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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Double post sorry.

[edit on 7-7-2006 by lost_shaman]




posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied

Originally posted by Hal9000
First, if I were you I would not be using the USAF report as a source.

Sorry but I'd trust the research of the many fine men and women of the USAF I've had (and continue to have) the pleasure of working for and with before I'd trust the research of any book pedaling UFOlogist and their tabloid quality journalistic standards.

Then obviously you are just as biased as the author of the report, and only see what you want to see. That sounds like the same problem most skeptics say the believers have.


Originally posted by Access Denied


This is one of many incorrect statements made by the USAF report. The fact is Stanton Friedman interviewed Jesse in 1978 and the National Enquirer did not publish their interview with Jesse until 1980. Here is Stanton Friedman’s reaction to this statement.

And this has exactly what to do with anything that happened in 1947?

It shows that the report was A. flawed with incorrect information, and B. obviously biased to make SF look like he was perpetuating a story first published in the NI.

It doesn’t have anything to do with 1947, but it does in the 1994 report.


Originally posted by Access Denied

-- they can't call me a nuclear physicist of course --

That's right they can't. Stanton Friedman has been making his living for over the past 30 years selling books and lecturing about UFOs. Stanton only worked for 10 years after getting his MS (not a PhD) and he changed jobs 4 times during that period. Not exactly a career kind of guy if you ask me

And what does this have to do with 1947?


Originally posted by Access Denied


Besides Jesse, many of these witnesses were from the military including the 509th bomber group. But I guess we should blow these guys off too, just because you say so.

Yes

So I guess the current USAF is right, but the guys from RAAF in this era are wrong? mmK.


Originally posted by Access Denied
If you are unaware of all the problems with those "witnesses" you listed whose "statements" (not sworn affidavits) either contradict the original witnesses or were misrepresented then I suggest you do some more research

I will look into what you have there.


Originally posted by Access Denied
Anyway, thanks for sharing your opinion.

Likewise.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied


You can start by reading this…

The Memory of Col DuBose


Here is the point being made in your link.


Remember, according to crash proponents, Marcel was supposed to have brought with him the "real" debris, and Ramey's office had then substituted the balloon debris for the press.

But if, as some have suggested, the balloon had been substituted for the "real" debris, no one has yet answered where Ramey got an ML-307 and rubber from a weather balloon that had been out in the sun for three weeks!

They weren't using ML-307s at FWAAF. They weren't using ML-307s at RAAF.
Brig. Gen. Donald Yates in a UP article dated July 8, 1947 stated that only a few of the targets "are used daily, at points where some specific project requires highly accurate wind information from extreme altitudes."
Warrant Officer Irving Newton recognized them from the Battle of Okinawa where they were used for gun laying- not from his experiences as a weatherman, since they were rarely used.
So if they were so rare and not in use in Ft. Worth and Roswell, where did "they" find parts of one that had been out in the sun for three weeks to substitute for the "real" debris?


Why would you direct others to read this , after I've already pointed out to you on this thread its wrong? There were RAWINs in Ft. Worth and we know that because they are shown in the News Papers July 11th 1947 being launched in Ft. Worth.







[edit on 8-7-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   
The main point is there was no documentation for the Mogul #4.
Even the esteemed professor said so.
If your mindset is to prove that the #4 balloon train was responsible for the debris field described by Mac Brazel and the military personnel dispatched to retrieve it then you need to come up with a plausable reason why people who were familiar with the wreckage of Rawin targets would suddenly describe some other worldly object.
Was Marcel simply a publicity hound? Even if he were proved to be wildly incorrect in his identification of the debris?
I'll refrain from saying "please".



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by longhaircowboy

The main point is there was no documentation for the Mogul #4.
Even the esteemed professor said so.


Exactly right.

One thing that C. B. Moore did provide documentation for is "Disks" when less than two years after Roswell he tracked a "Disk" on a theodolite from Arrey, New Mexico.

ufologie.net...

LA Times Article about the event. Notice that the Article states "He added he had informed his superiors of the incident and was told the next morning he had seen a "Disk"."

roswellproof.homestead.com...

Of course C. B. Moore didn't like it very much when people tried to say his "Disk" was just a Balloon!


