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: The lies just keep on coming.

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: humanoidlord

Klassless, I appreciate your taking the time to post your thoughts on this topic- AND, welcome to ATS. Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your experience in Washington D.C. with the Roswell N.M. crash debris? I look forward to your future posts.

Thanks in advance!




posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: klassless

you also believe on billy meier too?
wtf dude go away



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: klassless

Sorry why don't you try posting links to the original articles, because I HAVE read them and they don't indicate what you'd have everyone believe...

Jaden


If you could be more specific as to where I left something out I may be able to correct it. But anytime I copied outside comments I always included the title whenever possible and a website link. So I don't know to what you're referring.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: klassless

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
Pics or it did happen

There should if this was a controlled experiment that failed be some weather related or aviation data at least letting other aviation craft know to avoid experiment area. If there is not... Why?


No pics. Read the original newspaper accounts, as good as it gets. It was a secret military project at trying to stay ahead of the Russians. Remember, cold war.

Then certainly there should be some releasable data related to said projects on that day. Releasable data to close the argument, yet none presented?



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ebeman
a reply to: klassless

While you readily admit to being a UFO debunker, it still doesn't excuse how you use the standard debunker mantra of grabbing any opportunity to ridicule or demean the integrity of another person -- who you may or may not personally be acquainted with.


I depend on the public record. When someone becomes a public figure what they say can be commented on positively or negatively, if the situation calls for it.


You refer to a Huffington Post story as "the usual cock-and-bull promotion article by Lee Speigel who was instrumental in my attending the UN UFO day back in 1978. Lee is a believer and he has learned that the truth is not as profitable as a (GIANT!) white lie."

For general readers, those were two quite loaded sentences.


Not at all! Speigel spews the usual believer pap because the only audience that buys it are believers who may not have the wherewithal to do proper research. Speigel says it, he's a celebrity/"authority", he's on Huffington Post, he must be right. And I hate to criticize him 'cause he did right by me but I have to follow my star and call a spade a spade.


First, you imply that Speigel normally writes "cock-and-bull promotion articles." Really? Is that true? I've read his pieces and don't get the impression he's that kind of writer. Yet, you don't hesitate to debunk what he writes. And I'll bet readers would like to know how, exactly, was Speigel instrumental in your showing up at the UN all those years ago. It would be helpful to all of us here to know more about that day and to get your thoughts about what happened.


You'd be surprised at how much of Lee's stuff I've read and I accept little of it that strays from the truth such as Roswell. Give me a link to a Speigel article impressed you with reliability of info presented.

From his website - www.leespeigel.com... - :

In 1978, in another early attempt at UFO disclosure, but this time on a world stage, Speigel became the only person in history to produce a major presentation on UFOs at the United Nations. Under the sponsorship of Grenada, he brought together leading military and scientific experts who urged world leaders to establish an international UFO study panel.


I cannot vouch for the validity of that statement so I won't try. It was in 1978 that Lee was working as a Maitre 'd in a NYC East Side bistro, Boodle's, near my sister-in-law's apartment and her brother, a professional photographer, knew Lee. One night we went to have dinner at Boodle's and my brother-in-law introduced me Lee mentioning my interest in UFOs. Right then and there Lee asked me if I wanted to attend the upcoming UN event. A few days later I received an invitation from Grenada's Prime Minister, Eric Gairy. I attended sitting in the balcony in front of Timothy G. Beckley. We watched the proceedings thru large plate glass windows and afterward we were escorted to a reception room for drinks, snacks and celebrities.


Then, you say Speigel is a believer...well, a believer in what? What are you claiming he's a believer of? If you know, please share it with us so we can understand. And when you say he's learned the truth is not as profitable as a GIANT white lie, what does that mean? Please inform us as to what giant white lie Speigel has told, or is currently telling.


