Brad
Steiger and I used to argue about who had written the most UFO books. I thought
it was him and he thought it was me. I think, in the end, based on the count on
Good Reads, I won the contest. Brad wrote more books that I had, but he delved
into many areas of the paranormal that I did not. On the other hand, I have
written dozens of books of science fiction and what used to be termed
action/adventure, many of them under the name Eric Helm.
This
is just my way to mention that my latest book UFO Sightings and Alien
Visitation: Fact vs Falsehoods, is about to be released. This was a strange
book for me. It started out as something different. When it was finished, I
didn’t like it. I said that I didn’t want it published. The publisher worked
with me and we changed into something that I think is important. It is a book
that will annoy believers and skeptics alike.
 |
| Available on Amazon after August 24, 2026. |
There
is a chapter about the Kingman UFO crash which is subtitled, “Anatomy of an
Investigation.” I believe that it covers that alleged crash investigation in
great detail and actually contains information that hasn’t been widely
published. I mention this because the original source of the tale is Arthur
Stansel who was an accomplished engineer and is probably an unreliable source.
I
also take a long look at the Pascagoula abduction of Charles Hickson and Calvin
Parker in 1973. Yes, I interviewed both the men and provide some documentation
that changes the complexion of the story because I identify witnesses to the
abduction… Well, that’s not quite the case. Philip Mantle and Irene Scott found
many of those witnesses. It strengthens the case.
With
the Rendlesham Forest landing in 1980, there was a discussion about the number
of nights involved with the sightings. I think I have straightened that out,
having talked with Johns Burroughs, Jim Penniston, and Charles Halt. The
problem seemed to be a series of sightings just after midnight on one day, then
another series on that same day but after dark and then a third night on the next
day… if that makes sense.
Just one more little clue about the book and it provides a new take on Project Moon Dust. No, I didn’t unravel the trouble with the project on my own. Brad Sparks was the one who provided the new information. Yes, there was something called Moon Dust and yes it had a UFO component. It’ just not what we thought.
The
real point here is that the book was developed under the guidance of Roger Jänecke
of Visible Ink. It’s a much better book and has something for everyone on all
sides of the UFO question. You can find it on Amazon.
I
do ask one thing, however. If you decide the book is not for you and you give
it a low rating, please tell me why. Two reasons for this. Sometimes the reason
has nothing to do with the writing or content but with problems with the
manufacture of the hard copy books or the distribution which has nothing to do
with me. It’s an unfair criticism. But two, if you object to the writing, the
tone, or the conclusions, put that in the ratings. While I don’t care for poor
ratings, if I know the reason, I might be able to fix the problem in the next
book.
And now, view me nodding with and evil smile on my face thinking, “Oh yeah, there will be a next book.”
52 comments:
Hi Kevin. I look forward to the new book.
Looks interesting, although you do not say what will annoy everyone! I guess that's the art of a sales pitch. On another note, I heard that UFO controversialist Rich Reynolds had died. I wondered if you had more information on that? Maybe you knew him and know more? Anyway, I wish you well. Reynolds would have hated me saying that, as - I think - you know! When it comes to books annoying people, he was the one. So RIP if true. And God bless you, Kevin!
I enjoy your even handed perspective on the phenomena and will certainly buy the book. I have a working knowledge of USAF security procedures during the time shortly after the Rendlesham Forest events and am curious to read your analysis.
The best UFO Crash was the one at Trinity, reported by three young boys. As for Randle's new book, I hope it's better than the ones he wrote on Roswell, where he gave us all those liars (you know them)!
Hi everyone. I can verify that Kevin's new book UFO SIGHTINGS AND ALIEN VISITATIONS: FACTS AND FALSEHOODS is a terrific read, both for the newcomer to UFOlogy or the seasoned veteran of all things alien. To get much more insight–not only into his new book that you can pick up on August 25th–but also into Kevin himself–check out Kevin's exclusive chat with Dr. Mounce on All Things Unexplained! You can join us in a live chat–on the book release day, August 25th at 9 AM EST on the All Things Unexplained YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/uFjTmZaDIIA?feature=share
Sky70 -
I'm surprised by your comment. Sure, there were errors in the first Roswell books, but I have attempted to correct them. Frank Kaufmann had documentation to back up his military claims. At that point in the investigations, I had no reason to doubt that the documents weren't authentic. Unlike Phil Klass who rejected Kaufmann because Phil didn't believe anything alien has visited Earth, I needed evidence. You seem to have missed that Mark Rodeghier, Mark Chesney, Don Schmitt and me, uncovered the evidence that Kaufmann was less than candid. When we learned the truth, we were the first to expose it. By the time you get to Roswell in the 21st Century, the information is better, many of the liars have been exposed, including Charles Moore and Sheridan Cavitt. The truth is the driving force hear, though I freely admit to a person bias toward the extraterrestrial.
