Roswell Debris Confirmed As Extraterrestrial: Lab Located, Scientists Named!

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

Hi Frank,

Time pressure so a quick reply for now.

I agree Allan's analysis can be questioned. I looked at his informal summations more than point by point elaborations. I'm afraid I side with Allan's and some times collaborator Steuart Campbell's assessments.

Both are not novices to the field and Allan has researched deeply from what I can tell.

I try to impartially look at the piles of evidence for and against there having been something extraordinary happening in the Roswell vicinity in 1947 and come to the conclusions shared with the two gentlemen mentioned.

I don't know if you looked at that very special website I linked to in a recent post. It does a pretty thorough job, in my opinion, of laying out what we have to go on.

I'm always interested in seeing what you are coming up with. We may disagree on conclusions, but I respect your efforts.


Mike

It is interesting my questions have gone unanswered by the debunkers. The USAF has gone out of its way to try to debunk Roswell, even though they have made countless statements that they do not care. Here is a few blogs on the subject by Kevin Randle:

kevinrandle.blogspot.com...

Here is an expert of the officer interviewing Major Randle:

"McAndrew called me on a number of occasions. He never seemed to be looking for information, though I told him what Edwin Easley, the Roswell provost marshal had told me. I said I would send copies of the tapes and the transcripts but he was uninterested. I suggested he talk with Brigadier General Arthur Exon, a retired Air Force officer who had some very interesting things to say. I thought he should talk to Patrick Saunders who had been the adjutant at Roswell in 1947, but he never did.

Instead he tried to get me to flip. He said that he could understand my making a buck on Roswell but I could tell him the truth. I didn’t really believe that little green men had been killed in a crash there, did I? He told me repeatedly that no one would think less of me if I told the truth about my motives in the Roswell investigation. I tried to make it clear to him that my conclusions were based on the interviews I had conducted with those involved and that I could put him in touch with many of them. He was not interested."

It seems that the Air Force spent much of its time trying to debunk the story. They did not interview anyone who had a different viewpoint that they wanted to hear.

Good Day yeti101,

Originally posted by yeti101
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.

Using "human explication" to deduce "alien intent" in nonsensical! For all we know ET might be here to "eat our dirt!"

Same can be said about "technological" advancement; the consensus is that it progresses in a linear fashion; however our own history indicates otherwise; for example, we had "electric cars" over a hundred years ago that could go 100 miles on a single charge; Chevy's Volt will only go 40! In 1924 we had cars that got 168 Miles Per Gallon!

So "A" we can only deduce "human" fallibilities only if we know that ET is like us, and currently, methinks most would agree that there isn't data enough on the table to know that. "B" would be the notion that ET technology of any sort is infallible whether it's similar in nature to ours or not.

Cheers,
Frank

Good Day KF,

Originally posted by kidflash2008
It is interesting my questions have gone unanswered by the debunkers. The USAF has gone out of its way to try to debunk Roswell, even though they have made countless statements that they do not care. Here is a few blogs on the subject by Kevin Randle:

kevinrandle.blogspot.com...

Here is an expert of the officer interviewing Major Randle:

"McAndrew called me on a number of occasions. He never seemed to be looking for information, though I told him what Edwin Easley, the Roswell provost marshal had told me. I said I would send copies of the tapes and the transcripts but he was uninterested. I suggested he talk with Brigadier General Arthur Exon, a retired Air Force officer who had some very interesting things to say. I thought he should talk to Patrick Saunders who had been the adjutant at Roswell in 1947, but he never did.

Instead he tried to get me to flip. He said that he could understand my making a buck on Roswell but I could tell him the truth. I didn’t really believe that little green men had been killed in a crash there, did I? He told me repeatedly that no one would think less of me if I told the truth about my motives in the Roswell investigation. I tried to make it clear to him that my conclusions were based on the interviews I had conducted with those involved and that I could put him in touch with many of them. He was not interested."

It seems that the Air Force spent much of its time trying to debunk the story. They did not interview anyone who had a different viewpoint that they wanted to hear.

