Roswell: The lies just keep on coming.

Mylar might have seemed to be "indestructible" compared to materials contemporaneous to the time.

a reply to: Puppylove

If you're really a debunker as you say, then you'd understand why I'm not gonna take you at your word that you've been in contact with the debris, it's too damn unlikely and more likely you're making it up to ad weight to your claim.

debris ? come one people.

To the OP...

If there was an alien crash...you really think you would have been able to see the real debris ? and if there was a cover story...the Project Mogul...surely they would have provided you with a public displaying of a thorn up balloon. That would be easy as pie.

And here you come along...great debunker...looking at that planted thorn up balloon...and saying...wow...that's just a balloon. Case closed. If everybody in the world was that easy...

I find it rather ridiculous when people come on here and proclaim they only believe in publicly available data. I must tell you OP....that seems awesomely naive and you may be wasting your time here.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

If you're really a debunker as you say, then you'd understand why I'm not gonna take you at your word that you've been in contact with the debris, it's too damn unlikely and more likely you're making it up to ad weight to your claim.

debris ? come one people.

To the OP...

If there was an alien crash...you really think you would have been able to see the real debris ? and if there was a cover story...the Project Mogul...surely they would have provided you with a public displaying of a thorn up balloon. That would be easy as pie.

And here you come along...great debunker...looking at that planted thorn up balloon...and saying...wow...that's just a balloon. Case closed. If everybody in the world was that easy...

I find it rather ridiculous when people come on here and proclaim they only believe in publicly available data. I must tell you OP....that seems awesomely naive and you may be wasting your time here.

So according to you, both Brazel and Marcel were lying about what they found? Brazel was strong-armed by the military to describe balloon and radar target debris (popular conspiracy lore). And Marcel kept up the lie about the same debris decades later up until his death in 1986. We can toss out both of their descriptions of foil and small sticks in favor of..... what? You of course have evidence to back up your claim of some other mysterious exotic debris was found that doesn't match the 1947 construction methods of radar targets?

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

foil and small sticks in favor of..... what?

Brazel:

Brazel said that he had previously found two weather balloons on the ranch, but that what he found this time did not in any way resemble either of these. "I am sure what I found was not any weather observation balloon," he said. "But if I find anything else besides a bomb they are going to have a hard time getting me to say anything about it."

Marcell:



"it was not anything of this Earth...."

I dont know man...you tell me.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I already addressed Brazel's comment about finding weather balloons in the past, two posts back.

So with your quoting of him from the article, you don't dismiss Brazel's description of the debris he found. That is unless you're being selective in order to fit your need and belief.

We have both Brazel and Marcel mentioning foil and small sticks. Brazel goes on further to describe tough paper, tape, eyelets, and rubber strips. This is from a recall only weeks old, compared to Marcel's recall of 30+ years. So naturally Brazel's description would be more relevant and realistic compared to Marcel's.

Given the facts above, you don't find it the least bit odd and coincidental that going down a check list of radar target construction in 1947:
- Foil with backed paper
- Small Sticks
- Tape
- Eyelets
- String
- Rubber Carrying Balloons

Match the same check list construction of a claimed alien spacecraft:
- Foil backed paper
- Small Sticks
- Tape
- Eyelets
- Rubber Strips

But the coincidence doesn't end there. Not only does the construction methods match, we have evidence that less than 100 miles away to the southwest in Alamogordo NM, balloon arrays were being launched with radar targets attached in June/July 1947- The exact time when this "spacecraft" crashed.

Are any believers of this case ever going to comment and admit the astronomical coincidence of these two comparing facts of targets and alien spacecraft? Or will I continue to search out someone that will admit this?

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: klassless

And of course we know now that when he quotes Brazel, he is quoting an old man whose mind has been affected by the deterioration of memory. This is what Pflock found when he interviewed almost everybody that was present in 1947. The sudden fame and possible financial renumeration helps to sway an already weakened mind.

