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.

 

CNN mentions PJ's UFO special upset a lot of people

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Big Grin. I was wondering when you would come in. Given the U2U discussions we have had,
I knew you could not resist. And I thank you for those as they helped to remind me how strong
the Pro bias is. I had forgotten. I will address your points because as I noted from your U2U's,
you have a way of expressing things better than I even when you do not realize you are actually
arguing my case for me.

"Nightwing ,

What are you talking about?

Are you talking about Roswell, or Ufology?" == lost shaman

Both and Hal9000's Peter Jennings commentary as well. Its all in the mix. I would say that Roswell
is at least and probably more than half of UFOlogy just by counting published books in UFOlogy.
The sentence just above is an example of testimony (mine) which YOU can actually go and measure.
The result of the measurement (Ufo Books versus the percentage covering Roswell) would be
EVIDENCE to corroborate or refute MY testimony.

"For one thing there is no reason at all to redefine what we consider evidence!" == lost

There is every reason to do so. Read carefully what you just said. Outstanding ! The public
understanding of evidence is a topic all by itself but is driven by the legal understanding. Once
you understand evidence in a manner that conveys legal meaning and practice it, you cross
the bias bridge into the public domain. The majority of folks on the other side will not cross
over to your side, ergo, the legal system nor our methods of science will not cross over here.
Until you go over there, you stand out like a sore thumb. Just because you understand a thing in a certain way
does not mean the rest of the world should change their systems. It means you have to learn to
convey your understanding USING the existing, established systems. Or perhaps you enjoy
being considered a little strange by the majority ?

"Another thing, UFOs and UFO research , became a big deal , in spite of Roswell , not because of Roswell , which was largely forgotten for thirty years! " ==lost

Gazrok would disagree with the last part of that sentence I think. I believe that UFOlogy came into the public eye on the basis of Roswell and I believe I can
give you a date when that happened. On Feb 21, 1978, Stanton Friedman was in Baton Rouge, La after giving a lecture on UFOs and interviewed a man over
the phone that said that he had handled the wreckage of a crashed spaceship. Friedman found it difficult to get excited about this story ( Crash at Corona, page 12)
but did a little checking. This was difficult because Jesse Marcel, the man who made the claim, couldn’t remember either the month or even the year of the event.
It was one year later, Feb 10, 1979, that William Moore found the clippings of the affair referred to by Jesse Marcel, and his and Friedman’s interest suddenly became very active.
Modern UFOlogy was born because the US Military was directly involved. Real, but confusing EVIDENCE. (The clippings were evidence to corroborate Marcel's
testimony of Govt. involvement.)

"On the other hand Ufology , does have something real to study , when you consider thousands of people are seeing and being affected by something as of yet unexplained" == lost

As usual, you make my point for me and brilliantly. UFOlogy does indeed have something real to study, but they dont know how. Instead they spin it like you did after the second comma.
Replace all after the comma with "when you consider thousands of testimonies." That is what you have to learn how to study. Its ALL you got to work with.

"SETI hasn't found anything yet" == lost

Wanna bet ? SETI may be credited with detection of perhaps the most powerful radio source in the Galaxy. When the article comes out, I will be most
happy to forward you a link. Seek and ye shall find.........something.




posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Not that I agree with you nightwing, but that was an excellent post.



You have voted nightwing for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Your skeptical approach is a good example of how to disagree, instead of the typical response of "Prove it". I wish I had more time to cover your points, as they are interesting, but I'm at work right now.

I just want to say that in general, there is more than just testimony which supports Roswell and many other cases. What about government documents and photos? This combined with testimony is pretty compelling.



"SETI hasn't found anything yet" == lost

Wanna bet ? SETI may be credited with detection of perhaps the most powerful radio source in the Galaxy. When the article comes out, I will be most happy to forward you a link.

Sounds like you have an inside connection or you are affiliated with SETI? I would also be interested in this article, but I'm sure it will show up here, when it comes out.

Regards.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
UFOlogy was WELL in the public eye, prior to the Roswell revelations...

For example, Project Blue Book's entire span of existence was prior to this, and (according to many notable persons in the heirarchy of it, such as Hyneck, Ruppelt, etc.) a complete effort to whitewash the subject and get it OUT of the public mindset....and all way before Stan.



