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.

 

What Crashed in Roswell- July 7, 1947

page: 4
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


My mind, is secure (I think)..lol..in trusting that this was not alien. UFO yes, but in no regards alien. I am just throwing another outlook at it, one that seem probable to me.

I think of alien as something that is not of this world. If anything it should be listed as un-identifiable, not Alien. I have not seen an alien craft, I have sen UFO's but nothing alien..

[edit on -06002009-01-25T19:56:33-06:00312009bAmerica/ChicagoSun, 25 Jan 2009 19:56:33 -0600, 1 by TheMythLives]




posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMythLives
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


It was 2 years later, chances are they used a similar scheme, but larger and stronger. The Radar used back in the day was not that good as today. Look at the third picture of when it is shot down, in the op, in that picture it looks like a UFO.


This picture?



The picture on the bottom left frame is the balloon collapsing and is not a saucer. and the little black dot in the bottom center of said picture is it's bomb payload


[edit on 25-1-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I said it looks like a saucer, I know its not. But it does look like it, huh? Now imagine finding something along those lines, except larger. On the ground, semi torn up from a storm and most if not all of its contents on the ground. That a typical, layman (in those days), would not know anything about. I would be like whoa, maybe this is alien. But with todays knowledge and the evidnece, I think that it is a balloon, but I think that balloon was from the Japanese.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Besides Roswell, there was another crash site, Socorro, New Mexico, in the same time frame.
Back in the 1980's, I had an adult friend, whose father, an AF pilot during the 1960s, had told him stories when he was a boy of alien bodies in boxes (stories the father heard from fellow airmen and believed them true). That's the only story he ever shared; we never discussed ufos, as he wasn't really interested in the subject, just sharing the story to me, who was.

edit to add
Myth, I enjoyed all your research.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by desert]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMythLives
 


Well your a typical laymen relying on internet info and bad images.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMythLives
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I said it looks like a saucer,


That's the Balloon collapsing! The picture captured from the plane flying around it from different angles changed the perspective is all.

That saucer looking thing is not the payload but the balloon collapsing and it's starting to change shape into what looks like a parachute form all the material being smooshed out of shape as it's falling.

IMHO





[edit on 25-1-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by humanaqurian
 


ok? But I have more info available to me than Mr. Brazell had at that time. He probably did not know what he was looking (which he obviously didn't). I thought my images were good, what bad images are you talking about? The ones taken in 1944-45?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Are you not reading the entire post? I said it looks like a Saucer, but I know its not, I know its the stupid balloon, but it does LOOK LIKE a saucer, doesn't it? Imagine seeing that thing on the ground one would be like, hey thats a saucer chaped object.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMythLives
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Are you not reading the entire post? I said it looks like a Saucer, but I know its not, I know its the stupid balloon, but it does LOOK LIKE a saucer, doesn't it? Imagine seeing that thing on the ground one would be like, hey thats a saucer chaped object.


Yes read it.

No it does not resemble a saucer.

I think you have confused your supposed evidence.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Clearly there is a profound and obvious difference between flying saucers like this one in Baghdad;




And between this concoction;




posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMythLives
 


It really doesn't matter.I can't be bothered to argue anymore.People on ats always try to disprove any evidence or story on ufo's and aliens.All accounts of ex military and arastronauts are allways ignored.Even though these people have nothing to gain only there own lives to ruin by talking about there experience.But like I said, people sitting behind there keyboard will prove all of these lunatics wrong.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Hold up you mean to tell me if you were brazell and you saw this object on the ground you would be like o thats a balloon? If that ws on the ground I would be like UFO!..lol.. to me it looks like one. Sorry mate, but I see Saucer like object. I have UFO's that look like hub caps and the Millenium Falcons, so there are different types and if I saw that balloon on the ground, I would still think UFO.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMythLives
 




Hold up you mean to tell me if you were brazell and you saw this object on the ground you would be like o thats a balloon? If that ws on the ground I would be like UFO!


Typical misconception about the term UFO, which means unidentified flying object and NOT alien spacecraft.

I'm not even sure that the term UFO had been created yet in 1947, remember that this was the very first highly publicized major UFO case.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
stealth bomber

thx bye



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
With all due respect, the speculation that the Roswell crash is associated with the Fugo balloons of Japan is not original. John Keel posed that theory many years ago.

www.youtube.com...

The U.S. Government's "final" official report stated that it was a crash of a spy balloon tied to Project Mogul.

If it actually was a fugo balloon, why would they continue to cover it up with a different official "explanation"? It is a known and acknowledged fact that many of these were launched and officially admitting that another "blew up" over Roswell would be as easy as the Project Mogul explanation. Yet they did not do so.

Logic would dictate that if the government did not jump on that explanation then they are either telling the truth about it being Mogul (which I doubt) or that they are still covering it up (which I suspect). But a fugo, it was not.




[edit on 25-1-2009 by Beaux]

[edit on 25-1-2009 by Beaux]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Myth,


Originally posted by TheMythLives
reply to post by humanaqurian
 


ok? But I have more info available to me than Mr. Brazell had at that time. He probably did not know what he was looking (which he obviously didn't). I thought my images were good, what bad images are you talking about? The ones taken in 1944-45?


Mac Brazel did not know what he was looking at; however he certainly was familiar with "weather balloons" as they were common place with the ranchers in the area and danger to livestock.

To reiterate:

Here's the problem with "any" balloon theory; at the end of the day no matter their use,"top secret" or not, the balloons are just that i.e., balloons! They're not made of anything "exotic, nor unrecognizable to the men of the 509th.

FUGO balloons, or what you're calling "fire balloons" were made of paper (15 meter-type A) and "rubberized silk" (9 meter-type B).

The last balloons launched were in either March or April, 1945 as the factories which supplied the materials (including hydrogen) were destroyed by American bombing.

There is no record of any balloon falling in New Mexico, although some reached as far east as Michigan.

Separately, the debris as shown in Ramey's office as been identified as "Rawin Radar reflector" material.

As to the "biological" end to your hypotheses, first this was 1947, the war was over, the Japanese were under military occupation by the United States and it's allies; moreover, any "biologicals would have affected Brazel, and Dee Proctor along with his neighbors.

The same evidence that debunks the Air Force dogma i.e., weather and or Mogul balloons, "debunks any balloon theorem." With the additional fact that we know what happened to the balloon launching facilities, and balloons etc.

Finally, forgive me for using an often repeated "salient point": to suggest that the head intelligence officer of the only nuclear armed Air Force base in the world, along with a counter intelligence officer couldn't identify a balloon in contrast to "exotic debris" is quite frankly pure flap doodle! (No offense).

Cheers,
Frank



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
If it was a Japanese fire balloon, why would the US government not just admit that when the Air Force did their offical report on the Roswell incident?

Heres my theory: What was found in the New Mexico desert was a test of a highly advanced time travel machine from the future that went seriuosly wrong!



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
how about a radar invisible baloon accidentaly taking down a saucer, could be they were telling half truths



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
I just want to point out that the notion of saucer-shaped alien aircrafts came onto the scene just before Roswell. A civilian pilot, Kenneth Arnold, spotted unidentifiable lights while flying. In a newspaper report his description of what he saw as something moving like a thrown saucer skipping along the surface of a lake, go mangled as a flying saucer.

As the growing UFO community descended on Arnold, and he became something of a cause celebre, he started having repeat encounters.

I'm very skeptical of all this Roswell stuff. 60+ years later and nothing solid has emerged.


Mike F



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Balloon explanation doesn't cut it for me.


I'm still about 90% sure Roswell was a crashed/disabled ET spaceship.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join