Jump to content

Talk:Jesse Marcel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Rjjiii (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jesse Marcel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rjjiii (talk · contribs) 06:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    This is good, but check out the detail review of sources below. A few of the sources have strange hyperlinks.
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    In the current version ( https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jesse_Marcel&oldid=1148453860 ) I see issues with sources 5, 14, and 15. I did not check sources 1, 2, or 6 because I didn't see page numbers. Adding these either via shortened footnotes or {{rp}} would make it easier editors to verify the content, but as of right now inline references with page numbers are not necessary and do not affect GA. I've added a detailed review below.
    c. (OR):
    Marcel was a key figure in the discovery and initial analysis should likely be rephrased or cited to someone else.
    Reworded! Feoffer (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    This looks good. Quotes are cited. Earwig notes a lot of titles which are fine.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    Both images are public domain photographs created by the US government. They have pd templates.
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)


Sources review:

  1. 1160 pages, 2 references. Fee, Christopher R.; Webb, Jeffrey B., eds. (August 29, 2016). American Myths, Legends, and Tall Tales: An Encyclopedia of American Folklore. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9781610695688. Archived from the original on December 29, 2021. Retrieved December 29, 2021 – via Google Books.
  2. 187 pages, 9 references. Marcel, Jesse; Marcel, Linda (January 1, 2008). The Roswell Legacy: The Untold Story of the First Military Officer at the 1947 Crash Site. Red Wheel/Weiser. ISBN 9781601630261 – via Google Books.
     Done page numbers added Feoffer (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Just one page, secondary source, verifies the Friedman interview about aliens. Rothman, Lily (7 July 2015). "How the Roswell UFO Theory Got Started". Time. Retrieved October 26, 2021.
  4. Just one page, verifies both statements. Also why not use this primary source for birth and death dates? "Lt. Col (Ret.) Jesse Marcel Sr". JESSE MARCEL, JR.
     Done Great idea. Feoffer (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This appears self-published? Most of the refs citing this are redundant, but the first paragraph of his later life only references this. Is there a better source available? Major Jesse Marcel: Folk Hero or Mythomaniac? (Dec 1995) Robert G. Todd
     Done Better sources found, source removed. Feoffer (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 435 pages, one reference. Randle, Kevin D. Roswell in the 21st Century. Speaking Volumes. ISBN 9781628155129 – via Google Books.
     Done Chopped this, added specific page to Roswell Legend by Marcel Fam. Feoffer (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. One page, verified. "Operation Crossroads". nuclearweaponarchive.org.
  8. Why use 2 sources here? Dockrill, Peter (26 April 2018). "The Chilling Story of The 'Demon Core' And The Scientists Who Became Its Victims". ScienceAlert.
     Done chopped. Feoffer (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Skipped. Weisgall 1994, p. 286.
  10. Geerhart's work all appears to be self-published. This should likely be cited from Weisgall if possible, citing Geerhart's sources directly, or citing the sources via Geerhart (WP:SAYWHERE). "Atomic Goddess Revisited: Rita Hayworth's Bomb Image Found". CONELRAD Adjacent (blog). August 13, 2013. Retrieved March 11, 2015.
     Done cut. Feoffer (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Linked to general reference below. Verified.Weisgall 1994, pp. 263–265.
  12. The letter verifies the article. Is this hosted somewhere more reputable? "Ramey Commendation"., 26 July 1946
  13. Same as above. "Kepner Commendation"., 16 August 1946
     Done Added sources,uploaded the images to Commons. Feoffer (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  14. This page does not appear to verify "initial analysis" from the article. It looks like Weaver is saying that Marcel did a lot of work at the site physically investigating, gathering materials, etc. But I'm not seeing anything about analysis. Weaver, Colonel Richard L.; McAndrew, 1st Lt. James (1995). The Roswell Report: Fact versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert (PDF). Washington DC: Headquarters United States Air Force. p. 160. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 June 2019. Retrieved 15 December 2019.
     Done Reworded to something more verifiable Feoffer (talk)
  15. Verified quotes here: https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/637154084/ The newspaper verifies the quotes. The link is really fascinating but I see 2 issues with it. First, is that it is so heavily annotated that it's a separate source than the original newspaper article. Second, is that I don't see an author or editor listed on the page."New Mexico Rancher's 'Flying Disk' Proves to be Weather Balloon-Kite". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. July 9, 1947. Archived from the original on September 27, 2013. Retrieved February 5, 2013.
     Done whoa, that was big oversight! thank you for spotting it. Fixed. Feoffer (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Verifies death. "The truth is out there: Roswell incident recalled by local vet who was there 60 years ago". San Diego Union-Tribune. September 30, 2007.
  17. Verifies content, one page: "Roswell author who said he handled UFO crash debris dies at 76". Associated Press. August 8, 2013. Retrieved April 4, 2023 – via The Guardian.


