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: 8
97
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frank Warren

Stating your opinion as you see it, is not being a wet blanket . . . it is just an exchange of views.

However, in this instance you just happen to be wrong.




Frank,

Thanks again for the thoughtful and informed responses to the points I brought up. Again retreating to my self-proclaimed Roswell fatigue - let's just say there is always something in the record that dismisses the possibility that there was just incorrect near hysterical response to a weather balloon crash and retrieval that has become inflated to a secret recovery of an alien spaceship.

For someone like yourself who has gone to the effort of doing primary research, actually talking to witnesses in situ, as opposed to relying on the efforts of others, there can be no doubt something very big is being hidden from the public.

And when I start saying things like people's memories are unreliable and they can invent things when prompted, I must come off like the classical close-minded debunker.

Somewhat in my defense, I have had reason to read long transcripts of criminal tries, a few of which involved major criminal conspiracies.

Confoundingly eyewitnesses to critical events often come up with testimony that not only conflicts with what others have said, but forensic evidence and even things they have stated in earlier reports.

The all encompassing example I give in these discussions is from a study in communication theory that showed how stories evolve over time. Sorry if you've read this one before.

Right after Abraham Lincoln was shot in a theatre by John Wilkes Booth, dozens of eyewitnesses were interviewed by the press. With the high profile nature of the event, many of them were repeatedly interviewed by the press and historians for many years after.

The one that illustrates my thesis best is a gentleman in a wheelchair who said he only heard the shot and saw the perpetrator running down the aisle.
Subsequent interviews with the gentleman had hum integrating himself increasingly to the point that 30 years after the event he was telling how he managed to grapple with Booth as he was escaping.

Historians as well as judges and the legal profession deal with this phenomenon regularly. The inherent often subconscious need of many to reinvent events in their minds to fulfill a role of being upright, heroic, honourable, truthful, etc.

People don't so much lie as reconstruct their memories over time.

I am certain this falls on deaf ears before because of something called attitude or belief polarization.

I'll lazily provide the Wikipedia definition



en.wikipedia.org...

Attitude polarization, also known as belief polarization, occurs when people who have a belief or attitude interpret evidence for or against that belief/attitude selectively, in a way that shows a bias in favour of their current view. If they are given evidence that agrees with their belief, they accept that it supports their position. If they are given evidence that contradicts their belief, they either ignore the evidence, criticise it, or reinterpret it so that it also supports their original view.


This I see happening with even objective researchers of the Roswell event.
Conflicting evidence and testimony gets rationalized and only the validating data is accepted.

You may justifiably claim I am doing the same thing, and you are right.

The most important single event in human history may have happened 62 years ago and I blindly refuse to acknowledge it. I will accept criticism for my rigid narrow-mindedness when and if it is demonstrated I am wrong. But for now my assessment of all the information that has come to my attention is that there was no crashed interplanetary vehicle in New Mexico in 1947.

Mike




posted on May, 30 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Mornin' Mike,


Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Frank Warren

Stating your opinion as you see it, is not being a wet blanket . . . it is just an exchange of views.

However, in this instance you just happen to be wrong.





Frank,

Thanks again for the thoughtful and informed responses to the points I brought up.


No thanks necessary; however, your decorum is noted, and very refreshing to say the least!


Again retreating to my self-proclaimed Roswell fatigue - let's just say there is always something in the record that dismisses the possibility that there was just incorrect near hysterical response to a weather balloon crash and retrieval that has become inflated to a secret recovery of an alien spaceship.


As you mentioned previously in this thread, (from your perspective) it's doubtful there's anything I can say to "alter your thinking"; however, if there is in fact a "sliver of possibility" to that end, might I suggest that you remove the alien spaceship from your thought processes.

The "weather balloon" and or "Mogul" (same type) will never wash, simply because they would have never "fooled anyone." Had the incident been precipitated by either of the a fore mentioned, it would have never gotten past Brazel!


For someone like yourself who has gone to the effort of doing primary research, actually talking to witnesses in situ, as opposed to relying on the efforts of others, there can be no doubt something very big is being hidden from the public.


Amen!


And when I start saying things like people's memories are unreliable and they can invent things when prompted, I must come off like the classical close-minded debunker.

Somewhat in my defense, I have had reason to read long transcripts of criminal tries, a few of which involved major criminal conspiracies.

Confoundingly eyewitnesses to critical events often come up with testimony that not only conflicts with what others have said, but forensic evidence and even things they have stated in earlier reports.

The all encompassing example I give in these discussions is from a study in communication theory that showed how stories evolve over time. Sorry if you've read this one before.

Right after Abraham Lincoln was shot in a theatre by John Wilkes Booth, dozens of eyewitnesses were interviewed by the press. With the high profile nature of the event, many of them were repeatedly interviewed by the press and historians for many years after.

The one that illustrates my thesis best is a gentleman in a wheelchair who said he only heard the shot and saw the perpetrator running down the aisle.
Subsequent interviews with the gentleman had hum integrating himself increasingly to the point that 30 years after the event he was telling how he managed to grapple with Booth as he was escaping.

