• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Roswell Incident [1947]

Thought occurs that if Major Marcel had seen this photograph, it might have been influential regarding his conclusion why the debris must be unearthly in origin, no matter how 'flimsy' it all was.

If any local news item would have primed Marcel to think along those lines it could well have been the Wilmot couple's sighting of 2 July. However, the newspaper accounts claim Mr. Wilmot kept their sighting secret until 8 July, when the story about the USAAF capture of a UFO hit the Roswell paper.
 
Simply for information, this was an Associated Press news release, published by several local newspapers, on 1 July, 1947.

"A Lubbock couple said they saw a silver disc-shaped object flying through the air near Smyer, but in Fort Worth Army officials said all this talk about flying discs was "Buck Rogers stuff."

The Lubbock couple would not give their names for fear of ridicule, but they reported positively they saw a disc "about the size of the moon." They said they saw it Sunday, and it was moving in a southwest direction. Three El Paso residents Saturday told of seeing flying discs several times in the last few days. They were Mrs. W. B. Cummings, J. E. Shelton Jr., and Dr. G. Oliver Dickson. Shelton said it was "so bright it nearly blinded me." Dr. Dickson said the one he saw was traveling south.

Several such reports have been received from widely scattered parts of the West.

In Fort Worth, Col. Alfred F. Kalberer, intelligence officer of the 8th Air Force, said Monday that "it might be true, but I doubt it."

Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey, commanding general of the 8th, said he thought persons making the reports "have been seeing heat waves."

*Nine planes aren't likely to be doing formation flying at 1,200 miles an hour." Ramey added. He referred to an earlier report that nine discs flying in formation had been seen moving at supersonic speed.

Kalberer has 1900 flying hours to his credit. He admitted. that a saucer-like disc would be the ideal shape for a supersonic craft.

"It doesn't stand to reason, though, that any unannounced enemy of the United States, anywhere in the world, would be sending such experimental craft over this country on trial flights," he said. "That would be tipping us off too easily."

He added that he "liked the Buck Rogers stuff, and would like to believe that the United States had a craft of its own which would go that fast."

He said the estimated 1,200 miles an hour was probably wrong, and that the planes might have been jet propelled craft doing about 450.
(End)

I have never seen this before and maybe did not appreciate such a degree of skepticism, if not in fact ridicule directly from Ramey, already existed only a week after Kenneth Arnold's reported observation.

Presumably Ramey, only another week later, would have been looking forward to seeing one of the actual 'flying discs' himself!

Interestingly, Kalberer reportedly, "admitted that a saucer-like disc would be the ideal shape for a supersonic craft".

It's this misconstrued element of Arnold's report, which was, of course, to prove fundamental and 'saucer-shaped' - not what Arnold described, or ever sketched at all - become an accepted portrayal.

Which leads conveniently to the aforenoted sighting of a 'flying saucer', by Dr. G. Oliver Dickson.

Previously mentioned, was that I would try to find a better quality photograph of his own depiction - this being what surely is the first account of a 'saucer', which has a 'dome' above and below.

Here it is and personally, an immense surprise to see such a thing exist, really early. I had long wondered when and where this 'classic' profile had its origins and expected the single 'dome' on top, would have been a precedent.

Quite evidently, not so.

View attachment 52038

This is the accompanying article:

The Austin Statesman
1 July, 1947

www.forteanmedia.com/1947_07_01_Austin_Statesman.pdf

The classic "two pie pans" description, as used by Delbert Newhouse amongst others (not being much of a baker, I assume those things Dickson is holding are actually pie pans).
 
Brazel kept in military custody as per two witnesses:

https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/rw/d/iur1999cs.htm
There are a couple of related and informative 'Associated Press' news releases:

FORT WORTH, Tex., July 8 (AP) The discovery of a "flying disk" reported by an Army public relations officer proved a dud today when the object was identified as a weather balloon.

Warrant Officer Irving Newton, a forecaster at the Army's Eighth Air Force weather station here, said the object found near Roswell, N. M, was a ray wind target used to determine the direction and velocity of winds at high altitudes.

