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.

 

Famous LIFE Photographers' Roswell Crash Revelation

page: 4
36
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Dear Mike

Give us you insight on why this photographer would lie from the grave.

From what I have read he said all his life he knew nothing about it.

Then after his death he reveals the truth or as you will say according to him.

For sure there is no profit motive here not for him anyway.

The only thing I can think of is like a statue to promote his life. Or indeed getting one back at the military for possible past injustices.




posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAC269

Give us you insight on why this photographer would lie from the grave.

From what I have read he said all his life he knew nothing about it.

Then after his death he reveals the truth or as you will say according to him.

For sure there is no profit motive here not for him anyway.

The only thing I can think of is like a statue to promote his life. Or indeed getting one back at the military for possible past injustices.



Just what I think MAC.

UFOs were considered a freak show from the 50s on. Of late association with them has obtained respectability and profile. An aging photographer with a full life, family, activities reads about Roswell half a decade later.

Says "Hey, they sent me there to take pictures." Of course some workaround story has to be rationalized around the fact that he came up empty handed. So barely remembered events are given a spin to integrate himself into the expanding history.

For him it's half an hour of his life providing an account. No one's going to contradict him. He's getting exposure and interest for the first time in the better part of a century.

A lot of history comes down to accounts from those available for interviewing. A good percentage of the time what they say conflicts with stories from others and established facts. There's no law against saying anything you want to in an interview.


Mike



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
I've often wondered if it was because the Navy stepped in and said. "That's ours and it's top secret". That m kid who hacked into the defense files said most of the juicy stuff on UFOs was in the Navy section of data base..


It's come up in Ufology long before Gary the hacker was busted and told us. The US Navy was the first to employ nuclear propulsion, it's got a strong association with high tech and likely the most "blue blooded" officer core.

Now ONI may have been in control decades ago, but from what I've read, the individual military intelligence outfits have less independence than 40-50 years ago. They're now all under the thumb of DIA. Whatever shocking evidence these agencies held, remains classified in some vault. The question is where they transfer ongoing UFO data ?

I presume the new UFO authority, whatever it is. NWO/Defense Industrialists ?



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael


UFOs were considered a freak show from the 50s on.



The US govt didn't consider it a freak show. The military and executive branche considered UFOs to be a matter of the highest natl security. Are you aware of the FOIA documents from the period such as the Chadwell CIA memo ?



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by mmiichael


UFOs were considered a freak show from the 50s on.



The US govt didn't consider it a freak show. The military and executive branche considered UFOs to be a matter of the highest natl security. Are you aware of the FOIA documents from the period such as the Chadwell CIA memo ?



60 years is a long time. Some personnel in some periods took it seriously. They hadn't ruled out the possibility of UFOs being unknown Russian advance.

Succeeding generations have ruled that out and as the alien craft scenario took over, it stopped being more than a sideshow.

When a massive military has tens of thousands of meetings, generates millions of documents, tens of millions memos and letters, there is bound to be something on UFOs.

So far zero on reported crashed crafts and aliens. 60 years now.


Mike



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Ridhya
 
I guess maybe you misunderstood my scenario [and it is just a scenario; afterall I wasn't there].

What I am saying that in July 1947, military folks would have been just as intrigued as civilians at the news that a possible outer space thing has crashed in the middle of nowhere. I would assume that when Major Corso, returned with the initial objects, that someone at his base contacted superiors - at other bases - and that started the buzz. In the US military, officers are encouraged to be proactive - use initiative - even then. So why would it be so far fetched to have someone contact Life to document this potentially momentous event? To me, it makes sense.

As far as the activities once the plane landed, I believe it was only the pilot and the photog (I don't recall any mention of a driver - besides how would a vehicle get out there - to a false crash site? The real crash site is a different matter).

So imagine it, here you are an Air Force pilot havng just gone through WWII. Undoubtedly saw combat (he was a Major afterall), IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE, where you have just diverted because someone has told you NOT to land where the crash actually occured. If you had a pistol or two (assuming you checked them out from the armorer), you might yourself be a little scared. Hell maybe that thing that crashed is only the first of many many more coming down? Maybe they are out HERE ALREADY - RIGHT NOW, looking at you. Yikes!!!! Here buddy, know what this is? Good, just in case......

Ummmh, I need to say, that having spent nearly 30 years in the Defense world, I have known many situations in which GIs would give an extra weapon to someone - just in case. Naturally, I would keep mine first.

Strength in Numbers, and the Right to Self Defense is Never Denied.

