Imprimer

Merci de vous connecter ou de vous inscrire.
1 heure 1 jour 1 semaine 1 mois Toujours
Connexion avec identifiant, mot de passe et durée de la session

Loading

[ufopas]

Moi, ce que je ne comprends pas dans cette histoire de Roswell, c'est le 1er communiqué de l'armée.

Celle-ci annonce donc avoir récupéré une soucoupe volante, mais pour en fait cacher qu'elle a récupéré une soucoupe volante.
Totalement illogique.

Ah mais non, en fait, elle annonce publiquement qu'elle a bien récupéré une soucoupe volante.
Encore plus illogique, car immédiatement cet événement serait devenu ultra top secret et personne n'en aurait jamais rien su.

Oui mais, des fuites commençaient à se répandrent.
Et alors, l'armée avait tout loisir de boucler la zone, nettoyer le terrain et seulement après faire un communiqué:
"Effectivement un objet c'est bien crashé près de Roswell, il s'agit d'un ballon météo."

Donc si l'armée a parlé de soucoupe volante, c'était bien pour cacher quelque chose de très important ... à l'époque.

Je pense qu'ils s'en mordent les doigts, maintenant, d'avoir balancé ce premier communiqué, vu le barouf que ça a fait 

[titilapin2]

Un bonheur de vous voir répondre sur ce sujet qui vous passionne Mr Bourdais


http://bourdais.blogspot.com

Pour les fans, le dernier billet de Mr Bourdais avec la suite à lire sur son blog:

JEUDI 13 AOÛT 2009
Le crash de Roswell, confirmé par de nouveaux témoins


Gildas Bourdais, mise à jour, Août 2009


Depuis la parution en 2004 de mon livre Roswell. Enquêtes, secret et désinformation, le dossier s’est enrichi de nouveaux témoignages qui permettent de cerner de plus près le déroulement de l’événement, au cours des premiers jours de juillet 1947. Une étape importante dans cette voie a été le livre de Tom Carey et Donald Schmitt, Witness to Roswell, paru en juin 2007, auquel s’ajoutent d’autres sources, notamment les livres de Kevin Randle et du Dr Marcel Jr. Carey et Schmitt ont proposé dans leur livre un nouveau film des événements (« time line »), qui représente un gros progrès par rapport aux ouvrages précédents, mais qui comporte encore, à mon avis, quelques difficultés. J’en ai discuté avec les auteurs, et je leur ai suggéré de légères modifications, tenant mieux compte des témoignages. Donald Schmitt a fini par me dire, en septembre 2008, son accord sur mes suggestions. C’est ce scénario remanié que j’ai retenu dans la nouvelle édition de mon livre, publié en février 2009 sous le titre Le crash de Roswell. Enquête inédite (JMG, Le Temps Présent).



 

La suite (longue) sur son blog

[gildas bourdais]

Bonsoir,

Merci à ceux qui m'accueillent ici.
Le communiqué de presse de la base de Roswell, anonçant la découverte d'un "disque volant" (c'était l'une des expressions de l'époque, plus "sérieuse" que "soucoupe volante" lancée dans les journaux), était une véritable bombe, dans le contexte de la vague d'observations qui se multipliaient depuis l'observation de Kenneth Arnold en juin.
Il est très surprenant qu'une telle découverte ait été aussitôt annoncée. C'était, à premire vue, totalement contraire au comportement normal de militaires, en particuier ceux de la base de Roswell, où régnait une discipline particulièrement stricte, comme me l'a expliqué Walter Haut. J'ai proposé une exlication de ce paradoxe dans mon livre "Le crash de Roswell", et je l'ai résumée sur mon blog (bourdais.blogspot.com). Voir l'article, que je viens de mettre à jour :"Le crash de Roswell, confirmé par de nouveaux témoins".

En bref, je suppose que ce fut une opération de contrôle de risque, car ils s'étaient rendus compte du risque assez élevé que le secret de la découverte leur échappe. La nouvelle commençait à circuler, et des gens avaient déjà ramassé des débris. Dans ce cas, le communiqué leur permettrait de faire "bonne figure", tout en permettant peut-être de cacher l'essentiel : ovni et cadavres.  Circulez, il n'y a plus rien à voir ! Mais dès qu'ils eurent pris contrôle des trois sites,  il devenait possible de démentir la nouvelle, et c'est bien ce qui fut fait, avec beaucoup de maîtrise, d'ailleurs. Ce n'était rien, juste un  ballon météo !
Quant aux ballons Mogul, un ballon ou vingt ballons, c'est la même chose. Le GAO a fait savoir, discrètement, qu'il  n'étaitpas dupe.
Cordialement,
Gildas Bourdais

[elevenaugust]

Bienvenue sur le forum, Mr Bourdais, vous êtes ici chez vous! et merci pour ces précisions.

[Peter Pan]

Je note que je chercherai une trace de l'équipe des étudiants en archéologie qui est mentionnée par Vern Maltais pour avoir rencontré Barney Barnett au pied de l'appareil crashé.

[dificultnspa]

dchieftain.com

Prominent Tech professor Charles Moore dies
           
Written by Kathleen Hedges   
Wednesday, 10 March 2010 06:00

Charles B. Moore, renowned researcher on atmospheric physics, passed away on Tuesday, March 2, in Socorro.

...

Project Mogul involved launching balloons to carry microphones up to the base of the stratosphere, where the temperature of the atmosphere is highly effective at refracting sound waves. At the time, 1947, the United States was concerned with listening for nuclear testing by other countries, especially the Soviet Union, so the microphone-bearing balloons were launched to listen for the sounds.

The experiment succeeded in detecting U.S. nuclear tests in the South Pacific, 6,000 miles away, but it also added an important footnote to American cultural history. A balloon launched by Moore in June 1947, later proved to be the item that is enshrined at Roswell as a "UFO." Moore didn't realize the part he had played in the drama until he happened to see a newspaper picture of the pieces of the "UFO" in the 1990s.

Moore was considered a pioneer in the development and testing of modern polyethylene balloons as atmospheric research tools. In 1947, he made the first flight in a such a balloon, and in a later test, he made a 24-hour balloon flight from Minneapolis to New Jersey. In 1957, he made a record-breaking flight to the altitude of 82,000 feet in a pressurized balloon gondola, with Commander Malcolm D. Ross. During this flight, he made the first measurements which discovered traces of water vapor in the atmosphere of Venus.


