Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Saru

Roswell guard ordered to 'shoot to kill'

204 posts in this topic

Going back to the original thesis of this thread, I had commented on Rich Reynold's Ufo Iconoclast post that Bragalia was over reaching in his "shoot to kill" meme. Since the Bomb Group assigned to Roswell was our only nuclear capable flying unit the "shoot to kill" order would not have been unusual. The provost marshal (head of base security) could not have arbitrary issue this order on his own. There would have been DoD policies that dictated when, how and where this condition was warranted. Bragalia tends to be over dramatic with his descriptions and as one poster on this thread correctly stated that the accurate order would be the implementation of "The Use of Deadly Force is Authorized" policy. This would have been no surprise due to Roswell's flying mission.

I had further commented that if Tony wanted to discern why two security guards were posted at the hangar in question, he should find out what else could have been stored in the hangar besides alleged UFO crash material such as mission essential critical components (bomb sights, navigational components, ordnance release mechanisms, etc). That would have justified the use of two security guards.

I seriously doubt that the hangar had contained a nuclear weapon since Roswell had weapon storage bunkers for that purpose.

Pysch 101 is correct in his numerous posts in that Project Mogul material would have easily fit the security requirements whether the hangar held Mogul crash debris or intact balloons and corresponding detection equipment...not a far reach for a rational conclusion.

Best Regards,

Tim

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to the original thesis of this thread, I had commented on Rich Reynold's Ufo Iconoclast post that Bragalia was over reaching in his "shoot to kill" meme. Since the Bomb Group assigned to Roswell was our only nuclear capable flying unit the "shoot to kill" order would not have been unusual. The provost marshal (head of base security) could not have arbitrary issue this order on his own. There would have been DoD policies that dictated when, how and where this condition was warranted. Bragalia tends to be over dramatic with his descriptions and as one poster on this thread correctly stated that the accurate order would be the implementation of "The Use of Deadly Force is Authorized" policy. This would have been no surprise due to Roswell's flying mission.

I had further commented that if Tony wanted to discern why two security guards were posted at the hangar in question, he should find out what else could have been stored in the hangar besides alleged UFO crash material such as mission essential critical components (bomb sights, navigational components, ordnance release mechanisms, etc). That would have justified the use of two security guards.

I seriously doubt that the hangar had contained a nuclear weapon since Roswell had weapon storage bunkers for that purpose.

Pysch 101 is correct in his numerous posts in that Project Mogul material would have easily fit the security requirements whether the hangar held Mogul crash debris or intact balloons and corresponding detection equipment...not a far reach for a rational conclusion.

Best Regards,

Tim

I will look that podcast up Tim, thanks for the heads up.

Great to see you drop in, always is mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim-

Anthony Bragalia here. I do not generally respond in forums but in this case I must...

You do not tell readers two very vital things: 1) Cox was well aware of procedures and security measures relative to atomic bombs and the planes that delivered them. This is because he had Top Secret clearance and photographed them as part of the 309th Photo Unit at Roswell ! 2) I told you previously that I asked Cox if he thought this may have related to a nuclear event such as an errant weapon/broken arrow. He was adamant that this was not the case. This happened directly after the controversial crash. No one has ever said that the disc/balloon was really a nuke! And Cox heard nothing about an atomic weapon event of any kind occurring at that time. In all the dozens of Roswell vet interviews no one has ever alluded to such a thing either. And official records of course do not reflect that an emergency atomic weapon event ever happened at that time and place.

Two other things:

Mogul balloons, when recovered, were not treated in this way by military or involved scientists. CB Moore would roll over in his grave if he heard such things! Do even some very basic reading to learn more. The material of the Mogul balloon train was not classified- only its mission!

Also, if you read Witness to Roswell Second Edition, Bessie Brazel now states that she had confused the balloon retrievals with her Dad with the crash event North of Roswell. In fact she makes a full recantation and explains why in the book.

