Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Ramey Memo: Best Roswell Evidence Ever Found

page: 12
106
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


You make it easy Shrike. I listed you as a rival, someone that will disagree with me. Not an enemy, I'm not googling you to come fight or something. Look at your words, how could i not list you that way. You write like what you say is pure fact, when there are still so many unanswered questions and a lot of controversy involved. You've dedicated a lot of time forming your beliefs, ok me too. Difference is I am not saying my way is the only way. I'm saying I'm still open to the fact it's not concrete either way. I'm just expressing my point of view, and even in what I wrote prior stated it was fine to have your opinion. You come out swing and acting like you have final say over the matter and that's not the way this works. Way to many conflicting statements and actions to not be covering up something. As I stated I don't know exactly what happened because of the cloud the military put over the event, but I'm sorry if what i believe and you believe don't jive. You are on a conspiracy style site and upset that the majority of people here are believers and don't side with you when you state your opinion. I'm not unintelligent by any means, I try to be open to the truth, but will not have someone else's version of the truth thrust upon me because they get upset. Show me the proof it wasn't what the air force initially claimed. Show me how a military organization can make such a dramatic claim, then try to play it off with such a simple claim. If they had said it was a test plane, but further details were classified this would be long forgotten. Facts speak volumes. I'm a believer as any religious person is a believer, I have faith that certain things happen or have happened. If the day comes when they can eliminate all the doubt and secrecy surrounding this great. They haven't, they still avoid it like the plague. They still black out documents about the incident. Claimed for years that all kinds of stuff isn't, hasn't wasn't couldn't, etc... We aren't all wrong. I still respect your opinion, i just don't agree with it.




posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyeoftruth
reply to post by The Shrike
 


You make it easy Shrike. I listed you as a rival, someone that will disagree with me. Not an enemy, I'm not googling you to come fight or something. Look at your words, how could i not list you that way. You write like what you say is pure fact, when there are still so many unanswered questions and a lot of controversy involved. You've dedicated a lot of time forming your beliefs, ok me too. Difference is I am not saying my way is the only way. I'm saying I'm still open to the fact it's not concrete either way. I'm just expressing my point of view, and even in what I wrote prior stated it was fine to have your opinion. You come out swing and acting like you have final say over the matter and that's not the way this works. Way to many conflicting statements and actions to not be covering up something. As I stated I don't know exactly what happened because of the cloud the military put over the event, but I'm sorry if what i believe and you believe don't jive. You are on a conspiracy style site and upset that the majority of people here are believers and don't side with you when you state your opinion. I'm not unintelligent by any means, I try to be open to the truth, but will not have someone else's version of the truth thrust upon me because they get upset. Show me the proof it wasn't what the air force initially claimed. Show me how a military organization can make such a dramatic claim, then try to play it off with such a simple claim. If they had said it was a test plane, but further details were classified this would be long forgotten. Facts speak volumes. I'm a believer as any religious person is a believer, I have faith that certain things happen or have happened. If the day comes when they can eliminate all the doubt and secrecy surrounding this great. They haven't, they still avoid it like the plague. They still black out documents about the incident. Claimed for years that all kinds of stuff isn't, hasn't wasn't couldn't, etc... We aren't all wrong. I still respect your opinion, i just don't agree with it.


Is this or is this not your quote: "Ok, I have been reading all of the Shrike's comments. Obviously you are a vehement disbeliever in UFOs..." To me those are "fighting words" and I'll "come out swinging" at anyone who expresses a similar thought. So stand up and admit you speak without being factual. I reacted to that accusation. E-e-x-c-u-s-e me! You are entitled to believe all you want about Roswell, but I don't consider support for a UFO crash based on "critical thinking".