Anyone who strays from the truth, again on Roswell as a major example, preferring to promote the popular bs is not okay with me. I cannot give you particulars as my mental database is large but I have trouble remembering everything I've experienced I can rely on statements such as this:

I remembered that I had done three interviews [about Roswell] that were set up for me in 1980 by nuclear physicist Stan Friedman,” Speigel said. “I thought ‘Why don’t I begin my presentation in Roswell with sound bites on these three guys and really nail the whole reason why we’re in Roswell.”


The mere mention of Friedman's name sends up a red flag. In my opinion he is one of worst in UFOlogy. It's because of people like him who was instrumental in waking the public to a forgotten event that happened decades earlier and strayed from truth. While Jim Oberg says the following about Hoagland it applies perfectly to Friedman, Nuklear Ficicist!

I'd be happier if he hadn't polluted so many naïve young minds along the way.



It's one thing to be a skeptic or debunker and feel like it's OK to push your opinions out there. But when you don't further explain what you mean, it almost sounds as though your statements stem from a totally uninformed point of view. It's as if you haven't actually done any research on the people (in this case, Speigel) who you attempt to bring to their knees, all in the name of keeping true to that standard debunker's mantra I mentioned earlier.


I don't ascribe to mantas. I express myself fully knowing what I'm I know. UFOlogy, my friend, depends on bs. If it's about UFOs, not so bad. If it's about alien abductions, regardless of who claims it, it's totally bs. While I may not be able to prove it I'm positive that there's never been a UFO crash, but the books keep on coming and bank accounts fatten up. Lunar anomalies? 100% bs. There have been a few unusual UFO events but they have more true facts than is proposed for Roswell.


]Please give us more info. Don't just throw assumptions and/or accusations around if you don't know for sure that they're well founded.


Ask.

edit on 07/03/2016 by klassless because: To correct format.

edit on 07/03/2016 by klassless because: (no reason given)

edit on 07/03/2016 by klassless because: (no reason given)

edit on 07/03/2016 by klassless because: To correct format.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: seattlerat
a reply to: klassless

Just a couple of nights ago I listened to a podcast that touched on this very issue. The fellows who host the show do a pretty good job of viewing both sides of the UFO coin. They may not have as much experience or knowledge as some (like yourself) with this topic, but they seem to come to a similar conclusion that the entire Roswell "story" is disinformation by the US Military.

Here is a link to the podcast for those who might be interested: Magical Mystery Media Podcast #1 Nazis, Man-Made UFOs, and Mirage Men

Intro to the podcast:

What if someone told you that most – maybe all – of the biggest UFO stories of the last few decades were carefully crafted lies? And what if that same someone told you that those lies were a deliberately manufactured disinformation campaign directed by elements within the government to steer you away from the truth: the UFOs are us. Would you believe it? If you’ve been a follower of the UFO phenomenon for any length of time, you’d probably answer that with a dogmatic cry of: No Way! However, if you’re being honest with yourself, then you’ll probably come to the uncomfortable realization that much of what you’ve been told is bull#. Pissed off? You should be. Especially if you’ve been the target of such a campaign (paging Paul Bennewitz), and you’ve dedicated your whole life trying to uncover the truth. Or whatever that is.


I have listened to most of the Podcast UFO & Open Mind UFO Radio episodes, but have found them to be lacking in taking a skeptical view... the guys on Magical Media don't have this problem and I recommend their other episodes (not all UFO related) as well.

As for my own view- the more I learn the less I believe this was an event that included "actual extraterrestrial anythings". The sequence and timing of multiple UFO related events and their context with other historical occurrences leads me to believe that this was all propaganda and disinformation designed to hide HUMAN MILITARY TECHNOLOGY. I say this with sadness, because I wanted to continue believing in J-Rod, the Flux-Liner, Memory Metal, etc.

I do not discount the possibility of alien visitation either past or present, but I find it difficult to believe that they would come all this way through the most hazardous of conditions we know of, only to crash in the desert next to a military base hosting the tip-top most TOP SECRET stuff ever thunk up.

Wouldn't they (the aliens) have considered this possibility and ensured that their craft was destroyed or was Gary Powers their pilot? (Not sure if Bridge of Spies accurately portrayed the U-2 incident, but what the heck).


