The Case for Roswell: Part II

THE CASE FOR ROSWELL PART II.

The Debris Analysis

(For Part I of this series of posts, please see www.abovetopsecret.com... )

Again, apologizing for the length, but hopefully, you’ll find it worthwhile to read…

We’ve already seen (in Part I) a lot of evidence to show that whatever crashed at Roswell, it was not some amalgamation of Project Mogul and Project High Dive. Of course, many skeptics still maintain that the debris recovered is that of Mogul targets and balloons. So, we’ll examine this further.

We’ll start with the most sensational…the “I-Beams” as they are called. The skeptics claim that these sticks are the balsa wood framework of the Mogul radar targets. Of course, anyone who’s ever held a piece of balsa wood, knows that even a small child could break it between two fingers without effort, so how does this compare to the witness descriptions?

(F&B, interviewed July, 1990) "The piece he [Mac Brazel] brought looked like a kind of tan, light brown plastic. It was very lightweight, like balsa wood. It wasn't a large piece, maybe about four inches long, maybe just a little larger than a pencil. We cut on it with a knife and would hold a match on it, and it wouldn't burn. We knew it wasn't wood. It was smooth like plastic, it didn't have a real sharp corners, kind of like a dowel stick. Kind of dark tan. It didn't have any grain, just smooth. I hadn't seen anything like it."-Loretta Proctor

So, it is easy to see the balsa wood connection. But, if this was the balsa wood debris from a Mogul balloon, surely a piece the size mentioned could be broken, cut, or burned very easily, even by a child.

(B&M; interview Dec. 1979) "There were several different types of stuff. ...it sure was light in weight. It weighed almost nothing. There was some wooden-like particles I picked up. These were like balsa wood in weight, but a bit darker in color and much harder. You know the thing about wood is that the harder it gets, the heavier it is. Mahogany, for example is quite heavy. This stuff, on the other hand, weighed nothing, yet you couldn't scratch it with your fingernail like ordinary balsa, and you couldn't break it either. It was pliable, but wouldn't break. Of course, all I had was a few splinters. It never occurred to me to try to burn it so I don't know if it would burn or not."
[Quoting his father] "Dad did say one time that there were what he called 'figures' on some of the pieces he found. He often referred to the petroglyphs the ancient Indians drew on rocks around here as "figures" too, and I think that's what he meant to compare them with."-William Brazel Jr.

Again, we see that the material could not be cut. He states his father (Mac Brazel) who initially found the debris, saw pieces with some symbols on them.

(F&B) "A lot of it had a lot of little members [beams] with symbols that we had to call them hieroglyphics because I could not interpret them, they could not be read, they were just symbols, something that meant something and they were not all the same. The members that this was painted on -- by the way, those symbols were pink and purple, lavender was actually what it was. And so these little members could not be broken, could not be burned. I even tried to burn that. It would not burn."-Major Jesse Marcel

He drew the glyphs he saw…and they were on an “I-shaped” beam, which is VERY different than the framework for the Mogul targets (or any other such radar target). Marcel’s description…




Yet the skeptics claim this was balsa wood, with colored tape (stating that they got the tape from a toy company, and it had flowers printed on it). Such as Mogul engineer Charles Moore’s description...



However, this is not what Marcel and the others describe at all. Even you or I could easily tell tin foil taped to a piece of balsa wood, from something extraordinary. Moreover, the explanations offered fail to explain how the debris pieces couldn’t be cut or burned.

