Former Area 51 Employee Ed Fouche

next problem, video 6, he talks about the MJ12 documents and openly says he re typed them and filled in the blanks with who he felt was the most likely person to fit the space! oh dear!. then he goes on to mention the "alien autopsy" as if its real, now someone correct me if im wrong but im assuming he means ray santilli's fake alien autopsy video?.

so basically hes using a known fake video to try and validate some documents he admittedly has worked on?.

thanks

rich

reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND


ok well first to your post before this one.

my guess on the sr-75-74 is because the satellites are top secret themselves. i really dont think countries like china, russia, etc would be too happy with us putting high tech communication sats in orbit without letting them have some access to them. of course that is just imo.

now for the rewriting part i am just getting to that video now just started it. but for the alien autopsy.

yes it is a known remake of the original. you can actually get copies of the frames they used from the original tapes in the remake.

the original tapes were damaged pretty badly plus they degraded. of course i am not positive on the story. but i have seen some of the frames they talk about and it is quite a different "thing on the table".

i will try to find some links to it. it has been a very long time since i looked it up.

now to vid 6

ok,last but not least, video 7, he claims there's a holographic generator that projects a fake cover on the front of the mountain side hanger that houses the TR-3B and this holograph is impenentrable by all sensors on any satellite and all that can be seen is mountain.... really?.

my overall view of this guy and his claims after watching all these videos is that he is full of ****, hes mixing a bit of truth with a whole load of b.s just to sell books and make money from the gullible, i think hes resurfaced now just to ride the crest of the recent upsurge in interest in this subject.

i will still await his "evidence" with interest but i honestly dont expect much!.

of course, i could be wrong, and i would happily eat my words and post a thousand apologies on this thread if he should somehow manage to produce some undeniable beyond a shadow of a doubt proof of his claims but i wont hold my breath.

thanks

rich

reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND


this is not exactly proof but.

csat.au.af.mil...

check it out. it talks about the holography CCD

I think ED is telling a lot of truth about what he
claims to have worked on and seen, as for Dr
DAN BURISCH well he is just a hoaxer imo.

there is some great information in this thread.
i for one am going to buy ed's book and i have
enjoyed all the links/vids presented so far.
Do carry on.less of the Dr? DAN tho please.

reply to post by luciferxe


im not saying holography isn't possible, im saying his claim that a holograph is impenentrable by all sensors is ridiculous!.

and in reply to your other post, im quite sure america has plenty of satellites that russia, china etc has absolutely no access to! so i miss your point!.

and as for the video, each to their own, personally i think its all b.s, ray santilli tried to pass it off as real until he got caught out then changed his story to it being a remake.... i dont buy it.

thanks

rich

reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND


i do see what you mean. i am on the look for the papers i once had. they explained a way of creating a hologram(different word tho) that could be read as matter. it was no secret 2 years ago. as it was on MIT's website.
it could fool IR, radar, and laser sensors. once i find it i will post the link.

as for sats. that was my fault on wording. i should not have used the word control. what i meant is more along the lines.

whe we or any other country launches a rocket we tend to let the other nations know as well as they tend to let us know. not what the sats do but that there are say 9 sats on a rocket.

if other countries knew we were throwing 50-100 a year up there without there knowledge it may be a point to start a war. as they do not know what the sats are for. for all they know they could be using them to intercept communications or hack there networks.

yes it is possible to hack any computer remotely. the problem is you need to match the frequency of the cpu and all other parts of the computer to access the data going through. when you use a cpu say intel i5 @3.2ghz. in reality the cpu is something like 3,199,002,015.187hz. then the next one on production line is 3,201,042,516.718. they never are exactly the same like a snow flake.

ok got off subject in a way. but my point is we could be putting anything in orbit and they would not know. heck they could be filled with suitcase nukes and ready to drop when needed. would we want other countries knowing we are putting these in the skies?

i believe he speaks some truth. but i also think he speaks a bit of BS.

we also know the month and day he was born but not the year now. feb 22.that should help narrow down which one he is.

as for the autopsy video. that one can be taken with a grain of salt. as i said only a few frames supposedly made it out in ok condition.

sadly i have access to VHS tapes and other documents on paper and i do not own any way to transfer them to my pc. either the videos or the docs as i do not own a scanner. i am broke. there are reasons i am not allowed to have money.(TPTB)

the vids are not of the autopsy. but they are of people at area 51 with a prototype in the vid also. these are copies of the original magnetic tapes.

