It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
“…..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.”
So what was the difference at Roswell? Jesse Marcel perhaps?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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..
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.
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.
originally posted by: mirageman
The Belgian Wave -
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:
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.
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).
"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.