Discussions -> Roswell 1947 -> Homeclick!

Cette page en françaisCliquez!

The Roswell incident - Discussions:

Something to reconcile about Mac Brazel's statement to the Roswell Daily Record?

Let me say that I am often astonished by the way skeptics and proponents can ignore evidence and argue right passed one another. Want an example or two?

The skeptics will quote from the July 9, 1947, article in the Roswell Daily Record in which Mack Brazel said he picked up a bundle of debris that was very flimsy. According to the story, which does not quote Brazel exactly, "When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil paper, tape, and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long and about 8 inches think. In all, he estimated, the entire lot would have weighed maybe five pounds."

Following the lead of the late Phil Klass, the skeptics will often suggest this is pretty flimsy stuff to be part of an alien spacecraft.

The proponents of the extraterrestrial explanation will quote from the July 9, 1947, article in the Roswell Daily Record, pointing out that Mack Brazel said that he had previously found two weather observation balloons on the ranch but that what he found this time did not in any way resemble either of these.

The article ends with a direct quote. Brazel said, "I am sure what I found was not any weather observation balloon... But if I find anything else besides a bomb they are going to have a hard time getting me to say anything about it."

What we find in that one article is information that supports both sides of the argument. It was flimsy and probably a balloon, but the witness saying that he knew what the balloons looked like and this wasn't one of them.

How do we reconcile the two points of view [?]. The answer is obvious to me, but I'll allow you to draw your own conclusions about this and move on.

Source: http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2010/04/dispassionate-look-at-roswell.html

Kevin Randle asks a clear question, quoting from a precise source, whose authenticity is undeniable, but a single source, selected among others, and of journalistic nature, not of the nature of scientific data.

It does not matter, I want to play the game according to the rules.

Kevin Randle does not give the answer, an answer he says obvious to him, and invites everyone find it on his/her own. That is the game. Ok, let's play.

My answer is that the two things reconcile very well, that there is no real contradiction.

It is clear: Mack Brazel said that what he found was not a balloon, and ensures that he already found balloons, that he knows what they look like.

The contradiction would be, according to Kevin Randle, that "skeptics" say it was a balloon all the same.

Je laisse le soin aux sceptiques de s'exprimer eux-mêmes, de dire ce qu'ils veulent, de dire s'ils pensent que c'était un ballon ou non. Je ne suis pas leur porte parole et je ne vais pas parler à leur place, comme il se pourrait que Kevin Randle le fasse ici.

I leave the care to "skeptics" to express themselves, I let them say what they want to say, to say if they think that it was a balloon or not. I am not their spokesperson and I will not speak in their place, as it appears Kevin Randle does.

I give my answer, my obvious answer:

What Mack Brazel found was indeed, obviously, not a balloon.

But what was it? Alien spacecraft debris?

I don't know. But I know, by reading Brazel's description, the single item to be used in this game, that it could have been something alse than a balloon, and seomthing else than alien spacecraft debris:

Debris of one or several radar deflector with debris of one or several exploded balloons.

If Mack Brazel found debris of a deflector radar, it is obvious that he truthfully and rightfully could have told the journalist that it was not a balloon. It is obvious that a radar reflector is no balloon.

See also: The alleged debris on Army photographs.

Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict

 Feedback  |  Top  |  Back  |  Forward  |  Map  |  List |  Home
This page was last updated on April 21, 2010.