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.

 

Roswell Proof: Where is it?

page: 15
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   
"I just reposted the same message until they got the point" == Skyeagle

Incredible. (Looks at Turin Test Result)

"but why did I have to repost the facts repeatedly before they finally got that message?" == Skyeagle


Well, my preliminary test result gives a 70 percent probability you are a Spam-Bot.

Catch ya later Skyeagle.......Clicky...Clicky.




posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 02:20 AM
link   
"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." == GhostITM

Bingo ! But that doesn't prevent the use of innovative techniques on what is left. The proper use of deduction
can limit choices until most of the obvious falsehoods are discarded. And occasionally, there just MIGHT be a
new tidbit show up now and then. For example, Hal9000's comprehension of the potential importance of Posse Comitatus,
combined with a spark from Gazrok allowed me to formulate a suggested legal proof method for Roswell, a few pages back.
There may very well be other proofs out there as well. Also a few pages back Access Denied totally violated his debate
tactics by tossing in a tidbit of potentially extraordinary hear-say.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Could that actually be SOMETHING NEW for the Roswell Incident ? So I took the bait. I am allergic to scams and hoaxes,
but I am always on the prowl for potential new data. Based upon my outside communication to Access Denied challenging
him on the hear-say, he has informed me of his source and a credible explanation for the need to keep it confidential.
Yes, there is real potential for something NEW here, if it plays out as described to me. I will have a lot of questions for
the "source" if I have the opportunity to ask. As it is playing out, will the "source" be able to meet the definition
of "Credible Testimony" that I use ?

(See Bottom of post for definition of Credible Testimony)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

For Access Denied, since this appears to be the first reference to a potential new testimony on Roswell, could this become
an exclusive for ATS or perhaps an exclusive link from ATS to another place that would be the source ?



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   


Ufo really means "unidentified", not Greys or Reptillians, or Vikings, whatever. Since this whole forum area
is titled Aliens AND UFO's, then the aliens are here with us, and the first inherent problem is one of separation.
I would suggest the separation area is where the definition starts. There are those seeking to identify "unknown"
anomalous objects and we are mixed with those who have already solved THAT problem in their own realities,
thus they are NOT really interested in the anomaly that attracts Ufologists.


That is a great idea! I.E. Separating the two subjects. Problem is, most of the public doesn't separate the two in their perception.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
AD,

Well your partly right , I was thinking of Oxnard Field with it's runway of 5,300'. Checking into this it seems that Kirtland AFB also encompassed Albuquerque Municipal Airport after 1942 which was depicted as having six dirt runway's the longest being 6,600' according to The Airport Directory Company's 1941 Airport Directory.

www.airfields-freeman.com...

At the same time however, I can only find reference to Los Alamos Airport as having a 5,550' runway. Which was simply a Field ( possibly a landing field ) and LANL Dump before the runway was built with the Dump directly North of the runway. With the runway having been restricted only to Military and DoE use for many years.



Posted by Access Denied

Also, I forgot to mention I see no reason why that chart wouldn't apply to a C-54 which uses a normally aspirated internal combustion engine like most "personal" aircraft do... however supercharged engines and jets are a completely different story so that's likely the reason for the FAA's disclaimer.


Actually nearly all Air craft built during WWII for high altitude flight employed Supercharged engines including the Buick built R-2000 engines of the C-54's.


www.trishield.com...

Practically all military aircraft engineered for high altitude missions exploited supercharging during World War II. Buick erected the world's largest aluminum foundry to cast Pratt & Whitney cylinder heads -- just one of the division's 37 war production operations.

Nearly 75,000 Pratt & Whitney engines were manufactured in a plant built and operated by Buick near Chicago.

Many B-24 bombers, the highest-volume aircraft produced during WWII, were powered by Buick-built engines that delivered 1200 horsepower at 25,000 feet. Buick-built R-2000s powered the Douglas C-54 Skymaster transoceanic transports.




www.petester.com...

Relatively simple radial engines, like the P & W R-2000, have a single speed supercharger which provides about 15 psi of boost at takeoff and, typically, 10 psi of boost at cruise.




[edit on 18-9-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
For the record lost_shaman deserves the credit for doing the research that led to that correction. He is the one that discovered that C-54s were once used by the Manhattan Project to fly atomic bomb parts out of Kirtland. Your assertion that C-54s could routinely fly out of Kirtland AFB has been proven false (remember I called BS on you) because the runway is too short for them at that elevation. Just wanted that to be clear.


That's a laugh considering that the larger and heavier B-29s were also flying out of Kirtland AFB, so I was right and you were wrong, just admit it!!!

Now, Tim Printy knows that he was wrongl but then again, Tim Printy is wrong on many other things as well. Goes to show that it's not a good idea to use flawed references from UFO skeptics who get their flawed references from other UFO skeptics who are known for providing flawed references.

As I've said before, all Tim Printy had to do was to check the history books and history has shown that B-29s and C-54s were flying out of Kirtland AFB and you can't change history from the comfort of your keyboard, you know! The overall question was, did C-54s fly out of Kirtland AFB and the history books said, yes they did! End of story!

