tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post1753727032564351396..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Who Put the Roswell Press Release on the News Wire?KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-35164736644442532672014-05-23T07:53:44.006-07:002014-05-23T07:53:44.006-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-54556502527318362942014-05-23T06:37:52.804-07:002014-05-23T06:37:52.804-07:00Blogger Don said...
Thanks, Kevin for clearing up ...Blogger Don said...<br />Thanks, Kevin for clearing up my uncertainty about the Denver Post.<br /><br />There is not much to be gleaned from the original news stories. They appear from beginning to end to be a product of the army, with the AP version the purest of the story told. Except for two corrections of bad grammar (which may or may not have been in an autograph copy), HS appears whole without variance, even typos or rather, I have not found one.<br /><br />Wilcox speaks his lines. Then shuts up. Then Ramey at Ft Worth. Then Brazel in Roswell, the Daily Record version of which manages to both confirm and deny the Ft Worth story without mentioning it or Ramey.<br /><br />The army issues no public statement on the matter and doesn't refer to HS, which began the whole thing. Did any paper ever get Haut's name right? I found one Walter Haupt (even in the AFOSI report there are several William Hauts in their text).<br /><br />Johnson, ranking member of the Senate Military Affairs Committee, and the Johnson in the May-Johnson Bill (based on Vannevar Bush's proposal for control of atomic energy), which led to the atomic energy act of 46, is of some interest if he had the Ft Worth story before it was "officially" announced by Ramey. Johnson, a Democrat, was not any kind of "yellow dog", but a swing vote with influence who could side with the Republicans who wanted to give the army a haircut down to the bone. Johnson strategy was to seek the middle ground, a compromise. But even a compromise would leave an officer corps whose captains might with luck retire in 15 years as majors.<br /><br />Besides Johnson and some things in the UP such as the "diehards" among the "principals" who did not accept the Ft Worth story, there is nothing left. No loose ends that lead anywhere.<br /><br />For me, it means moving forward in time to see if there are effects of which Roswell was the cause.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-58338141056139586272014-05-23T06:28:11.283-07:002014-05-23T06:28:11.283-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-37857352770528281612014-05-22T23:14:39.459-07:002014-05-22T23:14:39.459-07:00Don wrote:
I wasn't aware rawins or weather ba...Don wrote:<br /><i>I wasn't aware rawins or weather balloons were labeled property of the US Army, property of the US Weather Bureau, etc. You have looked at those photos as closely as anyone. Is there any indication of ownership on the debris?</i><br /><br />Don't know. They were developed by the Army Signal Corp, but after the War were also distributed to civilian weather stations. According to the Roswell Daily Record on July 9, based on inforamtion from local weatherman L. J. Guthrie: "The weather service has been dabbling with radar controlled balloons and similar devices for some time. Guthrie said that a great deal of meteorological equipment and supplies had been given to the weather service by the army after the close of the war, and that among the equipment was some of the radar triangles and other radar controlled devices. 'These instruments are sent up daily and from scores of places all over the United States,' Guthrie said..."<br /><br />According to the infamous 1949 Saturday Evening Post UFO debunkery article by Sidney Shallet: " ...At the very time the saucer sighings were at their height [in 1947], the Air Force had just turned over thousands of surplus RAWINS to Weather Bureau stations all over the country, so they were used in greater numbers than ever before."<br /><br />In some 1947 news stories, lettering on the crashed radar targets was mentioned:<br /><br />CIRCLEVILLE, OH (believed to be Army weather services) On wooden framework: "'LMYRCX210'. In another spot were the initials: 'W.V.V.' and what Ortman thought was either 'RIO' or the capital letter 'R' and the number 10 (R 10).<br /><br />OXFORD, OH: "On one corner there is some writing, almost too fine to read with the naked eye. It reads this way: CC-7724-I."<br /><br />ROSWELL (UP): "Those men who saw the object said it had a flowered paper tape around it bearing the initials 'D.P.'"<br /><br />I have no idea what any of this mentioned lettering is supposed to mean, much less distinguishing Army from civilian.<br /><br />It was also mentioned in another case that a "100" on a balloon indicated it was a 100 gm balloon.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-53955121835032533062014-05-22T19:36:51.679-07:002014-05-22T19:36:51.679-07:00Don -
