th certainly ought to have had more important things to do then issue news bulletins on trivial subjects of no particular importance (like the finding of scattered junk on a pasture out in the boonies). They were in the business of handling, training and deploying atomic bombs--not trying to sell newspapers.

I can't fathom Blanchard calling Haut and telling him: "Haut! I need you to put out a press release... Major Marcel found some odd junk on a pasture outside the city. We have no idea what the stuff is yet. Anyway, get this information out to the press."

If we accept that Blanchard did indeed authorize the press release regarding the Foster Ranch debris site, it seems likely that he did so because HE thought that it was connected to the flying disc rumors (and this is precisely what the actual press release said, "The many rumors of the flying discs became a reality today") He knew the public was curious about the new phenomenon, and it was basically public relations move on his part.

Conversely, if Blanchard thought it was just a bunch of random junk, having nothing to do with the flying disc mystery, I just don't see what his motive would have been to call Haut and order the PR in the first place.

As with all things Roswell, nothing is ever clear cut. I think the alternative theory that the PR was issued to divert attention away from the main crash site also has some merit.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Brian Bell said...
Jeanne -

"As the myth goes a number of prominent people are claimed to have visited at the time of the crash and specifically the "second" debris site. Charles Lindberg and Werner Von Braun are just a few. Heck, everyone famous traveled out there, don't you see?"

So your opinion is that hundreds of individuals have lied about what they either saw or heard during the Roswell crisis, reported not only at the time but recollected in later decades. What is it then that you build your own theory on? Is it not equally possible that the relatively few sources you take to be reliable also lied, misrepresented matters, and for reasons that make sense given their situations and positions?

You'd have to do much more than reject wholesale the testimony you're not comfortable with as 'myth' to actually persuade me, and a lot of other people, to your interpretation.

Wind Swords said...


Your theory about the timeline with the 2nd debris field is interesting. The only thing that troubles me is who reported the 2nd site? We know Brazell went to the sheriff about the first site. But then stories of a second site pop up later and it's not known how it was discovered. That's why I think the stories of a 2nd site are apocryphal and not based on fact.


I don't think there was any doubt that Blanchard told Haut to issue a press release. The discussion is what did Blanchard actually tell Haut to write and did he add to or embellish what Blanchard told him? Also did Blanchard see what Haut wrote before he released it or not? Or did he just take a very brief glance at it? It seems to me your assumption about Marcel and Haut not speaking before the PR is correct - unless Blanchard told Haut to see Marcel about the details of what he found in order to prepare the press release.

goldfive said...

Wind Swords,

You wrote:

"I don't think there was any doubt that Blanchard told Haut to issue a press release. The discussion is what did Blanchard actually tell Haut to write and did he add to or embellish what Blanchard told him?"

As I wrote in my post above, I just don't see the point in issuing an official RAAF press release about a bunch of junk found on a remote ranch. If Blanchard thought that's all it was, there would not have been any press release whatsoever.

What would be the need?

I think Blanchard was convinced it was related to the flying disc phenomenon and that HE was the source for the flying disc connection; He dictated as much to his PIO. Therefore, I think Haut is innocent of embellishing the details or adding the "flying disc" aspect of his own accord.

By issuing the PR, Blanchard was simply trying to inform a curious public about a significant development in the mystery of the flying discs.

KRandle said...

All -

We seem to be in semi-agreement here. What we must not forget is that by flying disk, we do not automatically mean alien spacecraft. Blanchard thought they had an answer, even if the debris was little more than trash. It might explain what the flying disks were but that answer did not mean spacecraft.

Wind Swords said...

Kevin & Goldfive,

I see the point of your argument (that Blanchard told Haut to use "disc"). I still have my doubts but it is possible that's how it happened.

At any rate the PR goes out and the phone rings off the hook as everybody wants to know about it. Not long after this Ramey announces it's a balloon. So as I see it we have two possibilities: It really was a crashed ET craft and Ramey wants to cover it up, or it's mundane (whether an actual balloon or something else) and Ramey wants to get the press off the Air Forces back. I guess there could be a third possibility - a secret project (Mogul or something else) and the need to divert attention away from it.

To be a spacecraft means they had to find something else - more than just the scattered debris on the ranch or even alien bodies and survivors. How would that fit into the known timeline of Ramey's announcement that it was a weather balloon? Is also safe to say it was not Marcel who found the further evidence to prove conclusively it was ET. But if it was not, then who made the discovery? I would think Marcel would know because he is the intelligence officer, but I don't remember reading any testimony from him saying how the craft and bodies were discovered.

Brian B said...

Jeanne -

"So your opinion is that hundreds of individuals have lied about what they either saw or heard during the Roswell crisis, reported not only at the time but recollected in later decades."

No not quite. My opinion is that we can verify truthfully perhaps no more than five people (two of whom were children) who actually saw the debris field first hand with their own eyes.

From there we can add just a few more who state their claims to have handled actual debris, some who have stated it looked like weather balloon material and had no special qualities at all.

The truth is there never were "hundreds" of first hand eye witnesses to anything. What you claim as witnesses are actually people once, twice, or three times removed from the actual event relating stories about what they heard from other people which makes their claims hearsay not first hand testimony.

I'm sure these non-witnesses believed what they heard or were told, but that doesn't make them key or first hand witnesses. It also doesn't mean what they believe to be true really is true.

Paul Young said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Young said...

@ Wind Swords..."To be a spacecraft means they had to find something else - MORE THAN just the scattered debris on the ranch or even ALIEN BODIES and SURVIVORS"

I think that if you'd need something more than this...then you'll never be convinced. I'd reckon that even Lance would be convinced it was a spacecraft if you had a living "grey" you could produce wit it!

Lance said...

Paul, sure would.

Heck I would even have to shut my mouth if even one compelling 1947 document was produced that indicated any of this story was true. There have been many leads towards that end. They all end up empty or fraudulent.

My scenario is falsifiable. For many Roswell believers, their scenario is unfalsifiable. For instance, I notice above in this discussion the huge effort to somehow make the flying saucer real despite the evidence. There is never, among the believers, even the slightest effort to consider where the evidence actually leads:

1. Debris that looked A LOT like foil paper, balsa wood sticks, neoprene was picked up on a ranch during the height of a flying saucer media frenzy.

2. Those involved concluded that the stuff (which they recognized for the component parts) might be one of those flying disk contraptions they were reading about in the newspaper every day.

3. It wasn't.


Steve Sawyer said...

So, what now remains for the case that the Roswell incident was of an extraterrestrial nature?

It seems the "second site" hypothesis has never really been substantiated, and if what Brazel located on the Foster Ranch was mundane debris of some kind (seemingly from a balloon launch with radar reflectors, etc., even if not Mogul flight #4), and that based on the discussion here that Blanchard may have had Haut issue the press release about a recovered "disc" in part because he may have thought, based on the Circleville case and the publicity about it, that the very early reports of UFO sightings were for the most part probably based in prosaic causes (although that too is speculation), where does that leave us in terms of what can or cannot be proven about the actual nature of the Roswell incident?

Kevin, if you still think Roswell was an ET incident, what is the best evidence for that opinion? Or, do you now suspect the Roswell incident was not extraterrestrial? If the latter, what do you think may have actually occurred? I'm just asking for some clarity about your current take and evaluation of what the Roswell incident now amounts to, either way, and the basis for your opinion.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Brian Bell, your interpretation is even less persuasive than it had been (from my reading of some of your earlier posts). We have the testimony of many first-hand witnesses to events subsequent to the discovery of the debris field at the Brazel ranch, a growing number of those accompanied by affidavits and deathbed statements to wives and children. What you've posted today blinks all of that. To be persuasive, anyone who seeks to dismiss all of that would have to present substantive arguments against each witness who has testified to personal involvement in the clean-up of at least two crash sites, to the heavily guarded transport of evidence from RAAFB to Ft. Worth and to Wright-Patterson, to its reception at WP, to knowing that the material shown in Ramey's office was fraudulent, and more. Dismissing it with the word 'myth' and a wave of the hand just doesn't cut it.

Brian B said...

Jeanne -

You didn't really answer the question about "hundreds" of witnesses.

Who are these "hundreds" of first hand witnesses you claim were in the field actually handling debris at two different sites?

How many? One, a dozen, perhaps three hundred?

Have they testified to this personally or does their "testimony" come from a family member, friend or acquaintance decades later?

What evidence proves "heavily guarded" debris was transported?

Guarded by whom and what, P-51 escorts, USAAF trucks, or perhaps a platoon of M4 tanks?

Overall what you present as "evidence" is not substantiated. It's just what believers claim happened mainly because they want it to have happened. It's what propagates a legend based on myth or lore decades after 1947.

I don't place much stock into deathbed affidavits. Your assumption about them being "truthful" is not anchored in reality. The assumption that all "truths" are told at death is not reality. In regards to Roswell affidavits, established evidence indicates most are heavily influenced by Ufologists and family members.

Elderly people actually dying in bed at a hospital or hospice typically are heavily medicated to reduce and eliminate pain. They are usually not of sound mind in their death beds. Mental distortion, anxiety over death, pain, physical discomfort, and failing organs mixed with heavy medication does not crispen tends to blur them or even produce false memories. All of this is substantiated by medical science.

Nitram said...

BB wrote:

"My opinion is that we can verify truthfully perhaps no more than five people (two of whom were children) who actually saw the debris field first hand with their own eyes.

From there we can add just a few more who state their claims to have handled actual debris, some who have stated it looked like weather balloon material and had no special qualities at all."

Please share with us the names of those who have stated it looked like weather balloon material and had no special qualities at all...

Wind Swords said...


My comment should read: "To be a spacecraft means they had to find something else - MORE THAN just the scattered debris on the ranch, [maybe] even ALIEN BODIES and SURVIVORS".

Hope that clarifies it.


"Please share with us the names of those who have stated it looked like weather balloon material and had no special qualities at all..."

Marcel - Said it was foil, sticks, rubber, etc. he did say that the foil had unusual properties. He did not recognize it as a weather balloon.
Cavitt - Said it was a weather balloon.
Brazell - Said it was foil, sticks, rubber, etc. Did say it was not a weather balloon in his opinion based on those (or just one) that he had seen before. But, is it possible that the configuration of weather balloons changed over time? Questions got to be asked. Some say he was coerced to describe it that way but there is no definitive proof of that.
Brazell's daughter - 14 years old at the time IIRC - described it the same way. Funny that her testimony is not given the same weight as Brazell's son who was younger (11 years old?).

starman said...

