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: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atomic
More MOGUL balloons continue to land near Roswell post-July 1947 but no big deal, other than the CAA/FAA becoming concerned about it.

Yep, and if anybody asks what it’s for, it’s just a simple weather balloon.


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




posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied

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.


Yes, it matters.

We also know, according to the diagrams, exactly how large MOGUL Balloon Trains were.



Originally posted by Access Denied
OK




I take it that you either don't see the difference then, or do not acknowledge it?

Again here is the side by side, the first two on the left from Carlswell AFB and the last on the right posted by AD and used by the USAF Report.





[edit on 8-7-2007 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   
tezza, try not to get to upset- take a deep breath and calm down.

I stated clearly from the start its my opinion we should have been able to reverse engineer something in 60 years. Its your opinion we cant or its "possible" we cant. I never denied that whatsoever. You can choose to beleive that if you wish. I however do not. (opinions evryones allowed one :p )

the reason i think we could is becuase were a technological civilization- we actually have a very good grasp of the fundamental laws of physics we are a long long way from cavemen. I think our boys could lick it in no problem in 60 years ( *warning this is just an opinion :p )

[edit on 8-7-2007 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
tezza, try not to get to upset- take a deep breath and calm down.

I'm always calm, why would you assume that I'm not?



I stated clearly from the start its my opinion we should have been able to reverse engineer something in 60 years.

Sure you did and it shows that you have absolutely no idea about how long it should take to reverse engineer a crashed alien vehicle. You don't have any technical expertise or practical knowledge of how to do it, but you'll proclaim that your opinion is valid, without any supporting evidence whatsoever. That's probably the only mistake that you made, along with destroying logical structure when you claimed that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.



Its your opinion we cant or its "possible" we cant. I never denied that whatsoever.

It's my opinion that I don't know if we can reverse engineer an alien vehicle, or how long it should take, if we could. I didn't set a timeframe without possession of the facts, unlike you, I don't want to make a false proclomation.



You can choose to beleive that if you wish. I however do not. (opinions evryones allowed one :p )

Sure, opinions are allowed, it doesn't mean that they are all valid, constructive, or even sensible. You've proven that, with your wild claim that we should have been able to reverse engineer a crashed alien vehicle within 60 years. That's not a smart claim to make, when you have absolutely NO supporting data at all. Shooting one's mouth off, is just that, when it can not be substantiated or validated by supporting data and evidence.

You want to debunk Roswell? Fine, do it. That's cool. But, stick to the FACTS rather that offering your own mythical views on things which you know NOTHING about.

By the way, can you please supply us with the page number where Friedman states that the recovered alien vehicles operated from a nuclear power source? You made the claim, I want to read it. I don't have time to flick through every page of Top Secret/Majic right now. I'll get it down from my shelf, once you have given me the page number.

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:33 AM
link   
i just get tired of going over the same bunk testimony time and again. I find it nice to think about other areas where we may see evidence of the crash. But like i say we see none in our tech..thats all my point really was.

but you got on your high horse saying i cant prove anything so its not a valid thing to say -in other words dont post it? i dont think your in a position to tell anyone what to post tbh

[edit on 8-7-2007 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
i just get tired of going over the same bunk testimony time and again. I find it nice to think about other areas where we may see evidence of the crash. But like i say we see none in our tech..thats all my point really was.

I prefer to see facts from both sides of the Roswell fence. Unsubstantiated claims are a waste of space and should be ignored. Facts, facts and more facts. I agree with you that there is a lot of bunk testimony about Roswell. You've just added to that by claiming that we should have been able to reverse engineer a crashed alien vehicle in less than 60 years. See my point? You contribute to the amount of bunk testimony, even though you are tired of reading the same thing from other people.



but you got on your high horse saying i cant prove anything -in other words dont post it? i dont think your in a position to tell anyone what to post tbh

High horse? No, I'm allowed to point out bunk when I see it. You can perceive that with whatever attitude you like. I didn't tell you what to post, I just pointed out that your claims were bunk and logically flawed.

You're a Roswell debunker - you make that clear. You need to be very careful that everything you type is supported by facts and evidence, otherwise you are as guilty as the claims that you are trying to debunk in the first place.

If you want to stick to your claim that we should be able to reverse engineer a crashed alien vehicle within 60 years, then go ahead. I doubt that many of the intelligent Roswell debunkers in this thread will support you on that, as even they are smart enough to see the danger and error in your claim, made without any supporting data. Stick to the facts and leave the bunk alone.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   
the lack of solid evidence is total in the roswell case. i need soemthing more to believe.

