ADAMSKI, ROSWELL AND SOCORRO

ADAMSKI, ROSWELL & SOCORRO:

The Hoaxers and the Hoaxed.

 David Calvert

Whether committed as a practical joke or serious fraud, hoaxing has been with us from the earliest times and nothing is sacred to its perpetrators. Great works of art, religious relics, literary works, and so on, have all come under the acquisitive gaze of the fraudster. In most instances they are  motivated by  financial gain, but in these more media-based times notoriety has become the by-word for such acts of wanton deception and the world of ufology has attracted more than its fair share of con artists.

From the birth of the modern UFO era in 1947, with the Kenneth Arnold sighting, a new breed of confidence tricksters emerged. They were to bring disrepute upon the then fledgling study of UFOs and undoubtedly delayed the serious scientific study of the phenomena with their, at times, outlandish claims.

George Adamski [1891-1965]

Adamski is perhaps the most famous individual to emerge from the contactee period. In November 1952 he claimed to have made contact with a UFO pilot from Venus. This claim has since been totally discredited, not least because we now know that Venus isadamski interview an inhospitable planet that cannot possibly harbour life of any kind, let alone intelligent humanoid life. Its surface temperature is hot enough to melt lead and its atmospheric pressure is 94.5 times greater than Earth’s.  This would cause any Venusian, not wearing heavily pressurised body armour, to explode the moment he set foot on our planet.

By looking at his earlier life it is possible to build a character profile of the Polish-born immigrant.

Throughout his twenties and thirties he had a variety of jobs. He served with the National Guard in Portland, Oregon, and was honourably discharged in 1919. He then turned his hand to philosophy in the 1930s, and styled himself ‘Professor George prohibitionAdamski’, founding a monastery in Laguna Beach, California. There he procured a license to produce wine for the monastery during Prohibition. However, much of it was sold on the black market, to the extent that he told two of his followers that he was ‘making a fortune’. Naturally, he was disappointed by the repeal of Prohibition and later commented that had it not been for the legislation of alcohol he would not have had to ‘get into this saucer crap’. This does not bode well for the encounter story he would later tell to the world.

He wrote two books on his encounters, the first, Flying Saucers Have Landed (1953),InsideTheSpaceShipsByGeorgeAdamski-web the second, Inside The Spaceships (1955). Undoubtedly, he was trying to cash in on the phenomenon that had gripped the public’s imagination. The final blow to his claims came in 1955 when four of the people who had been with him on the 20th November 1952 admitted that they had seen nothing of what Adamski claimed. Right up to his death on the 23 rd of April 1965 George Adamski continued to proclaim his accounts were true. There are a few ufologists however who still see merit in some of his claims.

Government cover-up (The Roswell Incident).

 

Even world governments are not beyond dipping their toes into the murky waters of Roswell crash depictiondeception. When it comes to UFOs and ‘national security’ issues they are arguably the supreme masters. An obvious example of this is the Roswell incident. On July 6th, ‘Mack Brazel, who operated the Foster ranch near the town of Roswell, New Mexico, turned up at Sheriff George Wilcox’s office with pieces of odd wreckage that possessed out of the ordinary properties. He had discovered them, and similar pieces, strewn across a 1-kilometre area of the ranch earlier. The sheriff informed the Roswell army base and spoke with Major Jesse Marcell, the Intelligence Officer for the worlds only atomic bomb unit. Marcell also checked the material and noted its very strange properties.

He informed Colonel William Blanchard, his base commander, of the find. Both Marcell, and Counter-Intelligence Officer, Sheridan W. Cavitt, were ordered to visit the site and collect the debris. Marcell later stated, after viewing the crash site, ‘It was nothing that hit the ground, or exploded on the ground. Its something that must have exploded above the ground, travelling perhaps at a high rate of speed’ … ‘It was quite obvious to me, familiar with air activities, that it was not a weather balloon, nor was it a plain or a missile.’ He and Cavitt filled their vehicles with as much debris as they could hold and made their way back to base.

The following morning, after sealing off the area, Col. Blanchard sent soldiers and military police to the ranch to make a detailed search. Meanwhile, back at the RAAF base, Press Officer, Lieutenant Haut issued a press release stating that a ‘flying disc’ had been captured. The news was heard on local radio and made the evening editions of the local papers. It was shortly after that the cover story came into effect.

