The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Roswell’s Bad “Joke”

Debating Roswell often brings out the worst in UFO mavens, but why?

We think the Roswell saga starts to unravel when news media provided this photo of the allegedly misidentified “flying saucer” debris that was originally reported as captured [sic] by the military:

roswell25.jpg

The photo of General Ramey scrutinizing the alleged captured flying disk debris insults the intelligence of everyone.

The photo is saying, This is the stuff that was found near Roswell and thought to be a flying saucer.

Who, in their right mind (Brazel, Marcel, and various Roswell citizens) would have thought that the mishmash of sticks and foil was from an exotic flying craft that destructed in their locale?

The “joke” – seen as a cover-up by UFO aficionados who believe an extraterrestrial craft was discovered near Roswell – was so blatant and silly that news media and other interested persons who saw the display shrugged off the initially fascinating account as a complete observational blunder by some rural hicks, compounded by a military contingent that was totally inept.

The event faded almost immediately, only to be resurrected in the late 1970s and early 1980s by the books inspired by Stanton Friedman’s contact with Jesse Marcel, who convinced Friedman or was convinced by Friedman that the Ramey photos did not picture what he had gathered up, from the so-called debris field left by the crashed flying disk.

From that point on the Roswell incident took off.

But the intellectually insulting photos, of General Ramey with a batch of crummy materials, was the downfall of the Roswell story, in 1947, and still resonate with skeptics to this day: the photos are so bizarre and foolish that they invite the charge of a government cover-up by some or, by others, as a real account of what was found at Roswell and woven into a story of extraterrestrial aliens, expanded by fictions from those seeking notice or a late-in-life legacy that “ufologists” encouraged or helped create.

But it’s the “joke” -- the Ramey photos – that really have offput science and news media, then and now.

Who thought up the “joke” has been grist for Roswell scrutiny for years, but it’s merely a “joke” and should be treated as one, with a great guffaw by thoughtful persons who should really get on with their lives, leaving Roswell for the accumulators of hoaxes that make humans laugh.

51 Comments:

  • Are you trying to provoke us?

    "The event faded almost immediately, only to be resurrected in the late 1970s and early 1980s by the books inspired by Stanton Friedman’s contact with Jesse Marcel, who convinced Friedman or was convinced by Friedman that the Ramey photos did not picture what he had gathered up, from the so-called debris field left by the crashed flying disk".

    Not so. The truth is that the very first book THE ROSWELL INCIDENT included only two of the 7 pictures taken that day. Most important of all, these two were severely cropped, in that only about one-quarter of each was shown in the book. This paved the way for authors Berlitz & Moore to claim there was a 'switch'. Actually Jesse Marcel made this claim. But Marcel claimed the switch was done BETWEEN the two photos, meaning that in one Marcel was depicted with the actual Roswell debris, whereas the other showed a substituted balloon and a few sticks. The two published photos supported this claim.

    Give credit to Randle & Schmitt for locating and publishing the 6 photos, uncut. This demonstrated that all 6 showed exactly the same debris, a rather different story.

    So there was no switch. Or was there? The ETHers now claimed that the switch was done BEFORE any photos were taken! So all the photos show substituted debris.
    None show the actual 'saucer'. It was thus an official 'cover-up'.

    See how the story developed? But what about that sheet of paper in Ramey's hand? Surely it contains the great secret about the true nature of the debris. Yes, a team got together and magnified and repeatedly computer analysed the contents of that sheet, and lo and behold the great secret was slowly deciphered. It revealed the truth they suspected all along. There WAS a cover-up. It was an ET craft. Ramey had written this down on that very sheet!

    So now we know. Or do we?

    Was it all a joke? Controversy over this will rage on forever. Few people care any more, but it will still rage on among the few that do care.

    The above is a 'potted history' of the photos, for those still interested.

    I did once ask Bill Moore why only 2 cropped photos appeared in his book. I forget his exact answer, except it had something to do with the publishers' demands and the publishing deadlines.

    Was Marcel ever shown all the photos? We don't know. Did Friedman & Moore know of them? Probably, but we don't know for sure.

    All a big joke? On balance I think not.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, January 25, 2011  

  • Apparently CDA, I'm a lousy commedian.