But Trinty? Really? Yes, it was two boys, not three. The story changed radically from the first telling when the crash site according to the boys was over on the Plains and not near the Trinity site.. You actually believe that the Army secured the site and then everyone headed off to lunch leaving it unguarded to the boys would roam free and take samples? Check Douglas Dean's analysis of the story... and listen to my interview with Jacques Vallee about the book and read the blog postings about it.
Charles Moore and Sheridan Cavitt liars, sez who?
Sky70
I did. Didn't you read my response? Cavitt told me that he had not been the Brazel ranch because he was too busy to be chasing balloons. He told Colonel Weaver about going out to the ranch and recognizing the debris as a weather balloon.
Charles Moore said they launched Flight #4 at 2 or 3 in the morning, but the flight was cancelled at dawn. This was after he discovered that there was a major change in the winds aloft data when a front moved through Alamogordo at dawn. The winds would have taken the balloons toward the debris, he had to change the data to get the balloons to within 17 miles of the ranch.
Read his first white paper on the topic and then read his later analysis about it.
Just two examples because, frankly, I don't feel like providing more.
Did you consult the material that suggested that your 3 (sic) boys were less than candid in their ever shifting tale of something near the Trinity site?
ALL of the Roswell so-called witnesses' statements were contradictive and pure speculations that Ufologists eagerly believe in order to sell their books and get paid speeches. My three boys, real eyewitnesses to the Trinity UFO Carash were pretty honest despite one their sons stated that his father was a plain liar. HOWEVER, sir, is this any different that Corso's book, Day After Roswell, when HIS son stated that 90% of the material in the book were lies and falsehoods? Think about it!
Sky70......'Sheridan Cavitt liars, sez who?'
Chuckle. Cavitt wasn't just a liar, he was a professional liar.
When a counter-intelligence officer tells the truth, he ain't doing his job.
Sky70
The Trinity UFO crash has been thoroughly debunked by Kevin and by Douglas Dean Johnson, who has written dozens of articles about the case. There are only two alleged witnesses to the event, and both have been less than candid. They’ve been caught lying and changing their stories numerous times over the years.
Personally, I’m also becoming increasingly skeptical of the Roswell crash as time goes by. But I still follow Kevin’s blog, because I consider him a solid and honest researcher, even though I think he can be a little biased at times, particularly when it comes to Roswell itself.
In my opinion, the best UFO crash story is the Plains of San Agustin case. Yes, the whole story comes from second-hand sources, namely accounts passed down by Barney Barnett’s family members and friends, but it’s surprisingly consistent. The details line up remarkably well across different witnesses, and there aren’t any major contradictions.
The only real inconsistency is the date of Barnett’s alleged discovery of the crashed flying saucer. Fleck Denley originally said that Barnett might have come across the crashed saucer in 1947, but Ruth Barnett’s diary rules out 1947 as the year of the discovery. So, if Barnett really did see a crashed saucer and alien bodies on the Plains of San Agustin, it didn’t happen in 1947. Aside from the uncertainty over the date, though, the rest of the story lines up very well.
Obviously, I don’t consider Gerald Anderson part of the story. We all know he was a liar.
Sky70 -
Not all the witness statements are contradictory. I won't even bother to mention them... well, okay, Edwin Easley for one. Bill Brazel for two. Robert Smith for three...
Spartacus01
The Plains? Really? A single witness? Documentation that refutes the idea. And it's not even first hand but second hand...
Kevin,
I think you're conflating two completely different questions. The first is whether the incident described by Barnett took place in the summer of 1947. The second is whether the incident happened at all. The fact that the surviving documentation appears to rule out 1947 as the year of Barnett's discovery does not necessarily mean that the story is false.