"I knew the two pilots of the C-47; both of them now believe in flying saucers. And they aren't alone; so do the people of the Aeronautical Division of General Mills who launch and track the big Skyhook balloons. These scientists and engineers all have seen UFO's and they aren't their own balloons. I was almost tossed out of the General Mills offices into a cold January Minneapolis snowstorm for suggesting such a thing but that comes later in our history of the UFO."

Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, US Air Force head UFO investigator.


And...


"Although I had met Donald Menzel during the late 1950's in connection with John Strong's studies of Venus, he never discussed our earlier report of a peculiar flying object over Arrey, New Mexico in 1949. What I saw was not a mirage; it was a craft with highly unusual performance. It was not a balloon; at that time we were the innovators and manufacturers of the new balloons and I certainly would have known about any new developments as I was newly in charge of General Mills' balloon operations. It was not the X-1, which was in its hangar at Muroc that Sunday. It was nothing from White Sands nor from Alamogordo AFB for we were in radio contact with Range Control and were informed that our operation was the only one active on Sunday. For these reasons, I'm cynical about Menzel and his approach to science."

C. B. Moore



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
The problem is that a MOGUL Train would not create a 200 yard diameter debris field.

How do you know this?


Did any of the other MOGUL Balloon Trains create 200 yard diameter "debris fields"?

If the glove doesn't fit , you must acquit.

Another New Mexico Rancher named Sid West found a MOGUL Balloon Train, this was before the Roswell incident, he turned it in and there was no "Cover". He turned in a Balloon Train and not a "debris field".

Notice how SECRET MOGUL is in July 1947?
roswellproof.homestead.com...

(And have a look at the MOGUL on the ground there. What a "disk" huh?)



Like I said who says all of it had to be found on Brazel's ranch?


Well, if it all wasn't there , then it would be even more impossible for it to be responsible for a 200 yard diameter "debris field" would it not?




Maybe Brazel kept some of it for himself?


But , if it was TOP SECRET , then he wouldn't have been able to keep it for himself. Where would he put it that all these Air Force guy's cleaning up the Ranch couldn't find it ?



After all, Brazel said he didn't find it until 10 days after Flight #4 was launched and he claims it was another 20 days after that before he went back to pick it up. Besides, if he thought this was a wrecked flying saucer why did he leave it out there so long anyway?


He was originally telling Sheriff Wilcox he found it that week. He also told that his animals would not go anywhere near the debris field and was blocking them from getting to the water. So he could not have let it sit out there for 20 day's!

Your making it out like the cover story he was told to recite for the RDR July 9th 1947 are his true claims and testimony , and that's not the case. He also said in that interview that the wife and kids where there with him when he found it in that interview and we know that the wife and kids were in Tularosa.





Argh!

You're right, it wasn't documented in the NYU report like every other flight... that's because it wasn't like every other flight... it's the only flight they didn't recover!


Opps, but they didn't recover Flight # 9! That was a flight that most MOGUL proponents originally believed caused Roswell , until it was discovered that Col. Trakowski reported in 1948 that flight # 9 was seen on the ground by an Air Crew just a few miles from its launch site.




Besides, why would you number Flight #5 number 5 if there was no Flight #4? Wouldn't you number the next flight number 4 not 5?


It say's right in Dr. Crary's Diary that Flight # 4 was "cancelled due to clouds".





Do you see now how you're thinking has been subtlely manipulated and misled by the Amazing Mind of the UFOlogist?


I don't know what your hangup is here with Ufologists or UFOlogy , but I can think for myself thank you!





At the time UFOlogy did not even exist! = lost_shaman

And nieither did the Roswell "incident" until the "story" was resurrected 30 years layer by UFOlogists


It existed. It was International News and a Major Military event at the time.



[edit on 11-7-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
I was a "believer" long before that. What changed my mind was finding out the truth behind most (if not all) of the so-called "witnesses" stories.


This is interesting to me , and I believe Gazrok seemed interested about this as well, you say "truth" behind "witness stories" changed your mind.

It's interesting to me because you almost have exclusively referred to testimony reportedly given to William Moore , Jamie Shandera , and or Brazel's "forced" statement given to the Roswell Daily Record and printed July 9th 1947.

It's also interesting to me that your willing to overlook the fact that the Military took Brazel to the RDR and that the witnesses only reportedly gave contradictory statements to "Bill" Moore and Jamie Shandera. "Bill" Moore publically admitted to spreading "dis-information" for the Air Force and Shandera is one of his friends and Co-Author and even mysteriously received the first roll of film containing MJ-12 Documents!

