Roswell Proof: Where is it?

Originally posted by Access Denied

Nah, I’m sure somebody can explain it to you.

By the way here’s some additional information Tim provided…

According to Pflock's book "Roswell in Perspective" P. 74:

"However, a crate that size would not fit through a C-54's cargo doors and the airstrip at Los Alamos was still under construction in July 1947 (and when completed two months later was too short for a C-54) [61].”

Note 61 reads:

“Smith as cited in note 60 above. When the Los Alamos airport began operations on September 1, 1947, it was nothing more than an unlighted 4950-foot dirt airstrip with a tar paper shack for a terminal; at its elevation of 7150 feet, the strip was far too short for a C-54 (James Rickman Office of Public Affairs, Los Alamos National Laboratory; Klass, Philip J. "Roswell UFO Coverups and Credulity," Sketpical Inquirer Fall 1991 p.73).”

This same statement appears in his book: "Roswell: Inconvenient Facts and the Will To Believe" P. 106. a decade later.

Are you saying that because Pflock wrote it in his book , a 4,950 ft. runway would be way too short for a C-54 to use?

Nevermind the Fact that Douglas AC Co. built and flew 500+ C-54's from Santa Monica Ca. from a 4,973 ft. runway.

Originally posted by Access Denied

lost_shaman : Are you saying that because Pflock wrote it in his book , a 4,950 ft. runway would be way too short for a C-54 to use?

No I didn’t say that and neither did Tim Printy or Pflock… in case you missed it was the Public Affairs office at Los Alamos that did!

It isn't a matter of who said what in Historical revision, it's a matter of which source of information has the greatest value.

Remember what nightwing said , it's all about "flying in formation". So either you can produce a source and I can challenge it or produce another source of my own or your just blabbering non-sense.

Oh come on lost_shaman, surely you're not that ignorant of basic combustion engine performance principals are you? You know all that boring stuff they tried to teach you in high school shop class about air density and all that stuff? If so (and I suspect you're not) then you truly have no business arguing about technical issues with likes of someone like say James Oberg's caliber now do you?

Of course I'm not ignorant!

That's why I'm having the discussion with Oberg.

( Noticed that you just edited the "Jim , did you get my e-mail ... call me" line out of your post. )

Remember what skyeagle409 posted and nightwing made a point to address ?

"Operating altitude: 10,000 feet "== Boeing specs.





[edit on 14-9-2006 by lost_shaman]

AD,

Why is it that we've told you repeatedly that no one uses www.roswellfiles.com as reference and yet you repeatedly use it.

You do realize that the website is only a snap shot of old arguments made by people on an old website right?

Those same people have continuously made new arguments over the last 8 years or so and www.roswellfiles.com is completely out of date and irrelevant to the current Roswell discussion.

As far as references go Printy is only a Tertiary Source of information as he admits to only addressing the opinions of other Authors. So go ahead and have this epiphany sooner rather than later o.k.

Access Denied : I'll check back in tomorrow to see if anyone's explained to you the difference between a C-54 taking off and landing on a 5,000 ft. long runway at sea level (0 ft.) and a 5,000 ft. long runway at an altitude of 7,000 ft.

Like I said earlier, your "flying out of formation" here. Either you can fact check and source your own information or you can't. Period. Asking others to explain it is considered a cop out.

Your the one making the argument and either you can explain it yourself to me and others or source information that backs up what your saying. The burden is on you not me to verify information your currently using to make your argument.

Once you source your own information and or explain it yourself then , I'll refute it , accept it , or offer my own counter argument with sources.

No Mogul balloon train #4 was ever launched and even if it were, … well, take a look.


An Engineer Looks at the Project Mogul Hypothesis
by Robert A. Galganski

Clearly, Project Mogul Flight 4 could not have been responsible for the debris found on the Foster ranch. Indeed, the analysis illustrates in a most compelling fashion just how absurd the Air Force’s Mogul hypothesis really is.

More:

www.think-aboutit.com...



[edit on 14-9-2006 by skyeagle409]

quote: Originally posted by Access Denied

(yeah I know… send in the flames... but before you do... has anybody bothered to ask how your "hero" Schiff feels about all this now?)

Well, let’s take a look.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the 1994 Air Force Roswell Report #1.