Best,

Anthony Bragalia

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tony,

The theme of my posting above and on Ufo Iconoclasts revolves around why were two security guards posted at the hangar. You stated that Cox had a "shoot to kill order". I gave examples of "what else" might have been housed in the hangar that would have turned the area into a "Use of Deadly Force Authorization" zone. And I provided a simple explanation for the provost's implementation of the order, which other posters concurred.

I totally agree with you that Roswell was not a Broken Arrow event as there is nothing in the seemingly self propagating minutia of facts/rumors that support such an event.

I readily admit that your knowledge of the Roswell subject surpasses that of mine by legion. Roswell is not that much of interest to me, but when you post your work in public you will be open to criticism or asked to clarify your stance. I had merely asked for a clarification based on my past experience with military security on bases such as Roswell and other nuclear weapons sites. Could there have been something else in that hangar that was considered mission essential rather than alleged UFO crash debris?

You said: "Also, if you read Witness to Roswell Second Edition, Bessie Brazel now states that she had confused the balloon retrievals with her Dad with the crash event North of Roswell. In fact she makes a full recantation and explains why in the book."

Tony, that's the problem with cases such as Roswell and others, "Bessie Brazel now states..." The story always seems to change over time. The "witnesses" have been data mined to the point that facts and anecdotes become blurred and yet worse, merged into potential confabulation. Notice that these witnesses often quoted are secondary or tertiary sources. You seemly tend to get drawn into this murky psychological morass.

I'm one of the few skeptics that actually defended some of your work and have privately been chastised by some for doing so. Your Socorro hoax hypothesis is a good example where I admired your ability to think out side of ufology's orthodoxy and you took a hit from some of your peers, yet you did not waver. It is my sincere hope that you continue to do so when warranted.

Best Regards

Tim H.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said:

snapback.pngMrSerendipity, on 20 April 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

I don't think they had polaroids in 1947! :no:

They did, still, check that which I bloded and coloured for you , and get back to me ;)

What are you going on about? "That which you 'bloded', (sic), and coloured for me," states that, 'in 1948 instant photography went on sale to the public for the first time'. In other words it wasn't available to the public in 1947. Whether it was available to the military or not I don't know. They didn't need instant photography anyway as they always had their own photographers and processing specialists and would have been able to turn out finished high quality pictures, (much better than tiny polariods), within an hour. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to the original thesis of this thread, I had commented on Rich Reynold's Ufo Iconoclast post that Bragalia was over reaching in his "shoot to kill" meme. Since the Bomb Group assigned to Roswell was our only nuclear capable flying unit the "shoot to kill" order would not have been unusual. The provost marshal (head of base security) could not have arbitrary issue this order on his own. There would have been DoD policies that dictated when, how and where this condition was warranted. Bragalia tends to be over dramatic with his descriptions and as one poster on this thread correctly stated that the accurate order would be the implementation of "The Use of Deadly Force is Authorized" policy. This would have been no surprise due to Roswell's flying mission.

I don't know if any of you were around in the mid to late 1940's. I was a young lad at the time and I heard the term "shoot to kill" many times from my dad and uncles who were in the war, telling some of their stories. I don't remember hearing the term "The Use of Deadly Force is Authorized" at that time. I made a career of the military and I don't think I heard the latter term until probably in the 60's when I was assigned to special weapons.

Odie

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim-

Anthony Bragalia here. I do not generally respond in forums but in this case I must...

You do not tell readers two very vital things: 1) Cox was well aware of procedures and security measures relative to atomic bombs and the planes that delivered them. This is because he had Top Secret clearance and photographed them as part of the 309th Photo Unit at Roswell ! 2) I told you previously that I asked Cox if he thought this may have related to a nuclear event such as an errant weapon/broken arrow. He was adamant that this was not the case. This happened directly after the controversial crash. No one has ever said that the disc/balloon was really a nuke! And Cox heard nothing about an atomic weapon event of any kind occurring at that time. In all the dozens of Roswell vet interviews no one has ever alluded to such a thing either. And official records of course do not reflect that an emergency atomic weapon event ever happened at that time and place.