Touché . . . KF! Touché!

Cheers,
Frank

Afternoon Mike,

Originally posted by mmiichael

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

Hi Frank,

Time pressure so a quick reply for now.

I agree Allan's analysis can be questioned. I looked at his informal summations more than point by point elaborations. I'm afraid I side with Allan's and some times collaborator Steuart Campbell's assessments.

Both are not novices to the field and Allan has researched deeply from what I can tell.

I try to impartially look at the piles of evidence for and against there having been something extraordinary happening in the Roswell vicinity in 1947 and come to the conclusions shared with the two gentlemen mentioned.

I don't know if you looked at that very special website I linked to in a recent post. It does a pretty thorough job, in my opinion, of laying out what we have to go on.

Unfortunately, Printy often times suffers from the a fore mentioned malady you noted earlier, i.e., "Attitude Polarization."

I'm always interested in seeing what you are coming up with. We may disagree on conclusions, but I respect your efforts.

Mike

Thanks for the kinds words and your chivalry!

Cheers,
Frank

Originally posted by Frank Warren
Unfortunately, Printy often times suffers from the a fore mentioned malady you noted earlier, i.e., "Attitude Polarization."

He clearly states his opinion, and applies comprehensive knowledge to the whole Roswell matter. Love the comedy treatment reminiscent of Heller’s CATCH-22.
Will always snicker now when I read “You don’t actually think the US military would be so stupid ...”

You accept the evidence that a significant event happened near Roswell in 1947. Presumably you've looked at the counterarguments.

I've taken in a substantial amount of analysis and evidence from both sides of the fence.

I have tangentially benefitted from professional examinations of many of complex stories, large and small, in other areas including high profile assassinations, along with many lower keyed crimes and murder cases.

With vast amounts of documentation, visual records, testimony - one can weave a web that that appears to be impermeable. That’s what Prosecutors are paid to do.
But documentation, hard evidence, reason, probability, common sense have to be brought into play.

Roswell is unusual in that it the case is made for alien contact. A fantastic almost religious significance comes into play. This level of mystery affects even rational, disciplined and knowledgeable people like yourself.

If it were determined there is intelligent life out there in the universe it would change how we see ourselves in the grand scheme of things.

But on an increasingly cold trail of a potentially history changing event I see only stretched to the breaking point extrapolations and much grasping at straws. Forged documents. A parade of old men subjected to a lot of prompting. A growing three ring circus of discredited witnesses. Aging career UFO investigators now squabbling among themselves as to who said what.

But still no solid evidence and the mass of documentation that should be there.

Deception and self-deception are funny commodities.

But who wants to tell Don Quixote he's chasing windmills.

Enjoy talking with you Frank.


Mike


[edit on 2-6-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by Frank Warren


and yet your are unable to falsify my hypothesis. I look forward to any progress you make in doing that.

Mornin' Mike,

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Frank Warren
Unfortunately, Printy often times suffers from the a fore mentioned malady you noted earlier, i.e., "Attitude Polarization."

He clearly states his opinion, and applies comprehensive knowledge to the whole Roswell matter. Love the comedy treatment reminiscent of Heller’s CATCH-22.

Will always snicker now when I read “You don’t actually think the US military would be so stupid ...”

Printy began his "UFO career" with the "Phoenix Lights" and recently began publishing Sunlite, which is a sort of a tribute to the late Phil Klass; over time, Printy has made some salient points; however, in that same time, in my view, he has also shown his bias.

Ironically, he mentioned me and TUC in the premiere issue; accordingly I asked him if I could publish his piece announcing the e-mag, and he agreed.

You accept the evidence that a significant event happened near Roswell in 1947. Presumably you've looked at the counterarguments.

Not only have I looked at the counterarguments, I have participated in the debate in more then a few of them.

I've taken in a substantial amount of analysis and evidence from both sides of the fence.

I have tangentially benefitted from professional examinations of many of complex stories, large and small, in other areas including high profile assassinations, along with many lower keyed crimes and murder cases.

