text:
3225 E. Lakeside Road, Jamestown, ND
Jamestown Reservoir
With seven boat launches, seven picnic shelters, two swimming beaches, three miles of hard-surfaced walking and biking trails, a world-class disc golf course and 2,492 acres of water surface area, the reservoir is Jamestown's premier recreation area. Features a stocked fishing pond, a playground and concessions. Located on one of the most-traveled migratory waterfowl flyways in the state. Two campgrounds and luxury cabins share easy access to the lake. Equipment rental is available at the Lakeside Marina. Lakeside Marina can be reached at 701-252-1183
Top Features
- Concessions
- Equipment Available for Rent
- Family-Friendly
- Free Admission
- Open Year 'Round
- Restrooms
All Features
- Equipment Available for Rent
- Open Year 'Round
Cost of Admission
- Admission: Free
- Free Admission
Facility Amenities
- Concessions
- Restrooms
Guest Information
- Family-Friendly
- Lakefront
Local: 701-251-9145
US Toll Free: 800-222-4766Facebook


text:
Sunlight Labs is an open source development team that builds technology to make government more transparent and accountable. Part of the non-partisan Sunlight Foundation, they are one of our favorite organizations, so we've invited them to host a hackathon at OSCON, where attendees build an application that promotes transparency in government.
We welcome you to join our hackathon to help out for an hour or a day, contribute to rebuilding our democracy, and meet some great folks!
For information on exhibition and sponsorship opportunities at the conference, contact Sharon Cordesse at email@example.com
Download the OSCON Sponsor/Exhibitor Prospectus
Download the Media & Promotional Partner Brochure (PDF) for information on trade opportunities with O'Reilly conferences or contact mediapartners@ oreilly.com
For media-related inquiries, contact Maureen Jennings at firstname.lastname@example.com
To stay abreast of conference news and to receive email notification when registration opens, please sign up for the OSCON newsletter (login required)
View a complete list of OSCON contacts

subset: commoncrawl


text:
product code: WA6057LED
shipping: Free Shipping to Lower 48 States
Depo Racing Japan – Same cost as Prosport but the Quality of Defi. Dont Invest your time with a gauge install and use a cheap gauge that is not accurate or will die after a few months. This is the gauge in Japan and Asia that is known to deliver all the accuracy at a fair price. includes Mounting Cup, Electric Sender, quick connect pigtail wiring, Visor, Decal and Instructions
Display: Fahrenheit 0 – 2200F
60 mm Fahrenheit Super White/Amber Dual View Digital Exhaust Gas Temp gauge (Each gauge has both colors, use either or both) Shipping rate to continental US – I will ship anywhere for additional cost.
– Full sweep 270 scale
– LED Backlight
– Opening Ceremony and Ending mode
– Needle self Calibration
– High precision Japanese Stepper Motor
– Fast Japanese Needle response
– Aluminum Bezels
– 27mm Case
– Easy quick connect pin-style wiring
– Digital Display
– No control unit needed


text:
"Monumental . . . an epic voyage that reveals how the past six million years shaped every part of us—our heads, limbs, and even our metabolism. . . . Through Lieberman's eyes, evolutionary history not only comes alive, it becomes the means to understand, and ultimately influence, our body's future."
—Neil Shubin, author of Your Inner Fish
"Fascinating. . . . A readable introduction to the whole field and great on the making of our physicality."
"Sweeping. . . . Convincingly makes the case for a wholesale rethinking of how we live our modern lives.'"
—CommonHealth, WBUR
"Riveting, enlightening, and more than a little frightening. . . . No one understands the human body like Daniel Lieberman or tells its story more eloquently."
—Christopher McDougall, author of Born to Run
"These are not debates to gloss over or reduce to simple statements of cause and effect—they are stories with scientific complexity and tremendous, sometimes contradictory accumulations of evidence and detail. The Story of the Human Body does full justice to those stories, to that evidence and to that detail, and brings them to bear on daily health and well-being, individual and collective."
—The Washington Post
"[Lieberman] is a true expert in a system where architecture and history intersect: the human foot. He ably describes how behavior and anatomy can lead to foot injuries in long-distance runners."
—The Wall Street Journal
"The ultimate science-based Paleo investigation. . . . Convincing. . . . A great read, and I recommend it highly for those of you who are interested in learning the facts about our biological roots, and how we can rationally apply 'Paleo' concepts to prevent and reverse modern 'mismatch' diseases."
—Dr. Ronald Hoffman, The Hoffman Center/Health Talk
"Eloquent and precise . . . Lieberman is the first to point out that modern living and technology have made our lives better in many ways. Still, a look back at where we came from can tell us a lot about where we're headed, he says—and how we might alter that course for the better."
"A doozy. . . . That humans are poorly adapted to our modern lifestyle of convenience foods, flat screens, and desk jobs isn't very controversial. But how we best cope with this new reality often is. Lieberman takes on many popular notions, including barefoot running, the paleo diet, epigenetics, and a host of hot topics ranging from obesity and chronic disease to Nanny State politics."
"[Lieberman's] evolutionary approach produces some counterintuitive surprises. . . . The Story of the Human Body is a reliable guide to a problem that is going to get worse before it gets better."
—The Guardian
"In thoroughly enjoyable and edifying prose, Lieberman . . . leads a fascinating journey through human evolution. He comprehensively explains how evolutionary forces have shaped the human species as we know it. . . . He balances a historical perspective with a contemporary one . . . while asking how we might control the destiny of our species. He argues persuasively that 'cultural evolution is now the dominant force of evolutionary change acting on the human body.'"
—Publishers Weekly (starred review)
"Lieberman gracefully combines paleontology, anatomy, physiology, and experimental biomechanics to clarify how the human body has evolved and how evolutionary design now clashes with the particularities of modern society. . . . An important book."
—Library Journal
"Lieberman holds nothing back. . . . He cleverly and comprehensively points out the perils of possessing Paleolithic anatomy and physiology in a modern world and bemoans 'just how out of touch we have become with our bodies.'. . . If we want to continue our phenomenal run as a species, it is essential to understand (and embrace) our evolutionary legacy."
"A massive review of where we came from and what ails us now . . . Would that industry and governments take heed."
—Kirkus Reviews


text:
Prepared this simple meal of Sattu paratha,kaddu sabzi and onion tomato kachumbar last weekend
someday i gonna try this on my own as it hubbies favourite
sattu paratha blogged here
kaddu sabzi/spiced pumpkin blogged here
aate ka ladoo blogged here
for onion tomato kachumber/onion tomato relish
onion one chopped finely
tomato one chopped finely
green chili one chopped finely
coriander leaves one tbsp chopped finely
salt as per taste
lemon juice one tbsp
In a mixing bowl ,mix all the ingredients
serve with paratha and sabzi.
do check navratri rangoli here
Linking this post to
The Weekly Story 51 hosted by Colours Dekor.
take care and happy bloggin
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Festive thali - Sattu Paratha Kaddu Sabzi with Kachumber and Aate ka Ladoo
3 comments:
Oh my!! Lovely.. You always put up some yummmy looking food.. :-)
- October 4, 2011 at 1:05 PM
- sangeeta said...
This could be my husband's fave things in one platter...this laddoo he loves. Now it's time to make them as winters are never complete without them :)
- October 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM
Happy Navratri to u and ur family too
Aate ka ladoo is my fave and sattu ka paratha..is so yummy..
- October 4, 2011 at 8:14 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Combine first 9 ingredients in a large bowl. In a small bowl, whisk together 1/3 cup olive oil with the zest and juice of 2 limes and 2 tablespoons cilantro. Add in additional olive oil as needed for correct consistency. Add salt and pepper to taste along with a dash of cayenne pepper. Toss into salad and add remaining cilantro. Serve with crushed up tortilla chips for added crunch!
Now I have a question for you: What's in your all star salad?


text:
Radiator & Oil Cooler Guards
Radiator & Oil Cooler Guards
Stay cool by installing a radiator or oil cooler guard on your motorcycle.
A rock or protruding branch in the wrong place can easily spell the end of your ride if it punctures the vulnerable cooling system components on your street, adventure or dual sport motorbike. The great looking, quality guards we stock are designed to keep large objects and debris from coming in contact with your bike's thin cooling fins without limiting the air flow needed for proper cooling. Shop our inventory of well designed, efficient and rugged guards by solid brands like R&G, SW-MOTECH and GIVI before your next ride so you can protect your ride and keep your motorcycle adventures rolling.
Pro Motorcycle Protection Package for BMW S1000XR '15-'19
From: $46.95
To: $810.45


text:
First Look: Chicago's First Maid-Rite Opens in Lincoln Park
Slideshows of new restaurants.
I wouldn't exactly call it an invasion, but over past few years a couple of iconic Iowa specialties have made their way to an unsuspecting Chicago public. First was Roots Handmade, a Quad Cities-style pizza joint, which uses a malt in its crust, along with a lot of very questionable and oddly delicious toppings (taco pizza, anyone?). And now comes Maid-Rite, a burger joint famous for its "loosemeats" sandwich, which just opened in Lincoln Park last weekend.
Of course, it doesn't look much like any burger I've ever eaten before. As Hamburger America author and TV host, George Motz, once explained, the Maid-Rite is "basically a deconstructed hamburger, or a sloppy joe without the slop. The recipe is simple: fresh ground-on-premises beef is steamed and crumbled in a cast iron cooker. Nothing is added but salt."
Sure enough, that's what it is. But even though there is no "slop," it certainly still is sloppy. The sandwich actually comes with a spoon nestled between the wrapper, just so you can scoop up the excess that falls out of the bun when you eat it.
As Roots proved, Chicagoans can embrace an Iowa specialty if its delicious enough. It'll take time to see whether Maid-Rite becomes popular, or if the whole messy business is ignored. Of course, Maid-Rite also serves a full menu of other sandwiches, salads, and entrees, so even if you'd rather pass on the unique variation, you can also score a pork tenderloin sandwich.
