UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Nov > Nov 29

Re: Melvin Brown And The MPs

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:51:00 -0800
Archived: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:31:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Melvin Brown And The MPs

>From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:11:06 -0500
>Subject: Re: Melvin Brown And The MPs

>>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:51:40 -0800
>>Subject: Re: Melvin Brown And The MPs

>>>From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch.nul>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:09:07 -0500
>>>Subject: Re: Melvin Brown And The MPs

>>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>>Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:05:03 EST
>>>>Subject: Melvin Brown And The MPs

>>The question is not why a cook would be on guard duty; it is
>>why a cook, who claimed he was pressed into guard duty, would
>>be allowed such extraordinary access to the bodies and the
>>ship's debris.

>>The usual debunking, "It's not in my personal experience,
>>therefore it can't be."

>>I myself have never seen a plane crash, a murder, a case of the
>>bubonic plague, etc., etc. However, it would be rather foolish
>>to doubt such things just because I had never personally seen

>Conversely, the usual plea from the crash advocates; "there is
>a remote possibility it might have happened, therefore it did."

No, more like "we have other known examples of where such things
have happened given the proper circumstances, so it can't be
automatically ruled out."

Your stance, in contrast, is "it couldn't happen, because I say
so, therefore it didn't."

>>One hero of Pearl Harbor ...

>And a horrific morning of carnage, destruction and horror is
>analogous to The Incident how?

A cook's assistant with no training left his post, manned a
machine gun, and shot down three planes. It was an example of
what a skeptic would call a highly improbable event, yet it

During the Battle of the Bulge, the cooks, the clerks, etc.,
were ordered to grab guns and grenades and fight back. The only
people who didn't were the medics.

I imagine similar things happened many thousands of times in the
war in many small battles that nobody now knows about. When the
usual manpower isn't there, "unqualified" people will often fill
in the gaps.

>>>A soldier (an engine mechanic, say...) who might pull guard
>>>duty 2-3 times a year would not be able to properly secure
>>>such an enormously sensitive post in times of extraordinary

>>But Brown was more than "just a cook."

>>Some actual facts on Sgt. Melvin Brown (from copies of his
>>service record, in Timothy Good's "Alien Contact")

>>Born: 1914 (therefore 33 years old at the time of Roswell, not
>>some teenage MP) Enlisted: December 1939 (served in a gun
>>battalion) Received MOS of cook: April 1943 Transferred to
>>Asiatic Pacific Theater: June 1943

>>Noted as being an Expert with M1 Carbine. Received the Bronze
>>Star for Phillipine campaign. Noted as serving in battle in
>>Northern Solomons.

>>Point: Again, Brown was more than "just a cook

>So now Mel Brown's real identity is now revealed as Steven

Debunker humor, probably considered to be a showstopper

>Sgt Brown's military history is totally immaterial.

Yeah, right! More like an inconvenient truth to debunkers trying
to portray the man as "nothing but a cook" who didn't know a
flour barrel from a gun barrel.

>On a base the size of RAAFB, he was Just A Cook. He could
>have been war hero with a chest full of medals... once he put
>on the apron, he was Just A Cook.

He was "Just A Cook" when he received his Bronze Star in the
Philippines. During the Battle of the Bulge, guys who were "just
cooks" were ordered to pick up rifles and shoot back. Cooks can
get caught up in crisis situations just like anybody else in the
military and may be called upon to be more than "just a cook."

>In 1947, the base was well populated with
>soldiers who had also been through the war and knew how to
>handle a rifle- Brown was certainly not unique in that regard.
>The idea that he was somehow special because he shot Expert in
>Basic Training is stretching that argument well beyond the
>breaking point.

For 3-1/2 years he was a member of a gun battalion before
becoming a cook. He was in the battle of the Philippines and
Soloman Islands, yes as a cook, but somewhere along the way he
managed to pick up a Bronze Star for something. Maybe he baked
really great chocolate chip cookies, but I imagine it was for
some act of heroism while they were under fire.

