As Promised, Alonzo Typer Checking In

page: 4
117
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by AlonzoTyper
 


Hi Alonzo thank you for sharing your story. I am really enjoying it; and I believe that you are telling your truth.

There is a lot that has not been documented in history; but yet is true.

Please don't allow the naysayers to discourage you.

I hope that you will continue to tell us your true history; it is so interesting!



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by rayuki
 


Except Typer never made this claim.


I will say that you blew your story early with your claim of operating carrier based B-25's.


That is a completely made up claim. Which is why I posted what Typer actually wrote.

You people want to get nitpicky on the facts, but when your obvious mistakes are pointed out, suddenly it's not fair.

If you can't stick to the facts, then your debunks are nothing but bunk.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by lonegurkha
 


Yeah, had the same thought as soon as I read that too.
Will remain open to future postings...
Truth always reveals itself....



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peloquin
reply to post by SonoftheSun
 


Here's a video of an interview with Mr. Gordon Cooper that supports Mr. Typers account:

www.youtube.com...


To Mr. Typer: Thankyou very much for your account, and be assured, you have my full respect! Please go on!


Just one quick question SOS,

Do you think that it might just be possible that, during his research for this thread, he also saw this video?

So it would not necessarily "support" his account but may well be the material and/or the source of his account.

Just wondering if this is possible.

Look, don't get me wrong, it is a half way decent story he is writing although too many of his facts are just not verifiable.
I am not talking about the UFO or other "secret" stuff, things you cannot verify anyway, but the plain history that can easily be vetted.

That's all I am saying on this.

Mr. Typer, as was pointed out earlier: Stick to unambiguous statements like UFOs and the like which no one
can check up on.
Keep up the good work though. Maybe write a book.

73's,
Tom



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by AlonzoTyper
 


WOW!!!

Sir I just want to say I am so glad you are back and I once heard stories from my Grandfather and since he passed six years ago I have not heard stories of this magnitude and I really appreciate you sharing.

What excited me even more was not the UFO references, although it is fascinating to hear confirmation from someone who was once in the service but my Grandfather too was on the U.S.S. YORKTOWN!!



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by AlonzoTyper
 


WOW!!!

Sir I just want to say I am so glad you are back and I once heard stories from my Grandfather and since he passed six years ago I have not heard stories of this magnitude and I really appreciate you sharing.

What excited me even more was not the UFO references, although it is fascinating to hear confirmation from someone who was once in the service but my Grandfather too was on the U.S.S. YORKTOWN!!


Dear MamaJ,

Just a quick point: Please read the thread. He never said he was on the Yorktown.
He said he was on a Yorktown class CV which launched B-25's. Which would be the USS Hornet.
And he said he was a radio operator on a B-25. And he said he was STATIONED on the Yorktown class CV and he said he "sanded' and painted the hull of said CV. Which a radio operator on a B-25 probably would not be called on to do.
Anyway it gets more confusing.
Read all the posts before we start "high-fiving" Mr. Typer!

Just to clear this up for you.

73's,
Tom
edit on 14-2-2012 by tomdham because: just because



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by tomdham
 


Just like he never said the B-25's he flew in were launched from a carrier, nor that he ONLY served on ship during the war.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by tomdham
 


Hiya Tom,

Of course it's possible. Anyone posting in full anonymity could very well be anyone playing a prank. Certainly.

I wouldn't ask him to blow his cover by - as suggested by other members - divulge his name or picture BUT let me remind everyone that he mentioned that he will have papers scanned and posted (mentioned in his intro). Until that happens, I will give him the benefit of the doubt which I think he respectfully deserves.

There are already some excellent members (including you) here contradicting his story and he has yet to respond.

Respectfully,

~Son.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by tomdham
 


I have read the thread. Well...mostly what he wrote because I don't get into all the drama some feel they need to add or take away from his story. I didn't read him saying he was on the Yorktown with B-52's though.

I appreciate you wanting to reply for him...
but I await a reply from him.
Thanks!



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
reply to post by tomdham
 


Just like he never said the B-25's he flew in were launched from a carrier, nor that he ONLY served on ship during the war.


Ok, fair enough.
So how was he stationed on a Yorktown class CV but was also a radio operator on a B-25 AND also "sanded" (I think he meant "chipped") and painted the hull of said CV?

Go figure!

73's,
Tom



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


i can quote what he said too - and i stick to facts :



I enlisted in the Navy when I was 16…………………… I was on a ship, stationed in the Pacific throughout The War.


expanded on thus :


I was stationed on a “Yorktown” class carrier throughout much of the War


contradicts :


I was assigned as a radio operator on B-25’s


with one exception - the doolittle raid - there was no b-25 operation from any carrier - and the USAAF took ALL the support crew they needed on the hornet with them

the doolittle raid was meticulously documented from numerous angles - there is no credible place for a naval signaller to be inserted into the tail



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
I think Alonzo is referring to the PBJ or PBH aircraft. They were the marine version of the B25. People of the day called all of them B25s because they all were. Many missions of these aircraft with their hooks were flown during WW2 was easily found from the research I just did of different sites. I Just typed in PBJ 1. I cannot judge if others are telling the truth without researching all variations of perception. I know that the perception of all people is different and people record knowledge different ways. People sometimes ignore flawed perception even though it has relevance.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


Thank you Mr. Ape!