Washington Times,
GAO Turns to Alien Trurf in Probe

“Generally, I’m a skeptic on UFOs and alien beings, but ther are indications from the run-around that I got that whatever it was, it wasn’t a balloon. Apparently, it’s another government cover-up,

Steven Schiff, (R, N.M.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The last point which I can’t repeat too often enough is the “Roswell Incident” ceased to be anything of interest to anyone 60 years ago… that is until it was “resurrected” 30 years later by a less than credible man named Jesse Marcel aided by a very clever IMO master manipulator named Stanton Friedman.

Once again, the following is just another very good reason to avoid Tim Printy’s website. He lacks the real facts. Check it out and check the photo and the date listed. Just proves that Tim Printy was WRONG again!!! But, I have always known that!

External Source

roswellproof.homestead.com...

I have noted many other similar errors as well on Tim Printy's website.




[edit on 14-9-2006 by skyeagle409]

Originally posted by Access Denied

As discussed earlier in this thread repeatedly no copy of an OFFICIAL press release has ever been found... see my earlier post re: Press Officer Lt. Walter Haut’s testimony… he can’t remember exactly what he was told to say and it didn’t seem that important to him at the time!

About Lt. Walter Haut

“He told me, that on July 8, 1947, Col. William Blanchard, the base commander dictated information about a recovered flying saucer and ordered Haut to issue it. He implied the story was designed to take the heat off the recovery of a UFO. That a weather balloon cover story would follow his release. Walter was convinced an alien craft had crashed but too many people knew about it.”

“The Roswell Daily Record newspaper ran a bold headline July 9, 1947: "RAAF Captures Flying Saucer on Ranch in Roswell Region. The same day, a statement was released saying it was only a weather balloon. "I guess they changed their mind," Haut told The Associated Press in 1997.”

“Haut said he never was told exactly where the flying disc reported in his news release was found nor did he, himself, ever see a UFO. But he remained a believer.”

"There must have been something in the skies at that time," he said. "There's just too much evidence."

www.freenewmexican.com...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lt. Haut’s AFFIDAVIT

My name is Walter Haut.
My address is: [-------BLACKED OUT-------]

I am retired.

In July 1947, I was stationed at the Roswell Army Air base, serving as the base Public Information Officer.

At approximately 9:30 AM on July 8, I received a call from Col. William Blanchard, the base commander, who said he had in his possession a flying saucer or parts thereof. He said it came from a ranch northwest of Roswell, and that the base Intelligence Officer, Major Jesse Marcel, was going to fly the material to Fort Worth.

Col. Blanchard told me to write a news release about the operation and to deliver it to both newspapers and the two radio stations in Roswell. He felt that he wanted the local media to have the first opportunity to have the story. I went first to KGFL, then to KSWS, then to the *Daily Record* and finally to the *Morning Dispatch*.

The next day, I read in the newspaper that General Roger Ramey in Fort Worth has said the object was a weather balloon.

I believe Col. Blanchard saw the material, because he sounded positive about what the material was. There is no chance that he would have mistaken it for a weather balloon. Neither is there any chance that Major Marcel would have been mistaken.

In 1980, Jesse Marcel told me that the material photographed in Gen. Ramey's office was not the material he had recovered.

I am convinced that the material recovered was some type of craft from outer space.

I have not been paid nor given anything of value to make this statement, and it is the truth to the best of my recollection.

/s/ Walter G. Haut
Signature witnessed by: 5-14-93 Max Littell. /s/ (Date)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roswell News Report

“The next afternoon, July 8, Col. Blanchard issued an official USAAF press release from Roswell reporting that a "flying disk" had been found "sometime last week" by a local rancher and that it had been recovered by the Intelligence Office at the base for transfer to "higher headquarters". United Press also reported that residents near the ranch saw "a strange blue light several days ago about 3 a.m."

www.crystalinks.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mod Edit = added 'ex' tags



[edit on 15-9-2006 by masqua]

Originally posted by Access Denied

Oh really? That's funny I don't seem to remember that. Show me where you told me this repeatedly. And who's "we"?

I said something about it on page 14.

Now there's a claim you're going to have to back up. Prove it.

From Roswellfiles.com .

roswellfiles.com...