Steve Sawyer, I doubt KDR now rejects an ET explanation for Roswell. As he has shown, it couldn't have been NYU # 4. Considering the sheer quantity of material (the debris field is said to have extended about 3/4 of a mile) it surely could've been traced to a specific alternative source if it was something prosaic.
If I've understood recent posts correctly, the point isn't that the material was earthly junk--it was highly unusual--it just wasn't yet classified. Hence Marcel's trip home with it, and the press release. The new scenario assumes the "2nd site" either didn't exist or was discovered after the press release went out. Of course nobody around here accepts the EBD as genuine. It is interesting, though, that its claim of alien bodies lying for several days before recovery is echoed by other sources. The alleged stench of the bodies is suggestive of a considerable delay prior to discovery or recovery, probably too late for the press release.
Btw, Brazel's son actually handled some debris, dunno if Bessie did.

Nitram said...

Wind Swords...

The question "please share with us the names of those who have stated it looked like weather balloon material and had no special qualities at all..." was in response to a posting by BB.

But since you chose to answer this question:

1. MARCEL: Incorrect - he said the material had special qualities as you noted.

2. CAVITT: Correct - however did he not also state earlier that he wasn't in
Roswell at the time of the incident!?

3. BRAZEL: Incorrect - he didn't know what it was and yes, there is proof that
his story changed, after "discussions" with
military personal.

4. DAUGHTER of MB: Incorrect - according to you she said it wasn't a weather

To conclude... one out of four aint bad.

KRandle said...

Nitram -

Actually, Cavitt also told me that he had never participated in the recovery of a balloon, which, of course is not what he told Colonel Weaver.

Bessie Brazel later repudiated the claim that she had been there, suggesting that her brother had been right (though it might just be that she changed her story for harmony in the family as they both approached old age).

Mack Brazel, upon seeing the material that Bill had found said that it looked like some of that contraption he had found. Also see the affidavit of Sallye Tadolini (daughter of the Stricklands)about what Bill had shown to her.

I might point out that Jesse Marcel, Sr. upon being shown the picture of the material in General Ramey's office said that it wasn't the stuff he had found. He told this to reporter Johnny Mann (and yes, he said this in the 1980s so we all already know the spin that will be put on it).

Nitram said...

Thank you Kevin for your response.

I was really waiting to hear from Brian Bell to provide the names of those people who stated:

1. It was (or looked like) a weather balloon AND
2. Had no special qualities.

Maybe Lance can provide us with a name or two.

Regarding Cavitt - you are correct of course, as unlike you, I (and Lance, CDA and Brian Bell) have never spoke with him personally.

So, where does that leave us now - 0/4.


Wind Swords said...


Sorry, but I stand by what I posted. Just because YOU say it was incorrect doesn't make it so.

Marcel described it the same way, excepting for the unusual properties of the foil. Still, he said foil, rubber, sticks, etc. He never said spaceship, alien bodies, fiber optic cable, computer chips, warp drive or anything else (yes, I'm being facetious with the last three but you get the point).

And Brazell's daughter said it was foil, paper, sticks, rubber etc. She never had an opinion on whether it was or was not a weather balloon, just that it was mundane material. I don't know how you got that from my posting when I said she described it the same way (as the others).

If you want to say that Brazell was coached/forced to say it was mundane stuff you are going to have to prove it and you can't. In a court such testimony would be thrown out because it can not be verified.

Brian B said...

@ Starman & Steve Sawyer

On KDR's conclusions:

I haven't seen him overtly claim one thing or another on this his own blog. Maybe I missed it. But if you wanted to know this is what his stance was as of 2013.

In a podcast interview with Canadian filmmaker Paul Kimball released on August 25, 2013, Kevin Randle stated that while he still personally believed that an extraterrestrial spacecraft crashed in New Mexico, the evidence does not support that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. "We really can't get to the extraterrestrial," stated Randle. "We can eliminate practically everything else that you care to mention, but that still doesn't get us to the extraterrestrial."

I think that answers the question.

Unknown said...

Since I have a great interest in the Roswell issue I have checked this thread from time to time. I had no intention of getting involved in this silly argument but there is so much absolute BS in these posts that I am compelled to state the following:

Jesse Marcel said the following on film or video standing at the crash site that, "It was not anything from this earth, that being an intelligence officer I was familiar with all materials used in aircraft and air travel, this was nothing like that, it could not have been." That's on tape, that's a fact.

I am not going to get into a discussion about what so many have stated were "sticks, rubber and foil" and that a number of people who handled the material stated it couldn't be cut, burned or damaged by conventional means. It doesn't sound like balsa wood or aluminum foil to me.

What I am saying is that Jesse Marcel, Sr. and backed up by Jesse Marcel, Jr. said exactly what I said above. Now you can say that he was a senile old man, or he was lying. But the fact is he said it and it's on film. Just go to You Tube and look up the Roswell Jesse Marcel, Sr interview. No, Wind Swords, he didn't say spaceship, he said it wasn't from this earth. It never ceases to amaze me why people pontificate on matters on which they obviously have done little or no research.

Nitram said...

"It never ceases to amaze me why people pontificate on matters on which they obviously have done little or no research."

I'm with you on that Larry...


Brian B said...

@ Larry

Sure Marcel Sr. said what you stated above on camera. No one said he didn't.

But he also said many other things that contradicted his own words. Are you willing to ignore the following facts?

- Chicago radio interview saying he never thought the material was alien until researchers suggested it to him as one explanation for why he couldn't identify it.

- That he received five Air Medals for shooting down enemy aircraft.

- That he claimed the debris photographed in Ramey's office was the actual material, then it was a mixture of material real and replaced, then it was all replaced.

You can't anchor EVERYTHING on that video statement alone. Doing so takes it out of full context with the other things he said and his character behavior overall.

Just more cherry picking - ignore the stuff you don't like and push the stuff you do.

Al12 said...


Marcel is not the only one, there is a snippet ( about 1 minutes worth ) on video on DuBose stating that what was found was a cover story to divert the attention of the press.

That is the only snippet i can find of his interview, where can the rest of this taped interview be found? as it must exist somewhere but i can only find that one minutes worth on youtube or online.

He clearly says that it was a cover story, cover story for what, Mogul? since only the project not the actual balloon debris was classified so why would it be nessesary to divert the attention of the press? where is the rest of that interview? does anyone know?

Brian B said...

Let's not be too foolish with stating no "witnesses" claimed the material was "balloon like". Read the following:


In The Roswell Incident, Marcel stated, "Actually, this material may have looked like tinfoil and balsa wood, but the resemblance ended there [...] They took one picture of me on the floor holding up some of the less-interesting metallic debris [...] The stuff in that one photo was pieces of the actual stuff we found. It was not a staged photo." Timothy Printy points out that the material Marcel positively identified as being part of what he recovered is material that skeptics and UFO advocates agree is debris from a balloon device. After that fact was pointed out to him, Marcel changed his story to say that that material was not what he recovered.

Marcel also stated in the RDR quote: "[We] spent a couple of hours Monday afternoon [July 7] looking for any more parts of the weather device", said Marcel. "We found a few more patches of tinfoil and rubber."


"Most of what I found was white, linen-like cloth with reflective tinfoil attached to one side. One of the larger pieces of foiled cloth, measuring about 8 by 12 inches, had writing on the cloth side. Someone had used a pencil to do some figuring, arithmetic. There were no words, only numbers. I did not see any writing or marking on any of the other debris."

Brazel (RDR 7/9/47):

"He claimed that he and his son, Vernon, found the material on June 14, 1947, when they "came upon a large area of bright wreckage made up of rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper, and sticks." He picked up some of the debris on July least one paper fin had been glued onto some of the tinfoil. No string or wire were to be found but there were some eyelets in the paper to indicate that some sort of attachment may have been used."

Brazel Schreiber:

"Sticks, like kite sticks, were attached to some of the pieces [of foil-rubber like material] with a whitish tape."


"He stated that the material he recovered consisted of a reflective sort of material like aluminum foil, and some thin, bamboo-like sticks. He thought at the time, and continued to do so today, that what he found was a weather balloon."


"It was cut and dried. I had sent up thousands of them and there's no doubt that what I was given were parts of a balloon. I was LATER told that the major from Roswell had identified the stuff as a flying saucer, but that the general [Ramey] had been suspicious of this identification from the beginning. When I had identified it as a balloon I was dismissed." The major [Marcel] kept pointing to portions of the balloon to ask if I thought it would be found on a regular balloon." [Newton said he had the impression the major was trying to save face and not appear to be a fool who couldn't tell the difference between a normal balloon and something from outer space.]

Nitram said...

BB wrote:

"Chicago radio interview saying he never thought the material was alien until researchers suggested it to him as one explanation for why he couldn't identify it."

OK - can you please provide a source so we can hear this interview?
Thank you.

Paul Young said...

Though I go along with the ETH for the Roswell Incident, I do find Marcel Snr to be a frustrating character.

@ Brian Bell...

There's no doubt that some of the stuff amongst the Foster ranch debris field seems to have been mundane stuff. And this is certainly endorsed in the quotes that you have mentioned in your post above.

But the description of the other, "not of this world" stuff can't be ignored either.

Again, to square the circle, the obvious conclusion, to my mind, is that the debris field must have been made up of debris from two separate "things" that collided from above.

Brian B said...

@ Paul

I could imagine that two different things may have collided midair, but are you suggesting an alien space craft collided with a weather balloon? I think the chances of that happening are even less than an egg shaped projectile piloted by aliens (Haut's final claim) actually crashing near Roswell.

Despite the fact that a certain few ufologists continue to insist that NYU #4 could NEVER be the culprit behind Brazel's find, not one of them has a PhD in atmospheric physics and decades of experience launching or tracking complex high altitude balloons. They frequently claim skeptics without their kind of expertise are incapable of understanding their work, but they ignore that claim when it applies to themselves.

