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.

 

The Case for Roswell: Part II

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Gazrok,

Thank you for taking the time to put this all together. So far it has been a teriffic read. Cheers




posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   
You're welcome... Bear with me on the next installment though, it's shaping up to be a long one. On page 5 so far, and likely only halfway through....but it'll be thorough!!!



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Fantastic work, Gazrok! I'm lovin' every word of your Roswell series



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Since Gazrok has put together a great synopsis on Roswell full of facts, its worth mentioning various tactics skeptics use.

Stanton Friedman has often said that sceptics, when they cannot attack the facts, will attack the witnesses instead, attacking their characters.

I remeber reading from Randal Fitzgerald that Marcel was somehow an unreliable witness, that he wasnt too bright, was prone to exaggeration, ect, and changed his story a few times. This is totally untrue.

If Major Marcel was sucha complete and utter moron, he would not have been assigned the position of intelligence officer to the worlds only nuclear capable bomber squadron. he also wouldnt have been later assigned to project Mogul, the very same project the Air Force later claimed was responsible for Roswell. You dont assign substandard people to sensitive and top secret projects.

Interestingly enough, Marcel was involved later after Roswell with Project Mogul. Had Mogul been the cause of Roswell, Marcel, interviewed 30 years later, would by then have known all about Mogul and been able to confirm to investigators that it was a Mogul balloon, since he would have realized, after being transfered to Mogul and working with the project, that the material he found was identical. But this wasnt the case.

Many false allegations have been made against Major Marcel and other witnesses. allegations and a web of BS mostly woven by the govornment and debunkers. But when we actually examine what the witnesses have gone on the record as saying, and what they can truly be quoted as saying, we see the only ones changing the story or the facts to fit their own belief systems are the Air Force and big time rabid debunkers like Philip Klass.

Rememeber that. Next time you see the debunkers attacking the witness, know that more than likely, since they could no longer attack solid indisputable fact, they have no choice but to turn to chatacter assasination, because they facts threaten rigid belief systems.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Nice work done on the Roswell case Gazrok.Perhaps you can begin to understand what I tried to do on the Adamski thread, with all the witnesses and stuff



TerraX


Since Gazrok has put together a great synopsis on Roswell full of facts, its worth mentioning various tactics skeptics use. Stanton Friedman has often said that sceptics, when they cannot attack the facts, will attack the witnesses instead, attacking their characters.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Well the thing is, Adamski really had no facts and solid evidence to stand on. Attacking a witness sometimes is acceotable when their stories simply are contridictory, fraudulent, or questionable.

Adamski really provided no evidence for his claims, and there was plenty of evidence against him. His claims were easily refuted, and his open chatracter and past history of unscrupulous behavior make his claims questiobale. Im sure that perhaps Adamski did see a UFO once, but embelished the tale to absurd proportions.

The point im trying to make, is that sceptics, when the actual facts of the case are near impossible to refute, will resort to disinformation and unwarranted character assasination on people which simply is not true. Since the facts of a solid UFO case pretty much stand on their own, sceptics will start blowing small things out of proportion, even to the tune of making things up.

Adamski really had no solid case to stabd on, and his con-man behavior and his own quotes about why he got into this "saucer crap".

If Adamski had a bit more solid a case, then Id defend his character, but for the most part, he and the other contactees really killed their own credibility. One didnt need to make up things about Adamski. He did a good enough job assassinating his own character.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Has any of the original roswell material survived (outside ridiculously super secret bases) to be anylised independantly in modern times? Further does anyone have any links to alledged alien artifacts that have been subject to analysis?

Similar to this one please if any

ufoevidence.conforums.com...

[edit on 012828p://18021 by instar]



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Well the thing is, Adamski really had no facts and solid evidence to stand on. Attacking a witness sometimes is acceotable when their stories simply are contridictory, fraudulent, or questionable.

Adamski really provided no evidence for his claims, and there was plenty of evidence against him. His claims were easily refuted, and his open chatracter and past history of unscrupulous behavior make his claims questiobale. Im sure that perhaps Adamski did see a UFO once, but embelished the tale to absurd proportions.

The point im trying to make, is that sceptics, when the actual facts of the case are near impossible to refute, will resort to disinformation and unwarranted character assasination on people which simply is not true. Since the facts of a solid UFO case pretty much stand on their own, sceptics will start blowing small things out of proportion, even to the tune of making things up.

Adamski really had no solid case to stabd on, and his con-man behavior and his own quotes about why he got into this "saucer crap".

If Adamski had a bit more solid a case, then Id defend his character, but for the most part, he and the other contactees really killed their own credibility. One didnt need to make up things about Adamski. He did a good enough job assassinating his own character.