He said there were some 80 weather stations in the United States using this type of balloon and that it could have come from any one of them.

"We use them because they can go so much higher than the eye can see," Newton explained. A radar set is employed to follow the balloon and through a process of triangulation the winds aloft are charted, he added.

When rigged up, Newton stated. the object looks like a six pointed star, is silvery in appearance, and rises in the air like a kite, mounted to a 100 gram balloon.

Newton said he had sent up identical balloons to this one during the invasion of Okinawa to determine ballistics information for heavy guns.

Maj. Gen. Roger M. Ramey, commander of the Eighth Air force with headquarters here, also said in a radio broadcast tonight that the "flying disk" was a weather balloon.

The weather device had been found three weeks previously by a New Mexico rancher, W. W. Brazell,, on his property about 85 miles northwest of Roswell Brazell, whose ranch is 30 miles from the nearest telephone and has no radio, knew nothing about flying disks when he found the broken remains of the weather device scattered over a square mile of his land.

He bundled the tinfoil and broken wooden beams of the kite and the torn synthetic rubber remains of the balloon together and rolled it under some rush, according to Maj. Jesse A. Marcel, Houma, La, 509th Bomb group intelligence officer at Roswell, who brought the device to Fort Worth.

On a trip to town at Corona, N. M. Saturday night, Brazell heard the first reference to the "silver" flying disks, Maj. Marcel related.

Brazell hurried home, dug up the remnants of the kite and balloon on Sunday and Monday headed for Roswell to report his find to the sheriff's office.

This resulted in a call to Roswell Army air field and to Maj. Marcel's being assigned to the case. Marcell and Brazell journeyed back to the ranch, where Marcell took the object into the custody of the Army.
(End)


ROSWELL, N.M.,9 JULY (AP) W. W. Brazel, the New Mexico rancher who was originally thought to have found the nation's first "flyin disc" is sorry he said anything about it.

The 48-year-old New Mexican said he was amazed at the fuss made over his discovery.

"If I find anything else short of a bomb it's going to be hard to get me to talk," he told the Associated Press here early this morning.

Brazel's discovery was reported Tuesday afternoon by Lt. Warren Hauht, Roswell Army Air Field public relations officer, as definitely being one of the "flying discs" that have puzzled and worried citizens of forty-three states during the past several weeks.

The statement was later discounted by Brig. General Roger Ramey commanding general of the Eighth Air Force of which the RAAF is a component. Gen Ramey said Brazel's discovery was a weather radar target.

But Brazel wasn't making any claims. He said he didn't know what it was.

He described his find as consistIng of large numbers of pleces of paper covered with a foll-like substance, and pleced together with small sticks, much like a kite. Scattered with the materials over an area about 200 yards across were pieces of grey rubber. All the pleces were small.

"At first I thought it was a kite, but we couldn't put it together like any kite I ever saw." he said. "It wasn't a kite."

Brazel related this story:

While riding the range on his ranch thirty miles southeast of, Corona, N.M., on June 14 he sighted some shiny objects. He picked up a piece of the stuff and took it to the ranch house seven miles away.

On July 4, he returned to the site with his wife and two of his children, Vernon, 8, and Bessie, 14. They gathered all the pleces they could find. The largest was about three feet across..

Brazet said he hadn't heard ot the "flying dises" at the time, but several days later his brother-in law, Hollis Wilson, told him of the disc reports, and suggested it might be one.

"When I went to Roswell I told Sheriff George Wilcox about it," he continued. "I was a little, bit ashamed to mention it, because I didn't know what it was.

"Asked the sheriff to keep it kinda quiet," he added with a chuckle. "I thought folks would kid me about it."

Sheriff Wilcox referred the discovery to Intelligence officers at the Roswell Army Air Field, and Major Jesse A. Marcel and a man in civilian clothes whom Brazel was unable to identify went to the ranch and brought the places of material to the air field.