None of the witnesses ever claimed with absolute certainty that Barnett's discovery took place in the summer of 1947. Fleck Danly suggested that Barnett might have told him the story in the summer of 1947, but he also acknowledged that he wasn't completely sure about the date. And when you interviewed him again later, he reiterated that point, explicitly saying that he couldn't remember whether Barnett had told him the story in the summer of 1947 or sometime later.
So, the fact that Ruth Barnett's diary rules out 1947 does not disprove the story. No witness ever provided a precise date in the first place. They gave approximate dates, while also acknowledging that their memories of the timing were uncertain. It doesn't make sense to treat the information in Ruth Barnett's diary as if it settles the entire issue. It doesn't, because 1947 was never established as a definite date, and none of the witnesses ever claimed otherwise.
The diary rules out 1947, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that the incident happened at some other point in time. For all we know, Barnett's discovery might have taken place in the summer of 1948 or 1949. We simply don't know, because the witnesses explicitly said they were uncertain about the date of the discovery.
Finally, I've already acknowledged that the story rests largely on second-hand testimony. I explicitly said so in my previous comment. However, the fact that the accounts are second-hand does not necessarily make them worthless. The various accounts consistently corroborate each other and line up remarkably well. Taken together, they paint a very coherent picture. And honestly, that's more than can be said for Roswell.
Did not expect an argument to erupt below promotion for the new book!
Please excuse me if I am mistaken, but I thought the Plains' case was part of the story of Roswell's case and not a separate event. Religious superstitious bloggers made a big deal of the name of the saint for whom the Plains were named to make a case to blame the crash on devil worshiping occult cultists. Honestly, it is more complicated and confusing than a simple spacecraft crash.
We know the Trinity crash tale hoax was created by two men. Could the third false witness whom Sky 70 referenced possibly be Billy B. Jr. who claimed his father was involved in multiple famous events in the history of ufology? Coauthors Jacques and Harris included Billy B. Jr's claims in the first edition of the book they self published and added more stuff to what was already fiction. Somehow, Billy B. Jr.'s false claims may have led to the revival of another hoax, the fictional crash at Magenta, Lombardy, Italy in 1993, by David G. in 2023. Other than that guess, I cannot guess as to who was the third false witness who Sky 70 claimed witnessed a fictional crash near Trinity, New Mexico in either 1945 or 1946 depending on which version one wants to accept or not.
Then all counter-intelligence officers are liars then...I agree!
I see good points in your blog here; but Roswell was and is a disaster full of liars who are mostly gone now but had the last laugh on us! Wherever they are, they are all together laughing how blinded the ufologists were and are.!
Unless we have extensive material proof, how can anyone believe in Flying Saucers? Oh well, there's always another Roswell UFO book for SALE!
https://www.skeptic.com/article/ufo-disclosure-myth-explained/
Brian -
First, your comment has nothing to do with the publication of my book, which would be a reason to reject it. However, the link is to a series of articles with which I tend to agree with the comments about some of those who are now often quoted in support of the ridiculous claims of what is now about two dozen crashed UFOs in the government possession, including the Kingman case which is clearly a hoax. Because of that, I decided to post the comment.
Sky70 -
Although I find many of your comments offensive, and your generalization of Roswell witnesses ridiculous, please provide an alternative explanation for the debris discovered by Mack Brazel... Remember, the Air Force confirmed that the research by Don, Tom and me, had eliminated these explanations from a rocket or missile from White Sands to experimental aircraft. And don't forget that according to the documentation available, the Mogul Flight #4 (which was actually the New York University experiment) was cancelled and couldn't be responsible for the debris. In other words, I know of no viable explanation.
First of all, if one finds my comments, "offensive" then they cannot take constructive criticism, that's their "bag" as we used to say in Vietnam. Now, I have both Air Force reports/books on their take of the Roswell so-called UFO crash, and they gave lots of evidence to disapprove any Roswell crash! My sources: The Roswell Report, Fact vs. Fiction in the New Mexico Desert, 1995 & Roswell: Case Closed, Declassified Evidence, 1997. Both books do not support any evidence as proof as put forth by Ufologists, sorry! I have them & I've read them several times, but as they say, "Correct me if I'm wrong"!