The idea for Roswell Files was spawned by the countless threads The Roswell Incident has caused in Usenet Newsgroups such as alt.alien.visitors, alt.alien.research and sci.skeptic.

So there you have countless threads written by countless unnamed authors from years ago rolled into the "Webmasters" personal take on them.

Of course the site doesn't refer us to any of these countless unnamed discussions so that we can review them. We're left simply to accept the 'cherry picked" quotes from different Authors and the "Webmasters" emotional and skeptical appeals.

Are you saying Marcel didn’t lie about his military career and pilot experience?

Did I say that?

P.S. You still haven’t made an attempt to answer the question posed by my thought experiment. Until you demonstrate a basic understanding of physics there’s no way you would be able to understand a detailed theoretical explanation as to why a 5,000 ft. dirt runway at an elevation of 7,000 ft. that didn’t exist at Los Almos in July 1947 is insufficient for a C-54 to take off and land from. Sorry but the ball is now in your court my friend.

I didn't volunteer to be part of any "thought experiment".

I don't have to demonstrate anything. Either you can fact check your own argument or you can not. It's that simple.





[edit on 16-9-2006 by lost_shaman]

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
You must be joking. I honestly hope that isn't the extent of your research.

Thankfull, we have people on this board who have already done extensive research, complete with a host of documents, eyewitness statements amongst the many things provided as evidence that Roswell was indeed a UFO crash.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that these people are like avatars dragged out infrequently to diss a story so that new people around here can be confused. Also it ties up resources and people's energy and time so that nothing more productive can be achieved. If this person was such an expert of Roswell then why did they not examine everything on the site and find that there is proof of a crash landing. Also person would understand the HUGH overbearing reasons why this story was LOCKED DOWN and thus any proof would be scant and subject to ridicule by PAID EMPLOYEES of the government. Hmmm now that I'm on to the subject of employees..

The many stories of Lt Haut

source
www.roswellfiles.com...

In a July, 1990 video-taped interview with Haut conducted by Fred Whiting for the Fund for UFO Research, Whiting asked Haut if he
could remember Col. Blanchard ever mentioning the "flying saucer" matter after the official weather balloon line was established. Haut
replied that he did, at a staff meeting a week or two later. He recalled Blanchard opening the meeting with a comment something like this:
"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."

NOTE: 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!

Originally posted by nightwing

www.roswellfiles.com...

NOTE: 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!

Already been over this. As seen in the July 9th Edition on the Front Page of the Alamogordo News , Col. Pritchard suggested that "His" Watson Labs balloons were responsible for "Disc recovery" stories and he knew about that since July 3rd!

In other words the official Air Force story ( as of July 9th 1947 ) was that it wasn't exactly a weather balloon , but a Watson Laboratories project out of Alamogordo. Thus Haut simply reliably remembers Col. Blanchard repeating the same story the press got at the time.

( See my above post about Roswellfiles.com . )





[edit on 16-9-2006 by lost_shaman]

Originally posted by Access Denied

So in other words you don't know how to use Google to search Usenet? Here's how...

groups.google.com...

It's all there in black and white (ASCII text only actually

).

I know how to use Google. It's all about the fundamentals. I am not required to "Google" and "Fact check" any one's argument except my own. I don't have to "Google" and verify anything you use for your argument.

If you cite the opinion of the "Webmaster"@roswellfiles.com and that "Webmaster" doesn't cite his source , then your only citing an opinion or Tertiary source at best.

Our own discussions here are considered Tertiary Sources , so another Tertiary Source does not have any greater value than my own opinion.

The link I posted was in regards to Marcel’s claims that have been proven to be false. The only way it could be “irrelevant to the current Roswell discussion” is if that’s no longer true.

Well that's possible , but until you refer to Primary Sources that historically support what your saying no one can take you seriously.

I’ll give you a break on this one since you apparently didn’t comprehend the implication of what you said.

Don't you wish that was the case?

That’s not the point. The point was you either understand basic physics and could easily answer the question or you don’t and (here’s the double blind part of the experiment I didn’t tell you about for control purposes) you’d try to talk your way out of it.

No AD the point is that I don't have to answer to you , I asked you if you can "fact check" the argument you were making and you have not done that yet.

