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 Debris Confirmed As Extraterrestrial: Lab Located, Scientists Named!

page: 10
97
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkydancerAlso regarding Nano Tech! why hell are we still flying around in 40s tech rocket propulsion for our space missions?

I'm going to take a wild stab at answering, seems the power was so extraordinary a few decided not to share. (after all history has proved this with the USA being the mightiest nation)

I have witnessed people being killed for this knowledge.


Thank you for proving my point.

You have seen people being killed for your guess. Your guess was postulated at 21.20 27 May. Yet you had already seen people killed, previous to your guess, because of your guess....

History has proved what? That the USA never shares anything because it is the most powerful nation on earth? History disproves that! Or history proves your assertion? Your sentences make no sense.

Whom was killed? When? By whom? Who stated - and confirmed - the motive for killing to you? Did you report the killings? To which police department?

Oh of course, there are reasons why you didnt/couldnt report them... liek they never happened, perchance.

I think not. Reality: its a paranoid guess (you have no knowledge, let aone proof, of the existence - and supression - of more advanced flight propulsion). neither have you witnessed anyone being killed.




posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frank Warren
Again, I say take "baby steps" forget about aliens--start with the fact that we're not dealing with a balloons . . . what was it?


Frank,

Well without wanting to get too invasive, what do YOU think it was?
You don't know for sure but you must have some thoughts on possibilities.

I haven't kept up but did read a book years ago, originally in Italian, that claimed the US built some experimental flying prototypes based on Nazi blueprints and documents. One I recall actually was a saucer, but it was abandoned because it lacked stabilizing design elements. (Saucers can't be controlled if they lose their lose their horizontal alignment) There are picture.

Just possible there was some nuclear test short of a blast, or accident.

And also a consideration there was some rogue intelligence activity that needed to be buried.

These off the top of my head.

What do you think?


Mike




[edit on 4-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Mornin' Mike,


Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Frank Warren
Again, I say take "baby steps" forget about aliens--start with the fact that we're not dealing with a balloons . . . what was it?


Frank,

Well without wanting to get too invasive, what do YOU think it was?
You don't know for sure but you must have some thoughts on possibilities.


Nothing invasive about it, I'm on record for concluding (based on my own research) that what is known as the "Roswell Incident" was "extraterrestrial in origin"; I might add that I define "extraterrestrial as "anything "not us," . . . in other words it doesn't have to mean "Zorgon traveled here from 100 light years away in a spaceship."


I haven't kept up but did read a book years ago, originally in Italian, that claimed the US built some experimental flying prototypes based on Nazi blueprints and documents. One I recall actually was a saucer, but it was abandoned because it lacked stabilizing design elements. (Saucers can't be controlled if they lose their lose their horizontal alignment) There are picture.

Just possible there was some nuclear test short of a blast, or accident.

And also a consideration there was some rogue intelligence activity that needed to be buried.

These off the top of my head.

What do you think?

Mike

[edit on 4-6-2009 by mmiichael]



I think that "debunkers" would make a far more plausible argument if they injected some "other" possibility for Roswell, rather then trying to stick with the "balloon flapdoodle."

Finally, re my suggestion for you to "remove the alien contention" from the equation is based on my own experience in discussing the topic of not only Roswell, but Ufology in general.

Most folks are stricken with what you described as "Attitude Polarization" or what I call "societal programming." I have found it's more efficacious to find common ground, or things that can be agreed upon (in any debate), and to proceed in in a slow, step by step process.

My current mind-set is based on decades of research; I didn't arrive here lightly. I might add that I started this trek with a very closed, biased mind and of course knew the entire topic was silly, and nothing more then hoaxes and the tales of delusional people. Obviously, the a fore mentioned was based on ignorance (and societal programming); however, you may find it capricious that I still consider myself a "skeptic."

In any event, (IMHO) it's superfluous to argue the "end-game" on such a monumental avouchment without first building a foundation.

Cheers,
Frank



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Hello Frank / Mike,

Im enjoying this debate greatly, been lurking here for a few days and observing. I have to say that both of you bring up good points. Although Frank, Ive been wondering who it is that you were referring to that you advised before Larry King to stay conservative and focus on UFOs and not "ET". Was it James Fox by any chance? - at any rate I thought James did superbly in his debate with Mcgaha.

