tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post5884942052042283061..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Who Told Walter Haut about the Debris Field?KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-88541053515845256972016-05-23T06:08:17.149-07:002016-05-23T06:08:17.149-07:00There is a Gouge...Right before the Craft Made fir...There is a Gouge...Right before the Craft Made first Contact and then went airborne again. The first hit is were the escape pod was ejected and scarred the ground. as the craft went airborne it also scorched the ground and left a tell tale mark on the landscape. It then Traveled another almost two miles were it made contact with the ground again and Exploded leaving the debris field that is approx 200 or more feet long. I have some very interesting Data you might want to see.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09173792452834266799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-23089009098003514402015-09-19T13:57:29.894-07:002015-09-19T13:57:29.894-07:00Brian -
I'll take this one step further... fr...Brian -<br /><br />I'll take this one step further... from my April 1, 1989 interview with Walter Haut:<br /><br />"Basically it was a dead issue. And when it was stated that it was a weather balloon, that was it. We screwed up. Simple as that. The old man [I assume Blanchard] didn't know what he had seen. I never asked Marcel and as I said he lived down the block here from me."<br /><br />A very devastating comment, taken out of context...KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-64418264858568117002015-09-19T13:33:25.068-07:002015-09-19T13:33:25.068-07:00Brian -
And off we go onto tangents. Please ident...Brian -<br /><br />And off we go onto tangents. Please identify those investigators who had concluded Haut's mental faculties were gone...<br /><br />I do get your point which is that we ETHers ignore the contradictory data while you skeptics embrace it... However, how many lies must Kal Korff tell before you realize that he is unreliable? He made up the statement about Marcel. Are you ready to retract it, or will you continue to defend it?<br /><br />And, it was not MY book because it was a collaboration so it was OUR book. Don interviewed some witness whom I did not and I interviewed some he did not. At the time, I had no reason to doubt the information he supplied. I had the notes he had made during the interviews and in some cases the audio or video tapes. However, if you need another take on this, please look at Karl Pflock's book on Roswell, specifically pages 176 - 177 and 181. Don wrote some of the book and I wrote other parts. we reviewed each other's sections but I had no reason, at the time to question him on Duran or to delete the reference. If I did question it (and frankly I don't remember but suspect I didn't) we obviously agreed to keep it in.<br /><br />Isn't your quoting of Korff, without attempting to corroborate the statements he made much the same thing. You are relying his veracity without verification other than Marcel did appear on the radio at that time. <br /><br />And you do the same sort of thing with your quotes cherry picked out of an interview. Haut told me, when I first interviewed him that they got to the staff meeting after the Fort Worth episode and said the same sort of thing. Blanchard was saying that they had sure blown that... which can be viewed as an extension of the cover-up... or an admission that they had mistaken a weather balloon for something extraordinary.<br /><br />The flaw in your thinking is that the Mogul people had been to the base on a number of occasions... and the Alamogordo News (among other newspapers) for July 10, 1947, claimed that the wreckage was balloons that had been launched from there so Haut could have been aware of the balloon flights from Alamogordo even if he couldn't give you the code name. And this is not to mention that Robert Todd had mentioned the balloon explanation earlier than 1990.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-60569777149365300122015-09-19T13:04:46.382-07:002015-09-19T13:04:46.382-07:00CDA -
Yes very true.
After all that I can see wh...CDA -<br /><br />Yes very true.<br /><br />After all that I can see why a person might just say to himself "screw it I'm going to go with what these guys want to hear...maybe then they'll stop bugging me about it".<br /><br />Of course I did read that Schmitt admitted he wrote Haut's deathbed affidavit "based on decades of conversations with Haut".<br /><br />By that time of course, other investigators already concluded Haut's mental faculties were gone and he couldn't even recall the unit he served in or when.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-16552527431968486802015-09-19T11:16:10.720-07:002015-09-19T11:16:10.720-07:00Brian:
If you look at the list of 182 people inte...Brian:<br /><br />If you look at the list of 182 people interviewed for Randle & Schmitt's first book, you will find that although most of them were interviewed only once or twice, there are quite a few (the more 'important' names) that were repeatedly interviewed five, six, seven, eight or even nine times! And these are only the interviews given to Randle/Schmitt. If you add in the number of previous interviews by Friedman/Moore and their sidekick Shandera, those later by Pflock and by Friedman/Berliner and probably journalists, radio crews, TV crews, and goodness knows who else, some of these people could well have been questioned about Roswell easily 20 or 25 times or more. How tiresome it must have got for these people.<br /><br />It is almost as if 'you don't get the answer you want, then keep trying until you do' methodology. So you can see why there are contradictions galore - failing memories, confusion, confabulation and just plain boredom with the constant requests for more information about an historical event. <br /><br />Then there were the affidavits. How reliable are these, and was there any 'coaching'? <br /><br />Yet you never hear about all this, all we get is how so-and-so said this or that to someone. If, say, Haut really was questioned 20 to 25 times by various interviewers I would not be the least surprised if he decided to throw in the towel and either shut up, or admit, finally, that yes he indeed was a witness to the greatest event in history.<br /><br />That's Roswell for you. And that's how it always has been, at least since 1980.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-77509545782330984542015-09-19T09:11:53.468-07:002015-09-19T09:11:53.468-07:00Kevin:
I think you're missing the point.
