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.

 

Purported UFO crashes, a simple thought.

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2019 @ 10:03 AM
link   
How about physical evidence? It's one thing to debate the likelihood of extraterrestrial visitation on Earth, or whether an advanced craft would be prone to malfunction after crossing interstellar space. The real issue, in my opinion, is people's willingness to believe such things occur without any physical evidence whatsoever.

Alleged incidents of government UFO crash retrievals include the "big ones" like Roswell, Aztec, or Kecksburg but some people believe there have been more than 70 such events. So, where is the proof? I propose that we should examine alleged UFO crashes through an entirely different lens than has been applied thus far.

I have noticed that many UFO crash retrieval stories share common elements:

- The incident and recovery of debris allegedly had the highest level of security classification (similar to a special access “black” project).

- The unknown object crashed on public (usually rural) land in relatively close proximity to a civilian population.

- Civilian witnesses were often interrogated and warned by government officials to forget what they saw.

- The crash site was secured and controlled by government personnel for as long as deemed necessary to conduct recovery operations.

- Cleanup of crash debris was given top priority.

While overall details differ, all UFO crash retrieval stories seem to end the same way. A government cleanup crew – either comprised of common soldiers or elite special forces – sanitizes the crash site, removing every trace of debris. Civilian UFO investigators are therefore left with no hope of finding physical evidence at the scene. Is such a thing possible or even probable? Could the government sanitize a crash site?

I argue that government response in the wake of a crash involving a top-secret aircraft (such as those flown from Area 51, for example) would be virtually indistinguishable from the response to a UFO crash. National security concerns would dictate a need to prevent classified materials from falling into the hands of civilians or foreign intelligence agents. In fact, descriptions of secret airplane crashes are virtually indistinguishable from UFO crash retrieval stories and tend to include all or most of the elements described above.

When an A-12 spy plane being operated from Area 51 crashed near Wendover, Utah, in May 1963, the CIA deflected public and media scrutiny with a cover story that an ordinary F-105 fighter jet had crashed. Declassified documents indicate that security at the time was paramount and cleanup was top priority, even superseding the accident investigation. People who were involved with the cleanup told me that they sanitized the site - even a formerly secret document claimed "all traces were removed from the crash scene."

Another Area 51 project was the stealthy, ramjet-powered reconnaissance D-21 drone. One version, called the D-21B, was carried under the wing of a B-52 bomber and launched using a booster rocket. In September 1967, a D-21B was inadvertently launched during what was supposed to be a captive test flight over central Nevada. According to my interviews with military and civilian witnesses, personnel from Area 51 secured the crash site as quickly as possible and members of a cleanup crew walked shoulder-to-shoulder through the debris field, picking up every piece. Witnesses were admonished to forget what they had seen.

An F-117A stealth fighter crashed on a mountain near Bakersfield, California, in July 1986. At the time, it was still an unacknowledged "black" program. The impact site was declared a National Defense Area to prevent entry by unauthorized personnel. Armed guards manned roadblocks at perimeter checkpoints and helicopters patrolled the skies as crews worked for several weeks to clean up the site. Air Force spokesmen refused to identify the aircraft type. Confirmation didn’t come until the existence of the F-117A was announced in November 1988.

With details of these events now declassified, it is possible for civilian researchers to study official correspondence and accident investigation reports, interview civilian and government witnesses, and visit the crash sites to search for debris. Physical evidence retrieved from a crash site can be studied and identified using declassified documents, photos, and even entire airframes on display in museums. The results of such research can serve as baseline data for comparison to UFO crash retrieval stories. In fact, I visited many such crash sites and in every instance found identifiable physical evidence. The sites had not been sanitized. Crash debris can be identified through analysis of materials, construction methods, part numbers and inspection stamps, and by finding recognizable components.

I would expect UFOlogists to embrace this information since they have always been told that the government cleans up every trace of debris at top-secret crash sites. Apparently, that is not the case.

Physical evidence can confirm or disconfirm the validity of claims about any alleged crash retrieval incident. As pioneering forensic scientist Edmond Locard (1877-1966) once wrote, “Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it can diminish its value.”



a reply to: one4all




posted on Jul, 6 2019 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Badams

I have an opinion. My theory is based on the thought exercise of UFO's being flown here from alien worlds and piloted by intelligent beings...

