About
a year ago, David Grusch showed up on the UFO scene talking about UFO crashes.
In the course of his revelations, he mentioned a dozen UFO crashes over the
years. Now, I sometimes think that I’m the leading expert on UFO crashes,
having inherited the title from the late Len Stringfield, so I believe can
speculate with some expertise on the subject of UFO crashes. Without Len, we
might not even be having this conversation but Len brought the whole subset of
UFO crashes into the public arena.
 |
| David Grusch |
For those who are unfamiliar with this, Len began investigating tales of UFO crashes, years before the rest of us climbed on that bandwagon. He collected the stories with little in the way of critical comment. His theory was to publish the information, knowing that someone would attempt to verify it. Without that beginning, we wouldn’t be having this discussion today.
That
brings us to David Grusch, who “leaked” some information about crashes but not
very much. He mentioned two crashes. One at Roswell that is so well known now
that it was an answer on Jeopardy! The other was something alleged to
have happened in Italy in 1933. Americans captured the craft from the Italians at
the end of the Second World War.
Italian
UFO researchers, who investigated the claims about the case some twenty to
thirty years ago, concluded that it was a hoax. It would seem that anyone on
the inside, that is the people feeding information to Grush, would have known
that. You can see the evidence here:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2023/06/david-grush-and-1933-italian-ufo-crash.html
Connected
to Roswell, is the reported case of a crash of a craft on the Plains of San
Agustin in western New Mexico. This tale was linked to the Roswell UFO crash
when Stan Friedman suggested that two alien craft had collided, one falling to
earth near Roswell and the other much farther to the west. The best evidence is
that this aspect of the Roswell case is a hoax. You can learn more about it
here:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/search?q=Plains+of+San+Agustin
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2021/04/did-herbert-dick-lie-about-being-on.html
http://www.cufos.org/books/Plains_of_San_AgustinR.pdf
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-plains-of-san-agustin-crash.html
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2022/09/lue-elizondo-and-two-crashes-on-same-day.html
https://www.ufoexplorations.com/other-roswell-crash-secret-of-plain
From
that point, Grusch has said that he has more information about the other ten,
that he had talked to people who had seen some of these craft, but that he
hasn’t seen anything himself. Don Schmitt, Tom Carey, and I can make the same
claim. The difference is that we have named names. Lots of names. Some turned
out to be charlatans, others just felt they wanted to tell an interesting
story, and a few thought of it was a way to financial gain. But there is a
solid core of individuals who were there and who were first-hand witnesses. You
can learn about some of them here:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2007/07/edwin-easley-and-roswell.html
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2009/09/paul-kimball-lance-moody-ufos-and-me.html
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2023/11/new-documentation-for-roswell-easley.html
My
point is that some of us have been around long enough that we can figure out
what crashes Grusch has been told about. In no particular order, here is what I
know about this. The Aztec, New Mexico crash on March 25, 1948, is probably the
first UFO crash that gained any sort of national attention. Frank Scully
published a book, Behind the Flying Saucers, that told the tale of the
crash. Though he mentioned a couple of other alleged crashes, he focused on the
Aztec event because he had talked to the men who knew all about.
The
story was that craft was found near tiny Aztec, was recovered by the military
and had contained bodies of the Venusian flight crew. The story was exposed as
a hoax and for those interested in following this down the rabbit hole, I
suggest reading Scully’s book, then William Steinman’s compilation of nonsense,
UFO Crash at Aztec and finally Scott Ramsey’s The Aztec Incident
on the pro side but with supporting evidence that is weak to nonexistent.
Ramsey did a good job of running down alleged witnesses, but he didn’t have the
opportunity to interview anyone with first-hand knowledge. In other words,
Ramey and his team interviewed people who knew people who said they knew
something about the case. And some of those witnesses said that there had been
no crash.
There
is good evidence on the other side of the argument, you can read Monte Shriver’s
investigation on this blog here:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2013/02/aztec-in-perspective-by-monte-shriver.html
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2013/02/aztec-in-perspective-by-monte-shriver_8.html
I
suspect one of the better tales is that from Kecksburg, Pennsylvania on
December 9, 1965. This case is the bailiwick of Stan Gordon who was on the
scene within hours to investigate and has carried out that investigation over
the decades. Working with Leslie Kean, Gordon even sued NASA in an attempt to
gather additional information. However, like so much in this aspect of UFO
crashes, there is a plausible alternative. You can read more about this case
here:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2021/11/x-zone-broadcast-network-stan-gordon.html
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2017/01/x-zone-boardcast-network-stan-gordon.html
The
Del Rio, Texas, UFO crash has been the subject of an ongoing investigation for decades.
It was accepted by UFO researchers in the beginning because a high ranking,
retired Air Force officer, provided an affidavit proving the authenticity of
his information. This crash, misidentified as the El Indio – Guerrero crash was
included in the MJ-12 documents, providing even more credibility. The problem
was the high-ranking officer, Robert Willingham was not a high-ranking officer,
was not a fighter pilot as claimed and the documentation from both the military
records center in St. Louis and the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver did
not verify his officer status. He was, according to the available information,
a low-ranking enlisted man who served only thirteen months on active duty. You
can read more about that here:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2011/08/absense-of-evidence.html
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2014/03/ihave-argued-for-years-that-eisenhower.html
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2018/06/mj-12-and-cognitive-dissonance.html
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2010/07/del-rio-ufo-crash-and-mj-12.html
One
of the reports that has received traction in the last couple of years was the
story from little San Antonio, New Mexico, about a crash there in 1945. Dr.
Jacques Vallee, along with Paola Harris published a book, Trinity: The Best
Kept Secret, that provided two eyewitness accounts of the crash and
retrieval. Those witnesses, who were youngsters at the time of crash offered
shifting accounts as to the date, the names of other witnesses, and the
military recovery operation. Douglas Dean Johnson has made an in-depth study of
that case and has provided amazing evidence that it never happened. You can
read all about it here:
https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/crash-story-file-the-reme-baca-smoking-gun-interview/
https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/crash-story-the-trinity-ufo-crash-hoax/
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2021/06/trinity-best-kept-secret-critique.html
I
learned of the Las Vegas UFO crash as I was conducting research into the
Roswell case. I interviewed witnesses in Utah who had seen a low flying UFO
about fifteen minutes before the craft was seen to explode in the sky east of
Las Vegas, Nevada. Hundreds of witnesses in Las Vegas saw that explosion. The
Air Force wrote the case off as a bolide, that is a bright meteor, but I
originally had reason to suspect that was not a good answer. However,
additional investigation has led me to conclude the Air Force explanation was probably
accurate, but there are many who still do not accept that answer. You can read
more about it here:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/search?q=Las+Vegas+UFO+Crash
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2008/08/las-vegas-ufo-crash.html
One
of what is considered among the first UFO crashes took place in tiny Aurora,
Texas in April 1897. The craft allegedly hit a windmill and exploded. The local
residents found the mangled body of the lone occupant and buried it in the
Aurora cemetery. UFO researchers began to visit Aurora to validate this early
case, which was a hoax started by a stringer for a Dallas newspaper. You can
read more about this here:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2005/03/aurora-texas-story-that-wont-die.html
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2018/04/aurora-texas-again.html
The
case of a crash near Kingman, Arizona in 1953 might be included because the
original story was told by a man who seemed credible. He said, and the evidence
proved, that he had worked in the Frenchman Flats area of southern Nevada on a
project that dealt with atomic energy. He also said that he was assigned in
some capacity to Project Blue Book. There is no evidence that this claim is
true.
Although
originally called Fritz Werner by Raymond Fowler in an article published in
1976, his real name was Arthur Stansel. He said that he had received a call in
May 1953 about some sort of important and classified event. As evidence of
this, Stansel provided two pages from his work calendar that mentioned a
special assignment, but no details were given.
He
boarded a bus with many others and taken to a site where they were given
specific jobs to do, they were not to speak to the others on the bus, and once
their task was completed, they were loaded back on the bus, with warnings that
they were never to mention this. In a rather stupid move, an Air Force NCO had
a list of names that he called out to ensure that people got to the places they
were to work.
Stansel
did see a disk that had crashed, and by accident, saw the deceased members of
the crew that were not human. He returned to Frenchman Flats and his regular
assignment.
Years
later, a woman, Judie Woolcott, said that her late husband had been part of the
recovery team, which added credibility to the tale. She claimed to have a
letter he had written to her while he served in Vietnam, providing some detail.
However, she was unable to produce the letter. She said he had been killed in
the Vietnam War. Her daughter later contacted me, explaining that her mother
made up tales and that her father had not died in Vietnam. You can read more
about that here:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2011/05/kingman-ufo-crash-really.html
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-decline-and-fall-of-ufology.html
For
those interested in tales that have some physical evidence, is the case from
Ubatuba, Brazil. According to the most popular version, witnesses saw a craft
explode in the air, raining debris down on a local beach in September 1957.
Some of it was picked up by an unknown witness who sent it to a radio station
reporter. The material eventually made it to APRO here in the US. It has been
analyzed by several organizations including the Air Force that inadvertently
destroyed its sample. You can read more about this here:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2010/05/ubatuba-ufo-sample.html
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2021/12/jacques-vallee-and-ten-unexplained-ufo.html
Recently,
Jacques Vallee reported that the date was wrong. The explosion took place much
earlier, prior to World War Two. Vallee’s information contradicts the
originally reported tale and Vallee offered nothing in the way of evidence.
According
to Len Stringfield, he was contacted by a woman who claimed that her grandfather
had been to the scene of a UFO crash near Cape Girardeau, Missouri, in 1941.
She claimed there had been a picture taken of the off-world creatures, but the
picture had been lost over the years. She only saw the picture and heard her
father taking about the crash. She saw nothing else.
A
man, who saw nothing himself but whose father had been involved also told his
story of the alleged crash. Other than these two people, who apparently saw
nothing themselves, no one else has come forward to validate the claim. There
are those who accept the story as real. You can read more about it here:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2019/12/cape-girardeau-ufo-crash-1941.html
The
one case that has some credibility to it, other than Roswell, was the crash
that took place near Shag Harbour, Canada in 1968. It has been investigated
in-depth by Chris Styles and Don Ledger. They have uncovered official Canadian
documents, some of which were originally classified, proving that something
fell into the harbour and that both the Canadian and the US governments and
military responded, searching the downed craft. Like Roswell, everyone agrees
that some fell, it is the identity of that something that is in dispute. You
can learn more about it here:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2021/05/just-last-friday-may14-another-video.html
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2017/02/x-zone-broadcast-network-don-ledger.html
So,
this is my speculation about the most likely UFO crashes that David Grusch
might have been talking about. It is basically a collection of highly suspect
tales, but these are ones that many of the alleged insiders have talked about
in the past. Some of what Grusch has said suggests that he has meet these
people.
Much
of what he has said is negated by his claim of inside information about the
Italian crash. If it is a hoax, as it most certainly is, then the insiders
feeding him information had no more inside knowledge that I do, or other UFO
researchers do. Our access is through interviews with known participants,
research into documents held by various federal and local government agencies,
travels to archives and newspaper morgues.
