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.

 

The truth about the Roswell Incident

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   
yeah thats probbaly the best answer. But what of all those people who say the gvt has recreated them etc? cant have it both ways.




posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
yeah thats probbaly the best answer. But what of all those people who say the gvt has recreated them etc? cant have it both ways.


I'm not trying to have it both ways.

Your question was totally flawed and I pointed it out to you.

Which people directly involved with the Roswell incident have claimed that recovered technology from Roswell has been reverse engineered and is being used today? I'm not interested in people not connected to Roswell and I'm not interested in people who are talking about technology from other alleged crash sites. I'm only interested in staying on this thread topic about Roswell.

Please supply me a list of who those people are and where they made the claims that Roswell technology has been reverse engineered.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
well you have all those folks like bob lazar, steven greer (alien reproduction vehicles) i presume thats from the roswell crash ?

but yes i agree the only way to excuse the lack of super flying saucers is to say they have failed to reverse engineer anything. Which i personally dont find likely.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
You can see the sticks well enough to see that they are round not squared and that they slide into place rather than being TAPED on to the RAWIN.

Well here’s what the RAWIN targets looked after they were recovered…









And here’s what they looked liked all taped and glued together…


You realize the targets came apart and since the cellophane tape had been sitting in the sun for over a month the ink from the flower designs could have bled through and left purple “hieroglyphic” looking markings on whatever it touched right?


Originally posted by lost_shaman
That my friend is evidence that we are not looking at the type of RAWIN Charles Moore described!.

Really? If so then how do you explain what Col. Dubose (among others) said about the debris not being being switched?

What Really Happened at Roswell
www.csicop.org...


Originally posted by lost_shaman
I'm NOT BEING DISINGENUOUS! Sorry for caps, but it gets old getting called disingenuous everytime I post on this subject!

Look I know you can be a pretty sharp guy but I just don’t understand why you keep posting stuff that’s easily debunked, is in direct conflict with established facts, and doesn’t prove a thing. THAT is being disingenuous and THAT is what’s getting old in my opinion, sorry.


Originally posted by lost_shaman
The point is clear AD, noone would have known a MOGUL train was TOP SECRET in anyway unless they knew what the purpose was. It was the purpose that was TOP SECRET not the OTS Weather Balloon gear.

Duh! Why do you think they had to scramble and cover it up with the simple “weather balloon” explanation? Are you saying the WORLD WIDE attention being given to it in the press couldn’t possibly have revealed what MOGUL was about if people started snooping around looking for “flying saucers”????


Originally posted by lost_shaman
Either we are talking about a MOGUL Balloon train or a Service Flight, two completely different things.

You still don’t get it do you? For the LAST TIME here’s what Dr. Crary’s journal states about NYU Flight #4…


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 sono buoy 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.

The first line should have said “No constant-altitude balloon flights again on account of clouds”. The term "cluster" refers to a cluster of 350g GM meteorological balloons which is consistent with the type found on the Foster Ranch. Notice in the very next entry he gets it right!


June 5 Thurs. Up at 4 to shoot 2 charges for balloon flight. Whole assembly of constant-altitude balloons set up at 0500. Fired charges at 0537 and 0552…

The only difference between these two flights (#4 and #5) was since #4 was a “service flight” for Dr. People’s it carried a sonabouy and DID NOT use the extra equipment (i.e. pressure sensors and cutoffs) needed for a constant-altitude flight. This is why Dr. Moore recalled it was configured SIMULAR to Flight #2 and used three RAWIN targets. This is enough information to REASONABLY conclude that Flight #4 was the MOST LIKELY source of the debris found on the Foster Ranch. End of discussion.

RAWINS AWAY!!!!









Originally posted by lost_shaman
This is ridiculous! You don't even know what your talking about, or being disingenuous maybe?

[yawn]



Originally posted by lost_shaman
Blanchard didn't go on leave until after lunch on the 8th! i.e. He was there on Base. Several people who knew Blanchard said that he told them how strange the stuff they found was including his ex-wife, and he told Author McQuiddy, friend and Editor of the Roswell Morning Dispatch, that he authorized the Press Release.

