The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Saturday, February 02, 2013

Coming Attractions: New Roswell Disclosure

Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.

macb.jpg

With the imminent appearance of alleged new Roswell ET evidence, I'm suggesting you read what happened and was reported by Mac Brazel in the Roswell Daily Record, July 9th, 1947.

The account tells you why Mac Brazel's "find" and complicity in the Roswell incident was and is irrelevant.

Click HERE to see the newspaper article.

RR

33 Comments:

  • Don Ecsedy offered a link to his web-site where he's provided a transcript of the newspaper article.

    We don't send visitors here to other sites or blogs as that suggests we agree with what appears at those sites.

    While Don's site and Bruce Duensing's are exemplary, we're not sure that either presents views that accord, in most or many ways, with ours.

    A Google search can find both sites I bet.

    RR

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 02, 2013  

  • Why do we need a transcript of an article? I can understand a transcript of a recording or speech, but of an article?

    Presumably Don has provided a synopsis of what the article really means (i.e. what he thinks it means), rather than what the journalist actually wrote.

    A bit of an oddity, however.

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, February 02, 2013  

  • I understand, Rich. No problem. There are several websites with transcriptions, if one looks.

    Do you think the accompanying photo is Mac Brazel in 1947, as B&M labeled it? He's looking pretty good for a 48 year old shepherd. There are at least two newspaper photos of Brazel in 1947, the one with the cigar, and another in the RDR on July 10, I think it is. I've found no copies online that are clean and clear enough for comparison to this one.

    So, I don't know if it is a photo of Brazel.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Saturday, February 02, 2013  

  • Don:

    The photo derives from an article at his blog or here by Anthony Bragalia....and Tony always makes sure that his images are authentic, after he once slipped in one that I questioned.

    It's Brazel.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 02, 2013  

  • It took all of five minutes last week to look through Don's thin flying-saucer memories website. It's mostly newspaper reprints content with a conspiracy aesthetic, not quite crackpot or substantial enough for submission to Crank Dot Net but definitely fringe.

    Like Don's posts here, it's not quite clear what the articles are on about or what the site's point is since the purported events were completely inconsequential then and are all but forgotten. It's a Keyhoe-retro flying-saucer website pretending not to be.

    There are even nine pages on some laughably crummy "saucer" photos. Go figure.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, February 03, 2013  

  • But Zoam....

    Don't we all have the freedom to post innocuous or inane stuff -- UFO and otherwise?

    We do it all the time, as does everyone else with a UFO fixation.

    It's the nature of the beast, and our need for attention, as noted in a previous posting here.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 03, 2013  

  • Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:[5]

    Denying, when only doubt has been established

    Double standards in the application of criticism

    The tendency to discredit rather than investigate

    Presenting insufficient evidence or proof

    Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof

    Making unsubstantiated counter-claims

    Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence

    Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim

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

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Sunday, February 03, 2013  

  • Rich, in a previous discussion you wrote:

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

    It began after the embarrassments of Ragsdale and Kaufman, the drift back to Brazel and the Foster Ranch. I haven't followed this era of the Roswell story, so I may be wrong.

    Isn't Tony one of the investigators who brought Brazel back? As you have mentioned many times, Tony has been a support for your unwillingness to cast Roswell into the trash. So, I take it, it has not been his opinion about what you have called the Brazel Scenario.

    What 40 miles north of Roswell or 30 miles southeast of Corona implies is the rehabilitation of Kaufman or Ragsdale, and the re-deprecation of Brazel.

    Has someone found Trudy Truelove's diary?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Sunday, February 03, 2013  

  • Don:

    Tony Bragalia brought Brazel back into the light of scrutiny and it's not a pretty picture.

    Prior UFO researchers made and continue to make Brazel a saint.

    He wasn't that.

    He was an oaf, trying to capitalize on a situation, using debris.

    When I was younger, we had guys like him trying to sell such junk.