I
came to these speculations through reports that I have received from many
others in the UFO community. For example, I was told that Grusch spent time at
Skinwalker Ranch. I’m not going to comment on that particular investigation
here. I will note, however, that it did suggest that Grusch brushed elbows with
several once important members of various administrations in Washington, D.C.
And, I know what some of them have advocated in the past, which suggests where
some of Grusch’s inside information originated.
The
question really boils down to how many of the cases mentioned above are those
that Grusch believes were true, and how much of that information did he feed in
the various investigations conducted, in secret, to Congress?
The
point here is that without more specific information from Grusch and some of
those others, we are left with very little evidence. And if the majority of
Grusch’s information is from fraudulent crash reports, why should we waste time
chasing down the others.
True,
I believe Roswell represents something that might have been constructed
off-world, and there is good documentation for the Shag Harbour case, the best
conclusion to be drawn is that those other reports are either mistakes or
misidentifications. Unless Grusch can come up with something that is more
concrete than he has heard stories of credible people, he is not advancing the
case. In the long run, it will hurt it and no one will remember that I
cautioned against acceptance until we had more evidence. They will only
remember how Grusch’s inside information was little more than rumor,
speculation, and science fiction. So,
while Grusch might be an honest man whose is beyond reproach, that doesn’t mean
that the information he was given is any good. Just remember you heard it here
first.
As
a postscript, I will note that by typing the names of these cases in the search
engine on my blog, you’ll find additional information. By typing the names of
these cases into Google or other search engines, you’ll find additional information.
Many sites will provide counterpoints to what I have listed here, but I
reviewed many of those sites in the creation of my postings and often found
them wanting for good sources and the like.
As you write, those who've been around this block (some more than others) are left much less gah-gah by Grusch than those who've taken an inteest post-2017. Thanks for the solid post!
ReplyDeleteOutstanding piece Kevin. Thank you for your thorough work and research into the spotty history of historical UFO crashes. Agreed concerning Roswell and Shag Harbour. Hope you're feeling better, all the best!
ReplyDeleteI personally don't believe the San Agustin crash is a hoax. By stating that, you are assuming that Barney Barnett was lying. By all accounts, even though they second-hand witnesses, Barnett was a very credible and well respected soil conservationists. Also, Timothy Taylor took Dianna Pasulka and Gary Nolan there a few years ago. I believe Stan Friedman was on the right track. Your research was flawed by throwing the baby out with the bathwater regarding this case.
ReplyDeleteKevin: Thank you for this wonderful summary of important UFO crashes and alleged UFO crashes. Of course, to get the full account one should consult your two excellent tomes on the subject: A History of UFO Crashes and CRASH: When UFOs Fall From the Sky.
ReplyDeleteAs you perhaps recall, I generally agree with Stan Gordon's assessment of the Kecksburg crash, which is more positive than your current stance. However, I am still patiently waiting for Stan (or anyone) to write a book on the subject of the Kecksburg crash.
As for the Las Vegas crash events (plural!) of 1962, again I'm patiently waiting for Scott Holloway (or anyone) to write a book on the subject -- principally because if the Air Force is right about Las Vegas, it's because they got lucky! and not from having conducted a proper investigation.
Roger Stankovic -
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me say that I want to make one of my presentations in the upcoming Roswell Festival, more of a discussion rather than a straight presentation. Or maybe I should say a directed discussion where I engage with people who have a different take on a specific case than I do.
The problem I have with Barney Barnett is that he is the lone witness to the case. We have a diary kept by his wife in which there is no mention of anything strange on the Plains. According to Vern Maltais, he and his wife Jean were at the Barnetts for Thanksgiving that year and Barney told them abut the crash. My thinking is that if he was telling friends and other family members about it, then there is no real good reason why it was not mentioned in Ruth Barnett's diary.
According to that diary, the only day that Barney was not in the office in Socorro was July 5, which limits the time frame. Dr. Herbert Dick, who told me he was doing anthropological work on the Plains in July, saw nothing to suggest a crash. His position on the western slope of the mountains on the east side of the Plains gave him a panoramic view of the Plains, all the way to Horse Springs.
I have a letter from Dick saying that he saw nothing and another letter, recovered from the Harvard archives shows that he arrived there on July 1. Had there been a crash there, he should have seen it in some form.
Fleck Danley, Barnett's boss in 1947, said that he remembered Barnett telling him of the crash in July 1947, but when I spoke with Danley, he didn't have a clear idea when he heard the tale. There is nothing to date it to July 1947. I believe that Danley's comments, based on my interview with him, were not specific and the Bill Moore, in writing his book needed a witness to bodies.
So, we're lacking any corroborating witness, we don't have a firm fix on the date, and the only document we have about the time frame (Ruth's diary) provides no hint of this.
Until someone or something comes up to provide additional evidence, I find the tale to be less than credible.
John -
ReplyDeleteI find myself in the unfortunate position of having to disagree with both you and Stan. I reluctantly point to a bolide that fell about the time of the Kecksburg craft which suggests an extraterrestrial visitor but of a natural nature. There is a photograph of the smoke trail from the meteor. Some of the alleged witnesses are not overly credible. At least with this case, we do have some other witnesses who saw the thing.
I also need to point out that I have talked to people who arrived in Kecksburg about three or four in the morning, who went by the fire station and said that nothing was going on. There is no question that something was seen, but I fear a bolide is the answer.
There are problems with the Las Vegas case, and like all research, I continue to look for answers. What I have learn in the last several years suggests that the Air Force was right about this case and it really doesn't matter if they got lucky or actually learned the truth.
The Utah end of the case suggests something off-world (the term Kirkpatrick used in his report and I liked because of Blade Runner) seems to have caused lights to fail and cars to stall... but it doesn't seem to have crashed. I'm a little disappointed with this, but I have to go where the evidence takes me.
Kevin: Regarding Kecksburg, you have written as follows: Bob Blystone, Jr. "saw the round object glide [!] toward the treetops in what he thought of as a controlled landing [!] into the trees." A History of UFO Crashes, 96; CRASH: When UFOs Fall From the Sky, 208.
ReplyDeleteBill Bulebush witnessed "an object in the sky making a series of S turns, or maybe a figure 8 before disappearing into the trees." History, 100; CRASH, 212. Also Bulebush witnessed in the woods "an acorn-shaped device with a gold band around the bottom." History, 100; CRASH, 213.
Numerous witnesses saw a military flatbed truck driving off at a rapid rate of speed and carrying a tarp-covered object approx. the size of a small car [Volkswagen].
None of this comports with the bolide meteor explanation, which is the military's cover story and readily adopted by the skeptical community. Don't fall for it.
P.S. Watch Kecksburg: The Untold Story, a 1998 documentary featuring Stan Gordon for additional findings about this notable UFO crash event.
Though I still can not claim that it proves a saucer landed on that day, here are 6 of the events that occurred on 25 March 1948:
ReplyDelete1. Colonel Riley F. Ennis, Chief of the "Intelligence Group" of the General Staff's Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff/Intelligence, signed off on official Army Letter of Instruction; 452.1 with Control A-1917, Reporting of Information on Unconventional Aircraft, which included Flying Discs.
2. ADC "re-issued" (that is, a new date given for the instructions) their Air Defense official Directive/Letters of Instruction: Reporting of Information on Flying Discs, ADC 45-5 and ADCL 200-1
3. Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal, due in part from pressure exerted by Secretary of the Air Force, Stuart Symington, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, in order to raise the military budget, especially for the new Air Force, and to alter the official order that created and gave authorization to the Central Intelligence Agency...formerly the Central Intelligence Group...in regards to their use of a secret, undeclared purse.This was House of Representatives Bill : HR 5871
Because of this meeting, on 25 March 1948, it was known as the CIA Act of 1948 until it was updated in 1949
4. Chief of Staff for the new Air Force, General Carl Spaatz, declared "...an immediate air emergency..." on 25 March 1948, which was to be around-the-clock surveillance. It was rescinded in April by the new Chief of Staff, Vandenburg. Though one researcher I respect thinks that Spaatz's order was "a clever ploy", to jump start the stagnating RADAR Fence Plan, I con not agree with that assessment. ADC did NOT get the attention it needed until late 1951. It was followed with the Air Defense Command's Blue Book Plan on Air Defense, of 1952. This is how "Project Blue Book" got its name.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteThank you for putting together this very helpful compendium, including all those links!
Thank you also for your kind words regarding my investigative articles on the Trinity UFO-crash hoax. My latest article, which distills and updates the most important information from the earlier articles, is "'Witness' Credibility Implodes for Jacques Vallee's Trinity UFO-crash Tale," published January 25, 2024. This article included new documentation, some which researcher Frank Warren played a key role in obtaining, further demonstrating that it is very unlikely that Jose Padilla ever served in the U.S. military, as he repeatedly claimed. I further updated the article on February 28, 2024, with new documentation showing that Padilla's story of being wounded in Korea after the Armistice (offered by Vallee in a public memo dated May 15, 2023) is surely a fabrication.
https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/witness-credibility-shredded-for-vallee-trinity-tale/
Best,
Douglas Dean Johnson
Kevin, List,
ReplyDeleteThe dates we should be considering are the 31st of May and the 1st.June. Barnett lived Just a few miles from the crash and probably visited it. Whatever? He came home and needed medicine. His medicine isn't mentioned on other pages. I can imagine he might need a little medicine.
Ed
Edward -
ReplyDeleteDoesn't really matter what dates you propose. The diary covers everyday for the year and there is no hint of anything extraordinary.
Re: Kecksburg (part 1 of 2)
ReplyDeleteFirst, to provide context to those unfamiliar, a bright fireball trailing smoke was seen by hundreds or thousands in a multistate area, primarily Michigan and Ohio, but also southern Ontario, Canada and western NY. There was an explosion near Detroit, MI/Windsor, Ontario, western Lake Erie. Two sets of photos from the Detroit area emerged showing the smoke trail and the puff of smoke from the explosion.
Initial newspaper reports, at least one astronomy journal, (also a Project Blue Book statement by one of the photographers) placed the trajectory to the SE or ESE in the direction of western Pennsylvania. Newspaper reports also stated a sonic boom, presumed to be from the fireball was heard in western Pennsylvania. (Primary investigator Stan Gordon, of Greensburg, PA, would later determine from witness interviews the sonic booms were centered around Greensburg, only about 7 mi NE of Kecksburg. One Project Blue Book document written about 2 hours after the incident also indicates an unspecified “sound” in Greenburg associated with the incident.)
Flaming debris was also reported raining down on Elyria and Lorain west of Cleveland on the southern shore of Lake Erie, starting a number of grass fires. In Elyria, the local paper published photos of 3 boys holding metal fragments that they saw raining down. (In 1996, I spoke to one of the "boys" who also told me 2 or 3 white NASA cars came the next day and took the metal pieces--there is a NASA facility at Cleveland airport only about a dozen miles away).
Newspaper stories at the time also reported a weather observer in Columbus, OH, seeing a fireball to the EAST of position, or in the direction of Kecksburg. A news story from Uniontown, PA (about 25 mi. SW of Kecksburg), said some witnesses saw a fireball to the north headed in the direction of two suburbs EAST of town.
