It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You didn't look very hard, here you go:
originally posted by: Battlestation
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Who but a complete idiot would say that he found a debris field of small fragments of "indestructible" material?
I can't seem to find any quotes where Marcel Sr. Said this maybe at least I can't recall.
MAJOR JESSE MARCEL
(H&M, FUFOR, 1979 television interview) "[There were] many bits of metallic foil, that looked like, but was not, aluminum, for no matter how often one crumpled it, it regained its original shape again. Besides that, they were indestructible, even with a sledgehammer."
Interviewer: These (metallic) pieces, what shape were they?
at 5 minutes Marcel Jr replies "Shredded, torn"
They didn't mention balloon in the first article perhaps because they hadn't confirmed what it was and didn't want to say more about it, but they did mention the balloon later perhaps after confirming that's what it was, and it was moot for about 30 years.
If they originally wrote that it was a "flying disc attached to a balloon" no one would've cared in 1947 and perhaps the past 70 years of UFOlogy would've been rather moot.
originally posted by: MrParanoid
a reply to: Ectoplasm8
Going back to my original question, though, let's say what you posted is correct (I'm not here to debate what exactly crashed, just the press release). Why did the press release say "flying disc" without mention of the balloon? I mean, balloons have been around a very long time. Weather balloons are far from Top Secret. Why wouldn't the Army therefore include that a balloon was part of this craft at that time (and maybe leave out the "flying disc" part entirely)? If they originally wrote that it was a "flying disc attached to a balloon" no one would've cared in 1947 and perhaps the past 70 years of UFOlogy would've been rather moot.
when they came upon a large area of wreckage made up of rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper, and sticks.
but he thought it might have been about as large as a table top. The balloon which held it up, if that's how it worked, must have been 12 feet long, he felt, measuring the distance by the size of the room in which he sat. The rubber was smoky gray in color and scattered over an area about 200 yards in diameter.
By simply writing "flying disc," the reader has to conclude it was a self powered device, no matter if it's 1947 or 2017. It could just be bad writing/editing, but again, this seemingly made it through some sort of chain-of-command to be released. So why leave the most basic element of the report--the balloon--out?
There was no sign of any metal in the area which might have been used for an engine and no sign of any propellers of any kind, although at least one paper fin had been glued onto some tinfoil.
The son IS an initial witness, having seen the debris shortly after his father collected it when his father was on his way to the base to deliver it, so the son saw that particular debris before general Ramey or any allegedly nefarious people on the base had a chance to make any substitutions, so if you're worried about substitutions I would think you would consider the son's account to be particularly important, instead of ignoring it. Anyway it really doesn't matter too much which witnesses you count or don't count, they all provide descriptions that are remarkably consistent with mogul balloon trains after you discount the obviously flawed embellishments such as claiming the metal that was torn to shreds was "indestructible".
originally posted by: Battlestation
a reply to: Arbitrageur
thanks also I prefer the initial witnesses I'm leaveing the son out of the equation. Still he is giving his recollection of the material. There is accounts of him saying the photos that were taken was not what he found. That's some pretty impressive tin foil