...

[dificultnspa]

Un regard neutre sur Roswell – partie 1

Kevin Randle nous propose d'aborder l'évènement de Roswell sans aucun parti pris entre ceux qui veulent y croire et ceux qui sont certains qu'il ne s'est rien passé d'extraordinaire. Cette première partie relate une partie des faits qui se sont passés en 1947 et les différences de positions entre les deux factions :

Roswell Daily Record du 8 et 9 Juillet 1947   

   
J'avais posté une notice nécrologique sur Charles Moore parce qu'il avait un lien avec le phénomène Ovni et le paranormal. Mon intention était de signaler sa disparition et non pas de commenter ses croyances sur le crash de Roswell, ni même de générer une longue discussion sur le sujet (Ce qui est le cas jusqu'à présent).

Permettez-moi de dire que je suis souvent étonné par la facilité qu'ont les sceptiques et les croyants d'ignorer les preuves et de passer outre.

Ils citeront l'article du 9 Juillet 1947, du "Roswell Daily Record" dans lequel Mack Brazel racontait qu’il avait ramassé un tas de débris d'apparence très fragile. Dans cette histoire, on ne cite pas Brazel avec exactitude, "Quand les débris ont été ramassés, le papier d'aluminium, le ruban et les baguettes, cela représentait un tas d'environ 1 mètre de long sur 20 centimètres d'épaisseur, tandis que le caoutchouc faisait un autre tas d'environ 50 centimètres de long sur près de 20 centimètres. En tout le lot entier aurait pesé près de 2.5 kg."

Suivant l'exemple de Feu Phil Klass, les sceptiques laisseront souvent entendre que c'est plutôt léger comme matériel pour faire partie d'un vaisseau extraterrestre.

Les partisans de l'explication extraterrestre, quant à eux, citeront ce même article en soulignant que Mack Brazel avait dit avoir trouvé 2 autres ballons d'observation météo sur le ranch, mais que cette fois-ci, ce qu'il avait trouvé ne leur ressemblait en rien.
L'article se termine par une citation. Brazel dit: "Je suis sûr que ce que j'ai trouvé n'était pas un ballon d'observation météo... mais si je trouve autre chose en dehors d'une bombe, ils auront du mal à me faire dire quelque chose."

      
Mack Brazel

Ce que nous voyons dans ce seul article c’est une information qui soutient les arguments des deux factions. C’était fragile et probablement un ballon, mais le témoin a dit qu'il savait à quoi ressemblait les ballons et que ce n'en était pas un.

Comment réconcilier les deux points de vue ? La réponse est évidente pour moi, mais je vais vous laisser tirer vos conclusions et je continue.
            
Voyons de plus près le rapport que Charles Moore a écrit sur le ballon Mogul du vol n°4. En utilisant les données sur les vents d’altitude que je lui ai fourni, le journal du Dr Albert Crary qui couvrait les événements du Nouveau-Mexique et ses anciens souvenirs, il pense que le vol n°4 se dirigeait vers le nord-est, près d’Arabela au Nouveau Mexique, quand ils ont perdu sa trace.

Mogul au sol

Mogul en vol

Ses calculs le situeraient à 27 kms du ranch de Brazel (Foster), c’est pour lui la preuve que ce qui a été découvert par Brazel et qui a dupé le Major Jesse Marcel était bien un de ces ballons.

David Rudiak a suggéré, dans un langage plutôt agressif, que les calculs de Moore étaient erronés et que les calculs mathématiques pourraient avoir été manipulés de manière à fournir à Moore le résultat désiré.

Rudiak, aidé de Brad Sparks, a retravaillé sur les chiffres et est parvenu à une conclusion différente. Ils disent que les prévisions de vol du Mogul étaient loin d'approcher le ranch Brazel (Notons que les 27 km suggérés par Moore ne sont pas si proche).
Le facteur qui n'est pas souvent mentionné c’est que les données des vents en haute altitude utilisées pour les prévisions ont été recueillies de façon assez sporadique en 1947 et seulement jusqu'à 6000 mètres. Toute déduction concernant les vents au-dessus de ce niveau serait spéculative, de plus les vols de Mogul furent conçus pour voler à des niveaux beaucoup plus élevés.

Un autre facteur qui n'est que rarement mentionné est que les données sur les vents de haute altitude n'ont pas été recueillies à Alamogordo, base de départ du projet Mogul au Nouveau-Mexique. Les vents d’altitude sont déduits de données provenant de Tucson, El Paso, Albuquerque et Roswell.

      
David Rudiak

Bien qu'il soit possible d'être assez précis en utilisant ces données, il est également possible d'être sacrément dans l'erreur, surtout quand les données complètes n'existent pas.

La partie de ces arguments qui continuent de m'étonner, c'est que d'un côté on critique vertement la mémoire de Major Jesse Marcel Sr, parce que ses souvenirs dataient de plusieurs décennies lorsqu'il a raconté son histoire aux chercheurs. Alors que d'autre part, ces mêmes personnes acceptent les souvenirs de Charles Moore, alors que ceux-ci sont encore plus anciens à l'époque où il a commencé à faire des commentaires sur le cas de Roswell. Ajoutons que les-dits souvenirs devaient s'être estompés par le temps écoulés et être teintés, au moment de son récit, par toute l'information diffusée sur le cas. Ce fut très clair lors des discussions que nous avions entretenues ensemble à Socorro.

Jesse Marcel montre les débris d'un ballon sonde   

Moore raconte qu'il se souvenait de la zone dans lequel le ballon a disparu près d’Arabela et c’est accepté comme une vérité. Il me raconta qu'il avait été fasciné par ces noms de lieux exotiques ... Arabela, Carazozo, Cap Rock, Tularosa, si bien qu'il se souvenait de ces choses. Mais se souvenir d'un vol de ballon près d’Arabela n'est pas la même chose que de se rappeler qu’il a disparu quelque part dans les environs, surtout quand il s'agissait d'un programme de vol pisté se dirigeant vers Arabela.