I stopped by yesterday to get a quick sense of what you can expect. Take a look at the slideshow and let me know what you think.
2429 N. Lincoln Avenue, Chicago, IL 60614 (map)


text:
Disney Is Making a Live-Action Version of Beauty and the Beast
Bill Condon, who made the final two films in the Twilight series, is set to direct
Move over, Maleficent.
Emboldened by the success of the live-action fairy tale starring Angelina Jolie, Disney is already working on another one – a live-action adaptation of Beauty and the Beast, Variety reports.
On board to direct is Bill Condon, who directed the final two films in the Twilight series and won a Golden Globe in 2006 for the musical Dreamgirls, which he wrote and directed.
So far, there is no casting news to report for Beauty and the Beast.
Disney's 1991 film version is one of the most beloved animated musicals ever, earning a Best Picture nomination at the Oscars and being adapted into a Broadway musical in 1994.
Disney is also working on two other live-action versions of classic animated films: Cinderella, directed by Kenneth Branagh, and The Jungle Book, directed by Jon Favreau.
Meanwhile, Maleficent has cast quite the spell at the box office, pulling in $70 million in the U.S. in its first weekend and $100 million more internationally.


text:
|Archaeological dig on the ranch..
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
We Have the Wrong Roswell Crash Site?
70 comments:
- Mike from Adelaide said...
These are not the droids you are looking for....
- October 5, 2011 at 2:52 PM
- cda said...
OK you have located the site. You are convinced a spacecraft from elsewhere crashed there. So why not put up a large noticeboard at the site proclaiming this fact? It being such a large area, maybe it needs two or three.
There must be funds somewhere for doing this.
Of course it would have made far more sense if someone had done this in July '47, but nobody thought it relevant then, or cared about it.
So get to it Kevin. A hugely important event like this cannot possibly go without some indication of its occurrence on site, can it?
- October 6, 2011 at 3:59 AM
- KRandle said...
I thought I had used neutral language. I thought that I had made it clear that this was the place whatever it was had crashed. I did not give it an identity because, for this posting, that wasn't important. I was just pointing out that I knew where it, whatever it was, had been found. You, as usual, missed the point.
- October 6, 2011 at 5:38 AM
- cda said...
Whatever it was? Do you mean that after all your books, articles and lectures, it might NOT have been a spaceship after all? Slight signs of doubt creeping in?
You are getting jittery, Kevin. But no doubt you are in good company.
- October 6, 2011 at 5:51 AM
- Nick Redfern said...
Today, there is indeed a stone plaque at the site on the Foster Ranch that celebrates the event. I went out to the site in January of this year and was given a tour of the area and of the old building into which Brazel hauled some of the wreckage. I'll upload the photo of the plaque to one of my blogs and then post the link here.
- October 6, 2011 at 6:28 AM
- Lance said...
Hi guys,
So was Frank Kimbler looking in this same spot as well? The one that all you guys have tramped through, that has a plaque, the one that was supposedly otherwise untouched and in near pristine 1947 shape?
If you out of towers have all been there, is it possible to imagine that other folks might also have been there as well? A lot of other folks? And maybe, as Kevin relates above, they also left stuff behind.
And yet when Kimbler finds an unremarkable piece of metal, this gets the full on alien debris treatment and no one seems to be willing to point out the silliness of it all?
- October 6, 2011 at 7:47 AM
Kevin: "I thought I had used neutral language."
Many skeptics cannot discuss anything UFO without bringing in ET, just like some atheists can't stop talking about God.
Using neutral language just means you are hiding your conclusions they are dedicated to excorciating. How devious of you!
Of course lots of believers do the same thing.
Both sides' theses are their conclusions. Bad science, at least.
- October 6, 2011 at 8:53 AM
- KRandle said...
Once again you slide over the top. Nope. For this posting I wanted to avoid the argument about alien ships. I wanted to show that those who suggested that we (Don and I) didn't know the location were wrong because Bill Brazel had showed it to us...
This wasn't about spaceships, it was about location.
Lance -
This has nothing to do with Frank Kimbler either. It was about how we were able to locate the debris field...
- October 6, 2011 at 9:02 AM
- Nick Redfern said...
Here you go:
- October 6, 2011 at 10:54 AM
- Lance said...
So Kevin can you confirm that this is the same place that Frank Kimbler searched?
- October 6, 2011 at 12:00 PM
- KRandle said...
Lance -
Can't you read? This isn't about Kimbler and where he was... it is about those who suggest that Don and I do not know the exact location, though Bill Brazel took us out there.
If you have questions for Kimbler, address them to him.
- October 6, 2011 at 5:37 PM
- Lance said...
Calm down, Kevin!
I just learned something from your piece that I think has some interest.
You did support (as I recall) the idea that Kimbler was at the one true crash site (amen). Kimbler tries to suggest that the land was untainted to make his story sound more plausible.
Now we find that this supposedly untouched pristine site has people crawling all over it, leaving flags and monuments, etc.
Isn't it rather absurd to even entertain the idea that Kimbler found anything (as you also did here) that wouldn't much more likely have come from the UFO believers swarming the site?
- October 6, 2011 at 7:04 PM
- Lord Balto said...
Copyrighted. Not "copywritten."
- October 6, 2011 at 8:25 PM
- David Rudiak said...
The plaque or "monument" to the debris field & crash was deliberately placed about a mile from the true site for the very purpose of keeping the unwashed from crawling over the real site.
This, of course, doesn't mean any debris of some sort from the real site is alien, but it does substantially decrease the chance of outside contamination.
- October 6, 2011 at 11:52 PM
- cda said...
This is getting a bit silly. The monument, or plaque, is there but not at the true site. Instead it is a mile or so from the true site, according to DR. But the wording on the plaque is "a craft of unknown origin spread debris over this site".
The plaque was put there in July 2003 after a team of scientists from the Univ of New Mexico had investigated the place (and trampled all over it) the previous year.
So it has already been 'contaminated' as DR put it. It was already severely 'contaminated' by the USAF in 1947 when they allegedly secured the site and recovered each and every fragment, large or small, under the threat of death to any interfering busybodies.
Kevin claims he and others have located the site. One Frank Kimbler may or may not have been there, CUFOS have been there (in 1989), teams of scientists have been there, perhaps several times. Odd bits of junk have been recovered since.
Yet there are still other claimed crash sites. What about them? Have they all now been discarded?
Nobody ever thought the site important enough in '47. Nobody cared one iota.
Yet by 2003 the story has reached such a pitch that we get the inscription: "Humankind has forever been drawn to the stars".
- October 7, 2011 at 3:18 AM
Is there any value to knowing where, more or less, Mac Brazel gathered up some debris -- 'more or less' because I assume a 200 yards by 1 mile fan-shaped possibility.
About the only value I can see is in an approx. long/lat for the purpose of making a few calculations.
For those looking for foil, I suggest looking downwind.
- October 7, 2011 at 5:35 AM
- KRandle said...
Lance -
"Now we learn...?"
The CUFOS archaeological survey took place in 1989 and was reported in my book and in the IUR.
The Sci-Fi Channel (now known as SyFy for some bizarre reason) took lots of people out there for their archaeological dig which was reported in both a documentary and in a book...
So, why are you now "learning" about this...
And again, if you have questions for Frank Kimbler, ask him. This is posting was about how I learned where the site was located.
This wasn't about other crash sites, but about this particular one. Maybe I'll address that issue later... than maybe I won't.
- October 7, 2011 at 5:37 AM
- Lance said...
Hi Kevin,
I do admit that I don't necessarily have the whole skinny on the "crash sites" but I am now getting a better picture.
In an earlier post you confirm that Kimbler was at your favored site. I am just pointing out the silliness of Kimbler's "find", considering that the place was/is overrun by saucer enthusiasts. You and Kimbler make the pretense that the "site" is obscure but I am willing to bet that plenty more folks have been out there regularly.
How big an area are we talking about here? Since the absurd Kimber claim is that he could still see the scratch marks from the site (on old satellite photos that he subjected to an unknown [and probably unscientific] process), I would assume that the area can't be that large. A few acres?
What I am seeing here, Kevin is a tacit collusion between you and Kimbler. You confirm that he was at the right site but then get mad when asked for more detail.
With UFO witnesses we often see an effect in which Witness A "confirms" a detail given by Witness B when actually Witness A never reported that detail originally.
I am not saying that happened here but when you confirm that Kimbler was at the right spot, just how big is that spot and could you go right out there within 50 yards today?
I know it is useless to get you to see the folly of relying on Bill Brazel's location of the "crash site". He never saw anything of the debris on the ground, correct? So he must know the "site" only from what...and how accurate?
It's funny how when some claim is confirmatory for paranormal belief, it is seen as precise to 10 digits!
- October 7, 2011 at 7:35 AM
- KRandle said...
Lance -
You go too far and I grow tired of your deductions (or maybe I should say delusions). There is no collusion between Frank and me.
I am not defending Kimbler. I am saying that I was taken to the site by Bill Brazel. He pointed out where he had found bits of debris and where the gouge had been.
To be precise, I wrote, "Brazel got out of the truck and pointed to the ground at his feet... No, there wasn't a bit of debris there now. He just said that this was where he'd found a couple of the scraps."
Frank Kimbler, using information provided by the UFO museum and using information taken from the internet and others, surveyed a number of sites... including the ridiculous Gerald Anderson site.
I have never said that the site is secret. I don't supply the coordinates because I do not own the land and there are too many people out there who feel they are entitled to trespass, tear up the landscape, and leave trash behind.
If you have an issue with Kimbler, address those issues with him. I merely reported what he said he had found, the testing of some of that material and the results. I reported that he was on the location that had been identified by Brazel... but the area is huge, given what we have been told, and I do not know the precise location of his finds.
If you remember, Jesse Marcel said it was a three quarters of a mile long and several hundred feet wide... and if you know anything about these sorts of things, you'll know that the debris could be scattered over a much wider area.
I have attempted to take a neutral stand on this, waiting for the results from Kimbler that we all know we're going to get.
