Roswell Proof: Where is it?

Originally posted by Access Denied

However Kaufmann's BS is still useful as an example of the type of testimony the myth was built on… it’s possible (and I would argue quite likely) his story encouraged others to “jump on the bandwagon”.

How is that?

It's just pure unfounded speculation on your part.

Kaufmann in order to make his lies sound plausible would have had to "copy cat" off of other peoples testimonies.

Just because one person comes around and lies about his involvement does not mean in any way that everyone else did the same.







[edit on 10-9-2006 by lost_shaman]

Originally posted by Access Denied
Nitpicking? Are you serious? And you call yourself a conspiracy theorist??? It’s all about the nitpicking isn't it?!

I wonder where this little outbust came from. I'd like to know what it means that I "call [myself] a conspiracy theorist."

Originally posted by Access Denied
If all the so-called witnesses contradict each other and none of their stories line up what is that proof of? In my book that’s strong evidence that they’re all making it up… or possibly they were simply mistaken about when and what actually happened.

I'm reminded of the same nonsensical nitpicking that goes on in the Kennedy Assassination. Every single doctor, nurse, and Secret Service agent wrong about the location of the President's head wound because of perceived differences between their testimony. Much of it is just nitpicking. There are certainly some lying witnesses but a few inconsistencies between stories is to be expected after many years. You should not throw the baby with the bath water.

Originally posted by Access Denied

Originally posted by maynardsthirdeye
Even if it had been a different plane, does it really matter? Finding problems with trivial things like the type of plane is just nitpicking.

Do it really matter??? Of course it matters!

Let’s say you were on trial for murder and the State’s witness is testifying that they saw you leaving the crime scene in a Cadillac but you drive a Volkswagon… now does “nitpicking” matter to you?

No, it really doesn't matter as it is irrelevant to his actual testimony. It's more like the state witness testifying that the he saw you leave in a Cadillac but couldn't remember what car he left in. Does that impeach the fact that he saw you drive away in a Cadillac?

Originally posted by Access Denied

Originally posted by skyeagle409

Originally posted by Access Denied
Are you saying the manufacturer (Boeing) is wrong and Wikipedia is right? Looks like you're the one who should be more careful about what sources you use.

Boeing lists the gross weight (see post above) as 82,500 lb. Sorry.

I'm not because it doesn't matter. Even the C-141 had variations in gross takeoff weights. The question was, were C-54's capable of operating out of Kirtland AFB and the fact was, they did operate out of Kirtland AFB from time to time and Tim Printy overlooked that fact. All he had to do was to check the history books.

I call BS... if that's a "fact" as you claim then let's see your evidence!

Remember, you just claimed "BS" in front of everyone on this board and now, I am going to show why you are on the wrong side of the fence-of-reality but then again, anyone who sides with Tim Printy is on the wrong side of the fence.

C-141A

aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu...

C-141B

www.marchfield.org...

You can't change the fact that C-54s are bigger and a LOT heavier then B-17s.

What does that have to do with it since the C-54 has a larger wing area and more powerful engines than the B-17? Please explain for all of us here why you think a larger aircraft makes any difference?

I've seen a C-5 at minimun operating weight, which it much larger than a C-54, takeoff in less distance than a fully loaded C-54. Once again, I suggest that you don't use Tim Printy as a reference because he has serious problems with credibility as far as UFOs are concerned.

Originally posted by Access Denied

[However Kaufmann's BS is still useful as an example of the type of testimony the myth was built on…

The Roswell incident is no myth! The idea of a myth was concocted by closed-minded skeptics who failed to do their homework properly. After all, the government cover-up on the Roswell incident is still active to this very day and the Air Force's 1994 and 1997 Roswell Reports have bit the dust.

members.aol.com...

Smith may have flown to Kirtland but not in 1947. A C-54 could not land at Kirtland during this time period because the runway was too small!

Skyeagle409 : The question was, were C-54's capable of operating out of Kirtland AFB and the fact was, they did operate out of Kirtland AFB from time to time and Tim Printy overlooked that fact. All he had to do was to check the history books.

Access Denied : I call BS... if that's a "fact" as you claim then let's see your evidence!