Historians as well as judges and the legal profession deal with this phenomenon regularly. The inherent often subconscious need of many to reinvent events in their minds to fulfill a role of being upright, heroic, honourable, truthful, etc.

People don't so much lie as reconstruct their memories over time.


"Blurred memories" are a given for historical events; there is no argument (from me) that "details" can often times become deficient, which is why "an anecdote" is only "one component" of the research process.

For example; some time back (on another case) a ranch owner claimed that a UFO related event couldn't have taken place there because he owned the property back then (1948), and of course he would have been aware of it; a check of the "deed" to the property indicated that "he did not buy the property until a few years later"; this was shown to him, and he admitted his error; however, prior to that he was adamant about "his time-line."

Staying within the realm of your analogy, at the end of the day, "Abraham Lincoln was still shot (and later died) by an assassin's bullet," which was the "main" consensus of the eyewitnesses.


I am certain this falls on deaf ears before because of something called attitude or belief polarization.

I'll lazily provide the Wikipedia definition



en.wikipedia.org...

Attitude polarization, also known as belief polarization, occurs when people who have a belief or attitude interpret evidence for or against that belief/attitude selectively, in a way that shows a bias in favour of their current view. If they are given evidence that agrees with their belief, they accept that it supports their position. If they are given evidence that contradicts their belief, they either ignore the evidence, criticise it, or reinterpret it so that it also supports their original view.



This I see happening with even objective researchers of the Roswell event.
Conflicting evidence and testimony gets rationalized and only the validating data is accepted.


These are excellent, most salient points that I completely agree with, and like you, experience it on a regular basis, albeit "usually" from the more biased and or close-minded ideologues.

Most debunkers (not skeptics) are guilty of "AP"! They ignore, and or omit the evidence that doesn't fit their personal dogma.


You may justifiably claim I am doing the same thing, and you are right.

The most important single event in human history may have happened 62 years ago and I blindly refuse to acknowledge it. I will accept criticism for my rigid narrow-mindedness when and if it is demonstrated I am wrong. But for now my assessment of all the information that has come to my attention is that there was no crashed interplanetary vehicle in New Mexico in 1947.

Mike


[Please note that no compensation has been offered to Mike for his closing comments :>))]

Hmmm . . . it seems, Mike that you've said it all.

If there is anything to add, it would be to reiterate the "removal" (in thinking) of "what the Roswell object was" and perhaps approach it from "what it wasn't!"

This very real "Attitude Polarization" you cite is a "property" in societal programming; most folks who ponder the UFO phenomenon are biased from the get-go. This isn't their fault, we're taught (programmed) that this scenario is akin to folklore, legend etc., and needs to remain there.

In my view, the first step in looking at the evidence in an "objective manner" is to remove the lens (bias) we've always viewed things through--a most difficult task by itself, as history has taught us; however, in doing so we find that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, and the latter "isn't flat."

Cheers,
Frank



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Look this>>>>>>>DTIC RAPORT



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frank Warren

This very real "Attitude Polarization" you cite is a "property" in societal programming; most folks who ponder the UFO phenomenon are biased from the get-go. This isn't their fault, we're taught (programmed) that this scenario is akin to folklore, legend etc., and needs to remain there.

In my view, the first step in looking at the evidence in an "objective manner" is to remove the lens (bias) we've always viewed things through--a most difficult task by itself, as history has taught us; however, in doing so we find that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, and the latter "isn't flat."



Thanks again Frank. I hope I'm not wearing out my welcome on your thread.

I started out willing to accept the Roswell story when I first came across it 30 years ago. The supplied evidence seemed convincing. It has only been over the years watching the shenanigans of so many career conmen with things like the MJ12 documents and phony witnesses that by negative opinion formed.

Judges look at not only specifics but the weight of evidence when a smoking gun is absent. The fact that the case relies almost completely on conflicts in the military's statements and secondary level testimony informs me. This is not an unsolved murder, it is the biggest story ever. There should be something by now.

I used to work for someone here in Canada who was involved in designing computerized systems used by the defense industry. He had very high level contacts and I got to know many of his friends. A few explained to me how a number of scientists and intelligence people they knew had gone to great lengths to see if anyone had ever seen documentation or spoken to someone with knowledge of unusual projects involving unknown source technologies or alien life forms. One would guess in a community encompassing thousands of often outside contractors there would be some scuttlebut. The answer was a resounding "no"

No internal or foreign espionage agents, no forthright or greedy whistleblowers, no real evidence of anything technology changing that might be expected from something of this magnitude. Just a ton of anecdotes and speculations.

I believe people like Marcel came to believe their own evolving stories, and that the myth has fed itself.

Like the JFK assassination, the trail has been muddied by a lot of boot prints.
We may never have an unambiguous story of what happened at Roswell.
From what I can tell it was more a blend of bad communication and misguided security concerns than an earth shaking discovery.

I admire your tenacity in trying to get to the actual facts in this mystery. But I think the hoped for breakthrough will continue to be on the horizon.