Well, the SETI guys split so keenly from UFOlogists that, as they are being recognized by science, UFOlogy is treating them as the enemy. They turned their own line of inquiry into a recognized science. A recognized system. UFOlogists cannot do this because they have nothing scientific to seek or study.


I certainly don't view SETI as the enemy. Indeed, I applaud their efforts. What other way can we get to the truth completely independent of military or government confirmation? They can't keep the signals from being detected.... I am firmly in support of SETI.



Such is my statement of purpose now back to
the understanding of evidence and testimony and proof (which doesnt exist in court) and hearsay and now the Jury, which is the most important
concept of all.)


I've never claimed "proof", nor have any other UFOlogists I'm aware of. But "evidence", absolutely...and some of it is compelling evidence, some of it is flimsy... However, again, there is other "evidence" other than testimony. Official documents, paper trails, etc. for example. In the Roswell case for example, the documentation of the flights is a matter of record in the media and the military. It's the process of taking all of this evidence, comparing it to each other to see corraboration, and throwing out bad evidence, that is UFOlogy. People can discount the effort if they want to, but the odds are strongly in our favor that we are not alone, and just as we've headed out to the stars, no doubt others have to. The evidence of visitation has been throughout the centuries, and in the end, we'll all see who has the last laugh. May not even be in my lifetime, but you know what, that's not really the important thing....


The Jury is the most important part, as you said. So, we can all present our evidence, and let the Jury, the people...decide for themselves. I'm sure we can at least agree on THAT point...



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 03:20 AM
link   
"The Jury is the most important part, as you said. So, we can all present our evidence, and let the Jury, the people...decide for themselves.
I'm sure we can at least agree on THAT point" == Gaz

I hope so. The Jury can easily be any member of this forum, or perhaps the whole of ATS, etc... The Jury is not necessarily trained in Law
but is "instructed" specifically in the Law that they must use during their deliberations. The Jury is also instructed as to how they must
"weigh" testimony and "examine" evidence to decide if the "State" or other enforcement agency has shown beyond a reasonable doubt
(not beyond any doubt, which is "Proof") that the defendant is guilty of the Counts against him/her.

"It is then left up to the judge and jury to decide if the "evidence" is enough to convict or throw out. " == mpeake

To quote my favorite crash dummies, Vince and Larry, "its misconception mania today". The Judge is the sole chairman of
the proceedings and is tasked to only allow the Jury to hear and see what is allowed by Rule of Law. This is to insure the
proceedings are fair and consistant from one trial to another and that "hearsay" is not considered by the Jury, to include
sequestration if needed to prevent such exposure by the news or other media.

The Jury is tasked to follow the Law as instructed by the Judge both before and after proceedings, and IS THE SOLE
AUTHORITY to determine the Guilt or Innocience of the defendant. To be Guilty, ALL jurors must be unaminous.
A single juror is capable of swaying the Jury to acquittal, or causing a "hung" Jury which is the same result.
Once the Jury renders the verdict, they are released and it is the job of the judge to impose sentence by Law according
to the decision of the Jury, or otherwise dismiss the case.

And my primary argument to all of you is that without a legal understanding of the key words of the courts to the point of the Jury entering
deliberations (no training, just legal instructions and hopefully common sense), then the use of your own definitions for what
you think you have is pointless, chaotic, and unresolvable. Adopt the true sense of the terms you use and communication with the public
will occur and you have a system that can be used for all within Ufology. Easy to say and difficult to accomplish. Especially
since we have yet to reach a mutual understanding on basic terminology.

(Note for Hal9000. I want to address some of your thoughts next but I am trying to stay on one main topic per post.)


[edit on 12-8-2005 by nightwing]



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   


Adopt the true sense of the terms you use and communication with the public will occur and you have a system that can be used for all within Ufology. Easy to say and difficult to accomplish. Especially since we have yet to reach a mutual understanding on basic terminology.


Pretty much your statement in a nutshell.

From Webster's:

EVIDENCE:

Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: 'e-v&-d&n(t)s, -v&-"den(t)s
Function: noun
1 a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

It is YOU who are picking and choosing chaotic definitions of terms.


Still, we don't NEED to play the legalese game.... Common sense and probability are on UFOlogy's side.