Roswell Daily Record

By now Major Marcell had been instructed to take himself and the wreckage to Wright Field (now Wright-Patterson Air Force Base) in Ohio. On the way he stopped off at the headquarters of the Eighth Air Force, Fort Worth. No sooner had he landed at Fort Worth when he was approached by General Roger Ramey and told, ‘Don’t say anything. I’ll take care of it’. He was acting on the instructions of Colonel Thomas Jefferson DuBose, the Chief of Staff at Fort Worth, who in turn was acting on the instructions of General Clemens McMullen, the Acting Director of Strategic Air Command in Washington who had gotten wind of the press release and had ordered DuBose to invent a cover story.

There then followed a photo session in which Marcell posed with bogus wreckage of a weather balloon and radar reflector made of foil and wooden sticks.

The press were then told that a mistake had been made and that it was not a flying disc that had been recovered, but a radar reflector. This cover story went out at about 5 pm, central time, and Marcell was sent back to Roswell and forbidden to speak to anyone. Claims that army personnel also discovered alien bodies and the main body of the UFO at the site began to circulate.

More recently a counter-claim that it was Brazel and several others who discovered the remains of four extraterrestrials has come to light. If this were true Cavitt and Marcell would have been informed of this by Brazel prior to their inspecting the crash site.

The military has changed its story as to the provenance of the so-called alien bodies on occasion. At one point they claimed they were rhesus monkeys, used as part of a military space-travel experiment, which later changed to artificial human crash test dummies, dropped from high altitudes in human endurance experiments. The latter story certainly isn’t true as test dummies were not used until the 1950s, nor, would they account for the small stature of the alleged creatures found at the ranch.

It is beyond dispute that the military were, and still are, trying to keep secret what crashed that night at Roswell. Some researchers believe that they may have been telling the truth when they said the debris was from a balloon, even if the wreckage shown was not from the actual balloon that crashed. At the time the US Navy and the CIA were involved in the Moby Dick programme, which sent high-altitude balloons over the Soviet mainland on spying missions. There was good reason to keep this secret. However, the stumbling block to this theory doesn’t fit the description of the size or disposition of the debris field described by Marcell who, as we will recall, stated that ‘It was nothing that hit the ground, or exploded on the ground. Its something that must have exploded above the ground, travelling perhaps at a high rate of speed’ … ‘It was quite obvious to me, familiar with air activities, that it was not a weather balloon, nor was it a plain or a missile.’

The Alleged Socorro UFO Hoax. [24th April 1964]

 

zamora2It has taken 46 years for this revelation to emerge, regarding the Lonnie Zamora sighting in Socorro, New Mexico. Was the landed UFO and its occupants witnessed by Zamora nothing more than an elaborate school prank?

While pursuing a speeding car, police officer Lonnie Zamora heard a loud explosion. He thought that it might have come from a nearby dynamite shack and broke off the pursuit to investigate. He saw a cone of flame travelling over a hill and followed it. It led him to a strange-looking craft and two figures, dressed in “white coveralls” walking around it. He pulled up about 100 ft from the landed, 20 ft “aluminium-white” oval object resting on structured “legs”. As he climbed from his car he bumped his head and his glasses fell off. On approaching the object the figures suddenly jumped out of sight. Shortly after a flame appeared beneath the craft and it roared off over the hill. There was a high-pitched whine and then silence.

On close inspection of the landing site, four “landing impressions” were discovered along with areas of burnt bush, near to where the craft had sat. When asked by an officer, whom he had radioed, what the craft looked like he said, “It looks like a balloon.”

Socorro soon became embroiled in a media circus, including officials from the US Air Force’s Project Blue Book and NICAP. Zamora’s story received not only the attention of the national media, but also the International media. To-date, it is still one of the most celebrated cases in UFO history.

PAULING-COLGATE LETTER

letter-from-lp-to-colgate-6-19-1968In 1968 a letter to Dr. Stirling Colgate -President of New Mexico Tech –  from his friend and multiple Nobel Prize winner Dr. Linus Pauling landed at his door. In the letter he claimed to be researching the Socorro-Zamora landing case and was writing to see if Colgate knew anything about the incident. Colgate’s response leaves little doubt that the incident was the work of tricksters.

In 2009, UFO researcher and author, Anthony Bragalia – a regular contributor to the UFO Iconoclast(s) – contacted Dr. Colgate, a world-famous astrophysicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, to see what his current thoughts were on the Socorro incident and to see if he could shed any further light on the incident. In his email to the then 84-year-old Colgate he attached the 1968 Pauling letter containing the handwritten notes Colgate had written at the time.