In a handwritten letter to Project Blue Book, a Canadian witness (former RCAF pilot) on an airliner headed south and in the vicinity of Kecksburg, said he was looking EAST out his window and saw a pencil-shaped object in level flight suddenly change direction and dive toward the ground at tremendous speed. He also wrote that the stewardess told him the pilot had seen it also and radioed it in.
And finally, in a radio report on the incident a week later by Greensburg reporter John Murphy (titled "Object in the Woods"), it was stated that a Pittsburgh airport tower controller confirmed that there was an unknown object in their airspace 3 to 4 minutes after the explosion of the whatever near Detroit. (According to two radio station employees and Murphy's wife, his story had been heavily censored and he had been intimidated by a visit from the military to the radio station. Murphy had personally covered the story on the ground in Kecksburg and also reported in his broadcast an Army and Air Force presence there. Another Greensburg reporter, Bob Gatty, was also on the scene, and in the Greensburg newspaper the next day ("Unidentified Flying Object Falls near Kecksburg — Army Ropes off Area") stated: "The area where the object landed was immediately sealed off on the order of U.S. Army and State Police officials, reportedly in anticipation of a 'close inspection' of whatever may have fallen... State Police officials there ordered the area roped off to await the expected arrival of both U.S. Army engineers and possibly, civilian scientists." (Getty, in one interview I saw, also stated he was an Army brat, knew what an Army uniform looked like, and the Army was definitely there.)
(Part 2 of 2)
ReplyDeleteA year later, two astronomers (Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada) used the photos taken near Detroit to triangulate a trajectory, claiming the object was a meteor bolide instead traveling on a trajectory at right angles to one towards Kecksburg, furthermore diving at a steep angle with any fragments probably ending up in western Lake Erie. From a nearby seismic station, they also pinpointed the time of the explosion to around 4:43 pm (therefore 3 to 4 min. before the Pittsburgh tower said there was something unknown in their airspace).
The JRASC article is now cited by Kecksburg debunkers as "proof" that nothing whatsoever could have happened at Kecksburg. It was just a meteor bolide that ended near Detroit, nearly 200 mi. away.
Now a bolide would make sense if the event ended near Detroit. The problem is, you then have to ignore all the other reports cited above (not to mention the witnesses on the ground in the Kecksburg area), which all indicate something else continuing on in a general western Pennsylvania direction. And the Army was interested, and was bringing in their engineers. You got to ask, why would the Army be out chasing meteors?
If the astronomers were right (and there are an enormous amount of problems with the methodology of their paper), all these other contemporaneous reports about directions and time and sound and physical evidence would have to be completely wrong. E.g., the Columbus weather observer should have seen the fireball to his north, not east. The Uniontown witnesses should have seen a fireball to their NW diving directly into the ground, not to their N traveling E. (If they could have seen anything at all at that distance and with the reported light haze). Similarly, the RCAF pilot near Kecksburg could not have seen his object to the East. He would have had to be seated on the other side of the plane looking backward to the NW. There would have been no sonic boom heard in western Penns. Pittsburgh tower would not have recorded an unknown object in their airspace 3 to 4 min. after the supposed bolide exploded. Multiple grass fires could not have started from flaming debris in Elyria and Lorain, nor metal fragments found.
The only way a meteor bolide could have been involved with these other reports, if by an amazing coincidence, there were two "fireballs" in the air at about the same time, one a bolide and the other unknown.
So this, plus other evidence not discussed here, suggests to me that Kecksburg is still a very viable crash-retrieval case.
David -
ReplyDeleteAs usual, your arguments are solid, based on facts and logic. I confess that I am ambivalent about the case. You know that some of the witnesses are less than credible but on the other hand, I am bothered by John Murphy's "Object in the Woods" radio report.
Or, in other words, this is the type of discussion that I hope to inspire during one of my presentations in Roswell.
I'm not locked into the bolide theory, but it seems to be a top contender. I simply can't completely ignore it, but there are some credible witnesses to the case, though I don't count Cliff Stone's tale among the credible.
However, even if I concede that Kecksburg is a true off-world craft (again I think Sean Kirkpatrick for bringing in that term from Blade Runner) that actually doesn't negate my argument here... Kecksburg is well publicized so that if Grusch and others do cite it, I would argument contamination.
Again, I just don't know about this case, though I lean the wrong way on it. Maybe I'll get Stan on the show again so we can talk about it.
My two little contributions to "research" ...
ReplyDelete1. I was the Kingman City Attorney circa 1990. I spoke to a number of real oldtimers, including some of the most prominent ranchers. None had heard anything at all about anything resembling a UFO crash.
2. Circa 1992, I and a friend visited Aztec for four days. Again, I spoke with as many oldtimers as I could locate. I heard a couple of weird tales, but nothing resembling a UFO crash and nothing at all in the relevant timeframe.
In all these supposed-crash discussions, I'm surprised how many people are not struck by the sheer implausibility of craft with the supposedly near-miraculous capabilities of these nevertheless crashing all over the globe like Piper Cubs. If they actually were crashing with this frequency, surely it would tell us something meaningful about the phenomenon (staged events?). As it is, I tend to think the enthusiasm for supposed crashes tells us pretty much nothing about the phenomnenon but lots about human credulousness.
The one element that is against those so-called UFO crashes is time. If there is even a bit of evidence, it's long gone and cold - useless in other words. Just look at the Roswell incident that is and was well documented, and yet in the end, the major so-called witnesses turn out to be liars. Just to name a few: former Lt. Walter Haut gave us Genn Dennis and Frank Kaufmann, and all died laughing to their graves, knowing all the B.S. they gave us. As for David Grusch, he's just another Lue Elizondo, wagging tongues and all, yet, never giving the public any evidence, but a bunch of 2nd & 3rd hand accounts from so-call witnesses. Oh, people I can't reveal them or their names, they are all classified for the sake of national security!
ReplyDeleteLBP -- So let me get this straight: Four consecutive days of investigation in Aztec 44 YEARS AFTER THE FACT (!) constitutes your idea of an investigation substantive enough to dismiss an alleged UFO crash entirely?
ReplyDeleteI hope you researched your legal cases more thoroughly than your claimed investigation of Aztec.
In addition, the last paragraph of your comment above is mischaracterization by exaggeration. This second "little contribution to 'research'" of yours is mighty miniscule indeed.
SKY70 -- Yes admittedly there were a number of false witnesses re: Roswell, however, these were not ALL of "the major ... witnesses" as you erroneously (if not outright deceitfully) imply. If you bothered to review the UFO scholarship re: Roswell, you would be exposed to the numerous credible witnesses, whose testimony greatly outweighs that of the liars you so one-sidedly cite.
ReplyDelete@LBP:
ReplyDeleteJust because some crash reports are phony doesn't mean they all are. Our own experience shows no correlation between advancing technology and invulnerability (although real crashes do appear to be rare). On the other hand, at least one work (THE ALIEN GRAND DESIGN) considers the aliens invulnerable and crashes deliberate.
I personally found Jerome (Jerry) Clark's 2012 review of the book [i]The Aztec Incident: Recovery at Hart Canyon[i] by Scott and Suzanne Ramsey, in the [i]Journal of Scientific Exploration[i]to be very helpful with respect to the Aztec story.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/26/jse_26_3_ReviewClark.pdf
@ John Steiger: If the so-called eyewitnesses gave out false information intentionally, like those that I had mentioned in my post, and they are exposed for what they are by many others in the field, the ones who exposed those liars are not being deceitful at all. They got to this conclusion with good honest research. Every Roswell witness has given bad testimony in their affidavits, etc. You think Majot Marcel was truthful? His own military record stated that he has, "an inclination to magnify problems he is confronted with." See his Efficiency Report for 1 July 1947 to 30 April 1948, dated 6th May 1948. Hence not a good witness neither. What we need are truthful eyewitnesses and hard cold evidence that is new, not 70 years old.
ReplyDelete@John Steiger
ReplyDeleteGoodness, True Believers are a touchy bunch. I put "research" in quotes precisely because I was using the term humorously. I make no great claims. That being said, how many of you folks spent four days in Aztec interviewing oldtimers? The review by Jerome Clark makes precisely the same point: All oldtimers disavow anything like the Aztec crash. That was my experience as well, FWIW.
@starman
Right, I didn't suggest they were all phony. I mostly believe they are, but the possibility remains. My point, based on nearly six decades of deep involvement with weirdness communities of all types, is that True Believers almost always leap right over the threshold issue of the almost fantastic improbability of their beliefs. They want to dive straight into the details, the dubious "evidence," as though the fantastic improbability were irrelevant and as though Bayes' Theorem didn't exist.
@LBP
ReplyDeleteIf I understand correctly, you consider intelligent ETs, or interstellar travel, fantastically improbable. We can't assume the former is. As for the latter, when Sagan said a single intelligent race could colonize the galaxy in a billion years I doubt he assumed faster than light travel.
Ghosts and fairies should be dismissed as fantastically improbable, but ET is different. It's a rational concept, which is why SETI arose. The ETH assumes evolutionary and technological progress essentially like our own, only more advanced i.e. what happened here also happened elsewhere but got underway sooner. And that's possible given the greater ages of many stars in the universe, compared to our solar system.
@Sky70
Major Marcel's "inclination to magnify problems," as an argument against his testimony, would be more convincing if it appeared in a report written BEFORE July '47, not after. By '48 they HAD to say something like that, given his well-known "misidentification of balloon wreckage." Supposedly, he "magnified" mere mogul junk into something exotic and unexplainable. In fact none of the other officers "correctly identified" it either, which is why Blanchard ordered the press release.
Sky70: Do you understand the difference between ALL and SOME? SOME Roswell UFO "witnesses" have rightfully been exposed as liars and frauds. But not ALL Roswell UFO witnesses are liars and frauds as you stubbornly continue to allege.
ReplyDeleteMajor Marcel (ultimately Col. Marcel) was truthful albeit with some inaccuracies. But also Marcel is not as key of a Roswell crash witness as both sides have made him out to be. If you bothered to read my play THE ROSWELL TRIAL: A Courtroom Drama you might discern this, and withdraw from your erroneous conclusion that Marcel was "not a good witness...."
Query: Why do you unquestioningly believe "military records"? Are they without error? And for that matter, do you believe the U.S. military's explanation re: UFOs? Because the U.S. military's explanation re: UFOs is a poorly-crafted fiction at best.
LBP: "Touchy", yes, but also much-maligned (and often wrongfully so) ... whether you care to admit it or not.
ReplyDeleteAs for Aztec, Scott Ramsey and his associates have put in countless hours, dollars, and effort in an attempt to reveal the truth about this ALLEGED UFO crash. Scott & Co. have written two fine books (which you can look up if you're of a mind to learn) about the case, books which far surpass two earlier books (not worth mentioning here).
HOWEVER, as Kevin is quick to point out -- and rightfully so -- Monte Shriver has researched the ALLEGED Aztec UFO Crash rather extensively as well and has determined it was a non-event. Shriver refutes Ramsey's witnesses and Kevin accepts Shriver's conclusion that Aztec was a hoax.
I am firmly on the fence about Aztec. Yes, I would like to believe it, but I don't. On the other hand, I don't believe that Aztec has been proven to be a hoax either.
