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.

 

A question to sceptics.

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


"Honest, Mr. Grayson, my dog ate my homework. All of it. Even the homework that never got out of my notebook."

Never worked for me, not even once.




posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   
There is plenty of real evidence with the Billy Meier case. Photographs, 8mm videos that have never been proved as hoaxes nor replicated. I think people are skeptical about extraterrestrial life is deep down they are scared. You skeptic, you may not realize it or want to admit it but deep down you are scared. Why is there the believe of God? Where is the evidence? The Bible? That is nothing but historical accounts that have been changed and twisted by Man. Search for the Henoch Prophecies, written way before Christ and the murder of thousands of people on 9/11, not by Al Qaeda, men with box cutters but by people in and behind our own government. Don't get me wrong. I believe in Creation, the Creation Spirit, what you may call God. I believe in Jmmanuel, the one they call Jesus. I do not believe in what is written in the Gospels because they have been altered from the true teachings of Jmmanuel. Search Talmud Jmmanuel. I most definitely believe there is extraterrestrial life, in fact have filmed their craft (not reverse-engineered craft).
I am a skeptic, yes but only for certain things, like the BS story of 9/11. Being skeptical is fine but there is too much evidence in 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and yes even extraterrestrials.

Why would anyone think that extraterrestrials should come down among us and befriend us, give us their technology and their secrets when we, as a race of people, do to ourselves and each other what we do?


Why do we not believe in ourselves? We are the biggest skeptics of ourselves!



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
The military protects the secret by removing the physical evidence, and has built up the notion that believing in extraterrestrials is a quirk,


Can you see where that can be perceived as simply inventing a scenario in order to explain a scenario that has just as little evidence? Can you also not see how that strategy can be used to explain away nearly any thing?

"We don't have good, physical evidence because......"

A: The military takes it away.
B: The guv'mint covers it up.
C: Whatever other equally unsupported position can be imagined or invented.


How about another choice?

D: There simply is not any good physical evidence to work with.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


There is a lot of trace evidence.
see this page
ufos.about.com...



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by theyareoutthere
 


Let's examine the trace evidence as reported in your link:

1. 1941 - Cape Girardeau, Missouri Crash

A purported photograph was taken that has not been substantiated. I could not find any link to the actual photograph online, and a thread within ATS on this incident states that the original photograph was sadly lost.

2. 1947 - Roswell

The grandaddy of them all. We're all familiar with Marcell's claims and the infamous retraction from the newspaper regarding the headline "Flying Saucer" discovered. Apparently there was debris, but all of this was purportedly covered up by the Air Force.

3. 1957 - The Ubatuba UFO Metal Fragments

Metal fragments were found and analyzed. The conclusion is that they were made entirely of magnesium, and since it is impossible to "manufacture any absolutely spectographically pure element on Earth", the fragments must be extraterrestrial. Perhaps the most interesting and substantiated case so far.

4. 1965 - Kecksburg, Pennsylvania

Something crashed in the woods. No physical evidence other than a purported photograph that was "confiscated" by the military.

5. 1965 - Pretoria, South Africa

Something landed on asphalt and left marks. Trace tests were performed of the area, but the results were never released.

6. 1966 - The Tully Saucer Nest

Strange formations of reeds were analyzed, but nothing "other-worldly" was found.

7. 1966 - Roaring River UFO Encounter

Photos were taken of a UFO that visited a campsite.

8. 1967 - The Falcon Lake UFO Encounter

A man suffers burns from a purported UFO close encounter.

9. 1971 - The Delphos, Kansas Glowing Ring

A UFO leaves a ring in the ground of someone's farm, and several broken branches of surrounding trees were found.

10. 1980 - UFO Landings at Rendlesham Forest

UFO encountered by RAF, but no actual trace evidence listed.


Take all of these together, and one might rightly assume that something is going on. But what does all this trace evidence really buy us? Unfortunately, not much. As you can see, out of these 10 cases, we really only have 1 set of evidence that was obtained and verified scientifically.