"I didn't hear any more about it until things started popping." sald Brazel. "Lord, how that story has travelied." Brazel said he did not see the thing before it fell, and it was badly torn up when he found It.
(End)


Monday; Brazell tells the sheriff anout his find. He returns to the ranch with Marcel.

Wednesday: Brazill is interviewed and laments 'all the fuss' it has caused. However, the story is now effectively old news.

It's that familiar problem with second-hand stories, told many years afterwards.

When was he ever in jail for a week and why?
 
When was he ever in jail for a week and why?
I believe the full explanation to this and nany other Roswell falsehoods, can be found in a hugely detailed analysis by Tim Printy.

I know Tim from way back and he is a fabulous researcher.

This, though, I have never seen before and is a goldmine of facts, as opposed to fiction:

Popular Roswell myths

Timothy Printy July 2002 (Updated July 2003, August 2006, December 2006, July 2008, July 2014)

"Throughout the time I have been reading about Roswell on the Internet, I have discovered many of the Roswell myths being perpetuated. These myths are often produced by incorrect and inaccurate retellings by other individuals. Other methods of producing the popular myths surrounding Roswell are the "second wave" witnesses expounding on stories told by some of the early eyewitnesses. If one looks at the early records and interviews one can see that the popular stories are simply myths with no basis in fact".

(...)

http://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/Rosmyths.htm
 
Printy's site has always been a fantastic resource: he also has very strong analyses of Kecksburg, the Phoenix Lights, and a few other cases. He's put a huge amount of work into his solutions - they're also refreshingly free of the snark that mars some contemporary sceptical writing.
 
There is a notable document on Kevin Randle's web site:

Jesse Marcel, Sr., Bob Pratt and the Interview
By Kevin Randle
23 September, 2013

(...)

"The problem, I believe, is that many of those making such comments have not seen the original transcript. Karl Pflock published it in his book, but he cleaned it up for clarity, and I think that is where the problem lies. Karl put his interpretation on parts of it and that might have reflected the sometimes confusing nature of the interview

So, I thought I’ll publish the original interview as Pratt typed it himself".

(...)

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2013/09/jesse-marcel-sr-bob-pratt-and-interview.html?m=1

Included therein, is a significant clarification:

"...so I got one of my agents... I took him, he drove a jeep carryall. I drove my staff car and we took off cross country behind this pickup truck this rancher had, he didn't follow any road going out, this was an 80 sq mile ranch, so he told me, it was big, so we got to his place at dusk, it was too late to do anything, so we spent the night there in that little shack and the following morning we got up and took off, he took us to that place and we started picking up fragments.... so we loaded up and came back to the base...

...I wasn't satisfied, I went back. I told Cabott, you drive this vehicle back to the base and I'll go back out there and pick up as much as I can and put it in the car".

A thought comes to mind regarding Marcel's apparently inconsistent accounts, concerning whether the debris Marcel is photograph with, was the material he collected.

What if it isn't and instead, the debris awaiting Marcel might be from the jeep carryall which Cavitt brought back, or at least featuring some of it, which was different from that which Marcel had accumulated separately. It seems conceivable Marcel had never seen parts of Cavitt's own collection before.

That maybe explains why Marcel apparently claimed it was similar, however, not exactly the same as he returned with?

It would also account for Marcel asking Newton, if he thought there were hieroglyphics on the I-beams, which Marcel recognised from his own assembly, which would presumably be much less, as Marcel only had his staff car available.

Could this simply be what it's all about?

Did Marcel ever actually claim the debris he was photographed with was not from the site, as opposed to saying it was not the same as he personally brought back?
 
..they're also refreshingly free of the snark that mars some contemporary sceptical writing.
Though in fairness, some entirely Fortean writing does have a degree of snark in it. So I'm told.

Meanwhile, there's a lively discussion brewing on social media, with Kal Korff, of this ilk:
Screenshot_20220226-094327_Facebook.jpg
...accusing Kevin Randle of, well, this:
Since Randle and Schmitt interview dead people, I hope you were not fooled.