Personally, as for Roswell, I am definitely on the side of; "it wasnt a weather balloon", Im sorry Mike, but theres just no way it was a weather balloon of any kind. Now; what it was? I dont know. But I am convinced that they recovered a flying saucer per their "first" press-release, but what exactly is a 'flying saucer' - I dont think that many people actually know.

Reports and testimony of bodies, and occupants. It was a craft of some sort, in my opinion. But its impossible to say whom it belonged to, and what the specific characteristics of the craft were, exactly. Although I was satisfied to accept Marcel JR's account of a metallic substance, malleable but unbreakable, and of course.. the symbols:



Thats as far as I can personally surmise any conclusions.

Was the craft of extraterrestrial origin? - or was it something else?

Best regards,



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frank Warren
I'm on record for concluding (based on my own research) that what is known as the "Roswell Incident" was "extraterrestrial in origin"; I might add that I define "extraterrestrial as "anything "not us,"

[...]
Finally, re my suggestion for you to "remove the alien contention" from the equation is based on my own experience in discussing the topic of not only Roswell, but Ufology in general.

Most folks are stricken with what you described as "Attitude Polarization" or what I call "societal programming." I have found it's more efficacious to find common ground, or things that can be agreed upon (in any debate), and to proceed in in a slow, step by step process.

My current mind-set is based on decades of research; I didn't arrive here lightly. I might add that I started this trek with a very closed, biased mind and of course knew the entire topic was silly, and nothing more then hoaxes and the tales of delusional people. Obviously, the a fore mentioned was based on ignorance (and societal programming); however, you may find it capricious that I still consider myself a "skeptic."

In any event, (IMHO) it's superfluous to argue the "end-game" on such a monumental avouchment without first building a foundation.



Thanks very much for the personal insights Frank.

Myself I gravitated to the belief in UFOs when quite young and kept an open-mind most of my adult life. It was only when I started seeing the attention and career seeking shenanigans of people likes of Strieber, Moore, et al, the MJ-12 documents, alien autopsies, and parade of Roswell wannabes I realized this had become a sideshow sub-industry rather than scientific quest.

I think the real issue is what UFOs are, why and how. I won't go through the litany of suggestions ranging from a highly theoretical alternate dimensions to pulp sci-fi time travel.

My expectations are that we are about at the level of being capable of understanding it all that medicine was before it understood things like bacteria and viruses.

Much of what we think we see and recall is generated by the mind rather complete reliance on our senses. How much I can only speculate. I have pretty developed ideas on this, but will elaborate more fully at the appropriate time and place.

The ET hypothesis I have great trouble with, not that I don't accept alien intelligences are within the realm of possibility. I just have seen nothing convincing among the thousands of claims of contact and am both wary and weary the stories which never seem to stand up to objective scrutiny.

Something is going on that we don't understand. We have enough sense and enough equipment to at least nail down some certainties and proceed from there.

So maybe we are on a more similar wavelength than I have been willing to concede.

Over to you

Mike



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Mornin' Majorion,


Originally posted by Majorion
Hello Frank / Mike,

Im enjoying this debate greatly, been lurking here for a few days and observing. I have to say that both of you bring up good points. Although Frank, Ive been wondering who it is that you were referring to that you advised before Larry King to stay conservative and focus on UFOs and not "ET". Was it James Fox by any chance? - at any rate I thought James did superbly in his debate with Mcgaha.


It "was" in fact James Fox--good catch!


Personally, as for Roswell, I am definitely on the side of; "it wasnt a weather balloon", Im sorry Mike, but theres just no way it was a weather balloon of any kind. Now; what it was? I dont know. But I am convinced that they recovered a flying saucer per their "first" press-release, but what exactly is a 'flying saucer' - I dont think that many people actually know.


Of course I agree with this assessment, and this is the level I like to get skeptics to (debunkers too, although that's a much harder task); here we have to ask again, it certainly wasn't a balloon . . . what was it?


Reports and testimony of bodies, and occupants. It was a craft of some sort, in my opinion. But its impossible to say whom it belonged to, and what the specific characteristics of the craft were, exactly. Although I was satisfied to accept Marcel JR's account of a metallic substance, malleable but unbreakable, and of course.. the symbols:



Thats as far as I can personally surmise any conclusions.