Man may someday have contact or evidence of other intelligences on our planet, but I don't believe it has happened yet.

Appreciate your time and patience, as always.


Mike



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Afternoon Mike,


Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Frank Warren

This very real "Attitude Polarization" you cite is a "property" in societal programming; most folks who ponder the UFO phenomenon are biased from the get-go. This isn't their fault, we're taught (programmed) that this scenario is akin to folklore, legend etc., and needs to remain there.

In my view, the first step in looking at the evidence in an "objective manner" is to remove the lens (bias) we've always viewed things through--a most difficult task by itself, as history has taught us; however, in doing so we find that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, and the latter "isn't flat."




Thanks again Frank. I hope I'm not wearing out my welcome on your thread.



Cordial, pithy discourse is always welcomed!



I started out willing to accept the Roswell story when I first came across it 30 years ago. The supplied evidence seemed convincing. It has only been over the years watching the shenanigans of so many career conmen with things like the MJ12 documents and phony witnesses that by negative opinion formed.


The MJ-12 muddle is forever damaged, and even if there is/was some wheat in all the chaff--at this point it's irrelevant!

That said, it is historically routine to task a group, to attack specific problems on this scale! Obviously there would be a corresponding paper trail.

Case in point, was the secret meeting (on aerial phenomena) at Los Alamos (Feb 1949) with some of the brightest minds in the country, if not the world, i.e., "Teller," "Reines," Manly" and Bradbury to name a few.


Judges look at not only specifics but the weight of evidence when a smoking gun is absent. The fact that the case relies almost completely on conflicts in the military's statements and secondary level testimony informs me. This is not an unsolved murder, it is the biggest story ever. There should be something by now.


Key point, "weight of the evidence." Additionally, if we're going to use an analogy of a "court, judge and an unsolved murder," then lets make the victim a "covert agent" of the government who work is highly classified.

There is something now--a whole lot of it!


I used to work for someone here in Canada who was involved in designing computerized systems used by the defense industry. He had very high level contacts and I got to know many of his friends. A few explained to me how a number of scientists and intelligence people they knew had gone to great lengths to see if anyone had ever seen documentation or spoken to someone with knowledge of unusual projects involving unknown source technologies or alien life forms. One would guess in a community encompassing thousands of often outside contractors there would be some scuttlebut. The answer was a resounding "no"


Imagine Truman's surprise when he learned of the "Manhattan Project"; being Vice-President, he assumed he would have been informed about such matters.


No internal or foreign espionage agents, no forthright or greedy whistleblowers, no real evidence of anything technology changing that might be expected from something of this magnitude. Just a ton of anecdotes and speculations.


Of this I have to disagree; many of the Roswell proponents (not to mention a myriad of other cases) were former military, and involved in the post-cover-up;also, the very theme of this thread is that Nitinol is "Roswell related."


I believe people like Marcel came to believe their own evolving stories, and that the myth has fed itself.


Again, I have to disagree (vehemently). Marcel did what he was ordered to do from the get go, including taking one for the team! He was a patriot who serviced his country honorably (and then some), and that credo runs in the family, as evidenced by the multiple tours Jesse Marcel Jr did in Iraq "as a senior citizen!"


Like the JFK assassination, the trail has been muddied by a lot of boot prints.
We may never have an unambiguous story of what happened at Roswell.
From what I can tell it was more a blend of bad communication and misguided security concerns than an earth shaking discovery.


There is no argument that the "Roswell event" has morphed into another animal; however, that doesn't negate the sober research that has taken place at it's core, nor the preponderance of evidence uncovered.


I admire your tenacity in trying to get to the actual facts in this mystery. But I think the hoped for breakthrough will continue to be on the horizon.


Perhaps, but achievements are done by those who believe that they are possible--not making the attempt assures failure!


Man may someday have contact or evidence of other intelligences on our planet, but I don't believe it has happened yet.


My thinking is that the smaller percentage of our species that run things, may some day admit--what has already taken place!:>))


Appreciate your time and patience, as always.


Mike


Backatcha!

Cheers,
Frank





posted on May, 30 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frank Warren

Case in point, was the secret meeting (on aerial phenomena) at Los Alamos (Feb 1949) with some of the brightest minds in the country, if not the world, i.e., "Teller," "Reines," Manly" and Bradbury to name a few.

[...]

Imagine Truman's surprise when he learned of the "Manhattan Project"; being Vice-President, he assumed he would have been informed about such matters.

[...]

many of the Roswell proponents (not to mention a myriad of other cases) were former military, and involved in the post-cover-up;also, the very theme of this thread is that Nitinol is "Roswell related."

[...]


There is no argument that the "Roswell event" has morphed into another animal; however, that doesn't negate the sober research that has taken place at it's core, nor the preponderance of evidence uncovered.

[...]

My thinking is that the smaller percentage of our species that run things, may some day admit--what has already taken place!:





Frank,

All your points have merit. Were I to task myself to prove something significant happened at Roswell that remains undisclosed, I would try to take the approach you have, and I'm sure not anywhere as thoroughly and
effectively as yo uhave.