Bel...Kevin:<br /><br />I think you're missing the point.<br /><br />Believers will frequently disregard statements from skeptics who they claim have zero credibility. Yet hang on to testimony from equally dubious characters completely ignoring those individuals same lack of credibility.<br /><br />On Lovejoy Duran -<br /><br />Again missing the point. He is presented because he appears as a witness in YOUR book. It doesn't matter if Schmitt did the research its in YOUR book. He, like the others, lacks any foundational credibility because he in all likelihood doesn't even exist. He's never appeared ever again yet is presented as a confirming first hand witness. Where exactly is the credibility in that?<br /><br />I'm not certain you can say people like me or others are at fault for citing certain information you find unworthy, and wash your hands of such things as Duran by simply blaming Schmitt.<br /><br />That's really the point.<br /><br />Back to Haut:<br /><br />He often gave different stories to different people. Which is the truth? For example Haut said:<br /><br />"I believe after those comments he (Blanchard) made some statement to the effect, “we sure messed up on that one last week. As a matter of fact,” he said, “ that outfit that was sending those balloons up were here on our station. They were from White Sands, and they were checking the upper atmosphere winds from east to west.” (Pflock Roswell 233).<br /><br />Note that comment was made in 1990 BEFORE Mogul was ever discovered a possible explanation.<br /><br />Just before Roswell's 50th anniversary and after the 1994 USAF report, Haut apparently was becoming tired of pushing a fake story. So much that he said in a live interview summarized in the CNI newsletter as follows:<br /><br />"Also noted in the KTVU story is the fact that Walter Haut, former press officer for the 509th Bomb Wing at Roswell AAF who issued the famous July 8, 1947 press release claiming recovery of a flying disc, now says he had learned a few days after the announcement that "it was a screwup." Though widely quoted in recent years as believing an unusual craft had been recovered, the FOX news story showed Haut saying he thinks it was just a balloon."<br /><br />It would seem to me that Haut thought the whole thing was over given the USAF's report. Of course he later recognized his foul up and recanted everything he said in error.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-5667984838504738592015-09-19T07:52:46.245-07:002015-09-19T07:52:46.245-07:00Brian -
Let's not forget that Charles Moore, ...Brian -<br /><br />Let's not forget that Charles Moore, who had no PhD in atmospheric physics originally said that Flight No. 4 had been launched at dawn, but then changed his mind and said that it had been launched at two or three in the morning in violation of the rules and regulations under which they operated. This would suggest that he "cooked the books," and that no advanced degree is required to understand this very basic principle. Let's not forget that Dr. Crary's diary said that Flight No. 4 was cancelled which removes it from consideration unless you have absolutely no other balloon flight to account for the debris. The documentation available, including the status reports and other records show that Flight No. 4 never flew. A cluster of balloons launched later that day do not a Mogul flight make. So please disregard the written record because Moore said that Crary might have made a mistake in transcribing his field notes because if no mistake was made then there was no Flight No. 4 and because Moore's memory, not to mention his bias is more accurate than the written record. <br /><br />I'm not sure why LTC Lovejoy has your panties in a bunch. He was assigned to White Sands at the time and if you have questions about him, they would properly be directed at Don Schmitt who gathered that testimony from the man.<br /><br />But all this is okay because you have the report of Kal Korff who said that Marcel had said during an early radio interview that he had not thought about the alien nature of the crash until UFO researchers put the thought into his head... but then you have no evidence of this statement other than the unreliable report from Korff, a man who signed a 500 (yes 500) book deal, who has an IQ of 219 and was once a high-placed colonel in an Israeli anti-terrorism organization. Now he seems to be a third-rate writer for a newspaper in India, but that's okay because of his anti-Roswell screed. So, do you now reject this sorry tale told by Korff or are you going to stick to it?<br /><br />And please forget that in 1997 I published an article that suggested the Glenn Dennis tale should be rejected because we couldn't confirm the existence of the nurse. I didn't reject the tale because I thought there was no alien visitation but because as we attempted to verify aspects of the story, we found numerous errors.<br /><br />And, of course, when all else fails change the direction of the conversation so that we don't notice all the errors you've made in the past.<br /><br />CDA -<br /><br />Before you go off and suggest that I refuse to accept the written record on the July 7 date, I will point out that your sources are newspaper articles and that there are other articles that move us back to Sunday... However, the July 6 date for sending debris to Washington must be wrong... There was debris in Roswell, brought in by Brazel, and this could have been sent onto Ft. Worth and then Washington, but that seems highly unlikely. If we accept that debris was sent from Ft. Worth to Washington, it must have been on July 8... but we all know that didn't happen because there would be no reason to send on the remnants of a balloon, which it must have been because there is no alien visitation.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-85319247488995808062015-09-19T06:55:29.084-07:002015-09-19T06:55:29.084-07:00Speaking of not answering the questions....
