The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

The Roswell Flying Disk (and a good book about UFOs/Roswell)

Lynn Picknett, a former Deputy Editor of the weekly “The Unexplained” and co-author of several books about fringe topics, wrote The Mammoth Book of UFOs [Carrol Ɛt Graf, NY, 2001].

The Mammoth Book has an extensive Chapter [Three] on Roswell, Pages 193-252. Ms. Picknett  provides elusive material about the Roswell event, much of it not known, even by Roswellians.

She shows gaffes by Randle/Schmitt, Friedman, Moore, Berliner et al. but also provides what they did right.

Her elaboration of the MOGUL scenario cleans up that mess for me and defuses the nonsense about the alleged missing July 4th launch that Randle and Rudiak hang their hats on.

And in the context of the time, which Don should like, she writes this:

“ …In 1947 Marcel does seem to have been genuinely mystified and excited by what he had found. But could he really have thought that a bundle of tin foil, rubber, and sticks, no matter how unfamiliar, came from a ‘flying disc’? From today’s standpoint the suggestion seems absurd. Would anyone think that a spacecraft would be constructed of such flimsy material? But it must be remembered that in 1947 ‘flying saucer’ and ‘flying disc’ were not yet synonymous with ‘alien spaceship’. [sic] They were part of a very new phenomenon, barely two weeks old, which had not yet been associated with outer space. The prevailing view was that they were some secret terrestrial device -- whether Russian or American -- and therefore could have been made of anything.” [Page 239 ff.]

I would suggest that some Roswellians get this book and review Chapter Three or find another credible accounting of the supposed 1947 incident and refresh their mucked up knowledge of what really happened.

Such a re-look at the story might dissuade the Pro-ET crowd from continuing to place misinformation online here and at such blogs as Kevin Randle's.

RR

110 Comments:

  • I originally listed Lynn Picknett as a he.

    Nick Redfern corrected me.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • That's a very good point that Lynn makes, namely that the terms Flying Disc/Flying Saucer were barely 2 weeks old when Roswell happened. We have nearly 70 years of reports to create a mindset of what those terms may mean and imply today. Not back then though.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • “ …In 1947 Marcel does seem to have been genuinely mystified and excited by what he had found. But could he really have thought that a bundle of tin foil, rubber, and sticks, no matter how unfamiliar, came from a ‘flying disc’?"

    Does she quote any of the press accounts? There are two of interest.

    One is from the AP, with a Roswell dateline (I recall), which quotes Brazel quoting Marcel that the [fill in the blank with your preference] was nothing from the the Navy or Army. The reporter may have been Jason Kellahin (but nobody asked him about it, afaik).

    It is interesting because I doubt the reporter or Brazel knew of Marcel's Navy experience.

    Second is the United Press wrapup on the 9th, which had the Ft Worth story as the lead. It refers to "diehards" among the "principals" who did not accept Ramey's weather balloon and rawin story.

    Brazel: not a kite -- AP, not a weather balloon -- Daily Record)

    Marcel: not Army or Navy

    Diehards?

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Ms. Pinknett provides material from a slew of sources.

    I suggest that those truly interested in Roswell get the book.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Nick: "We have nearly 70 years of reports to create a mindset of what those terms may mean and imply today. Not back then though."

    We know what the air force meant by "flying disk" in 1947. General Ramey defines it negatively: the Roswell disk (at the time a disk 25 feet in diameter) did not have a power plant, did not have room for a pilot, and was too flimsy for powered flight. Therefore it was not a flying disc.

    The "Twining Memo" elaborates on this.

    The only people I've found in 1947 who believed the discs could be ET were self-described Forteans, and those in Meade Layne's circle.

    In fact Layne and Probert in 1946 expected an Etherian visit, a space ship arriving in the wake of an ongoing meteor shower. Read it in the papers.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Yay, more Roswell talk!

    In addition to the above, the papers of the time were full of "disk" recoveries, some involving the police. Often the recovered items were quite similar to the Roswell junk: foill paper and such. There was a story like this in the paper on the day of the press release!

    The Roswell faithful push the idea that Marcel et al wouldn't have been fooled by the dumb stuff he found. This is Rudiak's disingenuous "drooling idiot" argument. But as suggested above, this is a straw man. Marcel didn't think he had found the flying saucer that folks like Rudiak worship in 2014. He thought he might have found one of the quirky disks that were being reported in the paper and found by other folks and looked somewhat like the stuff he found out on the ranch.

    Marcel sinks Roswell so completely that it is silly to discuss Roswell as anything other than an interesting historical event and even more interesting sociological/religious movement:

    1. Marcel said 3 times (!) that the stuff he is photographed with in the famous photos is the same stuff he he picked up at the ranch. The stuff in the photos (everyone agrees) is not space foil or rocket sticks. The believers lamely reply that on the fourth occasion he finally said that the junk had been switched, but because Marcel wasn't fully up on the made up story, he FURTHER sinks the case by making up a dumb story about how he was hiding some of the real stuff BEHIND fake stuff. Here we can see that Marcel was malleable and willing to change his story to keep it alive. He was having to make stuff up on his feet, though and didn't realize that he was messing up the stories that the believers were inventing like...

    2. Supposedly there was a huge recovery effort to get the saucer back to the base. Roads were closed. Areas cordoned off...Apparently everyone at the base and everyone in Roswell knew about this. One person who didn't know.? Jesse Marcel, the fricking base intelligence officer! Again Marcel was not up on the myth that the believers were creating so he didn't know there was supposed to be a recovery effort.

    These two points above sink Roswell. There is no response for them from believers except, "well, I want to continue believing!"

    Every single time there is a proposed document or other concrete piece of 1947 evidence, it always ends up evaporating. For instance, there was a diary entry by some nuns that's spoke of a UFO in trouble In the skies. Kevin included this his second book on Roswell and he cited it as though he had reviewed the diary. Oddly he, paraphrased the diary entry. Starting in the mid 1990's I asked Kevin about this diary entry and never got a satisfactory answer. About 15-20 years later, Kevin admitted that he had never see the diary but that he had put it into the book as though he had based on the word of someone who told him they remembered seeing the entry many years before!!! You can't make this stuff up! That is the kind of scholarship we are dealing with. To date no one has produced any nun diary!

    Ok, I see this is getting to Rudiakian length.

    Much love,

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • It was only a question of who would turn up first to move a decent discussion into witnessing for the Lord and damn all the sinners, a skeptic or an advocate.

    Regards,

    Don

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Don,

    I win!

    Seriously though, that is what this is. It is about belief. My long rant above doesn't just chide the believers. I provide support for how I get to that point.

    I know that Roswell supporters like to delve into long detailed tangential arcana. But the basics I outline above offer full stop refutation of the basic Roswell story that any non-committed person can grasp and understand.

    In a debate, there would be no contest.

    Best,

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Rich, I just downloaded the Kindle version of Picknett's book. I got to page two of chapter 3 when I encountered the first mistake. Two, actually.

    "In the same year in his Report on the UFO Wave of 1947, which listed every report that appeared in the media in that first summer of the UFO age, UFOlogist Ted Bloecher omitted Roswell entirely."

    One: I wish Bloecher listed every report.

    Two: Not only did he not omit Roswell, he was the first ufologist to recover the story.

    I'll add this. Except for Kenneth Arnold what 1947 stories were of interest to ufologists before Bloecher? It wasn't only Roswell that was forgotten.

    Reading on...

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Lance, I guess I thought the subject was Picknett's book and what it has to say about Roswell.

    Rich says he is a gadfly, but that doesn't mean you have to always rise to the bait.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Good point by Lynn Picknett imho.

    I didn't read his/her book (I will asap), but that's more or less the same approach or remark I did in my own book of 2010 regarding Roswell modern myth, and along many pages, regarding the plasticity of the flying saucers and contemporans (recontextualizations). acception/semantic.

    Thank's for the notice / mention of this book, Rich ;)

    Gilles.

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • A homage to the wording of one of your favorite lunatics a certain Mr Alfred.

    How rude of you to interrupt the never ending misery.

    Are you prescribing an intellectual enema? Pray tell the symptoms..never mind. Stubborn constipation from indigestible materials consumed in haste?

    What will come out of this cure? Oh.. thats right, all sorts of backed up smelly stuff that we place in bowl to be flushed away.

    Freud is blushing.



    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Too much granola today, Bruce?

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • On a side note, Don is correct, Bloecher wrote about Roswell in one his chapter !
    But he was not the first ufologist imho to recover the story post 1947.
    For example, it seems Roswell is brielfly recovered -sic- in Flying Saucers on the Attack (Harold Wilkins) first published in 1954. I have only a 1967 re-edition, so if someone could verify.

    Same brief mention in the Flying Saucer Review (Volume 1, No. 1, Spring, 1955), but same, I have not this release.

    Gilles.

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • All things in moderation and I suppose that includes the Roswell dirge or slog, or what have you. It cannot be slain, exhumed or buried. Its like getting a bad tattoo that becomes indelible that is taken to the grave. Instead of a laxative maybe a skin graft is needed.
    And the band plays on. Maybe my blood sugar is making me more cranky than usual..time for some sugar in my granola.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Gilles, did Wilkins, like Edwards, just tell a tale he had heard about, or did he actually do some research, like Bloecher did?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Lance

    You said: "In addition to the above, the papers of the time were full of "disk" recoveries, some involving the police. Often the recovered items were quite similar to the Roswell junk: foill paper and such. There was a story like this in the paper on the day of the press release!"

    Very true! The FBI's website "The Vault" has loads of those cases, such as cymbals, trashcan lid stories etc from the summer of 47.

    One of them was briefly investigated by FBI agent guy Banister, later of JFK assassination infamy.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • In stopped reading when she writes that the Daily Record put the story on the AP wire.

    There are too too many factual errors in her article for me to take it seriously.

    Oh well. $4.79 down the drain.