It was Mogul, period, and those new files are coming out, I have them. They’re in the updated version of my new expose on Roswell, and I have the ORIGINAL Roswell debris pics that Bill Moore obtained and Stanton Friedman wasn’t happy over.

The case honestly has been solved.
It's on Philip Mantle's FB feed (public).

Meanwhile, Roswell the myth quietly ambles along as it probably always will.
 
There is a notable document on Kevin Randle's web site:

Jesse Marcel, Sr., Bob Pratt and the Interview
By Kevin Randle
23 September, 2013

(...)

"The problem, I believe, is that many of those making such comments have not seen the original transcript. Karl Pflock published it in his book, but he cleaned it up for clarity, and I think that is where the problem lies. Karl put his interpretation on parts of it and that might have reflected the sometimes confusing nature of the interview

So, I thought I’ll publish the original interview as Pratt typed it himself".

(...)

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2013/09/jesse-marcel-sr-bob-pratt-and-interview.html?m=1

Included therein, is a significant clarification:

"...so I got one of my agents... I took him, he drove a jeep carryall. I drove my staff car and we took off cross country behind this pickup truck this rancher had, he didn't follow any road going out, this was an 80 sq mile ranch, so he told me, it was big, so we got to his place at dusk, it was too late to do anything, so we spent the night there in that little shack and the following morning we got up and took off, he took us to that place and we started picking up fragments.... so we loaded up and came back to the base...

...I wasn't satisfied, I went back. I told Cabott, you drive this vehicle back to the base and I'll go back out there and pick up as much as I can and put it in the car".

A thought comes to mind regarding Marcel's apparently inconsistent accounts, concerning whether the debris Marcel is photograph with, was the material he collected.

What if it isn't and instead, the debris awaiting Marcel might be from the jeep carryall which Cavitt brought back, or at least featuring some of it, which was different from that which Marcel had accumulated separately. It seems conceivable Marcel had never seen parts of Cavitt's own collection before.

That maybe explains why Marcel apparently claimed it was similar, however, not exactly the same as he returned with?

It would also account for Marcel asking Newton, if he thought there were hieroglyphics on the I-beams, which Marcel recognised from his own assembly, which would presumably be much less, as Marcel only had his staff car available.

Could this simply be what it's all about?

Did Marcel ever actually claim the debris he was photographed with was not from the site, as opposed to saying it was not the same as he personally brought back?

Marcel claiming the debris was switched is reported in Randle and Schmitt:

Marcel said that he had brought it to Ramey's office, where the general examined it and then decided that he wanted to see exactly where the object crashed. Marcel and Ramey left for the map room and while they were gone, someone carried the wreckage out, replacing it with the weather balloon long before any reporters were allowed into the office.

However this story is sourced to their interview with Walter Haut, not Marcel himself. Marcel did directly make various odd claims that only the "less interesting" debris was shown.
 
Last edited:
Just for clarity, here is what Marcel did go on record saying:

What we had was only a very small portion of the debris there was a whole lot more. There was half a B-29-ful outside. General Ramey allowed some members of the press in to take a picture of this stuff. They took one picture of me on the floor holding up some of the less-interesting metallic debris. ("The Roswell Incident")

And then we have his statement in "For the Sake of my Country", implying he was somehow covering up (literally rather than metaphorically) the debris in the photographs:

What you see there is nothing but a piece of brown paper that I put over so that the news media couldn't get a picture of what I had...I was covering it up, yeah.

The latter all seems a bit convoluted.

Haut's original affidavit (not the later one in which he alleged all kinds of stuff) also said that Marcel told him in 1980 the debris in Ramey's office was switched. But this is, like so much else in this case, second hand.
 
The whole Roswell 'legend' does appear to be strongly predicated on the idea that as people get older and closer to death, they somehow become more truthful regarding events many years in the past.

In reality people's stories change quite a lot over time. The historian Alistair Thompson did some excellent work with elderly Australian Great War veterans showing that they gradually modified their personal memories as they told and retold stories, and even changed them in response to external cultural sources such as Peter Weir's film "Gallipoli".

