Roswell skeptics. Modern day mythology?

a reply to: A51Watcher

It seems to me that happens more and more as time goes on. History gets re-written.

I noticed the same thing in several events in history. For instance, the Kelley-Hopskinsville Encounter. I was watching the Travel Channel one day and they had an episode on that. They tried to make it look like a bunch of rednecks drunk on moonshine shooting up their own house. The original investigation ruled that out in its entirety.

Now, the Kelly-Hopskinville Encounter was almost pure witness testimony, so most people dismiss it. I like it because in this case, there are only two possibilities. Either these people saw what they say they saw, or they were all lying. There is no middle ground. No possibility of mis-identification. Huge owls can't deflect gunfire, circus monkeys in silver suits can't fly, etc. The only way to dispute what these people said was to assume they were lying.

Nobody, police, family, friends, etc., considered these people to be liars. And why would the children lie decades after the adults were dead? There was no motive to lie. No profit, no benefit. In fact, telling their story hurt them.

So where did the Travel Channel get their information? In a case of pure witness testimony, The Travel Channel's version of events wasn't supported by any witness testimony.

Before I get back on topic, I'd also like to mention the USS Liberty. Every time the topic comes up, invariably someone says that it was an accident. All historical records show that this is a lie, but some people still try to re-write history. Who? Why?

----------------

Leaning back towards topic, I notice several attempts to rewrite history. How many people think the Civil War was all about slavery? How many people think we need an income tax, without realizing we did just fine without an income tax longer than we had one? How many people realize that every since we've had an income tax, we've been at war?

It's almost like someone counts on memories fading and people dying off for a chance to rewrite history.

"We've always been at war with Eastasia."

a reply to: A51Watcher

The only source we have to go on about the debris at the time and not decades later through the heavily biased UFO filled fantasies of Stanton Friedman is Mac Brazels interview on July 8, 1947. This is only weeks after the incident. He describes:

Considerable Scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed upon it had been used in the construction

Here's the man that found the debris and his honest description in 1947 without the influence of the alien-piloted UFO nonsense that followed decades later.

Considerable cellophane/Scotch brand of tape, some with flowered designs, was used to help attach the foil and heavy paper to the small beams. The Air Force added tape to help strengthen the connection as shown in the drawing by Charles Moore below:
The Roswell Report p.209

This tape is also mentioned in the mechanical drawing of the "Pilot Balloon Target ML-307C / AP Assembly" The Roswell Report p. 304

These beams are turned into i-beams as the story progresses and is spun through the years.
I-beams with alien type of characters on it would have been described in Mac Brazel's 1947 interview if true. He only describes sticks and tape with flowers printed on it.

As I said, the small balsa wood-like beams had an Elmer's Glue type of coating on them to strengthen them for higher and extended flights that were required for the program.

There was no mention of alien bodies by anyone in 1947. Only decades later after the story was pushed of a crashed spacecraft did they appear.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Oh you mean after Mac Brazel was held incommunicado by the military for a week?


And was then seen driving a brand new truck through town after obediently reporting what he had been told ? (Which there is no way he could afford on his own?)

Then what he told newspapers after he was released, basically he would never report anything he found ever again.

He also took a piece of the wood to his neighbors the Proctors and demonstrated how it could not be burnt or whittled.

Again I remind you what Jessie Marcel's son described, which matched his fathers description.

Believe what you will, but I believe Mac was the first victim of the coverup, as does the owner of the Roswell radio station who had the military show up at the station and confiscate the original interview that Mac gave them.

originally posted by: A51Watcher
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Oh you mean after Mac Brazel was held incommunicado by the military for a week?


And was then seen driving a brand new truck through town after obediently reporting what he had been told ? (Which there is no way he could afford on his own?)

Then what he told newspapers after he was released, basically he would never report anything he found ever again.

He also took a piece of the wood to his neighbors the Proctors and demonstrated how it could not be burnt or whittled.

Again I remind you what Jessie Marcel's son described, which matched his fathers description.

Believe what you will, but I believe Mac was the first victim of the coverup, as does the owner of the Roswell radio station who had the military show up at the station and confiscate the original interview that Mac gave them.

Do you have source for those claims?

a reply to: A51Watcher

You seem to be taken with the tales told almost 30 years later.
If Brazel was held "incommunicado" by the military around town with the military wanting him to follow the story they pushed, that what really crashed was a weather balloon, why did Brazel make the following statement in his July 9, 1947 interview?