    Is there not one accurate book or article published about Roswell?

    Regards

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • And there's this story from summer 1947, also an incorrect identification, but one that I still feel is a notable story to relate, which I did so for Mysterious Universe in 2011, and which (I believe) can be strongly argued to "deflate" the Mogul angle for Roswell:

    http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2011/02/roswell-deflating-mogul/

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Don:

    Ms. Picknett cited the source of the AP story in her footnotes on Page 251 of the book.

    It's not her error if it is indeed errrant.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Hi NIck,

    Thanks for the link.

    For the information to be seen as deflating a prosaic (Mogul) explanation, you must make the assumption that the huge recovery and security effort (closing roads, swearing people to secrecy) actually happened in Roswell.

    I don't think any of that happened. There isn't ANY contemporaneous evidence for it whatsoever...only the supposed memories that have been coaxed out by highly biased UFO believers decades after 1947.

    Indeed Marcel himself (a reminder that he was the fricking base intelligence officer!) said that there wasn't any recovery effort like that....this alone (as I mention above) kills Roswell and confines it to the sticks and foil paper that were found on the Foster ranch.

    I should mention here that it would be extremely helpful to history (if not to saucer belief) if Kevin and the other Roswell authors would release all of the raw interviews that they conducted. I remember reading one that Kevin did that I found HIGHLY leading. I know that Kevin learned later to not be so leading but by that time the damage by the swarms of pious believers had already happened and the damage had been done.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Lance:

    Try to get you hands on the Picknett portion about the MOGUL scenario.

    Despite Don's denigration of her rendition -- by reading uncarefully I'm afraid -- her account is full of material that debases the Rudiak and Randle missing MOGUL flight of July 4th.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Picknett is not giving what she thinks is the real Roswell story. She’s presenting the views that have been written by others -- those that are right and those that are wrong. She then gives her view or summation as to why she thinks some of those views were or are wrong. Or are right.

    She footnotes the sources of the statements rendered.

    I note her modus by telling how she presents both the errant materials of authors and what they got right.

    Don misses that point.

    He hasn’t read her introduction to the book or seen the footnote designations.

    Sloppy on his part.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Sorry. Rich. The Kindle version is not page numbered and there is no footnote number after the statement.

    The closest I can guess is that it was something Klass wrote. Is that her source? If so, I suggest her source should have been the newspapers which reported the source was George Walsh at KSWS.

    What is irritating for me is that I hope there is evidence the Daily Record contacted the AP and passed on the story to them.

    You may like how she stacks the evidence -- intentionally or not, but I don't care. All I care about is whether she has anything new. I don't have any interest in the damn et debate that corrupts any discussion of Roswell.

    If her source is just some other UFO writer, it is what I expect from another UFO writer. If her source is actually a real source and not just someone making their own errors, that's different.

    Leave me out of these ET blabfests.

    "Don should like"

    Don does not like.

    Best Regards,

    Don







    I

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Yes, Don, it was Klass.

    (And a note to all, when you comment at the blog, delete that extra white space after your comment is finished. It leaves a gaping hole in the comment arena. Thanks)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Sorry about the white space, Rich. My excuse is I'm a linux guy who is stuck for the moment on a Win8 notebook.

    Her citation merely says that's where the news article is reproduced. So, it is a place to read the news story. I assume then, not having read it, that Klass wrote the Daily Record gave the story to the AP. I'd like to know what his source for that is.

    I want it to be true, I guess. Same for Hall and Connor in their Loedding book where they inform us Brown and Davidson interviewed Rhodes. No citation. That's a Holy Grail for me, right there. Is it true? I think not, but I wish it were.

    This is why I avoid ufo writers' books and articles.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • But Don...

    While it's important to your exhaustive foray into the ways and means of what happened, in situ, it doesn't impact the questions that Roswellians are steeped in.

    Like Bruce Duensing and maybe Paul Kimball, the Roswell incident itself doesn't intrigue you but those who are skeptics (Gilles, Lance, and CDA among them) and those who are ET-induced (Rudiak, Randle, Bragalia among others) long to debate the issue, ad nauseum, ad eternum, ad infinitum.

    My hope is to raise the issues that they get hooked on and show that they are whistling in the wind; the stuff they are engrossed about is fraught with accretions that make any discussion errant from the get go.

    They are wasting their lives and internet space by regurgitating material that is hogwash from the outset.

    They'll never resolve the Roswell tale, as Nick Redfern knows and keeps trying to tell us all.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Well. Some people seem to think they own the Roswell franchise. They're welcome to it.

    Of course I'm interested in whatever it was, if it was, but I have no pet theory to defend or assert, so it doesn't matter to me who wins the fight.

    Rich: "My hope is to raise the issues that they get hooked on and show that they are whistling in the wind; the stuff they are engrossed about is fraught with accretions that make any discussion errant from the get go."

    You are being very brave (as Sir Humphrey said to Jim Hacker) attempting to talk sense to the participants in the debate.

    I've posted dozens of facts that refute their beliefs, skeptics and advocates both, and I might as well have kissed my butt for all the effect it has.

    Here's one for the skeptics who say Roswell was never considered a crashed disc until the mesmeric Stanton Friedman showed up. I've got a July 9, 1947 news story, the headline of which is:

    "Crashed Disc" is Weather Balloon

    Proof will not overcome their ingrained beliefs.

    You'd be better off howling with the banshees.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Rich,

    Some of the stuff being discussed now, at least the stuff I put into this thread, is not age old but a relatively new narrative that explains things like why there was a press release, etc.

    I'm reading the Roswell portion of that book you mentioned.

    The showstopper Marcel info (no recovery operation at Roswell) was something that Paul hooked me up on in the past year or so.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Lance:

    I'm being provocative, trying to encourage your pal and mine, Dr. Rudiak, to bring up the MOGUL detritus.

    His and Randle's view that Brazel's debris couldn't be Mogul debris may be right but not because a July 4th MOGUL launch didn't happen but because Brazel gathered normal weather balloon debris or someone's junk droppings which have nothing to do with the Roswell incident at all.

    And that incident may not have anything to do with an ET disaster which is Nick Redfern's take.

    Nick has adopted the most rational stance within the Roswell meme, although the real sensible stance may be Duensing's or Kimball's: the Roswell thing is not worthy of discussion at all.

    It doesn't help define what UFOs are or are not.

    It merely begs the question of how such a "minor incident" got to where it's the be all and end all in the UFO market place.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Lance: "a relatively new narrative that explains things like why there was a press release, etc."

    What is the relatively new narrative that explains why there was a press release?

    Regards (and TIA)

    Don

    ps, Rich, I didn't know if I hit CR after I sign 'Don', the browser adds blank lines. Live and learn.

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Don,

    The abundance of found disks seen in the newspapers could easily have encouraged Marcel that he had found one of the same things he read about in the newspaper. The press release was not announcing a flying saucer from outer space but one of the claptrap things that were being reported all over the place.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Reading the forensic autopsy of what killed Ufology is a dog and pony show. One one hand, the Roswellians can don pith helmets put on their smoking jackets and drink brandy in the Explorer's Club and harrumph to their hearts content. Pass around the cigars. However, life goes on without them and old habits die hard. No amount of evangelicalism will change them or make them give up their chairs.
    The faithful skeptics and the faithful ET fans are two sides of a brick wall or perhaps they are stuck to the bricks of what they cherish..the topic they love to hate, a pet zit.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • What would convince me that Roswell was more than just another story in the press, is if it could be proven that Roswell was the immediate cause of the "clamp down" on saucer stories that was first reported on the 9th along with the Ft Worth story.

    You can plop a section of saucer made of unearthly materials, or a dead alien, in my lap, and I'd ask you what proof is there it has anything to do with Roswell.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Lance: "The press release was not announcing a flying saucer from outer space but one of the claptrap things that were being reported all over the place."


    It is more or less what I've been writing for several years, only without the affect.

    “The many rumors regarding the flying disc became a reality yesterday when the intelligence office of the 509th Bomb Group of the Eighth Air Force, Roswell Army Air Field was fortunate enough to gain possession of a disk"

    The RAAF has "a disk" that is the reality of, or, behind (or explains? identifies?) the rumored "flying disk".

    And we know what that "a disk" was: a radar target, and thus the rumored flying disk is explained, its reality revealed.

    But absolutely nobody as far as I can tell on July 8 read it that way, no matter if they had just quoted it.

    What was the rumor about a flying disk? I think it was the noon announcement: RAAF Captures Flying Saucer On Ranch In Roswell Region".

    It doesn't change a thing knowing this. It just eliminates all the stupid arguments over why the press release
    was written.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • But it must be remembered that in 1947 ‘flying saucer’ and ‘flying disc’ were not yet synonymous with ‘alien spaceship’. [sic] They were part of a very new phenomenon, barely two weeks old, which had not yet been associated with outer space. The prevailing view was that they were some secret terrestrial device -- whether Russian or American -- and therefore could have been made of anything.”

    Historically inaccurate BUNK. I haven’t seen the book yet, but judging by this (and other statements not commented on here), Lynn Picknett has not done any in-depth research and is simply copying the old bunk arguments of other know-nothings. (Talk about "sloppy" research!) Here are the REAL historical facts direct from the newspapers, not made up ones.

    The Army Air Force at the Pentagon issued a press release early on July 8, shortly before Roswell issued it’s press release, stating the three things they were certain the flying saucers were NOT: They weren’t ours, they weren’t Russian (“foreign power”), AND they were not “SPACE SHIPS.” Some “not space ship” articles from UP ;

    www.roswellproof.com/flying-saucers-not-spaceships.html

    Aside from the obvious suspicious “coincidence” that this came out right before the Roswell release that they had actually recovered a real “flying disc”, this totally discredits the statement that they “had not yet been associated with outer space.” Obviously no need to issue such a high-level denial unless there had been considerable talk to that effect (along with ours and theirs).

