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: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: mirageman

There's something still not quite right with Roswell. I don't believe it was a saucer crash, but still, the mistake is a big one. I can't believe that things should or could have gone on for decades if it was simply a mogul balloon......



Indeed. Roswell does not really feature anywhere in UFO lore before the 1980s. Blue Book and its predecessors give no mention of any incident. Then in 1978 up popped Jesse Marcel. He never mentioned anything about aliens despite being the RAAF base intelligence officer. But they soon entered the story.

At the end of the 1970s much of Ufology stateside became part of the showbiz industry. Now its full of people wanting to make a fast buck out of those wanting to hear fantastic stories but offering nothing tangible. The intelligence community was also poisoning the data for whatever purpose they needed to. The result being that much of the UFO lore from America (and possibly elsewhere) is full of false detail and crazy stories. MJ-12, Serpo etc....There's so much of it now that people keep regurgitating it despite it being debunked years ago.

But there you have it ..Roswell the pillar of ufology.




posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly




aaaaaaaand presto...the entire UFO lore explained in a single post on ATS. Exactly how it happened. I can attest to that...because...I simply know it.


I am glad you do know it.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

And, as our own Jenny mentions, surveillance by some agency (in the loosest sense) of prominent ufologists.

Ufologists becoming agents of disinformation in an attempt to get to the truth.

What truth was worth all this effort to hide and bury?

Sometimes I think nothing is behind it. Sometimes that it's something we would never suspect.
edit on 14-8-2016 by ctj83 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ctj83

Who knows? But I would guess that it's all part of perception management.

UFOs are often spotted near military bases. I wonder why that is? Is it because they like nuclear weapons? Or is it more likely that they aren't really UFOs at all and the military top brass full well know what they are. Such as a cover for secret tech. Other parts of the UFO phenomenon are used as psychological studies on the general population and there are also documents that show studies to weaponize the UFO phenomenon if possible as we well know.





edit on 14/8/16 by mirageman because: typo



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman


I'll answer that more directly. Because it is all too easy to forget (or more likely) never have experience what was going on in the summer of 1947.

On June 24th 1947 Kenneth Arnold reported seeing unidentified craft "..skipping like saucers" in the skies near Mount Rainier. This is attributed to the dawn of the "flying saucer" age. However "flying saucer" at the time was not necessarily associated with it being an "alien spacecraft". The Cold War was beginning to bite and there was a deep fear that they might be a new Soviet weapon.

So it is entirely possible, if not likely, that the press release was 'jumping the gun' in an attempt to announce that the RAAF was the first military unit to capture one of these things.

Yes, that is a possible scenario. But I think the real answer is that we simply don't know. I think we can speculate on a variety of different scenarios that are all very plausible and which have nothing to do with aliens.

so really in a nutshell, the question "why would the military or government lie?" is sort of silly to me and particularly when the pattern is ...when the govt says "aliens" that's the truth and when they say "not aliens" that's the lie. I like your ideas on this subject but I think it has less to do with "forgetting" and more to do with confirmation bias....and I don't mean your average confirmation bias that we all have and struggle with from time to time, I mean Confirmation Bias that is so profound that it causes people to not think of any other possibilities. Its really as if thinking of or exploring "non alien" scenarios is blasphemous or something. So a direct answer is likely to get you as far as my vague indirect ridiculous answer.


edit on 14-8-2016 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly


By UFO skeptics manual, eyewitness testimony is unreliable. End of story. I didnt make that up....you skeptics did...to account for all the weird sightings you cant explain.

Are you really saying that "skeptics" made up the whole "eyewitness testimony is unreliable" thing in order to "to account for all the weird sightings (they) cant explain"?

Do you know that there is whole world outside of UFO land where that kind of stuff is studied and applied to things that have nothing to do with UFOs? Maybe instead of making such comments, a better approach might be to become familiar with what "eyewitness testimony is unreliable" really means and what the experts in those fields really say. If its truly just "made up", then there should be nothing to support the idea. Anyway, here is one thing that supports that idea The Misinformation Effect There really is an endless amount of literature on the subject....



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian




Are you really saying that "skeptics" made up the whole "eyewitness testimony is unreliable" thing in order to "to account for all the weird sightings (they) cant explain"?


when concerned with UFO sightings...that are by far most commonly reported by eyewitness testimony. The "skeptics" "invented" a best to go by debunking by simply using the already established notion of unreliability.

I do understand that indeed...eyewitness testimony is unreliable...but this just works good for the skeptics and believers alike.