Instead of questioning this , you want to label this the "truth" behind witness stories?

Sorry , I just don't get it.

You've gone after Stanton Friedman and attacked his record and pointed out that he's not a PHD. Yet, you rely on contradictory testimony supposedly (and not proven) to have been given to an Ex-School teacher who's admitted publicly he helped spread "dis-information" to the UFO community.








Again, what I think was significant about the AF report is it freed anyone who might still have been withholding classified information on Roswell from their oath of secrecy and nobody had anything.


That was claimed , but has Classified information ever been divulged in this manner before?

Is it any surprise that none was divulged in the Air Force report?

Was anyone interviewed that would actually have knowledge of Classified information about a "disk" recovery?

Did the GAO examine T-2 Intelligence records?

Did the GAO get to look at and examine all the records from Roswell AAFB that would show what actually took place there?


The answer to all those questions above is NO.




I agree the report was flawed but that doesn't change the fact that SF was behind the story published in the NI. The NI used SF's storytellers.


I already pointed out to you that a very well respected UFOlogist , Bob Pratt , worked for the National Enquirer and helped investigate Roswell from the beginning.

( It's slightly unfortunate that Bob Pratt worked for the National Enquirer , but nonetheless , he is a very well respected journalist and UFOlogists with very high standards and many achievements.)


Also , I consider that there are many supporting facts and News Articles and FOIA Documents that support the fact that the Roswell Incident happened and the "witness testimony" is only supporting evidence of the fact not "make or Break" evidence as "witness testimony" is not as reliable as say Front Page News Stories from July 1947. Or even current unclassified historical events admitted to by the military, such as Roswell. Almost always the Air Force gives the date as July 2nd , 1947. ( Of course you'll notice that is consitent with what Brazel originally was saying and is not consistent with the Roswell Daily Record interview printed July 9th , 1947.)











[edit on 11-7-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   
That's quite a (crop)circle there. Access Denied would have us believe that the debri recovered at the ranch was Mogul 4 then turn around and say

it's the only flight they didn't recover!

Whoa there hoss. Isn't that abit contradictory.
And it seems he got a thing for us UFOlogists. Least when I walk it's in a straight line and not a run around a bush.


[edit on 7/11/06 by longhaircowboy]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied

I don't know but like I said it's not impossible depending on the winds and how long they were out there before being recovered. It's also possible Brazel exaggerated the size considering Lt Col Cavitt described it as a "small" area of debris.


It may not be impossible like many other things are not impossible , but its very highly unlikely and that is my point.



If the glove doesn't fit , you must acquit.

Fortunately in this case the "glove" does fit... all reliable descriptions and the photographs of the debris fits that of a crashed balloon and RAWIN target.


Umm. That's because the photos were pictures of a RAWIN and a Weather Balloon.












Sorry but that's not MOGUL.


It's the same thing , a 28 Neoprene Balloon Train.



(And have a look at the MOGUL on the ground there. What a "disk" huh?) = lost_shaman

I dob't see any RAWIN targets there do you?


No I don't. That should tell you something huh? None of the MOGUL Trains carried RAWINs.





But , if it was TOP SECRET , then he wouldn't have been able to keep it for himself. Where would he put it that all these Air Force guy's cleaning up the Ranch couldn't find it ? = lost_shaman

In the barn under some hay?


Its fun to play make believe isn't it?

No you can draw me a picture if you want to , I think there might be a few Crayons around here somewhere.




He was originally telling Sheriff Wilcox he found it that week. He also told that his animals would not go anywhere near the debris field and was blocking them from getting to the water. So he could not have let it sit out there for 20 day's! = lost_shaman

Well, it had to be *somewhere* for 30 days right?


Yep, cancelled "due to clouds" remember?




Personally what I think happened is when he first found it he didn’t think much of it (after all said he dud say he found two weather balloons before) and just left it there to pick up later until he heard or read one of your “disinformation” stories on the radio or in the paper about “discs” and figured he could get in on the action. I also think what he told Wilcox was a cover story to explain why he didn’t report it sooner. This would also explain why he sounded defensive and “defiant” towards the AF in the RDR interview. The AF no doubt was more than a little miffed to find out they’d been had and told him in clear and certain terms that he better set the record straight and the tell the truth.