    In fact, over a week earlier (June 30), Gen. Roger Ramey (yes, THAT Gen. Ramey) and his head of intelligence were already out debunking the idea that the flying saucers represented “platter-like planes from Mars” (though they did like the “Buck Rogers” aspect):

    http://www.roswellproof.com/ramey_and_kalberer.html

    The ink was barely dry on the first nation-wide reporting June 26 of Kenneth Arnold’s “flying saucer” sighting of June 24 that got the whole thing going. Again, why the denial unless there had been public chatter to that effect that they were hoping to quiet down?

    In fact, the newspapers document exactly that as happening. (Just one example, a San Antonio newspaper headline June 26 for the Arnold sighting: “Men From Mars? Sky Whizzers Seen”) Arnold himself raised the issue June 27, recounting his unnerving encounter with a hysterical, sobbing woman in a Pendleton cafe shouting, “there’s the man who saw the men from Mars.”

    Arnold raised it twice more on July 7, in one AP story saying he had received a lot of “fan mail”, including a number opining “the discs were visitations from another planet.” Chicago Times: “Kenneth Arnold … is not so certain that the strange contraptions are made on this planet. Arnold… said he hoped the devices were really the work of the U.S. Army. But he told the TIMES...: 'If our government knows anything about these devices, the people should be told at once. A lot of people out here are very much disturbed. Some think these things may be from another planet....' Another world—Arnold [pointed out the] possibility of these discs being from another world... He said the discs were making turns so abruptly in rounding peaks that it would have been impossible for human pilots inside to have survived the pressure. So, he too thinks they are controlled from elsewhere, regardless of whether it’s from Mars, Venus, or our own planet.”

    http://www.roswellproof.com/Chicago_D_Times_1947-07-07-3s_Arnold_interplanetary_statement-Cpt_Smith.jpg

    Many, many other news stories from this period bringing up the outer space angle (mostly satirical or mocking but also with some serious conjecture, like Arnold):

    http://www.roswellproof.com/ETH-in-1947.html

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • David misses the point and shoots wide again.

    It isn't important if "spaceship" was one of several possible explanations in the public (and official minds). It was certainly one possibility as he demonstrates.

    What Rich quoted was that the flying disks were not yet "synonymous" with the spaceship idea.

    And they weren't.

    It is obvious from the many newspaper reports at the time that plenty of folks thought that the disks could be some ball of foil, toy plane, balloon or other kind of prosaic contraption.

    The wall of text that David provides above is interesting but means nothing in terms of disconfirming the basic idea that plenty of folks were of the mind that the disks were possibly some earthly device.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • David...

    Lynn Picknett's statement:

    "But it must be remembered that in 1947 ‘flying saucer’ and ‘flying disc’ were not yet synonymous with ‘alien spaceship’."

    is true.

    Flying Disks were not synonymous with outer space craft.

    Yes, some fringe nuts equated the reports, like Arnold's, with Mars ships or space craft but the disks that the FBI pursued and the press doted on were not "synonymous" with space craft.

    Ms. Picknett's word is the operative.

    She chose it wisely, as it applies to the 1947 reality.

    We've covered the "flying disk" scenario in the time-frame early on here.

    One can find the references via google.

    I suggest you read the book before pronouncing on its value or lack thereof.

    But it'll make you crazy as it defuses your ET view(s) with a sensible rendition of Roswell (and UFOs generally).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • I think the term "space ship" by itself and coming from the AAF could very well refer to those General Arnold's and his nascent USAF's pr efforts had said they intended to build. "True spaceships", to quote General Arnold. Other than that, I agree with David.

    In 1947, and decades before, speculating that intelligent life might exist on Mars or Venus was not considered out of the question (it was "interpanetary origin", then, not ET). It wasn't until the eary 1950s that the standard model of the solar system was of all dead planets, except earth. This led to the opinion that the universe (at that time, meaning our galaxy) was equally dead and life, much less intelligent life, was rare if it existed at all. So, interplanetary origen lost its legitimacy.

    There is no reason at all for the "ETH" to not be a commonly considered possibility for the saucers.

    Supporting David is it seems the ETH became a kooky notion only after the 47 Wave. This implies there was a concerted effort to accomplish just that.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Don:

    What?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • There were two things about the Kenneth Arnold sighting that caught the media's and public's imagination: The highly unusual shape Arnold reported AND and his measured supersonic speed, beyond that of any then human, highly maneuverable flying object like a jet-plane.

    As to what they might be, if people took the hundreds of reports that followed seriously (instead of dismissing them as the result of illusions or hysteria), speculation generally ran that they were one of our secret projects, maybe Russian, and even (though probably a distant third and generally stated nervously) from outer space. (Note that these were the same three possibilities that the Army Air Force at the Pentagon specifically denied they could be in a press release issued just before the one at Roswell.)

    Assuming they were real, the one thing the newspapers said everybody agreed on was that they flew really, really fast, like Arnold's reported supersonic ones.

    I just cited Gen. Ramey and his intelligence chief debunking the idea of saucers being from outer space only 4 days after the Arnold story went nationwide. They specifically also tried to debunk the idea of the saucers being supersonic: "'Nine planes aren't likely to be doing formation flying at 1,200 miles an hour,' Ramey added. He referred to an earlier report that nine disks flying in formation had been seen moving at supersonic speed... He [intel chief Col. Kalberer] said the estimated 1,200 miles an hour was probably wrong."

    Apparently the drooling idiot senior officers at Ramey's sub-command didn't read the newspaper reports of supersonic speed or missed Ramey's/Kalberer's intel memos of same. Otherwise, how else could you mistake rancher Brazel's “five pounds” of "rubber strips” and balsa wood kite for a supersonic flying saucer? That's why I call it drooling idiot theory. (Lynn Picknett is obviously another advocate of it along with Lance, Gilles, etc.)

    As to what the Air Force experts REALLY thought the flying discs were, as revealed in the secret, internal Schulgen and Twining studies that immediately followed, they were REAL metallic aircraft, usually discoid in shape, of advanced design that were evasive, highly maneuverable, and flew at high speeds. Need I mention Twining later became Air Force Chief of Staff and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? No drooling idiot he.

    Twining's memo, based on the studies of his men in the intelligence and engineering divisions at Wright Field (presumably also not drooling idiots), urged further study by the Air Force, in cooperation with numerous other government agencies, like the AEC, Army, Navy, Joint Research and Development Board (Vannevar Bush’s group), Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NASA predecessor), Project RAND, and NEPA (Nuclear Energy for Propulsion of Aircraft). Soon afterward, Project Sign was started, the forerunner of Project Blue Book. As we know from insiders like PBB head Ruppelt, Sign put out an intelligence estimate that summer that the saucers were interplanetary in origin.

    Apparently they too caught Major Marcel’s flying saucer hysteria, not knowing the whole craze could be so easily explained with drooling idiot theory. Damn, if only they had read their own memos, we could have nipped the whole flying saucer "myth" in the bud!

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • David:

    This was well after 1947:

    "As we know from insiders like PBB head Ruppelt, Sign put out an intelligence estimate that summer that the saucers were interplanetary in origin."

    In the 1947 time-frame, flying disks [disks!) were not synonymous with space craft.

    That's the point.

    Yes, flying saucers did become equated with outer space ships but much after 1947.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Sorry, Rich. I'm off the win8 notebook now. I really have issues with 8-)

    I'm agreeing with David that in 1947 it should be expected that many people would consider interplanetary origins for the saucers, because the stigma that got attached to it did not exist. That came later, or, really, with the 1947 Wave, as part of the clamping down on saucer stories.

    I disagree with David that a plain mention of "spaceships" by the AAF in 1947 is an ET reference, because it might refer to the AAF's own pr which since 1944 had predicted a future with true spaceships piloted by Air Force officers.

    I also think this issue is moot because I don't read the press release as saying the RAAF had a flying saucer in its possession, but only "a disk" that explained the rumored flying disc.

    In that case, the skeptics' efforts to defuse the effect of the AAF affirming it had a flying disk by claiming the term could have many meanings,is unnecessary.

    David may think the noon announcement is the press release and can take from that the blunt message that the RAAF had a flying saucer. To me the noon announcement is not based on the press release.

    You can delete my previous.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, May 13, 2014  

  • Hello Don and all.

    Gilles, did Wilkins, like Edwards, just tell a tale he had heard about, or did he actually do some research, like Bloecher did?

    There are the excerpts I have.
    Wilkins :
    "Close to the place where the fist atomic bomb was tested, a rancher in Roswell, New Mexico, was said, in July 1947, to have found a flying saucer. It landed in his ranch, and was inspected by officers of the 509th atomic bomb group of the 8th U.S. Air Force, who sent it to a ‘higher quarter.’ This reported find followed a report from D. C. J. Zohn, guided missile expert of the U.S. Naval Laboratory, that he and two other scientists had sighted a flying saucer near White Sands, a proving ground to which public access is prohibited, in New Mexico. Down came U.S. Army authorities who declared this was merely a weather balloon; despite the plain statement of Mr. Ivan B. Tannehill, weather bureau chief forecaster, that it was unlikely that this mysterious object speeding through the skies at a speed above the rate of transmission of sound waves, could have been a weather balloon. He pointed out that weather balloons have been in use for many years."

    Edwards :
    "There are such difficult cases as the rancher near Roswell, New Mexico, who phoned the Sheriff that a blazing disc-shaped object had passed over his house at low altitiide and had crashed and burned on a hillside within view of the house. The Sheriff called the military; the military came on the double quick. Newsmen were not permitted in the area. A week later, however, the government released a photograph of a service man holding up a box kite with an aluminum disc about the size of a large pie pan dangling from the bottom of the kite. This, the official report explained, was a device borne aloft on the kite and used to test radar gear by bouncing the signals off the pie pan. And this, we were told, was the sort of thing that had so excited the rancher. We were NOT told, however, how the alleged kite caught fire—nor why the military cordoned off the area while they inspected the wreckage of a burned-out box kite with a non-inflammable pie pan tied to it."