The only reason NYU #4 is rejected by Roswell supporters is because Rudiak and Sparks launched an aggressive "anti-Moore" campaign to debunk his analysis to keep their own dogmatic theory alive. KDR backs the anti-NYU #4 explanation because he also believes Roswell was an ET event. The collective claim is "Moore cooked the books" and he's a deliberate "debunker".

Well maybe these ufologists should be more mindful of their own witnesses, having once anchored their core ET theories on false testimony, namely from the likes of Kaufmann, Anderson, Dennis, Ragsdale, Haut, and the mysterious LTC Lovejoy Duran who apparently was never a real person to begin with.

As Printy has pointed out long ago the best explanation for what Brazel found, given the descriptions, remains the lost and unaccounted for Flight #4. The claims made by Rudiak can and have been refuted and you can read more here if you care to:

After all, Flight #4 did go missing. If not then where did it go? Bear in mind that Moore's analysis was intentionally started with a beginning and ending place in mind, not to debunk but rather to demonstrate that it was indeed POSSIBLE the Foster ranch debris was in fact what people initially claimed it was: sticks, cloth backed foil, broken pieces of bakelite, neoprene, metal rings, and nylon string (including a black battery box and a cylindrical radiosonde).

As far as Haut goes, sure Blanchard ordered him to write a PR. But don't forget that Haut also claimed it was Marcel who convinced him it was a "flying disc" in the first place, not to mention the fact that Marcel was apparently trying to convince everyone that the material was "foreign" and possibly "from another world".

Why not apply everyone's favorite tool occum's razor. Which is more plausible? That aliens from a star system many light years away travelled across the galaxy in a flimsy space craft constructed of sticks, foil, metal rings, rubber and 1940's vintage bakelite OR that a unclassified balloon with a classified mission was launched, went missing, and broke apart in a thunderstorm only to be found weeks later by a local cowboy who claimed he found sticks, foil, rubber, and other materials used in the same balloon that was lost?

Nitram said...

Hello Brian Bell

I'm sure your last post will get a good reaction from the "authorities" on Roswell.

But do you think you could answer a simple question namely:

Can you please provide a source so we can hear this "Chicago radio interview" you mention in an earlier post?


Unknown said...

Brian Bell:

Bloviating seems to be an art form you have mastered.

As to your statement: "You can't anchor EVERYTHING on that video statement alone. Doing so takes it out of full context with the other things he said and his character behavior overall."

What can I say but that statement that I anchor EVERYTHING on that video was stupid. I'm sorry, but it was simply stupid! I posted it to show another poster that Marcel, on film, said that what he handled was not of earthly origin, in his mind.

I know a great deal about the Roswell story. I've spent time with Jesse Marcel, Jr. before his death, in presidential archives and interviewing a number of people involved with the UFO story around the country, at my own expense. Have you? For you to tell me that I anchor EVERYTHING on that video is irritating and insulting.

cda said...


Tell me please: Why do you insist, in your accounts, that Brazel first came into Roswell on Sunday July 6? Why do you persist with this false date?

All the contemporary press reports (both in Roswell and Ft Worth) that I have seen say that Brazel first drove into Roswell to see the sheriff on Monday July 7 and that Marcel and another man accompanied him back to the ranch later that day and returned to the town (and the base) early on Tuesday the 8th, exact time unknown. There was thus no genuine 'overnight' stop in the desert.

These are the contemporary press accounts, yet as a result of interviews conducted some 35 to 45 years afterwards (!) you still wish to alter history for your own purposes.

Yes there is plenty that is guesswork about these events, timings and such. But here we have a definite date for one certain event, namely the rancher's first visit to town, and the follow-up trip to the ranch.

Yet you STILL insist otherwise. Please tell us why.

starman said...

Brian Bell: KDR does not reject NYU #4 "because he believes Roswell was an ET event." That's absurd; he's rejected ET as the cause of many events. He rejects mogul for good reasons stated many times. Crary's diary indicates #4 was CANCELLED, and only balloons were released. It can't account for "foil and sticks" found on the ranch, even IF wind direction made it possible to get there.
Why would Marcel show the stuff to his family if it were just balloon trash? Marcel jr didn't get that impression and he SAW the stuff.

starman said...

cda I don't think the 7th works. It takes hours to drive from the ranch to Roswell and hours to get back. It would be evening by the time Marcel reached the ranch--just as the account says, too late for observation. If it didn't occur until the 8th, there wouldn't be enough time for the press release that day.
Getting back to #4. As was pointed out long ago, the mess on the ranch had to be cleaned up ASAP because it caused problems for the sheep. In order for # 4 to work, Brazel would've had to tolerate the mess for three weeks, which I don't think he would've.

cda said...


Of course "the 7th works". We have no idea what time Marcel set out to the ranch; there is no time given in the press and we only have useless decades-old memories on this. I can just as well suggest Marcel/Cavitt set out at 2 pm, got there at 5pm, spent perhaps 3 hours actually 'at work', had a short sleep then drove back early on the 8th, maybe at sunrise. Nothing wrong here. Nothing except certain writers (like KR) somehow WANT to change the date to fit some other ideas of theirs.

There is absolutely nothing, repeat nothing, to indicate Marcel spent more than a few hours at the ranch from late Monday July 7 to early Tuesday July 8.

It is there in print, in black & white.

William Strathmann said...

Among various remaining questions:

If Blanchard really did not know what the debris was, then wouldn’t one of the foremost things on his mind be maintaining the security of what very well might have been a secret US project that had crashed?

Why would Blanchard issue a press release when he did not know what the stuff was?

Wasn’t Marcel already winging his way to Ramey in Ft. Worth in a Silverplate B-29 with a box of trash when Blanchard ordered Haut to publicize the debris find?

Surely Marcel’s flight to Ft Worth would have been coordinated with Ramey in Fort Worth before takeoff, wouldn’t it?

Then wouldn’t it be likely that Blanchard had already phoned Ramey before he ordered the press release and told Ramey about the stuff, just to make sure the general would be in or near his office?

starman said...

cda: Memories aren't "useless" just because they're decades old. Marcel indicated by the time he got to the ranch it was too late to inspect the field, which wouldn't be at all surprising. From what I've read, Brazel got up early but had to do some chores first (after breakfast) before driving to Roswell. He could've left around 10 a.m. and reached the sheriff's office around 2. Marcel then had to come and arrange for the trip back. If they left around 3, it could've been 7 P.M. before they got back--not enough time for a proper inspection before dark considering the debris field was some distance away. Marcel ate breakfast the next morning before they set out for the field. He didn't return to the base until the morning after that. It makes sense and indicates the 7th wasn't the date Brazel came to Roswell. It was the previous day, or else there wouldn't have been time for Marcel to get back in time for the press release on the 8th.
As for contemporary newspaper accounts, they should be taken with a grain of salt--details of the press release being one example. Brazel was in custodia militaris for a while and it has long been thought he was coached as to what to say.

Brian B said...

@ Starman

"Brazel was in custodia militaris for a while and it has long been thought he was coached as to what to say."

Actually that's not exactly true.

What happened to Brazel during the 7th and 8th is not clear but it appears that he was always in the company of Walt Whitmore Sr. This is mentioned in the Roswell Daily Record article, "Brazel was brought here late yesterday be W. E. Whitmore". The claim he had been taken to RAAF where he was threatened to tell a new coverup story is just more exaggeration. Roswell supporters have claimed anything between one to seven days in confinement. Given the facts, when was there time for such "instructional threats" on what to say? All of the authors claim that Whitmore picked him up and the earliest this could have been was the evening of the 7th. It is also known that Brazel spent at least two nights with the Whitmore’s. Walt Jr. told Karl Pflock that he recalled, "...having breakfast with him at least twice". This makes the earliest date that he left the Whitmores' as the morning of the 10th!

Walter Haut confirms the fact that Whitmore had Brazel with him for some time:

"Walt Whitmore had practically kidnapped him (Brazel). Walt was an old, old time newspaperman. You never could quite tell whether everything he was saying was all the truth...I think the rumor was that Walt was moving him from place to place. This was a’s a much more interesting story when you move a man from place to place...To my knowledge. I did not know he had been on base.(Randle and Schmitt).

Clearly, there was absolutely no time for the military to explain to Brazel what to say during the interview at the Roswell Daily Record or on radio.

There are also conflicting reports of who brought Brazel into the newspaper office. According to McEvoy the newspaper’s editor, the military escorted him in. This is in contradiction with the newspaper article published by his own paper. Joyce also originally stated he showed up alone later changing it to one where he was manhandled by military thugs when brought to the radio station.

Brazel also describes most of the debris seen in the Fort Worth pictures, which he had not seen at this point in time.

In order to do this, the military would have to produce identical debris to that seen in the Fort Worth photographs for Brazel to examine before hand.

We already know that RAAF did not have these radar reflectors on base.

In other words Brazel was telling the truth about what he found: sticks, foil, string and rubber. That brings us back to balloons.

cda said...


You just cannot or will not accept the timescales as given at the time. Instead you put your own interpretation on what various people said decades afterwards (as Kevin has done).

Here are some quotes:

RDR, July 9:
"Monday he [Brazel] came to town to sell wool and while here he went to see sheriff George Wilcox...."

RMD (Morning Dispatch), July 9:
"The furor started Monday when W.W.Brazel, a rancher living 25 miles southeast of Corona, NM, came in the office and reported finding an object....."

RMD, July 9 (second report):
"Brazel hurried home, dug up the remnants of the kite and balloon on Sunday and Monday headed for Roswell to report his find..."

Ft Worth Morning Star Telegram, July 9:
Same report as in RMD followed by: "Marcel and Brazel journeyed back to the ranch where Marcel took the object into the custody of the army".

Dallas Morning News, July 9, repeats the same date (Monday) for Brazel driving into Roswell.

Ft Worth Star-Telegram, July 9 (later edition):
Same as first edition regarding recovery date, but adds: "Marcel brought the discovery to Roswell AAF early Tuesday morning, and at 8AM reported to his commanding officer Col William H.Blanchard". Marcel also declared that "we spent a couple of hours Monday afternoon looking for any more parts of the weather device. We found a few more patches of tinfoil and rubber". Sunday July 6 was in fact the very day Brazel assembled some of the stuff he found before, and stuffed it under some brush.

