A Possible Solution To Finally Put Roswell To Rest Sans UFO/Aliens, page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times

reply posted on 9-11-2012 @ 08:37 AM by FireballStorm

reply to post by The Shrike

Great effort to try and make some sense of a case that is riddled with myth and speculation

In my experience, you can post facts and use logic till you are blue in the face here on ATS, but there will always be a hardcore of people here on ATS who simply are not interested in fact or logic when they conflict with their beloved beliefs.

In my opinion there is a very strong motive for the US gov. to leave people with the idea that there could be a chance that the US gov. has access to technology that would give it an advantage that no one else has. A little bit of bumbling could easily give people the impression that there was some kind of a coverup, and those people would then do the job of the US gov. for them by helping to spread misinfo and confuse the issue in general.

Whilst there isn't an proof of this, nor is there any proof of the "alien explanation" either, but it does fit the facts (unlike the alien explanation), and it is much more plausible than aliens visiting us.

reply posted on 9-11-2012 @ 09:06 AM by Thunda

reply to post by Ectoplasm8

Oh dear- another person with very little knowledge of the Roswell incident.

How about we dont go with either of your trite scenarios and look at the research? We could start with this comment: "Unless Jesse Marcel had a one-on-one connection with the construction of these balloons, of course the material is going to seem foreign."

Balsa wood? I know South America is technically foriegn to a US citizen, but I think even a 11 year old boy an 1947 would be able to identify balsa wood. If you want to go with the 'weather balloon/mogul ballon' story, then the first hurdle is that it is a matter of fact that the only thing that could remotely be mistaken for an 'I' beam in these balloon construction was bits of balsa wood. And yet, not only was this balsa wood a mysterious pinkish-purple colour, was totally indestructable and covered with strange symbols, it managed to fool not only Jesse Marcel, his wife and son, Mac Brazel the rancher, his family and neighbours, Lewis Rickett from the Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC), 1st Lt. Robert Shirkey (base assistant operations officer) who saw the debris at the airfield, Sgt. Robert Smith: Roswell 1st Air Transport Unit who loaded the aircraft for Fort Worth along with Sgt. Robert Porter: B-29 flight engineer of the aircraft that took the debris, etc etc etc

All these people not only couldnt identify this balsa wood, but found it mysterious and unusual?

Or how about this claim "Everyone is basing things off what was started by Stanton Friedman 30 years AFTER the "crash".

No, thats incorrect. Yes, Stanton Friedman began researching the incident in 1978, but the many many first hand witnesses of various parts of the story had been there at the time- seen it with there own eyes- heard the threats from the military with their own ears- Stanton Friedman was simply the person who interviewed them all and put the information in one place so it could be accessed. Information has come through from death bed confessions from men who had remained silent since '47 to protect their families (why would you waste time with your loved ones on your death bed, making up stories about UFO's?).

Jesses Marcel Jr- a war veteran of the highest level- called back to active duty as a flight surgeon just after his 68th yes his 68TH birthday for the 189th Attack Helicopter Battalion flying 225 hrs of combat- the sort of man who makes up tin pot claims of unusual debris brought from the crash site by his father? I think not.

Or how about Edgar Mitchell- American hero, Apollo atronaut and a great believer in UFO's and the Roswell incident? In an interview with Fox News on July 25, 2008, he quoted unnamed sources, since deceased, at Roswell who confided to him that the Roswell incident did involve an alien craft. Mitchell also claims to have subsequently received confirmation from an unnamed intelligence officer at the Pentagon. Another liar I suppose?

These are the people I would base my opinion of the Roswell incident on.

I could go on, but I know its falling on deaf ears- you and the 'shrike' (a rather unpleasant bird known for impaling insects on thorns, or an obsolete anti radar missile- which do you identify yourself with?) are entitled to your opinions, I just dont share them, and I object to the arrogant, talking down on us from a great height attitude that certain debunkers bring to the table. Remember, if you had a genuinely enquiring mind, you would actually study a topic before spouting ill informed nonsense across the internet.

I did read this recently: Shrikes make regular use of exposed perch sites, where they adopt a conspicuous upright stance. These sites are used in order to watch for prey items and to advertise their presence.

reply posted on 10-11-2012 @ 02:21 AM by Ectoplasm8

reply to post by Thunda

Of course, the typical "you just don't know much about the case and if you did, you might change your mind" response. I guess it seems to be the only way skeptics just can't believe all this, huh?

