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: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
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...

yeti, what technical qualifications do you have that would permit you to give a reasonable time frame for reverse engineering a wrecked alien vehicle? How do you know that the task of doing so should take less than 60 years? You are making an ill-informed guess about something that you have no idea.

It's the basis for which you make your logically inconsistent claim. You're stating that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, which is entirely FALSE. Your claim is logically flawed.



and if its nuclear like stanton friedman claims theres no excuse at all.
[edit on 7-7-2007 by yeti101]

Where does Friedman state that the captured alien vehicle at Roswell was nuclear powered? Please link me to this claim.




posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
what technical insight do you have that it would be so difficult to reverse engineer a saucer?

stanton claims it in his book top secret/majic



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
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?

I'm debating yeti's logically flawed claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

I'm not debating the fact that the Air Force gave a press release to the media or the reasons for doing so.

There's a distinct difference between arguing against a logically flawed premise such that yeti made, compared to human motives and reasoning as to why (if) there was a cover-up of the Roswell facts surrounding the press release.

I'm not entering into a debate with you around the motives and reasons for human decisions regarding the press release, as that's not governed by pure logic. Humans make decisions based on their own needs, wants, desires. Humans are emotional creatures that often defy logic with the decisions they make, for reasons only they know. Humans also make mistakes. You can't argue in 'logical' terms surrounding the press release, as those decisions were made by emotive humans. You can speculate why some humans chose to do what they did, but none of the speculations can be framed in a pure logical sense.

Pure logic, which exists as a mathematical entity, is devoid of emotion or other human influence and it follows a structure based on axioms. yeti's claim violated pure logic when he stated that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Just because we are not seeing ARVs 60 years after the event, DOES NOT mean that nothing alien was retrieved.

Again, all typed with a neutral stance. I'm not saying that anything alien was or was not recovered at Roswell. I'm pointing out the logical inconsistency in yeti's argument - that's it.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
stanton claims it in his book top secret/majic


Could we have a page number or a quote for this, please? Thanks! Be sure and cite whether this is the first or second edition as he changed a few things in between.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
what technical insight do you have that it would be so difficult to reverse engineer a saucer?

You're making the claim that it should be able to be done in less than 60 years, so where's your technical competency to prove that it can be done? How many crashed alien vehicles have you worked on to prove that it can be done in less than 60 years?

I'm not making any claims as to whether or not it can be done. I'm stating that your argument was logically flawed.



stanton claims it in his book top secret/majic

Have you got a page number for me that shows me where Friedman claims that the crashed alien vehicle operated on nuclear power?



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Just because we are not seeing ARVs 60 years after the event, DOES NOT mean that nothing alien was retrieved.

I guess I can see your point.


FWIW I can tell you that I work at one of the facilities identified in the DP briefing document as being involved in ARVs and although it’s more than likely we would be the ones who would be working on it if in fact an alien spaceship had ever been retrieved, I can personally assure you this claim serves as an endless source of amusement for us.


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



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
No alien craft can "crash@ Just not possible. Wake up.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Originally posted by BitDust



No alien craft can "crash@ Just not possible. Wake up.



Correct, this has been discussed at length in other threads. The craft was obviously put there intentionally by the aliens for purposes unknown to us but probably to get us thinking about the possiblities of who else may be in the universe besides ourselves.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Originally posted by johnlear


Correct, this has been discussed at length in other threads. The craft was obviously put there intentionally by the aliens for purposes unknown to us


Christ John,
Please provide some evidence.

And, falling back on your signature is a lame excuse.

YOU make these claims.

YOU need to provide proof.

Or, keep your claims in your own ATS sponsored area.

Thanks.
Lex



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Originally posted by Access Denied





FWIW I can tell you that I work at one of the facilities identified in the DP briefing document as being involved in ARVs and although it’s more than likely we would be the ones who would be working on it if in fact an alien spaceship had ever been retrieved, I can personally assure you this claim serves as an endless source of amusement for us.