Two other things:

Mogul balloons, when recovered, were not treated in this way by military or involved scientists. CB Moore would roll over in his grave if he heard such things! Do even some very basic reading to learn more. The material of the Mogul balloon train was not classified- only its mission!

Also, if you read Witness to Roswell Second Edition, Bessie Brazel now states that she had confused the balloon retrievals with her Dad with the crash event North of Roswell. In fact she makes a full recantation and explains why in the book.

Best,

Anthony Bragalia

Hi Mr Bragalia

What do you mean "MOGUL balloons were not treated in this way? You accuse Tim of being inaccurate, then you vaguely make some half statement and leave it? In what way? Are you saying that they did not have recovery tags like the below on them?

QUESTIONNAIRE, REWARD AND WARNING TAGS ATTACHED TO PROJECT MOGUL BALLOONS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<^>

QUESTIONNAIRE

Please answer this and send to us so that we may pay you the

Reward.

1. On what date and at what hour was the balloon discovered?

2. Where was it discovered? (Approximate distance and direction

from nearest town on map?)

3. Was it observed descending? If so, at what time?

4. Did it float down slowly or fall rapidly?

5. How much kerosene was there in the tank?

C. S. Schneider

Research Division

New York University

University Heights

Bronx 53. New York

__________________________________________________________________

REWARD NOTICE

This is special weather equipment Sent aloft on research by New York Univetity.

It is important that the equipment be recovered. The finder L requested to protect

the equipment from damage or theft. and to telegraph collect to: Mr. C. 5. Schneider.

York University. 18lst St. & University Heights, Box 12. New York City.

L.S.A. Phone: LUdlow 3.6310. REFER TO FLIGHT #-__________

A dollar ($ ) reward and reasonable reimbursement for recovery expense will be

paid if the above instruction* are followed before September 1949.

KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE. THERE IS KEROSENE IN THE TANK.

___________________________________________________________________

****WARNING TAGS****

_______________________

DANGER!

FIRE!

CUT THESE WIRES

BEFORE HANDLING

_______________________

DANGER!

EMPTY THIS ON GROUND

BEFORE HANDLING

________________________

Only weeks after Roswell, the FBI drew up a one-page memorandum titled Instrument found on farm near Danforth, Illinois. The similarities are nothing short of astounding. Both “objects” were found on ranch-land, both were initially suspected of being flying saucer debris, and in the same way that the Air Force tried to lay the Roswell controversy to rest with its Mogul hypothesis, the material evidence in the Danforth case was also suspected by some within the military of originating with a Mogul balloon array. Considering this, can I ask if you have read Lost Shamans Intel Op's Hypothesis, I know you have spoken with LS in the past, but you seem to avoid this seemingly very sound option. Why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you going on about? "That which you 'bloded', (sic), and coloured for me," states that, 'in 1948 instant photography went on sale to the public for the first time'. In other words it wasn't available to the public in 1947. Whether it was available to the military or not I don't know. They didn't need instant photography anyway as they always had their own photographers and processing specialists and would have been able to turn out finished high quality pictures, (much better than tiny polariods), within an hour. :P

Congrats, you did get the bolded.

All I did was answer your query. You said you did not think we had Polaroids in 1947, I am sure we are now both agreed that we most certainly did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats, you did get the bolded.

All I did was answer your query. You said you did not think we had Polaroids in 1947, I am sure we are now both agreed that we most certainly did.

Instant photography was 'NOT' available to the public until 1948!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instant photography was 'NOT' available to the public until 1948!

The military is "NOT" the public. The cameras "DID" exist.

Crikey Moses, and I thought you got it. Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do hope Tim responds to Anthony and also that Anthony responds to Psyche. Throw LS into the mix and we could have an interesting debate develop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do hope Tim responds to Anthony and also that Anthony responds to Psyche. Throw LS into the mix and we could have an interesting debate develop.

