The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Outline of the 1947 Roswell Events – plural: events!

Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.

A recent find seems to concretize the real Roswell incident: forty miles or so north of Roswell in the July 4th 1947 time-frame.

In that 1947 time-frame, Mac Brazel discovered some odd debris in area around ranchland he farmed – the Foster Ranch – seventy-five miles northeast of Roswell in early July 1947.

The Brazel debris-find is unimportant but, at the time, his adventures with it, was at the point of compromising the real Roswell event which took place southeast of the Foster ranch.

That is why the Army interacted with Mac Brazel, and for no other reason(s).

Brazel’s part of the Roswell incident is inconsequential actually, and has muddied the Roswell account from the beginning.

The real Roswell event has been lost of marginalized by UFO researchers who have zeroed in on the Brazel debris, which was, by any rationale, balloon debris of an exotic kind.

North of Roswell, where something untoward and truly unusual occurred, is the source of the flying disc press release and activities which were shuttered by the U.S. Army but mingled with the Brazel tale, even though the details had been covered up by the government and military agencies within a few days of the north-of-Roswell event.

Brazel’s inopportune intervention into the real Roswell affair has caused the real Roswell event to be so muddled that UFO researchers and investigators have been flummoxed since 1978 when Stanton Friedman got hold of the peripheral Brazel story as recounted by Jesse Marcel Sr. and pushed it – the Brazel bit – forward as integral to the Roswell event – a catastrophic blunder for those who would follow with their own “research.”

What was the real event? It seems, from evidence located only a few months ago, that the real Roswell story is not far from the archaeologist tale(s) which you can find a good recounting of in several books, with Kevin Randle’s and Don Schmitt’s The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell [M. Evans and Company, NY, 1994, Chapter 14, Page 102 ff.] being a relevant source.

The archaeologist repast is discounted by most Roswell buffs but, as noted, new evidence will reverse that dismissal I think.

Yes, the archaeologist overlay involves a craft and dead (alien?) bodies.

Is that the actual event? It could be, but there are other possibilities. Nick Redfern posed one in his Body Snatchers in the Desert book.

The point I wish to make here is that at least two extraordinary things happened near Roswell in the first days of July 1947.

The accounts of those events have been juxtaposed by UFO buffs and researchers because they were not in situ in 1947 and relied on wtiness testimony and the lack of documentation by officialdom, so they made do with what they could get: flawed memories, a desire for fame (or fortune) by a few Roswellians, and scant documentation.

The Roswell witnesses were as enmeshed in the confusing confluence back in 1947 as the latter-day researchers are today.

The Haut press release is a vital clue, encrusted by accretions of biased researchers and inept investigators and late-to-the-story commentators,

The Brazel patina has become sacrosanct but is truly irrelevant, along with the debris he found on his employer’s ranch. It has nothing to do with the real UFO event but has inserted itself do diligently in the mythical aftermath that dispensing with it has become a sunk-cost faux pas, as noted in my previous post.

Researchers can’t dismiss it, no matter how inconsequential it is to the real Roswell happening.

Brazel found Mogul materials. That’s it.

Was the Roswell incident an extraterrestrial accident? Well, it was an accident, and circumstantially seems to have been ET oriented.

Kevin Randle’s Dream team may enlighten the UFO community upcoming, and they can do so if they really wish to.

But meanwhile, you visitors and readers here might indulge yourselves in a re-invigorated scrutiny of the Roswell information – that which is bona fide and free of ET or skeptical biases, and see what you make of the two (or more) event scenario.

Stan Friedman was almost right, but his ET predilections took him off track and he is now a sunk-cost victim, like many of those dialoguing about Roswell hither and yon.

Is Roswell worth considering further? From what I’ve been told by reliable, credible investigators working the Roswell story, outside the loony lime-light of the internet crowd, yes it is.

But time will really tell us……one hopes.

RR 

75 Comments:

  • I'd like to know about the recent find, but I'm a patient sort.

    I agree with the gist of your article, and with a few caveats. I doubt what Brazel found was Mogul or any balloon. There was another event for which the "Brazel scenario" was a cover (or as I put it, I don't believe the story in the press release), but I have no idea where the site of it was and no reason to think it was where you say, except that someone said someone said. One's regard for those someones depends on a personal relationship I do not have.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Saturday, January 26, 2013  

  • Are you just trying to make Roswell more complicated than it already is?

    We already have 4 different crash sites (of which I think one has been discarded). Are you trying to add a fifth?

    What is your motive? Trying to stir things up into a stew to end all stews?

    Friedman, the originator of the whole 'Roswell was ET' saga, has always insisted the Plains of San Augustin was where the main crash occurred, and where the archaeologists were present. You now say there was a fifth, or even sixth, crash site, and that the press release created a deliberate diversion from this.

    I doubt the 'dream team' will agree with you.

    My mind simply cannot take it in - am I getting Alzheimer's or is it all too complicated for the human mind to grasp?

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, January 27, 2013  

  • Christopher...

    You reading too much into my post/thesis.

    There are two events....the real Roswell event and the Brazel non-event.

    You are so determined to nail Stan Friedman that you keep inserting him into the dialogue.

    Mr. Friedman's Corona scenario is a dead-issue.

    It has no bearing on the real Roswell event.

    You are confusing the issue.

    I was hesitant to add your comment as it merely tries to create issues and hypotheses that do not exist in my posting.

    You don't have Alzheimer's, but you do have a penchant for misunderstanding simple prose.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 27, 2013  

  • If the event was not a counter intelligence false flag, or spacemen, or prosaic material being mistaken for incommensurable components,then you are left with an exotic experiment gone terribly wrong and kept secret due to it's potential, if successful to be a potent weapons system. Nick R has come the closest to deducing the truth as to the general nature of the event being a field test, and the resultant fog of Roswell being one of a intended misdirection of attention.
    In the immediate postwar era it is an established fact many former Nazi technocrats either had their identities wiped clean or simply went on to occupy many key roles much later on at NASA. The fact that they wore two hats, one public and one hidden is made plausible by the fact their public roles were in contradiction to their area of expertise. One such character is Dr Hans Kammler an SS technocrat in charge of the development of exotic weapons and a former key designer of concentration camps, whose identity was wiped clean and simply "vanished" Where is the forest is.. where the event took place is secondary to post war experimentation that continued what the Reich was pursuing, as a game of technological leap frog over the Soviet. This is the most plausible scenario outside of a false flag operation. The means, the motive and the opportunity were there. The fact that NASA made the leaps they did is due largely to ex SS technocrats, we already know that..we already know also, the Reich developments ( stealth among them) were decades ahead of the U.S and the Soviet. Dr Krammler among others would be an interesting trail to follow to determine if his management expertise was put to good use for us that led to a failure that still held promise that necessity from several factors, had to be kept under wraps.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, January 27, 2013  

  • One of the problems with tracing the activities of archaeologists is, if they find a site (not UFO, but what they are looking for) they are not likely to offer much detail to the public, because they do not want "souvenir hunters" to strip it. Unless its a personal communication, the odds of finding information will be limited to peer reviewed journals if it was published and the original field notes and write-ups.

    In The Truth etc, Kevin, notes the "pot hunters" (I've got some good stories about that in Utah), that this was a field with expert amateurs.There may actually exist archives of the amateurs' activities if they were serious about it, and not looking for "souvenirs" (to sell). (note: there were expert amateurs in "meteoritics" in the Southwest, too, whose work is archived, and which is where I traced some of Rhodes' connections).