This isn't to suggest that burn marks, rings on the ground, or photographs shouldn't be considered; just that they don't do much to prove any particular thing on their own.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by spookjr
 


Just skimming through the replies... and about to consider the thread as one of those in which there are no winners......but i seen "spookjr's" post where he says "So, heres the thing. I am a skeptic. Do I believe in UFO's yes. Unidentified Flying Object, does not an alien make. I am a skeptic because I have never,ever,ever,ever seen proof that the occupants of UFO's are alien beings. Have you? Has anyone? I dont think so. I will remain an open minded skeptic until E.T. lands in my front yard. Until then I will just keep my eyes open."

Ok here is the thing, and there are a few people out here that do this...they call themselves "skeptics"...
I think this is to make it appear as if they are open minded and therefore worthy of the title...but then as I see in many cases they then cut there balls off. Its inevitable some are a bit more covert then this fine gentleman but all show there hand eventually. Let me address this post though.
A true skeptic does not become a skeptic solely on bases of absence of evidence...because true a skeptical nature is one that is in tune with the fact that absence of evidence is not nor never will be evidence of absence....so the "I have never,ever,ever,ever seen proof that the occupants of UFO's are alien beings". Never,ever,ever,ever is proof that the occupants of UFO's are not alien beings. Then to further that statement with, “Have you? Has anyone? I don’t think so."



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Starhammer
 


I understand your point, but I think you're misinterpreting his stance to mean that he doesn't believe aliens are possible--he never stated that. He is merely affirming the true skeptic's stance: without sufficient evidence, you cannot claim to know.


Originally posted by Starhammer
A true skeptic does not become a skeptic solely on bases of absence of evidence...because true a skeptical nature is one that is in tune with the fact that absence of evidence is not nor never will be evidence of absence


Actually, that's precisely why a skeptic remains skeptical. What other criteria beyond a lack of evidence do you imagine skeptics consider in order to be skeptical?

Furthermore, you're confusing a skeptic's stance. Being skeptical simply means you don't accept the claims based upon the evidence provided. It does not mean adhering to an opposing belief, e.g., that aliens don't exist.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


There are very few true sceptics posting as sceptics

Self-styled sceptics, such as abound on ATS and other internet forums, would be better defined as "deniers" than sceptics



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Starhammer
 


I think you are getting a bit ahead of yourself in thinking that skeptics do not believe in alien life. I could be misreading your post but this is what it sounds like to me that you are stating. All skeptics have different personal beliefs and can not be lumped together by these beliefs.

For example, I believe in alien life, I even believe in the possibility that we have been visited. These are my personal beliefs and I do not let them get in the way when looking at evidence that has been presented. Although I believe these things, I also have not seen sufficient evidence to back my beliefs, and that might be why I am so hard on evidence that is provided.

I want evidence that supports my belief in aliens and alien visitation, and I will usually tear apart obvious faked images. I will ask for clear photos that are taken of UFOs in order to know for sure what is in the picture. I want concrete evidence, not evidence that sais "this looks like it might be of alien origin". I may get slamed by my fellow skeptics for my beliefs but I am willing to take it afterall my beliefs have no substatiated proof.

If the government does know something about aliens and alien visitation and is hiding it they are better at hiding that than they are military secrets. just another belief.


