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: 14
97
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Why can't everyone here just admit that they dont know for a fact what crashed at Roswell 1947.

Frank believe it to be a flying saucer. He bases that on his investigations and the suspect Air Force responses when faced with inquiry / Mmichael believes it to be something terrestrial, not sure what(?) but is of the opinion that flying saucers in general basicly consists of myths and misidentfications and therefore Roswell are just that.

I put words in your mouths because this just seems like a game of the ole who can get the last word in, and of course i cant help but to chime in other peoples debates in attempts to try to end them.




posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Dear mmiichael

Thanks for that one : However I just can’t see it.

Ok you are running a top secret work shop mostly top secret because you are employing Nazis like Braun etc, straight after WW2.

One of your test flights turns up missing but even though your radar has lost track of it you at least know in which direction it was traveling when last on the scope.

Just about the first thing that you would do is warn all your air bases to be on alert for reports of a crash or debris from such an accident.

In other words Marcel would have been well aware of the missing TOP Secret flight and therefore would have turned up at the Forester Ranch with a whole crew of clean up personnel.

Sorry Mike this one is a sieve compared to a bucket.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LogicalThinker
Why can't everyone here just admit that they dont know for a fact what crashed at Roswell 1947.

Frank believe it to be a flying saucer. He bases that on his investigations and the suspect Air Force responses when faced with inquiry / Mmichael believes it to be something terrestrial, not sure what(?) but is of the opinion that flying saucers in general basicly consists of myths and misidentfications and therefore Roswell are just that.

I put words in your mouths because this just seems like a game of the one who can get the last word in, and of course i cant help but to chime in other peoples debates in attempts to try to end them.



The fact that there is this discussion is acknowledging that no one knows for certain what exactly happened and what fell to the ground.

I think it's fairly evident it wasn't a spaceship or aliens. I enjoy debating with Frank, one of those rare earthlings who has done some primary research on the subject and is willing debate with an opinionated know-it-all like me.

An option not considered - I could be an alien disinformation agent or working for the ultra-secret black psyops trying to find out how much people know.

You never know anything for sure.

Mike



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Dear mmiichael

From mmiichael : “An option not considered - I could be an alien disinformation agent or working for the ultra-secret black psyops trying to find out how much people know.

You never know anything for sure.”

The last line is the one thing that I can agree on.

However No I don’t think you are an alien disinformation agent actually with what you are saying I don’t think they need them you are doing the job very well. In fact are you looking for a job with them because I think they need you on staff especially after the project Mogul fiasco.

We need you to keep us on our toes.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAC269

However No I don’t think you are an alien disinformation agent actually with what you are saying I don’t think they need them you are doing the job very well. In fact are you looking for a job with them because I think they need you on staff especially after the project Mogul fiasco.

We need you to keep us on our toes.


Thanks for the thought. I would prefer a job extracting advanced technical information from aliens, and would even settle for changing their babies diapers if that's all they offered. Good pay and benefits I'm sure.

Mike



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Dear mmiichael

From mmiichael :

“Thanks for the thought. I would prefer a job extracting advanced technical information from aliens, and would even settle for changing their babies diapers if that's all they offered. Good pay and benefits I'm sure.

Mike.”

Be careful what you wish for it may come true.

But who is changing whose mind around here??

You are the man who knows the man and the man say’s it is all not so.

Or have you read enough to relies that there is something that either the man is not saying or the man doesn’t know??



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by MAC269

You are the man who knows the man and the man say’s it is all not so.

Or have you read enough to relies that there is something that either the man is not saying or the man doesn’t know??


That's something of a misrepresentation.

There have been people working under pressure to develop and refine systems and technologies, often for the US government. They were keenly aware of what developments in existence and which were still lacking. In a world half a century ago there were often only a small handful of people in the West with full understanding of certain advanced areas of science and technology. They knew, at least in outline, what was being worked on.