    I assume reading Holden's papers turned up the evidence for the 2nd site, and that this site is the north of Roswell one. The chapter in Truth etc contains both clear and ambiguous information. I should re-read it closely, but as I recall, the elision occurs between the "anonymous archaeologist" and the Holden/Schultz account, where "the [anonymous] archaelogist changed,significantly, the location of the crash site. He placed it in Lincoln County, near the Brazel ranch", and the north of Roswell opinion based a reported roadblock north of Roswell, and I am not sure what else.

    If Holden's records have information about finding a 'crashed saucer', that would be great.

    I'd think, if they were pre-Columbian ("before the white man") archaeologists, they were looking for signs of the Clovis or Folsom cultures. Clovis to the east near the Texas border. The Folsom culture was found to the east of Hart Canyon (sigh), much further north.

    The name "Peggy Sparks" got my attention. That's a family name of interest to me.

    Bruce, Kammler was a suit, a project manager. I don't know if he was captured. Some say he was and brought to the US. What I would like to find is direct evidence of tests of airfoil designs (such as those of Loedding or the Germans), possibly launched from bombers. The Rhodes object and other "AF Spec" saucer reports may be of those. The only unusual thing (besides silence) about the object, Rhodes told the FBI is that the leading and trailing edges were reversed (from what one might have seen of a domestic plane or glider...see the any ARUP, esp. the S-1, or the Flying Flapjack). That was a Horten spec. Birds also soar and glide. Some birds (large raptors) might have been mistaken as ufos, but some ufos might have been mistaken for birds. These swords have two edges.

    We appear to have the same interest in 'false flags'.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Sunday, January 27, 2013  

  • We are all waiting for this "evidence located only a few months ago". So presumably someone, at some time soon, is going to present this evidence.

    You say this is the true Roswell story and that the Brazel ranch tale was purely a diversion. Was the true story given in the press? Was it presented in any scientific forum?

    Who discovered the 'true story'? I assume it was Tony Bragalia, so come on Tony, let us have the true story, at last. If it was not Tony, who was it? Nick Redfern?

    A diversion? A misdirection? Something to keep us all guessing?

    I've heard this kind of thing before, too many times. Hinting at so much but telling so little. Now you know why I am, shall we say, a bit cynical about such matters.

    Will the revelation, when it occurs, cause the scientific world to revise its basic concepts?

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, January 27, 2013  

  • Christopher...

    You and a few others I know could fathom the Roswell event, without the need of the Dream Team or any materials from Mr. Bragalia et al.

    Moreover, if you fellows (and gals) would extricate yourselves from the muddle at such places as UFO UpDates or Kevin Randle's blog, where the ET fanatics hold reign, you could see what is almost obvious.

    The Roswell myth, extrapolated from the original, documented(!) events, has captured sensible people like you, Lance, and Gilles.

    Don Ecsedy is enamored of some details which have thrown him off his normal scrutinous stride.

    Step back, look at the Roswell scenario with new eyes and you'll see what is plain to see.

    The "evidence" that supports a new view (or troublesome view perhaps) is forthcoming, from a source known to the Dream Team but who has made an end-run around the Dream Team according to my source, a radio commentator who has a radio show in New Mexico and worked in Roswell for many years, with access to people who are credible.

    The source of the new material is not a Roswellian nor has any connection to the city or the event.

    But his evidence is being provided to a place there and I imagine the Dream Team will glom on to it to flesh out what they've discovered.

    But that evidence aside -- it confirms a Roswell account that has been errantly dismissed -- one can see what happened near Roswell, and how it got lost in the ongoing clutter after 1978....the clutter that you ascribe, rightfully somewhat, to Stanton Friedman and his cohorts, Berlitz, Randle, Schmitt, Rudiak et al.

    Stand by for a denouement of sorts, which will open a can of worms that I think you, Lance, Gilles, Don, Bruce, and even Zoam may find tasty enough to ingest (and regurgitate).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 27, 2013  

  • Don
    If we speaking of the same person
    ( Kammler) he was not accounted for around 2002 and according to military archives, his case was "red lined" or if you will, erased. So I am not sure if he is the same former SS officer. The one I am referring to made his last known appearance just before the Allies arrived and had a meetings with Speer and Von Braun strongly suggesting they bail and cut a deal.

    Also interesting is the fact that his files are missing from the well over 80 tons of documents ( according to shipment records) that the U.S under Project Lusty gathered up on research conducted in 1945, two years before a notorious crash.

    The list of research projects specifically focused on aeronautical projects that were ongoing as the war concluded is impressive.

    They included vacuum environment superconducting magnetic research what we know know as "super conduction."

    I wish I could remember the name of the ( at the time well known) female Reich physicist who worked in this area who also went "missing" Her first name was Elizabeth.

    There are hints of experiments with vacuum propulsion ( the reverse of thrust) going on while none were concluded to a successful result.

    The fact that the bulk of any advanced technology would had been more likely to come from Germany rather than originating here seems very likely and of course from what we know, there are many examples that it did so.

    Gen McDonald had a complete set of what is identified as a Lippish P-16 research aircraft capable of close to Mach 2, believe it or not. This is before the war ended around 1945.

    I think it is very likely as you that a false flag is likely true as well as the fact something went wrong when they were playing with former Reich data leading to one or more catastrophically failed prototypes. Why I mention this is Area 51 and not in regard to "saucers" But it seems to be a common habit to this day to bury failed prototypes where they crash rather than carry them around or cut them up..it's faster. Is this one of the many potential motives to plant a false flag, divert interest to another site that is empty ( one lie being the debris was carried away)
    If so, it's a neat hat trick.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, January 27, 2013  

  • Bruce, we are speaking about the same SS Officer. What I meant was he was a manager, not a scientist or engineer. Although he may have had a degree in engineering, his job appears to have been managing the projects. So, he would be a desirable informant.

    My interest in Roswell isn't what the object was -- if there was one, but was there a false flag operation? Was there a cover-up? If yes, in that case, in delineating the cover-up, what was being covered up is not the primary matter of interest. In fact, it shouldn't be, because the presupposition could lead one astray.

    Because the form of the lies can outline the shape of the truth, it is necessary to have limiting criteria. To just follow the trail from one thing to another has odds of ending up in conspiracy-land.

    Roswell's cover-up was not elaborate and not carefully planned because of the time element, I think. It was simple and effective, but not nearly perfect, not untraceable. They couldn't imagine anyone would be examining their story in the 21st century, so the seams will show, if you look closely.

    The CIC may have gotten too clever with the press release, though. That seems to be where the cover begins its unraveling. They had a high opinion of themselves.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Sunday, January 27, 2013  

  • Don:

    While you are fascinated by the possible Roswell cover-up, some of us (Nick Redfern, CDA, Bragalia, me, and others you can name surely) want to know what was being covered-up.

    There is palpable, but still circumstantial, evidence that an odd craft was in an accident near Roswell and that craft may have held bodies....ET? Perhaps. Or something else?

    Whatever was discovered, new finds are supportive.

    And some Roswell entity will get their hands on those finds, or "that find" might be a better way to put it.

    My radio contact is in on it, and the Roswell Dream Team also.

