reply to post by dpd11
I don't think it was a radioactive clean up, but you don't hear me getting all cocky and saying 'we' can rule it out. So two people pull up on a
radioactive clean up that's just finishing, with apparently the most dangerous part of the device floating around over the road or whatever... And
there's not a single person anywhere? No other vehicles, no road blocks... not so much as a cop car... and they just come driving up and nobody stops
them? It would have been easy to block the road miles up.
I haven't said it was a radiation leak, I suggested a hazardous materials accident. Why not have a moment and go and read the actual posts? I also
said there are lots of problems with my idea and then listed them under an underlined subheading. I asked for input. Maybe you missed all that? Maybe
you missed the part where I suggested it was the back end of an operation and the witnesses caught the final moments? What about the part were I
questioned why the area wasn't made secure? Seriously, the next time you post something in here don't let it be more proof that you aren't
That would have been the first thing their lawyer would have done. Obviously nobody found any. You'd have to do a lot more than just remove the
surface of the pavement. There would be abnormal traces left no matter how much stuff you removed. How does the clean up scenario explain any of the
claims any better than my ideas? At least mine has a chance. Where's the 'up in the air' part come in? The noise? The "flames"?
Why are you obsessed with this road surface? When I mentioned it (do you read?!), it was to show a precedent in clearing up nuclear accidents after
you were insisting it never happened. I left a link.
Once more, do you read? Do you understand English? I clearly described a scenario that would explain the object being airborne and then showed how it
was problematic and not a perfect solution. You missed it huh?
Have you even read the AF transcript?
Of course I bloody have. Have you read the thread? *If* it was power lines, the witneses don't see them. They took Schuessler to the site (yes he
actually went there) and he'd probably notice a power line directly
above the scorched asphalt. Like I said, it would be a first line of
When I said 'we' would have to leave the lines out, it was in the spirit of a few guys trying to work something out together. I thought we had got
to the point where we were tossing ideas about.
I've worked on this for three years. There's absolutely no reason why my ideas can't be in the running just as much as anything else. Seems like
the only problem people have with it, is that it's not outlandish enough. Everybody just want's this to be some big exotic thing that's all
mysterious, with a big huge conspiracy behind it... and radioactive stuff and all this other crap. That's why everybody keeps insisting everything
the women said is absolutely 100% fact. You just don't want it to be something boring, is all it is.
Here we go again! More of the mischaracterising people. How many outlandish ideas are there? Like it or not, three people got injured and nobody took
responsibility...that's a conspiracy. It isn't JFK, but it's a conspiracy. Your ideas are in the running and if you read the damn thread you'd
have seen me saying they are great ideas and the best new theory in years.
The 'only problem' with it is having to move the location, ignore the witnesses, pretend that the investigators at the time were stupid. We'd have
to imagine an airborne object hitting the lines at speed and not causing damage to grid, lines or pylons. Could the flaming heli/object that was
tangled and hanging from the lines be recovered by helis without men on the ground? Nope.
The explanation I suggested included the best features of your ideas and tried to synthesise them into something that allowed witness testimony (not
100% accurate - nobody says it was), investigations and left out power lines. It also left a reason for the secrecy. Military aviation accidents are
reported in the news and don't require a cover-up. The mission details aren't reported, just the incident.