That said, here's what I see:

A lot of serious concern by the US government and military in regards to unknown aerial activity in the wake of World War II. No one could be certain how far along the German or Japanese were with their experimental vehicles. No one in the West knew any more what the Russians had. Add to that the new wild card of it being conceivable there were visitations from
other planets.

It could all amount to nothing. It could amount to another World War or even War of the Worlds.

So much secrecy and brainstorming.

But 60 years later, as far as most of can see, a lot of sizzle and no steak.

I think you and others seize on ambiguities and a growing mythology more than they warrant.

OOPS - cutting this short with someone waiting for me.

My review of the material, intellect, and gut keep saying the same thing. A story more than an history changing event.

More of the same soon.


Mike



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
The case for Roswell is more than just a few memories from some older persons. There are many documents that show something unusual happened, and many people showed up at Roswell during what would have been a down week due to the Independence Day holiday.

Why were there many flag officers involved when the DCM would be the one to take care of the wreckage?

Why did they fly the debris to Wright Patterson when it was just a weather balloon with some extra components that would of been dealt with through the normal supply chain?

Why did a full colonel allow for a press release to state a crashed disk was found?

Why did an intelligence officer misidentify something he had commonly seen at the base?

If the Air Force does not care about the matter, why do they keep releasing more press releases stating what it was? Why did they even mention the dummies if they thought the alien bodies stories were ridiculous?

These and many other questions are why this story will never die.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Frank Warren
 
Frank,
I made a couple of posts near the start of this thread,
and I must say your OP I seen as being the most thorough.
It's incredible after four differing explanations by TPTB,
the Army Air Force,The USAF? that people
should think otherwise of what happened in 1947,
Jesse Marcel is now a braggart and a liar from some sources
(the man never talked about it mainstream for years)
I think he comes out quite modest really,whichever way
it was put down for him very quick.
Why is Kenneth Arnold given so much creedence around the same time,
what he described was not flying saucers..the press did that,what he saw
as described by himself was more like a flying wing,(like half a disc)
food for thought there, but i'm sure you know that anyway.









[edit on 30-5-2009 by smurfy]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Continuing on my skeptical rant that the teenagers looking in can skip.

If in 1947 the US military found the debris of a crashed interplanetary vessel and alien bodies or remains it would have gone to the highest level of secrecy.

But experts in the fields of chemistry, engineering, physics, aeronautics, biochemistry, forensic medicine, and a dozen other disciplines would have been called in and any many investigative research projects set up. Given the relatively narrow focus of the military of that era, much of the work would have gone to contracted specialists in the public sector.

There would have been considerable interface with the high tech and possibly medical research firms and institutions of the period. Everything would have been scrupulously documented including the use of colour film. Though all compartmentalized and under strictest security, at the very least hundreds, more likely thousands would have grappled with various pieces of the puzzle.

As the decades proceeded, at least a few of these people would have communicated info with peers, family, and friends. The probability is very high that one or more, unemployed, retired, outraged by the secrecy, would have leaked something to the press or a publisher on principle or financial gain. It is the sort of thing that thousands of journalists and freelancer would seek out as it could mean a turning point in their careers.

Again - discovery of anything concrete of extraterrestrial origin is not the kind of thing most could keep to themselves for very long. It is a quantum leap beyond military secrets and espionage. It even sets of alarm bells in the religious establishment.

So who do we have as witnesses willing to talk about it? An aging Col Corso who now contends his co-author did not accurately present his experiences, Marcel and other military staff, none of whom can quite ever say without reservation "I saw the alien craft. I saw an alien body." But endless tertiary witnesses, firemen, nurses, friend of friends, do keep popping up.

No one involved in the investigative research, their families, friends, co-workers, or contacted journalists, has much to say. Yes, apparently there are a couple. I haven't gotten the impression they have been shown to be reliable.

We haven’t been informed of any aeronautics, physics, biochemical advances. The current claim is a memory metal which may have been leaked as Silly Putty in the 50s.

There may have been an alien crash at Roswell. The military may have kept it under wraps for 62 years. It may be the best kept secret in all history. Thousands may be taking secrets to the grave.

I dunno.


Mike



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
In 1947 something fell to earth near Roswell NM that is a certainty.

Now the question is what?

Jesse Marcel as I understand it was the security officer to the most important Air Base in the World at that time in that it was the only one with nuclear weapons. He was so impressed with what he found that on the way back to the base in the middle of the night he woke his family to show it to them.

The next day the commander of the most important Air Base in the world issued a statement to the press saying that the USAF had captured a flying disc, not found bits of scrap on the desert floor.

Therefore they found something of great importance unless you believe the US had total morons in charge of the most powerful Air Base in the world. This I can’t believe despite watching Fox news last week because there was nothing else to watch.

I am also not having it that no one over there can keep a secret when the need to. To mention just one the Manhattan project.

These two pieces of uncontroversial fact alone should in my humble opinion make skeptics think again.

