tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8297935984616304783.post3321267803041885018..comments2024-02-26T03:03:24.947-05:00Comments on The UFO Trail: Book Review: 'The Roswell Deception' by James CarrionJack Brewerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05778028283888927074noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8297935984616304783.post-49676112357678664742019-08-28T21:49:50.701-04:002019-08-28T21:49:50.701-04:00One thing that has bugged me over the years is tha...One thing that has bugged me over the years is that Haut's press release is not based on what Brazzel and Marcell said they saw. They saw lots and lots of wreckage, not a "disc" as the PR says. Was Haut in on the deception? The PR certainly doesn't match the witness accounts. Did Haut talk to Marcell? But then why is the PR not true to what Marcell and Brazell reported?Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14970494602524191565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8297935984616304783.post-76726766426189268412018-12-27T00:18:43.281-05:002018-12-27T00:18:43.281-05:00They can be accessed in the Bluebook Files...and p...They can be accessed in the Bluebook Files...and probably can be queried in the FBI archive as well.<br /><br />The Prospector letter was sent directly to the FBI shortly after the Arnold sighting. The witness account, if I remember correctly was sent to the military. <br /><br />Cheers.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Adam S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11934830683869908953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8297935984616304783.post-86525957375944113422018-12-23T20:50:32.145-05:002018-12-23T20:50:32.145-05:00Who are they? Where are there reports? When did th...Who are they? Where are there reports? When did they file them and to whom? Or did they just talk to the media? Where can I read their reports?<br /><br />Sorry, Arnold's is a low credibility report. And it's not even the first report. It's just the one the press latched onto.purrlgurrlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06519835482606629362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8297935984616304783.post-8773339568049179352018-12-23T01:46:15.410-05:002018-12-23T01:46:15.410-05:00"Again, a single witness report with no corro..."Again, a single witness report with no corroboration. It has very low credibility,"<br /><br />Quite true. In the case of Arnold, what do you think of the possible corroboration. There was a prospector who wrote to the FBI claiming he was present in the same area as Arnold and saw the discs. And one other person claimed to have seen the formation near the area the same day.<br /><br />Do you think these were just people hopping on the band-wagon? Or maybe even possible plants designed to "strengthen" the Arnold sighting? <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Adam S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11934830683869908953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8297935984616304783.post-45738538887825952112018-12-22T15:59:48.269-05:002018-12-22T15:59:48.269-05:00Arnold was still doing interviews about his sighti...Arnold was still doing interviews about his sighting into the early 60s, and I saw him doing a live interview on a Chicago TV station when I was a kid then. It made quite an impression on me. He seemed very jovial and receptive to the interviewer questions about his sighting. So, there you go.<br /><br />I think he saw something he didn't immediately recognize, then jumped to a wild conclusion about it. I don't trust his speed calculations at all since they were done on the fly and likely in an excited state of mind. <br /><br />Again, a single witness report with no corroboration. It has very low credibility, I don't care how NARCAP tries to paint over that picture.purrlgurrlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06519835482606629362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8297935984616304783.post-87254016104014620252018-12-21T22:59:47.639-05:002018-12-21T22:59:47.639-05:00mouseonmoon, I read that analysis and also thought...mouseonmoon, I read that analysis and also thought it was well done :-) Adam S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11934830683869908953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8297935984616304783.post-83070858095473254312018-12-21T22:58:15.429-05:002018-12-21T22:58:15.429-05:00Purrlgurrl,