Sky70 -
First of all, I do not view your criticisms as constructive. Blanket statements about the reliability of the witnesses is not helpful. We, Don Schmitt, Tom Carey and I were the ones that exposed the lies of some of those witnesses as we continued our research..
And if your ONLY source of information are the Air Force reports, then you have a problem. The first, massive report, provides the documentation that Mogul flight #4 (really the New York University Balloon Project Flight #4) was the culprit that dropped the material on the Brazel (Foster) ranch was cancelled. Charles Moore changed the launch time of the cancelled flight to provide his evidence that Flight #4 traveled to within 17 miles of the ranch. The trouble here is that he claimed the flight was launched hours before it was cancelled. I interviewed Moore several times, been to his house and provided the original winds aloft data for him. If you wish to understand this evidence, I have written about it extensively. You can find that on here and you can see the extensive analysis in Roswell in the 21st Century.
I will also mention that while the ultimate purpose of Mogul was to spy on the Soviets and was classified, the experiments in New Mexico were NOT classified. In fact, pictures of these arrays and the flights appeared in the Alamogordo News on July 10, 1947... so the theory that the officers at Roswell wouldn't have recognized the debris had it been one of the experimental balloon arrays is, well, disproved.
Second, I'll note that James McAndrew, who wrote the second book (and he called me several times to discuss the case) used information Don and I gathered from Jim Ragsdale to prove his point. He quoted Ragsdale as saying there were "dummies" or something like that on the crash site. Problem is, by the time McAndrew wrote that, we had already rejected Ragsdale's statements as unreliable. So, how good is the information in the Air Force books... and do you somehow think that I don't have copies... just as I have copies of Karl Pflock's and Phil Klass's books as well.
I have now provided two examples of where those books, your sources, provided incorrect or inaccurate information. In the case of both Ragsdale and Moore, they lied to the Air Force, not to mention the lies told to us on the other side of the fence.
So someone going by Sky70 dismisses the Roswell events, based mostly on the Air Force's claims from the 90s, but has somehow swallowed the absurd yarn known as the Trinity crash. Um, okay. Got it. And I thought Vallee's clutch was slipping.
P.S.
Sorry for the typographical error. The fake crash in Italy was in 1933, not 1993. The funny thing is the real origin of the fake crash story is much closer to 1993.
The debris on that field was pieces of a Mogul Ballon, what number it was irrelevant. This has been proven many times with EVIDENCE. The problem with Ufologists is that they wag their tongues but never present any hard-core evidence like David Gorsch, who talked but presented NO evidence to back up his fairy tales. BTW, what college grants UFO degrees? I want one too. My generalize statements come to the point, for example: If there is ET, where's the evidence?
So, someone going by Some Guy on the Innernerts says that I dismiss the Roswell so-called UFO crash but believe in the UFO Trinity cash, then that makes me believe that Innernets believes in the Roswell event, nothing wrong with that reasoning, expect that's it's pick choose what UFO crash one what's to believe in.
Sky70
Ahh, the flaw in your theory of the debris field contained the pieces of a Mogul Balloon... Flight #4, the culprit in this was cancelled, according to the documentation. It never flew.
Charles Moore told me that Flight #4 was configured like Flight #5. We have the schematic for Flight #5 and it had no rawin targets.
Therefore, your claim that this has been proven is reject by the EVIDENCE. If there was no Mogul Balloon (actually, it was a New York University balloon because there is no such thing as a Mogul balloon).
So, if Flight #4 never flew, and all the other explanations, as published in the Air Force report you cite, what fell at Roswell. That's the question you need to answer because the EVIDENCE is that the flight was cancelled.
There is plenty of material in my cited sources on Flights #4 & #5, again, they do not support your speculative theory, and a schematic drawing is hardly any type of evidence to support ET material on that plain. Major Marcel and all the so-called witnesses described the material, and it clearly matched Mogul piece(s), even to the purple tape with childish symbols on it. Now that's EVIDENCE!
It's like trying to have a sensible conversation with a flat Earther.
Amazon just delivered the book. Looking forward to being annoyed! I worked as a contractor at a USAF Priority “A” location in the late 80’s supporting the security police there so want to see if what I learned from that experience has any relevance to Rendlesham.
