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: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I still have a MAJOR problem w/a UFO traveling across the galaxy, then crashing outside a military base in Nevada, from where they do aerial research.




posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: klassless

This thread has just about run Friedman into the ground with me leading the attack. He definitely deserves it for being the most negative and loudest voice that promotes the bs bandwagon, although it was Charles Berlitz and William Moore (The Roswell Incident, 1980) who started the ball rolling downhill!

At the moment I've forgotten what happened after the above book came out (I met Mr Berlitz and volunteered my services for his next adventure, wasn't called) but 11 years later it started again with other authors who didn't bring anything new to the table but they believed they did and it was the beginning of rehashing as the following books prove. Once the lies took hold it was de facto. Except for Karl T. Pflock's reference work that contains the truth about the event and the main participants.

UFO Crash at Roswell (1991)
In 1991, with the benefit of publicity from new witness interviews, Kevin Randle and Donald Schmitt published "UFO Crash at Roswell". In this account, the timelines of the incident were slightly altered.

Crash at Corona (1992)
In 1992, a third book, "Crash at Corona", was published. Written by Friedman and Don Berliner, it suggested a high-level cover-up of a UFO recovery, based on documents which were anonymously dropped off at a UFO researcher's house in 1984.

The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell (1994)
In 1994, Randle and Schmitt published "The Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell". While it restated a majority of the case as laid out in their earlier book, new and expanded accounts of aliens were included, and a new location for the recovery of aliens was detailed. Additionally, an almost completely new scenario for the sequence of events was laid out.

UFO community schism
By 1994 when "The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell" was published, a schism had emerged within the UFO community about the events in the Roswell UFO incident. The Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) and the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), two leading UFO societies, disagreed in their views of the various scenarios presented by Randle–Schmitt and Friedman–Berliner; several conferences were held to try to resolve the differences.

And another promoter: Linda Moulton Howe.

So now we have additional authors/celebrities to bash. Friedman, take a breather!

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



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: mirageman




Indeed. Roswell does not really feature anywhere in UFO lore before the 1980s. Blue Book and its predecessors give no mention of any incident.


At least not for the allegorically challenged.

However by 1985 though there were cruder allegorical references to a 747/July 47 plane crash making the big screen.
The "Walker children" presumably left behind when Walker AFB closed in 1967 were waiting for the return of "Captain Walker" to fly them to tomorrow morrow land.




posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: klassless

The original newspaper articles...

Jaden



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: klassless

Sorry, this is why I asked you to provide the links to the original newspaper articles, because the order they were released would negate this explanation.

They had first announced a wrecked saucer and then came back with the weather baloon explanation. If they were trying to hide the project mogul, they would'nt have gone that route.

Jaden



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: klassless

LOL... It still looked like a balloon...It wasn't disguised as a flying saucer, and didn't have materials that before hadn't been known, even by a mid ranking military intelligence officer. The crap you debunkers come up with is hilarious...

Jaden



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Yes because when Stanton Friedman was researching ufo's, Ufology as your only background would have been scoffed at and ridiculed.

It WAS an attempt to bring personal credibility as a researcher, which it does... I personally think in much of what he says, he's full of #, but there's not reason to knock him for claiming what he actually was to gain credibility as a serious researcher.

JAden



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho

Don't forget that the CIA was founded just 3 or 4 months after Roswell...

Jaden



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden


if they were trying to hide the project mogul, they would'nt have gone that route
counter argument: yes they would.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 12:25 AM
link   

This thread has just about run Friedman into the ground with me leading the attack.


While you are quick to trumpet your own horn, I think it's laughable that you and perhaps a couple others, think that attacking the person, Friedman in this case, somehow negates his research. He studied this case for some 10 + years. How about attacking the research results.. not the researcher. Except you can't exactly do that, as you have no even bothered to read his book on the subject.

Unlike you and others, he actually -was- a nuclear physicist. Who cares how he trumpets that? Instead why don't you focus on his findings? Claiming you have debunked his work because you find fault in how he portrays himself is laughable. Almost as laughable as you thinking you have somehow brought Friedman down to his knees because of a post on a conspiracy forum. That's rich.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit

This thread has just about run Friedman into the ground with me leading the attack.