    But disclosure will open, as I keep trying to explain, a can of new Roswell worms, some having to do with a cover-up and government machinations which, when it comes to UFOs, have been rife and egregious, fraudulent and bordering on criminal activity even.

    Working backward, from what we know and without the insane accretions of ufologists, one can get to the Roswell core event.

    And luckily, some current UFO buffs (Dream Teamers too) have stumbled upon supporting materials for a Roswell detail that should take serious UFO researchers far along to explaining the Roswell incident.

    AS for the nature of UFOs, that's a whole other keg of beer, although the new info is helpful.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 27, 2013  

  • Rich: "While you are fascinated by the possible Roswell cover-up, some of us (Nick Redfern, CDA, Bragalia, me, and others you can name surely) want to know what was being covered-up."

    And so do I. But I'm not going to research what it was or if it was. Why? Because after a quarter century, those we call the Roswell Investigators turned up squat, despite being in the field and having at hand bunches of witnesses. Why is that? That is an interesting question.

    This whole show began with Stanton Friedman's apparent false memories that he first got clues to Roswell from informants who led him to Marcel. He didn't read about it in Bloecher, you see, and then went to the public library and slotted some film of 1947 newspapers into a reader, looking for Roswell and Marcel.

    Bloecher's account is incoherent. The order of the story he tells is so scrambled that it is hard to believe he actually read the news papers. It is a political reading, pure NICAP of the moment, sucking up to the military, scientists, academics, politicians and blaming the bad rep of ufology on the press. This slovenly bit of propaganda comes to us thanks to Condon, and NICAP hysteria.

    The clanking chains you hear are Condon's. Like you're going to the prom handcuffed to a corpse.

    Of course, keep at it for decades and maybe the gods will be kind, and something actually will be found.

    "Stand by for a denouement of sorts, which will open a can of worms..."

    Let's hope so. Let's hope there is something to link Roswell to the rest of the wave, at least; it is an isolate.

    A real denouement has some odds of either verifying or destroying the rest of the ufo story. Tony might have a lifetime's worth of cases to debunk.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • Don:

    I'm not denigrating your desire to avoid the Roswell quagmire.

    I actually applaud your sensible stance; no sunk-cost for you.

    But the rest of us quidnuncs are absorbed by the possibility that the crash may have been extraterrestrial in nature -- loony as that seems.

    And for you and Bruce, I'm noting something I read in the current New Yorker -- my go-to source for supporting minutiae:

    In an article by Adam Gopnik about 3-D (music) recordings [1/26/2013, Page 32 ff.] Gopnik tells readers about the magicians' "Too Perfect Theory."

    One logical path to a solution discomfits obeservers....it's so simple that they are cynical or cautious about what is happening.

    So the magician opens his illusion to "many different doors for the bemused watcher to explore" that is, a number of diversions are presented which allows the spectator to assume the illusion is real.

    This is the crux of the Roswell tale.

    The ET explanation is too simple to accept -- not in its essence but in its explanatory configuration -- so those wishing to divert those involved (the public, USSR, et cetera) created the diversions: Brazel (a happy coincidental account), Mogul, and other details that have fleshed out the meme.

    That makes their explanation -- a weather balloon "catastrophe" -- more amenable to acceptance: Their Too Perfect Theory.

    Rudiak fell for it, Friedman also, and Randle (initially) plus many others.

    But a few (skeptics) remained wary; they were not gulled by the diversionary tactic.

    This is the group arguing with Randle and Rudiak at Kevin's blog.

    They're not sure what happened but the know that one explanation, whether ET or Mogul, doesn't ring true.

    The glitch for you, me, and maybe CDA is that damnable Haut release.

    It bespeaks a peek behind the (magician's) curtain.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • "It bespeaks a peek behind the (magician's) curtain."

    Indeed.

    Bloecher's account is important because it documents ufology's virgin encounter with Roswell, and it is a disaster, as well as ironic because a UFO 'believer' created the Roswell 'debunkers' arguments.

    To say "Brazel scenario" instead of "Ft Worth scenario" is to slouch towards Bloecher, and to accept Mogul as the explanation for Brazel follows. Bloecher even has Mogul.

    So, did the [insert name(s) here] see crash test dummies and not bodies, and via false memory conflate two events years apart? Is that possible, too?

    Measure twice, cut once, if the info comes from anyone in the AAF, including Haut and Marcel.

    CI bright bulbs are geeks. Like hackerly coders, they can't leave well enough alone. It is their weakness. They have a high opinion of themselves.

    Identifying the Ft Worth Scenario in the press (especially, the press release), leaves a residue which indicates something else was underway, not in the Ft Worth scenario.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • Sweeping away the Roswell dirt and clutter is a monumental job, Don.

    Is it worth the effort? You don't think so. I don't either.

    It's worthy of a hobbyists time, but there are more interesting, better things to waste one's time on.

    Bragalia sees the Roswell ET scenario as the most monumental event of humankind, or so I think that's his view.

    But even if there was an ET element involved in the Roswell event, how does that impact me, or starving peoples around the world or crimes against kids and women? Or even what I'll have for lunch today?

    It's a footnote to humankind's history/evolution -- changing little but maybe explaining much.

    But when it comes down to it, I really don't care, despite all the writing about it here.

    (I have too much time on my hands.)

    RR



    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • There is little I can contribute on the subject, so for now I'll wait for developments.

    My failure to see the "North of Roswell scenario" is due to having not found indications of it in the "residue". The limiter I put on the research makes it very restricted, not universal in its applicability. I only dipped into the 'witness era' whenever it seemed it might clarify an issue (such as the 'missing time') regarding the news stories. I couldn't proceed without first comprehending what was reported in 1947. It was necessary, too, to understand how the army was dealing with civilians and UFO reports at the same time as Roswell.

    If I were to look into the north of Roswell story, I'd have to start here:

    "(7) Brazel took Adair and me to the pasture where he made his discovery. When we arrived, there were three or four uniformed Army officers searching some higher ground about a quarter to a half mile away. Apparently, they had been there for some time."

    Jason Kellahin affidavit, 1993

    The likelihood of Kellahin being on the Foster Ranch is about zero. Was he north of Roswell?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • The Roswell event needs a new researcher or new researchers, persons with no prior connection or interest in the matter.

    The canard that they would miss all the work done by previous UFO buffs is just stupid.

    A clean slate is needed and a new brain unsullied by the prior errant work

    As for Brazel, anything having to do with him can be discounted and ignored.

    He's the fly in the Roswell ointment.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • I agree with the cda post,or you are a paid debunker and disinformation agent,besides,the ufo world does not need roswell to prove that aliens are here and have been here,why do people,(mentally)wet themselves,when the subject is brought up,there is now mountains of evidents that point otherwise,there is always a grain of truth in everything and that grain is a lot nowdays,disclosure is not far away anyway..

    By Blogger luther renfroe jr, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • A suggestion, arising out of the 1997 USAF Report (the one so castigated by ET proponents):

    In that report details are given of a crash of a KC-97 plane in which 11 airmen were killed. The date was June 26, 1956. The autopsies were carried out at the same funeral home Glenn Dennis worked at. He was still there in '56.

