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.

 

A Roswell Tell-All : The General's Widow

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
BRIGADIER GENERAL HARRY N. CORDES
Retired July 1, 1973. Died May 10, 2004.
From 1946 to 1949 he was assigned to the 509th Bombardment Group, Roswell Air Force Base, N.M., as a radar observer on a B-29 crew. His crew won the first annual SAC bombing competition in 1948. He entered pilot training in August 1949 and when he graduated in 1950 returned to the 509th Group as a pilot and was later aircraft commander of a B-50.
General Harry Nations Cordes possessed Top Secret/SCI clearance.

Rogene Cordes
As a life-long resident of Roswell Rogene Cordes knew many of the parties involved, including the ranchers, cops, and the medical personnel who were part of the story.

Rogene told me that she used every tool she could to get him to talk. This included what she called "beauty" and "pillow talk" to coax him to reveal more about what he knew about the crash. Harry told her that he was not physically at the base the week of the crash and that he was on travel during that time period. She hints that she did not believe that he told her all that he knew. When she pressed him further he told her, "many of the guys there knew what had really happened. But it was a matter of duty to country to never talk." Finally, after repeated attempts, Harry told her, "I was a radar operator at RAAF as you know. The object was flying and it was unidentified. The machine was tracked by White Sands radar and those folks didn't know what the hell was happening." She pressed further. She said, "Just tell me, was it a balloon?" Harry replied, "It was no balloon. Jesse Marcel told the truth. But if I tell you the details you will never view life the same." He beseeched her to ask no more. But she did. Harry blurted out, "Rogene, if I tell you...I will have to kill you." She thought he was joking. But Harry was not laughing.


She asked him directly, "Where do they keep the craft honey, at Area 51?" She knew of course that he had worked at the Nevada Test Site for some time. He told her that it was not stored there. "Maybe at one time it was at Wright Patt, in off-limits area."


Though Harry Cordes was sparse in details about Roswell, he would tell her more general stories about UFOs that were encountered during his time in service. He told his family (including both of his daughters) that at one time when he was flying at 70,000 feet (the highest anyone has ever flown up to that time) he had personally witnessed what he said, "could only have been an alien craft."


Source




posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
It's funny to me that this sort of thing is not considered "disclosure" since it is a US military general officer's wife. Close enough to the chain of command of people in the know.

Let's just call it full disclosure for the fun of it, and see what happens.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 

For her own safety i would have thrown disinformation at her.
She just didn't have a "need to know".
I think back then MJ-12 was very serious about the dual use
technology found in New Mexico July 1947.
Murder was probably authorized in the name of national security.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
It's not disclosure, it's a widow trying to get a book deal and make some cash. People will do and say some amazing things for the love of money, thats the first thing you all must realize about all these little stories.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 



Let's just call it full disclosure for the fun of it, and see what happens.

LOL... That would mean Wilcock was right then
.
As the years go bye we keep getting drips of information , it can only be a matter of time until something comes out that blows the lid of the whole can of worms



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr_skepticc
 


Well I agree with you that it is possible ie Phil Schneider, but that's no reason not to believe her. Remember, a person will have to be willing to dishonor their dead husband/wife if they tell lies about them to sell a book. I just don't think we can automatically assume that about people.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr_skepticc
 


And thats just the reply I was expecting from a Skeptic when I posted the thread, thanks Mr_skepticc for not disappointing



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_skepticc
It's not disclosure, it's a widow trying to get a book deal and make some cash. People will do and say some amazing things for the love of money, thats the first thing you all must realize about all these little stories.


your mind is so closed, that I really dont know how you learned how to speak

I mean, thats pathetic hahaha to say that about everyone ... if you talked to her and you sensed that maybe she needs money or whatever, ok

but to judge somebody without even knowing its pathetic

you are just saying, well, this woman didnt care about her husband life

lol, its funny, I dont know why u are in this board, I think you are being paid to make these stunts here in this board, its impossible to have some one so negative

[edit on 7-1-2010 by Faiol]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_skepticc
It's not disclosure, it's a widow trying to get a book deal and make some cash. People will do and say some amazing things for the love of money, thats the first thing you all must realize about all these little stories.


I think you're correct to raise a financial motive, but I think fundamentally most people are honest. For me the big problem with this is time. Source material such as diaries, or contemporary records are a little different (although trivial to superficially forge, much trickier but possible to replicate inks, paper types etc). Anecdotal witness testimony, second hand, even immediately after an event is difficult to disentangle (the investigation of a major claim being a good example), but witness testimony years after the event is even more difficult to disentangle. Simple things like dates and times get mixed, on top of general problems with our memory (that affect everyone, sceptics too) are a grade A pain in the bottom. That's why I'm sceptical of this by default.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr_skepticc
 


I assume it's ok to be extremely sceptical about your post.