There is only one author that one can trust to give you the facts on this case and that's Karl T. Pflock. Every other author offers less or different "facts".

The Brazel quotes above are from an interview in the Roswell Daily Record on July 9, 1947. - LINK - Almost a month after the discovery of the "spacecraft." The hundreds of claimed witnesses that came forward after Stanton Friedman's 1978 interview with Jesse Marcel are the questionable group. The article is the only true description and account we have of the debris in 1947 by the originator of the story and not something recalled from 30+ year old memories.

Brazel was motivated by the rewards offered by newspapers during the time for the recovery of a flying disc. When he first found the debris on June 14th, he simply stashed some pieces away with no fanfare or importance and went back to work. Only after several weeks and the breaking of Kenneth Arnold's story, which in part caused newspapers to offer rewards, did this nondescript debris all of a sudden become a flying saucer.
His story in the article clearly describe balloon and target debris. There's not a single piece described that's not relatable to this. The difference is the amount and condition it was found. Which brings up a point I've mentioned many times before - This amazing debris that couldn't be cut, burned, dented, torn, and was said to be indestructible, was found 'destructed' and broken into many pieces.

Boy, did I screw up big time! Something failed my mind when I proofread it before submitting it.

I meant to say MARCEL! As in Jesse Marcel.

I apologize to all who read that and thought I had lost it and they are right. But, thankfully, a temporary loss.

William "Mac" Brazel died in 1963.

Thank you so much Ectoplasm8 for pointing out my super-duper gaffe.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

foil and small sticks in favor of..... what?

Brazel:

Brazel said that he had previously found two weather balloons on the ranch, but that what he found this time did not in any way resemble either of these. "I am sure what I found was not any weather observation balloon," he said. "But if I find anything else besides a bomb they are going to have a hard time getting me to say anything about it."

Marcell:

(video snipped)

"it was not anything of this Earth...."

I dont know man...you tell me.

You DON'T know, man...so I'll go through the trouble to show you. If you have trouble reading the book's text just magnify the page.

"ROSWELL: Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe" by Karl T. Pflock, Prometheus Books, 2001. Page 177:

THE CURIOUS CASE OF JESSE A. MARCEL SR. AND DONALD R. SCHMITT

edit on 07/03/2016 by klassless because: To add text.

Why did the military informed to the local press that it was a 'flying saucer' that crashed the first time if it wasn't?

originally posted by: JackHill
Why did the military informed to the local press that it was a 'flying saucer' that crashed the first time if it wasn't?

If someone tells you 2 different things where both can not be true, which one do you believe? Do you believe just the things that confirm your beliefs?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: JackHill
Why did the military informed to the local press that it was a 'flying saucer' that crashed the first time if it wasn't?

If someone tells you 2 different things where both can not be true, which one do you believe? Do you believe just the things that confirm your beliefs?

How about trying to answer my question if you're gonna quote me? I repeat:

Why did the military informed to the local press that it was a 'flying saucer' that crashed the first time if it wasn't?

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: JackHill
Why did the military informed to the local press that it was a 'flying saucer' that crashed the first time if it wasn't?

If someone tells you 2 different things where both can not be true, which one do you believe? Do you believe just the things that confirm your beliefs?

How about trying to answer my question if you're gonna quote me? I repeat:

Why did the military informed to the local press that it was a 'flying saucer' that crashed the first time if it wasn't?

Let met put it this way. If you come across a scam artist and they tell you 2 different things but you believe the one thing that they tell you because it sounds better than the other thing they tell you even though that thing is pretty unbelievable, what does that make you?

The answer to your question lies within you.

originally posted by: JackHill
Why did the military informed to the local press that it was a 'flying saucer' that crashed the first time if it wasn't?

I'll answer that more directly. Because it is all too easy to forget (or more likely) never have experience what was going on in the summer of 1947.