    I wonder if anyone has checked press reports for that date to see if Dennis' name appears, and what he did. If so, this would clarify his involvement but would mean his memory is at fault by 9 years. This would then give some credence to the 'anthropomorphic dummies' argument used by the AF in that report. Recall that the main reason this aspect was laughed at by ETHers was that the incidents occurred between 6 and 10 years after Roswell. And nobody's memory (so we are told by Randle, Rudiak, Friedman etc.) could possibly be in error by this amount of time.

    OR COULD IT?

    Checking the June 26 date would provide useful clues. But as far as I know, nobody has ever done this.

    So, somebody, please check the newspapers for that date.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • Christopher...

    That's a stretch, even for you.

    Something happened in 1947.

    That something provoked a press release, and some (meaningless?) activity.

    Mac Brazel was jigging around and had to be thwarted before blowing the cover of what happened north of Roswell.

    The military airplane crash you bring up is not even a red herring.

    It's totally irrelevant, even with the alleged Glenn Dennis involvement.

    It's accreting tangential material, the very thing you've excoriated Friedman, Rudiak, et al. for doing.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • Peter Rogerson once showed how a supposed witness to UFO event in 1954 had actually confused it with an event in 1967. I can probably dig it out of MAGONIA.

    This being so, why cannot a supposed witness to an event in 1947 confuse the timescales in a similar way?

    You have obviously got something that you, or rather someone known to you, swears occurred in 1947. Yet there is no report of it at the time, so we believe (unless you can produce one). Is there a report of it at any other time?

    Was the event you have heard of really connected with Roswell, or has someone merely assumed it is?

    Naturally, I'll give my verdict if and when I see the evidence. So will others.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • Christopher,

    Ufologists dont care of it! I made the same "remark"/"hypothesis"/ask to take a look when Dennis joined the Funeral), 3 years ago, regarding this KC-47 incident previously too, and about Glenn Dennis "implication" in the Roswell myth to the French "exegete" of Roswell, Gildas Bourdais, reading the second USAF report.
    He banned me of his blog.
    That's ufology, after all...
    That's irrelevant... -sic-

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • Listen fellows....

    Brazel doesn't matter, and Glenn Dennis even less so.

    You are working with the materials and information garnered from Friedman et al.

    This is errant information as you both have been bitching about for years.

    Forget about Brazel, Dennis, Mogul, and almost everything else that keeps vomiting forth at Randle's blog. much of it from David Rudiak.

    They have "hypnotized" you into thinking that their Roswell tale is the one you should be debating.

    It isn't.

    Start fresh.

    Think outside the ufological box.

    Be men....thinking men, not automatons controlled by the Roswell myth-makers.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • The real secret of Roswell surely's that everyone keeps going back to it.

    It doesn't matter whether it's sceptic or believer as soon as someone comes up with a new take everyone hurtles back in there with their twopenneth [viz moi!].

    And it's not just lively debate it's acrimonious vitriolic stuff the sort of guns and daggers drawn emotions generated round a card table between mafia members suddenly suspecting each other's cheating.

    At times it actually resembles boiling hatred.

    I'd almost be inclined to agree with Bruce it was some kind of setup if it hadn't been so lazily executed.

    For instance if you really want the Pinkos to think you've found something important do you really put it in the papers the next day then immediately disclaim it or do you spend weeks planting stories in the press suggesting celestial goings on followed by military cordones then suits all over the place [and remember because there's always the possibility some of your people're working for the other side you need to put on a good show with props highly suggestive they came from an actual saucer especially the aliens]?

    For that matter if you've succeded in getting the Pinkos worried you really do have an alien space ship even if by accident do you really allow the story to die on the spot only to be revived by Uncle Stan decades later or do you keep salting hints in the press of monumental goings on?

    ps

    Bruce where did you get your remote control flying saucer from you mentioned a while back? I'm in my fifties but I was in the park the other day and I was suddenly overwhelmed by just how much terific fun one could have whizzing one of them about.

    By Blogger alanborky, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • so... R-squared.....

    ...while I find this blog-post most tempting, I am somewhat worried that you have been, perhaps, somewhat led astray by Professor Anthony Bragalia's confusion that these two 'movies' are both Ken Burns 'documentaries':

    'Iron Sky'
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034314/

    (http://www.nowvideo.eu/video/lkv57zggj85ee)


    'The 25th Reich'
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1931551/

    (http://www.vidbux.com/hurhu2afr3ed)


    ...please inquire and report back to we UFO-peons, OK?

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • "Be men....thinking men, not automatons controlled by the Roswell myth-makers."

    This is the very thing you have to do to enter some blogs. You know - where you have to type in certain codes to prove you are a human being, not an automaton.

    So I hereby declare I am not an automaton.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • But CDA...

    Sometimes you think like one.

    KP:

    Yes, I'm influenced by "Professor Bragalia."

    He knows things but isn't talking.

    Kevin Randle also knows things but his mouth is shut too.

    So I have to do workarounds.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • Chris, I have reviewed the news stories, however, I do not have access to the Roswell papers. The papers from the home towns of the victims I've seen, do not mention Dennis or Ballards...but why should they?

    It is hardly the only crash at RAAF/Walker AFB. There were many. It is possible Ballards or Dennis were involved in several. Why limit it to Walker? There were other crashes in the area not associated with RAAF/Walker. There's a form for army/usaf air accidents which can be researched, too.

    "This being so, why cannot a supposed witness to an event in 1947 confuse the timescales in a similar way?"

    Confusing events from years apart? Possibly. I do that often enough. However, give me a few moments of reflection and it will become clear (Wait! I didn't buy the Chevie until 63, so this must have been before...oh, yeah. it was 1961).

    Events much, much closer together are more likely to remain conflated.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • And Don...

    Memory is so fallible that I have pounded away at what Roswellians remembered, or thought they did.

    But thinking that air-drop dummies from 1954 or bodies from 1957 were remembered as alien bodies from 1947 is a memory flaw too bizarre to be found in the neurological literature.

    It's a side bar that detracts from the core Roswell story and I'm surprised that our favorite skeptics, Gilles and CDA, have brought it up.

    Gilles, as a psychologist, knows better.

    CDA, as a (usually) brilliant thinker should know better also.

    Ah, but as Gilles tells us, when he's being rationale, that ufology.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • Rich, memory is complicated, but one thing I know is one cannot 'psychoanalyze'* "so and so said this...". One can, of course, psychoanalytically interpret the person telling you he is 'psychoanalyzing' a piece of paper, and intervene, if warranted.

    "Gilles, as a psychologist, knows better."

    There are many kinds of psychology.

    * I mean it in the generic sense.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • I'm not sure where you're going with this Don, but....

    My reference to psychology has to do with why some people are deflected by Roswell elements that have nothing to do with the core event.

    The memory of Roswellians is suspect, especially after so many years, but its what current UFO buffs are accepting as important aspects of the tale -- those aspects being accumulated by biased or inept UFO researcherss and now being debated online.

    The Roswell web has snared skeptics who normally would be more astute or discerning about what they are choosing to chew upon.

    The air-drop dummies is irrelevant.

    Brazel's debris is irrelevant.

    Glenn Dennis's posture and presence in the story is irrelevant.

    The Haut press release is integral to the core story.

    It stands by itself, without need of interpretation, except that it tells those who want to know what happened near Roswell what to look for.

    Take the Roswell story, cut all the nonsense from it -- the stuff gathered together at Kevin's blog and in most of the books -- and look for the materials and information that intersects with the Haut press release.