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Yes, I did say that. For in this post you continuously claim you are a debunker of UFOs. You then say you are a disbeliever in Aliens, but not UFOs. I'm confused, can you explain to me where you think a UFO might originate if not from an alien civilization. I am open minded as I said. I've heard inter-dimensional theories, travel theories, and some have there merits. As far as standing up and critical thinking are concerned. I have my posts there for all to see as well, not hiding my opinion. So now it's critical thinking to have an open mind and a belief in something that has yet to be proven or dis-proven. Don't tell the pope. We disagree on this, correct. Ok, I'm fine with that, but getting all worked up and saying because i called you a disbeliever instead of a debunker that those are fighting words, come on now. You keep insulting me, but not once have i insulted you, said you were wrong, told you you're ignorant, or otherwise. I'm happy to debate issues and love finding out new information, this is a passion of mine since I was a teen and had an experience myself. Been looking for the truth, not always with fervor, but it has always been there. I'm not critical in my thinking, just not so quick to dismiss things maybe.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyeoftruth
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Yes, I did say that. For in this post you continuously claim you are a debunker of UFOs. You then say you are a disbeliever in Aliens, but not UFOs. I'm confused, can you explain to me where you think a UFO might originate if not from an alien civilization. I am open minded as I said. I've heard inter-dimensional theories, travel theories, and some have there merits. As far as standing up and critical thinking are concerned. I have my posts there for all to see as well, not hiding my opinion. So now it's critical thinking to have an open mind and a belief in something that has yet to be proven or dis-proven. Don't tell the pope. We disagree on this, correct. Ok, I'm fine with that, but getting all worked up and saying because i called you a disbeliever instead of a debunker that those are fighting words, come on now. You keep insulting me, but not once have i insulted you, said you were wrong, told you you're ignorant, or otherwise. I'm happy to debate issues and love finding out new information, this is a passion of mine since I was a teen and had an experience myself. Been looking for the truth, not always with fervor, but it has always been there. I'm not critical in my thinking, just not so quick to dismiss things maybe.


Again I have to point out that you're wrong. You can search ATS and the Internet and you are not going to find any comments attributed to me as "continuously claim you are a debunker of UFOs", it doesn't exist. If you can find it and post the source here, I'll quit posting in the Aliens and UFOs forum. Now, isn't that something to shoot for?

I can speculate all day long about where I think UFOs originate but that would be an uneducated opinion. I have no idea. However, I do not entertain the notion that they originate from deep in the universe as all we have is them scooting over the lunar surface and on NASA space videos. No astronomer has ever gone on the news and said that they've seen any UFOs from the Orion Nebula, the Milky Way, etc. Some have claimed to see UFOs in the vicinity of the near and known planets but the evidence is kind of weak for veracity.

As far as "alien civilization", no evidence for that, yet. There's a possibility that if there are "beings" in the UFOs that they might or might not resemble us. If there are beings in the UFOs and they resemble us, logic dictates that it's probably us from the future. If they don't look like us, heaven help us!

You have "insulted" me by making unsubstantiated statements which I've pointed out. It's okay to do so in jest as I have with Zorgon and others, and have also done so seriously when I detect that the person is not operating with all cylinders and the quality of the threads and/or replies reflect that.

It's not a problem for me to dismiss claims when no evidence is offered, just hearsay. Hearsay can be entertaining, but don't offer it as more than that if you can't back it up with irrefutable evidence. The research that I quote by people such as Pflock, Todd, Korff can be verified or not but it's out there for all to see. Not blind belief.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Could it be that there were two recoveries from the Brazel ranch, pieces of metal from a disc and remains of a balloon and radar target at one place and then the bulk of the disc at another, with Marcel only exposed to material at the first site ?

Also does anyone know what procedures and authorisation were required for the initial "we have recovered a disc" press release - did Marcel have the position able to release without upwards referral or would he, in effect, be instructed or ordered to release something ?

I can't find any references to any other releases prior to this event from Marcel ?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
Could it be that there were two recoveries from the Brazel ranch, pieces of metal from a disc and remains of a balloon and radar target at one place and then the bulk of the disc at another, with Marcel only exposed to material at the first site ?
It's actually called the Foster Ranch, Brazel was running it I think.