In recent polls, the majority of people believe in intelligent alien life elsewhere (including scientists). A majority also believe that some of that life is visiting us (this is where most scientists differ).

As we've both said, we'll present our EVIDENCE, and then let ATS, and the people, decide for themselves....



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
As has been said, the incident wasn't mentioned for thirty-something years. Not a peep. Not in all the books and articles on UFOs from 1947 to 1977 - I know I started hearing about it quite a long time after I'd first become interested in UFOs in 1974 or 5.

My point is, what if the story that there ever was a story is the hoax? How manipulative would the government have to be to pretend they'd investigated a UFO crash in 1947, whereas all they actually did was create the smokescreen in 1977? Why? Because they could reasonably suggest that the best witnesses were dead and all the really useful information misfiled. Because if we think the government is hiding the terrible truth of UFOs to protect us, maybe one day we'll thank them. Because the Alien Threat keeps people like you and me eminently pre-conditionable. We'll watch any old tripe if it has a flying saucer in it and they can slip any message they like into it. Like, how we should react in a national emergency. Like how we can overcome any enemy, no matter how alien. Of course if we follow Hollywood's blueprint, we're all doomed to slavery...

Have I gone off topic?

Roswell. It never happened, and the newspaper story never happened and the cover up never happened. But they'd like us to think they all did. Tell me I'm wrong, but show me a witness and I'll show you the list of school plays he appeared in as a child.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   


Roswell. It never happened, and the newspaper story never happened and the cover up never happened. But they'd like us to think they all did. Tell me I'm wrong, but show me a witness and I'll show you the list of school plays he appeared in as a child.


You are seriously kidding, right? Please, tell me you are....

Show you a witness? There are dozens...

Nor is the Roswell Record the ONLY paper to carry the story that day...


Not to mention the media coverage the following days, such as in Ft. Worth, in Ramey's office, etc.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 02:53 AM
link   
"Not that I agree with you nightwing, but that was an excellent post." == Hal9000

Nor do I seek agreement. I do not even expect it. But your reaction tells me that somewhere
along the way we are beginning to understand each other. For that, I shall return your honor.
Communication and understanding are not the same thing but related in a similiar fashion as
Testimony and Evidence.

"There were many people upset on the Internet about his (Peter Jennings) UFO special because he said that a shadow government didn't exist. "
Hal9000

Not to start a separate discussion but my reaction to that statement was simply astounding. Inadvertantly, or intentionally, you have given
me your insite into something I try to avoid - politics.

"Also if it were a secret craft or project Mogul, someone would have been tracking it." == Hal9000

From "The Roswell Report: Fact Versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert." == 1st Lt. James McAndrew, USAF, 1995

Radiosondes were a widely used and accurate method of tracking weather balloons consisting of a transmitter, which was carried aloft by the balloon,
and a ground-based receiver/ recorder. Radiosondes, along with aircraft, were to be the primary method to track the Project MOGUL balloons.
Dr. Peoples, however, believed that the radar currently in place at Alamogordo for tracking V-2 firings would be sufficient for tracking the balloons trains.
However, this radar did not work well and often lost contact with the balloon while it was still within visual range.

Laboratory scientists utilized an AN/CRT-1A Sonabuoy while awaiting the delivery of acoustical equipment specifically designed for Project MOGUL.
For the early missions, NYU personnel developing the telemetering equipment experimented with components of the sonabuoy, which was cylindrical,
nearly 3 feet long and 4 3/4 inches wide, and weighing 13 pounds (Atch 4). The sonabuoy contained both the acoustical pickups, known as hydrophones,
and the means of telemetering the sounds by use of a FM transmitter, the T-lB/CRT-1.

"If something had been lost they would have sent more than one person to investigate." == Hal9000

According to my reference above, there was noone at RAAF briefed in on the Mogul program until September, 1947. The briefing was a result of
the Mogul items in the "Ramey" photo. Interesting to me anyways, is that this security stuff was forgotten until a UFO researcher stumbled on it
in 1992. Shortly thereafter, the USAF answered a congressional inquiry using this now remembered data, and for Paul Harvey, page 2,
the rest of the story is that the UFO researcher in question retired after that and is no longer active.
While no physical piece of Mogul was classified, at that time, association of the hydrophones with a baloon launch
from WSPG would have been a serious security violation.