Also do not come back with mogul as the materials used are the same as a weather balloon.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
A comment from Christopher Allan to Kevin Randle on his blogspot on Apr 28 2007 is a good summary of the evidence available on Roswell.

Now I wonder if I skim read it once as I make similar points. Or if we just are applying the same common sense.

I recommend reading the whole page. I would say the truth about Roswell lies in there.


Mike





kevinrandle.blogspot.com...

There are very serious problems with your version of Roswell, and they won't go away. The chief problem is that there is absolutely no documentation on this incident, even after 6 decades (apart from the one brief FBI teletype - big deal).

Consider the situation. Here we have, according to yourself & others, maybe the most important scientific discovery of all time. If you are correct and it was a genuine ET craft that crashed to earth and bodies discovered, there would be literally tons & tons of paperwork & photos on the case. Think of all the military reports, think of all the universities & government institutions (military & civilian) that must have been involved in analysing the wreckage and the bodies over many months or years. Think of all the scientists that were involved. Hundreds, thousands?

There is plenty of paperwork on the green fireballs, plenty on US and foreign experimental aircraft, missiles, nuclear weapons, space projects and so on, even plenty on other UFO events. Blue Book archives run to umpteen reels of microfilm. Yet not one iota has ever surfaced on Roswell.
What has happened? Do you really suppose each & every document on Roswell has either gone missing or been destroyed, or is still under wraps?

What is going on here? Sooner or later you have got to accept that something is seriously, very seriously, wrong with your version of Roswell. It cannot have happened in the way you claim. Cavitt, Rickett, LaPaz, Ramey, Blanchard plus a zillion others must have produced written analyses. Where are they? I repeat: there would be documentation several miles deep on this affair. Where is it, after 60 years?

It has nothing to do with the destruction of trivial papers from the Roswell base during 47-49. It has much more to do with the total absence of any documentation from anywhere at any time.

This has resulted in years of wasted effort by people to decipher the 'Ramey memo', the Ft Worth photos, the MJ-12 forgeries and so on. "If the real documents aint there we shall put them there" is what these people are trying to do. (The same applies to the alleged pieces of debris.)

You will have to face the awful truth one day, I fear, which is this: The Roswell Incident was an event of no significance.

You can always disprove me by locating the said documentation, hardware or bodies.




posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Frank Warren

Case in point, was the secret meeting (on aerial phenomena) at Los Alamos (Feb 1949) with some of the brightest minds in the country, if not the world, i.e., "Teller," "Reines," Manly" and Bradbury to name a few.

[...]

Imagine Truman's surprise when he learned of the "Manhattan Project"; being Vice-President, he assumed he would have been informed about such matters.

[...]

many of the Roswell proponents (not to mention a myriad of other cases) were former military, and involved in the post-cover-up;also, the very theme of this thread is that Nitinol is "Roswell related."

[...]


There is no argument that the "Roswell event" has morphed into another animal; however, that doesn't negate the sober research that has taken place at it's core, nor the preponderance of evidence uncovered.

[...]

My thinking is that the smaller percentage of our species that run things, may some day admit--what has already taken place!:





Frank,

All your points have merit. Were I to task myself to prove something significant happened at Roswell that remains undisclosed, I would try to take the approach you have, and I'm sure not anywhere as thoroughly and
effectively as yo uhave.

That said, here's what I see:

A lot of serious concern by the US government and military in regards to unknown aerial activity in the wake of World War II. No one could be certain how far along the German or Japanese were with their experimental vehicles. No one in the West knew any more what the Russians had. Add to that the new wild card of it being conceivable there were visitations from
other planets.

It could all amount to nothing. It could amount to another World War or even War of the Worlds.

So much secrecy and brainstorming.


I'm with you so far . . ..


But 60 years later, as far as most of can see, a lot of sizzle and no steak.


I believe that there has been steak, just in small bites.


I think you and others seize on ambiguities and a growing mythology more than they warrant.


Again, I have to disagree; of course in "all of Ufology" there certainly exists ambiguous minutiae, and in this instance, re "Roswell" the event has morphed into another type of creature altogether; however, "I" certainly don't "seize on these things," nor do most sober researchers; most feel that it's a hindrance.


OOPS - cutting this short with someone waiting for me.

My review of the material, intellect, and gut keep saying the same thing. A story more than an history changing event.

More of the same soon.

Mike


That mindset was also the popular thinking regarding the once fabled city of Troy . . .

Cheers,
Frank



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Afternoon Smurfy,


Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by Frank Warren
 
Frank,
I made a couple of posts near the start of this thread,
and I must say your OP I seen as being the most thorough.
It's incredible after four differing explanations by TPTB,
the Army Air Force,The USAF? that people
should think otherwise of what happened in 1947,
Jesse Marcel is now a braggart and a liar from some sources
(the man never talked about it mainstream for years)
I think he comes out quite modest really,whichever way
it was put down for him very quick.
Why is Kenneth Arnold given so much creedence around the same time,
what he described was not flying saucers..the press did that,what he saw
as described by himself was more like a flying wing,(like half a disc)
food for thought there, but i'm sure you know that anyway.