For this very reason....you can not debunk an eyewitness testimony...with another eyewitness testimony...and stand there all happy thinking that you've debunked anything.

If eyewitness testimony is unreliable...then all such testimony can not be taken as evidence of truth, but simply a talking point.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly


when concerned with UFO sightings...that are by far most commonly reported by eyewitness testimony. The "skeptics" "invented" a best to go by debunking by simply using the already established notion of unreliability.

You really cant invent something that already exists. What we have is a phenomenon that primarily falls into one category; "eyewitness testimony". Eyewitness testimony is described as being unreliable in general and not just in Ufology by sceptics. It doesn't stop there, but its what we have to work with.


I do understand that indeed...eyewitness testimony is unreliable...but this just works good for the skeptics and believers alike.

For this very reason....you can not debunk an eyewitness testimony...with another eyewitness testimony...and stand there all happy thinking that you've debunked anything.

If eyewitness testimony is unreliable...then all such testimony can not be taken as evidence of truth, but simply a talking point.

I agree. We should keep each other in check. absolutely.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
However "flying saucer" at the time was not necessarily associated with it being an "alien spacecraft".


I tend to disagree, I believe the term 'flying saucer' was used precisely to refer to an 'ET' aircraft, something out of this world.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
This was the initial report, please read carefully:

The intelligence office of the 509th Bombardment group at Roswell Army Air Field announced at noon today, that the field has come into possession of a flying saucer.

According to information released by the department, over authority of Maj. J. A. Marcel, intelligence officer, the disk was recovered on a ranch in the Roswell vicinity, after an unidentified rancher had notified Sheriff Geo. Wilcox, here, that he had found the instrument on his premises.

Major Marcel and a detail from his department went to the ranch and recovered the disk, it was stated.

After the intelligence officer here had inspected the instrument it was flown to higher headquarters.

The intelligence office stated that no details of the saucer's construction or its appearance had been revealed.

--------------------

flying saucer? disk?

These men couldn't understand the difference between something unknown in origin and... a balloon? How do you come from 'flying saucer', 'disc' and later you change it for 'balloon'? That's all? Fishy, real fishy.

Let me tell you what I think: they found an extraterrestrial vessel, since it was the first time something like that happened, they didn't know what to do. Exultant for what was discovered, they announced to the press. Later, Washington took control of the situation, and corrected the original version, claiming it was just 'a balloon'.

Decades later, when the whole Roswell saga began, the men in power understood they needed to reinforce the original lie, and then, just because, it wasn't anymore a simple ballon, but a special one, part of a secret project, and well, that's why they had to cover it in first place... with a 'flying saucer' version. Sorry, but I just lol'd.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: JackHill
This was the initial report, please read carefully:


ok



The intelligence office stated that no details of the saucer's construction or its appearance had been revealed.


So I read it carefully and it says that NO details of its construction or appearance were actually revealed. It honestly sounds like they found a dish of some sort that was attached to the balloon which can also be described as an "instrument" or a "disc". I have never heard of a flying saucer referred to as an instrument before. So if you want to take everything literally then maybe it was a tuba or a giant tambourine which are also instruments. Its really hard to say what they found based on this press release since --no details of its construction or its appearance had actually been revealed


flying saucer? disk?

instrument? no details of its construction or its appearance had actually been revealed?


These men couldn't understand the difference between something unknown in origin and... a balloon? How do you come from 'flying saucer', 'disc' and later you change it for 'balloon'? That's all? Fishy, real fishy.

where are you getting "something unknown in origin" from what was in that press release. I read it carefully as you asked. And if you follow along, "flying saucer" and "weather balloon" are both cover stories for Mogul. to me, It all seems to fit together. I really cant figure out why it doesn't.


Sorry, but I just lol'd.

...and you want people to know that?



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: klassless

It seems to me from reading the comments that some people are predisposed to accept fantasy than rely on the original sources, faulty as they came across. Some of you can't see beyond the explanations as to why the Mogul balloon and its long train containing various equipment for detection was called, NOT CONSIDERED, a flying disk and why some participants could rightly claim they had not seen anything like it before. They were used to simple weather balloon debris and now here comes something way longer, containing prepared surfaces and new techniques, the result of a top secret project that necessitated improving over old methods. And this blows simpler minds that can't grasp anything about the times, the people involved, they way everything went over.