Feoffer, I've checked the images, image licenses, ref list, sources, and citations. I have a few notes above. I'm going to go through in the next week to give feedback on the writing. Let me know if you have any questions and so on. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Writing review:

  • The end of the lead should likely be separated into multiple sentences. Some clauses are ambiguous in this version. For example, I believe it's saying that the Roswell incident resurfaced but it could be easily taken to mean that Marcel's role resurfaced: He was a key figure in the 1947 Roswell alleged UFO incident, which did not surface again until the late 1970s, when Marcel, now a retired lieutenant colonel, in an interview with ufologist Stanton Friedman, said he believed the debris he retrieved was extraterrestrial.
  • Louisiana; He punctuation
     Done
  • Jesse reportedly harbored Why the adverb? I would either removed reportedly or say who reported it.
     Done
  • worked for a general store, This can be removed or reformatted for grammar.
     Done
  • working as a draftsman and cartographer for the Louisiana Highway Department Did he do any notable maps? Are there of his maps available that could could be used as an image in the article? No errors, just a thought.
  • to their first child. Could we get the name, since his kids are mentioned at the end of the article?
     Done
  • Pennsylvania for training as Combat Photo Interpreter/ Intelligence Officer. Another thought here: are any of his photos available? They should public domain if taken for the US government.
  • The two bombs used in the test This section is confusing to me on first read. I would say that the information is somewhat out of order because the facts are given before the framework. It's not clear until the very end of the paragraph that there were two tests called Baker and Able each with their own named bomb. The information all appears correct, but it could use a better introduction.
    Thank you! That did need work!  DoneFeoffer (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It looked better, but I noticed a few small errors and thought the wording still was somewhat unclear. Small edit: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jesse_Marcel&diff=1150354186&oldid=1150321623&diffmode=source Rjjiii (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roswell UFO Incident I have two issues with this section. The first one is that I think the Friedman interview and conspiracy stuff should also be moved here. If someone just skips down to skim this section, they'll miss some significant details. (Why is it a UFO incident if he says it's a balloon?) The second problem is that this section may not follow NPOV. The key details of the Roswell incident as related to Marcel are probably (you are more the expert here) that he gathered the wreckage, he transported it, he gave Friedman an interview about aliens, he stuck by this story, and also that US govt later said the material was from the classified Project Mogul. One way to handle it would be with a first paragraph laying out just the facts of what happened in the 40s and a second a paragraph about Friedman, conspiracies, Mogul, etc.
  • In his final years, Marcel was a self-employed television repairman. I would put this in a paragraph with his death and family details.
     DoneFeoffer (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Roswell incident did not surface again until the late 1970s, when Marcel, now a retired lieutenant colonel, in an interview with ufologist Stanton Friedman, said he believed the debris he retrieved was extraterrestrial. I would move this into the Roswell section. Maybe also mention that the military claimed after his death that the debris came from the then-classified Project Mogul. Did Marcel have any involvement with Mogul?
    Moved, still need to add Mogul
    One of your sources answers my question. From The Roswell Report p. 316 When the civilians and personnel from Roswell AAF (Marcel, Cavitt, and Rickett) “stumbled” upon the highly classified project and collected the debris, no one at Roswell had a ”need to know” about information concerning MOGUL..This fact, along with the initial misidentification and subsequent rumors that the “capture” of a ”flying disc” occurred, ultimately left many people with unanswered questions that have endured to this day. That source really goes into detail about Mogul. Marcel would have no involvement with the project.Rjjiii (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also check page 25 from Weaver (1995): balloon tests taking place at Alamogordo Army Air Field (now Holloman AFB) and White Sands during June and July 1947 [...] Its name was Project MOGUL(Atch 19). Project MOGULwas a then-sensitive, classified project, whose purpose was to determine the state of Soviet nuclear weapons research. so not even being run from the same base. Rjjiii (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a peak at current text -- I've incorporated elements of the the two quotes you cited. Thanks again for all your incredibly helpful feedback. Feoffer (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad it's helpful; thanks for being responsive. I did an edit to more clearly attribute the quote and touch up the formatting. ( https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jesse_Marcel&diff=1150425166&oldid=1150421037&diffmode=source ) I think there is more than enough info on Project Mogul in the article. Let me know if you're feeling close to finished with changes and I'll take a second look over the Roswell section. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • that, that in 1947 grammar
     Done