Just to be clear, the Denver Post was an af...Don -<br /><br />Just to be clear, the Denver Post was an afternoon paper in 1947. The morning paper was the Rocky Mountain News. I know this because I was a paperboy for the News at one time. It was sometime later that the Post switch to morning publication.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-73827522796507218522014-05-22T18:46:40.304-07:002014-05-22T18:46:40.304-07:00David, thanks for the summary. I mentioned the Mil...David, thanks for the summary. I mentioned the Milwaukee Journal, above:<br /><br />Its headline (above the banner) Army Finds A Flying Saucer. The story in it, according to the Daily Illini pm is the first add, naming Haught, "sometime last week" and "higher headquarters. It also mentions Marcel (who is not named in the Illini pm, and also not in DXR54).<br /><br />I'm uncertain, but I had thought the Denver Post was a morning paper. That might explain why the Johnson story wasn't there on the 8th. They may have carried it on the 9th in a Roswell wrap. If it just was on the INS wire, it is gone.<br /><br />Two issues: Why did the army write and distribute the story? An obvious reason would be tht others knew what happened and the army didn't know who they all might be (Lincoln County residents?, local media?), so they decided to "own" the story and take control of it.<br /><br />The second: I read the press release as justifying the army's involvement in a civilian matter. Civilians requested the army's assistance and everyone cooperated. Then Ramey put the icing on the cake, declaring that it was definitely a United States army device. <br /><br />I wasn't aware rawins or weather balloons were labeled property of the US Army, property of the US Weather Bureau, etc. You have looked at those photos as closely as anyone. Is there any indication of ownership on the debris?<br /><br />The army may have been laying the groundwork for justifying their actions, but to whom? Who might they expect to question the account? I doubt it was within the army. It was more likely a civilian agency like the FBI or for that matter any of the congressional committees at the Capitol debating the fate of the US military. There were those at that time who believed the Wave was faked by the government, just as there were those nearly a decade earlier who believed the Welles WotW broadcast was a White House plot.<br /><br />Best Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-26380332930524915062014-05-22T17:14:14.998-07:002014-05-22T17:14:14.998-07:00Don wrote:
Working out the Ed Johnson story seems ...Don wrote:<br /><i>Working out the Ed Johnson story seems fairly straightforward. Was it actually a story in the Post on the 8th (that would be extremely interesting)? The LAHE only has that he called the paper from Washington. If it went on the wire, I haven't found it elsewhere.</i><br /><br />Don, I checked the Denver Post, but the Senator Johnson call to them with weather balloon explanation wasn't there. Odd, that they wouldn't report this from the local U.S. Senator, though obviously they did put it on the INS news wire July 8, hence it's appearance in the LA Herald-Express that evening.<br /><br />I also checked a few other Hearst INS papers, like the SF Examiner--also not there. I think part of the problem was the lateness of the Roswell story to begin with July 8, with only some of the west coast papers with evening editions able to squeeze in some of the later bulletins before they went to press. The next day, most of these bulletins would have been old news.<br /><br />You also see curious omissions in the newspapers that Roswell Sheriff Wilcox specifically mentioned talking to, such as the Milwaukee Journal. I looked into that hoping for some new Wilcox material, but they had nothing, running (as I remember) a standard AP article instead. The same was true with the London newspapers Wilcox said he spoke to.<br /><br />There is some limited evidence that New Mexico politicians were also involved, people such as Lt. Gov. Joseph Montoya, Sen. Dennis Chavez, Sen. Carl Hatch, and Truman Sec. of Agriculture Clinton Anderson (formerly a Senator). Montoya, e.g., was supposed to have been at the Roswell hangar and saw the recovered craft and bodies (testimony of Anaya family members). I checked the N.M. papers trying to discover where Montoya was at the time, but couldn't find him anywhere, much less in Roswell. That too is a bit unusual, since during the 4th of July weekend, usually the politicians are making public appearances and giving speeches.