[edit on 8-7-2007 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
well if you do as you say (stick to the facts) its clear an alien spaceship did not crash. So why do you belive one did? your not ignoring the FACTS are you?

What are you typing?

I never claimed that an alien vehicle was recovered at Roswell???

Fact: Something crashed at Roswell. This was confirmed by the Air Force.
Fact: The Air Force covered up whatever crashed at Roswell. This was confirmed when they changed their story at least twice about what crashed there.
My opinion: Something happened at Roswell and I'll never know what it was! It *COULD* have been a crashed alien vehicle, but I don't know!

Why are you trying to divert your logically flawed BUNK by shifting a false claim on to me???

I was expecting a better response from you to defend your reasons for spreading BUNK, but all I get is lies about what I believe. Hello??? Are you that desperate to create stories now and spread more bunk on purpose?

By the way, Schuyler and I are still both very interested in the page number of Friedman's Top Secret/Majic book where you claimed that Friedman stated the retreived alien vehicle was operated by nuclear power. Please supply the page number for us? Could this be another instance of you spreading more BUNK?



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:58 AM
link   
oh its page 9 paragraph 2

the lack of solid evidence is total in the roswell case. i need soemthing more to believe.

and i dont think its bunk to say we see no evidence around us of alien tech- i would say thats a FACT. Im sure if nasa wheeled out a new launcher that used anti grav tech and could travel the speed of light you would point to that as evidence of reverse engineered tech. Unfortunately they havnt done that yet- and thats a fact



[edit on 8-7-2007 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
oh its page 9 paragraph 2

Page 9, paragraph 2, Top Secret/Majic, 2005, soft cover edition written by Stanton Friedman:

"I didn't want to jeopardize my job, so I asked my boss if management had any restrictions on employee speaking arrangements. The response was that I could speak where I wanted and say what I wanted on my time, so long as I made it clear that the opinions expressed were mine and not those of my employer. I could even identify myself as a Westinghouse nuclear physicist. They could not have been fairer. (Even in recent months I have found that many scientists in Europe are afraid to speak out about UFOs for fear of retribution by management.)"

(My apologise to Stan Friedman, no breach of copyright was intended.)

Right, so I must have a different edition that you, yeti. Nothing in that paragraph mentioned that the retrieved alien vehicle was operated by nuclear power. It might be easier if you could type the quote from the book for us, please?



the lack of solid evidence is total in the roswell case. i need soemthing more to believe.

Sure, I agree that the lack of solid evidence is frustrating. It still continues to this day when people make claims about timelines for reverse engineering crashed alien vehicles, without any evidence or data.




and i dont think its bunk to say we see no evidence around us of alien tech- i would say thats a FACT.

That's a reaonable claim to make, sure. What's bunk though, is to make the claim that just because we don't see any alien technology, that we are not in possession of it. You made the claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence and that's logically flawed bunk.

[edit on 8-7-2007 by tezzajw]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   
lol i wasnt really close was i? i cant believe you typed that up- your so gullible - no wonder you believe a saucer crashed.

i checked the stanton claim- he actually said he was hired to reverse engineer a "flying saucer" but the project fell through
i wrongly assumed it was nuclear becuase he was nuclear scientist- it may have been anything i suppose- im very sorry

i agree absence of evidence is not evidence of absence- but neither is it evidence to the contrary. touche



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
lol i wasnt really close was i? i cant believe you typed that up- your so gullible - no wonder you believe a saucer crashed.

Spreading bunk again are we? I stated that I believe as fact that something crashed at Roswell and the true nature of it was covered up. The facts support this. You are a (Mod Edit) to state I believe an alien vehicle crashed there.



i checked the stanton claim- he actually said he was hired to reverse engineer a "flying saucer" but the project fell through
i wrongly assumed it was nuclear becuase he was nuclear scientist- it may have been anything i suppose- im very sorry

Apology accepted. It's good to see that you can admit you were wrong with your bunk claim.



i agree absence of evidence is not evidence of absence- but neither is it evidence to the contrary. touche

Fine - then that should be it. I'm glad that you finally agree. Sure, we don't see obvious alien technology today, so it neither supports or denies that the alien technology is in our possession. Agreed.

