The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Friday, January 14, 2011

Roswell: The Great Pan is dead!

pan14.jpg

In Hamlet’s Mill: An Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time by Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend [Gambit Inc., Boston, 1969], the authors, in Chapter XXI (Page 275 ff.), recount the famous tale from Plutarch about how, on board a ship with many passengers, sailing near the Echinades Islands, Epitherses (son of Aemilianus) tells that Thamus, the Egyptian pilot, heard a voice, while near the island of Paxi, calling his name.

Thamus, at first did not reply, but after a third time he responded to the voice, which said, “When you come opposite to Palodes, announce that Great Pan is dead.”

Thamus, Epittherses, and the passengers were astounded and reasoned among themselves whether to carry out the order or not.

Thamus, however, while approaching Palodes said the words, “Great Pan is dead.”

A great cry of woe, by many on the land, went up, and eventually spread to Rome, where Tiberius Caesar called for an investigation as to the truth of the profound rumor.

Plutarch, himself, did not accept the acclimation and suggested that the shouts from Paxi were misunderstood by Thamus and the story became embroidered by the masses, encouraged by the fact that Tiberius had called for an official investigation, apparently giving some credence to the tale.

The authors write this, “One is still allowed to wonder why such a fuss was made at the time about [the] exclamations…and why…that most learned of mythologists, the Emperor Tiberius himself, thought the matter worth following up.” [Page 276]

The significance of the tale is many. Firstly Pan was considered a major God, and equatable, in some quarters, with Jesus who was crucified during the reign of Tiberius.

Secondly, the tale strikes at the heart of the prevailing belief system of the time, Paganism.

Thirdly, the tale continues to be remunerated upon to this day (by scholars and mythologists, mostly).

And finally, Great Pan is dead was retold in many configurations over the years, such as it was Tammuz-Adonis, the grain god who died, the yoke-bearer, Giki-Gaki is dead on the Hurgergorn, and the Fanggen, a kind of “Little People” (or giants!?) disappeared in the Tyrol.

How does this tale relate to Roswell?

The Chapter (and book, in toto) elaborates on how history and events are muddled by belief systems, what people wish to hear, and Chapter IV (History, Myth and Reality) examples instances where events are confabulated or twisted, often inadvertently, by a jumping to conclusions inspired by entrenched beliefs and/or stories heard, many times, over the years.

Hamlet’s Mill treats great myths and tales that affect or have affected humanity in significant ways, over the millennia.

Roswell is not significant, nor worthy of a Myth status, Gilles Fernandez notwithstanding, but it has developed the status of mythos, in the sociological sense.

(Mythos -- the complex of beliefs, values, attitudes, etc, characteristic of a specific group or society)

What was decried by Thamus may be seen as similar to what was decried at Roswell: The Army Air Force has captured a Flying Saucer.

roswellpaper.jpg

The “heard refrain” at Roswell has been elaborated upon and added to, much like that which happened when “The Great Pan is dead” was taken as a profound truth by those hearing about the announcement and taking it to varying interpretations, far and wide, subjecting it to the vicissitudes of many locales and peoples.

The original story – the original announcement – has been taken apart by “researchers” and recast by those same “researchers” into many guises, all adumbrated to enhance whatever belief system held in the mind of a particular “researcher” – some preferring the extraterrestrial cast, some preferring a secret military cast, and others eschewing any cast at all, debunking the tale, altogether, as Euhemeros, the first debunker, did with myth.

roswell.jpg

Roswell is a story, with a core truth at its center. What that core truth may be has been lost to time, and the ineptitude of those who gathered the remnants of the original tale twwnty years after the “event” allegedly took place.

Can the story be cleansed of the accretions? Not easily, if at all.

The Roswell tale has been concretized into a myth (or, better, mythos) as CDA and Gilles Fernandez continue to decry.

It can’t be scrubbed clean, that’s a certainty, which Nick Redfern and this writer (among others) think is the case.

But others, David Rudiak, Stanton Friedman, Kevin Randle, et al., will continue to promote the mythology, because, for them, mythos is more important than truth.

83 Comments:

  • Methinks you are a bit provocative here, inviting the critics to strike back. But regarding the myth and mythos aspect, Gilles mentioned on Kevin's blog the book UFO CRASH AT ROSWELL, THE GENESIS IF A MODERN MYTH by Saler, Ziegler and Moore which goes into this very topic.

    This book is an appropriate counter to two other books with a similar title:
    (i) UFO CRASH AT ROSWELL by Randle & Schmitt
    (ii) THE TRUTH ABOUT THE UFO CRASH AT ROSWELL (same authors).

    I recall one Stanton Friedman lecturing in the UK, who put a simple question to the audience (and then answered it himself). His question was: "If the 2nd Randle/Schmitt book represents 'The Truth', what does that say about their first book?".

    Why was their 2nd book necessary anyway, if not to correct the falsity of much of their first book?

    And if the second book really is the truth, then what does the 3rd book (by Saler, Ziegler & Moore) amount to? Is this the real absolute truth or is it a myth?

    Interesting stuff! Personally I would have given all 3 books different titles. You can argue that Friedman's CRASH AT CORONA was nearest to the truth since Corona is only about half as far from the Foster ranch crash site as Roswell.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, January 14, 2011  

  • Christopher:

    My modus is one that is trying to take Roswell out of the hands of the "researchers" who have screwed the whole event up, and continue to do so with aplomb, to save their egos and grizzled faces.

    Randle has been engaged in a kind of mea culpa for a while now.

    Rudiak is as fervid as ever.

    And Friedman? He's just Roswell-senile.

    The story has meat but those guys have made it rancid.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 14, 2011  

  • A few pertinent facts are agreed on by everyone, other facts are in dispute and the rest of it is fleshed out by conflicting self interests.

    This video says a lot in only two and a half minutes. ;O)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2yVZCVLK3E

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Friday, January 14, 2011  

  • Really Frank:

    We're trying to be serious here, sort of....

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 14, 2011  

  • Oh, so am I. I think that video is a great little bit of satire and it is funny as hell, but it's got it's facts right and says a lot about how these paranormal tales and mysteries build up over time.

    I'll give an example-

    The Jack the Ripper murders happened and they are unsolved-That's a fact.

    Unproved theories have been put forward-royal family member or a surgeon was responsible-and widely distributed. That those theories have been put forward is a fact.

    So in just two steps you have fact and speculation and the fact of the speculation seamlessly blended together.

    The satire absolutely nailed the tone of the TV documentaries on such subjects but that's just an opinion. ;O)

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Friday, January 14, 2011  

  • Hahahahaha....(I don't get it)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 14, 2011  

  • Coincidentally, I've just finished the draft of an article titled: Roswell Before the Mythos.

    Contrary to the mythos, Roswell was written-up during the silent period (1947-1978) by Ted Bloecher in 1967. His report is essentially the skeptics' position (including Mogul).

    For Bloecher Roswell and Maury Island were the "mistake" and the "hoax" of the 1947 wave that destroyed ufology's hope for credibility. But identifying where Bloecher went wrong illuminates the indigestible core of Roswell -- the press release (the fact of it). It was a "mistake", a "blunder in public relations" It must have been. Right?

    No. It could not have been. For me, that is settled.

    So, the mythos began not post-1978, but in 1967, before Marcel, memory metal, and mj12 (but not mogul). The unanswered (and probably unanswerable) question is why a press release?


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, January 14, 2011  

  • Don:

    You ask the primary Aristotelian question -- why the press release?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 14, 2011  

  • Sourcerer:
    Why are you so certain that the press release was not a blunder in public relations?