[edit on 8/27/2008 by AlienCarnage]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Well, I'm going to add my 2 cents. First off, I have noticed that is just plain sport around here to "gig" people's opinions and posts and whatnot. Seems like alot of times it just desentigrates into childish argument. Also, people are pointing out others misspellings which are probably more like typing too fast and not using spellcheck. This is not a spelling bee. If you know what they meant, then why split hairs. Also, another, most of the time, you're not gonna change somene else's beliefs or mind. Also, I think alot of peope dismiss things out of hand, out of it doesn't fit what they are comfortable with. For instance, say a 3rd grade boy comes up to another boy and says "my dad ****** your mom". The first boy would probably punch him in the nose and say no way!! Because that is some unpleasant news. Now I have never seen a pyramid, I have seen pictures, and I have talked to people who say they have seen them. I have seen film pics of them. Yes, I believe they exist, even though personally I have no knowledge. But, to believe they exist doesn't harm me or scare me or give me nightmares. It's easy to believe in pyramids. Not a threat. Has anyone here seen a pyramid, can you prove to me they exist? Now you could take me there, and yeah point them out. But since the craft with aliens in them are capable of leaving, not so easy. My point is, we accept alot of things on faith. Also, sidenote, I read the book about the Gulf Breeze sightings and of course there's the big thing about him, Ed Walters I think was his name, faking the pictures. But I believe him because I have some of my own experiences and his descriptions of the bruises match the bruised I have found on my body after some of these experiences. Proof enough for me. So I guess I'm saying, everyone has to make up their own mind and your mind can be changed, might be changed one day when if you have an experience, or see s omething. But to think that because you have never seen something or experienced something, means it doesn't exist is really close minded. Coincidence, I used to live near Gulf Breeze in the 70's, with my bro and his wife, he was in the Navy. At that time, I had never thought about ufos at all.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by Amaterasu
The military protects the secret by removing the physical evidence, and has built up the notion that believing in extraterrestrials is a quirk,


Can you see where that can be perceived as simply inventing a scenario in order to explain a scenario that has just as little evidence? Can you also not see how that strategy can be used to explain away nearly any thing?


Except... There are an abundance of stories of the military swooping down on evidence. Lots and lots of them, from Roswell to that occurrence out in the desert recently. So we know that the military has an interest.

It's not like I suggested this with no testimony.


"We don't have good, physical evidence because......"

A: The military takes it away.
B: The guv'mint covers it up.
C: Whatever other equally unsupported position can be imagined or invented.


This last is disingenuous. There is plenty of support of the idea that the military has an interest.


How about another choice?

D: There simply is not any good physical evidence to work with.


Given the military's clear interest, I'm betting SOMEONE has plenty of good evidence to work with (and has back-engineered a great deal working with it). But any evidence in the public sector is hastily removed.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Except... There are an abundance of stories of the military swooping down on evidence. Lots and lots of them, from Roswell to that occurrence out in the desert recently. So we know that the military has an interest.


Unfortunately, stories are just that. In fact, the infamous Roswell case and its most "prestigious" investigators have a rather unfortunate history of lying, infighting, and recanting of said testimony.



This last is disingenuous. There is plenty of support of the idea that the military has an interest.


Not exactly. When the very tenets of said support are called into question, the integrity of the support itself is weakened. At best we are still left with inconclusive anecdotes.



Given the military's clear interest, I'm betting SOMEONE has plenty of good evidence to work with (and has back-engineered a great deal working with it). But any evidence in the public sector is hastily removed.


Let's assume there is a military interest. What does that really tell us? Nothing other than unexplained phenomena piques the interest of the military. Although I hate to rehash an oft-repeated cliche, it's just as probable that said phenomena is of terrestrial (and secret) origin, thus explaining the military's actions.

I don't mean to side with one explanation over the other; just that there is more than one logical conclusion at which we can arrive from said stories.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge

Oh, by the way - can you enlighten me why aliens in abduction reports are humanoid? Why no one was abducted by cephalopod? Or an insectoid? Or some weird gooey kind of life form?

[edit on 25-8-2008 by ZeroKnowledge]


Your question implies that all animal body forms are equally likely to develop space travel and technology. Do you really believe that insects and dolphins could one day rule the earth without developing upper extremities that are free from the requirement of locomotion? and without living in an atmosphere conducive to the chemical manipulation of substances (Air breathing, not water dwelling?) I'm not sure, but I kind of doubt it.

I cannot for one see how a creature can modify the world around it without a physical form that approximates the human form, whether that means mechanically modifying the world by shaping rocks or other tool making, or inventing fire to spark the chemical modification of matter and metal forming. An organism needs extremities it can use for tool making and needs to live in an environment that provides the opportunity for spontaneous chemical reactions waiting to be discovered "by accident" before it can reach the level of technological advancement that we humans have.

Could a gooey life form make a rock based tool? Could an insectoid evolve to be capable of long enough life for intelligence to develop and large enough size that it can excert forces for environment modification (carry wood, make a fire?) if they didn't need to grow that big, what's stopping them from becoming intelligent right now? I don't know, but for some reason evolution here on earth has only succeeded to make intelligent humanoids, and even as intelligent as dolphins are, they can't and won't invent fire.