I also realize that you do not have any reading comprehension. I said that Brazel got out of the truck, looked down... this was where he had picked up a couple of the scraps of material. So, yes, he did see something on that site.
I mentioned that he saw the area where the ground was disturbed, where he believed the object hit, slid, and then lifted off again.
I simply did not want this to degenerate into a discussion of what Frank Kimbler found... It was not about Kimbler. It was about the Debris Field as described by Bill Brazel who did find material on it and who saw the ground. I keep repeating this so that you'll understand it.
Now I realize that you debunkers will accept nothing as accurate or legitimate unless it confirms your point of view. How else to explain the acceptance of Mogul when flight four was cancelled, and Charles Moore, with his biased calculations could get it no closer than 17 miles? But hey, he remembered flight four disappeared near Arabella (yes, I know that I have just widened the argument, but I get tired of being accused of all sorts of things when all I have tried to do is report, fairly, what I have learned myself.)
So, Lance, take you allegations and leave them out of this. Please try to understand what you read, and don't leap to conclusions.
- October 7, 2011 at 9:43 AM
- David Rudiak said...
cda wrote:
So it has already been 'contaminated' as DR put it. It was already severely 'contaminated' by the USAF in 1947 when they allegedly secured the site and recovered each and every fragment, large or small, under the threat of death to any interfering busybodies.
Then later, contradicting himself, wrote:
Nobody ever thought the site important enough in '47. Nobody cared one iota.
So they you have a typical illogical skeptobunker argument, trying to have it both ways. It was heavily contaminated by the military crawling all over it in 1947 recovering every scrap, but at the same time not important at all in 1947. "Nobody cared one iota." Whaaaa...?!
Oddly, it was so "unimportant" back in 1947 that Col. Blanchard wasted the time of the two senior intel/counterintel officers at the base, Marcel and Cavitt, sending them out to the middle of nowhere to investigate. Brazel must have told Marcel and the Sheriff one helluva shaggy dog story to sucker Marcel and Blanchard into that. Why didn't he just bring in the pound or so of weather balloon and radar target remains that Gen. Ramey would later display in his office, what Ramey would claim was all of it?
And remember, the AFOSI counterintelligence agents in 1994/1995 in their Roswell report would second that, saying that was ALL of the debris, and the stories of a massive military recovery that followed were made up by lying Roswell authors and senile/lying old witnesses. It never happened.
Yet Marcel was quoted in 1947, not just 30 years later, saying debris was scattered over a "square mile." Try getting a weather balloon, or even a Mogul balloon to do that. Even a balloon that thinly scattered would be considered nothing but minor littering that Brazel could have easily dealt with on his own. No need to report to the military for help.
So it WAS a big debris field, which would explain why Brazel couldn't easily pick it all up on his own, as would be true of even a Mogul balloon crash. And that would also help to partly explain why Marcel and Blanchard would be intrigued by the story (in addition to samples or descriptions of exotic debris) and why you would need at least two guys to go out and investigate and bring as much debris back as one could. All of this is completely consistent with actual historical events reported in 1947 as well as the story Marcel told 30+ years later, as well as other debris field witnesses such as Brazel Jr., Tommy Tyrell, Bud Payne, Lewis Rickett, Earl Fulford etc., who likewise indicated a large debris field. It would also be consistent with sending out additional men to complete the cleanup.
(Cavitt would be the lying exception to the large debris field, who after denying for years any Roswell involvement told AFOSI debunker Col. Weaver the old singular weather balloon story with a debris field no bigger than his living room).
- October 7, 2011 at 11:42 AM
- Lance said...
Hi Kevin,
"Collusion" was too strong a word. What I mean is that by supporting Kimbler's identification of the site, you, perhaps unintentionally, support his story.
If all you mean is that Kimbler was in the right state or county or even 10 mile square area then I hope you see the problem with his story?
If you recall, Kimbler claims that he found the EXACT spot where the crash happened. Even you, I suggest, don't know the EXACT spot. This is part of what makes Kimbler's story so absurd and the reason I am chiding you for supporting it.
I forget what happened to the debris Bill Brazel picked up (I have to fight against lots of different UFO stories not just Roswell) but I suppose like any other piece of hard Roswell evidence, it has since disappeared.
That is very interesting about Kimbler going to the other bogus sites. I wonder if he found the same satellite "support" for going to those or if that part of the story got concocted later.
As you can tell, I don't think much of Kimbler's tale but this is no reflection on my very high opinion of you or your work. I'm sorry you seem to be taking it that way.
- October 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM
David: "Cavitt would be the lying exception to the large debris field, who after denying for years any Roswell involvement told AFOSI debunker Col. Weaver the old singular weather balloon story with a debris field no bigger than his living room."
I'm not comfortable with dismissing Cavitt's interview comments as being that of a liar. Bruce Maccabee once offered the argument that Marcel Sr might have been wrong recalling going to the field with Cavitt, following Brazel, and that Cavitt accurately recalls going out there with Rickett.
Short of organic dysfunction, both Cavitt and Rickett should both have been intelligent and a bit creative as befits former CI Special Agents.
It doesn't weaken your point. It even strengthens it since it is evidence Brazel's find was worth sending out another group after Marcel reported back to Blanchard.
Considering it doesn't affect Marcel's credibility (he didn't recall much about Cavitt). I think what we are told he said in B&M about the debris field is good. I don't think he was entirely forthcoming, though, then or later. Maybe he had been out there with someone else.
I need to re-read the interview about the small debris field Cavitt reported. I recall there was a trivial detail that I'd marked with a '?'.
- October 7, 2011 at 12:07 PM
- David Rudiak said...
Maccabee was trying to be charitable with Cavitt, giving him the maximum benefit of doubt, saying _maybe_ Cavitt was confusing things with another event when he did go out and recover a weather balloon with Rickett. But this had nothing to do with the Roswell incident.
Even if you dismiss Marcel's recollection, the papers back in 1947 reported Marcel not going alone with Brazel to his ranch. And Brazel himself noted that Marcel was accompanied by a man in plain clothes, who would have been Cavitt (the CIC officers typically wore civilian clothes, like FBI agents or police detectives, not military uniforms).
Cavitt did go out with Rickett to the debris field, but according to Rickett this was the day after Marcel and Cavitt returned, there was now a large recovery operation in effect when they got there and high security, with guards and men picking up debris scattered over a wide area. (Also Rickett said they had to go with checkpoints with armed guards.) The two men weren't exactly alone, again a very different story from Cavitt, but highly consistent with Marcel and his large debris field with strange debris that required further recovery.
Cavitt's story of the small balloon crash no bigger than his living room is ridiculous on multiple levels and contradicted by everybody else, then and now. Marcel's quote in 1947 was a square mile, and even Brazel's story was of a debris field 200 yards across, not the size of a living room. It is also totally inconsistent with a Mogul balloon crash, something the skeptics like to sweep under the rug. Cavitt was simply reciting the old 1947 singular weather balloon cover story used by Ramey.
Skeptics also like to complain about Roswell investigators supposedly leading the witnesses. But Col. Weaver, who interviewed Cavitt, did a classic bit of leading when he told Cavitt about their new giant Mogul balloon theory and the "flower tape". Cavitt didn't take the hint, and stuck to his small balloon crash, also denied seeing anything like "flower" patterns, even accusing Roswell authors of making up such stories about hieroglyphics in order to sell books.
Again not exactly sterling testimony for the alleged crashed Mogul balloon, which never existed anyway, a fabrication of modern AFOSI debunking agents and Mogul enginneer Moore, contradicted by actual Mogul documents and aviation histories which say Mogul Flight #5 was the actual first NM balloon, not the mythical "#4" of the debunkers.
- October 7, 2011 at 1:23 PM
- Lance said...
"Skeptics also like to complain about Roswell investigators supposedly leading the witnesses. "
Hi Dr. Rudiak,
My bigger complain is witnesses leading the investigators! :)
- October 7, 2011 at 1:25 PM
There's a point in the Cavitt interview when Weaver asks him "How did you get the report that the material was out there?"
Cavitt begins reconstructing how it might /must have been, then: "and then...more and more thinking back on it now he must have been...I must have been with him [Marcel]..."
Weaver attempts to clarify and Cavitt says he is not sure if he was with Marcel. Cavitt's certainty is broken. Then Weaver changes the subject for a page and a half or so, and then comes back to the debris field.
That's were I have the "?".
- October 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM
- cda said...
We shall be going over the same old ground again (and I do not mean the debris field either) if we don't watch out.
Yes the military did go over the site once and perhaps recovered 5 or 10 per cent of the debris. That is pure guesswork, I admit. Nobody can ever say how much of the debris was recovered. I put the word 'alleged' into my previous posting because it should be obvious that I do not accept any of the wild tales of 30-50 years later about the USAF, the death threats, the armed guards, the gathering up of every scrap and so on. Nor do I go along with all the other alleged crash sites either. San Augustin or anywhere else. Pure fantasy.
And no, there was NO interest whatever in 1947 (i.e. after the brief USAF visit) by anyone else in the debris site. None by civilians, none by scientists, none by journalists or private investigators. And nobody knows how big the site really was, either then or now.
Of course what stories emerged decades later is another matter. As Don indicates, there is every reason to doubt that Cavitt and Rickett were present at the site at all. The same can be said of others.
The reason Blanchard sent out two AF personnel is perfectly obvious, namely, that based on Brazel's description, it was a suspected 'flying disc', and therefore of possible interest to the AF. This would have happened even if Brazel had said he was almost certain it was balloon debris. The AF could not take any, even small, chances during a critical post-war, and early cold-war, period, that it might be some downed enemy craft, or even an unknown US one.
But we are diverging from Kevin's post, again.
- October 7, 2011 at 1:47 PM
CDA: "As Don indicates, there is every reason to doubt that Cavitt and Rickett were present at the site at all".
You might get that from it, however, I meant it might indicate two trips to the Brazel site. I understand the reason you put forward, though.