    Rudiak's Ramey "telegram" should be looked at forensically outside of an ET bias, although that may be what the "telegram" is really dealing with.

    But the Rudiak taint causes it to be skewed. It has to be looked at objectively, and purely.

    The skeptics have been drawn into the Roswell mire and can't extricate themselves from it.

    The obsessions of the believers has afflicted the skeptics -- damaged their thinking.

    Bruce is near the truth.

    The Roswell game is being played on the terms of the ET believers.

    The problem with that is that the ET believers don't work scientifically or objectively.

    They are protecting turf and their reputations....the sunk-coin thing.

    The Air Force's "explanations" of Roswell are goofier than that of the ET believers, so one can discount those explanations altogether also.

    Gilles knows, as do the rest of us who come from the psychologic fields, that one can easily come to join the mass mind/thinking on the matter.

    (We've discussed this often here.)

    But Gilles, CDA, and a few others are as easily gulled as those whom they excoriate for falling in to the ET camp, without thinking it through.

    Bringing up the air-drop dummies, Brazel's forays into Roswell, and the Glenn Dennis intrusions, for example, are pieces that don't belong in the puzzle.

    They've been inserted by inept or mischievous persons, and the skeptics play along.

    They should know better.

    It has nothing to with psychoanalysis.

    It's a psychological, sometimes neurological, glitch that smart people avoid.

    The Kevin commenters, and some commenters here, are not being smart.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • Rich, just responding to the false memory intrusion; implying something they read in a book about what somebody said is evidence for suspecting a false memory, and then to insist on it as a reasonable caveat.

    'psychoanalyzing' was, as I wrote, used in the generic sense.

    "Gilles knows, as do the rest of us who come from the psychologic fields, that one can easily come to join the mass mind/thinking on the matter."

    Sure. We all know about it. We've all experienced it, I'm sure, in some form. But, just saying it exists is not evidence of its existence in any specific case at hand.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • Don:

    Just observing what transpires here and at UFO blogs -- Kevin's in particular -- makes my point.

    The mass mind-think is blatant, palpable, obvious.

    It's happened with UFO buffs, skeptics and ET believers alike.

    It happened with Roswell citizens who became witnesses.

    It's endemic to UFO book writers and researchers.

    It's a psychologic virus.

    Not to see it is a state of denial, which is a whole other topic.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 28, 2013  

  • Rich: "The Haut press release is integral to the core story.


    You are referring to:

    AP and UP: "through the cooperation of one of the local ranchers"

    RDR: "The disk was recovered on a ranch in the Roswell vicinity, after an unidentified rancher had notified sheriff Geo. Wilcox, here"

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, January 29, 2013  

  • You keep saying that such-and-such is irrelevant, or extraneous to the topic. OK, so will you please tell us what IS relevant, besides that press release.

    Why even hint that Rudiak's 'Ramey telegram' might contain ET data? Do you really suppose it does, or even might do? That particular scrap of paper contains the info that might change the world and the way we regard the universe, eh?

    I cannot remember now, but when Stan F first spoke to Marcel, and essentially began the whole Roswell post-1978 saga, did he discover about the press release then, or was it only when he met Haut himself 12 to 18 months later?

    What I mean is: did Marcel recall anything about that press release, or even the fact that there was one?
    I suspect not, even though his name appears in it! He certainly did not remember the date or retain any of the newspaper reports.

    This omission by Marcel is, to me, the most significant part of the Roswell event, (or non-event I should say) coupled with the release itself.

    But maybe to you this recent discovery, said to be 'north of Roswell' is the great revelation. We shall see.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, January 29, 2013  

  • Don:

    Just the press release, not the newspaper accounts.

    CDA:

    Friedman and Marcel are tangential, to the point of irrelevancy.

    Ramey's "telegram" -- despite the Rudiak exegesis -- is important.

    You have some key or forensic materials from the "crime scene."

    But you and Don, and a few others, keep bringing in interpretations from others, most of it (or all of it) from a time long after the original event.

    It's a "cold case" that has been mucked up by Friedman and his UFO cohorts (Randle among them) and by all of you late-to-the-game skeptics and "crime hunters" (Don).

    Simplify the event from what can be determined to be bona fide (from 1947) and you'll get to the core mystery.

    Forget the 1978 and after ruminations. They stink.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 29, 2013  

  • "Simplify the event from what can be determined to be bona fide (from 1947)"

    Within the context of 1947 "flying saucer" hysteria, an ordinary man formed the false idea that some seemingly strange balloon-train debris might be a crashed "flying saucer" because even he--in remote southeastern New Mexico--had been subjected to the recent "flying saucer" hysteria and delusion." He then infected, transferred that fantastic false belief to the imaginations of others; and then they, for their own self-serving reasons, ran with the story, the false belief--no matter how obviously false it was, but not one being an expert--that there was, or at least could be, something extraordinary about the mundane balloon-train debris. That is, until more rational and more knowledgeable heads prevailed and the completely human, typical small-group scare had run its course and was over.

    Roswell is a total non-issue, as was determined in one day sixty-five years ago.

    "and you'll get to the core mystery."

    "Mystery" explained.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Tuesday, January 29, 2013  

  • Well, another day of the spirited "gnashing of teeth in the outer darkness" in the microcosm of ufology, as we all perch atop a tower of babble discussing what we do not know. However, the sun is shining into the sanctum of sanctums as surely as our atmosphere could become toxic.

    Time for this monkey or whatever I am supposed to be, to get on a bicycle and peddle my way around the neighborhood. Get out of the house while I wait for the latest innuendo in the Roswell game.

    Perhaps one day we can all share a beer and a laugh. Call it a change of pace.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, January 29, 2013  

  • Nice try Zoam...

    But the real Roswell event wasn't created by Brazel, Marcel, or Haut.

    And the latter day myth-makers are exempt from the Roswell premise, too.

    You, like CDA, Gilles, Lance, Don, and even the Randle Dream team are held hostage by the myth and original Roswell materials that have been tainted by UFO buffs and researchers and their errant commentary.

    You are tilting at a windmill, a chimera that has emerged over the years and continues to be fed by the nonsense that pretends to be enlightened dialogue and debate at some blogs, including this one.

    You are struggling with the Roswell corpse...and the construct that it has become -- a ghost.

    Don has withdrawn from the conversation as I seem to have curtailed his attempts to divert the debate into areas that I deem irrelevant.

    Don and a few others, such as you, are running out of places where you can spew asides that are far from pertinent.

    So long as you stay within the parameters of the "discussion" here, I'll make sure your views are heard.

    But go off track, too far, and, like Don, you may want to mush out at Kevin's blog, where the UFO rabble seems to hold sway....Kevin being more open-minded and democratic than I am.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 29, 2013  

  • Bruce gets it...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 29, 2013  

  • Zoam:

    I agree with your analysis. But we still, as Don says, need to explain why a press release was issued.

    The rest of the story runs thus: Marcel probably told his tale to several people over the years from '47 to '78. Few, if any, of them bothered to take any notice and merely brushed it off as, maybe an oddity, but so what.

    Then suddenly along comes a certain Mr. You-know-who, who happens to be a saucer fanatic and a strong ET believer. He takes notice of Marcel's tale and hey presto the stage is set for a BIG story. Naturally others follow suit, etc.