Based on our own observation of evolution, organisms tend to evolve to have the very minimal set of body parts required to thrive (we have the bare minimum of visual receptors to infer a three dimensional interpretation of our surroundings), with the only exception being vestiges of past species (hair? the appendix?) This rules out five head 10 arms and 4 tentacle aliens as it would be an excessive number of body parts all requiring nutrients. A more economical life form would be at a survival advantage due to it's lower need for resources. The one with the least body parts that just get the job done (locomotion and environment manipulation) is likely to win.

Based on the, admittedly, scarce empirical evidence one would be compelled to think that intelligent species capable of technological inventions is quite likely to be humanoid because our ancestry contains many other forms that did existed, and still exist, but have yet to succeed to invent space travel, or any other technology precursory to space travel (fire and tool making)

A hypothesis for infinitely diverse number of possibilities for intelligent life requires more new assumptions than a hypothesis for humanoid only intelligent life forms as we have at least some evidence of the later but not the former.

-rrr



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I don't have a lot of time, so I will be quick, sorry:

1) Great claims demand great Evidence. I haven't seen even the lightest shred of evidence being posted on ATS, or anywhere else. Much less the great evidence you would need to prove such claims.

2) How exactly do you jump from U.F.O. (Unidentified Flying Object) to aliens from another galaxy???

3) Is it a question of faith, or of fact? If it is a question of faith, it simply cannot, and need not be proved. If it is a question of fact, one would have to find, at least some unquestionable evidence, to support the ludicrous claims being made.

- It his up to the claimers to present the evidence, since there is an impossibility for a negative to be proved.
- UFOs are mainly a cultural issue, and a matter of the knowledge the claimer has. If, for example, one never saw an Airplane, this object would be, to that said person, an UFO or a God (various isolated tribes in Papua-New Guinea still venerate, as God, a Douglass DC-4 that was shod down in WW2. Other tribes of the regions have built crude replicas of the DC4, as shrines to the God from the sky).
- For many years UFO followers have presented "photographic evidence" of what, later, turned out to be Secret Military Planes, like the F117, B2, SR71 etc.

As for your legal issue, the answer is no. Nobody, in any Court in the West, gets condemned by circumstantial evidence, unless they have a lawyer as incompetent as the "New UFO Cult" nuts, and their so-called "Couch Evidence".

I do believe things should be investigated, by skeptics, like in any scientific process, that truly are interested in the truth, and that aboard the investigation with an open mind, and a proved scientific method.

A good example of such methods would be, for example, the "Seven Paranormal Research" project.

A bad example would be, many ATS members posts, disguised as investigations: "I am traveling to X mountain to see the UFOs for myself". Or the statement of "UFO proof", based on some very bad photos, or films, where nobody can even recognize anything, let alone a clear statement of "Proof".

There are many other examples, worst examples, but right now I haven't the time to go into them...

There are many honest UFO investigation projects, this is not aimed at them.
The rising "UFO Cults" are, in fact, destroying those honest investigators. To them, it is a question of belief, not of proof. In fact, most, don't even know the difference between Belief and Proof.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simplynoone
Quote [There is nothing that can prove those UFOs are built by extraterrestrials. ]


And that is really it in a nutshell as to why I have a hard time believing they are aliens from another planet ......

Ok let me be clear .....I do not discount eye witnesses saying they saw something ..they heard something ....or may have even touched something ..in fact I believe they did see something and heard something and maybe even touched something ........what my questions are ....was what they saw made by man ...made by aliens ..made by some prankster or is it some magic trick ..



And the man wins a cigar! Absolutely spot on. Theres plenty of evidence for UFOs and not a scrap of goodevidence to say they are piloted by alien beings.
I think it was UFO investigator, Andy Roberts, who said, "UFOs are not piloted by an alien intelligence but by an intelligence agency. . !"



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by thrashee

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Except... There are an abundance of stories of the military swooping down on evidence. Lots and lots of them, from Roswell to that occurrence out in the desert recently. So we know that the military has an interest.


