posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 05:41 PM
Well this is all very interesting, aside from the predictable cries of "hoax!" and "blasphemy!" from the nickel seats.
First, I would like to note that I have military friends from different branches and ranging in age from "just left high-school" to "about to enter
the grave" and have listened to many stories from them. Some do use the same terminology they use/used in the service, which can make a story sound
like an official report document and can sometimes cause a poor dumb civ (me) to dig out my smartphone to look up unfamiliar words(that turn out to be
But most of them are fully aware that a great many people have never been in the military (this is a fact, look it up) and are therefore not
conversant in military jargon, and they can tell entire stories from beginning to end using Standard American English(Southern Dialect) and only slip
into military parlance as a story device, usually humor related. The only time they tell stories using all the jargon is when they are speaking to
other members of the armed forces.
This may surprise some people, but most disciplines and occupations have specialized language--some more than others--and most people have enough
social savvy to understand that using jargon when speaking to a general audience will result in communications failure.
I'm not saying that's what the OP is doing, nor am I saying his story is true. I'm saying I don't know...but I intend to try and find out, and if
nothing comes of it at least it was entertaining.
I'm also saying I see this particular kind of pseudo-debunking all the time("first he said it was egg shaped, then he said it was round!!
Pshhhhhyeah right")...a sort of language nit-picking where using "cube" one time and then "box" another time is believed grounds for complete
dismissal, or someone who used to be an air-traffic controller or a member of the military is accused by other people of using the wrong terminology
and therefore a despicable hoaxer who should be hung by their toenails and forced to watch Oprah reruns. I find it somewhat pointless as a debunk,
mainly because its just as hazy a 'truth' as the story being debunked.
Most ATS members are quite capable of being interested in a story and pursuing information related to it without falling into a fanatical 100%
conviction it is true like a total geek. We can harbor doubts about the 'fantastic' nature of some reported phenomena without sneering at the
person claiming to have witnessed said phenomena, insulting them, and losing the f**king witness. For some reason, people seem to have gotten the idea
that skepticism is best expressed using their posterior orifice, rather than the more conventional--and polite--anterior one. It's a good habit to be
somewhat skeptical. It's not a good habit to be an asshole.
That said, I have one question for the OP, should he return. The footprints leading away from the camp. Were they full prints mostly, heel to toe? Or
were they toe prints only?
A man fleeing for his life or running in terror will start out by sprinting, which will leave distinct footprints--deep toe impressions, no arch or
heel impression at all, with clumps of material displaced backward through the print (from the force of his leg pushing against the ground to move him
forward) and sometimes clumps displaced forward (kicked by the toe when the leg is lifted for the next step). Full prints implies walking, or at the
most a comfortable jog.
If it looks like running/sprinting prints, it would suggest something occurred in the camp that caused them to flee in all directions.
If they were full prints, well....that may be more weird than running. They just calmly walked away in all directions, leaving weapons and other gear,