There you have it. I do not see how anyone can refute these, other than by plain wishful thinking. The journey(s) may have taken 3 hours, maybe more. What is undeniable is that they all took place from the afternoon of Monday July 7 and ended early on Tuesday morning; the exact times being unknown.

If you, Kevin or anyone else want to dispute these contemporary reports to try and refit them to a timeframe gleaned from interviews made 35 to 45 years later, then you will be misrepresenting the facts.

Now you know why Roswell has become such a shambles of a tale. Principal writers just cannot get their dates right. Perhaps they don't want to.

Brian B said...

@ Starman

"Crary's diary indicates #4 was CANCELLED".

Only if you take an anti-Moore stance and reject Moore's conclusion that the diary notes were combined and transcribed with some error, which is very possible.

David Rudiak said...

CDA ranted:
If you, Kevin or anyone else want to dispute these contemporary reports to try and refit them to a timeframe gleaned from interviews made 35 to 45 years later, then you will be misrepresenting the facts.

Now you know why Roswell has become such a shambles of a tale. Principal writers just cannot get their dates right. Perhaps they don't want to.

What CDA quoted was primarily AP stories, or directly derived from them. But UP (or stories partly derived from UP) reported Sheriff Wilcox (quoted on Tues., July 8, such as in original telexes kept by Roswell radio reporter Frank Joyce), saying that Brazel came to town "the day before yesterday", or Sunday, July 6. To add to this, the NY Herald-Tribune story followed the UP quote with: "The Sheriff reported to the air base, and disk-conscious intelligence officers visited the ranch yesterday morning [Monday morning], [and] picked up the object..."

The contradictions in reporting when Brazel came to town or when the Army investigated don't stop there. E.g., the Washington Post story started with: "Then, a few hours later and NEARLY TWO DAYS after the "disc" had been in official hands, it was rudely exposed as an imposter." [IDed as a balloon/radar target, which didn't officially happen until around 5:30 p.m. Roswell time, Tuesday] Do the math and "nearly two days after" means either well into the morning of Monday, or maybe late Sunday when the Army first investigated.

Then, contradicting this, the Post wrote: "Lacking a phone, Rancher W. W. Brizell [sic] waited a week until he was coming into town, then turned over to the sheriff. The latter turned it over to the Army Monday." Likewise, "On a trip to town at Corona, N.M. Saturday night, Brazell [sic] heard the first reference to the flying disks, Major Marcel related. Brazell hurried home, dug up the remnants of the kite and balloon on Sunday and Monday headed for Roswell and the sheriff's office."

I have written ad nauseum in the past about numerous serious contradictions in the nation's press about what supposedly happened. E.g., you can also find contradictory quotes from Sheriff Wilcox or the base press release as to when Brazel supposedly found the object. Was it Wilcox's early UP quotes of "about 3 weeks ago", or was it some AP stories quoting Wilcox saying "2 or 3 days before" or "some days before"?

Or was it "sometime last week" (base press release as reported by both AP and UP), the Washington Post's "waited a week", or the UP version of the press release also reporting "strange blue light" being seen by residents near the ranch "several days before at about 3 a.m. (UP), or an alternate reporting of this [Seattle Times, July 8], "The news agency [UP] said residents near the ranch reported seeing a strange blue light in the early morning on which the object crashed to earth."?

I suppose one could even throw in the Wilmot report from the RDR of July 8 of seeing a glowing disc fly rapidly over their heads at 10 p.m. July 2 headed to the NW (or the direction of the Foster Ranch).

Now if I were deliberately cherry-picking the “contemporary reports”, as our resident debunkers like to do, to make it seem like there is one and only one indisputable side to the story, then I could exclude all the quotes saying the object was discovered mid-June, quote only the ones indicating early July, and even add that the object was actually reported "crashing" and giving off a glow seen by nearby residents.

But doing this without examining the TOTALITY of the evidence, is really nothing more than cheesy propaganda. Notice the total hypocrisy of CDA's disingenuous comments I quoted at the top, including an accusation of “principle writers” "misrepresenting the facts”, insinuating that there are no “contemporary reports” of a contradictory time frame, which in historical FACT, there are.

KRandle said...

CDA/Brian –

So, if we suggest an alternative to your information as represented in the newspapers, then we are misrepresenting the facts. We are to ignore the testimonies of the witnesses because memories decades old are useless and newspapers never get anything wrong or print misinformation that is beneficial to those making the statements or that other newspapers suggested something else. Ergo, we can eliminate Marcel’s comments because the newspapers all say that Brazel came in on Monday… even though it seems that the date flows from one source and the others just repeated it without checking it. This is the Stan Friedman argument about all the witnesses to the Plains of San Agustin crash. Vern and Jean Maltais, Alice Knight, Harold Baca, William Leed and Fleck Danley. An impressive list until you realize that all the information came from Barney Barnett and none of us ever talked to him. But heavens forbid that we challenge this because the facts prove us wrong and the memories are inaccurate…

Unless of course, they fall into the point of those claiming nothing extraordinary happened in Roswell. Why then we can ignore what Dr. Crary wrote because as Charles Moore speculated, all the entries were made at the same time and Crary just made an error. Of course the entry agrees with the other documentation but we’ll just ignore that as well. And we’ll ignore the testimony of those who said that the field was one that had nearly daily visitation so that nothing would have laid in it for several weeks before Brazel wanted to do anything about it.

And we’ll accept, as accurate, the testimony of Walt Whitmore, Jr. because he said Brazel was at his house for two days even though what he said to Pflock is contradicted by what he said to Bill Moore. Which set of decades old memories are the most accurate… and, of course we can ignore what Brazel’s neighbors said about him being in Roswell for several days, what Edwin Easley said about Brazel at the base guest house and what Bill Brazel said about it because those are all decades old memories and are useless. And we can ignore what the neighbors said about the threats and what Bill Brazel said about what his father told him because those are decades old memories as well.

Here is the problem on both sides. You believe what you want, pick the facts that support that belief and ignore that which does not. This is why some of these conversations degenerate to this point where everyone repeats the data they like and forgets the rest. Well, everyone, you can’t have it both ways. (And we can give up on the notion that newspaper reports are accurate as well though they do provide some sort of anchor for the facts).

Finally, Brian, I like so many others, would like to hear that radio broadcast in which Marcel said he didn’t think of the debris as something other worldly until UFO researchers put the idea into his head. Please provide the source… Or retract the statement.

Wind Swords said...


I think your point is well taken (looking at both sides), but I will point out that the best testimony is the earliest after the incident. I think the truth (whatever it may be) is stronger there then anything said decades later, especially what was said in the first week of the incident. That's why I focused on what Brazel, Cavitt, and Marcel stated about the debris and the disconnect with the press release from Haut. I do think that the earliest statements are the best. You may be right that Blanchard told Haut to say that Brazell had the remains of a disc but Haut went way beyond that in saying it was an intact disc that landed and was stored by Brazell. Maybe Blanchard wanted him to say remains or pieces of a suspected disc, I don't know.

I believe Brian has a point as well. Just because Marcel or anyone else for that matter, says at a later time it was alien doesn't mean we ignore what they said at the beginning, especially if it points to the mundane.

EVERYTHING else about Roswell - 2nd crash site, coerced testimony or changed testimony, childrens sized caskets, a missing nurse, and a egg shaped craft in hangar 84 all hearsay evidence. No documents, no pictures, no hardware. The ONLY non-hearsay first hand testimony that it was not mundane is Marcel's statement about the foil, also confirmed by his son. That's it. Every other first hand witness who is on the record described it as mundane. I'm including Brazell because of the newspaper interview. If Brazell "changed" his story, what did he change it from? From alien spaceship to foil, sticks and rubber? No. He just said he found stuff, didn't know what it was, and it was messing with the sheep.

So what happened? Only 3 possibilities as I see it. It was something mundane, it was a secret project (Mogul or something else), or it was ET. Based on everything I have read here (postings going back to 2005) and on other sites (believers as well as skeptics) leads me to believe the first two are by far the more likely.

Wind Swords said...

"He clearly says that it was a cover story, cover story for what, Mogul? since only the project not the actual balloon debris was classified so why would it be necessary to divert the attention of the press?"

Well, they couldn't very well say "It was a balloon but we can't tell you what kind because it's a secret" now could they? There is the possibility (a remote one, I think) that it was another secret project.

Paul Young
"Again, to square the circle, the obvious conclusion, to my mind, is that the debris field must have been made up of debris from two separate "things" that collided from above."

It doesn't seem possible to me for an ET craft to have collided with a balloon but it would answer a lot of questions, so I can't dismiss what you say out of hand. Remember I said I was neither skeptic nor believer, just that I err on the skeptical side. So your idea gives me pause.

Brian Bell
'As far as Haut goes, sure Blanchard ordered him to write a PR. But don't forget that Haut also claimed it was Marcel who convinced him it was a "flying disc" in the first place, not to mention the fact that Marcel was apparently trying to convince everyone that the material was "foreign" and possibly "from another world".'

I thought that Haut had no contact with Marcel prior to writing the press release. Do you have a reference for this?

David Rudiak said...

Kevin wrote:
Finally, Brian, I like so many others, would like to hear that radio broadcast in which Marcel said he didn’t think of the debris as something other worldly until UFO researchers put the idea into his head. Please provide the source… Or retract the statement.

Well, I finally Googled this, and it turns out the allegation comes from the highly credible Kal K. Korff, as related about 4th-hand by Pflock in his book (p. 179):

"...A recent as yet independently unconfirmed posted on a UFO online discussion site by author Kal Korff suggests there may be other good reasons to discount what Marcel said about such matters. In his July 5, 2000, posting, Korff alleged that in the mid-1970s he had a close, confidential ufological working relationship with the late Leonard Stringfield, an important figure in crashed-saucer research and lore. In April 1978, Stringfield and Chicago radio personality Steve Tom conducted a telephone interview with Marcel, this less than two months after Stanton Friedman had discovered and first spoken to Marcel. ACCORDING TO KORFF, 'Marcel had indicated he never even considered the 'alien' part of things as a possible explanation until UFO until 'researchers' started SUGGESTING that idea to him."

So let's see what we have here. No recording and no transcript of the actual interview. Instead, supposedly Stringfield relayed this item to his "good friend" Korff, who then printed it on a "UFO forum", and we all know how believable Korff is. In other words, about the worst form of hearsay evidence imaginable.

