It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Do you believe the Roswell official explanation?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:21 AM
I dont believe what the Government says when it is trying to cover up potentially Top Seceret operations. But do I think there was alien involvment? Nope I dont think that aliens exist and if they do they have never reached are earth. I think it was a seceret operation that had a accident and the government covered it up in a bad way, which led to all kinds of conspericy. Just like the UFO's that people see now, they are all probably military craft that have yet to be revieled to the public.

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:14 AM

Originally posted by franwh
i remember seeing a documentary recently, the photgraph showing the officer(is it Marcell) crouching down next to the weather ballon holding a piece of paper. This paper was analysed and enhanced digitally, the result was that the paper has the words to the effect of 'the disk has been recovered'...

how they going to explain that one!
You didn't read my post about the FBI memo?

Doesn't that pretty much explain it? If not how do you explain the FBI memo?

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:19 PM
reply to post by Unknown Soldier

The Aztec crash is a complete fabrication. I have been to that site, been to the Roswell sites as well. The Aztec crash was supposed to have been buried "in situ" because it was too radioactive to be moved. The land features a low escarpment and unaltered landscape. There is a unpaved washboard road below and another along the ridge of the escarpment and there is the "alien run" bicycle course along the escarpment. There is zero possibility of heavy equipment ever being brought in or used to bury a 100 foot diameter UFO. My opinion is it was fabricated to take the heat off Roswell. You might notice that the parts are in a tent on folding tables, couldn't be Aztec because of the inclination of the land. I drove thousands of miles to get there and i really wanted to find evidence of a crash. I was diappointed.

[edit on 013131p://pm3126 by debris765nju]

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Your posts here are informative. Although Jesse Marcel's testimony about the debris mostly agrees with what one would expect from project Mogul wreckage, why did he say, years later, that the debris must be of something out of this world?

Thanks for clearing up my 'flying disk' vs. 'flying saucer' misconception, and explaining the significance of the term 'flying disk' within the historical perspective.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Tearman
The only questions I have are these. Under what circumstances does a person of reasonable intelligence mistake materials such as the ones recovered as a flying saucer. Was the term flying saucer meant to imply something out of this world?
The term used was "disk" not flying saucer. The answer is in the post I made on page 1:
"flying disks" were in the news every day so when the rancher Brazel found some debris he wondered if it was from one of the disks everyone was talking about.
Wait a minute... the term flying saucer was used in newspaper headlines. Where those two terms interchangeable at the time? Did they already possess other-worldly connotations?

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Tearman]

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Tearman]

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:02 PM
I believe the testimony of people such as Jesse Marcel and Philip Corso. I have also personally spoken with both of their living sons. The Government' Project Mogul explanation is an insult to anyone with a brain. Jesse Marcel could have identified parts of radar reflectors, string, and balloons in his sleep. The fact that the mass media bought the Air Force's poppycock Roswell: Case Closed report actually frightens me...

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:09 PM

Originally posted by humbleseeker
I dont think that aliens exist and if they do they have never reached are earth.

That is pretty closed minded sir

I think its pretty arrogant to think that we humans are the only species in the cosmos.

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:20 PM
Well, We had wreckage from something that was described as a "Flying Disc", But later it was then claimed to be a mere "Weather Balloon", But was kept top secret because it was...............A WEATHER BALLOON

That's right wasn't it

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:08 PM
If you believe that Roswell was any sort of balloon, what you are saying is that the only atomic equipped air base of the time was being commanded by.


posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:27 PM
What about the Nazi connection?

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:59 PM
reply to post by CheapShotArtist

Well, like I said they probably havent reached earth if they do. I see no reason why there couldnt be aliens, I just think that Roswell was a cover up, but not the cover up that alien chasers think it was.

Then again I could be wrong I am just guessing. I am just being logical.

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:49 PM
reply to post by bigbomb456

Dear bigbomb456

I have spent some time listening to this interesting radio program from Joseph P. Farrell and it make some sense.