Let&#...Speaking of not answering the questions....<br /><br />Let's not forget that DR apparabtly has an advanced degree (a PhD I presume..maybe two) in atmospherics and decades of experience in calculating high altitude physics which is why Moore's calculations and opinions must be thoroughly discredited. After all DR must know more than Moore on this topic because he actually spoke to Moore and visited the former Mogul launching sites.<br /><br />And let's not forget the testimony that LTC Lovejoy Duran made. After all he's one of the supporting witnesses who obviously can be counted on for truth and accuracy even though he really doesn't exist.<br /><br />Let's not forget a certain few researchers who just happen to support Haut's exaggerated monologue of supposed events and his odd but apparent friendship, business partnership, and recommendation that researchers take the full account of Kaufmann as gospel truth along with the dubious testimony of friends like Dennis and Joyce, all of whom not once embellished their stories.<br /><br />Laughable...Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-84998837648493478822015-09-19T03:59:12.243-07:002015-09-19T03:59:12.243-07:00This is descending into theatrical farce. But it&#...This is descending into theatrical farce. But it's all great fun, isn't it?<br /><br />DR critizes my math (regarding timings and events as reported in the press).<br />OK, I'll critize his English. He writes: "The principles, like Marcel and duBose..."<br />It is "principals". "Principles" refer to abstract things, not people.<br /><br />Anyway, to get this wretched date/time thing finally (I hope) off my chest, I refer DR to his posting above, concerning duBose's affidavit.<br /><br />"I received a phone call from Maj. Gen. Clements McMullen, Deputy Commander, Strategic Air Command. He asked what we knew about the object which had been recovered outside Roswell... I called Col. William Blanchard... and directed him to send the material in a sealed container to me at Fort Worth."<br /><br />This was supposedly on July 6, the date DR & Kevin insist Brazel came to town. <br /><br />And just how, please tell me, did duBose even know about this object that was supposedly recovered on July 6? And how did McMullen know about it? How did the news reach them? Are you saying Blanchard actually knew 2 full days BEFORE Marcel brought the debris into town, and then told McMullen? <br /><br />The thing was not even in the news until the morning of July 8! So how and where did these two military guys know about it at all? Was something going on in secret at least 48 hours before the press knew? Did Brazel make a secret journey into town on the 6th to hand over his 'top secret' bundle of stuff, then another, non-secret, journey on the 7th, to sell wool?<br /><br />The story is becoming more & more preposterous, and laughable. I say, without any hesitation, that duBose's memories are faulty and that there was NO secret flight on the 6th (or 7th) followed by another non-secret one on the 8th.<br /><br />Roswell's timeline (as far as the transporting of the debris is concerned), as narrated by Kevin and DR, is a shambles.<br /><br />Nitram: I am not too concerned whether this is a debate or an investigation. It is more like Gilbert & Sullivan at times.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17110272092758647582015-09-18T20:27:20.157-07:002015-09-18T20:27:20.157-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-76724409330613281382015-09-18T19:05:03.759-07:002015-09-18T19:05:03.759-07:00Lance ranted:
It's funny how much space David&...Lance ranted:<br /><i>It's funny how much space David's saucersplainin takes as he assures us this person would have done this and that person would have done that because he says so. It's the same schtick that the Greatest Roswell Researchers in the World (Carey and Schmitt) have always peddled to the lower functioning UFO fans.<br /><br />CDA is right. The myth absolutely depends upon ignoring contemporaneous evidence and referring mainly to the cherry picked portion of the decades old testimony (often ignoring conflicting testimony OF THE SAME PEOPLE) in order to keep this faltering denomination the saucer religion alive.<br /><br />All this supported by not a single shred of actual evidence.</i><br /><br />It's funny how much space CDA/BB/LM/Noambot balloonsplainin takes as they assure us this person would have done this and that person would have done that because they says so. It's the same schtick that the Greatest Mogul Proponents in the World (Pflock, Todd, Korff, AFOSI, CSICOP) have always peddled to the lower functioning anti-UFO fans.<br /><br />Kevin is right. The Mogul balloon "flight #4" myth absolutely depends upon ignoring contemporaneous evidence and actual documentary evidence (like the damn thing really being cancelled and absent from actual Mogul records), and referring mainly to the cherry picked portion of the decades old testimony of Mogul witnesses like Moore and Cavitt (often ignoring conflicting testimony OF THE SAME PEOPLE) in order to keep this faltering denomination (of) the Mogul balloon religion alive.<br /><br />All this supported by not a single shred of actual evidence.<br /><br />Hah, this debunking business is SOOOO paint-by-numbers.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-79257068791688557772015-09-18T18:59:38.468-07:002015-09-18T18:59:38.468-07:00Hi Lance
I will repeat the question:
"Do yo...Hi Lance<br /><br />I will repeat the question:<br /><br />"Do you REALLY think "BB & YOUR MENTOR" could win a "debate" against KR & DR with an audience of "ordinary folk"?<br /><br />It's funny (and perhaps a little arrogant) how much space a couple of "researchers" take (who have never been to Roswell or spoken with/interviewed anyone who was there in 1947) as thy assure us this person would have done this and that person would have done that because they say so.<br /><br />Your other statement is not really fair either... I could write<br /><br />CDA is wrong (yet again). The Mogul myth depends upon ignoring evidence (including diary notes) and referring mainly to the cherry picked portion of the ever changing decades old testimony (often ignoring conflicting testimony OF THE SAME PEOPLE) in order to keep this cover up alive.<br /><br />You can't have it both ways Lance - geez, one of the "researchers" I referred to above can't provide us with a source for some radio interview we need to reply on...<br /><br />As a skeptic I can honestly say that the "believers" won this recent discussion...<br /><br />Regards<br />NitramNitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-88624172043585276562015-09-18T18:17:42.693-07:002015-09-18T18:17:42.693-07:00Hi Martin,
I just know that I could.