You can't change the fact that C-54s are bigger and a LOT heavier then B-17s.

Looks like Skyeagle409 is correct. All Tim Printy had to do was check the history books on this one.

nuclearweaponarchive.org...

The first U-235 projectile component was completed at Los Alamos on June 15, 1945. Casting of the U-235 projectile for Little Boy was completed on July 3. On July 14 Little Boy bomb units, accompanied by the U-235 projectile, were shipped out of San Francisco. They were picked up by the USS Indianapolis (CA-35) at the U.S. Navy's Hunter's Point shipyard at San Francisco on July 16, bound for Tinian Island in the Mariana Islands. On July 24 the last component for Little Boy, the U-235 target insert, was completed and was tested the next day. The Indianapolis delivered Little Boy bomb units, and the U-235 projectile to Tinian on July 26. On the same day the target assembly, divided into three parts flew out of Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque on three C-54 transport planes, which arrived July 28 at Tinian.

[edit on 10-9-2006 by lost_shaman]

Originally posted by Access Denied

Originally posted by maynardsthirdeye

Originally posted by Access Denied

Nitpicking? Are you serious? And you call yourself a conspiracy theorist??? It’s all about the nitpicking isn't it?!

I wonder where this little outbust came from. I'd like to know what it means that I "call [myself] a conspiracy theorist."

Outburst? Them's jokes.

You should not throw the baby with the bath water.

Normally I would agree but in this case I'm afraid the baby was stillborn 60 years ago.

Originally posted by maynardsthirdeye

Originally posted by Access Denied

Let’s say you were on trial for murder and the State’s witness is testifying that they saw you leaving the crime scene in a Cadillac but you drive a Volkswagon… now does “nitpicking” matter to you?

No, it really doesn't matter as it is irrelevant to his actual testimony. It's more like the state witness testifying that the he saw you leave in a Cadillac but couldn't remember what car he left in. Does that impeach the fact that he saw you drive away in a Cadillac?

Sorry but you lost me there. I suggest you hire a lawyer if you ever find yourself on trial for murder.

Thank you for that sound legal advice. I'm saying that the car you were driving to the murder scene is irrelevant to the type of car that the suspect drove.

Originally posted by Access Denied

Thanks LS but the call was for skyeagle to provide the evidence which he didn't do (he chose to tap dance around it instead) and he was wrong about the weight of a C-54 so my opinion of Printy's work remains unchanged.

I don't get what your saying here. Your opinion of Printy's work is unchanged because skyeagle409 got the weight of a C-54 wrong?

Originally posted by Access Denied


as long as we’re speculating here and given that anything could be made to happen for the Manhattan Project, it’s possible they cleared a special runway in the desert just for this mission and then covered up all traces of it after.

I'm not speculating about this you are.




[edit on 10-9-2006 by lost_shaman]

Originally posted by Access Denied

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Looks like Skyeagle409 is correct. All Tim Printy had to do was check the history books on this one.

Thanks LS but the call was for skyeagle to provide the evidence which he didn't do (he chose to tap dance around it instead) and he was wrong about the weight of a C-54 so my opinion of Printy's work remains unchanged.

Wrong?? How many different models of the C-54 were built? How many models of the C-141 were built? Note, that each model of the same type of aircraft can have different gross weights such as the C-141A and the C-141B, not to mention NASA's own C-141, which was a modified C-141A and, they had different gross weights.

If you had as much experience in the aviation world as I've had you would have know that. Now, you can change your opinion.

Note that B-29s also flew out of Kirtland AFB, which were much larger than the C-54. As I’ve stated before, all Tim Printy had to do was to check the history books. After this, I am not expecting you to use Tim Printy as a reference again. He is well known for fomenting disinformation and misinformation on the internet and the following is proof.

Facts On Kirtland AFB

“The Fat Man plutonium core, and its initiator, left Kirtland Air Force Base, for Tinian Island on July 26, 1945 in a C-54 transport plane. It arrived on Tinian on July 28. Also on July 28, three specially-modified B-29s flew from Kirtland Field carrying three Fat Man bomb assemblies, including units F-31 and F-32, each encased in an outer ballistic shell.”