    We all know the rest, don't we?

    However, I am still curious about that press release. And I await YOUR response on that, sometime.

    As for RR's new revelations, if and when they come, we can only wait.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, January 29, 2013  

  • The "revelation(s)" Christopher will come from Roswell I'm afraid.

    I don't have permission to lay out the incendiary "evidence" nor does the Roswell Dream Team.

    The new "evidence" will only open another can of worms.

    That's why I'm suggesting you fellows get your ducks in a row by scrutinizing the original Roswell account, without the accretions that came from you-know-whom and his errant cohorts after 1978.

    And quit baiting Rudiak. He has accumulated so much Roswell detritus that those of us still foolishly struggling to get a handle on the 1947 event get lost in the maze of his ET bias.

    Nail down the reason for the Haut press release and you'll be on your way to a rational explanation for Roswell.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 29, 2013  

  • RR:

    We ought not to have to "nail down the reason for the press release". Dammit, the guy who wrote it was around for some 55 years afterwards. Why couldn't someone get a plain answer from him?

    Instead he (Haut) gets interviewed and re-interviewed so many times over & over, and ends up writing TWO affidavits! No other witness ever did, did they? The poor guy was so confused he was in two or three minds at the end.

    Question: Don't both constitute a form of sworn legal document? If his 2nd contradicts his first in the way it did (i.e. totally different) shouldn't he have been prosecuted for lying in the first one?

    Fifty years and none of the so-called 'investigators' gets a handle on this gigantic contradiction.

    And now you want us to get to the bottom of his press release.

    Some chance!

    I did state two possible reasons for the release, but now await Zoam's (or anyone else's) reasons, if they have any.

    But it is getting near time for a change of topic, I feel.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, January 29, 2013  

  • Christopher...

    Forget Haut. His mind was diminished in his latter days (and maybe sooner).

    The press release is "evidence" all by itself, without Haut and those who use it to make ET points.

    There is a provenance, and that provenance is extant [sic].

    Regardless of how you and others feel about Mr. Bragalia of the Dream Team, they might come up with the why and who of the Haut release.

    But if they don't, someone else surely will. (It's extant, as I keep trying to make clear.)

    A new topic is on the way.

    But it won't explain UFOs.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 29, 2013  

  • Concerning indirectly the Press release, I have always been interested to know other case(s) between local newspapers or radios pieces and 509th. that's realy difficult from France to "collect" possible such interactions

    I believe it could be interesting (or not) in order to have some contemporan "landmarks" (1947) in order to trie to adopt a contextualization point of view about such "echanges" (if prior existed ie.) between 509th and local medias. Well, that's a parenthesis.

    But one more time, it is imho important to contextualize in time (1947) and in place (in this Roswell Area) to probably better understand (or not) this release.

    Any cue / documentations about prior or future 8th july 1947 local medias & 509th interaction(s)?

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Tuesday, January 29, 2013  

  • Indeed, Gilles...

    You make an important and vital point.

    How press releases were generated and why, in the 1947 time-frame, is truly essential to understanding what went on with the Haut release.

    This would have been a good area of inquiry for Don Ecsedy, but he opted out, not getting the point of my post I'm afraid.

    Thanks for the suggestion, Gilles.

    It's something to be seriously considered.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 29, 2013  

  • Chris;

    During small-group scares, otherwise rational people do irrational things--within the range and background of their normal behaviors--based on mistaken beliefs. Once an ambiguous stimulus is identified as a threat, rational behaviour is compromised: drivers race away from "flying saucers;" pilots chase "UFOs;" radar operators track "UFOs;" farmers shoot it out and dreamers are abducted by "aliens;" and a military press officer issues a "flying saucer" press release.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, January 30, 2013  

  • A simplistic observation about mass hysteria, Zoam.

    What you say is true, in some contexts, but not the 1947 Roswell context.

    Should I suggest some material from the extensive literature on the subject?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 30, 2013  

  • "What you say is true, in some contexts, but not the 1947 Roswell context."

    Okay, RR, tell us why you think Roswell is not a small-group scare.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, January 30, 2013  

  • It depends upon your definition of "small" Zoam.....one, two, five, ten?

    Based upon the public record, the bona fide records, a number of disparate groups of people were involved....some from the Army, some from the press, some tangential.

    There is no common psychological link, such as that at Loudon for example or even such as those who had their radios tuned to the Orson Welles Halloween broadcast.

    There is no common denominator.

    Mass hysteria needs a common factor.

    Throwing UFO sightings, in general, into the mix throws your hypothesis even more out of whack.

    There is a mass psychological element after 1978 -- one that still afflicts Kevin Randle's blog visitors, but that's not the case in the 1947 Roswell carnival.

    Nope.....small-group scare is bogus, in this instance.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 30, 2013  

  • Within the context of "flying saucer" hysteria, Brazel imagined some balloon-train debris to be part of a "flying saucer." Brazel then transferred that false belief to Wilcox and Marcel, then Marcel to Blanchard, who told Haut enough to issue the press release.

    It's a small group, and the common denominator is the false belief that the debris is part of a "flying saucer" or might be something relevant to "flying saucer" hysteria.

    The totality of the "UFO" myth and delusion from 1896 to present is one Collective Delusion, and the greater part of that larger delusion is composed of Small Group Scares. Most of the most infamous "UFO" cases are small-group scares, which I generalized in the last post: Kentucky 1955, Betty & Barney Hill, Tehran, Terauchi, Minot, etc, and of course the origin of Roswell.

    Please don't confuse the "mass hysteria" of physical symptoms--mass psychogenic illness--with expressions of the "UFO" Collective Delusion, the temporary spread of false beliefs within a population. There are four expressions of collective delusions: Immediate community threats; Community flight panics; Community wish-fulfillment; and Small-group scares.

    The origin of Roswell is a clearly an example of an early "UFO" small-group scare.

    "The study of collective delusions most commonly falls within the domain of sociologists working in the sub-field of collective behavior, and psychologists specializing in social psychology. Collective delusions are typified as the spontaneous, rapid spread of false or exaggerated beliefs within a population at large, temporarily affecting a particular region, culture, or country. [Whereas] Mass hysteria is most commonly studied by psychiatrists and physicians. Episodes typically affect small, tightly knit groups in enclosed settings such as schools, factories, convents and orphanages (Calmeil 1845; Hirsch 1883; Sirois 1974)."
    --Robert Bartholomew

    "In summary, the authors see the UFO phenomenon as a classic example of a mass delusion marked by feelings of threat to the community, attempts to flee from the threat, collective wish-fulfillment, and small group scares. The Betty and Barney Hill event, the Taylor family in Kentucky episode, and the experience of the Knowles family in western Australia are seen as good examples of "small group" scares."
    --Review of Bartholomew and Howard's "UFOs" (1998)

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, January 30, 2013  

  • Zoam....

    I'm sure there are delusional aspects to some UFO events (encounters mostly).

    But Roswell isn't one.

    Something happened, and well before the flying saucer meme was entrenched in the collective mind.

    You are taking the latter elements of flying saucer nuttiness (after the 50s) and placing them back in the 40s.

    It doesn't work that way, as you, deep down, know.

    Brazel found some stuff and got a little too public about it.

    Haut issued a press release that said what it said.....the crux of the Roswell Incident.