It's fu...Hi Martin,<br /><br />I just know that I could.<br /><br />It's funny how much space David's saucersplainin takes as he assures us this person would have done this and that person would have done that because he says so. It's the same schtick that the Greatest Roswell Researchers in the World (Carey and Schmitt) have always peddled to the lower functioning UFO fans.<br /><br />CDA is right. The myth absolutely depends upon ignoring contemporaneous evidence and referring mainly to the cherry picked portion of the decades old testimony (often ignoring conflicting testimony OF THE SAME PEOPLE) in order to keep this faltering denomination the saucer religion alive.<br /><br />All this supported by not a single shred of actual evidence.<br /><br />Lance<br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-34430011659843291052015-09-18T17:19:44.129-07:002015-09-18T17:19:44.129-07:00CDA
For the 137th time...
This is not a debate -...CDA<br /><br />For the 137th time...<br /><br />This is not a debate - it is an investigation.<br /><br />Lance - you have been quiet for a little while now and I can't help but ask, with a wide grin,:<br /><br />"Do you REALLY think BB & your mentor could win a "debate" against KR & DR with an audience of "ordinary folk"?Nitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-49285993144140127302015-09-18T15:45:27.714-07:002015-09-18T15:45:27.714-07:00part 2 of 2:
Then you have to account for Marcel’s...part 2 of 2:<br />Then you have to account for Marcel’s statement out of Fort Worth from 1947: "The ranch is out in the middle of nowhere and <i>we spent a couple of hours Monday afternoon</i> looking for any more parts of the weather device.” [CDA just quoted this also, but changes “couple of hours” into only 2 hours.]<br /><br />Unless Brazel left for Roswell by sunrise or before sunrise Monday morning, how the heck did they get back to the ranch by “Monday afternoon” (total time on the order of 12 hours) and still have “a couple of hours” left to look for more debris before evening and nightfall?<br /><br />While this timeline is just BARELY possible, it is unlikely. More likely, and consistent with both Dubose’s and Marcel’s recollections, Brazel journeyed to Roswell Sunday, July 6, Marcel was called by the Sheriff around noon while eating lunch (also consistent with radio reporter Frank Joyce’s recollections of speaking to Brazel by phone around this time, or early afternoon), they didn’t get back to the ranch until late EVENING (normally interpreted as meaning after 6 p.m.), before sunset, too late to investigate the debris field because of impending darkness, and started investigating the next morning. That would indeed give them the time to do everything, including PROPERLY surveying the “square mile” of debris area Marcel mentioned in 1947. [notice how CDA continues to ignore this highly significant “square mile” statement of Marcel]<br /><br />And BTW, CDA, even after everything allegedly “settled down”, some newspapers on July 9 (particularly UP based stories) continued to use Sheriff Wilcox’s “day before yesterday” (or Sunday) when Brazel first reported. <br /><br />And more BTW, the reason most newspapers used the Monday July 9 date is because most newspapers used the largest wire service agency, AP, rather than UP, probably by a ratio of three or four to one. The indisputable historical fact, however, is that AP and UP reported conflicting dates of when Brazel reported to the Sheriff, the Sheriff saying initially Sunday in early UP bulletins, and AP using the later Ramey story out of Fort Worth of Monday. They also disagreed on other points, such as the time of discovery.<br /><br />And even after everything supposedly “settled down” July 9 and Marcel in Fort Worth (under Ramey’s orders) had changed the official story of Brazel finding the debris “sometime last week” (original press release) to “three weeks ago” and Brazel said specifically June 14, the discovery date still did not gel in the newspapers, some newspapers continuing to report the press releases “sometime last week”, Sheriff Wilcox interviewed by AP (rather than UP) changing it to “two or three days before” instead of “three weeks before”, INS July 9 reporting Brazel “found the balloon last week and brought it in several days later,” and other examples.<br /><br />You, of course, can believe whatever timeline you like, but don’t continue to serve your usual line of BS that alternate timelines with which you personally disagree have no basis in 1947 news stories and are instead ONLY the result of interviews with principles with faulty memories decades later, which is NOT true. (The principles, like Marcel and Dubose, also all being weak-willed human beings subject to the Jedi mind powers of pro-ET Roswell researchers like Stan Friedman,according to the religious gospel of CDA and others like BB.)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-72851605107084604562015-09-18T15:36:30.876-07:002015-09-18T15:36:30.876-07:00CDA wrote: (part 1 of 2)