Now if there were something the US govt retro-engineered from an alien craft, say memory metals, would they still have people working away on it at great resource cost and expense, when they already had it? Would people not doing related research not notice is was already in the bag from another source?

With maybe only one or two experts in certain fields, if there was a call to examine an alien technology, they would have to be consulted. Are we to believe they would be removed from a field and be dedicated only to that top secret project? Their peers would notice their absence immediately.

Or if sworn to secrecy, what would prevent them after contracts expired from utilizing their advanced understanding for personal gain?

I don't think I can really say anything that will convince anyone who believes that ultra-secret projects could go unnoticed or undiscussed for half a century. Only in the world of fiction things like that are possible.

People are capable of keeping secrets and are often required to do so. But with something of momentous history changing importance it's impossible for me to accept that all of them would maintain their silence to the world and among each other.

The world of scientific investigation just does not work along the lines some people like to imagine. As a whole science is pretty seamless. Something important is discovered and it effects the dynamics of whole fields.

Mike



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Dear mmiichael

From mmiichael :

“The world of scientific investigation just does not work along the lines some people like to imagine. As a whole science is pretty seamless. Something important is discovered and it effects the dynamics of whole fields..”

Now then this indeed could be true until you get a statement like all these UFO’s that people are seeing are made in the good old US of A.

These things are reported by airline pilots to be 2 miles across and be able to maneuver like nothing they have ever seen.

So on the one hand you have NASA using 1940’s teck in Apollo, the space scuttle 1950’s teck then you have the secret flying triangles that out maneuver all know aircraft.

Sorry someone has something all A about T



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
The fact is that the whole subject is totally full on contradictions and if what I think is right I just might know why. See my other threads.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAC269

you get a statement like all these UFO’s that people are seeing are made in the good old US of A.

These things are reported by airline pilots to be 2 miles across and be able to maneuver like nothing they have ever seen.

So on the one hand you have NASA using 1940’s teck in Apollo, the space scuttle 1950’s teck then you have the secret flying triangles that out maneuver all know aircraft.

Sorry someone has something all A about T



Hey, I don't question so much the existence of Unidentified Flying Objects or disinformation campaigns by the US govt on advanced technologies. I might question how accurate some reports, are on unidentified crafts, particularly as to size. I keep an open mind on the possibility of unidentified outworldly crafts in our atmosphere.

But narrow focusing on this particular event, I don't believe there was debris of an alien craft found near Roswell in 1947. I think if there was, the scientific world would have been on it like a (pick your metaphor) with every specialist worldwide in related fields working to extract as much data from it as *humanly* possible. And the military's stance on unidentified objects would have changed radically from thereon.

I recommend reading what Jeff Lindell, aka ATS member 'Rotwang17" has to say on observation and interpretation by pilots. He traces the modern UFO phenomenon back to foo fighter sightings of WWII.




jeff.lindell.home.comcast.net...

is a foo Fighter a naive sighting of a real, historical weapon? No, it is absolutely not. Is it a Nazi flying saucer or an extraterrestrial spaceship? I'm afraid not, but these theories sell magazines and make lots o' bucks.

Many Ufologists have been very receptive to my refutation of the "jet" hypothesis because it tends to support their own claims of alien visitors. My intentions from the outset have been to resolve this mystery using a rational, although unorthodox, scientific method. It is my stern belief that what these airmen were reporting was an intensely real set of illusory experiences which have become associated with disorientation-vertigo syndromes in night flying. Perhaps one of the most steadfast reasons that Allied intelligence services were so baffled by these "encounters" was due to the fact that no studies existed at the time concerning vertigo, especially when night flying was involved.