Bessie Brazel is often cited by the skeptics, as she has mentioned seeing “tape”. However, that is not really what she said…

"There were what appeared to be pieces of heavily waxed paper and a sort of aluminum-like foil. Some of these pieces had something like numbers and lettering on them, but there were no words you were able to make out. Some of the metal-foil pieces had a sort of tape stuck to them, and when these were held to the light they showed what looked like pastel flowers or designs. Even though the stuff looked like tape it could not be peeled off or removed at all…. [The writing] looked like numbers mostly ... They were written out like you would write numbers in columns to do an addition problem. But they didn't look like the numbers we use at all. What gave me the idea they were numbers, I guess, was the way they were all ranged out in columns… No, it was definitely not a balloon. We had seen weather balloons quite a lot - both on the ground and in the air. We had even found a couple of Japanese-style balloons that had come down in the area once. We had also picked up a couple of those thin rubber weather balloons with instrument packages. This was nothing like that. I have never seen anything resembling this sort of thing before - or since..."-Crash at Corona-Friedman

A recent Disclosure Project witness, Brig. General Steven Lovekin, describing what he was shown during a Pentagon briefing around 1959. He also has signed a sworn affidavit to this testimony. I suppose this was also balsa wood sticks?

(During a Pentagon meeting discussing Project Blue Book materials)
"Colonel Hollobard [sp? perhaps Hollogard] brought out a piece of what appeared to be metallic -- it was a metallic piece of -- it looked like a yardstick. It had deciphering--it had encryption on it. He did describe them as being symbols of instruction. And that's as far as he would go. But he did infer that the instructions, whatever they might have been, were something that was important enough for the military to keep working on on a constant basis.

"It seemed giant-like when I saw it because it was the first time I had ever seen anything like this before. And all eyes were just peeled on that particular thing. And when he told us what it was, it was frightening, it was eerie there. You could have heard a pin drop in the room when it was first mentioned.

"He said it had been taken from one of the craft that had crashed in New Mexico. It had been taken from a box of materials that the military was working on. They didn't use the word reverse engineering at that time, but it was something similar to the reverse engineering they felt like they needed to work on and that it was going to take years to do this."

There are additional witnesses, but I think this serves the purpose, of showing that these pieces of debris were something special and not balsa sticks. The additional witnesses concur with the pieces being shaped like an I-beam, and not at all like the framework described by the Mogul engineer Moore. Repeatedly, the witnesses are impressed that the debris pieces could not be broken, cut, or burned. And yet we’re to believe that all of these people were fooled by balsa wood? Even a Brig. General and the senior intelligence officer of the Roswell Army Air Field? I don’t buy it.

Now we turn to the metallic foil debris. Foil was used for the Mogul targets, but it was “off the shelf” material, even as mentioned by Moore. Aluminum foil is hardly fantastic or non-recognizable, even to the public in 1947. Indeed, even children are familiar with it as the wrapping of a Hershey’s chocolate bar (as another member pointed out). Well, like the balsa wood, tin foil is also extremely fragile. How does this compare to the debris described?

(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."-Major Jesse Marcel

That must be some extra heavy duty tin foil the Army was using! And memory metals, in 1947? Yet Mogul is stated (even by skeptics) as using off the shelf materials, as the only thing classified about Mogul was it’s mission objectives…not its components. And yet somehow, this was so sensitive as to require it to be classified for almost half a century? Surely, this flies in the face of common sense. Let’s look at other witnesses’ descriptions of the foil-like debris.

(F&B) "One of the pieces looked like] something on the order of tinfoil, except that [it] wouldn't tear.... You could wrinkle it and lay it back down and it immediately resumed its original shape... quite pliable, but you couldn't crease or bend it like ordinary metal. Almost like a plastic, but definitely metallic. Dad once said that the Army had once told him it was not anything made by us."
"...a little piece of -- it wasn't tinfoil, it wasn't lead foil -- a piece about the size of my finger. ...The only reason I noticed the tinfoil (I'm gonna call it tinfoil), I picked this stuff up and put it in my chaps pocket. Might be two or three days or a week before I took it out and put it in a cigar box. I happened to notice when I put that piece of foil in that box, and the damn thing just started unfolding and just flattened out. Then I got to playing with it. I'd fold it, crease it, lay it down and it'd unfold. It's kinda weird. I couldn't tear it. The color was in between tinfoil and lead foil, about the [thickness] of lead foil."-Mac Brazel