One of the theories is similar to that, that Marcel saw balloon debris and there was a second crash site somewhere. While I'm sure there WAS another crash site, I'm not sure it was in 1947 and there's no newspaper article in 1947 about a second crash site.

My guess is, the other crash people recall happened years later and they confabulated it to have occurred in 1947, but in any case I've never seen any good (meaning 1947 era) evidence for the second crash site. Decades later people can dream up all kinds of confabulations, so I trust 1947 documentation way more than recollections from 1979 about what happened 32 years ago.

Your other question is good but I don't have an answer for that.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


There is evidence and witnesses that support two separate crash sites after the 4th.


Could it be that there were two recoveries from the Brazel ranch, pieces of metal from a disc and remains of a balloon and radar target at one place and then the bulk of the disc at another, with Marcel only exposed to material at the first site ?


While there is evidence of two crash sites (one on the Foster ranch, where Brazel worked, and another, more remote site), I don't believe Brazel's site contained the bodies, going from the witness testimonies...just debris, and no, not the bulk of whatever was regarded as the "disc". However, as Mac was detained by the military, it appears he may have been informed of the other crash site, bodies, and the overall situation on the first day of detention and escort (he was escorted back to town after the story broke, to give new testimony), according to Frank Joyce, as Mac told him "they weren't green", etc.


Also does anyone know what procedures and authorisation were required for the initial "we have recovered a disc" press release - did Marcel have the position able to release without upwards referral or would he, in effect, be instructed or ordered to release something ?


The decision for the press release was done at the base level, not higher headquarters (at least from all the witness statements). Marcel was a senior intelligence office and reported his findings, but the base commander called for the press release. According to all sources, Ramey was highly upset by the story (which he would be, whether a UFO or Mogul)...and quickly enacted the weather balloon cover story.


I can't find any references to any other releases prior to this event from Marcel ?


Marcel (other than the original press release) is the starting point for the revelation of the event. Stanton Friedman was advised to seek him out, and it was his interview with him (in the 70's, I believe) that served as the catalyst for the other witnesses to come forward with their testimonies.


One of the theories is similar to that, that Marcel saw balloon debris and there was a second crash site somewhere. While I'm sure there WAS another crash site, I'm not sure it was in 1947 and there's no newspaper article in 1947 about a second crash site.


If we believe the witness testimonies, and location of the barricades seen by witnesses, the second site (not Brazel's) was recovered just a couple days prior to Brazel reporting his find. This second site is where the reports of bodies come from, as well as the larger, more intact craft reports. It was allegedly recovered on about the 5th or 6th (I'd have to check my research on the exact date). This was a remote site, and had less witnesses come forward (notably a fireman and some folks who saw the military cordon in the area).



edit on 3-1-2011 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


While there is evidence of two crash sites (one on the Foster ranch, where Brazel worked, and another, more remote site), I don't believe Brazel's site contained the bodies, going from the witness testimonies...just debris, and no, not the bulk of whatever was regarded as the "disc". However, as Mac was detained by the military, it appears he may have been informed of the other crash site, bodies, and the overall situation on the first day of detention and escort (he was escorted back to town after the story broke, to give new testimony), according to Frank Joyce, as Mac told him "they weren't green", etc.


According to Carey & Schmitt from "Witness to Roswell", there is now witness testimony of a body or bodies out at the Foster Ranch site not far from the debris field, maybe the "last straw" sending Brazel to Roswell to report the crash. One witness was Frank Joyce himself, who said Brazel was talking about small, stinking, nonhuman bodies when he first came to Roswell, and was extremely upset about it. Joyce suggested he contact the base.

However, the witness testimony to bodies out at the Foster Ranch is currently rather thin. Marcel never mentioned it publicly, though a few witnesses who knew him said he did briefly allude to bodies, such as saying they were pale and resembled Casper the Ghost, possibly meaning they also had big heads and eyes, as described by others. Taking these statements at face value, whether Marcel personally saw the bodies or was briefed about them, I don't know. Marcel did say in one interview there were things he knew about the case that he would never reveal publicly, "For the sake of my country," possibly meaning he too felt they would be too disturbing to many people.