It took several days before Colgate replied to the author’s communiqué. His answers to the questions posed were sparing and cryptic. To the first question, ‘Do you still know this to be a hoax?’ he answered, ‘Yes’.

The second question asked if he could expand on what he wrote to Pauling about the event. He replied, ‘I will ask a friend, but he and other students did not want their cover blown’.

Thirdly, when asked how the hoaxers did it, Colgate simply replied, ‘Will ask’.

To the query, ‘Have you ever publicly commented on this?’ he replied, ‘Of course not’.

Colgate indicated to Bragalia that he would make further enquiries into the event, but as yet he has not received any communication from him, leaving him to speculate as to the reason why.

CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE

New Mexico Tech

From the mid 1970s to the early 90s Dr. Frank T Etcorn was a Psychology Professor at New Mexico Tech. He had an interest in the Socorro UFO event some ten years before his tenure at the College. Anthony Bragalia became aware of his interest and contacted him to see if he had discovered anything about the sighting or had gleaned any new information about what had really happened. Etcorn related to him that in the mid 1980s a young student of his had examined the case as a project. She had contacted alumni who were at Tech during 1964. She claimed she had found one of the students who had been involved in the hoax. Though he did not give details concerning the hoax and refused to have his name mentioned, he nevertheless confirmed that it was a hoax. Interestingly, she also discovered through records that on the day of the sighting a rear projection device had been stolen from the campus.

Etcorn and Bragalia went on to speculate as to how the student ‘Techies’ may have pulled off the stunt. Their ideas were not beyond the abilities of the ‘smart Techies’ to create. They included:

  • A large helium balloon resting on the desert floor with landing struts attached, to be released on cue.
  • The use of explosives, pyrotechnics, model rockets, thrown flares or a flame device to simulate the ‘roaring’ or ‘whining’.
  • Small students dressed in white lab coats acting as ‘aliens’.
  • The ‘landing depressions’ were probably dug out by hand.
  • The creosote bushes were torched deliberately.
  • Surrounding soil and rock area ‘salted’ with silicon or trinitrite from the school’s geology lab.
  • Zamora was probably lured to the site by another student, whose car he had been chasing.

ENTER DAVE COLLIS

Collis was a freshman at New Mexico Tech. In 1965, a year after the Zamora sighting, he and some friends intended to carry out a ‘paranormal’ prank and shared his idea with a trusted Professor. Tellingly, the Professor told him that the Tech had a long history of pranking  and that one of them was especially notable. He then confided to Collis that the Zamora sighting was a hoax, done by Techie students. Collis, who is a pyrotechnics expert, said that it had always surprised him that they didn’t seem to realise just how ‘terrestrial’ the Zamora UFO seemed to be in the first place. The name of his Professor still remains a mystery.

WHAT MOTIVATED THE HOAXERS?

In this instance it would appear to be revenge. The Socorro police didn’t have a very good relationship with the students back then. Zamora in particular had a reputation for harassing the Techie students for no apparent good reason, ergo their motive for getting back at him.

QUESTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES

Whilst this author does not discount the possibility of a hoax being committed, there are a few disturbing questions that require answers, namely:

  • Zamora’s glasses: We are told the officer’s glasses fell off as he climbed from the car. Yet strangely there is no mention of them being put back on immediately. Could it be we are being subtly led into believing that this is why Zamora did not see the ’UFO’ for what it really was? Furthermore, an article, written by Patrick Huygue in the Anomalist, No 8, Spring 200, reveals that Zamora lost his glasses when he ran from the UFO as it took off , and not as he got out of the car to take a look at the craft. This explanation seems more credible than the former.
  • Colgate’s silence: Why did Colgate really cease communications with Bragalia?
  • Project student and discovered hoaxer: What is the name of the female student who examined the case in the 1980s and that of the self-confessed hoaxer she had uncovered?  Surely the hoaxer has nothing to fear by coming forward after all these years.
  • The ‘trusted Professor’: had apparently been at the College for many years, so why does his identity still remain a mystery?
  • The balloon: Zamora claimed that when the UFO took off it travelled very fast over him. This does not sit well with the flight capabilities of a balloon, unless there was a very strong wind blowing that day.
  • The mysterious figures: Bragalia would have us believe that the two humanoid figures seen next to the craft/balloon and wearing ‘white coveralls’ jumped out of sight when Zamora approached them – presumably behind the so-called balloon. However, when the object took off they were nowhere to be seen. Having looked at images of the landing site taken at the time, I could see no possible place where they could have concealed  themselves.
  • The young student who, in the mid 1980s, allegedly discovered the identity of one of the hoaxers also claimed she had discovered, through campus records that a rear projection device had been stolen from the campus. If, as Bragalia and Etcorn speculated, a large helium balloon, explosives, pyrotechnics and model rockets were used in the elaborate hoax, then why weren’t they also recorded as stolen in the campus records?