With vast amounts of documentation, visual records, testimony - one can weave a web that that appears to be impermeable. That’s what Prosecutors are paid to do.

But documentation, hard evidence, reason, probability, common sense have to be brought into play.

Your last statement is exactly the point. Because "anti-Roswell proponents believe the "pro argument" is impossible, they often times lose all reason and common sense.

The most obvious is the befuddled "balloon theory," i.e., beginning with Brazel, through Marcel and up to Blanchard, the notion that any of these men would mistake a balloon for some sort of "exotic debris" is and has always been ludicrous.

When the issue of Roswell is brought out of the drawer and put on the table, most folks in the debate, whether they be pro or con, almost always isolate Roswell, and this in my view is imprudent; "Roswell is but a flea bite on the ass of Ufology!" It's important to remember that what were then called "Flying Disks [sic]" were flying all over the country, as well as different parts of the world; with that in mind, it makes "the original statement from the Air Force" more plausible:



On the whole, I also feel that one's perception is different depending on whether your "on the outside looking in," opposed to being directly involved. It's one thing to "read about" a witnesses' statement; it's entirely different when you're talking to the witness, or family member (as is often the case with Roswell).

Likewise, I find it amusing that many "debunkers" (not skeptics) assign a "nefarious motive" to Roswell researchers, a good example was Kid Flash's reference to the correspondence between McAndrew and Kevin Randle. The former in his official capacity wasn't interested in "the evidence" Randle possessed, he only wanted Randle to "confess" that he was in it for the money. ad nauseum

The same thing happened to Jesse Marcel Jr when he met with Chuck Moore.

Roswell is unusual in that it the case is made for alien contact. A fantastic almost religious significance comes into play. This level of mystery affects even rational, disciplined and knowledgeable people like yourself.

Of course you're right . . . how could the notion of the reality of "alien contact" not affect someone? However, in regards to researchers, I think this is an "aid" since the consequence of the scenario is so grave. It forces researchers to operate under Sagan's famous quote, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!"

If it were determined there is intelligent life out there in the universe it would change how we see ourselves in the grand scheme of things.

Of this I am certain . . ..

But on an increasingly cold trail of a potentially history changing event I see only stretched to the breaking point extrapolations and much grasping at straws. Forged documents. A parade of old men subjected to a lot of prompting. A growing three ring circus of discredited witnesses. Aging career UFO investigators now squabbling among themselves as to who said what.

I would argue that the "trail is not cold," and as long as researchers continue to dig, it will stay "warm."

Equally important is the totality of evidence uncovered re Ufology in toto, as well as Roswell; this certainly isn't grasping at straws.

Notwithstanding, some the examples you cite above are indeed fact; however, these instances are not uncommon for events that reach the status of Roswell. The "noise" does not negate the existence of the signal.

But still no solid evidence and the mass of documentation that should be there.

Deception and self-deception are funny commodities.

But who wants to tell Don Quixote he's chasing windmills.

Enjoy talking with you Frank.

Mike

[edit on 2-6-2009 by mmiichael]

Again, most researchers who are familiar with not only the excercise of requesting documents from various sources, as well as being cognizant to the frame work surrounding "classification," "compartmentalization" and "national security implications" are not surprised when documents that were/are marked secret (or above) won't be released (or acknowledged). You yourself acquiesce to the significance of "extraterrestrial visitation," so it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that documents relating to this arena aren't out in the public domain, or easily accessible.

Moreover, the argument of "pro Roswell proponents is not just the ETH, but the post cover-up of the facts as well, and this is something the Air Force was compelled to admit to re, Roswell.

-continued to next post . . .

-continued from above post:

Deception and self-deception are indeed interesting commodities; of even greater appeal is the defense mechanism called denial; Freud wrote, "when a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept he rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. "

Cheers,
Frank

yeti101,

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Frank Warren

 

and yet your are unable to falsify my hypothesis. I look forward to any progress you make in doing that.

I thought I did so , and soundly I might add . . .

