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 "crash" - where's the wreckage?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   
If something, other than a balloon, crashed at Roswell in 1947, surely you'd be able to go out there today and pick up bits and pieces (of any size) of the "craft", right?

People who spend their time combing aircraft crash sites (that have already been intensely scrutinised by official crash investigation organisations), all over the world, for wreckage, have often testified to finding substantial pieces of aircraft wings, engine parts and general bits and pieces.

Yet, I can't think of a single case where-in "un-identified" parts have been found at so-called "UFO crash-sites" - like the Roswell site.




posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   
There is a huge difference between a government cleanup with intentions of hiding downed alien craft and the cleanup which you would see for a downed airliner.

And any pieces of wreckage that may have been found by 'passers-by' would have been confiscated or discredited by the powers that be.

This of course is just speculation on my part and your theory could hold just as much water as mine. Thanks for the contribution.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by spines
There is a huge difference between a government cleanup with intentions of hiding downed alien craft and the cleanup which you would see for a downed airliner.

And any pieces of wreckage that may have been found by 'passers-by' would have been confiscated or discredited by the powers that be.

This of course is just speculation on my part and your theory could hold just as much water as mine. Thanks for the contribution.

Well, I can think of at least two instances of wreckage, of advanced military hardware (advanced and classified for their time), being left behind (and picked up by independent crash investigators), even after thorough clean-up jobs of the sites themselves. Those two instances would be a YB-49 crash in the 1940s and an F-117 in the 1980s.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 12:51 AM
link   
The official story is pretty believable now that its been declassified. Basically it goes something like this: The US military wanted to find out if and when the USSR were setting off test nukes.

One of their scientists realized that the upper atmosphere is, in effect, a sound channel. So the project was to put a number of weather balloons up there with ‘disc’ microphones on them which would transmit back to various stations with the balloons coordinates when someone was heard. Thus allowing them to triangulate the position of the nuclear test.

Anyway apparently the disc microphones were dubbed ‘flying discs’.

As for the footage, I’m pretty sure that was proven to be fake. There was a few seconds of decayed ‘real footage’ but that might have been from any event at any time.

Anyway this story explains why they had to lie, and how some confusion may have occurred. I don’t know if I’m completely convinced by it but it does seem to fit snugly in that information gap.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yandros
The official story is pretty believable now that its been declassified. Basically it goes something like this: The US military wanted to find out if and when the USSR were setting off test nukes.

One of their scientists realized that the upper atmosphere is, in effect, a sound channel. So the project was to put a number of weather balloons up there with ‘disc’ microphones on them which would transmit back to various stations with the balloons coordinates when someone was heard. Thus allowing them to triangulate the position of the nuclear test.

Anyway apparently the disc microphones were dubbed ‘flying discs’.

As for the footage, I’m pretty sure that was proven to be fake. There was a few seconds of decayed ‘real footage’ but that might have been from any event at any time.

Anyway this story explains why they had to lie, and how some confusion may have occurred. I don’t know if I’m completely convinced by it but it does seem to fit snugly in that information gap.



Come on Yandros, the official story is far from believable. Why in the "most up to date official story" did the government feel the need to explain the bodies which it had denied for 50 years. Basically it goes something like this. The govt. says the bodies everyone saw were "test dummies" that were for some reason being used in the afformentioned secret project. Problem is these test dummies did not come into use by the goverment until 1952, a full 5 years after roswell. Wrong answer. I suggest you start by reading Gazroks write up in the compilation thread that is stickied in this forum. The governments story is very far from believable.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   
No wreckage? I assume an advanced Alien craft would be built different than human aeroplanes and rockets. I'm sure if they can sustain immense space travel and survive space "hardships" they wouldn't explode like a grenade when hitting desert surface.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShooterSix
No wreckage? I assume an advanced Alien craft would be built different than human aeroplanes and rockets. I'm sure if they can sustain immense space travel and survive space "hardships" they wouldn't explode like a grenade when hitting desert surface.

You're still left with significant wreckage - not all of which would be picked in even the most intense of retrieval operations.

[edit on 6-11-2006 by Egotosum]



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   
There is footage of crash landing saucers... they can explode.

Yeah I thought the test dummies thing was pretty funny too.

The conspiracy would have to run very very deep into the US government for the interested parties to have the ability to create and declassify fake documents.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yandros
The official story is pretty believable now that its been declassified. Basically it goes something like this: The US military wanted to find out if and when the USSR were setting off test nukes.



The only proplem here is EVERYONE that seen the "wreckage" from the 1947 Roswell crash have ALL said it looked nothing like what was in General Ramsey’s office floor. I guess the base was organizing child size coffins for a weathen ballon ?.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Fact is, we don't know how big this wreckage was. So we can't say, with 100% certainity, that it was "significant" wreckage. Do you have a link to a video of saucers crashing?



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Get a team of people with state of the art metal detectors and lets do a sweep of the area. Lets see what can be found.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cyber_Wasp
Get a team of people with state of the art metal detectors and lets do a sweep of the area. Lets see what can be found.

If memory serves me right, there was a UFO doco, I watched a while back (Discovery Channel or History Channel), that interviewed crash investigation amateurs who'd sweeped a couple of the Roswell "UFO" crash-sites, and had found nothing - literally nothing.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShooterSix
Fact is, we don't know how big this wreckage was. So we can't say, with 100% certainity, that it was "significant" wreckage. Do you have a link to a video of saucers crashing?


video.google.com.au...

