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.


Roswell for Dummies. :)

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:52 AM
it may or may not have been an alien craft but one thing is for sure, we haven`t been told the truth abut the roswell incident.
The one thing that sticks in my mind is, was it standard procedure to send all crashed "weather balloons" to wright Patterson AFB?
If not then why did they send this crashed "weather balloon" there?

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:44 AM
Probably may have been a been an improvised poker bluff on the U.S gov part, as to give the impression to the Russians that they have something they don't have, and how true that it could be. It's a common believe that the U.S operates(especially today) hi-tech that was reversed engineered from a space craft that said to have a bunch of technology. It believed that the U.S learned how to make lasers, c d's, and even fibre optics which are almost instantaneous information travelers just from this craft and became a world power house.

However this should of probably been nothing more then a psychological move or bluff on their part since it still holds it impression without the cards being shown and thrown into the deck. The first news report said it was an a flying saucer, then later denying it, and you got a few credible army guys saying they have pieces of invincible metal.

Thus possibly fooling none the wiser, keep whatever secret balloon experiment, well a secret for decades.

Anyone got pocket Aces?
edit on 22-12-2014 by Specimen because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:13 PM
a reply to: Specimen

Anyone got pocket Aces?

Sluts and gambling. Can this thread get any better?

I think poker is the best analogy for what is going on.

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 01:05 PM
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

And booze, Zeta, you forgot booze. Sounds like Las Vegas, don't it?

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 01:24 PM
Sounds alot better then sausage fest poker games I've been to.

Ill bring the skunk. lol.

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 01:25 PM

originally posted by: Tardacus
it may or may not have been an alien craft but one thing is for sure, we haven`t been told the truth abut the roswell incident.
The one thing that sticks in my mind is, was it standard procedure to send all crashed "weather balloons" to wright Patterson AFB?
If not then why did they send this crashed "weather balloon" there?
I don't really follow your post which would have made sense in the 1980s but not today. In 1947 they said it was a weather balloon.

In 1994 they said it was probably part of a top secret project (emphasis below is mine) which would explain why it would be analyzed further.

If you want to read the 1994 report, here it is (there was a second report a few years later):
The Roswell Report Fact vs. Fiction in the New Mexico Desert

Upon review of the local newspaper photographs from General Ramey's press conference in 1947 and descriptions in popular books by individuals who supposedly handled the debris recovered on the ranch, Professor Moore opined that the material was most likely the shredded remains of a multi-neoprene balloon train with multiple radar reflectors. The material and a "black box," described by Cavitt, was, in Moore's scientific opinion, most probably from Flight 4, a "service flight" that included a cylindrical metal sonobuoy and portions of a weather instrument housed in a box, which was unlike typical weather radiosondes which were made of cardboard. Additionally, a copy of a professional journal maintained at the time by A.P. Crary, provided to the Air Force by his widow, showed that Flight 4 was launched on June 4, 1947, but was not recovered by the NYU group. It is very probable that this TOP SECRET project balloon train (Flight 4), made up of unclassified components; came to rest some miles northwest of Roswell, NM, became shredded in the surface winds and was ultimately found by the rancher, Brazel, ten days later. This possibility was supported by the observations of Lt Col Cavitt (Atch 17-18), the only living eyewitness to the actual debris field and the material found. Lt Col Cavitt described a small area of debris which appeared, "to resemble bamboo type square sticks one quarter to one half inch square, that were very light, as well as some sort of metallic reflecting material that was also very light ... I remember recognizing this material as being consistent with a weather balloon."

edit on 22-12-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 01:57 PM
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I don't know it's one word against the other, if you ask me. Seems to be a mistery in itself, why are so many drawn to it?

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 02:04 PM
For my money, one of the most interesting supposed UFO sightings that has yet to be explained away is the Cash-Landrum Incident. And I do have to admit that I would most easily believe the CLI was an encounter with a military craft of some sort before I would believe that Roswell was anything but a downed balloon mixed with years of storytelling.

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 02:16 PM
a reply to: Peeple
I was drawn to it before 1994 when I was sure that we weren't getting the full story from the military. After they released their report in 1994 (and the 1998 report), it seemed to me to add up and I wasn't that interested in it anymore, and I fail to understand why some people still are.

