From: KRandle993@aol.com [Kevin Randle]
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 10:14:35 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 07:50:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr Marcel's I-beam with 'Hieroglyphics'


 >Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 18:14:37 -0400
 >From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Dr Marcel's I-beam with 'Hieroglyphics'
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>



 >So, there is apparently a reason for doubting Marcel's reported
 >comments.

 Absolutely. His REPORTED comments.

 >>There are three different version of the interview floating around,
 >>all of them traceable back to Moore.

 >>In 1980 when Johnny Mann of New Orleans TV station WWL interviewed
 >>Marcel, he showed those pictures to Marcel who told him that they
 >>didn't show the real debris. There is no credible evidence that
 >>Marcel ever said that if he was in the picture it was the real
 >>debris.

 >For reference, this is the verbatim story attributed to Major Marcel
 >in "The Roswell Incident":

 >"Just after we got to Carswell, Fort Worth, we were told to bring some
 >of this stuff up to the general's office - that he wanted to take a
 >look at it. We did this and spread it out on the floor on some brown
 >paper.

 >What we had was only a very small portion of the debris - there was
 >a whole lot more. There was half a B-29-ful outside. General Ramey
 >allowed some members of the press to take a picture of this stuff.
 >They took one picture of me on the floor holding up some of the
 >less-interesting metallic debris. The press was allowed to photograph
 >this, but were not allowed far enough into the room to touch it. The
 >stuff in that one photo was pieces of the actual stuff we had found.
 >It was not a staged photo. Later, they cleared out our wreckage and
 >substituted some of their own Then they allowed more photos. Those
 >photos were taken while the actual wreckage was already on its way to
 >Wright Field. I was not in these. I believe these were taken with the
 >general and one of his aides".

If you look at the uncropped versions of the pictures of Marcel you can
plainly see that it is the same as that in the pictures of Ramey and
Dubose, of Ramey, and of Irving Newton. So, all seven pictures taken
in Ramey's office show the same debris, which is, quite clearly, the
remains of a weather balloon and rawin target.

Bill Moore, in attacking the work I had been doing, sent to several
researchers, copies of his interview with Marcel. In that version it
said, "There was half a B-29 full outside. General [Roger Maxwell]
Ramey allowed the press in to take TWO pictures of this stuff. I WAS
IN ONE, AND HE AND COL. DUBOSE WERE IN THE OTHER.
[emphasis added]."

In the article "Three Hours That Shook The Press," FOCUS, new
series, Vol. 5, nos. 4-6, June 30, 1990, Jaime Shandera and
Moore wrote, "In his interview with Moore, Maj. Marcel maintained
the debris in the TWO photos with him were the real stuff."

These changes were made because of the discovery of additional
photographs, and the fact that when you looked at the uncropped
pictures, it was clear that all held the same debris. I don't know
where Moore got the idea that Marcel claimed he was in any
photographs with the real stuff because he apparently never said
that to anyone else. I asked Stan Friedman and Len Stringfield,
both of whom interviewed Marcel on more than one occasion
about this and both said that Marcel had never claimed to be in
pictures with the real debris.

All of this has been covered in THE ROSWELL REPORT
published by CUFOS, in IUR and some of it was reported
in the MUFON JOURNAL.

> It would be helpful to clarify this definitively, it makes a
 >significant difference to the perspective.

 >Is it agreed that all the photographs show the same debris and that
 >no switch could therefore have taken place?

The switch with the debris took place BEFORE any photographs
were taken. Ramey saw some of the real debris, but the stuff
on the floor, on the brown paper, was the remains of a weather
balloon and rawin target.

 >If that's the case, then there is presumably no debate that either,
 >all of the photographs show some of the debris Marcel recovered, or
 >all of them show substituted, bogus debris.

 I believe that nearly everyone believes that the photographs show
bogus debris. The only ones holding that Marcel was in pictures
with the real stuff are Moore, Shandera, and their supporters.

 >Kevin, much is made of the claim that Brazel was forced to change his
 >story. What exactly did he change?

 >We know he reportedly later said the debris was recovered on June
 >14th, rather than the "some days before" generalisation reported
 >elsewhere, but I can't see what difference that made at the time.

 >It was also later reported that, "when the debris was gathered up the
 >tinfoil, paper, tape and sticks made a bundle about three feet long".

 >Is that what's considered to be a major change in his story?

 All of that comes from the July 9 article in the Roswell Daily Record.
Brazel told others, including family, that he had found the stuff only a
day or so before he went into the sheriff. He changed the description
of the debris, and he changed the amount of debris at the time.

The difference is, if you have a real event and you are trying to hide it
you change as much as you can to divert attention. Changing the
date shows that what Brazel found wasn't all that important because
he didn't even bother to alert anyone until two or three weeks after
he had found it.

Hope this helps.

KRandle


 E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com