    Ted Bloecher did no investigation of his own. He relied entirely on the newspaper reports. He never investigated Maury Island either. In fact he did no investigation of anything, anything at all. So why lump him into the "Roswell myth"?

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, January 14, 2011  

  • CDA wrote: "Why are you so certain that the press release was not a blunder in public relations?"


    The RAAF's intelligence office investigates a report. Materials are collected and brought back to the RAAF for examination. Colonel Blanchard calls
    General Ramey and they arrange for Major Marcel to accompany the materials to Ft Worth by B-29. There is nothing in this story to require the Public
    Information Officer's participation. There was no reason for a press release. There was no reason for the PIO to know about it.


    "Ted Bloecher did no investigation of his own. He relied entirely on the newspaper reports. He never investigated Maury Island either. In fact he did no investigation of anything, anything at all. So why lump him into the "Roswell myth"?"

    What's wrong with reading the newspapers? What else is there? Despite my criticism of him, Bloecher's report is essential reading on the 1947 wave.

    The Roswell myth is foreshadowed by Bloecher -- and with irony. Here we have a ufologist presenting what remains today, the position of a lot of Roswell skeptics.

    Or didn't you know that the skeptics' position is part of the myth?

    An alternate myth might have been created if, while reviewing the stories, Bloecher and McDonald had been curious enough to investigate the "mistake", and travel to Roswell to see what they could find out.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, January 14, 2011  

  • Sourcerer:

    I simply do not follow you. You say "there was no reason for a press release". Exactly. Which is why I claim that there WAS a blunder in public relations. If there was no reason for it, why was it ever released? And why did Haut, and maybe Blanchard get told off by Washington for doing it (as per the press reports)?

    There was a blunder somewhere, maybe in the haste to get in some publicity for the RAAF, maybe even to claim some of the prize money.
    You don't really suppose none of those guys in the desert recognised the debris, do you?

    Whatever the reason, there was an error of judgment. With very serious consequences, but not until another 30 years had elapsed.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, January 14, 2011  

  • CDA wrote: "I simply do not follow you. You say "there was no reason for a press release". Exactly. Which is why I claim that there WAS a blunder in public relations."

    There was no reason for a press release if the story immediately preceeding my sentence were true:

    "The RAAF's intelligence office investigates a report. Materials are collected and brought back to the RAAF for examination. Colonel Blanchard calls
    General Ramey and they arrange for Major Marcel to accompany the materials to Ft Worth by B-29. There is nothing in this story ..."

    How do you get to a "blunder"? How do you get to "public relations"?

    Your intelligence officer shows you some tinfoil and sticks...how do you get to calling Ramey from that? How do you get to loading this up on a B-29 and flying it off to "higher headquarters"?

    For that matter what are your intelligence officer and the counter-intelligence officer doing out in the boonies at night?

    Why not wait til morning?

    Blunder? The entire story is a "series of blunders" -- that's Bloecher's phrase. He doesn't support it, but...there it is.

    It is all blunder all the time.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, January 14, 2011  

  • Its the series of related facts, which includes the Press Release...but really begin with the other early reports implying a larger chunk is involved.

    Then, reflectors, and balloons, and no mention of any larger piece of any kind...ever again.

    For me, I would add that to the Press release mystery, but maybe I'm just making too much of it. I know this has been over done before...sorry. But for me, this is why it still seems strange...even without the lot of witness testimonies.

    By Blogger Bob Koford, at Saturday, January 15, 2011  

  • Don:

    Once Brazel came into town with his story and told the sheriff, a press release of some kind was certain. The difference is that the release would have come from the sheriff's office not the Roswell AAF.

    Since Wilcox thought it a genuine 'story' (whether he ever handled any of the debris or not) and decided the object was likely to be connected to the military, he called the RAAF. Had Wilcox decided to investigate it himself, he was perfectly free to send two of his own men out to the ranch; in which case the USAF might never have got involved. It would then be entirely under control of the county police.

    But someone would still have issued a press release, because the subject was a 'hot topic'. Perhaps, had it been left to the police, they would have issued a more enlightened, and less sensational, release. Once they were involved, the USAF HAD to issue something however, because if they had not, the sheriff's office would have scooped them with a release of their own.

    I surmise that the main purpose of the release was publicity, the desire to be 'firstest with the mostest' ("lookee here, we have recovered an actual flying disc!").

    But it was a mistake the USAF came to regret, although not until many years afterwards.

    Thus sprang the Roswell myth.

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, January 15, 2011  

  • CDA, no point in replying to your "surmise" except to say I've put it in the same dark quiet room where I keep Gilles' Haut did it for a free sub to the paper.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Saturday, January 15, 2011  

  • Don:

    You jest, surely.

    It doesn't work that way, and it never has.

    The Press Release stems from something more than a desire to get some free newspapers.

    What that something is goes to the heart of the Roswell event.

    It is the "causa movens."

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, January 15, 2011  

  • Rich wrote: "You jest, surely."

    About what? If you don't like the "free newspapers" "surmise", tell it to Gilles. He made that "surmise" in your blog recently.

    "The Press Release stems from something more than a desire to get some free newspapers.

    What that something is goes to the heart of the Roswell event.

    It is the "causa movens.""

    An issue with the press release is its contents are historically accurate -- I am not referring to the "flying disc" langauge. It provides a specific chronology that the evidence from the 1947 news stories to the witnesses generally confirm.

    A "surmise" cannot mess with these datapoints and be worth considering. This is also true for when the press release was first published. We know the time exactly.

    I think Bloecher had a problem with that. He knew that Marcel had taken the "wreckage" to Ramey's office, and he knew the AP Haught's Statement, and he knew the finale of the press release was Marcel on his way to "higher headquarters"...

    ...but he wanted Ramey to be responding to the media feeding frenzy he imagined occured as a result of the publication of the press release.

    So, Bloecher needed the content of the press release to have been caused by the publication of the press release. Can't be done, so when it gets close, he resorts to polemic and avoids confronting it. Is is one of the reasons why his "surmise" is not worth considering.

    Neither worth considering are CDA's and Gille's "surmises" about publicity hounds trading scoops for a gratuity, and any other cheesy crap.

    Not only is it crap, it is downright insulting to the officers involved.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Saturday, January 15, 2011  

  • Don:

    The problem, for me, is with all the accretions to the query, "What spurred the press release?" and from that Roswell incident.

    The press release is Roswell's Prime Mover.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, January 15, 2011  

  • "The problem, for me, is with all the accretions to the query, "What spurred the press release?" and from that Roswell incident."

    Per the last Schmidt/Carey book, the reason, as best as I can remember, was that Brazell had talked to too many people in town, so too much scuttlebutt was floating around and it was decided, by Ramey, to go with the "Yes it is, no it isn't," approach.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Saturday, January 15, 2011  

  • Rich wrote: "The press release is Roswell's Prime Mover."

    What the press release did was to inform the people of a sequence of events that occurred in a 24 hour timeframe: from the time the RAAF was notified to the time a B-29 took off for "higher headquarters". No press release and nobody except those involved would have known about it.

    The steps in the sequence indicate an abnormal situation. It is not that everything is normal except the fact of the press release and its flying disk. The events it reports are abnormal.

    I think there is no reasonable solution to the press release than that it was the work of the same men who arranged to have Marcel, with the "wreckage", report to General Ramey.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Saturday, January 15, 2011  

  • Frank, Don, CDA, et al...

    "The Great Pan is Dead" is the metaphorical equivalent, in my mind, to the Haut press release and its newspaper adjunct.

    The Press Release spurs the newspaper accounts, and from that the Roswell mythos is born.