However : Germany lost WW2

Argentina : Lost The Falklands

No zero point energy has come from anywhere.

The Nazi’s have not won WW3

This stuff if it existed in 1947 would be so far out of date by now we would all have one in our back yard rusting.

All come under the heading of Nice Try but No Banana.

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:52 PM
I was wondering if anyone has seen the movie Roswell starring Kyle MacLachlan? It's really good but I was wondering if anyone knew how much of that movie was based off of fact, such as did Marcel really do his own investigation when he was older as the movie depicts.

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:20 PM
I saw a video posted here on ATS that had an interesting theory on Roswell and other 'UFO' crashes during the 30's-70's. I did a search but could not find it

In short a man spoke about his job sorting sensitive files at the pentagon and one day he was told to organize very highly classified documents. In these files he discovered that the UFO crashes were not aliens, but Asians.

Japan and/or China built small gondollas and armed them with incendiary bombs to be sent over the pacific to land and attack in the U.S. These craft were manned by very small men because the craft were small so as to be hard to spot on radar. Many of these craft crashed, and bombs killing the pilots.

Now, many people in the 30's, 40's, ect, had noooooo idea what an Asian person really looked like. Add in that any facial features would have been distorted by the bombs going off and viola, you have your aliens!

But then why the cover up? The air force was in it's infancy, and top officials could see a promising and profitable future by expanding the airplane usage, commercially and militarily. These top officials feared that if the population knew about these covert attacks that they would never agree to help fund and/or support the air force. And thus the UFO/ weather balloon cover up started.

I'm not saying I believe this theory, as it was all told by one man who claimed to have handled these documents, but it is an interesting theory. One that has not been discussed and dissected to death and seems much more probable than some of the other theories out there.

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:02 AM
reply to post by Pearlthorn

So from bigbomb456 : we have Nazi’s from Argentina and flown by deformed children.

From Pearlthorn : We have a group of Asians from no particular country attacking the USA. By the way California was build by the Chinese or at least a good part of it o it is my guess that even the dumbest of people around in NM at the time knew what a Chinese looked like.

These ideas indeed make the idea that it was ET sound normal.

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 07:12 PM
Is there a high-resolution copy available on the internet of the Roswell Daily Record page that shows the headline: "RAAF captures flying saucer..."?

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:17 PM

Originally posted by Tearman
Thanks for clearing up my 'flying disk' vs. 'flying saucer' misconception, and explaining the significance of the term 'flying disk' within the historical perspective.

Wait a minute... the term flying saucer was used in newspaper headlines. Where those two terms interchangeable at the time? Did they already possess other-worldly connotations?
I'm sure the term flying saucer was used too, after all that's the term that was coined by the media's misinterpretation of Kenneth Arnold's description of the craft he saw moving like a saucer would if you skipped it on the water, just a few weeks earlier. Arnold didn't really say they looked like saucers. But the name :flying saucers" stuck and people used that term frequently, I didn't claim they didn't. My claim was specific to the Ramey memo you mentioned which supposedly looks like it says "DISC", I just happen to have it already uploaded, so here it is:

Does it really say Disc? The first letter looks like it could be a D or an R, the second letter does look like an I, and I can't make out the 3rd and 4th letters but the fact that it's in quotes is telling to me. That suggests that maybe it means "DISC" and not something similar like "RISK", and the fact that it's in quotes may infer that although that's what people were calling it, it really wasn't what people were calling it, in other words, it didn't have a disc shape. That's my take on it which I can't prove any more than anyone else's interpretation. The Air Force report says the memo is unintelligible. They sent it to experts for analysis. Regarding that word "Disc" I agree it's not conclusive but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to people that claim that's what it says, and pointing out that when the FBI described "the DISC" it was a 6 sided object attached to a balloon. So I think they were calling it a DISC even though it looks nothing like what you or I would consider a DISC.

