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

originally posted by: chunder

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.

You put up a good fight and that's admirable. But it's very easy to see, at least for me, why things developed as they did. It was such an inconsequential non-event that got blown out of proportion that it was forgotten as a major discussion topic until the late 1970s/1980s. I accept Brazel's description as the final answer with everything else happening like falling dominoes.

It's easier to accept a prosaic explanation than lose your head with fantasy.

originally posted by: washere

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.

I didn't mention you in connection with aliens. But it is a fact that when Roswell is discussed recovered alien bodies are claimed. It's part of the fantasy.

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.

Decent people is immaterial. It's their failing memories, being lit by the spotlight, the notoriety of being in the news again, etc., does something to the truth. Pflock and others have pointed this out. What they said anew cannot be taken to the bank.

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.

Nonsense. Karl Pflock put it out there in a superb book. I accept his and others' findings.

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.

This phenomena was NOT witnessed. Those who were the first to view the remnants did not describe a crashed UFO nor did they retrieve anything not made by humans.

originally posted by: vance
Absolutely no way that Man released that report to the News wire without the one exception - It was true lol.

Because nobody in the military ever made a mistake. LOL. "SNAFU" is an Army acronym.

originally posted by: Uggielicious

originally posted by: washere

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.

I didn't mention you in connection with aliens. But it is a fact that when Roswell is discussed recovered alien bodies are claimed. It's part of the fantasy.

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.

Decent people is immaterial. It's their failing memories, being lit by the spotlight, the notoriety of being in the news again, etc., does something to the truth. Pflock and others have pointed this out. What they said anew cannot be taken to the bank.

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.

Nonsense. Karl Pflock put it out there in a superb book. I accept his and others' findings.

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.

This phenomena was NOT witnessed. Those who were the first to view the remnants did not describe a crashed UFO nor did they retrieve anything not made by humans.

Like all the extremists, believers or as in your case debunkers, you avoid my direct question then go on to divert. I didn't mention aliens, your mind invents then tries to falsify. You did it again. Interesting.

Secondly you bad mouth and label and insult various decent people with a variety of labels and accusations to discredit them at any cost. Their testimonies would someone to the chair in a case. Your debunked book did not cover all witnesses. Avoiding the main point again.

Thirdly you quote a single professional debunker book as though brainwashed. A book which censored many witnesses. Again you avoided the question at any cost.

Fourth you limit the phenomena to the actual crash. You disregard the remnants, the threats, the many eyewitness accounts of the operations, the back engineering some by military on record regarding the tech & bodies, witnesses of the bodies, etc. etc. All ignored by you and your little book. You also avoided the point on witnesses I made. Interesting.

What is interesting to me is not the embarrassing avoiding of direct questions & diversions as just proven or the labelling of many decent citizens with indecent accusations emanating from their minds but the psychological need of extremists views that compels them to go in public and conduct such fascinating mental gymnastics.

Like holding together a sinking ship with hook or crook. I'm particularly interested how such extremists:
Invent desperate hopeless stories & strategies
Create contradictory illogical world views
Discredit and accuse others without any basis
Avoid direct questions, impossible in any Court
Fail to analyze their own psychological motivational needs & imminent breakdowns, particularly of their illogical stories & why it should be feared so.

The Brookings Institute's report for the government clearly outlined these outcomes for many who would not be able to handle the truth and the ensuing mental manoeuvres.

Utterly fascinating. Thank you.

a reply to: vance
Stanton Friedmans involvement in 1978 is where this story really begins. Friedman had been traveling the country giving lectures on UFOs. In one of the towns he was visiting, he talked with someone who told him about Roswell and Jesse Marcel. He got in touch with Marcel and the story snowballed from there.

You need to stay with the initial description as told by Marcel and Brazel. Neither said they found a saucer or disc. They described foil-like material, beams, and no parts larger than 4 feet. This is the exact description of balloon target construction of that era. Not only that, but it crashed in the same area where other targets have crashed. I can't understand how anyone with a bit of common sense can simply write this off as a coincidence that parts of this alien spacecraft were constructed exactly as our own balloon targets, have the same dimensions, and crash in the same general area. Amazing coincidence.

You also need to keep in mind the times we're talking about, the late 1940's. Kenneth Arnold coined the phrase skipping or flying saucer only two weeks earlier. This entire subject was relatively new. The military had not investigated and had no idea if these were flying discs. Also, flying saucer or disc didn't have the same meaning and weight as it does today. In the 40's, it could have just as easily meant some type of Russian spy plane. So you need to put it in perspective to that era and not apply todays meaning.