    Everything that followed is premised by the press release and its propositonal follow-up, the newspaper stories.

    The premise (that press release) is key to the Roswell incident.

    What was the "seed" that produced it?

    Everything, after the fact, is what The Great Pan is Dead tale is about.

    (I tried to provide a precis of what Hamlet's Mill says about myth and truth, but I can't seem to make it clear to you fellows; you'd have to get the book to see the relevance.)

    That aside, and not to stray, as always happens when Roswell is evoked, the press release and saucer headline in the newspaper needs to be addressed in certain terms.

    That the premise -- The Great Pan is Dead (the press release and its corollary, the newspaper accounts) -- is set aside by researchers and commenters here goes to what Hamlet's Mill suggests about the confusion between truth and myth: what actually was said and heard is interwined with belief systems and the (often ethereal) sociological environment of the locale where an event occurs.

    Again, and I can't stress this more than I have -- the press release about the Army Air Force capturing a flying saucer originates with whom and on what basis?

    Why that particular phraseology and attendent information as opposed to any other is what I'm hoping to get clarification on.

    What the "researchers," early and late, had to say or are saying means nothing (to me).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, January 15, 2011  

  • "(I tried to provide a precis of what Hamlet's Mill says about myth and truth, but I can't seem to make it clear to you fellows; you'd have to get the book to see the relevance.)"

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/hamlets_mill/hamletmill.htm

    I'll give it a look. Thanks for the tip Richie!

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Saturday, January 15, 2011  

  • I have NEVER, EVER understood the press release. It makes no sense, from any kind of prudent military/security standpoint, if a)Roswell was a flying saucer, or b)it was a Mogul balloon, or c)any other damn thing, to issue that press release. Unless it was just a foolish gambit; they underestimated the public interest in the flying disks phenomenon. But that doesn't seem particularly likely either. The whole press release seems to scream: "Line up in an orderly queue folks, fragments of the world famous flying disks only in Roswell, New Mexico!"

    By Blogger Tristan Eldritch, at Saturday, January 15, 2011  

  • It sounds as if sheriff Wilcox would have done better if he had sent two of his police officers out to the ranch as soon as Brazel came in on July 7. Had he done so, he would then not have even needed to inform RAAF, or certainly not unless the stuff was later found to be of likely interest to the military. Just because someone has seen some unusual debris in the desert does NOT imply that the military have to be told about it.

    Wilcox decided they should be told, based on Brazel's testimony, but a different sheriff may have decided otherwise.

    And had Wilcox (instead of the military) issued the press release the story as told in the newspapers might have been quite different.

    But all this is speculation, of course, and does not answer Don's question.

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, January 15, 2011  

  • CDA "It sounds as if sheriff Wilcox would have done better if he had sent two of his police officers out to the ranch as soon as Brazel came in on July 7."

    He could only have done so by asking his men to do it as a favor, not as lawmen, unless he contacted the Lincoln county sheriff and worked out the arrangement.

    Lincoln county and the Foster Ranch were not in Wilcox's jurisdiction.

    Within an hour of the original Roswell wires, a similar report is referred to coming from Lincoln county. How did that story originate? Who put it on the wires?

    Had Brazel gone to the Lincoln county sheriff first? Why did he go to Wilcox? Maybe it wasn't an 'official' visit to make a report, but a personal one. Did Wilcox and Brazel know each other? Where they friendly? Maybe Tony Bragalia knows.

    Why do all three versions of the press release 'blunder' when it comes to the notification of the RAAF? Not one of the three has Wilcox notifying anybody, nor any mention of him. The closest to naming Wilcox is the UP's "Wilson".

    "Wilcox decided they should be told, based on Brazel's testimony, but a different sheriff may have decided otherwise."

    It is likely that Wilcox, being the law in Chaves county, had a working relationship with some RAAF officers. Wilcox was passing on information he thought would be of interest to them. The arrangement would have existed no matter who was Sheriff. In fact, such a relationship was likely with the Lincoln county sheriff, too.

    I don't assume the sheriffs were free agents in the matter.

    Maybe the RAAF got two calls about it from two sheriffs.

    Regards,

    Don


    Btw, sheriff deputies, not "police officers".

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Saturday, January 15, 2011  

  • Dammit, Don:

    You guys, as usual, keep getting tangled with tangents, about who was notified and how convoluted those contacts were.

    That is irrelevant detritus.

    UFO "researchers" keep looking at minute facets of the original Roswell incident, when they should be checking, as I keeep harping on, who or what caused the Press Release to be issued.

    Who got it or when is totally without relevance.

    What or who caused Haut to send out a press release saying the Army Air Force had got their hands on a flying disk/saucer?

    Why did the newspaper run with that information? Did Haut have such credibility that the newspaper accepted his release as an actuality?

    Going on and on about Brazel, Wilcox, et al. and what they did has no bearing on the essence of the Press Release.

    If I read one more excursion in such peripheral crap, I'm going to puke.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 16, 2011  

  • "What or who caused Haut to send out a press release saying the Army Air Force had got their hands on a flying disk/saucer?"

    The same people who arranged for Marcel to report to Ramey.

    "Why did the newspaper run with that information?"

    You mean the Daily Record? Why is this question relevant to your interests?

    It was a good story.

    "Did Haut have such credibility that the newspaper accepted his release as an actuality?"

    There is no evidence Haut had any contact that day with the Daily Record. Personally, I think what was "announced at noon today" was a bulletin on KSWS or KGFL.

    "Going on and on about Brazel, Wilcox, et al. and what they did has no bearing on the essence of the Press Release."

    Don't let the little facts mess with the grand theory.

    But, please go on about all this stuff -- and let me say how original it is -- about Haut.

    So, do you think he was a hero or a mythmaker? Maybe you can get Printy to channel Pflock for us.



    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, January 16, 2011  

  • Don:

    If you (or anyone) is working on a "history" of the Roswell events, your Wilcox, Brazel, Ramey musings
    pertain.

    But, for me, the primary item that sparks the Roswell mythos is the statement that the Army Air Force captured (or found) a flying saucer.

    Now either the Army actually found a flying saucer or someone got very confused or imaginative about some debris found at or near the Foster ranch.

    The start of the story or mythos begins with the news story, the press release.

    Everything stems from that.

    If the premise is correct -- that the military did, really, come across a flying disk, then everything that follows can be addressed accordingly and sensibly.

    If, however, the premise is botched by errant information, blunders, and goofy-ass interpretations of some debris discovered by Brazel and infused with extraordinary attributes by others, at first and later (Marcel), and elaborated upon by initial UFO "researchers: (Schmitt, Randle, Moore, and Friedman et al.), then everything that follows is "mythos" -- not myth (which has a element of truth at its core).

    Continuing to mess around with the details you and others find so interesting that they consume you and the blogs you visit (Randle's, this one, and others) is a waste of time and intellectual energy, which is what Friedman and his ilk have done for 60 years plus.

    My point in presenting a note about how scholars look at myth, as in Hamlet's Mill, is to constrain the credulity and thrashing about that UFO mavens find so endearing, and is virtually useless -- has been and continues to be.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 16, 2011  

  • "Now either the Army actually found a flying saucer or someone got very confused or imaginative about some debris found at or near the Foster ranch."

    The answer is that someone got "very confused or imaginative....."

    Brazel lived in the boondocks and came across this junk. He did NOT get over-excited, nor did he rush to tell anyone. He took his time. One day in Corona he heard people talking about flying discs. This caused him to think the debris he had found was part of a disc. So he then went into Roswell (again no rush, he went in for other things on that Monday, and may or may not have taken some of the junk with him).

    He saw the sheriff. OK so far. No problem - yet.