"The reason Blanchard sent out two AF personnel is perfectly obvious, namely, that based on Brazel's description, it was a suspected 'flying disc', and therefore of possible interest to the AF".
Brazel's description? How did Brazel describe the debris so that Blanchard suspected it was a flying disc?
- October 7, 2011 at 2:12 PM
Marcel Sr is the source on this. He thought Brazel's report sounded like something might have gone down on his ranch.
It would be perfectly normal for both intelligence and CI personnel be sent to check out the facts. Marcel's reconstruction was that something travelling fast had exploded low to the ground, leaving a distinct trail of debris.
And that's what I would expect an intelligence officer to conclude, given the evidence for the likelyhood.
That's really all we have, I guess.
- October 7, 2011 at 2:19 PM
- cda said...
"Marcel's reconstruction was that something travelling fast had exploded low to the ground, leaving a distinct trail of debris"
This was Marcel's version when Friedman & Moore interviewed him in 1979. It was NOT his version in 1947.
But that's Roswell for you.
- October 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM
- KRandle said...
Please give us Marcel's 1947 version. Where did you read it? And no, I don't want paraphrase. I want direct quotes.
- October 7, 2011 at 3:32 PM
- David Rudiak said...
Don (Sourcerer) wrote:
Marcel Sr is the source on this. He thought Brazel's report sounded like something might have gone down on his ranch.
It would be perfectly normal for both intelligence and CI personnel be sent to check out the facts. Marcel's reconstruction was that something travelling fast had exploded low to the ground, leaving a distinct trail of debris.
Marcel said he interviewed Brazel at the Sheriff's office, then went back to the base to confer with Blanchard. According to Marcel, both men agreed it sounded like the crash of an unusual craft of some kind. The big question is what could Brazel have shown or described to make Marcel and Blanchard think this? A few shards of fragile and very mundane rotten rubber weather balloon, balsa wood, Scotch tape, and aluminum foil isn't going to do it.
And why did Cavitt come along? Again, according to Marcel, Blanchard thought Marcel would need help because Brazel also described a large quantity of debris strewn out over a large area. Further, Marcel said he and Cavitt went in separate vehicles to collect the debris. Again, you don't need two men and two vehicles to collect a weather balloon, or even a complete Mogul balloon, which even when intact typically weighed only 50 or 60 pounds and could easily fit in one vehicle.
And finally, we have the newspapers back then saying Marcel had help, and Brazel was more specific saying Marcel was accompanied by a man in plain clothes, which squares exactly with Marcel saying Cavitt came with him. There was insufficient time for Marcel to go alone, get back to the base, and have Cavitt & Rickett go a second time for a second recovery, and have this all reported in the newspaper stories originating that afternoon after the story exploded and Ramey took control. It also doesn't square with Rickett's story of he and Cavitt going out the next day, where Rickett witnessed a large recovery operation with heavy security in place.
And further the newspapers (widely carried AP story) have Marcel saying debris was scattered over a square mile (which contradicts other Marcel newspaper quotes and Ramey's story of a singular weather balloon crash and mundane balloon debris, not to mention Blanchard's "flying disc" press release.
Again the central questions remain why Blanchard and Marcel thought what Brazel reported required investigation at all and why Blanchard thought it necessary to send two top intel officers out there in two vehicles to collect it. A balloon crash of any type isn't going to do it.
- October 7, 2011 at 4:45 PM
"This was Marcel's version when Friedman & Moore interviewed him in 1979. It was NOT his version in 1947."
Well, considering Friedman and Moore knew squat about Roswell in 1979, I doubt they could have suggested it to Marcel. Marcel knew more than they did and probably more than anyone living about what happened at the ranch and at the RAAF.
What we do have from 1947 from Marcel comes from Mac Brazel:
From the UP: "Marcel...reportedly told Brazel, the finder of the
object, that "it has nothing to do with army or navy so far as I can
Since it is doubtful Brazel or the reporter knew of Marcel's time with the Navy, this seems a likely accurate quotation.
Lance asked what happened to the debris Bill Brazel collected. In B&M, he is reported to have said he turned his collection over to an officer who asked for it. There is an unproved (to my knowledge) assumption the officer was from the RAAF. I doubt it.
How did Bill know the site since he hadn't been there? Because his dad, kid brother and sister were there. Bill disputed the story that his mother was at the ranch. I don't think the location was kept secret from him by the family.
Kevin, do you know whether Bessie and Vernon were at the ranch for the summer school vacation? Hard to believe that Mac would haul the kids up from Tularosa just to make them pick up trash in a field on the 4th of July.
- October 7, 2011 at 5:20 PM
David: "Again the central questions remain why Blanchard and Marcel thought what Brazel reported required investigation at all and why Blanchard thought it necessary to send two top intel officers out there in two vehicles to collect it. A balloon crash of any type isn't going to do it."
If what Brazel found on the ranch was foil, sticks, and neoprene, there was no reason for him to report it to the sheriff of Chaves Co.; no reason for Wilcox to call the RAAF intelligence office; no reason for Marcel to drive into town and interview Brazel; no reason for Marcel to report to Blanchard; no reason for Blanchard to inform the CIC and order a detail; no reason for Blanchard, examining what Marcel and Cavitt returned with, to call Ramey; no reason for Ramey to order the debris to Wright Field via Ft Worth.
I like Maccabee asking the question regarding Cavitt. These things should be looked at from all angles. I think Cavitt's interview is significant and it should not be dismissed because of seeming obvious lies anymore than an advocate's favorite witness should be considered a mess of false memories, and dismissed.
Unlike Marcel in 1979, Cavitt had 15 years to read what had been written about Roswell and prepare himself to be found. I keep that in mind.
What I suspect I am seeing is that the whole thing was a CIC engineered cover up, an "official hoax". Not just Ft Worth, but the RAAF press release as well, including the "flying disc" language.
This doesn't preclude ET. If 'flying disc' had no common connection with ET in early July 1947, then calling a crashed ET craft one of those mysterious 'flying discs' might have seemed pretty damn clever at the time. 8-)
- October 7, 2011 at 5:53 PM
- David Rudiak said...
Don wrote:
Kevin, do you know whether Bessie and Vernon were at the ranch for the summer school vacation? Hard to believe that Mac would haul the kids up from Tularosa just to make them pick up trash in a field on the 4th of July.
The yearly rodeo in nearby Capitan was going on, starting July 4 and lasting several days. This might explain why Brazel would drive to Tulerosa to pick up his wife and younger kids. This was the big event of the year in them thar parts. Take them to the rodeo on July 4, and then, since they were already halfway there, drive up to the ranch.
The time problem here is that I don't think they could go to the rodeo, get to the ranch, and still have daylight left to pick anything up.
Another scenario would be to take them to the ranch first on July 4, go to the Capitan rodeo on July 5, return them to Tulerosa that evening, then on his way back to the ranch Brazel stopped in Corona, showed them some debris, and was told about the flying saucers. The time sequence works out a little better this way.
Point is there is a possibility his family was with him at the ranch on July 4, as reported in his interview, and might have picked up debris, but unlikely they would have been there when Marcel and Cavitt visited 2 & 3 days later, despite what Bessie Brazel Schreiber later said. Marcel was quite specific that Brazel lived in the middle of nowhere and his family wasn't there when he visited.
- October 7, 2011 at 5:56 PM
- David Rudiak said...
Don wrote:
From the UP: "Marcel...reportedly told Brazel, the finder of the
object, that "it has nothing to do with army or navy so far as I can
Since it is doubtful Brazel or the reporter knew of Marcel's time with the Navy, this seems a likely accurate quotation.
And Bill Brazel interviewed 30 years later said his father told him the Army told him it nothing to do with the Army or Navy.
In general, Brazel Jr.'s testimony about what happened matched Marcel's almost exactly right from the beginning, such as descriptions of the debris field, the anomalous debris, and an explosion, yet Brazel Jr. and Marcel didn't know one another and had never met when they were later interviewed.
It's truly amazing how such key witnesses can coordinate their testimony so well without ever talking to one another, and "lead" gullible Roswell researchers into believing the crashed flying saucer fairy tale. Maybe they had a psychic connection.
- October 7, 2011 at 6:06 PM
David, "It's truly amazing how such key witnesses can coordinate their testimony so well without ever talking to one another..."
B&M (and to whatever degree he was involved, Friedman) didn't know much about Roswell and it shows in The Roswell Incident. On their own they are barely better than Bloecher.
The interview material (despite its paraphrasing style) is different, more detailed and accurate, especially when the interviewees are speaking from experience rather than what they heard or read (which couldn't have been much in 1979). Marcel is rock solid on everything he was directly involved in, but shows uncertainty and is inaccurate about what he'd heard about (such as how the press release came about). Hearsay, really.
It might seem a trivial issue, but I think it important to know whether, in fact, the kids spent summer school vacation at the ranch...whether anyone among the rancher families said something like "the kids were up here for the summer as usual" or the like.
- October 7, 2011 at 6:24 PM
- David Rudiak said...
It might seem a trivial issue, but I think it important to know whether, in fact, the kids spent summer school vacation at the ranch...whether anyone among the rancher families said something like "the kids were up here for the summer as usual" or the like.
Brazel did bring his family to the ranch now and then, and the July 4 rodeo in Capitan would have been a good time for him to have done it.
As far as whether they were there, we have three witnesses who have said no, at least by the time Marcel arrived and afterward. Neighbor Loretta Proctor said Bessie Brazel got her story all mixed up, and Bill Brazel said nobody was at the ranch when he read about his father being in trouble, and journeyed to the ranch from Albuquerque to try to help him out. Marcel said Brazel lived there alone in the middle of nowhere and gave no indication that the family was there when he visited.
- October 7, 2011 at 6:44 PM
- David Rudiak said...
As to whether Marcel told all, according to his last interview with Linda Corely maybe not. He said there were other things he knew but would never talk about "for the sake of my country."
Must have been that super top-secret Mogul #4 made of rubber, paper, foil, balsa wood, string and Scotch tape. Yeah, that's it. Mention of that would have thrown the public into a panic.
