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 Case Closed: what really happened

page: 6
40
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Roswell is the biggest stuff up ever!

What was it? who made it?

Case Closed? NEVER!!!


5% ours?

95% Of world I believe




posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Down Under
 


The ones who covered it up surely know the most about it. They saw enough to terrify them enough to create a huge cover story. Take also into account that 50 years later they still release false cover stories. Their still running scared after 50 years, to the point where they dupe these other personnel to go out and spread even more disinformation. Its as if their spitting on the american way of life every time I see them doing that, why dont they just burn the flag while their at it?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I S&F you sir.

Haven't had enough time to LURK MOAR.

But this is indeed a new way of looking at this. The coincidence of two experiments that had gone awry... the lack of documentation...

This is more arsenal for us "amateurs". Thank you sir. I'm just an engineer, an undercooked sceincya experto.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Dear Arbitrageur

From Arbitrageur “When everyone is talking about flying disks, you can have flying disks on the brain. It's a possibility, but I agree with you completely, the description of the material sounds nothing like a flying disc. But years later Jesse Marcel described almost the same debris, except the foil had magical properties like you could hit it with a sledge hammer and nothing would happen...wait...that's not so magical, I did the same thing to my tinfoil and nothing happened to mine either.”

I would for sure agree with this if we were just talking about Brazel who by all accounts was not the sharpest knife in the draw.

However we are talking about what Blanchard released to the press. He was apparently 4 star general material. The only man controlling the atom bomb at that time in the world. Well anyway looking after it.

This is the man that released the idea that they had a flying disc in their hands.

Skeptics keep asking for proof well this is as near as I have ever seen.

Not even an imbecile could mistake the wreckage of mogul for a flying disc.

Remember that they were big news at the time civilians had a good idea of what was meant by a flying disc.

So why under Gods heaven would Blanchard make a blunder like that????

Now as I have said I do not know the answer but I do know this it was extraordinary.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
roswell is the smoking gun



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by juice656
roswell is the smoking gun


This is the point I was driving at.

Roswell might be the one case where skeptics and ufologists are just as invested in getting to the truth and what the answers are. Skeptics are skeptical of even the governments official line that has been dropped. I know many people want to discredit skeptics, but in this case I feel they want answers too.

Roswell is such a key place for many people spiritually. So many people feel a drive within themselves to make a pilgrimage to this place. people who have never been abducted and people who are everyday joes. For some reason when they are there they experience something inside of them. i have read in many threads about this on this forum over the last few years I have been lurking. There is no rhyme or reason as to why people feel such a connection to a place thats honestly just a desert nothing special. but to them it is much more, I wont begin to try and explain it since I have no experience in these matters other then what I have read.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by juice656
 


Dear juice656

From juice656 “roswell is the smoking gun”

Yes Roswell is a smoking gun but the question still is of what????

The longer it goes on the more confused it gets.

I have seen nothing to make me suspect that Blanchard’s first press release was false, come to think of it what was wrong with the press back then did they have no brain or no balls.

How could they possibly accept the weather balloon crap.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
the base intelligence officer. a man who is trained to recognize everything in the sky. does recognize a weather balloon from his own base. that to me is one of the biggest b.s. stories about the whole event that the ptb put out. marcel would definitely known what a weather balloon was. hell, he would have been the one launching it!



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
I have enjoyed this discussion very much. A tale of two Roswell's. Or is it
three now ?

What we perceive today is very different than the perceptions in the past.






Hi Gaz....been a long time passin...



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by MAC269
However we are talking about what Blanchard released to the press. He was apparently 4 star general material. The only man controlling the atom bomb at that time in the world. Well anyway looking after it.

This is the man that released the idea that they had a flying disc in their hands.


Why did LA soldiers fire antiaircraft guns at balloons and puffs of smoke from other AA guns in 1942? That's not logical either, until you consider the psychological aspects of their behavior, and that's what we need to do in 1947 as well as 1942, consider the psychological aspects of behavior. Then some actions which may not initially seem logical can be explained via human psychology.