Since the thread is about Roswell, just time-travel back to 1947 and the state of the world between 2 major powers that wanted to go at each other with annihilation being the final result. We had atomic weapons, the Russians were beginning their foray into same. Our culture and Russia's were not harmonious and we had to be a step ahead of them.

Wikipedia:

On April 9, 1946, the Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted the resolution on creation of Design Office#11 (KB-11) to develop an atomic bomb.


We found out and plans were put into effect to be ready for when they started nuclear tests. This gave the birth to Project Mogul.

Again from Wikipedia:

Project Mogul (sometimes referred to as Operation Mogul) was a top secret project by the US Army Air Forces involving microphones flown on high-altitude balloons, whose primary purpose was long-distance detection of sound waves generated by Soviet atomic bomb tests. The project was carried out from 1947 until early 1949. The project was moderately successful, but was very expensive and was superseded by a network of seismic detectors and air sampling for fallout, which were cheaper, more reliable, and easier to deploy and operate

Constant-altitude-control and polyethylene balloons were the two major innovations of Project Mogul.

In the summer of 1947 a Project Mogul balloon crashed in the desert near Roswell, New Mexico. The subsequent military cover-up of the true nature of the balloon and burgeoning conspiracy theories from UFO enthusiasts led to a celebrated "UFO" incident.[2]



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: seattlerat
a reply to: humanoidlord

Klassless, I appreciate your taking the time to post your thoughts on this topic- AND, welcome to ATS. Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your experience in Washington D.C. with the Roswell N.M. crash debris? I look forward to your future posts.

Thanks in advance!


My brother-in-law is Lou Jawitz, a retired award-winning professional photographer. In 2003 he was commissioned by Popular Mechanics to go to the National Archives and Records Administration complex at College Park, MD, about a half-hour drive from Wash., DC, to photograph the remains of the Mogul balloon train that "crashed" on the Foster ranch near Roswell. He had an assistant but I had also assisted him in his studio so he invited me to go with them. We went in the complex and were escorted to where the Roswell cartons were located. Many of them all stuffed with magazines, newspapers, military paperwork compiled by sergeants and officers. Lou took the photos then we were shown the stored remains of the Mogul balloon train. It was exhilarating for me, I had touched real UFO history. That's all there is to it. Popular Mechanics published the story in the June 2003 issue and you can read it at the URL provided below.

books.google.co.uk... fx-UWY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zkFOVKKfJImV7Ab1xoDAAQ#v=onepage&q=Popular%20Mechanics%20Roswell%202003&f=false

edit on 07/03/2016 by klassless because: To add text.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13

originally posted by: klassless

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
Pics or it did happen

There should if this was a controlled experiment that failed be some weather related or aviation data at least letting other aviation craft know to avoid experiment area. If there is not... Why?


No pics. Read the original newspaper accounts, as good as it gets. It was a secret military project at trying to stay ahead of the Russians. Remember, cold war.

Then certainly there should be some releasable data related to said projects on that day. Releasable data to close the argument, yet none presented?


Where have you been? Google Mogul Roswell and be ready to read more than you ever expected.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: shawmanfromny


Here's part of the problem - You have people like Kevin Randle or Stanton Friedman that do the thinking for you and that you refer to rather than applying your own common sense, logic, and research. I'll give an example. Kevin Randle acknowledges what Mac Brazel says in the newspaper article, but his main focus is Brazels comment: "I am sure that what I found was not any weather observation balloon." You know how that comment is explained? Because Brazel found 2 weather balloons previously that most likely consisted of one balloon, one radar target, and was found intact as the reports of the day showed and printed in newspaper articles:


What was found on the property in June would have been multiple radar targets and balloon(s) that probably came crashing down with greater force because of the 3+ targets attached which had been laying in the desert weather for 10 days ripping and scattering creating exactly what Mac Brazel was quoted as saying in the newspaper article: "A large area of bright wreckage made up on rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper and sticks."
So no, this wasn't the typical intact weather balloon found by Brazel and others across the U.S in that time period, it was an unusually large debris field of destroyed multiple radar targets and balloon(s). Something that Jessie Marcel repeatedly said in interviews was "there was so much of it." He was surprised by this fact.