<br /><br />Another oddity was Gov. Mabry, who was scheduled to meet with Roswell C/O Blanchard the morning of July 9 in Santa Fe to sign an Air Force day proclamation. Never happened. Instead Mabry was reported by the Santa Fe paper taking off for the mountains. The proclamation was instead signed by Blanchard and Montoya a week later.<br /><br />Back in Washington, I was able to document Sen. Carl Hatch's office calling the White House July 7 at about 4:00 p.m. asking for a special meeting with Truman. Hatch met Truman privately the morning of July 9, with no subject matter listed.<br /><br />Gen. Vandenberg, early afternoon of July 7, was acting a bit oddly, first taking reporter calls about the flying saucers instead of letting underlings handle it, then trying to kill a hoax disc recovery story from the Houston Post, all done with Gen. Curtis LeMay advising him.<br /><br />Then he cancelled a previously scheduled dental appointment to personally pick up AAF Secretary Stuart Symington at the airport, instead of again letting an underling handle this or letting Symington take a taxi. This strongly suggests to me a matter of great urgency had come up that Vandenberg thought couldn't wait. (Wonder what that could be.) About the time Vandenberg and Symington got back to the Pentagon, Hatch's office was calling the White House asking for a sudden meeting with Truman.<br /><br />Thus lot's of suspicious things going on, far from proof, but curious nonetheless.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-56874959181501598032014-05-22T17:10:26.079-07:002014-05-22T17:10:26.079-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-8605340534894452112014-05-21T23:42:47.782-07:002014-05-21T23:42:47.782-07:00David, I was surprised there is no affidavit from ...David, I was surprised there is no affidavit from Joyce. He's the most difficult to 'work out' of the Roswell media witnesses.<br /><br />But someone in Roswell was reporting to the UP, and Joyce is the only one I know of who assumed that role, but only for the press release, not the blue light story, nor probably a few other UP accounts of interest.<br /><br />The UP never waivered from their story that "the announcement" was Blanchard's and that he "authorized" it. The AP story is far different as you know. I don't recall whether Blanchard's name appeared in the AP. I don't think Haut's does in the UP except when they quote HS, citing the AP.<br /><br />One bit of evidence of the UP's approach to the story is that it did not approve for publication (at least, I've never seen it or heard of anyone who has) the Carrizozo story in the telexes which states that it was unconfirmed. But Blanchard and the blue light story, they published. I don't think Joyce was so well established as to be taken by the UP as a reliable source. Perhaps there is something I don't know.<br /><br />Roswell's 'cognitive dissonance machine' is to present us with two incommensurable news stories, seemingly at every juncture. It is not just the local stories, but the AP and UP. The Brazel interview is like that, as well. The narrative dissonance is downright biblical.<br /><br />Working out the Ed Johnson story seems fairly straightforward. Was it actually a story in the Post on the 8th (that would be extremely interesting)? The LAHE only has that he called the paper from Washington. If it went on the wire, I haven't found it elsewhere.<br /><br />Best Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-71511786941573473062014-05-21T20:32:32.176-07:002014-05-21T20:32:32.176-07:00Don,
According to Frank Joyce (UP stringer), he w...Don,<br /><br />According to Frank Joyce (UP stringer), he was the first one Haut delivered the press release to. In one Joyce version (related by Pflock) Joyce was concerned about the contents of the release and chased after Haut after he left. Haut reassured him he has Blanchard's OK. In Randle/Schmitt,<br />Joyce told Haut that he shouldn't send out the release because there were procedural errors in it. Haut was making statements in the name of higher headquarters without permission to do it. Haut, however, told him that Blanchard told him to release it. In another interview (Beyond Roswell), Joyce remembered he scarcely looked at the release for half an hour, being busy with other things, then when he saw what it was about, he immediately called Haut at the base to question the wisdom of releasing such a statement of fact without clearance from higher headquarters. Haut said that Blanchard had allowed it and he could sent it. Joyce then quickly took it down to Western Union and sent it over the wire to United Press. <br /><br />The commonality in the three versions (whether Joyce immediately chased after Haut or later called him) is that Joyce questioned whether the release should be put out and Haut assured him he had authorization from Blanchard. Whether this was enough for UP to call it Blanchard's release I don't know. I would still think higher ups in UP would want to do some follow-up phone calls to confirm the story, perhaps trying to reach Haut, the intelligence office, Blanchard himself, and/or the Pentagon.