In conclusion, a foo fighter is a class of events, or rather, a collection of illusory sensations, which tends to mislead an airman, believing that a distant "light," either airborne or terrestrial, is another aircraft. It has been well proven that these instances of mistaking stationary ground lights, bright stars or planets gives the pilot of an aircraft conflicting sensory information which can lead to both visually and perceptually induced veritgo syndromes.
Once a pilot has fallen under such a state, the light will seem to manoeuver in a remarkable fashion, one that will defy all of the airman's attempts to "rationalize" the light's behavior. This is why most of the airmen I interviewed tended to believe that the "balls of light" they had witnessed seemed to be under "intelligent control." Although this interpretation lacks any greater implications, such as being tracked, tagged and dissected by an alien race for tens of generations or that the Nazis themselves had invented flying saucers, it seeks out the mundane and familiar as a root cause.

The mechanisms of our human nocturnal vision differ drastically from that of our diurnal counterpart. Now throw an airman, who six months earlier was operation farm machinery, with this unknown mechanism of nocturnal vision into a high speed aircraft flying at night over enemy territory. What do you get? A foo fighter! It only seems natural that they reported seeing things, if it wasn't for the foo fighter these events probably would have gone virtually unnoticed in the annals of history as jets and baka bombs with their validity never being contested. Perhaps, now that we have a better understanding of how the foo fighters were created we can begin to better understand the advent of the UFO era.



Look to the Skies,

Mike



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Mornin' Mike,


Originally posted by mmiichael
Something from another thread where ATS member 'AlienCarnage' has some interesting things to say.

Much food for thought and the best explanation of Roswell from someone who has researched it from the sounds of it.

No aliens, not weather balloons, and a plausible explanation for the inconsistencies of stories.

(note cut & paste for more than one post - typos corrected)

Mike


Is positing this alternate explanation for Roswell an act of ceding the fact that the balloon flapdoodle is just that? If so--we're making progress!

Let me first say, that for dart board "conventional excuses" re Roswell at least this one is more palatable then the balloon flapdoodle; however, "my impression" of the author is not one of "personal research," it sounds like "speculation to me" which I will address below.





www.abovetopsecret.com...

The government coverups being talked about, such as Roswell for example, were not covering up crashed alien craft, they were covering up secret military craft that had crashed during testing. The coverup was using the UFO story to their advantage and making it look as though this were the actual story being covered up.

[...]

WWII ended in 1945, but during the war many top secret Aircraft were tested not far away from here and even after the war, they did not just suddenly start testing in 1952.

In 1937 the flying wing was built. By 1947 they were testing other military designs similar to this with many similarities and differences. One of these experimental craft fits with one of the descriptions in the documentation that I have read.

[...]

A downed military test craft is seen by many, the government gets in as fast as possible to clean it up, but by then there are already stories of a flying saucer, bingo great opportunity for cover story, but they can't just say it is an alien craft so they "cover up" the "alien crash". They find the flimsiest story possible, ie weather balloon, so that people will know that something is being covered up, but what the people think is being covered up is the alien crash, not the actual truth. This starts a whole process of denial of aliens and since there are no real aliens there is no chance of discovery, and using this new belief anytime someone sees something more than likely it will get attributed to aliens. The military will deny it since it is obviously not aliens, this leads to more suspicion from people who are seeing these craft. And thus the circle continues. The government is not lying they are not covering up aliens, in this stage they are not even necessarily black ops projects, just tests of advanced vehicles and technology.


Mike

[edit on 20-6-2009 by mmiichael]


Although a "secret military test craft" is certainly a more sober denouement as a "conventional explanation" for Roswell, anyone who has personally researched Roswell, or for that matter just individuals who are familiar with the details--knows this doesn't carry water.

Let me start by acknowledging the fact that we have the benefit of hindsight; accordingly, we're aware of experimental aircraft of the day (back then), and there was nothing "then" or now pertaining to one of our aircraft that resembles the exotic debris as described by witnesses.

Additionally, a crash of an experimental/secret military craft would have been pursued by the very people who put it in the air. It's a safe bet military personnel would have reached the scene posthaste which would have negated a trip to Roswell by Brazel. In short, the incident would have been "nipped in the bud" with no one the wiser.