It's a fact that C-54's operated routinely from 5,000 ft. runway's. Your arguing that 5,000 ft. isn't enough at 7,000 ft elevation. The burden of proof is on you to prove that 5,000 ft of runway is to short at 7,000 ft elevation.

If you can't evidence the argument your making , then you simply believe the argument your making.

First of all it’s not my argument. You’re the one who doubted the source without any way to back it up. Secondly, the explanation is actually complicated so I doubt you could understand it even if I did (as demonstrated above) so what’s the point in me wasting my time arguing about basic science with someone who’s apparently scientifically illiterate? If you’re not scientifically illiterate then you would already the know answer which you don’t otherwise why would you doubt it?

Is it not true that your source , Printy , was shown to have been wrong by misreading Pflock and now we discover that it was an argument from Pflock all along only after having shown Printy was wrong?

Needless to say you still refuse to "fact check" Pflock's information and question why "I" would doubt it ?

It simply makes you a "believer" unless you "fact check" your own argument.

Originally posted by nightwing
NOTE: 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!

Project Mogul records show that Mogul balloon train #4, which the skeptics attributed to the Roswell incident, was cancelled and never flown and that is why there are no flight records for balloon train #4. There are flight records for Mogul balloon flight #5 and others afterwards, but none for Mogul balloon #4 because its flight was cancelled. That ballloon flight was not only cancelled on June 4, but also cancelled on June 3 due to clouds.

Originally posted by skyeagle409
[------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the 1994 Air Force Roswell Report #1.

Washington Post
GAO Turns to Alien Trurf in Probe

“Generally, I’m a skeptic on UFOs and alien beings, but ther are indications from the run-around that I got that whatever it was, it wasn’t a balloon. Apparently, it’s another government cover-up,

Steven Schiff, (R, N.M.)

www.gl.iit.edu...

----------------------------------------------------------------------




[edit on 16-9-2006 by skyeagle409]

Originally posted by Access Denied



This figure by convention is given at sea level at a standard temperature and humidity. For the sake of argument, given the same temperature and humidity at a runway at an elevation of 7,000 ft. and all else being equal (e.g. actual weight, state of engine tune, etc.) it would take (an extremely conservative) 6,000 ft. of runway to take off according to the graph and information I presented earlier. Cleary a 5,000 ft. long runway is inadequate in this case. Now the runway in question is also not paved so we probably need to double this figure again to 12,000 ft. to be on the safe side.

Now do you see why it’s impossible or are you still not getting it and questioning the credibility of the statement made by the Los Alamos Public Affairs office?

[edited to clarify this as an extremely conservative estimate]

What effects aircraft performance isn't the elevation of the runway , but the Density Altitude of the Air.

Now let's go back to what we know. We know C-54's operated out of Kirtland AFB on a runway of 4,973 ft. at an Elevation of 5,354 ft. ASL.

The question is would it be possible for a C-54 to operate from a 4,950 ft. runway at an Elevation of 7,100 ft.

If we look at a Density Altitude Chart we can see that Air temperature is the decisive factor.



I checked the Air temperature at Kirtland AFB earlier and it was 79 degrees F . By looking at the Air Density Chart you can see that if a C-54 is able to take off and land at Kirtland AFB at 5,354 ft. Elevation on the 4,973 ft. runway at a temperature of 79 F (DA of around 8,000 ft. ) , it would be identical to the Density Altitude of the runway at 7,100 ft. Elevation with an Air temperature of around 52 F.

If a C-54 is able to operate out of Kirtland on a 95 F day ( DA of around 9,000 ft. ) , then you could reasonably assume a C-54 could also operate out of Los Alamos Airport at around 78 F or less ( DA of around 9,000 ft. ).

There are other factors at play too like the weight of the Aircraft, wind speed and wind direction, experience of the pilot.

Also notice there is more than one way to land a C-54.

C-54 Skymaster practices a "Tempelhof Landing"













[edit on 16-9-2006 by lost_shaman]

[edit on 16-9-2006 by lost_shaman]

Skyeagle, your first three back to back posts show up way back on page four.

Starting with post number one: "Project Mogul balloon flight # 4 was cancelled due to clouds and ....."
And ending with post three comment: "I consider Tim Prinity and his webmaster a joke. I provided him with
evidence that no Project Mogul balloon train was involved in the Roswell incident and he thanked me by
banning me from his website."