That one has been circling for a while.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yandros

Originally posted by ShooterSix
Fact is, we don't know how big this wreckage was. So we can't say, with 100% certainity, that it was "significant" wreckage. Do you have a link to a video of saucers crashing?


video.google.com.au...

That one has been circling for a while.

Here's a comment from that page:-

"Barking Spider, you're right, it is a Russian Bouncing Bomb prototype that on the third bounce explodes into shards of metal, the reason it is glowing is because it is burning. To prove it, watch the top right corner of the screen for about 3 frames at the start of the movie, it's a bomber aircraft."

He's got a point - you can see, in the top-right corner of the screen, an aircraft drop the object that ends up crashing to the surface. Makes sense to me.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   
That's a neat video, I do now remember seeing that awhile back. I can't really though get a good idea of its size, and "contaminated area" from the wreckage from watching the video.

Now, do all ET craft crash like this? Did Roswell crash like this, or did it crash at a slower speed thus less wreckage? I don't know, and I'm not fully convinced. Hell, was that thing in the video even UFO origin?

Thank's for the link and reminder!

EDIT: Seems crashing UFO is of Russian origin. Thanks to the poster above!

[edit on 6-11-2006 by ShooterSix]



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Egotosum
Here's a comment from that page:-

"Barking Spider, you're right, it is a Russian Bouncing Bomb prototype that on the third bounce explodes into shards of metal, the reason it is glowing is because it is burning. To prove it, watch the top right corner of the screen for about 3 frames at the start of the movie, it's a bomber aircraft."

He's got a point - you can see, in the top-right corner of the screen, an aircraft drop the object that ends up crashing to the surface. Makes sense to me.


I can't see a plane. And I have a few problems with that explanation.

1. What is the logistical advantage of having a bomb which bounces. Surely such a thing would just be harder to aim and therefore less useful.
2. I don’t know if you are familiar with the temperature at which steel glows white, but its not low. The video cannot be of the bomb having just been released unless the bomb is essentially a big flying canister of reacting termate (military thermite).
3. Where’s the explosion? If it’s a bomb shouldn’t it explode at the end? If the only purpose is to rain hot debris down on your enemy why not simply use a mortar?



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 03:08 AM
link   

1. What is the logistical advantage of having a bomb which bounces. Surely such a thing would just be harder to aim and therefore less useful.


Who knows, perhaps they wanted to test the robustness of the weapon - or maybe the whole "bouncing bomb" thing is wrong, in so far as the test went awry. It might not have been a bouncing bomb - the test might simply have gone awry.


2. I don’t know if you are familiar with the temperature at which steel glows white, but its not low. The video cannot be of the bomb having just been released unless the bomb is essentially a big flying canister of reacting termate (military thermite).


That could simply be down to the poor resolution of the version of the original video. Have you not seen the dozens of videos, now on the net, of missile tests that are passed of as "UFOs"?


3. Where’s the explosion? If it’s a bomb shouldn’t it explode at the end? If the only purpose is to rain hot debris down on your enemy why not simply use a mortar?


It could an anti-personel device - you wouldn't necessarily see a massive hollywood-style explosion as the device went off.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Egotosum
If something, other than a balloon, crashed at Roswell in 1947, surely you'd be able to go out there today and pick up bits and pieces (of any size) of the "craft", right?

No. It's not right.
Go to a dangerous corner on a main road.
Go to a dented up telegragh pole.
Better yet, go to one with flowers, or a some kind of 'memorial shrine'.
Look around. Chances are that there was an accident there. But no doubt all the shrapnel has been cleaned up. This would be cleaned up by no more than one or two people, or even a street sweeper. This would be done within weeks of the crash.

But 'Roswell' is on a completely different level to a car crash, right? Then go to the surrounding areas of WTC or pentagon. Any aeroplane shrapnel?

It's not hard to clean a up a mess. There has been 57 years to clean up a local 'mess.'



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Also they could probably use a big electromagnet to get all the bits of metal no matter how small. So using metal detectors wouldn't be much use.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gear

Originally posted by Egotosum
If something, other than a balloon, crashed at Roswell in 1947, surely you'd be able to go out there today and pick up bits and pieces (of any size) of the "craft", right?

No. It's not right.
Go to a dangerous corner on a main road.
Go to a dented up telegragh pole.
Better yet, go to one with flowers, or a some kind of 'memorial shrine'.
Look around. Chances are that there was an accident there. But no doubt all the shrapnel has been cleaned up. This would be cleaned up by no more than one or two people, or even a street sweeper. This would be done within weeks of the crash.

But 'Roswell' is on a completely different level to a car crash, right? Then go to the surrounding areas of WTC or pentagon. Any aeroplane shrapnel?

It's not hard to clean a up a mess. There has been 57 years to clean up a local 'mess.'

There are plenty of crash-sites arond the world (from memory, one major in a woods in France) where you could go today and pick up bits of pieces of planes.

Apparently the well-known YB-47 (a classified and advanced weapon's system for it's time) crash-site is still strewn with wreckage from that aircraft.

[edit on 6-11-2006 by Egotosum]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join