I think Tim did respond to Anthony, post #154 mate. He pointed out that Tony, like most UFOlogists is supportive of an every changing story, when it is often claimed that was what the USAF did.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Tim did respond to Anthony, post #154 mate. He pointed out that Tony, like most UFOlogists is supportive of an every changing story, when it is often claimed that was what the USAF did.

how the hell did I miss that....I even went over the last few pages reading them twice...... :w00t::unsure2::cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony, that's the problem with cases such as Roswell and others, "Bessie Brazel now states..." The story always seems to change over time. The "witnesses" have been data mined to the point that facts and anecdotes become blurred and yet worse, merged into potential confabulation. Notice that these witnesses often quoted are secondary or tertiary sources.

Tim,

Whats wrong with the example you are useing? Both Mack Brazel and his daughter Bessie claimed they found weather balloons before! They are both primary sources. She only changed her story to say that she thinks she was remembering an earlier event when she found a weather balloon with her dad. Thats consistent with Mack's statements at the time that he'd found weather balloons before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The military is "NOT" the public. The cameras "DID" exist.

Crikey Moses, and I thought you got it. Sheesh.

Prove it!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim,

Whats wrong with the example you are useing? Both Mack Brazel and his daughter Bessie claimed they found weather balloons before! They are both primary sources. She only changed her story to say that she thinks she was remembering an earlier event when she found a weather balloon with her dad. Thats consistent with Mack's statements at the time that he'd found weather balloons before.

L.S., nice to hear from you!

Your correct about Bessie Brazel being a primary source. Goes to show you that I've not paid much attention to the Roswell debate(s). I wanted to show Tony that his statement concerning Bessie Brazel "recanting" her earlier story was indicative of what I've seen (in passing) concerning the Roswell story...not unlike others that I'm well familiar with.

From a Wiki article:

Brazel, who discovered the debris which sparked the Roswell UFO incident, died in 1963, well before researchers started to interview witnesses to the incident. He was interviewed in 1947, however, and his accounts of debris appeared in the Roswell Daily Record on July 9, 1947. In the interview he said he found "bright wreckage made up of rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper and sticks".[7][8]Bessie, his daughter, helped recover the debris, which she described to be similar to aluminium and wax paper, and it has indescribable writings on it.[9] In 1995, her affidavit was published and included additional descriptions. She claimed the pieces looked like a weather balloon. The pieces of the debris has two parts: the front was foil-like, and the other was rubber-like, both of which were gray in color. The debris had sticks attached to them with white tape."

Most of the above actually came from Kevin Randle and a co-author. Tony referred me to "Witnesses to Roswell" concerning Bessie Brazel's recanting of her original statements which I unfortunately don't have on my book shelf. BTW, this shows Tony's tangential line of thinking since Bessie Brazel's statements/recantation has nothing to do with Cox's "shoot to kill" order. Rather than telling me "yes/no" that he had attempted to find out what else could have been stored in the hangar, if anything, he throws out Bessie Brazel. I'm disappointed with Tony in this regard since he is a key component on Kevin Randle's Roswell "Dream Team."

Best Regards,

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roswell was ET IMO. Read Jesse Marcel Jr.'s book.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roswell was ET IMO. Read Jesse Marcel Jr.'s book.

You have to be joking. Have you not read anything else on Roswell but said book? Not seen how all these claims have been systematically been shredded?

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You have to be joking. Have you not read anything else on Roswell but said book? Not seen how all these claims have been systematically been shredded?

Cheers,

Badeskov

Why don't you read Stanton Friedman's, 'Crash At Corona', and be enlightened, instead of the trash being churned out by noisy negativists and debunkers! :P

Edited by MrSerendipity
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prove it!

I did! What is wrong with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you read Stanton Friedman's, 'Crash At Corona', and be enlightened, instead of the trash being churned out by noisy negativists and debunkers! :P

The man who made up the Aliens in 1979?

Easy to see where your bias comes from.

