The Day Before Roswell

Of course, the per capita map differs from the standard because the standard shows the location of reports generally, where the per capita is showing what percentage of a population is producing reports. That is, where one's most likely to observe a UFO. For example, in City A you have a population of 1,000,000 and a total of 1,000 reports. In City B you have a population of 1,000 and a total of 750 people reporting sightings. Though there's more reports in City A, it seems clear that if you're looking for a UFO, you have better odds of finding one in City B, where 75% of the population has reported one. The suggestion would be that UFOs are more common to City B than City A, despite City A having a larger number of reports. So, the per capita map can be interpreted as suggesting that UFOs are more common to the west coast than elsewhere.

As far as interest in the origin of our aircraft and other considerations, I don't feel that the data is suggestive of any specific conclusion. Even with regard to the city vs sticks argument, there's a great many variables to consider. It would appear that you're considerably less likely to spend much time observing the sky during your daily activities in New York City than you would be while farming in Idaho or travelling the interstate on a trip.

In my lifetime I've worn many hats, bouncing between distinct professions out of boredom and curiosity. I was once an over the road truck driver crisscrossing the United States, for nearly two years. Truckers spend their entire day staring down the sky, and yet I never saw anything. I would ask other truckers if they'd ever seen anything, or heard of any other truckers ever seeing anything. Nobody ever did. Seemed strange to me. It would seem as though the people in the best position to see these craft aren't the groups that're most commonly reporting them. I think you'll find that there's considerably fewer pilots and astronomers seeing them than there are regular folk farting around in their back yards. If that perception is accurate, then what might it imply? I for one have no idea.

a reply to: Navarro

You make some great points on the variables to be considered.

I really appreciate your input and ideas on the implications of the sighting locations.


Now that more than just the tip of this hidden iceberg has risen to the surface, there is much to be considered.

supposedly in this case,the mortician i think,had some conversation with the nurse of the hospital who saw the bodies.Did we ever find the name of this nurse?She was transferred to england afterwards or so the story goes.

If we know her name did we ever reach to her close ones?family?relatives?Anything at all.

If i saw aliens i would surely tell my closest ones goverment threats or not

a reply to: IMSAM

If I recall correctly, the only names I came across for the nurse, was "Friend" and "Naomi", including perhaps "Naomi Friend", but of course, since the records fire shortly after the Roswell event, a lot of dead ends when trying to research personnel after the event. Including transfers.

It's buried in my Roswell threads. The Case for Roswell. If you want to search.

a reply to: IMSAM

The story of a military nurse, Naomi Self, witnessing an alien autopsy 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.

The "Morning Reports" that list all military personnel still exists for the Roswell Army Air Field (RAAF) for July 1947. They show that there were only five nurses assigned to RAAF during July 1947, and none of these were suddenly transferred to England or anywhere overseas. None of the nurses was named Naomi Maria Self, or had any name resembling that name. Thorough searches of the files in the National Personnel Records Center failed to find anyone by that name that had ever served in the military.

Source : www.roswellfiles.com...

Further details are given on Kevin Randle's blog : kevinrandle.blogspot.com...

a reply to: mirageman

That was it. I remember it was an odd last name. Self, not Friend.

Personally, that's hardly enough to call it a hoax though. Pretty sure I'd have trouble remembering an exact name from 40 years ago too. I will admit that I've always been a bit "iffy" on Glenn's testimony as a witness though. I can't even put my finger on it, but he seems like he's telling a mix of fact and imagined memory at times, just from my own interviewing skills.

And of course, the military has certainly had plenty of time to cover tracks. In many ways, the military's own actions surrounding Roswell, are actually the BEST evidence for why it isn't simply some US or even foreign project to blame.

a reply to: Gazrok

The research done indicates that she didn't exist and Dennis made the story up in 1990. Kevin Randle seems to have put the hours in and I have no reason to doubt him. Marcel never mentioned aliens and he was base intelligence officer.