- October 7, 2011 at 6:48 PM
David, it's been awhile, but I believe in B&M, Bill says Brazel drove Vernon and Bessie back to Tularosa (and to their mother). Mac then drove to Roswell and spoke to Wilcox.
Speaking of "amazing" things, the Daily Record and the AP reporter, Kellahin, both failed to quote Brazel directly on the important points in the "interview". No quotations about flying discs, or rubber, or foil, or sticks. or June 14 -- the very heart of why there was any interview at all. That is amazing, especially in two independent stories.
I'd like to know whether Mac got the kids off the ranch because of what he found before he reported it. If it wasn't any kind of balloon or kite (for which opinion the interviewers did quote Brazel), he may have wanted them safely back home. It would also indicate the June 14 date for the find and the July 4th cleanup are not true. Brazel isn't quoted on either date.
- October 7, 2011 at 7:14 PM
- Nick Redfern said...
Yep, the picture I took of the plaque in January of this year is indeed not exactly at the site. But, it's quite within easy walking distance.
In fact, when I went out there (this was a pre-planned thing, not a case of me trespassing or turning up unannounced), the chap working the ranch was happy to point out where the actual site was in comparison to the location of the plaque.
There was no attempt by any of the people there to prevent access to the precise place, when it was pointed out to me where it was in relation to the plaque.
He even opened up for me the old building into which Brazel took some of the wreckage, and let me poke around. Not that I expected to find anything at all of course.
- October 8, 2011 at 7:48 AM
- cda said...
There are no direct quotes in 1947 from Marcel about the debris. This indicates to me that Marcel had nothing of interest to say on the matter. But it indicates (I assume) to you that Marcel realised the stuff was very likely extraterrestrial and was ordered to keep his mouth shut.
"Bessie Brazel got her story all mixed up, and Bill Brazel said nobody was at the ranch when he read about his father being in trouble...".
Where did Bill read about his 'father being in trouble'? Which newspaper? The truth is he only heard of his father allegedly 'being in trouble' decades later after the Friedman/Moore interviews. He probably read the press reports at the time, but these do not mention anything about his dad 'being in trouble'. According to THE ROSWELL INCIDENT Bill first read it in the Albuquerque Journal on July 9 or 10. Check the text and I doubt you will find any mention of 'trouble'.
A likely case of suggestibility by STF or Moore. Also, we do not really know if Bill had seen the press report at all; he may have been shown it by Moore and imagined he had read it 32 years earlier. There is also no mention (I believe) of his dad being escorted round the town by AF personnel. This also is an 'extra', added decades later.
So often these things come down to what is being recounted 30-40 years afterwards to ET-oriented interviewers, not what was reported at the time.
- October 8, 2011 at 8:13 AM
CDA, page 75, The Roswell Incident Bill: Actually, we first learned about it when we picked up a copy of the Albuquerque Journal...Shirley said: "My God, what's he got himself into now?", and I said: "I don't know but maybe we had better go over to the ranch tomorrow and find out".
I hope this recollection is accurate on the point of Mac having a penchant for getting into "trouble", because otherwise there is no explanation for why he might avoid making his report to the Lincoln County Sheriff's Office.
CDA: "He probably read the press reports at the time, but these do not mention anything about his dad being in trouble"
CDA...how can I put this? The very fact he was front page news was evidence of "trouble".
- October 8, 2011 at 8:56 AM
- cda said...
You are hoping that Bill was accurately recalling what he read in 1947, in both the cited newspapers. The alternative, which I prefer, is that Bill had not read either of them but was shown them by Friedman or Moore 3 decades later, and then 'remembered' seeing them in '47.
If he really went "over to the ranch tomorrow" (i.e. July 9 or 10) and found nobody there, as per the quote in the book, it puts paid to any idea that the USAF spent several days at the ranch with armed guards and so on (this is the very period that his dad was supposedly held in custody at the AF base).
- October 8, 2011 at 9:19 AM
"You are hoping that Bill was accurately recalling what he read in 1947..."
No. I am hoping it is true that Mac might have had reasons for not going to the law in Lincoln County and that is why he did not report his find to them.
Your concerns about this matter really have nothing to do with it. Instead it is about the detention issue and no doubt other things. I don't care about that here. So, you construct a story which is pure fantasy in order to rebut it.
In the meantime, in the real, not the rhetorical world, Mac Brazel travels to Chaves County to report something that occurred in Lincoln County.
Nobody knows why. In fact, no one ever asked the question before as far as I know.
- October 8, 2011 at 9:48 AM
- cda said...
Brazel going to Roswell instead of Carrizozo (Lincoln County sheriff's office)? Convenience pure and simple. He was going into the town anyway for other reasons, on the Monday, and decided to inform Wilcox then and there. Otherwise he would have to make an extra journey to Carrizozo.
So your little conundrum is solved.
Think of the consequences if he had instead gone to Carrizozo. Perhaps that sheriff wouldn't have bothered with the military, and the entire Roswell tale from then on would never have existed.
- October 8, 2011 at 10:44 AM
- David Rudiak said...
Don: I am unaware of Brazel ever being in trouble with the law. If anything, I think it was his grandfather who headed the posse that hunted down Billy the Kid, who had killed two deputies while escaping from prison in the town of Lincoln.
I think the most reasonable and straightforward reason Brazel went to Roswell to report is that it was the nearest town of any size, also a place where he could most easily get errands done, such as purchasing supplies. Even back then it had about 25,000 people. Carrizozo, the county seat of Lincoln County, has only about a thousand people today.
CDA: Where did Brazel Jr. read about his father? Both Albuquerque papers carried the story. The Journal carried a very rare regional AP version on the front page the morning of July 9, datelined July 8, which also had Sheriff Wilcox saying a number of interesting things, such as the fact that he was "working with those fellows at the base" (his explanation of why he wouldn't further answer questions about what the object looked like) and Brazel making his discovery only "two or three days before."
The Tribune carried Brazel's AP interview on page 2 that afternoon.
Either way, his father was in the middle of some media firestorm, which included being in Roswell instead of being at the ranch tending the livestock.
A reasonable son might conclude that maybe his father needed help, or the ranch needed tending in his absence. Is that much of a stretch, even for a hardened skeptic? Really, you're endless unsupported allegations that these memories were planted in witnesses' brains by the nefarious Friedman and Moore are tiresome and laughable. Maybe they give you some sort of skeptical thumb-sucking comfort.
As to when Brazel Jr. went to the ranch in support, I would guess the next day, or July 10, but that's only a guess. It would also depend as to when exactly he found out and what personal business he might have to tend to before going. That might explain why the military had left by the time he arrived--finished cleaning up the place on July 8 & 9.
- October 8, 2011 at 10:49 AM
Rather than make a multi-part response on the validity of reporting to Carrizozo, I'll just say that above is the evidence that both skeptics and advocates share a Roswell-centric viewpoint. If that viewpoint is incorrect, then Roswell-centrism is the fatal flaw in all theories about the "Roswell Incident", pro-Et or not.
- October 8, 2011 at 11:19 AM
- David Rudiak said...
Don, the reason Roswell is "Roswell-centric" is that historically Brazel did report there and the local base got involved in a big way. Most of the action occurred there. Whether Brazel "should" have reported to the sheriff in Carrizozo because it is the county seat of Lincoln I consider largely academic.
To get away from Roswell-centrism, Friedman called his book "Crash at Corona" because Corona was the nearest N.M. "town" to the ranch, even though Corona was tiny and hardly involved at all. Now I put "town" in scare quotes, because in sparsely populated central N.M., a "town" is often little more than a bar and gas station for the nearby ranchers to congregate at--and I'm not kidding.
That being said, I think you are right that investigators have largely ignored, though understandably, other towns and other nearby military facilities. E.g., one story I heard from Don Schmitt is that he learned before going to Roswell, Brazel had taken some of the debris to Capitan during the rodeo and shown it to some of the other cowboys. If that was the case, these guys may all be dead by now and it might also be difficult to track down family members who might have heard about it from them. (No, I don't recall where Schmitt said he got his information, if he mentioned it to me at all.)
- October 8, 2011 at 11:50 AM
- KRandle said...
All -
We fight the same fights over and over and it seems that no one listens.
Bill Brazel told me that his father went to Roswell because what his father found was something that came from the sky and they dealt with stuff in the sky. He was looking for someone to clean up the mess.
Bill said that he saw the stories about his father in the Albuquerque newspapers and thought his father would need help. He thought it was two or three days before he went on down to the ranch.
Oh, wait, never mind, Bill told me this in 1989 so it doesn't count...
Jesse Marcel said nothing about this in 1947 because he was told not to talk about it then...
Oh, wait, never mind, Jesse Jr. told me this in 1990 so it doesn't count...
Edwin Easley told me that Mack Brazel had been held in the base guest house...
Oh, wait, never mind, Easley told me this in 1990 so it doesn't count...
Brazel went to the Chavez county sheriff because he needed someone to call out to the base...
And, according to history, Wayne Brazel killed Pat Garrett in 1908. Historians don't know what happened to Wayne because they never asked th Brazel family. I did. Wayne, after being aquitted of murder, moved to Arirona. Bill told me that he and his father visited Wayne in the 1930s.
But remember since I learned all this in 1989, 1990 and 1991, none of it counts...
- October 8, 2011 at 1:13 PM
"Don, the reason Roswell is "Roswell-centric" is that historically Brazel did report there and the local base got involved in a big way. Most of the action occurred there."
Most of the action that was reported. The rest of the action reported was in Ft Worth and a little bit of the Pentagon.
Carrizozo (and Corona) may have been small towns, but they were small towns right on the main corridor of the army occupied Southwest, unlike Roswell. Road distance between them and Alamogordo AAF and the RAAF is about the same, except the roads are better to Alamogordo.
The Lincoln County sheriffs had experience working with the army. The same sheriffs were in office during the Mt Rudioso bomber collision in 1943 (I think), they were there for Trinity, and would still be in office a week after the Roswell Incident during the nearly as weird Carrizozo P-80 Incident.
