tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post1091774267748679624..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Response (of sorts) to ReflectionsKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-29134682510903301632012-04-06T09:43:58.803-07:002012-04-06T09:43:58.803-07:00Steve -
My point here was that the skeptics belie...Steve -<br /><br />My point here was that the skeptics believe that those whose memories mirror their belief structure are solid while those who suggest something alien are flawed, deluded, lying, and simply mistaken. My point was that both sides seem to suffer from this...<br /><br />Not to mention that sometimes old memories are reliable and accurate, especially when they are corroborated by others and documentation.<br /><br />So, I understand your point, but I think you missed mine.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-32384849071659654362012-04-06T09:30:11.667-07:002012-04-06T09:30:11.667-07:00Kevin
I agree with you that memories are fallible...Kevin<br /><br />I agree with you that memories are fallible but it seems that the Roswell believers seem to accept that the memories of those who say a UFO crashed at Roswell are 'rock solid' while those witnesses who say nothing happened have fallible. Seems to be a bit of a bias there.Steve Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14765165764276462479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-57511721579712234972012-04-04T12:47:36.623-07:002012-04-04T12:47:36.623-07:00I wrote:
What we have in his log is detailing of h...I wrote:<br /><i>What we have in his log is detailing of his activities over relatively trivial matters, some of which would normally be handled by underlings (such as talking to a reporter or picking up Symington at the airport(, but absolutely no detail about more important meetings with Symington, or his suddenly called meeting of Vannevar Bush's Joint Research and Development Board the morning of July 8 (canceling another scheduled meeting).<br /><br />That suddenly called JRDB meeting lasted 2-1/2 hours (and overlapped exactly in time with the Roswell morning staff meeting), therefore not exactly a trivial meeting, yet not one thing was said about the subject matter. All we know is that just before the meeting, Vandenberg was briefed by Gen. Curtis LeMay, Deputy AAF Director of Research and Development, who the previously day the log does note was also briefing Vandenberg on the "flying disc" situation.<br /><br />And then following that JRDB meeting, one of the members put out a statement mocking the flying saucers and the Pentagon press room issued a press release denying that the flying discs were "space ships".<br /><br />Yes, I would say there are a fair share of odd "coincidences" here.</i><br /><br />I just want to add briefly to that. Bob Koford discovered one thing that WAS discussed in that JRDB meeting the morning of Roswell on July 8, 1947, from a book on the orbital missile range facility established at Cape Canaveral (Cape Kennedy) (specifically “The History of Cape Canaveral", Chapter 2, "The Missile Range Takes Shape (1949-1958)", Written and Edited by Cliff Lethbridge "The U.S. Selects Cape Canaveral To Host A Missile Test Range"):<br /><br />"...The dangers of a missile range so close to populated areas would become painfully clear in May, 1947 when a V-2 rocket strayed to the south instead of heading north over the White Sands range... Thankfully, the quest for a new missile range had begun almost a year before this incident.<br /><br />"...Responsibility for acquiring, building and equipping the selected missile range was assigned to the War Department by the Joint Research and Development Board on July 8, 1947."<br /><br />But it was more than just finding a safer missile range. It was about establishing a better missile range for orbital space missions. (E.g., the RAND think tank established the previous year by the War Department, published their first work paper on orbiting satellites.)<br /><br />Although finding the new missile facility had apparently been in the works for a year, it seemed to have come to a head on July 8, 1947 at that JRDB meeting, suddenly called by Vandenberg (canceling another scheduled meeting, therefore seemingly a meeting of urgency), where one of the decisions was to make sure the War Department got going on the new facility.<br /><br />And this happened exactly the same time as the Roswell morning staff meeting, followed by public debunkery by the JRDB and the Pentagon that the flying saucers were "space ships" or anything to be taken seriously. And then came the Roswell press release and the weather balloon debunkery.<br /><br />A very curious chain of "coincidences", but it strikes me the JRDB decision on the orbital missile launch facility was a direct policy response to what was going on at the time.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-6222938776879474932012-04-04T12:17:25.745-07:002012-04-04T12:17:25.745-07:00response cda (part 2 of 2):