Also does anyone know what procedures and authorisation were required for the initial "we have recovered a disc" press release - did Marcel have the position able to release without upwards referral or would he, in effect, be instructed or ordered to release something ?


The decision for the press release was done at the base level, not higher headquarters (at least from all the witness statements). Marcel was a senior intelligence office and reported his findings, but the base commander called for the press release. According to all sources, Ramey was highly upset by the story (which he would be, whether a UFO or Mogul)...and quickly enacted the weather balloon cover story.


According to Walter Haut, the Public Information Officer who put out the release, it was likely cleared from higher headquarters, namely the Pentagon. Also any final version would have been reviewed and cleared by base commander Col. Blanchard. Neither Marcel nor Haut could put out a release like this on their own. Nonetheless, Haut was generally the scapegoat back in 1947 by Associated Press. (The press never blamed Marcel.) United Press, however, referred to it as Blanchard's press release.

I have never seen any witness referring to Ramey being upset. If Ramey was upset, I have no doubt he would have taken out his wrath in some way on those responsible, people such as Blanchard, Marcel, and Haut. Never happened. Blanchard was eventually promoted right to the top of the AF; Marcel received a promotion afterward and praise from Ramey a year later.

Rather, Haut said in an interview and affidavit that Ramey actually flew out the the base on the morning of July 8 to attend the staff meeting. At the meeting, everyone was briefed about the two crash sites and Ramey said they were going to cover it up, though Haut said he didn't know how at the time. Haut also indicated he thought Ramey was following orders from the Pentagon. The press release of the flying disc came out early that afternoon, with Ramey, now back at Fort Worth, quickly changing it to weather balloon and debunking the incident. Haut's affidavit and interview:

www.roswellproof.com...

According to Haut, many civilians in the Roswell area had already heard of the second crash site with the craft and bodies, so the press release was a diversion, acknowledging the more distant and less-important Foster Ranch crash site and that something had been recovered, then quickly shifting the focus away from Roswell to Fort Worth, where the "disc" was allegedly flown. Ramey took it from there. As Ramey's chief of staff Brig. Gen. Thomas Dubose wrote in his affidavit, Ramey's weather balloon shown in the photos was nothing but a cover story to divert the attention of the press.



Marcel (other than the original press release) is the starting point for the revelation of the event. Stanton Friedman was advised to seek him out, and it was his interview with him (in the 70's, I believe) that served as the catalyst for the other witnesses to come forward with their testimonies.


Marcel was the first MAJOR witness, but there had been a few witnesses before. Most notably Lydia Sleppy was found by Stanton Friedman several years before Marcel. Sleppy was an Albuquerque teletype operator, who said a Roswell reporter (Johnny McBoyle) had phoned in the story of going out to the ranch and seeing a crushed object like a large dishpan that the military was hauling away. As Sleppy was putting out the story to their Los Angeles ABC affiliate, the transmission was interrupted by someone identifying themselves as the FBI ordering them to cease transmission. McBoyle also seemed to be interrupted on the phone line and told them to forget it. The only other thing they got out of him was he had heard about planes coming in from Wright Field to fly it out.



One of the theories is similar to that, that Marcel saw balloon debris and there was a second crash site somewhere. While I'm sure there WAS another crash site, I'm not sure it was in 1947 and there's no newspaper article in 1947 about a second crash site.


If we believe the witness testimonies, and location of the barricades seen by witnesses, the second site (not Brazel's) was recovered just a couple days prior to Brazel reporting his find. This second site is where the reports of bodies come from, as well as the larger, more intact craft reports. It was allegedly recovered on about the 5th or 6th (I'd have to check my research on the exact date). This was a remote site, and had less witnesses come forward (notably a fireman and some folks who saw the military cordon in the area).