Brazel said that he had previously found two weather balloons on the ranch, but that what he found this time did not in any way resemble either of these

The statement made by the military as to the crash:

An examination by the Army revealed last night that a mysterious object found on a lonely New Mexico ranch was a harmless high-altitude balloon not a grounded flying disc.

So if Brazel or his family was threatened or he was promised a new truck or a cash payment for keeping his mouth shut, whichever tale you buy into, why would he make that statement in his interview? His public statement contradicts the military story. If he was really pressured by the military, this is where he'd say it was probably just a balloon. He doesn't and now this puts Brazel or his family at risk or risks his promise for cash or a new truck. Apply a little common sense and logic here.

A new truck would also have a paper trail back when this portion of the story came out. Perfect for these "researchers" to come up with. Registration, receipts kept by the dealer, etc. Have you seen physical evidence in anyway that he was given a truck or are you just relying on more tales told?

I've already explained what Brazel found used the same time-tested method of weather balloons that the weather service and military used for decades, except these flights needed to be aloft for longer periods and higher altitudes. The construction method used was the same (foil, sticks, balloons) but they had to be strengthened. Enter the heavy paper backed foil and the beams/sticks covered in glue.

I believe what I do because I've deeply researched and studied all information available about this story. Not things said by people after the fact decades later. I'm not influenced by anyone and come to my own conclusions based on the facts I find. The incident is logical and follows a path when you read the facts.

originally posted by: ConspiracyMysteries

originally posted by: A51Watcher
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Oh you mean after Mac Brazel was held incommunicado by the military for a week?


And was then seen driving a brand new truck through town after obediently reporting what he had been told ? (Which there is no way he could afford on his own?)

Then what he told newspapers after he was released, basically he would never report anything he found ever again.

He also took a piece of the wood to his neighbors the Proctors and demonstrated how it could not be burnt or whittled.

Again I remind you what Jessie Marcel's son described, which matched his fathers description.

Believe what you will, but I believe Mac was the first victim of the coverup, as does the owner of the Roswell radio station who had the military show up at the station and confiscate the original interview that Mac gave them.

Do you have source for those claims?

Absolutely. Read my thread that I linked earlier:

Roswell Truth

I believe what I do because I've deeply researched and studied all information available about this story. Not things said by people after the fact decades later. I'm not influenced by anyone and come to my own conclusions based on the facts I find. The incident is logical and follows a path when you read the facts.

Bearing in mind above, and this isn't a trick question - I'm genuinely interested in your view, do you give any credence to the following scenario ?

That there were two "crash sites", one found slightly before Brazel reported his find but which prompted an immediate follow up, what then ensued in the following days with the press release and next day climb down being a simple cock-up, with later investigations and witness reports being a mix up of the two sites.

originally posted by: chunder

Bearing in mind above, and this isn't a trick question - I'm genuinely interested in your view, do you give any credence to the following scenario ?

That there were two "crash sites", one found slightly before Brazel reported his find but which prompted an immediate follow up, what then ensued in the following days with the press release and next day climb down being a simple cock-up, with later investigations and witness reports being a mix up of the two sites.

You don't cite any source or evidence, but I will. There was a real FBI memo (the Hottel memo) which referenced a second or third hand account about a different crash site which was apparently a hoax. That's the only other alleged crash I'm aware from anywhere near 1947 which has a real memo associated with it, but the crash wasn't real or I've never seen any evidence to say it was anything other than a hoax. This is a link to the real FBI memo:

www.fbi.gov...

It’s the most popular file in the FBI Vault—our high-tech electronic reading room housing various Bureau records released under the Freedom of Information Act. Over the past two years, this file has been viewed nearly a million times. Yet, it is only a single page, relaying an unconfirmed report that the FBI never even followed up on.

The file in question is a memo dated March 22, 1950—63 years ago last week. It was authored by Guy Hottel, then head of our field office in Washington, D.C. (see sidebar below for a brief biography). Like all memos to FBI Headquarters at that time, it was addressed to Director J. Edgar Hoover and recorded and indexed in FBI records.

