Larry King Interview Highlights
Troy Dawson
http://cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/9706/28/lklw.00.html
KING: All right, Walter, were you in Roswell at the time.
HAUT: I sure was. I was the public relations officer of Roswell Army
Airfield at that time.
KING: Did you see the debris?
HAUT: No, I did not. My only connection, really, was the fact that I
received a phone call from Colonel Blanchard, who informed me that we
had in our possession, a flying saucer, annd that Major Marcel had gone
out to the site, picked up materials, and brought them back to the base.
And he was going to fly that on to Fort Worth to give it to General
Ramey.
...
KING: Philip, do you debunker of all of the UFO stories?
KLASS: No, I look for explanations. Now, he talked about the fact that
it was top secret. All right, here is a cop and he is familiar. It
appeared on the -- in UFO Journal here. This is a top secret assessment
made December 10, 1948, by the top Air Force Navy intelligence.
KING: What's the conclusion?
KLASS: It was released only several years ago. And what they say is, we
don't know. We have been getting UFO reports conceivably. They say it
might be a super top secret of American secrets that even we don't know
about it. But they say more likely, it is secret Russian reconnaissance
vehicles built and designed by the very fine German scientist that the
Russians had captured.
KING: You don't question that something strange happened in New Mexico?
KLASS: I only question -- well! What was recovered was a radar target
balloon board.
RANDLE: That is the cover story that was put out. We know it was a cover
story based on the testimony of the people who put out the cover story.
KING: Joining us by phone is Dr. Jesse Marcel, Jr., the son of Jesse
Marcel, the army intelligence officer who claimed he recovered debris of
the Roswell crash. Doctor, you were 11 years old at the time, right?
JESSE MARCEL, JR., FATHER FOUND ROSWELL DEBRIS: Yes, I was, Larry.
KING: What did your father tell you?
MARCEL JR.: Well, he woke both my mother and myself up very late one
night. And he wanted us to look at what he had hauled in from the
desert. And I helped him unload this material from the car. There were
several boxes of this metallic debris. We brought it inside the house
and tried to lay it on the kitchen floor to make some sense out of any
arrangement or structural members there were.
KING: What did it feel like?
MARCEL JR.: It was metallic foil like -- kind of dull as I recall, but
that has been 44 years ago.
KING: Wasn't a balloon?
MARCEL JR.: No, sir, it was a not a balloon. I have seen weather
balloons before, plus the radar target.
KLASS: This is the radar target reflector that he is describing here.
KING: What did your father think it was?
MARCEL JR.: He, at that time, did not know what it was. He did not have
any idea. Knew it was not a weather balloon or radar target.
KING: He knew that?
MARCEL JR.: That was part of his training. He had a lot of training in
radar. And this was not what that was. I assure you.
=== end transcript cut & paste ===
The show, unfortunately, continues on to abductions & other stuff...
=td=
--
:::Delete the -bounce for e-mail replies:::
Robert Imrie, DVM
Troy Dawson wrote:
> http://cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/9706/28/lklw.00.html
> KING: All right, Walter, were you in Roswell at the time.
> HAUT: I sure was. I was the public relations officer of Roswell Army
> Airfield at that time.
> KING: Did you see the debris?
In otherwords, Haupt is strictly a "hearsay witness."
[...]
> KING: Philip, do you debunker of all of the UFO stories?
>
> KLASS: No, I look for explanations. Now, he talked about the fact that
> it was top secret. All right, here is a cop and he is familiar. It
> appeared on the -- in UFO Journal here. This is a top secret assessment
> made December 10, 1948, by the top Air Force Navy intelligence.
> KING: What's the conclusion?
> KLASS: It was released only several years ago. And what they say is, we
> don't know. We have been getting UFO reports conceivably. They say it
> might be a super top secret of American secrets that even we don't know
> about it. But they say more likely, it is secret Russian reconnaissance
> vehicles built and designed by the very fine German scientist that the
> Russians had captured.
> KING: You don't question that something strange happened in New Mexico?
>
> KLASS: I only question -- well! What was recovered was a radar target
> balloon board.
> RANDLE: That is the cover story that was put out. We know it was a cover
> story based on the testimony of the people who put out the cover story.
Obviously is was indeed a cover story -- a cover story intended to
conceal the top secret Project Mogul rather than any hypothetical space
aliens.
> KING: Joining us by phone is Dr. Jesse Marcel, Jr., the son of Jesse
> Marcel, the army intelligence officer who claimed he recovered debris of
> the Roswell crash. Doctor, you were 11 years old at the time, right?
> JESSE MARCEL, JR., FATHER FOUND ROSWELL DEBRIS: Yes, I was, Larry.
> KING: What did your father tell you?
> MARCEL JR.: Well, he woke both my mother and myself up very late one
> night. And he wanted us to look at what he had hauled in from the
> desert. And I helped him unload this material from the car. There were
> several boxes of this metallic debris. We brought it inside the house
> and tried to lay it on the kitchen floor to make some sense out of any
> arrangement or structural members there were.
> KING: What did it feel like?
> MARCEL JR.: It was metallic foil like -- kind of dull as I recall, but
> that has been 44 years ago.
> KING: Wasn't a balloon?
> MARCEL JR.: No, sir, it was a not a balloon. I have seen weather
> balloons before, plus the radar target.
> KLASS: This is the radar target reflector that he is describing here.
> KING: What did your father think it was?
> MARCEL JR.: He, at that time, did not know what it was. He did not have
> any idea. Knew it was not a weather balloon or radar target.
> KING: He knew that?
> MARCEL JR.: That was part of his training. He had a lot of training in
> radar. And this was not what that was. I assure you.
Of course, we know from Marcel Sr.'s military record that, though he
claimed to be a pilot, he was not a pilot; though he claimed to have at
least one college degree, he was not a college graduate; though he
claimed to have shot down five enemy aircraft during WWII, there is no
indication of this in his record -- and so on.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Jesse Marcel Sr.'s Roswell
claims are both honest and reliable, Roswell believers are left with a
pretty big problem. We've all seen the photos from July '47 of an
apparently bemused Marcel squatting over foil-and-tape-like "wreckage"
in Gen. Ramey's office. Various "UFO researchers" have subsequently
insisted that these photos, which show debris which looks
for-all-the-world like the tattered remains of RAWIN radar targets --
just like the ones carried by Mogul balloon trains, are "fakes." In
other words, they insist that the radar corner-reflector debris was
switched for the "real UFO wreckage" in the interest of perpetrating a
"cover-up." Here is what Marcel, himself, had to say about these photos
(from "The Roswell Incident," Berlitz and Moore, 1980, page 75):
"Just after we got to Carswell, Fort Worth, we were told to
bring some of this stuff up to the General's office -- that he
[Gen. Ramey] wanted to take a look at it. We did this and
spread it out on the floor on some brown paper...
General Ramey allowed some members of the press to take pictures
of this stuff. They took one picture of me on the floor holding
up some of the less-interesting metalic debris. The press was
allowed to photograph this, but were not allowed far enough into
the room to touch it. THE STUFF IN THAT ONE PHOTO WAS PIECES OF
THE ACTUAL STUFF WE HAD FOUND. IT WAS NOT A STAGED PHOTO. LATER,
they cleared out the wreckage and substituted some of their
own..." (emphasis added) (Odd that Ramey would allow the press
to photograph BOTH the real "space ship" debris AND the "phony
substituted" debris, don't you think? Is this any way to run a
cover-up?)
So, folks, remember: when you view the picture of Jesse Marcel Sr.
holding up a crumpled piece of foil, THIS is what he claimed was ACTUAL
FLYING DISK (AKA ALIEN SPACE SHIP) WRECKAGE he recovered from the Foster
ranch "crash site."
Does it look like the structural remains of an interstellar space ship
to you?
--
Bob Imrie,
Volunteer counselor for the fantasy-prone.
"A space ship made of sticks, and foil, and floral tape? Oh, my!"