What does Stringfield have to say about this interview? You can read it here (p. 9) in his Status Report II (1980):

Stringfield relates, “On April 7, 1978, Steve Tom, NBC radio newsman, Chicago, and I were linked up by phone for an interview with a former Air Force Intelligence Officer, Major Jesse Marcel...” Basically Marcel states that the primarily metallic with some parchment-like debris was scattered over a square mile. (Incidentally, AP widely quoted Marcel in 1947, not 30 years later, saying exactly the same thing, debris scattered over a square mile.) "The metal fragments varied in size up to six inches in length, but were the thickness of tinfoil. The fragments were unusual because they were of great strength. They could not be bent or broken, no matter what pressure we applied by hand."

Marcel also says, "To get them [the press] off our backs, I told them we were recovering a downed weather balloon." Then he dismisses that it could have been a balloon, saying: “The material I gathered did not resemble anything off a balloon. A balloon, of any kind, could not have exploded and spread its debris over such a broad area. ...I was told later that a military team from my base was sent to rake the entire area.”

Nothing here by Stringfield about “researchers” planting the ET idea in Marcel’s head. According to Stringfield, Marcel tells the same basic story he repeated in other interviews: anomalous metallic debris of great strength scattered over a very large area (he believed the craft had exploded in the air) and the military balloon story being used to get rid of the press. Marcel could draw his own conclusions. (Namely, as stated elsewhere, the debris was "not of this Earth.")

The fact that Brian Bell would accept a totally uncorroborated claim about what Marcel ALLEGEDLY said from no less a "source" than Kal Korff is a very good example of his rock-bottom standards of evidence, while DIRECT interviews conducted with first-hand witnesses he dismisses with the wave of his arrogant hand. (It also says a lot about the propaganda and hatch-job tactics of debunkers like Pflock, using any sort of slimy insinuation to try to discredit Roswell witnesses.)

cda said...

Regarding what Marcel said at that April 1978 radio interview, remember that Stan Friedman had already spoken with Marcel over the phone two months earlier. It is certain, to me anyway, that Friedman did NOT let that interview go without putting the idea into Marcel's head that an ET craft was involved. Friedman followed this up by sending Marcel all kinds of his published UFO papers from previous years, to further his own ET views (and things like official cover-ups).

That is what Marcel meant when Kal Korff quotes him as: "he indicated he never even considered the 'alien' part of things as a possible explanation until UFO 'researchers' started SUGGESTING that idea to him." The 'researchers' consisted of one man - Stanton Friedman, and a highly persuasive one too.

Regarding the date of Brazel's trip into Roswell, all press reports on July 9 give this as Monday July 7. Things had settled down a bit by then and some of the very early & rushed teletypes of July 8 MAY suggest it was the Sunday, but this was before the story had finally settled and both Brazel (at Roswell) and Marcel (at Ft Worth) had given their own first-hand versions.

Also, the phrase 'nearly two days', as given in the Washington Post, can mean whatever you want it to mean. If the debris had been in official hands from early Monday PM until late Tuesday PM, this can easily be interpreted as 'nearly two days' i.e. the Monday and the Tuesday. Using this to prove that Brazel might have gone in on the Sunday means nothing at all.

I suspect, but cannot prove, that the only reason Kevin insists on this phony Sunday July 6 date, is thast he wants to link it up with what Gen. duBose told him (deaceds later) about Al Clark taking a very small piece of debris to Washington on July 6. And how precisely did Al Clark get hold of this junk? Kevin does not say.

Of course newspapers can be, and are, inaccurate at times. Which kind of evidence do you prefer in general - contemporary printed accounts or verbal accounts, not always first-hand, based entirely on memory 40 years later?

starman said...

cda: Friedman did NOT put the flying saucer idea into Marcel's head. He came to Louisiana to do a TV program on UFOs and someone told him about Marcel. In other words, Marcel was already associated with this subject before Friedman spoke to him. So was Roswell, as Edwards indicated in his book over a decade earlier.
Lol, "by the time the story had settled" the military was in charge at both Ft Worth and Roswell. "First hand testimony" was dictated to both. Even 30-40 year old memories are better than that.

cda said...


Yes of course; the press were told what to say, Marcel & Brazel were intimidated by the milkitary and likewise told what to say, and so on and so on. Boring in the extreme, don't you think? People NEVER can say what happened regarding Roswell, at least not those who might have negative (i.e. non-ET) things to say. They can only say the words put into their mouths by military officials. Ha Ha.

Such is the gospel according to the ETHers and the conspiracists.

What is the point of further debate if you adopt this attitude?

starman said...

Marcel jr described material much different from what his father was seen with in the office of his superior in Ft. Worth. DuBose had an explanation for that....Likewise Brazel's son's take was different from his father's when he was accompanied by the military. All consistent with other witness reports of intimidation by the military.

Unknown said...


Friedman was led to Marcel by the TV station manager in Baton Rouge who told him that a HAM Radio buddy (Marcel) had handled pieces of a flying saucer. Obviously this makes the statement that he didn't associate the debris he handled with ET extremely questionable and considering the source even more so.

You insist that the Svengali like writers were able to influence Marcel and other witnesses yet scoff at the notion that the military had any influence on them at all. That's simply self serving and frankly ridiculous. You really don't think the military could not tell a serving officer what to say to the press? It's a fact that the government has indeed had influence over the press, a Congressional investigation proved that. True it was later and not associated with Roswell but it's not such a leap to assume that they may have. They did influence the press during WWII. Intimidation of witnesses was reported by others as well.

cda said...


Marcel MAY have associated the debris he handled (for which he had forgotten the year & month) with ETs before he came across Stan Friedman. After all, by then he would have had 3 decades of 'saucers' in the news and the film "Close Encounters..." to jog and 'encourage' his memory. Stan Friedman soon spoke on the phone to him (Feb '78) then sent him a bunch of his heavily ET-biased papers on UFOs. At that point, yes I would firmly say he WAS heavily influenced by Friedman. The latter's methodology was to put ET ideas into witnesses' heads, rather than conduct a normal, unbiased interview. Even Bill Moore admitted this.

I merely pointed out that if the contemporary press generally agree that a given event (whatever it was) happened on a certain Monday, it is no use whatever for writers to come along 40 years later and try to tell us it happened on the Sunday, based solely on ageing witnesses' memories. Where is the back-up documentary evidence? Nowhere!

Bob Koford said...

To everyone:

As part of my on going research into WS-117L, I was reading material on Dr. Lincoln LaPaz. On Feb. 20, 1950, Dr. La Paz wrote to Dr. P. H. Wyckoff, Chief Atmospheric Physics Laboratory, AFCRD, about the Green Fireballs (actually, though it is written to Dr. Wyckoff, LaPaz was connected to Colonel Frederick Oder at the CRD).

The first line caught my attention: "Your informative letter of February 6, mailed on February 10, concerning the high-speed balloons and interesting reprints of Geophysical Research Directorate seminars given by Leonard B. Loeb and Dr. Benjamin Lax, have come to mind."

My question is: Was Dr. La Paz simply referring to Skyhook/Mogul like programs, where the balloon can be carried along by very high speed winds, or was there a special "high-speed balloon program?...and if so, what level of expertise had we achieved by July, 1947, if at all at that early time?

Unknown said...


You can put any spin on it that you want, it appears to be your M.O. The fact is Marcel DID associate the debris he handled with flying saucers, I really don't know if that's the same thing as ET to him. I would have to be able to read minds to know how he was influenced by movies and other media. It's plausible that he was influenced by Friedman's articles but to say it with such certainty as you do seems again to be self serving.

I apologize for the unintended double negative in my question regarding the Army's influence on Marcel but you seem to have conveniently sidestepped the question as you skeptibunkers often do when an answer is inconvenient to your narrative.

As for the timing of Brazel's trip to Roswell, I really have no opinion. The accounts seem to be contradictory on that.

cda said...


I think I agreed that Marcel associated the stuff he handled with flying saucers (and probably with ETs) at some point. We don't know exactly when and never will. If even his former colleague Bill Moore can admit, as he did, that Friedman's method of interviewing is to steer witnesses towards ET then it is perfectly OK for me to say Friedman did indeed influence Marcel further towards ET, and in a very persuasive manner.

One thing I do know. Marcel had no idea of even the year of his earth-shattering discovery/recovery by the time Friedman first met him. Nor had he kept any of the press reports, even those with his name in them. But maybe your view is that this fact is mere trivia. After all, what interest had it to Marcel anyway?

Another idea: perhaps the military wouldn't allow him to retain cuttings on UFOs!

KRandle said...


Please do not attempt to read my mind. The reason I "insist" on the "Sunday scenario" is because the timing simply doesn't work out otherwise. Yes, some newspapers said Brazel came in on Monday, others aren't so sure. But, if we start with the press release and move backwards from there, we can't get Marcel and Cavitt to the debris with enough time left for them to return to Roswell. Yes, we have Marcel's statements which you dismiss as decades old memories, but that doesn't change the fact that the timing simply doesn't work out given the distances to the debris field, the crummy roads they would have had to use, and the size of the field... Bill Brazel provided a suggestion of size as did Bud Payne. The point is that it would have taken some time to study the field and my estimates to the contrary are simply guess on my part.

Using Korff as a source to something that Marcel said at some point, when Korff had never interviewed him is a stretch. In my many discussions with Marcel, Jr. he mentioned that he had his father had talked about the alien nature of the debris at times over the years... long before Friedman entered the picture. Unless Brian Bell can find that radio interview he claims proves this point, it should be rejected by everyone. I have heard or seen nothing to suggest that the alien nature of the craft didn't arise until after 1978.

I continue to be astonished at the way you and Brian Bell reject outright the information that does not conform to your world view... really, Dr. Crary, the man who ran the balloon project and who said Flight No. 4 was cancelled made an error based on the decades old memory of Charles Moore... The date of Brazel coming into Roswell as mentioned in the Washington Post can be interpreted in any way you want... and don't forget, we were admonished not to suggest anything other than what you believe or we are misrepresenting the facts.

Yet we are told that Friedman put the notion of an alien craft into Marcel's head and that Marcel said in a radio interview that he hadn't thought of it until UFO researchers began talking to him. And it is the writers who ignore the evidence that Brazel (or Brizell or any of a number of spellings of the name) got the day right but so much else wrong.