>>For all we know, maybe Brown did get trained and serve as an
>>MP early in his military career, sure speculation, but at least
>>based on something a little more substantial than "no way, no
>>how, because I say so."

>So long as you insist on going down this road of idle and
>useless speculation,

You went down that road long ago with your assertions that a
mere cook would never stand guard under any circumstances.

>why not hypothesize that Brown was really
>an undercover OSS agent... or that he was a secret agent for
>the Alien Presence... or that he was really Naomi Maria Self in
>disguise. All just as valid, and equally a waste of time.

You've made some decent points how someone like a cook would be
less likely than most to pull guard duty in such a situation.
However, your arguments are anything but conclusive, and when
challenged with some decent counterarugments you resort to this
drivel. The facts are that Brown obviously had soldiering
experience beyond just being a cook and there is really no
reason why he couldn't have pulled guard duty given the right
circumstances, just like some others did at Roswell.

>>>Easley, if he was a competent commander, would have _only_
>>>his highly trained security troops or MPs guarding such a
>>>sensitive building.

>>Brown had been in the Army for almost 8 years at the time of
>>the Roswell incident (3-1/2 years not as a cook) ...

>Good Grief, David! Your contention is that Easley is going to
>go out of his way to pick a cook who has seen very little if any
>action for the last 4-1/2 years because of "his experience"??

Your math seems to be as bad as the rest of your reasoning.
Brown received his Bronze Star during the battle to retake the
Philippines, therefore towards the end of 1944 through the early
part of 1945, or roughly 2-1/2 years before Roswell. Thus he
wouldn't be much different than anybody else at Roswell, none of
whom would have seen combat for 2 years since the war ended.

>Forgetting that he had hundreds of others to choose from, most
>of them also war veterans with good if not better records and
>some of whom have far more command experience? That is just
>plain silly.

The regular MPs were mostly privates and corporals. You should
have a look at all the baby faces in the yearbook. A lot of
these guys were barely out of high school and had never seen
combat during WWII.

The same was true in all the other squadrons. It was a mix of
highly experienced war vets with relative newcomers.

My point is that if you are short of men, as Easley would have
been trying to guard so many things spread over such a wide
area, you grab who is available and preferentially grab those
with more experience if possible. If you have a choice between a
33-year-old cook, former member of a gun battalion, been through
combat and decorated, or a 19-year old mechanic or motor pool
driver with no combat experience, who do you choose first?

Also who might be grabbed can also be purely a matter of chance.
Someone who is right there gets selected, whereas others who
might be more qualified but elsewhere do not. You hear these
stories all the time from vets of how they tried to avoid being
"volunteered" but some officer spots them first and they get the
job instead of their buddy over in the next room.

>>>Had he done otherwise, like posting Brown, Blanchard
>>>would have had his head on a stick!

>>Blanchard would have needed a lot of free time on his hands to
>>review and second-guess all decisions of his senior officers
>>about personnel selections and other related matters. No,
>>usually commanding officers delegate such authority and would
>>have no reason to question such decisions later unless some
>>collosal, compromising foul-up had occurred because of such

>Like having the soldier who was supposed to guard the debris
>and bodies from _the_ most important event in the history of
>mankind- debris and bodies that already had attained the Very
>Highest Security Level ever- desert his post to wander around
>with an unauthorized officer? That would easily qualify as a
>colossal foul-up worthy of extremely severe repercussions.

Of course, we are getting the story through Brown's daughter.
But assuming it happened, the story also goes that when they
went inside the hangar, everything was already crated up for
shipment and nothing could be seen. In the end, no secrets would
have been spilled by the event, and if nobody reported it, there
would be no repercussions. For all we know, it was three in the
morning, and except for some other guards doing their thing
elsewhere around the hangar, nobody else was around.

