It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My very simplistic take on the "Roswell Incident"...

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: chunder


The thing is it would have been really very easy to have covered up a crash of something "secret". The press only got wind of something because of the subsequent press release. No press release nothing to see here.


The press release was to a local newspaper. People were finding odd debris here and there, so there were probably rumors. Might it be radioactive? The press release was to calm fears.




posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: chunder

Great points.

Does anyone know if the timeline for how long it actually takes to go from drawing board to production floor for something like the stealth bomber would be worth covering up?

We take for granted that the technology we have access to is significantly outdated compared to what's being kept secret/for military purposes. But what if it isn't? What if the big secret isn't "We don't know what the military has" but that we do because it takes a heck of a lot longer to get anything made that works than we care to admit? So, if you have the public searching for alien tech, they aren't looking at the fact that we don't already have something significantly better than drones or bombers tucked away somewhere... those were the things we've been working on this whole time. Improvements may be in the pipeline, but nothing revolutionary.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I have great interest in that specific area and time because
my grandfather was a B-29 Pilot stationed with the 509th at RAAF from
1945-1947. He was tight lipped about discs . Career Air Force Colonel
Started in 42 in B-17's ended 1974 in B-52's. I don't know exactly how many
B-29 Atomic Weapon carrying pilots there were in the 509th
for 1945-47, but it couldn't have been many.
3 years before he died in 2013, I asked him the same question I had for
the last 36 years. As long as I've known what a UFO was.
"Grampa ? This is the last time I'll bug you..
Are there extraterrestrial craft ?"
I could cut the question way down like this after 3 and a half decades of asking.
For the first time in his life he said, Do you want to know ?
Of course my brother and I said "Yes! "
Instead of speaking he gave a decided solemn nod.
My brother and I were speechless.
I don't care if people believe it, I was there
with someone I've known everyday for 46 years.
That's all I got, after all that time, but because of who he was
and who he was to me, I became more convinced than ever.
edit on 1-10-2014 by UnderKingsPeak because: grammar

edit on 1-10-2014 by UnderKingsPeak because: clarification

edit on 1-10-2014 by UnderKingsPeak because: sp



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyblueworld
snip
Stanton T. Friedman


Stanton, it's "Mac", "Mac"!

www.roswellfiles.com...
Interview with W.W. "Mac" Brazel
Interview with Mac Brazel
Roswell Daily Chronicle, July 9, 1947
W.W. Brazel, 48, Lincoln county rancher living 30 miles south east of Corona, today told his story of finding what the army at first described as a flying disk, but the publicity which attended his find caused him to add that if he ever found anything short of a bomb he sure wasn't going to say anything about it.

Brazel was brought here late yesterday by W.E. Whitmore, of radio station KGFL, had his picture taken and gave an interview to the Record and Jason Kellahin, sent here from the Albuquerque bureau of the Associated Press to cover the story. The picture he posed for was sent out over the AP telephoto wire sending machine specially set up in the Record office by R. D. Adair, AP wire chief sent here for the sole purpose of getting out the picture and that of sheriff George Wilcox, to whom Brazel originally gave the information of his find.

Brazel related that on June 14 he and 8-year-old son, Vernon were about 7 or 8 miles from the ranch house of the J.B. Foster ranch, which he operates, when they came upon a large area of bright wreckage made up on rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper and sticks.

At the time Brazel was in a hurry to get his round made and he did not pay much attention to it. But he did remark about what he had seen and on July 4 he, his wife, Vernon, and a daughter Betty, age 14, went back to the spot and gathered up quite a bit of the debris.

The next day he first heard about the flying disks, and he wondered if what he had found might be the remnants of one of these.

Monday he came to town to sell some wool and while here he went to see sheriff George Wilcox and "whispered kinda confidential like" that he might have found a flying disk.

Wilcox got in touch with the Roswell Army Air Field and Maj. Jesse A. Marcel and a man in plain clothes accompanied him home, where they picked up the rest of the pieces of the "disk" and went to his home to try to reconstruct it.

According to Brazel they simply could not reconstruct it at all. They tried to make a kite out of it, but could not do that and could not find any way to put it back together so that it would fit.