Needless to say, I had a tiny smile on my face when I saw Tim's correction.







[edit on 18-9-2006 by skyeagle409]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied

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.

en.wikipedia.org...

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.


And, I posted facts on other models of the C-54 that prove me correct. You see, other models of the C-54 had gross weight of 73,000 pounds, which had me on the right side of the fence. Have you forgotten that I posted the following information before?!

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

“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...

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


Personally speaking, since you don't have the knowledge on aviation matters to debate the issue with me, my advice for you is, move on.








[edit on 18-9-2006 by skyeagle409]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Access,

Are you aware that pilots use different techniques and flap settings under certain conditions to decrease their takeoff distances below the standard takeoff distance listed in an aircraft's flight manual?



[edit on 18-9-2006 by skyeagle409]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
"That is a great idea! I.E. Separating the two subjects." == Gaz

Thanks Gaz, but ideas are ten a penny. What would really be great is if
a group of serious, like minded folks could ACT on it.

"Problem is, most of the public doesn't separate the two in their perception." == Gaz

I submit for your consideration that this is NOT a responsibility of the public. It is US
who must change the way we see ourselves, and thus the way the public will see us.
The public sees WHAT IS HERE. We simply need to change WHAT IS HERE.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Which only proves what we've already known all along and that is that C-54's flew from Kirtland AFB without problem.

It does not support or prove the notion that it's not possible for a C-54 to fly into Los Alamos.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
Only problem is C-54s weren’t really built for high altitude flight. A standard C-54 was built to cruise around 10,000 ft. and had a service ceiling a little over 20,000 ft. I believe. I don't think they were known for their “over the hump” ability.



U. S. ARMY AIR FORCE HUMP AIRLIFT OPERATIONS
APRIL 1942 - SEPTEMBER 1945


“Douglas C-54 four engine aircraft began operations in the fall of 1944. All aircraft were unpressurized and crews were required to wear oxygen masks at high altitudes.”

www.sinoam.com...

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

Jumping the Hump: Airlift to China, 1942-45

“As they became available, the 4 engine Douglas C-54 began to replace the struggling Gooney Birds and Curtiss Commandos. The C-54 could carry 3 times the payload of a Gooney Bird and with proper de-icing equipment, fly higher and faster. Tunner may not have been able to shrink the Himalayas in size, but he gave his airmen a larger margin of safety.”

www.militaryhistoryonline.com...

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

The “Hump” Operations

“At the time, the average plane carried 1,000 gallons (3,785 liters) of gasoline and 3,000 pounds (1,361 kilograms) of bombs. In 1944 these aircraft started returning to India with planeloads of Chinese troops, flying to join the Allied troops on Burma. And new planes with larger capacities, such as Douglas C-54 Skymaster, also began to arrive. By November 1944, they were flying 1,200 tons daily into China, which had been the total for an entire month in 1943. By the end of the war, the Hump pilots had flown 777,000 tons of supplies to keep China fighting, with a loss of only 910 men.”

www.centennialofflight.gov...

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

Flying the Hump
When the Japanese closed the Burma Road, the route to China was over the Himalayas by air.


“In November 1943, the ATC Ferrying Division opened the "Fireball" run from Florida to India. C-87s and, later, C-54s were put to work flying high-priority parts from the Air Service Command depot at Patterson Field, Ohio, to India. The aircraft were based at Miami, and crews were stationed at key points along the routes to Brazil, central Africa, and India.”

www.afa.org...

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



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
"Of course separating what's already here would be a chore. " == Access Denied

Not at all. Its all in "new ufology methods".

1. We try a scientific approach to the Roswell Incident. Novel, huh ? But understand what that
means. Everybody who is seriously trying the science approach MUST do one thing very
aggressively. Do the best you can at trying to DISPROVE Roswell, just as physicists do
the best they can at trying to disprove Relativity.

2. Recognize when a legal proof versus a scientific proof is applicable. Then do the best
you can at trying to find legal verification of the pointers in credible witness testimony.

Example: Proof of alien spacecraft/aliens MUST be scientific (method 1.)
Proof of government cover ups, complicity etc...must be legal proof. (method 2.)

Unless we take seriously the mainstream methods, the mainstream can NEVER take us seriously.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
nightwing,

You know I'd basically agree with what you said.

However, what seemed obscure to me from your last post was the "try to disprove Roswell" thing.

I'd submit that no-one knows what Roswell was and thus to disprove Roswell is somewhat confusing.