[edit on 30-5-2009 by smurfy]


You bring to light an interesting observation; generally when some type of incident occurs where witnesses are present; the witnesses are used "to support" the details of what occurred . . . yet change that event to the sighting (or more) of a UFO, and the "character" of the witness is now suspect.

I would wager that if the Roswell event concerned a "test aircraft" of some sort, and if that had been Marcel's declaration, his (nor any other witness affirming this "type of event") character would not be scrutinized.

Cheers,
Frank



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Mike,


Originally posted by mmiichael
A comment from Christopher Allan to Kevin Randle on his blogspot on Apr 28 2007 is a good summary of the evidence available on Roswell.

Now I wonder if I skim read it once as I make similar points. Or if we just are applying the same common sense.

I recommend reading the whole page. I would say the truth about Roswell lies in there.





kevinrandle.blogspot.com...

There are very serious problems with your version of Roswell, and they won't go away. The chief problem is that there is absolutely no documentation on this incident, even after 6 decades (apart from the one brief FBI teletype - big deal).

Consider the situation. Here we have, according to yourself & others, maybe the most important scientific discovery of all time. If you are correct and it was a genuine ET craft that crashed to earth and bodies discovered, there would be literally tons & tons of paperwork & photos on the case. Think of all the military reports, think of all the universities & government institutions (military & civilian) that must have been involved in analysing the wreckage and the bodies over many months or years. Think of all the scientists that were involved. Hundreds, thousands?

There is plenty of paperwork on the green fireballs, plenty on US and foreign experimental aircraft, missiles, nuclear weapons, space projects and so on, even plenty on other UFO events. Blue Book archives run to umpteen reels of microfilm. Yet not one iota has ever surfaced on Roswell.
What has happened? Do you really suppose each & every document on Roswell has either gone missing or been destroyed, or is still under wraps?

What is going on here? Sooner or later you have got to accept that something is seriously, very seriously, wrong with your version of Roswell. It cannot have happened in the way you claim. Cavitt, Rickett, LaPaz, Ramey, Blanchard plus a zillion others must have produced written analyses. Where are they? I repeat: there would be documentation several miles deep on this affair. Where is it, after 60 years?

It has nothing to do with the destruction of trivial papers from the Roswell base during 47-49. It has much more to do with the total absence of any documentation from anywhere at any time.

This has resulted in years of wasted effort by people to decipher the 'Ramey memo', the Ft Worth photos, the MJ-12 forgeries and so on. "If the real documents aint there we shall put them there" is what these people are trying to do. (The same applies to the alleged pieces of debris.)

You will have to face the awful truth one day, I fear, which is this: The Roswell Incident was an event of no significance.

You can always disprove me by locating the said documentation, hardware or bodies.




And Kevin's rejoinder:


Of course the lack of documentation is a real problem for the Roswell case, but let’s remember, there is some. First is the FBI memo that you mention. Here is the question about that. Why no follow up memos or information? Why nothing to clarify the situation, or, at the very least, correct the inaccurate information? That it hasn’t been found might be significant.

As an ancillary to that, why no mention of Roswell in the Project Blue Book files. Given the media attention to the case, and the fact that other hoaxes are well represented in those files, Roswell should be there but it’s not. That might be significant... and no, the single mention in a short news article about flying saucers in a file unrelated to Roswell does not count.

Second, Ramey might, in fact, be holding a piece of the documentation. If we say nothing else about it, we have to agree on the provenance. We have a date for the photograph, courtesy of the Bettmann Photo Archives, and we know where it came from because we see Ramey holding it. If David Ruidak is right, then we have the smoking gun.

Third, we have the eyewitnesses. Yes, many have been shown to be liars, frauds and charlatans, but that doesn’t negate the few who are solid people and who talked about the crash remains as extraordinary.

Fourth, we have the reaction of the government to this case. Holding a rancher for several days, a PR campaign to “prove” that the flying saucers in general and the Roswell case in particular can be explained as a balloon and a campaign to end discussion suggests something about the case. Why, even that top secret, so important that Charles Moore didn’t know the name of it Project Mogul was revealed in newspapers in the days following the claim by the Army that it had captured a flying saucer.

Fifth, we have the coincidence of the July 9, 1947, AP report in which it is claimed that “The Army and the Navy moved today to suppress stories of flying saucers whizzing through the atmosphere.” Why suddenly, on July 9 did they care when, in the days after the Kenneth Arnold report, they didn’t care.

Finally, the Mogul explanation simply doesn’t work. You can’t put the balloon array on the ranch, there is a real chance that there was no Flight No. 4 which means it explains nothing, and even if there was, the various descriptions of the debris field leave out Mogul. (See the Chronology in another article for more detail about this.)

So, if it wasn’t Mogul, and it wasn’t an aircraft accident, or a stray rocket, or a flying wing, or even the flying wing with deformed Japanese on it, then what was it?