Then Major Marcel brought it to Roswell and that was the last he heard of it until the story broke that he had found a flying disk.

Brazel said that he did not see it fall from the sky and did not see it before it was torn up, so he did not know the size or shape it might have been, but he thought it might have been about as large as a table top. The balloon which held it up, if that was how it worked, must have been about 12 feet long, he felt, measuring the distance by the size of the room in which he sat. The rubber was smoky gray in color and scattered over an area about 200 yards in diameter.

When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long and about 8 inches thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot would have weighed maybe five pounds.

There was no sign of any metal in the area which might have been used for an engine and no sign of any propellers of any kind, although at least one paper fin had been glued onto some of the tinfoil.

There were no words to be found anywhere on the instrument, although there were letters on some of the parts. Considerable scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed upon it had been used in the construction.

No strings or wire were to be found but there were some eyelets in the paper to indicate that some sort of attachment may have been used.

Brazel said that he had previously found two weather balloons on the ranch, but that what he found this time did not in any way resemble either of these.

"I am sure what I found was not any weather observation balloon," he said. "But if I find anything else besides a bomb they are going to have a hard time getting me to say anything about it."



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:27 AM
link   



The press release was to a local newspaper. People were finding odd debris here and there, so there were probably rumors.



I'm not aware of anyone other than Brazel finding debris - can you provide any links or references ?



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Uggielicious

The trouble is the inconsistencies in those statements, both within and compared to other statements in relation to the composition and amount of debris. Tinfoil is not "magic metal", sticks are not I-beams.

From within what is being described is quite obviously material from some type of man made balloon array. This material would have been very similar to that used in weather balloon construction, of which he had found two previously. However this time it's a flying disk !

After a reward - maybe - but then there are many cases of the FBI taking a dim view of false claims around that period so for RAAF to have taken it seriously see my post on page 1 which gives what I think are the options for conclusions based on that fact and the subsequent press release.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Uggielicious

Stanton, it's "Mac", "Mac"!



Not meaning to be pedantic but actually to be totally accurate it is Mack, although fine to also use Mac.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: vance

This happened..
There was one live captured EBE, and it was interviewed telepathically, the transcripts have been recovered.
The truth that the EBE revels is to much for some people ( slaves )

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Spacespider

Another option is that that never happened.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
One other option is that it was one of the most successful hoaxes of all.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
The it was nothing explanation doesn't hold water in my opinion.
The 8 July Army press release radio report stated;
'the missile found sometime last week has been inspected
by RAAF and was sent to Wright Patterson for more study.
RAAF and ESPECIALLY the 509th wouldn't send a radar
target or ballon to Wright Patterson.' Zero chance of a Russian
radar target or ballon flying over New Mexico.
So whatever it was it was exotic. Again just my opinion.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
You have to remember, shortly after Roswell the US Government started the National Security Agency. I think an alien craft crashed or landed, and was destroyed somewhat. Based on observation only they were able to back engineer (research deep space travel from UFO observations), and not actually able to turn things on so to speak. As many people have said over the years, those who know, are completely in the dark when it comes to ETI. This is why groups like the Disclosure Project come across as hoaxers because all the claims are from, "I heard this from someone who heard this, etc."

With the creation of different black government space agencies, you can reference the mysterious patches from various military groups (look up threads), then you can postulate we have some sort of military presence in space monitoring the grey aliens or all visitors, just as they monitor us. Hence, "nothing to see here, move along." This is what I think, and no the image of a Grey Alien is not created through the imagination of Sci-Fi authors, research Grey Aliens in Ancient Astronaut Theory. They've been around a while. IMO



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: chunder

originally posted by: Uggielicious

Stanton, it's "Mac", "Mac"!



Not meaning to be pedantic but actually to be totally accurate it is Mack, although fine to also use Mac.


Interview with W.W. "Mac" Brazel



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 01:10 AM
link   
This is a good thread & not degenerated into waffle and generalities like some beyond hope. The interesting aspect is the various opinions at odds with each other here. Which is why I think it was crashed, i.e.:

Roswell is an event, still in progress, with purposes.

edit on 5am2101America/ChicagoFri, 03 Oct 2014 01:12:21 -0500America/Chicago by washere because: typo



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: washere
This is a good thread & not degenerated into waffle and generalities like some beyond hope. The interesting aspect is the various opinions at odds with each other here. Which is why I think it was crashed, i.e.:

Roswell is an event, still in progress, with purposes.