And I do NOT believe f...response cda (part 2 of 2):<br /><i>And I do NOT believe for a split second that Vandenberg's log has omitted anything of import or was faked in any way.General Vandenberg's log of July 8 and 9 has no mention of flying discs for one reason and one reason only - the Roswell affair had zero importance to him. Hence its non-appearance.</i><br /><br />It wasn't "faked" exactly, but it clearly DID omit things of import or failed to detail them while noting or detailing things of obviously little import, such as "General Van" going to lunch. Very curious.<br /><br />The log was supposed to list ALL of his meetings and activities, even if no detail was added, as was often the case. So the previous day we know he canceled a previously scheduled dentist appointment in order to personally pick up Symington at the airport instead of some underling handling this routine task. What was so damn important that the big General had to personally chauffeur Symington? Were they lovers?<br /><br />In the case of Vandenberg going to the press room, it IS strange that not a word was said about it, even to note that it happened. Why not?<br /><br />As for his multiple meetings with Symington over those days, there was no detailing at all. All that was said was he was meeting about the proposed Air Board (for aircraft safety). But all sorts of things could have been discussed in those hours of meetings.<br /><br />(But we do know the times “General Van” arrived at his office, went to lunch, and went home.)<br /><br />What we have in his log is detailing of his activities over relatively trivial matters, some of which would normally be handled by underlings (such as talking to a reporter or picking up Symington at the airport(, but absolutely no detail about more important meetings with Symington, or his suddenly called meeting of Vannevar Bush's Joint Research and Development Board the morning of July 8 (canceling another scheduled meeting). <br /><br />That suddenly called JRDB meeting lasted 2-1/2 hours (and overlapped exactly in time with the Roswell morning staff meeting), therefore not exactly a trivial meeting, yet not one thing was said about the subject matter. All we know is that just before the meeting, Vandenberg was briefed by Gen. Curtis LeMay, Deputy AAF Director of Research and Development, who the previously day the log does note was also briefing Vandenberg on the "flying disc" situation.<br /><br />And then following that JRDB meeting, one of the members put out a statement mocking the flying saucers and the Pentagon press room issued a press release denying that the flying discs were "space ships".<br /><br />Yes, I would say there are a fair share of odd "coincidences" here.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-35230280443726770472012-04-04T12:14:01.163-07:002012-04-04T12:14:01.163-07:00cda back to his usual nonsensical spin (part 1 of ...cda back to his usual nonsensical spin (part 1 of 2):<br /><i>General Vandenberg's log of July 8 and 9 has no mention of flying discs for one reason and one reason only - the Roswell affair had zero importance to him. Hence its non-appearance.</i><br /><br />If it had "zero importance" to him, then why did he get involved at all? Isn't that a self-contradiction? The newspapers clearly reported him going to the Pentagon press room to deal with the ruckus created by the Roswell press release. And he was gone from his office for an hour.<br /><br /><i>The affair of July 7 did have some importance because somebody played a prank and put an Air Force General's name on a flying disc (a General Hackett), planted it somewhere whereupon it was discovered, and the Houston Chronicle found out about it. Hence Vandenberg's concern, and why he spoke to Hackett in person.</i><br /><br />Well, no, a mere "Colonel" Hackett, but who's counting?<br /><br />And this whole Houston hoax disc affair was based on a report from a newspaper which didn't get much coverage, while Roswell was a huge national and international story precipitated by an OFFICIAL AAF press release from one of their most important bases saying they (not some newspaper) had a real flying disc.<br /><br />But in your strange world, Vandenberg considered a minor newspaper rumor to be more important than an official statement by his own people at Roswell that garnered far more publicity, therefore the first demanded great detailing in his log while the second merited not even a mention.<br /><br />Wow! Your gross illogic is showing again.<br /><br /><i>I suggest to you that Vandenberg's quick visit to the press office (that is probably all it was) occurred after his lunch hour or maybe in between meetings,</i><br /><br />It started at 5:14 p.m. or about 50 minutes after the Roswell press release first went out over the AP wire, not "after his lunch hour".<br /><br />As for "between meetings", this was at the end of his work day. It notes that he had just stepped out to see AAF Sec. Symington to discuss personnel for the Air Board, but then claims that he left to see him again about the same thing, when instead he really went to the Pentagon press room, at least part of the hour he was gone, with no proper detailing as to what happened that hour.<br /><br /><i> and was not considered important enough to enter into the log.</i><br /><br />Well, let's see, his atomic bomber base announcing they had a real flying disc, and then dealing with the aftermath of that was "not important", but noting when he went and came back from lunch was important to note. Yes, that is very logical--NOT!