I suspect, but cannot pro...CDA wrote: (part 1 of 2)<br /><i>I suspect, but cannot prove, that the only reason Kevin insists on this phony Sunday July 6 date, is thast he wants to link it up with what Gen. duBose told him (deaceds later) about Al Clark taking a very small piece of debris to Washington on July 6. And how precisely did Al Clark get hold of this junk? Kevin does not say.</i><br /><br />More CDA BS. It was ALWAYS part of Dubose’s story that the debris Clark received was flown in from Roswell upon orders of Gen. McMullen. E.g., from Dubose’s 1991 affidavit:<br /><br />"I received a phone call from Maj. Gen. Clements McMullen, Deputy Commander, Strategic Air Command. He asked what we knew about the object which had been recovered outside Roswell... I called Col. William Blanchard... and directed him to send the material in a sealed container to me at Fort Worth. After the plane from Roswell arrived with the material, I asked the Base Commander, Col. Al Clark, to take possession of the material and to personally transport it in a B-26 to... McMullen in Washington, D.C. ...McMullen told me he would send the material by personal courier on his plane to ...Wright Field. The entire operation was conducted under the strictest secrecy."<br /><br />Another very similar account of this highly secret debris flight is also given in “Crash at Corona” (Chapt. 9), stating Friedman interviewed Dubose in 1990 on this point. Kevin’s first (Part II, section 8) and second (Chapt. 6) Roswell books also go into the Dubose story of this flight in some detail, all stating that McMullen ordered the flight of debris, and Clark acted as courier from Fort Worth to Washington.<br /><br />Another statement by Dubose was that Ramey was away from the base at the time, which is why Dubose was handling the phone traffic with McMullen instead of Ramey. And why Col. Clark(e) as courier (who as not the base commander but the deputy base commander)?<br /><br />It turns out Dubose’s supposedly shaky decades old recollection of Ramey being away is completely supported by contemporaneous news stories, an actual FACT I learned when I checked regional newspapers. Fort Worth and Denton, TX papers placed Ramey at an air show in Denton on Sunday, July 6, with Ramey flying in dramatically with a squadron of B-29s from Utah , giving a speech midafternoon, with the air show going to 5:00. Also at the air show was Col. Hewlett Wheless, the actual C/O at Fort Worth base. <br /><br />http://www.roswellproof.com/Ramey_July6_1947.html<br />http://www.roswellproof.com/Ramey_July6_1947.html#anchor_9<br /><br />Denton was also Ramey’s home town, only 40 miles from Fort Worth. I would guess, but still cannot prove, that he probably visited with family (Dubose also recalled this), then returned to work at Fort Worth either late Sunday or early Monday, July 7.<br /><br />Clark, as ACTING C/O of the base, was the “colonel courier” instead of Wheless because Wheless was also away from the base, just as ACTING C/O at Roswell, Lt. Col. Payne Jennings was the pilot on Marcel’s B-29 to Fort Worth July 8, because 100 lesser pilots at the base couldn’t be used to ferry allegedly mundane “balloon debris.” (What this ACTUALLY demonstrates is the extreme importance attached to these two flights and the debris, requiring the attention of the highest ranking officers available.)<br /><br />Further, if CDA did the math PROPERLY, Brazel journeying to town on Monday, July 7, is inconsistent with the actual time of travel from the ranch to Roswell and back (8 to 10 hrs), also throwing in time for Brazel to report to the Sheriff, the Sheriff to call Marcel, Marcel to interview Brazel in Roswell, return to the base, confer with Blanchard, round up Cavitt, reconnect with Brazel in town (who was doing other errands) [total 2-3 hrs], PROPERLY investigate the debris area (which Marcel in 1947 stated covered A SQUARE MILE--many, many hours), fill the 2 vehicles with debris before returning to Roswell. Add in Brazel’s they then returned to his house (a distance of 8 miles over cow paths) and tried to reassemble the pieces. That alone would be at least 1-2 more hours.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-83875423946326642692015-09-18T14:39:13.874-07:002015-09-18T14:39:13.874-07:00Kevin:
After over 25 years on the case, you still...Kevin:<br /><br />After over 25 years on the case, you still refuse to accept the contemporary reports, even when it comes FIRST HAND from Jesse Marcel himself. Here is one quote extract, taken from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, later edition, July 9:<br /><br />"'Brazel hurried home, and bright and early Sunday, dug up the remnants of the kite & balloon', Marcel continued, 'and on Monday headed for Roswell to report his find to the sheriff '. This resulted in a call to RAAF by the sheriff and to Marcel's being assigned to the case. Marcel and Brazel then journeyed back to the ranch, where the major took the discovery into the custody of the Army. 'The ranch is out in the middle of nowhere', Marcel declared, 'and we spent a couple of hours Monday afternoon looking for any more parts of the weather device. We found a few more patches of tinfoil and rubber'. <br /><br />"Marcel brought back the discovery to RAAF early Tuesday morning and at 8am reported to his commanding officer William H.Blanchard. Blanchard, in turn, reported to General Ramey, who ordered the find flown to Fort Worth immediately."<br /><br />The implication is clear: Marcel did his recovery work for some 2 hours only on that Monday afternoon, and therefore NONE on the Sunday or Tuesday. They did not spend hour after hour riding to the periphery of the ranch, searching for debris far and wide. They recovered what they could and added it to the bundle Brazel had already put together on the Sunday. Since Brazel came in chiefly to sell wool, what purpose was there to come into Roswell on the Sunday anyway (especially on the July 4th weekend)? Were the wool markets open Sunday?<br /><br />This, plus the bits I posted before, ought to be enough proof that Brazel did NOT drive in on the Sunday but on the Monday (July 7). He and Marcel then drove back to the ranch on that Monday. <br /><br />The timing can and does work out: a 3 to 3 and a half hour drive in daylight, 2 hours on the ranch, a rest period then back to town early next day at sunrise. <br /><br />Your reasons why this couldn't have happened are, quite simply, false. <br /><br />I rest my case, hopefully for good.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-48617159984491801902015-09-18T14:32:50.339-07:002015-09-18T14:32:50.339-07:00Brian -
