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 question

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: joelr

Your roswellproof reference on the debris field is pretty typical, a mix of a very little original 1947 testimony and a whole lot of post 1978 testimony, presented as a single topic, i.e. mixed data sets. Can't do data analysis on mixed time-tags as it guarantees bogus results.

joelr>>Another historical context is that project Mogul probably was a really big deal, very classified, highly secret and cover-up worthy.

Exactly the point that nobody looks into or gets. The existance of the purpose of Mogul would have revealed something extraordinary. It would have clued the Soviet Union to the fact that we knew they had busted the core designs and were getting ready to test their own nukes. Basically bypassing our own monumental efforts with the Manhatten Project. (Side question of my own: If we lost key design features of our biggest secret of WWII in less than two years, how then could those same gvt. folks set up a secret of ET's so well in 1947 that nobody still knows nothing ?)

The points we are discussing are of little interest to the book writing crowd. Mystery sells and the bigger the better. ET is BIG. No mystery, no ET, no book sales and no reputation. The direction of your above post leads nowhere of interest to the UFO field. If it is "just normal debris", nobody really cares. So if you want to use that, you gotta myth it up a bit.

That does not mean there is nothing to see here, far from it. Depends on what you are looking for. Here is an example of a true 1947 anomaly, and using the reference you gave me. OK, look here:

www.roswellproof.com...

Notice how much press coverage and the dates, some preceeding Roswell, which seem to show "weather balloons with radar targets". Exactly what the Ramey press release actually does show. Problem is I totally agree with one of the few actual 1947 first hand testimonies of Brazel. He said what he found was not a weather balloon. There are a lot of historical problems with the "radar tagets" for weather tracking. Weather folks did not do that then. Even if they were well-heeled enough to afford state-of-the-art radar, they would have a problem. Even the Roswell Army Base would have a bigger problem. (Besides being the only Nuke capability we had in the 509th, they DID NOT HAVE THEIR OWN RADAR THEN) Even if they did have a radar, those approximate 1 meter RCS reflectors would not have worked well beyond sling-shot range. Lets see, the White Sands radar characteristics (1947) are in my first post above, add the losses in the systems, use the Radar range equation:

www.radartutorial.eu...

and hope the boss will let the operator play with the AGC or you can't even track the thing up close.




posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: nightwing
a reply to: joelr

Your roswellproof reference on the debris field is pretty typical, a mix of a very little original 1947 testimony and a whole lot of post 1978 testimony, presented as a single topic, i.e. mixed data sets. Can't do data analysis on mixed time-tags as it guarantees bogus results.




Right, but is it generally accepted that the first witnesses found only foil-like debris?







originally posted by: nightwing
Exactly the point that nobody looks into or gets. The existance of the purpose of Mogul would have revealed something extraordinary. It would have clued the Soviet Union to the fact that we knew they had busted the core designs and were getting ready to test their own nukes. Basically bypassing our own monumental efforts with the Manhatten Project. (Side question of my own: If we lost key design features of our biggest secret of WWII in less than two years, how then could those same gvt. folks set up a secret of ET's so well in 1947 that nobody still knows nothing ?)


That is a good point. I've heard people say how could the Gov possibly keep ufos a secret? There were many spies back then, even one in Los Almos like you mentioned. The Russians snatched up the bomb schematics in no time.


originally posted by: nightwing
The points we are discussing are of little interest to the book writing crowd. Mystery sells and the bigger the better. ET is BIG. No mystery, no ET, no book sales and no reputation. The direction of your above post leads nowhere of interest to the UFO field. If it is "just normal debris", nobody really cares. So if you want to use that, you gotta myth it up a bit.


I get that but I imagine that many people interested in ufos are actually willing to face disappointment when a case is debunked because what we really want is just the truth. The writers who create myth or accept myth when there is evidence otherwise are just swindlers who are taking advantage of open minded people.
I understand they need to make a living and it's the only way to sell books, even if it is dishonest.
But in this case it's pretty easy to see what actually happened.

But because of that I don't really trust most ufo writers. But some have more credible circumstances so it's hard to say.



originally posted by: nightwingThat does not mean there is nothing to see here, far from it. Depends on what you are looking for. Here is an example of a true 1947 anomaly, and using the reference you gave me. OK, look here:

www.roswellproof.com...

Notice how much press coverage and the dates, some preceeding Roswell, which seem to show "weather balloons with radar targets". Exactly what the Ramey press release actually does show. Problem is I totally agree with one of the few actual 1947 first hand testimonies of Brazel. He said what he found was not a weather balloon. There are a lot of historical problems with the "radar tagets" for weather tracking. Weather folks did not do that then. Even if they were well-heeled enough to afford state-of-the-art radar, they would have a problem. Even the Roswell Army Base would have a bigger problem. (Besides being the only Nuke capability we had in the 509th, they DID NOT HAVE THEIR OWN RADAR THEN) Even if they did have a radar, those approximate 1 meter RCS reflectors would not have worked well beyond sling-shot range. Lets see, the White Sands radar characteristics (1947) are in my first post above, add the losses in the systems, use the Radar range equation:

www.radartutorial.eu...

and hope the boss will let the operator play with the AGC or you can't even track the thing up close.