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Thanks Gilles, I hadn't read Wilkins.

    The difference is Wilkins and Edwards mention a story they had heard, but Bloecher and McDonald read the 1947 newspapers and named names, Brazel, Marcel, Ramey, Newton.

    Bloecher was first, not Wilkins or Edwards, to "recover the story".

    I have no idea how Ms Picknett got the notion Bloecher did not refer to Roswell.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Don:

    You're trying mightily to diminish Ms. Picknett's work.

    She wrote that Bloecher didn't mention Roswell in his Report on the UFO Wave of 1947.

    He doesn't.

    I have the Report right in front of me.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Rich,

    Bloecher wrote about Roswell in a section titled "Hoax and Mistakes" p.54
    http://www.noufors.com/Documents/Books,%20Manuals%20and%20Published%20Papers/ReportOnWaveOf1947.pdf

    Don,

    We discussed Wilkins etc. a little previously in 2010 (erf times goes fast^^) in Rich' blog (in the comments) : http://ufocon.blogspot.fr/2010/02/roswell-crash-talk-before-all-hoopla-by.html

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Gilles:

    The Roswell note was an addition, later on, not in the original booklet, as I have it.

    Someone can correct me on this.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Rich: "She wrote that Bloecher didn't mention Roswell in his Report on the UFO Wave of 1947.

    He doesn't.

    I have the Report right in front of me."

    So do I Rich, page 54 of the pdf under the rubric "Hoaxes And Mistakes"

    If it is not in your copy, I will quote the section here, if you like.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Don (and Gilles):

    It's not in my copy, on page 54 or anywhere else.

    I have a copy from a while ago.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Rich: "The Roswell note was an addition, later on, not in the original booklet, as I have it."

    Now, that is interesting. Original documents will trump copies.

    I hope this can be confirmed.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Yes, Don...

    I scoured his booklet several times in the past, hoping to be one of the first to find a Roswell reference before 1978.

    It wasn't there then and isn't now, in my copy.

    I'll scan Page 54 and put it online.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Yes, Don...

    I scoured his booklet several times in the past, hoping to be one of the first to find a Roswell reference before 1978.

    It wasn't there then and isn't now, in my copy.

    I'll scan Page 54 and put it online.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • The Roswell note was an addition, later on, not in the original booklet, as I have it.
    That possible, Rich. "My" pdf seems to be a re-edition and updated one of 2005.
    To be frank, I was curious/interrogative why some words were in a different police caracters in this section "William W. ("Mac") Brazel" or "Brazel", things I dont remember to have found elsewhere in this pdf (but must take a look again - I'm at work -), maybe pointing that this section was an "add-on" to the first edition?

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Gilles and Don:

    You're working with the updated, revised copy of Bloecher's paper:

    "This book was reproduced (2005) by Jean Waskiewicz, and Francis Ridge with exclusive permission from the author and is presented here in its updated form as an ongoing project. Working closely on this project is author Ted Bloecher and Project 1947's Jan Aldrich. We welcome any additional information or corrections on erroneous information already contained in
    the report, as part of this updated version."

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Rich: "You're working with the updated, revised copy of Bloecher's paper"

    Doh! Thank you.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • I think what got my guard down was the Condon-era rant about the evil Press.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • One has to be careful and as pristine as possible in their comments when it comes to Roswell.

    The topic is already mucked up to the hilt by erroneous observations and commentary.

    I put the Bloecher revised copy online -- which you can see via Google -- a while back, as scanning the original was too daunting.

    I was excoriated by my son Richard for doing that.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Rich: "One has to be careful and as pristine as possible in their comments when it comes to Roswell."

    I should have compared publication dates. Simple verification.

    Chronology is important in the history of ufology as well for that of ufos.

    That was sloppy of me. I will continue reading the book.

    Since I'm back on a sane computer, I don't have the Kindle edition of Ms Picknett's book, and don't recall the title of Klass' book she got the story about the Daily Record giving the press release to the AP.

    If Lance, CDA, or Gilles have it, perhaps they can post it here. Otherwise, I'll head off to the library this weekend and look it up.

    Reason is there is a bit of evidence that there were two 'lineages' of the AP press release story. Although the pr is the same in both, the context is different. It didn't occur to me as possibly of interest until I read Picknett's comment.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Rich wrote:
    Lynn Picknett's statement: "But it must be remembered that in 1947 ‘flying saucer’ and ‘flying disc’ were not yet synonymous with ‘alien spaceship’" is true.

    But her VERY NEXT SENTENCE (the one you chose NOT to quote) is NOT true: "They were part of a very new phenomenon, barely two weeks old, which had not yet been associated with outer space."

    Definite, historically inaccurate bilge. If no one associated it with outer space, there would have been no mention of the idea in the newspapers (over and over again) and no need for the Army Air Force to specifically DENY it.

    In REALITY, the idea was repeatedly brought up (even if only theoretically or dismissively), one newspaper referring to it as the "normal interplanetary speculation", and the Army Air Force DID specifically DENY the idea, starting with THE Gen. Ramey over a week before Roswell and the same day as Roswell just before the base put out their infamous press release.

    So Picknett is just plain wrong. There is is a difference between thinking about and discussing the possibility that they might be interplanetary (which the newspapers make clear MANY people did do right from the gitgo), and believing that was THE explanation (probably far fewer people).

    Although a Gallup poll published the following month did not list “Interplanetary” among the things people thought they were, 33% of the respondents gave no answer or said they didn’t know and 9% were listed as “other explanation” without detailed elaboration. Even Kenneth Arnold might be placed in the “don’t know” group because his opinion was they were definitely real, but likely either a secret Army experiment or interplanetary. One thing the poll did make clear is that practically everybody had heard about the “flying saucers”(90% overall and 98% of college graduates), far more than had heard about other major topics in the news (e.g., only 50% had heard of the Marshall Plan). So clearly, they gripped the public imagination. Among those who thought them real, only 15% believed they were a secret military experiment, only 1% thought them Russian, and only 3% thought they were explained by weather balloons. The public was much more sophisticated overall than our psychosocial “experts” give them credit for, trying to portray the public at large as a bunch of Farmer Bob rubes.

    Besides Kenneth Arnold, other credible people quoted in June/July 1947 citing the interplanetary hypothesis as at least a possibility were Prof. Lyman Spitzer of Yale, a famous 20th century astrophysicist (he was quite outspoken that we might be have been visited many times from Mars without knowing it), Senator Glenn Taylor of Idaho (he hoped they were from space because it would unite the world), and R. L. Farnsworth, later president of the American Rocketry Society. If you bothered to read the link I gave, you will also see a few very intelligent and thoughtful editorials and letters-to-the-editor discussing the possibilily, nobodies, obviously, but also not idiots.

    These are some of the people you characterize as "fringe nuts". Yes, the newspapers mentioned a few of those, but mostly people talking of ET origins were intelligent, non-flaky people considering various logical possibilities.

    There were also the sightings of highly credible witnesses that the Air Force considered very, very seriously and were parts of the follow-up studies, including from their own pilots and civilian pilots. To give but two examples, besides Arnold were the highly publicized United Airlines crew sighting of July 4 and the June 29 White Sands sighting by three rocket scientists there (not reported until July 8). The UA captain, Emil J. Smith, in the same Chicago Times articles of July 7, 1947, that had Arnold expressing interplanetary views, was instead quite certain they were a remote-controlled secret military experiment, but undoubtedly real, not an unreasonable POV two years after the super-secret A-bomb was developed. Again, not a “fringe nut”.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Yes, David...

    But the word "synonymous" is used judiciously, meaning, that in the general public and general media, flying disk(!) was not generally assumed to be a space ship from outer space.

    Yes, some circle did so see it that way -- the fringe element and some military, but over all. it was not a staple of argot; that is, flying disk was not a synonym for space ship from outer space.

    You're not a professional writer, although you do write a lot.

    Writers, reporters, used words specificall yand carefully.

    I understand what Ms. Picknett is writing.

    You choose not to.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Roswell totally forgotten post 1947? Hardly. Here is my webpage with known direct and possible indirect references to Roswell before Stanton Friedman stumbled across Jesse Marcel in 1978 and revived the case:

    http://www.roswellproof.com/post-1947-roswell-references.html

    The DIRECT references only (usually only a line or two, often with facts mixed up):

    January 1948, New Mexico Magazine

    May 1948, Popular Science Magazine

    1948--Information Please Almanac

    1948, “The Affairs of Dame Rumor” by David J. Jacobson (The first clear book reference to Roswell I have found so far)

    Late 1940’s or 1950’s (?), Roswell Sheriff’s wife, Inez Wilcox, memoir

    1948-1955, “Today in History” by the Associated Press

    Sept. 1952, TRUE Magazine, “The Flying Saucers and the Mysterious Little Men”, by J. P. Cahn (the famous expose of the 1950 Frank Scully crashed saucer book, but with direct reference to Roswell)

    1954, “Flying Saucers on the Attack”, Harold Tom Wilkins, p. 71

    Spring 1955, Flying Saucer Review (Vol 1, No. 1) (Hughie Green account of hearing story on radio as it was happening. FSR commented: “This is not the first time the story has been heard. But it is the first time someone who actually listened in to the transmissions has been interviewed. The question arising from
    Hughie Green’s account is: ‘Do the Americans have a Flying Saucer in their possession?’”)

    Nov. 11, 1957, “Ten Years of Flying Saucers”, by Don Moore (many newspapers) (a very muddled but obvious reference to Roswell)

    Frank Edwards Public Lectures (October 27, 1955; April 28, 1956)

    1966, “UFOs-Serious Business”, Frank Edwards

    1966, “The Flying Saucer Story”, Brinsley LePour Trench

    1967, “Flying saucers: a Look special”, LOOK magazine (another muddled account, but carried one of the photos taken in Gen. Ramey’s office of weather office Newton who made the official weather balloon ID)

    1967 “REPORT ON THE UFO WAVE OF 1947”, By Ted Bloecher (The question has been raised here whether this was included in the original 1967 report—don’t know. Whatever, another botched, muddled account of what happened.)