(Pflock, FUFOR, from affidavit 9/27/93): "What Bill [Brazel Jr.] showed us was a piece of what I still think as fabric. It was something like aluminum foil, something like satin, something like well-tanned leather in its toughness, yet was not precisely like any one of those materials. While I do not recall this with certainty, I think the fabric measured about four by eight to ten inches. Its edges, where were smooth, were not exactly parallel, and its shape was roughly trapezoidal. It was about the thickness of a very fine kidskin glove leather and a dull metallic grayish silver, one side slightly darker than the other. I do not remember it having any design or embossing on it. Bill passed it around, and we all felt it. I did a lot of sewing, so the feel made a great impression on me. It felt like no fabric I have touched before or since. It was very silky or satiny, with the same texture on both sides. Yet when I crumpled it in my hands, the feel was like that you notice when you crumple a leather glove in your hand. When it was released, it sprang back into its original shape, quickly flattening out with no wrinkles. I did this several times, as did the others. I remember some of the others stretching it between their hands and "popping" it, but I do not think anyone tried to cut or tear it."-Sally Strickland Tadolini (neighbor) in a sworn affadavit

(Pflock, FUFOR, affidavit 10/10/91) "All I saw was a little piece of material. The piece of debris I saw was two-to-three inches square. It was jagged. When you crumpled it up, it then laid back out; and when it did, it kind of crackled, making a sound like cellophane, and it crackled when it was let out. There were no creases.”-Sgt. Robert Smith (member of the First Air Transport Unit, which operated Douglas C-54 Skymaster four-engine cargo planes out of the Roswell AAF) in a sworn affidavit.

Ok, so that’s what the witnesses describe (there are others of course, attesting to the same properties, but I believe this is sufficient for now), how does it compare to the foil used in Mogul? Here’s Warrant Officer Irving Newton’s description of the foil used in Mogul. Newton was the weather officer called in to identify the debris at Ramey’s press conference on July 8, 1947. (Note: Major Marcel and Chief of Staff Dubose contend that the balloon debris photographed was a coverup, as stated in Dubose’s affidavit). The interviewer is in italics, whereas the answers by Newton are in regular text.

(B&M, questioning Newton in July 1979 Interview)
Q. But wouldn't the people at Roswell have been able to identify a balloon on their own?
A. They certainly should have. It was a regular Rawin sonde. They must have seen hundreds of them.
Q. Can you describe the fabric? Was it easy to tear?
A. Certainly. You would have to be careful not to tear it. The metal involved was like an extremely thin Alcoa wrap. It was very flimsy.

So, while we do have material resembling tin foil and balsa wood, unlike those materials, the ones found in wreckage had memory metal qualities, wouldn’t burn or tear, and the beams couldn’t be broken but were flexible, completely unlike tin foil and balsa wood. So, either all of these (and those not mentioned here) people are lying (and in sworn affidavits), or the material found was certainly not tin foil and balsa wood.

In addition to the wreckage that crumpled and would bounce back though, are other pieces of debris that couldn’t be bent, marked, burned, etc. These pieces of debris were some of the larger pieces and are described below.

"This particular piece of metal was, I would say, about two feet long and perhaps a foot wide. See, that stuff weighs nothing, it's so thin, it isn't any thicker than the tinfoil in a pack of cigarettes. So I tried to bend the stuff, it wouldn't bend. We even tried making a dent in it with a 16-pound sledge hammer, and there was still no dent in it. I didn't have the time to go out there and find out more about it, because I had so much other work to do that I just let it go. It's still a mystery to me as to what the whole thing was. Like I said before, I knew quite a bit about the material used in the air, but it was nothing I had seen before. And as of now, I still don't know what it was.”-Major Marcel in an interview with Leonard Stringfield