Imagine, if you will, that you are from another world, one with a different atmosphere, gravity and air pressure to earth. Whether you come on a mothership or traverse the galaxy on your own steam, flying on earth would be very different to flying in the vacuum of space or on another planet, perhaps those crashed are piloted by first timers or at least less experienced beings, we've all got to start somewhere after all...



posted on Jul, 6 2019 @ 01:43 PM
link   
The ufonauts would not take a chance with their starships coming here to earth...unless they knew that their craft were impervious to any weaknesses; like having a chance of being shot down, captured or having any technical or mechanical difficulties occur that would make them crash.
edit on 6-7-2019 by Erno86 because: added a word



posted on Jul, 6 2019 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shadowhawk
How about physical evidence? It's one thing to debate the likelihood of extraterrestrial visitation on Earth, or whether an advanced craft would be prone to malfunction after crossing interstellar space. The real issue, in my opinion, is people's willingness to believe such things occur without any physical evidence whatsoever.

Alleged incidents of government UFO crash retrievals include the "big ones" like Roswell, Aztec, or Kecksburg but some people believe there have been more than 70 such events. So, where is the proof? I propose that we should examine alleged UFO crashes through an entirely different lens than has been applied thus far.

I have noticed that many UFO crash retrieval stories share common elements:

- The incident and recovery of debris allegedly had the highest level of security classification (similar to a special access “black” project).

- The unknown object crashed on public (usually rural) land in relatively close proximity to a civilian population.

- Civilian witnesses were often interrogated and warned by government officials to forget what they saw.

- The crash site was secured and controlled by government personnel for as long as deemed necessary to conduct recovery operations.

- Cleanup of crash debris was given top priority.

While overall details differ, all UFO crash retrieval stories seem to end the same way. A government cleanup crew – either comprised of common soldiers or elite special forces – sanitizes the crash site, removing every trace of debris. Civilian UFO investigators are therefore left with no hope of finding physical evidence at the scene. Is such a thing possible or even probable? Could the government sanitize a crash site?

I argue that government response in the wake of a crash involving a top-secret aircraft (such as those flown from Area 51, for example) would be virtually indistinguishable from the response to a UFO crash. National security concerns would dictate a need to prevent classified materials from falling into the hands of civilians or foreign intelligence agents. In fact, descriptions of secret airplane crashes are virtually indistinguishable from UFO crash retrieval stories and tend to include all or most of the elements described above.

When an A-12 spy plane being operated from Area 51 crashed near Wendover, Utah, in May 1963, the CIA deflected public and media scrutiny with a cover story that an ordinary F-105 fighter jet had crashed. Declassified documents indicate that security at the time was paramount and cleanup was top priority, even superseding the accident investigation. People who were involved with the cleanup told me that they sanitized the site - even a formerly secret document claimed "all traces were removed from the crash scene."

Another Area 51 project was the stealthy, ramjet-powered reconnaissance D-21 drone. One version, called the D-21B, was carried under the wing of a B-52 bomber and launched using a booster rocket. In September 1967, a D-21B was inadvertently launched during what was supposed to be a captive test flight over central Nevada. According to my interviews with military and civilian witnesses, personnel from Area 51 secured the crash site as quickly as possible and members of a cleanup crew walked shoulder-to-shoulder through the debris field, picking up every piece. Witnesses were admonished to forget what they had seen.

An F-117A stealth fighter crashed on a mountain near Bakersfield, California, in July 1986. At the time, it was still an unacknowledged "black" program. The impact site was declared a National Defense Area to prevent entry by unauthorized personnel. Armed guards manned roadblocks at perimeter checkpoints and helicopters patrolled the skies as crews worked for several weeks to clean up the site. Air Force spokesmen refused to identify the aircraft type. Confirmation didn’t come until the existence of the F-117A was announced in November 1988.

With details of these events now declassified, it is possible for civilian researchers to study official correspondence and accident investigation reports, interview civilian and government witnesses, and visit the crash sites to search for debris. Physical evidence retrieved from a crash site can be studied and identified using declassified documents, photos, and even entire airframes on display in museums. The results of such research can serve as baseline data for comparison to UFO crash retrieval stories. In fact, I visited many such crash sites and in every instance found identifiable physical evidence. The sites had not been sanitized. Crash debris can be identified through analysis of materials, construction methods, part numbers and inspection stamps, and by finding recognizable components.

I would expect UFOlogists to embrace this information since they have always been told that the government cleans up every trace of debris at top-secret crash sites. Apparently, that is not the case.