    The sheriff, perhaps unwisely, informs the military. I do not buy the idea that the military guys were baffled by the stuff. I am positive they identified it then & there (with 80-90% certainty), but the foolish press release was sent and all hell broke loose.

    Yes it was a stupid press release, but my view is that it was done mainly for publicity purposes. The most obvious fault is that it was not disc shaped at all - so why even refer to it as a 'flying disc'? Why not just say some unidentified wreckage was found on a ranch 75 miles to the NW?

    Whatever caused Brazel to suppose he had stumbled upon a landed 'flying disc' anyway? The stuff had no resemblance whatever to a 'disc'. My guess (and only a guess) is that the guys he spoke to in Corona persuaded him that it might have been parts of a flying disc and advised him to claim the offered reward of $1000 (or was it $3000?). But I repeat, Brazel was not over-excited about it in the first place.

    This is all speculation, again.

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, January 16, 2011  

  • Christopher:

    You scenario is fine with me, and makes eminent sense.

    However, while I once took your view, I'm hesitant to hold on to it as a veritable truth, since I've been privy to things that Anthony Bragalia has dredged up, which allows me (and him) to think that something a bit more exotic happened at Roswell, but has been contaminated by the early rush to judgements by Friedman, Moore, Randle (who is starting to relent), and others.

    Mr. Bragalia will present more of his exclusive findings upcoming.

    This has nothing to do with the UFO phenomenon per se, but it should help clarify the confused and confabulated Roswell tale.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 16, 2011  

  • Sourcerer wrote : "Neither worth considering are CDA's and Gille's "surmises" about publicity hounds trading scoops for a gratuity, and any other cheesy crap.
    Not only is it crap, it is downright insulting to the officers involved."

    "loling". Crap yourself ! When "skeptics" have not the same "analysis", "hypothesis", "surmise", etc, than some ETH "believers" the classical counter-argument is that "we" are insulting the witnesses...

    In french forums or articles, reviews, journals, our french team sometimes shown that where an UFO observation is made and testimoned, Venus, the moon, a plan, or other celestial or prosaic objet(s) must have been, but they are not mentionned, allegued by the witness(es), then this prosaic object is probably the UFO, etc. How many times the answer from the ETH proponents was "you are insulting the witnesses"...

    Or you are "ignoring how UFO intelligence is abble to morphing or is making mimetism!

    Of course, to have produced a press release where what is announced is the recuperation of an ET spacecraft (Roswell ETH myth version) is not insulting the officers...
    Haut, Blanchard were so stupid and bad officers enough to have done this : they discovered a Flying Saucer or Disk, knowing it was probably then a Domestic top secret objects, a Soviet object - or an Alien spacecraft - and go direct to the press to make an announcement! Superb officers you are not insulting yourself!

    Wait! To follow some books, it was a diversion in the cover-up mega plan in order the militaries have time to recover the craft and bodies themselves in another site(s)! And mythmakers are back on their feets!

    ***

    To note that in an TV show interview, Haut claimed he have a sort of debt with the local press, as I did in a previous discussion here, must not be taken in the equation to explain or to surmise about the possible "roots" of the Press Release...

    That's just crap and B.S.! Amazing "ufology"...

    Best Regards,

    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Sunday, January 16, 2011  

  • Rich wrote: "Now either the Army actually found a flying saucer or someone got very confused or imaginative about some debris found at or near the Foster ranch."

    Perhaps it is not 'either/or'. Perhaps having only those two options has proven to be the foundation of the very thing you are complaining about.

    The press release hops from one generic event/verb to the next in a chronology (linear). I'm trying to remove the 'generic' (and thereby some of the 'linear') by indicating the normal complexity of human behavior and what, for example, Brazel could have done (with some evidentiary support). What were his options? Same with Wilcox. And the same with Haut.

    Why? Because otherwise the story is as detailed as a cartoon, which is, as McLuhan put it, of very low resolution and invites our participation in filling in the detail. In this way the content of the press release and the fact of it become whatever "surmise" pleases you.

    Accepting the cartoon Haut or Marcel is simply going to the army for supporting evidence which is buying into the belief system you are disputing because in that belief system Haut and Marcel are on the side of the angels, while Ramey and the Pentagon are the opposite -- or vice versa for the skeptic mythmakers.

    I need civilian corroboration for any information with a military source and that includes Haut and Marcel (there are only three in 1947 reports Brazel, Wilcox, and McEvoy).
    I also want to know that civilian's relationship with the military, if any. I hope you don't have to ask why.



    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, January 16, 2011  

  • Rich wrote: "But, for me, the primary item that sparks the Roswell mythos is the statement that the Army Air Force captured (or found) a flying saucer."

    Well, you are right. I am interested in Roswell as "history". The first concern of such an approach is forensic. For me, what you call the "Roswell Mythos" is interesting also, 'historically' speaking. But it is a separate subject. I'll leave it at that.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, January 16, 2011  

  • Don:

    The confluence of history and myth is what Hamlet's Mill deals with.

    If I can find some copies of the book, I'll get them and shoot them off to you (and others) as I've done with Lecomte du Nouy's "Human Destiny" -- both books that I think make for enlightening reading.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 16, 2011  

  • "The confluence of history and myth is what Hamlet's Mill deals with."

    The confluence of history and myth re Roswell would have had to occur in 1947, not "post-197whatever".

    You have the same problem with Roswell that Bloecher had, I think, and should consider an approach that doesn't need a polemic against the "geezers" to get past the hard parts.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, January 16, 2011  

  • Don:

    I don't have a problem with Roswell.

    Something happened -- in 1947.

    Since we can't recreate 1947, we have to rely on documents, witness testimony (as weak as it is, intrinsically), and whatever other information we can garner.

    As Santillana makes clear in Hamlet's Mill, history is often flummoxed by "geezers" (or the old guard) who haven't a clue about the sociological ramifications that affect story-telling.

    This is what has happened with Roswell.

    The geezers have tainted the well of information that springs from Roswell, by their biases, their inept research, and as CDA often notes, their influence on the witnesses, inadvertent or not.

    I continue to curse those dolts, even though this may offend your sycophantic predilection for their crummy work.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 16, 2011  

  • "I continue to curse those dolts, even though this may offend your sycophantic predilection for their crummy work."

    You need a scapegoat and that is the problem with your approach.

    Haven't you noticed that those "geezers" -- post-197whatever, have nothing much to say about the press release? They didn't even bother to corroborate Haut's story. So, you don't have any accretions from them as to the press release. So, their investigations are irrelevant to the press release. And, anyway, you believe pretty much the same story they do about it although perhaps to a different "surmise". In fact, it is their story you and CDA are discussing -- each of you, of course, to your own "surmise".

    You buy into the 'standard model', and so, of course, you argue with the "dolts" about what you "surmise" against what they "surmise"

    As Gilles says: "That's ufology!"

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, January 16, 2011  

  • Don:

    You persist in missing my point and that of Gilles and CDA's.

    That the "researchers" -- the geezers -- didn't address the Press Release or other primary elements in the Roswell incident, the premises as it were, is my gripe (and that of others).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 16, 2011  

  • "Don:

    You persist in missing my point and that of Gilles and CDA's.

    That the "researchers" -- the geezers -- didn't address the Press Release or other primary elements in the Roswell incident, the premises as it were, is my gripe (and that of others)."

    Then what? Being dissatisfied with their "surmises" you and CDA invent some of your own, while poking at the "dolts" when...well whenever.

    So, you've got something from Tony you find agreeable. Great.