    The joke is the proffering of the stuff as the misperceived Flying Disk debris, not the photos, per se.

    It's the chutzpah in displaying the foil and sticks, not the photos themselves.

    How we always get side-tracked by syntax and context is worrisome to me.

    Again, the "joke" is that someone tried to foist off some crummy crap as that which was mistook for a flying disk.

    Could I be any clearer?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 25, 2011  

  • I think Misters :

    Bragalia (Nitinol is not the Roswell materials but it is our best replication of Roswell materials -sic-), Randle, Schmitt (US Post-officer playing with diplomes never he have had, but claimed to have -sic-), Tom Carey (blue blue), Stan Friedman (25 years without a peer review article but a contemporan nuclear physician using notoriety argement),

    must write a letter to the US universities, Senators, CongressMen, or other organizations.

    You, awesome guys, with a special card, have accumulated so much evidences, proofs, that "peer review" people will follow your claims !

    What are you waiting for ?

    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Tuesday, January 25, 2011  

  • I hear what you are saying about getting on with it. But some (and I admit I seem to be somewhat one of them)others don't seem to be able to let it go.

    Everyone's got their different reasons for doing so: invested too much time to give up; seen too much to deny it, etc.

    It is just one of my many interests.

    Being of the age to at least remember the Church Committee, and hearing tales of witnesses being threatened brings to mind something more akin to "three Days In May."

    If there is some type of Ultra Seperate Agency that could, or even has, run amok, I certainly don't want them to be the controllers of the UFO information, and/or the "Roswell/Mexico" Crash information.

    It is silly, I know, but the article put it out there. The photo is a joke, the question is why? And one of your previous articles mentioned the Press Release itself...how odd it was to even BE. So now we have a weird Press Article, and then some wacky photo shoot! For what reason? They could have just not ever said anything at all, or at least not until they were sure.

    Besides, by now there are way too many weird twists to this story to put it down.

    Thanks for your interst in this subject.

    By Blogger Bob Koford, at Tuesday, January 25, 2011  

  • THE OVERLOOKED CLUE

    Of course RRR is being facetious - he means how could anyone possibly think that such material in the photos could ever be mistaken for anything but the mundane.

    This is the thing:

    If Sheridan Cavitt so easily recognized the debris as a downed balloon, as did Irving Newton in Ft. Worth- why didn't Marcel and Blanchard? there is no logical explanation for this.

    But the most overlooked clue is in the Roswell AF Report, and it comes from Sheridan Cavitt's wife. I will just say for now that there is a big story behind her which I will release at another time. But note what she says to Weaver of the AF. Jesse Marcel kept some of the material and brought it over to the Cavitts one night. She notes it was weird and that they tried to burn it when BBQing. When she mentions it, her husband Sheridan interjects "I remember. He could have had some there at the house...and it was...it looked like a "foil" of some sort, and he could have tried to burn it and it didn't. I don't know." This is a man forced by the admission of his wife to discuss an issue he did not want to. Weaver foolishly did not make relevant follow up questions.

    So: If the material were balloon material and they all knew it- why save it, bring it over to the Cavitts to try to burn over fire!!!???

    And Gilles: Knock off the snide remarks that do not contribute to our discussion. I am tired of it frankly. If you continue, I will not respond to you.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • Bob:

    We can't seem to put Roswell on a back-burner either.

    But one has to look at the matter as irrelevant, really, to the UFO phenomenon itself.

    Roswell is a thing unto itself, fraught with myth, maybe government cover-up, maybe a bizarre accident, by an Earthly construct or even an ET construct.

    The problem is that Roswell has a tendency to consume serious UFO researchers (Rudiak) and tyros alike, so we keep getting interesting insights mixed with a lot of nonsensical hypothesizing.

    And separating the wheat from the chaff has become tedious and useless.

    But, I agree, the incident remains fascinating on many fronts.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • Rich, are you unacquainted with the army's weather balloon campaign in July 1947?


    I enjoy seeing Gilles spazz out. That's entertainment.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • Don:

    There are a number of balloon tests by the Army Air Force and the Navy in the 1947 time-frame, and we've posted some material about them at this blog, early on, and at the RRRGroup blog, also.

    And I agree, Gilles is a bright spot for us and elsewhere, even with his fractured English which, while often incomprehensible, contains elements of his innate brilliance.