The bottom line on Roswell is that the evidence does not support an alien craft nor alien bodies. It is up to the believers in a UFO crashing with or without removal of alien bodies to provide irrefutable evidence. Until then, it can be discussed 'til the cows come home knowing full well that it is due to believers that it was started and continues but only as a curious topic showing the power of belief.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Uggielicious

originally posted by: washere
This is a good thread & not degenerated into waffle and generalities like some beyond hope. The interesting aspect is the various opinions at odds with each other here. Which is why I think it was crashed, i.e.:

Roswell is an event, still in progress, with purposes.


The bottom line on Roswell is that the evidence does not support an alien craft nor alien bodies. It is up to the believers in a UFO crashing with or without removal of alien bodies to provide irrefutable evidence. Until then, it can be discussed 'til the cows come home knowing full well that it is due to believers that it was started and continues but only as a curious topic showing the power of belief.


I agree that unless firm evidence either way is provided then any discussion involves theory and opinion.

However, if it was started by believers then what you are saying is that RAAF believed they had recovered the remains of a flying disk because it is that press release that "started" it.

In terms of what "evidence" is available then you have what has been released by the military (3 different stories) and what has been unearthed by investigators - that does include several affidavits.

Irrefutable facts are that there were several ufo sightings in the area at the time, there was a powerful electrical storm at the time, debris of some sort was found on the ground, Brazel contacted RAAF, RAAF recovered some debris, RAAF issued the press release, Brazel was on the RAAF base the day after etc etc.

On the balance of what is available at the least any reasonable person has to conclude that something occurred that has yet to be adequately explained.

That conclusion doesn't need to come from any belief, simply logic, and anyone stating otherwise is probably better labelled a believer as they must have reached their conclusion based on predisposed state of mind as opposed to facts.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 04:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Uggielicious

originally posted by: chunder

originally posted by: Uggielicious

Stanton, it's "Mac", "Mac"!



Not meaning to be pedantic but actually to be totally accurate it is Mack, although fine to also use Mac.


Interview with W.W. "Mac" Brazel


I don't really want to argue about something inconsequential but the article linked clearly shows Mack on his gravestone.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Uggielicious

originally posted by: washere
This is a good thread & not degenerated into waffle and generalities like some beyond hope. The interesting aspect is the various opinions at odds with each other here. Which is why I think it was crashed, i.e.:

Roswell is an event, still in progress, with purposes.


The bottom line on Roswell is that the evidence does not support an alien craft nor alien bodies. It is up to the believers in a UFO crashing with or without removal of alien bodies to provide irrefutable evidence. Until then, it can be discussed 'til the cows come home knowing full well that it is due to believers that it was started and continues but only as a curious topic showing the power of belief.


Did I say anything about aliens? Your jumping to such conclusions is interesting.

Secondly you are saying a lot of decent people whose testimony in court could send someone to the chair were lying! Or mass hallucinating, the same thing! Many of them without meeting each other out hearing each other. Again very interesting.

Thirdly your need to disbelieve them even by tarnishing them unjustifiably at any cost as bearing falsehoods is again very interesting, your need to do so publicly that is.

Fourth, many things happen without witnesses which are still true however there are witnesses testimonies in this case across generations. Most phenomena or events are not witnessed, unlike this one.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Roswell seems to fascinate many. The reasons why have different motivations and have Multiple long term consequences.
edit on 5am3008America/ChicagoFri, 03 Oct 2014 08:11:30 -0500America/Chicago by washere because: typo



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 01:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: chunder

originally posted by: Uggielicious

originally posted by: chunder

originally posted by: Uggielicious

Stanton, it's "Mac", "Mac"!



Not meaning to be pedantic but actually to be totally accurate it is Mack, although fine to also use Mac.


Interview with W.W. "Mac" Brazel


I don't really want to argue about something inconsequential but the article linked clearly shows Mack on his gravestone.


You be right! NICAP explains it and I was a victim of the mistake. Thanks for clearing that up.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join