    When it is disclosed, if it is disclosed, I'll read it and see if it is worth discussing -- from a forensic, 'historical' perspective. In the meantime, and since I'm not expecting anything, I'll continue to parse the reality baseline.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, January 16, 2011  

  • Let me explain the geezer problem…

    When Stanton Friedman resurrected the Roswell event in the late 1970s, and it became grist for UFO mavens in the 1980s onward, most of us who have been fascinated by flying saucers and then UFOs assumed that a person like Stan Friedman would provide an accurate and thorough accounting of the Roswell incident. After all he had cachet among UFO aficionados.

    He had debated Phil Klass, smothering Klass with data and insight that seemed “scientific in nature.”

    And Friedman was everywhere that mattered – on the networks (CBS, NBC), and he seemed to make sense.

    Then a raft of books appeared by Berlitz, who has cachet by virtue of his name, mostly, Randle and Moore and Schmitt, among others.

    Some of assumed, wrongfully and naively, that these guys were competent researchers and investigators. So some of us abdicated our interest in Roswell and UFOs and allowed the “researchers” to do the work for us. That was a mistake.

    Today, via 20/20 hindsight, admittedly, we're trying to correct the record, or provide sustenance to those who are trying to correct the record.

    While Paul Kimball, Nick Redfern, Anthony Bragalia, Patrick Huyghe, among others, have a built-in civility that disallows them to criticize, adamantly, the old guard, I do not have that built in civility.

    I call the old-guard out -- they were not and are not researchers in any sense of the word. They are sloppy accumulators of data and information that they have marred by corrupt mental abilities.

    Those who know this keep it to themselves. They don’t want the old-guard to hate them or dispute their right to expound on UFOs.

    Me, I don’t give a damn – about the old-guard or those who pussy-foot around them.

    The geezers screwed up, bit time, about Roswell, MJ-12, and other related UFO matters. For me that’s a fact, and the truth.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 16, 2011  

  • I have to agree with RR that the 'geezers' research has been a shambles. Look at this:

    THE ROSWELL INCIDENT is published in 1980. Already it is questionable, because the principal author Berlitz did nothing by way of research and his name was used purely as a big name for marketing purposes (he & Moore wrote THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT the previous year). The man whose name should have been on the cover was of course Stan Friedman, but hardly anyone had heard of him so the publishers ignored him.

    Next, the obvious shortcomings in the book had to be remedied by a series of papers from 1981-85 by Moore & Friedman. What for? Had they done their book homework properly, none of these 'correction' papers would have been necessary.

    Randle & Schmitt then get onto it and repeat a lot of the earlier work, plus padding it out by adding another 200 or so 'witnesses' hoping this will convince the doubters. They too then follow it up with more research papers.

    Then lo & behold, their book is superseded by a second book refuting much of the first and revising the story considerably. Then they add further research papers (in IUR) and the debate heats up.

    More and more get involved. Friedman teams up with Berliner and another book appears. All hell breaks loose as more and more researchers jump onto the Roswell bandwagon. TV shows appear, conferences meet and discuss things, etc. etc.

    Korff, Pflock, Klass then get involved to try and restore some sense; even the USAF (and the GAO) gets involved, via a Congressional enquiry, and produces a huge report (or 2 reports) but it is too late. Ufology has gone 'Roswell crazy'. Similar to the abduction craze, but from a completely different group of researchers.

    All the above is familiar to the Roswell followers. And here we are, still talking about it! That's ufology, as Gilles says.

    This shambles is what RR is referring to, I assume. Yes it is a myth or maybe part of a mythos. That much is abundantly obvious.

    And all the while, the origins of the Haut press release was being ignored, as Don so rightly says.

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, January 16, 2011  

  • Rich wrote: "Let me explain the geezer problem…"

    You needn't have bothered for my benefit. I consider Roswell books (no matter from which sect including the skeptics) to be at least a sub-genre of the action/adventure genre, consistent with its Men's Magazine origins post-war (sometimes with a touch of Lovecraft via Fort). I don't expect anything more from them. It is just biz. But there was work done and a lot of it is interesting, and sometimes even verifiable.

    I have no issue here. You are discussing the Press Release (your caps) myth. I got confused, thinking we were discussing the press release. The myth is interesting, but not my area of interest.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, January 16, 2011  

  • Come on, CDA, stop holding back, just come out and tell us what you really think.

    Seriously, you do realize, don’t you, that your last posting was a gigantic ad hominem screed? You simply vented your animosity to the various personalities involved who oppose your view while adululating those who agree with it, without showing any concern for what the reality of the phenomenon might be. It was all about emotion and nothing about reason.

    By Blogger Larry, at Monday, January 17, 2011  

  • Eya Don,

    You wrote : "I got confused, thinking we were discussing the press release."

    I'm confused too. I think in this topic, or one other, it is ""what Christopher, Rich, others or myself are doing too (?).

    RAAF base and local medias were very "closed" in this period and often interacted between them, probably cause the relative "marasm" in this area.

    It seems that Roswell local medias often requested news, subjects for their papers or radios to RAAF base, as RAAF base often "communicated" for "publicity", to maintain "moral", etc. It seems that Haut have a debt with local medias too.

    In other words, there existed an interaction between local medias and RAAF base, a "public relation".

    Like CDA, I think the press release must be "evaluated" in this context, and this announcement of the capture of a Flying Saucer (or Disk) was not "so serious" like the myth is profiting to give it the meaning of the recovery of an Alien spacecraft.

    The release could be seen in the "miscellaneous category", like other RAAF base communications to local medias.
    It means that the debris didn't super over excitated the protagonists (in the sens of non terrestrial debris with hallucinating properties);

    But simply the consequences and the situation of this press realease have "escaped" the protagonists real goal and motivation (publicity, I'm the first, the reward) during few hours, bringing the curiosity of headquarters, national and international medias too.
    And then the need and obligation to "correct" it by Ramey.

    In essence, I think a "miscellaneous fact" concerning public relations (and mondane debris even if not realy indentified) have passed the consequences scheduled by the few protagonists ; requesting the intervention of headquarters during few hours to calm down the rush and excitation it have provokated ;

    As the debris, despite relativaly "insolit", relatively "unknown", surprising weren't so spectacular like the myth presents them, or there were not a press release.

    Best Regards,

    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Monday, January 17, 2011  

  • Larry:

    CDA doesn't engage in ad hominems.

    He merely, and I accent merely, noted that the initial writes (researchers?) messed up when they took on the Roswell story.

    From their egregious errors and ineptness we are still trying to recover, those of us who are intrigued by the UFO phenomenon.

    That's all that CDA is stating.

    CDA is an objective skeptic, something the rest of us should aspire to.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 17, 2011  

  • "In essence, I think a "miscellaneous fact" concerning public relations (and mondane debris even if not realy indentified) have passed the consequences scheduled by the few protagonists ; requesting the intervention of headquarters during few hours to calm down the rush and excitation it have provokated"

    To quote myself from yesterday:

    ***
    ...but he wanted Ramey to be responding to the media feeding frenzy he imagined occurred as a result of the publication of the press release.

    So, Bloecher needed the content of the press release to have been caused by the publication of the press release. Can't be done, so when it gets close, he resorts to polemic and avoids confronting it. It is one of the reasons why his "surmise" is not worth considering.

    Neither worth considering are CDA's and Gille's "surmises" about publicity hounds trading scoops for a gratuity, and any other cheesy crap.
    ***

    There is no point in responding to any of you except to exercise my fingers.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Monday, January 17, 2011  

  • Don is right.

    To surmise that the press release was a kind of quid pro quo, for a free newspaper subscription or a future newspaper item (of a favorable kind I suppose) is ludicrous.