@Feoffer: I went through the writing. Let me know if you have any questions, especially about my comments regarding the lead, the bomb names, or the Roswell section. The other issues were minor. I also mentioned a couple ideas regarding any available maps or photos he created for the military; these are just ideas not problems. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Second pass

[edit]

Roswell Sources:

  • Rudiak's work is self-published and he is not (so far as I can tell) a known military expert. NICAP.org is hosting it, but they mirror all kinds of content. I don't think Rudiak should be used as a source on Wikipedia articles. If you are just trying to attribute to the 2 FOIA documents, you could try formatting your citations something like this:
<ref>{{cite letter |first= |last= |recipient= |subject= |date= |url= |access-date= }} – via [[NICAP]]</ref>
  •  Done chopped rudiak Feoffer (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clary is self-published. This whole section is cited to Clary: In November 1979, Marcel's first filmed interview was featured in a documentary titled "UFO's Are Real", co-written by Friedman.[19] The film had a limited release but was later syndicated for broadcasting. On February 28, 1980, the sensationalist tabloid National Enquirer brought large-scale attention to the Marcel story.[20] According to both Weaver and Randle, the N.E. was running stories before 1980. See Weaver page 13.
     Done cut Clary & "UFOS are Real". Added source about NE 1980. Feoffer (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will this url work for the AP source: https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/clip/2223242/the-bakersfield-californian/
     Done using the clip from newspapers.com Feoffer (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randle looks good. He can also provide a secondary source for commendations (p. 152), but likely doesn't give enough detail to replace the exsiting primary sources as he is mostly just comparing reality (commendations) to Marcel's hyperbole.