And Blanchard wasn't the only witness, and even if you disregard Blanchard, here's a list of witnesses to the debris field who describe basically a foil material, sometimes with "magical properties" like you can hit it with a sledgehammer and it won't dent (neither does my foil) and it won't burn (neither does my foil) and very lightweight (same as my foil):

roswellproof.homestead.com...



I don't give a lot of credence to 2nd hand witnesses so let's disregard those also, but we still have a lot of first hand witnesses who basically describe a debris field of foil, sticks, tape, and rubber balloon pieces.

What should be very striking to you, as it is to me, is that all these witnesses describe a debris field with a lot of thin, lightweight foil, and none of them describe anything like a disc. The Article about Brazel said they tried to figure out how the pieces of foil fit together and maybe since they couldn't figure it out they thought a disc was a possibility since people were talking about flying discs since Kenneth Arnold's sighting. Kenneth Arnold's sighting was on June 24, 1947 and the Roswell report was a few weeks later. I can't disregard the psychological effect Arnold's sighting had on Blanchard and others who found a mysterious debris field a few weeks later. In fact Brazel apparently told the reporter the news is where he got the idea that it might have been a flying disk, not because the debris field looked anything like a flying disk.

And all those witnesses saying they saw a bunch of thin lightweight foil instead of a disk, didn't all get new pickup trucks!


And even the guy who is rumored to have gotten a new pickup truck contradicted the official "weather balloon" cover story and said he was SURE it wasn't a weather balloon.

So when virtually ALL the witnesses say they saw foil and NOT a disc, I start to think maybe they saw foil and not a disc, and suspect that Blanchard got caught up in the excitement. He may have been a general but he's still a human being and not immune from psychological influences like all the news reports at the time that influenced Brazel.

Here is a sample list of some 1947 UFO sightings leading up to the Roswell Incident:


Here is a sample list of some 1947 UFO sightings leading up to the Roswell Incident:

JUNE 25, 1947: A saucer-shaped object about one half the size of the full moon [at arm's length] was reported moving south over Silver City, New Mexico, by the local dentist, Dr. R. F. Sensenbaugher.

JUNE 26, 1947: Leon Oetinger, M.D., of Lexington, Kentucky, and three other witnesses reported a large, silver, ball-shaped object — clearly not a balloon or a dirigible — traveling at high speed near the edge of the Grand Canyon.

JUNE 27, 1947: John A. Petsche, an electrician at Phelps-Dodge Corporation, and other witnesses reported a disc-shaped object overhead and apparently coming to earth about 10:30am near Tintown in the vicinity of Bisbee in southeastern Arizona near the New Mexico border.

JUNE 27, 1947: Major George B. Wilcox of Warren, Arizona, reported a series of eight or nine perfectly spaced discs traveling at high speed with a wobbling motion. He said the discs passed over his house at three-second intervals heading east, and estimated them to be at a height of about 1,000 feet above the mountaintops.

JUNE 27, 1947: A “white disc glowing like an electric light bulb” was reported to have passed over Pope, New Mexico, by local resident W. C. Dobbs at 9:50am. Minutes later, the same or a similar object was sighted traveling southwest over the White Sands Missile Range by Captain E. B. Detchmendy, who reported it to his commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Harold R. Turner. At 10:00am Mrs. David Appelzoller of San Miguel, New Mexico, reported that a similar object had passed over that city, again heading southwest. Colonel Turner of White Sands initially reacted by announcing that no rockets had been launched from that base since June 12. Later, fearing hysteria, he officially “identified” the object as a “daytime meteorite”.

JUNE 28, 1947: Captain F. Dvyn, a pilot flying in the vicinity of Alamogordo, New Mexico, witnessed “a ball of fire with a fiery blue trail behind it” pass beneath his aircraft and appear to disintegrate while he watched.

JUNE 29, 1947: Army Air Force pilots conducted a search for an object reported to have fallen near Cliff, New Mexico, sometime in the forenoon, but find nothing but a curious odor in the air.

JUNE 29, 1947: A team of naval rocket-test experts headed by Dr. C. J. Zohn, on duty at the White Sands Proving Grounds, watched a silvery-colored disc do a series of maneuvers at high altitude over the secret rocket-test range.

