It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Roswell Proof: Where is it?

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:08 PM
Maybe is out of topic but at this moment (is 11 o'clock ET) TLC is showing a documentary about Roswell. I hope you guys that might be interested are going to read this post in time.

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Telos
Maybe is out of topic but at this moment (is 11 o'clock ET) TLC is showing a documentary about Roswell. I hope you guys that might be interested are going to read this post in time.

thanks, telos will watch.

posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 12:13 AM
For those who appreciate the artistic, this is a photo of the Roswell Debris Field
PAINTING by ELMORE, copy 1/1000, displayed near the exit of the Roswell
UFO museum.

posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 02:49 AM
Whoa I forgot about this thread.

Originally posted by Access Denied

Originally posted by Schaden
I believe Roswell was most likely a real alien/UFO event. I'm firm believer in a high level organized conspiracy to withold the truth about aliens/UFOs. I am not someone prone to flights of fancy.

Originally posted by Access Denied
There's an old saying that if it sounds too good to be true it probably isn't. The Air Force/U.S. government *is* withholding some classified information about UFOs and *possibly* ETs but I can assure you it has nothing to do with Roswell and it's being done for good reason... National Security.

I believe in a government of, by and for the people.
Frankly I do not trust whoever is making the decisions regarding ET/UFO disclosure.
I cannot take your assurance regarding Roswell. I'm sure the current Air Force brass knows nothing of Roswell. It's probably an extremely small number of people in Washington who are officially briefed into the matter.

But I kept an open mind and just started reading about it on my own time. After reading a couple dozen books, as well as hearing the testimony of some of the disclosure project witnesses, like Daniel Sheehan, I came to the realisation about a year ago the truth is being supressed.

Originally posted by Access Denied
One of the biggest reasons why the Disclosure Project failed in my opinion is Dr. Greer made *way* too many assumptions about what was being withheld... starting with Roswell and the whole recovered alien bodies/craft and Area 51/reverse engineering myth that grew out of it. Most rational people and especially those in high-level government positions know it's a myth even if they *do* believe in UFOs. Also, for reasons unknown, Dr. Greer chose to mix in some very good witnesses along with some obviously very bad ones and an anti-space weaponization agenda... it's almost as if he knew it would be doomed from the beginning. Propping up nut cases only makes the case against disclosure stronger.

What Dr. Greer *should* have been asking for is simply whether or not the government has any proof to support the ET hypothesis and left it at that.

(it likely still would have failed but at least it might have got the ball rolling again)

Just to give you an example, Dr. Greer's "INTEL" on the facility I work at is hysterically inaccurate. A simple phone call from any of the Congressional members Dr. Greer approached who didn't know what was going on would have cleared that up... and no doubt did... that's why it's no surprise to me it failed.

I agree. Dr. Greer's conduct and lack of healthy skepticism with all of the witnesses is detrimental to disclosure. He does appear to have other agendas besides getting the the govt to spill the beans.

If you look objectively at everything, there is ample evidence to support an abductive conclusion, in all likelihood, aliens/UFO encounters are real.

Originally posted by Access Denied
I disagree... in my experience the deeper you dig into abduction cases the more problems you will find... not to mention there's logically no plausible reason for them to be occurring in the first place.

Sorry if I was unclear. I didn't specifically mean abduction cases.
By abductive conclusion, I was talking about logical reasoning through abduction.

(A form of nondeductive inference, also called “inference to the best explanation” in which a hypothesis is supported on the ground that it is the best explanation for some observed phenomenon.)

With close encounters of the 1st and 2nd kind, I think it's perfectly rational based on the evidence, to believe some UFOs are alien space vehicles. I'm hesitant to believe any details beyond that point.
I think abductions are in the realm of possibility, but I'd guess 99% of the reports are flat out hoaxes or have psychological explanations. When polled something like 10% of the population will tell you they've been abducted. I'm more skeptical towards abduction cases than just about any other UFO phenemenon.

I believe it's impossible to deny events have occurred that have no other rational explanation i.e. Rendlesham Forest. There are too many extremely credible witnesses to dismiss as nutcases, like Admiral Lord Hill Norton or FAA Division Chief John Callahan.