We have other testimony of other people breaking standard
security to allow others to have a peek, or maybe talking about
their involvement at the time to close acquaintances when they
were ordered not to. You seem to be ignoring the human factor
here. Some people follow regulations to the letter and keep
their mouths shut, others don't, or bend the rules, particularly
if they don't think any harm will come of it and friends or
family are involved.

I bet a lot of these guys were pissed being given the order to
shoot-to-kill any unauthorized people. It's one thing shooting a
German trying to sneak into your post, but quite another when
its one of your own guys, maybe somebody you know personally and
are friends with. Under those circumstances, you might bend the
rules a bit and allow them to take a quick peek. The Melvin
Brown story isn't unique in that way, as I have previously
pointed out.

>>But during the Roswell incident, according to testimony, in
>>addition to their normal guard duties, they would be required to
>>throw up multiple cordons to keep unauthorized people out. The
>>debris field area had to be secured, plus access to it. The
>>smaller north site also had to be secured, and in addition, a
>>cordon running for perhaps 60 miles north of Roswell was thrown
>>up along Highway 285 to keep people from venturing off-highway.
>>Extra security would also have to be thrown up around Hangar 84
>>(where testimony indicates bodies, debris, and a craft were
>>taken) and the base hospital, and few other places as well.

>Here again, your lack of understanding of the Military shows.
>All military units go through repeated training over and over
>and over again to insure that every man's response to any given
>situation is as close to "by the book" as possible. Easley, as
>the guy in charge of security, had many scenarios to consider
>and, presumably, had drilled his men thoroughly for many
>different possible events.

>Yes... Yes... I know! "the book" had nothing in it about alien
>saucers crashing in the back yard! But reacting to the very real
>possibility of a plane carrying a nuclear bomb crashing off base
>was surely one of the many scenarios for which he had trained
>his men. He did not have to "wing it" to secure a crash site and
>retrieve militarily sensitive debris, deal with the injured and
>dead, and keep nosey spectators at a distance. His men were
>already trained for just such a scenario, and he had plans in
>place to deal with that kind of an event.

>If those plans included requisitioning additional personnel from
>the base, then Easley would already know where those extra men
>would come from.

You make a good point, followed by a really big "if". What "if"
those contingencies _didn't_ include requisitioning additional
personnel? Or even if they did, you could still add another big
if. What if the scope of this thing was well beyond any planned

What if there are multiple crash sites with debris spread out
over a wide area, plus this is even more sensitive than a nuke
crash and civilians have to be kept out or silenced at all
costs, and this level of security extends beyond the field, into
town, and onto the base itself. It's hard to imagine a
planned-for nuke crash with this broad a scope.

Easley did not have infinite numbers of trained and drilled MPs
at his disposal. I mentioned about 380 pictured in the base
yearbook, but forgot about the 1395th MP Company, which had
about 110 more men pictured. Thus about 500 MPs total, about 15%
of the base personnel. However, I doubt if even this number of
men would have beens sufficient to completely cover such a
widespread situation 24 hours a day. Additional men would be

>Yes - no Plan, however hard you try, goes off perfectly, and
>the mark of a good commander is the ability to adapt to the
>circumstances. But your scenario of confusion, desperation and
>conscripted cooks just does not stand up to how a well run
>command would have handled the alleged Incident.

This is just another one of your "no way, no how" assertions. I
guess the George Patton comment about things rarely going as
planned in crisis situations and improvisation is almost always
necessary went right over your head.

>>So suppose Brown's mess hall commanding officer is a friend who
>>he completely trusts and Brown doesn't see any harm in maybe
>>letting him have a quick look. Plus he's going to have a very
>>had time shooting the guy if he persists and doesn't go away.

>Which is _exactly_ why Easley would have never put in
>inexperienced personnel to guard what was, at the time, _the_
>most sensitive building in the nation. Brown=B4s purported actions
>(as related by Beverly) demonstrates precisely why the whole
>story smacks of being a tall tale. You have tried repeatedly to
>make the argument that Easley wanted Brown=B4s "experience and
>capability"... What Brown related demonstrates that Brown would
>have been inexcusably incompetent.