But I'll leave it there as people tend to have already made their minds up about Roswell.

The majority of the evidence points to the Project Mogul story being the likely truth regarding Roswell… The Roswell crash story has too many holes in the witness testimony and second-hand hearsay. BUT of course that is only based on the known evidence, and it is certainly a possibility the government is lying and covered up.


My attitude in this field has always been one of few expressions of dogmatic certainty, one way or the other.

The second crash site and alien bodies didn't come about until 30+ years later. Something that would change human history is held onto for over 30 years and never spoken about? Ridiculous. This is where the salesmen of this tale know they have to rationalize the reasoning to skeptics and come out with the "threats" by the military. Of course the diehard believers and followers hang on to the words of these "experts" as gospel.

Is it that the sellers are so naive to buy into the weakest form of evidence, eyewitness testimony, and the claim of military "threats", or do they know people that want this tale to be true are naive enough to buy into it without research and they take advantage of that for their profit?

Not only is there zero evidence to support a second crash site and alien bodies, but there's zero evidence of military threats to support the zero evidence alien bodies.



a reply to: Gazrok
I responded to your idea that my Roswell thread didn't "wash" using the real starters for the event and not 30 year old deathbed confessionals or decades-later eyewitness testimony HERE. You never responded letting me know if all my points were only coincidental between the alien spacecraft and MOGUL Service/Research flights.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
The second crash site and alien bodies didn't come about until 30+ years later. Something that would change human history is held onto for over 30 years and never spoken about? Ridiculous.

Even more ridiculous is that a second crash (with bodies) was supposedly lying in a field for three weeks from 14th June 1947 without anybody noticing. Like many cases, the bare-boned basics at the start of the story reveal everything we need to know.

After 14th June: cue Ken Arnold, "flying discs", a media reward, a farmer with dollars in his eyes urged by neighbours to finally drag his pile of crap from his field to the Sheriff's office and change the date of his "crash sighting" (as opposed to simply "finding" it) to 4th July. Add a Major newly obsessed with UFOs, a fancy press release (which, beyond the hyperbolic headline, actually describes what Brazel found for what it really was), and the press gathering in Ramey's office whilst a military weather expert positively identifies the remnants of a weather balloon on the floor.

Much to Marcel's embarrassment. End Of Story.

As is often said, getting "over Roswell" is a natural first step towards serious modern UFO research.

I responded to your idea that my Roswell thread didn't "wash" using the real starters for the event and not 30 year old deathbed confessionals or decades-later eyewitness testimony HERE. You never responded letting me know if all my points were only coincidental between the alien spacecraft and MOGUL Service/Research flights.

So, your defense is the coverup story the military put out, and Brazel after being held for questioning?

The problem with the cover story is that it is ridiculous to believe that Marcel wouldn't be able to easily identify debris of the MOGUL project as being ours. It is equally ridiculous to believe that two planes would be needed to fly the debris, and that those planes would take it to two bases known for their work on investigating enemy aircraft. It is also ridiculous to establish a military cordon to recover MOGUL off the shelf components.

Again, it just doesn't wash. The flights and cordon aren't just stories, they are backed by documentation.

Like you said though, folks are going to believe what they like on it.

Personally though, like Randle, I wouldn't put Dennis at the TOP of my list of good witnesses for Roswell. However, it's difficult to say the research disproves the nurse, it simply casts doubt on the account. (but well placed doubt).

How many MOGUL balloons were launched prior to this one?
Why didn't other MOGUL crashes garner this much attention from the U.S. military?

a reply to: Gazrok
So you believe the Air Force fabricated, forged, and faked the documents, correspondence, reports, technical drawings, photographs, etc. just to create a cover story for the crash? MOGUL never happened? I assume you have evidence to support this? Or is this based on information read through UFO "experts"? In my thread, I showed screenshots of the documentation above with a paper trail. Dates match, location match, construction methods match, even other flights crashing near Roswell match. To make an assertion this was all made up, you should have strong evidence to support your claim.
Also, the response and conclusion for the first part of the crash is a rational, logical explanation with a paper trail. If the AF was out to fabricate a cover story, why didn't they do the same with the alien body portion? Why not create false documents also to tighten the timeline instead of the silly 10+ year old false memory dummies explanation?

