Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Jul -> Re: Secrets of Literary History

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 17:20:26 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:17:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Secrets of Literary History


The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments.

>From: DRudiak@aol.com
>Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 20:03:54 -0400 (EDT)
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Secrets of Literary History. Was: Brookesmith Smears Marcel

My carp here is about lying and whether I did it or not. Leaving the=20
Rudeboy to his own opinion, on reflection I think a couple of points=20
in his latest post do need clarification.

Dave Rudiak extols the virtues of Jesse Marcel Sr, and complains:

>Yet according to Brookesmith, Todd, Korff, etc., Marcel was an=20
>incompetent intelligence officer who couldn't even identify ordinary=20
>materials,

Wrong, in my case anyway. There's plenty of published evidence, and=20
yet more has been supplied by Jan Aldrich to this List, that a=20
weather balloon & RAWIN target *didn't* (and probably still don't)=20
constitute "ordinary materials" to non-specialists. So Marcel's=20
competence in this is not at issue; just his *familiarity* with what=20
Brazel found.

>>and call me a liar if he likes to do that too,

>Well, since he insists. In the course of recycling Todd's arguments,
>Brookesmith did clearly lie about (1) Marcel having no radar=20
>tracking experience, and (2) Marcel claiming to be the sole survivor=20
>of a plane crash during WWII. Not only are these statements=20
>incorrect, they even contradict what Todd wrote.=20

(1) To be really picky, doing a course in something *doesn't* make=20
you "experienced" at it. But if I'd been sufficiently picky when=20
reading the page proofs of the book, I would have seen that the word=20
"devices" had dropped out of the sentence "He had no knowledge of=20
radar tracking or weather balloons." So thanks for drawing my eye to=20
that error. Once corrected, it won't contradict what Todd wrote.

I might mildly point out that making a mistake is rather different=20
from lying, just as there is a difference between reporting and=20
"parroting". I could also count up the number of times I've drawn=20
attention, on this List, with due attendant cringing, to the=20
misidentification of Marcel with Irving Newton in another book -=20
which error has been corrected in all subsequent reprints.

(2) This is what Robert Todd wrote on Marcel as crash survivor:

'Major Marcel also claimed he got shot down once, on his third=20
mission. Not only did he claim he got shot down, but he also claimed=20
that, when he bailed out, his main parachute malfunctioned and failed=20
to open. He said he bailed out at eight thousand feet and fell six=20
thousand feet before he got his reserve parachute open, leaving him a=20
margin of error of only two thousand feet. When Bob Pratt asked=20
Marcel if everyone survived, Marcel said, "All but one crashed into a=20
mountain."'

Read Marcel's lips: "All but one crashed into a mountain." But Marcel=20
didn't. So is he the sole survivor here or is he not? And what do you=20
think Tobert Todd thinks? Why, he says:

'One gets the feeling Marcel would have claimed he had been one of=20
the men who died when he crashed into the mountain if he thought he=20
could get away with it. Apparently it would have taken a discrepancy=20
that obvious in nature before certain of the crashed-saucer promoters=20
started doubting Marcel's veracity. Marcel's personnel file does not=20
confirm his claim of being shot down, nor does it dispute it. But=20
considering his other fanciful claims, there is reason to doubt the=20
story.'

So where is the contradiction? Where is the lie? I think I spy=20
something not unlike a gigantic misrepresentation, at the very least,=20
reclining at its ease there in the teeth of Mr David Rudiak.

Quite possibly, apart from a certain precipitateness over the Brazel=20
debris, which a wise superior might well choose to overlook after a=20
decent bollocking, Marcel was an exemplary officer in the 1940s. So=20
what? We have to bear in mind that the Jesse Marcel of 1978 had had=20
30 years to embellish his memories. To point this out isn't a smear:=20
self-aggrandisement is a simple human frailty. But if it ends in=20
untruths and BUNK that (as in this case) have led thousands of people=20
into useless and pointless imaginings, it should be debunked. Simple=20
as that.

For the record & for those who don't already have it, Todd concludes:

'Given Major Marcel's documented inclination toward Walter Mitty-like=20
fantasies, and his propensity for making wildly exaggerated claims,=20
coupled with his embarrassment over having made a stupid mistake back=20
in 1947, any statements he made in connection with the Roswell=20
incident are virtually worthless, except to the faithful who will=20
continue to cling to Marcel as a knight in shining armor. In his=20
Showtime movie, _Roswell_, Paul Davids did his level best to turn=20
Major Marcel into a folk hero who blazed the trail to the "truth"=20
about the Roswell incident. But the truth is that Major Marcel was a=20
mythomaniac who was responsible for the brouhaha back in 1947, and=20
without whom the Roswell story would never have lived again in the=20
1980s and 1990s. Clearly Marcel had a problem with the truth.

'In Marcel's "testimony," we see the origins of every sensational=20
claim being made about the Roswell incident, repeated and embellished=20
by "witnesses" =AD real and imagined =AD who have followed in his=20
footsteps. Although he never mentioned the recovery of bodies, his=20
face-saving claim that the debris was "not of the Earth" certainly=20
opened the door for others to make that claim. Marcel primed the pump=20
of sensational claims, and it's been gushing ever since.'

It may seem psittacine to the Rudeboy, but I do rather agree and, in=20
agreeing, see no reason not to repeat the argument. Especially as=20
there are a lot more interesting enigmas in ufology waiting to be=20
[re]solved than the mountain of crap that "Roswell" has become.

Yours rhetorickally
P. ("Pretty Boy") Mendoza Britspook
"That professional irritant" - Rob Irving