i can not vouch for everything i have being true as i did not make the recordings. but these have never been seen anywhere. i have received them from family and friends that have worked there and nellis etc. some are still active at these places.

if anyone knows where in RI i can get these transferred or looked at by someone qualified please let me know.

back to subject again. i think he hid some truths as i do not think he knew everyone that was at the conference. for all we know there could have been someone watching him from the crowd. if you notice he keeps looking at what seems to be a single person in the audience after the second video until he leaves.

body language tells a lot too. and he was nervous towards the end of vid 6. he didnt even want to get to the Q&A. he was trying to burn the time at the end.

one other reason i think he may be speaking the truth is the people i talk to do talk about goggles.

reply to post by luciferxe


well on the satellites, what you seem to be missing is that it wouldn't matter one bit how they were launched, secret or not, the launch would be detected whether it be from a stealth plane or a rocket and once in orbit would be detected so that kind of defeats the whole object of a secret launch!. making it a pointless, expensive and dangerous task!.

i agree that he seems nervous but i dont think for the reasons you do. just for one minute we assume this is true then i would say if the government was gonna put a stop to him they would have done it long ago and in my opinion would not risk turning him into a martyr or add credence to his claims by doing anything now.

i think hes nervous because hes telling porkys and wants to avoid any q and a as much as possible to avoid any awkward questions....

thanks

rich

Well opinions...everyone seems to have one and I thank you guys so far for all your opinions!


One can see AlienScientist's interest in Edgar Fouche in this video put out in 2009.

Now you can take whatever you want from Edgar Fouche's presentation. The only thing I care about is advancing science for the benefit of humanity, so my focus is on the quasi-crystals, meta-materials, and anti-gravity technology. and exposing that before it can be used against us in the next False Flag Attack. It's most likely that all the UFOs which have been spotted around Area 51 are NOT aliens, but man made secret craft. People need to be aware of this technology. The optical capabilities of meta-materials enable both invisibility as well as holographic technologies. The evidence from 9/11 points to remote control planes and not holograms, but it's definitely something people need to be looking for when the next event happens. We need full scale immediate investigation. So anyone with a video camera would need to get on scene and start collecting evidence. AlienScientist

btw yanno....AS and Ed seem to be answering questions down at You Tube...just saying.

reply to post by KIZZZY


interesting video kiz, thanks for sharing, and yes you are correct, all we can ever do is give our opinion because really we don't stand much chance of proving any of these claims either way and in my opinion the claimants know this only too well. i think ed fouche obviously has a background of some sort but has used it to create and sell a not so true story!. pretty much like philip corso i might add....

thanks

rich

Originally posted by airspoon
Now I know that you pasted the statement apparently from Ed about the name Rothschild, but if he was willing to lie for the sale of books, then what else would he be willing to lie for?

Furthermore, I have only gotten past the first few minutes of the video and already I'm seeing red flags go up. This guy apparently worked at Groom Lake on classified projects, yet is standing up giving presentations on those projects. He even admits that he will be discussing these classified projects. Well, that is against the law and if he worled on classified projects as a civillian, then he undoubtedly signed a plethora of documents promissing to keep his mouth shut on those projects. For military serivce members, it is against the law period, though I'm not too sure about the differences in law between a civillian and service member for classified information.

Good comments, I was wondering the same thing. There are several aspects to consider:

1. If the project was classified when he was working on it, but has since been declassified, he might be able to talk now about the parts that have been declassified?

2. He mentions consulting with a Judge Advocate General (JAG) military type law expert who could tell him what he could and could not write about. He said he was planning to write fiction about military technology (OK is that a hint there? The "fiction" part"?) and was told he could write fiction as long as he met certain criteria, such as, he couldn't discuss classified projects he himself had worked on, but he could talk about what other people had told him if he didn't use any real names so the sources would be anonymous. Then he sort of jokes about how he didn't want to give them too much information about what he was going to write about, like interviewing SR-71 pilots about their UFO experiences.

3. He says none of the pilots who have amazing stories about UFOs to tell will come forward because they stand to lose their pensions and benefits (Then he adds, "Of course I stand to lose mine too"). Anyone else see the conflict there? I guess he's saying none of the pilots are willing to risk losing their pensions, but he is? But I submit that according to HIS words (in the middle of part 3 of the videos) he asked if he could write fiction, so I'd say if it's fiction he doesn't have to worry about losing his pension.