You want conspiracy? I got your conspiracy right here!


That's not conspiracy , its wild imagination.



Opps, but they didn't recover Flight # 9! That was a flight that most MOGUL proponents originally believed caused Roswell , until it was discovered that Col. Trakowski reported in 1948 that flight # 9 was seen on the ground by an Air Crew just a few miles from its launch site. = lost_shaman


Oops is right... my bad. Minor detail though


Kinda like it's a minor detail that Flight # 10 and Flight # 11 weren't recovered either.








It say's right in Dr. Crary's Diary that Flight # 4 was "cancelled due to clouds". = lost_shaman

Read it again…


Jun 4 Wed. Out to Tularosa Range and fired charges between 00 and 06 this am. No balloon flights again on account of clouds. Flew regular sonobuoy up in cluster of balloons and had good luck on receiver on ground but poor on plane. Out with Thompson pm. Shot charges from 1800 to 2400. (HQ USAF FACT Attachment 32/Appendix 17)


Note this is a diary. A diary is often written as you go along and that’s exactly how it sounds to me. I’m sorry but I have to ask… did you really miss that or are you purposely trying to obfuscate the truth here.. or do you just enjoy making me have to repeat myself?


What was the NYU (MOGUL) Team in New Mexico to do? To attempt Level Flight with a Balloon Train. That is what this means right here " No balloon flights again on account of clouds.".

Instead of launching a MOGUL Balloon Train, they flew a sonobuoy to test the reception on the ground. They didn't need to visually track a sonobuoy to test the reception. They needed to be able to Visually track MOGUL Trains with Theodolites to see if they were achieving Level flight and at what altitudes.

When you understand the background and what was really going on here you can read the Diary and it reads like this,...

"Jun 4 Wed. Out to Tularosa Range and fired charges between 00 and 06 this am. No (MOGUL) balloon flights again on account of clouds. Flew regular sonobuoy up in cluster of balloons and had good luck on receiver on ground but poor on plane. Out with Thompson pm. Shot charges from 1800 to 2400.


www.virtuallystrange.net...

On April 17, C.S. Schneider of Mogul requested a
relaxation of the restrictions on cloud cover, stating that the
phenomenon they hoped to measure was an infrequent one and
likely to be missed if they waited for cloudless skies.
Schneider's request was not only rejected, but further
restrictions were placed on the launches in the form of
completely clear skies.




[edit on 13-7-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I do not know what to say to this, I'm split 50/50. UI don't know if I believe it or not.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
there is no proof, roswell was just a military blunder that fell into the wrong hands, the supposed craft was a balloon type creation designed to spy on russia during thecold war and "listen" out for nuclear testing, however it went wrong and crashed and was found by civilians. straight away it was thought that it was a UFO, and the only reason the military didnt own up was because they didnt want anyone to know about it because it was supposed to be a secret, so from then on they only fuelled the fire by leaking its own conspiracy theories and stories, and have been using this excuse for every other "UFO" people have supposedly seen, because the military want to keep their new technologies secret and UFO theories are the perfect scapegoat because no one knows what one really looks like.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   

No. Like I said, it only takes a few pieces of debris to define a circle and the size is determined solely by how far apart they are.

Please don’t make me have to draw you a picture

By all means go ahead and draw us a picture. Include how your few pieces of debris somehow defy logic and not only create this seemingly large area of wreckage but manage to gouge the hard desert floor and create the huge gash that was visible.
Can neoprene really wreak that much havoc? Man I gotta get me some.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   
First of all, I believe Access Denied has done a good job of bringing up some excellent points (even applauded the member for doing so)....

I hope to have the time soon to go through these one by one, but the basic criticisms seem to stem with the witnesses. First of all, the witnesses are trying to recount specific memories decades old at the time. What's really amazing is that so many of the accounts are so eerily similar....not the minute points of disagreement. Granted though, there are some bad Roswell witnesses also.

But, Roswell doesn't just stand on witnesses. First of all, you'd have to wonder how so many people seemingly are mistaken about rather ordinary materials... You'd also have to wonder how the base could release a press release about a recovered "disk" if it was simply a radar target. The military's own actions are really a crucial piece of evidence. Regardless of what anyone "thinks" crashed, the military actions do NOT reflect any Mogul recovery before or after the incident.

