Jesse Marcel and the gouge
Kevin Randle spent time trying to correct the error in his book “UFO crash at Roswell”, where it stated that Jesse Marcel Sr. had seen a gouge. He states the book should have stated that only Bill Brazel mentioned the gouge. Randle’s memory is a bit short because I recall an old blog (the Randle Report) of his stating he had a recording of Marcel describing the gouge:
And now there is a newly discovered taped interview with Jesse Marcel, Sr. It was made in 1980 and contains a number of interesting statements by Marcel. Among them, reportedly, is mention of a gouge. If true, it means that Marcel had mentioned the gouge nearly twenty years ago. Allegations of contamination simply won’t wash. And it answers the question that if there had been a gouge, why hadn’t Marcel mentioned it. Now it seems that he had.
This mysterious tape recording never appeared to the best of my knowledge.
Randle continues to put faith in the testimony of Bill Brazel, who was one of the first witnesses to go on the record to state there was a gouge. According to Brazel, the gouge was there for at least two years. In all of that time, not a single person ever photographed the gouge for historical purposes or in an effort to get the government to pay for the damage to the property. The lack of any pho- tographs and the fact that Marcel NEVER mentioned a gouge (and appeared to refute any such feature in his interviews) makes one really question the testimony of Bill Brazel about the gouge. Of course, you will never hear Kevin Randle admit that it is possible that Bill Brazel was inaccurate in recollecting what he saw.
Drowning in a sea of denial
Don Schmitt, in an interview with open minds, stated that Adam Dew and the Beasons “took the money and ran” after the Ros- well slides debacle. In this interview, Schmitt and Carey tried to paint themselves as gullible investigators who were duped by Adam Dew and the Beasons. According to Carey and Schmitt, Dew sent images to their experts, which could not be deblurred. David Rudiak has since stated that his original image was deblurred once he followed Nablator’s instructions. Additionally, Braga- lia’s images, which he unwittingly shared with everyone as soon as we could deblur the image, also could be read! Therefore, this claim by Schmitt/Carey is false. Either they are ignoring the evidence or are, once again, not telling everyone the complete truth. Schmitt also stated that he never saw “the second slide” or any full frame slides until the day after BeWitness. This is not true. Carey described each slide in full on the April 20, 2015 Jimmy Church show! Additionally, the slide was shown, IN FULL during the Be- Witness program. I am fairly confident they saw it on the screen before the program. Schmitt states that when he saw “the second slide” (which looks a lot like the first), he knew it was a museum setting. It is obvious that Schmitt is, once again, distorting the truth. Others reported seeing the slides in full prior to May 5. Are we to believe that Schmitt closed his eyes while others examined the evidence?
Carey and Schmitt also denied ever linking the slides to Roswell. They attended the BeWitness program and gave a Roswell pre- sentation, which linked the slides to Roswell. If they weren’t calling them, “The Roswell slides”, they certainly were treating them as such. Like so much of what Carey and Schmitt write, and say, it is hard to accept it as the truth.
In a final tirade, Schmitt stated, that because of the Debunkers, UFOs are incorrectly portrayed in the media. I don’t think we (de- bunkers/skeptics) really have to work hard to perform this task. Many of us are amateurs and not professional scientists but we still manage to expose a lot of bogus claims made by UFOlogists. The real reason that the media portrays UFOs the way they do is be- cause UFOlogy keeps shooting itself in the foot with programs like “Ancient Aliens”, “Hanger one”, and other nonsense. All one has to do is attend any UFO conference. Does it appear to be a scientific presentation of evidence or is it a way for people to promote themselves with exotic claims that do not appear credible? UFOlogy has only itself to blame for its failures.
This is stupid
Ozzy Osborne and his son decided to investigate the UFO crash at Roswell. When his son stated, “This is history”, Ozzie respond- ed, “This is stupid”. At the debris field, Frank Kimbler broke out his treasury of pieces that, supposedly, are alien in nature. From the show we hear:
Kimbler:I have got some pieces I have got to show you...this is phenolic epoxy resin. It shouldn’t be here. They didn’t have it in ‘47. Ozzie: How do you know it’s not recent?