JS
Bob, perhaps you should clarify here. You do after all maintain that
there was a coverup -- of a top-secret Mogul balloon train, the very
material Ramey allowed to be photographed. This scenario seems to
undermine any attempt at coverup for whatever reason, including Mogul:
why indeed would Ramey allow photographs of what he was purportedly
covering up? And why would he bother to substitute more of supposedly
the same kind of junk for yet more photographs? Why two sets of
photographs, one of the actual recovered debris, one of apparently
similar, though nonauthentic, material?
>
> So, folks, remember: when you view the picture of Jesse Marcel Sr.
> holding up a crumpled piece of foil, THIS is what he claimed was ACTUAL
> FLYING DISK (AKA ALIEN SPACE SHIP) WRECKAGE he recovered from the Foster
> ranch "crash site."
I'm afraid you forgot to inform us how to discern between pictures of
the real debris and those of the "phony substituted" debris, since both
apparently exist.
>
> Does it look like the structural remains of an interstellar space ship
> to you?
No, it looks like an ultra-top-secret spy balloon that the Air Force
went to extraordinary lengths to have photographed. :)
> --
> Bob Imrie,
>
> Volunteer counselor for the fantasy-prone.
>
> "A space ship made of sticks, and foil, and floral tape? Oh, my!"
JS
Troy Dawson
In article <5pe7c5$7...@q.seanet.com>, "Robert Imrie, DVM" <aleonis@{nospam}aleonis.seanet.com> wrote:
> Troy Dawson wrote:
>
> > http://cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/9706/28/lklw.00.html
>
> > KING: All right, Walter, were you in Roswell at the time.
>
> > HAUT: I sure was. I was the public relations officer of Roswell Army
> > Airfield at that time.
>
> > KING: Did you see the debris?
>
> > HAUT: No, I did not...
>
> In otherwords, Haupt is strictly a "hearsay witness."
Duh. His testimony is important to establish the particulars
of that oddball press release.
You weren't by chance a member of the SS Veternary Corps, were you?
> > KING: You don't question that something strange happened in New Mexico?
> >
> > KLASS: I only question -- well! What was recovered was a radar target
> > balloon board.
>
> > RANDLE: That is the cover story that was put out. We know it was a cover
> > story based on the testimony of the people who put out the cover story.
>
> Obviously is was indeed a cover story -- a cover story intended to
> conceal the top secret Project Mogul rather than any hypothetical space
> aliens.
This would be the leading hypothesis, save for Mogul's problems explaining
some very important details.
> > MARCEL JR.: He, at that time, did not know what it was. He did not have
> > any idea. Knew it was not a weather balloon or radar target.
>
> > KING: He knew that?
>
> > MARCEL JR.: That was part of his training. He had a lot of training in
> > radar. And this was not what that was. I assure you.
>
> Of course, we know from Marcel Sr.'s military record that, though he
> claimed to be a pilot, he was not a pilot;
he flew for Shell Oil before the war, right?
> though he claimed to have at
> least one college degree, he was not a college graduate
He apparently attended correspondence school while serving.
> though he
> claimed to have shot down five enemy aircraft during WWII, there is no
> indication of this in his record -- and so on.
How many bomber missions did he fly on? I remind you that a B-17
has more than one gun station, and the Japanese planes of
the time were oh-so-shoot downable.
> Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Jesse Marcel Sr.'s Roswell
> claims are both honest and reliable, Roswell believers are left with a
> pretty big problem. We've all seen the photos from July '47 of an
> apparently bemused Marcel squatting over foil-and-tape-like "wreckage"
> in Gen. Ramey's office.
Agree.
> Various "UFO researchers" have subsequently
> insisted that these photos, which show debris which looks
> for-all-the-world like the tattered remains of RAWIN radar targets --
> just like the ones carried by Mogul balloon trains, are "fakes."
The fakery charge only comes in from the CIA's photo labs doctoring
one of the photos to reduce the length of a structural crossmember
so that it would support the Mogul confabulation.
I haven't seen the photo(s) in question, but I take Rudiak's word
for it.
> In
> other words, they insist that the radar corner-reflector debris was
> switched for the "real UFO wreckage" in the interest of perpetrating a
> "cover-up."
The debris wasn't switched. Witness testimony shows Marcel
putting the debris on Ramey's desk; said debris was then
removed before the press came in.
> Here is what Marcel, himself, had to say about these photos
> (from "The Roswell Incident," Berlitz and Moore, 1980, page 75):
>
> "Just after we got to Carswell, Fort Worth, we were told to
> bring some of this stuff up to the General's office -- that he
> [Gen. Ramey] wanted to take a look at it. We did this and
> spread it out on the floor on some brown paper...
>
> General Ramey allowed some members of the press to take pictures
> of this stuff. They took one picture of me on the floor holding
> up some of the less-interesting metalic debris. The press was
> allowed to photograph this, but were not allowed far enough into
> the room to touch it. THE STUFF IN THAT ONE PHOTO WAS PIECES OF
> THE ACTUAL STUFF WE HAD FOUND. IT WAS NOT A STAGED PHOTO. LATER,
> they cleared out the wreckage and substituted some of their
> own..."
This alleged quote was taken in an unrecorded interview, so it
cannot be taken as testimonial evidence of Marcel, but as what
the interviewer thinks he remembers Marcel saying.
Hearsay indeed.
> (emphasis added) (Odd that Ramey would allow the press
> to photograph BOTH the real "space ship" debris AND the "phony
> substituted" debris, don't you think? Is this any way to run a
> cover-up?)
Indeed no. All the available photos show the *same* debris.
This further points to the unreliability of the above interviewer's
memory (I forget if it's Moore or Shandera).
> So, folks, remember: when you view the picture of Jesse Marcel Sr.
> holding up a crumpled piece of foil, THIS is what he claimed was ACTUAL
> FLYING DISK (AKA ALIEN SPACE SHIP) WRECKAGE he recovered from the Foster
> ranch "crash site."
Nyet, no, and no. This is what Moore? claims to remember Marcel saying.
>
> Does it look like the structural remains of an interstellar space ship
> to you?
looks more like a slightly stressed Intel Officer bemused with the
fact that he's got to appear with this obviously faked-up debris.
Jan-H. Raabe
Robert Imrie, DVM (aleonis@{nospam}aleonis.seanet.com) wrote:
: Does it look like the structural remains of an interstellar space ship
: to you?
BS.
J.
Robert Imrie, DVM
Troy Dawson wrote:
> "Robert Imrie, DVM" wrote:
> > Troy Dawson wrote:
> > > http://cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/9706/28/lklw.00.html
> > > KING: All right, Walter, were you in Roswell at the time.
> > > HAUT: I sure was. I was the public relations officer of Roswell Army
> > > Airfield at that time.
> > > KING: Did you see the debris?
> > > HAUT: No, I did not...
> > In other words, Haupt is strictly a "hearsay witness."
> Duh. His testimony is important to establish the particulars
> of that oddball press release.
His hearsay testimony is "important" to establish what?
> You weren't by chance a member of the SS Veternary Corps, were you?
I see. You've run out of intelligent things to say after only one
sentence. Impressive. (By the way, the word is "veterinary.")
> > > KING: You don't question that something strange happened in New Mexico?
> > > KLASS: I only question -- well! What was recovered was a radar target
> > > balloon board.
> > > RANDLE: That is the cover story that was put out. We know it was a cover
> > > story based on the testimony of the people who put out the cover story.
> > Obviously is was indeed a cover story -- a cover story intended to
> > conceal the top secret Project Mogul rather than any hypothetical space
> > aliens.
> This would be the leading hypothesis, save for Mogul's problems explaining
> some very important details.
And what were those "problems" again, Troy? Do you even remember?
Shall we take a really careful look at them and see if they hold up?
> > > MARCEL JR.: He, at that time, did not know what it was. He did not have
> > > any idea. Knew it was not a weather balloon or radar target.
> > > KING: He knew that?
> > > MARCEL JR.: That was part of his training. He had a lot of training in
> > > radar. And this was not what that was. I assure you.