But I do believe that your four (4) days of research effort, no matter how well-intentioned (and I do not doubt your best intentions here -- in fact, I congratulate you on putting forth your efforts and hope you learned something about the amount of serious effort that sincere UFO investigation and research require), PALE IN COMPARISON to what both Scott Ramsey and Monte Shriver have put forth re: this important case, factual or not.
Sky70 wrote:
ReplyDeleteYou think Majot [sic] Marcel was truthful? His own military record stated that he has, "an inclination to magnify problems he is confronted with." See his Efficiency Report for 1 July 1947 to 30 April 1948, dated 6th May 1948. Hence not a good witness neither. What we need are truthful eyewitnesses
We could also use some good truthful skeptics who don't take quotes completely out of context in order to do a character assassination number on a key eyewitness.
By all means look at Marcel's efficiency reports and commendations. I have all of his post-war ratings on my website:
www.roswellproof.com/marcel_evaluations.html
The "magnify" quote was pulled out of Col. Blanchard's personal comments from the efficiency report of May 1948, which state IN FULL: "A quiet, mature field grade officer. Exceptionally well qualified in his duty assignments. His only known weakness is a tendency to magnify problems he is confronted with. Superior moral qualities."
In the same review, Blanchard also checked off qualities that MOST characterized Marcel: "No one ever doubts his ability", "Knows his job and performs it well", "Cool under all circumstances", "The men know they can rely on his judgment", "Has admiration of officers & men alike", "Respected by all fellow officers", "Commands respect by his actions".
On a numerical ranking, Marcel received 9/10 (Superior) on the quality "The degree to which he is able to discriminate & evaluate facts to arrive at a logical conclusion."
Sounds like just the sort of screw-up who would "magnify" common balloon debris into a flying saucer.
What you will see looking at all the efficiency reports are reviewers generally giving Marcel excellent and superior marks across the board. His marks went UP, not down, after the Roswell incident. These ratings were by the command officers deeply involved in what happened--Blanchard, Dubose, Ramey--and who would know whether Marcel "magnified" a weather balloon into a flying saucer crash, which is what our "truthful" Sky70 is insinuating.
Also particularly telling IMHO are Dubose recommending Marcel for promotion (to Lt. Colonel in the AF Reserve) and command officer training. Ramey called Marcel "outstanding" and command officer material, also saying he had nobody to replace him, as Marcel was being transferred to higher intelligence work. I guess there just weren't any reliable, truthful, intelligence officers to be had in the Air Force who weren't over-magnifying balloons into flying saucers.
Ramey's operations officer, Col. John Ryan (later became AF Chief of Staff), called Marcel's career "most outstanding" and "most exemplary". (Funny how Sky70 doesn't provide quotes like that.) Marcel received his promotion and was also recommissioned the following Spring instead of let go. According to other paperwork, two commands were competing for his services for higher intelligence work. He was finally transferred to Washington to the very top-secret Special Weapons Project to evaluate all intelligence (including Project Mogul ironically) on whether the Russians had the A-bomb. He was made officer in charge of the war room, and prepared the briefing material for the brass on all intelligence that came in.
Curious career arc for such an unreliable officer. So what was the "magnified" comment about? If you look at ALL the reviews, what you usually see are comments that Marcel worked long, grueling hours. He was a workaholic and a perfectionist. Blanchard thought he did more than was necessary. That's all that was meant. Not that he was incompetent or unreliable. Quite the contrary, if you look at this and other reviews in their entirety.
I previously wrote this on Kevin's blog detailing more about Marcel post-Roswell. Worth repeating:
ReplyDeletehttps://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2016/01/jesse-marcel-conundrum.html
FACT: For such a supposed liar and bungler it is curious that his surviving military record PROVES:
1) He stayed on as head intelligence officer at Roswell for another year, then booted upstairs to higher intelligence work, with both the SAC and Pentagon competing for him. (Eventually ending up with the very top secret Special Weapons Project in Washington trying to find out if the Soviets had tested an A-bomb, being officer-in-charge of the war room and primary briefing officer.)
2) Upon his transfer, Gen. Ramey registered a mild protest, stating he had NOBODY in his command to replace him. (So either Ramey liked bungling intelligence officers and couldn't find a replacement equal to Marcel in the incompetence department, or Ramey liked very good intelligence officers and didn't have anyone his equal at the time...) Ramey also called Marcel's services to his command "outstanding." (Outstanding as in incompetence and lying, or outstanding as in competence and accomplishment?...) Ramey also wrote he thought Marcel command officer material. (Did Ramey also want incompetent command officers?)
See: www.roswellproof.com/Eval_Ramey0848.html
3) At the same time Col. John Ryan (during Roswell Ramey's operations officer, he and Blanchard switched jobs a year later, and Ryan eventually became AF Chief of Staff and Chair of the Joint Chiefs) stated that Marcel's work and service were "most exemplary" and "most outstanding."
See: www.roswellproof.com/Eval_Ryan0848.html)
4) Following Roswell, both Blanchard and Dubose (perhaps representing Ramey's wishes) recommended Marcel for promotion to Lt.-Col. in the AF Reserve, which he received.
5) Following Roswell, Blanchard boosted Marcel's performance rating with Dubose co-signing. (In fact, all post-Roswell Marcel evaluations were generally with very good to excellent marks in all categories.) Although stating he didn't know Marcel personally and was just following Blanchard's lead, Dubose (who DID know what Marcel had done during Roswell and in Fort Worth) independently recommended Marcel for Air Staff and Training School, which would be preparation for possible future command positions, thus echoing Ramey's later statement that he thought Marcel command officer material.
6) Marcel was recommissioned the following Spring, when officer commissions were hard to get following WWII while the military was trying to sharply downsize and dump as many unneeded, lingering WWII officers as possible. (Was the military only retaining the incompetent ones who also couldn’t tell the truth?...)
My point is, even if we suppose Marcel later told a few war stories (and it remains unproven that he lied about anything in his war record, which is incomplete BTW and reconstructed after the original was said burned during the St. Louis veteran's record fire), his post-Roswell record shows ZERO evidence that he in any way mishandled the Roswell event, and he retained the full confidence of higher officers involved like Ramey, Blanchard, and Dubose (“outstanding”, command officer material, promoted, recommissioned, transferred to higher intelligence work). Further, all major parts of his Roswell story had corroboration by others, including two USAF generals.
@ David Rudiak: I see your point of view and it seems correct only on the surface. However, it has been proven beyond all doubt by ufologists that Major Jesse Marcel lied about his military duties (no, he was not a rated pilot and did not earn five (5) Air Combat Medals), did not know every aircraft that ever flew, and was not rated a legal pilot. He stated that he earned a college degree and took classes at different colleges, and a simple check proved this to be false (this means that he lied about his education too.). Lie one time in a courtroom and a person's creditability is gone. However, before he and his son died, they did come across as decent people. Now as for the Aztec UFO crash...!
ReplyDelete@ John Steiger, the witnesses that appeared to tell the truth were not first-hand witnesses. But sons and daughters of some of the original witnesses, and they just related the stories heard from their relatives. And there's even a text out titled, "The Grandchildren of Roswell", now what in the world are they going to tell us about the alleged Roswell UFO crash? As for military records, by all means they can be incorrect and a dozen other things wrong with them. I know because I had to get my own Army records corrected by the U.S. Army Board of Corrections, and they needed proof, which I had. Let's see the Roswell evidence that will convince the world a UFO crashed there in 1947. As for the military's belief on UAPs, I don't agree with them at all, there must be something out THERE alive and kicking!
ReplyDeleteSky70 -
ReplyDeleteWe're moving into territory i which that are subtle changes. Marcel never said that he was a rated pilot. That is an assumption on your part. What he said was that he had flown as a pilot. As I have said, while in Vietnam, I flew as a door gunner. No, that was not my position. I was a rated pilot and served as an aircraft commander. However, there were times when we were sometimes called on to perform other duties.
I don't know what five Air Combat Medals are, but I do know that Marcel said he had five Air Medals, which can be awarded for meritorious serve or for valor. I have 41 such medals, that include awards for valor or for meritorious service (we received one Air Medal for 25 hours of combat assault flight or 50 of combat support. Marcel, according to the records had 2 Air Medals for meritorious service. He also had a Bronze Star Medal for his service in the Pacific Theater during WW II. He did claim shooting down five enemy aircraft, and although the Air Force (in this case the Army Air Forces) kept records of crewmen who shot down enemy aircraft (as opposed to pilots), there is no record that Marcel downed any enemy aircraft.
He didn't say that he knew everything in the aviation inventory but told Bob Pratt, "I was pretty acquainted with most of the things that were in the air at the time, not only from my own military but also in a lot of foreign countries." So, it's close but not the same thing.
He did tell Bob Pratt that he "... degree in nuclear physics (bachelors) at completed word at GW Univ in Wash. attended (LSU, Houston, U of Wis, NY Univ, and Ohio State (which I'm sure was THE Ohio State). I asked Pratt about this and if he had retained the tape, but he had not. His records show he did attend LSU, but I was unable to find any indication that he attended this other schools. I did communicate with them, asking if they provided extension classes to military personnel during the war, which they did, and some military classes were taught at these universities... I would say that the way the transcript was written, there is some room for interpretation. I would also that it seems that Marcel exaggerated these claims. I don't know if Pratt, in transcribing the tape might had made errors but I can say that some of these claims by Marcel are untrue.
I will also note here that your claim "...the witnesses that appeared to tell the truth were not first-hand witnesses," is inaccurate. We have Major Edwin Easley, Colonel Joe Briley, MSG Bill Rickett, BG Arthur Exon (yes, his first-hand experience is limited), BG Thomas DuBose, to name a few. True, Glenn Dennis lied, Frank Kaufmann lied, Jim Ragsdale lied and it was those of us investigating Roswell who exposed the lies. And, no, I'm not going to mention Gerald Anderson because his tale has little to do with Roswell.
And finally, my military were inaccurate and I had a hell of a time getting them corrected, but I had the documentation to prove it. Beware of those who make claims about military service but who cannot provide the documentation.
(part 1 of 2)
ReplyDeleteRE: Glenn Dennis
Yes, he lied about the name of the nurse, but it is not at all clear to me he lied about anything else. A key part of his testimony was about first receiving a call from the base about whether Ballard Funeral Home could provide small caskets. There are multiple witnesses to Dennis talking about the small casket call back at the time this happened or shortly thereafter, therefore NOT something he recently made up. The witnesses include:
1. L.M. Hall, motorcycle policeman, later Roswell police chief. Wrote an affidavit saying this:
http://www.roswellproof.com/Dennis.html#anchor_3375
"I had a funny call from the base. They wanted to know if we had several baby caskets." Then he started laughing and said, "I asked what for, and they said they wanted to bury [or ship] those aliens"..." Hall said he thought Dennis was joking.