    I'm sure that if Haut or anyone in the military asked for a free newspaper subscription, the paper would have provided one.

    (When I worked for The Detroit News and Fort Wayne News-Sentinel, both papers often provided, and still do, free newspaper subscriptions to "qualified" persons with a legitimate need.)

    Moreover, neither newspaper or any that I know of would publish a press release of any kind as a favor. It's verbotem by journalistic ethics.

    Even the National Enquirer would hesitate to use a press release that someone provided for personal aggrandizement.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 17, 2011  

  • Rich wrote: "When I worked for The Detroit News..."

    ***
    Do you know if there is an archive of the Detroit Times and where it might be? I'm looking for an issue from the first week of May 1930.
    ***

    Gilles repeats the error Bloecher made 43 years ago, and CDA defends Bloecher. It is part of the irony of Roswell skepticism being based on the work of an ET advocate -- a proto-geezer?

    They want Ramey to be involved "to calm down the rush and excitation it have provokated". The last line of the press release: Marcel and a package of "wreckage" were (past tense) flown to "higher headquarters", which we know meant Ft Worth.

    Maybe Haut was psychic and just knew Ramey would call and order Marcel and the "disc" transported to a "higher headquarters" via a big bomber, once he read the press release, so he ends the press release with Marcel in the air, at least, and take it from there, General Ramey!

    So, no. General Ramey did not order Major Marcel and the "disc" to his office as a response to the 'media feeding frenzy' occasioned by the press release. He ordered it when he was informed by Blanchard what Marcel and Cavitt had found on the Foster ranch, at the latest. It is this moment where the authorization for the press release occurred.

    The Roswell skeptics have got it backasswards.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Monday, January 17, 2011  

  • Don:

    I don't have an idea where the Detroit Times morgue ended up.

    The paper was a great one, and I have a few issues from the 30s that my parents gave me.

    I'll look to see if your dated issue is among them.

    The NEWS or Free Press may have inherited the Times archive, more likely the News, and I'll see if anyone there knows.

    What are you looking for?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 17, 2011  

  • PART ONE:

    Just wanted to make a comment on 1 issue in this thread. Rich says:

    "...While Paul Kimball, Nick Redfern, Anthony Bragalia, Patrick Huyghe, among others, have a built-in civility that disallows them to criticize, adamantly, the old guard, I do not have that built in civility...."

    I can't speak for Paul, Tony and Patrick, but I can clarify my position.

    Personally, I am happy to call it as I see it, and if I think someone is a dick i will tell them so. But, it's quite true that you rarely see me commenting in forums etc on the people in the field, their characters, or their research.

    However, that's not from a particularly respectful perspective. For me, it's very different.

    I'll explain: probably the only time I have ever seriously engaged at length in the "Comments" sections on UFO-related blogs, sites, lists etc, is when (6 years ago) my book, "Body Snatchers in the Desert" was published. And, when for a month or more, there would be a near-daily debate back and forth between me and such Roswell researchers/interested parties as Gildas Bourdais and David Rudiak on UFO Updates.

    But, I soon came to appreciate something that led to my current stance in relation to commenting on, criticizing etc the old guard - or even the new guard!

    It's an entire waste of time to do so!

    And here's why: let's say (hypothetically) tomorrow morning Rich posts a guest-column from someone on the issue of how many bodies were found at Roswell.

    What would happen in the "Comments" section after publication of the blog-post is this: you would have researcher "A" saying there were 4 bodies. Researcher "B" would say 5. Researcher "C" would say it's double that amount because they would include the Barney Barnett/Plains of san Augustin story as being linked. And researcher "D" would say Dee Proctor may have stumbled upon decomposing body parts at another site - and so the body-count keeps changing.

    But... and here's the important thing... no matter if there were 20 or 200 or 2,000 or 20,000 comments to that posts - and no matter if the debate became one of insults and counter-attacks - it would still put us no closer to really knowing for sure how many bodies there were or weren't.

    And it wouldn't matter how praise-worthy or not the comment-posters were with respect to the researchers making the body claims - it would still not answer the critical issue of how many bodies. So, what the point of having the debate in the first place?

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, January 18, 2011  

  • PART TWO:

    It's the same with endless post-comments talking about Mogul, and whether or not the size of the debris fielf reflects the amount of material that would come from a Mogul array.

    With a Mogul debate too, it never, ever proves anything - aside from demonstrating the fact that UFO researchers often disagree and that Mogul is probably incorrect as an answer.

    And it's the same with the info in my "Body Snatchers" book. There were some who thought it was possibly the answer. Others thought I had been utterly deceived by psy-ops people.

    But, debating that endlessly and name-caliling is pointless because it does not resolve anything.

    Instead of endlessly debating the number of Roswell bodies, or the size of the debris field, etc etc, the research community should be digging further into the case itself, finding new data, and finding new ways to find data to finally nail the case to the wall.

    I may think this researcher is a good solid researcher. Or I might find that researcher is a total prick. Or that one is a raving psychotic with rampant obsessive compulsive disorder. In fact I know one of these who holds quite a high status in the field - one of those loonies who have to check 45 times that they have unplugged the iron.

    But, I refrain from largely debating all this, or discussing it, because it does not advance our knowledge of what lies at the heart of Ufology.

    If it did advance our knowledge to expand loudly on the players in the field, i would do so.

    But, it's the core nature of the phenomenon itself that we need to understand and focus on that will get us the answers.

    Calling someone a dick or closed-minded because they can't agree on how many bad-driving aliens were found at Roswell is a waste of time and energy.

    That time and energy needs channeling into research, not into endless "he said/she said" debates on old cases, that become filled with a few character assassinations.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, January 18, 2011  

  • We have witnessed 3 ufos since 1998. The first easily one mile wide and the second a close encounter! We are NOT alone!
    Regards
    Andy

    By Blogger hgn53k, at Tuesday, January 18, 2011  

  • Andy:

    Tell us more....

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 18, 2011  

  • Unless it was just a foolish gambit; they underestimated the public interest in the flying disks phenomenon. But that doesn't seem particularly likely either. The whole press release seems to scream: "Line up in an orderly queue folks, fragments of the world famous flying disks only in Roswell, New Mexico!"


    That's probably correct. A foolish gambit, meaningless, that gets magnified over time. The truth obscured......

    By OpenID markrobin12, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • This post had the effect of hitting the "enter" button on a database keyboard. I think debugging or a expensive anti-virus program is called for. The program keeps repeating itself without fully loading. Not many have read the challenging, difficult book we both admire. Like a search program, the dialog keeps going for the closest match in lieu of not having read Hamlet's Mill. Does not compute.
    Beyond this roundabout,like Godel the logic of the Roswell math unravels itself in terms of certainty.It ends up like trying to predict the outcome of a weather pattern by counting the hairs on a groundhog. All of this waiting for the truth to appear is like a crowd waiting for the groundhog to appear and it died of the infirmities of old age. When does the crowd disperse? Maybe never. It was a good pitch but nobody swung. I call it a strike.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • But Bruce,

    One might hope that a smidgen of stuff about the book and from the book will cling to the mind of some who visit here.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • I agree. I think the issue seems to be the lack of a more encompassing, varied and contrasting set of contexts and contrasts. The focal point of this microscope Of Roswell appears to have a need to be pulled back to analyze more relationships between perception, expectations and the postulates that become agendas. A cybernetics expert would call this Roswell dynamic, self referential.