Was the craft of extraterrestrial origin? - or was it something else?

Best regards,


Again, this is the juncture I like to see UFO abecedarians and or skeptics reach--"X" marks the spot, now start digging!

Cheers,
Frank



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frank Warren

It "was" in fact James Fox--good catch!

Again, this is the juncture I like to see UFO abecedarians and or skeptics reach--"X" marks the spot, now start digging!



Sticking to UFOs, which no one can deny are a legitimate phenomenon, is pretty sound advice. Ufologists speculating, even when the audience asks for it, is a bad idea.

There's plenty of solid evidence hiding in plain sight. See link below. If an armchair guy like me can find something compelling, anyone can. I would only suggest developing a specific niche of speciality.


[edit on 5-6-2009 by fls13]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Mornin' Mike,


Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Frank Warren
I'm on record for concluding (based on my own research) that what is known as the "Roswell Incident" was "extraterrestrial in origin"; I might add that I define "extraterrestrial as "anything "not us,"

[...]
Finally, re my suggestion for you to "remove the alien contention" from the equation is based on my own experience in discussing the topic of not only Roswell, but Ufology in general.

Most folks are stricken with what you described as "Attitude Polarization" or what I call "societal programming." I have found it's more efficacious to find common ground, or things that can be agreed upon (in any debate), and to proceed in in a slow, step by step process.

My current mind-set is based on decades of research; I didn't arrive here lightly. I might add that I started this trek with a very closed, biased mind and of course knew the entire topic was silly, and nothing more then hoaxes and the tales of delusional people. Obviously, the a fore mentioned was based on ignorance (and societal programming); however, you may find it capricious that I still consider myself a "skeptic."

In any event, (IMHO) it's superfluous to argue the "end-game" on such a monumental avouchment without first building a foundation.




Thanks very much for the personal insights Frank.

Myself I gravitated to the belief in UFOs when quite young and kept an open-mind most of my adult life. It was only when I started seeing the attention and career seeking shenanigans of people likes of Strieber, Moore, et al, the MJ-12 documents, alien autopsies, and parade of Roswell wannabes I realized this had become a sideshow sub-industry rather than scientific quest.


In my view it's an important point to "distinguish UFOs from an ET craft"; UFOs are a fact of life! No one disputes their existence! The very term was borne by the Air Force in 1952.

To associate the verb "believe" or the noun "believer" with the acronym "UFO" is nonsensical' it's akin to saying, "I believe in the Statue of Liberty, " or "I'm a Mt Rushmore believer."

Re shenanigans & Ufology: unfortunately, we're dealing with an "unregulated field"--if that can even be said; in other words can we really add the "ology" to the subject matter? There is no structure; it isn't embraced by academia, or mainstream science; it's made of of splinter groups at best, and those aren't often in agreement with each other. Consequently, snake oil salesmen will spawn from the chaos.


I think the real issue is what UFOs are, why and how. I won't go through the litany of suggestions ranging from a highly theoretical alternate dimensions to pulp sci-fi time travel.

My expectations are that we are about at the level of being capable of understanding it all that medicine was before it understood things like bacteria and viruses.


I think you're giving us to much credit. :>))


Much of what we think we see and recall is generated by the mind rather complete reliance on our senses. How much I can only speculate. I have pretty developed ideas on this, but will elaborate more fully at the appropriate time and place.


Makes me think of a Star Trek episode . . . perhaps we're nothing more then electrons floating in a hard-drive sitting on Zeecar's desk.


The ET hypothesis I have great trouble with, not that I don't accept alien intelligences are within the realm of possibility. I just have seen nothing convincing among the thousands of claims of contact and am both wary and weary the stories which never seem to stand up to objective scrutiny.


Personally, I believe the Universe is teeming with life; I suspect a confirmation of bacterial/microbial life on Mars in short order--which will turn the scientific community on it's ear! This will greatly increase the odds on places like Titan bearing life, as well as other bodies in our solar system; however, just the fact that there exist two planets that bear "carbon based life" (in one solar system) will be most significant.

Having the a fore mentioned mindset of course makes it more palatable that ET has been and is coming here . . . or perhaps has always been here.