> > Of course, we know from Marcel Sr.'s military record that, though he
> > claimed to be a pilot, he was not a pilot;
> he flew for Shell Oil before the war, right?
What documentary evidence do you have to support this claim? We DO
know Marcel CLAIMED to be a pilot, but that's the problem: he made
a lot of claims that simply were not true. What we are lacking is
the tiniest bit of documentary evidence indicating he actually WAS
a pilot – for anybody. We do have documentary evidence that he
frequently lied about his personal history and accomplishments. We
know that he CLAIMED to have "flown" the Foster ranch Mogul
debris to Fort Worth and then on to Wright-Patterson -- though, from
his record, we know he was NOT a military pilot. Kal Korff
indicates that, in an evaluations by Col. Blanchard, the fact Marcel
was NOT a pilot was specifically cited as a specific impediment to
the advancement of his military career.
> > though he claimed to have at least one college degree, he was not a
> > college graduate
> He apparently attended correspondence school while serving.
So what? I don't suppose, by any chance, you are basing your assumption
here of a CLAIM by Marcel that he "attended correspondence school"
are you? Where is your evidence? Are you claiming he "graduated"
from this alleged "correspondence school"? Why do you seem so eager
to believe such claims without any supporting evidence?
Marcel either was a college graduate or he wasn't. If you are claiming
he was, please cite the college he graduated from, the year of
graduation, and specific degree he earned. If you can't do so, then
why are you taking up bandwidth with such irrelevancies?
> > though he claimed to have shot down five enemy aircraft during WWII,
> > there is no indication of this in his record -- and so on.
> How many bomber missions did he fly on? I remind you that a B-17
> has more than one gun station, and the Japanese planes of
> the time were oh-so-shoot downable.
This is irrelevant. If he really shot down five enemy aircraft, why is
there no record of it in his military record? It certainly would be if
his claims were true.
> > Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Jesse Marcel Sr.'s Roswell
> > claims are both honest and reliable, Roswell believers are left with a
> > pretty big problem. We've all seen the photos from July '47 of an
> > apparently bemused Marcel squatting over foil-and-tape-like "wreckage"
> > in Gen. Ramey's office.
> Agree.
> > Various "UFO researchers" have subsequently
> > insisted that these photos, which show debris which looks
> > for-all-the-world like the tattered remains of RAWIN radar targets --
> > just like the ones carried by Mogul balloon trains, are "fakes."
> The fakery charge only comes in from the CIA's photo labs doctoring
> one of the photos to reduce the length of a structural crossmember
> so that it would support the Mogul confabulation.
You are making another one of your "evidence-free" claims here. I've
seen the alleged "evidence" cited by others to support this claim. I
wouldn't bet the farm on it if I were you, Troy.
> I haven't seen the photo(s) in question, but I take Rudiak's word
> for it.
History teaches that "taking Rudiak's word" for anything having to do
with visiting space aliens is a bad idea.
You haven't seen the photo(s) in question?! They've been in books and
magazines galore for years! Oh. I almost forgot. Whenever presented
with hard evidence that doesn't support your space alien beliefs, you
become acutely blind. If it's not too much trouble, you might want to
visit the library and take a look at this month's Skeptical Inquirer.
(Don't worry. You don't have to expose yourself to any critical
thoughts by opening the zine. Marcel's infamous "alien interstellar
spaceship debris" photo is smeared big-as-life across the cover.)
> > In other words, they insist that the radar corner-reflector debris
> > was switched for the "real UFO wreckage" in the interest of
> > perpetrating a "cover-up."
> The debris wasn't switched.
Agreed. Do you accept, then, that the crumpled foil Marcel is holding
up for the camera is, indeed, his alleged alien interstellar spaceship
debris?
> Witness testimony shows Marcel putting the debris on Ramey's desk; said
> debris was then removed before the press came in.
Suddenly you're no longer interested in Marcel's own first-hand
testimony on the subject, but only those of unnamed "witnesses." Why
the sudden change of sympathies?
> > Here is what Marcel, himself, had to say about these photos
> > (from "The Roswell Incident," Berlitz and Moore, 1980, page 75):
> > "Just after we got to Carswell, Fort Worth, we were told to
> > bring some of this stuff up to the General's office -- that he
> > [Gen. Ramey] wanted to take a look at it. We did this and
> > spread it out on the floor on some brown paper...
> >
> > General Ramey allowed some members of the press to take pictures
> > of this stuff. They took one picture of me on the floor holding
> > up some of the less-interesting metallic debris. The press was
> > allowed to photograph this, but were not allowed far enough into
> > the room to touch it. THE STUFF IN THAT ONE PHOTO WAS PIECES OF
> > THE ACTUAL STUFF WE HAD FOUND. IT WAS NOT A STAGED PHOTO. LATER,
> > they cleared out the wreckage and substituted some of their
> > own..."
> This alleged quote was taken in an unrecorded interview, so it
> cannot be taken as testimonial evidence of Marcel, but as what
> the interviewer thinks he remembers Marcel saying.
Do you know what "quotation marks" are, Troy? Do you know what it means
when someone places the words of others within "quotation marks"? You
are in effect claiming that Moore and Berlitz have perpetrated a fraud.
Can you back this assertion with any documentary evidence? Or, as
usual, are you merely claiming the facts MUST be fraudulent because, if
they aren't, your Roswell space alien fantasies are bullshit?
> > (emphasis added) (Odd that Ramey would allow the press
> > to photograph BOTH the real "space ship" debris AND the "phony
> > substituted" debris, don't you think? Is this any way to run a
> > cover-up?)
> Indeed no. All the available photos show the *same* debris.
Agreed. And that debris is obviously the wreckage of RAWIN radar
targets -- just like the ones carried on Mogul balloon trains,
including flight #4.
> This further points to the unreliability of the above interviewer's
> memory (I forget if it's Moore or Shandera).
May we assume, then, that you hold ALL of Berlitz and Moore's Roswell
claims to be equally suspect? Surely they must have had a strong motive
for fraudulently quoting their star witness. What do you suppose it
was?
> > So, folks, remember: when you view the picture of Jesse Marcel Sr.
> > holding up a crumpled piece of foil, THIS is what he claimed was ACTUAL
> > FLYING DISK (AKA ALIEN SPACE SHIP) WRECKAGE he recovered from the Foster
> > ranch "crash site."
> Nyet, no, and no.
I'm afraid so, Troy.
> This is what Moore? claims to remember Marcel saying.
No. Moore and Berlitz are clearly QUOTING Marcel. The fact you and
your associates in Fantasy Land don't like reality doesn't mean you
can change it on a whim.
> > Does it look like the structural remains of an interstellar space ship
> > to you?
> looks more like a slightly stressed Intel Officer bemused with the
> fact that he's got to appear with this obviously faked-up debris.
... contrary to his own words. Apparently you feel you know more about
what Marcel was thinking and doing fifty years ago than Marcel himself.
This is what happens when you set out on a "quest for space aliens"
rather than a "quest for the facts."
Troy Dawson
In article <5pj9ud$8...@q.seanet.com>, "Robert Imrie, DVM" <aleonis@{nospam}aleonis.seanet.com> wrote:
> Troy Dawson wrote:
>
> > "Robert Imrie, DVM" wrote:
>
> > > Troy Dawson wrote:
>
> > > > http://cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/9706/28/lklw.00.html
>
> > > > KING: All right, Walter, were you in Roswell at the time.
>
> > > > HAUT: I sure was. I was the public relations officer of Roswell Army
> > > > Airfield at that time.
>
> > > > KING: Did you see the debris?
>
> > > > HAUT: No, I did not...
>
> > > In other words, Haupt is strictly a "hearsay witness."
>
> > Duh. His testimony is important to establish the particulars
> > of that oddball press release.
>
> His hearsay testimony is "important" to establish what?
His testimony wrt how the PR was composed and released is not hearsay,
and is important to for those researching who may have wrote it & who
may have approved its release.
> > > Obviously is was indeed a cover story -- a cover story intended to
> > > conceal the top secret Project Mogul rather than any hypothetical space
> > > aliens.
