It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Roswell for Dummies. :)

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 03:42 PM

The US Government also agreed in the 1990s that former military personnel would no longer be bound by their security oaths if they were forthcoming with information in relation to Roswell. And as we all know photographs of the crash site, the recovered craft, autopsy reports on dead alien bodies and reports on communications with the ET Rescue team from Alpha Centauri were nowhere to be found.

I think this was a general order and not specifically related to Roswell. Many had also died by then, and certainly all of them were unaware of this order (until being notified by Schmidt and Randle - who did use it on some occasions to sway their reasoning). It's an irrelevant point because the personnel on-site at that time were only involved in retrieval and everyone died not knowing the full story, even Blanchard.


How do you know this card (referring to Roswell Morning Report graphic) wasn't a replacement for the real card, after the fact? Do you really think an installation that took the issue so seriously would make such a stupid blunder? Not to mention it says July 5th, or 3rd -- before anyone even knew about the wreckage. If it's legit and contains all significant events, then where's the mention of the Mogul balloon collection on this image?

I've already responded to that in the previous post. The Morning Reports were examined in Popular Mechanics Magazine - June 2003

You can actually click on the link and read the whole article yourself. There would be no mention of a Mogul balloon because it was not identified as a Mogul balloon until the debris was examined at Fort Worth. Roswell AAF did not launch Mogul balloons. Which may explain why no one there knew what it was.

This is an appeal to authority logical fallacy, and actually, the BBC is notoriously thick-headed on the subject so you can expect what type of docu they'd produce. It would be interesting to follow the money on this one. I'll happy continue the debate if you want to cite specific items from this documentary.

The money for it came from citizens of the UK via their TV licence fees.

The onus is on you to bring up anything you feel is a fallacy and cite your evidence not me.

edit on 30/12/14 by mirageman because: edit

posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 04:12 PM
a reply to: aynock

Prevailing winds can make it hard to determine where they may come down. Often times there are long periods elapsed before they find them. Sometimes its people that find them for the government.

I think thats what happened here. The "debris field" was not a "UFO", it was a field of debris, probably the distraction. The UFO 'crash site' was somewhere else.

posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 04:15 PM
a reply to: intrptr

I do apologise for misinterpreting your point.

The reports from people on base outweigh the casual observer in society. By far the most qualified to declare or debunk something as "ordinary" would be Marcel himself. The press would of course "extrapolate" their own meaning based on a need to garner interest in sales of newspapers.

Marcel would not necessarily have known what the debris was. Despite your assumptions in previous posts that "The base surely had components of Mogul there, it was available to substitute. Anything else used as substitute might be identifiable." The Mogul balloon was launched from Alamogordo Army Air Field so would not have been at either Roswell or Fort Worth. So no Marcel would not necessarily have known what was picked up.

Very strange forebodings here in this thread. Out right debunking of Roswell, focused campaign to dissuade and misdirect. Others have vetted this concern, I'm about too, as well. Wouldn't be so different from your average JFK, police corruption, Ukraine or ISIS thread.

The gate keepers and blockers show up on cue.

Well sorry if my opinion of Roswell differs to yours.

I personally suspect that it could be as simple as the Base Commander wanting Roswell AAF base to be the first to announce they had captured a "flying saucer" just a week or so after Kenneth Arnold's sightings with all the kudos that he thought would come with it. Then he rapidly had to think up a cover story that created a legend.

But if you think a spaceship crashed in the desert and 17 subsequent US Administrations managed to keep a lid on the secret then that's your prerogative. But what evidence do we have beyond people telling stories?

I once thought that there was a deep conspiracy at work here. But looking at things logically and objectively this is sadly another classic UFO case I've crossed off my 'promising' list.

posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 04:22 PM
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I agree which leads me to believe that the first announcement was an attempt at deception or wasn't well thought out or something along those lines.

Not likely. There is never a need to call attention to post WWII secret "cold war" activities, ever. If they didn't care about attention they wouldn't put the bases in the middle of nowhere.

Primarily so people won't get close enough to see whats going on there…

Primarily to keep from drawing attention to the secret arms race in full swing.

posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 04:29 PM
a reply to: mirageman

I respect your deductive logic, I wasn't there either.

Riding Kenneth Arnolds wave? Thats as reaching as a crashed UFO I guess?

Marcel record

What do you think of the FBI memo? "The Army grabbed it and we didn't get a look at it."

posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 04:41 PM
a reply to: intrptr

Again, I agree, which I why I keep coming back to a "blunder". Obviously someone thought it was a good idea to make the announcement and then someone thought it was a good idea to down play the situation. This is true whether its aliens or not.

posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 05:00 PM
a reply to: intrptr

I'll take my Devil's advocate hat off now.