This is the old scenario of Randle/Schmitt, based on bogus testimony of Frank Kaufmann. According to Walter Haut in his second affidavit, the second site closer to Roswell with a small craft and bodies was found by civilians July 7 while Marcel and Cavitt were investigating the Foster Ranch debris field site. Recovery began the same day and was finished by the afternoon of July 8, when the crash object was hauled on a flat-bed truck covered with a tarp through the center of Roswell on its way to the base. There were approximately half a dozen eyewitnesses found by Carey and Schmitt to this. Another witness at the base, Sgt. Earl Fulford, said his friend was driving the truck, and saw him take it to base hangar. Walter Haut, soon after, said Blanchard took him to the hangar where he personally saw the small egg-shaped craft (escape pod?) and several small bodies laid out on the hangar floor.

An interesting and little-known witness to the second crash site was 1st Lt. Chester Barton, who said he was sent to it by the Provost Marshal Edwin Easley to check on the clean-up. It was heavily guarded by Easley's MPs, who wouldn't let him get too close because of radiation. He saw several large burned areas and a few pieces of metallic debris still scattered around. He was also told bodies had been taken to the base hospital and later heard they were flown to Texas. He assumed a B-29 had crashed (though saw no recognizable plane parts), perhaps with a nuke on board, and the bodies referred to the flight crew. (However, there are no records of anything like this happening, which should be in the public record now.) He was aware of the flying disc rumors and the story of the weather balloon, but knew it couldn't possibly have anything to do with a balloon.

The story is interesting because the witness was actually a skeptic to the idea of a flying saucer crash, but confirmed a second crash site with bodies and heavy security, as did other witnesses. Also the interviewer Joseph Stefula, had been a big skeptic, but changed his mind after interviewing Barton, concluding clearly something other than a balloon crash must have happened. More details can be found here:

www.roswellproof.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Monts
 


well i must say his deciphering of the letter is quite compelling, in the video u can see that some of the words seem to match. however some of the words were rather difficult to see, they should get him to try and decipher the voynich manuscript lol



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
You became a PITA, not worth my time. I contacted you privately because what I wanted to say could have resulted in my being banned. Besides, what I wanted to say to you would have been wasted in a public forum. But like an old fart, you have to air what should have been kept private. So as to keep me from generatig another private message which will be a waste of my time anyway, how about we agree to disagree and you ignore my threads and replies? So to repeat myself # off!


Yes I see you still haven't answered the question.

And what is a PITA? Are you actually calling me a type of bread?

I never said I agreed or disagreed with your conclusion its just that anybody who questions you or your methods you seem to take it as a personal attack. That is not critical or rational thinking - it is emotional thinking.

And as for ignoring your posts - I think I will actually follow your posts - sounds like its going to a great source of comedy.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

We have Phage, Jim Oberg, me, and others who are rational thinkers and don't accept anything willy nilly, dealing with believers' "rage".


Again The Shrike ignoring evidence, disparaging and insulting witnesses is not rational or critical thinking - it is belief.

Seriously The Shrike, with comments like these all you are doing is making yourself look foolish and damaging your own credibility and reputation on this site.

The evidence at hand about the whole Roswell issue suggests the answer is still INCONCLUSIVE.
edit on 3/1/1111 by Krusty the Klown because: Afterthought



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by debrisfield
 


If Haut's affidavit is to be believed then what prompted the first "saucer" press release ?

Surely if Ramey had stated the intention was to cover it up how did the first release come to be, there must have been repercussions for that action, unless - and I'll come to that.

I can't believe Marcel would have misidentified any type of balloon, whether weather, radar target or Mogul array as a flying disc. Yet we have his descriptions, with the exception of the "thin metal", as sounding very much like the materials used, although again surely he would have been able to identify balsa wood.

As it stands there are too many contradictions but is there a possible scenario that fits all known facts, after all it is clear something significant happened.

Just assuming a disc was recovered earlier, possibly from the same ranch, it's reasonable to assume Marcel would have been aware. If a decision was made that there were too many civilian witnesses and Marcel is then ordered out to the ranch to collect debris what would he have been thinking. The debris didn't even have to be from a genuine "crash", no need for there to have been a Mogul flight or any downed balloon, whatever was there could have been planted.