The subject of the memo was anything but ordinary. It related a story told to one of our agents by a third party who said an Air Force investigator had reported that three “flying saucers” were recovered in New Mexico. The memo provided the following detail:

“They [the saucers] were described as being circular in shape with raised centers, approximately 50 feet in diameter. Each one was occupied by three bodies of human shape but only three feet tall, dressed in metallic cloth of a very fine texture. Each body was bandaged in a manner similar to the blackout suits used by speed fliers and test pilots.”

After relaying an informant’s claim that the saucers had been found because the government’s “high-powered radar” in the area had interfered with “the controlling mechanism of the saucers,” the memo ends simply by saying that “[n]o further evaluation was attempted” concerning the matter by the FBI agent.
...
So what’s the real story? A few facts to keep in mind:

First, the Hottel memo isn’t new. It was first released publicly in the late 1970s and had been posted on the FBI website for several years prior to the launch of the Vault.

Second, the Hottel memo is dated nearly three years after the infamous events in Roswell in July 1947. There is no reason to believe the two are connected. The FBI file on Roswell (another popular page) is posted elsewhere on the Vault.

Third, as noted in an earlier story, the FBI has only occasionally been involved in investigating reports of UFOs and extraterrestrials. For a few years after the Roswell incident, Director Hoover did order his agents—at the request of the Air Force—to verify any UFO sightings. That practice ended in July 1950, four months after the Hottel memo, suggesting that our Washington Field Office didn’t think enough of that flying saucer story to look into it.

Finally, the Hottel memo does not prove the existence of UFOs; it is simply a second- or third-hand claim that we never investigated. Some people believe the memo repeats a hoax that was circulating at that time, but the Bureau’s files have no information to verify that theory.

By the way, that hoaxed crash is mentioned in the video in the opening post. It's possibly been confabulated with Roswell but it's not really linked with Roswell in 1947, only in the similarity to fabricated stories of bodies that popped up decades later.

I can also tell you that one of the guys making up stories of alien bodies decades later, Glenn Dennis, was the owner of the Roswell museum, so he had some incentive to tell stories that might inspire people to visit his museum. The nurse he said witnessed the bodies never existed, Roswell researchers have verified that, which makes him a liar.

originally posted by: chunder

I believe what I do because I've deeply researched and studied all information available about this story. Not things said by people after the fact decades later. I'm not influenced by anyone and come to my own conclusions based on the facts I find. The incident is logical and follows a path when you read the facts.

Bearing in mind above, and this isn't a trick question - I'm genuinely interested in your view, do you give any credence to the following scenario ?

That there were two "crash sites", one found slightly before Brazel reported his find but which prompted an immediate follow up, what then ensued in the following days with the press release and next day climb down being a simple cock-up, with later investigations and witness reports being a mix up of the two sites.

A second crash site with alien bodies wasn't even mentioned in 1947. That story began 30 years after when Stanton Friedman came out with the crash story in 1978. Authors searched for and interviewed witnesses for books and this is how they learned of the supposed alien bodies. These witness interviews went on through the late 70s, into the 80s and 90s.

There was no public accounting in 1947 that something happened in addition to the crash site on the Foster ranch. Therefore no reason to look too deeply into it. I agree with the believers in this story that think false memories involving anthropomorphic/test dummies is a ridiculous explanation, but not for the same reasons. While those that believe may think it shows how the military is trying to cover up, I think differently. To me it shows how the military was truthful and didn't come up with something that sounded more realistic because they weren't lying and were basing it all on facts. Just as they did with the first book about the crash. If they wanted to hide the fact that we had alien bodies they could have twisted the story, the dates, or the photographs to make it sound more logical.

The Air Force felt pressured into giving some kind of explanation for these bodies, when there weren't any alien bodies to even start out with. Their explanation of dummies is as ridiculous as the suggestion that alien bodies were found.

originally posted by: A51Watcher
Lot of misinformation popping up in this thread.

"Only one person mentioned alien bodies".

Actually 3 other people saw alien bodies that were recovered from the crash site, not the debris field., and were stored in a hangar at the Roswell base before being flown out by -

Pappy Henderson

Also,

Walter Haut was allowed to view the bodies in the hangar with base commander Blanchard who was his buddy from WWII where they were both bomber pilots for the 509th over Germany.

As for alleged "tape with flowers and writing on it" Jesse Marcel Jr. saw no such tape in the wreckage his father spread out on the kitchen table for his family to see.