1) The selective memory of extremist debunkers is the real attraction here. Let's see, a high officer whose Commands held were:

Battalion Commander of European Air Defense
Intel Staff Officer Plans & Estimate Branch GHQ Far East Command
Chief Special Project Branch G-2 Section of the HQ AFFE 8000th AU Command
Chief Foreign Technology Division of the United States Department of Defense
Staff Officer in the Plans Division OCRD Washington DC, Fort Riley

as well as secret and NSC positions who wrote a book on Roswell technology he helped back engineer. Lieutenant Colonel Philip J. Corso also said he saw alien bodies.

www.youtube.com...

2) Norma Gardner who worked at the Wright-Patterson for years with a high security clearance says her duties were inventory of recovered parts from crashed UFOs. She claims she saw two dead alien bodies. She said she was threatened to keep silent but at 71 "what are they going to do to me? I don't care".

Many threatened with death even for whole families, several threat testimonies: www.dreamscape.com...

3) A third person who was military, Lieutenant Walter Haut, who saw the bodies:
www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.nicap.org...

I'm interested in how extremist serial debunkers, not those paid by media or via books, compartmentalize their mind and how they manage evidence and witnesses which destroys their axioms and fragile mental model. Yet not only they keep it together but feel ompelled to go public and denounce whole lists of upright citizens and officials "in a serial manner"? These, discounting secret evangelicals, people's mental models and their obsessive functioning patterns have not been researched properly.

originally posted by: washere
snip, and be grateful I didn't repeat your boring verbiage, to everyone's relief!

We're discussing the alleged crash of a UFO near Roswell. You have no evidence of such, you cannot quote a source with irrefutable evidence, you criticize me because I'm more levelheaded than you'll ever be and you get bent over words.

How about, instead, since you are a believer in the crash scenario, with or without bodies!, you support your "claim" with evidence and then we can have a nice, healthy discussion. If you can't do this, then why do you bother since all that you're doing is repeating what has been repeated ad nauseam. Nothing new about Roswell 'cause it never happened.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: vance
Stanton Friedmans involvement in 1978 is where this story really begins. Friedman had been traveling the country giving lectures on UFOs. In one of the towns he was visiting, he talked with someone who told him about Roswell and Jesse Marcel. He got in touch with Marcel and the story snowballed from there.

You need to stay with the initial description as told by Marcel and Brazel. Neither said they found a saucer or disc. They described foil-like material, beams, and no parts larger than 4 feet. This is the exact description of balloon target construction of that era. Not only that, but it crashed in the same area where other targets have crashed. I can't understand how anyone with a bit of common sense can simply write this off as a coincidence that parts of this alien spacecraft were constructed exactly as our own balloon targets, have the same dimensions, and crash in the same general area. Amazing coincidence.

You also need to keep in mind the times we're talking about, the late 1940's. Kenneth Arnold coined the phrase skipping or flying saucer only two weeks earlier. This entire subject was relatively new. The military had not investigated and had no idea if these were flying discs. Also, flying saucer or disc didn't have the same meaning and weight as it does today. In the 40's, it could have just as easily meant some type of Russian spy plane. So you need to put it in perspective to that era and not apply todays meaning.

Bravo! As is readily visible, logic, common sense and reason are in short supply in forums such as this one where it seems that the members are mostly young and still impressionable and are ready to grasp at straws. Very few will take the trouble to do deep research. They're satisfied by people such as Friedman and the popular authors who know a good thing when they see it. Gullible translates into a nice, healthy bank account for those authors willing to pass off UFO and alien pablum.

Very few think about what would have really happened if a UFO had crashed near Roswell, or anywhere else on earth, how life would have had to change as news of the event made real, worldwide headlines. No backtracking with excuses for the military blunder because it was obvious that a real UFO had not crashed but thank those who opened their mouths creating a future industry.

Why people such as Friedman ran with the ball, doing UFOlogy real harm with sham.

Thanks for your excellent reply, which I've also been mouthing since the beginning of the Internet and the nefarious UFO forums.

continuing study on: Uggielicious

Very interesting:
1- the subject completely avoids the 4 questions yet again
2- Insists the many witnesses to various phases of the military operation as liers
3- Ignores additional lists of witnesses, some high military & intel, to the operation, wreckage, technology & even dead alien bodies quoted below

Shows signs of mental models breaking down and resorts to personal attacks. I'm interested in exact threshold in breakdown and necessary mental gymnastics and distortions at those levels. Plus publicly avoiding questions and many witnesses put to him with no moral problems about public conduct or perceived evasion or calling numerous decorated and decent citizens as liars, shamelessly. Completely fascinating.

originally posted by: washere
1) The selective memory of extremist debunkers is the real attraction here. Let's see, a high officer whose Commands held were:

Battalion Commander of European Air Defense
Intel Staff Officer Plans & Estimate Branch GHQ Far East Command
Chief Special Project Branch G-2 Section of the HQ AFFE 8000th AU Command
Chief Foreign Technology Division of the United States Department of Defense
Staff Officer in the Plans Division OCRD Washington DC, Fort Riley

as well as secret and NSC positions who wrote a book on Roswell technology he helped back engineer. Lieutenant Colonel Philip J. Corso also said he saw alien bodies.

www.youtube.com...