The instruction then for the saucer found release followed by the retraction by an obviously confused Marcel, hence no repercussions and any civilian witnesses to the actual recovery given the cover story, Brazel being perhaps one of only a handful of civilians who knew otherwise.

I look forward to further discussion.
edit on 5-1-2011 by chunder because: Edit to say that after re-reading Haut's affidavit the reason for the first release is given and that Marcel was simply the messenger. Sounds reasonable.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
reply to post by debrisfield
 

If Haut's affidavit is to be believed then what prompted the first "saucer" press release ?

Surely if Ramey had stated the intention was to cover it up how did the first release come to be, there must have been repercussions for that action, unless - and I'll come to that.


According to Haut's 2002 affidavit, the press release was a diversion from the just-discovered, even more sensitive site with craft and bodies closer to town:

www.roswellproof.com...


One of the main concerns discussed at the meeting was whether we should go public or not with the discovery. Gen. Ramey proposed a plan, which I believe originated from his bosses at the Pentagon. Attention needed to be diverted from the more important site north of town by acknowledging the other location. Too many civilians were already involved and the press already was informed. I was not completely informed how this would be accomplished. At approximately 9:30 a.m. Col. Blanchard phoned my office and dictated the press release of having in our possession a flying disc, coming from a ranch northwest of Roswell, and Marcel flying the material to higher headquarters.


The press release that was put out was vaguely worded with few details. The site of the ranch was not identified, nor the rancher, nor exactly what was found. Instead it said the so-called "flying disc" was being flown elsewhere ("higher headquarters"). That got the focus out of Roswell, over to Ramey's headquarters in Fort Worth, which the press knew about within an hour. Ramey quickly started debunking the "flying disc" as a weather balloon



I can't believe Marcel would have misidentified any type of balloon, whether weather, radar target or Mogul array as a flying disc. Yet we have his descriptions, with the exception of the "thin metal", as sounding very much like the materials used, although again surely he would have been able to identify balsa wood.


I partly agree and disagree. Marcel described various materials, some resembling balsa wood & aluminum foil in appearance, but NOT in physical properties. For example, the woodlike beams would bend a little, but could not be broken, cut, or burned. Marcel had a number of other debris eyewitnesses backing up his descriptions of debris with unusual physical properties, such as the rancher's son Bill Brazel Jr. and Brazel's neighbor Loretta Proctor.

None of Marcel's debris descriptions fit actual weather balloons, white paper backed with foil from a radar target, any sort of equipment that would be expected from a Mogul balloon, and any sort of balloon rigging such as string or twine. Mack Brazel also specifically denied finding any sort of rigging such as string or wire. That alone is a dead giveaway that this wasn't from a Mogul balloon or any sort of weather balloon.



As it stands there are too many contradictions but is there a possible scenario that fits all known facts, after all it is clear something significant happened.

Just assuming a disc was recovered earlier, possibly from the same ranch, it's reasonable to assume Marcel would have been aware. If a decision was made that there were too many civilian witnesses and Marcel is then ordered out to the ranch to collect debris what would he have been thinking. The debris didn't even have to be from a genuine "crash", no need for there to have been a Mogul flight or any downed balloon, whatever was there could have been planted.

The instruction then for the saucer found release followed by the retraction by an obviously confused Marcel, hence no repercussions and any civilian witnesses to the actual recovery given the cover story, Brazel being perhaps one of only a handful of civilians who knew otherwise.

I look forward to further discussion.

edit on 5-1-2011 by chunder because: Edit to say that after re-reading Haut's affidavit the reason for the first release is given and that Marcel was simply the messenger. Sounds reasonable.