If you believe Bill Brazel's story about the fate of his box of debris, then you know the CIC was in Corona, and therefore assuredly in Carrizozo. The CIC had their 'stringers'.
How did a UP story about a balloon and foil disc reported from Carrizozo get on the wires at the same time the SF Examiner wrote that Ramey was telling them about it?
My point has nothing to do with Friedman's Corona. He just wandered off in another direction, while keeping as Roswell-centric as he could without accepting a Chaves County crash site.
There was no compelling reason for Brazel to go to Wilcox rather than Carrizozo if it was a jurisdictional matter, a property, contract, and business matter. Population size, doesn't matter in such cases. It's the legal jurisdiction that matters. The paper trail. If I've got trash blowing into my yard from a vacant lot here in Pittsburgh, I am not going to drive to Cleveland to file a complaint about it.
"Whether Brazel "should" have reported to the sheriff in Carrizozo because it is the county seat of Lincoln I consider largely academic."
It is not a matter of 'should', but 'why didn't he?'. Look at the issue of June 14/July 4. Why drive the kids up from Tularosa to pick up trash, weeks after it had blown all over the desert, and then drive them back? Why didn't he, on June 15, give Dee Proctor a nickel to pick up Bessie's three feed bags worth of trash?
There is just no way to accept the dates. They can't be made to make any sense. The skeptics have all sorts of rationales for it, but that is just what they do, and their rationales can be ignored.
Brazel must have had reasons to report it to Chaves Co. sheriffs. It can't be matter of convenience. If that were the case, a short trip to a pay phone in Corona would do. He could call any sheriff he wanted to.
If it is true that it was just more convenient to stack a trip to Tularosa to drop off the kids and say "Hi" to the wife, then shop for supplies, and sell wool, and try to buy a truck, and try to collect a reward, and call Frank Joyce, and do anything else I haven't heard about yet, and then make a quick stop to the sheriff's department to say there's some debris on his ranch in Lincoln County, then I guess the skeptics win.
- October 8, 2011 at 1:23 PM
- David Rudiak said...
Kevin wrote:
"But remember since I learned all this in 1989, 1990 and 1991, none of it counts..."
That's right, and if it wasn't reported in the newspapers in 1947, then it never happened. Or if it was reported in the newspapers but doesn't agree with skeptical dogma then it never happened. Or if multiple things were reported in the newspapers that contradict one another, than only the ones that agree with skeptical dogma count, and don't even ask questions about why they contradict.
Thus if Wilcox kept contradicting himself as to when it happened or when Brazel reported, also throwing a comment that he was working with those fellows at the base, ignore that. Or if Wilcox contradicted Brazel's story of what he reported to him. (Wilcox: "weather meter", Brazel: "flying disc" and definitely NOT a weather device)
Or if Marcel was simultaneously quoted as endorsing a mundane weather balloon but also saying debris was scattered over a square mile, ignore that. Also ignore Marcel directly contradicting Brazel as to when he cleaned up the debris when he found it. (Marcel: immediately; Brazel: 3 weeks later with his family)
All-knowing skeptics know nothing of significance happened and nobody like the Sheriff or Brazel was coerced into cooperating. That was all made up 30 or 40 years later, so it doesn't count.
- October 8, 2011 at 1:31 PM
Kevin: "Brazel went to the Chavez county sheriff because he needed someone to call out to the base..."
Why the RAAF? If he had just been in Tularosa, how far south is Alamogordo from there? Why not go to the Otero County Sheriff's? For that matter, what is the most convenient route to Roswell from Tularosa?
Roswell-centrism is unproven and very questionable.
- October 8, 2011 at 1:35 PM
- David Rudiak said...
Don wrote:
"Brazel must have had reasons to report it to Chaves Co. sheriffs. It can't be matter of convenience. If that were the case, a short trip to a pay phone in Corona would do. He could call any sheriff he wanted to."
Well, the more I think about it Don, the more it seems you have a good point. Why indeed did Brazel go to Roswell if all he had was a balloon crash?
According to Kevin, Bill Brazel told him the reason was it came from the sky and Roswell had the big air base there capable of cleaning the mess up.
But balloon crashes don't make much of a "mess". They are relatively easy to clean up, even Mogul crashes. E.g., the earthly remains of Mogul #6, launched June 7, were found by rancher Sid West. He notified Alamogordo base, perhaps through the local sheriff, and Mogul sent out 2 or 3 guys in a jeep to pick up what was left. There is no reason why Brazel couldn't have done the same, through the county sheriff, in which case no reason to go to Roswell.
The skeptics try to make it sound like these Mogul balloon trains were unimaginably gigantic because they were up to 600 feet in length. But there really wasn't much there there. The 600 feet was made up mostly of weather balloons and twine, therefore 99.99% air. The total weight of these balloon trains, including ballast and payload, was typically only about 50 or 60 pounds when intact (and much less after many of the balloons had popped and ballast automatically cut loose on descent). It wasn't exactly the World Trade Center coming down and littering the desert floor. Likely it could all be gathered up in an hour or two, and all easily fit in one vehicle.
But Brazel seemed unable to do that, though he should have been able to handle the debris problem easily if it was the remains of a Mogul. He needed major help, which is one major reason why he reported to Roswell, not locally.
I do remember that when I spoke to Frank Joyce about his early conversation with Brazel when Brazel had first come to town, that one of Brazel's major concerns was the large quantity of debris, and saying something like "How am I going to clean it all up?" That is NOT a description of a Mogul balloon crash.
Let us all remember that the military and Brazel had also tried to minimize the amount of debris, which again begs the question why Brazel needed to go to Roswell to get the air bases help. Marcel's story in Fort Worth, contradicting Brazel's story to some extent, is that Brazel had IMMEDIATELY cleaned up the debris when he found it mid-June, rolled it into some bundles, and threw it under some brush. (Marcel also contradicted this back then, however, saying debris was scattered over a square mile, implying something much, much larger.)
So why did Brazel go to Roswell and why didn't he take his already collected debris with him to show what he had? The latter question I have asked myself over and over again, especially since the other part of Marcel's cited story back then is that Brazel had rushed back to collect his bundles of debris after first hearing about the flying saucers in Corona the night of July 5. So he rushed back to collect them, but didn't bother to take them to Roswell??? And if he had already collected it, why did Marcel and Cavitt need to go out there at all? None of this adds up.
Brazel's contradictory story was he was too busy to bother with the debris and waited until July 4 to collect some with his family. He indicated it was scattered over 200 yards, but this is something a cowhand like Brazel could easily deal with on his own. Again the question, why bother going to Roswell for help and why not bring what he had already collected with him?
- October 8, 2011 at 2:21 PM
- Bob Koford said...
And this isn't even including the piece of the whatsit that he stored in the "shed". Do we have a more complete description of this piece? Was it a box, a can, a tube? I don't recall.
Again, for the zillionth time any other piece that seemed to be from a Mogul flight would have been easily recognizable.
Why is this stuff wrapped up in such mystery?
It just seems obvious by now that the "stuff" was so out-of-this-world the rancher just couldn't handle it alone. Wilcox certainly didn't calm everything down for everybody.
- October 8, 2011 at 2:58 PM
- cda said...
The questions why Brazel, Marcel, Wilcox and others did this or that, or why they did not do this or that, can go on forever.
Where are we getting? Answer: nowhere.
Because we simply do not know basic matters, we do not know what people were thinking, saying or doing in '47. We only know what was reported at the time and what they told investigators between 32 and 50 years later.
I opine that Brazel initially disregarded the debris as junk, nothing else. Then he thought about it and collected a small portion. Then he heard about flying discs in Corona and thought he might have stumbled across one. Then he took the easiest course of action. He was going into Roswell for personal reasons and decided to visit the sheriff, in case the stuff was important.
Authors seem to differ on whether he took any debris with him to Roswell. Again, we only have testimony acquired decades later on this point.
If anyone has a better prosaic answer, please give it (preferably without invoking either conspiracy theory or ET crashes).
Otherwise this thread is getting nowhere, fast.
- October 8, 2011 at 3:13 PM
David: "Well, the more I think about it Don, the more it seems you have a good point."
Thanks, David. There were several 'convenient' ways to make a report about some balloon junk, but really there would be no compelling reason to do so in the first place.
My disagreement with the skeptics isn't over ET, but about their opinion that the Roswell events were normal. I find hardly anything reported about it in 1947, whether the subject or the way it was reported, to be "normal".
- October 8, 2011 at 3:48 PM
- David Rudiak said...
cda wrote:
The questions why Brazel, Marcel, Wilcox and others did this or that, or why they did not do this or that, can go on forever.
Where are we getting? Answer: nowhere.
Because we simply do not know basic matters, we do not know what people were thinking, saying or doing in '47. We only know what was reported at the time and what they told investigators between 32 and 50 years later.
I opine that Brazel initially disregarded the debris as junk, nothing else. Then he thought about it and collected a small portion....
You can opine all you want, but the newspapers clearly do tell us the following:
1. Brazel thought it important enough to report and went to Roswell to do it.
2. There the Sheriff, Wilcox, thought it important enough to contact the base, though later telling UP Brazel reported nothing but a "weather meter".
3. The base intelligence officer, Marcel, and the base commander, Blanchard, thought it important enough to investigate Wilcox's "weather meter".
4. Blanchard thought investigation of a "weather meter" required another person, and not some private, but the head of the CIC, Cavitt, to assist Marcel, also another vehicle to collect whatever was left of the "weather meter".
5. Upon return from the field, Blanchard was somehow convinced that they had not a "weather meter" but a "flying disc" and issued a press release to that effect.
6. The story was quickly changed to singular rawin weather balloon in Fort Worth and said to have been highly classified before allegedly being positively identified.
7. Principles could not agree on simple basic facts of the case: when Brazel discovered it, when and how he collected it, when he reported to Wilcox, what he told Wilcox he thought it was, how big it was, how big the debris field was, etc.