I would like to let everyone here that I'm a REAL official Ufologist credited and awarded a Certificate from The American Institute of Metaphysis, WHERE did you get yours? Your non-evidential books do not make you one! Love ya!
Kenvin, what do you think of Lt. Haut's "sealed affidavit" that Don Schmitt gave to the world after Haut's death? And his "Be Witness" event in Mexico? Tom Carey was part of this incident too.
Kenvin, what do you think of the "Be Witness" fiasco? Donald and Carey were a part of this thing/event in ole' MEXICO, and not at Roswell, New Mexico where it should have been displayed.
Kevin, I am reading through the first chapter of the book and have a couple of questions since you begin with recounting some international cases from history. In the older accounts do you find relevance in the reported technology of the phenomena being closer to being a match for the technology at that time? More modern accounts seem to report more advanced technology. Also, do you see older accounts having more of a relationship to the local cultures than more modern accounts which seem to reflect more universal characteristics?
Sky70 -
The answers to your questions are found in other postings to this blog, in several articles I have written and in the books I've written about Roswell. Rather than repeating all that, I'll just let you read the answers there. I usually provide the sources for that information. I'll give you a hint for some of it. Use the provided search engines and look uo "Roswell Slides."
Kevin Wrote:
"Flight #4, the culprit in this was cancelled, according to the documentation. It never flew."
The only documentation is a diary note - this could have been recorded in error.
Kevin continues:
"Charles Moore told me that Flight #4 was configured like Flight #5. We have the schematic for Flight #5 and it had no rawin targets."
Well, Charles, if I'm not mistaken, told you that decades later - it is quite possible he got the description of the material on the "cancelled flight" incorrect :)
Some guy on the innernets wrote:
"It's like trying to have a sensible conversation with a flat Earther."
Fair comment - My first thought was that CDA had returned, or maybe Brian was posting under another name :)
SKY 70
If the Ramey memo says "victims of the wreck" then please explain what that means?
Good luck with your web surfing.
Regards
Nitram
Really, Nitram, you want to go there?
There are Albert Crary's field notes, made at the time of the events. There is his diary entry made later, after he had a chance to review the data. There is the official log of the flights. But you want to reject it because it doesn't fit with your world view.
Of course, he told me that decades later. I wasn't even alive in 1947. However, that is a statement made by one of those working on the project. If you really wanted to be accurate, you would have pointed out that Moore said many things that weren't true.
The trouble is, the evidence, from the documentation and the witness testimony from July, 1947, eliminates the balloon explanation whether it is claimed to be a mythical Mogul balloon, or just a regular cluster of balloons launched later in the day. The winds aloft data, eliminates this cluster from the running because the balloons would not have gotten close to the ranch...
Kevin wrote:
Really, Nitram, you want to go there?
:) I think Moore probably did believe that Mogul was the explanation... and yes, why some of his comments may not be entirely accurate, he was of course "trying to make it work" (as they say).
We may be alone in the Universe (unlikely you say)...
If we aren't alone, it may take too long to get here (quite likely I say) - in which case we have "never been visited", so Mogul (or drooling idiot theory) is therefore a more likely explanation.
Yeah, I think I probably want to go there.
Trust things are well and look forward to seeing you in July 2027.
Regards
Nitram
Kevin’s post has absolutely nothing to do with Roswell and Project Mogul, and neither do the first few comments. Yet somehow the discussion still ended up derailing into Roswell because, apparently, some people just can’t resist bringing up Roswell every chance they get. It's just ridiculous.
I really don't understand why some people can't accept that the Roswell debate has reached a stalemate and will probably stay that way forever. Roswell believers aren't going to convince Roswell skeptics, and vice versa. Why can't we just agree to disagree on this subject and move on?
I've become a Roswell skeptic myself over time, but I know that trying to convince Kevin or David would be a losing battle, so I don't even bother. I just give my opinion on other topics instead. Why can't the other Roswell skeptics do the same and follow my example? Things would be a lot more peaceful around here if everyone just did that.
Nitram
Your bias is showing. Those of us who are paying attention known that interstellar distances are a huge hurtle to leap. Our technology will not allow us to leap it. That doesn't mean that a more advanced technology has not defeated that problem.