2. Rex Alcorn, Clifford Butts, and William Burkstaller, all friends of Dennis, recalled him telling the story "back when it happened." Alcorn remembered Dennis "telling me at the time of the incident about receiving calls from the base inquiring about 'child-size caskets.'" (Witness to Roswell, p. 147)
3. Roswell attorney Richard L. Bean said he heard about the crashed saucer "within days of the crash," but it was another year or two before he heard Dennis talking about receiving calls for children's caskets from the base. (WTR p. 147)
4. S/Sgt Milton Sprouse, B29 crew chief:
http://www.roswellproof.com/Sprouse.html
Sprouse said he knew Dennis from a funeral that Dennis arranged for a friend several years later. Dennis told him at that time of receiving calls from the base for child-size coffins (Sprouse recalled Dennis said five) Sprouse also told a very similar story as Dennis of an autopsy at the base hospital and a disappearing nurse:
He heard "of the alien bodies and an autopsy quickly conducted at the base hospital from a medic friend, a fellow staff sergeant who shared the barracks. The medic worked in the emergency room and had been called out to the hospital. He had seen the "humanoid" bodies and said two doctors and two nurses were involved with the autopsy. Immediately afterwards, the medic disappeared and Sprouse said they couldn't discover what had become of him. Similarly he heard that the doctors and nurses involved also were immediately transferred out and nothing could be discovered of their fate either."
(part 2/2)
ReplyDelete5. Other stories about the base inquiring about small, child-size caskets:
a. Barbara Beck, current publisher of the Roswell Daily Record, stated that her father, Robert Beck, the publisher since 1955 (but who began with the RDR in Dec. 1947 after marrying the daughter of the previous publisher), told her he knew the Ballard family, who owned Ballard Funeral Home. At some point, Ballard related to him that they received a call from the base at night for four small, child-sized caskets. They were to leave them at the base, but not go inside. Beck's father told her he found the base request really odd, but no explanation was given and he didn't ask questions. (Related on the CW Network, 2020, "Mysteries Decoded: Roswell Revisited" S1E9, 5:00' in)
b. Garner Mason, whose father, grandfather, and uncles ran the family mortuary business in Hagerman at the time [Hagerman is about 30 miles south of Roswell], said it was their mortuary that actually made the delivery of child caskets to the Roswell base hospital. "We received the call from Ballard's, because they didn't have enough of them to fill the order. So we made the delivery to the base. They were actually made out of cardboard." (WTR, p. 147)
c. Adam Dutchover, then a young boy living in Hagerman, said he used to help out at the local small grocery store serving coffee to patrons. He recalled the talk of the flying saucer crash and the "little bodies." Regular customers were members of the Roswell Police Department and one or two employees of Ballard Funeral Home. Though he couldn't recall most of the names, he did remember the Ballard people talking about the need for ordering "small caskets" for the Air Force. (WTR pp. 146-147)
d. Beverly Otto, said she worked at the National Institute of Health in Washington soon after the "Roswell business". She briefly met an Army nurse during a dinner with women friends. The nurse was recently assigned to Walter Reed hospital in Washington and said she was previously stationed at the base near Roswell. When jokingly asked about the "little people" at Roswell, she responded, "I was the nurse who ordered the children's coffins, because they were just big enough for the little guys who were in the spaceship." (WTR p. 148)
Yes, I know a some of this is pretty thin, 2nd & 3rd hand, but I find it hard to dismiss all of this testimony about there being calls for small caskets from the base back when it happened. Dennis didn't just make this up 40 years later.
@KRandle: I do indeed agree with your post esp. about the correction of military records. In my case, I was lucky because my infantry commander wrote a letter for me for the Veterans Administration (I was in the A Shau Valley, 1968-69, 101st Airborne division, Artillery RTO). As for Major Marcel, he is the perfect reason/example why I keep on saying that we need recent evidence, photos (who don't have an iPhone?), plus radar images, etc., etc. and the more the merrier on RECENT sightings not the old famous ones. As I've stated earlier, there has to be someone out THERE alive and kicking!
ReplyDeleteSky70 wrote:
ReplyDelete@ David Rudiak: I see your point of view and it seems correct only on the surface.
"Only on the surface"--really? You were the one with the superficial commentary about Marcel without providing in-depth context, which I provided. You pulled one slightly negative quote out of a post-Roswell review about Marcel by Col. Blanchard to obviously try make him look like an incompetent, emotional buffoon who couldn't distinguish a balloon from a flying saucer. What you left out was the entirety of the performance review that was highly laudatory about his high competency and trustworthiness, as were all of his post-Roswell reviews. Marcel remained in high-esteem by superior officers post-Roswell, as I detailed.
However, it has been proven beyond all doubt by ufologists that Major Jesse Marcel lied about his military duties
Proven beyond all doubt? Really? It's a lot more complicated than that.
(no, he was not a rated pilot
Never said he was a rated pilot. In one interview with Bob Pratt, said while stationed in the South Pacific he WAS the squadron intelligence officer (absolutely true), but also at times acted AS a pilot and navigator, not that he WAS a pilot and navigator. It is not at all uncommon, especially in combat, for soldiers to sometimes assume other positions when needed, even with no ratings. Kevin has provided his own war-time example of that.
Marcel had 468 hours combat air hours recorded in his record (exactly the number he recalled), representing a helluva lot of combat bombing missions, probably at least 40. He could easily have acted in relief of one of the regular pilots during long stretches of flying over the Pacific. I read one biography of Eisenhower, which said he frequently flew as a co-pilot over the Pacific while stationed in the Philippines as one of MacArthur's aides. He wasn't a rated pilot either. When he got back to the States, he did eventually get a pilot rating.
Before the war, Marcel spent many years and hours as an aerial cartographer for the Army Corp of Engineers and Shell Oil, flying in the right seat (copilot). Probably got in a lot of unofficial air hours that way. His aerial cartography expertise is why Marcel got drafted in the first place and immediately made a photointerpretation and combat intelligence officer, even without a college degree.
It also explains why he might act AS a navigator at times. Yes, he also wasn't a rated navigator, but he was an expert at reading things from the air. He received a Bronze Star, didn't claim any heroics for it, said in his Bob Pratt interview it was for teaching green flight crews out of the States how to fly combat in the South Pacific. It wasn't unusual at all back then before modern navigation for planes to get lost over the ocean in the absence of landmarks. (Incidentally, when Marcel was ordered to Fort Worth on a B-29 with Roswell debris, some testimony indicates he flew in the cockpit instead of in back and acted as the navigator on this flight. Deputy base commander Payne Jennings was the pilot and didn't seem to object to a non-rated navigator.)
and did not earn five (5) Air Combat Medals), did not know every aircraft that ever flew, and was not rated a legal pilot. He stated that he earned a college degree and took classes at different colleges, and a simple check proved this to be false (this means that he lied about his education too.). Lie one time in a courtroom and a person's creditability is gone.
More exaggerations here. Marcel never said he knew every aircraft that ever flew, never said he was a rated legal pilot (discussed above). I will try to discuss all these issues in another post when I have the time. There may be some truth to some of this, or not, but as I said, it's more complicated.
(Part 1 of 2)
ReplyDeleteKevin wrote:
I don't know what five Air Combat Medals are, but I do know that Marcel said he had five Air Medals, which can be awarded for meritorious serve or for valor. I have 41 such medals, that include awards for valor or for meritorious service (we received one Air Medal for 25 hours of combat assault flight or 50 of combat support. Marcel, according to the records had 2 Air Medals for meritorious service. He also had a Bronze Star Medal for his service in the Pacific Theater during WW II. He did claim shooting down five enemy aircraft, and although the Air Force (in this case the Army Air Forces) kept records of crewmen who shot down enemy aircraft (as opposed to pilots), there is no record that Marcel downed any enemy aircraft.
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but just add some commentary, also as partial reply to Sky70. While there is no record Marcel downed any enemy aircraft, there is also no record that he didn't. It's hard to prove a negative. But he was clearly in aerial combat situations where it is conceivable he might have. He did have 2 Air Medals in his record, the specific (boilerplate) wording being:
"For meritorious achievement while participating in sustained operational flight missions from [4 Dec 1943 to 28 Apr 1944; 22 May 1944 to 7 Oct 1944] during which hostile contact was probable and expected. These operations consisted of bombing missions against enemy airdromes and installation and attacks on enemy naval vessels and shipping. The courage and devotion to duty displayed during these flights are worthy of commendation."
So clearly they were being shot at, including, presumably, by Japanese Zeroes, what Marcel claimed he shot down five of when he replaced the dead waist gunner. I don't find it all unbelievable that Marcel might assume the gunner position to help defend themselves while they were under fire. He wasn't a rated gunner either. I know, shooting down 5 planes sounds like a lot, but it's not unheard of. E.g., a well-known, documented story similar to this was about "Dorie" Miller during Pearl Harbor. From Wikipedia:
Doris "Dorie" Miller... was an American Naval cook who was the first Black recipient of the Navy Cross and a nominee for the Medal of Honor. As a mess attendant second class in the United States Navy, Miller helped carry wounded sailors to safety during the attack on Pearl Harbor. He then manned an anti-aircraft gun and, despite no prior training in gunnery, officially shot down one plane (according to Navy Department Records) but Doris and other eye witnesses claimed the ranges of four to six.
So no training and no rating or experience as a gunner, but nobody complained when a lowly cook during mortal combat took over the regular gunner's position. Also officially credited with only one kill, when eyewitnesses instead apparently said 4 to 6.
It is conceivable Marcel also didn't receive full credit if he had shot down five planes. Only 2 air medals instead of 5. Or maybe the air medals were instead awarded for flight time or number of missions. (Though based on his total flight hours and missions he should have gotten more if that were true--see below) I keep saying it's complicated.
Another complication was the varying and controversial rules during WWII for who got awarded air medals. From what I've read, fighter pilots acting alone were much more likely to get them than gunners on a bomber. It was harder to confirm kills by bombers (multiple bombers might be shooting at the same planes), there were multiple gunners per bomber (which gunner actually shot down the plane?), and commanders tended to consider bomber enemy shootdowns a team effort (seemed unfair to just award one guy). Therefore, it seems it was actually relatively rare for a bomber gunner to get an air medal for a kill, but there were of course exceptions, and it apparently varied a lot by command.
(part 2 of 2)
ReplyDeleteMarcel's air medal claims continued:
Another complication were other variations in rules in how air medals were handed out. Early on, crews in Europe complained that they might fly just as many combat missions as Pacific crews, but because of generally much shorter distances, flew fewer hours, therefore awarded fewer medals. So rules changed. Because of high casualty rates (75%) in bombing raids against Germany, it might take as few as 5 missions to qualify for an air medal, but 15 in the Mediterranean. I don't know what it was in the South Pacific.
Some more points... It is possible there was a mention about Marcel's shoot-down claims in his record. According to an efficiency report, dated 31 Dec 1944 (shortly after the second recorded air medal), in a box where the evaluator is supposed to note whether the officer had been favorably mentioned in official communications, it was typed "Yes*". The asterisk probably indicated that the circumstances of the favorable communications would be detailed elsewhere. But this is missing from his record, along with a lot of other things. (There is only about 1 page of records for every month he served in the South Pacific.) So are the original communications. For all we know, the favorable communications could have been about Marcel shooting down enemy planes in combat--or not. There is no way of knowing.