Actually, the majority of accounts I&...Purrlgurrl,<br /><br />Actually, the majority of accounts I've read have suggested that Arnold came to loathe his celebrity regarding his sighting. He was tired of being badgered by "the nuts" and from the early 50s to early 70s seemed to drop out of the "UFO Spotlight" (he even ran for Lieutenant Governor of Idaho during that time, but lost). <br /><br />In addition, he was paid to go to Maury Island by Ray Palmer who thought there might actually be proof of the "Flying Discs" there. Whether or not they were conned by Crisman and Company or stumbled upon a genuine intelligence matter is something else.<br /><br />I do believe Arnold witnessed something he couldn't identify, and I don't think it was birds (I still lean towards a classified test). From a psychology stance, listen to the pattern and tone of speech as well as the verbal cues in the early interviews and read into the reports he gave to the intelligence officers. <br /><br />Adam S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11934830683869908953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8297935984616304783.post-49527040054138324862018-12-21T20:30:19.023-05:002018-12-21T20:30:19.023-05:00Well, as psychology has shown, eyewitness reports ...Well, as psychology has shown, eyewitness reports can't be considered to be 100% accurate or reliable. We fill in gaps in visual data with information previously stored in our brains.<br /><br />The objects aren't the key to the changing shapes, the witnesses are. And eyewitnesses are all we have in the lion's share of reports (including Arnold's). There's nothing else in those cases to study other than the witness response to a previously unknown or unrecognizable (to the witness, at the time) visual stimuli.<br /><br />What is lacking in all pro-ET analysis of historical sightings (and NARCAP has a discernible pro-ET bias) is the historical context surrounding them. There’s a disregarding or lack of understanding of the social and cultural beliefs that were prevalent at the time. <br /><br />The US was a nation still traumatized by the Pearl Harbor attack six years earlier (the 9/11 of the time) and fearing another surprise attack from the skies (but this time, by our new enemy the Soviet Union). So, anything seen in the skies not immediately identifiable was noteworthy. And Arnold’s sighting was especially noteworthy because the Pacific Northwest was considered at the time to be more vulnerable to a surprise attack by the Soviets (launched from Siberia) than the rest of the US.<br /><br />Therefore, Arnold’s sighting over the Cascades (even if it was a misidentified flock of birds, which I suspect it was) was considered very newsworthy. Unfortunately, Arnold became addicted to the celebrity his story brought him and enjoyed being crowned America’s new "flying saucer" expert (hence his involvement in the Maury Island debacle). His original story morphed over time (no surprise to anyone familiar with the psychology of memory). So, any shape that’s proposed for what he saw probably will fit one of Arnold’s recollections or sketches done after the sighting.<br /><br />Since, there’s no verified corroboration of his story of which I’m aware, Arnold isn’t a very credible witness for me. Being a pilot doesn’t automatically make him an infallible observer. That’s merely a fiction the pro-ET community loves to promote.<br />purrlgurrlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06519835482606629362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8297935984616304783.post-49495514196164639702018-12-20T23:29:46.018-05:002018-12-20T23:29:46.018-05:00Martin Shough ( of NARCAP) has written an excellen...Martin Shough ( of NARCAP) has written an excellent essay posted at the Daily Grail this past summer on the subject of the ‘changing shape’ , from discs to flying saucers to boomerangs, bats and crescents to the actual drawing by Arnold in his Air Force report, which looks nothing like the ‘flying wing’ he is seen pointing to in a photograph - well written and worth looking into mouseonmoon mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13920006114625021133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8297935984616304783.post-30476333117988589802018-12-20T19:06:19.282-05:002018-12-20T19:06:19.282-05:00"Shortly thereafter, Kenneth Arnold and compa..."Shortly thereafter, Kenneth Arnold and company began reporting flying discs." Not entirely correct. The objects Arnold reported were sort of boomerang shaped. He described their flight characteristics as looking like saucers being skimmed across the surface of water.purrlgurrlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06519835482606629362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8297935984616304783.post-80674686054056730952018-12-20T13:20:38.184-05:002018-12-20T13:20:38.184-05:00Thanks for article and the links for the free down...Thanks for article and the links for the free downloads. You do a wonderful job with your articles. NXPLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01366013298228756001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8297935984616304783.post-68456374138557987392018-12-20T11:14:41.550-05:002018-12-20T11:14:41.550-05:00
I thought I knew the Roswell story, but this is m...<br />I thought I knew the Roswell story, but this is my first awareness of the two different press releases.<br />I’m very interested in Lt Haught’s explanation and what KSWS and KGFL news ‘teams’ felt as they realized this ‘difference’.<br /><br />It’s also been very curious to me that Ruppelt never mentions the Roswell event in his book.<br /><br />Mr Carrion has done a great service for the study of this amazing history.mouseonmoon mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13920006114625021133noreply@blogger.com