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.

 

Roswell for Dummies. :)

page: 8
34
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: aynock


it does look like amateur hour - is it possible it was deliberate and aimed at the soviets?

Not sure the need for that.

Every spy in the US would drop what they are doing and go there. If they found bits of Mogul and reported back to the Soviets or china, the secret eavesdropping Mogul would be out of the bag. There was no need for a cover story to a secret eaves dropping program. Let alone drawing further attention to the event by announcing something that would certainly be "heard around the world".




posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: intrptr
some sticks and rubber balloons, something Marcel would have intimate knowledge about anyway.
Where did he get that intimate knowledge?

He's in charge? Didn't he fly missions over Germany and Japan? Was he there overseas when weather balloons were sent up pre mission a thousand times? Surely he would be familiar with that ordinary aspect of it.

Remember the era, before satellites and hi altitude reconnaissance. The line of sight passive Mogul project to detect soviet nukes over the horizon stemmed from war time weather forecasting and was the pinnacle of surveillance technology of Mogul. He must of been aware of those missions and when they were occurring.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr
That doesn't sound anything like intimate knowledge. First those weren't balloon trains. Second they weren't damaged by long exposure to sunlight and in lots of pieces. Third just because balloons were launched doesn't mean he had intimate knowledge of them, if he wasn't the person launching them, and more importantly they weren't recovered, so he had no experience with how they would change with time and exposure to sunlight.

Lastly any guy that says he found a lot of little pieces of something and then describes it as "indestructible" ain't the sharpest tool in the tool shed.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


That doesn't sound anything like intimate knowledge. First those weren't balloon trains.

Pilots understand everything that could pose a threat to their airspace. Especially weather balloons. Impacts with birds, balloons, war time flack and anything…

He's a base commander because of his experience. The whole base would be on alert to monitor a soviet nuke test and launch these balloons to passively monitor them. It would affect ordinary flight schedules and cleaning up the debris would be most important. Retrieval of instruments, analyzing the data and returning it to the pentagon and other agencies concerned with Soviet Nuclear tests would be over all the highest priority.

Now down play that again.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr




Every spy in the US would drop what they are doing and go there.


that could be a positive result from an intelligence perspective




If they found bits of Mogul and reported back to the Soviets or china, the secret eavesdropping Mogul would be out of the bag.


that's assuming the debris was from mogul - i'm not sure about that




There was no need for a cover story to a secret eaves dropping program. Let alone drawing further attention to the event by announcing something that would certainly be "heard around the world".


i wasn't suggesting it was a cover up for a mogul crash

the overall political situation at the time may be significant - i'm looking at some contemporary newspaper reports at the moment - there's a lot of very interesting context, as has been mentioned before in this thread

Articles From Portland Newspapers 1947

roswell appears on page 3



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur



originally posted by: aynock
i don't know enough about the details of the roswell case to comment on what happened

are there any usaf post crash reports/documentation that have been released? -
The USAF released two reports. One in 1994 and one in 1998. I linked to the first one here. That site also has links to the CIA report, the GAO report and other links.

But to understand the case you need to read beyond the official reports. I suggest starting with this list of UFO articles by a guy who has tried to do a lot of unbiased research.



thanks - the summary of the 1994 report was interesting - primarily the question that was asked - do you think the choice of author is significant?




posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: aynock
thanks - the summary of the 1994 report was interesting - primarily the question that was asked - do you think the choice of author is significant?
If you mean is the choice between Stanton Friedman and the USAF significant, of course.

If you mean is the choice of who within the Air Force wrote the report significant, no don't think it's significant. Any number of people could have written it based on the same facts and it might vary slightly as a result, but probably not what I would consider significantly. It's not really my primary source of information...which is the witnesses all describing what sounds to me like debris consistent with a Mogul balloon train. I just take Jesse Marcel's superfluous claims that the "indestructible" material was in many pieces with a grain of salt...I believe it was in pieces, but it's obvious this contradicts the "indestructible" claim and likewise other claims that it was more than mogul debris seem to be at most, exaggeration, or in the case of the younger Marcel remembering I-beams, mis-remembering, since I think he's the only one who "remembered" that.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




If you mean is the choice of who within the Air Force wrote the report significant, no don't think it's significant. Any number of people could have written it based on the same facts and it might vary slightly as a result, but probably not what I would consider significantly.


i agree that anyone taking the same approach would have come up with the same facts and reached similar conclusions




It's not really my primary source of information...which is the witnesses all describing what sounds to me like debris consistent with a Mogul balloon train. I just take Jesse Marcel's superfluous claims that the "indestructible" material was in many pieces with a grain of salt...I believe it was in pieces, but it's obvious this contradicts the "indestructible" claim and likewise other claims that it was more than mogul debris seem to be at most, exaggeration, or in the case of the younger Marcel remembering I-beams, mis-remembering, since I think he's the only one who "remembered" that.


i agree that the debris was probably mundane

i'm starting to think that maybe the original 'crash' and the 'revival' should be thought of as two separate events

for me the information required to draw a conclusion as to what occurred just isn't available



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: aynock


that's assuming the debris was from mogul - i'm not sure about that

Officially the claim is that 'any debris' was from Mogul. The base surely had components of Mogul there, it was available to substitute. Anything else used as substitute might be identifiable.