Tout cela me fait dire qu’il existe des preuves pour les deux parties opposées dans ce seul article publié dans le "Roswell Daily Record", mais aucun des deux n'est disposé à écouter l'autre. Chacun semble ignorer les éléments qui ne correspondent pas à son point de vue.
La description de Brazel relève que c'était quelque chose de fragile, suggérant que c'était un ballon, cependant il dit que ce n'était pas un ballon météo. L'histoire semble indiquer que tout fut récupéré mais il est mentionné que Jesse Marcel en ramena plus que ça.

Ensuite nous avons Moore qui, avec l'aide de certaines données, extrapole la direction et la vitesse du vent au-dessus des niveaux pour lesquels les données existent et certains acceptent cela comme la preuve finale. ils rejettent toute autre information pour la seule raison qu'elle modifierait leur vision des choses alors que d’autres ont soulevé des questions légitimes.

      
Charles Moore

Je ne peux dois pas oublier non plus que les partisans rejettent les travaux de Moore suggérant que le ballon ait pu dériver vers le ranch. Au lieu de cela ils s’attaquent au personnage, ce qui n'est pas honnête... et oui, je sais que Phil Klass est célèbre pour s’attaquer au caractère de ceux avec qui il est en désaccord, ce qui prouve mon point de vue ici.

Site du crash de Roswell - Cliquez pour agrandir   

   
Nous nous retrouvons avec des gens qui ne veulent pas examiner les preuves quelles que soient ces preuves. Ils choisissent la partie qui s'intègre à leur point de vue sur l'affaire et ignorent les autres. Ils crient qu'ils détiennent la vérité, mais ils n'ont que rarement le recul nécessaire pour avoir une vue d'ensemble.

Et dans ce cas, cette vision d'ensemble serait empreinte de toutes les contradictions présentes dans l'article du 9 juillet. Comment se fait-il que les deux factions parviennent à citer la même source sans comprendre qu'il y a quelque chose de fondamentalement faussé dans cela ? Comment un seul article peut-il donner raison à tout le monde sans répondre à une seule question ?

Comment une faction peut-elle critiquer la documentation sans comprendre qu'elle ne contient pas les réponses ? Comment 2 groupes différents qui utilisent les mêmes données parviennent à des conclusions différentes ? Je connais la réponse mais c'est une question de rhétorique.
 

Témoignage de Mack Brazel dans le Roswell Daily Record

Rien de positif ne sera accompli jusqu'à ce que les deux factions se rendent compte que chacune d'entre elle possède les preuves avec des points de vue différents. Rien ne sera gagné tant que les deux parties ne se rendront pas compte que les preuves sont contradictoires et qu’il y a une raison principale à cela. Nous ne saurons pas ce qui s'est passé jusqu'à ce que nous regardions au-delà de nos propres croyances aveugles et jusqu'à ce que nous élargissions notre point de vue vers une vision d'ensemble. Source

[dificultnspa]

Un regard neutre sur Roswell – partie 2

Hier, nous avons publié un premier article concernant l'approche neutre qu'a voulu Kevin Randle à propos de l'affaire de Roswell. Malgré cette "réserve" il y eut énormément de commentaires qui ont suivi son article et Kevin Randle a estimé qu’il lui fallait à nouveau intervenir pour clarifier certains points. Voici ce qu’il en pense :

      
Maggie & Mack Brazel en 1951

"Alors que le débat fait rage depuis ma précédente annonce et que nous en sommes à plus de 300 commentaires sur le sujet, il y a eu une discussion dans tout ce débat qui démontre un point d'origine nécessitant un éclaircissement .

J'avais suggéré que nous examinions les preuves d’une façon neutre.

Au lieu de cela, dans certains cas, c’est devenu un rejet des preuves à cause de la conviction que de telles choses ne pourraient pas se produire.

Certains sceptiques ont rejeté l'idée que Mack Brazel avait été retenu par les autorités militaires pendant près d’une semaine. Christopher Allan écrit, par exemple :

Karl Pflock

      
"Karl Pflock en vint à la question de Brazel dans son livre, p.169-171. Il a conclu qu'il semblait très douteux qu’une telle incarcération ait lieu. Mais Easel insistera pour dire que ce fut le cas. Ciel, pourquoi ont-ils eu besoin de le retenir une semaine entière ?"

"S’ils étaient déterminés à le faire taire, ils auraient pu le faire en 2 heures en lui faisant signer, dès le 8 Juillet, un serment pour qu'il garde le secret. Cela suppose que l'affaire était déjà classée Top Secret. Dans ce cas, il n'aurait pas été autorisé à donner son interview au "Roswell Daily Record" plus tard ce jour-là."

Mais Karl Pflock n'est pas l’autorité absolue en la matière car, en fait, il a rejeté certaines données simplement parce qu'elles n'étaient pas à son goût. Qu'il soit en accord avec l'attitude des sceptiques ne fait aucun doute. Examinons quelques-uns des faits.

Karl a souligné que je n'avais pas enregistré la conversation avec Easley, ce qui est la vérité. Mais j'ai mes notes écrites à l'époque, ce qui signifie que je parlais bien à Easley. Il déclare, à propos de Brazel (citant mes notes reproduites ci-dessous), "l'a emmené à la base ... lui a parlé pendant plusieurs jours ... pas impliqué là dedans (Easley disant qu'il n'était pas présent lors de l'interrogatoire). Brazel à la maison des invités."

C’était, bien sûr, le policier supérieur, le "top cop" de la base de Roswell et il n'avait jamais été interrogé par qui que ce soit jusqu'à ce que je lui parle. Il a été prudent dans ce tout ce qu'il a raconté parce que, comme il me l'a dit à plusieurs reprises : "Je suis tenu au serment de garder le secret." (Qui sera un argument pour plus tard et j'en possède l'enregistrement.)

      
Major Edwin Easley

J'ajoute en passant que Pflock m’a traité de menteur à propos de ce témoignage. Certes, je souhaiterais sincèrement l'avoir sur bande, mais cela ne change rien au fait que Easley m’a dit que j'avais été le premier et, autant que je sache, le seul chercheur, à lui avoir parlé... Karl ne peut rien présenter pour réfuter ce témoignage hormis le fait de dire que celui-ci n'était pas sur la bande... tout comme certaines des interviews qu’il a réalisées mais dont il raconte qu'il les a rapportées avec précision.

Note sur Easley      

Nous devrions alors rejeter ce que dit Bill Brazel qui, après avoir lu les histoires de son père dans les journaux, est allé à son ranch pour l'aider. Mack fut de retour deux ou trois jours après que Bill soit arrivé sur place.