Unfortunately, stories are just that. In fact, the infamous Roswell case and its most "prestigious" investigators have a rather unfortunate history of lying, infighting, and recanting of said testimony.


Disingenuous again...? Or are you suggesting the military had no interest in Roswell... Regardless of the investigators and their issues, I find it VERY hard to believe that the military mistook a weather balloon for a flying disk.

But you believe whatever you want to about that.




This last is disingenuous. There is plenty of support of the idea that the military has an interest.


Not exactly. When the very tenets of said support are called into question, the integrity of the support itself is weakened. At best we are still left with inconclusive anecdotes.


Not exactly. There are many, many people who had no "tenets" but only witnessed or had evidence confiscated and told about it. This includes the Hopi...who rescued an ET... (See The Terra Papers linked in my sig. NOTE: Written before Star Wars.)




Given the military's clear interest, I'm betting SOMEONE has plenty of good evidence to work with (and has back-engineered a great deal working with it). But any evidence in the public sector is hastily removed.


Let's assume there is a military interest. What does that really tell us? Nothing other than unexplained phenomena piques the interest of the military. Although I hate to rehash an oft-repeated cliche, it's just as probable that said phenomena is of terrestrial (and secret) origin, thus explaining the military's actions.


Um. Sure. I don't give them equal probability at all. (Though much of the UFO stuff IS human, a larger portion is ET, in my estimation.)


I don't mean to side with one explanation over the other; just that there is more than one logical conclusion at which we can arrive from said stories.


And I disagree there, too. There is one logical conclusion and one desperate one based on wanting to cling to a given paradigm. I was one of the clingers for a very long time. I am no longer.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Disingenuous again...? Or are you suggesting the military had no interest in Roswell... Regardless of the investigators and their issues, I find it VERY hard to believe that the military mistook a weather balloon for a flying disk.


I, too, find it hard to believe. Unfortunately, that only keeps the door open for another unknown. I can assure you, having been a military officer once upon a time, that being a military man does not make you in the know for all activities and goings-on in the military.

My point here was really to elaborate on the fact that even the best investigators in the field regarding Roswell have been caught blatantly lying and making up testimonials.



Not exactly. There are many, many people who had no "tenets" but only witnessed or had evidence confiscated and told about it. This includes the Hopi...who rescued an ET... (See The Terra Papers linked in my sig. NOTE: Written before Star Wars.)


I'll check out your link in a bit, thanks for the reference. I didn't mean that the people themselves held tenets, but that the tenets of corroborating support for military interest were those same stories. Again, it does not bode well when such stories are questioned by the motives of the investigators. Not to say, of course, that all these stories are false or should not be considered.



Um. Sure. I don't give them equal probability at all. (Though much of the UFO stuff IS human, a larger portion is ET, in my estimation.)


How you assign probability is, of course, your prerogative, and will vary from individual to individual.



And I disagree there, too. There is one logical conclusion and one desperate one based on wanting to cling to a given paradigm. I was one of the clingers for a very long time. I am no longer.


Ironically, I would say almost the exact same thing but flipping the roles. It seems to be a common misconception of skeptics that they are all clinging to some pre-existing belief, or even better, some fear to disallow the unknown. While I certainly can't speak for all supposed skeptics here on ATS, I will state that this is hardly the position of a true skeptic.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by thrashee]

[edit on 27-8-2008 by thrashee]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by thrashee

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Disingenuous again...? Or are you suggesting the military had no interest in Roswell... Regardless of the investigators and their issues, I find it VERY hard to believe that the military mistook a weather balloon for a flying disk.


I, too, find it hard to believe. Unfortunately, that only keeps the door open for another unknown. I can assure you, having been a military officer once upon a time, that being a military man does not make you in the know for all activities and goings-on in the military.

My point here was really to elaborate on the fact that even the best investigators in the field regarding Roswell have been caught blatantly lying and making up testimonials.


Well, I understood so much having read The Terra Papers... I don't feel there is a whole lot "unknown" regarding Roswell - to me, at any rate. Your Universe may differ.