As far as Mac Brazel, the story goes that he was supposedly escorted around town by 2/3 men. They waited outside of the studio where he gave the interview that was published in the Roswell Daily Chronicle. If he was being threatened by the military for coming out with this story, why was he being aloof in the interview? Here's the perfect opportunity to play along with the military and set things straight by publicly admitting what he found was probably nothing more than some type of balloon, but he didn't. He said: "I am sure what I found was not any weather observation balloon." The "cover story" at the time was that it was a weather balloon and he goes against that in his interview? More illogical nonsense.

Re: the flight- procedures would have to be followed in order to make a positive identification of any foreign debris retrieved by the Air Force. Because the debris was flown to Forth Worth for identification doesn't in itself mean it was an alien spacecraft. The words flying saucer had a questionable meaning in the 1940's. It could have easily meant new spy technology developed by another country in the way of some type of flying craft. Because of this, positive identification would have been important and all procedures followed and not just tossed aside. Also, the story begins with Mac Brazel claiming pieces from a spacecraft may have crashed on the ranch he's working. He carries this story to Roswell then to the sheriff who calls Roswell Army Air Field. So we already have verbal information going around that begins the idea of a possible crashed spacecraft. The suggestion has already been planted. Jesse Marcel and Sheridan Cavitt retrieve the debris. Jesse Marcel isn't convinced this the typical weather balloon found on ranches during the period. Many weather balloons would be discovered intact carrying a single radar target, if any. MOGUL service/research flights would have been larger and developed of stronger material because of sustained flights at high altitudes. 4/5 radar targets also may have been attached. In comparison to what he had found before, yes this could have been foreign.
Sheridan Cavitt, states in his affidavit:

a small area of debris to resemble bamboo type square sticks one quarter to one half inch square, that were very light, as well as some sort of metallic reflecting material that was also very light....I remember recognizing this material as being consistent with a weather balloon

So we have conflicting beliefs, so how is that resolved? They would need identification through an experts opinion. The debris was flown to Fort Worth where weather officer Irving Newton positively identified it:

"I walked into the General's office where this supposed flying saucer was lying all over the floor. As soon as I saw it, I giggled and asked if that was the flying saucer....I told them that this was a balloon and a RAWIN target."

originally posted by: Gazrok
Like you said though, folks are going to believe what they like on it.

That was mirageman but I agree, people have convinced themselves either way that it was a spacecraft or MOGUL. I'm just bringing to light some things that aren't normally discussed. I rarely see anyone mentioning that more than just numbered MOGUL arrays were launched.

originally posted by: Masisoar
How many MOGUL balloons were launched prior to this one?

There were several types of flights being launched:
- Full MOGUL Arrays
- Simple-Geared Service Flights
- Complete-Geared Service Flights
- Research flights
- Simple Experimental Flights (for testing of balloons and/or radar target reception)

First recorded testing began in NY and Penn in late 1946. It was moved to Alamogordo, NM because of air traffic and winds. Full numbered arrays were recorded, as were some research and service flights. Simple-geared and simple experimental flights were not.

Why didn't other MOGUL crashes garner this much attention from the U.S. military?

Fully equipped arrays had return-to tags attached. Some research and some service flights had return-to tags also depending on the equipment carried. Both had rewards offered and were followed both by aircraft and tracking. No attention was paid to the flight that crashed near Roswell because it was a simple geared or simple experimental flight which were deemed expendable and not recovered. The only reason attention was drawn to the Roswell site was because it was larger in area, broken into small pieces, and unlike the typical intact and small weather balloons found in the area. When Brazel initially found the debris, he stuffed some of it under a bush and went on with his day. Doesn't sound too remarkable. Only when he hears nearly a month later about flying discs and rewards offered for the recovery does he become interested and goes back to the site.