    I love the guy!

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • Tony:

    The interview with Cavitt in the Weaver USAF report does not mention any visit of Marcel to the Cavitt's with the debris. It reads to me like the stop-off trip made by Marcel to his family home when his son saw the debris. Mary Cavitt does not say the words you attribute to her. She says nothing about trying to burn it, nor that it was 'weird'.

    She does say about being at Marcel's house (on another occasion?), but then says "and it's in one of those books..." So was Mary Cavitt recalling a real event or merely quoting from books?

    She then talks about a stove. But was this at Cavitt's house or Marcel's house? I wonder if the Marcel stop-off was a different occasion, a few days earlier.

    Remember that if Marcel did bring any of the debris to the Cavitts' house this would be a serious violation of the supposed top secrecy of the debris and the whole incident. In fact it creates an impossible scenario.

    This whole interview with Weaver is suspect and dubious in many places. So I simply do not see what you can glean from it that enables you to tell us that "there is a big story behind her".

    The only 'story' is that neither her or her husband's memories can be trusted. Perhaps Weaver realised this, explaining why he did no follow-up on it.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • CDA-

    The only point on which you are correct is that "the whole interview with Weaver is suspect." Given that Weaver fails to ask vital follow up questions throughout his interviews -and that one of the AF contributors to the study (Ray Madson) personally told me that Weaver was a liar- you are correct in the observation that Weaver is suspect. I am glad that you see it that way.

    As noted by Mark Rodighier of CUFOS, twice Mary says to Weaver that Jesse brought some of the material to them...

    From her own mouth w/ interviewers, recorded:

    "The men turned up the heat as high as it would go with no effect." This was on the stove.

    Later:

    "The two men went out on the patio." She explained to another researcher that it is then they tried to burn it on the BBQ.

    Still more from Mary:

    "Cav reminded Jess that the material was classified Too Secret and he'd better get rid of it."
    (1991)

    You really have no idea what you are talking about CDA. She indicates that they it was weird, because she remembers after all those decades that they couldn't heat up the damn stuff! And you fail utterly to address what the material was and why Jesse saved it and why Cav told him to get rid of it...

    And honestly, it doesn't matter what Mary -or even a Tom Dick or Harry- ever says. You do not believe them anyway. From Generals to Ranchers to Astronauts who speak of Roswell- you belittle and demean them all. Even when they are dead.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • "There are a number of balloon tests by the Army Air Force and the Navy in the 1947 time-frame..."

    I mean the flurry of flying discs down reports that turn out to be weather balloons and rawins. The Centerville 'incident' being the most well known.

    The "Roswell" story is embedded among those stories and in the armies' pr offensive claiming the disks are weather balloons and their targets. The photos and stories of balloon and rawin launches (and faux Mogul launches) you refer to are a part of that campaign.

    The Ft Worth "Roswell" story is part of that campaign. It does not stand alone. The "joke" is not limited to the Ft Worth story. Read a selection of US dailies from the first two weeks of July 1947.

    "And separating the wheat from the chaff has become tedious and useless."

    I think it is easy, assuming one is interested in what happened, rather than in the "myth".

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • Don:

    It seems that I haven't made connection with you or CDA -- although I have a reputation, as noted in newspaper stories, about me being a good communicator...(toot, toot).

    My post has nothing to do with balloons or memory metal or anything but THAT SOMEONE HAD THE TEMERITY TO DISPLAY SOME CRAP, INDICATING IT WAS WHAT MARCEL AND OTHERS MISTOOK FOR SOMETHING MORE THAN IT WAS.

    How hard is it to understand that?

    The jokester presented some junky stuff and everyone fell for it, at the time...the press in particular.

    Going on and on about supposed downed saucers which were actually balloons misses my point and the gist of my piece.

    Do you guys do that with everything you read?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • Rich "My post has nothing to do with balloons or memory metal or anything but THAT SOMEONE HAD THE TEMERITY TO DISPLAY SOME CRAP, INDICATING IT WAS WHAT MARCEL AND OTHERS MISTOOK FOR SOMETHING MORE THAN IT WAS."