The problem with Mogul is that the evidence rules it out as an explanation. There was no Flight #4 as proven. The date doesn't work because Brazel was in that field almost every day and he would have reported the problem earlier... or, if you wish to postulate a cluster of balloons as the culprit, the problem there is that it wouldn't have taken long to clean that up.
My point is that there is no terrestrial explanation that has been offered that explains the debris. That doesn't mean it was alien, only that there is no terrestrial explanation. I believe if there was one, Colonel Weaver and his crew would have found it. So, Roswell it the very definition of unidentified.
Spartacus01
I do resent your implication that I am so locked into the alien explanation that I would not acknowledge a terrestrial solution if one was offered that explained all the evidence available to us.
I'm on board with your agree to disagree. However, I refuse to allow the Mogul explanation because the evidence rules it out. Therefore, there is no terrestrial explanation and I wonder why the skeptics simply can't admit that rather than propping up a solution that is not viable.
Kevin wrote:
"That doesn't mean that a more advanced technology has not defeated that problem."
OK - but what if we are alone in the Universe - then what?
Spartacus01 wrote:
"I really don't understand why some people can't accept that the Roswell debate has reached a stalemate".
For the 100th time - there is no debate... this is an investigation.
It's like trying to have a sensible conversation with a guy who believes there's a big hole in the Arctic where UFOs are flying out of it!
Kevin wrote:
"I refuse to allow the Mogul explanation because the evidence rules it out. Therefore, there is no terrestrial explanation and I wonder why the skeptics simply can't admit that rather than propping up a solution that is not viable."
I guess it is basic human psychology--psychological denial. If something is too disturbing to us, we will latch on to any non-disturbing- explanation, no matter how impossible or absurd rather than accept a painful or terrifying truth.
If an alien flying saucer did crash in 1947 and our government and military covered it up, not just with lies but with actual physical threats of death, what would all of that imply about our country and institutions, not to mention our fundamental sense of security? Imagine, other intelligent beings with a highly advanced technology that we can't counter if they are hostile? What if we are being invaded and can't do anything about it? What if they were experimenting on us? That's pretty damn terrifying to contemplate.
So better to believe in a nonexistent balloon flight than that. Dress it up as a super-duper-califragilistic secret balloon flight to make it sound even better. Make the ordinary components sound super-strange, like radar target balsa wood kites covered with--gasp--aluminum foil! Invent new materials that it was made of, even if though those too were impossible, like aluminized mylar to "explain" the "memory foil". (Mylar didn't exist yet in 1947.) Better yet, throw in some 6-ft wooden crash dummies from the 1950s to explain the reports of bodies, and justify it with an equally stupid psychological "time-compression" theory.
I think it was Jacques Vallee who once wrote the Air Force in debunking UFO cases would often come up with any old stupid explanation, and the stupider the better. It usually works, because many people would rather believe complete nonsense than a highly disturbing truth. We are all vulnerable to this.
There have been other attempts at explaining away Roswell with absurd theories, like Nick Redfern's "Body Snatchers in the Desert" or Annie Jacobsen's "Area 51" book with Stalin and Mengele dropping surgically altered children into the U.S. to seed mass panic. Both are complete nonsense, but nonetheless attracted some adherents among skeptics--anything but aliens. But even those "explanations" were too dumb, fact-challenged, or maybe terrifying for most skeptics to swallow. So back to the little ole, non-threatening Mogul balloon flight. And never mind that it never existed.
I was looking over Marcel's performance review by his commanding officer, and this is what he said/wrote down about Marcel, "His only known weakness is an inclination to magnify problems he is confronted with." Need I say more? BTW, the best ufologist ever was Philip J. Klass, a real man and author, investigator!
Sky70... Someone else here, on this blog, mentioned this tale about Marcel 'magnifying problems'.
I asked for a source but nothing came back. Maybe you can help?
Going back to my previous comments about Sheridan Cavitt...Considering he went on that long drive, with Marcel, to the Foster ranch and then spent much of the next day sifting through the debris, with Marcel, before driving back to Roswell AAFB....don't you think that they might have spent a minute discussing their thoughts on their findings?
At what point, do you think, Cavitt KNEW it was a balloon and Marcel, bless his cotton socks, thought it was a Flying Friggin Saucer!