Skadi,

While this is not the appropriate place to discus this topic, I just want to mention that even the 'con-man' had support in eyewitness accounts.Those accounts might be false or true, strangely I counted over 40 testimonies directly or indirectly supporting his case (worldwide).I guess if one does the proper homework objectively one might come to other conclusions."Attacking a witness is sometimes acceptable"? Bold statement.The same thing can happen to persons like Jesse Marcel or his son.Hm? Going after the witnesses.Besides, I saw a tv program on the Discovery Channel called 'Unsolved History' which does exactly that.

[edit on 21-2-2005 by TerraX]



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Nice work done on the Roswell case Gazrok.Perhaps you can begin to understand what I tried to do on the Adamski thread, with all the witnesses and stuff


I absolutely understand it. Which is why I also countered with documented instances of apparent fraud. For me, the real nail in the coffin of the Adamski case is the Library of Congress record of an IDENTICAL UFO story as FICTION of meeting Venusians published BEFORE his alleged encounters. Other than the other ludicrous claims, this above all else was simply too much to be coincidence. False witnesses are a dime a dozen in most cases. With Roswell though, we have high-ranking military officers, respected citizens, etc. testifying.

Roswell though, is not without it's share of false witnesses. In putting together my next thread in this series, I've come across many witnesses that UFOlogists love to include in their timelines. Rather than omit them completely, I'll mention them in my timeline, but I'll also mention why I believe they are full of it. I'll be concentrating on reliable stable witnesses, who have maintained their stories throughout as well as documented facts.


Many false allegations have been made against Major Marcel and other witnesses. allegations and a web of BS mostly woven by the govornment and debunkers. But when we actually examine what the witnesses have gone on the record as saying, and what they can truly be quoted as saying, we see the only ones changing the story or the facts to fit their own belief systems are the Air Force and big time rabid debunkers like Philip Klass.


Skadi is correct with skeptics attacking Roswell witnesses. Unfortunately for the case, there are quite a few eyewitnesses that are not being truthfull (or at least it can't even be remotely shown that they are), so they are ripe for attack. Fortunately though, with Roswell, there are even more highly reliable witnesses, such as police officers, press, state officials, military officers including generals, etc. that I'll be citing, as well as clearing up some of the skeptic claims


[edit on 21-2-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
The difference between Marcel and Adamski? Many.

We can verify by records kept that Jesse Marcel was an outstanding officer and the base intelligence officer for Roswell. He was also the base intelligence officer for Roswell. His record shows he was very competant and held a very important position. The people of the 509th bomber squadron were not randomly assigned there. They were specifically chosen. Hand picked for their abilities, competance, and character, because they were working with, at the time, the worlds only nuclear capable military unit. Thus, when people attempt to tear up the character of Maj. Marcel, one must also assume that the govornment:

Puts total idiots and lunatics in charge of its most precious possesions.

That a load of paperwork, reports, and other military accounts are all based on one lunatics ravings.

That the base intelligence officer of the 509th confused a weather balloon or Mogul Balloon made of common off the shelf materials for a flying saucer from space, and that many other very solid credible witnesses did likewise.



Major Marcel was who he said he was. he was Major in the Air Force in charge of intelligence for nuclear bombers.

Adamski, however, claimed he had visited Venus, Mars and Saturn. Well, lets say that the govornment lies, that venus and Mars are habitable. (and the entire astronomical profession world wide, for that matter, plus ameteur astronomers, all say that venus and Mars are bareen). He visited SATURN? How? it has no surface. Its a gas giant. The very pressure and gravity of Saturn would pulverize anyone in its atmosphere.

He also claimed there was a civilization on the moon, running water, animals scurrying about, an atmosphere, ect. Any ameteur astronomer can kill this one.

The problem with Adamski is that his claims are basically a load of crap, as far as his constant contact with his space brothers and claims, they really have no credible cooroberation.

Now here is something I would accept as a possibility:

Adamski did have a UFO experience. Perhaps Nordic type aliens did land, and Adamski, by chance, was present. Perhaps the aliens then fed him a bunch of BS about being space brothers from Venus because they did not wish to tell him who they really were or why they were there. Perhaps they just fed him pure BS to throw him off. Adamski then goes about, embellishing his account with personal relationships with the aliens and space travel. Claiming himself a near ambassador or prophet.

The only person who ever really discredidted and assasinated Adamskis character was Adamski himself. Even his followers got disillusioned when he started claiming the Soviet lunar photos were lies, and that he was going to Saturn for a conference with his space brothers.

Had Adamski simply stuck with not making up a bunch of BS to add to his whole tale, we might be discussing the Adamski case in the same ranks as the Hill Abductions or Rendesham forest.

But not only do we not have any real evidence aside from questionable photos, we also have previously written material that mimics his stories. His profession? In the 1920's, it was bootlegging, for which he used the front of his "Royal order of Tibet" which had the classic elements of a kooky but relatively benign cult. After that, he went to work at a burger stand beneath Mt Palomar. And his followers called him "professor" giving the false impression he was involved at the observatory, something he never made a point to correct.

When one adds the pieces of the Roswell case together, even with the fraudulent witnesses, when we are left with fact, its a truly mysterious, puzzling, and strange episode.