For this author the case still remains open. There are far too many unanswered questions to arrive at a firm conclusion. I therefore remain open-minded on it until such time as conclusive evidence is produced, one way or the other.

© David Calvert 2011

Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.

Advertisements

WHAT THE RANCHER SAW.

WHAT THE RANCHER SAW

William Ware Brazel, or ‘Mack’, as he was affectionately known, was a no-nonsense 48-year-old foreman for the J. B. Foster sheep ranch, 30 miles southeast of the small William_Mac_Brazel1cattle town of Corona, New Mexico, when he discovered strange debris in a pasture with ‘out of this world’ properties. What he discovered set in motion a chain of events that led to the US Government, for the first and only time in its history, to state that UFOs not only existed, but that they had one in their possession. Thus, in July of 1947, the seeds of the now legendary Roswell Incident were planted.

But was there more to Brazel’s role in the affair than has previously been attributed to him i.e. that he found some strange metal, reported it to the sheriff, the media, and the army, the latter detaining him for a week before he was finally released, having now changed his original story of finding ‘only’ strange metallic-like debris to that of a weather balloon, and went home refusing to talk about it again.

Certainly, ranchers in those parts were familiar with weather balloons and had no trouble identifying them. That Brazel suddenly changed his story after being detained by the military is somewhat telling. It further strains credulity when hand-picked officers of the 509th Bomb Group, the top US military unit at the time, admitted that they too had been initially mistaken over the nature and provenance of the debris and that what they had in their possession was indeed a weather balloon.

Skyhook  Balloon and Payload

skyhook balloon and payload

It was on the 8th July 1947 that Mack Brazel gave the only interview that is directly attributed to him. It took place in the offices of the Roswell Daily Record and was given whilst he was still in the ‘custody’ of the Army Air Force (AAF). It appeared in the following day’s edition of that paper. He was to give three other known direct interviews concerning the incident.

The first had taken place two days earlier, July 6th and was conducted over the phone to KGFL announcer Frank Joyce from the Chavez County Sheriff’s Office.

The second was in the home of the radio station’s owner, Walt Whitmore, on Monday, July 7th, just before he was taken into custody by the military the next day and the balloon cover story went into effect.

The final interview was conducted by El Paso radio station after the AAF had held Brazel for a few days whilst the ranch was being cleared and ‘sanitised’ of the debris. Again, the prepared weather balloon cover story was undoubtedly repeated.

Researchers and ufologists alike have been bothered ever since regarding Brazel who – among all other Roswell participants – was singled out and effectively arrested for an extended period of time. And what did he mean when he made the cryptic remark to a radio station announcer that the so-called ‘little green men’ were not green. What else had he seen which caused him to make such a remark?

Further, two articles appeared in print on July 9th 1947. The first in the Roswell Daily Record, under the title Gen. Ramey Empties Roswell Saucer, the second in the Albuquerque Journal in the Harassed Rancher … article. Both now retracted the previous day’s proclamation that a ‘flying saucer’ had been found and asserted the military line that it was the remnants of a weather balloon with attached radar reflector.

roswell daily record

Alb journal

In the latter, however, Brazel’s final comments went apparently unnoticed. The article concluded that on at least two occasions Brazel had found weather balloons on his land. What he found on that fateful day, however, did not resemble any of those previous finds.

Mack died in 1963, aged 64 and took what he knew to the grave with him. Even close family members were not made privy to what he knew. What we know of him comes from his surviving family members. He was a throwback to the ‘old-time cowboys’ a no-nonsense sort of guy whose word and handshake were his bond. He was also a man of few words.

His son, Bill Brazel Jr., nevertheless, was able to put together a basic scenario of what happened to his father and obtained from him the fact that he was upset at being ‘put in jail’ for what he thought was a ‘good deed’. Although embittered and outraged by his treatment at the hands of the military he remained silent as to what he really knew, lest his family should suffer the consequences of his saying too much.