And they did send more than one. (Marcel, Cavitt, and Rickett)


"May he rest in peace." == Hal9000

We are in agreement here.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Oh WOW,

I was so concentrating on a discussion with Hal that I just now saw your post, hidatsa.
Are you a mind reader ? How did you know about one of the generic probabilities I
am stumped over ?

And that last sentence was just classic. Or should I say simply irresistable, for Gazrok anyways.
That means we can talk and his bias wont even allow him to finish reading any of it.

Question one comes from Hal's opening reference link.

Does this statement sound familiar to you ?

"I also thought the show did a great job of showing how scientists feel that UFO believers are establishing a mythology
around their beliefs. The desire to believe overshadows common sense all too often... and this aspect was covered well. " ==quote

OK, I want to see if you are serious.

"but show me a witness and I'll show you the list of school plays he appeared in as a child. " == hidatsa

Lets start with Capt Lorenzo Kent Kimball, 1947, Squadron M, 509th Bomb Group, Roswell Army Air Base.

Meanwhile, in line with your last sentence for Gaz, we need to further clamp his rose colored filters in place.

Gaz,

For the sake of your definition introductions, I shall attempt to mathematically quantify your definition of evidence
as represented by "X". You show testimony to be related in the same definition. Since I agree that testimony may be related but
not the same, lets call it "Y". I suggest they are simply related. X = 2Y ( or some such)
It follows that X/Y = 2 (X divided by Y = 2). But then you insist they are not just related, but one and the same. X = Y.

The problem I and the legal world have is that to agree, I will have to allow the following

x = 2y

x/y = 2

let x = y

Then,

1 = 2

Such is the disarray in UFOlogy. In the absence of a standard with ethics, you have communication without understanding.
You argue over "good" and "bad" evidence (most of which I believe to be Notarized hearsay or worse), what little real
physical evidence you do have is not properly examined , but presented as proof of...(.fill in the blank - whatever you want).

and here is a treasure hunt type clue for you, reference an earlier post.

Evidence of the exclusion of classified information from Mogul DATA is the lack of data for balloons flown in association
with the Sandstone nuclear tests held in April and May of 1948.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   
As an outside observer, it is pretty strange to see where this conversation has gone.


Another thing that seems a little strange is the relative vacuum the 'Roswell' incident is being discussed in...

As to the main topic of ole Peter... I really hate to speak ill of those who have passed... I will settle for a little story.

A student of mine is a hugely creative aspiring artist. This student saw this supposed special and decided to spoof the whole event.

The result was a drawing of a fishtank with the various 'experts' espousing their non-ET believer views as thought bubbles with almost imperceptible shadowy looking aliens peering into fishtank.

Reminds me of your icon Gazrok.


There are a couple of more fish talking to each other about a single fish that seems enamored with its own reflection and the conversation goes something to the effect of who is that fish kissing his own reflection...

The answer is that it is a Peter Jennings fish...

Not bad satire for a 12 year old? Had me...


Hate to burst your bubble gentlemen... but SETI is a big joke. My comments from another thread were something along the line of...

>it's just a funding scam by establishment scientists. Lots of guys, making lots of money, trotting around playing scientist.

>It takes a lot of practice in the mirror getting that special 'I am a scientist looking for ETs' intelligent look...

Go look at the technical specs of the 'search'. It's a laugher!



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing
"There were many people upset on the Internet about his (Peter Jennings) UFO special because he said that a shadow government didn't exist. "
Hal9000

Not to start a separate discussion but my reaction to that statement was simply astounding. Inadvertantly, or intentionally, you have given
me your insite into something I try to avoid - politics.


Not sure what you mean. This was the statement from CC on CNN, not me. I was just surprised that she mentioned it, for a couple of reasons. One, the negative reaction to the special was bigger than I thought, and not just here on ATS. Two, is that the reason (a shadow government didn't exist) wasn't even mentioned here, but could have been elsewhere. Three, is that she was aware of the reaction, which tells me it made behind the scenes news and she had discussed it with others. I was under the presumption that mainstream media types were not interested in this subject.

Not sure how this gives insight into my politics.



