Sunday, March 01, 2009

Critics And Debunkers Are Still At It

  • Websters: The quality of being actual.
  • Random House: That which actually exists; reality; truth.
  • Britannica: Anything actually existent.
  • New World Dictionary: A thing that has actually happened, or that is really true; thing that has been or is. The state of things as they are; reality, actuality; truth.

By Dennis Balthaser
© 3-1-09

Editor's Note-There is an important addendum at the end of this article, regarding corrections to content-FW

Dennis Balthaser Over the years the 1947 Roswell Incident has had it’s share of critics, skeptics and debunkers, and I’ve welcomed them in most cases, hopeful that they could offer information that might be beneficial to finally understanding what actually happened near Roswell in 1947. Too many times however the information they present is not factual, and for several years I tried to discuss their points of view with them privately, hoping we could come to an agreement on the information being discussed. I have since then changed my approach and now expose them publicly, as I’ve done in past editorials about remarks made by Nancy Red Star, Phil Klass, Karl Pflock, James Bond Johnson, and others. The Roswell Incident is hard enough to research without these type individuals continually spreading their beliefs without any verifiable information to support their claims.

Dave ThomasSeveral years ago Dave Thomas did a presentation at the Aztec, NM symposium and during the Q&A time after his presentation, Stanton Friedman and I questioned many of the comments he had made, pretty well destroying his claims. Dave is a physics and mathematics graduate of New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, and a senior scientist at Quatro Corporation in Albuquerque. He is vice president and communications officer of New Mexico for Science and Reason.

Based on his article entitled, Roswell Crash of 1947 “A Realistic View”, posted in the January, 2009 edition of Rob McConnell’s ‘X’ Chronicle Newspaper, it is neither scientific, reasonable or realistic. The article does not state a date when Thomas wrote it, however if it’s his current view of the Roswell Incident, nothing has changed since he did his presentation at Aztec several years ago. This of course is typical, since their agenda is to ridicule and deny the facts presented over the years.

I will quote statements by Dave Thomas in the above ‘X’ Chronicle article using his initials (DT) to distinguish his remarks from my rebuttal and comments.

(DT) “Roswell, a small town doing a big business feeding the insatiable appetite of UFO enthusiasts, now houses two UFO museums.”

Roswell has not had two UFO Museum’s since 1998, when the one located near the base closed after the 50th anniversary of the Incident.

(DT) “Why the aliens were not taken to a superior medical facility remains a mystery.”

Is Thomas admitting there were aliens? What knowledge does he have that they were not taken to a superior medical facility such as the Lovelace Clinic in Albuquerque, which had a contract with the Army Air Force, or to White Sands, Los Alamos, Bethesda, Walter Reed, Wright Field, or any other location?

(DT) “William “Mac” Brazel, foreman of the Foster ranch, along with a 7-year old girl, Dee Proctor, found the most famous debris in modern history.”

I’m proposing a technicality here, because I found Brazel’s gravesite 10 years ago and his nickname on the tombstone is spelled “Mack”, not “Mac”.

Mack Brazel's Head Stone
I could stop right here because of the next comment, but I believe it over emphasizes the lack of doing good research by Dave Thomas and others, that continue to distribute information without doing the required research. Dee Proctor was not a 7-year old girl, but was the “7-year old SON” of Loretta and Floyd Proctor, ranch neighbors to “Mack” Brazel on the Foster ranch.

(DT) “Actually, it was pretty mundane stuff, including a piece of reinforcing tape whose flower-like design was taken to be alien hieroglyphics”

The symbols on the tape were never “taken” as hieroglyphics. Major Jesse Marcel and his son Jesse Jr., both commented that “the markings on the I-beams---not on the tape” looked like some “form of hieroglyphics”, that being the best description they could come up with as a comparison with anything we knew at the time. I submitted the drawing Maj. Marcel gave to Linda Corley, PhD, in an interview she did with Major Marcel, May 5, 1981, prior to his death, to the Great Pyramid of Giza Research Association I belong to, and those board members knowledgeable in hieroglyphics informed me there is no resemblance to any form of hieroglyphics. Jesse Marcel Jr. went over this with C.B.Moore, and talks about it in his book, “The Roswell Legacy”, which Thomas has probably not read.

(DT) “The National Enquirer also brought Roswell to the forefront in 1980, with a story featuring Jesse Marcel, the Army Major who, in 1947 may have been responsible for a press release.”

Again obviously, Thomas did no research. The fact is that Lt. Walter Haut, the Public Relations Officer for the 509th Bomb Wing at Roswell Army Airfield, under orders from Base Commander, Col Blanchard, wrote the press release, and distributed it to both radio stations and both newspapers in Roswell, about noon New Mexico time, July 8, 1947. The article went out to most newspapers west of Chicago, as a front-page headline, in those afternoon or evening papers July 8th. It was not Major Marcel who was responsible for the press release. Walter Haut wrote and distributed it locally to the media.