    Hamlet's Mill demonstrates how the transmission of knowledge is prone to errors of transcription by myth.Images that are point elsewhere to context become totems or reliquaries in of themselves, frozen in a misdirection of attention.
    After enough cycles of repetition, the context of what was transmitted and why it was important becomes superseded by imposed rules that are a zero sum game. Binary. Either a saucer crashed or it did not.Saucer is a keyword in the search engine. Could it stand for something else? Unless we look I suppose, we will never know.We may as well wait for lightning to strike and explain itself to us.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • "Either a saucer crashed or it did not."

    That's the very point of the whole thing, isn't it, Bruce?

    That's why I keep asking what or who spurred the press release.

    Why would Haut or his "boss" pick an atypical, at the time!, designated thing -- a flying disk or saucer -- and push it forward in the way they did?

    The motivation for doing so is the key to the Roswell story.

    Did an actual saucer crash, as you note or did something else exotic happen, and the use of the sobriquet "flying disk" or "saucer" was lesser of many explanations at hand?

    As Nick Redfern has it, we'll never really know....

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • I'll bite on the hook but the string is broken. The gentleman in question was obeying an approval and \or command from a superior. This is common sense. In order to receive the approval\command, there had to be a purpose. It was not his purpose but one that was delegated to him. The chain of causation can run forward and backward. This is the problem. Was he ordered to as a ruse, or did he perform the necessary due diligence required in order not to cook his career? I wrote an essay on the global and political events that occurred at the time, as a context, which Nick referenced at one point in time. The race for nuclear parity by the USSR, the deep concern regarding Russian intelligence operations in the U.S. This we know to be true and of course there is more, however I do not want to rewrite the whole story here. More importantly it's just another way of shuffling the same deck. What is the most probable scenario> Based not on the alleged details of specific alleged events, but rather on the context..it was a Venus fly trap. The U.S (us) loudly proclaims I have advanced technology in my hands at a time when the Russians were throwing everything but the kitchen sink at our proprietary atomic technology at the height of the Cold War. Come and get it.
    Its an old trick used many times that is verifiable. Inflatable tanks marshaled in England, airplanes as well.. placed specifically for Reich over flights.It is a matter of the highest interest of national security, dare I say, a patriotic duty to inflate these ruses.Never reveal what you have been told. Problem is, when the fire is out, decades later, nobody's story matches. Psychologically, we have a doctor defending his fathers honor. We have "wanna be's" as has been demonstrated. We have a commercial industry in Roswell decades later that reinforces this. Consider this, have we been played the same way the Russians were? I have no doubt that at some future time, perhaps beyond our own, the secret will no longer be a secret, just like our collaboration with the Postwar Nazi intelligence organization or the fact that has recently appeared, we knew the holocaust was occurring but publicly denied it. Thais another story for another day, but a similar one. Probabilities.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • It would be foolish of me to disagree with you Bruce, but the nagging question, for me, remains:
    Why a flying disk/saucer, which was so new to the terminology of the public, media, and even the military, let alone the Soviets?

    The term was esoteric in 1947 despite the raft of sightings for that year -- in July 1947, the term was innovative.

    Why use it when any number of other possibilities were available?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • Secrets
    Why did the English place inflated tanks on airfields? Why did we collaborate with the postwar Nazi intelligence network? Why did Churchill have the Duke of Windsor tailed? When is a matter of national security and your patriotic duty to misdirect the enemy? Some collateral confusion. Decades later after the fire is out, the stories don't match, wanna be's appear. At the height of the Cold War when the Russians were throwing everything but the kitchen sink in intelligence toward atomic secrets
    we said we would up the ante. Here it is boys, we have it and you do not, Come and get it. Inflatable myths.
    http://materialintangible.blogspot.com/2009/05/cold-war-of-roswell.html

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • Bruce, your argument is a good, sensible one (as usual).

    So one would have to conclude that the instigator of the material for Haut's press release would have had to be a higher up, someone at the pinnacle of the military command, familiar with the vicissitudes of the cold-war strategy you outline, and not some hoople at the base in Roswell.

    So who would that be?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • As far as who conceived the cold war ruse, is asking the wrong question first in terms of causation. Everything in the military as well as intelligence is structured in a very tight command control managerial organization. Loose lips and cannons are dispatched. Probabilities. "Who" was the department or agency of this structure most likely to have developed the concept? What dog was wagging the tail? The CIA who also had a excellent feedback loop in Russia staffed by the Reich's former employees, is the most likely ( probable agency. That is who these shills reported to.
    It had to be signed off. Who were the signatories? He said to Dr Watson "When you eliminate the impossible then we must investigate the improbable." I follow his advice.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • And who in the CIA or CIC or anywhere else might have spurred the "flying disk" moniker?

    Allen Dulles?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • The "ruse" scenario was first written about by Larry Miller, to my knowledge. His essay is on the nicap site. As I recall, his thesis was that the press release was a signal to begin the coordinated campaign against reporting flying discs that emerged full force July 10.

    There's plenty of problems with the "ruse" scenarios because it requires the cooperation of a string of news people beginning with George Walsh and, probably, Jason Kellahin.

    It also requires wire services not the toss the story, and it requires newspaper editors nationwide to at least put the story on page one or someplace visible.

    The army did not plant the story at points where its propagation was guaranteed, like the NYT or AP, but instead gave it to a couple sheep town disk jockeys.

    Does Hamlet's Mill encourage seeing conspiracies?

    Rich wrote: "And who in the CIA or CIC or anywhere else might have spurred the "flying disk" moniker?"

    The guys who were into skeet shooting or hockey. Too bad Arnold was a swimmer.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • Dulles was the conduit not the worker bee. Read this.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Jesus_Angleton

    News agencies have a long established history of cooperating with requests from the government which is an established, documented fact, to either do an end run around around a story or to serve the needs of national security. All I am saying is the wrong branch of the tree is being barked at

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • Don, Bruce, et al....

    Let's try to simplify the augument, which is daunting because of the nature of the beast and the accreted mythos that we have to deal with.

    A press release states that the Army Air Force "captured" a flying disk/saucer.

    Why that terminology? Did the Army Air Force actually get their hands on a flying disk/saucer or even some identifiable debris?

    Or was a "ruse" generated to impact the Soviets somehow?

    Or did something exotic happen and the flying disk story was a cover?

    (But why flying disk?)

    The progenitor of the Roswell story is essential to the reality or the mythos.

    And supposition doesn't answer the question but, rather, takes us further into the miasma we all know as Roswell.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • The flying disk was probably chosen
    much like the CIA's other well documented uses of this UFO term or flying disk term to misdirect attention.
    The Soviets (it is highly probable) knew of reports of unknown craft during their involvement in WW2. Joesph Stalin was a paranoiac as evidenced by his disbelief that Hitler was dead. More than likely we knew this. They also knew we had ferreted away X craft from the Luftwaffe, ME262, the first stealth aircraft, what else did we have was more than likely the question at hand, as we had already surpassed them technologically. If this was not of an interest to them, then I don't know what would be. Further the evidence is that despite Don's misgivings with the efficacy of the meme being planted. Here is a link to ABC news..so it was not contained to a backwater press.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgrZQIUJ86w

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • Oops, as far as the specific term being used, the first highly publicized sighting by Kenneth Arnold occurred on June 24, 1947, resulted in the creation of the term by U.S. newspapers.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • So whomever struck the Flying Disk epithet was ahead of the curve, as it were....cutting edge propaganda.

    Interesting....

    And that person would be?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • Not whom perhaps to begin with but what? The CIA and it's predecessor in one form or another had this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Activities_Division

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • And to follow the CIA/SAD instigated flying disk cover, what do we have to do?

    Otherwise we're little better, if better at all, than the gaggle of ufologists who mucked up the Roswell story when they got their mitts on it, in the late 1970s.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • Bruce wrote: "News agencies have a long established history of cooperating with requests from the government which is an established, documented fact..."