Great core military basics. Wish I could say I thought of them first, but its something the US Army emphasizes, where ever and when ever.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   
British UFOlogist Christopher D. Allen (CDA) has made some interesting observations on this.

To be absolutely confirmed, it looks like Grant was actually sent on an assignment to photograph sighted green fireball in the desert, in 1948.
On reading about Roswell he mistakenly thought it was the same event.

Allen's comments excerpted below.





ufocon.blogspot.com...

The story is just another anecdotal yarn, told decades after the event. LIFE magazine did a long special article in the spring of 1952 devoting several pages to UFOs with photographs and at least six high profile cases. There was not the slightest mention of Roswell. What happened to this editor, who supposedly had the surprise phone call from the USAF in 1947, in those 5 years? Had he forgotten the case?

[...]

I have just discovered that the LIFE article on UFOs was entitled "Have we visitors from space?" It appeared on April 7, 1952 and was authored by H. Bradford Darrach & Robert Ginna. Both had cooperation from Project Bluebook before writing their piece. This is revealed in David Jacobs' book "The UFO Controversy in America".

So we have to ask whether Allan Grant knew either of these two writers and whether he is confusing his alleged 1947 experience with this feature article written 5 years later. The said article proved to be one of the most popular ones ever published in a wide circulating magazine, rivalling Keyhoe's January 1950 one in TRUE magazine.

It also appears that LIFE published an early 3-page article on UFOs on July 21, 1947, in which they compared the flying disc sightings with sightings of the Loch Ness Monster! This date was very soon after Roswell, so it would be interesting to see whether it contains any mention of Roswell. My strong hunch is that it does not. In which case we must seriously question Mr Grant's memories of the events of 1947.

[...]

1. The first green fireballs appeared in the southwest US in late November or early December 1948. See Ruppelt's book, start of chapter 4.

2. Major Charles L. Phillips did indeed help Dr Lincoln LaPaz in the investigations of these, but his involvement did not start until Dec 1948 (not July 1947). He got involved after witnessing a fireball episode with LaPaz while both were sitting in the same car on Dec 12, 1948 on a street at Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque. Phillips is described as "Liaison Officer for the Kirtland installation". A few other personnel were also present.

3. Phillips' name is again mentioned in a report by LaPaz relating to a big fireball incident on Jan 30, 1949 near Roswell, New Mexico and another at Lamosa, Texas where he joined the ground survey party. [LaPaz report of Feb 21, 1949]. Interesting that Walker AFB, Roswell is also mentioned in this report.

[...]

I therefore surmise that Allan Grant HAS got his timescales wrong and the call to go to Roswell to report on this 'thing' that crashed had nothing to do with the Roswell case of July 1947, but was instead part of the early green fireball episode in December 1948.

The reason nothing was found when he got there is that no remains of the mystery fireballs were ever located (as LaPaz said in his reports).

The editor of LIFE obviously got wind of the fireball episode and decided to put someone on it (Mr Grant). But it had zilch to do with Roswell. It was an entirely separate episode and was confused many decades afterwards with Roswell.

I presume also that Phillips met Grant at Albuquerque some 18 months after July 1947, and that the date on the back of the photo was either added years later or refers to another Albuquerque visit unconnected with Roswell.

Such is the fallibility of the human memory.



Mike


[edit on 20-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ridhya
reply to post by Sashromi
 

Okay, as I understand it there was the Major, photograpgher, and maybe a driver in the jeep? So 2-3 people?
Yet it was considered so dangerous the Major had to give the photographer a gun? No it does not make sense. If there truly was danger they would have simply brought more armed, TRAINED men.


The Life photographer felt the whole escapade was a diversionary tactic. They brought him out there to use him in a later story, if need be, to add to the cover story.



I was SPECIFICALLY instructed never to give a hostage a gun. The movies lie. You dont hand the diplomat your sidearm.


So a distinguished Life photographer decided to come out and make this story up for no reason, putting his reputation at risk?

This was 1947. He wasn't a hostage. He wasn't handed someone else's sidearm, he was handed one that was already available for him.


The military does not FLY IN a photographer to send him back. You do know it costs money. Even though we overspend on missile and such they are very picky about spending. They would investigate first and if not a security issue THEN fly him in. Its not "there was a crash get a photographer in here now!"


The whole point, which obviously went right over your head, was NOT to show this photographer the crash site. It was to take him somewhere else, and to use him as a stooge for a future addition to the cover story.

-- Justin



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join