B-29 Gross Weight---105,000 pounds.

www.boeing.com...


“The Indianapolis delivered Little Boy bomb units, and the U-235 projectile to Tinian on July 26. On the same day the target assembly, divided into three parts flew out of Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque on three C-54 transport planes, which arrived July 28 at Tinian.

nuclearweaponarchive.org...






[edit on 10-9-2006 by skyeagle409]

"I am going to show why you are on the wrong side of the fence-of-reality but then again, anyone who sides with Tim Printy is on the wrong side of
the fence. " == Skyeagle

Another opinion. Everybody's got one. It would be nice if you can show us your reality. Here is a look at mine.
Quote:
"Commanding Officer, USS Honolulu (SSN 718) requests the pleasure of your
company at the Retirement Ceremony of Senior Chief Electronics Technician (Submarines)
Timothy Printy on Thursday the twenty-second of June at one o'clock, Bowfin Museum,
Pearl Harbor."

"May I suggest that you don't use Robert Todd as a reference either. He is just as bad at not doing his homework properly anymore than Tim Printy." == Skyeagle

At least we know who Access Denied is referencing. Its a fact we can further research to determine the validity of your suggestion. Would be nice to know
who you are using for the same determination. I have found Robert Todd to be one of the best, factual researchers in Ufology. And I would trust Tim Printy
to watch my back anyday. So far, I have seen nothing from you to compare at all to these two. On page 8 of this discussion I tried to show you a problem
you have with facts. I will quote it again.

"I take a very simple thing which can be factualized, dangle it for you, you jump on it, I show you how it is a FACT in the fullest sense of the word, and still
you CANNOT accept it. Until you can learn to accept what facts are out there, just like other ufologists, you are helping perpetuate the myths. "

"The Roswell incident is no myth! The idea of a myth was concocted by closed-minded skeptics who failed to do their homework properly. After all, the
government cover-up on the Roswell incident is still active to this very day and the Air Force's 1994 and 1997 Roswell Reports have bit the dust." == Skyeagle

Meets all the definitions I have seen. Same for the perfect government cover up. NO PROOF, handed down by word of mouth, (testimony), to claim otherwise
requires PROOF. This thread is very aptly titled. ROSWELL IS A MYTH and will remain so without proof.

"All the Air Force had to do was to go here to get the facts. Note the balloon trains in the photos and also, note the dates." == Skyeagle

Nope. Your linked website did not EXIST until Sep 28, 2002. When the Air Force was doing their report, only Mosiac existed as a visual
browser, no netscape, no internet explorer, no firefox et al. Most folks had little if any access to the internet outside of university towns.
web.archive.org...*/www.roswellproof.homestead.com...

"If you had as much experience in the aviation world as I've had you would have know that. Now, you can change your opinion." == Skyeagle
"Operating altitude: 10,000 feet "== Boeing specs.
Altitude at Albuquerque/Kirtland approximately 5000 ft. Source:
www.cabq.gov...
Care to guess the average altitude of the Sacrementos between Kirtland and RAAF, Roswell? Or hazard more speculation as to why or why not a C-54
would fly between the two. Perhaps your experiance in aviation can be shared with us here ?

So, let’s do a recap

Loading Freight
members.aol.com...

“Smith may have flown to Kirtland but not in 1947. A C-54 could not land at Kirtland during this time period because the runway was too small!”

The Manhattan Project Heritage Preservation Association, Inc.


“On July 26th, two ATC C-54 cargo planes left Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque with Fat Man’s initiator and plutonium core... The next day, three B-29s departed Albuquerque each with a Fat-Man high-explosive preassembly... The C-54s arrived July 28th and the B-29s arrived August 2.”

“On July 28th and 29th the balance of the active material for the Little Boy and the active material pit components for the Fat Man were delivered to Tinian as the only cargo on three ATC C-54 airplanes that had flown the materials from Albuquerque.”

Case-Closed on Tim Printy’s false claim.





[edit on 11-9-2006 by skyeagle409]

Originally in 1928 what is now Kirtland AFB was built as a private venture with a 5,300 ft. runway and a smaller 4,000 ft. runway.