Once again I suggest to those that are having difficulty accepting a simple process to find and read Karl T. Pflock's reference book that's lauded left and right for it contains the best research results on everything and everyone Roswell.

ROSWELL: Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe.

It's time to ignore anything that has been written by Friedman, Randle, Schmidt, et al. They did not produce truthful, reliable books. They have created the modern Roswell cash industry and it's too late for those who are and those to come. The bell cannot be unringed.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: mirageman
However "flying saucer" at the time was not necessarily associated with it being an "alien spacecraft".


I tend to disagree, I believe the term 'flying saucer' was used precisely to refer to an 'ET' aircraft, something out of this world.


In 1947, there had been no serious studies of the phenomenon by the government/military. It could have easily meant a Soviet spy satellite, reconnaissance aircraft, or any craft built to spy on the American military. The Japanese launched "balloon bombs" during WWII designed to travel the jet stream and land in North America. Many made their mark. So strange "flying" objects from other countries wasn't unusual during the time. "Flying disc" was also coined only 2 weeks earlier and hadn't gone through the 70 year UFO history it has now. So, you can't apply a 21st century mindset to 1947 America.
edit on 16-8-2016 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: JackHill

flying saucer? disk?

These men couldn't understand the difference between something unknown in origin and... a balloon? How do you come from 'flying saucer', 'disc' and later you change it for 'balloon'? That's all? Fishy, real fishy.

Let me tell you what I think: they found an extraterrestrial vessel, since it was the first time something like that happened, they didn't know what to do. Exultant for what was discovered, they announced to the press. Later, Washington took control of the situation, and corrected the original version, claiming it was just 'a balloon'.

Decades later, when the whole Roswell saga began, the men in power understood they needed to reinforce the original lie, and then, just because, it wasn't anymore a simple ballon, but a special one, part of a secret project, and well, that's why they had to cover it in first place... with a 'flying saucer' version. Sorry, but I just lol'd.


I'm confused, what's the story to be believed? Brazel and Marcel's account were lies and coverups? Even into Marcels death in 1986? You're doing the same thing MarioOnTheFly has. A wishy-washy storyline that gets you out of addressing certain points. It's the same reason a story was created that Brazel was coerced by the military to tell their version of the story. That excuses the obvious balloon and radar target debris he describes in his newspaper interview. The funny thing is, the same people that support this coercion tale, also support what Jesse Marcel says. And Marcel describes foil and small sticks, just like Mac Brazel did in 1947. To believe Marcel, is to believe Brazel and then you have to explain away the amazing radar target & spacecraft similarities.

Of course if you believe no one knows anything except the secret government... whatever, you're still ultimately in the same boat with someone having to provide something more than tales to support an alien spacecraft crashed with alien bodies. Good place for another "lol'd."



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: klassless

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

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.


Boy, did I screw up big time! Something failed my mind when I proofread it before submitting it.

I meant to say MARCEL! As in Jesse Marcel.

I apologize to all who read that and thought I had lost it and they are right. But, thankfully, a temporary loss.

William "Mac" Brazel died in 1963.

Thank you so much Ectoplasm8 for pointing out my super-duper gaffe.


Yeah, I figured as much. I proofread everything several times and with Brazel and Marcel being so similiar, I've missed it also.

Star for the PEOPLE article with Charles Moore. I've tried to search out more sources for his comment about the Elmers-Glue coating on the sticks and only found it with the two interviews he did.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: mirageman
However "flying saucer" at the time was not necessarily associated with it being an "alien spacecraft".


I tend to disagree, I believe the term 'flying saucer' was used precisely to refer to an 'ET' aircraft, something out of this world.


Why? Kenneth Arnold had only coined the phrase a couple of weeks before?




In all likelihood the commanding officer of the 509th, Colonel William "Butch" Blanchard, who authorized the release of the "disc crash" story by July 8th did not initially realize the implications of the event.

When his intelligence officer Major Jesse Marcel told him they had found the scattered debris of a flying disc, Blanchard probably first thought of a balloon crash or some such explainable event. The Arnold story was only eight days old and still being talked about.

On the evening of July 2nd, local retailer Dan Wilmot even had a saucer sighting. In 1947, however, flying discs or saucers had not yet assumed the image of extraterrestrial visitors that they have taken on today. Almost everyone then took it for granted that flying saucers were research balloons or military experiments of some sort. Colonel Blanchard probably innocently thought their recovered disc would be just one more story added to the many already being reported in the news media.