When we add the pieces of the whole Adamski tale, we are left with an embarrassing, ridiculous, and nonsensical tale that requires any logic, discretion, and reasoning to be thrown out.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Very intresting, i just watched a UFO : Roswell today, nothing i didnt know, but what you presented was facinating, keep up the great work.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Did any of you see the special on Roswell on SCI FI? Of course you have all seen the picture of the two military men squatting down next to some pieces of tin foil, the supposed debri found at the crash site. But have you taken notice of the piece of paper in the ranking military officers hand???
On Sci Fi they got a hold of a high res picture and they were able to read the writing on the piece of paper. And it is EXTREMELY DAMNING!!! The man holding the note is the army captain of something who is in charge of the discovery at Roswell. The piece of paper talks about " a "disk" will be shipped", " and the victims" of the crash, something about saying it was a weather ballon, and the debris will be flown in a c4 or other plane.

Well I can't remember exactly what the line were. But it mentions victims of the crash. How can there be any victims of a weather ballon crash? Why does it say that a "disk" will be shipped, if it was a weather ballon??!

I say the government is lucky that this happen in the 40s. If this happened today we would be all over this thing, and we would find out the truth in no time. In fact I can't wait till one crashes again because this time people will not keep quite! and there will be no way to cover up evidence!



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Check earlier in these threads, it's called the "Ramey Memo"...


EDIT: Might take a few more days for part III, a bit swamped at work right now....

[edit on 22-2-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Part III (at least the first Section of it), can be found here....

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Another great job Gazrok.

This is the only witness Gazrok mentions that concerns me and this might make people believe in the balloon theory. I do believe that it was a UFO and not a balloon but it seems to me that who ever created the balloon story may have used this as their foundation. They probabaly looked for the witness who described debris at the crash site as looking most like they were human created objects. This was posted by Gazrok.

quote: "There were what appeared to be pieces of heavily waxed paper and a sort of aluminum-like foil. Some of these pieces had something like numbers and lettering on them, but there were no words you were able to make out. Some of the metal-foil pieces had a sort of tape stuck to them, and when these were held to the light they showed what looked like pastel flowers or designs. Even though the stuff looked like tape it could not be peeled off or removed at all…. [The writing] looked like numbers mostly ... They were written out like you would write numbers in columns to do an addition problem. But they didn't look like the numbers we use at all. What gave me the idea they were numbers, I guess, was the way they were all ranged out in columns… No, it was definitely not a balloon. We had seen weather balloons quite a lot - both on the ground and in the air. We had even found a couple of Japanese-style balloons that had come down in the area once. We had also picked up a couple of those thin rubber weather balloons with instrument packages. This was nothing like that. I have never seen anything resembling this sort of thing before - or since..."-Crash at Corona-Friedman

This is kind of like what came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the human made debris that matches this report come first or did the report come first and then the Air Forces theory on how everything described here was man made since everything is talked about in terms we can understand?

One example would be when the witness mentions the flower like design on the debris. Would the Air Force have gone out and done research on what man made design at the time could be used to explain this? Maybe they looked up floral prints of the time or something.

I'm just trying to get inside the mind of the people who put the report together. That may make it easier to debunk them, although that has already been done here by Gazrok. I just like overkill



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   
"Bessie Brazel" is the witness quoted. Interestingly enough, she is the one most cited by the skeptics. This is why I included her here, despite her age at the time (she was a young girl). In some interviews, she claims to have been with Mac when he found the debris. From Mac, and others, this is not the case. However, the skeptics often only take PORTIONS of her statement, leaving out the part that they had found weather balloons before, and this was no weather balloon, as well as the parts about the unique properties of the material!

In order to be thorough, she had to be included, and oddly enough, this darling of the skeptics actually reinforces the evidence that whatever the Roswell debris was, it was something unique and with properties of no known terrestrial material....



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   
sorry, dupe post...

[edit on 27-2-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by instar
 

there will be an indepth show may 6th 2009 on the history channel ufo hunters show.

there will be new scientific information released at that time about the origins and use of the metal bob white recovered from his ufo encouter.
the scientist all aggree this a some sort of brand new aluminum alloy not known of prior to the recovery of this artifact by white.


ufoevidence.conforums.com...



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I wonder if the properties had some way of being detected? Either through some form of heat sensor or even magnetic? Reason I say this is that I have always thought it very weird that after all these years there have been no more pieces found from the wreckage. They sanitized the area for sure and I have heard about individuals out there looking, but nothing concrete was ever produced to my knowledge.

If ever there was an open door for disclosure this would be it but for some reason or other the case just wont budge for the public.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
The weakness of Roswel case is that there are too many lies intertwined with facts that now its impossible to know which is which.

consider this , how many other UFO crash case you know ? and how much evidence gathered from such crash ? debris ? none..

too much commercial train hanging on roswel.. its a money making business now..



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join