Acquired by the Military , it became a B-17 "Flying Fortress" training Base in 1941. And trained B-29 "Super Fortress" crews beginning in February 1945.

www.kirtland.af.mil...

sky eagle--If you had as much experience in the aviation world as I've had you would have know that.

If you’re such an expert then please explain this statement of yours…

Originally posted by skyeagle409
The normal operating weight of a C-54 (Loaded weight: 62,000 lb) was less than the gross weight of a B-17 and a C-54 was quite capable of operating from Kirtland AFB with no problem since aircraft normally don't always takeoff at gross weight anyway.

Easy! Not all C-54s had the same power plants and there were models that had higher gross weights than others.

“The C-54A 77 of which were built in Santa Monica and 117 at a new factory at Orange Place, Chicago, appeared in January 1943, featuring 33 bucket seats for troops, a large cargo door, stronger floor, cargo boom hoist and slightly larger wing tanks. The last increased total fuel capacity to 3,734 US gal 14134 liters) and gross weight rose to 68,000 lb (30844 kg), allowing a payload of 9,000 lb (4082 kg) to be carried for over 3,000 miles (4828 km).”

“A need to carry larger loads over shorter sectors led to the development of the C-54B, in which two of the fuselage tanks were deleted in favor of a 499-US gal (1889-liter) integral tank in each outer wing panel. Gross weight rose again, to 73,000 lb (33112 kg), and up to 49 troops or 36 casualty litters could be accommodated. C-54B production totalled 89 at Santa Monica and 100 at Chicago.”

www.berlinairlift.com...


C-54A

www.hill.af.mil...

aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu...

aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu...


VC-54N

www.aero-web.org...


VC-54C

www.nationalmuseum.af.mil...


Different Models of the C-54

www.berlinairlift.com...



[edit on 11-9-2006 by skyeagle409]

quote]Originally posted by nightwing
"I am going to show why you are on the wrong side of the fence-of-reality but then again, anyone who sides with Tim Printy is on the wrong side of
the fence. " == Skyeagle

Another opinion. Everybody's got one. It would be nice if you can show us your reality. Here is a look at mine.
Quote:
"Commanding Officer, USS Honolulu (SSN 718) requests the pleasure of your
company at the Retirement Ceremony of Senior Chief Electronics Technician (Submarines)
Timothy Printy on Thursday the twenty-second of June at one o'clock, Bowfin Museum,
Pearl Harbor."

Is that suppose to add credibility to Tim Printy's false claims on the Roswell incident??? I don't think so!!! He still claims that a Mogul balloon train was responsible for the Roswell incident and had he done his homework, he would have found that Project Mogul balloon train #4 was cancelled due to clouds and never flown and that according to A.P. Crary's Mogul balloon record. All Tim Printy had to do was to check the flight data records on Project Mogul. He should have taken a hint that there were no flight data records for Mogul balloon train #4 yet he has spread false information concerning that non-existent flight.

"May I suggest that you don't use Robert Todd as a reference either. He is just as bad at not doing his homework properly anymore than Tim Printy." == Skyeagle

At least we know who Access Denied is referencing.

And, the person whose website he has been accessing has serious credibility problems when it comes to the Roswell incident.

Its a fact we can further research to determine the validity of your suggestion. Would be nice to know

I have provided some very important and viable links that support my claims and dismiss the claims of Tim Printy.

I have found Robert Todd to be one of the best, factual researchers in Ufology. And I would trust Tim Printy

I find that amusing! Ask Tim Printy and Robert Todd what is their evidence that a Mogul balloon train #4 was responsible for the Roswell incident. Ask them and then post their evidence here for all to see and I will post factual information to prove beyond any doubt why no Mogul balloon train #4 ever flew, that balloon train hence could not have been responsible for the Roswell incident.. I have dealt with Robert Todd years before I found that Tim Printy was posting false information on the internet.

Originally posted by nightwing

>>>"All the Air Force had to do was to go here to get the facts. Note the balloon trains in the photos and also, note the dates." == Skyeagle>"If you had as much experience in the aviation world as I've had you would have know that. Now, you can change your opinion." == Skyeagle

Originally posted by Access Denied
Turns out Tim made a mistake when he quoted Pflock and he's now updated his web page to correct this and added some further clarification...