Cheers,
Frank

Originally posted by Frank Warren

Frank,

I actually thought Roswell might be the real goods when started reading about it years ago. But as the researcher driven +misinformation and deception piled up and the actual solid data turned out to be skewed interpretations rather than solid substantion a new pattern emerged. I attach great importance to UFO researchers like Allan pointing out that everything else possible has considerable multi-source independent documentation somewhere but on Roswell there is virtually nothing.

There have been admirable attempts to stretch what little is there like the conflicting information provided by the military. But I too often see common sense ignored as a case is constructed of ambiguities, inconsistencies and prompted responses rather than hard evidence.

Many serious researchers with far more knowledge than me have reached the same conclusions, which I think are inescapable. A lot of running around but nothing of great importance occurred that week in 1947.

I have no doubt thousands of credible people observe and maybe even interact with Unidentified Flying Objects. I have my own views on all this which are shared by some others.

The ET hypothesis is another matter. Nothing flies as to proof of any contact with outworldly intelligences as far as I have seen. Extraordinary claims really do require extraordinary proof, as the saying goes.

I wish I could add more.

Over to you.


Mike

Mike,

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Frank Warren

Frank,

I actually thought Roswell might be the real goods when started reading about it years ago. But as the researcher driven +misinformation and deception piled up and the actual solid data turned out to be skewed interpretations rather than solid substantion a new pattern emerged. I attach great importance to UFO researchers like Allan pointing out that everything else possible has considerable multi-source independent documentation somewhere but on Roswell there is virtually nothing.

As previously stated, the fact that noise exists, does not negate the signal. Moreover, Allan positing an argument about "how things 'should' be" illuminates how weak his position is. This is akin to the "we can't go there, so they can't come here" dictum.

Additionally, there is a big deference between "the existence of" a large repository of data/documents etc., opposed to locating and or having access to it.

There have been admirable attempts to stretch what little is there like the conflicting information provided by the military. But I too often see common sense ignored as a case is constructed of ambiguities, inconsistencies and prompted responses rather than hard evidence.

I think the "stretch" was performed by the military itself. They've admitted lying, and have offered up 4 explanations for Roswell, including admitting it was a Flying Saucer."

There are most certainly some inconsistencies, I don't feel there is anything ambiguous about Roswell, although many debunkers (present company excluded), including the Air Force, would have you believe that.

Many serious researchers with far more knowledge than me have reached the same conclusions, which I think are inescapable. A lot of running around but nothing of great importance occurred that week in 1947.

A lot of researchers, with far more knowledge then you have reached an entirely different conclusion, which they feel is equally inescapable; a lot of running around and something of monumental importance occurred in the summer of 1947, (and continues to this day).

I have no doubt thousands of credible people observe and maybe even interact with Unidentified Flying Objects. I have my own views on all this which are shared by some others.

Please share.

The ET hypothesis is another matter. Nothing flies as to proof of any contact with outworldly intelligences as far as I have seen. Extraordinary claims really do require extraordinary proof, as the saying goes.

I wish I could add more.

Over to you.

Mike

Not to long ago, I advised a colleague minutes before he went on the Larry King Show to avoid arguing the ETH, as given the number of guests and limited time, one couldn't offer an effective argument.

I told him to "stick with UFOs," (which by the way he did), and he offered the pyrrhonists who were on with him no avenue of a coup de main. The pyrrhonists could only agree with him, as no competent individual argues the reality of UFOs. This effectively left the viewing audience with the question, "what are they?"

Many people who are ignorant to the Roswell minutiae reject it immediately, because they've heard it has an ET explanation attached to it. I say forget about ET and just look at the evidence objectively--the first thing that goes out the window, is the balloon theory. A balloon wouldn't have got past Brazel, much Marcel or anyone else up the chain of command.

So this leaves the question . . . "what was it?"

Your up . . .

Cheers,
Frank

Originally posted by Frank Warren

Many people who are ignorant to the Roswell minutiae reject it immediately, because they've heard it has an ET explanation attached to it. I say forget about ET and just look at the evidence objectively--the first thing that goes out the window, is the balloon theory. A balloon wouldn't have got past Brazel, much Marcel or anyone else up the chain of command.