I also mentioned two eyewitnesses who said they were assigned to
guard duty during the Roswell incident who were not MPs. E.g.,
Cpl. William Quigley said he was ordered to guard the loading of
a B-29, with lethal force authorized, and then forced to sign a
security oath afterwards. Quigley was no MP and said he had
never been asked to guard anything before or since.

"Normally the MPs provided the security for an operation like
that, but I heard a little later that something 'bigger than the
A-bomb' was going on, and the MPs didn't have a high enough
security clearance for it. That would explain why I was chosen
for this special duty, because I possessed the highest security
clearance that an enlisted man could obtain--higher, at least,
than anyone else I knew. I guess they could find only one other
enlisted man in my squadron with the required cleance and
therefore had to substitute two officers to fill the other two
guard spots. This took place during the time of all the buzz
about the UFOs."

So what was so damn important that it was more important than an
A-bomb? This seems to be have been the loading of a large wooden
crate into the bomb bay of a B-29, attested to by three
eyewitness crew members, which subsequently had another armed
guard posted around it in flight, including officers, and was
met by more guards and a mortician when they arrived in Fort

There is strong circumstantial evidence that this crate carried
bodies from the crash. E.g., besides the unusual security and
the recognized mortician, according to Blanche Wahnee, daughter
of Meyers Wahnee, her dad confessed to the family in 1980 to
being in charge of the guard on the crate and stated that the
crate contained the alien bodies.

More details on this crate flight at:


So why would guy like Quigley, involved in plane armaments and
no MP, get assigned such guard duty, perhaps the loading of
alien bodies?  According to you, this would never, ever
happen, supposedly just as improbable or impossible as a cook
like Brown guarding bodies. This isn't even a second-hand story
like Melvin Brown's. The only way to try to "explain" it away
is to argue that Quigley was a liar.

>>Anyway, that's the real, messy world I live in, not the fantasy
>>world of debunkers who insist people must behave and things
>>could go down in only one possible way.

>And yet you feel compelled to concoct a fantasy world full of
>"supposes", "possibles", "might haves" and "maybes" to somehow
>get an Army Cook (that are generally exempt from guard duty by
>SOP) with no security training assigned to a guard detail for
>which he is totally and demonstratively unqualified.

I'm the one concocting a fantasy world? You're the one making
the absolute assertions that cooks would never be assigned to
guard duty, even though we've already had two posts on this
thread where people have said they know of cases where that
indeed happened. Kevin Randle, e.g., said he personally saw
cooks assigned to guard duty when he was stationed in Iraq.

I have actually tried to stick to some facts about Brown's known
service record instead of resorting to pure speculation, as you
have. He was in some very nasty combat zones during WWII and
received a Bronze Star. For his cooking? I don't think so.
Impossible for a cook, a combat veteran, to be ordered to guard
duty? No, of course not, if the situation demanded it. There are
some famous instances from WWII, already mentioned, of cooks
picking up guns and shooting back. This wasn't nearly as
dangerous a situation as that. Brown would have been just
another guy with a gun needed to secure a perimeter. Some
rancher wandering up is unlikely to challenge that, no matter
who is holding the gun.

You are also resorting to the usual clairovoyant powers of a
debunker. You know for a fact things you don't know for a fact.
How do you know that Brown never had security training? Were you
there when he was in a gun battalion for 3 years before becoming
a cook? Do you know anything about Easley's or other officers'
knowledge of the men at the base? How could you possibly know
who might be grabbed to assist in guard duties if they were
short-handed? Officers do indeed need to improvise, and things
aren't always so neat and clean as the fantasy world of
debunkers who believe things could happen in only the way they
can conceive it happening.

In the end, your argument comes down, "Melvin Brown could never
have acted as a guard because I say so."

David Rudiak

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com