I would respectfully suggest that if you were part of, or read into any project even remotely connected with aliens or ARV's, that you would not be posting on ATS. But whether or not you were you do provide an endless source of amusement for us here at ATS. Thanks for the grins.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Originally posted by Lexion





Christ John,
Please provide some evidence.

And, falling back on your signature is a lame excuse.

YOU make these claims.

YOU need to provide proof.

Or, keep your claims in your own ATS sponsored area.

Thanks.
Lex



Thanks for the post Lex. And you are correct. I should have put "My speculation is..." before that statement.

And my name isn't Christ John. It is just plain 'John'.

If you were using the Lords name as an expletive I would respectfully request that you do not do so. Thanks.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I would respectfully suggest that if you were part of, or read into any project even remotely connected with aliens or ARV's, that you would not be posting on ATS.

Trust me John, there are many of us who would LOVE nothing more than to be able to provide our brave young men and women who are fighting for our freedom as we speak with an anti-gravity platform from which they could safely engage the enemy and move about the battlefield with the greatest of ease and speed. Have you ever been in battle and had to carry a full pack on your back for days on end? Needless to say this would be a godsend!

Could you please provide us with an alien spaceships for our inspection? I can assure you we’ll get right on reverse engineering the technology and no expense will be spared to come up with something we can deploy to the troops ASAP. Thank you in advance for being a true patriot.


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



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
I guess I can see your point.


Thanks. As I stated, I wasn't trying to support or debunk Roswell. I was only attacking yeti's logic from a neutral standpoint. I've read your well-researched posts and I find them interesting. Thanks for the work you put in. I can see some of the holes in the pro-Roswell arguments. You point them out very well.



FWIW I can tell you that I work at one of the facilities identified in the DP briefing document as being involved in ARVs and although it’s more than likely we would be the ones who would be working on it if in fact an alien spaceship had ever been retrieved, I can personally assure you this claim serves as an endless source of amusement for us.


You would certainly have access to some classified material working at such a facility. Cool. I could see how it would be amusing to have a false finger pointed at your workplace. I'd love to take a peek at what you do work on though!

However, from the neutral standpoint again - just because you or your facility are not working on reverse engineering a wrecked alien vehicle, it doesn't mean that it's not happening someplace else. I'm not stating that it is happening, I'm stating that it could be happening. There's a huge difference in the logical implications of evidence and the absence of evidence, which seems to have entirely escaped yeti's ability to logically comprehend.

Thanks for your intelligent replies.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by tezzajw]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Inculcated encouragement





posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Originally posted by Access Denied





Trust me John, there are many of us who would LOVE nothing more than to be able to provide our brave young men and women who are fighting for our freedom as we speak with an anti-gravity platform from which they could safely engage the enemy and move about the battlefield with the greatest of ease and speed. Have you ever been in battle and had to carry a full pack on your back for days on end? Needless to say this would be a godsend!

Could you please provide us with an alien spaceships for our inspection? I can assure you we’ll get right on reverse engineering the technology and no expense will be spared to come up with something we can deploy to the troops ASAP. Thank you in advance for being a true patriot.




Sorry AD, you, our brave men and women and I are not high enough up on the food chain to have access to this type of technology. Our lot is to pay taxes and die...in that order. Nice suggestion though.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I'd love to take a peek at what you do work on though!

My advice to you then would be to develop a useful skill and then apply here…

www.usajobs.opm.gov...


Otherwise, you may have to wait up to another 20 years or so like the rest of us to see the fruits of our labor in action.



Originally posted by tezzajw
However, from the neutral standpoint again - just because you or your facility are not working on reverse engineering a wrecked alien vehicle, it doesn't mean that it's not happening someplace else.

Naturally such a task would require a multidisciplinary approach and the work would be divided up among the various centers of expertise however nobody I know (also bearing in mind that I come from a long line of military folks) who works (or worked) at any of these other faculties (or knows somebody who does) is working on anything like that so in my opinion the empirical evidence doesn’t support such a position.