    They were called Sheeny-men.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 03, 2013  

  • Brazel's character isn't the issue. I referred to the whole of the "Brazel Scenario", as you named it. It included Mogul, as well as Brazel as a 'rag man' (as we called them).
    This means the ranchers who handled the memory metal and the super strong sticks, who saw bodies (and the investigators who published their stories), were either loons or liars...unless they can be "spirited" away 40 miles north of Roswell.

    As CDA will agree, there was no report on 'Roswell'. That includes the show in Ft Worth. It is still, let's say, open. The crashed saucer trope is a two edged sword, too. Who gets cut depends on who wields it.

    RIP, Mac. As the cowboys say "There's no pockets in shrouds".

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, February 04, 2013  

  • Don:

    UFO researchers, including Kevin's Dream Team, have got to eliminate Brazel from the Roswell discussion altogether.

    His presence and information clouds the incident as the Army understood when he showed up in Roswell.

    Forget Brazel, his debris, and those who say they saw bodies among his debris.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, February 04, 2013  

  • Don:

    UFO researchers, including Kevin's Dream Team, have got to eliminate Brazel from the Roswell discussion altogether.

    His presence and information clouds the incident as the Army understood when he showed up in Roswell.

    Forget Brazel, his debris, and those who say they saw bodies among his debris.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, February 04, 2013  

  • There are no bodies in 1947 stories, so no need for me to forget them. Having recently decided on what matter to pursue in researching the post-1978 stories, you have announced an upcoming revelation just as begin.

    Tony's research into the Lincoln county ranchers cannot be dismissed, made to go away without an explanation from him -- and from you, because Tony and you have a relationship. Tony is on the DT, I recall, as well as an association with your Group.

    Oh well. We shall see.

    At least I hope to keep Tony's (published here on Iconoclasts a few years ago):

    "Geraldine Perkins, who ran a grocery store in Corona, indicated in a relatively recent interview that she had allowed Mac to use the telephone within the store to notify his employers of the crash."

    Mac made a call. Not to sheriffs though, according to the press release, because he didn't have a phone at the ranch.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, February 04, 2013  

  • Tony Bragalia's work on the debris is ongoing but compounded, as I see it, by the faulty memories of participants and a lack of tangible debris pieces they say they have.

    This is part of the Brazel mix-up.

    Pending new evidence will clarify the issue I think.

    And it will push the Brazel story out of the Roswell oeuvre.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, February 04, 2013  

  • At last archaeologists have found a real head and body - that of Richard III.

    Can any Roswell ETHers produce something similar? Come on Tony, where are you?

    ETs are known for having slightly hunched backs, aren't they?

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, February 04, 2013  

  • I have a hunch....CDA....

    And it's that Roswell will rise anew, with more controversy.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, February 04, 2013  

  • CDA:

    Strange you should mention archaeologists and Roswell. A few days ago I heard some major stuff on this. There is indeed a disclosure coming - of the "Bodies" kind. But, to what extent it will clear things up, or confuse them further, we'll have to see. But it really is coming. I was given masses of data on this just before the weekend and a controversial saga it all is.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, February 04, 2013  

  • “Truman, Stone and Kuznick aver was “a neurotic, corrupt, racist demagogue……”

    Which would have made him a fairly average politician of his time (or of almost any time, actually).

    I won’t try to defend Truman in any way, but I’m skeptical of the notion that he was so spectacularly bad that he single-handedly corrupted the nation and turned it away from its “democratic, egalitarian heritage on which its earlier greatness and moral leadership rested”. I assume that Stone and Kuznick are referring to the fact that before WWII the US regarded itself as an honest, innocent, hardworking, simple, god-fearing, virtuous, etc., nation and afterwards came to find out that it had become a modern, complicated, technocratic, international, multi-racial, security state. This is the loss-of-innocence narrative, and there is truth in it.

    However, Truman didn’t cause it. All the factors that caused that transition were in play during WWII, long before Truman had any power. Those factors included communications interception and decoding on a world-wide scale (i.e., spying), the embracing of sabotage as an instrument of foreign policy, the mobilization and organization of the scientific community to drive technological advance, the rise of the military-industrial complex, the invention of cybernetics, ubiquitous international travel, and of course, the discovery of atomic power, to name a few.