<br /><br /><i>Maybe the newspapers exaggerated the story a bit. I don't know. Do you?</i><br /><br />Yes, I do know. His log has him gone for a full hour, and this overlaps in time with when the newspapers reported him "dropping in" on the Pentagon press room.<br /><br />I can't prove he was there a full hour, but the newspapers reported him directing phone calls to Roswell and Fort Worth from the press room. He wasn't at least going to wait around to see what they had to say?<br /><br />What were the newspapers "exaggerating" here? Are you claiming they made it all up?David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-88139747088324487232012-04-04T09:41:25.274-07:002012-04-04T09:41:25.274-07:00DR:
To try and end this debate:
General Vandenber...DR:<br /><br />To try and end this debate:<br />General Vandenberg's log of July 8 and 9 has no mention of flying discs for one reason and one reason only - the Roswell affair had zero importance to him. Hence its non-appearance. <br /><br />The affair of July 7 did have some importance because somebody played a prank and put an Air Force General's name on a flying disc (a General Hackett), planted it somewhere whereupon it was discovered, and the Houston Chronicle found out about it. Hence Vandenberg's concern, and why he spoke to Hackett in person.<br /><br />I suggest to you that Vandenberg's quick visit to the press office (that is probably all it was) occurred after his lunch hour or maybe in between meetings, and was not considered important enough to enter into the log. Maybe the newspapers exaggerated the story a bit. I don't know. Do you?<br /><br />That is my conclusion. You are adopting much the same kind of arguments as Stan Friedman did over the various activities of people involved in MJ-12 on certain days. Hence his grossly over-enthusiastic ideas about MJ-12's authenticity. Too many 'coincidences'. Sure. <br /><br />And I do NOT believe for a split second that Vandenberg's log has omitted anything of import or was faked in any way.<br /><br />End of story (from me anyway).cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-59406150586565979132012-04-04T09:18:23.721-07:002012-04-04T09:18:23.721-07:00The "naivete" is the argument from perso...The "naivete" is the argument from personal incredulity: I can't believe it happened therefore it didn't. It is CDA's rhetorical backstop.<br /><br />If anyone would like to check the calibration on their bullshit detector, I'd recommend another July 9, 1947 story: the theft of atomic secrets at Los Alamos by two army sergeants in 1946.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-77168074848091883692012-04-03T16:30:59.550-07:002012-04-03T16:30:59.550-07:00(response to cda, part 2)
Too many important milit...(response to cda, part 2)<br /><i>Too many important military people obviously decided to either go on holiday or simply not get involved with these strange ET visitors.</i><br /><br />Thanks for distorting history once again. They already were on holiday or planned to be during the usually quiet July 4th holiday weekend, then Roswell happened, not the other way around.<br /><br />If they had all suddenly rushed back from their leaves or suddenly canceled them, it would indeed look suspicious, like some sort of crisis was happening.<br /><br />Besides nobody is considered essential in the military, which is one reason why they have a well-organized chain of command. If the commander isn't available for whatever reason, the next guy in command takes over.<br /><br />Spaatz could still go fishing and Vandenberg would be running things back at the Pentagon. If Spaatz's input was needed, even in 1947 they had electronic communications to stay in touch (yes, I know that's hard for you to believe). And if Spaatz wanted to quickly get somewhere, he had the whole damn Air Force at his disposal.<br /><br />One reason I just raised again the 1963 top secret crash of an A-12 spy plane out of Area 51 was to note the various deception schemes employed to keep the true nature of the crash concealed from the press and public. Also the employees at Area 51 have revealed how their employment there was also hidden, even admitting they can't document they ever worked there as a result. So, e.g., they were issued paychecks from phony employers and their IRS returns would also reflect this. Test pilots had phony flight logs showing them flying other planes at some other base, thus being in two different places at once.<br /><br />As Sun Tzu wrote almost 2000 years ago in the Art of War, war is the art of deception. A good chunk of basic military strategy is devoted to ways of deceiving the enemy. Multiple military units specialize in it. To believe it hasn't been employed against the American public at times when deemed necessary shows incredible naivete.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-28011181935401686202012-04-03T16:28:49.547-07:002012-04-03T16:28:49.547-07:00Response to cda (part 1):