Do you have any proof whatsoever that there is any book deal in the offing or even that the person received any compensation for the interview ?

If so I will concede monetary gain may be a motive for falsifying the account.

If not then you are simply wrong.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackphotohobby

I think you're correct to raise a financial motive


Why without any evidence ?

May as well raise any motive if that's the case, maybe it was revenge against the Govt for the latest tax bill. Perhaps she was blackmailed into saying it by Bill Moore.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by chunder

Originally posted by jackphotohobby

I think you're correct to raise a financial motive


Why without any evidence ?


Because it should be kept as a possibility. To deny the possibility is just as bad as saying it's definitely the case. I was trying to politely correct them; I think they were right to raise it, but wrong to assume that it is the case. That remains to be seen.

My gut feeling is that she's not in it for money, because generally people in it for the money tend to make far more exaggerated claims, with zero nuance. However, for reasons outlined earlier in the thread regarding anecdotes and the passage of time, I remain sceptical.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
After reading Braglia's article I come to a different conclusion than he does. I don't see much she is saying that would contradict the official story of disclosure that it was project mogul that crashed.

The fact that they might threaten people for talking about a secret project that wasn't a weather balloon might still be consistent with Mogul for example. When you dissect what she really reveals, it's not a lot so I don't know why we even need to be suspicious about what she says.

Her story about the ice is interesting but would be a lot more interesting if we didn't already know that Glen Dennis was a liar.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_skepticc
It's not disclosure, it's a widow trying to get a book deal and make some cash. People will do and say some amazing things for the love of money, thats the first thing you all must realize about all these little stories.


I doubt the widow of a retired General is hurting for money so badly to invent such a tale.

I believe her. Her husband was a verified Air Force General with some interesting assignments in his career.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Well remember the Roswell story didn't get told until 30 years after the fact, not a word was spoken about it. Now I do believe she has a motive, and I believe it's finacial! No, I don't have any proof to back that up, it's experience and sort of logical to me, I mean after all if she was the type of woman that would use sex to try to get information out of her husband, would she not be the type of woman to tell stories for attention, or money?



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   
And its just a coincidence that all these, now elderly, people are revealing what really went on in the late 40's and early 50's. Maybe its mass senility and their stories just happen to correlate with each other, and to known facts from that era........right.....the blinders some people around here are wearing are amazing....





I mean after all if she was the type of woman that would use sex to try to get information out of her husband, would she not be the type of woman to tell stories for attention, or money?


you really can't be serious...

[edit on 8-1-2010 by Toxicsurf]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by jackphotohobby
 


I agree with those reasons for not putting much weight to the comments however, not for remaining sceptical as to whether the comments were made or why.

They are two different things.

I still cannot see any point in raising the possibility that a book deal / financial gain was behind the comments without any evidence whatsoever.

That is different to me denying the possibility could exist.

If the only point is to raise possibilities that could exist that lead to sceptism of the accuracy of the statements then what is the difference to raising the possibility that she was forced to provide false comments at the point of a laser held by a surviving grey from the Roswell crash.

Without any evidence to the contrary that is just as valid.

My point being what was the point of the claim, other than to show that person is very sceptical of anything, which is rather obvious from their posting name.

Maybe the mods will allow blank postings from this sceptic, the posting itself being an indication that the person is sceptical of the content in the thread. That should be sufficient and save me at least from reading pointless comments.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr_skepticc
 


How on earth do you go from "pillow talk" to using sex to get information from her husband ?

Also what do you mean no-one was talking about it for 30 years. There is a mountain of evidence that a lot of people who lived in Roswell talked about it, well at least quitely and amongst themselves for fear of retribution.

There was also a lot of talk going on in the military judging by declassified material not to mention what was in the media after the event, which was then silenced by proven disinformation from the forces as later they contradicted their own weather baloon story by replacing it with Project Mogul.

Your reasoning is illogical and I'm not putting a lot of store in your experience if it leads you to the conclusions and statements you seem to make.

Now I don't know this for sure, but my logic and experience tells me that I doubt she needs money that desperately, having been married to someone who occupied the position they did. It also tells me that this is hardly something that a book could be based upon, unless it was only a 5 page book.

To me the reasons given seem to make the most sense and you're either making these posts just for the sake of it or you're just sceptical of everything full stop, which doesn't seem to be the case otherwise you would attack both sides of an argument equally.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Glen Dennis was a liar.


Not saying that's not the case, just haven't come across any relevant material.

Would be interested and appreciative if you could expand ?



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   
interesting...

she doesn't reveal much though. although the story with her husband at 70,000 feet witnessing a UFO is probably more significant than her story with her husband and Roswell.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join