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 Roswell UFO Crash

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Hi. I'm a new member here. I have a deep interest in the paranormal, especially ufos and extraterrestrials. I have a question concerning the roswell crash.

I have this book called "Guide to the Unexplained" by Joel Levy and the entire book is about paranormal and supernatural phenomena ranging from mental powers, to ghosts, to Stonehenge, to Extraterrestrials.

In the chapter about extratterestrials the author states that the most probable explaination for the crash is that it was indeed a weatherballoon as the airforce stated and that the "UFO story is too full of holes and totally unsupported by hard evidence."

Is that true? That is the first I've heard that. I was always under the impression that the roswell crash was among the best for evidence, anecdotal and objective. Could this be the author's possible bias toward the subject? Or is what he is saying really true?

I like to keep an open and imaginative mind when it comes to the paranormal, and I do believe many paranormal things, but I like to come to rational conclusions. Is the roswell crash story really full of holes and unsupported by hard evidence?

I would like your opinions and any evidence you might have.

ps. Does Clifford Stone's book talk about the "57 different alien species" that he talks breifly about in the disclosure video? I'm thinking of buying it.

[edit on 6-8-2005 by DaTerminator]




posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Mr. Levy contends that top military personnel, and all other witnesses involved failed to identify tin foil, balsa wood, and neoprene balloons? Sure, buy that if you wish, or look here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and examine the evidence yourself. See what conclusions you come to.
Warning: it's quite a read. The link above is to the first thread of the series. The series continues on through the link at the bottom of the post.



Is that true? That is the first I've heard that. I was always under the impression that the roswell crash was among the best for evidence, anecdotal and objective. Could this be the author's possible bias toward the subject? Or is what he is saying really true?


It is. We've got the military's own announcement of the capture of a disc (official press release), high-ranking military witnesses (from Sergeants, Lieutenants, Intel Officers, Generals, etc.), a clear trail of events (that of course easily show this was no mere balloon retrieval), and numerous townspeople involved in the incident with corraborating stories.

It's obvious the author failed to adequetely research it, but not surprising, when making an obvious cash grab book lightly touching on sensational topics, just to make a buck, without even spending an iota of time investigating the subjects. The UFO field is rife with false witnesses (even in the best cases), and unscrupulous authors and researchers, as well as false contactees (see Adamski, Meier, etc.). The key to understanding is to eventually be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.


[edit on 6-8-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   


Mr. Levy contends that top military personnel, and all other witnesses involved failed to identify tin foil, balsa wood, and neoprene balloons?Sure, buy that if you wish, or look here:


No, I don't buy it. That's why I created this thread was to verify it's accuracy. Mr. Levy professes to have written a factual, objective-to-evidence book but I'm wondering whether that is actually true because his writting seems to tell me that he is prone to believing or critizing certain paranormal subjects.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Check the link, and let me know if there's anything I can clear up on it...


EDIT: Oops, wrong link, clearing it up now....

[edit on 6-8-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I looked at the link, very nice finds.
So just to get this straight, you believe that what crashed at Roswell was extraterrestrial? That's what I believe.

So do you think that Joe Levy is biased in his views?

Is there any other evidence besides the eyewitness testimony and newspaper articles? Like is there something in the museum at Roswell?



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Check the corrected link, as it will probably take a couple hours to go through those posts, hehe....

Levy is either biased, or simply didn't investigate it.

Evidence, no physical evidence, but there is an impressive paper trail, and we're talking serious witnesses here, not just the average Joe. Also, the documented events are completely inconsistent with the recovery of a Mogul balloon.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I have recently heard from skeptics that the lack of an impact crater is evidence against a craft. I think there must be an answer for this. You seem to have an understanding of the Roswell crash, what is your response?



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Remember there were two crash sites. (supported by numerous witnesses, the locations of the military cordons, and even the Ramey memo).

The Brazel site appears to have been a touchdown where the craft skidded, leaving a debris field, but not the craft. The gouge is still somewhat visible today, but was moreso back then (over 50 years ago)..after the event.

The craft recovery site is more in dispute, but given the suggestion that it first skidded, and then crashed, there is no need for an impact crater of any real size...no more than a terrestrial plane crash requires an impact crater.

I know you haven't had time to read all of those sections yet...
Have you checked the revised link? I know it's long, but hopefully worth the read....



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
No I think you miss understood me. I agree with you. I don't believe that the roswell crash was a weatherballoon, commen sense will tell you that. I do believe that the crash was possibly extraterrestrial in origin. I have read the revised link and consider your articles quite convincing. Right now I am just asking you certain questions to get a more direct answer.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
No problem. I can see you don't disagree. Even if you did, all the better. The evidence presents itself...
Happy to clarify. There's a lot I gained from research that may not have made it into the posts, as they were already damn lengthy, hehe.....and I just didn't fit it in....



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join