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.

 

Roswell Fireman Confesses- It was a UFO!

page: 7
60
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Why certainly Yeti101, I'll address your other points. I'll start here:


Originally posted by yeti101
...but you wont find those quotes in any pro roswell book. Why are roswell ufologists so dishonest? maybe becuase they have to be?


hmmmmm...

I seem to recall the last time you wanted to go point for point based on the evidence of a case...

If I recall correctly, it was regarding the Battle of LA. So then, when I, an independent UFOlogist took up your challenge, and created a 12 page (so far) thread on the subject...

You were nowhere to be found. I count 1 entry in that thread from you, and absolutely zero attempts at rational analysis.

I see not even a well formulated hypothesis from you, not to mention a prediction or suggested experiment to test your absent hypothesis.

There are two types of dishonesty Yeti101, and one of them is Intellectual Dishonesty. I'll spare you the dictionary.com quote this time, and let you google those words for yourself before responding.

In this case, and in many others, I see you being intellectually dishonest in order to make a point. What I mean by that, is that you make a statement that you know isn't true, in order to sway someone who you know doesn't know any better.

Well I know better. And it's a tactic that is not only dispicable, but intellectually lazy.

I illustrated this in the above post, you knew your first statement was factually incorrect, and yet you still used it to open your post.

It wasn't that I was confused by what you meant.

I knew what you meant.

And I know what you meant to achieve by utilizing that intellectually dishonest tactic.

I was actually trying to help you, by suggesting that by elliminating the internal inconsistencies in your posts, they would make for stronger arguments. Whether you like me or not, that statement is truth.

We at ATS will have more productive conversations if those in the community of Skeptics here (of which I am a member) would excise the intellectual dishonesty from their posts.

It gives us all a bad name, and it's not the way ATS Skeptics should be represented.

Frankly, I'm embarrased to have to write this to you in public, and had I not seen you do this MANY times since my joining here, I'd have written you a polite U2U. The case being as it is, I'm going to call you out on it, so that others here at ATS will also recognize the tactic and begin to hold those responsible for it's use accountable in at the very least this forum court of public opinion.

Now on to your next 'point'...




Originally posted by yeti101
And theres a pattern with changing stories ... everytime soemthing like that debunks roswell the story changes. How convenient.


I wouldn't call it convenient, I'd call it use of the Scientific Method.
You see, when a certain theory does not fit the observed evidence in a case, that theory must be adapted to fit the observed evidence.

That's how theories work, and you know it.

What I find particularly 'convenient' is how the United States Military's story keeps changing.

You see, if they had the 'answer' to the 'question', then that 'answer' (the original one mind you) should fit with all of the observed evidence.

That answer didn't fit, and so what we've seen in the public record mind you, is the Government's story continually changing.

In my mind, that's instantly conclusive, based solely upon practical implication of the Scientific Method.

If the Government is changing it's hypothesis to fit the observed evidence, that means clearly and without doubt that their original hypothesis was incorrect. It also lends strong credence to the alligation that their following 'answers' are also merely hypotheses.

Now seriously Yeti101, are you going to sit here in this thread and mock the Scientific Method while at the same time claiming to employ it?

-WFA




posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   


No its not clear at all. Maybe if you have a tremendous imagination it might be clear. To any sane rational human being you cant say any word is clear.


In the high res blowups, there simply aren't other words they can be, based on a dictionary and the visible letters. In addition, it really isn't needed, as mentioned, the military's own actions show the importance of what was recovered, and it certainly wasn't a balloon and radar reflector.



No i dont doubt there ability. At no time did anyone from the army say it was of extra terrestrial origin. They probably thought it was russian


There are numerous sworn affadavits of military officers that dispute this, such as Marcel Sr. etc. and from Sergeants to Generals.



Oh dear gazrock what a blunder. Bessie was 14 and is never quoted by pro roswell ufologists. Brazel junior was 8 and he is the one that gets his testimony in all the books. You have it totally backwards.

I'm glad to see you agree brazel jnrs testimony is unreliable


Agreed on the ages (and on the playup of Marcel Jr's (not Brazel junior) testimony being used often..., switched their ages in my head (my bad...and nice catch!)
...but there are plenty of adults (at the time) that gave testimony of the debris and described the same qualities. Bessie and the Mogul engineer remain the only persons to speak of the flowery tape vs. heiroglyphics, and even skeptics have yet to supply any information about this flowery tape (and I've tried...last dead end I got was a toy company in New York, but still nothing to confirm the use of it in Mogul). You'd think the military would keep records of equipment purchases...(the engineer clearly stated they ordered the tape for use, due to a supply problem, so this wasn't just a last minute slap-on, etc., it was ordered for it, according to his statements.