[sigh] Here we go again…so what? You’re basing all your arguments on hearsay and conjecture again, not FACTS. Yes, it was “strange” and Blanchard was still on the base but he wasn’t in command on the morning of the 8th, Lt. Col. Jennings was…

roswellfiles.com...

[see also Attachment 11 to the AF report]


Originally posted by lost_shaman
Why not just admit that the one (and only) "Article" you consider GOLDEN is flawed.

Because that’s not the ONLY article that mentions the press release was on authority of Maj. Marcel NOT Col. Blanchard. Would you prefer I ignore them because they don’t “fit” your crashed alien spaceship fantasy? Besides, I wouldn’t be surprised if Blanchard (or Ramey) at some point accepted responsibility after the fact to cover his junior officer’s butt… as I would expect any good leader to do even though Haut clearly f’ed up!


Originally posted by lost_shaman
For instance in 1950 Frank Scully wrote about the rumors that the Military had recovered THREE "Disks" two with 'Bodies'. You'll never guess where, according to Scully's Book, this happened?

So what? Even if there were rumors about Roswell then why did it take another 27 years for anybody to come forward? If anything that just proves nobody took it seriously. BTW did you miss my post about the Aztec NM crash hoax earlier this thread?

LS I’m sorry but I’m not interested in doing another endless back and forth with you again. Please take it to email if you’d like to continue, thanks.

P.S. Stay tuned for my post on July 8th to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the Roswell Myth.


[edit on 7-7-2007 by Access Denied]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I guess Dr. Wernher Von Braun misidentified the "balloon crash" and "crash dummies" as well....

www.rense.com...

LMAO @ people STILL believing the "official" fairy tale stories that the AF keeps releasing...What are we on now, like the fifth different explanation from them? HAHA



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
well you have all those folks like bob lazar, steven greer (alien reproduction vehicles) i presume thats from the roswell crash ?


Bob Lazar has been caught in numerous false claims. There are several threads on ATS devoted to this. Steven Greer has nothing to do with Roswell AT ALL. I know of no 'alien reproduction vehicles' associated with Greer, with the possible exception of the "Mothra II" energy anchor being prototype, which is a reproduction of a--uh--moth.

[edit on 7/7/2007 by schuyler]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Access Denied - Nice post.

I saw one picture of a radar target that had a 'hexagonal' saucer shaped thing below the balloon that supposedly corresponded to the 'saucer' part that Brazel kept in his shed. Of course it was not a large piece about the four feet in diameter, or maybe a bit smaller looking at the picture.

Can't remember where I saw it - one of the Roswell sites.

I'll keep looking.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
schulyer, your preaching to the choir on that issue i also belive those claims to be false.

so that leave 2 options. They havent managed to back engineeer anything of note in 60 years or they never had an alien spaceship in the first place.

p.s the ARvs associated with greer are from the disclosure project witnesses. He backed them in his book "the disclosure project". And ive seen him talk about them on google video.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   
yeti, first you type this...

yeti
But what of all those people who say the gvt has recreated them etc? cant have it both ways.


So, I asked you to show me a list of people who have made those claims specific to the Roswell technology and you respond with this...

yeti
well you have all those folks like bob lazar, steven greer (alien reproduction vehicles) i presume thats from the roswell crash ?


ALL THOSE FOLKS that you claimed, yet you can only give me two names. Leader Greer is a fraud and has nothing to do with Roswell, so there was no reason to mention him. We all know Lazar's general claims, sure. Where did he mention that the technology he worked on was SPECIFICALLY from Roswell? You state that it's an assumption, meaning that you really don't know and you are guessing. You're not in posession of the facts to give a definitive answer. You made the claim that there are 'all those people' talking about reverse engineered Roswell technology, so you should be easily able to supply names and references. If you can't, then your claim is bunk.