>
> > This would be the leading hypothesis, save for Mogul's problems explaining
> > some very important details.
>
> And what were those "problems" again, Troy? Do you even remember?
> Shall we take a really careful look at them and see if they hold up?
#1 There is no documentary evidence that any Mogul train was recovered on the
Brazel ranch, and the Mogul #4 reconstruction by Moore is such educated
guesswork as to be a Klassic case of skeptibunker wishful thinking.
#2 The only witness testimony from those allegedly at the crash site that are
consistent with Mogul are:
a) Brazel's testimony as recorded in the July 9th Daily Record describing balloon
material then flatly stating that what he recovered was *not* a weather observation
balloon.
b) Brazel's daughter's testimony:
(Pflock, USAF, from affidavit 9/22/93): "...Sticks, like kite
sticks, were attached to some of the pieces with a whitish tape. The
tape was about two or three inches wide and had flower-like designs
on it. The 'flowers' were faint, a variety of pastel colors, and
reminded me of Japanese paintings in which the flowers are not all
connected. I do not recall any other ... markings."
could very well be a description of debris from other balloon crashes recovered
on the Foster Ranch.
> know Marcel CLAIMED to be a pilot, but that's the problem: he made
> a lot of claims that simply were not true. What we are lacking is
> the tiniest bit of documentary evidence indicating he actually WAS
> a pilot – for anybody.
> We do have documentary evidence that he
> frequently lied about his personal history and accomplishments.
Absence of evidence is *not* evidence of absence, especially in
reconstructed personnel files.
> We
> know that he CLAIMED to have "flown" the Foster ranch Mogul
> debris to Fort Worth and then on to Wright-Patterson -- though, from
> his record, we know he was NOT a military pilot.
Col Blanchard:
"Marcel, I want you take a B-29 from the ready squadron and fly this over
to Ramey."
Marcel:
"But Colonel, you know I'm NOT a rated pilot!"
Col Blanchard:
"You know what I mean -- now get the hell outta here."
> Kal Korff
> indicates that, in an evaluations by Col. Blanchard, the fact Marcel
> was NOT a pilot was specifically cited as a specific impediment to
> the advancement of his military career.
These were evaluations by Ramey.
> from this alleged "correspondence school"? Why do you seem so eager
> to believe such claims without any supporting evidence?
I do not "believe" his claims. It could very well be that he lied/misremembered
his academic record to researchers.
Other possibilities however:
1) the researchers are misquoting him
2) the statements are not meaningful due to lost context
3) he indeed completed educational instruction via nightschool
or other ways compatible with his military service.
There is no clear evidence to suggest he is lying. Clue: phone calls
to an educational institution won't cut it. I would require an honest,
full-time investigator searching every available record before
I would be willing to reach a judgement on this particular education matter.
> Marcel either was a college graduate or he wasn't. If you are claiming
> he was, please cite the college he graduated from, the year of
> graduation, and specific degree he earned. If you can't do so, then
> why are you taking up bandwidth with such irrelevancies?
All I am claiming is that Marcel's educational claims cannot be proved or
disproved currently. See 1) 2) 3) above.
> This is irrelevant. If he really shot down five enemy aircraft, why is
> there no record of it in his military record? It certainly would be if
> his claims were true.
We do *not* have his complete military record for starters.
And since any gun time he had was taken informally, I doubt such
experience would *necessarily* be recorded in his records, complete or no.
Additionally, it is indeed possible that:
1) the researchers are misquoting him
2) the statements are not meaningful due to lost context
3) he was a good/lucky gunner
Claiming to have shot down 5 aircraft while flying 468 hours of combat
missions over 28 months in the South Pacific during the latter half
of the Pacific campaign is not exactly a flight of fantasy, imho.
> > I haven't seen the photo(s) in question, but I take Rudiak's word
> > for it.
>
> History teaches that "taking Rudiak's word" for anything having to do
> with visiting space aliens is a bad idea.
Wonderfully evidence-free claim, there Dr Imrie.
> You haven't seen the photo(s) in question?! They've been in books and
> magazines galore for years! Oh. I almost forgot. Whenever presented
> with hard evidence that doesn't support your space alien beliefs, you
> become acutely blind. If it's not too much trouble, you might want to
> visit the library and take a look at this month's Skeptical Inquirer.
> (Don't worry. You don't have to expose yourself to any critical
> thoughts by opening the zine. Marcel's infamous "alien interstellar
> spaceship debris" photo is smeared big-as-life across the cover.)
I live in Japan, so my access to material is limited to what is on the
web/usenet.
> > > In other words, they insist that the radar corner-reflector debris
> > > was switched for the "real UFO wreckage" in the interest of
> > > perpetrating a "cover-up."
>
> > The debris wasn't switched.
>
> Agreed. Do you accept, then, that the crumpled foil Marcel is holding
> up for the camera is, indeed, his alleged alien interstellar spaceship
> debris?
Shandera & Dr J Bond Johnson presented quite strong testimony on
Art Bell last week that the available photographs are what Marcel
brought from Roswell.
I find their testimony confusing, and am investigating their assertions.
> > Witness testimony shows Marcel putting the debris on Ramey's desk; said
> > debris was then removed before the press came in.
>
> Suddenly you're no longer interested in Marcel's own first-hand
> testimony on the subject, but only those of unnamed "witnesses." Why
> the sudden change of sympathies?
We do not, unfortunately, have Marcel's 'first hand testimony on the
subject'. All we have is Shandera's recollection of what Marcel allegedly
said.
> > > Here is what Marcel, himself, had to say about these photos
> > > (from "The Roswell Incident," Berlitz and Moore, 1980, page 75):
>
> > > "Just after we got to Carswell, Fort Worth, we were told to
> > > bring some of this stuff up to the General's office -- that he
> > > [Gen. Ramey] wanted to take a look at it. We did this and
> > > spread it out on the floor on some brown paper...
> > >
> > > General Ramey allowed some members of the press to take pictures
> > > of this stuff. They took one picture of me on the floor holding
> > > up some of the less-interesting metallic debris. The press was
> > > allowed to photograph this, but were not allowed far enough into
> > > the room to touch it. THE STUFF IN THAT ONE PHOTO WAS PIECES OF
> > > THE ACTUAL STUFF WE HAD FOUND. IT WAS NOT A STAGED PHOTO. LATER,
> > > they cleared out the wreckage and substituted some of their
> > > own..."
>
> > This alleged quote was taken in an unrecorded interview, so it
> > cannot be taken as testimonial evidence of Marcel, but as what
> > the interviewer thinks he remembers Marcel saying.
>
> Do you know what "quotation marks" are, Troy? Do you know what it means
> when someone places the words of others within "quotation marks"? You
> are in effect claiming that Moore and Berlitz have perpetrated a fraud.
I just repeating Randle's observations that Shandera & Moore can't/won't
supply the original tape.
> Can you back this assertion with any documentary evidence?
There is testimonial evidence that Shandera reported the DuBose "quotes"
from memory -- not even from notes.
> Or, as
> usual, are you merely claiming the facts MUST be fraudulent because, if
> they aren't, your Roswell space alien fantasies are bullshit?
I have no "Roswell space alien fantasies". I limit my argumentation to
what was recovered on the Foster Ranch.
> > > (emphasis added) (Odd that Ramey would allow the press
> > > to photograph BOTH the real "space ship" debris AND the "phony
> > > substituted" debris, don't you think? Is this any way to run a
> > > cover-up?)
>
> > Indeed no. All the available photos show the *same* debris.
>
> Agreed. And that debris is obviously the wreckage of RAWIN radar
> targets -- just like the ones carried on Mogul balloon trains,
> including flight #4.
Please supply evidence supporting this claim that flight #4 carried
radar targets. A photo of the train in question, a collection report,
or even journal entries would be satisfactory.
> > This further points to the unreliability of the above interviewer's
> > memory (I forget if it's Moore or Shandera).