JUNE 30, 1947: Thirteen silvery disc-shaped objects were observed by a railroad worker named Price traveling one after another over Albuquerque, New Mexico. Initially heading south, they changed course abruptly to east, and then reversed dramatically to west before disappearing. Price alerted his neighbors, and the entire neighborhood rushed out of their houses to lie on their lawns and observe the maneuvers in the sky above them.

JUNE 30, 1947 (as reported from the Tucumacari [New Mexico] Daily News on July 9): “Mrs. Helen Hardin, employee of Quay County Abstract Co., reported Tuesday, July 8, that she saw a flying saucer from her front porch about 11pm June 30 traveling from east to west at high speed. She said it looked to be about half the size of the full moon [at arms length] with a slight yellow cast. She watched it for about six seconds, low in the sky and going down outside of town rather than close in. She at first thought it was a meteor but noticed a whirling motion as it neared the ground. Also it was not falling as fast as meteors do.”

JULY 1, 1947: Max Hood, an executive of the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, reported seeing a bluish disc zigzagging across the northwestern sky over Albuquerque.

JULY 1-6, 1947: Seven separate reports of flying discs over northern Mexico ranging from Mexicali to Juarez.

JULY 1, 1947: Mr. and Mrs. Frank Munn reported witnessing a large object moving east over Phoenix about 9:00pm.

JULY 2, 1947: Mr. and Mrs. Dan Wilmot of Roswell, New Mexico, witnessed a large, glowing object as it passed over their house traveling northwest at a high rate of speed.


Before June 1947 I can't find any news articles about flying discs and starting in June there's a flurry of them. To understand the state of mind of people in Early July 1947 you have to put yourself in their shoes reading this flurry of extraordinary reports that started with the Arnold sighting. Only then can you begin to make sense of Blanchard's and Brazel's conclusions, you have to put them in THEIR context at the time, not your context with 20/20 hindsight.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by nightwing
 


"The material was unusual," Corley said he (Jesse Marcel) told her. " It couldn't have been a balloon. It was porous, it couldn't hold air."


To the best of Marcel's knowledge, the military kept all of the strange metallic fabric that predominated the debris, along with the structural elements that looked like wood but didn't burn.




Tin foil glows red and then shrinks when you heat leaving a very distinctive pungent aroma. You don't think Marcel knew this already? Furthermore, tin foil , if you hit it with a hammer, remains in the shape you created with the hammer, it doesn't *spring back* to its' original shape.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   

What should be very striking to you, as it is to me, is that all these witnesses describe a debris field with a lot of thin, lightweight foil, and none of them describe anything like a disc.


If you accept the testimonies of only one crash site's witnesses.

The larger pieces were stated to be from the second crash site (the one not on the ranch).

In addition, you still have the major problem of the military's behavior...why would they fly Mogul debris to foreign technology bases for study, when such materials (as used in Mogul 4) are easily identifiable? They wouldn't (just as they hadn't before, or after, this event).... They would have only done this if they had something truly baffling.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
The larger pieces were stated to be from the second crash site (the one not on the ranch).


Have you got any source information from 1947, like a newspaper article, about the second crash site? The only information I've found from 1947 is about the debris field Marcel and Brazel described, which these refer to:

This section has newspapers article of 1947 from all over the world related to the Roswell incident and articles of that time to provide an insight of what newspapers wrote on the subject of the "flying saucers" at the time of the Roswell incident.

And like the list I just posted they were writing articles about lots of UFO stuff at the time so if there are no newspaper articles about the second crash site, why not?



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

And like the list I just posted they were writing articles about lots of UFO stuff at the time so if there are no newspaper articles about the second crash site, why not?


Because unlike the first crash site, this other site wasn’t just debris, but allegedly had the larger pieces of the craft, and bodies. In addition, the debris from this site was found by the military, not driven into town by a local rancher.

Some witnesses….