In the page above this post, page 19, you have five posts. First one : "No Mogul balloon train #4 was ever launched and even if it we..."
Second: "Once again, the following is just another very good reason to avoid Tim Printy’s website. He lacks the real facts."
Third: External quotes, NO COMMENTARY
Fourth: "Project Mogul records show that Mogul balloon train #4, which the skeptics attributed to the Roswell incident, was cancelled and never flown.... "
Fifth: Repeat quote external of external quote in post one, NO COMMENTARY.

I do not want to embarrass you by doing a full post count and content analysis. You should get the picture.
Repetition is useful in elementary education for memorization. But you are the first person I have ever seen
try to use it as a primary debate tactic. Enuf already ! I GOT it ! You hate Printy and Co. You KNOW that
Mogul 4 dont exist. But do you know that on this site, each member can use a noise filter ? I have never considered
using it before. Now I am beginning to understand the proper utility of that feature.

Originally posted by nightwing
Enuf already ! I GOT it ! You hate Printy and Co.

I don't hate anyone! I saw that Tim Printy made a correction recently that he should have made a long time ago. He finally made that correction thanks to someone who emailed recently.

You KNOW that Mogul 4 dont exist. But do you know that on this site, each member can use a noise filter ? I have never considered using it before. Now I am beginning to understand the proper utility of that feature.

I am not pulling your arm! Over the course of years, I would make a point and the skeptics would come back with the same argument against for what that point was made, in other words, they didn't listen to a word that was presented and I just reposted the same message until they got the point but why did I have to repost the facts repeatedly before they finally got that message?

Originally posted by Access Denied

Wrong. Density Altitude is affected by altitude, temperature, and to a lesser extent humidity in that order therefore runway elevation DOES affect aircraft performance.

What I was saying is that the temperature is the decisive factor of Density Altitude as the temperature changes. The Elevation of a given runway remains constant.

“Now let's go back to what we know. We know C-54's operated out of Kirtland AFB on a runway of 4,973 ft. at an Elevation of 5,354 ft. ASL. “ == lost_shaman

Correct me if I’m wrong but your previous assertion that C-54s operate ROUTINELY out of KAFB remains unproven. AFAIK all we have we have is some anecdotal evidence that C-54s were used to fly atomic bomb parts out of KAFB for the Manhattan Project. There’s nothing about that single data point that suggests “routine”.

First I need to correct myself , Kirtland's runway is actually 5,300 ft. in length.

It's a Historical fact that 5 C-54's were based at Kirtland AFB towards the end of WWII.

Here is one particular C-54 with the SN: 44-9030 who's record shows it was based at Kirtland AFB in October 1971 - Sept. 1973 assigned to the 150th Fighter Group.

aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu...

“If we look at a Density Altitude Chart we can see that Air temperature is the decisive factor.”

Wrong. Pressure altitude (elevation) is a more decisive factor.

The elevation of a given runway remains constant , it's the Air Temperature that changes. Therefore the decisive factor that is subject to change is the Air Temperature.

“I checked the Air temperature at Kirtland AFB earlier and it was 79 degrees F . By looking at the Air Density Chart you can see that if a C-54 is able to take off and land at Kirtland AFB at 5,354 ft. Elevation on the 4,973 ft. runway at a temperature of 79 F (DA of around 8,000 ft. ) , it would be identical to the Density Altitude of the runway at 7,100 ft. Elevation with an Air temperature of around 52 F.

If a C-54 is able to operate out of Kirtland on a 95 F day ( DA of around 9,000 ft. ) , then you could reasonably assume a C-54 could also operate out of Los Alamos Airport at around 78 F or less ( DA of around 9,000 ft. )..” == lost_shaman

Only problem is a C-54 couldn’t take off under those condition at KAFB so once again your assumptions are wrong and this entire post was a waste of our time.

How do you know what conditions a C-54 must have to fly out of Kirtland AFB?

Using the chart I provided which you neglected to use and given that a C-54 requires 3,000 ft. to take off at sea level, at a temperature of 79 F and an altitude of 5,354 ft an additional ~140% needs to be added to the normal take-off distance which means a C-54 would require at least 7,200 ft. to take off therefore it couldn’t at KAFB under those conditions because the runway is too short!