    It is a regrettable but fairly predictable characteristic of democracies that free elections will almost never result in choosing the best and brightest individuals from the population to be its leaders. Most voters don’t understand or trust anyone who is much advanced or retarded from him/herself in intellect or in values. Hence, free elections tend to create leadership that reverts toward the mean, or the mediocre in those qualities. Harry Truman and--I would argue--FDR are pretty good examples of that. I don’t think there’s any President in the last century (with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter) who WOULDN’T have used the atomic bombs on Japan to end the War, given the alternatives.

    However, what I really wanted to say is that I think it would be wise to keep open the idea that Truman was not the first president to have to confront the UFO topic. I have private testimony from an individual who went through WWII with involvement in covert intelligence and counterintelligence activities and claims to have seen unmistakable official documentation that stated that FDR was briefed on and involved in the UFO (or flying disk, or whatever it was called at the time) topic.

    We know that FDR kept Truman out of the loop about the Manhattan Project. I would assume that he also kept him out of the loop on the UFO issue. When Truman came into power, he inherited whatever the state of play was at the time.

    By Blogger Larry, at Tuesday, February 05, 2013  

  • The articles posted to this blog over the last several years by Tony Bragalia have led me to think he is developing a Grand Unified Theory of Roswell ET, which will 'save the appearances' of all the investigators and witnesses.

    1 So, something happened in Chaves county 40 miles north of Roswell (40NR), preserving DT(1) and the witnesses in Roswell town and the RAAF. It may now be able to accomodate Nick's hypothesis.

    2 And something happened on the Plains of San Agustin, preserving Friedman and his witnesses.

    3 And something happened in Lincoln county, preserving the DT(2) and the rancher witnesses.

    But, Rich, you are saying that the ranchers (Brazel included) are not preserved. It was Mogul, you say (what happened to Moby Dick?). This is what has got my attention.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, February 05, 2013  

  • Don:

    You are over-complicating the thing.

    Something happened north of Roswell.

    (Read the early accounts to get a clue.)

    Brazel is not a factor in that nor is his debris (Mogul or otherwise).

    Friedman's contention is fictive, interesting perhaps but fictive.

    Roswell witnesses are out of the mix.

    The Army isn't.

    Redfern's Body Snatchers in the Desert should not be easily discounted or dismissed at this juncture.

    What is coming will not satisfy all comers, skeptical or ET believers.

    It will open the debate however, once more.

    So, no balloon debris matters, except as a cover story for the military.

    Brazel doesn't matter.

    Friedman et al. don't matter.

    The Haut Press Release matters.

    And an early (or marginalized) episode in the saga matters.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 06, 2013  

  • Rich: "You are over-complicating the thing."

    Oh, well. I thought my point was that Tony over-complicates things. Over the years here your response to skeptics as to why you do not drop Roswell altogether is that Tony keeps you in it because he has information that indicates something did happen. Later, it seems, Nick is a support for your not dropping Roswell.

    The Foster Ranch story has served as a lynchpin for San Agustin and for the Chaves county site(s). So, how many investigators and their witnesses were loons or liars? There is no 'mistakes were made' excuses.

    "What is coming will not satisfy all comers, skeptical or ET believers."

    Then, I take, the evidence to be revealed doesn't amount to proof of anything.

    "It will open the debate however, once more."

    Just what we need, eh?

    "And an early (or marginalized) episode in the saga matters."

    What does "early" and "saga" refer to?

    Early as early in the history of public references to Roswell (B&M is earlier than R&S)? Early in the news cycle? Early in one of the various chronologies of investigators? There are more.

    Rich, you are doing a very good job at writing "form without substance", much like Haut's pr, actually.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, February 06, 2013  

  • Thanks, Don...

    You and Bruce sure like to tell me how to write and run my blog(s).

    I'll have more about the new "evidence" upcoming -- sooner than later.