You of course assume wrong about my knowledge of the case and your knowledge seems to be skewed and clouded by this belief of a UFO crash. Balsa wood beams were coated in a glue covering to give strength, they weren't bare wood. Claims of eyelets and 4" rings were found along with the i-beams and foil. The original newspaper article says Brazel found a disc and stored it. Marcel never mentions seeing a disc upon meeting Brazel, only the foil and beams. Brazel called a radio station and said there were bodies and there was a horrible smell. Marcel never mentions seeing bodies, which Brazel certainly would have showed him. Read up on it more. Obviously you're someone that's swayed by the words of others, needing zero proof of their claim. If that's all you need great, but, when you read further into it, you can't selectively believe what you want in order for it to match your UFO fantasy. I don't take the words of people over actual proof on an extraordinary claim such as alien beings. Words do not take the place of actual tangible evidence. Stop trivializing the enormity of this claim.

Again, let's break it down in simple terms and two facts about this case:
1. The crashed "UFO" was constructed of foil and i-beams.
2. Weather balloons were constructed of foil and i-beams.

This is one of the big claims. I-beams and foil. So I'll ask again and address it this time. Do you believe it was just a 1 in a million+ chance that a UFO happened to: A. Be constructed of the exact same materials weather balloons were. and B. Crashed in the same general area where weather balloons have crashed before. Simple questions. You either believe it was just some extraordinary coincidence. Or you believe it's highly unlikely it happened. Begin there.

reply posted on 11-11-2012 @ 01:50 AM by The Shrike

Originally posted by Thunda
reply to post by Ectoplasm8

Oh dear- another person with very little knowledge of the Roswell incident.

How about we dont go with either of your trite scenarios and look at the research? We could start with this comment: "Unless Jesse Marcel had a one-on-one connection with the construction of these balloons, of course the material is going to seem foreign."

Balsa wood? I know South America is technically foriegn to a US citizen, but I think even a 11 year old boy an 1947 would be able to identify balsa wood. If you want to go with the 'weather balloon/mogul ballon' story, then the first hurdle is that it is a matter of fact that the only thing that could remotely be mistaken for an 'I' beam in these balloon construction was bits of balsa wood. And yet, not only was this balsa wood a mysterious pinkish-purple colour, was totally indestructable and covered with strange symbols, it managed to fool not only Jesse Marcel, his wife and son, Mac Brazel the rancher, his family and neighbours, Lewis Rickett from the Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC), 1st Lt. Robert Shirkey (base assistant operations officer) who saw the debris at the airfield, Sgt. Robert Smith: Roswell 1st Air Transport Unit who loaded the aircraft for Fort Worth along with Sgt. Robert Porter: B-29 flight engineer of the aircraft that took the debris, etc etc etc

All these people not only couldnt identify this balsa wood, but found it mysterious and unusual?

Or how about this claim "Everyone is basing things off what was started by Stanton Friedman 30 years AFTER the "crash".

No, thats incorrect. Yes, Stanton Friedman began researching the incident in 1978, but the many many first hand witnesses of various parts of the story had been there at the time- seen it with there own eyes- heard the threats from the military with their own ears- Stanton Friedman was simply the person who interviewed them all and put the information in one place so it could be accessed. Information has come through from death bed confessions from men who had remained silent since '47 to protect their families (why would you waste time with your loved ones on your death bed, making up stories about UFO's?).

Jesses Marcel Jr- a war veteran of the highest level- called back to active duty as a flight surgeon just after his 68th yes his 68TH birthday for the 189th Attack Helicopter Battalion flying 225 hrs of combat- the sort of man who makes up tin pot claims of unusual debris brought from the crash site by his father? I think not.

Or how about Edgar Mitchell- American hero, Apollo atronaut and a great believer in UFO's and the Roswell incident? In an interview with Fox News on July 25, 2008, he quoted unnamed sources, since deceased, at Roswell who confided to him that the Roswell incident did involve an alien craft. Mitchell also claims to have subsequently received confirmation from an unnamed intelligence officer at the Pentagon. Another liar I suppose?

These are the people I would base my opinion of the Roswell incident on.

I could go on, but I know its falling on deaf ears- you and the 'shrike' (a rather unpleasant bird known for impaling insects on thorns, or an obsolete anti radar missile- which do you identify yourself with?) are entitled to your opinions, I just dont share them, and I object to the arrogant, talking down on us from a great height attitude that certain debunkers bring to the table. Remember, if you had a genuinely enquiring mind, you would actually study a topic before spouting ill informed nonsense across the internet.

I did read this recently: Shrikes make regular use of exposed perch sites, where they adopt a conspicuous upright stance. These sites are used in order to watch for prey items and to advertise their presence.

Your lengthy reply is devoid of common sense and knowledge of events and shows a lack of in-depth research. The proper information is out there if you just but dig. It seems to me that you want to ignore facts preferring fantasy. You accept and attribute history yet that history has been altered. Your opinion of the Roswell event wouldn't stand a chance in court if I was the prosecutor.