Something is going on that we don't understand. We have enough sense and enough equipment to at least nail down some certainties and proceed from there.

So maybe we are on a more similar wavelength than I have been willing to concede.

Over to you

Mike


When I first broached the subject (of Ufology) back in the '70's, although at time (as mentioned earlier) being "more then skeptical," even though I condemned it, I couldn't get past the fact, that the military spent so much time on a "so-called phenomenon" that was covinous; why would they do that if there was nothing to it?! That question . . . that curiosity drove me!

It of course evoked other questions, and my trek (education) began.

Of course I have come to some conclusions; however, for this colloquy, I'm satisfied to find "common ground"--I agree with you Mike--something is going on!!

Cheers,
Frank



[edit on 5-6-2009 by Frank Warren]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frank Warren
Again, this is the juncture I like to see UFO abecedarians and or skeptics reach--"X" marks the spot, now start digging!


For me its the 'symbols'. The symbols mark the spot.

What is the connection between Roswell, Rendlesham, and Kecksburg? - The symbols! - each case has those symbols.

The strange thing is, that each craft or object has a different shape in each of these cases. Respectively; disc shaped, triangular, and acorn shaped.

Thats as far as my speculation can take me.

Cheers


[edit on 5/6/09 by Majorion]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Just picked this up form another thread.

Some points of comparison for with UFOlogy.



The Conspirators Guide

* Anyone telling the truth is obviously a liar

* Anyone Lying is obviously hiding the truth

* The more a fact is supported, the more obvious it is that "they" are trying to cover up something

* The only real facts are those unsupported and unsubstantiated

* You can't trust government, anyone who says you can, is obviously in on it too

* Never trust a photo that is clear and detailed - obviously it's too good to be true

* Blurry, unfocused, photos are the only real proof that you can trust

* No photo at all is even better proof

* Main Stream Media......Pffff

* Radical, outlandish, discredited, whacko, media is the only media to be believed

* If it's not there, and never recorded, then obviously, it's there



Mike



[edit on 6-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Abecedarians? Is this yet another ET race to include in the list of greys, reptilians and nordics?



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   
US Military are using smart metals similar
to those found at the Roswell Crash In 1947

www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

interesting worth a look



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Unfortunately, that seems to be true with ufology these days. It is also equally applied to the debunkers.

There are some very good and dedicated researchers out there, not just some people trying to make a quick buck. They are the ones who will also answer the tough questions, and are not afraid to tell the truth when it is found out.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Afternoon Mike,


Originally posted by mmiichael
Just picked this up form another thread.

Some points of comparison for with UFOlogy.



The Conspirators Guide

* Anyone telling the truth is obviously a liar

* Anyone Lying is obviously hiding the truth

* The more a fact is supported, the more obvious it is that "they" are trying to cover up something

* The only real facts are those unsupported and unsubstantiated

* You can't trust government, anyone who says you can, is obviously in on it too

* Never trust a photo that is clear and detailed - obviously it's too good to be true

* Blurry, unfocused, photos are the only real proof that you can trust

* No photo at all is even better proof

* Main Stream Media......Pffff

* Radical, outlandish, discredited, whacko, media is the only media to be believed

* If it's not there, and never recorded, then obviously, it's there



Mike

[edit on 6-6-2009 by mmiichael]


Some points of comparison with "Debunkery:

               

UFO Debunker's Guidebook




How to debunk UFOs and Discredit UFO Proponents:
1. Point out that very large percentages of things reported as UFOs turn out to have conventional explanations (but don't talk about individual observers' varying abilities or how believers screen and investigate cases).

2. Always refer to them as UFO believers or ETH believers, implying that their position is faith-based.

3. Argue that any given case could have been something conventional and we will never know because we never have all the facts (but don't acknowledge that well-qualified observers have reported unexplained craft-like objects displaying extraordinary performance totaling in the hundreds or thousands).

4. (Corollary to 3): Avoid any mention of the patterns of appearance and behavior in unexplained cases worldwide for many decades.

5. Focus on the well-known problems and limitations of human perception (but never mention that people are incarcerated on the basis of eye-witness testimony, that our court systems could not function without it, and that if human perception were as inadequate as claimed, nobody would dare to cross a busy street or fly an airplane).