We have the testimonies of other parties involved in the incident who claimed they were threatened by military and Government officials to keep quiet about what they knew or pay the ultimate price.

Whether Mak’s youngest son, who was seven years old at the time, knew something the others did not we will never know as in 1960 he disappeared under mysterious circumstance and has never been seen since.

The little Mack did tell his family consisted mainly of his finding the ‘stuff’ which he said had come from an explosion not a crash – because it was all in pieces, and the surrounding vegetation was singed. The curious metal was different from anything he had ever seen as it could not be burned, cut, scratched, or whittled with his knife. He also recalled seeing strange writing on some of the debris that looked like ‘figures’ to him. However, Lorrene Ferguson and Floyd Proctor, neighbours of Mack, recalled his description of the pieces to them as being more like ‘wiggles’, similar to the figures found on Chinese or Japanese firecracker wrappers.

According to Bill Jr., the army had told Mack that they had established the debris had certainly not come from anything made by them.

Descriptions of what each witness saw and handled, regarding the debris, have appeared in numerous books and articles and can be concisely described as:

 [1]: Hand-sized pieces of very thin, very light, though extremely strong metal-like strips, the colour of dull aluminium or lead foil which were impervious to being cut, bent, burned or scratched. Some of them appeared to have a very slight curvature suggesting they had come from the rounded surface of a larger structure, their conditions suggesting they had been blasted from it.

 [2]: Small hand-sized pieces of an unknown quantity of very thin and light ‘metal’ possessing the dual qualities of being both solid and fluidic. When wadded up in the hand and then placed on a level surface it would revert to its original, seamless state without showing a mark on it. This, too, could not be cut, scratched or burned. When held in the hand it seemed weightless.

 [3]: A large amount of small, to hand-sized, thin, brown, parchment-like material which was also impervious to cuts, scratches or burns.

 [4]: An undisclosed amount of very light, thin, brownish ‘I-beams’, reminiscent of balsa wood. Though they could not be broken, these three eighths of an inch square (approximation) and up to 2-3 ft long ‘beams’ could be flexed slightly. They had ‘writing’ or strange, purple pastel symbols along their inner edge, imitating hieroglyphic or geometric formats.

[5]: An unknown amount of pencil-sized or smaller ‘beam shards’, light, and brownish in colour, and devoid of any ‘writing‘. As with the larger ‘I-beams’ they were slightly flexible and impervious to being burned, scratched, whittled, or broken.

[6]: Small pieces of a very strong and black, Bakelite-type substance (quantity unknown).

[7]: An undisclosed quantity of very thin, and very light thread-like ‘wires’ which also could not be broken or permanently distorted.

[8]: A 2-3 inch square, palm-sized, black box, seamless and small, which could not be opened.

[9]: A smooth and seamless, 3-4 inch diameter by 4-6 inches long, dull aluminium ‘collar’, comprising a ‘flange’, also described as a ‘pipe sleeve’ or ‘strut‘.

At the behest of his friends, Brazel stuffed some of the above items into a cardboard box and headed off to Roswell, little suspecting what was about to befall him at the hands of the military. The nature of the material he carried was sufficiently exotic enough to warrant the despatch of two of the army’s senior intelligence officers to investigate.

By all accounts Brazel was a patriotic, law-abiding civilian. Why then did the military feel compelled to put him through an ordeal ordinarily reserved for suspected espionage agents and ‘enemies of the state’? If all Mack Brazel found was ‘funny metal’ then surely it would not have taken the military all that time to explain it away or necessitate his incarceration for a week – if that was all he found.

It wasn’t until May 1982 that investigator William Moore, following a lead from a friend, located and interviewed Frank Joyce.

frank joyceJoyce had been a 24 year-old announcer for Roswell radio station KGFL in 1947, and a stringer for the United Press wire service. He got into trouble with the Air Force for placing their press release of having ‘captured’ a flying saucer, on the UP ‘wire’, via Western Union, thereby, turning what was meant to be a localised story into a national and international phenomenon.

In 1982, Joyce was still a media personality, and was clearly wary of speaking of his involvement in the Roswell affair lest it should jeopardise his career. He was, therefore, not wholly forthcoming with Moore in his interview.