    July 10, 1972, Sheboygan WI Press, p. 22, “25 YEARS AGO TODAY—JULY 10, 1947” (Date wrong, but otherwise taken directly from 1947 newspaper account)

    Winter 1974, Saga Magazine, “UFO Report” by Peter Gutilla, p. 60 (Roswell witness Lydia Sleppy)

    “UFO Casebook”, by Kevin Randle (but not published until 1989), pp. 124-127; 234 (Randle’s 1976 encounter with a military person saying he was part of team debunking Roswell with weather balloon demonstrations. Randle didn’t understand the significance at the time.)

    June 22, 1977, Chicago Tribune, p. A1, “UFO research and journals are getting down to Earth”, by Paul Weingarten (Kenneth Arnold as keynote speaker at International UFO Congress, 30th anniversary of his sighting, has another muddled account of Roswell)

    There are probably more out there. These are just the ones I have found. Whether Roswell was mentioned or not post-1947 doesn't prove anything one way or another in any case. Numerous historical events are largely forgotten for decades or centuries. Doesn't mean they were insignificant or never happened.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • David:

    Thanks. You are eminent researcher, no doubt about that.

    Yes, there are references to Roswell pre-1978.

    And the "incident" happened. Only a dope would think it didn't.

    What it was -- the "incident" -- is the question to be answered.

    The problem, for Lance, CDA, Gilles, maybe Don, and even me, is all the extraneous material generated that obscures the point, the event.

    The incident has been muddled by all the irrelevant material.

    I understand you think that surrounding details are important but ufological tyros get side-tracked by those surrounding items and have lost sight of the core question.

    What happened near Roswell in 1947; that is, what really happened?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Gilles:

    The FSR reference to Roswell was, as you say, in vol 1, issue 1, 1955. It was part of a letter from the film and TV entertainer Hughie Green to the editor in which Green had heard the original radio broadcast as he was driving through New Mexico during July '47.

    Years later Bill Moore met with Green and interviewed him. It was because of this interview that Moore managed to fix the approximate date of Roswell, and then began searching the newspapers.

    Recall that when Friedman first met Marcel, Marcel could not remember even the year with any accuracy. It was Green who supplied the year.

    Hughie Green recalled very little of the actual event, relying wholly on what he heard on that short radio broadcast, which is, I think, on David Rudiak's website.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • David just tilts at windmills, bravely arguing against points that no one contests.

    He seems to possess zero subtlety. Everything is black or white.

    Although the concept has now been carefully explained to him, he STILL doesn't understand.

    Being completely blinded by his own nutty theories, he is unable to even participate in a discussion.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Surely the position is that no account of Roswell, either in the list DR gives, or in any of the numerous books, articles and documentaries since then, can be relied upon to be accurate.

    Who can say with certainty what actually occurred (and in what order the described events actually occurred)? We cannot rely on hastily written press reports to be accurate, although I would regard them as good enough for most purposes; e.g. if there really was a huge military presence on the site, or sites, as ET protagonists claim, I would expect the newspapers to have said SOMETHING to this effect, even if they got the details a bit wrong. Instead there was no mention whatever of it.

    Neither was there the slightest mention of all the 8 or 9 flights from the Roswell base to various parts of the USA, supposedly containing the wreckage and bodies.

    But again, it is assumed by the ET brigade, the officials had some super-duper powers to prevent this leaking out, if it really happened. And equally super-duper ability to stash away literally tons of documents, bodies and ET debris for 65-plus years, permanently hidden from the scientific world.

    A likely scenario!

    And so on.

    But I digress, as usual.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • And the best part! The base intelligence officer knew nothing about any of it!

    It is an awesome magical wonder conspiracy!

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Rich: "The problem, for Lance, CDA, Gilles, maybe Don, and even me, is all the extraneous material generated that obscures the point, the event."

    It is my inability to confirm or verify that information. Information I can't access might as well not exist, and there is nothing like an FOIA on ufologists' personal property.

    Being scientific about research means the researcher provides the sources for their presentation and the logic that leads to their Conclusion.

    Another researcher can then "repeat the experiment", "do the math", and dispute or affirm or develop the previous work.

    When I discovered that the Roswell investigators had nearly ignored the Roswell media, I thought it an area I might make a contribution.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Yes Lance.
    As I point here or there in France, Jesse Marcel himself remains the best "debunker" for the Roswell myth. Crual paradoxe for the ones who have writen the Roswell's Gospels, where Jesse Marcel words are the "Logia/Logion" of such Gospels, but debunking the myth.

    Regards,

    Gilles.

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Gilles: "As I point here or there in France, Jesse Marcel himself remains the best "debunker" for the Roswell myth."

    I made that very point to legendary skeptic twitch, back in the Jurassic Age. He was not amused by it, as you and Lance are. You may want to take that as a word in your ear -- or at least clear it with Tim Printy 8-)

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Lance wrote:
    "And the best part! The base intelligence officer knew nothing about any of it!"

    And the best part! Lance knows nothing about the well known fact that Marcel was AWAY FROM THE BASE from early afternoon July 8 to the night of July 9.

    Remember his trip to Fort Worth to see Ramey? Perhaps you forgot?

    I guess Marcel was expected to have psychic powers so that he would know what happened in his absence.

    CIC agent Rickett, when interviewed, said Marcel, when he got back, did try to get the CIC report on what happened in his absence, written by Roswell CIC head Cavitt. Marcel ordered him to hand it over (Marcel outranked Cavitt). Rickett said Cavitt refused, saying he answered to a different chain of command (true) and Marcel had no authority to get the report.

    So unless someone briefed him on what happened in his absence, Marcel was not going to know exactly about the ins and outs of a clean-up operation or all the various flights in and out that allegedly happened.

    I guess Lance has also never heard of "need to know" and compartmentalization. Even Ramey's executive officer, Brig. Gen. Thomas Dubose, admitted even he did not have full clearance in the matter. One example is the secret shipment of debris Dubose said happened from Roswell to Fort Worth to Washington. It arrived at Fort Worth in a sealed bag. Dubose was never allowed to see what was inside. Dubose said the secrecy was so high that the Gen. McMullen told him it was “beyond” top secret and ordered him to never talk about it. (He didn’t for another 30 years, just like Marcel.)

    Even if Marcel had stayed at the base and the operation was being totally controlled by the CIC and highly classified, Marcel might still have been kept out-of-the-loop. Such is the way the military and classified matters work.

    As it was, Marcel simply was NOT AT THE BASE (or preparing to leave) when a clean-up operation would have been organized and sent out to clean up the Brazel ranch. First the MP squadrons would be sent out to cordon off and secure the area. Not Marcel's department. That would be the provost marshal. In the meantime, "volunteers" would be rounded up from various units. Again, not Marcel's department. They might also be gathered from nearby bases such as Alamogordo and Fort Bliss, not something Marcel would be aware of.

    This is just the organizational stage, which would have begun probably right after the staff meeting the morning of July 8. To truck soldiers out to the ranch alone would take another 4 hours. The actual clean-up would not have begun until sometime the mid-afternoon of July 8, when MARCEL WAS AWAY FROM THE BASE flying to or in Fort Worth.

    Meantime, right after the morning staff meeting, Marcel was ordered to fly material to Wright Field, but first stopping at Fort Worth to see Ramey. THAT was Marcel's assigned job, NOT organizing and supervising debris field cleanup and plane flights.

    This was the Army. You don't get to choose your assignments and nobody above or below you has to tell you anything if you are not cleared to know.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • David: "CIC agent Rickett, when interviewed, said Marcel, when he got back, did try to get the CIC report on what happened in his absence, written by Roswell CIC head Cavitt. Marcel ordered him to hand it over (Marcel outranked Cavitt). Rickett said Cavitt refused, saying he answered to a different chain of command (true) and Marcel had no authority to get the report."

    This is a matter that Randle's comment to me, that Marcel was A2 for the RAAF, may clarify (and if I am wrong, then I request correction from Randle).

    First, in B&M I think, Marcel refers to the CIC agents as "his". As the RAAF's A2, then the CIC agents were "his" (you'll recall, CIC agents often presented themselves to witnesses as "army intelligence", or A2)

    Marcel was not delusional as some skeptics had it back in usenet days, citing this.

    Second, if Marcel requested a report from Cavitt, as he might to add to his own report to Blanchard, Cavitt was bound to write one for him, although Marcel had no right to the internal CIC report.

    Did Rickett say Marcel knew it was an internal CIC report? Or did Marcel think it was the report he was due and should not go directly to Blanchard, but through him? In either case, Cavitt's behavior has no excuse.

    Cavitt should not have been so careless as to have the report around where Marcel (or anyone) could see it period.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • As you see, Rudiak can spin a tale out of nothing.

    Meanwhile every mortician, fireman, fireman's daughter, cook, sergeant, private, etc etc in the Roswell area knew all about the massive recovery effort but Marcel....the base intelligence officer never even heard anything about it!

    Yes, Marcel went to Ft. Worth (thanks Dr. Obvious) but he never heard anything about the recovery effort in the year or more he stayed at the base!

    Of course, Rudiak cites his magical perfect conspiracy to hide all evidence of the pretend recovery effort.

    In the pretend world of Roswell massive recovery efforts can locate the site of a flying saucer, remove every trace of the the saucer and somehow keep every shred of evidence ( real evidence, not bullshit 50 year old memories teased out by saucer nuts) from ever surfacing. And all this can happen in a matter of a few hours .

    Compare this to how real recovery efforts happen and the length of time those take.