So this leaves the question . . . "what was it?"

Frank,

I'll buy into that. The Whitley Strieber cover "Gray' alien has infected the Roswell story. Polluted it to a carnival level.

From what I understand, the US military has great latitude in responding to public inquiries and even to other governmental bodies. They can claim issues of national security at their discretion. They would also not be obligated to keep their stories consistent. They might just be too lazy to check what they said at previous junctures.

I feel their inconsistency does not necessarily imply some big secret so much as them saying "None of your business."

When I fail to turn up somewhere I often tell people I was kidnapped by aliens.

I keep returning to Allan as he has checked out comparative documentation availability on things like Arnold and other UFO claims. The argument that they were able to cover their tracks on something major at Roswell doesn't fly with me. Even when reports are expunged they can leave holes.

Just too many problems with Roswell being a serious occurrence that was scrupulously covered up. It all fits better into an over-reaction and ignorance scenario than something mysterious. Blunders even at top level of the military are not unusual.

And 30 years of empty air time in the story says a lot. A handful of career opportunist UFOlogists caught red-handed manipulating data, falsifying information, and playing games with witnesses also says a lot.

The alien component has kept the story afloat beyond it's ability to sustain itself. No aliens, just some military screw up. No aliens, no serious researcher interviewing you. No aliens, no chance to get yourself int the history books.

The old military personnel and the witness wannabes have read the books by now. Unconsciously or intentionally they are writing themselves into the script.

And still nothing emerges that is convincing for me and a lot of people that have covered the territory with a fine tooth comb.

So I remain highly skeptical.

But don't let that discourage you.


Mike

reply to post by Frank Warren



sorry frank, if you produced a crashed saucer then my hypothesis would be falsified soundly

i'm talking about proof , the smoking gun. All you have is poeple telling stories. No photos, fragments, bodies, documents to support a crashed alien spaceship. I'm afraid my hypothesis still stands.

Heres another incovenient truth. 60 years since roswell that would be 3 generations of scientists working on this stuff many of whom would have died. Yet you dont have 1 death bed confession from a single scientist. The greatest discovery in human history and not a peep.

You have to admit theres definitely a gap in the market there.


[edit on 3-6-2009 by yeti101]

Mornin' Mike,

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Frank Warren

Many people who are ignorant to the Roswell minutiae reject it immediately, because they've heard it has an ET explanation attached to it. I say forget about ET and just look at the evidence objectively--the first thing that goes out the window, is the balloon theory. A balloon wouldn't have got past Brazel, much Marcel or anyone else up the chain of command.

So this leaves the question . . . "what was it?"

Frank,

I'll buy into that. The Whitley Strieber cover "Gray' alien has infected the Roswell story. Polluted it to a carnival level.

Many things have helped to distort Roswell for sure . . ..

From what I understand, the US military has great latitude in responding to public inquiries and even to other governmental bodies. They can claim issues of national security at their discretion. They would also not be obligated to keep their stories consistent. They might just be too lazy to check what they said at previous junctures.

FOIA & privacy laws from the get go, had many restrictions attached to them; after 911 and more specifically the Patriot Act and the initiation of Home Land Security, it got much, much worse. Effectively, the Constitution was partially rewritten, which of course is a topic for another thread entirely.

In short and directly pertaining to Ufology, retrieving documents using FOIA is no easy task to begin with, and "keeping documents" from curious minds using the same laws is a simple excercise.

I feel their inconsistency does not necessarily imply some big secret so much as them saying "None of your business."

Of course I wouldn't use the same adjectives in regards to their actions or lack thereof; accordingly my views are much different.

When I fail to turn up somewhere I often tell people I was kidnapped by aliens.

My wife says that "I am an alien!"

I keep returning to Allan as he has checked out comparative documentation availability on things like Arnold and other UFO claims. The argument that they were able to cover their tracks on something major at Roswell doesn't fly with me. Even when reports are expunged they can leave holes.