Consequently, the "Flying Disk" [sic] report ordered by Blanchard and written and distributed to the media by Haut would have never taken place, and given the fact that everyone in the country wanted to know "what the Flying Disks [sic] were," using them as a cover story to "hide" an "experimental aircraft" would not have been prudent . . . to say the least!

Staying in the "experimental/secret military" tenet, an official response stating just that would have sufficed--end of story.

Forgetting all that for a moment, this excuse for Roswell, might as well be the balloon story, as it fails to explain so many points; for example the "exotic debris"; the fact that the men who were involved in the latest and most significant technology known at the time, i.e., the A-Bomb could recognize our own aircraft, experimental or otherwise. Moreover, it doesn't account for the bodies.

Finally, in June/July of '47, very few folks were talking "aliens" if at all, and it certainly wasn't presented that way by the media (yet). Flying Saucer didn't equal ET, so the argument is flat on its face.

Next!

Cheers,
Frank



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frank Warren
we're aware of experimental aircraft of the day (back then), and there was nothing "then" or now pertaining to one of our aircraft that resembles the exotic debris as described by witnesses.

[...]

the "Flying Disk" [sic] report ordered by Blanchard and written and distributed to the media by Haut would have never taken place, and given the fact that everyone in the country wanted to know "what the Flying Disks [sic] were," using them as a cover story to "hide" an "experimental aircraft" would not have been prudent . . . to say the least!

Staying in the "experimental/secret military" tenet, an official response stating just that would have sufficed--end of story.

Forgetting all that for a moment, this excuse for Roswell, might as well be the balloon story, as it fails to explain so many points; for example the "exotic debris"; the fact that the men who were involved in the latest and most significant technology known at the time, i.e., the A-Bomb could recognize our own aircraft, experimental or otherwise. Moreover, it doesn't account for the bodies.

Finally, in June/July of '47, very few folks were talking "aliens" if at all, and it certainly wasn't presented that way by the media (yet). Flying Saucer didn't equal ET, so the argument is flat on its face.





I do lose my bookmark in discussing this Frank. sorry if I keep bringing up points repeatedly.

I'm not clear any more what you accept and reject in all this. The balloon story is out for you. The alien aspect I'm unclear of. An otherworldly craft implies alien visitation. Even before the "War of the Worlds" 1938 broadcast based on Wells's 1898 novel, the notion was in the air, usually confined to popular fiction.

Somewhere from one of the sources quoted, the writer asserted there were two crashes and the events have been blended by witnesses and researchers. In one, there were supposed recovered bodies.

This would be of enormous significance to the medical establishment and again invokes my argument of why no one seems to know about it.

My guess is that someone accepting the Roswell story can compromise in believing the military was uncertain initially of whether they had found something from a foreign power or beyond terrestrial origin.

I admit a lot of confusion now on exactly which scenario you find meets the criterion. The problem my be solely on my end. If it's not too much of a demand, could you reiterate for us?

Thanks,

Mike

[edit on 21-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Mornin' Mike,


Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by MAC269

you get a statement like all these UFO’s that people are seeing are made in the good old US of A.

These things are reported by airline pilots to be 2 miles across and be able to maneuver like nothing they have ever seen.

So on the one hand you have NASA using 1940’s teck in Apollo, the space scuttle 1950’s teck then you have the secret flying triangles that out maneuver all know aircraft.

Sorry someone has something all A about T



Hey, I don't question so much the existence of Unidentified Flying Objects or disinformation campaigns by the US govt on advanced technologies. I might question how accurate some reports, are on unidentified crafts, particularly as to size. I keep an open mind on the possibility of unidentified outworldly crafts in our atmosphere.