Kimbler: This I don’t know.. it hasn’t been tested...that’s a good question...
How did Kimbler determine that this piece was deposited in 1947 and how did he know it was “phenolic epoxy resin” if it was not tested yet? I also have to wonder about his claim that such resins were not present in 1947. According to wikipedia, Bakelite, pro- duced in 1907, was a form of phenolic resin!
His other piece of metal was supposed to be “unearthly” because it contained 3% Molybdenum. Ozzy thought it was a piece of an old beer can. It is hard to understand what he stated since he has not presented the tests from this piece of metal in a public forum unless it is the same piece he promoted back in 2011. That was determined to be “within earth norms” if one took into account the accuracy of the test! Other claims he has made have been discovered to be less than compelling. Kimbler’s scraps of metal/debris appear to be more “wishful thinking” than science.
The claim that the placard images were manip- ulated by Adam Dew so it could not be deblurred is false. The top image is Tony Bragalia’s placard im- age (filetext.jpg) posted on the UFO Conjecture(s) blog on May 9, 2015. The bottom image shows it after about 10 minutes of deblurring by me using Smart Deblur.
Tom Carey and Don Schmitt have finally come up with an explanation as to why they made so many mistakes in the “Roswell slides” affair. Their present excuse is that they were honest investigators, who were fooled by the evil man, Adam Dew. How can people, who pride themselves as being superior investigators, be so easily beguiled after examining the slides for three years? If somebody can fool them for three years, what does it say for the rest of their interviews and writings? Is it possible that some of those people fooled them as well?
Picking up this football, Kevin Randle recently accused Adam Dew of misleading people with things that were not true or accurate. I agree, in part, with Randle’s argument. Dew has to answer for the things he stated before and after the deblur. However, Randle’s writings, as well as some of the comments made by others on his blog, seem to pin most of the blame of the slides fiasco on Dew. It is easy to pick on Dew but shouldn’t blame be laid at the feet of all those involved? Schmitt, Carey, and Bragalia were just as guilty of allowing their beliefs to interfere with their investigation. They were the “experts” that Dew turned to and they were the ones making various claims about the slides that were not true. If this is an example of how they investigated the Roswell case, it brings into question just about everything they have written on the subject.
Speaking of the Roswell slide promoters, Tony Bragalia informed me that the $5000 he got for providing information to Maussan about the Child mummy was donated to the Native American fund. He added that he also has money set aside in his will for the same charity. Bragalia then lectured me about “incomplete reporting” because I never bothered to contact him before writing my article, where I speculated if he had donated the money or not. I found his lecturing about my writings very amusing because Bragalia was notorious for getting facts wrong and twisting people’s words to fit his beliefs. His participation in the Roswell slides fiasco exposed his “investigations” to be far from accurate, which is why I am skeptical of Bragalia’s remorse/honesty. His behavior during the slides fiasco (and in communications I had with him prior to this) demonstrated that he is not a person that can be trust- ed. Bragalia has yet to provide a public apology to those skeptics/UFOlogists he threatened and defamed during the slide debacle. Let’s hope that if he ever returns to UFOlogy, he will have learned his lesson regarding accurate reporting.
There will probably be a significant number of the UFO faithful, who will accept this snow job by the slide promoters. By doing so, they demonstrate that they are no better than those who believed that the slides showed an alien body. They accept these stories based on faith and not an examination of the facts. As I continue to point out, UFOlogy is more of a religion or business than a true scientific endeavor.
On a final note, I wanted to mention to readers that Errol Bruce-Knapp passed away in August. His UFO updates mailing list was the focus of UFOlogical discussions for about a decade. His contributions will be missed by many in UFOlogy.
Quelle: SUNlite 5/2016