So did the terms "flying saucer" and "flying disk" have other-wordly connotations? Of course they did, however in the context of the FBI memo referring to the Roswell "DISC" as what sounds like something shaped like a radar target, attached to a balloon, I don't think the context was other-worldly in that case since balloons can't leave Earth's upper atmosphere, so it sounds like a terrestrial usage of the term in that specific case. But in other cases I'm sure the connotation was other-worldly.

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:35 PM
If you're still in doubt about Roswell, try reading the account of a former Roswell believer/researcher, Kent Jeffries:

The 1948 Military Documents

For me, the beginning of the end for the Roswell UFO case came last spring, when I first saw one of a number of previously classified military documents dealing with unidentified flying objects. The 289-page document was released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in March 1996 in response to a FOIA request by researcher William LaParl. It contained the minutes of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Conference at the Pentagon on March 17 and 18, 1948. Buried in the document is a very interesting statement by a Colonel Howard McCoy which referred to a number of unpublished UFO reports. The last sentence of McCoy's statement, however, is devastating to the Roswell case.

And it's a humdinger, as far as Jeffries is concerned:

"We have a new project -- Project SIGN -- which may surprise you as a development from the so-called mass hysteria of the past Summer when we had all the unidentified flying objects or discs. This can't be laughed off. We have over 300 reports which haven't been publicized in the papers from very competent personnel, in many instances -- men as capable as Dr. K. D. Wood, and practically all Air Force, Airline people with broad experience. We are running down every report. I can't even tell you how much we would give to have one of those crash in an area so that we could recover whatever they are."

So how did he react to seeing that? Like any Roswell believer would, initially.....

My first reaction to this statement was one of disbelief. Thoughts came to mind like- This can't be correct, there must be some mistake, this guy didn't know, etc. We are probably all somewhat prone to such initial reactions of denial when confronted with facts that conflict with our preconceived notions of reality or our established beliefs.

I think you'll find the rest of the article interesting. He, like many others, WANT to believe, but the facts only add up to what the Air Force claims, for the most part.

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:37 PM

Originally posted by Tearman
Is there a high-resolution copy available on the internet of the Roswell Daily Record page that shows the headline: "RAAF captures flying saucer..."?
I don't know, but here's a link to get you started in your search:

Edit to say it looks like you'll have to click reply, and copy and paste the link into your browser.

Or if you're looking for a transcript of what the article says, you'll find it here:

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

What measures? Claiming a big balloon was really a little weather balloon so the soviets wouldn't wonder what the big balloon was for? That doesn't seem like such an extreme measure to me, in fact it wasn't an issue from 1947 to about 1978 or so.

They changed the story several times over several decades, basically bold faced lies and intimidation of witnesses. I call that extreme YES.

And I noticed the people yakking about getting threatened are still alive to talk about it. Would they threaten somebody about talking about a top secret balloon project?

A top secret balloon project ? Maybe but they changed the story in 1997 and several times before. But to deny it so long a top secret balloon really? Much of the time when threats are made it is for psychological purposes. Usually when threats are made the person making threats does not follow through it is a bluff.

Maybe, but I don't see why that's so strange. It had the same classification as the atomic bomb and I could imagine them threatening anyone against talking about that.

This was the 1940's we are talking about here,the military is much more PC today than what it use to be. All these people just making up something like that? Accusing our military of threats? These people im sure loves their country and to make an accusation like that is not easy thing to do. Why would they make it up?

Look it was a great mystery before 1994, when we all knew they were lying based on Marcel's description of the debris field containing too much material for a weather balloon, and Marcel was right. It just doesn't seem like a mystery since 1994 though, everything adds up.

NO it is no longer a mystery... obvious a saucer with bodies crashed. Yes it adds up especially since the 1997 crash test dummies excuse.

Which was a lie

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Unknown Soldier]

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:11 PM
Ok, so we have several versions of the same story but all with the same theme, that something crashed. I really don't think all the people involved lied, but the government does lie. I do think the story is true. The exotic nature of the debris found in 1947 means we did not make it, ET did. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Somebody has the hard physical evidence and it will show up soon, that I'm sure of. It will be interesting to see the official government reaction when does.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in