<br /><br />We do know that there were extras in the UP version when it came out, such as the "strange blue light" seen by other residents near the ranch, suggesting some other calls were made and this information was added. We also know that there were quick follow-up bulletins quoting Wilcox, again suggesting calls were being made.<br /><br />Joyce's alternate story of waiting half an hour before calling Haut could explains part of the delay. Taking it down to Western Union and them getting it out explains a little more. And maybe UP at the other end making more calls explains some more. But it is still hard to account for the ~2-1/2 gap between when Haut delivered the release and UP put it out. <br /><br />As it was, AP seems to have beat them by a few minutes. George Walsh (AP stringer) at KSWS claims Haut called it in and then he called Kellahin in Albuquerque. Both Walsh and Kellahin claim they took it down as is, with Kellahin claiming he put it out as is, but still there are differences from UP and some rewriting seems to have been done somewhere down the line. In part, it could be partly a game of telephone going on with some transcription errors taking place with two phone calls. <br /><br />One obvious one is AP claiming Marcel "loaned" the "disc" to higher headquarters, which is ridiculous, whereas UP got it right that the "disc" was "flown" by intelligence officers to HH. But that alone doesn't seem enough to explain the differences. AP has Marcel's name; UP doesn't, using "intelligence office" and "officers". Maybe more phone calling by AP to get more details, resulting in Marcel being put into the story. Same with the RDR putting Marcel into the story, maybe after some calls to the base. UP strikes me as more of straight version closer to what Haut delivered; AP more of a partial rewrite by some AP editor.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-34500589856526835772014-05-21T05:58:06.555-07:002014-05-21T05:58:06.555-07:00Bob: "Excellent point, Don."
So, from n...Bob: "Excellent point, Don."<br /><br />So, from noon until the end, the story was known in and around Roswell because of KSWS news bulletins, and from noon until 2:26, there must have been at least two people besides residents near the ranch, a UP and an AP editor, who had the story. <br /><br />Did they just sit quietly in their offices meditating on it, rather than having their Washington Bureau Pentagon beat reporters confirm it?<br /><br />The Roswell media had their confirmation because they had the story from the Field PIO, and maybe that was enough for the AP, and it did nothing with it until 2:26pm MTZ.<br /><br />The UP, though, like the Daily Record, does not get the story from the base PIO. The UP knows the AP story as they quote complete HS.<br />The UP wrote Blanchard made the announcement, which implies they confirmed it with someone.<br /><br />I can't help wondering why a higher headquarters would confirm the story as true.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-5419659813999348162014-05-20T15:50:41.957-07:002014-05-20T15:50:41.957-07:00Ah, darn, Kevin. Lance just made a lot of false s...Ah, darn, Kevin. Lance just made a lot of false statements and I had a detailed refutation written up. Yes, off-topic, but are you going to deny the readers Lance's well-deserved comeuppance?<br /><br />For the short version, I refer readers back to a previous blog on this topic:<br /><br />http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2009/10/roswell-ufo-and-jesse-marcel.html<br /><br />Kevin cites the Johnny Mann story of showing Marcel "The Roswell Incident" photos while filming him near the debris field. Marcel responded that wasn't the stuff he found.<br /><br />But in the Lance revisionist version, this was now the third instance where Marcel said he was photographed with the real stuff. This is a total fabrication by Lance. Nowhere does Mann indicate Marcel said this to him. <br /><br />The probable context was Marcel at the debris field area describing the unusual nature of the debris and large quantities of it, as can be seen in this Youtube video:<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcONLgqe-RQ<br /><br />Mann, questioning this as a reporter would, then brought up what was supposedly recovered, shown in the photos, which Mann commented looked suspiciously like a weather balloon. Marcel responded, that wasn't the stuff he found, or sticking to the story he was telling about the debris, not suddenly making up a "whopper", as Lance spun it.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-70647630886037936742014-05-20T12:23:00.702-07:002014-05-20T12:23:00.702-07:00All -