Cheers,
Frank



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Frank,

A follow-up with Christopher Allan's reply to Randle and summation of the documentation. An inevitable bias, Allan looks at the bigger picture and draws the same conclusions I do.

An abundance of dot connecting embroidered by prompted witness testimony and suggestion. But nothing emerging despite so much effort that is consistent with a historical and scientific event of incredible magnitude.



Mike




kevinrandle.blogspot.com...

Re: David Rudiak [deciphering a photo enlargement of] ... the Ramey memo; you suggest that Rudiak may be right. I am not going into all the intricate letter-by-letter, word-by-word analysis, as this has been done ad nauseam by others. I will instead give what is known as a 'reductio ad absurdum' answer.

If Rudiak is right, this would be the first official document acknowledging an event of momentous importance to the world, namely the discovery of intelligent ET life and its visit to our planet. Therefore there would be (as per my previous posting) several miles deep of official documentation on it, involving the work of countless scientists, committees, institutions, etc etc. As such the GAO would undoubtedly have unearthed this stuff during their searches (which is what they were contracted to do). Since no such documents surfaced and since all the relevant agencies deny the existence of any such documentation, Rudiak is wrong.

[...]

Re: the FBI teletype, again there was no follow-up because there was nothing to follow up. The AF explained it all at Ft Worth, hence the FBI decided there was nothing further to do. There are no inaccuracies in the teletype either, merely a disagreement between those at Ft Worth, who had seen the debris, and those at Wright Patterson who had not (at least not at that point). Had there been a follow-up message, that too ought to have been found by the GAO.

The AF were concerned enough about the Arnold sighting to send two officers to interview him, and keep in touch with him. They spent far more time on this case than on Roswell, and there is quite a bit of paperwork on the case. These same officers later died in the plane crash after Maury island (another cover-up of course!).

The Mogul answer fits quite well if you go by the 1947 accounts. It is not such a good fit if you go by accounts given 30-50 years afterwards. It has its problems sure, but it is a far better answer than the ET one. (A 60 year ET secret indeed. And not one iota of hardware or paperwork to back it up).

Brazel held incommunicado by the military for a week? I just don't believe it. Brazel, and other civilians, never once saying anything about this amazing, extraordinary discovery (if that be what it was) until his death? I don't believe that either.

Elsewhere you talk about General Exon. According to Karl Pflock Exon did not even have second-hand evidence about wreckage & bodies, let alone firsthand evidence. His story was based entirely on rumors he had heard at WPAFB. And rumors do not count as secondhand or even thirdhand evidence. They are rumors, nothing else. Perhaps Exon was referring to rumors following the Scully book in 1950, as certainly was Sarbacher in his infamous letter of Nov 1983. (The Exon story is in Pflock's book, p.124. )

David Rudiak and others are clutching at straws. And that is all they ever will be clutching at.



[edit on 31-5-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
If flying saucers do not exist according to the Air Force, why did some commanders give the order to shoot them down? Why did some pilots engage in dogfights with them in the Summer of 1952 flying saucer invasion? If they were weather inversions or balloons, why were so many jets scrambled to intercept them?

Why did so many pilots report seeing metallic disks when they did confront them during the day?

Major General Ramey (a name repeated in the Roswell crash) had given a press conference to deny flying saucers were anything but natural phenomena. Why give a press conference on flying saucers if the papers will do the job of repeating the weather inversion/balloon theories?

Over 100 reports of UFOs in Project Blue Book from 1952 are considered unknowns. This from an agency only too happy to label most of them hallucinations, balloons or weather related phenomena.

Is it any wonder why the Roswell crash holds such sway?



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008

Major General Ramey (a name repeated in the Roswell crash) had given a press conference to deny flying saucers were anything but natural phenomena. Why give a press conference on flying saucers if the papers will do the job of repeating the weather inversion/balloon theories?

[...]

Is it any wonder why the Roswell crash holds such sway?



If anyone has any interest in Roswell they must immediately go to this marvelous site:



Roswell: The UFO case that keeps giving
home.comcast.net...


Everything you wanted to know about Roswell but were afraid to ask.

Mystery, intrigue, thrills, chills, spills.


Mike



[edit on 1-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   
My take on the entire Roswell item is simple :

Some family would've pressured thier government to launch an all out search for thier loved ones who crashed here. Seeing how we recovered at least 3 bodies it gave us leverage. To return the bodies of the dead so that the families can start the grieving process by exchanging them for technology and information as did anyone notice we got a major tech boom after 1947?

If some family on Earth would've lost a family member on another planet you better be damn sure that we would want the people returned home regardless the cost.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
beleivers find it real easy that an advanced civ could conquer FTL travel but they dont even contemplate the other advances such a civ would make.

We have UAVs in the middle east fitted with self destruct devices. Its protected from EM attack, works out of line of sight or comms and will even activate if the craft is submerged in water.

What advances in safety /crash avoidence & self destruct features would an ET civ capable of FTL make? I'd wager it would be impossible to crash such a craft even if it was going down the self destruct would kick in and you wouldnt find one scrap of evidence. Vapourised by nano bots in a split second. Thats just 1 idea this primitive human can think of. Who knows what else they could do.