And to revisit something else, Kal Korff is wholly unreliable as a source. He made things up to prove his point... there were no black sergeants in Roswell because the Army was segregated except of course there were at least 24 of them... he combined the testimony of Easley, Cavitt and Holden into one to disprove their statements... he said that the term, "Flying Saucer" was not used in 1947 except for the headline in the Roswell Daily Record that used it... I could go on, but the point is, Korff is unreliable on so many fronts.

Brian B said...

Marcel’s Chicago radio interview –

I guess a frustrated Rudiak decided to post for me. Thank you, David. So very kind of you too.

Let’s level the information playing field a bit so that his aggressive tone and accusatory claims are reflected upon with a bit more accuracy and level-headedness and a lot less emotion.

One – Roswell supporters (like Rudiak) are the first to attack anyone who even whispers a hint they may have some detail that has been overlooked, especially if it is a detail that adds to the conversation but doesn’t support the ETH. Rudiak’s aim is to discredit Korff (a skeptic no less) based on reputation. Interestingly, Rudiak and other Roswell supporters shy away from the reality they vehemently backed a few “characters” of their own also with reputation problems. These "witnesses" once held the key to proving Roswell was an ET event. Let’s see now, which of you fought for a few years in dogged defense of the testimony of Kauffman, and others who don’t even exist (LTC Lovejoy Duran)? The fact that Rudiak states I “would accept a totally uncorroborated claim…” ignores the very obvious “uncorroborated claims” that he and others give credence to from aging witnesses now mostly deceased.

Two – Obviously there WAS an interview with Marcel as I claimed despite a few people expressing doubts it never happened. I find that odd given the fact these people have done a “research” on Roswell. How did you miss that one? If you think there wasn't an interview then you're claiming Stringfield also lied, as did Steve Tom while working six years for WMAQ. Go find the tapes. They may still have them. Even better, contact Tom, he’s still alive.

Three – Stringfield simply states that the interview took place on the radio, and that Marcel related the same story with one exception – Marcel claims it was HE who decided to tell the press it was a weather balloon. Really? I thought that was Ramey? Again we see Marcel’s passion for exaggeration at play here. Now MARCEL is claiming credit for the cover up. Oh my. By the way, Stringfield offers a summary only, not the entire transcript of what was said. It is possible and probably likely that Marcel did say what Korff stated.

Four – The interview DID take place TWO MONTHS after the FIRST discussion Marcel had with Friedman. Has Friedman EVER gone into any case NOT thinking it was extraterrestrial? NO. The man only pushes the ETH for Roswell and everything else. Here we see researcher bias coming into play. Listen to any video or radio recording of Friedman and you will quickly see he SELLS ET loud and clear – that’s his agenda. Obviously he influenced Marcel – and it’s likely, even though Rudiak claims it’s impossible, that Marcel did say something to the effect of “never having considered until….” Until what? Until Friedman came asking if the strange stuff he found might have been from a crashed UFO.

Five – Be mindful of holding Marcel up on a golden pedestal. His story has changed and evolved over the years. After his death, his son took the helm and the story grew even bigger. I’m not suggesting these people are inherently bad, I’m simply saying their story is inconsistent and shows clear signs of having evolved not through recall progression but through exaggerations which grew from contact with ETH supporting authors and researchers, who for the most part, where from the start ENTIRELY convinced Roswell had an ET explanation.

By the way...Haut also slipped up on an interview where he claimed it was really a balloon.

Brian B said...

Do yourself a favor. Organize Marcel Jr.’s video and radio testimonies in sequential time order from the first contact with investigators till his passing. Listen to what he has to say about what his father told him, and what he thought he handled on the floor that evening. As decades go by, his words change, and even the symbols on his illustrations get more elaborate. He clearly becomes more convinced that what he handled was alien material. Why? Because researchers told him it was.

In one of his first videos, he responds by saying his father NEVER said that evening it was anything related to alien visitation. Nope - nothing like it. When asked he says he father never used the word "flying saucer" or "disc" or "aliens" or anything of the kind. He said he implied it was "strange"....but goes on to say (with some trepidation) quote, "..but I could tell what he meant and what he was implying...something extraordinary....possibly not from this earth". Ok...he says that but only AFTER the ET believing UFO investigator asks him if it was from an alien spaceship and whether his father told him that it was or used the word "saucer". That's leading the witness.

As Wind Swords stated, I always find it odd that Mac’s daughter’s testimony describing balloon material is consistently left out of the story despite the fact she was just a few years older than Marcel Jr. at the time. Why? Because someone wants to drive the ET explanation. Pick your favorite witness.

David Rudiak said...

You stated the following: "Are you willing to ignore the following FACTS? -Chicago radio interview saying he never thought the material was alien until researchers suggested it to him as one explanation for why he couldn't identify it."

Yes there was an interview, but your indisputable "FACT" was at best a highly questionable 2nd-hand anecdote by probably the least trustworthy "UFO researcher" in existence, namely Kal (500 book deal, Israeli Kounter-terrorism Kolonel) Korff. Korff, claiming to be good friends with Leonard Stringfield, claimed Stringfield told him Marcel said in that interview that he had never considered the alien angle until "researchers" brought it up.

In other words, you neglected to mention the true source, which wasn't the actual interview material, but Korff (who most curiously doesn't even bring it up in his own Roswell/Marcel debunking book, but LATER in a "UFO forum"), claiming to be a close confidante of Stringfield. As other posters here have pointed out, the only reason Friedman even found Marcel to begin with was because the radio manager said he was ham buddies with Marcel and Marcel had handled actual pieces of a flying saucer. By 1978, the association between flying saucers and alien origins was probably known to 100% of the population (and was discussed quite a bit in the newspapers even contemporaneously back in 1947, including by no less than Gen. Ramey and the Pentagon who issued public disclaimers).

Thus you believe the thoroughly unreliable Korff but blow off Stringfield's account (and all other Marcel interviews), which doesn't bring up your indisputable "fact" at all, instead has Marcel relating a story pretty much what he said in every interview (anomalous, high strength debris scattered over a wide area and a weather balloon cover-up).

To add to your chutzpah, you then state the following: "...Marcel related the same story with one exception – Marcel claims it was HE who decided to tell the press it was a weather balloon. Really? I thought that was Ramey? Again we see Marcel’s passion for exaggeration at play here. Now MARCEL is claiming credit for the cover up."

What we see here is not Marcel's, but Brian Bell's "passion for exaggeration". Here is the Stringfield Marcel quote again: "To get them [the press] off our backs, I told them we were recovering a downed weather balloon." In historical fact, AFTER the press release at Roswell and Marcel flying to Fort Worth, he WAS quoted telling a weather balloon story to the press. (Most complete account in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

[Note: These 1947 quotes included Marcel stating that debris was scattered over a square mile, exactly what he said in what Stringfield reported in his interview, thus not something made up 30 years later.]

In other interviews Marcel added he was acting under Ramey's orders, not that he personally came up with the idea or put it into play. In other words, Marcel could easily have meant (and completely consistent with more detailed interviews): "To get them off our backs (under Ramey's orders) I told them we were recovering a downed weather balloon."

This is really no different than Gen. Dubose stating that all the officers were under Ramey's orders and told a weather balloon story to get the press off their backs.

It is only Brian Bell, who using his psychic powers, knows what Marcel REALLY meant, that he personally dreamed up the cover story and Ramey and other superior officers deferred to him.

(This reminds me of similar grossly exaggerated accusations against Marcel, such as the base press release mentioning the intelligence officer or officers or Marcel having "flown" the "disc" to "higher headquarters", this getting spun into Marcel claiming to have personally piloted the plane, instead of the common reading of flown as a passenger, as all of us have done.)

KRandle said...

Brian -

David covered what I was going to say, but let me add that you have hung around here long enough to know that I do a series I call "Chasing Footnotes." In the case of the radio interview arranged by Len and conducted by Steve Tom at WMAQ, you did not use an original source but one who is unreliable. The trail peters out with Korff and you cannot prove that Marcel ever said any such thing. Since you made the claim, it is your responsibility to "go find the tapes."

Do yourself a favor and check out Kal Korff... look at the website "KalKorffisanIdiot." They aren't UFO researchers, believers or even interested in UFOs, just in all the outrageous tales told by Korff. If you wish to see him as some sort of reliable researcher, then we can ignore anything else you have to say.

Your whole argument on this is that Korff said it and Friedman pushes the ETH but you have no evidence that Marcel utter the words you, though Korff claim. All you do is throw out allegations which are often found to be inaccurate because you haven't actually looked at the opposing data.

cda said...


After over 25 years on the case, you still refuse to accept the contemporary reports, even when it comes FIRST HAND from Jesse Marcel himself. Here is one quote extract, taken from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, later edition, July 9:

"'Brazel hurried home, and bright and early Sunday, dug up the remnants of the kite & balloon', Marcel continued, 'and on Monday headed for Roswell to report his find to the sheriff '. This resulted in a call to RAAF by the sheriff and to Marcel's being assigned to the case. Marcel and Brazel then journeyed back to the ranch, where the major took the discovery into the custody of the Army. 'The ranch is out in the middle of nowhere', Marcel declared, 'and we spent a couple of hours Monday afternoon looking for any more parts of the weather device. We found a few more patches of tinfoil and rubber'.

"Marcel brought back the discovery to RAAF early Tuesday morning and at 8am reported to his commanding officer William H.Blanchard. Blanchard, in turn, reported to General Ramey, who ordered the find flown to Fort Worth immediately."

The implication is clear: Marcel did his recovery work for some 2 hours only on that Monday afternoon, and therefore NONE on the Sunday or Tuesday. They did not spend hour after hour riding to the periphery of the ranch, searching for debris far and wide. They recovered what they could and added it to the bundle Brazel had already put together on the Sunday. Since Brazel came in chiefly to sell wool, what purpose was there to come into Roswell on the Sunday anyway (especially on the July 4th weekend)? Were the wool markets open Sunday?

This, plus the bits I posted before, ought to be enough proof that Brazel did NOT drive in on the Sunday but on the Monday (July 7). He and Marcel then drove back to the ranch on that Monday.

The timing can and does work out: a 3 to 3 and a half hour drive in daylight, 2 hours on the ranch, a rest period then back to town early next day at sunrise.