The original posting was about the press re...All -<br /><br />The original posting was about the press release. I now stop the discussion about Marcel and all until I have a posting relative to that.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17147023792786082292014-05-20T10:46:58.239-07:002014-05-20T10:46:58.239-07:00I'll continue to try to keep this polite despi...I'll continue to try to keep this polite despite the accusations and tone above.<br /><br />In answer to David's first question, the third time was in the Mann interview. Marcel first repeated the same claim that the stuff in the photos was the same stuff he picked up. Then Mann showed him the photos and intimated that the stuff didn't look like saucer debris. Finally Marcel took the hint and changed the story (but he changed it to a new whopper--see below).<br /><br />Earlier I asked David how we could be certain that the stuff we see in the photos represents all of the debris. Above he styles this as me making stuff up (it was just a question, seeking an answer!). I just wonder why the answer couldn't just be that they decided to present a representative sample of the stuff collected instead of dumping all the dirty stuff on the floor?<br /><br />I don't see an answer for this.<br /><br />So once again we are left with the fact that Marcel said 3 times that the stuff in the photos was the same stuff he picked up. Then he was advised that this didn't look good and he made up the story that he was hiding the real stuff behind pieces of paper. He tells this story WHILE looking at the photos. He was specific with this info and describes hiding the "real" saucer stuff from, the cameras. The conjuring up of another forgotten photo session to account for this whopper seems sadly grasping.<br /><br />So the scenario is:<br /><br />The Roswell conspiracists decided to create a cover story with fake debris. When taking the photos they threw all the stuff out on the floor, the fake debris and the amazing space sticks and magical astro foil. Luckily, Marcel hid the good stuff behind some paper. Ramey, said "Hold on a minute, let me get my telex that details the victims of the wreck so that the cameras can see that, too! <br /><br />From my perspective, it doesn't seem to be the skeptics who are treating the Roswell military as drooling idiots.<br /><br />Lance<br /><br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-76019461103343508782014-05-20T10:15:34.566-07:002014-05-20T10:15:34.566-07:00(Part 2 of 2)
Comments:
Lance tried to claim tha...(Part 2 of 2)<br />Comments: <br />Lance tried to claim that Marcel said he was photographed with the real debris three times. I know of two times: Bertitz/Moore “The Roswell Incident”, and interviewed for a TV documentary. Perhaps Lance can enlighten us on his alleged third time. (Or was Lance just exaggerating again?)<br /><br />In the case of Berlitz/Moore, the Corely interview has him stating they didn’t interview him in person but over the phone. Thus he obviously could not be shown what pictures Berlitz/Moore were referencing. I think the same is true of the documentary when he is on camera ~1980. I doubt someone was waving the photos in his face.<br /><br />We know of two times where Marcel WAS shown the photos in Berlitz/Moore and stated they were faked or staged and that isn’t what he brought from Roswell. That was Johnny Mann and Linda Corley.<br /><br />As Lance well knows, I have proposed that if Marcel (and seemingly Blanchard who put out the flying disc press release) were so damned convinced it was from a flying saucer, that internal military photos as SOP would have been taken in Roswell, and probably Fort Worth as well. Ramey was even in dress uniform. So perhaps Marcel was simply confusing another photo sesssion with the one where he was photographed with the balloon and radar target.<br /><br />Lance, of course, accuses me of making things up in my saucer zealotry. But Lance also makes things up in his “anti-saucer zealotry”, such as his recent Ramey witholding weather balloon debris for no obvious reason so that Lance can reconcile Brazel’s “5 pounds” of debris with the singular balloon and target that Ramey said was recovered. And behold, that is all that shows up in the photos: one balloon, one target. In addition, Brazel’s “rubber strips” turn into a seemingly intact weather balloon, Brazel’s “flower tape” nobody can find in the torn-up radar target, which also is suspiciously clean and not weather-stained, plus some other details indicating what Ramey showed and what Brazel said he found are NOT the same, therefore NOT what Marcel brought from Roswell.