    What "flying disc" was has yet to be exactly determined.

    Betty and Barney Hill's episode is not small group in nature -- it was two people, just as the Pascagoula event was.

    UFO conferences in Roswell and other venues have a small-group dynamic that is composed of delusional souls primarily.

    But that is after the fact....after the 50s contactee stories and the Hill abduction brouhaha, among other hysteria-provoking hallucinations or stimuli.

    The Kentucky shoot-out was a reaction to something odd and seems like a hysterical encapulated event.

    But it was hysteria from whole-cloth.

    Something provoked the hysteria, something tangible.

    Roswell is a unique event, marred by hysterical aftermaths, brought on by ET-biased UFO researchers.

    (CDA names them, all the time.)

    But Roswell in its initial state was not hysterically created nor hysterically encrusted.

    There was no "spontaneous, rapid spread of false or exaggerated beliefs within a population at large, temporarily affecting a particular region, culture, or country" as noted by your Bartholomew citation.....not in 1947....maybe afterward but not in 1947.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 30, 2013  

  • Zoam: "Within the context of "flying saucer" hysteria, Brazel imagined some balloon-train debris to be part of a "flying saucer." Brazel then transferred that false belief to Wilcox and Marcel, then Marcel to Blanchard, who told Haut enough to issue the press release."

    As I've noted many times online, Brazel did not call anything a flying disc or saucer in any 1947 account. Both reporters who interviewed him confirm it was the army, not Brazel who called the object a flying disk.

    "W. W. Brazel, 48, Lincoln county rancher living 30 miles south of Corona, today told his story of finding what the army at first described as a flying disk."

    "Brazel’s discovery was reported Tuesday by Lt. Warren Haught [sic], Roswell Army Air Field public information officer, as definitely being one of the “flying discs”"

    See? Brazel didn't tell Wilcox and Marcel he found a flying disk. Wilcox never said anything about one. Marcel never said anything about one, and Blanchard never said anything about one.

    Haut told George Walsh, who told Jason Kellahin, who put it on the wire.

    That's 1947.

    In the witness era Haut said Blanchard told him about it. Haut is your witness.

    Get the story straight before commenting.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, January 30, 2013  

  • R2 Unit:
    ....many years back, someone like me tried to interest Randle, Swords, Schmitt and Rodeghier, during discussions about Roswell, in the idea that IF such an ET crash occurred (just a short distance from where Von Braun and the rest of the only astronautics proof-of-concept-hidden-Paperclip-experts were hidden while working for the US), then the unofficially resident ex-Nazis at White Sands would be the logical choice to assist and interpret....

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Wednesday, January 30, 2013  

  • And KP, what was their response?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 30, 2013  

  • So, there you are, Zoam. There is your small group scare. This is the skeptics solution to be press release puzzle. Their Tinker to Evers to Chance. This is for the SkepticPR merit badge, Zoam, so listen closely.

    Haut > Walsh > Kellahin > saucer hysteria

    The Pflockian version has it

    Blanchard > Haut etc

    When I was a kid in jr high we played a game called Gossip. For my wife, the game was called Telephone.

    Based on the affidavits of the small scare group, we can note the following:

    Blanchard dictated it over the phone to Haut, who dictated it over the phone to Walsh, who dictated over the phone to Kellahin, and then somebody tied a pink bow around it and put it on the wires.

    Y'know, I've been doing this all day. Making up arguments for the skeptics. I am so frick'n bored with the ones they come up with themselves.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, January 30, 2013  

  • Origin of the Roswell Delusion review:

    The secret aircraft and ET "UFO" myth and collective delusion existed for a half-century before 1947. And the ET "UFO" mythology (ancient alien controllers) was fully formed and featured in all its amazing aspects in dozens of pulp-fiction yarns and depicted in all its fantastic colors on their covers for decades before 1947.

    When Brazel found the balloon-train debris, and thought it might be a "flying saucer," Cold-War (secret aircraft and ET) "flying saucer" hysteria was newly underway. But a cosmic-conspiracy mythology as "reality" of piloted phantom aircraft haunting the stratosphere had immediately preceded "flying saucer" hysteria for several years.

    Completely disposed to the "UFO" collective delusion and initiated by mundane ambiguous stimuli, the Betty and Barney Hill and Kentucky shoot-out cases are textbook examples of small-group scares. Again, most infamous "UFO" cases are small-group scares, Tehran, Terauchi, Minot, etc, and the origin of Roswell plainly.

    "Collective delusions are typified as the spontaneous, rapid spread of false or exaggerated beliefs within a population at large, temporarily affecting a particular region, culture, or country." A small group scare is its local expression, in which an ambiguous stimulus is misidentified as the threatening manifestation of that false belief, and fear of that imaginary threat is transferred to others by direct contact.

    The origin of Roswell is clearly an example of an early "UFO" small-group scare.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, January 31, 2013  

  • What you write Zoam applies to some (maybe many) UFO accounts as we've noted here time and again. (Look at the archive of postings.)

    But your generality doesn't apply to all UFO or all flying saucer cases.

    And it doesn't apply to the Roswell event.

    I've assumed you're a smart guy but you create wariness in me and others when you stoop to make generalizations that broadbrush reports errantly.

    The delusional aspects of the UFO mythos is obvious, but not a certainty for some instances.

    Roswell is not a "small-group" scare, no matter how hard you try to make it out to be.

    There are, again, too many disparate elements.

    You beleaguer the confluence of disparate activity and agendas within the Roswell scenario.

    Either you don't have a comprehensive knowledge of all that went on -- or you're not paying attention to those (Don Ecsedy for one) who are trying to enlighten you, or....you are walloping your anti-UFO thesis with faulty psychological and/or sociological rubrics that don't work when it comes to Roswell.

    There is, I admit, and wrote about a while back, a sociological element that has reared its ugly head when it comes to Roswell but that is after the 1978 efforts of the ET=believing ufologists, whom CDA has named often enough so you know whom I mean.

    The Roswell "incident" is, in its 1947 situation, free of the delusional hysteria you ascribe to it.

    The timing is off. The various factions are not connected by any one or two catalytic rumors, and the pristine aftermath immediately thereafter, August 1947 on, works against your imagined small-group designation.

    Sorry chum.

    You are out of your element here.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 31, 2013  

  • Don claims: "As I've noted many times online, Brazel did not call anything a flying disc or saucer in any 1947 account."

    Fortunately, the rest of us aren't confined by your blind pronouncements, and can read the July 9 1947 Roswell Daily Record story: Rancher who Located ‘Saucer’ Sorry He Told About It, which says "[Brazel] went to see Sheriff George Wilcox and 'whispered kinda confidential like' that he might have found a flying disk." Yikes!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, February 01, 2013  

  • Zoam:

    Brazel was a guy looking for some attention.

    Finding some debris offered him a chance to try and gull a few people in the vicinity.

    He merely complicated a real event that took place 30 miles to the southeast of the Foster ranch.

    Forget about Brazel. He ended badly and should only be a footnote to the Roswell event, not a major ingredient.

    Even Don's attention to him is a mistake.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 01, 2013  

  • Zoam has given a good example of what I meant by 'psychoanalyzing' what is written on a piece of paper (or in his case an imaginary piece of paper).

    If there was a small group scare in the summer of 1947, it was among senior command of the USAAF.