The only things with writing on it were the I beams, and the writing was "strange symbols" , not Japanese as some have alleged.

Also, nobody tried to burn the tin foil. They tried to burn the the pieces of what appeared to be balsa wood, which would not burn and also could not be "whittled".

Pappy's wife claimed this after he passed away in 1981.
No one claimed alien bodies until the 1970s.
The pile Marcel collected possibly didn't have tape, so? The actual EYEWITNESSES did however report "considerable scotch tape with flowery symbols on it"!!

Balsa wood that could not be whittled? Right, wood, wood was part of the construction. Wood. Balsa wood. Maybe someone took out a jackknife and it was hard wood which doesn't whittle. Treated wood is hard. These are very mundane facts.

originally posted by: A51Watcher
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Oh you mean after Mac Brazel was held incommunicado by the military for a week?


And was then seen driving a brand new truck through town after obediently reporting what he had been told ? (Which there is no way he could afford on his own?)

Then what he told newspapers after he was released, basically he would never report anything he found ever again.

He also took a piece of the wood to his neighbors the Proctors and demonstrated how it could not be burnt or whittled.

Again I remind you what Jessie Marcel's son described, which matched his fathers description.

Believe what you will, but I believe Mac was the first victim of the coverup, as does the owner of the Roswell radio station who had the military show up at the station and confiscate the original interview that Mac gave them.

But all the initial statements, before the weather balloon story, on the same day and 1 day after the crash, all matched up to - sticks, rubber, scotch tape, no metal parts, suspended by a balloon, balsa wood, foil…"
If Brazle was held for a week it doesn't matter because all statements are from the first 2 days.
Now source the idea that he was even held for 1 week and that he had a new truck.

I know people will then say "he could't afford a new truck either…." as if they know his financial situation at the time and as if it means an alien cover-up.

originally posted by: joelr
Balsa wood that could not be whittled? Right, wood, wood was part of the construction. Wood. Balsa wood. Maybe someone took out a jackknife and it was hard wood which doesn't whittle. Treated wood is hard. These are very mundane facts.

Ectoplasm8's excellent thread mentions some plausible reasons from Charles Moore why the balsa wood wouldn't burn and couldn't be whittled; he says the wood was coated with glue:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

- The Support Sticks/Beams -

Weather Balloons:
On weather balloon targets, the support sticks would have been plain wood or balsa wood. The need for strength wouldn't be necessary since these targets would only be flown for a couple of hours before the balloon would burst.

Mogul/Service Flights:
Charles Moore on the strength properties of the Mogul/Roswell support sticks:

"I think some of the balsa wood was dipped in something like Elmer's glue, and as a result had some sort of glue coating on it which would make it somewhat resistant to burning."

...balsa wood beams that were coated in an "Elmer's-type" glue to enhance their durability...

In the revised ML307C/AP blueprint, Air Force Spec "MIL-C-4003 Synthetic Base Glue" was to be used on the intersecting portions of the beams needed for strength:

This could support Moore's claim of glue on the beams. Having the targets farmed out to other companies, we don't know the process of how these targets were constructed or how much glue was applied to strengthen them. Coating a balsa wood beam in synthetic glue, could make it hard to whittle/cut with a pocket knife, make it flexible enough to bend but not break, and as Moore pointed out in his interview, make it somewhat resistant to burning. Especially in comparison to a plain balsa wood beam which would have been common on weather balloon targets. Marcel mentions balsa wood like in weight and size in numerous interviews.

A glue coating wouldn't make the wood impossible to burn or whittle, but it would definitely make it more resistant to both, speaking from personal experience of having slathered elmer's-like glue on wood before. Anybody can try that at home. If you throw the glue-coated stick on the hot fireplace logs it will probably burn, but if you just hold a lighter under it, it probably won't burn...you can try it.

originally posted by: joelr
I know people will then say "he could't afford a new truck either…." as if they know his financial situation at the time and as if it means an alien cover-up.

The whole argument about Brazel doesn't even make any sense, because he contradicted the official story, which was that it was a weather balloon. Brazel stuck to his story that he had found weather balloons before and whatever he brought in was definitely not one of those. He's basically calling them liars so the claim he was given a new truck for " going along with the story" is quite frankly insane, because he didn't go along with the official story, he contradicted it!