On this we agree; in talking to one of my contacts at AFHRA (Air Force Historical Research Agency), a few years back I had asked for some specific information, which was treated as an official FOIA request; my contact in her reply said "the information didn't exist" as far as her organization was concerned. I replied that she was in error, as I had received "some of the information" via another request, and "within" that information.

She paused and admitted that she mis-spoke, and gave me a very good lesson, which I will ad-lib: in short she stated that most often times people will request information on "the animal" they're hunting for; for example, someone might say, "send me everything on Roswell," or "anything you have on the IPU" etc., etc.

She then stated, what most people forget is that "the animal" always leaves a trail," and no one asks specific questions about "the trail!" An example to that is when Schiff was told that many of the Roswell files were destroyed, in order for that to happen, they would have to have been "de-classified." In order for that to happen, an order would have to have been issued! So going the long way around a "potential FOIA question" could be, please send me any orders that precipitated the de-classification of files at RAAf during such and such a time period. Also send me any orders that directed the destruction of said files.

As you emphasize, any action by the military produces a wake of forms, orders etc. Research has uncovered many, many formerly unknown docs, and it's only the tip of the ice-berg!

Just too many problems with Roswell being a serious occurrence that was scrupulously covered up. It all fits better into an over-reaction and ignorance scenario than something mysterious. Blunders even at top level of the military are not unusual.

Of course I have to respectfully disagree.

And 30 years of empty air time in the story says a lot. A handful of career opportunist UFOlogists caught red-handed manipulating data, falsifying information, and playing games with witnesses also says a lot.

Mike if you feel that the last 30 years have been "empty air time" then you truly haven't been paying attention. Moreover, please name, names.

The alien component has kept the story afloat beyond it's ability to sustain itself. No aliens, just some military screw up. No aliens, no serious researcher interviewing you. No aliens, no chance to get yourself int the history books.

I think this perspective is part of the problem; first "the story doesn't need to be kept afloat" or sustain itself. Moreover, as mentioned earlier folks always "isolate Roswell." The story won't go away, because UFOs won't go away! Roswell, is just a sliver of the enigma.

The old military personnel and the witness wannabes have read the books by now. Unconsciously or intentionally they are writing themselves into the script.

As mentioned earlier there is no doubt that some witnesses have been dis-proven, and equally important is the admission of the "noise" that accompanies Roswell; however, the innuendo that this is more likely then not Mike is "erroneous" (to be polite).

And still nothing emerges that is convincing for me and a lot of people that have covered the territory with a fine tooth comb.

So I remain highly skeptical.

But don't let that discourage you.

Mike

Fortunately, for me I rarely get discouraged, and even then it's only momentarily.

A lot of people "have covered the territory with a fine tooth comb" and have culled pertinent information re the case. Moreover, this continues to this day.

Finally, one point I might throw out there, is that fact that not all Roswell research is public (thank god!)

I am personally involved in several cases, one of them Roswell, and we are currently working with previously un-named witnesses. Per my own protocol, I don't publicize the information and only share it with a small group of researchers I trust and work with; doing so, as example by the fiasco with Roswell (and other cases) only hinders the investigation/research in my view-FW

Hi yeti101!

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Frank Warren

 

sorry frank, if you produced a crashed saucer then my hypothesis would be falsified soundly

(snip)

The part of your hypothesis that I was addressing is that the notion that an advanced civilization "is not fallable." In support your theory you cited "human" examples; in my rebuttal, I also used "human example" pertaining to the advancement of technology "not" progressing in a linear fashion, even going backwards in "our case."

Moreover, I also offered the argument that using "human explication" to explain "ET motive" is nonsensical, based on the lack of data, to employ the a fore mentioned logic, "they" would have to be like us . . . and unless you know something the rest of us don't--we can't assume that.

Cheers,
Frank

Originally posted by Frank Warren
if you feel that the last 30 years have been "empty air time" then you truly haven't been paying attention. Moreover, please name, names.