2) Norma Gardner who worked at the Wright-Patterson for years with a high security clearance says her duties were inventory of recovered parts from crashed UFOs. She claims she saw two dead alien bodies. She said she was threatened to keep silent but at 71 "what are they going to do to me? I don't care".

Many threatened with death even for whole families, several threat testimonies: www.dreamscape.com...

3) A third person who was military, Lieutenant Walter Haut, who saw the bodies:
www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.nicap.org...

I'm interested in how extremist serial debunkers, not those paid by media or via books, compartmentalize their mind and how they manage evidence and witnesses which destroys their axioms and fragile mental model. Yet not only they keep it together but feel ompelled to go public and denounce whole lists of upright citizens and officials "in a serial manner"? These, discounting secret evangelicals, people's mental models and their obsessive functioning patterns have not been researched properly.

Thank you.

originally posted by: washere
continuing study on: Uggielicious

Very interesting:
1- the subject completely avoids the 4 questions yet again
2- Insists the many witnesses to various phases of the military operation as liers
3- Ignores additional lists of witnesses, some high military & intel, to the operation, wreckage, technology & even dead alien bodies quoted below

Shows signs of mental models breaking down and resorts to personal attacks. I'm interested in exact threshold in breakdown and necessary mental gymnastics and distortions at those levels. Plus publicly avoiding questions and many witnesses put to him with no moral problems about public conduct or perceived evasion or calling numerous decorated and decent citizens as liars, shamelessly. Completely fascinating.
snip
Thank you.

Again and again, you cannot provide any irrefutable evidence to support any of your opinions. And, you're definitely not a psychiatrist/psychologist and you simply ramble on losing whatever meaning you want to impart in babble.

a reply to: Spacespider

Once their mind is made up, they won't listen to other possibilities it seems.

a reply to: Uggielicious

You keep repeating that what you say is facts, without any evidence of the sort.

The door swings both ways my friend.

I also find it suspicious that 'some' said posters have only posted on this page, like a debunker would. It's at that point you have to consider why this particular topic?

a reply to: Uggielicious

I "ramble and babble"? I provided many data links, probably more than anyone, to which you merely state generalities and opinion. I was brought up by my parents not to use such words, ramble and babble, to others worse yet in public. But if it was different for you and makes you feel better I do not mind. I feel the cognitive dissonance vibrations are disturbing the fragile world view model. So I really do not mind and wish you the best.

Now back to the business at hand. Our democratic judicial systems send people to prison or life or even capital punishment by witnesses in THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF CASES. Now you dismiss this criteria here as not good enough for you. Of course totalitarian regimes of ideological persuasions also justify their weird world views by their own non democratic weird personal criteria and also dismiss witnesses, as you do. As with numerous impeccable witness lists I provided whom you denounce to all our amazement with no moral problems.

Secondly you repeatedly avoided the numbered questions put to you. I wish not to embarrass you any more but they are there in case you can bring yourself to look at them again, and maybe reply in your own good time.

Thirdly we all know how we feel towards bullies. As seen in my inks many of the witnesses say they were threatened and in some cases this even extended to their whole families. Mortal threats. We also all know how we feel about the weak entourage of bullies who hide behind them and denounce the victims in public as liars. Not even the officials have dared to comment and dismiss these accounts or investigate these threats. However you feel compelled to go in public and call these numerous victims, most with outstanding civic records, as liars. Why do you feel you have to go in public and denounce so many impeccable witnesses, whose testimony in our democratic courts could condemn anyone as is the norm, and victims of serious threats and call those numerous brave citizens as liars?

Fourthly I quoted 3 military personnel with high and sensitive secret and public positions, two of them high officers, who say they saw the dead aliens from the Roswell case. How do you justify going in public and with no moral problems also calling them liars?