According to Joyce he phoned the Chavez County Sheriff’s Office during his Sunday afternoon radio show to see if there were any worthy news items he could report on air. Sheriff George Wilcox put Mack Brazel on the phone. Joyce then interviewed him off-air. Following his conversation Joyce suggested to Sheriff Wilcox that they should call the Roswell Air Base for assistance, thus launching the military’s involvement in the affair.

During his conversation with Moore, Joyce never once mentioned what it was that Brazel had found during his first telephone conversation with him, but was emphatic that there was no mention of ‘balloon’ or ‘balsa parts’. He did remark, however, on Brazel’s terrified state of mind at the time, but did not elucidate further on why the rancher felt that way.

Then Brazel suddenly turned up at the radio station a few days later with a different story to the one he had told Joyce in their telephone conversation Joyce confronted him over his new story, whereupon Brazel told him. “Look son, you keep this to yourself. They told me to come in here and tell you this story or it would go awfully hard on me and you.”

When Moore asked Joyce if Brazel ever mentioned bodies to him on the phone, he replied, cryptically, “I can’t go into that. I don’t want to say.”

When Moore squeezed him for more information, Joyce relied that he had said all he was going to, and that he had made up his mind a long time ago that he would only go so far with that part of the story … “whatever that thing was,” he concluded, “the rancher saw it all, and it didn’t originate on this planet. What I heard later about the Air Force having bodies of little men from space … was totally consistent with what I heard at the time.”

On March 31st 1989, Joyce was interviewed again, this time by Donald Schmitt and Kevin Randle. He refused for the interview to be taped. He reiterated the same story he had told Moore, but added a few minor details. Apparently, as Brazel was leaving he turned back to Joyce and said, “You know how they talk about little green men? Well, they weren’t green.”

Schmitt and Randle interviewed Joyce on five other occasions, between 1990 and 1992. His story did not change significantly. Nevertheless, when Joyce got to the part where he claimed to have confronted Brazel about the discrepancy he said, “The story is different, especially the part about the ‘little green men’”, to which Brazel apparently replied this time, ‘Only they weren’t green.’

Joyce’s story was clearly evolving with the passage of time. Was he feeling more secure with the passing of the years? Had the fears he had harboured if he revealed too much now ebbed? Or was he simply embellishing his story? The latter is unlikely, as there was no apparent motive or gain to do so.

If Joyce’s story is true then Brazel also came across bodies sometime during his discovery of the debris field and reported this fact to Joyce. This is possibly closer to the truth than the speculation that Brazel was shown the non-terrestrial bodies by the military in order to maintain his silence and complete cooperation on national security grounds. We can safely assume that the former scenario is true as it was borne out by Joyce in a 1998 interview with Randle and Schmitt in which Joyce was more forthcoming.

His initial telephone conversation with the distraught rancher, who was complaining about the stuff scattered around his ranch and the effect it was having on his sheep went something like this:

Brazel

[angrily]: “Whose gonna clean all that stuff up? That’s what I wanna know. I need someone out there to clean it up.”

Joyce:

“What stuff? What are you talking about?”

Brazel:

[sombrely]: “Don’t know. Don’t know what it is. Maybe it’s from one of them flying saucer things.”

Joyce:

“Oh, really? Then you should call the Army Air Base. They are responsible for everything that flies in the air. They should be able to help you or tell you what it is.”

[At this juncture Brazel apparently really started losing his composure].

Brazel:

“Oh God. Oh my God. What am I gonna do? It’s horrible, horrible, just horrible.”

Joyce:

“What is? What’s horrible? What are you talking about?

Brazel:

“The stench. Just awful.”

Joyce:

“Stench? From what? What are you talking about?

Brazel:

“They’re dead.”

Joyce:

“What? Whose dead?”

Brazel:

“Little people.”

[Joyce was sceptical but decided to play the role of Devil’s Advocate with Brazel].

Joyce:

“What the …? Where are they? Where did you find them?”

Brazel:

“Somewhere else.”

Joyce:

“Well, you know, the military is always firing rockets and experimenting with monkeys and things. So, maybe … “

Brazel:

[shouting] “God dammit! They’re not monkeys, and they’re not human!”

[Brazel then slammed the phone down on him].

Joyce then told Schmitt and Randle that when Brazel came into the radio station sometime later to retract his statements in favour of the balloon cover-story, he was accompanied by the military and was under a great deal of stress.