I think what your meaning to say is that you must try to disprove your own hypothesis of what happened at Roswell.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   
"You know I'd basically agree with what you said. " == lost shaman

"So does this mean you've come over to the "dark" side?" == Access Denied to Gazrok


"However, what seemed obscure to me from your last post was the "try to disprove Roswell" thing.
I'd submit that no-one knows what Roswell was and thus to disprove Roswell is somewhat confusing. " == lost shaman

But everyone knows what their own beliefs are. Particularly with the Roswell Incident. The side you MUST take and
diligently work to prove is that which opposes your own beliefs/bias. Can you imagine the pro Roswell folks
working to DISPROVE their beliefs, while the counter Roswell folks work to PROVE it did happen ? Heated arguements
become very different when you are actually arguing with someone working to PROVE YOUR OWN BELIEFS. Instead
of wasting time and effort on the personality involved, all THE EFFORT gets put into the METHOD. Ever wonder why
collaboration and cooperation in science seems so smooth, and THEY are always lumped TOGETHER, despite their
obvious differences of opinion ? Sounds kinda fun to me.


"I think what your meaning to say is that you must try to disprove your own hypothesis of what happened at Roswell." == lost shaman

Kudos ! My above paragraph in a nutshell.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing

But everyone knows what their own beliefs are.



That's correct for the most part , excluding those who choose not to form "beliefs". Belief implies acceptance without evidence , or dispite evidence in many cases. So not everyone harbors "beliefs" just to be clear. Although I know what your saying and most people will at least form tentative opinions and or have a bias one way or another.



[edit on 21-9-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied

Not to take away from the Posse Comitatus angle you and Hal9000 were discussing earlier which I too would like to see explored further but is anyone here up for this?


Your joking right?

It was you who originally wanted to kill all further Research and discussion about Roswell.

Remember...

Not us.


Edit: BTW Access Denied ,

Now is as good of a time as any to let you in on something. In case you haven't noticed I am primarily interested in UFOs. I've never read a book about Roswell from any of the Authors you claimed earlier made up the event. ( Except "The Roswell Incident" that I read for research purposes . ) So I've not been exposed to all the hype and "myth" you think these Authors perpetuate to the unwitting public. I honestly could care less about Roswell as my interest lies only with UFOs and not Roswell.

You would never know that judging by this thread , but I only began researching Roswell after I got dragged into it from another discussion. I didn't want to get into Roswell at all and felt my opinion about UFOs would be degraded by entering into Roswell discussions.

The fact that I maintain as a fact that I've seen a UFO , makes any Public ( ATS ) Roswell discussion that much more of a liability for me. I certainly don't benefit from it. For instance: You've personally taken plenty of pot shots at me IMO simply because of my stance on this thread and in other threads and I'm not getting any sympathy U2U's from anyone. So obviously even on ATS my reputation isn't benefiting from my Roswell stance.

Just some Food for Thought next time you feel like going on the War Path.



[edit on 21-9-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:43 AM
link   
"It was you who originally wanted to kill all further Research and discussion about Roswell. " == lost shaman

And it was YOU who were one of the almost NONE ATS members who detected the possible presence on ATS
of a possible EYEWITNESS to Rendlesham. Unfortunately not soon enough to engage him before something
ran him outta here.

Remember ?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Use your "investigative instincts" again.

"but is anyone here up for this? " == Access Denied

Since I am the one who called on this hand, do I EVEN have a choice ?



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing

Use your "investigative instincts" again.



I admit I'm not on top of my game all the time... Most of the time I am.

Rendlesham witnesses' don't pop up all the time either.

Ofcourse I can't take credit for the identification. Another "member" , and who knows who that person/ATS member is , ID'd ATS member "burroj2" as John Burroughs first. Here.

I shouldn't let the opportunity pass here so I'll simply ask.

It just so happens that I too am an "Eyewitness" to a UFO event. The question I have is why is one "Eyewitness" to a "Famous" UFO event any more significant than my very own "Eyewitness" testimony of the UFO event I witnessed?

[edit on 21-9-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   
"Rendlesham witnesses' don't pop up all the time either." == lost shaman

Understatement of the week.


"Ofcourse I can't take credit for the identification. Another "member" , and who knows who that person/ATS
member is , ID'd ATS member "burroj2" as John Burroughs first." == lost shaman

I disagree, but this is off topic, so expect a U2U. A good time to discuss this I think. Were you
serious about "sympathy U2U's" ? I will throw that in as well (smile).


"It just so happens that I too am an "Eyewitness" to a UFO event. The question I have is why is one "Eyewitness" to a "Famous" UFO
event any more significant than my very own "Eyewitness" testimony of the UFO event I witnessed? " == lost shaman

In a way you have answered your own question. What makes a UFO event "Famous" ? Take this thread for example.
What makes the Roswell Incident famous and the lost shaman incident, well,....lost ?



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied

Not sure I follow you here, you mean about Sgt. Smith's claims?



No I was talking about Roswell the event.


Originally posted by Access Denied

So what you’re saying is you were defending a case you don’t even believe in? Why?


For me it's not about belief. It's not about defending a case. It's about investigating a Historical event.




Originally posted by Access Denied

Because if you don’t and it’s allowed to die that’s somehow a threat to your own credibility or the subject as a whole?


No. That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying I don't really benefit from investigating the event.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Have you seen both of these?

youtube.com...

youtube.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join