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The whole argument about Brazel doesn't even make any sense, because he contradicted the official story, which was that it was a weather balloon. Brazel stuck to his story that he had found weather balloons before and whatever he brought in was definitely not one of those. He's basically calling them liars so the claim he was given a new truck for " going along with the story" is quite frankly insane, because he didn't go along with the official story, he contradicted it!

Exactly! Glue would make the wood harder to whittle. Another possibility - ironwood is also extremely hard to work with without very sharp tools. And it's wood? Aliens are building saucers out of trees?

That is interesting about Brazle because many Roswell people like to say Brazle was forced to say what the military told him. Clearly they just hear it and immediately turn their brains off and consider that truth.
Like the lady who got up at one of the first UFO congressional hearings Greer put on (which were pretty cool) and asked senators "why did the military admit to finding a flying disk"?
Had she done 10 minutes of research and actually read the entire press release that used the term flying disk she would have realized whatever the object was it was very much like a man-made object suspended by large balloons.
Yet she traveled all the way to Washington D.C. to put this question to people who actually had no idea.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

A second crash site with alien bodies wasn't even mentioned in 1947.

I never mentioned anything about bodies - just a second crash site ?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
You don't cite any source or evidence, but I will. There was a real FBI memo (the Hottel memo) which referenced a second or third hand account about a different crash site which was apparently a hoax.

It was a (mainly) rhetorical question with a scenario that may fit why we have the accounts from the ranch, the archaeology group, the road blockades and army trucks etc etc plus why the Army announced recovery of a disc then rescinded.

Thanks for posting the info - I was aware of the Hottel memo and in terms of evidence (well, more citing a source than evidence) from memory there is another memo, on the fringes of the MJ12 documents, that references multiple Roswell crash sites. I will see if I can find it, my memory may be at fault, if I recall correctly it gives co-ordinates with one of them being the Trinity site !

Edited to add I think I am referring to the Eisenhower Briefing Document - see here and I think the coordinates were in attachment B, which I can't find at the moment.

originally posted by: chunder
Edited to add I think I am referring to the Eisenhower Briefing Document - see here and I think the coordinates were in attachment B, which I can't find at the moment.

That Eisenhower Briefing Document is also a hoax, which Stan Friedman never admitted but I think most other researchers, plus the Air Force and FBI realized the problems with it, as noted in some detail here:

The Majestic 12 Papers - An Analysis

What the conspiracy advocates fail to mention in their writings is that the MJ-12 papers are a complete forgery!...

Phil Klass says no. Kevin Randle says no. Carl Sagan said no. Curtis Peebles says no. Jacques Vallee says no. The National Archives say no. The FBI says no. The Air Force says no. When the GAO was conducting its Roswell investigation for Congressman Steven Schiff, it asked the same government agencies involved in that investigation to also check their records for anything on "MJ-12" or "Majestic". All of them reported that nothing could be found that mentioned either term. The final analysis was that the MJ-12 documents are forgeries.

I realize my Roswell thread can be tedious and boring so this is a drawing I made to show what type of flights were being lauched that day only 90 miles away to the south of the crash site. All this information is backed up through data in The Roswell Report.



Look at the 6+ types of balloon flights. Read Mac Brazels description of the materials in his newspaper interview only a month later. It should be obvious to anyone that has read and come to their own conclusion, not those of others, that the second drawing above with balloons and radar targets match what Brazel found.

Source and page numbers for the flights I mention in my drawing above:
The Roswell Report HERE
(direct PDF download - 994 pages)

- Balloon Material Testing: p 610, p 612 (table with balloon materials tested)
- Radar Target Testing: p 210
- Service Flight Simple Gear: p 886
- Service Flight Complete: p 885
-Research Flight: p 887
- Full Mogul Flights: p 537

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
That Eisenhower Briefing Document is also a hoax,

Whilst a hoax lets not forget that is deliberate misinformation by another name - and if institutionalised misinformation it is possible it contains some grains of truth.

With all of the factors about Roswell I get that none of them hold up to a level of scrutiny that can be called hard evidence. However consider the following 3 facts.

1. 24th June 1947 Kenneth Arnolds Washington sighting
2. 7th July 1947 The Rhodes Phoenix photo
3. 8th July 1947 The RAAF press release that a flying disc had been recovered

So it seems something unusual was flying around (9 objects according to Arnold), two weeks later something very similar to what Arnold described was photographed in Arizona and the next day the Army announce they have recovered a disc in New Mexico.