Missed the edit on first go through. Yes Haut gave a reason for the first press release--diversion from main, more secret crash site closer to town. I suppose it is a matter of opinion as to whether this explanation makes sense. Acknowledging any sort of "disc" recovery would be a risky gambit that conceivably could have back-fired. All we know is that it didn't. The press and public readily bought the weather balloon explanation, at least superficially. However, a Gallup poll the following month indicated only 3% of the public thought that weather observation devices might explain the flood of flying discs all over the country. The vast majority of people either had no opinion, thought people were delusional, or believed they were a secret U.S. project being hushed up.

As for your alternate scenario, I currently don't know of any witness testimony to support it (actual disc crash restricted to Foster Ranch). We do have various solid witnesses to a second, closer, more accessible site only about 45 minutes from town where some sort of craft and bodies were found. That made it more sensitive and secret, coupled with more difficult to keep the locals out because of its accessibility. The Foster Ranch was 3 to 4 hours from town, therefore easier to contain.

Thanks for your input.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
Could it be that there were two recoveries from the Brazel ranch, pieces of metal from a disc and remains of a balloon and radar target at one place and then the bulk of the disc at another, with Marcel only exposed to material at the first site ?


Chunder I floated this option earlier in the thread but no-one seemed interested.

When you think about it there was a raging electrical storm that supposedly brought down an alien disc, so how would a weather or experimental balloon fare in the same storm?

The whole area was a testing ground remember.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by debrisfield
 


Do you have any more information about the Gallup poll you mention, especially who commissioned it, exactly when and over what geographical area / demographic target ?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
reply to post by debrisfield
 


Do you have any more information about the Gallup poll you mention, especially who commissioned it, exactly when and over what geographical area / demographic target ?


It came out August 15, 1947. I'm guessing 2 weeks lead time to do the polling, analyze the data, and write it up. There is nothing about who commissioned it, if anyone. Often these large polling companies just poll items on their own rather than have clients. Saying they were polling the "general public", I assume they used standard statistical techniques of polling a large representative cross section of the entire nation (typically around 1000 people for an organization like Gallup).

Overall they indicate that 90% of the public had heard of the flying saucers, similar to the large numbers who had also heard of Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast of 1938 and the Loch Ness monster. In fact, Welles and his broadcast of the "invasion from Mars" was often referenced in relation to the new flying saucers, both in regard to public mass hysteria, but also speculation that maybe this was the real thing.

In contrast, only about half the public knew about the proposed Marshall Plan or the meaning of "balancing the budget".

The only specific demographics cited were level of education, where only 2% of college graduates hadn't heard of the saucers, vs. 17% of those with only grammar school education.

Poll results:

“What do you think these saucers are?”
No answer, don’t know—33%; Imagination, optical illusion, mirage, etc.—29%; Hoax—10%; U.S. secret weapon, part of atomic bomb, etc.—15%; Weather forecasting device—3%; Russian secret weapon—1%; Searchlights on airplanes—3%; Other explanations—9%; Total—102% (Adds to more than 100 percent because some gave more than one answer).



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by debrisfield

Poll results:

“What do you think these saucers are?”
No answer, don’t know—33%; Imagination, optical illusion, mirage, etc.—29%; Hoax—10%; U.S. secret weapon, part of atomic bomb, etc.—15%; Weather forecasting device—3%; Russian secret weapon—1%; Searchlights on airplanes—3%; Other explanations—9%; Total—102% (Adds to more than 100 percent because some gave more than one answer).
It's fascinating to me that extraterrestrials don't even warrant a separate category but they mention a percentage as small as 1% for Russian secret weapon.

I guess the ET explanation must be lumped in the 9% "other explanations".

Very interesting.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by debrisfield
 


The second crash site isn't based on Kaufmann, I don't believe his fabrications. There are other witnesses, mentioned in my Roswell threads, that claim to have seen the craft, and some that saw the military cordon.