(DT) “Current conventional wisdom among skeptics is that what was found on the Brazel ranch was part of Project Mogul, a top secret project testing giant, high-flying balloons to detect Soviet nuclear explosions.”

“Conventional wisdom?” It wasn’t the Brazel ranch---it was the Foster ranch where Brazel was ranch foreman. The Soviets didn’t do any nuclear testing until 1949, (two years after the Roswell Incident)?

(DT) On several occasions in Dave Thomas’ article he mentions Charles Moore, one of the Project Mogul scientists, who worked with NYU on Mogul projects, who refers to the equipment used for the balloon launches such as; radar reflectors, aluminum rings, sonobuoys, batteries for the acoustic equipment, radiosondes, and others.

Why did none of that equipment show up in the photos taken in General Ramey’s office, and what is in the unopened packages by the radiator behind General Ramey and Col. DuBose in those photographs?

(DT) “Moore makes a strong case for the hypothesis that NYU Flight # 4, which he helped launch on June 4, 1947, was the source of the debris Brazel found on the Foster ranch.”

Flight 4 was cancelled due to weather conditions, and Moore admits no altitude data was obtained for it and it was not included in the NYU reports.

(DT) “Brazel reported that he found the debris on the ranch on June 14, 1947.”

Brazel would have come into Roswell on Sunday, July 6th bringing some debris to Sheriff Wilcox’s office, and the military would have gotten involved with Marcel and Cavitt going out to the ranch that evening. The military would have had time to talk to Brazel and have him prepare a statement, prior to taking him to the base for an in-depth interrogation. Brazel is quoted on the June 14th date only in the Roswell Daily Record newspaper for July 9, when General Ramey’s weather balloon story was the headline.

(DT) “Moore’s calculated balloon path is quite consistent with a landing at the Foster ranch, approximately 85 miles northeast of the Alamogordo launch site and 60 miles northwest of Roswell.”

Researcher David Rudiak
has volumes of information pertaining trajectory path errors proposed by Charles Moore as well as documentation about the various flight numbers and paths of balloons launched from Alamogordo, New Mexico, confirming that the debris on the Foster ranch could not have come from Flight #4.

If Dave Thomas and others insist on discussing the Roswell Incident, they should at least do the research required, or cease referring to themselves as scientific, reasonable or realistic.

Thanks to Stanton Friedman for reviewing my comments.

Addendum: Shortly after I wrote my March 1, 2009 editorial entitled, "Critics and Debunkers are still at it", Dave Thomas notified me that he did not write one of the articles that I was quoting from Rob McConnells X-Zone newsletter. Both articles in McConnell's newsletter were under the same heading of "Roswell Incident and Project Mogul", and I assumed they were both written by the same person, since only one author was listed. I was in error for assuming that, and upon being notified of my error, on March 7, 2009, I emailed an apology email to Dave Thomas. The content of my remarks in my editorial remain the same, with the source of those two articles being what I apologized for, so again I apologize to Dave Thomas for the error caused by McConnell not properly crediting the actual authors of both articles-DB


  1. You very reasonable and courages gentleman are too respectful with regard to persons who must of needs refrain in a _reciprocation_ of that respect!

    See, I think it could be more forcibly observed that the continued and blatant ongoing misstatement of fact your opposition employs against you is proof positive of their utter failure to make their case.

    They —after all their years of moneyed debunkery and mainstream support— only show they have... no debate to offer... only misinformation, disinformation, and character assassination.

    I add that the seeming inability of the "mainstream" to recognize that is proof of the complicity of that "mainstream"!

    Moreover, the ardent ferocity of klasskurtxian dissagreement with you is directly proportionate to the strength of your position, actually, and not the strength of their own.

    No, their position betrays the trust of the masses in that "mainstream" first, and then goes on to discredit science and society as short sighted, imprecise, and insincere in the second.

    I will try to be up klasskurtxian noses so far they'll feel my toes legging-up on their sniffy septums.

  2. I see very little for which you need to apologize in the first place, Dennis, forgetting that the production of same will go so under-appreciated by he who would trifle to make it _remotely_ necessary in the second.


Dear Contributor,

Your comments are greatly appreciated, and coveted; however, blatant mis-use of this site's bandwidth will not be tolerated (e.g., SPAM etc).

Additionally, healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published, nor will "anonymous" criticisms. Please keep your arguments "to the issues" and present them with civility and proper decorum. -FW


Mutual UFO Network Logo