    In 1947 there is nothing at all about Marcel thinking it was anything. In the infamous "Haught's Statement", there is nothing about Marcel except being "notified" (how?) by the Chaves County Sheriffs Office, and him accompanying the disc to "higher headquarters". The Brazel interview: "But Brazel wasn't making any claims. He said he didn't know what it was." (AP version). In the RDR version: "Brazel...told his story of finding what the army at first described as a flying disk..."

    Nobody, at the time Ramey had the photos taken, had been tarred with the "flying disc" brush, except "the army", which afterwards settled onto "Lt Warren Haught", not officially and without evidence, just some innuendo.

    Ramey isn't contradicting anyone. Nobody is on record referring to it as a "flying disk" at the time.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • Tony:

    Have you read the AF Roswell report, especially the 30 pages devoted to Weaver's interview of Sheridan & Mary Cavitt? It is attachment 18 in Weaver's section.

    Your blog stated that there were certain quotes that Mary made in that interview. She made NO such quotes.

    You now say that another interviewer, Mark Rodeghier, met her and got some other statements, and the quotes are contained therein. I was talking solely about the Weaver report (which is what you were writing about). And that interview, in May 1994, does NOT contain the quotes you attribute to her.

    I do not know how many separate investigators interviewed Mary Cavitt. Few people seem to believe Sheridan Cavitt any more, but maybe a few more believe his wife.

    The Weaver interview shows both their memories are highly suspect. That does not imply either is or was a liar. And if their memories are suspect in one interview, why trust them in any other interview?

    As to Weaver being a liar, that is as bad an accusation as labelling a civilian witness a liar. You don't like Weaver for two reasons: 1. His conclusions differ from yours. 2. He was once a disinformation agent, or the like.
    This automatically makes him a liar, I suppose.

    And I suppose McAndrew is also a liar, for the same reasons.

    See how we have diverted from RR's original story of the 'joke' photos?

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • Again, Don...

    My post has to do, ONLY, with the idea that someone was gutsy or "cute" enough to lay out some junky items (for the Army or whomever) and present that junk as what the press release and news media had referred to as a "flying disk."

    How am I NOT making that clear?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • Rich, you've made it clear. I'm disagreeing with your characterization.

    It seems to me that calling it a "flying disc" is the "joke", "cutesy", "chutzpah", or "gutsy" thing.

    From about an hour after the story hit the wires, the first descriptions of the disc are that its materials are rubber, sticks, and foil.

    What I find interesting is that the materials in the photos do not match the description given by Brazel in his interview.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • Don,

    I'm conflictd when it comes to the Roswell incident, itself, not the aftermath (the 1980s stories).

    I think there was a real event.

    What that event was has not been clearly defined obviously.

    I don't think it was Mogul, but Mogul may have been a part of the event, either as debris or as the cause of an accident.

    Tony Bragalia, among others, think that Mogul may have caused a flying saucer to crash.

    I find that improbable.

    But lightning -- there were storms in the area -- may have caused an accident, involving a military craft or, even, an extraterrestrial craft.

    (I'm not averse to believing that an alien intrusion went awry.)

    There are other scenarios that are possible in my mind, but the debris that Ramey is seen with is not part of the Roswell incident, and was a lowly attempt to get the press and others to think it was, and the ploy worked.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • CDA-

    Read pgs 156-157 of the Roswell Report by Weaver again. It is clear that Mary Cavitt "spills the beans" and contradicts her husband. Weaver asks Sheridan if the metal exhibited features that Jesse Marcel indicated. Sheridan replies with one word, "No." Mary then immediately interjects that this is not true. She then explains -with Weaver interrupting-that they took it to the stove, persumably to boil. Sheridan weakly agrees with his wife about its oddity, then ends his comment with "I don't know." Weaver does not follow up, very strangely.

    And you do not read well. I said that Mark Rodighier had pointed this out about the Weaver interview.

    Other researchers like Kevin, Don and Tom spoke with Mary at other times. It is from those interviews that (in which she was very lucid and clear) that we learn from her that:

    1) Jesse held on to some of the material (obviously because he felt it unique, something you fail to recognize)
    2) That he brought some of the material after the crash for the Cavitt's to see
    3) That the men tried to boil it and burn it, but that it had no effect, according to Mary
    4) Sheridan told Jesse the material was Top Secret and that he should not have it.