>
> May we assume, then, that you hold ALL of Berlitz and Moore's Roswell
> claims to be equally suspect? Surely they must have had a strong motive
> for fraudulently quoting their star witness. What do you suppose it
> was?
I would not know.
Troy Dawson
Since Imrie is probably out arguing for the single bullet theory or the public
benefits of Clipper 2 encryption, I guess I'll have to argue with myself here:
Td:
> > > This would be the leading hypothesis, save for Mogul's problems explaining
> > > some very important details.
> >
Dvm:
> > And what were those "problems" again, Troy? Do you even remember?
> > Shall we take a really careful look at them and see if they hold up?
>
Td:
> #1 There is no documentary evidence that any Mogul train was recovered on the
> Brazel ranch, and the Mogul #4 reconstruction by Moore is such educated
> guesswork as to be a Klassic case of skeptibunker wishful thinking.
Td:
If possible, I would like to retract this argument. To support Mogul, all
Moore has to do is establish the mere *possibility* that Mogul #4 could have
grounded on the Foster Ranch.
While arguing about exactly where Mogul #4 should have ended up is entertaining,
the fact remains that the available evidence (weather data & altitude plots) cannot
conclusively eliminate Mogul. It's the nature of the beast that Mogul proponents
can even withhold data to establish this part of their case.
But from there, other important issues remain:
1) When did the balloon ground?
2) What could have been deposited onto the ranch?
3) Which witness testimony & photographic evidence is consistent with this?
4) Which witness testimony & photographic evidence is not consistent with this?
There are some eminently testable items in the above. We can estimate that
the balloon train was on the ground for an entire month, and it shouldn't
be impossible to perform material tests on how exactly neoprene would degrade
over the time period in question.
If the neoprene rubber is as degradable as Moore states in his interview with
Lt McAndrew (courtesy Rudiak via dejanews:
=== Attch 23, page 5 (interviewer Lt. McAndrew) ===
MOORE: These are balloon FRAGMENTS, things that held balloons [up] after they'd
been exposed to the sun.
McANDREW: Is this the neoprene type or the ..
MOORE: That's the neoprene type. ... The kind of [neoprene] balloons we used
then were the (inaudible) derricks balloons, and **that's the way they look
after they've been out in the sun. That's about THREE WEEK'S exposure to
sunlight in New Mexico.**
McANDREW: So the polyethylne really is degraded by sunlight.
MOORE: That's NEOPRENE. All that's neoprene.
McANDREW: **This almost looks like ashes of paper.**
MOORE: THAT'S RIGHT. And there's a big point in some of the recovery that the
material was black ...
[Later, page 6]
MOORE: He [Brazel] talks about the smoky gray rubber.
McANDREW: Which these samples here, as you say, if they'd only been out for a
short time, A MATTER OF DAYS, smoky gray, that's a very good description of what
they looked like.
MOORE: And when you FIRST retrieve it has a bad odor. And people talked about
their being a burned odor....
And then in Moore's affidavit (Attach 21, which he initialled in 10 different
places, before and after each paragraph, so I assume he read it):
"The neoprene balloons were susceptible to degradation in sunlight turning from
a translucent milky white to a dark brown. Some of the material would almost
look like dark gray or black flakes or ashes after exposure to sun FOR ONLY A
FEW DAYS."
So Moore explicity states that the neoprene rubber fragment he showed McAndrew
had been in the sun for ONLY three weeks. And McAndrew notes that it already
looked like ashes of paper. Moore agrees. In his affidavit, he states it could
be reduced to this state after only a few days. Moore further comments that the
rubber had a bad odor when FIRST retrieved (which meant within days in the case
of Mogul). But the balloon in Ramey's office had a bad odor 5 weeks later.
More importantly, this was the ONLY instance when anyone mentioned such an odor,
and was only AFTER Major Marcel and Gen. Dubose said Gen. Ramey had already
removed the real debris and substituted a weather balloon he found from
somewhere else. So Ramey could have used ANY neoprene weather balloon, and it
still would have been darkened like in the photos after only a few days exposure
to sunlight.
=== end Moore interview ===
Moore's interview here clearly renders Mogul #4 inconsistent with Brazel's
published interview:
The rubber was
smoky gray in color and scattered over an area about 200 yards in
diameter. When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape,
and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches
thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long and
about 8 inches thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot would
have weighed maybe five pounds.
but, interestingly enough supports the hypothesis that
Brazel was shown Mogul #11 debris (which was recovered July 7 about 17 miles
due west of Roswell, just off state highway 70/380).
...
> > We do have documentary evidence that he
> > frequently lied about his personal history and accomplishments.
>
> Absence of evidence is *not* evidence of absence, especially in
> reconstructed personnel files.
Another correction:
Absence of evidence is not *necessarily* evidence of absence, especially
in reconstructed personnel files.
=td=
George Fergus
Troy Dawson wrote:
> Moore's interview here clearly renders Mogul #4 inconsistent with Brazel's
> published interview:
>
> The rubber was
> smoky gray in color and scattered over an area about 200 yards in
> diameter. When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape,
> and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches
> thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long and
> about 8 inches thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot would
> have weighed maybe five pounds.
>
> but, interestingly enough supports the hypothesis that
> Brazel was shown Mogul #11 debris (which was recovered July 7 about 17 miles
> due west of Roswell, just off state highway 70/380).
The degradation of neoprene in sunlight IS rather variable. Not sure
that
we can really call the Moore and Brazel descriptions inconsistent. Both
are
in the neighborhood of "dark gray".
However, I would note that Brazel's description does not match what
would
have been Mogul #11 debris, because all Mogul flights after #6 used new
balloons of polyethylene, which does not degrade like neoprene.
-George
David Rudiak
George Fergus <fer...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com> wrote:
>Troy Dawson wrote:
>> Moore's interview here clearly renders Mogul #4 inconsistent with Brazel's
>> published interview:
>>
>> The rubber was
>> smoky gray in color and scattered over an area about 200 yards in
>> diameter. When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape,
>> and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches
>> thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long and
>> about 8 inches thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot would
>> have weighed maybe five pounds.
>>
>> but, interestingly enough supports the hypothesis that
>> Brazel was shown Mogul #11 debris (which was recovered July 7 about 17 miles
>> due west of Roswell, just off state highway 70/380).
>The degradation of neoprene in sunlight IS rather variable.
If the crash was of Flight #4, launched June 4, and Brazel reported it July 6,
then the neoprene would have lain in the hot New Mexico summer sun for a month.
Charles Moore showed interviewer Lt. McAndrew a piece of neoprene from a modern
weather balloon, which Moore said he had left out in the N.M. summer sun for
three weeks. McAndrew commented on how it looked like paper ash. The Air Force
also published a photo from old Mogul archives of recovered neoprene next to a
new weather balloon. The neoprene was darkened and in flakes, not solid. Moore
in his affidavit (with each paragraph initialed twice), indicated that such
darkening could occur after only a few days exposure to sunlight.
The point is, the weather balloon in the Fort Worth photos was dark, but
appeared to be intact, not brittle and broken into small pieces, like what one
would expect after a months exposure in the hot sun. It could have been a
recently recovered weather balloon that had been out in the sun for a few days,
or it could have been a black neoprene weather balloon, also used by the weather
services back then. But the condition of the weather balloon in the photos was
inconsistent with a neoprene balloon that had been out in the sun for a month.
Another point, is what happened to the other two dozen weather balloons from
this Mogul? Sheridan Cavitt and the Air Force claim the photos show everything,
and the stories of an extensive debris recovery were made up by those lying
Roswell authors. But there appears to be only one weather balloon and the
partial remains of only one radar target. So the photos are inconsistent with
the story the Air Force is telling.
Finally, nobody who handled the debris prior to Fort Worth commented on any
smell. But immediately AFTER Marcel and Dubose said Ramey substituted an old
weather balloon, the photographer admitted to take the photos commented on the
unpleasant, acrid smell of the rubber.
> Not sure
>that we can really call the Moore and Brazel descriptions inconsistent. Both
>are in the neighborhood of "dark gray".