Joyce challenged him about the ‘little green men’ comment he made in their original telephone conversation, to which he replied that they weren’t green. Then he left with his escort.

But this was not the last that Joyce was to see of Brazel. One or two days later Joyce’s boss, and owner of KGFL, Mr. Whitmore, turned up to see him and took him for a ride. They were accompanied by an ‘odd looking fellow in a uniform’ that Joyce didn’t recognise. They drove north out of Roswell into Lincoln County, stopping at a one-room shack just off the road.

His boss then told him to go into the shack, which he did, alone. Shortly after, Brazel entered. “You’re not going to say any more about what I told you the other day, are you?” he asked Joyce. Joyce assured him he would not.

“You know, our lives will never be the same again.” Brazel said. With that, he left. So, too, Joyce and his companions. From that day on Joyce never saw Brazel again, nor the strange uniformed passenger who accompanied both him and his boss.

In order for single-witness claims to be deemed credible, they require the corroborative testimonies of others. Over the intervening years such testimonies have been given.

Dee Proctor, who claims he was with Brazel on the day he found the debris, took his seriously ill mother, Loretta, to a remote site 2.5 miles east-southeast of the debris field in 1995 to show her where Brazel had found ‘something else.’ Why, one has to ask oneself, was he compelled to risk the life of his mother in order to do so? What other information did he share with his mother?

William Moore (1985), claimed that via a governmental ‘confidential informant’ he was told a year earlier that several badly mangled bodies had been recovered in a state of decay southeast of the debris field, and it was suspected they had ejected from the craft shortly before it exploded.

The controversial MJ-12 documents appear to contain and confirm this account of the Roswell incident.

MAJIC 12

Hope Bakla (1998) and a friend were having lunch in a Corona restaurant one day when and elderly man came in and sat next to them. He engaged them in conversation, later telling them his name was Jack Wright, and told them he was returning from an Albuquerque hospital where he had just been told he would not require open-heart surgery for a heart condition. He spoke of Roswell and asked of they were going out to the crash site. They appeared ignorant of the now famous incident. He filled them in on the details, stating that his father had been a ranch foreman for the Proctors at the time of the incident and he sometimes helped him out (he was in his early teens then).

One day, he said, Brazel had come over to the ranch in a state of excitement, and wanted someone to return with him to the Foster ranch to see something. He and a few other kids decided to follow Brazel back to the ranch. The first indication that something was wrong came when they saw a number of hawks and buzzards circling something in the distance. Eventually they came across a small body on the ground, then another. The ‘little people’, as he described them, had very long, thin fingers, and that the image was indelibly imprinted on his brain to that very day.

That a man, given a new lease on life, would make up such an unbelievable story seems unlikely.

Meyers Wahnee related a story about the Roswell incident, and his involvement in it to his family during the last year of his life in December 1981. He had been a pilot and Air Crew Commander of the 714th Bomb Squadron, 448th Bomb group in 1947.

He said there were three separate sites and that bodies were found and flown first to Texas, and that many of the men involved showed fear. He also mentioned ‘decomposing body parts’ found among the Foster ranch debris field. In what amounts to a death-bed confession, he told them, “It really happened.”

If we accept these testimonies then it means that it affects what we know of the Roswell incident, inasmuch as Maj. Jesse Marcel and CIC Capt. Sheridan Cavitt, who accompanied Brazel back to the Foster ranch on the 6th and 7th of July to investigate, must have known about the bodies. Brazel had to have told them about them, as he wanted the mess cleaned up.

Whether Marcell actually saw the bodies is a matter of conjecture. On July 8th, the time when the bodies would have been taken to Roswell, he had been despatched to Fort Worth, returning on the 9th. Interestingly Cavitt refused Marcel access to his report upon his arrival back in Roswell.

Because of what we now know there are a lot more questions that require answers. Investigations are still on going to find them.

Given the amount of evidence isn’t it about time we laid to rest, once and for all, the weather balloon hypothesis, so favoured by the hard-nosed, bloody minded, and uninformed obstructionists and sceptics.

REFERENCES.

UFO Magazine (2000): Sept/Oct. issue, pp. 56-63; Nov/Dec issue, pp. 28-33; 66-9. Quest Publications International Ltd.
The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters (2002): Constable and Robinson Ltd.
Wood, Dr. Robert M, and Wood, Ryan S (1998): The Majestic Documents. Wood and Wood Enterprises.

© David Calvert 2011

Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.