Tim Printy has made many mistakes and that is just one of many. Just goes to show just how sloppy Tim Printy's research really is.

Just wanted to post this just in case.

"The establishment of such activities at Kirtland was considered ideal because of its proximity to Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and to Sandia Base, where the Department of Defense had established the Armed Forces Special Weapons Command to direct military employment of the new weapons to be built."

I now consider the case of Robert Smith, "case-closed!"


Hope I didn't step on any toes but there was this issue that had to be cleared up.




[edit on 11-9-2006 by skyeagle409]

Access Denied,

So now all you have to do is e-mail Tim Printy back and let him know that DC-4/C-54's routinely operated from existing 5,000 ft runway's. And that the 4,950 ft strip at Los Alamos would have been adequate for C-54's.

Contractors: Douglas Aircraft Co.

Manufactured at : Santa Monica, Calif., and Chicago, Ill.

First flight : March 26, 1942

First Flight Location: Clover Field, Calif.

www.afa.org...

Clover Field ( renamed Santa Monica Municipal Airport ) runway length : 4973 ft.

flightaware.com...

"Elimentary My Dear Watson". - Sherlock Holmes

[edit on 12-9-2006 by lost_shaman]

Originally posted by Access Denied
When I was a kid I used to hang out on the flight line after school and harass the pilots.

Now, I can tell my follow pilots who it was that was harrassing them.

In the early years, our C-141s flew into Kirtland AFB to pick up reservist for weekend duty in California. Other bases on the list to pick up reservist on that trip were Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona and Hill AFB, Utah, which was my former base after I left Phan Rang, Vietnam in 1968.

Well, Skyeagle, compliments for the C-54 research. I can now see where you are getting a few of your statements.
But did you read your own references and links ?
Lets see, I quoted Access Denied's boeing thing as "Operating altitude = 10000 ft."

From your kind references, I have found this:

quote:
"An unpressurized airliner, the C–54 military type appeared in many variants."

My point exactly. And why. This is from the crash of an airliner version over the Rockies
near Medicine Bow Peak.

Selected quote:
"There is also the fact that the visibility was 40 miles that morning and it is evident that the clouds covering the mountains
could have been seen from a considerable distance. To cross the mountains over Medicine Bow Peak safely, an altitude
of approximately 14,000' would be necessary. Such and altitude an its attendant passenger discomfort in a nonpressurized
aircraft would normally be avoided."

Source:
coloradowreckchasing.tripod.com...

Originally posted by nightwing
Well, Skyeagle, compliments for the C-54 research. I can now see where you are getting a few of your statements.
But did you read your own references and links ?
Lets see, I quoted Access Denied's boeing thing as "Operating altitude = 10000 ft."

From your kind references, I have found this:

quote:
"An unpressurized airliner, the C–54 military type appeared in many variants."

My point exactly. And why. This is from the crash of an airliner version over the Rockies
near Medicine Bow Peak.

Selected quote:
"There is also the fact that the visibility was 40 miles that morning and it is evident that the clouds covering the mountains
could have been seen from a considerable distance. To cross the mountains over Medicine Bow Peak safely, an altitude
of approximately 14,000' would be necessary. Such and altitude an its attendant passenger discomfort in a nonpressurized
aircraft would normally be avoided."

Source:
coloradowreckchasing.tripod.com...

What is the typical cruising altitude? Could it be 15,000 feet? That is typical in general terms and that altitude is far below the C-54's normal service ceiling. Once again, what is the service ceiling? Did you know that some C-54's were fitting for flights for the "over-the-hump" operations at over 20,000 feet? The unpressurized B-17s flew missions of 28,000 feet and remember, the B-17 had huge cutouts on both sides of the fuselage for the waist guns.

B-17 Mission to Schweinfurt
1943

We soon were climbing out and formed up at 28,000 feet.

www.magweb.com...


I also wanted to add that little unpressurized Cessna's have no problem navigating through the Rocky Mountains.

www.luftfahrtmuseum.com...





[edit on 13-9-2006 by skyeagle409]