Roswell and Unsolved Mysteries

a reply to: mirageman

The gist of it is was that a young military nurse, Naomi Self, saw an alien autopsy and drew a picture of a 'gray'. But it was a hoax concocted by Glenn Dennis. Dennis said the nurse was transferred to England and died in a plane crash. He was rather coy about revealing her name initially. When he finally did there was no record of her ever working in the military.

Indeed, a close examination of Dennis shows he was unbelievable. The whole story behind that search for that nurse is a tale in itself. It involves contrasting ufologist double-dealing, and I recall Dennis admitting he lied deliberately, he claims, to protect the nurse.


As for Roswell in general, The Karl T. Pflock book convinced me Roswell was not a crashed alien craft. And resultantly, I believe the evidence shows it was a mogul balloon.

Even liars( the US government) sometimes tell the truth. In this case, it was a legitimate security concern.
The only problem I have with their story is the dummies are mistaken for dead aliens.
link

Even though Karl T. Pflock was another CIA agent on the prowl as a UFO researcher( like the one who did the almost 12-hour documentary on Roswell for History’s Greatest Mysteries), I accept his conclusions as most supported by the evidence.

Though I am hard on the US government's ICs interference, I always still try to remain objective and not ignore all researchers just because they were IC agents in some capacity. If we did that, there would hardly be any ufologists left!

Though I do believe the late 70s and 80s ICs disinformation campaign on UFOlogy juiced up Roswell. Of course, that’s another story in itself.

Roswell was mythologized in the 70s and 80s from being barely mentioned in UFO literature through the 50s and 60s.

Starting with Marcel's story, then adding in the infamous newspaper headlines (but ignoring the fine details). Later absorbing elements from the Aztec UFO crash story from 1948 with alien dead bodies(a hoax). Ably assisted by Stan Friedman's used car salesman like abilities to relay a good story. Although, he was not alone.

But for me, the clues lie in the past and 1947 specifically.

Contemporaneous news reports describing the debris Brazel found from the so called 'object' as rubber, sticks and paper.


Roswell Daily Record, July 9, 1947

Or like "remnants of a kite and balloon".




Even ""In Search Of..." (link)" the 80s TV show on the case mmades reference to an FBI document describing the debris as from an "experimental kite".

Not materials you would associate with spaceships.


The other piece of evidence that nothing extra-terrestrial was found near Roswell is Twining's "Flying Discs" Sept 23rd 1947 memo.

This was some two months after the events at Roswell. Twining was also in New Mexico on July 7th leaving on July 11th 1947!!! So he was close to the action at the exact time the news releases were made.

Yet he explicitly states that

Due consideration must be given the following:-..The lack of physical evidence in the shape of crash recovered exhibits which would undeniably prove the existence of these objects

If the debris taken to Wright Field was from a genuine ET spacecraft, then why would Twining state in his memo there was a lack of physical evidence?

Less we not forget Bessie Brazel’s affidavit…..

Source: Roswell 1947 - Documents on the witnesses Bessie Brazel

In part…

(8) The debris looked like pieces of a large balloon which had burst. The pieces were small, the largest I remember measuring was about the same as the diameter of a basketball. Most of it was a kind of double-sided material, foil-like on one side and rubber-like on the other. Both sides were grayish silver in color, the foil more silvery than the rubber. 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 types of material or markings, nor do I remember seeing any gouges in the ground or any other signs that anything may have hit the ground hard.

(9) The foil-rubber material could not be torn like ordinary aluminum foil can be torn. I do not recall anything else about the strength or other properties of what we picked up.

(10) We spent several hours collecting the debris and putting it in sacks. I believe we filled about three sacks, and we took them back to the ranch house. We speculated a bit about what the material could be. I remember dad saying. "-Oh, it’s just a bunch of garbage."

👽

That’s the proof there in itself.

If we were to accept the ufo reality on one level hypothetically, would that scattered debris be a flying saucer as described?

The advocates of Roswell never think of that.

All that kind of rubbish would certainly NOT be associated with the streamlined saucers described in the average ufo sighting.

FYI……

Roswell 1947: Witnesses listing and their testimonies

👽

I’ve always had a suspicion that there might have been multiple crash’s…..for sure the Balloon train..…but then possibly an unknown craft.

The two crash site theory of others have been around for some time….even portraying the theory, in the vid I posted.