Ce témoignage provient de Brazel en 1989 au cours de mon premier entretien avec lui.

De même nous devrions rejeter Marian Strickland qui a raconté sur une bande vidéo (enregistrement fait en 1990) que Mack était assis dans sa cuisine et se plaignait d'avoir été retenu à Roswell. Lyman Strickland a également raconté cela, mais pas à moi. Il était mort avant que je ne vienne à Roswell.

Ensuite, nous rejetons ce que Loretta Proctor nous dit à propos de Brazel qui se rendait à Roswell...

Ainsi que le témoignage de plusieurs autres personnes qui l'ont vu en ville, y compris Floyd Proctor ou même Walt Whitmore, Jr., qui dit avoir vu Brazel dans la maison de son père, sans oublier de dire qu’il s’est aussi rendu au bureau du journal local le 8 juillet pour y donner son interview. Cela, je le souligne encore une fois, montre que Brazel était bien à Roswell après sa visite initiale.

Floyd Proctor raconta à Bill Moore, cela est rapporté tel quel dans "L'Incident de Roswell", avoir vu Brazel escorté par des militaires dans le centre ville de Roswell.   

   
Floyd & Loretta Proctor

Maintenant, étant donné ce que Bill Moore décrit dans son livre comme étant "un méli-mélo scandaleux de faits et de fictions" et étant donné que nous l’avons vu manipuler les témoignages pour les adapter à sa vision des événements, les sceptiques seraient bien en droit de rejeter les déclarations attribuées à Floyd Proctor. Et si Proctor était le seul à soutenir cela, je les rejetterai également.

Roswell Daily Record du 9 Juillet   

   
Toutefois, je sais que certains des témoignages rapportés dans "The Roswell Incident" sont exacts parce que les témoins m'ont raconté la même chose.

De plus Loretta m’a confirmé ce qu’a dit son mari. Alors nous pouvons suggérer que ce témoignage est exact, si nous le voulons.

Nous pourrions attribuer moins de poids à celui-ci que ceux donnés par d'autres témoins ou rapportés par d'autres écrivains, mais il a quand même une certaine valeur dans la compréhension globale de l'affaire Roswell.

Franck Joyce   

Nous n'acceptons pas non plus le témoignage des amis de Brazel, Leonard Porter et Bill Jenkins, qui ont raconté que Brazel était sous escorte militaire.
Et nous rejetons l'histoire racontée par Frank Joyce au sujet de la visite que lui rendit Brazel à la radio KGFL de Roswell après qu'il soit allé au bureau du journal local. Brazel raconta à Joyce qu'on lui avait ordonné de raconter une nouvelle fable ou cela irait très mal pour lui. Nous rejetons tout cela parce que l’histoire de Joyce aurait pris trop d’ampleur au fil des ans ...

Toutefois, lors de ma première entrevue avec Joyce, il m'a précisé qu'il y avait des choses qu'il savait et qu'il n'avait jamais dites à personne. En fait, il m'a montré une lettre oblitérée par la poste, qu'il s’était envoyée, afin qu'il puisse vérifier qu'il n'avait "rien oublié", et n'avait pas embelli son récit par la suite pour son propre compte... Mais rejetons cela de toute façon.      

KGFL radio

      
Nous acceptons ce que Bessie, la fille de Mack Brazel, nous raconte, malgré le fait qu'elle dise avoir accompagné son père à Roswell lors de son premier trajet mais ne se souvient pas si l'armée escortait son père (ce qui est assez bien documenté)...

Ce que je veux dire, c'est que même Cavitt a admis qu'il était allé au ranch, ce qui est, bien sûr, en contradiction directe avec ce qu’elle dit. Elle a dit aussi que son père n’était pas retourné à Roswell, même si cela est également bien documenté. Elle raconte qu'aucun militaire n’était venu dans le ranch.

Elle a également dit qu'elle savait que ce n’était qu’un ballon quand ils ont réuni tout les débris, ne laissant rien dans le champ que Cavitt et Marcel auraient pu voir.

Ramey & DuBose montrent les debris

Il me semble que si une jeune fille de 14 ans pouvait identifier tout ceci comme un ballon, alors pourquoi Jesse Marcel, un adulte ayant une intelligence aiguisée, n’a pas reconnu cela dès le premier coup d’œil... mais je m'écarte du sujet.
Cela signifie donc que nous rejetons toutes les preuves provenant de plusieurs sources différentes, y compris des documents et des témoignages qui ne cadrent pas avec notre propre point de vue et nous acceptons les déclarations d'une seule source, même lorsque celle-ci est contredite par des documents, et c’est le cas.

Sans oublier que Bessie Brazel a répudié son témoignage. Elle raconte qu’elle a mélangé les évènements de 1947 avec quelque chose qui s'est passé quelques années plus tard.

Ainsi, en dépit de ses hésitations, son histoire suggérant que c'était un simple ballon et rien d’autre, est considérée comme la seule vérité par certains, par conséquent tous les autres ont tord.      
 

Telex de Roswell - Cliquez pour agrandir   

   
Et maintenant quand j'entends à nouveau comment Karl Pflock réfute l'idée que Brazel se soit rendu à Roswell... Les preuves nous montrent qu'il y est allé. Point barre.

Le temps qu'il y a passé est basé sur une estimation de ce que Bill nous dit.

Il est arrivé au ranch deux ou trois jours après que son père soit parti et celui-ci n’est revenu que deux ou trois jours plus tard. C'est donc entre quatre à six ou sept jours si l'on se base sur les dires de l’homme qui devrait être au courant.

Ces points précis seraient des faits et non, ils ne mènent pas aux extraterrestres, mais suggèrent que quelque chose s’est passé et ce quelque chose sortait de l'ordinaire. Ce qui est débattu ici montre que les sceptiques ont complètement tort sur ce point. Il va être intéressant de voir s’ils vont tenter de retourner cela en leur faveur d'une manière ou d’une autre. Source

[Pita]

Je connais la réponse mais c'est une question de rhétorique.

Pour mercredi !

Longue vie à toi Ô Dificultsnpa ! Vivement mercredi !

tant qu'à faire, longue vie à moi aussi si je veux lire la suite de ce passionant sujet...

