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.

 

63 Years Later, Is There Anyone That Still Denies The Crash Of A UFO At Roswell ?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 05:52 AM
link   



Greetings Members .


Any UFOlogist worth his/her salt will know what happened at Roswell on July 2 1947 .

What i am wondering is after all this time , all the witnesses, all the evidence and all of the material supporting the case for a downed UFO all those years ago , Is there anyone who still denies what happened ?

If so what is the reason for this ?

Also if you have another theory as to what happened on that fateful day at Mac Brazils ranch i would love to hear it .

Yours sincerely

Omega85

[edit on 19/7/2010 by Omega85]




posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Omega85
 


be nice if you got the year right


Is there anyone who still denies what happened ?

yes plenty of people including bill moore who co-wrote the first book on the roswell incident. Main reason being theres no evidence for a crashed spaceship.


Also if you have another theory

becuase there was no identifying labels on the debris people got a bit excited and thought it could be one of those "flying discs" people reported seeing. Military were more concerned that the objects people supposedly saw were russian spy craft / balloons not alien spaceships.
Then it was discovered it was one of their balloons from project mogul so they said it was a weather balloon.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Apologies, I am writing alot and must have got mixed up.
Keep the sarcasm to yourself k .







[edit on 19/7/2010 by Omega85]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   
One thing is for sure: Thy aren't delusional enough to mistake a man made weather balloon for a freaking extraterrestrial craft and then release a freaking story to the press about it...there either was a crashed Alien craft or the US wanted a country/countries to believe they had acquired advanced Alien technology.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I'm more keen to beleive that what crashed was some highly advanced post WW2 nazi craft that was being worked on at the white sands facility. That's where the US placed the Nazi scientists after operation paperclip. So maybe what crashed was a UFO to mac brazel And the Roswell army airfield but not to the scientists at white sands.

Obviously what crashed there was not project mogul, and it probably wasn't an alien spacecraft either.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by GeechQuestInfo]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


who said it was an extra terrestrial craft? nowhere in the armys press release did they say it was of extra terrestrial origin.



[edit on 19-7-2010 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


They said it was a UFO, and at the time a lot of people used the term meaning an Alien craft. The army wouldn't use the word, because they know exactly what impression it gives people. If they had of simply found something unidentified, they would have said so. They wanted to give the impression they had found something Alien..."at first we couldn't identify it, so we said it was a UFO knowing many people will instantly think we found an Alien craft...but we apparently gained eyesight shortly after, everything is identified and in order"...

EDIT: Actually, they said flying saucer, that's even worse...

EDIT: Or are you talking about the actual Army report, which I probably haven't read. I assume they use the term UFO.

[edit on 19/7/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 



actually they said "flying disc". Sure some poeple in the general public thought flying discs could be alien spaceships but the military were more concerned with them being russian spy craft. Theres other newspaper reports of people claiming to have found flying discs- they turned out to be radar targets. Why would those poeple call them flying discs?

[edit on 19-7-2010 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Ok, that's a very fair point. However, I still don't think the Army would be quite so quick to make such an out there claim when they of all people should know man made technology when they see it...they'd realize almost instantly if it was enemy technology...markings, components etc would give it away...and it most certainly wasn't a weather balloon was it, do you admit that? So, what did they find then? And why would they possibly think it was Alien;

EDIT: Because if they used the term "flying disk", they would at least explain the fact they're talking about enemy technology.

[edit on 19/7/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


im sure they thought it was man made, i dont think they thought it was alien at all.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Please see my above edit. If they thought it was man made, an enemy craft, they would explain that, and wouldn't casually use the term "flying disk"...they knew exactly how people would interpret that...they would interpret it exactly as they did...

[edit on 19/7/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Omega85

Any UFOlogist worth his/her salt will know what happened at Roswell on July 2 1947 .


That is a bold, yet ignorant statement. Any researcher worth his/his salt would realize the waters have been muddied beyond the point of comprehension and that their investigative efforts would be better spent elsewhere.

I could go into details, however your opening post indicates that you wouldn't read/comprehend them anyway.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


and how was it interpreted at the time? your assuming evryone thought they had found an alien spaceship. What evidence is there that is the case



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
anyone who denies roswell is an idiot




Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Ahabstar]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 




and how was it interpreted at the time? your assuming evryone thought they had found an alien spaceship. What evidence is there that is the case
Well please explain to me what other way they expected people to interpret the term flying disk? A disk that flies? I'm sure even at that time people associated flying disks with Aliens, you can probably find witness drawings made before the 1940's that show flying disks. In fact, I've seen art hundreds of years old depicting flying saucers - with entities in them.

[edit on 19/7/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts

Originally posted by Omega85

Any UFOlogist worth his/her salt will know what happened at Roswell on July 2 1947 .


That is a bold, yet ignorant statement. Any researcher worth his/his salt would realize the waters have been muddied beyond the point of comprehension and that their investigative efforts would be better spent elsewhere.

I could go into details, however your opening post indicates that you wouldn't read/comprehend them anyway.



What caused the waters to be muddied?

Perhaps it would be wise of you to keep your pompous attitude out of this thread, If you cant respond constructively then dont respond at all .

Thank you .

[edit on 19/7/2010 by Omega85]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


so why were members of the public calling radar targets "flying discs"?



[edit on 19-7-2010 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Did you know I have a friend named Dick? I wont write a sentence using the other definition of the word dick because one word can upset people. If I were going to use the word dick in a sentence, I'd make clear what I was talking about, because that one word can have big implications. Do you really think they'd use the term flying disk and leave everyone wondering in what way they were using the term? People knew darn well how it was meant to be interpreted...and so did the people that wrote it.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


so the members of the public who reported finding a "flying disc" which turned out to be a radar target thought they had found an alien spaceship?

or they didnt know what it was and thought "hey maybe its one of those "flying discs" people are talking about. I'll let the cops know i found one.

i think the 2nd scenario more likely and it shows there was no definitive idea on what a "flying disc" actually was

[edit on 19-7-2010 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 




so the members of the public who reported finding a "flying disc" which turned out to be a radar target thought they had found an alien spaceship?
Members of the public could easily make such misidentifications, but as I said, the army should know when they are dealing with something man made. If they did mean something other than an Alien craft, well then they should have made it clearer. Fact is, they still couldn't have mistaken a weather balloon as an enemy craft, "flying disk", or what ever else...maybe it would be reasonable to use the term if they were talking about something man made, and they explained that, and they didn't retract that very odd statement shortly after.




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join