Your reasons why this couldn't have happened are, quite simply, false.

I rest my case, hopefully for good.

David Rudiak said...

CDA wrote: (part 1 of 2)
I suspect, but cannot prove, that the only reason Kevin insists on this phony Sunday July 6 date, is thast he wants to link it up with what Gen. duBose told him (deaceds later) about Al Clark taking a very small piece of debris to Washington on July 6. And how precisely did Al Clark get hold of this junk? Kevin does not say.

More CDA BS. It was ALWAYS part of Dubose’s story that the debris Clark received was flown in from Roswell upon orders of Gen. McMullen. E.g., from Dubose’s 1991 affidavit:

"I received a phone call from Maj. Gen. Clements McMullen, Deputy Commander, Strategic Air Command. He asked what we knew about the object which had been recovered outside Roswell... I called Col. William Blanchard... and directed him to send the material in a sealed container to me at Fort Worth. After the plane from Roswell arrived with the material, I asked the Base Commander, Col. Al Clark, to take possession of the material and to personally transport it in a B-26 to... McMullen in Washington, D.C. ...McMullen told me he would send the material by personal courier on his plane to ...Wright Field. The entire operation was conducted under the strictest secrecy."

Another very similar account of this highly secret debris flight is also given in “Crash at Corona” (Chapt. 9), stating Friedman interviewed Dubose in 1990 on this point. Kevin’s first (Part II, section 8) and second (Chapt. 6) Roswell books also go into the Dubose story of this flight in some detail, all stating that McMullen ordered the flight of debris, and Clark acted as courier from Fort Worth to Washington.

Another statement by Dubose was that Ramey was away from the base at the time, which is why Dubose was handling the phone traffic with McMullen instead of Ramey. And why Col. Clark(e) as courier (who as not the base commander but the deputy base commander)?

It turns out Dubose’s supposedly shaky decades old recollection of Ramey being away is completely supported by contemporaneous news stories, an actual FACT I learned when I checked regional newspapers. Fort Worth and Denton, TX papers placed Ramey at an air show in Denton on Sunday, July 6, with Ramey flying in dramatically with a squadron of B-29s from Utah , giving a speech midafternoon, with the air show going to 5:00. Also at the air show was Col. Hewlett Wheless, the actual C/O at Fort Worth base.

Denton was also Ramey’s home town, only 40 miles from Fort Worth. I would guess, but still cannot prove, that he probably visited with family (Dubose also recalled this), then returned to work at Fort Worth either late Sunday or early Monday, July 7.

Clark, as ACTING C/O of the base, was the “colonel courier” instead of Wheless because Wheless was also away from the base, just as ACTING C/O at Roswell, Lt. Col. Payne Jennings was the pilot on Marcel’s B-29 to Fort Worth July 8, because 100 lesser pilots at the base couldn’t be used to ferry allegedly mundane “balloon debris.” (What this ACTUALLY demonstrates is the extreme importance attached to these two flights and the debris, requiring the attention of the highest ranking officers available.)

Further, if CDA did the math PROPERLY, Brazel journeying to town on Monday, July 7, is inconsistent with the actual time of travel from the ranch to Roswell and back (8 to 10 hrs), also throwing in time for Brazel to report to the Sheriff, the Sheriff to call Marcel, Marcel to interview Brazel in Roswell, return to the base, confer with Blanchard, round up Cavitt, reconnect with Brazel in town (who was doing other errands) [total 2-3 hrs], PROPERLY investigate the debris area (which Marcel in 1947 stated covered A SQUARE MILE--many, many hours), fill the 2 vehicles with debris before returning to Roswell. Add in Brazel’s they then returned to his house (a distance of 8 miles over cow paths) and tried to reassemble the pieces. That alone would be at least 1-2 more hours.

David Rudiak said...

part 2 of 2:
Then you have to account for Marcel’s statement out of Fort Worth from 1947: "The ranch is out in the middle of nowhere and we spent a couple of hours Monday afternoon looking for any more parts of the weather device.” [CDA just quoted this also, but changes “couple of hours” into only 2 hours.]

Unless Brazel left for Roswell by sunrise or before sunrise Monday morning, how the heck did they get back to the ranch by “Monday afternoon” (total time on the order of 12 hours) and still have “a couple of hours” left to look for more debris before evening and nightfall?

While this timeline is just BARELY possible, it is unlikely. More likely, and consistent with both Dubose’s and Marcel’s recollections, Brazel journeyed to Roswell Sunday, July 6, Marcel was called by the Sheriff around noon while eating lunch (also consistent with radio reporter Frank Joyce’s recollections of speaking to Brazel by phone around this time, or early afternoon), they didn’t get back to the ranch until late EVENING (normally interpreted as meaning after 6 p.m.), before sunset, too late to investigate the debris field because of impending darkness, and started investigating the next morning. That would indeed give them the time to do everything, including PROPERLY surveying the “square mile” of debris area Marcel mentioned in 1947. [notice how CDA continues to ignore this highly significant “square mile” statement of Marcel]

And BTW, CDA, even after everything allegedly “settled down”, some newspapers on July 9 (particularly UP based stories) continued to use Sheriff Wilcox’s “day before yesterday” (or Sunday) when Brazel first reported.

And more BTW, the reason most newspapers used the Monday July 9 date is because most newspapers used the largest wire service agency, AP, rather than UP, probably by a ratio of three or four to one. The indisputable historical fact, however, is that AP and UP reported conflicting dates of when Brazel reported to the Sheriff, the Sheriff saying initially Sunday in early UP bulletins, and AP using the later Ramey story out of Fort Worth of Monday. They also disagreed on other points, such as the time of discovery.

And even after everything supposedly “settled down” July 9 and Marcel in Fort Worth (under Ramey’s orders) had changed the official story of Brazel finding the debris “sometime last week” (original press release) to “three weeks ago” and Brazel said specifically June 14, the discovery date still did not gel in the newspapers, some newspapers continuing to report the press releases “sometime last week”, Sheriff Wilcox interviewed by AP (rather than UP) changing it to “two or three days before” instead of “three weeks before”, INS July 9 reporting Brazel “found the balloon last week and brought it in several days later,” and other examples.

You, of course, can believe whatever timeline you like, but don’t continue to serve your usual line of BS that alternate timelines with which you personally disagree have no basis in 1947 news stories and are instead ONLY the result of interviews with principles with faulty memories decades later, which is NOT true. (The principles, like Marcel and Dubose, also all being weak-willed human beings subject to the Jedi mind powers of pro-ET Roswell researchers like Stan Friedman,according to the religious gospel of CDA and others like BB.)

Nitram said...


For the 137th time...

This is not a debate - it is an investigation.

Lance - you have been quiet for a little while now and I can't help but ask, with a wide grin,:

"Do you REALLY think BB & your mentor could win a "debate" against KR & DR with an audience of "ordinary folk"?

Lance said...

Hi Martin,

I just know that I could.

It's funny how much space David's saucersplainin takes as he assures us this person would have done this and that person would have done that because he says so. It's the same schtick that the Greatest Roswell Researchers in the World (Carey and Schmitt) have always peddled to the lower functioning UFO fans.

CDA is right. The myth absolutely depends upon ignoring contemporaneous evidence and referring mainly to the cherry picked portion of the decades old testimony (often ignoring conflicting testimony OF THE SAME PEOPLE) in order to keep this faltering denomination the saucer religion alive.

All this supported by not a single shred of actual evidence.


Nitram said...

Hi Lance

I will repeat the question:

"Do you REALLY think "BB & YOUR MENTOR" could win a "debate" against KR & DR with an audience of "ordinary folk"?

It's funny (and perhaps a little arrogant) how much space a couple of "researchers" take (who have never been to Roswell or spoken with/interviewed anyone who was there in 1947) as thy assure us this person would have done this and that person would have done that because they say so.

Your other statement is not really fair either... I could write

CDA is wrong (yet again). The Mogul myth depends upon ignoring evidence (including diary notes) and referring mainly to the cherry picked portion of the ever changing decades old testimony (often ignoring conflicting testimony OF THE SAME PEOPLE) in order to keep this cover up alive.

You can't have it both ways Lance - geez, one of the "researchers" I referred to above can't provide us with a source for some radio interview we need to reply on...

As a skeptic I can honestly say that the "believers" won this recent discussion...


David Rudiak said...

Lance ranted:
It's funny how much space David's saucersplainin takes as he assures us this person would have done this and that person would have done that because he says so. It's the same schtick that the Greatest Roswell Researchers in the World (Carey and Schmitt) have always peddled to the lower functioning UFO fans.

CDA is right. The myth absolutely depends upon ignoring contemporaneous evidence and referring mainly to the cherry picked portion of the decades old testimony (often ignoring conflicting testimony OF THE SAME PEOPLE) in order to keep this faltering denomination the saucer religion alive.

All this supported by not a single shred of actual evidence.

It's funny how much space CDA/BB/LM/Noambot balloonsplainin takes as they assure us this person would have done this and that person would have done that because they says so. It's the same schtick that the Greatest Mogul Proponents in the World (Pflock, Todd, Korff, AFOSI, CSICOP) have always peddled to the lower functioning anti-UFO fans.

Kevin is right. The Mogul balloon "flight #4" myth absolutely depends upon ignoring contemporaneous evidence and actual documentary evidence (like the damn thing really being cancelled and absent from actual Mogul records), and referring mainly to the cherry picked portion of the decades old testimony of Mogul witnesses like Moore and Cavitt (often ignoring conflicting testimony OF THE SAME PEOPLE) in order to keep this faltering denomination (of) the Mogul balloon religion alive.

All this supported by not a single shred of actual evidence.

Hah, this debunking business is SOOOO paint-by-numbers.

Lance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cda said...

This is descending into theatrical farce. But it's all great fun, isn't it?

DR critizes my math (regarding timings and events as reported in the press).
OK, I'll critize his English. He writes: "The principles, like Marcel and duBose..."
It is "principals". "Principles" refer to abstract things, not people.

Anyway, to get this wretched date/time thing finally (I hope) off my chest, I refer DR to his posting above, concerning duBose's affidavit.