[Diouf]

Ces mises au point  sont intéressantes ! et pour avoir une idée de la confusion qui régnait dans cette petite ville, chez les pompiers et au poste de police voir  ici.

[dificultnspa]

theufochronicles.com

Roswell Debunker Charles B. Moore Had a UFO Sighting of His Own

kevinrandle.blogspot.com

The Alien Autopsy is a HOAX


Over at UFO UpDates, Errol Bruce Knapp has just ended another in the long and useless conversations about the Alien Autopsy film. I believe his thinking was that nothing new was being added to the already tedious discussion.

He was right... because it is clear to anyone who has paid attention during the last couple of years, that the autopsy film was a hoax. Although some of those involved in the hoax suggest it wasn’t for money or fame but just something interesting to do, the real point is that it was a HOAX.

Yes, there are those who still insist the film is real and all you have to do, according to them, is study the film frame by frame, pay attention to the cameraman’s directions so that you can travel to the actual crash site, and review the analysis of some of the minerals picked up there. If you do, you will know that the alien autopsy is something real, at least in their fevered brains.

I’m going to mention something here that the believers of the autopsy might not realize. There is no cameraman. Never was. The interview offered with him, or rather the transcript of that interview, was filled with British terminology. Had the man been an American soldier as alleged, then the words used to described his military service would have been different. When all that was pointed out, the transcript was changed. That should have raised a red flag.

Second, when some markings suggesting a high classification were seen on the film canisters, many realized they were not real. When that was pointed out, the classification markings disappeared and that should have raised a red flag.

Third, the man who presented the film to the world, Ray Santilli, said in an interview that the tent footage, which was dark and nearly impossible to see, had been "recreated" from the real thing. In other, more precise words, it had been faked and that should have sent up sky rockets trailing red flags.

Finally, those who participated in many of the other autopsy footage segments have been identified and confirmed their role in the hoax. Philip Mantle, a British UFO researcher who had been studying the film from almost the moment that the film became known, wrote an article for the CUFOS International UFO Reporter that detailed the whole story.

Mantle interview Spyros Melaris, who said that he was one of the principals in the creation of the film. A transcript of that interview was published, online at www.outtahear.com/beyond_updates/autopsy.html.

In short, what it is, is the confession of Melaris on how he became involved, how the segments were created, and who was responsible for what. In other words, those who participated in the hoax have "confessed" their roles in it. Of course, for the true believers, this is just a scam to discredit the film.

In the interview published in IUR is a short segment called, "The Wreckage and I-Beams." I found it interesting because I had spotted an English word on one of those beams. Mantle explained:

Melaris created the "alien writing" from Greek lettering, ancient Egyptian stylizing, and his own artistic license. (Humpreys then manufactured the wreckage.) The writing on the main large beam, if translated correctly, reads "Freedom." He thought this a fitting name for an alien spacecraft. While designing the letters that spell Freedom, Melaris noticed that if the word is turned upside down, the word "Video" could be discerned. He adjusted some of the letters to better facilitate this reading, so the piece would throw a little red herring into the mix.

It would seem to me that the appearance of an English word, one referring to the medium that would tell the world of the find, is too big a coincidence. Would anything in an alien language and writing show an English word, especially one that suggested video?

So, the cameraman didn’t exist (and if he had, his identity would have been immediately known to any authorities who wished to arrest him for unauthorized release of classified material) and Santilli never produced him for interviews as promised. The number of reels of film changed frequently and when markings or part of the story were found wanting, they were changed as well. There was no real provenance for the film which screamed fake from the very beginning. And if that wasn’t enough, Santilli, said that the tent footage was faked and now we have another participant telling us that the other scenes were faked. Isn’t that enough to end the discussion?

I sincerely hope that this is the last time we need to address the alien autopsy nonsense. It is a hoax, an admitted hoax and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. I am astonished that there are still some who believe it to be real, and that explains why we just never get anywhere. No matter what the evidence, no matter what is known, there are some who refuse to acknowledge it.

[dificultnspa]

ufodigest.com
modération : page non trouvée

trad google

THE "OTHER" ROSWELL CRASH: The Secret of the Plains            


Written by Anthony Bragalia   
Monday, 17 May 2010 17:23

Evidence now suggests that when we think of the "Roswell UFO crash" that we should not just think of crash sites that were located within relatively close proximity to one another. We should also consider a possibly related site located much farther away - within West Central New Mexico. It is a highly significant site for it is there where it was reported that the corpses of interplanetary pilots were found.



A boost has now been given to the credibilty of the famous but contentious "Barney Barnett" story of a UFO crash in New Mexico's "Plains of San Augustin" region. Fresh evidence supporting this event comes from:

? A recent interview with a decorated Colonel about his talk with witness Barney Barnett
? A possible confirmaton of Barney Barnett's encounter by Intelligence Agent and Roswell witness Jesse Marcel Sr.
? Telling information about another crash site with bodies, provided by Jesse Marcel's Sr.'s daughter-in-law to this author.
? The stunning discovery of a Harvard University document about archaeologists at the scene of the reported crash. The document exposes the archaeologist who is now found to have lied to researchers that he was not there and that he had seen nothing.

Considered together, this information points to another crash event that may have in some way been associated with the Roswell incident. But this site may be of equal or greater interest and importance than the ones commonly discussed. This is because at this site a strange metallic disk was rested, cracked on a flat desert floor. Aside it and inside it were strewn the smallish bodies of the unearthly.


BRINGING BACK BARNEY


Barney Barnett

Grady L. "Barney" Barnett was highly-regarded as an official of long standing with the US Soil Conservation Service in New Mexico. His story was first related in the first book on Roswell, "The Roswell Incident" published in 1980 and authored by William Moore and Charles Berlitz, with the assistance of Stanton Friedman. Today the Barnett story remains largely ignored, forgotten or discredited as it does not neatly "fit" into the Roswell story and locations as told today.

Barnett had related to some friends that while out working on projects around the Plains of San Augustin (also spelled San Agustin) he had encountered a disk-shaped spaceship the color of dirty stainless steel, about twenty or thirty feet in diameter. While examining the disk, a small group of university research archaeologists on a dig had arrived and had also encountered the crash and corpses.

