The Attacks on Jesse Marcel
The same sort of smear has been directed at Jesse Marcel and it all is based on an interview that Marcel granted to National Enquirer reporter Bob Pratt (who, I should point out here was a very careful reporter regardless of the nature of the publication for which he worked) who graciously shared his interview transcript to all who asked for it. The problem is that it is often confusing and the answers Marcel gave might have been misinterpreted by Pratt. Others have suggested that Marcel was a liar whose story could now be rejected based on that transcript. In fact, Karl Pflock, in an open letter to Stan Friedman, made just this allegation.
But the situation has been muddied by those who wish to believe the worst about a man who is dead and can no longer defend himself. They have assumed that Marcel's military record is one hundred percent complete and accurate, and that the transcript Pratt made of his interview, as provided to various UFO researchers and as published by UFO researcher Karl Pflock, is one hundred percent accurate and complete.
It has been suggested by many debunkers that few of Marcel's claims about his background have stood up to scrutiny. Author Peter Brooksmith, in one of his most recent UFO books, for example, suggested that Marcel had no real combat experience. He was nothing more than “a passenger on combat flights” in the South Pacific during the Second World War. Reporters for a San Francisco television station, in a multi-part story, suggested much the same thing. Although such an allegation certainly calls Marcel’s record into question, it is a ridiculous statement with no evidence to support it. No one flies into combat as a passenger (unless, of course, they’re paratroopers on the way to battle, for example).
In fact, in the two citations for the Air Medal in Marcel's military file, it was written, "For meritorious achievement while participating in sustained operational flight missions… in the Southwest Pacific area during which hostile contact was probable and expected. These operations consisted of bombing missions against enemy airdromes and installations and attacks on enemy naval vessels and shipping. The courage and devotion to duty displayed during these flights are worthy of commendation."
In other words, Marcel was on the missions as part of his job as intelligence officer for various units in the Southwest Pacific during the war. Passengers on such flights, if there ever were any, were not routinely handed medals for "riding" along. (Okay, Lyndon Johnson got a Silver Star for riding along, but he had already been a high-ranking member of the Senate so he doesn’t count.) Marcel was doing his job, and to suggest that "his combat flying was limited to a passenger's job" as Brooksmith claims is an attempt to belittle the reputation of a man without evidence to support the allegation.
Peter Brooksmith apparently searching for anything to destroy Marcel's reputation continued in this same vein when he wrote that Marcel claimed to be the sole survivor of an aircraft accident during the war. Like the other allegation, this simply isn't true and seems to be the result of a misreading of Pflock's recreation of the transcript of the Pratt interview.
In his conversation with Pratt, Marcel mentioned that he had been shot down on his third mission. Pratt had then asked Marcel, "Did everyone survive?"
Marcel said, "All but one crashed into the mountain." It seems to be quite clear that Marcel is saying that everyone survived, except for one crewman, who died when he crashed into the mountain.
Here is where one of the problems with the transcript arises. Pflock, in his attempt to make the transcript clear, changed it. According to Pflock, Pratt asked, "How many missions did you go on?"
Marceclass="underline" "I had a total of 468 hours of combat time…was intelligence officer for bomb wing, flew as pilot, waist gunner and bombardier at different times… I got shot down one time, my third mission, out of Port Moresby."
Pratt: "Did everyone survive?"
Marceclass="underline" "All but one crashed into a mountain."
What the transcript actually says is, "A — I had a total of 468 hours of combat time…was intelligence officer for bomb wing, flew as pilot, waist gunner and bombardier at different times… I got shot down one time, my third mission, out of Port Moresby (everyone survive) all but one crashed into a mountain [reproduced exactly as is appears in the Pratt transcript, ellipses and all]."
One interpretation of that statement could be that Marcel was saying that everyone survived, except for a single crewman who crashed into a mountain. All we have to do is add a comma to make it clear.
Pratt asked, "Did everyone survive?" Marcel answered, "All, but one crashed into a mountain."
It could also be interpreted to mean that all but one of them crashed into a mountain and were killed. But that still doesn't make Marcel the sole survivor as Pratt claimed because there is that one other man who lived. No matter how you slice it, Brooksmith's interpretation of the comment is flawed. Marcel made no claim of being a sole survivor of that combat mission, but Brooksmith is quick to smear his name and reputation by suggesting that he did.
On the other hand, can it be proved that his record is incomplete? Marcel, according to a notation in the record, received the Bronze Star for meritorious service on May 8, 1945. There is no citation in his file for the award of the Bronze Star. That means the record is incomplete.
The citation for the Bronze Star was included in the unit history of the bomb group to which Marcel had been assigned in 1945. That proves there was a citation and it should have been included in his file. The citation suggests the award was made on May 3, 1945. In other words, the file is wrong on that point. Yes, it is a minor mistake and could easily be the result of carelessness in transcribing the records. But, isn't that the point here. Debunkers are attacking Marcel because his record does not agree with what he said but that record is incomplete and inaccurate.
In fact, this sort of inaccuracy confounds other aspects of this controversy. Debunkers and skeptics are attributing actions to Marcel for which he is not the blame. The press release made on July 8, 1947 about the capture of the flying saucer is a prime example of this. The debunkers have all suggested that Marcel made the press release under his own authority. Marcel didn't have the authority to make a press release. It could only be authorized by Colonel William Blanchard, the commanding officer of the 509th Bomb Group.
But, to make a case against Roswell, they must create the idea that the press release was a blunder made by Marcel. The fact is that it did not affect Marcel's career, and it certainly didn't harm Blanchard. Both men were promoted after the press release was issued. Blanchard climbed to four stars and might have been named Chief of Staff of the Air Force had he not died of a heart attack prematurely.
Marcel is now blamed for an action that could have only come from the commanding officer of the 509th Bomb Group. Only Blanchard could order the public relations officer to issue the press release. Had Marcel wanted it done, either he, or the public relations officer, would have had to get approval for it from Colonel Blanchard. Walter Haut, the public relations officer in 1947 has said repeatedly that Colonel Blanchard ordered the press release. So, Marcel didn't create the press release to thrust himself into the public eye as been alleged by Brooksmith and others.
Finally, in a controversy that should be embarrassing to the skeptics and the debunkers, they claim that Marcel said he was a pilot on active duty. That is not what the Pratt transcript or the Pflock version of it said. What Marcel told Pratt was that he had flown AS a pilot, bombardier and waist gunner during his service in the South Pacific. That is quite clear on the transcript and is a real difference.