Remarkable also that Van...Response to cda (part 1):<br /><i>Remarkable also that Vandenberg's log contains nothing about any event at Roswell and that Spaatz was also on holiday (at least for part of the week).</i><br /><br />What's remarkable is that Vandenberg's log says absolutely nothing about it when the newspapers say he definitely was involved. E.g., Pentagon correspondents for the Washington Post and NY Times wrote that he "dropped in" on the AAF Pentagon press room to handle the public relations furor after the press release came out. <br /><br />Tell us, cda, did the newspapers make this up because Vandenberg's log failed to note it?<br /><br />Why is there not a word about this in Vandenberg's log, instead saying he left his office for an hour to supposedly confer with AAF Secretary Stuart Syminton? <br /><br />It's not as if his log didn't often go into his activities in more detail. The day before (July 7), it has a whole summary of Vandenberg conferring with Gen. LeMay about the flying discs, personally taking a call from a reporter asking if they were a secret project. Right after that much detail was devoted to Vandenberg dealing with a hoax crashed disc story out of Houston, allegedly belonging to the AAF, and trying to kill it.<br /><br />Now usually this sort of stuff would be handled by underlings, particularly the PR people dealing with the press.<br /><br />Vandenberg's log is also notable for it's suspicious changes from his planned activities written in his calendar. Right after dealing with the Houston disc, Vandenberg canceled a dentist appointment and instead personally went out to the airport to pick up AAF Sec. Symington and bring him back to the Pentagon. Time out of Vandenberg's busy schedule--1-1/2 hours. Again, why didn't Vandenberg simply send one of his staffers? It strikes me this speaks of something important coming up that he IMMEDIATELY wanted to speak to Symington about, and not through some intermediary.<br /><br />Now this sudden meeting with Symington would correspond in time to when Walter Haut's affidavit chronology would have Roswell base becoming aware of the second crash site with craft and bodies north of town and this information filtering up to Washington.<br /><br />And then the following morning of July 8, Vandenberg canceled one meeting and suddenly replaced it with Vannevar Bush's Joint Research and Development Board. This overlapped exactly in time with the morning staff meeting at Roswell, where Walter Haut, among other things, said the bigwigs were discussing what to tell the public.<br /><br />(Right after this, the Pentagon issued a press release denying the saucers were "space ships" and also quoted one of the JRDB members as saying the saucers were all a bunch of nonsense. And right after that was the Roswell press release, quickly followed by Gen. Ramey's weather balloon debunkery.)<br /><br />It is also interesting that Gen. Spaatz wrote Vannevar Bush a letter on July 7, though we don't know the contents. (We only know that Bush responded to the letter July 17, but again don't know the substance.) Remember, Spaatz July 7 had supposedly gone fishing in Medford, Oregon, but here he is writing to Bush. Bush's name keeps popping up as the Roswell situation heated up.<br /><br />And of course, Wilbert's Smith's correspondence from 1950/51 fingered Bush as heading up the supersecret UFO group within the Research and Development Board.<br /><br />There are an awful lot of "coincidences" going on here.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-41666333860370215692012-04-03T13:59:38.918-07:002012-04-03T13:59:38.918-07:00CDA, I know you want to argue ET. All skeptics do....CDA, I know you want to argue ET. All skeptics do. I don't. So, this is just a datapoint: Blanchard was not a protagonist in the matter as soon as he informed Ramey, and the same for Marcel after he reported to Blanchard. All either did thereafter re the Roswell incident was follow orders.<br /><br />Once Ramey took command of the situation, Blanchard was just another spear carrier.<br /><br />Consider the press release to be a litany of the orderly transfer -- a fine and cooperative one -- from civilian to civilian authorities to the AAF. Tinker to Evers to Chance, if you know baseball history.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-78609311246090461702012-04-03T12:46:50.993-07:002012-04-03T12:46:50.993-07:00This gets curiouser & curiouser, as I said bef...This gets curiouser & curiouser, as I said before. <br /><br />Blanchard did go on leave because the morning reports prove it. See Pflock's book. We don't need the newspapers here. So there was no cover story re Blanchard. Likewise there is no indication that he ever visited the debris field, either before going on leave or secretly later. Kevin says in his timeline that he did go to the site, but this is based on 40+ years old anecdotal testimony and a bit of speculative interpolation. <br /><br />My point is this:<br /><br />Since Blanchard went on 3-weeks leave (which we know he did) when he already knew or suspected an ET craft had crashed and was under armed guard at the base, is it really credible that he would have left the base at all, let alone for 21 days? I say emphatically that it is NOT. You do not have a base commander going off on holiday whilst an event of such magnitude is still current (i.e. the guys out in the boondocks securing the ET debris and debris & bodies en route to Washington). <br /><br />Hence, as we know Blanchard went on leave, he must have done so knowing that the Roswell affair was a trivial matter that did not require his attention. Ergo, it was NOT an ET craft, or even any extraordinary foreign craft. <br /><br />Remarkable also that Vandenberg's log contains nothing about any event at Roswell and that Spaatz was also on holiday (at least for part of the week). <br /><br />Too many important military people obviously decided to either go on holiday or simply not get involved with these strange ET visitors.