Proof of nothing of course.

Or could they be related, it was storm season, did lightning cause one or more of these flying objects to crash, did Rhodes capture the search and rescue effort. Could a collision have occurred - involving a deflating radar testing balloon array and leading to two crash sites.

Not questions, purely conjecture but the two crash site scenario could explain a lot of loose ends. I know, I should now present my justification for that being a possibility but I just don't have the time, i guess one thing I am trying to point out (not necessarily to you) is that whilst the debate around minutiae such as hieroglyphs on tape need to be had there is a wider picture to consider to give context and other potential scenarios which, if there is any evidence to suggest they may exist, need to be thoroughly discounted before reaching a definitive conclusion.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

I realize my Roswell thread can be tedious and boring so this is a drawing I made to show what type of flights were being lauched that day only 90 miles away to the south of the crash site. All this information is backed up through data in The Roswell Report.

Outstanding artwork, thank you!

originally posted by: chunder

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
That Eisenhower Briefing Document is also a hoax,

Whilst a hoax lets not forget that is deliberate misinformation by another name - and if institutionalised misinformation it is possible it contains some grains of truth.

I don't know if you read the link I posted (sounds like probably not), but the suspect for producing the misinformation wasn't an institution, it was William Moore. I say suspect because the evidence is circumstantial but rather compelling as circumstantial evidence goes. For example, when the hoaxed documents appeared in 1984, William Moore stopped what he was doing to go develop the film and the reveal thus centers around him. The year before, in 1983, the same William Moore asked Brad Sparks if he thought it would be a good idea to create some counterfeit government documents, as a way to try to get the government to disclose the truth. What a coincidence, eh? And not the only one, read the link for more.

With all of the factors about Roswell I get that none of them hold up to a level of scrutiny that can be called hard evidence. However consider the following 3 facts.

1. 24th June 1947 Kenneth Arnolds Washington sighting
2. 7th July 1947 The Rhodes Phoenix photo
3. 8th July 1947 The RAAF press release that a flying disc had been recovered

So it seems something unusual was flying around (9 objects according to Arnold), two weeks later something very similar to what Arnold described was photographed in Arizona and the next day the Army announce they have recovered a disc in New Mexico.

Proof of nothing of course.

There's a name for this, it's a very human thing to do, which is to try to connect the dots even if they are not really connected; it's called apophenia

Apophenia has come to imply a human propensity to seek patterns in random information, such as gambling.

Your 3rd event, the topic of this thread is so well documented there's not much question what that was, some sort of balloon package. For the exact nature of the balloon package, Ectoplasm8's research may be more accurate than the official 1000-page or so report, but regardless of the exact nature of the balloon package, everything contemporary and credible points to it being the remains of a balloon package. There were some made-up stories in the 1980s about second crash site, alien bodies, and so on, none of which stand up to scrutiny, and the faked Eisenhower briefing document is also from that era, 1984.

The first event, Arnold's sighting, requires the use of a little logic and common sense. Why would an aircraft fly in the manner Arnold described, bouncing like a stone skipping on the water? The answer is there's no reason for an aircraft to fly like that in ordinary flight. So then the question becomes what else could account for such an observation, and the answer is a mirage or other atmospheric effects can produce effects like that, and that's why from a perspective of pure logic it seems likely that some kind of atmospheric effect was involved in creating the illusion of that kind of motion which we wouldn't expect any conceivable aircraft to exhibit. That's simply the application of logic, doesn't infer proof, but I think it makes sense to look at UFO sightings from a logical perspective.

the Army Air Force's formal public conclusion was that Arnold had seen a mirage.

The second event, the Rhodes photos, Anthony Bragalia thinks the heel shaped photo was actually a heel and thus a hoax, he could be right and I think he's probably right about some other photos listed on this page like the Rex Helfin photo which looks like a train wheel, could very well be a train wheel.