Because, whilst I don' think aliens crashed, there are aspects of Roswell that just don't make sense. My own theory is probably one of them as well - LOL!

For the benefit of people who don't know what we are talking about. The FBI memo is something (Sir) Isaac Koi revealed here :

Kevin Randle thinks it refers to a separate fake crash and the location of "La." or whatever it says. I think it's open to interpretation but probably doesn't refer to Roswell.

Something that does puzzle me is the totally different handling of a suspected crashed Mogul balloon in Illinois.

Here is the main story :

I've got some notes on this somewhere else and if I have time will add more to this post.

Edit to above :

Unlike Roswell this was a Project Bluebook similar to the initial events at the Foster ranch (you can view the full documents here):

It concerns instruments found by a farmer near Darnforth Illinois which landed in the middle of his farm and burned weeds 2½ feet tall to a fine ash. The incident took place in August 1947 and was thought to be a flying saucer part.

The FBI picked up the materials and it seems they were quietly taken to Wright Field to be analysed. One officer thought it to be top secret on arrival.

The AAF technicians then tested the device and declared that it was not parts of a Mogul balloon or a Flying Saucer.

So in the immediate weeks after Roswell we have a similar situation. Unknown material is found on farmland; possibly parts of a flying saucer. However this time the material is quietly sent to Wright Field where tests eventually show that it was not a flying saucer or even a Mogul balloon. As far as Bluebook was concerned it was labelled hoax.

The documents also include a note stating that :

“…..the information may be transmitted to the FBI to inform various agencies throughout the United States as to what action to take in the event of other similar specimens are found.”

This dates back to August of 1947 and was eventually found to be a speaker part and nothing to do with Mogul.

So what was the difference at Roswell? Jesse Marcel perhaps?

Fact or Fiction in the New Mexico Desert?
edit on 30/12/14 by mirageman because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 07:38 PM
a reply to: mirageman

thanks for the info

So what was the difference at Roswell? Jesse Marcel perhaps?

i think i read somewhere that it was a friend of marcel's who introduced friedman to marcel

here's friedman's account:

DANFORTH: How did you first meet Major Jesse Marcel?

FRIEDMAN: I was the first one to talk to him. A lot of people don't know that. I was referred to Jesse by a television station manager in 1978, who was embarrassed because his reporter was late in arriving for an interview with me before my talk at Louisiana State University.

As we sat drinking cup after cup of coffee, the station manager said, "You know who you ought to talk to, Jesse Marcel. "Being the brilliant investigator that I am I asked, "Who's he?" He said, "Marcel handled pieces of one of those flying saucers you're interested in when he was in the military." That really caught my attention.

I called information the next day, got Jesse's number and called him. He told me about it, but couldn't remember the exact date, after all it was 31 years later. He was the intelligence officer for the only atomic bombing group in the world, the 509. There wasn't much I could do with the story, since he didn't have a date, so I filed it.

Then I heard another story. A couple came up to me after a lecture at another packed house, the packed house is important because people feel better when they realize they aren't alone in their beliefs, and asked me if I'd ever heard a story about a crashed saucer in New Mexico. I said I'd heard stories, but tell me more.

They told me about their friend Barney Barnett, who was working for the government in soil conservation, and stumbled across a downed saucer with bodies around it. The military came along and shut everyone up.

Bill Moore had the third, and key story. An English actor, Huey Green, was quoted in an article in 1955 about hearing a story regarding a crashed saucer in the Western United States. He tried to find out more, and managed to pin down a date. He went to the University of Minnesota library, and found the story.

edit on 30-12-2014 by aynock because: filled out

posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 09:44 PM
For those questioning Marcels knowledge of radar, he was sent to training classes before being assigned to the airbase.

I linked his record up the page a bit…

Just before the dropping of the Atomic Bomb, Major Marcel was sent back to the States to get training in the use of Airborne Terrain Mapping Radar systems.

posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 11:04 PM
a reply to: HumanOnEarth

I want to make it clear that I don't need a flying saucer to be the explanation, it's just that everything else is apparently not the explanation.

No, you don't need it to, but you're doing an awful lot of support for that side of the argument- "500+ witnesses for the ufo/et case... dead aliens... deathbed confessionals... most probably there were multiple crash sites." and on. Sounds like the lean of your stance would be pretty clear to most. If not an alien spacecraft or balloon... what then?

You know, some people will go into a thread obviously supporting the alien theory, but jump back when confronted and use the "I never said aliens" response. A strange tactic that never really made much sense to me. Maybe to try and distance themselves and be on the periphery of what some might call the 'tin-foil hat' wearing group? Don't know. Of course I'm not accusing you of that, just a thought that came to mind.