    According to you, Mary was an old bat who is not to be believed. Your ideas about those over 65 are abominable! You disparage their words at every turn. It has been your pathetic "go to" objection for two decades, used whenever you have no answers to certain Roswell questions...

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • Rich wrote: "I think there was a real event."

    I do, too.

    "What that event was has not been clearly defined obviously."

    There's an article, on the NICAP site I think, proposing that the press release was the signal for the debunking campaign (including the weather balloon stuff) to begin. I don't know about that. It means George Walsh would have to have been an agent for the army in order to insure that the story got out of Roswell to the national media -- as well, the need for the story to be propagated by AP and published by editors. It seems to assume that every paper carried a blazing front page headline like the RDR.

    But, I think it possible the army was involved prior to the story told in the press release. What would have led to its involvement would have nothing to do with Roswell or the RAAF over in Chaves County. There is not much to go on. The investigations are almost entirely focused on Roswellians and those who were stationed at the RAAF.

    The primary sources are Mack Brazel and his children and what other ranchers they lead us to. Wilcox and Marcel, Sr are important, but compromised. Joyce, McEvoy, and Walsh are worth some study.

    "Testimony" that relies on an additional layer of unconfirmable story, such as crash sites conveniently closer to Roswell, I don't bother with.

    I doubt most investigators know the names of the Lincoln County Sheriff and his deputies in the summer of 1947. I wonder who the wire service stringers were in Carrizozo and Corona.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • Tony:

    My copy of the USAF report does not have page numbers.

    I have read & reread the relevant section and repeat, for the 3rd time, that the phrases you attribute to Mary Cavitt ARE NOT THERE. Have I missed them? Are my eyes failing me? She does not refer to anything as 'weird' or to a barbeque. She does contradict Sheridan at times, she does say: "and it's in one of the books". She does mention "little Jesse", and the cementing over of the debris (for a patio, later), meaning she is talking about visiting the Marcels, NOT about the Marcels visiting them.

    All right, maybe both visits occurred; but if so she is confused about what occurred when.

    There is no barbeque, none. You or Mark R. may infer that there was one, but none is mentioned in the Weaver report. If Mark R says she mentioned a barbeque to Weaver, he is wrong. She may have mentioned a barbeque to Mark in a separate interview, but that is another matter. Also, she does NOT describe the metal. Neither Mary nor Sheridan seem able to recall the incident with any reliability.

    I challenge anyone to read those 15 to 20 lines and be able to say she, or he, spoke with any conviction about that visit.

    Oh and it is nothing to do with witnesses over age 65, and I have NEVER given any age limit. Find the exact quote, please. You, or Mark, are putting words into Mary's mouth. Now you are putting words into mine. How 'abominable' of you.

    Amazing how quickly we get distracted from the original 'joke' topic.

    Rich would agree here!

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • Don:

    I just had an e-mail exchange with Bragalia about some of this, and it would be terrific if he'd use his expertise to track down some of the suggestions you've made.

    I've always maintained that there are clues still to be mined from the Roswell episode, even as musty as the story has become.

    It almost -- almost! -- requires starting over.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • Thanks, Christopher, for trying to re-tether the discussion to the original topic, but even I have slipped into a tangential mode.

    Tony has a thing about some of us reminding readers here that memory is fallible, and the older one gets the more fallible it becomes.

    To note that is not being cruel but, rather, being truthful (and neurological).

    One might like to think that witnesses, of any age, are presenting verbatim accounts from their memory banks, but that would be naive and stupid.

    People forget, confabulate, and imagine things, predicated upon their previous experiences.

    To believe they do not is its own mental aberration.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • I believe the barbeque story is in a question asked by either McAndrews or Butler of Charles Moore, referring to "Colonel Weaver's discussions with Sheridan Cavitt".

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • Here it is:

    "Q: I know in Colonel
    Weaver's discussions with Sheridan Cavitt, they talked about the aspect of burning. He did not recall burning anything, but then his wife indicated that there had been one night they'd been out and had a barbecue and had a few beers and that Jesse Marcel just took a piece and stuck it in the barbecue and then pulled it back out. So if that's what they're using to say it wouldn't burn, that's what we consider typically testing a material for burning or not.