So really the only relationship I can conceive of in the three events you listed if there is any at all, is that Rhodes may have heard about the Arnold sighting and the attention it garnered, and thus made his hoax UFO photo of a heel to draw some attention to himself. Any connection to the Roswell balloon remains would be more indirect, such as Brazel hearing about a reward for a "disk" after the disk mania began with Arnold's sighting, so he tried to collect a reward by calling the balloon train remains a "disk" when he wouldn't ordinarily have referred to such as a "disk".

originally posted by: chunder
[


3. 8th July 1947 The RAAF press release that a flying disc had been recovered

I'm starting to see how people got tripped up on this. Obviously for one the quote was taken out of context.
The press release was used by a Roswell newspaper to write this article which contains much more of what was in the press release. So first here is that:


On July 8, 1947, RAAF public information officer Walter Haut issued a press release stating that personnel from the field's 509th Operations Group had recovered a "flying disc", which had crashed on a ranch near Roswell. As described in the July 9, 1947, edition of the Roswell Daily Record:

The balloon which held it up, if that was how it worked, must have been 12 feet [3.5 m] long, [Brazel] 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 [180 m] in diameter. When the debris was gathered up, the tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks made a bundle about three feet [1 m] long and 7 or 8 inches [18 or 20 cm] thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches [45 or 50 cm] long and about 8 inches [20 cm] thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot would have weighed maybe five pounds [2 kg]. 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 of the tinfoil. There were no words to be found anywhere on the instrument, although there were letters on some of the parts. Considerable Scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed upon it had been used in the construction. No strings or wires were to be found but there were some eyelets in the paper to indicate that some sort of attachment may have been used.[10]"

So clearly this is no ufo. But what happened? The situation was left alone for like 30 years, obviously because it was rather mundane.
In the late 70's those Roswell UFO books were written which plucked the "flying disk" out of the quote and left the rest alone.
For one it was hard to locate the actual press release. It's still actually really hard, I can't find the full version anywhere. In fact this release was pulled by the military because it was describing project Mogal so I don't think it actually exists anymore. Just the parts taken out by the Roswell newspaper.

But what's worse is after the books started gaining attention Haut got into the ufo field . First he was interviewed in the first book around 1980 :
"In the first book on the subject, The Roswell Incident, Haut was said to be "not a witness."(p. 72) He told interviewers in 1979 that base commander Colonel William Blanchard asked him to write and distribute the press release but when Haut asked to see the object in question was told "his request was impossible."

Then in the 90's he was invested in a ufo research center:

"By this time (1993), Haut, along with Max Littell and Glenn Dennis had opened the International UFO Museum and Research Center."
en.wikipedia.org...

and finally came stories about aliens

" In December 2002, Haut also signed a sealed affidavit in which he went into more details about the craft, debris, bodies, and cover-up. Both the interview and affidavit were not to be released until after his death.[8]
The full text of the affidavit was first published in June 2007 in the book Witness to Roswell: Unmasking the 60 Year Cover-Up."

I'm guessing that although the affidavit was not to be released until after his death he was likely paid for his services before his death.
In this statement is where he put forth the 2nd crash site information:

"Haut also stated that there had been two major crash sites that he had become aware of the day before, the first a large debris field about 75 miles northwest of Roswell (the site investigated by Major Marcel), and the second, about 40 miles north of town, where the main craft and bodies were found. The north site had just been found by civilians on July 7, and apparently word had already gotten out about it in the public. "

So this 2nd crash site probably contradicts with many pieces of other "insider" information but I don't have the energy or motivation to care.
But imagine that, there were 2 crashes, project Mogal AND a actual ufo. But the one that's just a bunch of giant balloons get's called a "flying disk".
Also ALL of the spooky documentaries that talk about "weird foil" that "would not burn" and all of the other happenings at this crash site are completely nullified because that crash site according to Haut is the NON-alien crash site.

Haut just debunked all of the stories that start with the Mac Brazle stuff. I guess he at least realized that the story doesn't work at all and you need to invent an entirely separate crash site.

Also Haut says this:
"At the staff morning meeting on July 8, which Haut said he attended, key officers at the base were briefed and strange debris was handed around, which nobody could identify. "
So the actual ufo crash also had "strange debris"? So project Mogal created all the regular "strange debris" that everyone is familiar with but now is this a new "strange debris" from an actual ufo?
Or is Haut just not realizing he's taking an element from original narrative and conflating it into his new story??

And does he think people were so stupid in 1947 that people would pass around a piece of an actual ufo ship at a meeting? "Hey guys check out this alien metal, let me know if you get infected with any alien viruses or nano-technology".


Whatever.