Brazel's interview was AFTER Ramey's and Brazel was in military custody. It
would have been very easy for the military to have scripted something for Brazel
to say to keep it consistent with what Ramey showed the press. Brazel had also
found weather balloons on his property before, so this is another way he could
have been familiar with any discoloration after they had lain in the sun.
>However, I would note that Brazel's description does not match what
>would
>have been Mogul #11 debris, because all Mogul flights after #6 used new
>balloons of polyethylene, which does not degrade like neoprene.
Correct. But it might have been used as something that could serve as a general
crash site description. It was close by Roswell and crashed the day before his
interview. He could easily have been taken to it, and this might account for AP
reporter Jason Kellahin's memory of finding a balloon crash a short distance off
the main highway and interviewing Brazel there. Kellahin would have had time to
reach this nearby crash site on July 8 before interviewing Brazel for sure in
Roswell that evening, but there was insufficient time for him to have made it to
the Foster Ranch, nowhere near any major highway.
Troy Dawson
> The degradation of neoprene in sunlight IS rather variable. Not sure
> that we can really call the Moore and Brazel descriptions inconsistent.
> Both are in the neighborhood of "dark gray".
And, if for some strange reason Brazel is telling the truth in this
interview, then he could be referring to how he first saw the debris,
not how it looked in July, I suppose.
> However, I would note that Brazel's description does not match what
> would have been Mogul #11 debris, because all Mogul flights after #6
> used new balloons of polyethylene, which does not degrade like neoprene.
Thank you. I had overlooked (rudiak via dejanews):
Neoprene rubber balloons were used for all balloon launches prior to
July. The first polyethylene launches didn't begin until July 3. Composite
materials were considered, but NONE were actually used in the Roswell time
frame.
So Mogul #11 can't conclusively explain Brazel's account.
But what is *critically* important in this matter is establishing that
the 'purplish figure tape' was used for non-Mogul balloon reflectors
attached to balloons in the time in question.
Again, rudiak via dejanews:
But Newton back in 1947 told reporters that this particular radar target could
have come from any of 80 different weather stations in the U.S. I have since
found additional newspaper stories which have Newton stating that "four of the
wind sounding devices were released daily by EVERY Army weather station in the
nation." I presume that includes Fort Worth and Roswell.
And the day following, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published a photo of a
weather balloon with the IDENTICAL radar target (maybe even with some infamous
reinforcing tape along the edge which Moore also claims was unique to Mogul).
The caption read, "Army civilian employee loosing an eight-foot balloon with an
attached foil-covered target at ***Kansas City, Kansas.*** Mounted on the truck
is a radar cone to plot the course of the target, used to determine direction
and velocity of winds at high altitudes. Objects in different parts of America,
first believed to be 'flying saucers,' have been identified as weather
balloons."
I assume the toy factory's radar reflector output was used for more than the
Mogul balloon trains.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
DRu...@aol.com (David Rudiak) wrote:
<snip>
> But immediately AFTER Marcel and Dubose said Ramey substituted an old
>weather balloon<snip>
Kal Korff is saying in his new book and in a magazine
article that Dubose claims that the material was never
switched!
And, that both Newton and Dubose claim that they have been
misquoted and resent it.
In these interviews, Dubose admits a coverup, but claims
that the material in the photos was the material Marcel flew
with from Roswell and it was never switched. He says that
he met Marcel at the plane and hand carried the material
immediately to Ramey's office.
I have not yet been able to get the book but have ordered
it.
David Rudiak
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>DRu...@aol.com (David Rudiak) wrote:
><snip>
>> But immediately AFTER Marcel and Dubose said Ramey substituted an old
>>weather balloon<snip>
>Kal Korff is saying in his new book and in a magazine
>article that Dubose claims that the material was never
>switched!
I'll have a detailed response to this Dubose nonsense if my server ever starts
working properly. But suffice to say that this Dubose interview where Dubose
allegedly claims things was with Jaime Shandera, Bill Moore's cohort. Shandera
has neither a tape nor notes to document that Dubose ever said any such thing.
According to Kevin Randle, this also goes along with the Duboses stating
afterwards that Shandera made no tape and took no notes.
On the other hand, there are several videotaped interviews of Dubose on file and
Dubose's notarized affidavit in which Dubose very clearly states that the debris
in the Fort Worth photos was a weather balloon which Ramey substituted for the
real debris.
>And, that both Newton and Dubose claim that they have been
>misquoted and resent it.
References please Twitch. Newton's testimony has definitely shifted over the
years. For example in 1947, yes 1947, he was quoted in the newspapers saying
that the radar reflector he identified could have come from any of 80 other
weather stations in the country. His 1947 statements are backed up by
statements of other military and civilian weather people of the period, plus
photos of identical radar targets being launched and recovered in other parts of
the country. (In fact in the day after Ramey's press conference, the Army and
Navy were trying to use this particular radar target as the explanation for ALL
of the national flying disk reports.) But now Newton is claiming that the radar
targets were unique to Mogul and used overseas, therefore there was no way Ramey
could have substituted another target.
In very recent statements, Newton is also claiming that Marcel chased him all
over Ramey's office (OMNI Magazine, Fall 1995) trying to convince him that the
material was alien and "giggled" when he entered Ramey's office at the so-called
flying saucer (Newton's 1994 affidavit in A.F. Report). But in the 1980
"Roswell Incident," Newton said he didn't find out about the flying saucer angle
until some time AFTER the press conference. And if you go back to the 1947
press coverage of the press conference, they have Marcel reciting a very mundane
story of the debris and how Brazel recovered it. That certainly agrees with the
statement Newton made back in 1979, but not with his current statements.
Please point us to a 1947 press story where Marcel was talking to Newton, trying
to convince him of alien writing, and then chased him all over the room when
Newton refused to agree, all in front of the reporters and Marcel's superiors,
such as Ramey. Then please explain to us why Ramey a year later would write
that Marcel's intelligence work was "outstanding" and how Ramey believed he
would make a future Air Force commanding officer.
Can't Twitch recognize embellishing of a story when he sees it? Newton's
current story of what transpired is contradicted by his own statements and press
stories going clear back to 1947.
>In these interviews, Dubose admits a coverup, but claims
>that the material in the photos was the material Marcel flew
>with from Roswell and it was never switched. He says that
>he met Marcel at the plane and hand carried the material
>immediately to Ramey's office.
So in this completely UNDOCUMENTED interview, Dubose allegedly says things that
completely contradict his DOCUMENTED statements in other interviews and his
affidavit, all of which pretty much agree with one another. What does that tell
you Twitch?
>I have not yet been able to get the book but have ordered
>it.
What does it tell you Twitch, when Kal Korff deliberately leaves out all of the
above information?
Troy Dawson
> DRu...@aol.com (David Rudiak) wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
> > But immediately AFTER Marcel and Dubose said Ramey substituted an old
> >weather balloon<snip>
>
> Kal Korff is saying in his new book and in a magazine
> article that Dubose claims that the material was never
> switched!
Randle is saying that DuBose may be being taken out of context
here; Marcel's package may have put on the desk, with the
scrounged-up balloon debris placed on the floor.
Before Newton was brought in, Marcel & his package were vanished.
Thus, no 'switch' -- but the material in the C. Bond Johnson photos
is *not* what Marcel brought in.
> And, that both Newton and Dubose claim that they have been
> misquoted and resent it.
DuBose is misquoted /on videotape/. *That* is interesting.
> In these interviews, Dubose admits a coverup, but claims
> that the material in the photos was the material Marcel flew
> with from Roswell and it was never switched. He says that
> he met Marcel at the plane and hand carried the material
> immediately to Ramey's office.
Unfortunately, we only have Shandera's memory to rely on
for this account.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
DRu...@aol.com (David Rudiak) wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>DRu...@aol.com (David Rudiak) wrote:
>
>
>><snip>
>>> But immediately AFTER Marcel and Dubose said Ramey substituted an old
>>>weather balloon<snip>
>
>>Kal Korff is saying in his new book and in a magazine
>>article that Dubose claims that the material was never
>>switched!