It was a weather meter (Wilcox) or a flying disc and definitely not a weather device (Brazel); it was only 3 or 4 feet across and no bigger than Wilcox's safe (Wilcox, Ramey), or it was 20-25 feet across if reconstructed (Ramey); it was a box-kite (Ramey) or not a box-kite (Brazel), it was "hexagonal" (Ramey) but also too torn up to determine a shape (Ramey, Brazel); it was scattered over a square mile (Marcel) or 200 yards (Brazel) but could also be completely laid out on a piece of paper on Gen. Ramey's floor; it was recovered immediately by Brazel (Marcel) or Brazel thought it unimportant and waited 3 weeks to collect with his family (Brazel); it was found sometime last week (press release, Marcel, Blanchard) or 2 or 3 days before (Wilcox), or 3 weeks before (Wilcox, Brazel, Ramey, Marcel); Brazel reported Sunday (Wilcox) or Monday (Wilcox, Marcel), etc., etc.
The point is the official story was all over the place, a good indication that a lot of lying was already going on. You couldn't get a straight story right from the beginning. It's like alibis that don't agree with one another on key points. A detective is going to smell a rat.
So I don't need to opine anything here. There were already too many holes in the story back then to know that the official story was too inconsistent and never made sense indicating something was being hidden from the public. That is one reason I am strongly inclined to believe the stories 30 & 40 years later that there was a cover-up in effect.
And no, there was no effort to hide the "top-secret" Mogul balloon launches at Alamogordo. In fact, they were already being used to help explain the flying saucer reports and Brazel's find in particular. That was the Alamogordo balloon demonstration of July 9.
- October 8, 2011 at 4:04 PM
One thing to point out about how people might behave or think in 1947...these people, the ranchers and residents near the ranches, were a unique population. There's the term "Atomic Veterans". These people were 'atomic civilians'. They very well might have responded to the incident on the Foster Ranch, quite differently than you imagine you and your friends would, CDA.
- October 8, 2011 at 4:07 PM
David: "The point is the official story was all over the place, a good indication that a lot of lying was already going on. You couldn't get a straight story right from the beginning. It's like alibis that don't agree with one another on key points. A detective is going to smell a rat."
If you refine your list to group the allusions to a single balloon and radar target, you'll have a source worth calling 'the army' or 'the CIC'.
Pull those out, no matter who is supposed to be the source, and things become, not clear, but a lot less muddy.
- October 8, 2011 at 5:15 PM
- KRandle said...
All -
We have testimony as to why Mack Brazel went to Roswell but it doesn't matter. The documents from 1947 put him in Roswell.
We know that Jesse Marcel was involved because we have the documents from 1947.
We don't know that Cavitt was involved because the documents from 1947 don't mention him... but it seems that everyone accepts his statements that he was there... well, his first statements were that he wasn't there, hadn't arrived and even told Don Schmitt in me that he had NEVER participated in a balloon recovery. Why would he say that? I asked him about it because there was that weather balloon story flying (pun intended) around.
My point is that we can argue about some of the motivations, but the documents available prove who was there and some of what they were doing.
And now back to other irrelevancies that have nothing to do with the original post.
- October 8, 2011 at 7:54 PM
- SJ Reidhead said...
I live in Lincoln County. From the stories I've heard since moving here about 12 years ago, the Corona location is far more fascinating. Keep digging and keep visiting with people, especially area ranchers. There are some very interesting tales.
The Pink Flamingo
- October 8, 2011 at 8:33 PM
Kevin: "We have testimony as to why Mack Brazel went to Roswell but it doesn't matter. The documents from 1947 put him in Roswell."
Nobody is disputing Brazel went to Roswell (not to say that you ought to have paid more attention to documentation). I'm disputing that he would have done so for a couple bags of detritus. His behavior is evidence for the abnormalness of the situation, as is Marcel's, Blanchard's, and Ramey's.
Say goodbye to all the conveniently closer to Roswell crash sites and all their witnesses, as you have Ragsdale, Kaufman, Shirkey, and Dennis. Might as well do the same for Haut, and Frankie Rowe and McNight, too.
Say goodbye to Roswell centrism.
I don't recall what Brad Sparks was referring to, but it stuck in my mind...words to the effect that if your theory leads you to Roswell, it is wrong.
Holding onto maybe a 3rd or 4th hand witness will "come forward" about the McDaniel crash site is just intellectual suicide, imo.
There is nothing left but Brazel's Foster Ranch and whatever it was the army didn't want known.
Everything else has proven to be misdirection. It was simple, cheap and sweet and everybody has fallen for it since day one.
- October 8, 2011 at 8:52 PM
McKnight rather than McDaniel, of course.
UFO investigations have nothing more to contribute about Roswell. It was only a UFO case because the army used the term 'flying disc'. Brazel is never quoted saying flying anything by the press. Nor is he quoted saying anything about sticks, foil and rubber. "Documents" are only as good to the degree you read them correctly.
When there is a mass of documentation that documents Brazel was never quoted on anything of importance in the matter, I think it is worth considering that the documentation is contrived.
So, it is all suspect until proven good.
I'll leave this discussion with that.
- October 8, 2011 at 10:01 PM
- Bob Koford said...
We should talk about the weather...oh and the price of tea in China ;)
OK-sorry Kevin.
- October 8, 2011 at 11:29 PM
- Lance said...
Kevin, please forgive me for asking Dr. Rudiak if he received a private email from me about another matter. I am not sure if I have his correct address.
- October 11, 2011 at 4:34 PM
- JimmyinOklahoma said...
Gee, so much said about so little. No wonder we can not learn the truth about so many things.
Leon Panetta was just the head of the CIA and he use to have a great interest in the truth about UFOs and Roswell? Now he is Sec.of defense and we still will not learn anything. Who shuts these folks up? Thats what is important. I did not waste my time in seeing more land that all looks the same while I visited Roswell. Whats the point? I have heard that not even the President can visit area 51. Is that the truth?
- October 15, 2011 at 5:25 AM
- andyboy said...
Kevin, I am troubled by two seemingly contradictory "facts" in the Roswell incident as we all have come to understand it. First, we are told the debris was ALL of a lightweight material (foil, paper-like material, "balsa-type" material, optical type fibers, etc). If this is so, it seems extremely unlikely to me that a vehicle constructed of this material could possibly have created deep gouges in the earth, much less crash and penetrate "into" the ridge. Yes, it might have had the structural strength but it could not have had the MASS. So what are we missing here? Something on the craft would have had to add significant mass to its total weight. It couldn't have been the small occupants (if indeed there were any). Perhaps it was some sort of interplanetary drive device. Which leads me to contardiction #2. Several references in your and others serious research have the military, and FBI communiques or at least their off-the-record comments referring to what they picked up at the crash site(s) as a "device" ...not a saucer, not a craft, not a vehicle. But a "device". This word does not connote a vehicle in which anybody or anything would be transported through the air, through space or anywhere else. Unless the "device" they refer to is the all-important part of the craft... again... the drive! Otherwise, "device" sounds pretty much like it could refer to the rawind sonde or some such mundane thing. No?
Why would Brazel tow the major part of whatever it was he found and store it under his cattle shelter UNLESS even he, examining the wreckage intuitively recognized the core "device" and rekoned that it was of some extreme importance.
- October 22, 2011 at 3:08 AM
- KRandle said...
andyboy -
I have always been puzzled by the lack of various types of debris. Bill Brazel talked of three types that he had recovered and Jesse Marcel talked of some parchment-like material. I always thought that there should be other types of debris... In a plane crash get get lots of things from cloth to huge engines.
I have wondered if there wasn't some kind of outer shell that was shed, which would explain the lack of diversity of debris and would cover the problem of mass.
In modern aircraft many of the components are light weight and lacking in mass but in combination, they do have the mass necessary to create a gouge.
Without more information about the components, I can only speculate.
As for your second point, Bill Brazel said that when he showed the material he had found to his father, his father said, "That looks like some of the contraption I found."
While this doesn't completely address your point, it does move us away from "device."
Edwin Easley suggested that the object was extraterrestrial which would be some kind of vehicle.
Hope this helps.
- October 27, 2011 at 5:42 PM
- David Rudiak said...
Kevin wrote:
"I have always been puzzled by the lack of various types of debris. Bill Brazel talked of three types that he had recovered and Jesse Marcel talked of some parchment-like material. I always thought that there should be other types of debris... In a plane crash get get lots of things from cloth to huge engines."
Kevin, one point is that as technologies get more advanced, the materials typically get more integrated. Modern TVs, radios, computers, e.g., have far fewer materials and components than earlier versions. I would similarly expect aircraft and spacecraft 100 years from to have far more integration and fewer components than today.
An example of where such electronic integration is going, I have read predictions of where electronics will soon be printed out with ink-jet technology, so a complete video display, e.g., could be printed out on a flat substrate. Unless you examined it in a lab, you would have no idea examining it by naked eye that it had the equivalent of transistors, diodes capacitors, resistors, wire connectors, etc. It would instead look like a uniform material. It could even be the wallpaper and also be used as a room light, a phone, contain sensors to activate various appliances, etc.
In the case of Roswell, I have speculated that many of the properties of the described Roswell material might be based on carbon nanotube-based materials, which are super-light, super-strong, and highly heat resistant.
But in addition they have many possible electrical properties, ranging from near super-conducting to semi-conducting depending on how they are tweeked.
That means carbon nanotubes or composites could be used to construct not only basic structural components such as framework beams and skin (e.g., a fabric weave, much like described by Marcel for some of the memory material) but the various electronics could in principle be built right into the structural components. Pick it up in the field and you wouldn't even know it was there.
To quote from your second Roswell book: "The metal, according to Kromschroeder, was gray and resembled aluminum but was harder and stiffer. He couldn't bend it but had to be careful because the edges were sharp... Kromshroeder said that Henderson told him that the metal was part of the lighter material lining the interior of the craft. He said that when properly energized, it produced perfect illumination. It cast a soft light with no shadows. That piece of debris apparently came from Major Ellis Boldra."
That sounds like an example of electronics integrated into a structural material, but invisible to the eye.