I'm glad that you managed to apologise and retract most of the bunk you have been typing for the past few hours.

```````````````````````
Removed personal attack

[edit on 8/7/07 by masqua]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   
lol so why do you only attack skeptics and never bunk artists. Its obvious by your posts you think an alien spaceship crashed (Mod Edit) dont insult everyones intelligence. I dont see anyone else getting super offended at the thought of mentioning our tech today.

seriously , what a (Mod Edit)

yeti out-

[edit on 8-7-2007 by yeti101]

`````````````````````
Edited personal attack

[edit on 8/7/07 by masqua]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
lol so why do you only attack skeptics and never bunk artists.

I don't attack people, I attack their claims. You made some bunk claims that I pointed out to you. I don't have infinite time here to read every claim that's made. I don't follow every thread in this forum - there's only a few that I watch. This thread appeals to me and I have been following each post. Your bunk claim stood out and I decided to respond within the T&C of this website.



Its obvious by your posts you think an alien spaceship crashed your the liar dont insult everyones intelligence. I dont see anyone else getting super offended at the thought of mentioning our tech today.

It might be obvious to you that I believe an alien vehicle crashed at Roswell, but it's not obvious to me! Again, you are a (Mod Edit) for accusing me of beliefs that I do not hold. I believe that something crashed at Roswell and the nature of it was covered up. That is undisputable, documented fact. Sure, I would *like* to believe that it was an alien vehicle, but I am not convinced that it was. There is a lot of cicumstantial evidence pointing that it was an alien vehicle, but not enough for me to fully believe. I'm neutral and I have enjoyed reading the thread. I know people who have fourth-hand testimony through a chain of connections that tell me an alien vehicle crashed at Roswell, but I don't take fourth-hand testimony as solid evidence for me to believe it to be true. There's plenty of evidence to discredit some of the witnesses, which helps to shoot holes in the alien crash story.

[Until fairly recently, I actually fully believed Roswell - but I have my doubts about some of the key witnesses and their testimony. I'm neutral now. Personally, I believe there are other stronger crash-retrieval cases, but that's off topic to this thread.]