Frank,

The inevitable quick reply as I await someone. I was referring to 1948-78 when there was not much if anything on Roswell. Some researcher mentioned despite tons of detailed case references there was no mention of Roswell in Project Blue Book.

I understand your defensive stance of criticism of the Roswell as a major event. And I also understand I am not privy to much that is not public knowledge.

But it always feels like a lot of explanations are being handed out as to why there is no documentation, material evidence, and fully satisfactory witness testimony. It may be my unwillingness to see things without an inbuilt conclusion.

But I see a case for something being built around the military's inability or unwillingness to provide satisfactory information to researchers as opposed to nailing down solid proof.

I keep a very open mind that there might have been something that has not come to light as yet. Some as yet undiscovered reason for top secrecy.

But the crashed saucers and alien bodies scenario keeps looking more and more in the realm of suggestion and imagination.

More soon

Mike

reply to post by Frank Warren


i look forward to you proving my hypothesis false. Keep us updated on your progress.

Afternoon Mike,

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Frank Warren
if you feel that the last 30 years have been "empty air time" then you truly haven't been paying attention. Moreover, please name, names.

Frank,

The inevitable quick reply as I await someone. I was referring to 1948-78 when there was not much if anything on Roswell. Some researcher mentioned despite tons of detailed case references there was no mention of Roswell in Project Blue Book.

Pardon my confusion, I assumed you were speaking of the "last 30 years."

I find the fact that there was no, or very little mention of Roswell very curious; as a rule of thumb they not only mentioned "knowns," they incorrectly attributed a much larger percentage to them (then there actually was) then to UFOs.

Why was Roswell omitted?

We know according to statue and the "Bolender memo" no UFO report that was presumed a threat to National Security was sent to the Blue Book system. Moreover, Blue Book was criticized by Ufologists as being a "PR front" for the Air Force almost from its inception.

I understand your defensive stance of criticism of the Roswell as a major event. And I also understand I am not privy to much that is not public knowledge.

What you're calling "your defensive stance." I call "a sound rebuttal" to your (usually) salient points.

But it always feels like a lot of explanations are being handed out as to why there is no documentation, material evidence, and fully satisfactory witness testimony. It may be my unwillingness to see things without an inbuilt conclusion.

Methinks an argument is much stronger when it's based on "known facts" opposed to the "speculation" of what an individual thinks it should be. Stating that, "well I believe there should be a boatload of documentation on this matter, and because I can't find any, it must be fiction!' "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"

Aside from that, we know (for a fact) our government can and does keep secrets, more so now then ever!

But I see a case for something being built around the military's inability or unwillingness to provide satisfactory information to researchers as opposed to nailing down solid proof.

As Roswell is to Ufology, the military being uncooperative is to Roswell; it is but a small sliver within the preponderance of evidence.

I keep a very open mind that there might have been something that has not come to light as yet. Some as yet undiscovered reason for top secrecy.

Very, very little has come to light . . ..

But the crashed saucers and alien bodies scenario keeps looking more and more in the realm of suggestion and imagination.

More soon

Mike

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

Cheers,
Frank

Originally posted by eniac
--go to www.trueufosightings.com...

less than one quarter down the page, there's an interesting anecdote there about Center (under the paragraph header "The 'I-Beams'"):

...In May of 1992 one of us was approached by an informant who told an intriguing story. For the record, he was not a Battelle employee. He had attended North High School in Columbus, Ohio, graduating in June of 1960.
...
The fact that Mr. Center's story was told long before the details of the Roswell debris were known publicly, the possible confirmation of his story by the later descriptions of that debris cannot be ignored.

Erm, I have a problme marrying the last para to the first, and then reality. His story was recounted in 1992, long before details of the alleged Roswell materials were publicly known? Those "details" were known many years before that, Berlitz and Moore published their account in 1980...

I tend to agree with toocool - the "I was a teenager dating someone whos fatehr told me..." is waay too similar to "I cant say much more, but I'm ex-CIA/SAS/Delta/SBS and..." ie rubbish.