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
he talks about the MJ12 documents and openly says he re typed them and filled in the blanks with who he felt was the most likely person to fit the space! oh dear!.

The retyped documents are on AlienScientist site. The fact that they are retyped is bad enough, but not even a photo of the originals. The very existence of MJ12 is still in question... and most of us here at ATS know what real government documents look like I have over 20,000, several UFO reports from the 47-52 time period direct from the NSA itself... and that type writer they used in those days is classic

I would be happy if he showed me just ONE cover page. But retyped and stuff added in? Seriously? I suppose he is playing to a you tube audience.

Don't get me wrong, I would love for this time to be the real deal... but this stuff is over 10 years old already

reply to post by luciferxe


No one is saying that certain technology does not exist... I have thousands of files on stuff that included knowing where bullets are GOING to come from ( official and checked out with Army Intel to make sure I am allowed to have that one)

The point in question is whether Ed can prove the TR3B and his work at Area 51/S4

All you need is to spend hours digging around at .mil sites to get the goodies, but you also need to know the right QUESTION to ask

As to that hollogram info.... did yawl catch this?

Advantages: HCCD would provide a more realistic, multi-dimensional projection that 'moves.' SAM launches, AAA fire, friendly air defense aircraft flying, and weapons explosions are but a few of the action-based events capable of being produced by HCCD. The effects of these projections would at least confuse enemy strike aircraft and at best force them into defensive actions. HCCD would also be more flexible in that multiple holographic programs could be stored and ready for projection on a moments notice when the situation called for that specific program.

Now suppose the no-planers/holograph people in the 9/11 threads got wind of that

reply to post by zorgon


agreed, and although im a very skeptical person these days, i really want contact with intelligent alien life (friendly) to be proven or made in my lifetime, but every one of these claims just brings more disappointment!.

i open every thread and look at every pic and vid with an open mind in the hope of seeing something of real interest, but almost always end up shaking my head in disbelief!.

i honestly dont know how i made it through the full lot of those videos after he failed to get basic facts right within the first few minutes!. lol

thanks

rich

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
the YF-22 and F-22 are different planes, and although boeing is a major contractor the prime contractor is lockheed martin. surely a so called "airforce expert" would get these things right if he expects to be taken seriously ?!!!.

Excellent point, it is details like this that have to make you wonder about the credibility of what he says, and this information is readily available so there's no reason he should be getting it wrong.

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
another small problem with video 2, he says the A-12 was designated as the SR-71 when the airforce took over operations again he is insinuating they are the same plane under different names when they are not!!!.

en.wikipedia.org...

Well, look at what the A-12 article says:

en.wikipedia.org...

The Lockheed A-12 was a reconnaissance aircraft ...

which first flew in April 1962, was the precursor to both the U.S. Air Force YF-12 interceptor and the famous SR-71 Blackbird reconnaissance aircraft.

So it's not exactly the same aircraft but they do call the A-12 the precursor to the SR-71 and they do look a lot alike. So I'm less inclined to pick on this claim unlike his Boeing F-22 claim where he clearly got it dead wrong.

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
i have a problem with a claim fouche makes in video 3, he talks about removing an access panel from a module in 1975 and coming across some microchips with over 500 pins and capable of 1 billion cycles per second, now if this were true then surely these chips would be common place by now, at least in the military, so why is it that the military has bought a huge stack of playstation 3 consoles in recent years to make cheap supercomputers.

also if i remember correctly a microchip becomes less than optimal after 128 bit and thats why chip manufacturer's have all gone multicore, and i assume a chip with over 500 pins would be far more than 128 bit. im not a computer expert by any stretch but what he says makes no sense to me.

Actually yes it was 500 pins (that part seems possible to me) and 1 billion cycles per second (that's the part I'm not sure was possible in 1975 for a computer frequency). The number of pins out is not directly related to the number of bits in the operating system. Today's mainstream processors are all 64 bit, and the pin configuration for the most popular Intel processors includes LGA775 (775 pins) and more recently the LGA 1156 and the LGA 1366 (both with that many pins) to replace the LGA 775:

LGA 1366

This socket has 1,366 protruding pins which touch contact points on the underside of the processor (CPU)

I agree that's a lot of pins for a 64 bit operating system but there are reasons it has so many pins which go beyond the OS.