I think some people don't realize the government wasn't the only party lying about what happened before their 1994 report, there were several liars making up stories, one of them about a nonexistent nurse seeing dead alien bodies and such, which if true would have been astounding, but few believe that anymore. Also I disagree that it's one person's word versus another...we know that Glenn Dennis lied about the nurse, since a records search proved she never existed.

edit on 22-12-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 02:44 PM
a reply to: The GUT

Back to the origins? Okay.

Yes, Mac Brazel did find a target balloon, either a Mogul or something else, but a very Earthly balloon, made of neoprene, tin foil and (easily snapped) balsa wood. This was as early as June 14th. Brazel told this to the press on July 8th. He did not give it much thought either - reports of crashed balloons were not uncommon and only a fool would mistake balsa wood and tin foil for a flying disc. Brazel was no fool.

But that was not the reason he drove into town. He went into town to try to cash in on a 3000 dollar reward from which he had heard. The reward was supposedly to be given to anybody that delivered crashed (saucer?) fragments to the military. [I'm very curious if such a reward was really issued - and if so, whom issued it and why? Maybe it WAS the military whom would like to get fragments of their crashed balloons back to investigate them, I don't know]

Anyway. According to Brazel, on July 2, 1947, he and others reportedly heard a loud crash during the night near Corona, New Mexico. Now, a balloon weighs at best say 20 kilogrammes and certainly does not make "a loud crash". So, either Brazel made it up - or something else crashed there indeed.

Brazel then says he went looking and found debris on the Foster Ranch, on July 3rd (almost a fortnight after his initial find of balloon debris). And instead of tin foil and easily snapped balsa wood, he claims he found rigid I-beams he could not bend and real metal fragments that seemed to have 'memory' capacities. But he still did not decide to ride into town. Only a few days later when he heard about the reward of 3000 dollars for anybody that brought in disc fragments he decided to give it a go.

Now, of course, there is the very real possibility this mr Brazel made the entire story up just to cash in on the 3000 dollar reward. So, maybe he planted some fake debris on the Foster Ranch. Maybe he even used some of the balloon parts he found before. Maybe he threw in some stuff of his own. I don't know. Maybe a disc DID crash on Foster Ranch.

However, Mac went into town, showed his "findings" to the military - and they may even have believed him initially. Later on when he was thoroughly interviewed he either was found out and given a severe reprimande - or he was told to shut up about the (real) disc. And as the cat was already out of the bag, he was forced to withdraw his story publicly. Maybe he himself told the military about his initial find of the balloon, maybe he himself suggested the cover story.

So, to me it's still not decided: did Brazel make the "loud crash' story up to get the 3000 dollars? Maybe. Or maybe he was an honest-to-God guy that DID find saucer debris and was hushed. He refused to talk about it later on which fits both scenario's.

So, it's all very fine and good that you have found your Truth, Gut, but I still have doubt..
edit on 22-12-2014 by ForteanOrg because: he wanted to clarify some text.

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 03:26 PM
a reply to: ForteanOrg

'Allo, Forty!

Refresh my memory if I'm mistaken, but I thought the sound of the crash detail and the materials taking on weird science-like abilities were a product of second-hand "testimony" as far as Brazel goes?

Comparison of the Two Versions of the Mac Brazel Interview

Affidavits ~ Bessie Brezel Schreiber

edit on 22-12-2014 by The GUT because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 04:24 PM
a reply to: The GUT

It's what is reported on countless sites - but yes, it may be nonsense and yes, folks may have replicated it over and over again without having any proof. Two nuns are said to have heard the same 'crash'. But of course, I neither knew Brazel nor these nuns

I am aware of the testimony of Bessie Brazel. She strongly suggests that it was balloon debris her Father found - and also describes that you could not tear the 'tin foil' as it was somehow attached to rubber(like) material (neoprene?). Bessie was a fairly young child then (14), but old enough to clearly remember the debris.

But Brazel himself revealed some interesting details in an an interview he gave on July 9th.

"I am sure that 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.

Perhaps he simply wanted to save face. But why does a guy that has found balloons before insist this was not a weather balloon he found? And why did the sheep refuse to pass by the debris - surely, debris from a small balloon does not have that effect on sheep?

There are simply way too many loose ends here to come to a conclusion yet.

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 07:18 PM

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
why does a guy that has found balloons before insist this was not a weather balloon he found?
Are you serious?