Originally posted by Access Denied
Now that I do agree with! But note the most credible witnesses aren't talking about alien abductions... they're simply talking about UFOs.

Again I'm referring to cases where the best explanation is an encounter with alien technology/UFOs. It's entirely possible some people have seen or interacted with actual EBE. But these encounters must be far more rare than legitimate UFO/alien technology sightings. Abductions are far more likely to have "normal" explanations.

When VP Dick Cheney was asked if he was briefed about the UFO phenemenon, he gave the evasive answer, "If I had been briefed, it would be classified".

Originally posted by Access Denied
That's just standard plausible deniability procedure. He's telling you the truth. The first rule of secrecy is to not let anybody know you have one for sure... best to keep them guessing

I see it differently. When I was briefed into above top secret information, the instructions and regulations I was taught were to completely deny knowledge of anything. Cannot confirm nor deny is not an acceptable answer to someone inquiring about unacknowleged SAP/SCI information. It's still an evasive answer. When asked Hey Schaden, does your ship have nuclear weapons ? I was instructed to say "The Navy does not confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on any specific ship." Saying you cannot confirm or deny, sort of implies you know what's going on but you're not allowed to say. By saying you don't know anything about whatever it is, is a more straightforward answer, even if deceptive. If he was really playing his cards against his chest he would have joked about it. Like it was a ridiculous question. It just stuck me as odd that he would even admit that UFO topics would be a classified subject, instead of denying any knowledge of them completely.

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Schaden]

posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 02:56 AM
Hmm, I'm starting to think this forum is being used to promote government belief systems

posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 09:08 AM
There was (yet another) decent Roswell special on TLC last night (anyone else see it?) which basically went through the whole story, and included both believers and skeptics. The conclusion, essentially, is why would the vast amount of eye witnesses (including those in the military that were there, and admitted that it was a cover up) be lying? Answer: they're not.

posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 10:29 AM
No matter what details anyone cares to pick at, we've still got one basic problem with the Mogul explanation.

1. NO other Mogul balloon recovery (presuming for the moment that's what one believes Roswell to be) BEFORE or SINCE ever involved a military cordon (independently verified by numerous witnesses) or top secret rushed flights to Air Materiel Command (verified by numerous witnesses and the press, and of course photographic evidence of Marcel in Dallas).

I'm sorry, but there is simply NO way one can honestly believe that a recovery of tin foil and balsa wood radar targets would EVER get to this level of urgency.... No matter how much one tries to defend the Mogul explanation, there is NO getting around this one basic point.

NUMEROUS trained military officers, generals included, would NOT go through such motions for the recovery of Mogul debris. Remember, there was NOTHING classified about the Mogul materials. They were all off the shelf, so to speak. Only the MISSION of Mogul was there would be no rush or urgency in recovering such debris (just as there was no such rush before or since with the project).

posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok

I'm sorry, but there is simply NO way one can honestly believe that a recovery of tin foil and balsa wood radar targets would EVER get to this level of urgency.... No matter how much one tries to defend the Mogul explanation, there is NO getting around this one basic point.

Or this fact could vouch for the other hypothesis that everything is made up by the goverment (trying to veil a random balloon crash as a flying saucer)for unknown purposes. I mean this could be seen as an attempt to ignite the bigest hoax in human history by creating a imaginary alien entity and later on a alien threat. It could be the best cover ever for secret project or clandestine operation and blac budget...

Just my two cents guys.

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Access Denied
Cheney may say some controversial things but I don’t think this is one of them... I think it’s safe to say the “secret” is still safe with him.

God knows Cheney of all people can keep a secret.
Hasn't come across it since he's been back in govt, so nothing in the last 4 months ?
I wonder about when he was SECDEF ?

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 07:44 PM

Now, on the other hand if disclosure is about expecting the Government to have all the UFO answers knowing they quit investigating the phenomena nearly 40 years ago for arguably good reason from their appropriately narrow (unless of course you’re a fan of “big” government) perspective… all I can say is good luck with that.