If the debris did come from something terrestrial, but secret, it would make sense that General Roger M. Ramey, commander of the 8th, would have then retracted Blanchard's disc story with a weather balloon explanation. It would make all the more sense if it was not just a low-level research experiment as Blanchard probably assumed, but a highly classified project, or a nuclear accident, or perhaps even something of Soviet origin.

This would conceal the indication of any such event and thus prevent public embarrassment at a time of mounting Cold War tensions. It would also conveniently and completely defuse the situation—which it immediately did.


Source : greyfalcon.us...



Plus descriptions given in the local paper are all of tinfoil, broken wood beams, tape and rubber. What a strange flying saucer from outer space that must have been if it was made from the same materials a balloon would have been made from.





Source : Roswell Daily Record 9th July 1947


And there the story died for 30 years.

Until Marcel described his indestructible metal that was ironically destroyed and strewn across the Foster Ranch.


Now the military were up to something and obviously were covering up something. So don't come out of this one well either. But Roswell is not the holy grail of ufology that those who only tread their toe in the water think.


edit on 16/8/16 by mirageman because: typo



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: mirageman
However "flying saucer" at the time was not necessarily associated with it being an "alien spacecraft".


I tend to disagree, I believe the term 'flying saucer' was used precisely to refer to an 'ET' aircraft, something out of this world.


In 1947, there had been no serious studies of the phenomenon by the government/military. It could have easily meant a Soviet spy satellite, reconnaissance aircraft, or any craft built to spy on the American military. The Japanese launched "balloon bombs" during WWII designed to travel the jet stream and land in North America. Many made their mark. So strange "flying" objects from other countries wasn't unusual during the time. "Flying disc" was also coined only 2 weeks earlier and hadn't gone through the 70 year UFO history it has now. So, you can't apply a 21st century mindset to 1947 America.


I don't know, but the press was referring to the object as a flying saucer, it seems that the term as was used was clearly referring to a supposed 'ET' vessel, and not something ordinary like a balloon, enemy plane, or whatever, no matter how hard you try to convince us of that.

In short, the military informed they found a 'flying saucer', but 1 day later, it was a 'balloon'. Why?



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: JackHill

In short, the military informed they found a 'flying saucer', but 1 day later, it was a 'balloon'. Why?

because it was a balloon?


I don't know, but the press was referring to the object as a flying saucer, it seems that the term as was used was clearly referring to a supposed 'ET' vessel

can you find an example of where "flying saucer = aliens" prior to Roswell? Obviously the press release makes no reference to aliens. I know this because I read it carefully.
edit on 16-8-2016 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   

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!


So you didn't read the book from the guy who probably put the most effort and time into researching Roswell? But can make definitive argument against it? Huh, that's an interesting take. Might want to consider it, if you can read it with an unbiased mindset of course. Also many folks reference a past career to bolster their value - Stanton Friedman would never say he currently a nuclear physicist in any way. He only typically references it as it gave him access to top secret material from time to time.

Friedman may still be slightly biased as is pretty much every UFO researcher out there, but he by far, puts the most effort into his research, and actually attempts to make valid connections based on fact, not fancy. I found his book very insightful in regards to the Roswell case.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: klassless

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

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.


Boy, did I screw up big time! Something failed my mind when I proofread it before submitting it.

I meant to say MARCEL! As in Jesse Marcel.

I apologize to all who read that and thought I had lost it and they are right. But, thankfully, a temporary loss.

William "Mac" Brazel died in 1963.

Thank you so much Ectoplasm8 for pointing out my super-duper gaffe.


Yeah, I figured as much. I proofread everything several times and with Brazel and Marcel being so similiar, I've missed it also.

Star for the PEOPLE article with Charles Moore. I've tried to search out more sources for his comment about the Elmers-Glue coating on the sticks and only found it with the two interviews he did.


I kept the article 'cause of the comments ascribed to Mr Moore, sort-of hero for being open about what was once considered a top-secret project. When one sees photos of weather balloons and compare them with a Mogul balloon train one can understand the long debris trail Brazel found. I guess it's normal to conclude that the weather balloons that had come down to earth during those times didn't contain balsa wood coated with glue! Something so simple befuddled people who couldn't guess that a balloon train was now a bit more complicated, yet still human constructed. It could have been General Blanchard's ego that created the modern hoopla. And to take some of the debris in a military war plane to show others what they couldn't identify! I wonder what Blanchard may have said to himself (and others) when he saw the non-other-worldly debris. I would love to have been within earshot to see how he had to backtrack and really crash the disk story.




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join