    I guess if this is not in the Weaver interview of the Cavitts, there is more missing from the interview than a follow-up question. McAndrew and Butler "know" about some things they discussed that are not in the transcript.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/roswell.pdf

    There were six what I would call major participants from the base:

    Blanchard, Haut, Marcel, Cavitt, Rickett and Easley. Four directly confirm an ET crash, Blanchard was quoted via a reliable source as confirming it. Cavitt is the only one who maintained the party line.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • To Don:

    Thanks for digging this up. No it is not in the transcript of Weaver's inteview with the Cavitts.

    But doesn't it get more comical? Even crazy (another joke maybe? These guys are having a few beers & a barbeque; we still don't know whose house it was at. But here is Marcel, who should know better, taking a valuable piece of highly secret metal, or whatever, from a crashed UFO, and sticking it into the stove!

    And this is supposed to be a guy trusted with top secret material. Violating the very secrets of his oath (if he took one) and fooling around in this manner.

    Absolutely amazing. A better 'joke' than Rich's original one, and a good laugh indeed.

    I'm having a few days off now.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • Christopher:

    You can't take a few days off, and leave me alone with these maniacs.

    Send Gilles....

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • cda wrote: "Absolutely amazing. A better 'joke' than Rich's original one, and a good laugh indeed."

    You do realize that the AF Reports are not about what Brazel found on the ranch. They are about what Moore, Friedman, Randle wrote. With these reports the USAF is a major contributor to the Roswell Myth. After all, what would advocates and skeptics have had to debate about Roswell the past 15 years, if not Mogul (and crash test dummies)?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • Don gets it exactly right....

    There are two Roswells.

    The 1947 event with a Press Release, a display of junk, and a grotesque silence -- until 1978.

    Then there is the Roswell resurrection, spurred by Berlitz, Moore, Friedman, Schmitt, et al.

    We are dealing with the resurrected Roswell, when we should be dealing with the 1947 Roswell.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 26, 2011  

  • Same as Christopher : I dont find the sentences Tony is quoting from the USAF report.

    The only ones (by S. Cavitt) state that " he [Marcel] could have had some there at the house and it was, and it looked like a foil of some sort, and he could have tried to burn that and it didn't burn very well, I dont know. I dont remember that. I can't why imagine he'd be beating on it with a hammer for, but it doesn't make sens."

    The "Beers and BBQ" episode in the tale (myth) is really amazing for the reasons Christopher pointed.
    In the time frame, when could we date it? Because, if after July 8th (or before too) to "play" and to make his own experiments on fantastic materials sounds really not serious by such top over the top officers.

    It shown too that it was easy to keep some debris "souvenirs". Despite Marcel and the Cavitts have such possibilities, they didn't keep material as souvenirs, so professional they were, but not enough professional to risk to destroy such "precious" by Hammer and fire. Sounding paradoxal.

    In recent Carey and Schmitt book, it seems some ranchers have been abble to keep souvenirs until the start of the 50's too if I well remember, and were playing with weapons (ball trap) with the materials !

    However, none such awesome materials is at disposal today. I believe to remember too Tom Carey claimed in a summer 2008 TV show (Larry King show?) that he was on the curse to obtain one specimen, probably from a rancher. No news?

    In essence, the BBQ and Beers episode makes me very dubitative. Cavitt and Marcel are in total derogations of their "Top Secret" mission and the date in the timeframe of this episode seems to indicate Marcel was in possession of materials after july the 7th or 8th, which sounds again very suspicious.
    It seems to show that it was easy to keep souvenirs of the materials, but noone is now available, or have been gived to study when privated UFO's associations were created (CUFOS, NICAP, etc...), for example.

    The big conspiracy is so perfect, I know.

    Regards,

    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, January 27, 2011  

  • Gilles/CDA-

    Yes, I have confused the interviews with Mary Cavitt with the Weaver interview. I was at work and did not have time to immediately check out source material.

    That said, every single point I have made -and every sentence that I have quoted- is accurate. Mary did indeed say all of these things in a span of about four years to at least three different researchers. And Mary did start to tell Weaver, just as she was interuppted by both her husband and Weaver, and ashe does not complete here thought. She did though have the opportunity with Tom Carey, Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt and other researchers though.