<br /><br />Lance also seems to ignore the fact that Marcel had high-level corroboration for his story from Brig. Gen. Dubose, who we all know was there and also in the photos. Dubose confirmed that that an order came from Gen. McMullen to instigate a cover-up. He knew since he took the call. The weather balloon in the photos was a cover story to get rid of the press. Sample documented Dubose quotes:<br /><br />"The material shown in the photographs taken in Maj. Gen. Ramey's office was a weather balloon. The weather balloon explanation for the material was a cover story to divert the attention of the press." (affidavit)<br /><br />"Actually, it was a cover story, the balloon part of it... Somebody cooked up the idea as a cover story ...we'll use this weather balloon. ...We were told this is the story that is to be given to the press, and that is it, and anything else, forget it.” (recorded interview)<br /><br />"There was a host of people descending on our headquarters seeking information from Ramey... I didn't know what it was. Blanchard didn't know. Ramey didn't know... Nobody knew. But I can tell you this — it damn sure wasn’t a weather balloon. ...McMullen said, Look, why don't you come up with something, anything you can use to get the press off our back? So we came up with this weather balloon story, which I thought was a hell of a good idea. Somebody got one and we ran it up a couple of hundred feet and dropped it to make it look like it crashed, and that's what we used...” (recorded interview)<br /><br />In the following months, Dubose also recommended Marcel for promotion in the Air Force Reserve, signed off on Blanchard’s next performance review of Marcel (rated superior) and recommended Marcel for Staff Officer Training School, followed by Ramey calling Marcel “outstanding”, also calling him command officer material, and protested his transfer to higher intelligence saying he had nobody in his command to replace him. Quite a screw-up intel officer, that Marcel.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-18098679287828220412014-05-20T10:05:20.198-07:002014-05-20T10:05:20.198-07:00(Part 1 of 2)
I put a more complete transcript of ...(Part 1 of 2)<br />I put a more complete transcript of Corley's interview back in 2009 on Kevin's blog:<br /><br />http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2009/10/roswell-ufo-and-jesse-marcel.html<br /><i><br />Linda Corley's 1981 interview, also in person with Marcel, clarifies some matters further.<br /><br />First Marcel told her he never met with either Berlitz or Moore and that all interviews with them were conducted on the phone. Thus Marcel was never shown specific press photos. His quoted remarks about having a photo taken with the "real debris" need to be taken in that context.<br /><br />Then Marcel, shown the actual press photos by Corely, repeats (like the Mann interview) that the photos don't show the real debris.<br />(following quotes exactly as in Corely's transcript, including bracketed clarifying comments)<br /><br />CORLEY: And this is what? Like that foil that they described in here [The Roswell Incident book].<br /><br />MARCEL: What you see here is nothing but a piece of brown paper that I put over so that the news media couldn't get a picture of what I had. [Referring to above photo (Corely's uncropped photo of Marcel holding radar target) on page 34 of The Roswell Incident book (their highly cropped photo of Marcel)]<br /><br />CORELY: Oh, you were covering the stuff?<br /><br />MARCEL: I was covering it, yeah. But nobody knew that. I was told by my commanding General, "Just don't say anything. Don't show anything..."<br /><br />Then Marcel pointed to the now famous photo of Ramey and Dubose:<br /><br />MARCEL: You see this picture right here? [Photo of General Ramey on page 35 of the The Roswell Incident] That's a fake. ...He (Ramey) claimed that it was fragments of a weather balloon. So they took this [photo]. This is part of a weather balloon. ...I wasn't even there then. (My comment: probably meaning he wasn't there when Ramey photo taken) They had this photo taken, strictly for the press.<br /><br />CORLEY: But when they let the press take this picture [Marcel photo] they still told you to cover the stuff up?<br /><br />MARCEL: Right. Well, he didn't have to tell me that. I knew that.<br /><br />CORLEY: Oh? You knew better than to show [debris]?<br /><br />MARCEL: That's what I did.<br /><br />CORLEY: But didn't they think that people weren't going to be stupid enough to believe that it was a weather balloon like that? [pointing to photo of weather balloon]<br /><br />MARCEL: I knew it wasn't a weather balloon. And General Ramey knew it wasn't a weather balloon...