Marcel's record listed 468 combat flying hours. That's a LOT of hours and missions. By standard regulations, each 100 hours should have qualified for an air medal, so he should have received at least four. 25 combat missions qualified you for a Distinguished Flying Cross, so Marcel theoretically should have gotten that too. But it's complicated, because the rules were inconsistent and varied a lot by command and region. What I wrote was true for bomber crews flying against Germany, but might have been very different in the Pacific.
@David Rudiak: First of all, I'm a believer that there are others out "THERE" alive and kicking. For if "IT" happened here on earth, then "IT" can happen somewhere else in our universe. The only thing lacking about all those old sightings and even recent ones is hard core proof/evidence that can pass the scientific method. Yes, any ET material(s) must abide by scientific principles, and the public must be involved too. As for Jesse Marcel and others like him (note, that the firsthand eyewitnesses never reported any dead alien bodies), when truth and error is mixed together, that's a sure sign of a scammer - no court of law would stand for that. But in the end, sir, we must agree to disagree for now. Heck, I wonder what Ms. Kean is doing now?
ReplyDeleteSky70 wrote:
ReplyDelete"As for Jesse Marcel and others like him (note, that the firsthand eyewitnesses never reported any dead alien bodies),"
Witnesses claiming to have seen alien bodies:
1. Frederick Benthal, Army photographer: Said he was flown in from Washington and photographed dead alien bodies at a site north of Roswell.
http://www.roswellproof.com/Benthal.html
2. Lt. Walter Haut: In 2nd affidavit (2002), also a recorded interview with Wendy Connors and Dennis Balthauser (2000), said he saw 1 or more small bodies under a tarp in Bldg. 84 (Hangar P-3).
http://www.roswellproof.com/haut.html
3. PFC "Eli Benjamin" (Eleazar Benevidez): Was in a detail taking 4 nonhuman bodies on gurneys from Hangar P-3 to base hospital. One was still alive.
http://www.roswellproof.com/benjamin.html
4. Ruben and Pete Anaya, Roswell residents: Said Lt. Gov. Joseph Montoya called and asked them to pick him up at base hangar. Two nurses outside hangar told them about non-human bodies inside. Ruben Anaya said he got a look from a distance and saw two bodies under a sheet, one of them moving. When they got Montoya to their home, a badly shaken Montoya told them about seeing four alien bodies, one of them alive.
So there's four eyewitnesses you claim don't exist saying they saw alien bodies. One eyewitness, Glenn Dennis, said he got a call from the base for four child-size caskets. Multiple witnesses have confirmed Dennis told them about the call at the time, or within a few years. Several other witnesses independent of Dennis knew of the base requesting small caskets, as I detailed here in a previous post. To me, that's strong circumstantial evidence of small bodies of some type at the base even if these witnesses didn't actually see the bodies. I doubt a military base like Roswell was requesting small caskets for human children or midgets.
@Rudiak, all good points however upon closer scrutiny, these are not firsthand witnesses at all. 1.-Frederick Benthol "said" he took photos of the bodies, revealing no evidence at all (where's the photos of them?) 2.-Former Lt. Haut is completely discredited because he gave us Frank Kaufmann & Dennis, notorious for holding out information. And that affidavit Haut gave us about a so-called conference at the Roswell Air Base before he died, which he never spoke about before - this was uncreditable to say the least. 3.-As for former Army PFC "Eli Benjamin" this is total hearsay, could never stand in a legal court of law. 4.-Former Lt. Gov. Montoya was not even at Roswell during those days, he was at Santa Fe with Colonel Blanchard, signing an Air Force Declaration Day event! Sorry but those are the facts, which reveal just hearsay and an absence of evidence. Remember Carl Sagan? I live by his rule, that so-called "extraordinary facts require extraordinary evidence." Did you forget this wisdom?
ReplyDeleteSo "Sky70", first YOU say there were zero first-hand witnesses to alien bodies, so I gave you four witnesses who said they DID see alien bodies, like with their own eyes. That makes them first-hand. Then you produce totally flimsy dismissals of all of them. "I don't care. They don't count because I say so."
ReplyDeleteDo you even know what hearsay means? It means NOT first-hand, but heard from others, not directly witnessed. That makes your dismissal of "Eli Benjamin's" story as mere "hearsay" total nonsense. He said he was right there as part of a detail taking four nonhuman bodies on gurneys from Hangar P-3 to the base hospital. By definition that is NOT hearsay. And since when is reconstructing history subject to the same strict rules of evidence as a criminal trial? You don't automatically reject all non-first-hand testimony or "hearsay" (a legal term). You are free to consider 2nd or 3rd hand testimony if you find it credible or corroborative of others. E.g., most of the testimony to alien bodies, first or other-hand, centers around that particular hangar and the base hospital.
Did you read my link to Haut's affidavit? Haut also claims to have seen the bodies in the hangar, as did Anaya. You say Haut never spoke of this before, but that is another of your many misstatements. I provided a transcript of the 2000 recorded interview Wendy Connors and Dennis Balthauser did with Haut in which they get him to admit (reluctantly) that he did see bodies and the remains of a recovered craft. The reason they did the interview is because they just overheard Haut talking about this with a German documentary film crew. Schmidt and Carey said Haut would tell them bits and pieces of the story. Finally they got him to agree to sort of a deathbed confession in the second affidavit where it wouldn't be released by the family until after his death. Schmidt wrote the affidavit based on what Haut had told him and others over the years. Haut was declared of sound mind by his doctor when he carefully reviewed and signed the affidavit in 2002. I spoke to Haut for 2 hours in 2001 and mentally he was fine. He was evasive when I asked him questions he didn't want to answer, but it wasn't because his memory was scrambled by dementia. Schmidt arranged the interview hoping I could get something out of him, but I was a complete stranger, whereas people like Schmidt, Connors, and Balthauser he knew well and had developed a rapport. I'm not surprised he would eventually admit some important things to them and not me.
BTW, Blanchard was NOT in Santa Fe that day signing the AF Day Declaration with Montoya. He was scheduled to be there the NEXT day (July 9) to meet with NM Governor Mabry (NOT Montoya), but something apparently came up (wonder what) and the meeting was cancelled, according to the Santa Fe New Mexican. Instead the paper said the governor suddenly took his family to the mountains. The proclamation wasn't signed with Blanchard until July 14, and then by Lt. Gov. Montoya. That doesn't put Montoya in Roswell at the hangar with aliens on July 8 where the Anayas said they picked him up, but it also clearly doesn't put him in Santa Fe with Blanchard. That didn't take place for another week. Please get your basic facts and timeline in order if you want to be taken seriously.
And alien body photographer Benthal you dismiss because he didn't have any photos to prove it (or no doubt better yet, an alien body). Do you flippantly dismiss the testimony of an engineer who says he worked on the A-bomb just because they can't produce the blueprints of the Bomb or the Bomb itself? Maybe you don't comprehend how high security works. You don't casually stroll off with top secret material while being closely guarded. Part of Benthal's testimony was of immediately handing over the photographic plates to an officer right after taking the pictures. Of course, that's what would happen under the circumstances.
5. A huge Air Defense exercise, which was to be the largest ever attempted, and which had been planned ahead for some time, had to be cancelled. It was rescheduled, due to the "emergency"
ReplyDelete6. The secret planners and specialists in Psychological Warfare held an emergency meeting to discuss "pressing" matters. The Air Force's Psychological Warfare Board (AFPWB) and the CIA's Psychological Warfare Committee, due to a "...pressing matter of great concern", met to discuss the State Army Navy Air Committee's Psyop memorandum 304-12.
There were other interesting occurrences that day that are worth noting, such as an upswing in air accidents, but this group of six points of interest all seem to relate to air defense and National Security and Flying Discs.
How does that not make the intelligent commenters here take notice? Why would all these things take place on the same day? Obviously SOMETHING happened. It doesn't appear to be Palestaine/Israel or Russia.
@ Rudiak: The Roswell tale is just like any other tale that have occurred in life, everyone has an opinion about it. Remember Frank Kaufmann? Out of all the false tales he gave out about Roswell, he did say one truthful thing. Enjoying the UFO limelight, he was in England doing an interview on August 28, 1995, about Roswell. After revealing all his fantastic stories about his involvement in Roswell, the British host stated in turn, "The fact is that there is no proof, documentation, physical evidence of any sort to prove that your story is true." Kaufmann responded just like any scammer would, "That's right. You have to accept it. I mean, you either believe it or you don't." To me and others, this symbolizes the whole Roswell saga.
ReplyDeleteSky70: "The Roswell tale is just like any other tale that have occurred in life ..." No, not at all. Your failure to acknowledge or recognize the importance of the Roswell crash vis-a-vis the study of UFOs, however, is most revealing.
ReplyDeleteIn this respect you are every bit as much in error as the British host you cite is in accepting anything Frank Kauffmann alleged, including that Roswell lacks a factual basis in proof, aside from mere acceptance and belief.
In addition, you habitually cherry-pick information and then utilize these selected tidbits to justify your disingenuous conclusions about Roswell and other UFO events.
To me (and perhaps others) this symbolizes the whole skeptical/debunker community.
@Sky70:
ReplyDeleteNot every witness is like Kaufmann; Roswell is based on the more credible testimony of a base intel officer and his son. Everyone may have an opinion about it, but not all opinions are equal. Years ago, researchers had it narrowed down to two possibilities--MOGUL and ET. As KDR's research has shown, MOGUL isn't it. :)
@John Steiger: YES, we must cherry-pick data to find a real resolution of a discovery. It's done every day in our everyday world esp. on manufacturing lines and scientific specimens. Why go against that British host, who only wanted PROOF, not just Frank Kaufmann's wagging tongue that was spreading false tales without any evidence to back him up? Anyways, as a skeptic, I do indeed want physical proof of any ET that lands, or crashes here on earth. And why not, every sensible person would want proof. Why are you against giving the public proof of a UFO visit or crash? If Roswell was that important, concrete evidence would have showed up by now, and yet, there is none, but only speculations and hearsay.
ReplyDeleteYes, you are correct, Kaufmann is not the only bad witness to Roswell, but so is former Lt. Haut, Dennis, and so many others who gave the world a bunch of nonsense (too many to mentioned here). That experimental Mogul balloon did go out on June 4th, 1947, but was not recorded because it was a "service" flight" type that carried classified equipment which could not be fully reported in the unclassified NYU documents. Its flight path was traced right where the debris were found by Mac Brazel. There was another type of Mogul ballon that was recorded in public documents, and they were called, "research flights" and fully report in scientific documents. IF a UFO had crashed at Roswell, leakage about it would have occurred LONG ago!
ReplyDeleteSky70 -
ReplyDeleteFlight No. 4, the culprit in this, did not fly. According to Dr. Crary's field notes and diary, it was cancelled at dawn because of clouds. Dawn being around five in the morning but according to Charles Moore, it was launched somewhere around three in the morning in violation of the rules and regulations under which they operated.
According to what Moore told me, when I visited him at his home in Socorro, Flight No. 4 was configured the same as Flight No. 5. The diagram of Flight No. 5, had no rawin radar targets, which means there was no metallic component to Flight No. 4.