>
>References please Twitch.
The book is The Roswell UFO Crash: What they don't want you
to know (1997). The article is in the current SI.
I have emailed Korff and asked several questions and asked
for documentation, which I have offered to pay for, on
several points.
I may have more questions after I manage to get the book.
I have quoted from the article, since the interlibrary loan
of the book has not come in yet.
>
>What does it tell you Twitch, when Kal Korff deliberately leaves out all of the
>above information?
I have heard about that information, but have never seen it
myself.
Have you seen all of the original material you are
commenting on?
>
>
Jean van Gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
[Twitch to David Rudiak:]
>Have you seen all of the original material you are
>commenting on?
What a stupid question.
____________________________________________________________________________
Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.html
____________________________________________________________________________
Bob Casanova
>In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>[Twitch to David Rudiak:]
>>Have you seen all of the original material you are
>>commenting on?
>
> What a stupid question.
Why? Is original material somehow suspect?
>
>____________________________________________________________________________
> Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
> http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.html
>____________________________________________________________________________
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to cas @ clark.net (without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
David Rudiak
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>DRu...@aol.com (David Rudiak) wrote:
>>>Kal Korff is saying in his new book and in a magazine
>>>article that Dubose claims that the material was never
>>>switched!
>>
>>References please Twitch.
>The book is The Roswell UFO Crash: What they don't want you
>to know (1997).
As you know by now, Korff's account is based on the Shandera interviews with
Dubose. Shandera has no documentation that Dubose ever said any such thing,
since Shandera didn't bother to tape the interviews and can't or won't even
produce notes. The Duboses said Shandera made no record of the interviews.
Shandera's claims are completely at odds with numerous documented interviews
with Dubose and Dubose's affidavit. In all of these, Dubose very clearly said
that the debris shown in the Fort Worth photos was a weather balloon and that
Gen. Ramey directed everyone to give that cover story to the press.
Korff left the documented statements of Dubose out of his book, and only
included Shandera's undocumented claims. This is very typical of the way Korff
operates.
>The article is in the current SI.
Not at all surprising. Korff vanished about two months ago from the subscribed
newslist UFO Updates, after he got caught in some obvious lies and refused to
answer a number of pointed questions.
One of the more amusing incidents involved Korff adopting an alter ego on the
group in order to promote his book. After endlessly bragging how his book was
the best ever written on Roswell and making all sorts of claims about what was
in the book (but wasn't, such as an extensive reproduction of Marcel's service
record - a lie), suddenly a brand new subscriber appeared on UFO Updates, going
by the non de plume of "Pamela7." Pamela7 had an American Online address like
Korff, but no user profile, meaning Pamela7 was concealing "her" identity. This
was pretty unusual for a subscibed group like Updates, where nearly everybody
goes by their own name.
Before Korff's book was even shipped to the bookstores, Pamela7 was claiming to
have read it, saying it was the best book ever written on Roswell, how it
reproduced Marcel's service records, etc., etc. A lot of people immediately
began to smell a rat. How did "Pamela7" get an advance copy of the book? Why
were "Pamela7's" laudatory writing style and claims for the book so similar to
Korff's own?
When Korff was accused of pretending to be "Pamela7" in order to promote
himself, he flat out denied it. While all this was going on, Korff was ducking
a lot of questions, including a number from me, swearing he would eventually get
to them. But you see, his e-mail was absolutely swamped because of all the
interest in his book, and he was spending 17 hours a day answering it.
Finally the moderator of the group made the interesting announcement that he had
just found out that both "Pamela7's" and Korff's AOL e-mail addresses
SIMULTANEOUSLY would no longer accept posts from UFO Updates because they were
filled to overflowing. That clinched it. Korff was exposed as a liar and
shameless self-promoter, and hasn't been heard from since on UFO Updates.
So it's not at all surprising that Korff is in the Skeptical Inquirer. He
obviously prefers to be with his own kind.
>I have emailed Korff and asked several questions and asked
>for documentation, which I have offered to pay for, on
>several points.
>I may have more questions after I manage to get the book.
>I have quoted from the article, since the interlibrary loan
>of the book has not come in yet.
Let me make it very clear. Korff is not a reliable source of information. As
if his shenanigans on UFO Updates wasn't enough, his book is riddled with
factual errors and some outright lying. For example, I pointed out on Updates
where Korff had one of the Roswell witnesses claiming exactly the opposite of
what he was really saying. This involved the testimony of Walt Whitmore Jr.,
who a few years ago changed his story and is now claiming he found balloon
debris, some of which he says he still has, but has never shown anybody. Karl
Pflock used Whitmore under the alias "Reluctant" as a star witness for the Mogul
hypothesis, in Pflock's 1994 monograph "Roswell in Perspective." But since
then, he's become something of an embarrassment for the skeptics as time passes
and no balloon debris appears.
So what does Korff do? Does he tell you that Whitmore is claiming to have
balloon debris and won't produce it? No, he distances himself from Whitmore by
claiming Whitmore says he has "flying disc" debris but won't produce it (see for
yourself on p. 46 of his book). In other words, Korff disowns an embarrassing
witness for his position by falsely placing him in the opposite camp. Whether
you want to call this a deliberate lie or cheap propaganda trick is up to you.
>>What does it tell you Twitch, when Kal Korff deliberately leaves out all of the
>>above information?
>I have heard about that information, but have never seen it
>myself.
>Have you seen all of the original material you are
>commenting on?
I have Dubose's affidavit. One of his videotapes is quoted from in the two
Randle and Schmitt books. It is archived with CUFOS in Chicago and can be
obtained if necessary. One of the videotaped interviews by Paul Davids can be
publicly ordered.
But where can one obtain documentation of Shandera's Dubose interview? (Hint:
It's not available; it probably doesn't exist.)
Troy Dawson
> >Have you seen all of the original material you are
> >commenting on?
>
> I have Dubose's affidavit. One of his videotapes is quoted from in the two
> Randle and Schmitt books. It is archived with CUFOS in Chicago and can be
> obtained if necessary. One of the videotaped interviews by Paul Davids can be
> publicly ordered.
>
> But where can one obtain documentation of Shandera's Dubose interview? (Hint:
> It's not available; it probably doesn't exist.)
Either that, or it's being written up as we speak...
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van Gemert) wrote:
>In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>[Twitch to David Rudiak:]
>>Have you seen all of the original material you are
>>commenting on?
>
> What a stupid question.
>
What a stupid answer!
twi...@worldnet.att.net
DRu...@aol.com (David Rudiak) wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>DRu...@aol.com (David Rudiak) wrote:
>
>>>>Kal Korff is saying in his new book and in a magazine
>>>>article that Dubose claims that the material was never
>>>>switched!
>>>
>
>>>References please Twitch.
>
>>The book is The Roswell UFO Crash: What they don't want you
>>to know (1997).
>
>As you know by now, Korff's account is based on the Shandera interviews with
>Dubose.
No. I know that you have said that Korff's account is so
based. That is quite different.
<snip>
>>I have emailed Korff and asked several questions and asked
>>for documentation, which I have offered to pay for, on
>>several points.
>
>>I may have more questions after I manage to get the book.
>
>>I have quoted from the article, since the interlibrary loan
>>of the book has not come in yet.
>
>Let me make it very clear. Korff is not a reliable source of information.
Please note that above, I have asked for documentation which
I have offered to pay for.
>As
>if his shenanigans on UFO Updates wasn't enough, his book is riddled with
>factual errors and some outright lying.
Have you read the book yet?
<snip>
>>Have you seen all of the original material you are
>>commenting on?
>
>I have Dubose's affidavit. One of his videotapes is quoted from in the two
>Randle and Schmitt books. It is archived with CUFOS in Chicago and can be
>obtained if necessary. One of the videotaped interviews by Paul Davids can be
>publicly ordered.
>
I may do so.
>But where can one obtain documentation of Shandera's Dubose interview? (Hint:
>It's not available; it probably doesn't exist.)