EDIT: Actually, I know Yeti knows a lot about the subject from previous postings and we've gone back and forth before...just have to agree to disagree on some things....


I'll also have to agree that many Roswell authors have been dishonest in their approach. They've put forward witnesses that agree with their view, while ignoring those that differ. Luckily, I don't rely on UFOlogy for a living, it's a hobby, so I can avoid being tied to doghma on it. If something came out tomorrow that adequetely explained the military's actions, and it was a mundane explanation that fit the facts, then hey, there you go....but so far, it simply doesn't add up to the stated explanation of Mogul, and the foreign tech angle also doesn't fit the facts.


[edit on 10-3-2009 by Gazrok]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


ok then we will just have to agree to disagree on roswell or this could go on all night



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I've already written pages on Roswell...(see the Classic UFO cases thread)... Not looking forward to writing more, hehe....



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   
There have been fascinating studies done on the changing nature of witness reports over extended periods of time. One example I recall might shed some light on the nature of the 90 year old man's story of his days as a fireman in Roswell.

After Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in the Ford Theatre, there was extensive interviewing of witnesses immediately after. Given the profile of the event the same people were often interviewed again by magazines years, and even decades alter.

One gentleman in the theatre, confined to a wheelchair, initially said he saw very little except a scuffle and John Wilkes Booth fleeing down an aisle.
Questioned something like 40 years later, the same gentleman recounted how he actually got out of his seat and and wrestled with Booth in attempt to prevent him escaping.

The study, involving hundreds of accounts, demonstrated an overwhelming tendency for people to elaborate on their involvement with historically significant incidents, invariably moving themselves a to the centre of activity from the periphery. A little prompting can help this process immeasurably.

I don't know what was told to the fireman at Roswell or what he actually saw. But I do know that particularly at advanced ages people retell stories unconsciously embellishing the. People can and do mix their imaginations with what they actually recall.


Mike F



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Roswell will be here until the Fat Lady Singings?

Until the US Military departments open up and associated corperates release their files and developments regarding.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


While I agree with what you are saying, the story told by the fireman does not seem to be elaborated at all. If he wanted to elaborate, he would of claimed he saw the alien bodies himself. He just talks about others coming in and what they saw, including the base commander telling them to stay quiet. He has nothing to gain, and would have told his story a long time ago if he was seeking any kind of publicity.

It is not a smoking gun, but an added piece to the puzzle.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchd0g
what was the age of this fireman? 90 ? I fear that the gov has already won this one - these guys are all dying off.

I too love the Roswell case, but no new imformation is coming out. The more the years roll by the further away we are from the final word. We need a good piece of evidence. What happened to the pieces of the craft that Marcel brought home ? did he turn them back in ? Thats what we need, a piece of the craft, or one of the bodies.


It is sad to say that you are completely correct. After this guy dies there will be no normal citizens left. All of the other ones that may still be alive was probably in the military that handled Roswell at that time. They more than likely won't say anything.

As sad as the fact is, if within the next few years no good evidence comes to light... Well, i would say we all might as well stop worrying about the truth..



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
you picked me up wrong thats all. I'll make it nice and clear for you. Yes theres text on the document in his hand. Nobody can make out what it says. I hope thats clear enough for you now.

I don't mean any disrespect but if you can't make out the words "disc" and "victims" from the memo you need to have your eyes examined in my opinion.

Being unable to read something and not wanting to read something are two completely different things.

And you can talk about dishonesty regarding witnesses all you like. Fact of the matter is multiple military witnesses who were there, ranking as high as Brig. General, confirm the memo in Ramey's hand.

Let's not even get started on the laughable explanation by the Air Force. Crash dummies, what a joke.



[edit on 12/3/09 by Fastwalker81]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Fastwalker81
 


why even comment when its clear you know nothing about the roswell incident?

who started the claims of seeing bodies at a crash site? you dont know, you know nothing. Just stop



[edit on 12-3-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Fastwalker81
 


why even comment when its clear you know nothing about the roswell incident?

who started the claims of seeing bodies at a crash site? you dont know, you know nothing. Just stop



[edit on 12-3-2009 by yeti101]



And please tell me what you know on Roswell? and please deliver a good presentation on debunking with evidence in relation provided from many threads and web data also not related to ATS.