(R&S1) One man set a piece on the ground and jumped on it, trying to dent or bend it, and failed.
"There was a slightly curved piece of metal, real light. It was about six inches by twelve or fourteen inches. Very light. I crouched down and tried to snap it. My boss [Cavitt] laughs and said, 'Smart guy. He's trying to do what we couldn't do.' I asked, 'what in the hell is this stuff made out of?' It didn't feel like plastic and I never saw a piece of metal this thin that you couldn't break."
"This was the strangest material we had ever seen ... there was talk about it not being from Earth. ...A year later I was talking to Joe Wirth, a CIC officer from Andrews Air Force Base in Washington D.C. I asked what they had found out about the stuff from Roswell. He told me that they still didn't know what it was and that their metal experts still couldn't cut it."-M. Sgt. Lewis (Bill) Rickett (Prior to going into counterintelligence, Rickett was a highly qualified aircraft mechanic, inspector, and supervisor. During the war, he was sent to Europe as part of the team that studied German aircraft on site. Thus he was well-qualified in his assessment of the strange thin-metal he said he saw )

It appears that the skeptics are being selective in which pieces of debris they cite and compare to Mogul. Surely, none of the recently mentioned debris (such as unbendable metal sheets two feet long) is comparable to any materials used in Mogul, and indeed, seem to be beyond our capability at the time, and possibly even now, to produce. Oddly enough though, perhaps the greatest clue of all that this wasn’t balloon debris, is provided by the military itself… Would they really fly balsa wood and tin foil to Wright Field or Fort Worth for analysis? Surely even the base janitor could easily identify the materials if this is indeed what it was, so why all the secrecy? The Mogul balloons weren’t using any kind of top secret gear, only it’s mission objectives were classified. Why would tin foil and balsa wood be flown out at all, let alone in secrecy and urgency? It simply doesn’t make sense…unless of course, you then recall the words of Brig. General Steven Lovekin (as previously mentioned in his affidavit during a Pentagon briefing).

"It seemed giant-like when I saw it because it was the first time I had ever seen anything like this before. And all eyes were just peeled on that particular thing. And when he told us what it was, it was frightening, it was eerie there. You could have heard a pin drop in the room when it was first mentioned.”

Somehow, I don’t think it was tin foil and balsa wood that had the men frightened and humbled…

In Part III, I’ll go into the timeline of events leading up to, during, and soon after the crash, based of course, on factual evidence as well as testimony. It will likely be the longest in the series of posts, and it may be a few days before I get it completed and posted. I felt it was important to address both the incompetent Air Force conclusions, as well as the ridiculousness of the Mogul/High Dive explanations before delving into the detail of events as they occurred. Next though, we get to the good stuff…

[TO BE CONTINUED]

Part III, Section A can be seen here: www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 26-5-2005 by Gazrok]

Forgive any typos and missing reference links for cited quotes, as it's past the edit time. Most testimony links are from www.roswellproof.com... (it was one of the few places where they were conveniently together, but there are several other sources that confirm the quotes.) Also, in most cases the cited book, interview, signed affadavit etc. is mentioned. - Thanks.

gazok i can even begin to tell you how much you pwn on ufology much for for j00 anybody know where I can get an avatar???

Nothing more to add, I just wanted to post and say what a great job you're doing.

Originally posted by Meteor_of_War
Nothing more to add, I just wanted to post and say what a great job you're doing.

Its hard to make a comment on a post like this other than good job. So...................
Good job Gaz!

I forced my wife to read both parts and after years of walking out of thee room everytime I watch anything to do with ufo's, I saw a look of uncertainity cross her face. Thanks for putting it together in a short course.

Can a Mod not be a "ATS.com Subject Matter Expert?"
I think if there was anybody on here that was one for UFOs it would be Gazrok. Not only from "The Case for Roswell" series but in all the posts by Gazrok.

I concur you need that sticker on your avatar badly gazok hehe

Gazrok gazrok i keep typing his name as gazok....... so very sorry it wont happen again

Great job on part II Gazrok

Looking foward to reading part III

Can a Mod not be a "ATS.com Subject Matter Expert?"

Thanks, but I think the idea was for this to be strictly "non-mod" territory... I wasn't in on the particulars when this was put into action, so I'm not really sure, just was my impression. I'm more than happy just to contribute, and of course, feel free to tap me via U2U or posts for anything on the subject. I certainly don't claim to know all, but I know more than is likely a healthy interest, hehe...