While you are quick to trumpet your own horn, I think it's laughable that you and perhaps a couple others, think that attacking the person, Friedman in this case, somehow negates his research. He studied this case for some 10 + years. How about attacking the research results.. not the researcher. Except you can't exactly do that, as you have no even bothered to read his book on the subject.

Unlike you and others, he actually -was- a nuclear physicist. Who cares how he trumpets that? Instead why don't you focus on his findings? Claiming you have debunked his work because you find fault in how he portrays himself is laughable. Almost as laughable as you thinking you have somehow brought Friedman down to his knees because of a post on a conspiracy forum. That's rich.


What a great country we are fortunate to live in with all of its freedoms particularly freedom of speech.

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine.


he actually -was- a nuclear physicist.



-was-


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



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

How about attacking the research results.. not the researcher. Except you can't exactly do that, as you have no even bothered to read his book on the subject.

The problem is you cant separate the "research results" from the "researcher" since you have to buy the "researchers" book to get the "research results". And there are no research results. Its not like he conducted experiments and recorded his findings. No, he conducted interviews and judged the credibility of those people based on his extensive knowledge of nuclear physics. Besides, he does his fair share of attacking people so he is like a nuclear hypocritical idiot.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit

Unlike you and others, he actually -was- a nuclear physicist. Who cares how he trumpets that? Instead why don't you focus on his findings? Claiming you have debunked his work because you find fault in how he portrays himself is laughable. Almost as laughable as you thinking you have somehow brought Friedman down to his knees because of a post on a conspiracy forum. That's rich.


Friedman's findings are that parts of an alien spacecraft came apart and landed on the Foster ranch and there was a separate crash site of the spacecraft with alien bodies. Not based on physical evidence, but on stories. Doesn't that basically sum up his findings? He also thinks it:

proves there is other intelligent life in the universe...

...proves the government has recovered wreckage and bodies, and has known since 1947 that there are alien visitors.

SOURCE

Does this sound like the workings of a scientific mind or a hardcore UFOlogist? Remember, when he interviewed Marcel and found out about the Roswell story, he was already knee-deep in giving lectures throughout the country about UFOs. He went into this incident already highly biased.

I asked Friedman a question in the AMA about the coincidence of the construction of an alien spacecraft being the same as radar targets in 1947. It of course went ignored, as it has in this thread and others.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: fleabit

Unlike you and others, he actually -was- a nuclear physicist. Who cares how he trumpets that? Instead why don't you focus on his findings? Claiming you have debunked his work because you find fault in how he portrays himself is laughable. Almost as laughable as you thinking you have somehow brought Friedman down to his knees because of a post on a conspiracy forum. That's rich.


Friedman's findings are that parts of an alien spacecraft came apart and landed on the Foster ranch and there was a separate crash site of the spacecraft with alien bodies. Not based on physical evidence, but on stories. Doesn't that basically sum up his findings? He also thinks it:

proves there is other intelligent life in the universe...

...proves the government has recovered wreckage and bodies, and has known since 1947 that there are alien visitors.

SOURCE

Does this sound like the workings of a scientific mind or a hardcore UFOlogist? Remember, when he interviewed Marcel and found out about the Roswell story, he was already knee-deep in giving lectures throughout the country about UFOs. He went into this incident already highly biased.

I asked Friedman a question in the AMA about the coincidence of the construction of an alien spacecraft being the same as radar targets in 1947. It of course went ignored, as it has in this thread and others.


His arrogance really shows when he is introduced as a current nuklear feeces-ist" and he never corrects the introducer because if he did then there would be no sense in continuing to pass himself off as a "working" nuclear physicist. Someone should tell him that past U.S. presidents are introduced as ex-president.

Ex-Nuclear Physicist. Now there's a title we'll never see associated with Stunted T. Freeman!



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: klassless

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



While I have serious doubts that anything unusual was found at Roswell, I do have one thought regarding the debris you handled..playing devil's advocate here.


So if one operated on the assumption that it WAS an alien/unknown craft of some kind, and that weather balloon debris was trotted out for the press, that the REAL debris was shuttled off to never be seen again, and the balloon debris is what you handled?



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: vlawde

originally posted by: klassless

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



While I have serious doubts that anything unusual was found at Roswell, I do have one thought regarding the debris you handled..playing devil's advocate here.