And I understand it is only a special segment of the military that have the special knowledge, so I don't expect just any military person to know it all. [smile] (I worked as a civilian out at the 29 Palms Marine base and I can assure you... Few of THEM had any clue about UFO's. LOL!)




Not exactly. There are many, many people who had no "tenets" but only witnessed or had evidence confiscated and told about it. This includes the Hopi...who rescued an ET... (See The Terra Papers linked in my sig. NOTE: Written before Star Wars.)


I'll check out your link in a bit, thanks for the reference. I didn't mean that the people themselves held tenets, but that the tenets of corroborating support for military interest were those same stories. Again, it does not bode well when such stories are questioned by the motives of the investigators. Not to say, of course, that all these stories are false or should not be considered.


Just to warn you about the link, I nearly quit reading several times, initially, because I thought I was reading bad scifi. But when everything fell into place, explaining our present, and answering ALL my WHY's... That's when I experienced a radical paradigm shift. (I constructed a glossary - which helps follow the story (it was a college paper written in the 1970'2 on a manual typewriter by one who was not at that time a professional writer) and it can be found here: www.abovetopsecret.com... - twice, because of editing issues.)

As for the tenets thing... Steven Greer DID get a whole lot of military to admit SOME involvement, however limited. I'm betting the ones truly in the know would never step up for fear of death to their families and friends.




Um. Sure. I don't give them equal probability at all. (Though much of the UFO stuff IS human, a larger portion is ET, in my estimation.)


How you assign probability is, of course, your prerogative, and will vary from individual to individual.


Agreed.




And I disagree there, too. There is one logical conclusion and one desperate one based on wanting to cling to a given paradigm. I was one of the clingers for a very long time. I am no longer.


Ironically, I would say almost the exact same thing but flipping the roles. It seems to be a common misconception of skeptics that they are all clinging to some pre-existing belief, or even better, some fear to disallow the unknown. While I certainly can't speak for all supposed skeptics here on ATS, I will state that this is hardly the position of a true skeptic.


Oh, I wouldn't say it is conscious... Everyone thinks they are rational, reasoning individuals. I'm just saying that a clueless person, never having heard of the phenomenon, if presented with the testimony (different from "stories"), would conclude that our planet is regularly visited by aliens.

It is that need for things to remain in a steady paradigm that leads many to require "scientific" proof - much like refusing to convict someone of murder because there was no live broadcast of the event on TV, and only 27 witnesses.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Just to warn you about the link, I nearly quit reading several times, initially, because I thought I was reading bad scifi. But when everything fell into place, explaining our present, and answering ALL my WHY's... That's when I experienced a radical paradigm shift.


I didn't realize before what your link pointed to: I've actually perused this account before, and unfortunately have to agree with your original assessment of bad sci-fi. However, I'm willing to take the time to read through the entire thing before saying anything further.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 





Disingenuous again...? Or are you suggesting the military had no interest in Roswell... Regardless of the investigators and their issues, I find it VERY hard to believe that the military mistook a weather balloon for a flying disk.

But you believe whatever you want to about that.


It has been stated that many of then advanced aircraft that the military uses now were still in developement back then.

It wouldn't be a stretch to say that possibly the UFO that was recovered at Roswell would more likely have been one of the test flights for said aircraft.

Not knowing all the goings on in the military it would easily be mistaken for an alien craft, and there would have been a cover up by the military in order to keep anything of said aircraft out of the public eye, because news travels fast and would easily have reached the enemies of the country at the time, which would have made us lose any "leg up" over them that we would have had.

Most likely said officer would not be given any reason for the cover up, so his belief would be that an alien crash was being covered up, not a secret test of a military craft.

Yes it was a horrible cover to use a weather baloon for a cover up, but in another way it was ingenius, people including the officer knew it was a cover-up, but the military knew it would lead people to think aliens and not towards secret military operations. This would lead people away from the truth in the search for the truth.

It is possible that the craft being tested is still in developement, or that after the accident they put that particular craft on hiadus, or it could be one of the ones that was diclosed late 80's early 90's.

This is my view, whether it be truth or not, we might never know.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join