The bodies were entirely unlike anything that Barnett and his companions had ever seen. They had huge hairless heads and were outfitted in one-piece grayish suits with no belts or zippers. According to information provided by Barnett's friends and associates (who spoke publicly about the event after his death) soldiers then soon arrived. A cordon was put in place around the crash site and the civilians were admonished that it was their duty to country not to say anything to anyone of what they had seen.

Although the time frame of Barnett's encounter was similar to Roswell's, Barnett had placed his sighting of the downed craft and pilots over 200 miles from Roswell- in the "Plains of San Augustin" region of New Mexico. The machine was split open upon explosion or impact. Barnett got close enough to see what the creature pilots looked like, but he did not touch them. He said that there were like humans but not humans, small by our standards. They seemed to be males, and their were a number of them. The eyes were oddly spaced. Barnett told his friends that then military officers drove up to the scene and told the assembled to leave. They were escorted off of the site and were told to say nothing ever of what they had witnessed.

Barnett's story first came to light through researcher Stanton Friedman. After a talk Friedman had given at Bemidji State College in October, 1978 (before all of the Roswell books) he was approached by Vern Maltais and his wife Jean. The Maltais couple related to Friedman a story that they were told many years prior by one Grady "Barney" Barnett: A flying saucer had fallen and their friend confessed that he saw it.


BARNEY'S BELIEVABILITY & SUPPORT FOR HIS STORY


Barnett's Neighbor, Vern Maltais

Many people have spoken very well of Grady "Barney" Barnett, who died in 1969:


VERN & JEAN MALTAIS

Vern Maltais and his wife Jean say that in February of 1950, Barney told them a story about an incredible UFO crash event that had happened just "a few years prior" in the New Mexico desert. He provided to them details about his encounter, including viewing bodies that were not human. He said to Maltais that the bodies were very thin, three and a half to four feet tall and that there were four of them. Maltais also said that Barney spoke of arriving archaeologists to the crash scene.

Though an incredible story, they believed Barney. That is because they knew Barnett to be a believable man. And he was. He was a WW I Army Vet, later employed by the US Government in a responsible position performing inspection and field engineering services for many years. A church-going Presbyterian and Board Member of the Socorro Electric Co-op, he was highly regarded by those in his community. Lee Garner, a former Mayor of Socorro, speaks of Barney as a truthful and trustworthy man.


JAMES & BETH DANLEY

Barney's boss during the 1940s and 1950s was James "Fleck" Danley. Danley was on the Water Conservation Board in Magdalena, NM. Danley and Danley's wife Beth recall Barney fondly and favorably as well. But they go one step further and recall the time when Barney quietly told about the UFO crash, corroborating the Maltais couple's claim. Fleck explained in an interview in 1979 (again, before all of the Roswell books) that Barney had mentioned to him his witnessing of a crashed flying saucer. Some years later Fleck described Barney "one of the most honest men I ever knew. I never knew Barney to lie. Not about anything."


HOWARD BACA

Barney's neighbor and close friend Harold Baca also indicates that he too was privately related this crash story by Barney. Barney brought it up in connection with the cancer that he was battling in 1967. Barney told Baca about the crash from decades prior. He had expressed to Bace a concern: by bending over the debris and bodies, Barney was fearful that he may have inhaled something toxic while leaning over the crash site. He felt that it may have been related to the respiratory cancer he was currently suffering. Baca once asked Barney's wife about the crash site: "Was Barney hallucinating or what?" Ruth replied: "Oh no! It really happened there out on the Plains twenty years ago! But we just do not talk about it much anymore" Baca explains, "We had other things to do at that time. We were raising a family of four and I just didn't discuss it anymore with them. It wasn't until later on that I grasped what the man had seen. He died and I regretted not getting more information."


ALICE KNIGHT

Barney's niece, Alice Knight, is more specific about when the crash happened. She indicated that she has known of the crash that involved Barney for many, many decades. She states that she and her new husband John Braxton had visited Socorro and Uncle Barney on Thanksgiving in 1947. She said that the event had happened "only several months before" (likely the summer of that year) and that her Uncle was "still nervous" about the possibility of "military showing up." She thought he was "on a road near the Plains of San Augustin." She said that Barney had mentioned encountering "some folks on a dig" while at the crash site. We will soon see just who was there "on a dig" later in this article. Barney's niece also mentioned that her Aunt (Barney's wife Ruth) once confided to her about Barney: "After that thing in '47, Barney was not quite himself."

We are presented with Barney's boss, a close relative, a neighbor, and a friend who all independently tell the story of Barney's alien ordeal. Researcher Art Campbell wonders: "What factors but Barney's honesty and sincerity would compel Barney's friends and relatives to tell the same lifelong story without variance amid much inconvenience, with nothing to gain?"

Though Barney's wife Ruth maintained a diary, it does not mention this crash event, but it does confirm that Barney was out on the Plains on July 2 of 1947. Why this crash revelation was not mentioned in the diary is understandable. It is not something that you want to commit to print. It would be too incrimiminating. Putting it on paper would be risky. Alice Knight said that Barney and Ruth agreed to never write anything down about the event. Just like those at Roswell with no known diaries describing the crash event, the Barnett encounter would not be found in any diary. But some who were entrusted would be imparted this information. It was told to only a very few - to those who would only relate what they knew when Barney himself was dead.


A COLONEL'S CONFIRMATION: BARNEY TOLD THE TRUTH


A Young William Leed

William Leed retired as a Colonel of the U.S. Army and has a very interesting tale to tell about Barney Barnett. Highly decorated, Leed served at Ft. Hood and other locations and was in the Signal Corps. He left active duty in 1995. Leed's story about Barnett's UFO crash experience adds to the information provided by the Maltais couple, the Danley couple, Barney's neighbor and Barney's niece. Some years ago, Leed contacted researcher Stanton Friedman after becoming aware of Friedman's research on Barney Barnett and the Plains UFO crash. Leed indicated that he had actually met Barney Barnett back in the 1960s. Leed is consistent in his story, and recounts accurately to me what he told Stanton Friedman two decades ago.

With assistance from researcher Art Campbell (who provided several of the photos for this article) this author interviewed Leed a few months ago by telephone at Leed's upstate New York home. What Leed has to say supports the veracity of Barney Barnett and the likely truth of the story he told.