I believe Brazle also. He did say it wasn't a weather balloon but he did compare it to a box-kite as it's closest reference.
With tape and rubber along with the metal strips.

Now why did the military say they used test dummies? Brazle and others never mention finding dummies.
Later when people started saying bodies were found, the military responded by saying they used dummies.
Why didn't the military say "No one first on the scene reported any bodies or dummies, human size, alien size, any size, so there is no credibility to those stories and there is nothing else to say"?



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: joelr

Now why did the military say they used test dummies? Brazle and others never mention finding dummies.
Later when people started saying bodies were found, the military responded by saying they used dummies.
Why didn't the military say "No one first on the scene reported any bodies or dummies, human size, alien size, any size, so there is no credibility to those stories and there is nothing else to say"?


Saying test dummies were confused for alien bodies is as ridiculous as claiming alien bodies were found near Roswell. The Air Force gave their explanation for the crash and by association had to come up with an answer for these alien bodies. A story completely fabricated decades later and still held onto as a fact by diehard believers. Unfortunately, as long as there's money to be made and the gullible to believe, these "aliens" will live on forever.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: joelr

joelr>>Right, but is it generally accepted that the first witnesses found only foil-like debris?

joelr, like I said, I do like the questions you ask, and the way you ask them. Your question above is not a simple question, even though it would appear to be to the casual reader. Our original witness testimony from 1947 comes down to Brazel and what he is quoted as saying in the news articles of the day. Obviously, from the Ramey news release, there were many witnesses to the debris, but the challenge is to find 1947 dated testimony from any of them. Short of that, the 1947 testimony for the debris is what you just said. 35 years later, we get everybody and their dog having something to say about the debris, or at least book authors claiming to be repeating witness testimony, even if it is written in their (the authors) own words. So to give you an answer to your question, I will answer in a way that acknowledges the complexity of your question.

For 31 years (1947-1978) I believe it was generally accepted that the first witness found only foil-like debris. Starting in 1978, the generally accepted idea has begun to reverse. Today I would guess that a sample of the public would probably show something like a 50/50 split, but I do not claim to have poll data. In this forum, using the four referenced topics that mirageman gave on the first page, I would say the posters in the four topic areas break out around 80/20, meaning about 80 percent of the posters in those topic areas seem NOT to accept that foil-like debris, sticks etc., was all there was.

joelr>>I've heard people say how could the Gov possibly keep ufos a secret?

I believe they could for a short time, but the length of that time would depend on the number of folks involved in the secret. If it involved ET, forget it, nobody could keep that to themselves. Lets take stealth technology as an example. Nobody knows anything about it, right? Yes I was being facetious, but when did you actually start hearing something about stealth in the public arena ? My guess would be that you started hearing about it when we (meaning the secret stealth folk) were sure others already had obtained the basics. Technological secrets are time sensitive. Once the technical knowledge starts to spread enough, then the need for secrecy is reduced. The secrecy thus attempts to protect your technology edge as long as possible, then downgraded to reduce the cost and hinderence of unnecessary crap. Some other examples have different goals. Nuclear non-proliferation is a cute one. Nuclear stuff is exempt from being downgraded, not because the secrets can't be lost (it already has), but due to treaties with those who now share and protect the secrets to prevent those who just want one from going down to the local "Nukes-R-Us" and getting them. I am sure you could come up with many other categories as well.

joelr>> I imagine that many people interested in ufos are actually willing to face disappointment when a case is debunked because what we really want is just the truth.

I think your stereotype of what many people in UFO areas do is near completely wrong. I think you were using youself as an example of "many people". I really enjoy conversing with you but as of this point in time, it is just you and I and Ectoplasm8 (who posted before me and I cannot figure out what that post is trying to say). Everybody else has moved to where there is a larger embrance of fantasy. Some seek the truth, some seek entertainment, some seek fantasy, but my opinion is that most are just off their meds.

joelr>>Now why did the military say they used test dummies?