But narrow focusing on this particular event, I don't believe there was debris of an alien craft found near Roswell in 1947. I think if there was, the scientific world would have been on it like a (pick your metaphor) with every specialist worldwide in related fields working to extract as much data from it as *humanly* possible. And the military's stance on unidentified objects would have changed radically from thereon.


The argument of course is that "scientist were invloved" and the military stance did change radically from thereon.


I recommend reading what Jeff Lindell, aka ATS member 'Rotwang17" has to say on observation and interpretation by pilots. He traces the modern UFO phenomenon back to foo fighter sightings of WWII.




jeff.lindell.home.comcast.net...

is a foo Fighter a naive sighting of a real, historical weapon? No, it is absolutely not. Is it a Nazi flying saucer or an extraterrestrial spaceship? I'm afraid not, but these theories sell magazines and make lots o' bucks.

Many Ufologists have been very receptive to my refutation of the "jet" hypothesis because it tends to support their own claims of alien visitors. My intentions from the outset have been to resolve this mystery using a rational, although unorthodox, scientific method. It is my stern belief that what these airmen were reporting was an intensely real set of illusory experiences which have become associated with disorientation-vertigo syndromes in night flying. Perhaps one of the most steadfast reasons that Allied intelligence services were so baffled by these "encounters" was due to the fact that no studies existed at the time concerning vertigo, especially when night flying was involved.

In conclusion, a foo fighter is a class of events, or rather, a collection of illusory sensations, which tends to mislead an airman, believing that a distant "light," either airborne or terrestrial, is another aircraft. It has been well proven that these instances of mistaking stationary ground lights, bright stars or planets gives the pilot of an aircraft conflicting sensory information which can lead to both visually and perceptually induced veritgo syndromes.
Once a pilot has fallen under such a state, the light will seem to manoeuver in a remarkable fashion, one that will defy all of the airman's attempts to "rationalize" the light's behavior. This is why most of the airmen I interviewed tended to believe that the "balls of light" they had witnessed seemed to be under "intelligent control." Although this interpretation lacks any greater implications, such as being tracked, tagged and dissected by an alien race for tens of generations or that the Nazis themselves had invented flying saucers, it seeks out the mundane and familiar as a root cause.

The mechanisms of our human nocturnal vision differ drastically from that of our diurnal counterpart. Now throw an airman, who six months earlier was operation farm machinery, with this unknown mechanism of nocturnal vision into a high speed aircraft flying at night over enemy territory. What do you get? A foo fighter! It only seems natural that they reported seeing things, if it wasn't for the foo fighter these events probably would have gone virtually unnoticed in the annals of history as jets and baka bombs with their validity never being contested. Perhaps, now that we have a better understanding of how the foo fighters were created we can begin to better understand the advent of the UFO era.



Look to the Skies,

Mike


I'm afraid Jeff's explanation for Foo Fighters, i.e., being a "nocturnal illusory sensation" is as weak as the "experimental craft" for Roswell.

First, and foremost Foo Fighters (UFOs) were not exclusive to "night time sightings." Moreover, there are reports of the Foo Fighters affecting electrical systems on planes, and they have in cases given "returns" ala radar.

Additionally, they were also sighted over the pacific (no ground lights).

Finally, if this were a physiological and psychological issue why hasn't it been "consistent" all throughout man's history of flight?

Cheers,
Frank



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frank Warren

I'm afraid Jeff's explanation for Foo Fighters, i.e., being a "nocturnal illusory sensation" is as weak as the "experimental craft" for Roswell.

First, and foremost Foo Fighters (UFOs) were not exclusive to "night time sightings." Moreover, there are reports of the Foo Fighters affecting electrical systems on planes, and they have in cases given "returns" ala radar.

Additionally, they were also sighted over the pacific (no ground lights).

Finally, if this were a physiological and psychological issue why hasn't it been "consistent" all throughout man's history of flight?




Frank,


You might want to ask him those questions. I think he was providing examples for a good number of reports. The basic point has more to do with how people interpret what they see in different personal and cultural contexts.