    Again, she relates Jesse had kept some of the material after the crash. She and her husband saw the material when they and the Marcels got together for a BBQ. The men tried to boil it and burn it to "no effect" in her words. Sheridan told Jesse that the stuff was Top Secret and that he should not have it.

    This is absolute...she said these things- it is on tape or accurately transcribed at the time of the interviews of Mary by researchers.

    Now whether she said them to McAndrew and Weaver, or to private researchers is not as central to the issue as that she in fact said them.

    And both of you re-read Sheridan's brief and cryptic statement on the matter. He contradicts himself and his own wife! "He (Jesse) could have had some at the house." "I don't know. "I don't remember." These are things that people say when they are liars...

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony, at Thursday, January 27, 2011  

  • "Same as Christopher : I dont find the sentences Tony is quoting from the USAF report."

    Si c'était un serpent, il vous aurait mordu.

    http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5392396947_d0168c89c5_b.jpg

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Thursday, January 27, 2011  

  • Tony,

    For my "impossibility" to retrieve the quotes as Christopher, it was not a reproach against you stricto sensu.

    Sometimes, I have seen, for example concerning Crary's diary appendixe, that there exist "two versions" (little changes between the two, but well..).

    Regards,

    G.F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, January 27, 2011  

  • Hmmm.

    Ok, let's try this again.

    In the USAF Report of 1995, Colonel Butler and Lieutenant McAndrew are interviewing Professor Moore.

    In a question (see my post above) they refer to the barbecue story. They say they "know" Weaver and the Cavitts discussed it.

    But it is not in the published interview of the Cavitts by Weaver.

    Therefore, the Cavitts interview as published is not complete.

    Tony is right. It was discussed by the Cavitts in the interview conducted by Weaver. But it is not in the transcript that the USAF published.

    And Tony's misstatement should no longer be an issue.

    For having clarified this matter, would somone please cite the texts in which Mary Cavitt is interviewed?


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Thursday, January 27, 2011  

  • BTW (even if a little off topic) :

    In Moore interview (attachment 23, p.2 of the attachment).

    Moore seems to be facing pictures of the ML307b and C models with Butler and McAndrew:

    "This is the B model we flew in 1947 and 1948. Those are PICTURES of the B model. If you look, faintly along here you you can see a sort of a discoloration and that's where my memory of the reinforcing tape was that they talked about. [...].

    Any idea where we can see those pictures of the ML307b if existing ?

    Regards,

    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, January 27, 2011  

  • Off topic?

    This is for newbies who don't get what we're talking about here...

    http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/jbond.html

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 27, 2011  

  • And this for "skeptics"...

    http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/ufo-crash-at-roswell/

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 27, 2011  

  • TY Richie,

    I know those pictures of course, but I have had the impression or the expected possibility Moore was with another ones (personnal ones) with him and not facing Bond's ones. It is a pity if the true. ^^

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, January 27, 2011  

  • Gilles,

    I've sent your comment to a few persons who might have access to the photos in question.

    Nick Redfern has responded with "interesting" so far.

    I'm looking but when one goes out for information on Roswell their cup runneth over.

    I suspect Don will help, as he's astute at finding things.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 27, 2011  

  • "I suspect Don will help, as he's astute at finding things.

    RR"

    I don't do Mogul. Maybe you guys should ask David Rudiak. He probably knows.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Thursday, January 27, 2011  

  • Don:

    Involving Rudiak is akin to the Twilight Zone episode where a guy inadvertently releases Satan from lock-up (where he's held by monks).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 27, 2011  

  • hmmmmmmmmmmmmm... :( I may not be anybody, but I don"t have a problem with Dr. Rudiak. He has always been polite, and open with me.

    You may not like him, but I get uncomfortable when the slinging starts.

    Pardon me if I have over-stepped.

    By Blogger Bob Koford, at Thursday, January 27, 2011  

  • Bob:

    You can like Rudiak; he's an exceptional UFO researcher.

    We just find him a bit fanatic, and he's provided some toxic comments previously here.

    So like him, if you will but let us have own dislikes, won't you?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 27, 2011  

  • "Involving Rudiak is akin to the Twilight Zone episode where a guy inadvertently releases Satan from lock-up (where he's held by monks)."