<br /><br />But of course, some will say these were all clever cover stories. Perhaps a large portion of the 509th bomb group newsletter for July was also phony, for obvious reasons. <br /><br />But then some will propose or speculate literally anything, however preposterous, in order to bolster the ET crash thesis.<br /><br />Should anyone be bold enough to examine either Vandenberg or Spaatz's daily logs for July 9 to 16 in the archives I think I can guarantee that neither will show any mention of Roswell or its aftermath. And NOT because the logs were falsified either.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-13109097559994396302012-04-03T11:52:46.378-07:002012-04-03T11:52:46.378-07:00(response cda, part 2):
Sending Marcel to Fort Wor...(response cda, part 2):<br />Sending Marcel to Fort Worth and keeping him there another day also kept him away from reporters with follow-up questions. Marcel returned the following night on yet another B29 flight from Roswell, transporting a mysterious crate surrounded by a guard of officers, chained to the plane so it would go down with the plane, and with one of the base doctors on board, according to one of the interviewed crew members. Further, their flight was met at the base by brass and a mortician, recognized by another of the crew members. Debriefed later, they were told they transported the General's furniture.<br /><br />The General's furniture--obviously, nothing going on.<br /><br /><i>Recall that General Spaatz was on a fishing trip at the same time. Fishing for what? Crashed spacecraft that got submerged in the rivers, maybe?</i><br /><br />First of all, all this happened the 4th of July weekend when the bigwigs often went off on preplanned leaves. Dubose was handling Ramey's business. McMullen, who was telling Dubose what to do, was SAC commander Gen. Kenney's replacement while Kenny was away.<br /><br />In Washington, Gen. Vandenberg was replacing Spaatz, and the newspapers made it quite clear that Vandenberg did get involved with Roswell, even though Vandenberg's daily log curiously omits this fact.<br /><br />As for Spaatz supposedly fishing in Oregon starting July 7 while Roswell was going on, as most newspapers reported, MUFON director James Carrion found by looking at Texas papers that Spaatz really flew to San Antonio, TX July 10, supposedly headed for deep-sea fishing at Corpus Christi, contradicting Spaatz's flight log found by Stan Friedman that Spaatz flew to Corpus Christi July 7.<br /><br />So things aren't so clear-cut with Spaatz either. What exactly was Spaatz up to and why can't we get a straight story about his whereabouts? Was he just "fishing"? San Antonio gets very close to the action in Fort Worth, also had multiple military bases and a big military medical complex and research facilities. I think you can see what I'm getting at here as a <i>possibility</i>.<br /><br />Just because newspapers report business as usual doesn't necessarily mean something important isn't going on out of sight. "Going fishing" can also act as a good cover story, even if part of the time, they really did go fish. It doesn't preclude the possibility of them also taking care of important business. People are capable of multitasking.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-16768853905509575292012-04-03T11:47:21.194-07:002012-04-03T11:47:21.194-07:00Response to cda (part 1):
"Blanchard was on l...Response to cda (part 1):<br /><i>"Blanchard was on leave". Starting July 8? The very week the USAF were so busy at the crash site?<br /><br />Absolutely incredible. What a guy this Blanchard was. In addition to authorizing a confusing and premature press release, he chooses to take his leave whilst the USAF is supposedly scouring the debris field for fragments of the first known extraterrestrial craft to crash to earth!</i><br /><br />The press was told July 8 Blanchard was on leave and unavailable for comment.<br /><br />So naturally it appears that nothing of importance is going on, which is the way the Air Force debunkers spun it in 1994.<br /><br />Similarly, last year Obama was telling jokes about Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents Assoc. dinner. So obviously nothing of importance going on, right?<br /><br />Except this was the night before the Pakastani raid that killed Osama Bin Laden. Obama was cracking jokes while contemplating whether to issue the final risky order to carry out the raid.<br /><br />There are similar examples, where you don't want to tip your hand of something important going on.