    True. Have you established that it was a fact about KGFL, KSWS, RDR, or RMD?

    Have you identified any of the people in the area who were likely informants, for example, for the CIC?

    Rich wrote: "But why flying disk?"

    The best answer I've got is that the "many rumors regarding the flying disc" were local; that the press release was in response to them; that the press release was not envisioned by its authors as going beyond the local media -- which was not so unusual an assumption for them to make considering there was no wire service office there, and apparently no newsmen from outside hanging about the local media. I don't know how many press releases there were up to that point, or, if any, whether they had been put on the wires. The Group was new to the RAAF and Roswell. There may have been assumptions that were unwarranted.

    So, in this scenario "flying disc" is used because that's the language people were using there in re: the rumors, and the rumours are the actual issue being addressed.

    If that were true, I would expect, at least in 1995, for the USAF to have figured that out, or at least offer it as a rationale for the press release in their Report.

    But the USAF didn't address the press release, never has to my knowledge, and probably never will, and that has become for me
    the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • Don:

    It seems that the press release phraseology is only significant to you and me.

    And it is the Roswell trigger.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • Well the CIA isn't called "the house of mirrors" for nothing", as they say and Roswell is a room in this house, whether it is attached or not at present leaves us no better off that as you say, those who followed the trail of breadcrumbs left for them. Conspiracy is the organized covert actions of a agency that has an agenda to pathologically attempt to influence or control, or create events, to steer perception and to gain a benefit. This is no woo-woo theory. That is the CIA mandate. However, look into what the Church Committee found. I would venture to guess irregardless we are out resourced, out gunned, out maneuvered and flanked. It would take an Executive Order to cut through the debris and good luck with that. It's a heat sink, a black hole, and in terms of Ufology as far as this commenter is concerned, Roswell is a fool's errand, all due respect to the others whom I do respect for their extraordinary efforts like Don and Nick, etc. The best we can do to move on is to move on.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • Ah, the dog(s) bark but the caravan moves on.

    To move away from Roswell is the best course of action -- the smart thing to do -- as Nick Redfern and other intelligent people tell us.

    Roswell doesn't tell us much about the UFO Phenomenon, as it displays itself today, so deep-sixing the incident from 1947 is sensible...

    However, since what fools we mortals be, the matter will continue to rear its convoluted head again, and again.

    And why? Because it's a mythos that resonates with us.

    And why that is so is grist for study also.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • By the way, a researcher given the sole task of finding a ambiguous symbol for an advanced aerial technological edge would have come across disks.Starting in 1095. 1878,1904,1916, 1926,1942 all published reports of disks. In 1946, we probably knew that the Swedish government commissioned a study ( one that has been under-analyzed) that found over 2,000 reports of "flying disks." Later.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • Even so, Bruce, "flying disk" or flying saucer were esoteric argot, pretty much, and one might suggest that the Roswell populace was not inclined to see the term(s) as part of their daily conversational parlance.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • I think it's the inflatable tank in terms of probability but the good citizens of Roswell did not write the press release. Where is the evidence for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Oh, we have evidence. Another day, another dollar. It's the pea in the cup of veracity. As I said, in so many words, your guess is as good as mine, I simply think all the bases have not been covered and are unlikely to be reached. When Don asked of specifics, I have to say that this is not my main focus and I was simply suggesting other streets to rummage around in if that is your cup of tea. Personally, it's interesting up to a point of no return. All I can say is good luck.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • And let me remind visitors here that the point of this posting, The Great Pan is Dead!, was to provide an example of how stories and reportage get flummoxed by a number of things, some peripheral, some essential, some just sneaked in to cause trouble.

    That the gist got trammeled by the need to vent about Roswell again was expected and anticipated.

    As Gilles Fernandez often reminds us, that's ufology.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • Are you all getting worked up over something quite simple?

    The press release was agreed locally, not by some higher authority. Had it come from a higher authority, there would not have been the reprimand coming from Washington, as was claimed in the newspapers. In other words, the guys in Washington were angered a little by the whole thing.

    I maintain that the primary reason was publicity. We do not know if Wilcox had seen any of the debris that day. If he had, surely he would have seen that it was not a 'disc' at all. And, as I said before, Wilcox was at liberty to issue his own press release (thus forestalling the AF one) had he so desired. He chose not to.

    At some point Marcel, Cavitt and possibly Blanchard got over-zealous, initiating the period of pandemonium. Someone got a bit too hasty. They paid the price when Ramey and his guys identified the junk and negated the press release of a few hours earlier.

    Russians? CIA? Cold War? Forget it. It was the RAAF, nobody else. "We're the bestest, folks".

    The local AF guys decided: "We've at last got one of those things the press have been talking about for the last two weeks. This is it, folks". And all the time they knew with 90 per cent certainty what it really was.

    Haut did what he was told. He never saw the 'thing'. After Ft Worth, Marcel kept his mouth shut, to save embarrassment. Blanchard then went on leave. Smart guy.

    Consider also: What would have happened if Brazel, instead of notifying the sheriff (and indirectly the RAAF) had simply gone straight to the local newspaper? There would have been no press release at all, but there would still have been a headline of some kind. Think about it.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • Christopher:

    Your view is not outrageous or silly.

    One can imagine the Roswell army guys getting a little loopy in the near-desert and resorting to a goofy-ass press release, since flying disks were considered a quirk of the rabble at the time, Ken Arnold notwithstanding.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • CDA wrote: "Had it come from a higher authority, there would not have been the reprimand coming from Washington, as was claimed in the newspapers."

    Claimed by the AP and carried by many newspapers. That's what Marcel referred to in the Roswell Incident (and not some significant base scuttlebut, as Pflock/Printy seemed to think).

    There are some uncorroborated parts of the 1947 news stories, and that is one of them. The AP decided to identify a perp and chose "Haught" (why they thought there had to be a perp is not known). So, they blamed the "eager beaver" lieutenant.

    "Lt. Haught [sic] reportedly told reporters that he had been “shut up by two blistering phone calls from Washington."

    And where on July 8th could Haut have spoken to "reporters"? There were no reporters in town, just the local guys. Did they file such a story? If they did, they weren't published and anyway who nationally would have known, even if it were true?

    Oh, right. Reporters called Haut serially and asked if he'd been reprimanded, and serially Haut said "Yes. I was shut up by two blistering phone calls from higer ups, and thanks for caring". Of course, he wasn't "shut up" about saying he was "shut up", I guess. I mean, if he were told to shut up, I'd take that to mean 'don't talk to reporters'. So, what is he doing talking to reporters about being ordered not to talk to reporters?

    And anyway, the story doesn't say what he was told to shut up about, because nobody asked him anything at all in 1947 and he is not quoted nor is anything attributed to him in the news stories, as they are for Marcel, Wilcox, and Brazel (and even George Walsh), for example. Haut's name only appears once in the cycle in the AP wire. UP later cherry-picks the AP for his name (getting 'Haught'). He is absent from the RDR stories.

    Then some like to quote UP about the perp instead of the AP. According to the UP the perp was Blanchard, and the UP nails the "flying disk" language right on his butt with no more evidence than the AP hanging it on Haut.

    One for the advocates and one for the skeptics.

    Blah.

    Just that May there was another similar event (but not UFO) in the Army involving a stunt or hoax that had unintended consequences. As a result, the OIC, his men, and a civilian contractor were publicly identified in the newspapers by the higher ups, yanked from their cush billet and sent to the Army's 1947 version of Siberia. Some of the perps' local papers carried the story, too.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home