    The silly nonsense that conspiracy nuts fall for is breathtaking. Rudiak admits that he also is a frightened believer in the idiotic Rendlesham case as well....which like Roswell gets bigger and better every day.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Watching you people argue about Roswell like children doesn't tell us anything about UFOs, but it tells us a lot about the pettiness of human behaviour.

    PK

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • I second Paul's observation.

    And I plan on an evaluation of what has transpired with my Roswell post, about a book and a statement in it.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • Darn it, Paul, we were close to a breakthrough!

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • I guess I don't get the significance of debating what was meant by 'flying disk' or 'flying saucer' in 1947, at least in a discussion about Roswell.

    Who, in the 1947 Roswell news stories is quoted as referring to 'it' that way?

    The newspapers themselves do, including, and especially, the Daily Record, which also puts the phrase as close as possible to a Brazel quotation, but closes the quotes before "flying disc" (that is a bit of a clue). One news headline even refers to it as a "crashed disc".

    But who among the principals called it a flying anything?

    Everyone on all sides of the debate believes the press release reads that the RAAF had possession of a flying disc, but it doesn't.

    So, the question, if it needs to be asked, is what did the press mean by a flying disk or saucer. I think the press just meant the stuff people were reporting seeing in the sky period.

    The debate just seems pointless.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, May 14, 2014  

  • DR ignores the fact that NO DOCUMENTS, such as those supposedly written by Cavitt and/or Rickett, turned up in the searches made by the GAO, who were commissioned to locate all this kind of thing. It is inconceivable that such important documents would have got lost or destroyed.

    Yet both Cavitt and Rickett did have a hand in certain documents, but these were to do with the green fireballs 18 months later, not the Roswell 'crash'.

    My conclusion is that no such documents ever existed and that both Rickett and Cavitt have confused or flawed memories, prompted by leading questions from interviewers.

    Needless to say, ET protagonists will never accept this.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • Another thought:

    I assumed this recovery operation took several days, maybe a week (you know, the armed guards and all that). This was why Brazel was supposedly held incommunicado at the base, wasn't it?

    By common sense reasoning, Marcel should have been part of that big operation. But he wasn't.

    Poor fellow, missing most of the fun!

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • Got the desktop version of the Kindle reader (Picknett is my first use of Kindle) which is more functional that the Metro/Modern app, and continue to read her article in a saner environment.

    Lesson learned, I'll withhold commenting or critiquing it, until I've finished it and have mulled it over.

    The overall problem discussing Roswell (or anything actually) can be seen in this quotation from CDA (above)

    "Recall that when Friedman first met Marcel, Marcel could not remember even the year with any accuracy. It was Green who supplied the year."

    I think that should be Friedman said that Marcel said that he could not remember the year.

    We don't know whether Marcel remembered the year. He just told Friedman he couldn't. Maybe he was trying to get Friedman to go away and leave him alone.

    or

    "Hughie Green recalled very little of the actual event, relying wholly on what he heard on that short radio broadcast, which is, I think, on David Rudiak's website."

    Do we know which broadcast Green heard? If not, why that one?

    The weakness of the 'few if any people associated flying saucers with ET in July 1947', is that it is a great argument for the army to have labeled a crashed space ship and space aliens as a flying saucer and a perfect cover. Nobody would ever guess the truth. In July, 1947.

    It is a flawed argument with a gaping logical hole you could drive a ufo triangle through.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • The crux of the problem, Don, lies in the use of the flying thing argot: a flying saucer or a flying disk/disc.

    One has to separate the two to make sense of what was thought or beign communicated.

    Flying disk/disc was as Picknett and some of us (including the FBI) saw as a term for something exotic found on the ground, apparently from above that was odd to the point of registering scrutiny.

    Flying saucer was attributed to things flying in the sky and appearing to be advanced aircraft, a la Arnold's sighting/description and the media coinage of the term "saucer" to describe the things.

    There is a dichotomy that Dr. Rudiak refuses to see or use.

    He lumps flying disc/disks and flying saucers into the same phylum, which makes the matter or topic more confusing than it needs to be.

    This is part of what Lance et al. sees as maniacal about Dr. Rudiak's approach to UFO rsearch; Rudiak hasn't clarified or differentiated terms and events, such as hearsay and actual, as you wish to do and which others, like me, see as a ufological flaw of great magnitude.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • Rich, it should be obvious from my posts and what I have written here over the years that I am aware of the distinction between flying and non-flying discs during the wave. It is in the AF and FBI back and forth in July and the following months, leading to the toilet seat memo that A2 Hamilton Field, Lt Col. Springer, 'leaked' to the FBI. It is why I've written, probably here, too, that Roswell, as we know it, was an FBI-style case, according to the AF opinion, and why I had asked whether anyone knew if there was an FBI office in Roswell in 1947. And so on.

    The Roswell books, the style or genre of the opinions expressed is newspaper-like. The story 'develops', there are 'adds' and 'corrections'. The story is then assembled out of the pieces to fit the space available (what a publisher will buy) and then begins the process of creative anachronism, reading back into the earliest account the later 'developments'.

    Best Regards, and good luck with it,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • Yes, Don...

    I know you know the difference and have tried to proselytize to the UFO quidnuncs, who have a tendency to ignore edifying suggestions.

    But as Gilles keeps reminding us, "That's ufology."

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • The main reason why I don't get into lengthy Roswell debates such as this one is because, at the end of the day, it doesn't (and cannot) achieve anything at all.

    Someone says there were 4 bodies at the crash site. Someone else says 5.

    Etc etc.

    It has turned into the equivalent of someone endlessly saying Jack the Ripper was a doctor or someone else saying he was a member of the British Royal Family.

    None of it takes us any closer to proving anything.

    Debate will never prove anything about Roswell, no matter how loudly some shout, and how extensive their comments are.

    If Roswell involved a crashed UFO then the only thing that will change things is to find evidence, in the form of artifacts/bodies.

    That's the only thing that will ever elevate Roswell from where it's at now - endless debate. Even photos aren't enough.

    Now, I have no idea how to find those artifacts. But I do know this: if Roswell researchers want to take things further, debating just won't cut it.

    Yes, new testimony is interesting, data that suggests the Mogul theory is wrong is interesting, and when someone says their grandfather saw bodies, that's interesting.

    But it won't clear it up. Only physical evidence has the ability to do that.

    Ufology needs to put its collective head together and try and figure out an alternative way to resolve Roswell.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • Nick: "Ufology needs to put its collective head together and try and figure out an alternative way to resolve Roswell."

    Since everyone in ufology seems to have their own personal beliefs tied up in the matter, it would require conversion-experiences to achieve it, since reasoning and common sense do not function in its 'field'. So, unless you've got a Influencing Machine...

    For example, we will never ever in a ufo venue have a reasonable discussion of "Is the Twining Memo an example of Air Force 'rent seeking' behavior?".

    The best outcome would if the abuse that would be hurled about, like Zeuses tossing thunderbolts, is amusing.

    or, if they behaved, would it be a Contactee-like meeting of the Three Christs of Ypsilanti?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • well, i agree re the UFO venue angle, but my chief point is to how to actually solve Roswell (if it CAN even be solved).

    It can't be solved by just looking into the past and analyzing testimony, family recollections, and newspaper clippings etc.

    Doing so only tells us that something happened and it was highly likely something extraordinary.

    And regardless of what people think of all the research that has gone on since Moore and Friedman in the 70s and up to the present day, that's still where we are at - analyzing testimony and doing historical research.

    To take things further (and by "further" I mean where something meaningful in terms of finding evidence) would mean making the focus not on the past, the old-timers, the press reports,the USAF reports, the GAO report, the Ramey memo etc etc.

    The focus should be on finding physical evidence. Enough data and testimony is in hand (in my view, at least) to suggest a major event occurred.

    People need to move on and look for where the evidence is NOW, TODAY.

    That - and only that - will change Roswell from where it currently stands: a systematic search for the materials.

    Does Ufology stand a chance of finding it? I don't know. Maybe. What I DO know, however, is that if a change in approach doesn't occur, Roswell will turn into the UFO equivalent of Jack the Ripper, the JFK assassination etc etc - an old mystery that fascinates people because...it's a mystery.

    Move on to a new approach. Or wallow in nostalgia and a mistaken belief that lots of research and testimony equals proof of what happened.

    Find the hard evidence.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • Nick: "The focus should be on finding physical evidence..."

    Isn't that what got us into the mess?

    I take a hint from Brad Sparks to look forward in time from July 8, 1947, rather than back. What happened 3 days to 3 weeks previously, is locked up and not accessible. Controlling the story about what had happened is easier than controlling future outcomes.

    I think, if there is physical proof, the evidence for it will be found after 7/8/47, not before.

    I think that means investigating what was then the AEC, and that for me, I admit, would be punching way above my weight.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • RRR wrote:
    Flying disk/disc was as Picknett and some of us (including the FBI) saw as a term for something exotic found on the ground, apparently from above that was odd to the point of registering scrutiny.

    Flying saucer was attributed to things flying in the sky and appearing to be advanced aircraft, a la Arnold's sighting/description and the media coinage of the term "saucer" to describe the things.

    There is a dichotomy that Dr. Rudiak refuses to see or use.

    He lumps flying disc/disks and flying saucers into the same phylum, which makes the matter or topic more confusing than it needs to be.


    Rich,
    Again you are no expert of the period and are spouting historically inaccurate piffle.

    "Flying saucer" and "flying disc" were used interchangeably in the media in the early post-Arnold "flying saucer" era. BOTH were used to describe those "exotic" things people were reporting in the sky, including Arnold. What they were, nobody knew, but there were a lot of theories, from hoax and illusion to extraterrestrial.