I'd also recommend reading the affidavits of Dubose, etc. as to the debris. Also, the number of planes, amount of debris, etc., as supported by press and witness records, seems to bely a balloon and reflector argument. There are of course other pieces of evidence (throughout the rather extensive post Skadi links to on pg 1), but I really do hope I can come back to this when time permits, as Access Denied raises some of the classic (and insightful) criticisms most critics of Roswell have.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Should have been by a lot sooner. This is as good as ATS UFO discussions get.
Needless to say, KUDOS to Access Denied. Most here do not realize the quality that
gets generated by informed skeptical viewpoints. Without these folks, the forum is doomed
to discuss Reptilians in the Royal family, ad nausium. Likewise, the "believer" types who
are really worth listening to have done enough homework to keep the debate level high
enough to require oxygen.

"The “big deal” is the "event" was “resurrected” 30 years later." = Access Denied

Excellent. Well stated.

"This is one of many incorrect statements made by the USAF report. The fact is Stanton Friedman interviewed
Jesse in 1978 and the National Enquirer did not publish their interview with Jesse until 1980." = Hal9000

Incorrect how ? From Stanton Friedman's point of view ? Using his OWN description, try this.
On Feb 21, 1978, Stanton Friedman was in Baton Rouge, La after giving a lecture on UFOs and interviewed a man over
the phone that said that he had handled the wreckage of a crashed spaceship.
Another year went by before....Feb 10, 1979, when William Moore found the clippings of the affair referred to by Jesse Marcel,
and his and Friedman’s interest suddenly became very active.

At this point, I do not want to sidetrack this discussion, just point out that it is extremely rare that a Myth can be isolated right
down to the hour, date and time. And also that an alien craft or a hoax are NOT the only possibilities here.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Hello nightwing, I was wondering when you would stop by.


Originally posted by nightwing
"This is one of many incorrect statements made by the USAF report. The fact is Stanton Friedman interviewed
Jesse in 1978 and the National Enquirer did not publish their interview with Jesse until 1980." = Hal9000

Incorrect how ?

Well let me re-quote the 1994 report.


In 1978, an article appeared in a tabloid newspaper, the National Inquirer, which reported the former intelligence officer, Marcel, claimed that he had recovered UFO debris near Roswell in 1947.

www.af.mil...

The articles from the NI on Roswell did not appear until 1980. Two years after SF first heard about Jesse, so the AF report was wrong. Does this help?

And the report infers that SF first read about Jesse from the NI, by immediately following with this line.


Also in 1978, a UFO researcher, Stanton Friedman, met with Marcel and began investigating the claims that the material Marcel handled was from a crashed UFO.

When giving a chronological order of events, shouldn’t these statements be reversed? You said yourself; SF started investigating Roswell before 1980, which was before the NI articles were published.

This shows that the author of the report is trying to mislead the audience.

I don't see how you couldn't agree with this, unless of course, it goes against your belief.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Hi Hal, and lost_shaman. You should know I am attracted to any debate that
involves you two because the quality is worth the admission price.

" Two years after SF first heard about Jesse, so the AF report was wrong. Does this help? " = Hal9000

Actually it does. Its a context thing again, double standards from bias. If I were doing true,
unbiased research, how would I know when Friedman first met or talked with Jesse ? Well, the
first check is what Friedman says, which I placed in a paraphrased form above from his co-authored
book, Crash at Corona. Next, I would look for publications which first show Jesse being quoted.
Guess where Friedman's publications fall cronologically ? Remember, investigating and interviewing
and book writing take a LOT more time than an interview for the National Inquirer. Friedman himself
says they didnt really get serious about Roswell untill 1979. By looking at Friedman's presentations
at UFO symposiums (MUFON) as an example, it appears he kept "proprietary" on his book effort
about Roswell until well after the National Inquirer publication. Not only is the Air Force cronology
correct, it errs on the side of earlier printing credit than actually occurred. Nor would this need to have been a
correction to the Air Force report. Hate to dissappoint, but it is NOT RELEVANT to answers to
congressional inquiry. Which lead me to this :

"This shows that the author of the report is trying to mislead the audience. " = Hal9000

Since the "audience" is Congress, your statement is not applicable. Congress requires certain things
in how they get answers. First, the source MUST be credible. Use your own link to the AF exec summary and
look at the AF references. Show me where the National Inquirer or a publication by Friedman is even listed.
When vetting such a document, the National Inquirer artical and any by Friedman would not have been checked.
Only credible sources would have close check of dates listed in the publication. Thus the AF gave the National
Inquirer an earlier publication date credit than real. There is NO other issue involved. They could request editorial correction,
I suppose, but the AF document is even more correct in this statement than most of the stuff showing up in the UFO forum areas.