David covered what I was going to say, bu...Brian -<br /><br />David covered what I was going to say, but let me add that you have hung around here long enough to know that I do a series I call "Chasing Footnotes." In the case of the radio interview arranged by Len and conducted by Steve Tom at WMAQ, you did not use an original source but one who is unreliable. The trail peters out with Korff and you cannot prove that Marcel ever said any such thing. Since you made the claim, it is your responsibility to "go find the tapes."<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and check out Kal Korff... look at the website "KalKorffisanIdiot." They aren't UFO researchers, believers or even interested in UFOs, just in all the outrageous tales told by Korff. If you wish to see him as some sort of reliable researcher, then we can ignore anything else you have to say.<br /><br />Your whole argument on this is that Korff said it and Friedman pushes the ETH but you have no evidence that Marcel utter the words you, though Korff claim. All you do is throw out allegations which are often found to be inaccurate because you haven't actually looked at the opposing data.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-89804563684524694802015-09-18T12:55:57.744-07:002015-09-18T12:55:57.744-07:00You stated the following: "Are you willing t...You stated the following: "Are you willing to ignore the following FACTS? -Chicago radio interview saying he never thought the material was alien until researchers suggested it to him as one explanation for why he couldn't identify it."<br /><br />Yes there was an interview, but your indisputable "FACT" was at best a highly questionable 2nd-hand anecdote by probably the least trustworthy "UFO researcher" in existence, namely Kal (500 book deal, Israeli Kounter-terrorism Kolonel) Korff. Korff, claiming to be good friends with Leonard Stringfield, claimed Stringfield told him Marcel said in that interview that he had never considered the alien angle until "researchers" brought it up.<br /><br />In other words, you neglected to mention the true source, which wasn't the actual interview material, but Korff (who most curiously doesn't even bring it up in his own Roswell/Marcel debunking book, but LATER in a "UFO forum"), claiming to be a close confidante of Stringfield. As other posters here have pointed out, the only reason Friedman even found Marcel to begin with was because the radio manager said he was ham buddies with Marcel and Marcel had handled actual pieces of a flying saucer. By 1978, the association between flying saucers and alien origins was probably known to 100% of the population (and was discussed quite a bit in the newspapers even contemporaneously back in 1947, including by no less than Gen. Ramey and the Pentagon who issued public disclaimers).<br /><br />Thus you believe the thoroughly unreliable Korff but blow off Stringfield's account (and all other Marcel interviews), which doesn't bring up your indisputable "fact" at all, instead has Marcel relating a story pretty much what he said in every interview (anomalous, high strength debris scattered over a wide area and a weather balloon cover-up).<br /><br />To add to your chutzpah, you then state the following: "...Marcel related the same story with one exception – Marcel claims it was HE who decided to tell the press it was a weather balloon. Really? I thought that was Ramey? Again we see Marcel’s passion for exaggeration at play here. Now MARCEL is claiming credit for the cover up."<br /><br />What we see here is not Marcel's, but Brian Bell's "passion for exaggeration". Here is the Stringfield Marcel quote again: "To get them [the press] off our backs, I told them we were recovering a downed weather balloon." In historical fact, AFTER the press release at Roswell and Marcel flying to Fort Worth, he WAS quoted telling a weather balloon story to the press. (Most complete account in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: www.roswellproof.com/FortWorthST_July9.html) <br /><br />[Note: These 1947 quotes included Marcel stating that debris was scattered over a square mile, exactly what he said in what Stringfield reported in his interview, thus not something made up 30 years later.]<br /><br />In other interviews Marcel added he was acting under Ramey's orders, not that he personally came up with the idea or put it into play. In other words, Marcel could easily have meant (and completely consistent with more detailed interviews): "To get them off our backs (under Ramey's orders) I told them we were recovering a downed weather balloon." <br /><br />This is really no different than Gen. Dubose stating that all the officers were under Ramey's orders and told a weather balloon story to get the press off their backs.<br /><br />It is only Brian Bell, who using his psychic powers, knows what Marcel REALLY meant, that he personally dreamed up the cover story and Ramey and other superior officers deferred to him.<br /><br />(This reminds me of similar grossly exaggerated accusations against Marcel, such as the base press release mentioning the intelligence officer or officers or Marcel having "flown" the "disc" to "higher headquarters", this getting spun into Marcel claiming to have personally piloted the plane, instead of the common reading of flown as a passenger, as all of us have done.)