I forced my wife to read both parts and after years of walking out of thee room everytime I watch anything to do with ufo's, I saw a look of uncertainity cross her face. Thanks for putting it together in a short course.

Thanks for that...maybe I'll force my wife to do the same so she can quit rolling her eyes at me too!

Originally posted by Gazrok

Thanks for that...maybe I'll force my wife to do the same so she can quit rolling her eyes at me too!

lol, and i thought my wife was the only one that did that.

ok...i almost hate to post this link, because i don't want to be the one to start posting BS in this thread......but i'm gonna show everyone anyway, screw it...

it definitely relates to the current subject matter. however, the creases and worn look of the metal casts A LOT of doubt on its validity....

www.coasttocoastam.com...

[edit on 17-2-2005 by el cid]

The truth will always come out.Great work.Thats the best i could say lol

ok...i almost hate to post this link, because i don't want to be the one to start posting BS in this thread......but i'm gonna show everyone anyway, screw it...

it definitely relates to the current subject matter. however, the creases and worn look of the metal casts A LOT of doubt on its validity....

Interesting, but yeah, we'd want to see some metallurgy tests run on it, etc. as the symbols are the only impressive feature, and the top one (first pic) looks eerily like the one on the Greatest American Hero's jammies, hehe.... Also, we'd want to know if the sample has any of the common properties associated with the Roswell debris (such as ultralight weight, memory metal, unable to mark or break, etc.) So far, from the pic it doesn't look promising, but we'd have to see more analysis of it to even start to believe it's genuine.

Part III will still take a few days. It'll be pretty long (fair warning) as I plan to include testimony and evidence for each point in the timeline (i.e. instead of just saying a plane left at such and such a time, there'll be supporting evidence for it, etc.)

Good stuff gazrok. I'd never really cared much about roswell before, but this set of posts has made me think.

quote: (Pflock, FUFOR, affidavit 10/10/91) "All I saw was a little piece of material. The piece of debris I saw was two-to-three inches square. It was jagged. When you crumpled it up, it then laid back out; and when it did, it kind of crackled, making a sound like cellophane, and it crackled when it was let out. There were no creases.”-Sgt. Robert Smith (member of the First Air Transport Unit, which operated Douglas C-54 Skymaster four-engine cargo planes out of the Roswell AAF) in a sworn affidavit.

Although im a firm beleiver in roswell i have to point out a possibility even though ill get scolded but doesnt the above description sound alot like mylar? And yes im aware it wasnt invented until 1952..........

The whole Roswell case is debunked. I just created a thread on this.



[edit on 2/18/2005 by jeepin4x4girl]

Nice work Gaz, some of this material, I have never seen. But I have a queation. Reguarding the metal material that could not be bent or burned or hammered. Have you ever heard of any comparisons to carbon nano tube material? It supposedly is the hardest material we can make. Anyone know how it would this hold up to the same type of abuse? In other words, was this stuff anything like carbon nano tubes?

The whole Roswell case is debunked. I just created a thread on this

I know...I'm still having a good chuckle over the launching people into the air and letting them splat in the name of science, theory! Thanks for that! I really needed a pick me up...

Reguarding the metal material that could not be bent or burned or hammered. Have you ever heard of any comparisons to carbon nano tube material? It supposedly is the hardest material we can make. Anyone know how it would this hold up to the same type of abuse? In other words, was this stuff anything like carbon nano tubes?

Can't say I have. Suffice to say, some of the witnesses were aircraft mechanics, and they say they haven't seen anything like it before or since. Not to mention, this material was thin also, like the foil.

Although im a firm beleiver in roswell i have to point out a possibility even though ill get scolded but doesnt the above description sound alot like mylar? And yes im aware it wasnt invented until 1952..........

Well, the first hole is of course, it didn't exist yet. Of course the other thing about this, is that mylar will still have plenty of creases evident when unfolding, and it can be cut extremely easily.