So if one operated on the assumption that it WAS an alien/unknown craft of some kind, and that weather balloon debris was trotted out for the press, that the REAL debris was shuttled off to never be seen again, and the balloon debris is what you handled?


Doesn't work for me as I never accepted UFOs crashing and I found out when reading the popular books that they were full of it and at no time did anything that was allegedly recovered change the world. It's all backroom stories made up to sell to the gullible masses.

I accept the original testimony as reported and I understand how the "big lie" was created.

The debris that I handled was moved lock, stock, and barrel from Roswell along with all of those file cabinets in the magazine photo. I accept Karl Pflock's detailed account in his reference book.

Mogul 1. UFO crash 0.



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 01:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: klassless

Sorry, this is why I asked you to provide the links to the original newspaper articles, because the order they were released would negate this explanation.

They had first announced a wrecked saucer and then came back with the weather baloon explanation. If they were trying to hide the project mogul, they would'nt have gone that route.

Jaden


My favorite part of the weather balloon excuse the military used, and still uses, is how the material shattered into millions of pieces that took the military several days and a bunch of trucks and lots of man power with guns to pick up and haul away
That must be SOME weather balloon!
edit on 4-9-2016 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
...is how the material shattered into millions of pieces that took the military several days and a bunch of trucks and lots of man power with guns to pick up and haul away
That must be SOME weather balloon!

"A million pieces" Yeah, I understand you're using the extreme to make a point, but how do you explain a material that can't be bent, cut, burned, folded, or crumpled breaking apart into many pieces?


originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
My favorite part of the weather balloon excuse the military used, and still uses

It's not an excuse. This isn't some fabricated and imaginary tale by the military tossed out there to explain away the crash. We have a path we can follow through recorded data of the flights, measurements, photographs and so on, that in June/July 1947 80+/- miles away in Alamogordo, balloon clusters were being launched. That's a fact. We also have recorded data on June 5th that one of these flights, Mogul flight #5, crashed 25 miles east of Roswell. So you have two separate factual points of reference to show this wasn't a "balloon excuse" by the military that can be easily written off. In reality, this leaves the opportunity wide open for the possibility of a balloon cluster crashing in the area of Roswell. Of course those facts are skipped over and go ignored by diehard believers.

On top of that, we have a description of sticks and foil crash debris by Brazel AND Marcel that matches radar targets that again have a factual path of reference of being used in Alamogordo in June/July 1947 through records, photographs, ML-307C target blueprints, etc.

"Well there was no launch of Mogul flight #4!!"
Albert Cracy's journal recorded a "regular sonobouy" was launched on June 4th. If balloons were inflated and targets attached by Moore and his crew awaiting the early morning launch of Mogul flight #4 but it was cancelled, doesn't it make sense to launch the regular sonobouy using the balloons already inflated rather than waste them? Or to inflate a cluster for the sonobouy with Moore using the opportunity to continue testing the radar targets and on-ground reception? There doesn't need to be Mogul flight #4, all there needs to be are balloons and radar targets and this regular cluster could very likely have fit that description. Again, there's the opportunity and possibility for this to be a balloon cluster and targets and not an alien spacecraft.
edit on 4-9-2016 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
By no fault I think
some Roswell threads tend to be misleading.
80% of the people that reply to a
'There's nothing to Roswell thread' have not read
either a Klass or Schmidt book about Roswell.
And therefore wrong foregone conclusions abound.

I have followed "The crash" for 35+ years,
I have read just about every serious report
or book about Roswell pro or con and am quite convinced
it wasn't a weather ballon or a mogul listening device
nor rubber dummies 10 years later.
Has a single person verified any
of the official explanations ?
Official Story verified deathbed confessions ?

There are literally a couple hundred that
have talked about high strangeness on the periphery
of the crash story and dead extraterrestrials
and cover stories at the center.

Mogul=1
Captured Interplanetary Disc=300+

edit on 4-9-2016 by UnderKingsPeak because: paragraphs



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I enjoy your educated comments and you help make the thread a success for those who are led astray by the overwhelming, loud voices of those who suffer from not being able to grasp the meaning of logic, common sense and reason. Thanks.




top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join