His approach to the UFO phenomenon, from a psychological and folklore perspective, is highly insightful. I recommend a full reading and digestion.

Mike




"Pilots do not have sufficient information about phenomena of disorientation, and, as a corollary, are given considerable disorganized, incomplete, and inaccurate information. They are largely dependent upon their own experience, which must supplement and interpret the traditions about 'vertigo' which are passed on to them.

When a concept thus grows out of anecdotes cemented together with practical necessity, it is bound to acquire elements of mystery. So far as 'vertigo' is concerned, no one really knows more than a small part of the facts, but a great deal of the peril. Since aviators are not skilled observers of human behavior, they usually have only the vaguest understanding of their own feelings. Like other naive persons, therefore, they have simply adopted a term to cover a multitude of otherwise inexplicable events."

(Vinacke, Edgar. 8 May 1946. "The Concept of Aviator's 'Vertigo.'" Report No.#7. U.S. Naval School of Aviation Medicine, Project (X-148-Av-4-3). Reprinted in Journal of Aviation Medicine. 1948. 19:158-190)


My inclinations actually lean in this direction more than the purely scientific data accumulation approach.

I've tried my best to address issues in objective terms in this thread. But there is also subjective component, much larger than most realize. We see it in the choice of sources, the interpretation of evidence, how witness testimony is elicited, what is accepted or rejected, etc.

We we integrate the two approaches we get more comprehensive results - and better answers.



Mike




[edit on 21-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Mike, with respect, dont you think youre being a tad stubborn here? - and I am not referring to vigorous research you probably have done longer than myself about this matter, and I'll have you know that your opinion is deeply appreciated, I distinctly recall a while ago when you listed the books you read about Roswell, or Jacque Vallee's work, and I deeply respect and appreciate that. But I wish you would at least concede that the biggest myth about Roswell is that it was a Weather Balloon. I find very hard to believe that even you would accept that preposterous explanation. Now if we could get past that, we can then debate whether it was a flying saucer or something else.

Kind regards,



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
Mike, with respect, dont you think youre being a tad stubborn here? - and I am not referring to vigorous research you probably have done longer than myself about this matter, and I'll have you know that your opinion is deeply appreciated, I distinctly recall a while ago when you listed the books you read about Roswell, or Jacque Vallee's work, and I deeply respect and appreciate that. But I wish you would at least concede that the biggest myth about Roswell is that it was a Weather Balloon. I find very hard to believe that even you would accept that preposterous explanation. Now if we could get past that, we can then debate whether it was a flying saucer or something else.



Majorion,

Thanks for input and compliment. I didn't know anyone takes what I post here at all seriously.

I'm quite happy to dump the Weather Balloon scenario if it's demonstrably false or something better take it's place. So far we have the famous photographs and first hand testimony of balloon debris being picked up, so there's no question it was there. But no photographs of alien wreckage or reliable reports of it being picked up. And not anything either of advanced technology crafts from the US or a foreign power.

Tangible evidence beats claims of secret unseen things, at least for me.

What is becoming clearer is that we are trying to put a puzzle together and not only are pieces missing, but the ones we have often don't fit. For me that means it's not just a problem with what's observed, its also a component of the observer.

Unlike myself and maybe a few others, the expectation is of something momentous. The investigators are focusing on whatever can support that thesis. The secondary witnesses are subtly adjusting what they remember to fulfill that expectation. Reading the literature on the subject and prompting of the old timers who late in life are informed they're players in an important historical event has it's effects. And discovering gaps in the records as well as linkages with scientific personages gives leeway for constructing a story full of intrigue and deceptions.

That's my call. I may be close-minded and ignoring evidence of a world-changing event that the US military has kept secret from 60 years. Frank has done solid investigating and that's his conclusion.

But I'm largely distant from the UFO community and their belief system.
I keep saying "Show me" and keep getting answers like "They're covering it all up."