When Leed was a First Lieutenant in the mid-1960s, the subject of UFOs arose amongst Leed and a few officers. Leed told me that a superior officer then approached him to tell him a little more about the subject. Leed says that the officer then confidentially took Leed aside and told him that if he wanted to know that truth about UFOs, he should track down a a person named Mr. Barney Barnett of Socorro, New Mexico. Barnett, he was told, "was a man who had touched one."

In the summer of 1967, Leed began a quest to research Barnett's whereabouts and to meet with him. Leed had located Barney's address and began a vacation-adventure throughout the Southwest that would include a stop to Barney's house. Pulling up to Barney's modest house in a non air-conditioned car, Leed recalls, he was a bit shy and nervous about actually approaching Barney at his home. Mustering the courage, he was greeted kindly by Barnett, by then very thin and frail, who invited him in. Leed cautiously began to introduce himself. Leed was asked by Barney to show some ID- and Leed showed him his military ID, but said that his interest was strictly personal. He then began to inquire about what he had heard- that Barney saw a crashed UFO many years ago. He was there for less than 15 minutes and took up more time with "tourist talk" and less than five minutes on the crashed UFO subject. Leed said to me that Barney confirmed that a disc-type aircraft had crashed and that he came across it unexpectedly. Barney confirmed to Leed - without ambiguity - that he believed it to have been the crash of a flying saucer, not something from Earth. Barney appeared somewhat nervous and indicated to Leed that he had been visited before by military about the event.

Leed (who in my interview of him seemed very frank and articulate) explained to me that he believed that Barney was telling the absolute truth as he remembered it. Leed said that he knew this because of Barney's anxious but sincere look and demeanor. Leed sensed that Barney may have feared that he was being interrogated or intimidated by military visits (something it is said that did happen to Barney in intervening years). Leed told me that it was not his objective to obtain "every little detail" about Barney's experience, but rather what Leed wanted to do most was to get a sense of his basic honesty. Leed said: "I am satisfied that Barney was telling the truth. That's all I wanted to know, and I left."


AN ARCHAEOLOGIST COVERS UP


Dr. Herbert Dick

The presence of archaeologists at the scene of a UFO crash site is a recurring theme when studying the Roswell incident. Barney Barnett had also reported the presence of archaeologists. Researchers such Kevin Randle, Tom Carey and Don Schmitt began to comb through dig records and university archives to contact any archaeologists who may have been working in New Mexico in early July of 1947, the time period associated with the crashed saucer. They wanted to reach them to see if any of them had ever seen any such crash sites in NM during that time period. They were able to interview many of those who were still living.

While considering various archaeologists, researchers uncovered Harvard-trained Dr Herbert Dick. Dick was a noted archaeologist who passed away in 1992. Some years before his death however, he was located and questioned. Dick categorically denied that he had ever worked around the Plains of San Augustin region in July of 1947. Dick had told researchers he had not been there, telling one of them, "If I knew anything I would have told you." One of his dig party, Jeff Morris, also denied it. These denials were reported in early 1990's issues of the publication IUR - International UFO Reporter and elsewhere.

It turns out though that Dick had lied to these researchers when he was interviewed by them. In 2006 a revealing letter was uncovered by researcher Art Campbell. Campbell has been active in the UFO field for decades, including with NICAP. He is the author of "UFO Crash at San Augustin" and maintains the UFO Crash Book website. The documents that he discovered confirm that Dick had not told the truth. Dick was in fact at the Plains at the very time that he said that he was not.

Campbell recently shared with me the correspondence that Dick had sent to his graduate advisor at Harvard at the time. By working with the Peabody Museum of Harvard University (from which Dick graduated with his PhD) copies of these letters were obtained. A December, 1947 letter confirms that Dick had indeed conducted site investigations there in the Plains specifically during the weeks of July 1-14, 1947. In the letter - and in direct contradiction to what he had repeatedly told researchers - Dick clearly states that: "Our party proceeded to the Plains of San Augustin on July 1, 1947...we spent two weeks carefully contouring, mapping and trenching."

And Dick must have remembered this time period well. This is because in other letters that he authored that were discovered, we learn that he had vied for that very dig trip and time frame against a competing student. He even wrote his graduate advisor on why he should be selected over his competitor to go to New Mexico. If Dick could clinch permission from Harvard Administration for this dig on the Plains during early July, he knew that it would propel him above his competing colleagues at Harvard. In fact, it did. That very work set the course for a very notable professional career.

Dick curiously mentions the "Bat Cave" during his expedition there. Smaller caves near the "Bat Cave" are rumored to have held some of the crash debris reportedly hidden by a rancher, Dan Richards.

A thorough search of records finds that no other group of archaeologists were working on the Plains in early July of 1947 except Herbert Dick and party - and Dick lied that he was even there. Lies are used to cover up the truth by those who wish to evade it. To have ever spoken of the event, Dick may have felt that he could have risked a security breach, his own professional advancement, future professional credibility, award of grant monies or - later in life - damage to his impressive professional legacy.

Dick's unqualified denials cannot be chalked up to the possibility that Dick had somehow "forgotten" or "confused" the dates. Dick's denial was instead intentional. It was meant to deceive. This was his very first major archaeological expedition. It was one that he coveted and for which he had competed- and the one which careened his career. And Dick was an historical thinker. By his nature - and as an archaeologist - he was the type who gave careful attention to dates and details. But his accuracy did not extend to his recounting of the crash event on the Plains.

Here is part of this revealing letter that confirms Dick's presence on the Plains:

Peabody Document

Herbert Dick Letter

Of course the site closer to Roswell also claims its own involved archaeologist, Dr. Curry Holden. Holden was implicated in the discovery of a UFO crash site associated directly with the Roswell event. But Holden was in a different region of New Mexico when he made his discovery. Is it possible that the crash at that time involved very far-flung materials within the State? Could two different dig parties have located two separate (or maybe related) crashed UFO debris sites? Perhaps so. For who else but people like archaeologists and paleontologists or rock hunters and ranchers roam the remote New Mexican deserts to find such things?


DID MARCEL KNOW ABOUT BARNEY?


Jesse Marcel

In an email to this author, Roswell Major Jesse Marcel's daughter-in-law (Linda Marcel) confirmed that at the end of his life Jesse has spoken of another crash site with bodies. And a careful re-reading of a transcript by this author of one of the very first recorded interviews of Intelligence Officer Marcel is revealing. Marcel makes a cryptic mention of another, similar site that was found much farther away and to the west of the site that he had investigated. He said that a "surveyor" there had also come across UFO crash debris! Marcel may well have been alluding to surveyor Barney Barnett.