On June 24th 1947 Kenneth Arnold reported seeing unidentified craft "..skipping like saucers" in the skies near Mount Rainier. This is attributed to the dawn of the "flying saucer" age. However "flying saucer" at the time was not necessarily associated with it being an "alien spacecraft". The Cold War was beginning to bite and there was a deep fear that they might be a new Soviet weapon.

So it is entirely possible, if not likely, that the press release was 'jumping the gun' in an attempt to announce that the RAAF was the first military unit to capture one of these things.

a reply to: klassless

William "Mac" Brazel died in 1963.

Same year they shot JFK after the budget meeting?
The German government made a deal with the devil in 1938 before annexation of Austria.

Now I'm not even sure what kind of aliens crashed at Roswell?

There was that horrific 1923 earthquake in Japan, but that was before they caught and beheaded Amelia Earhart.

a reply to: klassless


a very feeble attempt to destroy a credibility of a man...who's credibility should have been vetted by the military which appointed him to the position he found himself in.

so if you have any problems with his creds...talk to Uncle Sam. And if you have problems with Uncle Sam...there are places where you can file a complaint of sorts. The department rimes with anal...

How can anyone with even half a brain believe a bunch of well trained military would get all excited about this trash and think it a UFO?

a reply to: mirageman

There's something still not quite right with Roswell. I don't believe it was a saucer crash, but still, the mistake is a big one. I can't believe that things should or could have gone on for decades if it was simply a mogul balloon.

There are two simple reasons I believe that Roswell is something more than it appears:

- If this was a one off source of disinformation and confusion , it would be believable it was just a balloon. However, we've had at 4-5 decades since, where there is proven interference and disinformation. It seems unlikely Roswell would be one
- Bill Moore was either targeted to spread disinformation because he wrote the "Incident At Roswell" or he was targeted before and the book was part of the disinformation program of AFOSI. Which means either way, there was concern about the incident, in some form, that either required destroying via MJ12 or exploding from a small incident into a phenomenon.

Put simply, it's almost irrefutable that either "Incident At Roswell" was the catalyst for ufologists being co opted and spreading disinformation or "Incident At Roswell" is as much a product of this disinformation program as SOM 101, Project Aquarius, Serpo etc.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

you don't dismiss Brazel's description of the debris he found. That is unless you're being selective in order to fit your need and belief.

I dont but I could, no questions asked. By UFO skeptics manual, eyewitness testimony is unreliable. End of story. I didnt make that up....you skeptics did...to account for all the weird sightings you cant explain.

compared to Marcel's recall of 30+ years

there is no recall. His account was the same from day 1. He just want always able to talk about it.

Given the facts above, you don't find it the least bit odd and coincidental

facts ?

you think you know the facts ? you've been given the facts. You red them.

You dont really know the facts of the case.

For disclaimer purposes...I dont claim to know the facts...All I know is...I dont know them. Trust me..neither do you.

originally posted by: Char-Lee
How can anyone with even half a brain believe a bunch of well trained military would get all excited about this trash and think it a UFO?

not only that...but this stuff wouldnt get attention from a still-back-in-stone-age farmers I have here on Balkans.

a reply to: ctj83

I like it when people get logical.

originally posted by: mirageman

originally posted by: JackHill
Why did the military informed to the local press that it was a 'flying saucer' that crashed the first time if it wasn't?

I'll answer that more directly. Because it is all too easy to forget (or more likely) never have experience what was going on in the summer of 1947.

On June 24th 1947 Kenneth Arnold reported seeing unidentified craft "..skipping like saucers" in the skies near Mount Rainier. This is attributed to the dawn of the "flying saucer" age. However "flying saucer" at the time was not necessarily associated with it being an "alien spacecraft". The Cold War was beginning to bite and there was a deep fear that they might be a new Soviet weapon.

So it is entirely possible, if not likely, that the press release was 'jumping the gun' in an attempt to announce that the RAAF was the first military unit to capture one of these things.

aaaaaaaand presto...the entire UFO lore explained in a single post on ATS. Exactly how it happened. I can attest to that...because...I simply know it.