So I have come across the, purportedly “sealed” affidavit, by Walter G. Haut RAAF Public Information Officer (PIO)…which is accessible around the web….below is what appears to be the purported original format vice other formats shown on the web.

It details two crash sites……see my red underlining.

It also speaks to witnessing alien beings and a craft.

Is this “sealed” affidavit legit? Has it been debunked or the testimony debunked already? Could it be a red herring?

It definitely brings me closer to the realization of multiple crashes.

If true….could the second site be St. Augustin or Corona or other?

This document fuels further scrutiny…if it hasn’t already elsewhere.

All of it an interesting read…..Sorry….you’ll have to zoom in….



…..”Diverted from the more important site North of town” …..is that the Alien Craft?

And so then the less important site would be the balloon train???

If two crashes happened ……then that would make this statement and the grand swap out controversy…..plausible..



Haut the base Public Information Officer was apparently directly involved…….would he lie on an affidavit?

If two crashes happened……then conceivably both events have been entangled together all these decades! When they were instead, two separate events roughly in the same timeframe and in the same area proximity.

The Roswell Legend grew out of overt covert confusion…..imo

👽

originally posted by: Spacespider

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Thx for the OP….

Especially the coordinates……I’ve always wanted to Google Earth it. It certainly has roads nearby to get access from.

As I have come to experience from past hunting of crashed military aircraft…there’s always bits and pieces to be found long after the event. I can almost bet that piece’s of balloon payload/UFO craft, had fallen off the vehicles leaving the area…..pieces along the road that have yet to be found.

👽

Well, does anyone in Texas not have a metal detector and ready for some adventure, I would.
Sadly I live on the other side of the planet.

If I remember correctly, didn't an expedition do a comb over of the alleged crash site to analyze the soil for possible debris and/or anomalies? This was like 10 years ago when I heard about it, but I never heard if they actually succeeded, or if they found anything.

Does anyone else remember that?

a reply to: mirageman

I try to stay away from looking into the tar pit that Roswell has become. It's so contaminated by every money grabber, new age guru, and scam artist that any real evidence has become a piece of tainted history.

In my mind, there are many better cases that can be looked into with witnesses still alive, and testable evidence available.

One trend that I had noticed regarding Roswell, was how the government and "certain individuals" like to roll out "new evidence" or "never before witness reports" whenever a UFO/UAP issues start getting looked at by the public. It's like they use Roswell as a distraction for resources that could be used for recent or current cases.

I know you're not going to wait time on this stuff without a reason. Are you just keeping history alive, or is there something else afoot?

a reply to: Ophiuchus1


Multiple crash sites appeared to me to be an attempt to keep the story alive. As for Walter Haut, he founded the Roswell International UFO Museum with Glenn Dennis in 1991.

His sealed affidavit was the last of his creeping inflation of the story.

Haut's own story about his involvement expanded as the years went by.

In the 1980 book, 'The Roswell Incident', Haut denied being a witness of any sort, claiming Col. William Blanchard ordered him to write and distribute the press release.

In 'UFO Crash at Roswell', Haut said he knew "nothing" about the materials recovered, but now Marcel had told him that "he didn't believe it was of this planet".

Haut's original affidavit of, 1993, added "I believe Col. Blanchard saw the material, because he sounded positive about what the material was. There is no chance he would have mistaken it for a weather balloon. Neither is there any chance that Major Marcel would have been mistaken".

By 2000 Haut claimed to have witnessed an alien craft and a body in a hangar on the base and being present at a senior staff meeting where the cover-up of events was discussed.

In December 2002, Haut signed the sealed affidavit you've posted in which he went into more details about the craft, debris, bodies, and cover-up.

a reply to: Guyfriday

I know you're not going to wait time on this stuff without a reason. Are you just keeping history alive, or is there something else afoot?

This is part of a series of threads on the UFO stories featured on the Unsolved Mysteries TV show. Then looking at how the stories have developed since they first aired. Mainly because the show is freely available to watch on Youtube.

I've already done :
Guardian UFO
The Phoenix Lights
Falcon Lake

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
FYI……

Roswell 1947: Witnesses listing and their testimonies

👽

Amazing how many people crawled out of the desert with their stories. Yet not one of them was able to keep hold of the even the tiniest piece of magic mystery material.

originally posted by: mirageman

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
FYI……

Roswell 1947: Witnesses listing and their testimonies

👽

Amazing how many people crawled out of the desert with their stories. Yet not one of them was able to keep hold of the even the tiniest piece of magic mystery material.