Why did you initially state that the Roswell event could not have taken place, due to the lack of reverse engineered technology? It's such a logically inconsistent argument, it dies as soon as it is read.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   
tezza, are you saying the military would not want to back engineer the roswell craft?

Also im not saying its the only reason that the crash never took place- rather its further indications ET technolgy was not reteived. Its just another dent in the roswell myth - serioulsy theres nothing tangible to support an alien spaceship crash.


p.s apparently Mr Corso talks about reverse engineering the roswell spaceship in his book.



[edit on 7-7-2007 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
tezza, are you saying the military would not want to back engineer the roswell craft?


yeti, you made all of the claims, mate. I'm not stating anything.

I've been very interested to read both sides of this thread. It's been a great argument - both ways. I can see some people spend an extraordinary number of hours doing research.

However, when I read your post that the event could not have happened, because nothing has been reverse engineered from it, I had to point out the logical inconsistency with what you wrote. If you're going to chime in on an argument, then make sure what you write is logically consistent and can be supported with facts.

I believe something happened at Roswell, what that something is, I won't ever know. It's not every day that a press release about a captured disk is given to the media from the Air Force. But I don't believe that any of us civillians will ever know the truth. I'll never know the real truth, maybe it was a cover-up of a an alien crash, maybe it wasn't. In any case, I enjoy the myth. I don't enjoy seeing logic destroyed in the process.


EDIT:

yeti
Also im not saying its the only reason that the crash never took place- rather its further indications ET technolgy was not reteived.

No, yeti. It's not an inidication that nothing was retrieved. They *could* have collected truck loads of the alien-tech and still not have figured any of it out. Just because we don't see the results of reverse engineered alien tech (specifically ARVs), doesn't mean they didn't retrieve anything. Again, you are supporting a logically inconsistent viewpoint. Why?

Corso: How does this help you? If he's telling the truth, then it BURIES your anti-Roswell argument completely. If he's lieing, so what? It doesn't support your argument that just because we don't see any ARVs, then nothing was retrieved.

Your argument is not logically consistent, so it can't put any dints in the Roswell myth. It only puts dints in your ability to construct an argument.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by tezzajw]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   


so you should be easily able to supply names and references. If you can't, then your claim is bunk.

me : ok Corso in his book


Corso: How does this help you?

lol?

its a minor point anyway its obvious they would want to reverse engineer it.

So your position is they retreived crashed spaceship & bodies- but have not successfully reverse engineered anything of note in 60 years?


[edit on 7-7-2007 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
I guess Dr. Wernher Von Braun misidentified the "balloon crash" and "crash dummies" as well....

www.rense.com...

I love this disclaimer at the end…

“I never released this amazing data to Major Keyhoe and NICAP, or the public, until now. I considered my honor sacred when a vow was made.”

Translation: I waited until Von Braun died so he couldn’t publicly deny that he had this conversation with me. And if you believe that I have swamp land in Florida I’d like to sell you.


Honor?



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
So your position is they retreived crash spaceship & bodies- but have not successfully reverse engineered anything of note in 60 years?
[edit on 7-7-2007 by yeti101]


No, yeti. I don't have a position. I've typed with a neutral stance, in case you didn't realise. Maybe they did retrieve alien technology and maybe they didn't. I don't know for sure and I won't EVER know for sure. I have fourth-hand testimony from people I know, that indicates to me that they did retrieve something, but I don't value fourth-hand testimony as being solid evidence - therefore, I am typing with a neutral stance.

My position has been to point out the logical flaws in your argument that "they couldn't have retrieved anything, because we haven't seen it reproduced today, 60 years later".

Imagine I gave a broken TV to a remotely located, primitive tribe of humans back in 1960, but I did it secretly. Only a few of them knew about it. Can you tell me, nearly 50 years later that I never gave them the TV, because their population is not watching TV now? Does that help you understand the logical inconsistency in your argument when I point it out another way?

That's the entire intent and purpose of my recent posts to you.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by tezzajw]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
lol tezza you dont have a position? come on i know your a roswell beleiver!