    It is total nonsense to claim "flying saucer" was reserved only for the flying things, while "flying disc" was attributed to "exotic" things found on the ground. Starting around July 5, 1947, things found on the ground, like crashed radar targets, started getting proposed as the solution for the flying saucer/flying disc mystery. The paradigm example of this was the Circleville, Ohio, radio target found by farmer Sherman Campbell, which received a lot of press coverage:

    http://www.roswellproof.com/Circleville.html

    Read through the newspaper articles and photo captions and you will see that "flying saucer" was very much used to describe what Campbell found, as was "flying disc". E.g., "A report came from Chillicothe that a flying saucer had been found on the ground near there. All other reports had the saucers spotted in the air." (Columbus Citizen, July 6)

    Other radar target crashes reported at the time also used "disc"/"saucer" interchangeably to describe the not-really-so-"exotic" balsa wood kite radar targets, again saying they might explain the flying saucer/flying disc mystery:

    http://www.roswellproof.com/balloon_crashes.html

    In Roswell, the Daily Record newspaper called the object found by the Army both a "flying saucer" and "flying disk" or just "disk" (but the main headline and intro paragraph said "flying saucer") while AP and UP called it a "flying disc".

    Depending on the tastes of newspaper headline writers and editors, by the time the news wire bulletins became newspaper copy, again you see both terms being used interchangeably to describe what was found.

    E.g., the blazing banner headline of the Los Angeles Herald-Express the evening of July 8 read: "Army Finds 'Flying Saucer'". When it dipped into the actual AP account, it went back to "flying disc", followed by a short speculative article that they might be connected to White Sands and our atomic facilities: "Announcement by the Army Air Force of the finding of a 'flying saucer' on a ranch near Roswell, N. M., excited speculation here today about a possible connection with the famous proving ground at White Sands..."

    http://www.roswellproof.com/LA_HeraldExpress_July8.html

    Trying to manufacture a false argument that you could distinguish what was found by the use of "disc" or "saucer" gets us no closer to the truth of what was really found. Let's stick to the historical facts, please, and leave the posturing and rhetoric on the cutting room floor.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • So as not to remain redolently pungent, I'll defer to your expertise, David.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • David,
    It doesn't matter what the press called the things. The issue for me is what authorized Air Force spokesmen said.

    Try this: The fact that the press release (Haught's Statement) refers the RAAF possessing "a disc" (that simply "landed") distinguishing it from the rumored "flying disc", is proof to me that the press release was issued by Blanchard with approval from "higher headquarters", rather than a giggling Haut or a insane Marcel.

    You know Ramey went out of his way to explain why the 25 ft disk in his office wasn't a flying one.

    You know Ramey said in Ft Worth that his investigation had not found anyone who saw it in the air. You know Brazel repeated it as we are told, that he did not see it "fall from the sky".

    I don't think there is a statement from the Air Forces then, that refers to the Roswell object as a "flying disk" -- not that it was spoken of as such, as in a 'mention', but as a 'use'.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • I do want to point out to everyone that the press release does say "the flying object landed...".

    Nothing disappears without a trace.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • Flying saucer" and "flying disc" were used interchangeably in the media in the early post-Arnold "flying saucer" era.
    Hello,

    Yes, David is right (imho) on this point.

    But David must/could/should explain (as ETH defender and then the one to have the burden of proof, and so, remember, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and he have NONE),

    Why Marcel didn't legaced/ing what did other witnesses, in our Roswell Modern Myth, despite Marcel was Intelligence Officer of the base, after all....

    That big operation?
    A massive recovery effort ?
    Areas cordoned ?
    And so on...

    "For me to know and you to find out"

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • Don wrote:
    You know Ramey went out of his way to explain why the 25 ft disk in his office wasn't a flying one.

    I do indeed. Ironically, the object he was supposedly describing (the "box-kite"-like radar target) was only 4 feet across.

    He also went out of his way to note that it was too flimsy to carry a pilot.

    And back at the Pentagon, just before the base press release came out, they went out of their way to note that they were absolutely sure the flying saucers were NOT "space ships." (just as Ramey himself had done a week before)

    All this denial of what something was not, all from the military. That usually comes under the Shakespearean heading of protesting too much.

    The only thing I disagree with from your previous statements is that "space ships" could possibly have referred to rockets and satellites barely on the drawing board. But one of the other things they absolutely denied the saucers could be was a military secret project, so I think that was already covered. The Pentagon press release was meant for mass public consumption. Probably relatively few in the public knew about plans for eventual satellites or human "space ships". In the more popular mind, "space ship" meant the sci-fi, Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers interplanetary craft carrying humans or aliens. But I suppose that is somewhat debatable too.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • David: "The only thing I disagree with from your previous statements is that "space ships" could possibly have referred to rockets and satellites barely on the drawing board. But one of the other things they absolutely denied the saucers could be was a military secret project, so I think that was already covered."

    Technically, you are right, it was covered. What I suggest is that if the reference isn't explicit, such as 'space ships from other planets', it may not mean what you assume. It may, or it may not. The explicit reference would be indisputable.

    During 1945 and 1946, less in 1947 by my anecdotal count, there was plenty of AF pr in the press, exciting stuff about the "push button" future. Good Sunday supplement material and fodder for many magazines, Popular this 'n that, and the Men's Magazines, like True and Saga.

    You might say the 'ET' idea back then was we would go there, not that they would come here.

    An explicit statement is worth all the rest. In fact, all the rest would be unnecessary.

    Something about General Arnold's push button future Air Force: The pilots would be replaced by technicians sitting at "consoles". On the ground. In garrison.

    Denials and ridicule of Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, and spaceships might be directed at the pushbutton fanciers.

    There were factions.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • Don/David:

    David argues that the terms flying saucers and flying disks/discs were used interchangeably, and they were, in the examples he's provided.

    But in some circles, many circles and offficialdom (the FBI) flying saucers were deeemd to be space ships from outer space and flying disks were odd artifacts found by citizens and tagged flying disk or disc not saucers and not a space ship from outer space.

    David has extrapolated from a mundane but odd descriptive to give us flying saucers from Mars.

    But discs/disks were not the same as saucers.

    When I started a Flying Saucer club in high school (1953/1954) I didn't use the epithet The Flying Disk Club, because that would have been something quite different from what I had in mind.

    And my idea came from the general consensus of the time -- the meme, if that term would have been operative then.

    For David, the confluent use of the terms are footnoted by him but he's arguing from a specific and applying it to the general.

    That's what gets Lance's goat and other thinkers too.

    David has expertise about the matter but warps the argument by his errant logic.

    Flying disks/discs were not seen as outer space craft, in the time-frame, even though David provides some specific examples that some people and some circles did so use them.

    But over all, the terms were not synonymous, for the public at large or, more importantly, the military.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • Rich, as far as I know, during the 1947 Wave (and not later in time), "saucer" was a popular term, which the Air Forces did not use, preferring "disc". Even in 1995, the AFOSI Roswell Report misquotes the Daily Record headline as "RAAF Captures Flying Disc On Ranch In Roswell Region"

    Why that was so, I do not know. You and apparently others, are aware why it was so. I'd like a reference to the FBI use (I mean the FBI document). Thanks.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • One FBI reference, Don, is the ubiquitous Edgar Hoover document that Anthony Bragalia provided in his FBI post here or at his personal blog, but is available all over the place, as part of the Roswell mythos.

    I'm not going to seek it out as I wish to terminate the discussion but you and David won't let it die; it's become a UFO zombie.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • Well, okay. I'm only aware of one FBI memo from 1947 about Roswell, but I guess it is something else. I don't understand your reticence, but that's your business, not mine.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • Don:

    Haven't you read my latest post, above: The UFO Black Hole?

    My reticence is obvious in that posting.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • I found the FBI article here written by Tony. I don't see any distinction made between "disc" and "saucer" in a Hoover or FBI memo. As is obvious from Tony's comments he did not have all the story of the Toilet Seat Memo, though.

    I'm familiar with all the documents Tony referenced.

    There is one memo from the early 1950s from Ladd to Hoover in which we learn something about Hoover's opinion about the saucers (or, excuse me if I am wrong and insert "disc", instead), without having to guess.

    Ok. I'm satisfied. The discussion
    is ended.

    Best Regards,

    Don



    Oh, well.

    By Blogger Don, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • Don...

    Here's what I was referring to:

    http://www.cufon.org/cufon/foia_001.htm

    I thoght Tony had this in his posting.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 15, 2014  

  • Part 1 of 2
    I hope this is my last post on this particular blog topic. Rich says he wants to kill the thread. Fine, but I would like at least the opportunity of rebuttal to Rich’s lavish praise of Lynn Picknett’s chapter on Roswell, by a more general review of the book, which I have just looked at, so that readers can see there is a totally different side to this.

    First, save your five bucks and look for free on Google Books:

    http://tinyurl.com/mzqbg32

    As I suspected, this was hardly a fresh, original look at Roswell chock full of new information that even Roswell experts like myself had never seen. (Rich’s representation) No, it was the usual plagiarized, warmed-over, one-sided, totally inaccurate debunking arguments I have read a thousand times before in Pflock, Korff, Todd, and Klass. In fact, besides her citations, there are various "radioactive tracers" particular to these Roswell debunkers that tell us her "original" arguments came directly from them. She seems particularly fond in her citations for Kolonel Korff, as we all know, that highly credible UFO researcher and anti-terrorism expert in the Israeli Secret Service with a 500-book publishing deal.

    Think of it as a student term paper thrown together from a few sources, taking a little from here, a little from there, all referenced, but the student not really knowing what they are talking about because they have done no research on their own. Therefore they are unable to evaluate the material critically. They don't know what arguments they are using are lies and what are not, what lines of evidence the cited authors are carefully massaging, and so on. (Kolonel Kal K. Korff—need I say more?)

    E.g., she claims when Mogul engineer Charles Moore became convinced by Todd that one of Moore's Mogul balloons had been found, he quickly found "from his records” that such a balloon existed and was “tracked” within 17 miles of the ranch.