Apparently, not even University of New Mexico archaeologists could find the tiniest piece.

www.mysterywire.com...

This is what I was looking for earlier. I remembered hearing about a team of archaeologists that were supposedly going to go out and dig the crash site, collecting samples of dirt and any artifacts they found, and test it for anything anomalous or suggestive of non human/terrestrial origins. Turns out, they did do it, and not surprisingly, came up empty handed. Of course, there is dispute over whether the site tested was THE site, since there are a few.

BTW, good job on digging up and re-examining these old cases that used to be major cornerstones of Ufology. It's interesting how some of the more fantastical ones are falling apart under better scrutiny and information sharing/comparing.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

It's ironic that Corso claimed fiber optic technology was reverse engineered from a crashed ET saucer and you are hypothesising it was part of a balloon array that started the whole crashed ET saucer meme.

Fiber optic cable on a Mogul array - simply no, and for dozens of reasons.

originally posted by: chunder
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

It's ironic that Corso claimed fiber optic technology was reverse engineered from a crashed ET saucer and you are hypothesising it was part of a balloon array that started the whole crashed ET saucer meme.

Fiber optic cable on a Mogul array - simply no, and for dozens of reasons.

Yes, I’m hypothesizing ( meaning no proof) by showing and explaining. I made an effort…..however…you make an open ended statement by stating, unequivocally “for dozens of reasons”. You infer you have proof within dozens of reasons. How about you share and show and explain one dozen of the “dozens” of your certainty….to backup your statement…it’s only fair….at least for thread purposes.

For curiosity sakes…

👽

The only thing favoring somewhat Roswell being a legit ufo and crash event is the multiple witnesses to strangeness.

That’s not to say they're truthful. Barney Barnet, Dennis, Haut, et al., and the other second-hand witnesses and the Roswell books that through confirmation bias distort things, and all of that creates a feeling of, well, if all these people say they saw this or that and all these books substantiate it then it must be something there. People will say where there’s smoke, there’s fire, without looking closely at the individual stories and seeing the holes and problems with their stories and not looking at the other arguments against them...

One thing you learn in this research is one has to look under the surface to get a halfway decent outlook on these ufo claims.

Now, many of the debunkers, we have to admit, also have confirmation bias.

For me, I looked at both sides and was a believer in Roswell at one point, but the bulk of the arguments IMO reveals was NOT a crashed UFO.

a reply to: mirageman

Multiple crash sites appeared to me to be an attempt to keep the story alive

Kept alive by who?

I think that applies to the IC and the Ufo grift community. As for the IC, though not necessarily initially but after 1952 and the Robertson panel. And was upgraded in the late 70s and early 80s in the well-known and covered Bennewitz era of IC disinformation.

You may think, not conspiratorially, but ufo grifting.

I think both are valid.

Though, one has to look closely at the grifter's and ICs' timeline of their actions or potential actions.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

The Roswell Legend grew out of overt covert confusion…..imo

Can you elaborate on this?

a reply to: peaceinoutz

Kept alive by who?

Mainly the UFO grifters. Marcel's story wasn't really enough on its own. Just some magic materials, no engines or mechanical parts and especially no aliens in it. So another crash site had to be included in the story to accommodate this and keep the story rolling on.

Marcel was the base intelligence officer. He is credited with being astute enough to recognize remnants of a Mogul balloon and know that he what recovered was something not of this Earth. However, no one ever told him about the aliens at another crash site. Even though he was the base intelligence officer and would have known about it.

a reply to: peaceinoutz

I was reflecting on my hypothesis of a two crash scenario …….overt meaning the explanation to the public about a government project mogul that suppose to have been classified and covertly an alien crash the government tries to keep secret….all mixed together into those who believe in the balloon story and those who believe in the UFO Alien story.

👽

I recall the Roswell, 12-hour or so doc on History’s Greatest Mysteries and how people, in this case, relatives of Marcel, all seem to be gung ho on an alien ufo Roswell scenario, and when they are questioned, don’t lend any real evidence to substantiate it.

People often seem to want this ufo tale to be true. We want excitement and intrigue; fine, that’s human nature. I don’t blame them, but we, as researchers, or whatever we are, must recognize emotion for what it is.

Searching for truth is about becoming objective; if one can reach that, you're 'half there.

So, on one level, belief--one way or the other--seems to become a veil to the truth.

But beyond belief is the realm of the truth, believe it or not.