William Moody (testified to the military cordon)

W. Curry Holden (testified to seeing the second crash site)

Dan Dwyer (fireman, at the second crash site)

Frankie Rowe (handled debris from second site, her father, Dan Dwyer)

Sergeant Melvin Brown (stated he saw one of the bodies from this crash site)

C. Bertram Schultz (saw the tarped military trucks leaving the second crash site)

Just to name a few…then there are those who saw the larger pieces of the craft (and the bodies) that allegedly came from the second site.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
In addition, you still have the major problem of the military's behavior...why would they fly Mogul debris to foreign technology bases for study, when such materials (as used in Mogul 4) are easily identifiable?


Well, here's the Air Force's explanation, which of course we have to take with a grain of salt since they lied to us for 50 years. The OP refers to the "case closed" report from 1997, this is the earlier Air Force report from 1995, "The Roswell Report" page 3:


The issue of compartmentation was significant because some UFO researchers assert that
the persons who recovered the MOGUL equipment, members of the 509th Bombardment
Group stationed at Roswell Army Airfield, should have been able to recognize the debris
collected at the crash site as that of a research balloon. Although members of the 509th
possessed high-level clearances, they were not privy to the existence of MOGUL; their job
was to deliver nuclear weapons, not to detect them. The unusual combination of
experimental equipment did not encourage easy identification that undoubtedly left some
members of the 509th with unanswered questions. Some UFO enthusiasts have
manipulated these unanswered questions to support their flying-saucer recovery scenario,
while eagerly supplying unfounded explanations of extraterrestrial visitation and cosmic
conspiracy. Additionally, many claims of a flying saucer crash at Roswell rest on the
description of debris collected at the Foster ranch site. UFO researchers, including those
who are said to have known ail about MOGUL, apparently did not compare the
descriptions of the suspect debris with that of the components of a Project MOGUL
balloon train. MOGUL reports and documents that contain descriptions, illustrations, and
photographs have been publicly available for at least twenty years. Had the researchers
completed even a cursory comparison, they would have found that the materials were
suspiciously similar: detailed examination would have shown them to be one and the
same.


So everyone says they should have identified the remains as Mogul remains, the Air Force flatly denies this in the report. I find their claim has some plausibility but I'm also reluctant to accept the words of known liars at face value.

So maybe they had the remains flown elsewhere so someone could positively identify the remains and confirm they were of the lost Mogul balloon?

Why didn't they do it for the first three? Did those precede the Kenneth Arnold sighting? And did anyone call the wreckage from those the possible remains of a flying disk like Brazel did? That may explain why this one was treated differently.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

And like the list I just posted they were writing articles about lots of UFO stuff at the time so if there are no newspaper articles about the second crash site, why not?


Because unlike the first crash site, this other site wasn’t just debris, but allegedly had the larger pieces of the craft, and bodies. In addition, the debris from this site was found by the military, not driven into town by a local rancher.

Some witnesses….

William Moody (testified to the military cordon)


I couldn't find a William Moody, do you mean William Woody, testifying about the same cordon that blocked access to the Foster Ranch by blocking westward travel from highway 285 onto hwy 42/247? www.roswellproof.com...
He never saw the second crash site right?


W. Curry Holden (testified to seeing the second crash site)


www.angelfire.com...

"Holden, and some students who were working sites and looking for signs of pre-Contact Indian occupation around Roswell stumbled across the second of the infamous Roswell impact sites where some sort of an object had crashed. It has been said they are the ones who first reported to law enforcement officials the discovery of what they thought was the remains of a wrecked aircraft. Military personnel reportedly arrived soon afterward, cordoned off access to the site and escorted them out of the area. Holden never really discussed the incident and it was well into his later years before he was actually even inteviewed on the subject. "

Well if he never really discussed the incident, he's not a very good source of information. And that claims that he found it, not the military, though I'm frankly not sure what to believe since none of these stories are well documented like the Foster Ranch site is.


Dan Dwyer (fireman, at the second crash site)
Frankie Rowe (handled debris from second site, her father, Dan Dwyer)


Frankie Rowe describes a foil like material that Dan Dwyer showed her, which sounds to me like the same foil at the Foster Ranch.