Physical evidence can confirm or disconfirm the validity of claims about any alleged crash retrieval incident. As pioneering forensic scientist Edmond Locard (1877-1966) once wrote, “Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it can diminish its value.”



a reply to: one4all


Yes , you are providing excellent examples of reverse-extrapolation...this is the correct methodology.

There are serious connected ramifications to doing this type of research.They are personal level ramifications.No one can seek and discover the truth and maintain faith confidence and trust in their own Governbment and Civic representatives once this ball begins rolling.There have simply been so many lies of such great magnitude told over so many different tenures by so many different Groups that one single individual cannot make the Journey to truth alone they MUST be a part of a group to ensure they remain grounded and do not get picked off by TPTB.Many people are out here trying to follow the most expedient productive investigative method they can manage...when a Professional piece of work like yours comes along its very important to flesh the processes out like you were kind enough to do for everyone,thank you kindly.

The research examples you provided were well constructed and logical and process based which sets an example for others wishing to expand their horizons and seek truths.

I encourage anyone who is considering becoming a Truther to set up a support network of experienced Counter-Intel Professionals who have the resources and experience to ease them into the new reality they will open up for themselves with a 100% certainty. The reality is that NO ONE EVER ANYWHERE can face the truths and not have their entire reality turned upside down and inside out ,there has to be a demarcation point that is concrete and defined so that there is a safe haven to return to should things become to burdensome .

An experienced season Veteran can handle this dynamic because they usually have trade secrets they use to maintain their objectivity and their neutrality.I really enjoyed reading your post,here is another more free-flow intuitive natural way to accomplish the same objectives,listverse.com... special attention to example Number One....Crows.



posted on Jul, 6 2019 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: one4all

I encourage anyone who is considering becoming a Truther...





I'm sorry, but who wakes up one morning and decides, "I wanna be a Truther"?

Is this a USA thang? Don't such decisions occur organically, as in gradually during the course of natural interest and gathering knowledge?

It's not as easy as waking up one morning and deciding, "I wanna be a dork".



posted on Jul, 6 2019 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit

originally posted by: one4all

I encourage anyone who is considering becoming a Truther...





I'm sorry, but who wakes up one morning and decides, "I wanna be a Truther"?

Is this a USA thang? Don't such decisions occur organically, as in gradually during the course of natural interest and gathering knowledge?

It's not as easy as waking up one morning and deciding, "I wanna be a dork".


People who experience what is known as an inescapable reality become Truthers by proxy.



posted on Jul, 7 2019 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: one4all
This is the reason no one will ever agree on what constitutes valid evidence...."100% of People who drink Water...die.".....EVIDENCE PROVES that......get it......evidence proves that 100% of People who drink Water die so should you drink Water or should you refuse to drink Water to save your own life.
We have to trust each other over and above empirical evidence.It is that simple...then TPTB are disenfranchised.


I agree with you here. In the age of advanced CGI/deep fake videos (which are only getting better) you soon will have zero distinction between reality and VR to the casual (or even more advanced) viewer.

This is why someone who has something to lose by disclosure has to say ETs/UAPs are a thing. Outfits that fall in that category to me are:
- DOD.
- The Vatican (or another major world religion).
- Aerospace or Airline Executive
- CEO of a major energy company (XOM/BP/CHV/etc.)
- Former NASA Astronaut or NASA Chief (well known).

And their disclosure can't be in Fed Reserve speak (say a lot while saying nothing). They need to say "Yes, they exist, the craft are real, they are 100% here and this is the impact we see from this...." That's disclosure.

In regards to a crash... Murphy's Law is a thing. I'm not saying they have crashed but to say it's impossible for that to happen is probably far fetched. Think of it this way - lets say that something crashed in Roswell and that something was the first in it's class of a new type of star ship (or whatever you want to call it) and this was it's maiden voyage/mission after testing... anything ever gone wrong with the first model year of something?


Lastly, it keeps being said that these craft don't have flight controls and they are controlled by the occupants.... what if this has nothing to do with mechanical failure but rather flight crew physical failure? I suspect if a plane has no pilots and the auto pilot isn't engaged it might not fly as well/as intended for very long...

So the crash may have nothing to do with "mechanical" failure but rather a very much less technical explanation - the pilots had a medical problem and down she went....

edit on 7-7-2019 by EnigmaChaser because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: one4all

You do know that the "Apollo 20 mission" was an April Fool's Day hoax, don't you?

That mission patch from the video latin translation: "Your grandsons (descendants) will gather your apples".

Doh!




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join