<br /><br />What we have here are the press photos directly in front of Marcel and Marcel specifically denying that they show the real debris. The photos showing the weather balloon were "fake" and done by Ramey strictly to deceive the press. Marcel also indicates "real debris" was still there but covered up by the brown paper, also seen in the photos.</i><br /><br />Comments next post.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-72469506303638183022014-05-19T21:22:35.768-07:002014-05-19T21:22:35.768-07:00Excellent point, Don.Excellent point, Don.Bob Kofordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739226809252915992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-49131946125137439232014-05-19T20:21:31.474-07:002014-05-19T20:21:31.474-07:00So, why the 2.5 hours discrepancy? Neither Walsh ...So, why the 2.5 hours discrepancy? Neither Walsh nor Joyce could put the story on the wires. They did not have send capability to their wire services. Joyce wrote he sent it via Western Union to the UP, and Walsh called it in to the AP. It would be at the other end where it was put on the wire.<br /><br />The only reason I can imagine it took so long, would be if the UP and AP attempted to confirm the story. Would they have published it if it had not been confirmed? Would they have done so without seeking confirmation? <br /><br />The press certainly called in bunches after it was published wanting confirmation.<br /><br />If various folk in the Roswell media and at the RAAF were being chewed out by Colonels and Generals, that doesn't sound encouraging for the editors and publishers getting confirmation.<br /><br />So, if "the field" made a mistake, and Marcel made a mistake, and Haut made a mistake, then the whole frickin' Army made a mistake if they confirmed the story, or the whole damn free press of the United States didn't deserve that freedom if they didn't confirm the story and just published it, regardless.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-62091446956087278342014-05-19T20:03:31.781-07:002014-05-19T20:03:31.781-07:00Kevin,
Yes, May 5,1981.
They discuss the Johnny ...Kevin,<br /><br />Yes, May 5,1981.<br /><br />They discuss the Johnny Mann interview.<br /><br />What did I have wrong about it? Were there several Mann interviews?<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-79581166286857679992014-05-19T19:50:22.258-07:002014-05-19T19:50:22.258-07:00Lance -
I'm not sure that you have the timing...Lance -<br /><br />I'm not sure that you have the timing right on this. Linda interviewed Marcel in early 1981, or about a year after the Moore book was published.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-85116147783877273102014-05-19T19:49:55.229-07:002014-05-19T19:49:55.229-07:00I think Haut would have called all four. That woul...I think Haut would have called all four. That would have been the solution to the complaints about who received what when that, for example, McQuiddy mentioned. I think Haut said something about Blanchard wanting him to resolve the issue.<br /><br />Walsh in his affidavit wrote: "It was his [Haut] custom to phone us with news items."<br /><br />The problem with McQuiddy's story is that he could not have had that conversation at noon with Haut, if he had already seen Walsh's AP story.<br /><br />"...I gave him [Haut] a bad time...I was disappointed at not being able to break the story on the Associated Press wire. George Walsh, the program manager at KSWS, had already moved the story on AP"<br /><br />And that had to have been after 2:26, not before noon.<br /><br />In his affidavit, McQuiddy listed the order of Haut's visits, leaving out the Daily Record. He did that in a video account as well, I recall.<br /><br />A lot depends on how one reads Walsh's affidavit. I'm not comfortable with what others have written about it, and think something more can be made of Haut's "indignant" second call to Walsh. <br /><br />Walsh was just doing his job. Haut was just doing his job. Why get "indignant"? Why get chewed out?<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-71383839426558317992014-05-19T16:58:51.015-07:002014-05-19T16:58:51.015-07:00Hi Kevin,
I got it from the book "For the Sa...Hi Kevin,<br /><br />I got it from the book "For the Sake of My Country" by Linda Corley<br /><br />Marcel: "What you see there [describing Ft. Worth Photo] is nothing but a piece of brown paper that I put over so the news media couldn't get a picture of what I had."<br /><br />A bit later:<br /><br />Linda: "They still told you to cover the stuff up?"<br /><br />Marcel: "Right. Well, he didn't have to tell me that. I knew that."<br /><br />Kevin, I know that you can see how ridiculous this is and I suspect you know exactly what Marcel is doing here.<br /><br />And all of this is after the Johnny Mann interview, after he has reviewed the photos. <br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Lance<br /><br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-9554865988264655612014-05-19T15:55:38.905-07:002014-05-19T15:55:38.905-07:00CDA -