To put that mythical Flight No. 4 close to the Brazel ranch (lost track some 17 miles away, according to Moore) he had to change the time of the launch to that earlier time because a shift in the winds aloft data. A front moved through the area about dawn and changed the direction of the wind, meaning that 17 miles figure is inaccurate. The array would have not gotten that close to the Brazel ranch. (Yes, I know the ranch was owned by the Fosters at the time).
Moore told me that they could not put the helium back in the bottles. They did fly a cluster of balloons later in the day, but this was not a full array and was not expected to leave the Alamogordo area. This was the so-called service flight and even if it carried classified equipment, it was launched too late in the day to get to the Brazel ranch.
Brazel took samples of the debris to the sheriff's office. He should have recognized the balloon debris for what it was. Instead, he called out to the base and Marcel arrived. He couldn't identify the debris but should have recognized it. Marcel returned to the base and with Sheridan Cavitt returned to the sheriff's office but he didn't recognize the debris. Interestingly, when Cavitt was interviewed by Colonel Weaver, he said that he recognized the debris on the ranch immediately... so, why didn't he recognize the debris in the sheriff's office.
The Mogul flights in New Mexico were made up of off the shelf weather balloons and rawin radar targets. These included a card asking those who might have found the balloon arrays to return it to Alamogordo... so, if there was classified equipment on it, why were some of the arrays left where they fell because it was difficult to get to them.
The truth here is that Flight No. 4 did not fly. Moore lied about the time of the launch, which was hours before it was cancelled. Does that make any sense? The winds aloft data, showed that the flight path of that service flight would not have taken it to the Brazel ranch. Moore said that Flight No. 4, configured the same as Flight No. 5, contained no rawin radar targets.
The cluster of balloons launched later in the day, according to Crary's notes, was not a full array and did not leave the range area... and had it carried classified equipment, they would have made an effort to recover it... and just what was this classified equipment anyway.
Sorry, it is clear the Moore can be listed as another liar pushing his agenda of being the man who launched the Roswell saucer but the documentation proves that Project Mogul was not the answer to the Roswell crash.
@Sky70:
ReplyDeleteThere are more ways to hide the truth than just physically concealing it. Disinformation--nonsense to make believers look gullible and wrong--is another.
Dr. Crary didn't have to give the impression #4 was cancelled. He could've just said a MOGUL array was launched on the 4rth without mentioning any "classified equipment" (what is the source for this??). As for its flight path being traced to the Foster ranch, David Rudiak showed that Moore falsified the flight path.
One thing that's so weird about this "service flight" with "classified equipment" claim is, why didn't the military retrieve it right after it supposedly came down on the Foster ranch?? Assuming it did so by June 5--and had been "tracked to the ranch"-- the military should've found it LONG before Brazel brought some to Roswell a month later. Assuming there was classified stuff which might fall into the wrong hands, why didn't the military quickly find and recover its "classified equipment"???
It's naive to think the full truth about Roswell would've leaked out if it were ET. The ULTRA secret was kept for 30 years after the war ended, even though there was no longer any urgent need for secrecy. And I think the government has a very strong motivation to maintain UFO secrecy.
KRandle: Your post reinforces what I have been saying here on your website. This is why we need truthful statements and hard-core facts in order to advance research in Ufology. Let's go by the Law, if one is being deceitful in a number of things the person is saying, then that person must be discarded at once. In any other professional field that person is out if they continue to lie and tell tales, hence revealing their bad research.
ReplyDeleteSky70: There are many, many witnesses (the great majority of which have NOT been discredited by the skeptical/debunker community despite years and years of trying such efforts in vain) to the non-terrestrial properties of the materiel found on the Foster Ranch debris field. It is simply impossible that a terrestrial circa-1947 weather balloon of any sort could account for this evidence.
ReplyDeleteIf you could simply summon up an open mind and bother to do a little research, you might discover the truth about Roswell.
But to be honest, given your prior commentary on this blog, I find myself highly skeptical that this is within you.
I challenge you to prove me wrong.
Bob Koford wrote:
ReplyDelete5. A huge Air Defense exercise, which was to be the largest ever attempted, and which had been planned ahead for some time, had to be cancelled. It was rescheduled, due to the "emergency"
6. The secret planners and specialists in Psychological Warfare held an emergency meeting to discuss "pressing" matters. The Air Force's Psychological Warfare Board (AFPWB) and the CIA's Psychological Warfare Committee, due to a "...pressing matter of great concern", met to discuss the State Army Navy Air Committee's Psyop memorandum 304-12.
There were other interesting occurrences that day that are worth noting, such as an upswing in air accidents, but this group of six points of interest all seem to relate to air defense and National Security and Flying Discs.
Very interesting stuff Bob which I was totally unaware of. (Your occurrences 1-4 didn't get posted. Please try reposting.)
I hope you can provide more details on this. If not here, please contact me by email. I've come across a few other instances where something important "came up" on July 7 or 8, causing cancellations and rescheduling. E.g.:
1) Gen. Nathan Twining writing Boeing Aircraft exec July 17, apologizing for cancelling a scheduled tour of a factory because of a "very important and sudden matter" coming up. Instead, Twining flew into Alamogordo July 7, stayed in NM until July 11.
2) Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg, acting AAF C/S, cancelling a scheduled dental appointment the early afternoon of July 7 and instead went out to the Washington airport to personally pick-up AAF Secretary Stuart Symington. Why didn't Vandenberg send an aide instead or let Symington take a cab to the Pentagon? It would seem something urgent had come up that Vandenberg thought couldn't wait, wanting to confer with Symington ASAP. Next morning, July 8, Vandenberg cancelled a Pentagon meeting and replaced it with a suddenly called meeting of the Joint Research and Development Board chaired by Dr. Vannevar Bush. Bush and the successor RDB were both implicated in 1950 Canadian documents as part of a secret group looking into the "modus operandi" of the saucers, i.e. back-engineering. Details:
www.roswellproof.com/vandenberg.html
http://www.roswellproof.com/smith_papers.html
3. Col. Blanchard suddenly going on leave July 8 and being unavailable for comment after the Roswell base flying disc press release hit the news wire. (His leave papers were actually signed Sunday July 6, so why did Blanchard stay on through Tues July 8, a very unusual time to start a leave?) His scheduled meeting with N.M. governor Mabry the next day (July 9) to sign an AF Day proclamation was cancelled, Mabry instead literally headed for the hills, so Mabry was unavailable for comment, and the signing didn't happen until the following week.
Since the springboard for this thread is Kevin's April 11, 2024 post on "David Grusch and His UFO Crashes," perhaps it is not out of line for me to post a link to a "long tweet" I posted on X/Twitter on May 4, 2024, titled, "More Zig Zags by UFO Whistleblower David Grusch." I am working on a longer article in which I will explore some of the disputed matters in more detail.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1786829083877212297
(Part 1 of 2)
ReplyDeleteSky70 wrote:
Yes, you are correct, Kaufmann is not the only bad witness to Roswell, but so is former Lt. Haut, Dennis, and so many others who gave the world a bunch of nonsense (too many to mentioned here).
What I’ve seen in this thread is YOU giving the world a bunch of nonsense (much too much to be mentioned here). E.g., claiming no eyewitnesses to alien bodies (wrong—I gave you 4). Then dismissing them all for totally bogus reasons, which I rebutted in detail E.g., you claimed the Anaya’s story couldn’t be true because Lt. Gov. Montoya was with Col. Blanchard in Santa Fe July 8 signing AF Day proclamation instead of at base hangar with the Anayas seeing alien bodies. Total baloney. Montoya/Blanchard in Santa Fe didn’t happen until July 14. That’s just historical fact according to documents and newspaper stories. Now we get into your “bunch of nonsense” about Mogul “Flight #4”.
That experimental Mogul balloon did go out on June 4th, 1947, but was not recorded because it was a "service" flight" type that carried classified equipment which could not be fully reported in the unclassified NYU documents.
Your alleged “classified” equipment was a sonobuoy microphone, according to Crary’s diary. Sonobuoy’s were NOT classified and were carried on ALL the earlier fully documented constant-altitude flights (what you call the “research” flights). It was the constant-altitude flights which were the numbered Mogul flights and WERE classified because it was these flights with which they hoped to “hear” distant Soviet A-bomb tests with the carried microphone. The purpose was classified, but not the equipment.
The constant-altitude flights WERE the ones that were carefully tracked, but not the “service” flights (another of your false statements). Why? For two reasons: 1) To see if the balloon flights performed properly, i.e., did achieve constant-altitude control, and 2) with constant-altitude equipment, they could last much longer in the upper atmosphere than a “service flight”. They had to be tracked to make sure they didn’t drift intro civilian air traffic lanes where they posed a potential hazard to aviation and were regulated by the CAA. For this reason, these flights were issued NOTAMs (Notices to Airmen) alerting them to a potential air hazard.
In contrast the service flights were designed to stay within the White Sands test range because they didn’t want to issue NOTAMs unless needed No need to carefully track them because they weren’t designed to achieve constant altitude flight nor go very far. They were like regular rubber weather balloons, going straight up until the balloons over-extended and popped at high altitude, then came straight down.
Charles Moore, interviewed by the equally two-faced AFOSI agent Lt. James McAndrew , tried to claim the “service” flights were the classified flights, therefore nonrecorded, which is total nonsense. Simultaneously Moore claimed they were "stripped-down", "juryrigged" flights, and used them to test specific pieces of equipment. The picture he drew of an example “service flight” was three balloons lofting 3 radar targets, Do you think this was highly classified?
Moore and McAndrew tried to equate the smaller, shorter service flights to the much larger, longer-lived, well-tracked, and fully-documented constant-altitude Mogul flights. Why? Because they were looking for a stooge balloon flight to explain Roswell, but they had no record of any balloon flight that would work. All the real, documented Mogul flights were fully accounted for.
(part 2 of 2)
ReplyDeleteSo for the cancelled Flight #4, they substituted Crary’s substitute service flight carrying a sonobuoy. Since service flights had no tracking data, there was nothing to record, unlike the much bigger constant-altitude flights.
So, yes, there was a “balloon flight” on June 4, but it was not a constant altitude flight. What difference does it make? Well, for one, with no data on it, Moore/McAndrew could claim anything they wanted. One moment it was a small service flight to justify its absence from official records. The next moment it became a large constant-altitude flight to try to explain various debris descriptions or large debris field (McAndrew), or to justify Moore’s fraudulent balloon trajectory calculation, which I and Brad Sparks proved was a complete hoax.
They also resurrected equally cancelled Flights #2 and #3, even creating their own fictitious flight summary tables, whereas the actual Mogul summary table showed Flights #2, #3, and #4 all missing because they were cancelled and there was no flight data, period.
The case of Flight #2 is especially outrageous because it was crystal clear from Mogul documentation that there wasn’t even a substitute “service flight”. The record stated i#2 was cancelled because of high winds and radio equipment failure, ALL equipment was stripped off, and the balloons cut loose. But despite NO balloon flight of any kind, McAndrew called it another unrecorded “service flight” that “flew”, then inserted it back into the summary table as Flight #2, i.e. a fully configured constant-altitude flight. It was a Schroedinger’s balloon, existing in 3 mutually exclusive states simultaneously: service flight, numbered constant-altitude Mogul flight, and nonexistent.
Its flight path was traced right where the debris were found by Mac Brazel.