Have you guys ever considered reading the actual documents from the time frame instead of fictional novels that are speculating wildly? The actual documents are far more valuable than every novel written on the subject combined. That is how research works, you gather evidence, the only evidence that exists are said documents.

Or one can read fantasy musings, like you and Stu recommend. Personal validation comes at a cheap price huh? What's that say about your conviction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roswell was ET IMO. Read Jesse Marcel Jr.'s book.

Does it say why he and his father never agreed about the appearance of the "beams"? Jesse Jr did not go to the site, he was a little kid. You do know this don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I did! What is wrong with you?

You DID NOT prove it. What the hell is wrong with YOU? Show me your proof again. :cry:

Edited by MrSerendipity
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you read Stanton Friedman's, 'Crash At Corona', and be enlightened, instead of the trash being churned out by noisy negativists and debunkers! :P

I did and held up against the actual documents and events that it claims to describe, the deception is obvious. Try some critical source comparisons and you will easily see how Mr. Friedman abuses official documents to lead towards a certain conclusion.

Frankly, it is a piece of garbage.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

L.S., nice to hear from you!

Your correct about Bessie Brazel being a primary source. Goes to show you that I've not paid much attention to the Roswell debate(s). I wanted to show Tony that his statement concerning Bessie Brazel "recanting" her earlier story was indicative of what I've seen (in passing) concerning the Roswell story...not unlike others that I'm well familiar with.

From a Wiki article:

Most of the above actually came from Kevin Randle and a co-author. Tony referred me to "Witnesses to Roswell" concerning Bessie Brazel's recanting of her original statements which I unfortunately don't have on my book shelf. BTW, this shows Tony's tangential line of thinking since Bessie Brazel's statements/recantation has nothing to do with Cox's "shoot to kill" order. Rather than telling me "yes/no" that he had attempted to find out what else could have been stored in the hangar, if anything, he throws out Bessie Brazel. I'm disappointed with Tony in this regard since he is a key component on Kevin Randle's Roswell "Dream Team."

Best Regards,

Tim

Hi Tim

I think you pointed out a most prudent point, and indeed I have seen you support Mr Bragalia when many others dismissed him. LS does favourably support Mr Bragalia I have noticed in the past, and I must say, that support bewilders me as it seems rather obvious to me that LS is a far more competent and fair researcher by comparison. You gave Mr Bragalia the benefit of the doubt, so one can see that you too are a fair man, one cannot ask for more I believe. And it does indeed illustrate Mr Bragalias way of thinking - change the subject when backed into a corner. He never proved the recant, which as far as I am aware is somewhat ambiguous, and indeed appears to be bowing to pressure, from her Brother I would suspect. Her original statement would be a huge thorn in Jesse Jr's bok sales and speaking tour, Roswell seems to be his bread and butter and lets face it, in front of all these people how the heck can he say what he does with a straight face when his sister refutes his claim with one line, and actually went there, unlike Jesse, and was older than Jesse at the time. It is more than plainly obvious that te UFOlogists flock to Jesse Jr because he tells them what they want to hear. Roswell ET is his business, that is plain to see to anyone who cares to look.

Also, didn't Mr Bragalia get a fan boy to whine his way into the "dream team"?

LINK - Roswell Dream Team?

Kevin Randle’s blog indicates that he, Tom Carey, and Don Schmitt have formed a “dream team” – no ego in that! – to re-open an investigation into Roswell – a cold-case kind of thing Randle writes.

Mr. Randle is as obsessed with Roswell as we are with Socorro and a few other UFO incidents.

That said, let me tell you that Anthony Bragalia should have been invited to join the dream team. He is one researcher who has discovered some important Roswell minutiae over the past few years.

It really does sound like someone had a big cry over not being included and had someone whine his way in for him. The article also blathers on about Mr Bragalia's Nitinol claims, which when dissected here are shown to be outright nonsense. Personally, I find such as the above hard to respect.

Awesome to see you around. Please do not be a stranger my good man. I for one very much appreciate your contributions. :tu:

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.