The USAF was answering a congressional inquiry, and did not have a choice in HOW and WHAT they were asked. Their response is public domain but the answer was directed to the specifics of the inquiry, NOT to the public. I think I may have said a bit more about it in my response to mirageman on page 12 of the Roswell For Dummies thread. What is really neat about that is there are some anomalies associated with that particular congressional inquiry. Has nothing to do with ET so I doubt the UFO folk would be interested.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: nightwing
a reply to: joelr

joelr>>Right, but is it generally accepted that the first witnesses found only foil-like debris?

joelr, like I said, I do like the questions you ask, and the way you ask them. Your question above is not a simple question, even though it would appear to be to the casual reader. Our original witness testimony from 1947 comes down to Brazel and what he is quoted as saying in the news articles of the day. Obviously, from the Ramey news release, there were many witnesses to the debris, but the challenge is to find 1947 dated testimony from any of them. Short of that, the 1947 testimony for the debris is what you just said. 35 years later, we get everybody and their dog having something to say about the debris, or at least book authors claiming to be repeating witness testimony, even if it is written in their (the authors) own words. So to give you an answer to your question, I will answer in a way that acknowledges the complexity of your question.

For 31 years (1947-1978) I believe it was generally accepted that the first witness found only foil-like debris. Starting in 1978, the generally accepted idea has begun to reverse. Today I would guess that a sample of the public would probably show something like a 50/50 split, but I do not claim to have poll data. In this forum, using the four referenced topics that mirageman gave on the first page, I would say the posters in the four topic areas break out around 80/20, meaning about 80 percent of the posters in those topic areas seem NOT to accept that foil-like debris, sticks etc., was all there was.

joelr>>I've heard people say how could the Gov possibly keep ufos a secret?

I believe they could for a short time, but the length of that time would depend on the number of folks involved in the secret. If it involved ET, forget it, nobody could keep that to themselves. Lets take stealth technology as an example. Nobody knows anything about it, right? Yes I was being facetious, but when did you actually start hearing something about stealth in the public arena ? My guess would be that you started hearing about it when we (meaning the secret stealth folk) were sure others already had obtained the basics. Technological secrets are time sensitive. Once the technical knowledge starts to spread enough, then the need for secrecy is reduced. The secrecy thus attempts to protect your technology edge as long as possible, then downgraded to reduce the cost and hinderence of unnecessary crap. Some other examples have different goals. Nuclear non-proliferation is a cute one. Nuclear stuff is exempt from being downgraded, not because the secrets can't be lost (it already has), but due to treaties with those who now share and protect the secrets to prevent those who just want one from going down to the local "Nukes-R-Us" and getting them. I am sure you could come up with many other categories as well.

joelr>> I imagine that many people interested in ufos are actually willing to face disappointment when a case is debunked because what we really want is just the truth.

I think your stereotype of what many people in UFO areas do is near completely wrong. I think you were using youself as an example of "many people". I really enjoy conversing with you but as of this point in time, it is just you and I and Ectoplasm8 (who posted before me and I cannot figure out what that post is trying to say). Everybody else has moved to where there is a larger embrance of fantasy. Some seek the truth, some seek entertainment, some seek fantasy, but my opinion is that most are just off their meds.

joelr>>Now why did the military say they used test dummies?

The USAF was answering a congressional inquiry, and did not have a choice in HOW and WHAT they were asked. Their response is public domain but the answer was directed to the specifics of the inquiry, NOT to the public. I think I may have said a bit more about it in my response to mirageman on page 12 of the Roswell For Dummies thread. What is really neat about that is there are some anomalies associated with that particular congressional inquiry. Has nothing to do with ET so I doubt the UFO folk would be interested.



Ok, thanks for the info.
I'm sure the secret of alien ships would have leaked out a long time ago, like you said, other big secrets were leaked.
But it is pretty clear that the alien mythology was added later and it's still surprising that so many people believe the crazy stories when the case debunks itself so easily?

The big selling point in most documentaries and books is that the military admitted to a crashed flying saucer via the newspaper headline then quickly retracted it. Stanton F. mentions that point all the time.
But the article under the headline does not say anyone in the military called it a flying saucer, it's the reporters choice of words. Plus the thing the reporter is calling a "flying saucer" is also the same thing that is made of a foil-like material that does break, scotch tape, rubber and flimsy beams. The article says that.

It's a pretty sure bet that all Roswell researchers have read the article and know that it in no way describes a flying saucer as we would think of one today. It actually describes something that fits the description of project Mogul.
I can understand people being skeptical of the militaries response in the 1990's but in this case it seems silly.

It's a shame that the biggest ufo case looks like a big fraud made to sell books. The whole area 51 mythos stems from Roswell also, reverse engineering, working with ET's, it all falls apart.

People wonder why the media stays away from ufo related stories? Any reporter can investigate Roswell and see it looks very manufactured and then decide there is no credibility to the entire field if people are going to believe that story.
The media knows that books are written to satisfy the types you mention, those who don't care about pure truth.
So why would they ever take it serious?

That's a good thing about Mufon and that open minds website, they try to debunk things also.

I saw a clip from the 80's of some guy on a talk show explaining away the debris problem by saying "Oh there were 2 debris fields I guess..."




top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join