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.
Originally posted by steven barnes
all you need is logic, If aliens don't exist then why are there documents hidden by the government, that doesn't make sense, why hide something that is apparently non-existant, so the government has secret documents about the tooth fairy and santa clause then?
to sum it up you don't hide something that isn't real unless you're lieing
[edit on 13-5-2009 by steven barnes]
Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Gawdzilla
if the first thing that was reported was a flying disk of unknown origin, then the next day a complete fabrication and direct reversal of eye witness accounts, don't you have to wonder about the validity of day two?
Or is it the job of every sceptic to ignore any data that does not fall within the realm of basic understanding? The first response is usally the true one. Like when someone accidntly puts their foot in their mouth. they spoke what they were really thinking and later decided it was not pollitically correct. If your goal is to continue life with the blinders and a big cup of Kool Aid, by all means drink and be merry, but I actually read the reaserch I did, and came to the conclusion that there might be a few descrpencies to the official story. Drink up sport. Drink up.
Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The supposed "witnesses" have come up with an ever-changing story as well. They "polish" their stories as flaws are pointed out. The original report of debris reported stick, string, rubber and aluminum-foil backed with paper. Now, it's all kinds of junk, plus a few extra saucers. Sad, really sad.
Gen. Dubose was the highest ranking Air Force officer with direct knowledge of the Roswell case who went on record about the weather balloon cover-up plus other important details about what was really happening in Gen. Roger Ramey's inner circle. He was Gen. Ramey's Chief of Staff in July 1947 and had a great deal to say about what happened in recorded interviews and in his affidavit.
Originally posted by Fastwalker81
What's really sad is that when a Brig. General who was there and personally took the call from General McMullen ordering the cover story speaks out and is ignored because his testimony is highly inconvenient to say the least.
Originally posted by SchadenI brought that up on the last page. Predictably, he chose to cast aspertions on the witnesses. His debunking is some of the poorest I've witnessed.
Originally posted by Gawdzilla
"First reports are always wrong." Just because you want to believe it doesn't make it true.
Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The "witnesses" are few and far between, their stories don't match, and in one case, completely fabricating their stories. (The "nurse" that never was.)
Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Originally posted by Schaden
Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The Army didn't let them have it because they never recovered it.
The FBI director's note clearly says otherwise. Also don't assume LA refers to the Battle of LA. It could be referring to Los Alamos.
It states his ASSUMPTION of the situation. Note the difference.
Nice quibble on the "LA", btw. People in Sri Lanka will tell you that "LA" means "Los Angeles". [/free clue]
Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The Battle of Los Angeles is simply a case of war nerves.
Nice regurgitation of almost 70 year old govt talking points.
Have you seen this analysis ?
brumac.8k.com...
Sorry, but it's just another case of wishful thinking. The Battle of L.A. has been studied and debunk many times over.
Originally posted by Gawdzilla
It goes in the "I care" file.