[again FWIW, AFAIK, YMMV, yada yada]


Originally posted by tezzajw
There's a huge difference in the logical implications of evidence and the absence of evidence, which seems to have entirely escaped yeti's ability to logically comprehend.

Again, I see your point and I could be wrong but I didn’t get the impression yeti was offering this as definitive evidence? Regardless, I think yeti’s point is helpful in terms of defining the probability of such an event having occurred wouldn’t you agree?

Regards,

AD

[edit on 8-7-2007 by Access Denied]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Sorry AD, you, our brave men and women and I are not high enough up on the food chain to have access to this type of technology.

For once I agree with you John, if such technology exists, it’s not available anywhere in our solar system.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied

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


And I'm absolutely sure that you believe that.

The fact is this is exactly what we are debating whether or not the RAWIN in Ramey's Office was actually recovered or deliberately torn up by hand as part of the cover story.



Originally posted by Access Denied
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?


And do you realize that you are actually looking at TWO different types of RAWIN?

The RAWIN on the Floor of Ramey's Office is exactly the same as those used down the Street from Ramey's Office at the Mobil Radar station. These did not use Tape.

Here is a side by side comparison of the known Carswell AFB RAWIN with the RAWIN you posted that was falling apart. You can clearly see they are different.


Don't tell me you can't see that difference AD!




Originally posted by Access Denied
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...


I have already explained to you that is not what DuBose said, and he said it multiple times to multiple parties. There is even Video and Audio of DuBose telling of the switch and cover story in his own words. He certainly said the same in the Florida Today article.


Originally posted by Access Denied
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.


I don't post 'stuff' thats easily debunked, I keep pointing out that what your posting is nothing more than TWISTED representations of the evidence we have. The RAWIN Photo you posted above is a perfect example, that I had to clear up.



Originally posted by Access Denied

Originally posted by lost_shaman
The point is clear AD, no one 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”????


The only way anyone could know what MOGUL was, is if someone privy to its true purpose leaked that information to the press.

Nothing about the OTS Weather Balloon Gear and twine would have given that "TOP SECRET" purpose away.



Originally posted by Access Denied

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!


Yeah, I DO get it. I'm just pointing out that your obviously confused about this.

It's claimed by Charles Moore and the USAF report, with out any doubts about this, that Flight # 4 was a 600 ft "Constant

Altitude" MOGUL Balloon Train. Not a "cluster" of Balloons from a Service Flight.

The MOGUL Trains were the Constant Altitude Balloons, Service Flights certainly were not. It was only the MOGUL Balloon Trains that were restricted from being flown in cloudy weather. That is why there were "no balloon flights on account of clouds". The reason is that the Trains were so large that the CAA considered them hazardous to aviation.

So when you talk of no difference between a Service flight and a MOGUL Balloon Train, or that a Service flight was similar to Flight # 2, you are clearly confused. The Service flights connected with MOGUL were simply to send the instruments aloft to see if they even worked at altitude. A "cluster" is 3-5 neoprenes, enough to lift the instrument aloft, as in the case of the 2 pound Sonobuoy. They were not idiots sitting around putting together 600 ft Balloon Trains, that they couldn't fly anyway due to clouds, just to lift a 2 pound sonobuoy!

That's why you see that Test of the Sonobouy ("up in cluster") in Crary's Journal before the very first MOGUL Flight in New Mexico, Flight # 5, that happened the next day. That was because the Service flight, that was not a 600 ft Balloon Train, proved that the Sonobuoys they had would work. They would have tested the "Train" and the Sonobuoy at the same time, but could not fly the Train "due to clouds". But they could still test the Sonobuoy by sending it alot which they did. That showed the Sonobuoy would in fact work as stated in Crary's Journal " had good luck on receiver on ground but poor on plane", therefore they knew a Sonobuoy would work on the first MOGUL Flight # 5 the next day.




Originally posted by Access Denied

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.