And you know this for a fact how? Because they shut down BlueBook?
Gads your reachin dude. Oh wait it's cause Cheney hasn't been briefed. Like he hasn't got enough on his plate what with the Iraq fiasco and the continuity of the Kingdom of Bush.
There is absolutely no way of knowing whether the USG is involved in UFO investigations unless you happen to have access to all departments within the 3 branches.
Stick with Mogul if you wish even though there is no evidence to support it. Me, I call it unsolved. And the AA film isn't part of it since Mac never mentioned bodies.
Go ahead hit me on the head with your evidence.

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 10:43 PM
My turn to provoke a few questions.

"How many rawin devices you DON’T see on this balloon cluster” == skyeagle

I am far more interested in the CLOUDS in that picture. Wonder why that one was launched ? Clouds = no launch ?

"Just my two cents guys." == Telos

Your two cents may have far more worth than you think. I am VERY interested to hear you expand on that opinion/idea.

"If I were to judge this debate, I would say both sides have done a good job bringing up various details that have not been discussed before,
and has been an interesting read. But if I were to declare a winner at this point, I would say that Access Denied has presented the stronger case." == Hal9000

And up until that point in time, I agree. BTW, Hal, I extracted that from one of the most thoughtful posts I have ever seen from you. It is
a tribute to Access Denied as well, as he held his own against some really heavy hitters, almost single handed. Despite lost_shaman's hint
about throwing bones, I did encourage him a bit but did not add any strong volley's to his. I was enjoying his own efforts very much.
That is until Access Denied reverted to the typical Ufology "heard it from a friend" act. If others can be called on it, so can he.
Overall, the character assination attacks were semi-polite, misguided knee jerks, and fairly well balanced on both sides, but as always,
will detract from the good read here. I also believe that given the serious "involvement" of this group, a bit more can be accomplished in here.
(Thanks for comming back in Gaz, your spark along with a splash of gasoline might enlighten us all next. And if Telos is really playing with black
powder, this could get fun real fast.)

And lost_shaman, you wasted a golden comment in the wrong forum (NSF thing). It belongs in HERE.

"To be fair you can find people on both sides of the fence willing to ignore facts to support their beliefs, however those people do not negate the
competent arguments made by those on both sides who are focused on the facts." == lost shaman

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:03 PM
I find it sort of unusual how people can regard the Roswell, New Mexico incident as something other than a crashed extraterrestrial vehicle. The very fact that a flying saucer or disk came out as story from the crash and not anything else, is enough to raise every level of suspicion. In every crash, you don't get "flying saucer" coming out of it, but for some reason this crash unusually gets that label.

On top of that, the government never held constant with its story of what exactly crashed there or what happened. Weather balloons and high altitude dummy parachute tests? Come on, IIRC the dummy tests didn't start til after Roswell happened.

With the notion of extreme suspicion from what crashed there, you get Project Blue Book coming out of the wood work and then the government going through a great deal of trouble to cover up the actualy UFO sightings that were occuring, to downplay it all.

But that's just the face value of it, deep research can reveal what you need, but due to unfortunate misinformation, it's sort of hard to decipher what's truth and false, but you can start making correlations between this and that to get the truth.

Corso's book "Day After Roswell" is an interesting book, I agree with his views on the technology explosions that happened from the recovery of what crashed there just because that's what the book is primarily based on, everything surrounding it is primary disinfo in my opinion.

Eitherway, I feel an extraterrestrial craft crashed there. To dismiss it is to lack the search for truth through valid reasoning.

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:08 PM
So AD now you want us to believe the testimony of some MAC Captain who was doin the backstroke at the local pool as proof nothing happened?

As for the "urgency" and "top secret (they weren’t) rushed flights (there was only one)" what would you do if you were General Roger Ramey, Commander of the 8th Army Air Force, and saw a newspaper article (remember there is no record of an official press release from the military) claiming your elite nuclear bomber wing at Roswell AAFB recovered a "flying saucer"?

Maybe you just want us to think the news agencies just made up the official release.
Yeah I can see em all sittin around on a slow news day(maybe doin the backstroke).
C'mon guy. You're spinnin in circles on a flat tire.

Masisoar- Corsos claims have no basis in fact. There is zero evidence to back up his claims re: alien tech. Many folk have investigated it and found no links.
I'm just sayin.