    Ha! That's pretty funny, but rather unkind hyperbole, don'cha think? 8^}

    See: http://tinyurl.com/4fs5nys

    [Climax of TZ's "Howling Man" episode]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Howling_Man

    [TZ "HM" synopsis]

    I think Rudiak's done some very deep, extraordinary work on Roswell, and yes, he's quite passionate about it, and... I like him, too! He can become rather srident, but he generally knows what he's talking about. He just has little tolerance for ignorant skeptics, IMHO, and says so.

    So, if Rudiak is the Devil, who then is Daniel Ellingtion, who frees him, and who holds Brother Jerome's "Staff of Truth"? Oh, so many questions.....heh!

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Wednesday, February 02, 2011  

  • Steve and Bob:

    I happen to like Rudiak, and admire his research acumen.

    But he can be rude -- gets that from his name?

    He doesn't suffer fools kindly, as you note.

    Yet he should be more temperate as his demeanor has cost him the fealty of UFO aficionados because he's often so mean, even though rightfully so.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 02, 2011  

  • An aside:

    I once donated $20 to David Rudiak's research, via his website. There was not so much as a 'thank you' for this. I then found that the next two occasions I tried to log on to his website my computer crashed (froze while connecting).

    As a staunch non-conspiracist I put this down to problems that crop up with Windows or Java or such. Someone a bit on the conspiracy-leaning tack would have put it down to Rudiak keeping me out of his domain!

    He reminds me of a far more extreme Stan Friedman, but at least he does not put 'physicist' or 'nuclear physicist' at the front of every paper or book he writes. He ought to write a book on Roswell, but I assume he realises, as should everyone by now, that it would be a 'worst-seller', if there is such a term.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, February 02, 2011  

  • And CDA,

    I don't know if Rudiak plays up the doctor sobriquet, but Bob gave it to him, and we all know that Rudiak is a doctor of optometry, nothing more, nothing less.

    And he missed the item that I raised at UpDates years ago, about Lonnie Zamora's loss of his eye glasses at an important moment during his alleged sighting.

    What was Zamora's eye affliction without glasses?

    Mrs. Zamora told me, when I talked with her, that he couldn't see well without his glasses, and to lose them as his UFO was lifting off, and flying by, makes his description of what he saw suspect.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 02, 2011  

  • I don't know if Rudiak plays up the doctor sobriquet, but Bob gave it to him, and we all know that Rudiak is a doctor of optometry, nothing more, nothing less.

    Hahaha....fixed. Don't know where I picked it up, he never played it up at all that I am aware of. My bad, as they say.

    By Blogger Bob Koford, at Wednesday, February 02, 2011  

  • You know, I just can't get the eerie and ominous, rhythmic music from that Twilight Zone episode out of my head now. Make it stop!

    Bumpa, bump, a, bump, a bumbpa... 8^}

    Well, that, and the deliciously vibrato howling segments. I'll surely let you know, Rich, if I do ever see Dr. Rudiak raise his arms encloaked and disappear in a puff of smoke, though. Somehow I doubt I'll get that opportunity, unfortunately. He's pretty goshdarn clever for an optometrist.

    But I do still think he's among the most dedicated and serious Roswell researchers around, and personally have always found him to be most helpful and generous to me when I've emailed him questions and comments.

    And please, let's not raise the issue again of how long Zamora was without his dropped glasses. He did pick them up within sveral seconds and clearly observed the object rapidly moving away, silently, horizontally, which belies the prosaic UMT student prank theory, IMHO.

    Unless, of course, he was mistaken in his interpretation and observation, for some unknown or undisclosed reason. Which some have... uh, suggested. Tony? Something to add here?

    Of course, when David greets me with salutations of "Dear Beezelbub," in email, it does raise some piquant, slightly troubling questions.... ...heh! 8^}

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Wednesday, February 02, 2011  

  • That's okay, Bob...

    Ufologists like to play up or create their credentials; one of the reasons that academia, science, and media eschew the UFO topic.

    We mere mortals are a little gullible or too trusting.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 03, 2011  

  • Steve:

    That Rudiak is a card....

    And I do think that Bragalia has more about Socorro, and from what I've been privy to, it's damning (to the ET craft explanation).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 03, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home