Another complete whopper Sky70! Where is this mysterious flight path data taking it to the Brazel debris field? It doesn’t exist. Maybe you mean Moore’s fraudulent CALCULATED balloon trajectory taking the nonexistent “Flight #4’ “exactly” [Moore’s word] to the Foster ranch? Aside from Moore’s mathematical hoax, what Moore originally claimed was that they allegedly tracked it to within 17 miles of the ranch before losing contact with it. Of course, this was all just his say-so because there was zero documentation. He also claimed this was the only Mogul balloon to follow that track because it was the only one he associated with small, obscure “exotically” named N.M. towns. That wasn’t true either, since the real, documented Flight #17 3 months later followed the same course and was lost track of at the same point he claimed for “Flight #4”.
There was another type of Mogul ballon that was recorded in public documents, and they were called, "research flights" and fully report in scientific documents.
The “service flights” were generally not recorded because there was no flight data on them, not because they were somehow super Top Secret. They were short-range and had no constant-altitude data to record. All flights intended to be constant-altitude were carefully tracked and recorded, even if they were deemed failures, such as Flight #1 and Flight #6.
As for the actual Mogul flights, Flight #5 on June 5 is recorded in Mogul documents as the FIRST N.M. flight, and at least 4 official histories likewise list it as the FIRST balloon of its type flown in N.M. This includes a history of balloon flights at Alamogordo written by the base historian in 1959. Oddly, nobody but nobody lists “Flight #4” on June 4 as the first such flight. That’s because it never existed. It was invented in 1994 by Moore and McAndrew to debunk Roswell.
@Steiger: I accept your humble and dubious challenge about my truth-seeking open mind. The fact that you know my past blogs here requiring evidence and solid concrete proof of ET and not just wagging tongues (that comes with no evidence), is proof of an open and rational mind. What does anyone here know of me? They should be thinking within their hearts & minds, "That Sky70 dude is always saying he wants hard core UFO evidence in order to believe, not just hearsay and useless tales!" And they would be correct in this. As for all the talk about exotic ET materials given from second and third-hand Roswell witnesses and even from the grand kids, where's the proof?
ReplyDelete@starman: Assuming that your research and data is correct, you have made some valid points here. Now, WHY would the U.S. government want to maintain "UFO secrecy" IF there were and are ETs flying and crashing all around the world, WHY? Who would profit by this so-called secrecy? This is not an elephant in the room situation. If there were UFOs traveling billions of miles to get here, THEY would reveal themselves to humankind, without the permission from the federal government, or any other government. They are just too big of an issue to just land in far way out of places so people like Lue Elizondo & David Grusch came come on the scene and talk their nonsense to gullible UFO believers.
ReplyDeleteDavid -
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to provide this data. I have been swamped in the last couple of days and just hadn't gotten around to providing a response.
As for going by the law, I would say that if a witness is accused of lying, there are often attempts to rehabilitate that witness. And while it is true that Haut provide the names of Dennis and Kaufmann, there is no real evidence that Haut knew they were lying. Haut told me, among others that he had an office in a building in which Dennis also had an office. They never talked about the crash until sometime after 1978, when the story was launched. So, Dennis plugged himself into the tale and Haut, at the time, had no reason to disbelieve him.
I'll make another point here. I interviewed a man named Harris who was an assistant finance officer in Roswell in 1947. Harris told me that he had had the chance to see the bodies but declined. Harris said he was in the hangar with Haut, who asked if he, Harris, wanted to see the bodies and told him, Harris, where they were. Harris said that he put his hand on the door knob but decided he didn't really want to see them. Harris told me that in the mid-1990s while Haut was saying that he had just written the press release. So, I spoke to a witness years before Haut made the claim of seeing the bodies... interesting development, don't you think?
@Sky70:
ReplyDeleteRevealing the presence of advanced alien visitors could have a profoundly negative impact psychologically and on current beliefs and institutions. In his ABOVE TOP SECRET, Good addressed this matter to some extent but the best (albeit unpalatable to most!) explanation for secrecy is in the THE ALIEN GRAND DESIGN.
True, aliens could reveal themselves to humanity without permission from the government. But, as I wrote before, they may be engaged in a long process of familiarization prior to open contact. The idea is to minimize the psychological impact, a threat which advanced visitors would be just as aware of as the gov't. By becoming less unknown they're reducing the ultimate fear of the unknown.
I believe that the one document that symbolizes this discussion of UFO proof/evidence vs. UFO hearsay and 2nd & 3rd hand tales is the affidavit signed by former Lt. Walter Haut. Right off the top it would never be admitted in a court of law because the so-called visitor witness' name is not complete on it, hence it is invalid for any purpose. And for a Notary to impress it with the witness's last name missing is unbelievable (instead of a last name, there are X's type in). And there is absolutely no evidence that back up any of Haut's alleged statements numbered 1- 20. And it was not even written by him at all, and it was signed three years before his death in December of 2005. My point here: Despite all these apparent errors, I bet there are people out there who still believe this is a trustworthy document and what is written on it is true. But where's the proof people?
ReplyDeleteSky70 -
ReplyDeleteI am tired of your references to 2nd & 3rd hand tales simply because there are many 1st hand witnesses who have provided statements such as Lydia Sleppy, the teletype operator who had her transmission interrupted (true, the FBI element was added later, but we have a statement by her made in 1976 about the incident that doesn't have the FBI reference and that proceeded Jesse Marcel's statements by two years). She would be a 1st hand witness to part of the story.
We have the 1st hand statement by Jud Roberts about what happened at the radio station after they recorded an interview with Mack Brazel.
We have the recorded statements of Bill Brazel who had 1st hand experiences when it was learned that he had bits of debris.
We have Jesse Marcel, Jr. who handled the debris, telling us about it.
We have the 1st hand statements by Provost Marshal Edwin Easley who talked about being swore to secrecy and his suggest that the event had an extraterrestrial components.
We have the statement from J.C. Smith, a Roswell fire fighter at the time who said that a colonel from the base advised them that there was no need for them to go out there. The Air Base would handle. This corroborates part of the story told by Frankie Rowe who handled a piece of the debris.
So, lets stop with this 2nd and 3rd hand complaint. If you wish to eliminate those 2nd and 3rd hand witnesses from the mix, I have no argument with that. But to suggest, however subtly, that no other witness statements exist is misleading. BTW: I could provide the names of other 1st hand witnesses to part of the story, but this is becoming longer than I anticipated.
It is not unbelievable that the last name of the witness is removed from the copy of the Haut affidavit printed Tom and Don's book. Of course, it wasn't published to prevent those with internet access from learning it and calling him. The name is on the original document that would be presented in court if there was some sort of trial.
I note here, apropos of nothing, that Bill Brazel told me that he would get late night telephone calls asking him about the statements made about the debris he saw. Some people have no sense of decorum... calling someone at 2 or 3 in the morning.
I have no problem with Don Schmitt preparing the text of the affidavit, especially in consultation with Haut while his daughter looked on. Both Haut and his daughter approved the text before he signed it.
Finally, there is evidence to back up his statements, including those of Lt. Harris who told me YEARS before Haut made his public statements, that Haut had been with him in the hangar and told him where the bodies were located if he wanted to see them. I have reported on this before.
I'm not saying that this is the smoking gun, I'm just saying your analysis of the situation is what is somewhat flawed.
PS: I would say that we can prove that statements 1 - 5, 7, 10, 11, 19 and 20 are accurate. You might have overstated your case there and if we were in that mythical court of law you mentioned on this, I would use that to impeach anything you had to say.
@KRandle: I'm tire of people trying to make people who were NOT at the so-called Roswell crash site act as if they were firsthand witnesses. You named several people who were not at the so-called crash site, yet acting as if they were firsthand witnesses to the crash site. I'll take just one of your examples, Ms. Lydia Sleppy. Remember people this is about a so-called UFO/UAP crash site and bodies of dead aliens. So, what did Ms. Sleppy see and know that can contribute to this tale? Supposely she was interrupted on her transmission by the FBI or whoever, but was she a firsthand witness at the crash site? NO! She was a minor character of no consequence overall. As for former Lt. Haut's affidavit, it's legally invalid, for it has to have a witness signature to be valid, and this does not have one, but a number of X's for a last name - and this is really legal? Shall we go into Mr. Don Schmitt, Mr. Be Witness man? OK, I'll let the UAP dreamers go and believe hearsay as if it was the truth. And this is why the UAP field is not taken seriously outside of this field - you should be in agreement with me.
ReplyDelete@starman: You know you might be correct, for I've read books that say Buddha, Confucius, Jesus Christ and all of the earth's ancient gods were in fact really aliens. Maybe that's why people go into a trance when they worshiped them - no 2nd or 3rd hand witnesses here! But I must say that I don't believe in the alien izard people!
ReplyDeleteSky70 -
ReplyDeleteYou moved the goal posts. You kept beating the second and third-hand witness drum and when I provided some of those, you were annoyed that they hadn't been to the crash site. You mentioned Lydia Sleppy saying that she hadn't been at the crash site... but, she was a witness to an effort to stop the transmission of the story. She was taking dictation from Johnny McBoyle who had been to the crash site and was providing her with information about what he had seen... so, she was one of those dreaded second-hand witnesses to the crash site. I like her story because it just adds a small bit of corroboration to the overall tale.
However, Johnny McBoyle was a first-hand witness and before you get your panties in a bunch about this, I will note that I did speak with McBoyle, who did mention the wrecked craft that looked like a crumpled dish pan. This was reported in The Roswell Incident and he confirmed that description to me... A first-hand witness on the crash site. Good enough?
NO?
Before I leave this, I note here that if we were in the mythical courtroom, Sleppy could testify to being in contact with McBoyle and that as she was transmitted his story, her transmission was interrupted by an order to stop. Interesting coincidence, don't you think and all part of the story.
Well, we do have testimony from both Jesse Marcel, Sr. and Sheridan Cavitt who were at the debris field. Since their statements tend to cancel out each other we can just pick the one we like best... BUT, you say, Marcel has been caught in, at best resume inflation, and at worst lying about his accomplishments, so he's out of the picture. Cavitt, however, has also been caught in lies, so again, they cancel out each other. Yes, I interviewed Cavitt several times and know the lies he told during those interviews.
Bud Payne, a retired New Mexico judge, said he saw the military on the debris field, cleaning up the debris... which, of course, wouldn't take long if it was a Mogul array and one man could do it. Not exactly earth shaking information, but he was there and did tell Don, Tom and me what he has seen. Of course, Payne's statements aren't hearsay but his observations on the debris field are the sort of testimony you seem to seek.
But what about the impact site, you ask. Well, there is Bill Rickett who told Don and later Mark Rodeghier about what he had seen there, on that site. You don't have to believe Don's reporting of it, because the interview was taped, and Mark's report on it confirmed what Don had reported. First-hand testimony...
Before I go from this long explanation of fact, let me point out, once again, Haut's affidavit, as published in Tom and Don's book does not contain the last name of the witness, and would never be presented in court in that form. The original affidavit, with the witness's full name would be presented in court, so your argument about it being illegal is inaccurate. There was no good reason to out the witness in the book because of the environment in which we live today.