seriously , what a jerk
yeti out-

Is that why you got your warning? Please read the T&C of this website - personal insults are not allowed. Attack my claims, not me.

`````````````````
Removed personal insult

[edit on 8/7/07 by masqua]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by LogicalThinker
Access Denied, if you got evidence: don't sing it; bring it.:

Sure, please read my detailed thread on Reality Uncovered…

Roswell explained? Potential NEW evidence!
www.realityuncovered.com...

It’s a long read and I don’t get to the real clincher (for me anyway) until my very last post but basically the unpublished evidence I was turned on to points directly to Lt. Haut deciding on his own authority (possibly with some encouragement from Maj. Marcel who had duped his son and maybe wanted to impress him) to encourage the local press to use “flying saucers” as a “cover story” (in a joking way, not literally) due to an unusual series of events (UFO ”flap”) that occurred in the days and weeks leading up to the Roswell “Incident”, one of which involved MOGUL Field Operations Director, Dr. Albert P. Crary. From there all the confusion and seemingly conflicting actions by the military suddenly makes sense. The de-facto (unofficial) cover story WAS meteorological balloon research but apparently Lt. Haut didn’t get the memo. Ramey sure did.



Above: An AN/CRT-1 Sonobouy of the type flown by Project MOGUL that rancher Mack Brazel would have found on the Foster Ranch among the debris along with the RAWIN radar reflectors and would not have been able to identify.

The funny thing is in the end it actually worked. After all, who would believe it? Just think, it wasn’t until nearly 50 years later that two dedicated UFO researchers stumbled on to Project MOGUL independently of each other. Even the Air Force had forgotten about it and if it wasn’t for the efforts of those researchers, the Air Force probably never would have been able to issue the Roswell Report: Case Closed. Ironic isn’t it?

I also have to give a lot of credit to the military members involved who helped keep the secret right up until the end by confusing the heck out of pesky UFO “researchers” with alternating outright denial or whispered tall tales of aliens spaceships and bodies. Wink wink, nudge nudge…



Originally posted by LogicalThinker
Reminds me of yeti101 when he said point blank that Stanton Friedman are a hoaxer, a claim he couldn’t backup whatsoever of course:

I can’t speak for yeti but I can tell you what I found out about SF and it isn’t pretty. Here’s a thread I wrote about the MJ-12 hoax on Reality Uncovered…

Where all of those myths came from and why?
www.realityuncovered.com...

I took some major flak on that one and apparently ruffled a few feathers. Hell, Stan even had one of his cohorts issue a denial on his behalf in response to my thread but that doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is that apparently some UFOlogists think it’s OK to fabricate evidence to try and “smoke out” the “truth” as if the end somehow justifies the means… and then go laughing all the way to the bank.

Enjoy!

AD

P.S. Happy 60th Anniversary of the Roswell Myth! If ever a mountain was made out of a molehill this is it so congratulations to those who have done their part to forever muddy the UFO waters… FUBAR!



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Originally posted by Access Denied




It’s a long read and I don’t get to the real clincher (for me anyway) until my very last post but basically the unpublished evidence I was turned on to points directly to Lt. Haut deciding on his own authority (possibly with some encouragement from Maj. Marcel who had duped his son and maybe wanted to impress him) to encourage the local press to use “flying saucers” as a “cover story” (in a joking way, not literally) due to an unusual series of events (UFO ”flap”) that occurred in the days and weeks leading up to the Roswell “Incident”, one of which involved MOGUL Field Operations Director, Dr. Albert P. Crary. From there all the confusion and seemingly conflicting actions by the military suddenly makes sense. The de-facto (unofficial) cover story WAS meteorological balloon research but apparently Lt. Haut didn’t get the memo. Ramey sure did.




Thanks for the laugh AD. You provide an endless source of amusement.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Access Denied, I read everything you wrote on the other website and it's very interesting. However, it doesn't actually prove anything, just talks about WHERE the "UFO rumor" MIGHT have gotten started. At least as far as I can tell.

So, I have 2 questions:

How do you account for the fact that Jesse Marcel, Sr. was in Intelligence and had gone to radar school and therefore would have been able to recognize a weather balloon and a Project Mogul balloon?

Also, if it were a Mogul, why didn't the govt come clean 5 or 10 years after Roswell, when it wasn't classified any more? (If it ever was)

I am very interested in your responses. Thank you.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   
its known he went to intelligence school but ive never heard of him going to radar school? the question is can you rely on anything he says after all the lies he's told?

www.roswellfiles.com...



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Yeti, I have read his son's book (Jesse Marcel, Jr.) and he has a picture of his dad's certificate for graduating from radar school 2 years before the Roswell incident. He was a brilliant man, not a nincompoop and he would definitely have known the difference between a weather balloon, Mogul balloon and something "not of this earth". (Marcel, Sr.'s words.)
He was IN Army intelligence, which means he must have completed his intelligence training. Anyone in military intelligence is no idiot.
Marcel was forced to tell the cover story and pose for a picture in which the debris had been switched.

Marcel's book is just now being published and should be available any day now. It's an excellent read and explains alot. Marcel, Jr. is no idiot, either. He was a flight surgeon for the military and served as such in Iraq (at the age of 68) until 3 years ago when he retired with an excellent record.
His story rings true and I cannot find one hole in it, try as I might.
One of the reasons he wrote his book was to clear his father's name, which had been tarnished by the military stating that it was a weather balloon, something that would have been a no-brainer for Marcel and he felt it made him look ridiculous and stupid.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
How do you account for the fact that Jesse Marcel, Sr. was in Intelligence and had gone to radar school and therefore would have been able to recognize a weather balloon and a Project Mogul balloon?

Hi forestlady, thank you for reading all that. I understand the confusion. Everybody seems to get hung up on that but the fact is Marcel Sr. didn’t think it was a “flying saucer” in 1947. CIC Officer Sheridan Cavitt who was the one who went out with Marcel to the Foster Ranch to pick up the debris confirms this. As a Counter Intelligence Officer he would have had to file a report if there was anything important about what they found there but he didn’t because he didn’t want his superiors to know that they “wasted their time” going to pickup a balloon.

The confusion comes in 30 years later when in 1978 in response to an ad Stanton Friedman put in the papers looking for anybody still alive who had been in Roswell in July 1947 that the old man told a very different story, most likely under hypnosis, which is a frequent technique used by UFO “researchers”. As yeti pointed out, Marcel is a proven liar.


Originally posted by forestlady
Also, if it were a Mogul, why didn't the govt come clean 5 or 10 years after Roswell, when it wasn't classified any more? (If it ever was)

Project Mogul was classified TOP SECRET. The reason the AF didn’t “come clean” 5 or 10 years later is because nobody cared about Roswell until 30 years later. It had been completely forgotten about!

Hope that helps and thanks for your questions.

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



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join