As for Marcel and Brazel and the bodies...I haven't seen any testimony that supports them seeing the bodies at the Foster Ranch site, but since Marcel is military, and Brazel was detained by the military, and both recovered debris, it seems likely to me that their knowledge of the bodies would have come during Brazel's detention (and Marcel's return to the base). Granted though, just a supposition.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by debrisfield

Poll results:

“What do you think these saucers are?”
No answer, don’t know—33%; Imagination, optical illusion, mirage, etc.—29%; Hoax—10%; U.S. secret weapon, part of atomic bomb, etc.—15%; Weather forecasting device—3%; Russian secret weapon—1%; Searchlights on airplanes—3%; Other explanations—9%; Total—102% (Adds to more than 100 percent because some gave more than one answer).
It's fascinating to me that extraterrestrials don't even warrant a separate category but they mention a percentage as small as 1% for Russian secret weapon.

I guess the ET explanation must be lumped in the 9% "other explanations"

Very interesting.


More conceivably could have been hidden away in "no answer, don't know", especially if they feared ridicule. There had been a lot of ridicule and debunkery in the press concerning the saucers, generally that the public was suffering from mass hysteria or people were just seeing things. Other comments were only drunks were seeing them.

We'll never know exactly what public belief might have been concerning the ET explanation, because the poll didn't delve into it. There had to have been some who took it seriously judging by the many press articles, editorials, and letters to the editor speculating about it. Generally the speculation was only half-serious or mocking, but there was also some dead-serious speculation. You also get a sense of public fear and anxiety from these articles over what the saucers represented, sometimes explicitly stated.

One early example was a headline in a San Antonio newspaper, June 26, on the Kenneth Arnold June 24 sighting that started it all: "MEN FROM MARS?" Not really a dead-serious headline, but still the possible connection was instantaneous. The next day Kenneth Arnold himself brought up the subject, citing an encounter with a hysterical woman in a cafe, who cried, "There's the man who saw the men from Mars!" Then she ran home to be with her children. He also said a preacher called him to say he was preparing his flock for the "end of the world." The Gallup poll also mentioned such doomsday opinions in the "other" category, including one woman who cited Biblical text, saying he saucers were a sign of the world's end.

BTW, you can get the poll here from news.google.com:

www.tinyurl.com...

Arnold article here:

www.tinyurl.com...

On July 7, two more stories have Arnold further commenting on the ET angle, in one saying he believed that if they weren't some secret military project, he thought they were probably ET, judging by their performance. In another he said he had received fan mail, none of it mocking, some expressing ET beliefs, others religious interpretations (perhaps more of the fundamentalist "end of the world" beliefs).

There were two articles, one just before Arnold in a national column, one after from a U.S. Senator, stating that the world fearing a Martian invasion might be a good thing, in that it would get humanity to stop fighting and unite the world.

The public was very aware of the comics, which included Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, and even Superman fighting off aliens. Just the year before, the Sunday comic strips had Superman saving us from a Martian invasion. By December 1947, Buck Rogers was blasting alien bandits in his brand new, atomic-powered flying saucer. Space and alien themes, including invasions, were quite common.

But just how seriously the public in general took all this, we don't know exactly because nobody researched it properly back then. I am quite convinced, however, that the military and government were very aware of the potential for mass public panic. The subject of Orson Welles' broadcast was raised over and over again. The Pentagon on July 8 in one story (same day as the Roswell press release) even went so far as to deny that the saucers were "space ships". (Also denied they were one of our secret rockets or a germ warfare weapon of some foreign power.)

Whether or not you consider the space ship denial to be connected to Roswell, I think the purpose of these denials was to calm down the public in general. And I think the debunkery, starting with Ramey and Roswell, that the saucers were just harmless weather balloons, was also part of this process to calm the public down. The Gallup poll the following month, however, indicates that the public didn't buy it, with only 3% accepting the weather balloon explanation, vs. at least 16-26% who apparently felt the government wasn't telling all (in categories of secret U.S. project--15%; Russian--1%; other--10%). And then there was the third of the public who expressed no opinion or wouldn't talk about it. We can only guess what thoughts they might have harbored.

Nice to have a polite discussion for a change.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by debrisfield
Nice to have a polite discussion for a change.
Dave?






top topics



 
106
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join