"I don't see how you couldn't agree with this, unless of course, it goes against your belief." = Hal9000

Well, I have just shown you why I completely disagree, but you have me curious again. What do you think "my belief"
is ?



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Hey nightwing,

You know there are several other subtle and not so subtle persuasions in the Air Force Report that could be pointed out.

For instance Charles Schneider asked for less restrictions on weather conditions for MOGUL Launches after the May 20th CAA meeting , and was told that after review he couldn't launch unless there were Cloudless skies.

NYU records clearly show Flight # 5 as the first MOGUL Flight. Dr. Crary's Dairy clearly states , " June 3 Tues. Up at 2:30 ready to fly Balloon but abandoned due to cloudy skies."

And then "June 4 Wed. ... No Balloon flights again on account of Clouds."

And amazingly , we have on "June 5 Thurs. Up at 4 am to shoot 2 charges for Balloon Flight. Whole assembly of constant altitude Balloons set up at 5:00...

And yet in several places the Report states that Flight # 4 was a fact , a constant level Balloon train that was configured just like Flight # 2 when it is clear the Balloon Flight was abandoned "again" on account of clouds June 4th.



Another example is the Report stating that the NYU group couldn't bring the Radiosonde Receiver on the plane. That , the report contends , is why the used RAWIN Targets on Flight # 4. However , NYU records show Flight # 5 used radiosonde Tracking on June 5th.

Dr. Crary's Dairy states, "June 2 Changed shooting plans to co-ordinate with Balloon Flights. Balloon all ready to go. Receiver on Plane and receiver on ground. ...

[edit on 15-7-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing
" Two years after SF first heard about Jesse, so the AF report was wrong. Does this help? " = Hal9000

Actually it does. Its a context thing again, double standards from bias. If I were doing true,
unbiased research, how would I know when Friedman first met or talked with Jesse ?

Well they must have referred to one or all of the Roswell books that have been published prior to 1994, because they did get the year 1978 correct of when SF first talked to Jesse, but they were wrong about the year of the NI interview. Regardless of the chronology of when either was first printed, it is still wrong. Why is this so hard to acknowledge?



Hate to dissappoint, but it is NOT RELEVANT to answers to
congressional inquiry.

I would think it would be even more important to have the correct information when briefing a congressional inquiry, but maybe that’s just me.

My whole point was that the USAF report associated SF with the NI, and it was done to discredit SF, as anyone would know any association with the NI would do just that. It shows that either they are intentionally misleading or they conducted a poor investigation. Which is it?



They could request editorial correction,
I suppose, but the AF document is even more correct in this statement than most of the stuff showing up in the UFO forum areas.

I just have to point out, I like your “more correct” phrase.


Sounds kind of like they are the lesser of two evils?



"I don't see how you couldn't agree with this, unless of course, it goes against your belief." = Hal9000

Well, I have just shown you why I completely disagree, but you have me curious again. What do you think "my belief"
is ?

What I meant by “belief” is that you think that the USAF report is correct and Mogul was responsible for Roswell. IMHO, because it is not proven, it is also a “belief” just like others believe Roswell was an alien crash.

As I said before, because Roswell cannot be proven either way, we are left to rely on our “beliefs” on both sides, but that is the nature of an unsolved mystery. In my opinion, I think there is good evidence on both sides to support each conclusion, but there are also problems on both sides. I like to keep an open mind, and think that the truth is somewhere in between.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I saw one post mentioning that the "reliable" witnesses describing the debris all describe a RAWIN target.

To correctly state that, you would have to disregard an awful lot of SWORN STATEMENTS by everyone from townsfolk to seasoned military officers, including Generals. I'm not so sure even a skeptic is willing to go THAT far....

Still, I do plan to address each point, just had to point out for this one. Any proper response deserves the same amount of effort the poster put into this...(at least from me, hehe...)



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
It's good to hear from you Gazrok.


I think they were referring to Mack's interview that was published in the RDR. I will have to go back and re-read the thread as it looks like a good discussion is brewing.

Hope to hear from you soon.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join