Writing

  • First sentence is a great intro.
  • First paragraph is fine.
  • I think the section goes against NPOV by reproducing the newspaper blockquote and scanned cover here ( WP:UNDUE). The "flying disc" account is significant but can be summarized in one sentence.
     Done chopped those as undue, more precise Feoffer (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external videos don't appear to be uploaded by their copyright holders. Linking to them is prohibited (WP:COPYLINK), and they should be removed or replaced. If you can find any links where the copyright holder has uploaded a Marcel interview that should be totally fine.
     Done Cut! (Although I'm not sure it's violates COPYLINKS to link to primary sources of historic footage that are not for sale, have no commercial value, etc).Feoffer (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked into "In Search Of", but didn't go so deep on the others, so could have made a mistake on those. "In Search Of" seems to have a valid copyright owned by Universal. They have licensed it to VEI for physical DVD releases and currently have it available for sale ( https://www.visualentertainment.tv/products/in-search-of-with-leonard-nimoy-the-complete-collection ); the History Channel also has aired re-run episodes. Being for sale is relevant when suing for damages, but does not appear to be a part of Wikipedia's policies. If you'd like to get a third opinion from the Copyright talk page ( https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights ), that is 100% okay. Wikipedia's policies on linking to copyrighted materials seem pretty strict to me but it's possible I am misreading them. Rjjiii (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article would really be improved if you were to give the 1947 events a paragraph in your own words. Per Wikipedia's summary style, this article is allowed to go into greater detail than the Roswell Incident article regarding Marcel. We know some pretty interesting concrete details about the events. Weaver and Randle offer a pair of reliable sources to pull from. Some times or dates seem disputed, but most of the initial sequence seems agreed upon. (Let me know if this is not the case.) The general outline seems to be:
  1. The Sheriff George Wilcox calls RAAF (where Marcel's 509th are stationed) to report that a rancher found a crashed disc (Randle p. 30, and Waver p. 12)
  2. Marcel goes out to the ranch with Sheridan Cavitt (Weaver, p. 23-34) which per Marcel himself is so far remote that it takes all day and they spend the night
  3. Marcel in a military jeep, and Cavitt on horseback ride out with the rancer (also on horseback) to the crash site (Randle, p. 51)
  4. Per Cavitt: They load up Marcel's jeep with debris and take it back (Weaver, p. 144)
  5. Marcel tells Blanchard it's a flying saucer (Randle p. 30)
  6. (not sure on the order of these) RAAF gives a press release and they box up the debris (Randle, p. 2, and Weaver, p.23).
  7. Marcel flies with the stuff to Fort-Worth, Texas (Weaver, p. 23, and Randle, p. 11)
  8. A second press release says it's a ballon.
 Done Thanks for that!!! Feoffer (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't think about starting a subsection for the 70s and onward but that's probably a good idea. It creates a clear separation that reflects what reliable sources say.
  • Introduction paragraph looks good.
  • "UFO's Are Real" only cited to Clary, a self-published source. Is it notable?
     DoneChopped! Feoffer (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weaver says N. E. was reporting as early as 1978 right after Friedman (p. 13). Randles quotes from a 1979 interview with Bob Pratt (p. 32).
  • The In Search of stuff is interesting. I've never watched this before.
  • Your reference on the blockquote is confusing. I believe it verifies the above text, but it's placement looks like it's the ref for the quote. I'd move that reference closer to the body text it supports and replace it with a reference explicitly to In Search of on Marcel's quote. I hope that makes sense.
     DoneFixed. Feoffer (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcel gave a final interview to HBO's America Undercover which aired in August 1985.[5] Is this notable? It's only cited to itself and seems like it can be omitted.
     DoneOmitted! Feoffer (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mogul is fine.

Final notes

These aren't problems that affect GA just a few thoughts regarding possible improvements:

@Feoffer: I decided to go ahead and do a second pass now. I may be pressed for time later this month and didn't want to leave you hanging. Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you so much, I really appreciate all the incredible suggestions, feedback, and references!! Feoffer (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome. I hope none of it comes off as overly prescriptive. Rjjiii (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all! Thank you for seeing the imperfections right in front of my face that only noticed after you pointed them out. Feoffer (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Feoffer, it looks good. There's a huge edit by me in the history; that's a bot that preemptively adds an archive URL to each citation in case the link breaks in the future. I also did a copyedit when I looked through to check things; you may want to double check me there. I looked around to see if the videos I objected to were available elsewhere. One video from your Roswell article ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv590ONs_J4&t=1514s ) includes a Marcel Sr. and Marcel Jr. interview clip, but the documentary portions of the video aren't so hot, so it may be a good idea to use a timestamp link and maybe contextualize it. There is also a public domain Marcel Jr. interview conducted by the US government available on the commons ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roswell_Reports,_Volume_6.webm ). If you'd like to work those in, go ahead. If not, I'll go ahead and pass it, Rjjiii (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the videos! feel free to tweak the text, etc. Feoffer (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Feoffer: thanks for the patience and the work. I'm going to mark this as passed. If the article has not been nominated for "Did You Know", it should now be eligible. Rjjiii (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notes on continuing improvements

[edit]
  • Find govt maps/photos by Marcel
  • RS on Marcel HBO interview, "UFO's Are Real"
  • Was Marcel involved in Mogul? Done
  • Middle name is Antoine per in genealogy, decedents, and fringe, but need RS on it. Done

Feoffer (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where to cover Marcel's 1978-85 statements

[edit]