So how did C-54s take off from Kirtland AFB in support of the Manhattan Project? My guess is the conditions had to be right (e.g. very cold, looks like a temperature of 10 F might work but that’s highly unlikely and rare for Albuquerque) and/or they were specially modified (e.g. lightened, minimal fuel) for this particular mission…. who knows?

For one thing the chart you provided say's explicitly that the numbers are representative for "personal" aircraft not C-54's.

Your assertion that a C-54 would need 7,200 ft. of runway to take off at 79 F from Kirtland is bogus!

Again it's a Historical fact that C-54's flew from Kirtland in July 1945. Well above the 10 F your assuming a C-54 would need to fly out of Kirtland AFB. On July 26, 1945 when we know for a fact C-54's flew out of Kirtland the temperature range was between 45 F and 82 F.

docs.lib.noaa.gov...

That shows that your chart , representative of "personal" aircraft, and thus your assumption of runway length needed based on it are off the mark by no less than 35 F degrees as far as C-54's are concerned.

(Note this anecdotal evidence is the only reason I suggested Tim Printy check his sources on the statement about C-54s being unable to land at Kirtland.)

Anyway, I warned you about this being more complicated than it looks but apparently you think you’re smarter than everybody else and can get away with twisting facts to support your view of reality. That is called pseudo-science and you can fool a lot of people that way but I’m not going to let you or any other self styled “UFOlogist” get away with it if I have anything to say about it. In my opinion it’s people who like you holding up smoke and mirrors that cause this subject to be ridiculed.

It's pseudoscience to sit here and try to convince people that C-54's couldn't fly out of Kirtland AFB when we know for a fact they did , simply because you found a chart meant for "personal" aircraft and your attempting to apply it to C-54's erroneously.



[edit on 17-9-2006 by lost_shaman]

Originally posted by Access Denied

Just because we have some evidence they flew out of Kirtland in 1945 for one particular mission doesn’t mean they were based there and it doesn’t mean they weren’t specially modified either. The point you fail to comprehend is a standard C-54 can’t operate out of Kirtland under normal (routine) conditions.

Check again , I just included a link that shows the records for a C-54 that is in a Museum today and it's history shows it was based at Kirtland AFB from October '71 to Sept. '73.

So as you can see it's not a failure on my part to comprehend anything.

Right but again you jumped the gun and failed to check the rest of the information at the link I provided to the FAA guidance…

www.faasafety.gov...

Because high density altitude has particular implications for takeoff/climb performance and landing distance, pilots must be sure to determine the reported density altitude, and check the appropriate aircraft performance charts carefully during preflight preparation. A pilot's first reference for aircraft performance information should be the operational data section of the Aircraft Owner's Manual or the Pilot's Operating Handbook developed by the aircraft manufacturer.

If the AFM/POH is not available, use the Koch Chart (see next chapter) to calculate the approximate temperature and altitude adjustments for aircraft takeoff distance and rate of climb.

Do you have the AFM/POH for a C-54? Didn’t think so.

Again the numbers are explicitly representative of "personal" air crafts and not Large transports like the C-54.

BS lost_shaman! Your opinion means nothing here. My assertion is an estimate based on the best available data and it still stands. You have yet to provide irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

It's irrefutable that C-54's flew from Kirtland AFB , contrary to your bogus assertion it would be next to impossible above ~10 F degrees.

And what the HELL does any of this have to do with Roswell????

If you want to continue to argue about this take it to U2U!

The subject of this thread is Roswell Proof: Where is it?

Remember it's about fact checking the information from Pflock that you assumed to be fact as it applies to Robert Smith's Affidavit.

The big problem with proving Roswell now is this......time. It's been nearly 60 years since the incident happened (you wouldn't think so!!!). By now, much if not all of the original materials, documents, testimonies etc etc, have been lost destroyed after declassification, forgotten, eyewitnesses have died, memories clouded by time and so and so forth. Even if it's kept a secret, documents go missing or are lost. 60 years is a long time and I doubt very much if any of the primary evidence exists anymore.

In truth, the only things we can go on are the story that's been told and old news. With maybe a few tantalising hints that something may still be going on.