    When the sociologists (excuse me... those who regale us with "faulty psychological and/or sociological rubrics") get around to studying that cohort, I'll pay attention to them.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, February 01, 2013  

  • Zoam: ""[Brazel] went to see Sheriff George Wilcox and 'whispered kinda confidential like' that he might have found a flying disk." Yikes!"

    [quote]Monday he came to town to sell some wool and while here he went to see sheriff George Wilcox and “whispered kinda confidential like” that he might have found a flying disk.[unquote]

    You need to re-evaluate your source for stuff like this.

    The 'flying disk' part is an editorial comment, not in the quotation. What should be of interest is why the locals and the AF wanted Brazel to appear to be isolated from any knowledge of the saucers. Figure that out.

    I would recommend to all skeptics, and advocates, to learn the 'use-mention', too.

    Rich: "Even Don's attention to him is a mistake."

    Well, no. I don't know anything about Mac Brazel. What we can know about is 'Brazel', a protagonist in the Ft Worth Scenario. I'm about to move on from the 1947 newspapers to the witness era. Understanding that 'Brazel' will be useful.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, February 01, 2013  

  • Yes, Don, the psychology of Brazel -- his mind-set -- is intriguing (see Bragalia's account of Brazel's final days), but has nothing to do with the core event of Roswell -- which is on the cusp of being "outed" as I type this.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 01, 2013  

  • You are still dangling this great revelation in front of us. Please do not force us to wait much longer - it is getting unbearable.

    When the big news finally comes, do you expect a violent reaction from the skeptics, or the ETHers, or even both?

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, February 01, 2013  

  • AS I understand it, Christopher, new evidence will be startling but not conclusive, to some.

    It will open a "can of worms" as they say.

    But looking at the Roswell story, in the beginning -- not after the 1978 onward dreck -- one can place the new evidence in perspective and draw a reasonable conclusion.

    ETHers should be thrilled. Skeptics will have a new tough "target" to shoot at.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 01, 2013  

  • AS I understand it, Christopher, new evidence will be startling but not conclusive, to some.

    It will open a "can of worms" as they say.

    But looking at the Roswell story, in the beginning -- not after the 1978 onward dreck -- one can place the new evidence in perspective and draw a reasonable conclusion.

    ETHers should be thrilled. Skeptics will have a new tough "target" to shoot at.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 01, 2013  

  • But I presume there will be no hardware, bodies or documentation. Correct?

    In which case skeptics will not really need to do anything, will they? And the ETHers will be in the same position they are now.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, February 01, 2013  

  • The "evidence" is substantial and tangible, CDA.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 01, 2013  

  • "Brazel was a guy looking for some attention."

    Yes, RR, as I've said already, the second most plausible explanation for the press release--after "flying saucer" mania--is that each man schemed that he might be rewarded in some way for his part in this "saucer" nonsense. Either way, it was over in a day, and the basis for the Roswell myth amounts to zero.

    "a real event that took place 30 miles to the southeast of the Foster ranch."

    We won't hold our breath. (g)

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, February 01, 2013  

  • Rich: "ETHers should be thrilled. Skeptics will have a new tough "target" to shoot at."

    Given my preference for the research and analysis done by ETHers on Roswell, it sounds as if I may be converted.

    Last night I came across an April 1949 statement by the USAF:

    "But", it adds, "the reported performance of the disks is so
    superior to anything we have yet approached in this country
    that it is considered only an accidental discovery of 'a
    degree of novelty never before achieved' could suffice to
    explain such devices."

    The statement is, in sum, what I suspect. It is not the ETH, though.

    Interestingly, the statement continues:

    "2 [1 was not Martian] visits by "some sort of strange extra-terrestrial animals", the paper says, "many of the objects described acted more like animals than anything else". But it adds "there are few reliable reports of extra-terrestrial animals".

    I assume the last sentence was written in jest. I've noted those behaviors, too, here on Iconoclasts recently.

    And I think there is at least one possibility of, in the normal course of business, a copy of the press release being sent elsewhere outside of Roswell (not Albuquerque) by the Roswell news media.

    Rich: "But looking at the Roswell story, in the beginning -- not after the 1978 onward dreck -- one can place the new evidence in perspective and draw a reasonable conclusion."

    Well, then, perhaps my time has not been wasted.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, February 01, 2013  

  • "The next day he first heard about the flying disks, and he wondered if what he had found might be the remnants of one of these.
    "Monday he came to town to sell some wool and while here he went to see sheriff George Wilcox and "whispered kinda confidential like" that he might have found a flying disk."

    See, Don, despite your "ignore the facts and make-it-up" nonsense, Brazel had already heard about "flying saucer" hysteria--and the $3000 reward--and he formed the idea, however wishful, that the balloon-train debris just might be part of a "flying saucer!"

    No, "editorial comment" involved (I knew you'd say just that sort of nonsense), it's the story of actual events as told by the Roswell newspaper story: "Rancher who Located ‘Saucer’." The very same article you quoted!

    Don, endeavor to stick with the facts instead of make-it-up mystery mongering, and have a logically consistent story before commenting. (LOL) ...Good Luck!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, February 01, 2013  

  • Zoam, I've nailed your ass so many times in this discussion, I've bagged my legal limit of pseudo-skeptics (and my trophy case is full).

    You are entertainment.

    Adios,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, February 01, 2013  

  • Only in your fantasy world have you kicked any ass, Don. Last week it was a "bazooka up the ass of skeptics" triumph that was all in your head. Here's a tip, Don, it's about real-world facts and logical argument and nothing else.

    the Don quacks, "pseudo-skeptics."

    When it quacks like a mystery-mongering antiscientific contrarian quackpot, it most probably is. A scientific skeptic can spot 'em a mile away; and with a little "encouragement," they always--like our buddy Don here--expose themselves.

    "the skeptics. I am so frick'n bored with"

    It's always those mean ol' skeptics that keep every Internet kook, crank, crackpot and loon's half-baked idiosyncratic conspiracy fantasy from being true. Nothing to do with their own failure to present veracious evidence for their idiotic claims.

    Thank you, Don!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, February 01, 2013  

  • YHBT

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, February 01, 2013  

  • Rich: "Forget about Brazel."

    Early on studying Roswell, I noticed the investigators' books (the DT and Friedman, plus others) did not pay much mind to the press release, yet they were and are very defensive about Brazel's (and Haut's) story, moreso than any other, including Marcel's, I think.

    In following the debates over the years between advocates and skeptics, it is obvious they believe the story in the press release -- both skeptics and advocates. Even pseudo-skeptics do, as we have seen. I find nothing compelling about the tale it tells. To question it, as I've done, results in one reply from the all the investigators I've asked: 'Brazel did his shopping in Roswell'. I am not impressed. No skeptics have picked it up and commented.

    The press release, the RDR, Marcel in Ft Worth, Jason Kellahin were as 'protective' of Brazel and his story as are the advocates.

    Any idea why?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, February 01, 2013  

  • Brazel was, Don, like the oaf stumbling around a crime scene.

    His loud-mouth pronouncements about odd debris could have blown open the real story of Roswell or so the military thought.

    They had to marginalize him, and they did, to a great extent, initially.

    But his fellow oafs in ufology brought him back on stage, and here we are.

    It's not far from a Shakespeare comedy....or tragedy.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 01, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home