"I received a phone call from Maj. Gen. Clements McMullen, Deputy Commander, Strategic Air Command. He asked what we knew about the object which had been recovered outside Roswell... I called Col. William Blanchard... and directed him to send the material in a sealed container to me at Fort Worth."

This was supposedly on July 6, the date DR & Kevin insist Brazel came to town.

And just how, please tell me, did duBose even know about this object that was supposedly recovered on July 6? And how did McMullen know about it? How did the news reach them? Are you saying Blanchard actually knew 2 full days BEFORE Marcel brought the debris into town, and then told McMullen?

The thing was not even in the news until the morning of July 8! So how and where did these two military guys know about it at all? Was something going on in secret at least 48 hours before the press knew? Did Brazel make a secret journey into town on the 6th to hand over his 'top secret' bundle of stuff, then another, non-secret, journey on the 7th, to sell wool?

The story is becoming more & more preposterous, and laughable. I say, without any hesitation, that duBose's memories are faulty and that there was NO secret flight on the 6th (or 7th) followed by another non-secret one on the 8th.

Roswell's timeline (as far as the transporting of the debris is concerned), as narrated by Kevin and DR, is a shambles.

Nitram: I am not too concerned whether this is a debate or an investigation. It is more like Gilbert & Sullivan at times.

Brian B said...

Speaking of not answering the questions....

Let's not forget that DR apparabtly has an advanced degree (a PhD I presume..maybe two) in atmospherics and decades of experience in calculating high altitude physics which is why Moore's calculations and opinions must be thoroughly discredited. After all DR must know more than Moore on this topic because he actually spoke to Moore and visited the former Mogul launching sites.

And let's not forget the testimony that LTC Lovejoy Duran made. After all he's one of the supporting witnesses who obviously can be counted on for truth and accuracy even though he really doesn't exist.

Let's not forget a certain few researchers who just happen to support Haut's exaggerated monologue of supposed events and his odd but apparent friendship, business partnership, and recommendation that researchers take the full account of Kaufmann as gospel truth along with the dubious testimony of friends like Dennis and Joyce, all of whom not once embellished their stories.


KRandle said...

Brian -

Let's not forget that Charles Moore, who had no PhD in atmospheric physics originally said that Flight No. 4 had been launched at dawn, but then changed his mind and said that it had been launched at two or three in the morning in violation of the rules and regulations under which they operated. This would suggest that he "cooked the books," and that no advanced degree is required to understand this very basic principle. Let's not forget that Dr. Crary's diary said that Flight No. 4 was cancelled which removes it from consideration unless you have absolutely no other balloon flight to account for the debris. The documentation available, including the status reports and other records show that Flight No. 4 never flew. A cluster of balloons launched later that day do not a Mogul flight make. So please disregard the written record because Moore said that Crary might have made a mistake in transcribing his field notes because if no mistake was made then there was no Flight No. 4 and because Moore's memory, not to mention his bias is more accurate than the written record.

I'm not sure why LTC Lovejoy has your panties in a bunch. He was assigned to White Sands at the time and if you have questions about him, they would properly be directed at Don Schmitt who gathered that testimony from the man.

But all this is okay because you have the report of Kal Korff who said that Marcel had said during an early radio interview that he had not thought about the alien nature of the crash until UFO researchers put the thought into his head... but then you have no evidence of this statement other than the unreliable report from Korff, a man who signed a 500 (yes 500) book deal, who has an IQ of 219 and was once a high-placed colonel in an Israeli anti-terrorism organization. Now he seems to be a third-rate writer for a newspaper in India, but that's okay because of his anti-Roswell screed. So, do you now reject this sorry tale told by Korff or are you going to stick to it?

And please forget that in 1997 I published an article that suggested the Glenn Dennis tale should be rejected because we couldn't confirm the existence of the nurse. I didn't reject the tale because I thought there was no alien visitation but because as we attempted to verify aspects of the story, we found numerous errors.

And, of course, when all else fails change the direction of the conversation so that we don't notice all the errors you've made in the past.


Before you go off and suggest that I refuse to accept the written record on the July 7 date, I will point out that your sources are newspaper articles and that there are other articles that move us back to Sunday... However, the July 6 date for sending debris to Washington must be wrong... There was debris in Roswell, brought in by Brazel, and this could have been sent onto Ft. Worth and then Washington, but that seems highly unlikely. If we accept that debris was sent from Ft. Worth to Washington, it must have been on July 8... but we all know that didn't happen because there would be no reason to send on the remnants of a balloon, which it must have been because there is no alien visitation.

Brian B said...


I think you're missing the point.

Believers will frequently disregard statements from skeptics who they claim have zero credibility. Yet hang on to testimony from equally dubious characters completely ignoring those individuals same lack of credibility.

On Lovejoy Duran -

Again missing the point. He is presented because he appears as a witness in YOUR book. It doesn't matter if Schmitt did the research its in YOUR book. He, like the others, lacks any foundational credibility because he in all likelihood doesn't even exist. He's never appeared ever again yet is presented as a confirming first hand witness. Where exactly is the credibility in that?

I'm not certain you can say people like me or others are at fault for citing certain information you find unworthy, and wash your hands of such things as Duran by simply blaming Schmitt.

That's really the point.

Back to Haut:

He often gave different stories to different people. Which is the truth? For example Haut said:

"I believe after those comments he (Blanchard) made some statement to the effect, “we sure messed up on that one last week. As a matter of fact,” he said, “ that outfit that was sending those balloons up were here on our station. They were from White Sands, and they were checking the upper atmosphere winds from east to west.” (Pflock Roswell 233).

Note that comment was made in 1990 BEFORE Mogul was ever discovered a possible explanation.

Just before Roswell's 50th anniversary and after the 1994 USAF report, Haut apparently was becoming tired of pushing a fake story. So much that he said in a live interview summarized in the CNI newsletter as follows:

"Also noted in the KTVU story is the fact that Walter Haut, former press officer for the 509th Bomb Wing at Roswell AAF who issued the famous July 8, 1947 press release claiming recovery of a flying disc, now says he had learned a few days after the announcement that "it was a screwup." Though widely quoted in recent years as believing an unusual craft had been recovered, the FOX news story showed Haut saying he thinks it was just a balloon."

It would seem to me that Haut thought the whole thing was over given the USAF's report. Of course he later recognized his foul up and recanted everything he said in error.

cda said...


If you look at the list of 182 people interviewed for Randle & Schmitt's first book, you will find that although most of them were interviewed only once or twice, there are quite a few (the more 'important' names) that were repeatedly interviewed five, six, seven, eight or even nine times! And these are only the interviews given to Randle/Schmitt. If you add in the number of previous interviews by Friedman/Moore and their sidekick Shandera, those later by Pflock and by Friedman/Berliner and probably journalists, radio crews, TV crews, and goodness knows who else, some of these people could well have been questioned about Roswell easily 20 or 25 times or more. How tiresome it must have got for these people.

It is almost as if 'you don't get the answer you want, then keep trying until you do' methodology. So you can see why there are contradictions galore - failing memories, confusion, confabulation and just plain boredom with the constant requests for more information about an historical event.

Then there were the affidavits. How reliable are these, and was there any 'coaching'?

Yet you never hear about all this, all we get is how so-and-so said this or that to someone. If, say, Haut really was questioned 20 to 25 times by various interviewers I would not be the least surprised if he decided to throw in the towel and either shut up, or admit, finally, that yes he indeed was a witness to the greatest event in history.

That's Roswell for you. And that's how it always has been, at least since 1980.

Brian B said...


Yes very true.

After all that I can see why a person might just say to himself "screw it I'm going to go with what these guys want to hear...maybe then they'll stop bugging me about it".

Of course I did read that Schmitt admitted he wrote Haut's deathbed affidavit "based on decades of conversations with Haut".

By that time of course, other investigators already concluded Haut's mental faculties were gone and he couldn't even recall the unit he served in or when.

KRandle said...

Brian -

And off we go onto tangents. Please identify those investigators who had concluded Haut's mental faculties were gone...

I do get your point which is that we ETHers ignore the contradictory data while you skeptics embrace it... However, how many lies must Kal Korff tell before you realize that he is unreliable? He made up the statement about Marcel. Are you ready to retract it, or will you continue to defend it?

And, it was not MY book because it was a collaboration so it was OUR book. Don interviewed some witness whom I did not and I interviewed some he did not. At the time, I had no reason to doubt the information he supplied. I had the notes he had made during the interviews and in some cases the audio or video tapes. However, if you need another take on this, please look at Karl Pflock's book on Roswell, specifically pages 176 - 177 and 181. Don wrote some of the book and I wrote other parts. we reviewed each other's sections but I had no reason, at the time to question him on Duran or to delete the reference. If I did question it (and frankly I don't remember but suspect I didn't) we obviously agreed to keep it in.

Isn't your quoting of Korff, without attempting to corroborate the statements he made much the same thing. You are relying his veracity without verification other than Marcel did appear on the radio at that time.

And you do the same sort of thing with your quotes cherry picked out of an interview. Haut told me, when I first interviewed him that they got to the staff meeting after the Fort Worth episode and said the same sort of thing. Blanchard was saying that they had sure blown that... which can be viewed as an extension of the cover-up... or an admission that they had mistaken a weather balloon for something extraordinary.

The flaw in your thinking is that the Mogul people had been to the base on a number of occasions... and the Alamogordo News (among other newspapers) for July 10, 1947, claimed that the wreckage was balloons that had been launched from there so Haut could have been aware of the balloon flights from Alamogordo even if he couldn't give you the code name. And this is not to mention that Robert Todd had mentioned the balloon explanation earlier than 1990.

KRandle said...

Brian -

I'll take this one step further... from my April 1, 1989 interview with Walter Haut:

"Basically it was a dead issue. And when it was stated that it was a weather balloon, that was it. We screwed up. Simple as that. The old man [I assume Blanchard] didn't know what he had seen. I never asked Marcel and as I said he lived down the block here from me."

A very devastating comment, taken out of context...

Unknown said...

There is a Gouge...Right before the Craft Made first Contact and then went airborne again. The first hit is were the escape pod was ejected and scarred the ground. as the craft went airborne it also scorched the ground and left a tell tale mark on the landscape. It then Traveled another almost two miles were it made contact with the ground again and Exploded leaving the debris field that is approx 200 or more feet long. I have some very interesting Data you might want to see.