Sorry, but I run the blog and I decide when...CDA -<br /><br />Sorry, but I run the blog and I decide when I am tired of a topic. If some of these postings bothered me, I would either delete them or suggest we rein it in.<br /><br />As for Don's point (c)... it is clear that Mogul is not the answer. The flight was cancelled. It did not fly. A custer of two or three balloons carrying a sonobuoy does not a Mogul flight make. Even with Moore's suggestion that Flight No. 4 flew before it was cancelled (sometime around 3 a.m., rather than dawn) is just one more example of Moore's changing his tale to make it work. I mean, how do you lanuch a flight a three and cancel it a little after five?<br /><br />Lance -<br /><br />Thank you for your restraint. This isn't about Marcel (though thanks again for mentioning that he denied the pictures in Ramey's office were of the material he recovered, as reported by Johnny Mann of TV station WWL in New Orleans). And he said that long before there was all that much attention to Roswell and he would have been part of the story, just as Walter Haut was part of the story with his claim of only writing the press release. Marcel went out to recover the material. He would have always been part of the story.<br /><br />Let me ask you for the citation for the note that Marcel said he hide the real debris under some paper.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-56178216344168637852014-05-19T15:50:26.287-07:002014-05-19T15:50:26.287-07:00CDA, I don't think we're too far off-topic...CDA, I don't think we're too far off-topic, if at all.<br /><br />Who put the Roswell Press Release on the News Wire?<br /><br />We all know what the AP wrote at the time about it. Haut's account throughout most of his Roswell career, or perhaps through all of it, slots right into it. And if you care to read it that way, so does George Walsh's affidavit.<br /><br />The UP also supports Haut by having written that the statement was Blanchard's. Thus, Haut was speaking for "the field".<br /><br />Despite its peculiar stylizations, HS covers several...um..administrative issues. Ramey covered one in Ft Worth, if he, as I recall, was reported to have said the balloon and rawin were definitely the army's. Thus it really was an army case and not a civilian one, and thus they had every right to collect it from a civilian.<br /><br />So, if HS is the official statement, then what is the Daily Record's noon announcement? If they had HS hand delivered by Haut, then they must have ignored it, and him.<br /><br />If they got it off the wire, then they must have gone to press really really late that day. I'm guessing at that. The only time I know of is the paper was on the street at 3:30. How they knew that, they didn't say.<br /><br />So, maybe the noon announcement was Haut's phone call, and HS the official document. If so, they are a bit different.<br /><br />In the absence of any official statement that there had been an official statement, we can't really prove there was one. And if there was one, that is no reason to think it was the first ever account.<br /><br />I don't know whether David can offer strong evidence that the first thing on the wires was an official statement.<br /><br />Just to note: the news reports are the earliest witness, not Haut or Walsh. Marcel in B&M demonstrates familiarity with a summary of the AP story.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-41236154729324581702014-05-19T14:57:49.897-07:002014-05-19T14:57:49.897-07:00Lance politely stated, in his opinion:
"We a...Lance politely stated, in his opinion:<br /><br />"We are not saying that the folks involved were stupid or drooling idiots."<br /><br />Lance, surely we would all have to agree that if the answer to the mystery is Mogul then whoever put out the "ridiculous press release" would have to be in that category.<br />Maybe you want to reconsider this?<br /><br />Regarding the testimony of Marcel, I understand your questions to David but suggest that Kevin has already hinted at a possible posting in the future on this very matter.<br /><br />Suggest you wait patiently on this.<br /><br />CDA correctly stated:<br />"Kevin's blood pressure will soon be at a critical point, so I propose we abandon going further off topic. We must safeguard the health of our host, in addition to our own."<br /><br />And DR earlier posted:<br /><br />"Here is a very rare instance of where CDA actually gets something right."<br /><br />Correct once again!<br /><br />Regards<br />Nitram<br /><br />Nitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.com