More quotes from Brazel in the article:

The balloon which held it up, if that was how it worked, must have been about 12 feet long, he felt, measuring the distance by the size of the room in which he sat. The rubber was smoky gray in color and scattered over an area about 200 yards in diameter."

When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long and about 8 inches thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot would have weighed maybe five pounds.

There was no sign of any metal in the area which might have been used for an engine and no sign of any propellers of any kind, although at least one paper fin had been glued onto some of the tinfoil.

No strings or wire were to be found but there were some eyelets in the paper to indicate that some sort of attachment may have been used.


ALL 100% consistent with radar targets, even down to the eyelets used to tie multiple targets together. When balloon material is left in the sun it degrades to a smoky gray color.
An alien spacecraft that happened to be constructed using the exact methods and materials of human made radar targets that were being launched 80 miles to the southwest during this exact same time period. What a coincidence, huh?

Now bring on all of the believer conspiracy tripe to explain away everything. That's the only choice you have to explain why the very first witness, Brazel, obviously describes balloon and target debris.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: klassless

Here is more fuel for the fire. On October 31, 1994 PEOPLE magazine included an article titled "A SAUCER SCORNED". At first, because of the large b&w photo that leads off the article. The caption under the photo says: "In 1989, Unsolved Mysteries reenacted Mac (sic) Brazel's UFO discovery. Alert! Lies in visual form.

Then the article starts by talking about "Believer" Loretta Proctor, and claims she was a witness! More lies. A COUPLE OF WEEKS LATER (!) "Mac" Brazel showed a piece of probably balsa wood to her and her husband. They tried to burn it (!), a priceless piece of a UFO (!) abd couldn't. Then they tried to cut and couldn't.

The article continues:

But why couldn't Brazel and the Proctors burn or cut the material? Charles Moore, 74, a feisty physicist who served as the chief engineer for Project Mogul, has a more down-to-earth explanation than wondrous alien technology. "Some of the balsa wood was soaked in glue, like Elmer's glue," he says. "It's a casein product [a protein derived from milk] that just won't burn at all." ... adds that the glue made the wood "a little bit stiffer and less easy to dent than ordinary balsa."

Albert Trakowski, head of top-secret Project Mogul, "This won't lay it to rest. People believe what they want to believe in." Truer words were never spoken with Congressman Schiff being a prime example and it's been so since the '80s.

So here is an article aimed at the general populace and instead of starting with the truth, they show you instead a photo of a flying saucer cementing in readers' heads a prelude to a disappointment.

Whenever possible stick to the source of the news, there's probably more truth in it than the embellishments to come.









posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: shawmanfromny

Here's part of the problem - You have people like Kevin Randle or Stanton Friedman that do the thinking for you and that you refer to rather than applying your own common sense, logic, and research. I'll give an example. Kevin Randle acknowledges what Mac Brazel says in the newspaper article, but his main focus is Brazels comment: "I am sure that what I found was not any weather observation balloon."


And of course we know now that when he quotes Brazel, he is quoting an old man whose mind has been affected by the deterioration of memory. This is what Pflock found when he interviewed almost everybody that was present in 1947. The sudden fame and possible financial renumeration helps to sway an already weakened mind.

There is only one author that one can trust to give you the facts on this case and that's Karl T. Pflock. Every other author offers less or different "facts".



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Sorry, not sorry.

There's way too much information that says Roswell was something much more than you're portraying in your OP or any of your responses.

Why should anyone believe a random person posting on ATS any more than anyone else?



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: klassless

Thank you for relating that experience- what an exciting day that must have been. I appreciate the link to the magazine article, as well.

I keep hearing from other members about all this other evidence that supports an "alien spaceship" having crashed, but I haven't seen/heard anything other than anecdotal testimony from people who may (or may not) have been coached on what to say. Back in those days, I'm pretty sure that most Americans did what their government officials asked them to do/say without thinking twice- especially in small close-knit military base towns.