You can accept everything Edgar Mitchell says outside of his expertise as a U.S. astronaut but I think he's a hack. You really don't know what you're talking about. Is this arrogant enough for you? There's plenty more where that came from!

I'm always willing to enter into a discussion but those I discuss with should know what they're talking about because I'm going to rely on historical facts and not hearsay or assumptions or beliefs. If those I discuss with are open minded and want to hear another side of the story I'm all for it. So far, I've dealt with closed-minded know-it-alls.

reply posted on 11-11-2012 @ 02:50 AM by gort51

It is certainly easy to argue that is is only tin foil and balsa wood.
Thats what the RAAF said it was after all, and why would they distort the truth?. Of course, the MANY TV specials thruout the 1990s about "Roswell", Mr. Marcel Senior (when he was alive and video interviewed in the 1980s) ALWAYS maintained that the scattered bits of debris laid out nicely for the newspapermen to get that famous photo in 1947, was NOT the material he recovered and took home and to the base CO. Hence the strained look of incredulousness (if that word exists

, on his face in that photo.

Not to mention the 3 different stories peddled by the USAF in the various years up to and including the 1997 50 year anniversary, anything from a weather balloon, the Project Mogul dummies (from 1954 dummies), then Japanese midgets.......Maybe Chinese lanterns? Oh...they were'nt thought of in 1997 USA.

Well they have certainly made a good effort in fudging the truth...whatever it is. Which I would think, is the whole psycho-ops purpose in the first place.
As people say........How can they now come out with the truth, after ALL this time...who would be responsible/sued/pension lost/career destroyed etc etc?

reply posted on 11-11-2012 @ 03:47 AM by radarloveguy

reply to post by The Shrike

Nice try at disinfo skepticism ...

I haven't been to Roswell ,

but , speaking personally ., as an ex intel expert ,

aliens are real .

I've met them , 4 different kinds , in my experience .,

they looked a lot like us , and get around in ships up to 5 km. in circumference .

The small saucers are manned by grey ebe clones

... but until you see one up close , keep that head in the sand ..

reply posted on 11-11-2012 @ 01:21 PM by Thunda

reply to post by The Shrike

Again with nonsense- you say 'going to rely on historical facts and not hearsay or assumptions or beliefs.', and claim I havent done my research, and yet you admit in your opening post that you are basing your entire opinion on a couple of debunkers paperbacks, and dismiss all the real researchers work because you dont like the authors. ("Since I wasn't there when it happened and since I did not do any research to form my opinion I don't mind telling you that I rely on the work of a few researchers"- you did say this, right?)

You cant have it both ways- either you didnt research the subject, and are therefore talking out of your hat, or you did.

What makes you so sure that Klass, Pflock, Korff and Todd got it so right, and the others so wrong when you have done no research outside their opinions? And you claim I am arguing from 'beliefs'.

reply posted on 11-11-2012 @ 04:19 PM by nv4711

Originally posted by radarloveguy
reply to post by The Shrike

Nice try at disinfo skepticism ...

I haven't been to Roswell ,

but , speaking personally ., as an ex intel expert ,

aliens are real .

I've met them , 4 different kinds , in my experience .,

they looked a lot like us , and get around in ships up to 5 km. in circumference .

The small saucers are manned by grey ebe clones

... but until you see one up close , keep that head in the sand ..

LOL... Seriously? So, you're an (ex) secret agent of sorts, who has seen and interacted with 4 different alien races.... sure, and you got that super secret agent pic of yourself in your avatar... white shirt, black tie, sun glasses and all.. you sure weren't shy to spend a couple of bucks for your Tommy Lee Jones wannabe outfit.

So, tell me, how come you're not hunted down by the government for spilling the beans? Shouldn't you be dead by now? Black SUVs pulling up in front of your house?

No matter what you think of the OP and the merits of his arguments, he at least isn't a delusional wannabe MIB of the sort that is responsible for the non-existing credibility of the UFO subject.

Get a life.

reply posted on 11-11-2012 @ 11:55 PM by Ectoplasm8

Originally posted by radarloveguy
Nice try at disinfo skepticism ...

I haven't been to Roswell ,

but , speaking personally ., as an ex intel expert ,

aliens are real .

I've met them , 4 different kinds , in my experience .,

they looked a lot like us , and get around in ships up to 5 km. in circumference .

The small saucers are manned by grey ebe clones

... but until you see one up close , keep that head in the sand ..

You're not helping this case by saying you have first-hand interaction with alien beings. Lucky for you, with the mentality here I'm sure there are many people that will believe what you say requiring no proof of your claim. After all, that's what they do with Roswell. Nothing naive in that!