I believe that any recollections post dating the publication of 'The Roswell Incident' should be viewed with caution due to this process.
 
However this story is sourced to their interview with Walter Haut, not Marcel himself. Marcel did directly make various odd claims that only the "less interesting" debris was shown.
This seems to be the earliest, related source:

1993 affidavit of Walter Haut

"In 1980, Jesse Marcel told me that the material photographed in Gen. Ramey's office was not the material he had recovered".

Going back to the point I was emphasising, Marcel reportedly does not claim the debris was bogus, simply that it was not the material he personally collected.
 
After all these years, the Roswell Crash has more moving parts than a plane.
In essence. :twothumbs:

You can pick and choose whatever.... etc.

Could make a convincing case, either way. :)

What might be overlooked, is that if Brazel did come across our wreckage so far back as 14 June, 1947, then this was effectively the first 'encounter', predating Arnold's report.

There was also unlikely to be any mechanism in place for a 'cover-up' circa 8 July, 1947, as Arnold's 'flying disk/saucer' account had only occured some 15 days previously and subject to ridicule, notably before 8 July - as previously highlighted - by General Ramey himself.
 
From an archive video:

"The newsmen saw very little of that material, very small portion of it...'"

This would seem to be Marcel confirming the debris photographed was genuine.

At 39 minutes into the video...

UFOs Are Real (1979)

 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
This seems to be the earliest, related source:

1993 affidavit of Walter Haut

"In 1980, Jesse Marcel told me that the material photographed in Gen. Ramey's office was not the material he had recovered".

Going back to the point I was emphasising, Marcel reportedly does not claim the debris was bogus, simply that it was not the material he personally collected.

It seems to me that people have spun the wording in Haut's original statement, which as you note is entirely consistent with Marcel saying that Ramey only displayed some of the 'less interesting' material. It was genuine debris, just not the particular items of debris that happened to stick in his mind (or perhaps was stuff that Cavitt, who from the start thought it looked like "somebody had lost a balloon", had picked up).

Who was the originator of the "debris switch" claim and who did they attribute it to? Was it to Haut's original affidavit I wonder?
 
Hold on, here is how Tim Printy relates it:

Marcel said that he had brought it to Ramey's office, where the general examined it and then decided that he wanted to see exactly where the object crashed. Marcel and Ramey left for the map room and while they were gone, someone carried the wreckage out, replacing it with the weather balloon long before any reporters were allowed into the office. (Randle and Schmitt UFO 75-76)

This piece of information comes from Walter Haut, who was not there. This version is based on what Haut heard Jesse tell him after the book, The Roswell Incident, was published. It is in contradiction with much of what Jesse stated in his interviews. Amazingly, none of the interviewers asked Jesse who actually switched the debris and how it was done. This is why Randle and Schmitt use a second hand source to provide us with these important details"

So..."based on what Haut heard Jesse tell him" following the 1979 publication of The Roswell Incident , i.e. in 1980. So maybe the source is actually the affidavit, and the origin of the whole 'debris switch' story is Randle and Schmitt's biased interpretation of the phrase "Jesse Marcel told me that the material photographed in Gen. Ramey's office was not the material he had recovered"?
 
So maybe the source is actually the affidavit, and the origin of the whole 'debris switch' story is Randle and Schmitt's biased interpretation of the phrase "Jesse Marcel told me that the material photographed in Gen. Ramey's office was not the material he had recovered"?

68ecf453dcb4137d2b6052bed5e99586.jpg


I concur. :cool:

Marcel unequivocally states the debris he was photographed with, was only a portion of same recovered.

That is all it needs to be, for categorical proof this was our 'flying saucer' wreckage.
 
Hold on, here is how Tim Printy relates it:
Such a crucial piece of the proverbial jigsaw you have highlighted.

So.... is that it then?

Any evidence which dispels the fact how Marcel, on video, in 1979, confirms the material he was photographed with, exhibited a portion of the recovered debris?
 
The missing piece of the Roswell Crash that never made any sense.