Sergeant Melvin Brown (stated he saw one of the bodies from this crash site)


Melvin Brown isn't a witness right? All we have is second hand stories from family members and nothing from Melvin Brown?

kevinrandle.blogspot.com...


I believe that people reading The Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell understood perfectly that we hadn’t interviewed Brown himself, but that the information came from family members we did interview.


The family members can't even agree on how many bodies there were. And I have no idea what year they are referring to since everything they said was after 1978.


C. Bertram Schultz (saw the tarped military trucks leaving the second crash site)


All I was able to find about Schultz is that he saw the same cordon as William Woody, that blocked access to the Foster Ranch, and hearsay that W. Curry Holden spoke to him:

www.roswellproof.com...


Dr. C. Bertram Schultz: A vertebrate paleontologist, and Professor Emeritus of Geology and Paleontology at the University of Nebraska. Interviewed by Kevin Randle in 1993, Schultz said he saw soldiers blocking access to the western side of Highway 285 as he was driving 15-20 miles north of Roswell. He also said he had spent time in Roswell and spoken with a group of archeologists who knew of the crash. Among these that he spoke with at some time was archeologist Dr. W. Curry Holden of Texas Tech who had been at the crash site. Holden told him of seeing the wreck. Schultz's two daughters reported that their father has been telling the story of the crashed flying saucer for many years.



Just to name a few…then there are those who saw the larger pieces of the craft (and the bodies) that allegedly came from the second site.


I can't tell if any of those folks besides W. Curry Holden saw a second crash site, and he apparently didn't talk much about it if he did, which if it was an amazing crash site, would be surprising. Randle has a list of names of people he says saw the second crash site and Holden is on it but not the other names:

www.roswellfiles.com...


Major (later full colonel) Edwin Easley, Major (later full colonel) Patrick Saunders, Brigadier General Arthur Exon, Dr. W. Curry Holden, reporter Johnny McBoyle and many others. Each spoke of the second crash site in first-hand terms.


So out of a whole list of names of people who supposedly saw the second crash site, only one guy actually did (Holden), and he didn't talk about it much? Why do I not find it very convincing? Holden may have seen a second crash site but without some type of corroboration, I'm not even sure when he saw it, maybe it was a month later for all I know? Is there any way to date his sighting? Actually I guess even the Foster Ranch debris had been there a while by the time Brazel reported it.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tigpoppa
 


I watched the Orion Conspiracy on youtube last night and it kinda made sense. I think your right. Why did a farmer find it? I don't know about the russian flying saucer recovery but it did seem like this was suppose to blip on the media for a moment. It did also seem like a very sloppy recovery also. Even the diversion was sloppily made up. A weather balloon? I mean come on!



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


There's also the Ramey Memo of course, for the second crash site...(and yes, thank you for the typo correction, Woody, not Moody)

And, the bodies (if we are to believe the witnesses) were not in the first crash site, so had to come from elsewhere. Now, one could say then just throw the bodies accounts out, right? Well, the USAF obviously felt it important enough to try and explain away with the ridiculous Project High Dive explanation.


So everyone says they should have identified the remains as Mogul remains, the Air Force flatly denies this in the report. I find their claim has some plausibility but I'm also reluctant to accept the words of known liars at face value.


Mogul Flight 4 (the one the USAF is claiming was recovered there) consisted of string, balloons, a RAWIN reflector (made of balsa wood sticks and foil paper...like what a Hershey Bar is wrapped in), a sonar buoy (about 2' metal cylinder), and a small black electronics box. PERIOD. What in this list sounds strange, exotic, or hard to identify, even for a 10 year old??? Would you think a Hershey wrapper is part of an alien craft? That is basically the assumption the military is trying to convince us of here....

[edit on 12-5-2010 by Gazrok]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Dear Arbitrageur

Hershey bars where wrapped in tin foil at that time and lets see I wonder how long balsa wood had been around??

I can’t even imagine Marcel helping to pick it up of the desert floor, can you?? Marcel had taken a cores in Radar and Rawin targets.

Marcel woke his son to show him this incredible material in the middle of the night.