>
As I said above, I am trying to get some documentation from
him now. If I succeed, I'll let you know and make it
available to you.
George Fergus
DRu...@aol.com (David Rudiak) wrote:
> >I have Dubose's affidavit. One of his videotapes is quoted from in the two
> >Randle and Schmitt books. It is archived with CUFOS in Chicago and can be
> >obtained if necessary. One of the videotaped interviews by Paul Davids can be
> >publicly ordered.
Would the Dubose testimony mentioned by Randle & Schmitt be included in
their
video documentary "UFO Secret: The Roswell Crash"? Or is a transcript
available?
I looked in the 2nd Randle & Schmitt book (The Truth About the UFO Crash
at
Roswell) but in the section on Dubose they did a lot of paraphrasing
instead of
direct quoting, so it's difficult to figure out exactly what Dubose said
in
this interview.
Is the Paul Davids videotape you are referring to the "Golden
Anniversary UFO
Briefing" or the 2-tape set "The UFO Coverup Continues"?
-George
bob
> [snip]
>
> >Would the Dubose testimony mentioned by Randle & Schmitt be included in
> >their video documentary "UFO Secret: The Roswell Crash"? Or is a transcript
> >available?
David Rudiak wrote:
>
> All the Randle/Schmitt tapes, videotapes, and transcript are supposed to be
> archived at CUFOS:
>
> J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS)
> 2457 West Peterson Avenue
> Chicago, Illinois 60659
>
> CUFOS also carries a collection of Roswell affidavits in "The Roswell Report"
> George Eberhart editor, CUFOS, 1991. Another collection of Roswell affidavits
> can be found in Karl Pflock's "Roswell in Perspective," 1994, where I got
> Dubose's affidavit. I ordered my copy from
>
> The International UFO Museum & Research Center
> (Roswell UFO Museum)
> P.O. Box 2221
> Roswell, NM 88202-2221
> (505) 625-9495
>
> Cost as I remember was around $25. Don't worry. Pflock is a debunker.
>
> >I looked in the 2nd Randle & Schmitt book (The Truth About the UFO Crash
> >at Roswell) but in the section on Dubose they did a lot of paraphrasing
> >instead of direct quoting, so it's difficult to figure out exactly what Dubose said
> >in this interview.
>
> If you have the pocketbook edition, there are some direct quotes on pages 51-53;
> also p. 156 & 166. Check the index in your edition.
>
> >Is the Paul Davids videotape you are referring to the "Golden
> >Anniversary UFO Briefing" or the 2-tape set "The UFO Coverup Continues"?
>
> I think it's called "Rememberances of Roswell." (Somebody please correct me if
> I'm wrong.) It can also be ordered through one of the Roswell museums. They
> should know the correct title. I think it runs around $40 or $50.
>>>>>
I think you are right. I've seen some of his comments that have been videotaped but I
don't believe that they are featured in 'UFO Secret'. I'm pretty sure the comment
that was something like "that was a cover story...the balloon part of it" was shown in
the recent documentary shown on the Sci-Fi channel hosted by Jonathan Frakes.
-bob tarantino
George Fergus
DRu...@aol.com (David Rudiak) wrote:
> >I have Dubose's affidavit. One of his videotapes is quoted from in the two
> >Randle and Schmitt books. It is archived with CUFOS in Chicago and can be
> >obtained if necessary. One of the videotaped interviews by Paul Davids can be
> >publicly ordered.
Would the Dubose testimony mentioned by Randle & Schmitt be included in their
video documentary "UFO Secret: The Roswell Crash"? Or is a transcript available?
I looked in the 2nd Randle & Schmitt book (The Truth About the UFO Crash at
Roswell) but in the section on Dubose they did a lot of paraphrasing instead of
direct quoting, so it's difficult to figure out exactly what Dubose said in
this interview.
Is the Paul Davids videotape you are referring to the "Golden Anniversary UFO
Briefing" or the 2-tape set "The UFO Coverup Continues"?
-George
Troy Dawson
> jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van Gemert) wrote:
>
> >In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> >[Twitch to David Rudiak:]
> >>Have you seen all of the original material you are
> >>commenting on?
> >
> > What a stupid question.
> >
> What a stupid answer!
Now I'm going to make a stupid reply!
David Rudiak
George Fergus <fer...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com> wrote:
>DRu...@aol.com (David Rudiak) wrote:
>Would the Dubose testimony mentioned by Randle & Schmitt be included in
>their video documentary "UFO Secret: The Roswell Crash"? Or is a transcript
>available?
All the Randle/Schmitt tapes, videotapes, and transcript are supposed to be
archived at CUFOS:
J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS)
2457 West Peterson Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60659
CUFOS also carries a collection of Roswell affidavits in "The Roswell Report"
George Eberhart editor, CUFOS, 1991. Another collection of Roswell affidavits
can be found in Karl Pflock's "Roswell in Perspective," 1994, where I got
Dubose's affidavit. I ordered my copy from
The International UFO Museum & Research Center
(Roswell UFO Museum)
P.O. Box 2221
Roswell, NM 88202-2221
(505) 625-9495
Cost as I remember was around $25. Don't worry. Pflock is a debunker.
>I looked in the 2nd Randle & Schmitt book (The Truth About the UFO Crash
>at Roswell) but in the section on Dubose they did a lot of paraphrasing
>instead of direct quoting, so it's difficult to figure out exactly what Dubose said
>in this interview.
If you have the pocketbook edition, there are some direct quotes on pages 51-53;
also p. 156 & 166. Check the index in your edition.
>Is the Paul Davids videotape you are referring to the "Golden
>Anniversary UFO Briefing" or the 2-tape set "The UFO Coverup Continues"?
I think it's called "Rememberances of Roswell." (Somebody please correct me if
twi...@worldnet.att.net
t...@twics-bounce.com (Troy Dawson) wrote:
>In article <33ca7073...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>> jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van Gemert) wrote:
>>
>> >In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> >
>> >[Twitch to David Rudiak:]
>> >>Have you seen all of the original material you are
>> >>commenting on?
>> >
>> > What a stupid question.
>> >
>> What a stupid answer!
>
>Now I'm going to make a stupid reply!
>
We could keep this on indefinitely but I think I'll retire
from the discussion.
George Fergus
On the continuing controversy about what General DuBose actually said
about the Roswell debris, I haven't seen any of the video or full
transcripts yet, but I have just gone over all the quotes in Randle's
books, including his most recent book CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE, in which
Randle specifically addresses the discrepancies between his account
and those of Shandera and Korff, and also brings in some information
from independent interviews conducted by Billy Cox, a writer for
"Florida Today", and Kris Palmer from NBC's "Unsolved Mysteries"
The preliminary conclusion that I have come up with is that ALL of
them are quoting DuBose accurately, but there is confusion because
DuBose was describing two entirely different shipments of debris
from Roswell to Fort Worth.
The first shipment, which seems to have occurred on Sunday, July 6,
1947, was in a sealed pouch and was never seen by DuBose or by
anyone else at the Ft. Worth base, but was immediately sent on to
Washington in the custody of Col. Al Clark. DuBose was told to
keep completely silent about this shipment. It was probably
whatever debris was initially brought in by Mac Brazel, but very
few people saw it or had any idea what it actually consisted of.
It may be this debris which caused Col. Blanchard to order the
announcement that a "flying disc" had been recovered. Presumably,
after it reached Washington it eventually made its way to the
investigators at Wright Field.
Then, two days later on Tuesday, July 8, Major Marcel arrived at
Ft. Worth with the debris he had personally collected, and DuBose
hand-carried this debris to General Ramey's office. This is the
debris which DuBose is quoted as saying "was never switched" and
which DuBose identified as the same balloon debris that is shown
in the photographs, which was originally supposed to be forwarded
on to Wright Field but which probably never left Ft. Worth.
I presume that after it was identified as mere balloon debris,
Gen. Ramey and his superiors simply wanted to get the reporters
off their backs and forget about the whole embarrassing mis-
identification as quickly as possible. But the available quotes
from DuBose are not very clear on this.
-George