    I hope it meets with your critical approval.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 06, 2013  

  • You can do your blog as you please. I point out this blog has a history re Roswell.

    So much of 'Roswell' is form without substance, beginning with Haughts Statement. The "disk landed"? How? a crash landing? 3 point landing? The "disk was picked up"? How? With his fingers and placed in his shirt pocket? With a couple cranes? The sheriffs office "notified"? How? Face to face? Telephone? Interpretive dance? A pigeon?

    Form without substance. One's 'instinct' is to complete the picture, to add substance. I try to avoid doing that.

    What is "early" and what is "saga"?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, February 06, 2013  

  • Thanks, Don for giving me permission to handle my blogs, my way, I appreciate the largess.

    Now don't huffy or angry at what I'm about to impart here...,

    But you want to add accretions to the Haut press release.

    The release is what it is. UFO researchers have always tried to encrust it with their biases.

    I am not alone in seeing you complicate issues -- because you are absorbed by details -- often details that you hope or wish were in your area of scrutiny.

    But they are not there.

    And trying to get them to be there is where you drive me (and others) crazy.

    Here's what I see: Haut put forward a press release indicating that a flying disc was in the hands of the Army.

    It seems that that may have been true.

    What that disc was, essentially, is up for grabs, as you note.

    But new evidence suggests it was a piloted flying craft.

    I am on the far fringe of UFO commonality -- an irrelevant UFO buff, but I do have some significant connections.

    This allows me to ruminate a little better than you (or Bruce).

    This blog is somewhat popular: it has cachet with some credible UFO long-timers and their venues: The Anomalist, The UFO Chronicles, Before Its News, et cetera.

    This brings forth information that you (and Bruce) do not get.

    You fellows are even more marginalized than I am, but presume to instruct me in the ways and mores of UFO blogging.

    That's somewhat offensive, but I like you (and Bruce) very much so I try to let your misplaced hubris pass.

    You both are brilliant, but too much so for your own good or your audiences.

    You obfuscate, because of what your fecund minds understand.

    I take a simpler route, accenting what is before me, without adding insights I do not have.

    This irritates you fellows, and I'm sorry for that, but there it is...

    The Haut press release stands alone.

    The Roswell "incident" is readily available to those who take on the 1947 scenario -- without the 1978+ accretions (and mythology).

    You (and Bruce) have got to simplify your search for the Roswell truth.

    Throw off the accumulated detritus and you'll see what is there without need of me (or anyone else) to clarify for you.

    Early is July 1947. Saga is 1978 and its aftermath.

    You mention, smartly, that "One's 'instinct' it to complete the picture, to add substance. I [Don] try to avoid doing that."

    But, in fact, Don you do just that, not with substantive material but distracting questions.

    Zoam Chomsky, no intellectual slouch, sees you doing that, as does Bragalia and others.

    So I hope we remain friends and you continue to add worthy comments here.

    But you (and I and Bruce) are not UFO or Roswell experts in any way, and our ruminations should be considered in that reality.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 06, 2013  

  • Rich, as I wrote, I am a patient man. You control the release of info on your blog, and I am not complaining about it or urging you to be forthcoming now, if that is what you mean by wanting your blog to conform to my druthers. They aren't my druthers anyway.

    "But you want to add accretions to the Haut press release."

    No I don't. I have commented here for at least four years on the "saga" as being an accretion -- the filling in of the "form" with "substance". My "accretions" are questions, Socratic questions. They are always questions, never 'substance', or answers, or hypotheses. If I have those, they are only referred to elsewhere than on the www.

    "But, in fact, Don you do just that, not with substantive material but distracting questions.

    Zoam Chomsky, no intellectual slouch, sees you doing that, as does Bragalia and others."

    I know. I know the "others", too. My questions are "distracting" because they have no answers. Never occurred to them.

    I can write out "Haughts Statement" word for word and the meaning of it will change entirely.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, February 06, 2013  

  • Simplify, simplify -- advice from?