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-55413763364398231292015-09-18T10:42:42.566-07:002015-09-18T10:42:42.566-07:00Do yourself a favor. Organize Marcel Jr.’s video a...Do yourself a favor. Organize Marcel Jr.’s video and radio testimonies in sequential time order from the first contact with investigators till his passing. Listen to what he has to say about what his father told him, and what he thought he handled on the floor that evening. As decades go by, his words change, and even the symbols on his illustrations get more elaborate. He clearly becomes more convinced that what he handled was alien material. Why? Because researchers told him it was.<br /><br />In one of his first videos, he responds by saying his father NEVER said that evening it was anything related to alien visitation. Nope - nothing like it. When asked he says he father never used the word "flying saucer" or "disc" or "aliens" or anything of the kind. He said he implied it was "strange"....but goes on to say (with some trepidation) quote, "..but I could tell what he meant and what he was implying...something extraordinary....possibly not from this earth". Ok...he says that but only AFTER the ET believing UFO investigator asks him if it was from an alien spaceship and whether his father told him that it was or used the word "saucer". That's leading the witness.<br /><br />As Wind Swords stated, I always find it odd that Mac’s daughter’s testimony describing balloon material is consistently left out of the story despite the fact she was just a few years older than Marcel Jr. at the time. Why? Because someone wants to drive the ET explanation. Pick your favorite witness.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-8521377339242801542015-09-18T10:21:46.721-07:002015-09-18T10:21:46.721-07:00Marcel’s Chicago radio interview –
I guess a frus...Marcel’s Chicago radio interview –<br /><br />I guess a frustrated Rudiak decided to post for me. Thank you, David. So very kind of you too.<br /><br />Let’s level the information playing field a bit so that his aggressive tone and accusatory claims are reflected upon with a bit more accuracy and level-headedness and a lot less emotion.<br /><br />One – Roswell supporters (like Rudiak) are the first to attack anyone who even whispers a hint they may have some detail that has been overlooked, especially if it is a detail that adds to the conversation but doesn’t support the ETH. Rudiak’s aim is to discredit Korff (a skeptic no less) based on reputation. Interestingly, Rudiak and other Roswell supporters shy away from the reality they vehemently backed a few “characters” of their own also with reputation problems. These "witnesses" once held the key to proving Roswell was an ET event. Let’s see now, which of you fought for a few years in dogged defense of the testimony of Kauffman, and others who don’t even exist (LTC Lovejoy Duran)? The fact that Rudiak states I “would accept a totally uncorroborated claim…” ignores the very obvious “uncorroborated claims” that he and others give credence to from aging witnesses now mostly deceased.<br /><br />Two – Obviously there WAS an interview with Marcel as I claimed despite a few people expressing doubts it never happened. I find that odd given the fact these people have done a “research” on Roswell. How did you miss that one? If you think there wasn't an interview then you're claiming Stringfield also lied, as did Steve Tom while working six years for WMAQ. Go find the tapes. They may still have them. Even better, contact Tom, he’s still alive.<br /><br />Three – Stringfield simply states that the interview took place on the radio, and that Marcel related the same story with one exception – Marcel claims it was HE who decided to tell the press it was a weather balloon. Really? I thought that was Ramey? Again we see Marcel’s passion for exaggeration at play here. Now MARCEL is claiming credit for the cover up. Oh my. By the way, Stringfield offers a summary only, not the entire transcript of what was said. It is possible and probably likely that Marcel did say what Korff stated.<br /><br />Four – The interview DID take place TWO MONTHS after the FIRST discussion Marcel had with Friedman. Has Friedman EVER gone into any case NOT thinking it was extraterrestrial? NO. The man only pushes the ETH for Roswell and everything else. Here we see researcher bias coming into play. Listen to any video or radio recording of Friedman and you will quickly see he SELLS ET loud and clear – that’s his agenda. Obviously he influenced Marcel – and it’s likely, even though Rudiak claims it’s impossible, that Marcel did say something to the effect of “never having considered until….” Until what? Until Friedman came asking if the strange stuff he found might have been from a crashed UFO.<br /><br />Five – Be mindful of holding Marcel up on a golden pedestal. His story has changed and evolved over the years. After his death, his son took the helm and the story grew even bigger. I’m not suggesting these people are inherently bad, I’m simply saying their story is inconsistent and shows clear signs of having evolved not through recall progression but through exaggerations which grew from contact with ETH supporting authors and researchers, who for the most part, where from the start ENTIRELY convinced Roswell had an ET explanation.<br /><br />By the way...Haut also slipped up on an interview where he claimed it was really a balloon.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-53943268980873727952015-09-18T09:54:55.902-07:002015-09-18T09:54:55.902-07:00CDA -