A weather balloon is only about 3 feet in diameter.

Those mogul balloon TRAINS were HUGE, many many times larger than a weather balloon, so it looks to me like they would create about 30-40 times as much debris. So if it was a mogul balloon train he found, he was right, it was nothing like an ordinary weather balloon. Look at this mogul train:

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 07:30 PM
Whilst looking into something else I stumbled across this.

I doubt many will have heard of this story. It comes from the Chester Times March 29th 1950 and the information comes directly from Tim Printy's Sunlite Magazine 5_6 magazine. Some of it has been paraphrased to keep it concise.

On March 28th, 1950 around 4:30 PM in Concord, Pennsylvania a farmer spotted a shiny object descend onto his field. The farmer suspected it was a “flying disc” because it’s appearance in the sky. Uncertain as to what it was, he gave the device to the principal of a nearby school. They had no idea what the device was and contacted the local newspaper. The newspaper began to make enquiries.

*Fort Monmouth, Army Signal Corps stated it was not theirs and the description did not fit anything they were familiar with.

*Philadelphia weather bureau was unable to identify the object.

*Professor Jean Picard was not sure but suggested it might be one of his experimental devices that he sent aloft. Obviously he then engaged in a cup of hot Earl Grey tea.

*A former military man suggested it was probably a radar tracking device.

The paper knew the object had been suspended by a balloon, it was four feet across, and was constructed of white and silver paper on a wooden frame.

By now, you can surmise that what was found was a radar reflector (of the ML-307 variety). This is exactly what was shown in the paper on the 29th (see below). By the 30th, once the visual image was released, many people quickly identified the object for what it was. The 30th article also revealed how the device made it to the principal’s office. According to the March 30th edition, the “farmer” was an ex-navy commander by the name of Robert Ramage. Not surprisingly, the principal’s name was Oleta Ramage.

They were probably married or siblings. One has to wonder how a man , who rose to the rank of Commander in the navy, could be mistaken about something like this after seeing it. Wouldn’t he have been exposed to radar reflectors during his tours in the Navy? It appears that , like Jesse Marcel, rank and experience does not guarantee one the ability to identify everything that they find. A more compelling question is why the Army signal corps and Philadelphia weather bureau couldn’t identify the target based on a verbal description?

In the Roswell story, we see the same kind of confusion. The FBI telex stated that Wright field, based on telephone conversations, did not think it was a radar target. It was not until the target arrived at Fort Worth was the positive identification made.

In this case, the reflector was intact and not fragmented, like the Roswell event, making it easier to describe but it still could not be identified over the phone.

Is there a conspiracy angle here?

I would state that this was all staged to deflect attention away from the Guy Hottel memo or that this was part of the massive debunking effort to convince everyone that Roswell was still just a radar reflector. If you can convince yourself this was the case, you can convince others as long as they are willing to believe it.

It's easy to forget or, for those of us who weren't around simply not understand, the times. The technology we have now didn't exist back in the late 1940s and early 1950s or was beyond that of the common man. Many did not own telephones, or TVs, even mains electricity had not reached every part of the Western World back then. Life was a lot slower and very much more localised than it is today.

Even concepts such as what is a "Flying Saucer" was a very new term. This story doesn't necessarily debunk Roswell but is a good example of the pitfalls genuine researchers could make when looking back into the midsts of time.

edit on 22/12/14 by mirageman because: typos

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 07:41 PM
I'll play my hand and pitch in. :p I think it's plausible the entire Brazel story was cover for something else. I'm not sure what though - but the military actions during this thing seem a wee bit suspect. Also the missing paperwork.

One could still venture the ET angle, but I fear it would look rather different to what Friedman and co decided on.

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 07:50 PM
Where was the Roswell myth in the 60's?

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 09:15 PM
Cauliflower nailed it. The Roswell Incident is the essence of Mythology and even has a specific start date, one already mentioned in the thread. Although this discussion is pretty good, separating fact from fiction is difficult for many of the participants because their very own discussions contain facets of myth and continued proliferation of the same.

mirageman nailed it. Understanding the times back then, aspects of daily life, context, all act to inhibit our ability to understand the events of the times.

1ofthe9 perfectly illustrates the natural instinct when we hit a cultural wall. Lets take the path we want to take. I am referring to suspicion of the military actions. Never attribute to Malice that which is more easily explained by stupidity.