Roswell mortician, Glenn Dennis, supposedly was the best of friends with the base nurse with the dead aliens.

This nurse drew pictures of the dead aliens for Glenn and described to Glenn their physical shape and a toxic smell coming from their dead bodies.

Glenn never revealed her name to anyone and supposedly learned that this particular nurse was reassigned immediately.

Glenn always swore that for years he searched for this particular nurse and supposedly never gave her name to researchers Kevin Randle or Stanton Friedman who claimed they desperately needed her name for their books they were writing.

For me this is a real conundrum !
 
I am not sure, but I assume you are saying the Roswell Crash never happened and this was a conspiracy for book writers to sell books.
 
A surprising fact is that Glenn Dennis built the Roswell UFO Museum in 1991 and devoted the rest of his life supposedly in UFO research to prove that UFOs are real.
 
He seems to have attempted to 'prove' the reality of UFOs by lying, and lying, and lying.
Here are some of his apparent lies, exposed by Kevin Randle.
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2020/04/glenn-dennis-lies.html
He told a wonderful story about someone at the base ordering child-size coffins and later meeting with a nurse who told him about the alien creatures. She provided a drawing to show him what they looked like and then burned it. Dennis said that she was killed in an aircraft accident sometime after she was transferred from Roswell.
As many of you already know, there were no nurses killed in an aircraft accident as Dennis had described which seems to be the first lie. He gave a name for the nurse, but there is no evidence that a nurse with that name ever served in the Army or in Roswell, which would be the second lie. Confronted with this fact, he changed the name of the nurse and then blamed us, UFO researchers, for getting the information wrong, which would be the third and fourth lies. He then gave us a new name for the nurse, which would be the fifth lie. It was at this point that I decided that the Dennis tale was bogus.
You can't really prove something by lying about it.
 
The big problem with Dennis is that he seems to have incorporated, consciously or otherwise, elements of real experiences into a tall tale. The 1990s USAF investigation into Roswell identified this, particularly the fact that some details of his 'Naomi Selff' / dead occupants story appear to be based on a 1950s bomber crash near the base - something the investigators found profoundly disrespectful.
 
Obviously something happened in Roswell in 1947, but it seems from your posts that Glenn Dennis is not telling the truth.

It seems we have recycled back to the beginning still as confused as ever about the Roswell Crash.
 
It seems we have recycled back to the beginning still as confused as ever about the Roswell Crash.
Marcel unequivocally confirming in the 1979 interview, that the debris he was photographed with came from the wreckage, is proof of the explanation.

Everything else is seemingly our proverbial 'smoke and mirrors'.

Whilst the case for ET visitation does not need 'Roswell' to survive, our seminal case will always be contentious.

And for good reason; such as Haut's 'deathbed confession', remaining somewhat puzzling.
 
I always contend that the Army Air Force started the whole Roswell UFO “flap”which is always the biggest puzzle of it all.

It was not started by civilians.
 
Marcel unequivocally confirming in the 1979 interview, that the debris he was photographed with came from the wreckage, is proof of the explanation.

Everything else is seemingly our proverbial 'smoke and mirrors'.

Whilst the case for ET visitation does not need 'Roswell' to survive, our seminal case will always be contentious.

And for good reason; such as Haut's 'deathbed confession', remaining somewhat puzzling.

I'm not sure it's 'puzzling' as such. Would you rather be remembered by posterity as:

a) a minor footnote in a nearly forgotten, but nevertheless embarrassing, administrative foul-up

b) a key part of one of the century's most compelling mysteries

Thought of in this sense, the actions of Haut and Marcel become more understandable from a human perspective. Indeed, you can even see the grounds for a subconscious effort to recast or reinterpret their own memories.

People like Cavitt, who saw it as nothing from the start, were not so invested.
 
I always contend that the Army Air Force started the whole Roswell UFO “flap”which is always the biggest puzzle of it all.
It was not started by civilians.

How do you get to that conclusion? Are you saying the whole Mack Brazel debris stuff was a USAAF hoax from the beginning?
 
Back
Top