[edit on 9/4/06 by longhaircowboy]

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 08:54 PM
Gee AD Ya got me wait...maybe he scheduled it in advance and dang if it didn't just happen to occurr at the same time. Coincidence(ever heard of that).
Yer plowin a field that aint fertile. You can quote Captains in pools and Generals on vacation all day and guess what? Nada.
You wanna claim the news release was fiction then prove it. Just who did the AP and UP quote if they didn't get an official press release from Roswell? You sayin they made it up? C'mon.

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 11:27 PM
"Let me guess… he was AWOL?" == Access Denied

My guess is he had an appointment with Govenor Mabry in Santa Fe on 9 July 1947.

The July/Aug 1994 issue of the International UFO Reporter contains an article by Kevin Randle which
sites documents showing that Lt Col Payne Jennings took command of RAAF Base on 8 July 1947.

There are multiple documents that indicate where and when Col Blanchard was during his "leave".


Page one of the July 18 RAAF Base Newspaper (Lt Walter Haut's job).

In the book "Roswell in Perspective", Karl Pflock reports possession of an AP article published in the July
10, 1947 Albuquerque Journal identifying the start of Col Blanchard's leave.

July 15 1947 edition of Albuquerque Journal, story of Govenor's office proclaiming Air Force Day indicates Col
Blanchard and Oliver Lafarge were present at the signing ceremony.

Page one of the July 25 RAAF Base Newspaper contains a photo of the signing ceremony.

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 01:43 PM

Originally posted by nightwing

The July/Aug 1994 issue of the International UFO Reporter contains an article by Kevin Randle which
sites documents showing that Lt Col Payne Jennings took command of RAAF Base on 8 July 1947.

Yes that's an interesting article. Randle also points out that the order for Col. Blanchards leave was issued on July 6th 1947 and was not pre-planned, and Randle argues this shows prior knowledge of the events unfolding from Higher Headquarters.

I've made a similar argument based on the Circleville and South Bloomfield News paper Articles about RAWIN Targets as "Disks" on July 6th and July 8th , downwind from Wright Patterson.

Randle also brings up the fact that as of 1:30 pm on July 8 Col. Blanchard was still on Base acting as Commander.

When a Leave is not a Leave: Col. Blanchard and the Roswell Timeline by Kevin D. Randle

Another thing to consider is that on the afternoon of July 8 Deputy Base Commander Lt. Col. Payne Jennings was on the plane that accompanied Maj. Marcel to Ft. Worth.

[edit on 5-9-2006 by lost_shaman]

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:13 PM

Why do you insist on making Apples out of Oranges?

Look at what you've quoted. Here is an excerpt , "after the official weather balloon line was established."

Now this is key because the "official weather balloon line" was associated with Alamogordo and NYU Watson Laboratories AMC from day One July 9 1947 ( See July 10th Edition of the Alamogordo News, Front Page )

So you've highlighted this to make your point . " "Well, we sure shot ourselves in the foot with that balloon fiasco. It was just something from a project at Alamogordo, and some of the guys were here on our base later, too. Anyway, it's done and over with." - Haut

And then this statement you highlighted. " So we have Haut saying this before it was known that it was a NYU Project balloon Alamogordo! "

So do you see how baseless and false this last statement of opinion is ? The official line was that it was a balloon from Alamogordo from July 9th 1947 and Haut remembered Col. Blanchard repeat the official line.

Then again I've warned you about using an obviously biased source for your information.

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Access Denied

What is your point?

My point was that you highlighted a statement of opinion that was baseless.

"This is several years before the Project MOGUL explanation was found by UFOlogists and the AF. So we have Haut saying this before it was known that it was a NYU Project balloon Alamogordo!"

It's baseless because the Air Force official line by the morning of July 9th 1947 was that the "Weather Balloon" and "RAWIN" target came from the NYU Watson Laboratories under AMC at Alamogordo.

From the July 10th edition of Alamogordo News ,

" The corner reflectors being periodically released for this purpose, he explained, and had been for the past fifteen months from this local headquarters of the AMC under the Watson Laboratories group, who have headquarters at Red Bank, New Jersey.

Major Pritchard and his fellow officers, Major C. M. Mangum, Captain L. H. Dyvad and Lt. S. W. Seigel, he explained, "had not realized that our balloon and corner reflector radar experimental device was in any way related to the widely-discussed "flying disc" observed over the nation until reading news dispatches on Thursday."