Maybe they are. But it conflicts too much with what I consider to be common sense, how I know people behave, the opinions of knowledgeable people, and even the evidence available so far.


Mike



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Mike,

Thanks for your reply. You bring up many good points, and your skepticism is well warranted. And although I agree that the UFO community often looks for ways to fulfill that most popular hypothesis, the story of Roswell was not all a stand-alone incident. If it was a one-time stand-alone incident I would completely agree with your stance of nothing monumental, but it was not, and in fact there are cases that are shockingly related and similar to Roswell in some aspects.

Take the cases of Rendlesham Forest and Kecksburg for example, those both involved the unknown hieroglyphic symbols described per Roswell, and Rendlesham is a particularly well documented case, and no Mogul type rebuttal other than the even more preposterous Lighthouse explanation and rabbit footprints; which BTW, rabbits dont amplify radiation levels, and Lighthouse lights do not explode into five or drip a molten metal type substance. These official explanations are absurd, these cases are related, and to say that all of these are a hoax or a misidentification is just plain ridiculous.

Add to that the case of Tehran Iran 1976 and things start to become pretty clear, well at least from my side. There is a cover up, theres no doubt about it, though I agree with you that the CTs and UFOlogists overblow and often exaggerate the depth of the cover up to such an extreme as to fulfill certain conclusions (including myself), but at the most basic level, theres no doubt about it Mike, I'm sorry.

Kind regards,

[edit on 21/6/09 by Majorion]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion

although I agree that the UFO community often looks for ways to fulfill that most popular hypothesis, the story of Roswell was not all a stand-alone incident. If it was a one-time stand-alone incident I would completely agree with your stance of nothing monumental, but it was not, and in fact there are cases that are shockingly related and similar to Roswell in some aspects.

Take the cases of Rendlesham Forest and Kecksburg for example, those both involved the unknown hieroglyphic symbols described per Roswell, and Rendlesham is a particularly well documented case, and no Mogul type rebuttal other than the even more preposterous Lighthouse explanation and rabbit footprints

[...]

Add to that the case of Tehran Iran 1976 and things start to become pretty clear, well at least from my side. There is a cover up, theres no doubt about it, though I agree with you that the CTs and UFOlogists overblow and often exaggerate the depth of the cover up to such an extreme as to fulfill certain conclusions (including myself), but at the most basic level, theres no doubt about it Mike, I'm sorry.




Marjorion,

And thank you for your reply. I'm not a UFO expert or debunker by trade or choice. I have developed a modest skill set in separating misinformation, distortions, half-truths, self-promotion, and misinterpretations of data. A lot of which I see when the discussion turns to UFOs.

Roswell is a subject that sticks in my craw as I actually bought into it when the story first came out. A fascinating study in how a mythology can be assembled on a dearth of evidence and rearrangement of facts and linkages.

More a testimony to creativity, embroidering a fabric with real people and events woven into a pile of assumptions and speculations. When you lack substantiations, conclude the US government is secretly covering it up.

I don't question for a minute there are UFOs being seen, and many unexplained events that have no immediately available explanation.

I was living in England when Rendlesham happened. What I recall was that the radiation thing is meaningless as the equipment used is incapable of accurately detecting at those levels. Also, a soldier confessed to driving a vehicle with modified lights through the forest as a hoax. He withdrew it. But why say so in the first place? Did someone else really do it as a hoax?

I think someone claimed they touched it, and there were severely conflicting stories given in the last few years. But if you choose to believe it, then these issues get written off.

Yet another puzzle where the pieces don't fit together. The endlessly elusive tangible evidence. The inevitable stories of military cover-ups.

When you look at other conspiracy theories you see the same patterns of unavailable material evidence, unreliable reporting, dubious witnesses, and explanations of official cover-ups.

But again, I could just be some paid disinformation agent for MJ-12 making sure people don't get too close to the truth.