<br /><br />Getting Blanchard out of Dodge and away from reporters would be a convenient way to avoid comment. According to one of his staff officers, Lt. Col. Joe Briley, Blanchard really went out to the debris field to make a personal determination. If everything was going well, there would be no need for him to stick around.<br /><br />One indication that Blanchard's leave wasn't a straight-forward leave is the fact that he was scheduled to meet with the N.M. Governor the following morning to sign a proclamation for Air Force Day. According to the Santa Fe newspaper, the meeting never happened. Instead, it was reported the Governor suddenly took off for the mountains with his wife, again unavailable for comment. Blanchard finally met with Lt. Gov. Montoya a week later and signed the proclamation.<br /><br />So more questions that should be asked is why didn't the scheduled July 9 meeting between Blanchard and the Guv happen, where was Blanchard at the time, and why did the Guv also suddenly change his plans and head to the mountains? <br /><br />Lt. Col. Payne Jennings, who was deputy base commander and Blanchard's replacement, also had some curious activity. According to Robert Porter, who was on the B29 fight with Marcel to Fort Worth, Jennings was the pilot.<br /><br />So maybe another question to ask is out of the many dozens of pilots at the base to choose from, why was the alleged acting base commander the only one who could fly Ramey's balloon garbage to Fort Worth? Why would he leave the base now under his command to handle such a trivial and unnecessary task?<br /><br />Obviously the task wasn't considered trivial. Gen. Dubose told a similar story about an earlier debris shipment from Roswell to Fort Worth and on to Washington. He said it arrived by courier, and he was instructed by Gen. McMullen to send it to Washington by "colonel courier". Why not a "corporal courier"? Obviously it was considered much too important.<br /><br />According to Dubose, acting base commander Col. Alvin Clark acted as the courier. When Dubose first learned of the crash, both the base commander, Col. Hewitt Wheliss, and Gen. Ramey were away from the base attending an air show in Ramey's home down of Denton, TX, then blissfully unaware of anything going down at Roswell.<br /><br />But the big question is what was so damn important that acting base commanders had to be personally involved in the transport of supposedly mundane debris?David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-45509629596288332992012-04-03T11:37:56.846-07:002012-04-03T11:37:56.846-07:00CDA, I did attempt to verify that Blanchard was on...CDA, I did attempt to verify that Blanchard was on leave. Back in 1997, the AFHRA website had a catalogue of the archive of Blanchard's papers. There were no records for July 1947. Hitting that brick wall a couple times, I concluded that if I did find a Roswell record, I couldn't be sure it wasn't there, purposely, to be found, given the absence of near anything else. So, I dropped the matter, and went in a different direction.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-31633020717770287402012-04-03T09:40:54.522-07:002012-04-03T09:40:54.522-07:00All -
Command would fall to Barrowclough... who h...All -<br /><br />Command would fall to Barrowclough... who has publicly stated that there was nothing to the UFO story...KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-47658126390140309562012-04-03T09:15:22.877-07:002012-04-03T09:15:22.877-07:00CDA wrote: "Are you saying that Blanchard was...CDA wrote: "Are you saying that Blanchard was not on leave? Please clarify."<br /><br />I am saying that was the story in the news. Reporters wanting a statement from him, were told Blanchard was on leave.<br /><br />With Blanchard and Jennings not on the base, and with Marcel gone as well -- all three at the moment the story broke -- I think the Provost would be in charge. Kevin could clarify that. And, my comment went to who Wilcox would be working with at the base, then.<br /><br />Don't ask me about the "popular Roswell story" because that is not my area of interest. Take it up with David and Kevin. <br /><br />I don't believe news stories unless I can verify the information. I'll take opinions 'under consideration' and see if they are consonant with the verified material. Before I accepted the Hollis Wilson story, I had to verify Maggie Brazel's maiden name was Wilson and that she had a brother named Hollis. Arguing over unverified information as if they were facts is a waste of time.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-7262992924331185642012-04-03T09:04:16.974-07:002012-04-03T09:04:16.974-07:00CDA :
In fact, the different historiographical doc...CDA :<br />In fact, the different historiographical documents prooving he was on leave, are part of the big cover-up orchestred this 1947 week. Proove me wrong!<br />Chut...<br />You understand nothing about USA(A)F tactics employed at Roswell...<br /><br />More seriously, it is an important argument/chapter the FACT Blanchard was on leave for an event of this magnitude (following the ETH proponents). <br /><br />I hope Kevin will open something in his blog a day, cause we are going off-topic (as usual).<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />GillesGilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-42312640281938099542012-04-03T08:16:08.569-07:002012-04-03T08:16:08.569-07:00Don:
Are you saying that Blanchard was not on leav...Don:<br />Are you saying that Blanchard was not on leave? Please clarify.<br /><br />And yes, the popular Roswell 'story' is that the USAF spent up to a week scouring and dredging the crash site for every possible scrap of debris. And that this period started July 7 or 8. <br /><br />Unless you know differently.<br /><br />The newspapers, regarding this aspect, have nothing to do with it.<br /><br />So was Blanchard present, either at the base, or at the debris field during this period, or was he on leave?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-38792513029946993732012-04-03T07:54:45.923-07:002012-04-03T07:54:45.923-07:00CDA wrote: ""Blanchard was on leave"...CDA wrote: ""Blanchard was on leave". Starting July 8? The very week the USAF were so busy at the crash site?"<br /><br />Has anyone mentioned that you might fare better in these discussions if you familiarized yourself with the story?<br /><br />Has anyone mentioned to you that one ought not to believe something is so, simply because it's in the papers?<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-43152398941735063762012-04-03T02:17:44.055-07:002012-04-03T02:17:44.055-07:00Don:
"Blanchard was on leave". Starting...Don:<br /><br />"Blanchard was on leave". Starting July 8? The very week the USAF were so busy at the crash site?<br /><br />Absolutely incredible. What a guy this Blanchard was. In addition to authorizing a confusing and premature press release, he chooses to take his leave whilst the USAF is supposedly scouring the debris field for fragments of the first known extraterrestrial craft to crash to earth! <br /><br />Recall that General Spaatz was on a fishing trip at the same time. Fishing for what? Crashed spacecraft that got submerged in the rivers, maybe?<br /><br />Truly this case gets curiouser and curiouser.<br /><br />I continually marvel at the idiocy of the whole ET story as related.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-80423678644459495192012-04-02T19:36:44.824-07:002012-04-02T19:36:44.824-07:00CDA wrote: "Brazel held in custody for a week...CDA wrote: "Brazel held in custody for a week? Does anyone, apart from ETHers, take this seriously?"<br /><br />I take it under consideration. The only reasons I can think of for detaining him would be to see how the story played in the press (it played just fine), and because they didn't want him to be present while they manicured the debris field.<br /><br />"The USAF do not incarcerate civilians at their bases without very good reason, either now or in 1947. Brazel could have brought legal action, via his congressman, if this happened."<br /><br />They might have had a good reason. The possibility of congressional involvement would be an issue for them. Brazel would have to agree to remain a guest of the Army for a bit. I haven't seen it discussed, but in civilian saucer cases (here in the Zone of the Interior) the CIC was involved. The legality of that could be questioned. The contemporary Rhodes incident is an example. 'Roswell' is a civilian report, not a military one. Possibly because of the time and place, no one questioned the miltary investigation of civilian reports, and no one knew the CIC was doing so, as well. In the Rhodes case, not only was it investigated by a CIC Special Agent, but one under cover (and I don't mean just in plain clothes). <br /><br />Cavitt had a good reason for not 'remembering' the rancher.<br /><br />Detaining a civilian would just be another charge on top of several, and because of the "secrecy oath" (AKA, the Espionage Act) and national defense, I doubt Brazel's congressman would see it other than the army's way.<br /><br />I'd agree with you that the stories of intimidation jump the shark, and consider those who told the lurid stories to be, at best, wrong. <br /><br />Besides the residents near the ranch where the object landed, a few people in Roswell would be interviewed. Wilcox being the sheriff would have already been co-opted to the army's needs. I wonder who the guys were at the base he was working with. Blanchard was on leave; his normal contact, Marcel was in Ft Worth and so was Jennings. The guys in the CIC room? A couple of media people, McEvoy and Whitmore Sr, may have been interviewed. Obviously John McBoyle. Maybe Walsh and Joyce. <br /><br />Of interest is the 2 1/2 hours of missing time that occured in Roswell. The rest of the world heard about the incident beginning at 2:26pm MT, but the people of Roswell, and the personnel of the RAAF, had the story at noon likely via either KSWS or KGFL or both. Haut shouldn't have made those calls. There appears to have been a fuss between the radio people and the army and some harsh words might have been said.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-49719882821481340812012-04-02T15:39:34.987-07:002012-04-02T15:39:34.987-07:00Here's a link just sent me of an interview wit...Here's a link just sent me of an interview with a former employee at Area 51. <br /><br />http://www.blogtalkradio.com/paranormalsunday/2012/04/02/t-d-barnes-former-area-51-employee<br /><br />He denies any saucer testing or aliens out there, and claims test planes were responsible for many UFO reports.