The major said, "after reading the detailed description on the recovery of one of our reflectors, or a similar one from another base, we suddenly became aware of the possibility."

"We do not use the device here for weather observation," the major said, "but for training of men and experimental purposes," and he further explained the general use of the radar equipment at the base was tracking of rockets fired from smaller base at White Sands Proving Ground.

Some of the balloons, of the type shown to the Alamogordo News representatives Wednesday, the commanding officer said, were used to carry at times devices that it was necessary for the group to recover and these were tracked to their destination by B-17's and other aircraft if they soared out of range of the radar equipment. The radar had been successful, he explained, up to 40 miles, while some of the balloon-towed groups have gone as far as Colorado.

So as you can see from the article you get all the information except the Top Secret Code Name "MOGUL" and it's Top Secret objective. So the statement you highlighted means nothing. The statement by Haut about what he remembered Col. Blanchard saying only shows that Col. Blanchard was repeating the line the AAF gave to the Press and that Haut has a sharp memory.

Interesting here that Major Pritchard states his awareness arose after reading about a "recovery" on another base on Thursday? The interview took place on Wednesday July 9th and was printed Thursday July 10th , this would mean that Thursday would be July 3rd.

This is important because either Major Pritchard is lying to the press or the idea that "MOGUL" and "RAWIN Targets" were responsible for the recovery of "Flying Disc's" predates Mack Brazel walking into Sheriff Wilcox's office by several day's.

[edit on 6-9-2006 by lost_shaman]

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 02:43 AM
"...Haut has a sharp memory." == lost shaman

Which time, which interview, which testimony ?

"...or the idea that "MOGUL" and "RAWIN Targets" were responsible for the recovery of "Flying Disc's"
predates Mack Brazel walking into Sheriff Wilcox's office by several day's." == lost shaman

You got something here, with photo evidence (Ohio) as well, but WHAT do you have ? Thats the real question.

"1. NO other Mogul balloon recovery (presuming for the moment that's what one believes Roswell to be)
BEFORE or SINCE ever involved a military cordon (independently verified by numerous witnesses)" == Gazrok

Do you realize, Gaz, that you have provided the spark for a selective legal proof for the Roswell Myth ?

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Access Denied

Where did you get “NYU” from (highlighted in bold) that YOU inserted next to Watson Labs? Watson Labs is not NYU. The connection to NYU and MOGUL wasn’t made until 1992 by Robert Todd and later by the AF itself.

Watson Labs at Red Bank NJ is responsible for MOGUL. NYU is simply under contract from Watson Labs. The organizational structure of Watson Laboratories Applied Propagation Subdivision, was established primarily for MOGUL. ( See Synopsis of Balloon Research Findings - 1st Lt James McAndrew )

In 1946, Project Mogul was given a top-secret classification with the highest priority. Based at the Air Force Watson Laboratories In Red Bank, NJ, the project hired many prominent scientists and academic in institutions to develop the gear. Dr. Ewing and Columbia University, where he had moved, were involved in developing low-frequency sensors. Dr. Athelstan F. Spilhaus, a prominent meteorologist at New York University, was in charge of developing high-altitude balloons that would stay at a constant height.

The article you quoted says NOTHING about NYU personnel who were doing the TOP SECRET work.

That's right Maj. Prichard wasn't being quite truthful with the press when he claimed it was his men in the Photo who were launching the Balloons.

No doubt few if any military or Watson Labs personnel at Alamogordo (and certainly not Roswell!) knew what the NYU personnel were REALLY up to at the time. This much is clear from the article you quoted.

How is that clear?

From the photo accompanying the article you can see the use of multiple RAWIN Targets. ( Supposedly this was a technique only used by C. B. Moore.)

Of course the use of B-17's and other air craft to track Balloons is only employed for the MOGUL Balloons. And the reference to "Balloon-towed groups" that ended up in Colorado is certainly a reference to a MOGUL balloon Train.

Above all Major Pritchard was the Watson Labs project officer at Alamogordo and was fully privy to MOGUL and coordinated efforts with Dr. Crary.

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in