You beat me to it.

I had just gone back and copied those exact lines!!

73's,
Tom



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlonzoTyper
Once I was allowed to exit the elevator and remove my blindfold, I was mesmerized. The craft that was sitting in front of me, and the people working on its various parts were far, far more advanced than anything I had seen in my years working with the Lockheed “Skunkworks Program” or Boeing’s “Phantom Works” program. What I saw was an air craft of incredible design. It clearly was more advanced than anything I had known to be in existence, and far more superior than anything I had ever laid my hands on. This craft, looked to be roughly seventy five feet in diameter, and had the sheen of some sort of stainless steel, yet the actual composition was more like a light weight carbon fiber.

I had no idea of what was going on, and it was a rough awakening of what we really are capable of. To say I was in shock, was to put it lightly. As a pilot, and an engineer, I couldn’t help but marvel at the design. I was told unofficially, that this was a recovered alien craft, and we were backwards engineer it. Officially, I was told this was simply a state of the art aircraft, designed and built as a joint venture between Lockheed and Boeing, of course with government funding.


What exactly was so "mesmerizing" and made you think this simple disk sitting in front of you was "of incredible design" and "more advanced than anything" you had known? I'm really surprised that you would make such bold claims and not back it up with any personal observations whatsoever, it's this kind of lack of detail that makes me think you're playing us. So far you've presented absolutely nothing that any person who frequents ATS hasn't already heard a hundred times over. If you really are who you say you are, then perhaps offering details of the inner workings of this aircraft of "incredible design" will help support your case. Also explain why some random pilot would be blind-folded and whisked away to gaze in awe at a top-secret aircraft stored thousands of feet under the ground.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
I think Alonzo is referring to the PBJ or PBH aircraft. They were the marine version of the B25. People of the day called all of them B25s because they all were. Many missions of these aircraft with their hooks were flown during WW2 was easily found from the research I just did of different sites. I Just typed in PBJ 1. I cannot judge if others are telling the truth without researching all variations of perception. I know that the perception of all people is different and people record knowledge different ways. People sometimes ignore flawed perception even though it has relevance.


You sir, make a good point. Well said.

Carry on.

vvv



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
I think Alonzo is referring to the PBJ or PBH aircraft. They were the marine version of the B25. People of the day called all of them B25s because they all were. Many missions of these aircraft with their hooks were flown during WW2 was easily found from the research I just did of different sites. I Just typed in PBJ 1. I cannot judge if others are telling the truth without researching all variations of perception. I know that the perception of all people is different and people record knowledge different ways. People sometimes ignore flawed perception even though it has relevance.


Thanks, Ricky,
I too researched that.


The only B-25 which was altered for cat launching and wire trapping onboard a carrier



PBH-1H 43-4700 BuNo 35277) that was modified for aircraft carrier catapult launch and arrests.
First landings and catapult takeoffs took place aboard the USS Shangri La ( CV-38 ) on November 15, 1944.


Notice it was the ONLY B-25 modified? Notice the date? Near the end of WWII?
Also, not a Yorktown class CV.

I guess I will stop nitpicking until Mr. Typer returns with his rebuttal.

ONE MORE and LAST TIME:
It has been said that at 90, his memory may misinterpret the actual facts from 70 years ago.
But I submit that I think he would definitely remember the difference between being an Army Air Force Radio operator on a B-25 and a painter of ship's hulls. Don't you?

Thanks and 73's,
Tom
edit on 14-2-2012 by tomdham because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by AlonzoTyper
 


a very well written and detailed post Mr Typer
a thoroughly enjoyable read. I have to say im 90% towards believing your story, only reason im not 100% on it is because we see alot of threads along similiar lines that turn out to be nothing, however, yours is very well thought out and written and i thank you for taking the time to make it so. If you are a hoaxer then its still a good read nonetheless
starred and flagged


Best Regards,

Shaithis



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
ignorance of the company he claims to have worked for :


I was fortunate enough to be part of the Skunk Works program at Lockheed, which had only recently made the jump into military applications after the success of the P-80 jet fighter


on would really expect an alledged lockheed employee to have been aware of the p-38 lightning

especially if said alledged employee had served in the PTO during WWII

now defenders of " my typer " will whine that such errors are mistakes of memory - and that i and others are " nit - picking "

but if he cannot correctly mrecall , or lies about key points that are falsifiable - why should we pay any credence to his further claims that i am unqualified to comment of

for instance , his claim to have taken a blind fold elevator ride , while blindfolded , to view a disc shaped craft - is not falsifiable

its illogical , none-sensical and absurd - but not falsifiable [ for me at least ]

but the devil is in the details - and myr typers details are a fantasy





new topics
top topics
 
117
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join