Please do not attempt to read my mind. The ...CDA -<br /><br />Please do not attempt to read my mind. The reason I "insist" on the "Sunday scenario" is because the timing simply doesn't work out otherwise. Yes, some newspapers said Brazel came in on Monday, others aren't so sure. But, if we start with the press release and move backwards from there, we can't get Marcel and Cavitt to the debris with enough time left for them to return to Roswell. Yes, we have Marcel's statements which you dismiss as decades old memories, but that doesn't change the fact that the timing simply doesn't work out given the distances to the debris field, the crummy roads they would have had to use, and the size of the field... Bill Brazel provided a suggestion of size as did Bud Payne. The point is that it would have taken some time to study the field and my estimates to the contrary are simply guess on my part.<br /><br />Using Korff as a source to something that Marcel said at some point, when Korff had never interviewed him is a stretch. In my many discussions with Marcel, Jr. he mentioned that he had his father had talked about the alien nature of the debris at times over the years... long before Friedman entered the picture. Unless Brian Bell can find that radio interview he claims proves this point, it should be rejected by everyone. I have heard or seen nothing to suggest that the alien nature of the craft didn't arise until after 1978.<br /><br />I continue to be astonished at the way you and Brian Bell reject outright the information that does not conform to your world view... really, Dr. Crary, the man who ran the balloon project and who said Flight No. 4 was cancelled made an error based on the decades old memory of Charles Moore... The date of Brazel coming into Roswell as mentioned in the Washington Post can be interpreted in any way you want... and don't forget, we were admonished not to suggest anything other than what you believe or we are misrepresenting the facts.<br /><br />Yet we are told that Friedman put the notion of an alien craft into Marcel's head and that Marcel said in a radio interview that he hadn't thought of it until UFO researchers began talking to him. And it is the writers who ignore the evidence that Brazel (or Brizell or any of a number of spellings of the name) got the day right but so much else wrong.<br /><br />And to revisit something else, Kal Korff is wholly unreliable as a source. He made things up to prove his point... there were no black sergeants in Roswell because the Army was segregated except of course there were at least 24 of them... he combined the testimony of Easley, Cavitt and Holden into one to disprove their statements... he said that the term, "Flying Saucer" was not used in 1947 except for the headline in the Roswell Daily Record that used it... I could go on, but the point is, Korff is unreliable on so many fronts. KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-86906162026660627032015-09-18T09:44:11.700-07:002015-09-18T09:44:11.700-07:00Neal:
I think I agreed that Marcel associated the...Neal:<br /><br />I think I agreed that Marcel associated the stuff he handled with flying saucers (and probably with ETs) at some point. We don't know exactly when and never will. If even his former colleague Bill Moore can admit, as he did, that Friedman's method of interviewing is to steer witnesses towards ET then it is perfectly OK for me to say Friedman did indeed influence Marcel further towards ET, and in a very persuasive manner. <br /><br />One thing I do know. Marcel had no idea of even the year of his earth-shattering discovery/recovery by the time Friedman first met him. Nor had he kept any of the press reports, even those with his name in them. But maybe your view is that this fact is mere trivia. After all, what interest had it to Marcel anyway? <br /><br />Another idea: perhaps the military wouldn't allow him to retain cuttings on UFOs!cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-3237590895429863702015-09-18T09:20:58.059-07:002015-09-18T09:20:58.059-07:00cda
You can put any spin on it that you want, it ...cda<br /><br />You can put any spin on it that you want, it appears to be your M.O. The fact is Marcel DID associate the debris he handled with flying saucers, I really don't know if that's the same thing as ET to him. I would have to be able to read minds to know how he was influenced by movies and other media. It's plausible that he was influenced by Friedman's articles but to say it with such certainty as you do seems again to be self serving.<br /><br />I apologize for the unintended double negative in my question regarding the Army's influence on Marcel but you seem to have conveniently sidestepped the question as you skeptibunkers often do when an answer is inconvenient to your narrative.<br /><br />As for the timing of Brazel's trip to Roswell, I really have no opinion. The accounts seem to be contradictory on that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16703256896826354786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-35310566542206080022015-09-18T08:45:25.933-07:002015-09-18T08:45:25.933-07:00To everyone:
As part of my on going research into...To everyone:<br /><br />As part of my on going research into WS-117L, I was reading material on Dr. Lincoln LaPaz. On Feb. 20, 1950, Dr. La Paz wrote to Dr. P. H. Wyckoff, Chief Atmospheric Physics Laboratory, AFCRD, about the Green Fireballs (actually, though it is written to Dr. Wyckoff, LaPaz was connected to Colonel Frederick Oder at the CRD).<br /><br />The first line caught my attention: "Your informative letter of February 6, mailed on February 10, concerning the high-speed balloons and interesting reprints of Geophysical Research Directorate seminars given by Leonard B. Loeb and Dr. Benjamin Lax, have come to mind."<br /><br />My question is: Was Dr. La Paz simply referring to Skyhook/Mogul like programs, where the balloon can be carried along by very high speed winds, or was there a special "high-speed balloon program?...and if so, what level of expertise had we achieved by July, 1947, if at all at that early time?Bob Kofordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739226809252915992noreply@blogger.com