"Also if it were a secret craft or project Mogul, someone would have been tracking it." == Hal9000

From "The Roswell Report: Fact Versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert." == 1st Lt. James McAndrew, USAF, 1995

Radiosondes were a widely used and accurate method of tracking weather balloons consisting of a transmitter, which was carried aloft by the balloon,
and a ground-based receiver/ recorder. Radiosondes, along with aircraft, were to be the primary method to track the Project MOGUL balloons.
Dr. Peoples, however, believed that the radar currently in place at Alamogordo for tracking V-2 firings would be sufficient for tracking the balloons trains.
However, this radar did not work well and often lost contact with the balloon while it was still within visual range.


I don't doubt that early tracking of all types were still in their infancy at this time. But when this new technology breaks down, they have to do it the old fashioned way, and calculate where it will go by wind speed and direction, and still have a good idea where the balloon is going. If they have an idea where it is headed and want to retrieve it if it lands, they would send out a notice to other installations (bases) in the path to keep an eye out for it. If they see or hear of anything they should report it. But I would say this request was not sent out due to the low priority reaction to the report of debris in a field.



"If something had been lost they would have sent more than one person to investigate." == Hal9000

According to my reference above, there was noone at RAAF briefed in on the Mogul program until September, 1947.

[trimmed quote]

association of the hydrophones with a baloon launch from WSPG would have been a serious security violation.

And they did send more than one. (Marcel, Cavitt, and Rickett)


First of all, if Mogul had that high of a secret status, that is all the more reason to track it, and retrieve it before someone stumbles across it. Second, you can send out a notice to keep an eye out for a balloon, without mentioning the project name or divulging anything secret. And finally, according to Stanton Friedman in his book "Crash at Corona", Maj. Marcel initially went out with Mac Brazel in his truck to inspect the debris. I don't recall him mentioning others going with them. They drove out to Mac's ranch, stayed overnight then in the morning they inspected the debris. Maj. Marcel decided it was important (due to the nature of the debris no doubt) and they collected some of the debris and took it back to the base. Only then after Marcel showed the debris to others was there any reaction by the military, which was extreme. They cordoned off the area and sent soldiers and equipment and out to the sight to clean it up. General Ramey interrupted a trip to go out there to oversee the operation.

Does this sound like the reaction you would expect to a crashed secret balloon project?



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I would just add that the Ramey memo , is what does it for me.

ufocasebook.com...

" AND THE VICTIMS OF THE WRECK"

If it was a Mogal balloon, who would the victims of the wreck be?

Why would you say that a balloon down in a field is a wreck? The Balloons are designed to come down.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Why does everyone refer to Peter Jennings as "PJ"? You all aren't part of Bohemian Grove are ya?

www.google.com...




posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by magnito_student
Why does everyone refer to Peter Jennings as "PJ"? You all aren't part of Bohemian Grove are ya?

www.google.com...





He said, "trouble yourselves not! Take it easy! The cares of the world are off your shoulders! You’re not supposed to walk that fast." He then gave us two full-color programs. On the cover of the program, they show Moloch, the big owl, with a burning body enflamed beneath it (the program can be viewed at infowars.com). Also a little demon, with the initials PJ was sweeping up someone’s ashes on the lower left-hand corner of the program (which is also on my film, Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove).

www.propagandamatrix.com...

I wasn’t refering to this little demon, nor any nocturnal attire.


[edit on 8/13/2005 by Hal9000]



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   


And they did send more than one. (Marcel, Cavitt, and Rickett)


Yep, and none of that entire Mogul expose' explains how these trained Intel officers (Marcel later being extremely well reviewed), somehow mistook tin foil and balsa wood for something out of the ordinary, now does it? For one to believe the Mogul explanation, you'd have to believe that these officers were unable to identify the debris as part of a testing balloon, when either you or I, untrained, could EASILY do so!!!

Sometimes, common sense is evidence as well....



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 03:28 AM
link   
"I certainly don't view SETI as the enemy. Indeed, I applaud their efforts." = Gaz

I know you do, but.....

Did you notice that a goldminer showed up 7 posts later with a fishing story that ends with
a hit on SETI. Hal's original reference starts doing the same thing along about page 22.

But apology golemina, I meant no offense. And I really do hope that story about the insite
of a 12 year old is true. Your user ID does remind me of something important to throw out.

