There is a two page document listed on the FBI's Electronic Reading Room for a person named Guy Hottel. This FBI Document reports to J. Edgar Hoover that Guy Hottel had informed the FBI in 1950 that three different UFO's had crashed in Roswell and that there were three bodies of Aliens in each of the thre saucers, for a total of nine Alien life forms. The file itself is listed under H in the alphabetical listings as Hottel, Guy, for those who would access the site. I don't know why Mr. Hottel would have waited the intervening three years to inform the FBI of what he knew. I can only guess that he was either afraid to or maybe made the story up to tell the FBI. All I know is that in the FBI document itself, the FBI says that they will not pursue the matter any further.


















i don't kn

Why? Because he was lying, perhaps. Three years after a weather balloon crashes at Roswell, the U.S military decides that this alien rumour is a rather good cover for new technology, then this local crackpot turns up claiming alien bodies. They suddenly think, hmm this might be useful, so interview him and make sure the record of it is publicly available for all to see. Thereby creating another hint of something that will get people hungry for more, distracting from whatever else they're up to.

*L* The "Weatherballoon" is really a classic, isn't it.
Funny though, how few of the witnesses really agreed on that one, even those that really should be able to tell the difference, such as military-employees.

Originally posted by Venit
Why? Because he was lying, perhaps. Three years after a weather balloon crashes at Roswell, the U.S military decides that this alien rumour is a rather good cover for new technology, then this local crackpot turns up claiming alien bodies.

The Military didn't change it's story "3 years after a weather balloon crashes", it was the next day.

When Jesse Marcel and the material was flown to Fort Worth they called that press conference showing the weather balloon debris, and saying it was that the RAAF had recovered.

Well i didn't necessarily believe it myself, it's just a somewhat plausible theory of concealment. Recording a crackpot's observations would be a very good way of hiding something if those 'observations' detracted from something else.

[edit on 7/1/09 by Venit]

I don't know the story behind this Guy Hottel character, but this sounds like disinformation to me, either on part of Hottel or this Air Force officer he quotes as having given him the information.

Anyway I was just setting the record straight in regards to the Roswell timeline.


[edit on 7-1-2009 by converge]

Originally posted by Nightchild
*L* The "Weatherballoon" is really a classic, isn't it.
Funny though, how few of the witnesses really agreed on that one, even those that really should be able to tell the difference, such as military-employees.

I find it really laughable that people would assume the remains of an instrumentation balloon can be mistaken for a crashed flying saucer, it does not matter how much equipment happens to be the payload of said balloon.

Imagine what it would look like if a balloon holding a ham radio and a couple of small parabolic antennas were to crash in the middle of the desert. First, the "Debris field" would be small, as the speed of impact would be the terminal velocity for a radio falling from the sky, The object would crash almost perfectly vertically to the ground and it would spray pieces around a relatively uniform radius. The antennas would probably be very damaged, maybe even fall off. Not that many pieces would break off though, more than likely the equipment would embed itself in the soil, and the balloon itself would continue to hang from the pieces of string holding it to its payload. It would not explode into tiny fragments.

Now, what kind of balloon would it take for even 30 % of the eye witness descriptions to be true?

You would think that at least one witness would have had a suspicion that it was a balloon with some radio equipment attached to it, or are we so foolish as to think that people in the 1940's were any more susceptible to misinterpretation than we are?