Little aluminum I beams, Mylar and reflective material might not be so recognizable then. They were relatively new at the time. A piece of airplane or engine or something would be identifiable straight away by veterans. They needed something innocuous and concurrent with the bases operations and on hand to substitute.

Making Marcel the focus of that second announcement with the press present makes him the fall guy for the press release the day before and the "cover up'. They made him undo what he had done. Tell me he didn't know what the stuff at his feet in that pic was. That he "misidentified" it the day before…



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: aynock
i'm starting to think that maybe the original 'crash' and the 'revival' should be thought of as two separate events
Sorry, what 'revival'?

edit on 29-12-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

unfortunately marcel's statements are unclear as to whether the debris in the pictures is what he found at the ranch or not

the big question for me is why would the base commander put out the statement he did - if it was true i suspect it would have been seen as a significant error, with corresponding career nose-dives all round - that doesn't seem to be the case
edit on 29-12-2014 by aynock because: filled out



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

the 80's revival - friedman and moore etc.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: aynock
I wouldn't call that another "event", as they were still talking about what happened back in 1947, in the original event, at least the people who weren't making stuff up. The made up stuff that never happened like Glenn Dennis's fictitious nurse wasn't really an event.

edit on 29-12-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: aynock


the big question for me is why would the base commander put out the statement he did - if it was true i suspect it would have been seen as a significant error, with corresponding career nose-dives all round - that doesn't seem to be the case

My point exactly.

He did release the 'Captured UFO' statement. He did rescind it during a press conference with "indestructible fluff" on display at his feet.

If no UFO was captured then he's either crazy or a liar. If they fire him now then thats also suspicious. Instead he held the communiqué her received and puts on a show for the press.

The press utters a retraction… case "closed".
edit on 29-12-2014 by intrptr because: bb code



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: HumanOnEarth

Your persistence is commendable but here's the crux of the matter.

There's nothing in your posts but your own statements to back up what you are saying. The internet is your friend and you can use Google Books to search for excerpts from a massive library of books.






Please give us some hard undeniable facts about this case to prove something not of this earth crashed then.





500+ witnesses for the ufo/et case, and zero for an alternate explanation (if you don't include post-threat/post-coverup accounts).


Are we supposed to find them all ourselves? A few examples would be nice.





RE the Foster Ranch : Even if there was a gouge how do we know when it was made?






It was a fresh gouge noticed by Brazel and plenty of others. This is crystal clear. And, whenever there are multiple witnesses to one event, somewhat varying accounts are common and is not valid evidence of lies, distortion, or otherwise. One object could both explode AND cause a gouge mark immediately after. In fact I would be concerned if it were only one or the other.


Again a link to source material directly referring to this gouge, or a picture before and after would add weight to your argument.




I've been citing basic concepts that many of you, as I gather from the types of questions being asked, are just hearing about for the first time. I don't mind educating people about the fun facts of Roswell, but at times it feels like I'm teaching an introductory course here. I'm really not being condescending but I want to know ==> how many witness testimony videos have you watched, AND how many pro-Roswell (non terrestrial explanation themed) books you've been through in the last 2 years (so that you're working with fresh memories)?


I think you will find that there is a lot of collective knowledge on the UFO topic on ATS.

In fact if we weren't sceptically minded we'd still be believing in "Claus Encounters of the Furred Kind" every 25th of December.

We've heard the Roswell stories from the Wilmots, Marcel (Father and Son), Walter Haut, Glenn Dennis,Frankie Rowe, The Proctors, Lydia Sleppy etc, etc... Some of us were even around when Marcel broke his silence in the late 1970s.

We then saw the Roswell story's expansion full blown expansion into an alien crash with dead bodies in the 80s, watched the Santilli autopsy film in the 90s, and yes we've even read the Friedman, Berliner , Randle, Schmitt, Carey, Corso works, seen the videos and ,somewhere along our individual paths, realised that the Roswell evidence isn't as robust as we'd like it to be.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: aynock


the big question for me is why would the base commander put out the statement he did - if it was true i suspect it would have been seen as a significant error, with corresponding career nose-dives all round - that doesn't seem to be the case

My point exactly.

He did release the 'Captured UFO' statement. He did rescind it during a press conference with "indestructible fluff" on display at his feet.

If no UFO was captured then he's either crazy or a liar. If they fire him now then thats also suspicious. Instead he held the communiqué her received and puts on a show for the press.

The press utters a retraction… case "closed".


This all goes back to the meaning of the terms "Flying Disk/Saucer" back in the day.

We've already covered it in this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It doesn't mean the military weren't up to something of course. But in 1947 the phrase "Flying Saucer" was not deemed to be an alien spaceship by the majority of people.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman


This all goes back to the meaning of the terms "Flying Disk/Saucer" back in the day.

Thats not what I am arguing at all.

From one link you provided (of your post)…


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.


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.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr




Very strange forebodings here in this thread. Out right debunking of Roswell...The gate keepers and blockers show up on cue.


don't panic - it's a free and open debate - you can post any evidence or opinion you want to


edit on 29-12-2014 by aynock because: filled out



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: intrptr




Very strange forebodings here in this thread. Out right debunking of Roswell...The gate keepers and blockers show up on cue.


don't panic - it's a free and open debate - you can post any evidence or opinion you want to

Just observing. We joined about the same time. I am amazed at the change.

Panic is for mad minutes.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join