It doesn't seem far fetched (to me) that any potential witnesses to classified stuff/events (such as a Mogul Weather Balloon debris field), might have been given specific instructions on what to say and what not to say regarding what they may have seen, and may have also been given very specific threats/warnings about what might happen if they did not follow these instructions.

Off Topic: from the magazine containing the article/photos of the Roswell Debris towards the end I found a very helpful guide: How to Foil an Alien Abduction - I have printed out this important tutorial and super-glued it to the windshield of my vehicle for worst-case scenarios. I have also added an extra layer of foil to my pith-helmet.
edit on 8122016 by seattlerat because: mai spilling sugs



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: klassless




My brother-in-law is Lou Jawitz, a retired award-winning professional photographer. In 2003 he was commissioned by Popular Mechanics to go to the National Archives and Records Administration complex at College Park, MD, about a half-hour drive from Wash., DC, to photograph the remains of the Mogul balloon train that "crashed" on the Foster ranch near Roswell.


Interesting



So you are saying these were genuine photos of the remains of the Roswell wreckage?

Was there any proof provided? How can we be sure it isn't the same junk that was claimed to have been switched for the Marcel publicity photos.



Looks to me like you could probably burn and cut it and hardly indestructible as Marcel claimed.

Without Marcel the story would probably have remained as little more than a UFO statistic from 1947. However he felt the need to go public in the late 1970s that what he found was not of this world. Why he felt that way I don't know. You'd think that being the base intelligence officer he would actually possess some intelligence. But if it really was just a Mogul balloon then Marcel is actually the catalyst for a modern myth. Even though the dead alien bodies stories did not come until later.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: klassless

Who proposed writing "The Roswell Incident" and why? How much did this book influence and change perceptions of what happened?



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13




Then certainly there should be some releasable data related to said projects on that day. Releasable data to close the argument, yet none presented?


There was the Mars landing project that rolled out the "Carl Sagan Memorial Station" on the 50th anniversary of the Roswell event..

That leads me to consider the Sagan novel and Movie "Contact" which was equally allegorical, mysterious, elusive and very likely true after applying the appropriate esoteric filter. I've read that the reason Roswell was kept secret was to prevent culture shock and public hysteria. We don't understand it because the public can't handle the truth.

The "machine" in the movie Contact where Ellie experienced time compression might be a key.
The recorder on Ellie's head picked up 18 hours of static as she went through?
Why 18 hours before the fat lady sang?



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   
So, klassless, what is your opinion on the book Crash at Corona? Curious what you thought about. Please share your opinion, thanks!



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: seattlerat
a reply to: klassless

Thank you for relating that experience- what an exciting day that must have been. I appreciate the link to the magazine article, as well.

I keep hearing from other members about all this other evidence that supports an "alien spaceship" having crashed, but I haven't seen/heard anything other than anecdotal testimony from people who may (or may not) have been coached on what to say. Back in those days, I'm pretty sure that most Americans did what their government officials asked them to do/say without thinking twice- especially in small close-knit military base towns.

It doesn't seem far fetched (to me) that any potential witnesses to classified stuff/events (such as a Mogul Weather Balloon debris field), might have been given specific instructions on what to say and what not to say regarding what they may have seen, and may have also been given very specific threats/warnings about what might happen if they did not follow these instructions.

Off Topic: from the magazine containing the article/photos of the Roswell Debris towards the end I found a very helpful guide: How to Foil an Alien Abduction - I have printed out this important tutorial and super-glued it to the windshield of my vehicle for worst-case scenarios. I have also added an extra layer of foil to my pith-helmet.


It's possible, knowing about the temper of the times, that the base commander and his underlings were aware of such a secret project as Mogul because the base was a serious part of deterrent and perhaps they were alerted to such a top secret project as Mogul so that they would not be surprised by coming across one. But they were possibly used to having weather balloons crash nearby and didn't get excited about them. But Project Mogul did not use the same equipment or parts as for simpler weather balloons. There was a lot more to it and different. When Brazel mentioned how large the debris field was someone at the base thought to check it out 'cause obviously it was not an average weather balloon debris field which would have contained less material.