We could cover those statements under the Military Career heading or later in the article. Rjjiii (talk · contribs) has argued for former while Alalch E. (talk · contribs) prefers the latter. I'm easy. Feoffer (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience as a reader and editor, chronological order helps reading comprehension, as natural questions get answered on the go (for example: when did Marcel get promoted from major to lt. colonel), but I'll defer to Rjjiii. This is just about a minor point of content organization and is non-substantive. —Alalch E. 22:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would not be the first thing I have been wrong about, and there's no special status for doing a GA review. I can see the benefits of making the organization more chronological. I would be okay with either location. My concern is that a reader who skims the Marcel article for Roswell (what he's most known for) should be able to get the whole picture without reading every section. If it's placed later in the article, it'll be more clear with a heading that includes "Roswell" somehow in the wording. Additionally, I think the "Roswell balloon crash investigation" would be better shortened to just "Roswell investigation", as most readers may not think of it as a balloon. The article's body text can, of course, make clear that the majority viewpoint is that it was a balloon. Rjjiii (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With humor, I will confess that I "like the way I did it", lol. I realize that's not a very unique situation, a person liking their own proposal :). But I think the win-win here is to have a Roswell incident investigation section as part of Military Career and then Renewed interest as a subsection of that. This gives us the advantages of a section break for the time jump, will still making the entire story part of the Roswell section. Feoffer (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a win-win. About one detail: I don't like it when h2 content is divided between the h2 top content and one (as opposed to multiple) h3, it looks like a layout error (as if the section levels are uneven). So I've addressed it in the following way: diff. I guess "Investigation" could also be "Crash investigation" or "Baloon crash investigation", to be a little more descriptive.—Alalch E. 07:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me! It's funny, I realize I have a unconscious prejudice against having two headers in a row, as if that's somehow a bad thing to do, which it isn't! I can live with whatever gets of to GA, so if it's fine with Rjjiii it's fine by me :) Feoffer (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine with me. Also, I notice that you've moved a few sentences out into "Personal Life" which makes sense. Everything currently in that section is pre-WW2, so it may make more chronological sense between "Early life" and "Military career". Rjjiii (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me! done. Feoffer (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Jesse Marcel claimed he recovered extraterrestrial debris from a ranch near Roswell, New Mexico? Source: Marcel was the first military officer tasked with investigating the 1947 Roswell incident, where supposed "flying disc" debris was later identified as pieces of a weather balloon. The incident was largely forgotten until 1978, when Marcel, then a retired lieutenant colonel, told ufologist Stanton Friedman that he believed the Roswell debris was extraterrestrial.[1]
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: Alternative hooks greatly welcome, I've never written one before.

Improved to Good Article status by Feoffer (talk). Self-nominated at 07:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jesse Marcel; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Review:
  • The article was promoted to Good Article today (22 April 2023). Its nomination is thus new enough.
  • The article has more than 1,500 characters of readable prose.
  • The article seems free of copyright violations. Earwig picks up some minor issues, but I do not spot a copyvio.
  • The article is sourced. I did a spot check on some quotes and they were fine.
  • QPQ is probably not needed as I can see only two DYK credits for you. Please confirm this (all credits count, even if not self-nominated).
  • The hook is short enough and I find it interesting. One issue is grammar: I think it should read: ALT1: ... that Jesse Marcel claimed to have recovered extraterrestrial debris from a ranch near Roswell, New Mexico?
  • Overall: Thanks a lot for bringing this article to Good Article-status. It is really useful to have reliable information on fringe topics. I will approve the ALT1 variation, if you confirm that you do not have five DYK-credits and that you are fine with my minor change. WatkynBassett (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Marcel, Jr. refutes the Mogul claim

[edit]

This needs to be clear in the article. The Mogul claim shouldn't be left hanging, and seeming like Wikipedia endorses that view.

He and his father both experienced the memory foil. And both could not find any electronic components in the Roswell debris. Nothing like the memory foil existed in 1947. So it wasn't from a Mogul balloon. There are many witnesses to the memory foil:

See: Page 54 of Jesse Marcel, Jr. book. Where he describes what he and his father experienced with the memory foil. "when he bent or folded a piece of the foil, it would return to its original shape when released ... took a sledge hammer ... could not make a dent in it or deform it in any way". Page 55: "Had it been a weather or a Mogul balloon, however, there would have been electronic components". See page 53 where the father and son looked through debris and could find no electronic components.

The book is currently referenced 10 times in this Wikipedia article.

See also page 65. Jesse Marcel and his commanding officer, Colonel Blanchard, both knew it wasn't a balloon. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesse_Marcel&oldid=1248856869"