As for variety of debris described, I have categorized it into at least 6 different types on my website. For anybody interested:
For my speculation about carbon nanotubes as Roswell debris:
- October 28, 2011 at 7:33 PM
- Unknown said...
This is true. I'm the great granddaughter of Lorreta, my name is Brittany Proctor I've been to the actual site. From what I've been told there's two sites. One is a fake. And they are on private land still. My family still has a ranch out there and my granny whom turned 98 this year is still alive and kicking!
- July 27, 2012 at 11:28 PM


text:
Note: I first wrote and posted this article to my blog at VeloReviews.com on June 15, 2010. Since then, I've imported it back here to JustAnotherCyclist.com to provide more context to posts that will be appearing here.
I generally don't spend a lot of time dwelling on my diabetes [here on JustAnotherCyclist.com]. It is not that I'm ashamed of my type 1 diabetes, or trying to hide it, but more that I mostly consider it just a part of my life. Thinking of it in that context I'm just not really compelled to post about it on web sites that I frequent, or write about it in my blog. However, every once in awhile something comes along that can potentially make my diabetes noteworthy. In this case, it is a change in the way I manage my diabetes that promises to make my cycling a whole lot better, safer and enjoyable. Well, two things actually.
After a fair amount of research I've decided to change from my current management routine of daily insulin injections and move to an insulin pump. To understand how this will effect cycling, I'll need to give a little bit of background on diabetes and insulin. I'll keep this very general – just enough information to help non-diabetics understand what's going on here.
Basically, insulin is a hormone that allows the fuel you eat (food) to get into your cells. Yes – this is skipping over many actual details and steps in the process, but it is sufficient for our discussion. Your body (well, the body of a non-diabetic at least) releases insulin in response to – and in proportion to – the amount of food you eat. In addition, your liver releases a small, steady stream of sugars to fuel the general running and maintenance of your body even whenever you are not eating. As you might expect, your body also releases a small, steady stream of insulin in response to your liver's small, steady stream of sugar. This background stream of insulin is called basal. It is in the management of my basal insulin that an insulin pump actually offers the biggest benefit.
I take shots of two different types of insulin a day currently. One – referred to as bolus – is taken in direct response to the amount of food I eat. However, since it is very impractical for me to take a whole stream of different shots each day to simulate basal insulin, I instead take two shots a day of dedicated basal insulin. This insulin, unlike my bolus shots, takes some time to "activate" – you can think of it as time-release insulin. I take a set amount in the morning, and a set amount at night, every day, day in and day out. This set amount has been adjusted through trial and error to match my liver's steady supply of sugar mentioned above.
So far, so good. But there is another variable to throw in – exercise. Exercise actually allows your body to get the same amount of fuel (food, or more specifically glucose) into your cells with less insulin. It quite literally opens up more channels into your cells for sugars to get in and be burned as fuel. So, putting this together, I take a set amount of basal insulin each day that matches my baseline of sugars released by my liver. But then I go out for a nice long bike ride, and my system gets all revved up by the exercise. Suddenly, I'm burning through more glucose for the same amount of basal insulin I've taken in and eventually … I run out of available glucose in my blood stream. This is a condition known as insulin shock or, more properly, hypoglycemia. Definitely something to avoid.
An insulin pump alleviates this problem. The issue is that, currently, once I take my basal insulin shot I'm stuck with that amount of insulin until it wears off. However, an insulin pump more closly replicates what our bodies are supposed to do. Specifically, it releases small amounts of insulin slowly over time. That means that, when I go out for a ride, I can immediately adjust the rate of basal insulin released into my body. That's a huge win – and significantly reduces the risk of hypoglycemia brought on by exercise.
That's one of the two things I'm doing to help manage my diabetes that I'm hoping will have a direct positive effect on my cycling performance. The other thing – perhaps even more beneficial to my cycling specifically – is the utilization of a continuous glucose monitor. Currently, with traditional glucose monitoring, I have to prick my finger to get a drop of blood and put that blood on a strip that I've inserted into a glucose meter. That's a lot of moving parts to manage, and damn near impossible when you are in the saddle. However, with a continuous glucose monitor, I'll have a device attached directly to my skin that will sample my blood glucose levels (the amount of available sugar in my bloodstream) periodically and transmit that information to a small hand held device. With information available this frequently, the hand held device can track the trends of your blood glucose and and set alerts when my blood sugar is heading to levels too high (this causes fatigue and a general loss of power) or too low (danger!)
So, the scenarios where blood sugar levels are outside of norms will look like this by utilizing these two technologies:
Glucose Monitor alerts that blood sugar is getting low: Grab a gel from the jersey pocket and keep riding
Glucose Monitor alerts that blood sugar is getting high: Grab glucose monitor hand held unit out of jersey pocked and read value. Grab insulin pump controller out of jersey pocket and give an additional dose of insulin.
And without these devices? How do I deal with these currently?
Feel light headed and have no energy. Suspect blood sugar may be low: Stop riding, get off bike, pull out all the parts of the meter and check blood sugar. Grab gel and continue riding
Feel fatigued and listless. Is it high blood sugar, or just a hard effort: It is almost impossible for me to tell the difference between the two, so stop and check blood sugar with the meter. If it is high, pull the insulin out of the jersey and give myself a shot before climbing back on the bike.
As you can see, this is a huge leap forward. To use a cycling analogy, my current method of diabetes management in kinda like road racing before Mr. Campagnolo invented the derailleur. Back in those days, you had two different gears on the rear wheel, on on each side of the hub. You'd start the race on one. When you got to the bottom of a big climb (when you'd want a lower gear) you'd stop the bike, remove the back wheel and flip it over to make the smaller gear active. At the top of the climb – you guessed it, stop again and get into the bigger gear for the descent. That's cycling the way I do it now. After Campagnolo's derailleur, you keep riding right up that climb, changing gears by operating simple controls while you're still in the saddle pedaling. That's riding with an insulin pump and a continuous glucose monitor.
If anyone wants more information on this subject, don't hesitate to get a hold of me, or contact your endocrinologist, diabetes educator or other medical professional.


text:
I am very new in this field and I wanted to do SEO for my blog .
- How many keywords should I select?
- After selecting the keywords,should I always focus on those keywords only?I mean whatever the post is I must add those keywords?or should it depend upon the posts?


text:
Ramps are here. Get them now. Enough said.
Also, asparagus!
Fried eggs and ramps on a bagel
Just barely adapted from this recipe and this article.
Serves 1
Rinse a half-dozen ramps in cold water, removing any dirt and snipping off the hairy ends. Heat a non-stick pan over medium heat and add about 1 tablespoon olive oil. When the oil is hot, add the ramps and season with salt and pepper. Drop half a bagel into the toaster. When the leaves begin to wilt (1-2 minutes), push the ramps to the side and crack an egg into the hot pan. Sprinkle with salt and a pinch of red pepper flakes and cook sunny-side up until the whites set and the yolk stays runny, about 2-3 minutes. Top the bagel with ramps and the egg. As you eat, this will make a mess – each bite I took dragged a ramp or two out from under the egg. It's all good. Eat up!


text:
Wind Energy
Bats & Wind Energy
Bats & Wind Energy
The conservation calculus for wind energy changed dramatically in the fall of 2003. Up until that point, bird fatalities had been the primary environmental concern at wind turbines, particularly raptors. Then a study in West Virginia estimated 1,400 to 4,000 bat fatalities during late-summer and autumn, and the concerns about environmental impacts of wind power began to change across North America.
What causes bat fatalities?
Current research suggests that the overwhelming majority of bat fatalities are caused by collisions with turbine blades. There is some evidence to suggest that a phenomenon known as barotrauma may result in a small proportion of bat deaths, as well. Barotrauma involves tissue damage to air-containing structures, such as lungs, caused by rapid or excessive pressure change. Air pressure changes can occur at the edges of moving turbine blades and may help explain some bat fatalities.
Between 2000 and 2011, an estimated 650,000 to 1.3 million bats have died from collisions with wind turbines in the United States and Canada (Arnett and Baerwald 2013). Additionally, as many as 400,000 estimated fatalities may have occurred in 2012.
With wind-generated energy expected to expand from the current 82,000 MW to 224,000 MW by 2030 (U.S.DOE Wind Vision 2015), the impact on bat populations from this build-out could be devastating unless solutions to minimize fatalities are developed and implemented.
In the U.S. and Canada, at least 24 species of bats have been reported as killed by wind turbines. The hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis) and silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), all migratory tree bats, account for nearly 78% of the kills north of Mexico. The hoary bat accounts for 38% of the fatalities. A new study that looked at hoary bat mortality at wind energy facilities during 2014 revealed that populations of the species may plunge by a staggering 90 percent in the next 50 years if no action is taken.
At some sites in the Midwest and Eastern U.S., species that are already battered by White-nose Syndrome (WNS), can account for up to 60% of wind-energy fatalities.
Two federally endangered species, the Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) and the Indiana myotis (Myotis sodalis), also have been killed by turbines.
What We're Doing
Cooperation is key, which is why BCI is a founding partner of the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC). Together with American Wind Energy Association, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and other stakeholders, we used research to understand and develop strategies to minimize and, when possible avoid, the impact of wind energy on bats.
What you can do to help?
Urgent and effective conservation action is critical if we are to reduce the lethal impact of wind energy on bats. Here is how you can help:
Educate your friends and families about the benefits of bats and the impacts of wind turbines on bat populations.
Encourage your local, state and federal officials to develop policies and regulations that will help minimize bat fatalities at wind-energy facilities.
If your energy company currently uses wind power, ask its officials to require impact reduction strategies to be implemented to reduce bat fatalities.
Contribute to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative to develop cost-effective strategies to protect bats.
Donate to help protect bats and develop wind-energy responsibly.
Stay up to date with BCI
Sign up and receive timely bat updates
BCI relies on the support of our amazing members around the world.
Our mission is to conserve the world's bats and their ecosystems to ensure a healthy planet.
Please join us or donate so our work can continue.