    That's what one has to do with Roswell, Don.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 06, 2013  

  • A last comment on Brazel.

    What I am referring to doesn't address what Brazel found. It addresses what he said he found. What he said he found is unknown. It wasn't reported in the news. I don't mean sticks, foil etc. Did he say flying disc/saucer?

    Not according to the press, not according to the army. In fact, they isolate Brazel from news about the Wave, no radio or telephone, as far back as June 14, ten days prior to its canonical start date. The news reporters tell us it was the army that first called it a flying disk, but that Brazel didn't know what it was.

    So, where did the author(s) of the press release get the idea what Brazel found was a flying disk? Or, if you prefer, to call what he found a "flying disk" -- which, on 7/8/47, is another bit of form without substance...another fill in the blank.

    But if Brazel, or his friends and neighbors and their kids were gossiping about the crashed saucer, and the odd stuff it was made out of, and even spacemen, then you may want to consider, with me, the possibility that army intelligence had the story and investigated before Mac rambled on over to see sheriff Wilcox on 7/6 or 7/7.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, February 06, 2013  

  • OMG!

    Don...

    Forget about Brazel!

    What Brazel said or didn't say is not a factor in the Roswell discovery.

    He is not the source of the Roswell incident.

    He is peripheral to it.

    If Haut based his release on a Brazel loony claim I'd be surprised as hell.

    However, if he did, in fact, come up with his release information -- highly doubtful! -- from Brazel's ravings, it has nothing to do with what is the true Roswell incident, as you will see when the information is brought forward.

    I repeat: Brazel's traverses and insinuations are concomitant, and nothing more, although the Army saw his intrusion as potentially damaging, and shut him up.

    That's it.

    Forget Brazel...

    You, Don, are as bad as the 1978 UFO clowns who confused the matter with the Brazel/Marcel farce.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 06, 2013  

  • Rich, there is a distinction between what actually happened, and the story that was being told at the time about what was happening.

    No need to repeat yet again that Brazel has nothing to do with the coming disclosure. You might say the "Aha!" Roswell moment for me was about an hour after first hearing about the press release and noting to the audience that neither the Foster Ranch, Brazel nor Wilcox are in the pr. That was 1997. The arch skeptics and advocates responded that was true, but, in fact, we know that's what it was about. I responded they were glossing what they were reading with what they think they know.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, February 06, 2013  

  • Don...

    You are just being obtuse to rile me up, right?

    There was a press release in 1947.

    Brazel's forays may or may not have sparked Haut's release -- which is unlikely as I see it.

    But, in 1947, when the "real" incident occurred, Brazel's machinations had nothing to do with it....nothing, nada, zip, zilch.

    Brazel was a complication, that's all.

    The material, post 1978, is irrelevant, and mostly wrong.

    I am not at liberty to disclose what I know, what Nick Redfern knows, or what Bragalia and the Dream Team knows.....knows!

    That will have to wait for someone in the center of the mix to make available.

    I can hint at it, but that's all.

    Brazel is out of it!

    Wilcox, Marcel (pretty much), and all the peripheral parties, except maybe Dennis, and certainly Ramey, Blanchard, and a few others, were in the know.....and Truman.

    The Press release is key, whether it is accurate or not.

    Something happened. Something other than what the mythology or meme has created.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 06, 2013  

  • Rich: "You are just being obtuse to rile me up, right?"

    Nope. But I've come to expect ufo advocates and skeptics to be among the most fragile and sensitive people on the planet, always ready for a fight.

    Reminds of the Far Side cartoon of the cowboys around the campfire toasting marshmallows. One lies dead on the ground. The one with the smoking pistol says to the others:

    "You're my witnesses. He laughed when my marshmallow caught fire."

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, February 06, 2013  

  • Hahahahaha...

    Touche, Don.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 06, 2013  

  • I've a question and wonder if anyone has thoughts on it, especially Bruce or CDA.

    Does anyone know of a false flag operation in which the flag is planted directly on top of the thing it is covering up?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, February 08, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home