<br /><br />But what I'm mainly interested in are his statements about cover stories to hide their activities.<br /><br />Everybody went by a code name, not their real names, when dealing with anyone not employed there, test pilots have their flight records falsified, such as claiming flight time in a plane they never flew at a base they were never at at the time.<br /><br />Another tactic I've seen mentioned by other A-51 employees, is use of false employers on their paychecks and in their reports to the IRS.<br /><br />The press and public has been fed cover stories when secret planes crash off base or are spotted off base, or create otherwise unexplained sonic booms. In fact, he says, the A-12 program was so secret, it was fully classified and nobody talked about for decades. Ironically, the very secret SR-71 Blackbird, which Pres. Johnson revealed, was used as a cover for the A-12-generated sonic booms.<br /><br />One now well-known example of crashes covered up was the A-12 crash in 1963 near Wendover, Utah, that I've previously discussed here.<br /><br />Other employees elsewhere, discussing the A-12 crash, mentioned the press being lied to with a cover story, the press not being able to get a consistent story from military sources, the press being monitored, one reporter having film confiscated, other witnesses being intimidated and/or bribed, the area being cordoned off and everybody kept out, the crash site being carefully cleaned up with special grooming crews to make it look like no crash had taken place, the nearby airbase supplying heavy equipment and logistical support, but debris being flown back to A-51 by cargo planes from two distant air bases, not the local one, to further obscure origins.<br /><br />Thus in this conventional but secret aircraft crash, we see many of the same elements of how it was handled that researchers have uncovered for Roswell.<br /><br />(Warning: Red meat sarcastic statement to skeptics!)<br />But, of course, skeptics know that such tactics could not possibly have been employed at Roswell. It has all been made up by the researchers.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-33295462579685128612012-04-02T15:06:27.097-07:002012-04-02T15:06:27.097-07:00Kevin,
I'm not going to get into the above wi...Kevin,<br /><br />I'm not going to get into the above with you (yay!) but I did want to suggest that a documented effort to look at the Ft. Worth photos should be done.<br /><br />Currently, the efforts seem haphazard and perhaps outdated. Dr. Rudiak has shared with me one high rez scan that has much of the bright areas of the photo artificially (and not as in the original photo) washed out. This could easily explain the "pristine white paper, etc". I'm not suggesting that anyone did this on purpose, it may have just been a mistake.<br /><br />I have been trying to find other avenues for inquiry into these photos as well and have shared those thoughts with Dr. Rudiak (with whom I don't seem to be getting emails any longer)<br /><br />What really is needed is a proper scan (after a possible cleaning) of all the negatives. It may be that there is nothing there to find but the evidence I have seen thus far is not conclusive.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-89874830816609159822012-04-02T13:50:56.364-07:002012-04-02T13:50:56.364-07:00Steve M -
My point has been that the skeptics rej...Steve M -<br /><br />My point has been that the skeptics reject, automatically, everything said by the officers at Roswell, the civilians who were there, and anyone else who suggests something unusual happened because memories are flawed, you can't trust them, and people lie... except for those who tell us it was a balloon (regardless of the type). Then the memories are perfect and we can take what they say as the truth even when it conflicts with the records.<br /><br />I am not saying that we throw out Moore's testimony because it is old, but I will say that it does conflict with the record.<br /><br />So, I am saying what you are saying, only backwards. If you throw out Marcel, Easley, Saunders and all the others because of flawed memory, then you must reject Moore and crew as well.<br /><br />On the other hand, if you can admit that some memories are solid, that people can and do remember stuff accurately, then we can begin to investigate.<br /><br />Don't you think that I understand this? It is a point that I have attempted to make for years.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-42248600256584709722012-04-02T13:17:17.127-07:002012-04-02T13:17:17.127-07:00Kevin
If you discount Moore because his statement...Kevin<br /><br />If you discount Moore because his statement was taken decades after the event then you have to discount every other witness who made their original statement decades later also.<br /><br />You would also have to discard all second hand and thirdhand witnesses as they can only provide hearsay evidence.<br /><br />Therefore the dream team investigation has to be restricted to only evidence, witness statements and documentation from 1947.Steve Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14765165764276462479noreply@blogger.com