Possibly when they realized what they had they concoted a flying saucer story to camouflage the reality. But since they couldn't produce anything associated with a real flying saucer they changed the story to a harmless weather balloon giving the world the impression that the gun can be jumped but not fired. To not give the Russians anything unusual to think about a weather balloon was a good out thinking that the Russians had a good laugh on them and not give a hint of our aerial spying.

Not a solid answer but we will never know the reasons for the actions taken. But they achieved what the Pentagon hoped for and we didn't hear about Roswell until the "sleeping giant" was awakened with the publication of the book titled "The Roswell Incident" (1980) by Charles Berlitz and William Moore, authors who had previously written popular books on the Philadelphia Experiment and on the Bermuda Triangle. Though he was uncredited, Friedman carried out some research for the book. I read somewhere that Friedman was not happy with the omission.

Here is an informative article:
www.astronomyufo.com...
"Chapter 8: Not a Simple Weather Balloon" By Timothy Printy Ó 1999 UPDATED November 2008 and July 2014

edit on 07/03/2016 by klassless because: To correct grammar.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit
So, klassless, what is your opinion on the book Crash at Corona? Curious what you thought about. Please share your opinion, thanks!


Didn't read it because when it came out in 1997 I was already saturated by crashes everywhere with not one iota of evidence and the authors' names Don Berliner and Stanton T. Friedman were a sign that we, the readers, were not going to be treated to an impartial investigation. I enjoyed reading some of Don's writing but right under Friedman's name it says "Nuclear Physicist". Bull feces! He retired in 1970!

Wikipedia

Friedman was employed for 14 years as a nuclear physicist 1956-1970. Friedman left full-time employment as a physicist in 1970 to pursue the scientific investigation of UFO's.
I had already gotten sick of his bs as he did not have one questioning bone in his body.

But I did familiarize myself with the book's contents and one gets a good crossview from those who read the book and posted their reviews on Amazon. That was enough for me since nothing ever came out, irrefutably, about debris, aliens, back engineering, etc. It and all other books on UFO crashes are just vehicles to make a quick buck off the gullible.

We have not been enriched by anything resulting from alleged crashes regardless of the claims of bs artist Col. Corso. Keep in mind that those books would really be more like pamphlets but pamphlets don't sell as readily as thick books giving the impression that they are chock full of irrefutable evidence.


edit on 07/03/2016 by klassless because: To correct grammar.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: klassless

And of course we know now that when he quotes Brazel, he is quoting an old man whose mind has been affected by the deterioration of memory. This is what Pflock found when he interviewed almost everybody that was present in 1947. The sudden fame and possible financial renumeration helps to sway an already weakened mind.

There is only one author that one can trust to give you the facts on this case and that's Karl T. Pflock. Every other author offers less or different "facts".


The Brazel quotes above are from an interview in the Roswell Daily Record on July 9, 1947. - LINK - Almost a month after the discovery of the "spacecraft." The hundreds of claimed witnesses that came forward after Stanton Friedman's 1978 interview with Jesse Marcel are the questionable group. The article is the only true description and account we have of the debris in 1947 by the originator of the story and not something recalled from 30+ year old memories.

Brazel was motivated by the rewards offered by newspapers during the time for the recovery of a flying disc. When he first found the debris on June 14th, he simply stashed some pieces away with no fanfare or importance and went back to work. Only after several weeks and the breaking of Kenneth Arnold's story, which in part caused newspapers to offer rewards, did this nondescript debris all of a sudden become a flying saucer.
His story in the article clearly describe balloon and target debris. There's not a single piece described that's not relatable to this. The difference is the amount and condition it was found. Which brings up a point I've mentioned many times before - This amazing debris that couldn't be cut, burned, dented, torn, and was said to be indestructible, was found 'destructed' and broken into many pieces.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join