So you believe the Air Force fabricated, forged, and faked the documents, correspondence, reports, technical drawings, photographs, etc. just to create a cover story for the crash? MOGUL never happened?

I stated no such thing. You're just putting words in my mouth. I never said MOGUL wasn't real.

I simply stated it's ridiculous to assume that Marcel (or anyone for that matter) would mistake any MOGUL components for something strange and out of the ordinary. The crash debris wasn't MOGUL related. If it was, it would not have been handled in the manner it was.

originally posted by: Gazrok
I stated no such thing. You're just putting words in my mouth. I never said MOGUL wasn't real

Okay, then I go back to my original question which I never have received an answer. Given MOGUL arrived in Alamogordo in June 1947, was being launched just 80 miles away, winds were carrying other flights towards Roswell and crashing, a "regular" cluster was launched on June 4th 1947, radar targets were constructed with foil, sticks, carried by rubber balloons -- exactly as this "spacecraft" was constructed:
Do you believe all of these points are just incredible coincidences?

I simply stated it's ridiculous to assume that Marcel (or anyone for that matter) would mistake any MOGUL component for something strange and out of the ordinary.

The original witness, Mac Brazel, described in his newspaper interview tinfoil, paper, tape, sticks, and rubber strips. He also described Scotch tape and eyelets. Sheridan Cavitt described bamboo type sticks, reflecting lightweight material, and says it was consistent with a weather balloon. Jesse Marcel also describes small wooden members, foil-like material, and parchment. Again, all of the first-hand witness descriptions are 100% consistent with radar target construction:
Can you tell me a single piece found that cannot be attributed to the construction of a radar target or balloon?

The crash debris wasn't MOGUL related. If it was, it would not have been handled in the manner it was.

It was MOGUL related because a "regular" flight was launched June 4th that would have been simple with balloons and radar targets attached. This is what was described by Brazel, Cavitt, and Marcel. It was not a full MOGUL array. The only reason it was handled in any other way is because after Mac Brazel learned of rewards offered by newspapers for the recovery of a saucer, his initial disinterest in the debris on June 14th, all of a sudden now became a possible flying saucer and reward on July 4th. Only at this point did he go back and recover it. The info was shared with the sheriff and RAAF. Then as Marcel describes it: "We had an eager-beaver public relations officer, he found out about it and calls AP about it" Brazel is the first to mention saucer which eventually went to the AP which was published in the paper.

If you actually read my thread (which I question), I'm repeating information I've already covered. Including walking up to a site of an intact single weather balloon and radar target, compared to walking up to site where debris had been left in the sun and weather for over 2 weeks that was ripped apart and strewn over a wide area three-quarters of a mile long and a few hundred feet wide that would appear to be a crash of something in comparison.

Can you tell me a single piece found that cannot be attributed to the construction of a radar target or balloon?

Sure, the most notable ones. The pieces of metal that couldn't be affected, even with extreme treatments, and other pieces of a memory type metal.

It's obvious we'll simply have to agree to disagree here. No skin off my nose.

originally posted by: Gazrok

Can you tell me a single piece found that cannot be attributed to the construction of a radar target or balloon?

Sure, the most notable ones. The pieces of metal that couldn't be affected, even with extreme treatments, and other pieces of a memory type metal.

You mean the unbreakable foil material and sticks that were found broken and scattered in pieces over a wide area across the property? Kinda contradicts these "amazing" super-strength properties, doesn't it?

Every time I point out to Roswell believers how their alien spacecraft is constructed with pieces exactly like a radar target, this odd coincidence is never acknowledged or addressed. It's always deflected to the "amazing" properties they've bought into. To admit it is coincidental and common to radar targets, is to admit there's possibly something Earthly about this crash after all.

I guess I'll continue my search for someone to challenge this.