No sorry Roswell is big time stuff or the US had lunatics in charge of their atom bombs at that time.

Yes and what about all those sittings are all those people seeing some sort of mass hysteria. It looks like you are arguing my point.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MAC269
 



Originally posted by Gazrok
Mogul Flight 4 (the one the USAF is claiming was recovered there) consisted of string, balloons, a RAWIN reflector (made of balsa wood sticks and foil paper...like what a Hershey Bar is wrapped in), a sonar buoy (about 2' metal cylinder), and a small black electronics box. PERIOD. What in this list sounds strange, exotic, or hard to identify, even for a 10 year old??? Would you think a Hershey wrapper is part of an alien craft? That is basically the assumption the military is trying to convince us of here....


Well, since that's what everyone who saw the Foster Ranch debris describes, and in fact is documented in the newspaper article the same way:

www.ufologie.net...


The next day he first heard about the flying disks, and he wondered if what he had found might be the remnants of one of these.

When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long and about 5 inches thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot would have weighed maybe five pounds

Considerable scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed upon it had been used in the construction.
It's not the military trying to convince us, it's right there in the newspaper article. The description in the newspaper article of the debris found seems to match Mogul perfectly, I'm not sure why you see any discrepancy, unless you count the distortions of the "magical properties" of the foil dreamed up 30, 40 or 50 years after the fact, but it's still foil they were talking about. The more immediate source has 100 times more credibility than decades old memories and it's also credible because it flatly denies the government coverup story:


Brazel said that he had previously found two weather observation balloons on the ranch but that what he found this time did not in any way resemble either of these.


So any claims that this story is part of a coverup seem pretty laughable to me since the story is a direct contradiction of the coverup. So I don't see who can read that story and not conclude that that debris sounds EXACTLY like mogul debris. And everyone who describes the foster ranch debris tells pretty much the same story, if you account for memory distortions over time.

If you are having trouble understanding why people think a pile of Hershey wrappers is an alien craft, I have two suggestions for you:

1. reread the flurry of UFO sightings leading up to the Roswell report, I posted a partial list of them above, and,
2. Study Human psychology, and understand how the mind works and is influenced by the circumstances.

You have to put yourself in their frame of mind and imagine being exposed to the same influences as they were, and this isn't easy to do, hence the expression "you had to have been there to understand it". But yes I find it credible they found " the tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks " and then "The next day he first heard about the flying disks, and he wondered if what he had found might be the remnants of one of these.", in fact that article is one of the best sources we've got and it gives us some clues how what seems like a silly conclusion to us came about.

And if you believe the Ramey memo has the word "DISC" in it (I'm not sure but it looks possible), then doesn't that also show us that he knew it wasn't a disc because he put the word "DISC" in quotes with the quotes signifying that's what people called it but they knew that's not what it really was? Why else would they put that word in quotes? So maybe the quotes used on the word "DISC" in the Ramey memo proves your point, that Ramey actually knew it wasn't really a disc, even though people were calling it a "disc"? (The word disk being offered by Brazel thanks to Kenneth Arnold and the flurry of other flying disk reports in the previous few weeks which you also seem to be discounting the influence of in your analysis).



So if there's anything to this it would be a second crash site, not the Foster Ranch debris field.

And the question of dates you bring up is a valid one, but you don't seem to admit that the question works both ways. You're correct to question the air force's application of dates that aren't in 1947, but I've pressed you several times in this thread for any verification that the dates of the 2nd crash site were in 1947 and the only claimed evidence of that is the memo and that's pretty subjective. I have no doubt that there was other debris discovered somewhere besides the Foster Ranch, perhaps by W. Curry Holden or others, but if we can't show that it wasn't in 1953 that Holden saw the 2nd crash site, then saying the air force explanation was of something that happened in 1953 doesn't necessarily show a conflict. From what I've seen the evidence for a 2nd crash site at the same date as the Foster Ranch site in July 1947 is pretty questionable. Maybe Holden did find a second crash site and maybe he found it in the Early 1950s? I can't find any reliable verification of when Holden found the second crash site.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join