Jesse Marcel Sr. (who testified that he had witnessed and handled ET debris near Roswell) told his family that there was more than one "Roswell" related crash site. He also confirmed that - through an entrusted source - he had learned there were in fact recovered bodies at another site.

This revelation was made to me in an email dated September 02, 2007 from Linda Marcel. Linda was Jesse Marcel Sr's daughter-in-law and wife to Jesse's son, Jesse Jr. She wrote to me in part: "As far as we know, Jesse Sr. never saw any bodies. I asked him and he told me no. He said that he was at the 'first' crash site and that there were no bodies. He said though that he did know someone who did see the bodies. He said that it was someone he trusts. He never said who."

We learn more about this - and its potential tie to Barnett - in one of the first interviews that Marcel ever granted on the Roswell subject. The late reporter and UFO researcher Bob Pratt conducted a recorded interview with Jesse Marcel, Sr. on December 8, 1978. Pratt found Marcel to be "a very impressive man and quite believable."

Buried within a transcript of this interview of Marcel were some very revealing statements that were found by this author. In a response to a question, a little more than half-way into the interview, Marcel states that well west from the site that he himself had encountered, that there was another similar site that was located. Marcel said: "And I learned later that, farther west, towards Carrizozo they found something like that too...80 miles west of there..."

Pratt then asks Marcel about just who it was that "saw something similar out there?" Marcel replied: "I think that it was discovered by some surveyor out there."

Well, of course Barney's crash event was located "farther west" to Marcel's when Barney saw "something similar" to what was found near Roswell. But most tellingly, Barney Barnett was a surveyor for the US Soil Conservation Service! When Marcel mentioned a surveyor, did he mean Barney?

What is not well known is that the primary duty of Barney's job for the US Government was to perform land surveying. In fact most of his time was designated to such surveying activity. He delineated and established property lines, outlined the parameters of civil and land projects and he created markers for towns in the region. Barney could often be seen at the County Surveyor office consulting survey records. Barney also performed civil projects inspections.

It is of significance too that Marcel said to Pratt that he had heard that they had found something similar at the other site. Marcel uses the plural "they," but then he specifically mentions a surveyor. Of course Barney Barnett was a surveyor that found a site that others did. Marcel somehow knew that this surveyor was not alone, but was part of a group (perhaps of archaeologists or military) when the other site was located.

So here we have Marcel himself confirming that there was another site. And he indicates that - like Barney's discovery - it was located many miles away and much further west from the site that Marcel himself had investigated. Marcel told his daughter-in-law that (like at the Barnett location) there were bodies found at that site. He said that the other crash event was similar to what had happened closer to Roswell. And most remarkably, Marcel said that the "other site" was found by people including someone that he had specifically described as "a surveyor." (Was Jesse referring to Barney?)

We may never know conclusively. In what may have been his last recorded interview before he died, Marcel admitted to researcher Linda Corley: "There is a hell of a lot that I haven't said for the sake of my country."


SITE SPECIFICS



Is there a way to reconcile all of the different sites into one authentic account of the events at Roswell and in New Mexico in the Summer of 1947? The Foster Ranch site is confirmed, another more interesting site is hinted at - and now there is the likelihood of even another site, much farther away. The sometimes vehement disagreement between noted UFO researchers on the "Barney Barnett" issue only impedes the search for answers.

We must all agree that the specific number of crash sites - and the precise location of each - may never be conclusively resolved. We must remain open to various scenarios. As rancher Loretta Proctor (who saw some of the debris that rancher Mac Brazel took to her) told me, the craft may have "skipped" or "leaked" several times and that there was more than one location. She says that she doesn't have "all of the answers" but she allows that "maybe there were even two separate UFOs that crashed during roughly the same time."

Perhaps the crash event near Roswell and the one at the Plains were the result of two distinctly different UFOs that had fallen not precisely at the same time, but very close to the same time. Or maybe they were more intimately related. Possibly they were crashes from the same "skipping" or "shedding" saucer. This would have involved a highly-energetic craft with multiple "compartments" that fell in stages and pieces far and wide in New Mexico. But whatever the exact scenario - Barney Barnett likely fits into the equation...somehow.

Original article used with permission from ufocon.blogspot.com.

You can email Anthony at envcol@mindspring.com
Last Updated on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 09:54

 
Author of this article: Anthony Bragalia

[Peter Pan]

ufodigest.com

trad google
...

THE "OTHER" ROSWELL CRASH: The Secret of the Plains     Maltais also said that Barney spoke of arriving archaeologists to the crash scene.
... 
Author of this article: Anthony Bragalia
[/size]

Merci pour cette piste !
J'avais posé la question sur un autre post, et voilà maintenant de quoi travailler,
car l'identité de ces témoins a dû être relevée par la police militaire ou les services de renseignements, et donc accessible via les archives.

[djshotam]

moi j avais entendu dire, il y a de nombreuses années, qu'en fait ce n'était pas une équipe d'archéologue, mais une bande de scouts !

si c'est vrai , imaginez un peu le choc pour des scouts de 15 ans de voir une soucoupe écrasée et des cadavres d ET avec peut être un ET en vie

[Biowave]

Préambule
Je ne suis pas un spécialiste de l'affaire Roswell cependant il y quelques faits que je ne m'explique pas et j'aimerai avoir vos avis. Merci.
1er fait, des militaires ramassent des objets aux propriétés étranges, et pas un n'aurait subtilisé un de ces foutus objets. Je me refuse à croire ça. Et Brazel, pourquoi n'aurait-il pas gardé un de ces objets? L'homme était, parait-il, futé.
2ème fait, des militaires ramassent des objets aux propriétés étranges et pas un n'en a jamais fait mention. Pour quelle raison.
3ème fait, un ballon du type Mogul peut rester plusieurs jours en l'air, pourquoi cette hypothèse n'a jamais été sérieusement étudiée?
Subsidiairement, que se passe-t-il si on applique brutalement une très haute tension sur une enveloppe Mogul contenant de l'hélium? Eclate-t-elle en mille morceaux?

Et enfin, pour quelle raison un engin a-t-il explosé et pas l'autre? Et que sont devenus les occupants du premier?

Bien à vous