    She makes it sound like Moore found massive documentation. Instead it was only two lines in a diary saying the planned flight had instead been CANCELLED and replaced by another non-Mogul flight testing microphone reception. The “Mogul” flight (i.e., large, fully-rigged balloon) was indeed cancelled, because it was omitted from the Mogul summary tables like other known cancelled Mogul flights, and there is not one speck of documentation in Mogul progress reports, unlike the real flights, showing such things as plotted trajectories. In other words, there were never any “records” documenting that anything was “tracked” within 17 miles, because the balloon flight was cancelled, or nonexistent, and never tracked anywhere Naturally she doesn’t mention that, probably because she doesn’t know any better.

    Instead, the “tracked” within 17 miles story was purely the invention of Moore based on his suddenly recovered memory of this supposed flight which he didn’t remember anything about before. (The same sort of shifting testimony based on old memories she uses to debunk any "pro-Roswell" testimony.)

    Another example, she cites a 1995 OMNI Magazine article where the one known surviving Roswell nurse, Rosemary McManus, was interviewed. How does she represent it? “She knew nothing of anything out of the ordinary happening in Roswell AAF’s hospital during her tour of duty there...” But that was only part of what McManus said. Despite not directly observing anything, she added that she felt a crash and body recovery was plausible: "I know that something went on, and I know it was very hush-hush. And I know I didn't know anything about it at the time. It was closed up tight as a drum, you know, by the base officials." Curious that Picknett deliberately omitted that, don’t you think, since it puts a very different slant on the testimony?

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Friday, May 16, 2014  

  • Part 2 of 2
    Final example, she dismisses the story of Capt. Oliver Henderson showing Dr. John Kromshroeder a piece of strange metallic debris, by stealing from Pflock, who claimed Henderson's friends said he was a "practical joker". Pflock gives well-known Roswell names like Glenn Dennis and Walter Haut as sources of the “practical joker” stories, but doesn’t give us any specifics of what that was supposed to mean. It was obviously supposed to suggest that Henderson could not be believed. If a "pro-Roswell" researcher had used the same sort of slimy tactic to dismiss a witness favoring her Mogul balloon theory, she would no doubt of rejected such testimony because the “evidence” was nothing but undetailed allegation and insinuation that the witness was unreliable. She also neglects to inform the reader that Kromshroeder was an expert metallurgist and longtime business partner of Henderson, not one to likely be fooled by a piece of V-2 metal, she claims he was really shown by Henderson, the "practical joker."

    The source of the V-2 story? Pflock repeating the incredibly reliable Korff, claiming he heard it from one of Henderson’s old WWII flight crew. Wow, she really has that one nailed down!

    She also claims Henderson told Kromshroeder about seeing alien bodies but not his own wife, so therefore how believable could the story be Kromshroeder heard? Outrageously false! I have Sappho Henderson's affidavit on my website as well as Henderson’s daughter Mary Groode (never mentioned, of course), both of which state he told them about the bodies. (www.roswellproof.com/henderson.html). Ironically, Pflock, her “source” for the “practical joker” dismissal of the story, has the affidavits too, in the Appendices of his book, but Picknett’s “in-depth” Roswell “research” apparently didn’t go that far. It didn’t even go far enough to mention that Pflock brought up their alien body testimony as well in his “Pappy’s Little Joke” section, only to dismiss Henderson’s wife and daughter as also being taken in by Pappy, the “practical joker”. Picknett seems mysteriously clueless about the actual testimony of Henderson’s own family or is deliberately misrepresenting it, just like she did with the McManus testimony.

    Isn't it amazing what one can deduce from one's armchair about the credibility of a witness never having known them personally while flippantly dismissing testimony of people who did know them intimately over decades, namely family?

    Henderson also told his old WWII flight crew at a reunion about the UFO crash, his part in flying the debris to Wright Field, and the bodies, as Lt. Vere McCarthy revealed in a letter. No mention of that either by Picknett. Ahhh, but another crew member’s anecdote of the practical joke V-2 piece, filtered through the highly credible Kol. Korff, yes, let’s definitely bring that up.

    This is just incredibly “sloppy”, dishonest, totally derivative "research" (therefore largely arguments from ignorance) that just further muddies the UFO waters, exactly what Rich complains about (so why is he advocating her book?). I could cite a 100 more examples of things Picknett has obviously wrong or mixed up, some just flagrant lies (except she probably doesn’t even know they are lies since she is just copying others), but I would have to write my own book just to document them.

    Oh, and what does Picknett believe are really behind UFOs (rest of book)? Basically the equivalent of fairies, leprechauns, and elves, beings who live amongst us and don’t want their presence known, or the Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis. That and nonexistent Mogul balloons explaining Roswell “perfectly” (her word) she finds to be credible. Not a critical or deep thinker this one. If it wasn’t for her hatchet job on Roswell, I’m sure the debunkers would dismiss the entire book as the work of another “woo-woo” UFO hack chasing after publishing bucks.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Friday, May 16, 2014  

  • The value of the book David lies in her presentation of all the views, loopy and otherwise so newbies can get a capsulized taste of what Roswell has become, for ufologists and those who find Roswell fascinating.

    It's an overview, and a good one.

    It's not a search for the Roswell truth but a presentation of what the Roswell tale is: a botched incident now, where what really happened can't be recreated, as Nick Redfern thinks, with which I agree.

    Hanging one's hat on Roswell as the holy grail of UFOs or UFOlogy is an intellectual blunder, that's all.

    You, for me, are the premier Roswell researcher, despite your ET bias.

    But Roswell is taking us nowhere, even if it turns out that a fying saucer crashed and bodies were recovered.

    It's history -- flawed and incomplete as hell.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, May 16, 2014  

  • Rich wrote,
    The value of the book David lies in her presentation of all the views, loopy and otherwise so newbies can get a capsulized taste of what Roswell has become, for ufologists and those who find Roswell fascinating. It's an overview, and a good one.

    Of course I totally disagree. The book has ZERO value because it does NOT present all the views. It's a highly biased and inaccurate overview, therefore a terrible one. Good overviews are balanced, reasonably complete, and ACCURATE. This one doesn't get remotely close to that.

    A huge clue that this books is worthless as a factual and dispassionate look at the Roswell case is her primary "source", Kol. Kal K. Korff. I rest my case.

    It's not a search for the Roswell truth but a presentation of what the Roswell tale is: a botched incident now, where what really happened can't be recreated, as Nick Redfern thinks, with which I agree.

    No, she claims the truth has been found. It was a Mogul balloon. As with all Mogul balloon advocates, she has to grossly exaggerate and misrepresent the alleged evidence in support of it (including the fundamental problem that the alleged culprit Mogul never existed, as is ACTUALLY proven by the records).

    And on the crashed saucer side, she has to completely discredit the testimony by leaving 90% of the witnesses unmentioned or misrepresenting their testimony, focusing on a few weaker witnesses, and using character assassination techniques to get rid of the rest.

    One more example. She credits Brig. Gen. Arthur Exon as being one of the more credible Roswell saucer crash witnesses, but dismisses his testimony as being based on nothing but "rumor". That is another of her many, many misrepresentations. What Exon actually said was that he spoke directly to the men involved at Wright Field who tested the debris, men he knew well. That is second-hand testimony, not "rumor". Exon also said he later overflew the area where the cleanup had occurred and saw that it was an extensive operation based on all the tire tracks and damage to the landscape. That's first-hand.

    Picknett, however, claims there would have needed to be an extensive cleanup operation for a Mogul balloon, which is complete nonsense again showing she knows NOTHING.

    You are right that Roswell has been muddied, but starting with the military in 1947 who immediately changed the story and controlled the flow of information, and in the present by complete know-nothings and highly biased writers like Picknett.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Friday, May 16, 2014  

  • I knew, when I noted the book, David, that the MOGUL portion would get your goat.

    I love seeing your observations about MOGUL.

    As for Korff, he was sane at one time.

    I like Picknett's approach, flawed as it may be in your eyes.

    I know of no book that has gotten Roswell right.

    So there we are.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, May 16, 2014  

  • Rich,

    It is clear from Korff's history that he went off the rails as a grandiose liar and fantasist long before he wrote his Roswell book, which is also demonstrably full of lies, distortions, half-truths, copycat debunking arguments, twisted logic, and character assassination. This was as clear in 1997 when he wrote the book as it is today.

    The only difference is that his claims about himself have become so grandiose and transparently preposterous in the interim that even most of his fellow debunkers have abandoned him as a credible source on anything.

    Yet Picknett uses him as her primary source to debunk Roswell. That would be like me using the Roswell book of another Colonel named Corso to "prove" a saucer crashed. (At least Corso was a REAL Colonel, unlike "Kolonel" Korff.)

    Basing an overview and debunking of the Roswell incident by leaning heavily on trash by a totally discredited author can only result in further trash.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Friday, May 16, 2014  

  • I hear ya, David.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, May 16, 2014  

  • RR:

    "I know of no book that has gotten Roswell right."

    Unless you have super powers, how do you know what is 'right' in this case?

    Surely you are not expecting anyone to get it 100% right?

    I propose that DR now produces the 'book that ends all books' about Roswell. I do not expect 100% accuracy but we may, with luck, get, say, 90%. With a lot of luck.

    Otherwise Rendlesham will likely replace Roswell as the world's number 1 crashed saucer case. (Perish the thought).

    Regarding Mogul, remember that NONE of the flights were genuine Mogul flights at all, even those that are in the official listings. They were merely preliminary test flights to see if the Mogul project was feasible.

    The real Mogul never took place.

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, May 17, 2014  

  • CDA:

    I agree.

    A Roswell book by David Rudiak would be a killer and more substantive than any so far published.

    But it would be 1000 pages plus.

    David doesn't know when to edit himself....and that, often, less is more.

    But I'd buy his book in a minute as the Roswell compendium that really matters.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, May 17, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home