Have you never thought about why we dont see anything? or dont you want to? the facts too uncomfortable?

like i said before- its just another inidcation of the ZERO tangible evidence for a crashed spaceship that is the roswell myth.

Sure you can try explain it away but thats the point , its another hurdle for the believers to deal with.



[edit on 7-7-2007 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
So your position is they retreived crashed spaceship & bodies- but have not successfully reverse engineered anything of note in 60 years?


This is slightly off you and teejaw's little chat, but the problem I have with Corso is that his claims of reverse engineering are about technologies that we were well along to producing anyway. Integrated circuits, for example, are STILL using the same basic design as mechanical devices in the 1890's, relays in the early twentieth century, vacuum tubes about the time of Roswell, and on to trasistors and then to ICs. The fundamental design of logic gates is the same to day--just a whole lot faster, cheaper, and better. It's invention culminates a progressive increase in technology that is over 100 years old. Corso also attributes fiber optics to aliens. Tell that to a Corning Glass engineer and be laughed at. There's nothing particularly 'alien' about fiber optics. Corso obviously felt he was 'high up in government' (his spoken words) which isn't entirely supported. He was a diminuitive Lt. Colonel, the same as Oliver North.

My point is that though there are some interesting aspects to the Corso story, I think to use his claims to prove anything Roswellian is a little dangerous. He's not that good of a witness, not that strong a prop. That's why Corso doesn't do much for you.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
lol tezza you dont have a position? come on i know your a roswell beleiver!

yeti, whether or not I am inclined to believe in Roswell has no bearing on my ability to type with a neutral stance to point out the logical flaws in your argument.



Have you never thought about why we dont see anything? or dont you want to? the facts too uncomfortable?

Uhhmmmm...? What? What am I supposed to be seeing? Why should I assume that it would only take humans less than 60 years to reverse engineer a smashed up alien vehicle, if one was retrieved? What's your point? The fact that I don't see them flying around me, has no bearing whether alien tech was retrieved at Roswell or not.



like i said before- its just another inidcation of the ZERO tangible evidence for a crashed spaceship that is the roswell myth.

So, again, you stick to your logically flawed argument, that just because we don't see anything reverse engineered within 60 years, that nothing alien was retrieved at Roswell.

At least you're consistent in sticking to your logically flawed argument. Perhaps you should consider studying some logic courses or reading some books on logic. Maybe you'll be able to see the flaw in what you type some day, or maybe not. I don't know you well enough to know if you will have the ability to understand logic.



Sure you can try explain it away but thats the point , its another hurdle for the believers to deal with.

Again, with a neutral stance, all I have explained is that your argument is logically flawed.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
Can't remember where I saw it - one of the Roswell sites.

I'll keep looking.

Cool thanks, I'd like to see it if you find it.


Not sure how unusual that would seem to someone but I can certainly understand why a rancher who had never seen a radar reflective target and a sonobouy before might think there was something extraordinary about it.

The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!!!



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   


So, again, you stick to your logically flawed argument, that just because we don't see anything reverse engineered within 60 years, that nothing alien was retrieved at Roswell.


lol i never ever said it was definitive proof. Its 1 aspect , you seem to think it does not even come into the equation whatsoever im saying it does. You can apply as much or as little weight to it as you see fit. The only real way to justify it is to say they havnt managed to understand it yet- im sorry but i find that highly unlikely. 60 years... and if its nuclear like stanton friedman claims theres no excuse at all.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I can see some people spend an extraordinary number of hours doing research.

I’ll take that as a compliment considering the extraordinary amount of time you’ve spent deprogramming Cult Greerians.



Originally posted by tezzajw
It's not every day that a press release about a captured disk is given to the media from the Air Force.

As long as we’re debating logic here, if you believe the government would stop at nothing to deny ET, why would they even issue the press release in the first place?

Doesn’t it seem more logical in that case it was simply a mistake by the press liaison who “played it up” and not a cover up?

i.e.

“Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity”



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join