And no just because they spent 200 million dollars (or whatever) developing some non-mass produced chips doesn't mean the chips would be mass produced. He said it had an NSA nameplate labeling it as "Direct Orbital Communications Link" (DOCL). It was used for remote piloting one or two air force orbital vehicles so there would be no demand to mass produce chips for such a device. You might want a few spares but that's it.

I think there is a mixture of fact and fiction, along with misremembering details in his stories. I'm not sure I can tell which is which. For example he says 1 billion cycles a second, then 1 billion cycles a second again, then he mentions 4 billion cycles a second, which was probably confused with the 4 million cycles a second clock speed of the 8088CPU of the time he compared it to. actually that 8088 wasn't even out yet in 1975, the 8080 would have been the available CPU and it only ran at 2 million cycles per second clock rate and according to Wiki was used in the Altair 8800 and the cruise missile: en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Phage
The microchip claim is problematic. Did he count the pins himself? How did he know the clock rate of the chip? Just by looking at it? Of course it is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim, is it? So it really doesn't matter.

If the pins were arranged in say 20x25 layout he'd only need to count the rows and columns, not the number of pins.
He says there was a BNC clock synchronization connector on the back of the unit and he hooked up a frequency counter and found it was at 1 billion cycles a second. But since as he said 4 million cycles a second was pretty decent speed in 1975, I'm surprised it wouldn't be off the scale of his frequency counter? Here's an old frequency counter from 1993 and it barely goes over 1 billion cycles a second (1.3 billion) even in 1993, but I'm not sure what was available in 1975, especially to top secret clearance folks. www.repeater-builder.com...

One question I have to wonder about, is if the 1 billion cycles a second isn't the processor frequency, but perhaps a communications frequency? Frequencies from 960-1164MHZ which is about 1 billion cycles a second as Fouche claims, are shown on page 31 of the current FCC list as reserved for "Aeronautical Radionavigation" www.fcc.gov... and the purpose of the device he described sounds exactly like "Aeronautical Radionavigation" to me.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


i have to disagree a bit, the A-12 is very different to the SR-71 just as much as the YF-22 is different to the production F-22, and both are precursor aircraft.

thanks

rich

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

i have to disagree a bit, the A-12 is very different to the SR-71 just as much as the YF-22 is different to the production F-22, and both are precursor aircraft.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the "very different", in fact as this site saying the differences are significant says, most people would have trouble telling them apart from a photo:

roadrunnersinternationale.com...

Most people, when shown a picture of an A-12 identify it as an SR-71", if there was any recognition at all on their part. But they would be wrong. Few are able to note the differences between the two craft at any distance, but the differences are significant....

The numbers show that the A-12 was a little faster and could climb a little higher than the SR-71. It was, after all, a significantly lighter aircraft. Of course, the A-12 couldn't carry as much fuel, and its sensor payload was less, but an A-12 was spared the need for a 2-man crew. Overall, the two craft are more alike than they are different.

Also, as you point out by using the word "insinuate", Fouche doesn't really claim the planes are identical. I think the essence of what he says is more or less not too far off if you don't try to imply things he didn't say.

However I'm not too eager to defend him, I suspect some of what he says is fabricated, and certainly so far he has provided no proof, it will be interesting to see if he does.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


yes, we agree to disagree! lol, i for one can tell them apart, the chines are different on the front end, the SR-71 looks wider and flatter around the front. and yes although he doesn't exactly say the exact words "they are the same, he does say "the A-12 was designated as the SR-71 when the airforce took over operations" which is not true. but anyway, like i said earlier, he obviously has some background in the field but in my opinion has used his real background to make a fake background sound believable to people that dont know any better.

im not sure what it is with these people but maybe its something to do with them wanting to still feel important after their military/scientific career is over, and its just an easy way to make money when their old jobs give them credibility.

these people only seem to come forward with stories after they retire or their career ends for one reason or another, they never seem to come forward while still employed yet if whistle blowing and making these revelations public was as important as they make out then you would expect someone to do it while still employed!.

and as someone else pointed out earlier, if these people really did have something to share then surely they would make damn sure they had absolute proof before going public!.

thanks

rich

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4434db0ba58c.jpg[/atsimg]



I can see at a quick glance or angled shot anyone making a mistake. They do look

pretty similar. Also, he must have been very nervous, after all instead of saying

"Astronomy" courses he inadvertently used the word "Astrology"!

Airplanes airplanes and more airplanes...

Where is the TR3B
Where are the S4 documents