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 09:19 PM
Wait a second, I thought the original reports were a flying saucer, and these men had no way of misidentifying a weather ballon or crash dummies. Seems like the official explanation has been edited. They described the wreckage resembling tin foil, rubber, and wooden beams but in conclusion were not. Now I can see the original report is switched to saying it's a weather ballon? Is that what the OP is claiming? Who made up the UFO claim then? Jesse Marcel?

What does this mean for the Mt. Adams Washington State flying saucer sighting just recently happened before Roswell? (Kenneth Arnold Sighting)

Kenneth Arnold Wiki

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:57 PM
I think it's fair to say that many of us who were intrigued with the ET theory would have been much less initially excited if we had known how many of the so-called witnesses were either proven to be lying or at the very least fantasy prone individuals.

Further, I would hazard that many who are still convinced haven't yet come to the realization that much of their enthusiasm is still, in part, based on those faulty testimonies. Because, once you start at Brazel's first report and then you do due diligence as a researcher in vetting ALL the prior testimony and throwing out the bad information---there's nowhere near the case left over that you currently believe exists.

Major Jesse Marcel: The Hidden Truth

In my book I publish for the first time excerpts from the military file of Jesse Marcel, excerpts which prove that although Marcel served his country honorably, he was not a credible witness and should not be considered as such. (Despite this fact, Stanton Friedman and other pro-UFO Roswell authors consider his every word to be gospel truth.) The file is extremely incriminating, for it it clearly demonstrates that Marcel had a penchant for exaggerating things while repeatedly trying to “write himself” into the history books.

Ironically, Marcel’s tendency to exaggerate was specifically noted in his military file by none other than the commander of the base at Roswell at that time, in a review of his performance that was signed just after the incident occurred.

Marcel claimed that he personally flew the UFO wreckage to Carswell AFB. He could not have done so, for he was never a pilot. Despite this, Marcel claimed in numerous interviews with Friedman and former National Enquirer reporter Bob Pratt that he was not only a pilot but had managed to shoot down five enemy aircraft! If so, this would have made Marcel an “ace,” a distinction that certainly would have been noted in his military file. Instead, there’s no record of this or even anything close, and in fact it was General Ramey who specifically noted in Marcel’s file that because he was not a pilot, he would be severely limited in his career opportunities in the Air Force. It’s no wonder, then, that Marcel would later “blame” Ramey for the “UFO coverup” at Roswell.

Marcel claimed he had a bachelor’s degree in physics and even named the universities he attended. However, when I checked with those institutions, I discovered that one of them he never attended, and he never finished his education at the other. Curiously, while Marcel blatantly lied to UFO researchers such as Friedman about his mythical educational background, he never dared make such false claims to the military. Indeed, in signed statements contained in Marcel’s military file, he replies “none” when asked under oath if he had a college degree.
Does this tell us that Marcel knew his gullible UFO peers would never check on him anyway? Or did he even care? We don't know.

The book also notes that Friedman, even as of this writing, has failed to refute these devastating new revelations about his “star” Roswell witness. Indeed, in what can only be politely called lame rationalization, Friedman counters that military records are notoriously inaccurate. While this is sometimes true, the comment is irrelevant, since throughout Marcel’s file his signature repeatedly appears indicating that he signed off on its contents, certifying them to be true. Until Friedman and other pro-UFO Roswell researchers bother obtaining Marcel’s entire military file, they are in no position to make comments on it, let alone dismiss it.

In addition to disproving Marcel’s testimony, I also systematically dismantle and refute other Roswell “eyewitness” testimonies such as those of British Major Hughie Green, Roswell mortician Glen Dennis, Rueben Anaya, Frankie Rowe, Frank Kaufmann, Jim Ragsdale, and others. In short, no credible evidence from any witness has turned out to present a compelling case that the object was extraterrestrial in origin

The following page presents a great timeline as well as various links and commentaries all neatly arranged on a single page and is properly sourced. It appears to be a paper from the SMU Physics Dept.


posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:41 PM
Roswell is an interesting case, but far from rock solid. Most tv documentaries are very one sided about as well. Nothing I would tell someone to look into to sway them one way or another.

Rendlesham, JAL flight 1628 , Belgium wave, Westall school, Tehran incident with F4, and Shag harbor are all far superior cases imo.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in