I mean, it's a pretty 'contrasting' difference of opinions.
If Cavitt thought it was just a balloon, why didn't he put a gentle arm across his mate's shoulder and tell him so...and advise him not to make a total clown of himself by reporting back at Roswell that they'd got a flying saucer?
Both Brazel and Marcel had seen weather balloons before...so why were they baffled but Cavitt wasn't?
On the way back to Roswell, Cavitt had hours and hours to tell Marcel it was just a balloon...so why didn't he?
(Part 1 of 2)
Sky70 reflexively wrote:
"I was looking over Marcel's performance review by his commanding officer, and this is what he said/wrote down about Marcel, "His only known weakness is an inclination to magnify problems he is confronted with." Need I say more? BTW, the best ufologist ever was Philip J. Klass, a real man and author, investigator!"
Sky 70 dusting off his greatest troll hits. 2+ years ago on Kevin's blog, he wrote virtually the same garbage and I responded in detail how he was quoting out of context. (Typical troll/debunker behavior--they are very simple creatures without a lot of mental flexibility). I'll just copy it again here. I also detailed Marcel's post-Roswell military career, which also doesn't remotely align with debunker depictures of him being a fool and liar. For more details, see https://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2024/04/david-grusch-and-his-ufo-crashes.html
--------------------
Sky70 wrote:
You 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.
(Part 2 of 2)
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.
Paul, also, the original people who were at the actual site, not the hundreds as two noted books mentioned, NEVER mentioned any ET bodies nor a complete craft in their first reports of July 1947. These details were later reported and added in the late 1980s by...well, you know who!
Paul Young snarkily commented:
Going back to my previous comments about Sheridan Cavitt...Considering he went on that long drive, with Marcel, to the Foster ranch and then spent much of the next day sifting through the debris, with Marcel, before driving back to Roswell AAFB....don't you think that they might have spent a minute discussing their thoughts on their findings?
At what point, do you think, Cavitt KNEW it was a balloon and Marcel, bless his cotton socks, thought it was a Flying Friggin Saucer!
I mean, it's a pretty 'contrasting' difference of opinions.
Paul, not to mention Cavitt interviewed by the AF claiming the balloon debris area they examined was no bigger than his living room, whereas Marcel was quoted in 1947 (and 30+ years later) saying they found debris scattered over a "square mile". That's also "a pretty contrasting" difference of opinions."
Maybe Cavitt had a really, really big living room. Or maybe the AF crash dummy "time compression" memory theory also applied to space-time. Or maybe Marcel was misquoted and really said the debris was in an area no bigger than his buddy Cavitt's future living room. (But you know how the newspapers like to exaggerate things to sell papers.)
With Roswell, anything is possible--nonexistent Mogul balloon crashes; Mengele surgically altered children. Just--heaven forbid--no space aliens!
Sure would be strange if we are alone in the Universe because the rest of the Universe is supposedly made of the same stuff as what exists in local space. Physics should work the same out there, therefore chemistry should work the same, and therefore life should be able to evolve from molecules out there like it did after the Sol System formed and arrived on Earth via asteroids that impacted oceans and started hydrothermal vent systems at the ocean bottom.
If the story scientists tell on documentaries and articles in magazines is wrong, then I guess we have to go back to Creationism now named Intelligent Design.
Ironically, S.E.T.I'.s spokesman Seth spoke about if we are alone in the Universe on Tuesday morning. If that is the case, why does S.E.T.I. continue to search for something that does not exist? I hoped I could learn about the next astronomical event to witness this week, but apparently not.
This comment deserves applause! Thanks, David! Great to listen to you speak to George earlier this morning! Noticed when you repeated some of the points you wrote in the comment during the broadcast. Sure, some folks are tired of listening to anybody talking about the events at Roswell, New Mexico in 1947, but there is a reason why that event is the best possible candidate for when The Army allegedly made contact with visitors from another world like the persistent legends and rumors continue to allege despite all attempts at denial.
Sky70 -
I have a complete copy of Marcel, Sr.'s service record, not just a single line in an OER. Read the whole thing and provide the whole thing... BTW, Philip Klass sometimes invented information to prove his points... what does that make him?
Post a Comment