I bet every witness to Roswell turned over in their grave when you decided to click the post button. You sir have committed one of the greatest sins of the spoken word, the Strawman logical fallacy - misrepresenting another's argument to make it easier to attack. When you used the words "100% consistent" did you truly believe that your list of items was comprehensive (and correct in good faith) and fairly atching descriptions given by the majority of witnesses?

That was actually my post and not Willtells-

The first witnesses description-
Mac Brazel:
- Sticks
- Tinfoil
- Bundled 7-8 inches thick x 3 foot

Bessie Brazel:
- Kite-like sticks
- Double sided material. Foil-like on one side, rubber-like on the other.

Jesse Marcel Sr:
- A lot of little wood or plastic like rectangular beams.
- Tough flexible foil-like material.
- Largest pieces about 3 to 4 feet.

Jesse Marcel Jr.
- Lightweight I-Beams.
- Foil-like material.

These are the same basic descriptions used in my "100% consistent" list. As I said, I purposely stayed away from mentioning the smokey rubber balloon material, small eyelets, aluminum rings, Bakelite type of plastic, etc. which would solidify this being a type of Earthbound balloon.

Weather balloon/Mogul construction:
- Lightweight beams.
- Foil.
- Generally no larger than 4 feet.

Give me your realistic explanation of why both this "craft/object" and weather balloons would be built the exact same way using the same materials.
This is where most people skip over and don't address the construction of the object and run with the properties of the material.
Mogul or similar programs would have used the exact same construction method as weather balloons, only that the properties of the materials used would have been strengthened to sustain high altitudes for longer periods. At NYU 2000 miles away, they had been developing and testing this stronger material for that exact reason. Basic heavy foil attached between small wooden beams was used on weather balloons for the radar targets. Mogul flights used stronger foil with a backing and beams "coated in an 'Elmer's-type' glue to enhance their durability". So when Marcel said: "It wasn't any weather balloon that I had ever seen" and "there was so much of it", he was exactly right. What he had recovered up until that point were typical smaller weather balloons, while this was much larger, stronger and wasn't a typical weather balloon.

Through Stanton Friedman's interview in 1978 and the soon following sensationalized supermarket tabloid of the time The National Enquirers story, it became an epic tale.

posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 08:12 AM
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

That's the "Flying saucer made out of sticks" argument which is similar to the "straw man" argument except, in this case, the flying saucer is actually made out of sticks.

posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 01:19 PM

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

That's the "Flying saucer made out of sticks" argument which is similar to the "straw man" argument except, in this case, the flying saucer is actually made out of sticks.

Thanks. Now I'm really confused. Are you saying this?

posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 02:13 PM
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

ha! What the hell is that?

posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 09:23 PM

originally posted by: coastlinekid
a reply to: The GUT

The forensics on the telegram he held in the photos clinched it for me...

The details will never be revealed but the gist is ...

Something E.T. was recovered..

Can you state more about the forensics on the telegram? I fear I've missed some important details.

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 08:36 AM
a reply to: wjgesq

It's referring to the "Ramey Memo" .

This can be seen in one of the photos from Fort Worth and has been subjected to computer analysis. The purpose of which was to extrapolate the contents of the memo and see if any 'smoking gun' evidence could be found.

One possible interpretation

A more speculative interpretation

Tracing the original document would probably have been the only way to prove what it actually does say.

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 10:20 AM
For me all the disparate pieces fell into place when I saw the comment about why Brazel tried to pawn it off as crash debris - there was a reward. You can interpret his comments and his actions in light of this and it all makes sense. Add to this the sudden inspiration to use this story to spin a tale for the Soviets and there's nothing much left to explain.

There was clearly no disk at Roswell, but there were a lot of people telling made up "stories", Glenn Dennis, Frank Kaufmann (aka Steve McKenzie), Jesse Marcel Sr. and later Gerald Anderson at the forefront.

I do find it hard to understand Pappy Henderson's wife' story of bodies but that was a story told to her. I find it somewhat hard to understand what allegedly happened to Frank Joyce (the newscaster).

Good thread!
edit on 1-1-2015 by Maverick7 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 12:39 PM

Rendlesham smacks more of psy-ops than ET once you dig beyond the surface. And the other cases are not as solid as they first seem. This is the problem with the whole topic. In 7 decades Ufology has never turned up anything solid to prove what Ufos actually are never mind the proof they are not of this earth.

Even if the evidence for the Bentwater case was better with no conflicting accounts and the details lining up just so, I for one would continue be skeptical, if there were not other cases like the JAL1628 , westall , and all the other documented cases by various sources like mufon. So lets suppose Rendleshem is the lone real UFO case, I would never allow myself to believe it without clear polaroids. But it is the aggregate of cases and evidence that imo, forces one to the ET conclusion.