"I would just add that the Ramey memo , is what does it for me. " == lost

I consider the Ramey memo to be Iron Pyrite.

"If it was a Mogal balloon, who would the victims of the wreck be?" == lost

(I cannot possibly have a better "straight man" for this routine) Let me guess.
Could it be UFOlogists ?

"Why would you say that a balloon down in a field is a wreck? The Balloons are designed to come down".== lost

If I ever did say that I would have to apologize. From Gaz'z references on the USAF stuff, they even say there is
no records of balloon impacts, as even in special cases of civilian damages, such balloon impact reports are retained
for a maximum of five years.

"Sometimes, common sense is evidence as well.... " == Gaz

I cant believe what I am reading. Common sense is what the jury has to use to "weigh" the testimony
and "examine" the evidence. The tools one uses and the work one does with them, while related, are
not the same. Big Grin. Now 2 = 3.

Had a good laugh over magnito student's humor until I read your reply, Hal. Now I am a bit appauled. You are just a bit
too defensive of the "grove" ? (smirk)

On a more serious note, I found your thoughts on Mogul Security are worth another look. So I'm off to see the wizard,
along the yellow brick road.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 04:19 AM
link   
nightwing,

You know I'm down to go a few rounds with you , but you were so off base responding to my first post I don't know what to think!

I thought you fumbled the ball with this,



"Another thing, UFOs and UFO research , became a big deal , in spite of Roswell , not because of Roswell , which was largely forgotten for thirty years! " ==lost

Gazrok would disagree with the last part of that sentence I think. I believe that UFOlogy came into the public eye on the basis of Roswell and I believe I can
give you a date when that happened. On Feb 21, 1978, Stanton Friedman was in Baton Rouge, La after giving a lecture on UFOs and interviewed a man over
the phone that said that he had handled the wreckage of a crashed spaceship.


Your discounting 30 years of Ufology off hand! Remember the Condon Report? 1968? Our U2Us about all that. Now you discount it all!

Like I said first , Ufology found its way in spite of Roswell.

If it was proven without a doubt tomorrow nothing happened at Roswell in '47, Ufology would still be around and as alive as ever. (Maybe not as popular , but just as real as it always has been )



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   


I cant believe what I am reading. Common sense is what the jury has to use to "weigh" the testimony
and "examine" the evidence. The tools one uses and the work one does with them, while related, are
not the same. Big Grin. Now 2 = 3.


Correction, fair enough... Sometimes a logical conclusion, based on common sense, is evidence to be weighed. I would have assumed as much was obvious, but since we're going with semantics, so be it...

Example. Two opposing testimonies...

The USAF says a Mogul balloon was recovered near Roswell.
Marcel and many others say the debris was NOT of a balloon.

FACTS:
Mogul uses balloons and reflectors. The reflectors are made from foil and balsa wood, no exotic or unidentifiable materials...off the shelf stuff.
Mogul materials were NOT classified, only the mission objective was.
Military cordons were established that would cut off access to both of the reputed crash sites.
No unrecovered Mogul launch meets the timeframe for the recovery, as stated by Brazel's testimony, and that of others.
The military's press report indicated they had recovered a flying disc.
Mogul is NOT disc-shaped, nor are any of it's components.
The debris (whether Mogul or UFO) was flown to Wright Field and to Fort Worth.

LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS:
Balloon debris would NOT have impressed Marcel and others as remarkable.
Balloon debris using off the shelf materials would NOT have been flown to AMC with urgency.

POSSIBLE OUTCOMES:

1. Marcel is lying. (despite his service record, peer reviews, and of course, he'd have to get dozens of other witnesses to say the same story).

2. The USAF is lying. (as they have repeatedly regarding this incident, even after Mogul was declassified, WAY before the recent reports by the way).

Does the above prove an extra-terrestrial craft? No. What is does point to, is that either the witnesses or the military is lying. One of these two has a history of official lies (as a matter of record) regarding the case.
Look at the rest of the evidence...the actions of the military, witness testimony (making sure to evalute the strength of each), and the suggested outcome becomes rather obvious. The USAF lied then, and is still doing so....so why? We can rule out a foreign recovery, or this would have easily been put to bed a long time ago. We can rule out a domestic experiment for the same reason. Would have long been declassified. So, what origin are we left with? Does this origin agree with witness testimony?