Best wishes.

originally posted by: washere
1) The selective memory of extremist debunkers is the real attraction here. Let's see, a high officer whose Commands held were:

Battalion Commander of European Air Defense
Intel Staff Officer Plans & Estimate Branch GHQ Far East Command
Chief Special Project Branch G-2 Section of the HQ AFFE 8000th AU Command
Chief Foreign Technology Division of the United States Department of Defense
Staff Officer in the Plans Division OCRD Washington DC, Fort Riley

as well as secret and NSC positions who wrote a book on Roswell technology he helped back engineer. Lieutenant Colonel Philip J. Corso also said he saw alien bodies.

www.youtube.com...

2) Norma Gardner who worked at the Wright-Patterson for years with a high security clearance says her duties were inventory of recovered parts from crashed UFOs. She claims she saw two dead alien bodies. She said she was threatened to keep silent but at 71 "what are they going to do to me? I don't care".

Many threatened with death even for whole families, several threat testimonies: www.dreamscape.com...

3) A third person who was military, Lieutenant Walter Haut, who saw the bodies:
www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.nicap.org...

I'm interested in how extremist serial debunkers, not those paid by media or via books, compartmentalize their mind and how they manage evidence and witnesses which destroys their axioms and fragile mental model. Yet not only they keep it together but feel ompelled to go public and denounce whole lists of upright citizens and officials "in a serial manner"? These, discounting secret evangelicals, people's mental models and their obsessive functioning patterns have not been researched properly.

roswell was real. for the reasons the op stated. edgar mitchell also had it confirmed by navel intelligence 12 years before it became public knowledge that he had been told,he stated he was told years ago about it and wondered why the press was only just asking him about it then.

even now nobody wants to know really,look at how many people are members here 1.000.000? why is any government going to release that a spaceship crashed? nobody cares,people have their social standing and pecking order why would they change it?

originally posted by: skyblueworld
a reply to: Uggielicious

You keep repeating that what you say is facts, without any evidence of the sort.

The door swings both ways my friend.

You don't seem to understand that I'm not now or ever claimed that a UFO crashed near Roswell. Anyone saying it has to provide irrefutable evidence. Believers are not bothered by facts so the need for evidence goes over their head.

The facts I rely on are the original reports by the original principals and the best evidence available is always the data collected soonest after the occurrence. Original principals: Brazel, his wife, son and daughter; Major Marcel and a "man in plainclothes" accompanied Brazel back to the ranch where more pieces were picked up. "[We] spent a couple of hours Monday afternoon [July 7] looking for any more parts of the weather device", said Marcel. "We found a few more patches of tinfoil and rubber."

As described in the July 9, 1947 edition of the Roswell Daily Record:
"The balloon which held it up, if that was how it worked, must have been 12 feet long, [Brazel] 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 wires were to be found but there were some eyelets in the paper to indicate that some sort of attachment may have been used."

And there you have the facts about the Roswell "event".

The Truth about Roswell may be "out there", but it has been shrouded by faulty and conflicting memories, hoaxes and, often, deliberate lies.

originally posted by: Uggielicious

originally posted by: skyblueworld
a reply to: Uggielicious

You keep repeating that what you say is facts, without any evidence of the sort.

The door swings both ways my friend.

You don't seem to understand that I'm not now or ever claimed that a UFO crashed near Roswell. Anyone saying it has to provide irrefutable evidence. Believers are not bothered by facts so the need for evidence goes over their head.

The facts I rely on are the original reports by the original principals and the best evidence available is always the data collected soonest after the occurrence. Original principals: Brazel, his wife, son and daughter; Major Marcel and a "man in plainclothes" accompanied Brazel back to the ranch where more pieces were picked up. "[We] spent a couple of hours Monday afternoon [July 7] looking for any more parts of the weather device", said Marcel. "We found a few more patches of tinfoil and rubber."

As described in the July 9, 1947 edition of the Roswell Daily Record:
"The balloon which held it up, if that was how it worked, must have been 12 feet long, [Brazel] 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 wires were to be found but there were some eyelets in the paper to indicate that some sort of attachment may have been used."

And there you have the facts about the Roswell "event".

The Truth about Roswell may be "out there", but it has been shrouded by faulty and conflicting memories, hoaxes and, often, deliberate lies.

Seeing that most of your 'facts' has been taken from Wikipidea, I won't take them as facts at all.



Your copy and pasted post from WIKI.

a reply to: Uggielicious

Anything Brazel said after the 8th is suspect for obvious reasons.

There is also anecdotal evidence that he also soon after came into some money, driving a new Ford station wagon.

If you believe that description of the debris what do you attribute the RAAF press release to - if Marcel returned with tinfoil and rubber and saw nothing else what prompted it ?