You prove my point perfectly, you do not understand what the actual difference between a Service Flight and a MOGUL Balloon Train is. Flight # 2 was a 600 ft MOGUL Balloon Train, Service flights were not 600 ft Balloon trains. If they were then these too would be restricted from flying in cloudy weather.



Originally posted by Access Denied

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…



Really so why is it that DuBose said McMullen called Blanchard on the 8th, and not Jennings?

BTW, did you even read your own link here? I have several times over the years.

roswellfiles.com...

It argues Blanchard didn't go on leave until July 9th, and that Jennings "probably assumed command of the Base sometime the day before".

After Lunch? As I stated.



Originally posted by Access Denied

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!


Again instead of admitting the article is flawed, you consider it GOLDEN despite all the other evidence and testimony to the contrary.



Originally posted by Access Denied

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?


Again, independent evidence that completely contradicts your personal opinion is blown off and rationalized away with a "So What?". That's really objective of you AD.



Originally posted by Access Denied
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.


If you wish to discuss this via e-mail that's fine by me, but as long as you quote me on ATS I'm obligated to respond on ATS.

[edit on 8-7-2007 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:33 AM
link   


I guess I need some enlightening on this part of the story. A MOGUL balloon lands on the Foster Ranch and is recovered by the boys at Roswell. More MOGUL balloons continue to land near Roswell post-July 1947 but no big deal, other than the CAA/FAA becoming concerned about it.

I'm guessing all of these other MOGUL landings were recovered by the guys from the MOGUL project? If they were recovered by civilians then they surely would of called the Roswell Air Base. Did other Roswell army officers go out and recover these same balloons?

If they did...wouldn't the same similar "story" have been told and clamp down happen in 1948?
If the MOGUL group was picking these up, then why did they launch their first one (yet 4th launch in the US) and leave N.M. and head back to New York without recovering it first? Did they not track it on radar? If they had no idea where it went, why didn't they ask nearby bases to keep an eye out for reports of a strange weather balloon or UFO?

Shouldn't we have some army witnesses after July 1947 saying: "heck yeah we picked those things up 4 or 5 times a year...no big deal...we picked them up in 1948 too".

Why would the military continue to threaten people's families and pensions over common MOGUL landings after the project was canceled and the Russians had already exploded an atomic bomb?

According to the interview on CSICOP: www.csicop.org...
C.B. Moore said there were 3 MOGUL launches on JUNE 4th, 5th, and 6th of 1947. If as he assumes, the crash sites are flight 4 (Foster's Ranch) and flight 5 (near Roswell), then where is flight 6? Who went to go pick that up? Who got flight 5 or was that the 2nd crash site? If MOGUL was so top secret then shouldn't flight 6 of landed somewhere with a similar military response?

Wouldn't the Roswell Air Base and surrounding bases had a "recovery team" on standby to get this stuff? Would the military just launch these things willy nilly, knowing they had problems with them on the East Coast of the US, and not have a group of people in on it at Roswell (or another base). "Hey Blanchard, get a group ready in case one of our balloons crash, can't tell you much, but it's a special type and you need to have a team of trusted guys ready".

I'm lost as to how serious this MOGUL project was, but also how poorly controlled the whole thing seems to be:


In fact, when the NYU/AMC group returned to Alamogordo in September, their first trip since the "incident" occurred, one of the first activities of the project scientists, Peoples and Crary, who were accompanied by Major Pritchard and Captain Dyvad, was to brief the commanding officer of Alamogordo AAF and the 509th Bomb Group Operations Officer, Lt Col Joseph Briley, on MOGUL.

Source

MOGUL seems important and unimportant at the same time. How is it that it was important into the 1990s when apparently it wasn't that important in 1947? Launch something top secret and then send the top secret team back home without knowing where their toys went? Help.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Don't tell me you can't see that difference AD!

OK



Originally posted by lost_shaman
Service flights were not 600 ft Balloon trains. If they were then these too would be restricted from flying in cloudy weather.

You don’t know how long it was and it doesn’t matter anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join