6. Comment regularly on human credulity and wishful thinking, in a desire for saviors from space (just don't mention that it applies only to cultists on the fringes of ufology, nor that close encounter cases typically scare the pants off of the witnesses rather than inspire them).

7. Always act as if no one before you has really conducted a thorough investigation in classic UFO cases so that it's only a matter of time and diligence before the answers will be found (but avoid mentioning that the suggested answers you propose either have already been found wanting or fail to account for the salient features of the case).

8. Demand that UFO believers produce just one spaceship or physical evidence that one has been here. (Never mind that other scientific topics don't require that degree of concrete proof in order to consider something worth studying, such as Agent Orange, SETI signals, or Black Holes.)


Cheers,
Frank



[edit on 6-6-2009 by Frank Warren]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Good Day Forumerions,

Tony has finished his final and third installment re "Roswell's memory metal" and or Nitinol.

He in part writes:


Was the Roswell memory metal secretly "seeded" to industry and to others who could exploit its potential benefits? How was the technology transferred while keeping its origin disguised? Why were bizarre "mind-over-matter" tests performed by government psychics on the shape-recovery metal Nitinol? What is the hidden meaning of the morphing metal? Newly developed information provides the stunning answers to these questions.


The rest of the story . . .

Part II was entitled, ROSWELL METAL SCIENTIST: THE CURIOUS DR. CROSS.

Cheers,
Frank



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I find this memory metal thing a real stretch.

If the only tangible yield arising from the visiting extraterrestrials who crashed our the driveway is a super Silly Putty, I'm disappointed.

Mike

[edit on 7-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Mike, I would love to read your opinion on something, since I consider you one of those hardcore-skeptics. Now no-way are you gonna tell us that what crashed/recovered from Roswell was a weather balloon. My question is (and so has Frank repeatedly asked; to-no-avail): What was it?

I would very much appreciate any speculative theory you can offer -- anything other than "weather balloon"


Best regards,



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion

Mike, I would love to read your opinion on something, since I consider you one of those hardcore-skeptics. Now no-way are you gonna tell us that what crashed/recovered from Roswell was a weather balloon. My question is (and so has Frank repeatedly asked; to-no-avail): What was it?

I would very much appreciate any speculative theory you can offer -- anything other than "weather balloon"



Obviously I have no answer.

But with some certainty will say it wasn't an extraterrestrial vehicle.
I don't totally dismiss the official balloon stories.

I think in the immediate wake of the Arnold UFO sighting, and newly heightened concern for a possible incursion of something unknown from the Russians, ore even conceivably vestige Japanese and German holdouts, anything remotely suspicious was to be handled with ultra-high security measures.

Maybe there was an experimental flying craft launched that wandered into the air space and crashed.

[added edit: Project Paperclip transported Nazi personnel to the States to work on scientific advances like rocketry. There were designs in planning like the"Bell" a vertical liftoff vehicle shaped like a saucer.]


But what I envision is out of the Keystone Kops. Bored, semi-competent military officers think they have something of national security on their hands. Communication is poor. They are bumping into each other in a flurry of activity. A lot of overreaction and hysterics until higher command tells them to send in what they've found.

It turns out to be nothing.

No one even bothers to formally close the case. Too embarrassing to document.

Either that or aliens took control of the US military and made it look like that's what happened.


Mike


[edit on 8-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I find this memory metal thing a real stretch.

If the only tangible yield arising from the visiting extraterrestrials who crashed our the driveway is a super Silly Putty, I'm disappointed.


For someone who has read about Roswell, I'm sure you would be aware of the reverse-engineering of the crashed craft which later led to:
-fibre optics
-the computer microchip
-integrated circuits
-night-vision goggles
-the laser

Now, whether you believe all that is another story, but you are doing the discussion subject a gross misservice to glibly write off the sum total of technology harnessed from Roswell in 1947 as 'silly putty'.


I would be inclined to suggest that all our modern technology and gadgets we take for granted today are ET in origin, one way or another.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Why so much effort in debunking something that you feel isn't meaningful at all? One would think that the way you feel about it that you would just skip these threads? The case for your side of things isn't any stronger then the other side.

Plus we got it after your first post. You don't believe. No use outting the same stuff out repeatedly.



new topics

top topics



 
97
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join