So whose bright idea was the 'Army Captures Flying Saucer' headline?

a reply to: A51Watcher
The problem with everything you wrote there is that its all lore pieced together from different books based on what people said they heard and reconstructed again by you. The reconstruction of the phone conversation, for example, was useless. You have a list of questions based on what you think are established facts. If they are established facts, provide the links or references or whatever so that anyone can have a look. Otherwise, the only thing you are throwing at us is hot air.

originally posted by: A51Watcher

In other words this was the damdest balsa wood they had ever seen.

Same went for the 'foil', it was the damdest foil they had ever seen.

Point being, all of the debris was very unusual, according to those who got to inspect some.

First, you're skipping past and forgoing what debris was found for the "amazing unbreakable properties" it was claimed to have. My discussion is about the debris. But, isn't it odd that this amazing "unbreakable" material was broken up into many pieces and scattered across a large area of the property?
Which by the way is something else shared in both Brazel and Marcels description- a large debris field.

With your statement above, albeit with these super amazing properties, you agree Marcel found sticks and foil in the debris . How does that support your argument that Brazel was coerced into telling a weather balloon story by the military if Marcel mentions the same small sticks and foil debris 30 years later in 1978?

That would mean one of the following things:
- Marcel was using a weather balloon "cover" story during his interview with both Friedman and Pratt in 1978 and beyond up until his death several years later.
- Both this alien spacecraft and our radar targets just happened to be constructed with sticks and foil.
- There was no forced weather balloon story on Brazel and he was actually telling the truth of what he found.

originally posted by: A51Watcher

Now I have a few questions for you, if you don't mind.

Again, you're referencing witnesses 30 and more years after the fact. My point continues to escape you. You're wasting time and energy posting quotes I'm already familiar with and not interested in debating every single one.

I'll use your first question as an example why- As far as DuBose, there's conflicting reports within the mishmash of stories of DuBose saying the debris was switched then saying it wasn't. The same can be said for Jesse Marcel if you delve into the mix of those stories. The point of this entire case is if the debris came from an alien spacecraft, not if the debris discovered was switched with an off-the-shelf weather balloon. I've never debated whether the materials was switched or not. For me, the material could have just as easily been switched because the ML-307C radar targets weren't in use in NM and the large debris field of multiple targets combined with the strengthened material, "Elmers-Glue type of coating" on the balsa-wood sticks for example, warranted further investigation. Who knows.
A more relevant quote by DuBose would be to reporter Billy Cox who had no vested interest in this case. DuBose told Cox that he "didn't think the debris was extraterrestrial in nature." That would put a huge dent in using DuBose as a witness to support the alien spacecraft theory.

Can you see how this nonsense of back and forth he said she said ultimately doesn't resolve the issue of the lack of evidence? Once you get three, four, five or more decades away from the incident, clear memories are lost. That's why it's important to look into the very first recall of the incident. That would mainly be Mac Brazel in 1947 and Jesse Marcel in 1978. Before this circus spiraled out of control with hundreds of witnesses.

originally posted by: A51Watcher

While I have traveled many miles doing field research, that is one I don't have high enough on the priority list yet to have carried out personally. Maybe you should take that one on since it seems of such importance.

This is something that can be fact checked if records exist. I'm not interested in proving it because first it's not my claim and second I don't believe the overall story to start off with. It's not of "such importance" but it gives an example of the depth of research and investigation it takes for people to buy into these stories and say "LOOK LOOK Brazel had a new truck!.. more 'evidence!!'" The willingness to believe seems to preclude the need to fact check stories.

originally posted by: A51Watcher

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: A51Watcher

You're far too deeply wrapped up in the legend of Roswell and not the initial story.

Sounds like you're far too deeply wrapped up in the coverup debunking legend of Roswell and not the actual story.

Sorry, but I don't follow the lead of others and self proclaimed experts with a $$ driven agenda to sell this story. The fact remains there has been zero supporting evidence in almost 70 years this event was a crash of an extraterrestrial spacecraft with alien bodies.

I think this is going to be my standard Roswell alien spacecraft circus answer from now on:

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: A51Watcher
The problem with everything you wrote there is that its all lore pieced together from different books based on what people said they heard and reconstructed again by you. The reconstruction of the phone conversation, for example, was useless. You have a list of questions based on what you think are established facts. If they are established facts, provide the links or references or whatever so that anyone can have a look. Otherwise, the only thing you are throwing at us is hot air.

Point well taken.

I wrongly assumed, as I often do, that those commenting on a thread are as up to date on all the various facets of this case as I am.

I too would have preferred that the reconstructed conversation would have been more along the lines of "As I recall he was primarily concerned with..."

Ah well was just trying to be complete in what people recall and state in relation to this incident.

I will be happy to provide source information for each quote and discuss if you like, as yours have been the least snarky of all replies so far.


Replies with poor manners I don't have the time of day for.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: A51Watcher

In other words this was the damdest balsa wood they had ever seen.

Same went for the 'foil', it was the damdest foil they had ever seen.

Point being, all of the debris was very unusual, according to those who got to inspect some.

First, you're skipping past and forgoing what debris was found for the "amazing unbreakable properties" it was claimed to have. My discussion is about the debris. But, isn't it odd that this amazing "unbreakable" material was broken up into many pieces and scattered across a large area of the property?

Actually no, if you read the descriptions carefully you will note there were two types of foil, one of which (the very thin kind) was able to be torn, but would reform smoothly back to it's original shape.

The other type, while being considered to have "amazing unbreakable properties" probably did against most conventional forces, but probably was not impervious to the type of explosion that appears to have caused the debris field.


Certainly a point to consider when pondering what could have possibly torn this unusual and very tough material.

N'est-ce pas?

originally posted by: A51Watcher

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: A51Watcher
The problem with everything you wrote there is that its all lore pieced together from different books based on what people said they heard and reconstructed again by you. The reconstruction of the phone conversation, for example, was useless. You have a list of questions based on what you think are established facts. If they are established facts, provide the links or references or whatever so that anyone can have a look. Otherwise, the only thing you are throwing at us is hot air.

Point well taken.

I wrongly assumed, as I often do, that those commenting on a thread are as up to date on all the various facets of this case as I am.

hmmmn...Well there has been lots written about Roswell and lots of discussions on ATS. But you are right, I don't know a lot of the details of this case and I mostly ignore the second hand stories and lore because there is no way to verify them.

I too would have preferred that the reconstructed conversation would have been more along the lines of "As I recall he was primarily concerned with..."

Ah well was just trying to be complete in what people recall and state in relation to this incident.

I don't put a lot of stock in recall. People see and hear things differently and interpret events differently. Memories are pliable and are easily influenced and modified.

I will be happy to provide source information for each quote and discuss if you like, as yours have been the least snarky of all replies so far.

I'm not sure how much discussion you will get from me but sources are always a good thing and go a long way.

Replies with poor manners I don't have the time of day for.

its the internet...

You guys seem pretty smart. Is it true that Mac Brazell's great uncle shot and killed Pat Garrett? I can't seem to find any real depth to the biographies available, but when I was a much younger man I was told that his great uncle shot Pat Garrett. Anything to that? Also, does Mac Brazell strike you as a dishonest witness? Or does he just come off kind of like a sheep fan in a cowboy world through no real fault of his own? Like he's distant, maybe, doesn't have much to say, but he's basically honest even though he's probably in over his head? I'm sure there's got to be some details about the man in books or something, but I really don't want to spend any money on it, and since I mostly read in the bathroom, it would probably take a couple of months to read it all the way through even if I really wanted to, which I don't.

Thank you.