[edit on 12-3-2009 by Bob Down Under]

[edit on 12-3-2009 by Bob Down Under]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Down Under
 



i know more than everyone in this thread put together.

i'm still waiting for someone to give me a reason why ufologists ignore/surpress primary witness testimony. Bessie brazel, mac brazel etc




[edit on 12-3-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
why even comment when its clear you know nothing about the roswell incident?

Are you going to address the evidence or are you going to personally attack me? It is clear your opinion on Roswell is biased, and you try to debunk with all you got, which is not much by the way.

Furthermore why is it clear I know nothing of Roswell? Because I don't agree with your sad debunking efforts?


you dont know, you know nothing. Just stop

No you are the one that needs to stop. You are dodging the issue and making wild claims about me. You don't even know me and I am offended by your useless drivel.

Are you going to provide anything of substance or are you going to continue wasting precious space on these boards?




posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   
with all due respect your small fry and know nothing.

its not even worth my time responding when your unfamiliar with the basic ascpects of this case. Your knowledge is so lacking it would take far too long to explain anything to you.

I don’t need to debunk roswell the scores of "witnesses" do that themselves along with the verifiable information gathered in 1947. Sometimes when I see a thread on roswell I just cant help myself. The only debate that would satisfy me is one with someone like stanton friedman but I know what his answers would be to a lot of my points.

Even then it would end with him using the all encompassing & completely unverifiable cover up story. When the facts say otherwise roswelians retreat to this ground and when they do I know I have won.

They cant argue on the facts becuase the facts don’t support the alien spaceship hypothesis.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
with all due respect your small fry and know nothing.

its not even worth my time responding when your unfamiliar with the basic ascpects of this case. Your knowledge is so lacking it would take far too long to explain anything to you.

Again what makes you think I am unfamiliar with the case? And what gives you the right to call me a "small fry that knows nothing"? Your sorely misplaced arrogance speaks volumes about you as a person and as a member on these boards. You have absolutely shown NOTHING of value in this thread and continue to make snide remarks and point to "facts" and then fail to list them. Then you hide behind not having time to do so.. bla bla bla.

What a joke!


I don’t need to debunk roswell the scores of "witnesses" do that themselves along with the verifiable information gathered in 1947.

What verifiable information? If you are only able to use smoke and mirrors you are not going to convince anyone here that you even remotely have a clue. Furthermore if you don't need to debunk Roswell then why are you desperately trying to do so?


The only debate that would satisfy me is one with someone like stanton friedman but I know what his answers would be to a lot of my points.

Then why post in this thread in the first place if the members and mods here are not up to your standards? Why not leave ATS alltogether? I'm sure you will be sorely missed.



They cant argue on the facts becuase the facts don’t support the alien spaceship hypothesis.

Lets take a different approach then. Tell us Yeti, what crashed at Roswell in 1947?


[edit on 12/3/09 by Fastwalker81]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Fastwalker81
 


Do you notice how debunkers like aren't REALLY interested in discussing the proof.

Yeah yeti101, you're the know it all.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
There's very little first hand observation in the article, almost no description of what he "saw" in fact.

At one point he even states that he knew it was a flying saucer "because of what people told me".

It's interesting but a little weak on detail.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Fastwalker81
 



Again what makes you think I am unfamiliar with the case?

becuase you said this


Let's not even get started on the laughable explanation by the Air Force. Crash dummies, what a joke.

if you knew anything about the case you wouldnt have said it.


Tell us Yeti, what crashed at Roswell in 1947?

balloon debris was recovered from the brazel ranch, whether it was mogul flight 4 or not is irrelivant. Do you know how many balloon flights were launched in 1947? no? I do.

the 2nd crash site is a fabrication concoted around 1980 when the roswell believers had to admit there wasnt enough debris at the ranch to account for a whole spaceship. So they changed their story and made up a 2nd crash site.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
with all due respect your small fry and know nothing.


I'm not entirely sure you know what 'with all due respect' means...


Originally posted by yeti101
They cant argue on the facts becuase the facts don’t support the alien spaceship hypothesis.


Really Yeti? REALLY? That's patently hilarious considering you've run from me in at least 3 threads now for exactly that reason.

Sorry dude, but at a certain point your own actions are self explanatory. At this point I'm guessing you work for Shostak, that's about the level of double standard I see from your posts on the daily.

-WFA



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


You're completely ignoring this post here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and to your own detriment.

-WFA



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join