But crash and leave their tech to us? . no chance.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Mornin' Mike,


Originally posted by mmiichael
Frank,

A follow-up with Christopher Allan's reply to Randle and summation of the documentation. An inevitable bias, Allan looks at the bigger picture and draws the same conclusions I do.

An abundance of dot connecting embroidered by prompted witness testimony and suggestion. But nothing emerging despite so much effort that is consistent with a historical and scientific event of incredible magnitude.


I'm afraid Allan's argument's are based on "false logic"; however is own description ("absurdum") of said argument is accurate. Moreover, as stated repeatedly evidence has been uncovered and continues to be to this day.

Mike




kevinrandle.blogspot.com...

Re: David Rudiak [deciphering a photo enlargement of] ... the Ramey memo; you suggest that Rudiak may be right. I am not going into all the intricate letter-by-letter, word-by-word analysis, as this has been done ad nauseam by others. I will instead give what is known as a 'reductio ad absurdum' answer.


Rudiak offers up the "Ramey memo" as evidence in support of "ETH"; if Allan (or anyone) wants to debate the merits of said evidence then they should do so--directly; denouncing the document and Rudiak's interpretation of it by "presumption" of outside events or lack thereof is nonsensical at most and weak at best.


If Rudiak is right, this would be the first official document acknowledging an event of momentous importance to the world, namely the discovery of intelligent ET life and its visit to our planet. Therefore there would be (as per my previous posting) several miles deep of official documentation on it, involving the work of countless scientists, committees, institutions, etc etc. As such the GAO would undoubtedly have unearthed this stuff during their searches (which is what they were contracted to do). Since no such documents surfaced and since all the relevant agencies deny the existence of any such documentation, Rudiak is wrong.


I believe it's safe to "assume," that a myriad of people were/are involved in "UFO" research and corresponding documents exist. Contrary to what Allan states, however, documents have been "uncovered" and still are today.

Additionally, it's naive for Allan to believe that documents can't be hidden, and people can't keep there mouth shut. Anyone who has performed a FOIA has a mild understanding of the bureaucracy and red tape that one has to go through to verify and or retrieve a document; case in point is Jesse Marcel Sr.'s military records! I just did a FOIA (as an excercise) for his (releasable) records and the response from the NPRC was that "they don't exist!" I know this is an error (or lie), as Robert Todd received his "entire" file years ago.

Moreover, the very existence of UFO files were denied by some of the agencies they were retrieved from. The CIA for example denied having any files regarding UFOs until the were sued--then they magically appeared, albeit heavily redacted.

Allan in a sense offers the very reason why documents and people are hard to come by when he writes:

". . . an event of momentous importance to the world, namely the discovery of intelligent ET life and its visit to our planet."


Re: the FBI teletype, again there was no follow-up because there was nothing to follow up. The AF explained it all at Ft Worth, hence the FBI decided there was nothing further to do. There are no inaccuracies in the teletype either, merely a disagreement between those at Ft Worth, who had seen the debris, and those at Wright Patterson who had not (at least not at that point). Had there been a follow-up message, that too ought to have been found by the GAO.

The AF were concerned enough about the Arnold sighting to send two officers to interview him, and keep in touch with him. They spent far more time on this case than on Roswell, and there is quite a bit of paperwork on the case. These same officers later died in the plane crash after Maury island (another cover-up of course!).


"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (you knew that was coming). Moreover, the same laws that prevent public exposure of this data re UFOs still exists today.


The Mogul answer fits quite well if you go by the 1947 accounts. It is not such a good fit if you go by accounts given 30-50 years afterwards. It has its problems sure, but it is a far better answer than the ET one. (A 60 year ET secret indeed. And not one iota of hardware or paperwork to back it up).



"The Mogul answer" has been soundly trumped time and time again!


Brazel held incommunicado by the military for a week? I just don't believe it. Brazel, and other civilians, never once saying anything about this amazing, extraordinary discovery (if that be what it was) until his death? I don't believe that either.


There is evidence that supports the contention that Brazel was in the company of the military form some time, and "believing it (or not) is irrelevant. Moreover, he did talk about it "then."


Elsewhere you talk about General Exon. According to Karl Pflock Exon did not even have second-hand evidence about wreckage & bodies, let alone firsthand evidence. His story was based entirely on rumors he had heard at WPAFB. And rumors do not count as secondhand or even thirdhand evidence. They are rumors, nothing else. Perhaps Exon was referring to rumors following the Scully book in 1950, as certainly was Sarbacher in his infamous letter of Nov 1983. (The Exon story is in Pflock's book, p.124. )


Exon's is own statements contradict Pflock's notion.


David Rudiak and others are clutching at straws. And that is all they ever will be clutching at.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by mmiichael]

Rudiak is examining evidence and has made strong arguments in support of his theories; Allan's argument(s) does not address this directly.

Cheers,
Frank



new topics

top topics



 
97
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join