>>>>Getting back to the post topic, just to reiterate this...

The reason I was upset by Jennings' special was more about journalistic integrity than anything else. He employed a SLEAZY tactic of emphasizing the credentials of the skeptics, while at the same time IGNORING (not even mentioning) the credentials of the UFOlogists (which often easily eclipsed that of the skeptics on the show). For example, Stan Friedman is a PHD Physicist, worked on past classified government projects, etc. One can hardly compare say, Korpff's credentials.... Yet, Jennings instead tried to paint Friedman and other researchers as con-men. The other issue, is espousing an OPINION, "Roswell is a myth", as though it were proven fact. Another SLEAZY journalistic tactic....especially based on the miniscule evidence he presented, and his failure to address other key evidence in the case. He abused the trust of the public to further an OPINION and reported it as fact. Regardless of whether or not you feel Roswell is or is not a "myth", Jennings' actions in this special are shoddy and sleazy journalism, and THAT is what I most took issue with... That, and the fact that he wasn't called on it.....(nor ever will be, now that he's dead.)


[edit on 14-8-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   
>'Did you notice that a goldminer showed up 7 posts later with a fishing story that ends with a hit on SETI. '

Geez Nightwing, those two weren't even related.


One was a tale about how even a 12-year old could see right thru the Jennings special.

The other is me pointing out, as I'm often seen to do, that Emperor Seti in fact has no clothes. I couldn't help but notice Nightwing that you didn't accept my invitation to dance.

>But apology golemina, I meant no offense. And I really do hope that story about the insite of a 12 year old is true. Your user ID does remind me of something important to throw out.

Offense? Nah, it's not in your repertoire Nightwing. Comes off much more like those next two sentences... Amusing.


I was SO hoping that we'd see something approaching a response to Gazrok's structured scenarios and commentary...



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   
"nightwing,

You know I'm down to go a few rounds with you , but you were so off base responding to my first post I don't know what to think!
I thought you fumbled the ball with this.....

Your discounting 30 years of Ufology off hand! Remember the Condon Report? 1968? Our U2Us about all that. Now you discount it all!

Like I said first , Ufology found its way in spite of Roswell.

If it was proven without a doubt tomorrow nothing happened at Roswell in '47, Ufology would still be around and as alive as ever." == lost

I wish you could see just how well you can state an insite, then ignore it in the same breath. I am talking about your last sentence in the above quote.
Do you not see that your insite is very similiar to that of hidatsa in his post above. And I am not discounting it all. We were talking pre-Roswell
stuff where Pre-roswell means Pre-1978. Back in those days, both the Pro and the Con sides understood each other a bit. I am reminded of the story
of the Tower Of Babel, (Genesis 11:1-9) quote: "Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."
And that, my young friend, goes both ways. You are as Pro as Gazrok, yet even you two have disagreements in your thinking. It seems to me that along
about 1978, Marcel and Friedman and Moore came down and confused the language of Ufology that we do not understand one another's speech.
I submit as evidence, this very forum, where I have been attempting to get an agreement with Gazrok as to a common understanding of the terms
we use in Modern, Post 1978 Ufology.

"I was SO hoping that we'd see something approaching a response to Gazrok's structured scenarios and commentary..." ==golemina

Thats kinda where I wanted to go with Gaz playing prosecutor and me playing defense, but without a common understanding we have to
go to plan B. We, all of us in here, become the Jury. As you clearly pointed out, we have been discussing Roswell in a Vacuum. As a Jury,
we have to deliberate it that way as well, with each of us bringing remembered points from court, testimony etc, and using common sense to
deliberate and try to come to a verdict. Thats applicable because in many cases, the Jury members have as unclear an understanding of
court terms as Gazrok has pretended to have.

In order of appearance, we have

Hal9000, Gazrok, Vegemite, DaTerminator, mpeake, nightwing,
dgtempe, truthmagnet, lost shaman, hidatsa, golemina, magnito student

Interesting. Precisely twelve.

Although we could use a couple of alternates for Jury selection, 12 is good.

First order of business is to select a Foreman.

Since this is Hal9000's original topic, I nominate him to be Foreman.

But the Jury must decide by votes. You folks game for a "Reality Forum" ?



new topics




 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join