Thanks for listening to another rant.

Mike


[edit on 22-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Dear Mike

Contrary to what you may think I agree with a great deal of what you say.

Also we indeed need you very badly as you keep us on track of hopefully the truth.

I am aware of how the boffins work. So I know that what we are suggesting doesn’t fit the normal run of knowledge.

The way I approach the subject is this.

First of all I have no idea if it is all fact or fiction.

But I know this they were lying then and they are lying now. Of this I am totally certain.

As a society we trust police personnel to the extent that many a suspected perpetrator has been sent to jail on police evidence alone.

We trust military pilots because they are so well trained, that is in comparison with the civilian equivalent.

We trust our airline pilots with our lives on a day to day bases.

I don’t think there can be much argument about all of that.

Until it comes to the subject of UFO’s then for some reason we doubt what they see.

So I tend too look at it this way, at risk of there livelihood why on earth would these guys make this up.

So if you then except that these reports are true and you have ruled out swamp gas, weather balloons, light houses and all the other lame ideas put forward then you have to go along with the idea that there is something going on and that is hidden form us and maybe even your friends the boffins.

Too my mind there are just too many credible reports from credible witnesses about the subject of UFO’s. That being apart from what I have seen myself.

The US air force say they are not interested if that is so the only reason can be is that they know what they are. Otherwise they would be changing there shorts on a much more regular basis.

So if you have got so far what about Roswell, the good old US of A was trusting these guys with the only nuclear weapons in the world, but when it come to them telling the world that it had found debris of a flying disc we think that they where unsophisticated.

Please don’t come back with they drop the ball now and again as we know they do especially when they are under pressure. That we know but these guys weren’t under pressure the light was most likely good in the office and therefore give me just one credible explanation of why these guys could mistake tin foil, balsa wood and bits of rubber for something extra ordinary.

The more I think about it the more I know there was a lot more to it.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

First of all I have no idea if it is all fact or fiction. But I know this they were lying then and they are lying now. Of this I am totally certain.

We trust military pilots because they are so well trained, that is in comparison with the civilian equivalent. We trust our airline pilots with our lives on a day to day bases. I don’t think there can be much argument about all of that.

Until it comes to the subject of UFO’s then for some reason we doubt what they see. So I tend too look at it this way, at risk of there livelihood why on earth would these guys make this up.

The US air force say they are not interested if that is so the only reason can be is that they know what they are.

So if you have got so far what about Roswell, the good old US of A was trusting these guys with the only nuclear weapons in the world, but when it come to them telling the world that it had found debris of a flying disc we think that they where unsophisticated.

these guys weren’t under pressure the light was most likely good in the office and therefore give me just one credible explanation of why these guys could mistake tin foil, balsa wood and bits of rubber for something extra ordinary.



Mac,

Thanks for your balanced approach to all this.

I hear you when you say military personnel and pilots are a cut above us all in their integrity and responsibility. And they are better trained observers.

I don't know what happened at Roswell and have almost given up on picking away at points, as there seems to be a counter claim for everything now.

The pictures of the balloon debris were taken and published. Now we're told that was a planned lie to cover-up something bigger. So we have key participants saying they lied before, but now are telling the truth.

The fact that there is so much ambiguity and so much riding on informal testimony with no tangible evidence speaks to me. It seems like a lot of dancing around the fact that there is nothing to support the fantastic story of a saucer crash aside from conflicting words. And the inevitable speculation that the 'hard stuff' has been concealed all these years.

We can check their backgrounds, acknowledge their credibility, pinpoint times and dates, corroborate testimonies. But not a sliver of alien craft or sample tissue from an outwordly being.

And the scientific community is stony silent on something of enormous magnitude.

So forgive my skepticism in all this. But it still comes across like a strain to sustain a spectacular story with no hard evidence.


Mike



new topics

top topics



 
97
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join