I think if you look into some of the other cases, you will find they are pretty solid.

Belgian wave


Westall case

edit on 1-1-2015 by 111DPKING111 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 02:26 PM
a reply to: 111DPKING111

Even if the evidence for the Bentwater case was better with no conflicting accounts and the details lining up just so, I for one would continue be skeptical, if there were not other cases like the JAL1628 , westall , and all the other documented cases by various sources like mufon. So lets suppose Rendleshem is the lone real UFO case, I would never allow myself to believe it without clear polaroids.

But it is the aggregate of cases and evidence that imo, forces one to the ET conclusion.

I think if you look into some of the other cases, you will find they are pretty solid.

Belgian wave


Westall case

I don't want to derail GUT's thread as it's centred around Roswell.

So I'll only briefly respond to this.

The Belgian Wave - The famous triangle photograph was declared ".... not a spaceship from a distant galaxy but a panel of painted styrofoam with three spots affixed", by the guy who took the photograph. However the overall case is one I personally think is still not one that has been satisfactorily unexplained.

JAL1628 - There are some doubts over this one as the pilot was a bit of a serial UFO reporter. The radar returns supposedly showed a previously unexplained split image of the JAL Boeing 747 and not a separate object.

Westall - I've not looked into this one beyond the basics of the story although it's rather like the The Broad Haven School UFO Wales in 1977. Still on my to do list.

What I would say is that UFOs (by the strict definition) do exist. Until we know what they are they remain 'unidentified'. However making the leap to UFOs being alien spacecraft is something I am yet to be convinced of. It's not impossible. But we should consider all possibilities of which ET is only one of them.

If you want to write up a thread about the 'Solid UFO Cases' then I'd willingly debate the pros and cons with you. As I'm sure many others would.

edit on 1/1/15 by mirageman because: typos

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 05:37 PM

originally posted by: mirageman
The Belgian Wave -
Don't forget that even the pro-UFO organization SOBEPS finally admitted that the radar data indicated the UFOs at times flew below ground level, which indicates more of a radar anomaly than actual UFOs.

JAL1628 - There are some doubts over this one as the pilot was a bit of a serial UFO reporter. The radar returns supposedly showed a previously unexplained split image of the JAL Boeing 747 and not a separate object.
I don't think the split radar image is really that relevant. They would have just ignored that had it been the only thing happening. However I'm 99% sure the "mothership" was a cloud. Even the researcher who 111DPKING111 linked to admits that possibility, though at a different link:


Maccabee conceded:
"It seems at least plausible that he may have misinterpreted oddly lighted clouds which the crew had reported to be below the aircraft. Although the several ground radar returns behind the jet were intriguing, the failure of the radar to show a continuous track of some unknown primary target makes the radar confirmation ambiguous at best.
The lights were a separate event and looked like airport lights and were always in the direction of an airport, but the physics of how those lights appeared to be at altitude is at best unclear so we can't say that case is solved, it's not. They also don't explain "heat on the captains face" but I think there are alternate explanations for that such as the likelihood the sensation was from being flush with excitement, combined with the fact that so-called "heat" wasn't reported by any other members of the crew. However the physics of distant lights do explain other aspects of the mystery lights, like why they appear to follow the aircraft, for the same reasons that Venus famously does the same thing and is often mistaken for a UFO, and why they are visible when JAL1628 is lined up with either runway, but not visible when JAL 1628 is not lined up with either runway (which would be consistent with directional runway lights).

I don't know that much about the Westall Case but there's no photographic evidence, which, at least that much was easier to explain for a 1966 case than it is today, or even as recently as the O'Hare case where it's unthinkable that "UFO" hovered as long as claimed, yet nobody managed to take a picture of it. But with only stories and no photos, it's hard to tell what they saw.

In any case citing a preponderance of UFO cases does nothing to bolster the evidence for each individual case, and especially not the Roswell case where the object wasn't even flying when any of the witnesses saw it, so it's not even a true UFO case, it's more of a "ground debris" case. UFO cases are mostly unique and need to stand on their own merits. People rarely cite what I think is one of the most compelling cases which actually does have a photo, though admittedly of very poor quality, yet still good enough to rule out many alternate possible explanations.

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 05:52 PM
a reply to: mirageman

Westall is the case that keeps me interested in this topic, when so many other leave me flat..
Kids and teachers all seeing it, one getting shocked, physical traces and MIB showing up telling everyone not to speak. Juicy huh?
Read Bill Chalker for a good debunk of the Hiball balloon theory floated a few months ago on westall

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in