The only "disinfo" is with the many witnesses and stories with this case. Not with the skeptics that don't believe it. See, we're simple in the fact that all we want to see actual tangible proof of this crash that can be scientifically studied. A piece of foil or beam. An alien body. Something real. Yet, after 65 years of this story going around, not one ounce of proof has come about. The believers are the confused ones as to what to believe and what not to believe from the hundreds of stories.

Originally posted by Thunda
Again with nonsense- you say 'going to rely on historical facts and not hearsay or assumptions or beliefs.', and claim I havent done my research, and yet you admit in your opening post that you are basing your entire opinion on a couple of debunkers paperbacks, and dismiss all the real researchers work because you dont like the authors. ("Since I wasn't there when it happened and since I did not do any research to form my opinion I don't mind telling you that I rely on the work of a few researchers"- you did say this, right?)

You cant have it both ways- either you didnt research the subject, and are therefore talking out of your hat, or you did.

What makes you so sure that Klass, Pflock, Korff and Todd got it so right, and the others so wrong when you have done no research outside their opinions? And you claim I am arguing from 'beliefs'.

So, why avoid my questions? Here, I'll make it even simpler if you didn't understand. Strip away all of the claimed properties of the foil and beam material from both the Mogul balloon explanation and the UFO crash explanation. Focus only on what was said to be found and what balloons of the era were constructed of. We come to a simple answer of foil and beams on both sides. No property descriptions, just the basics...

So I'll ask again. Do you believe it was just a 1 in a million+ chance that a UFO happened to: A. Be constructed of the exact same materials weather balloons were. and B. Crashed in the same general area where weather balloons have crashed before. Simple questions. You either believe it was just some extraordinary coincidence. Or you believe it's highly unlikely it happened.

reply posted on 12-11-2012 @ 12:16 AM by The Shrike

Originally posted by Thunda
reply to post by The Shrike

Again with nonsense- you say 'going to rely on historical facts and not hearsay or assumptions or beliefs.', and claim I havent done my research, and yet you admit in your opening post that you are basing your entire opinion on a couple of debunkers paperbacks, and dismiss all the real researchers work because you dont like the authors. ("Since I wasn't there when it happened and since I did not do any research to form my opinion I don't mind telling you that I rely on the work of a few researchers"- you did say this, right?)

You cant have it both ways- either you didnt research the subject, and are therefore talking out of your hat, or you did.

What makes you so sure that Klass, Pflock, Korff and Todd got it so right, and the others so wrong when you have done no research outside their opinions? And you claim I am arguing from 'beliefs'.

Your ignorance precedes you. Historical facts are that what was found by Brazel and Ramey were not the remnants of a non-nuts-and-bolts alien craft. They described clearly what they found. Your problem is not with me, it's with the principals. It doesn't matter what the newspaper originally said, it wasn't based on fact. Haut got carried away and he paid for his big mouth by being transferred.

Your problem is with people such as Stanton Friedman, Charles Berlitz & William Moore, and the rest of the hack authors who saw a good story based on fantasy, never mind the facts. They knew that if they wrote about the events at Roswell AAB as they happened it would have been a waste of time and they would not have gotten as famous or as rich as eventually happened 'cause they had a ready audience of non-questioning gullibles.

Someone will always rise to the occasion and Karl Pflock rose to it and wrote one of the reference books. He awakened from his acceptance of a UFO to the truth and he did what very few had done and that was to research his ass off and interview as many of the original participants as he could find and he found that they were either mentally challenged or saw the quick buck in distorting the truth. Phil Klass did the same, as well as Korff.

It is obvious by your comments that you are part of the audience that the hack authors prefer. I'm not and I would rather accept what Pflock, Klass, and Korff, among others, wrote debunking what has become one of the biggest con games in UFOlogy rather than accept the crap that the other authors foisted on the public.

You talk without showing any common sense, logic, and reason. How about you starting your own thread proving that a UFO crashed near Roswell, or anywhere on earth. Put your money where your mouth is.

And this goes also for all of the other repliers who fall into the same camp as Thunda.

reply posted on 12-11-2012 @ 12:42 AM by Ectoplasm8

reply to post by The Shrike

Stanton Friedman touts that "Nuclear Physicist" title way too much. As if that gives more credibility to what he says, which it doesn't. He only relays storys, not facts.

reply posted on 12-11-2012 @ 04:13 PM by Thunda

reply to post by The Shrike

I'm sorry if Ive upset you, Mr Shrike, but I can assure you I really don't have a problem with you per se. What I do have a problem with is people making big claims of putting to bed a 40+ year old mystery by reading a couple of paperbacks. Then to compound that by claiming that everyone who doesn't agree with you 'hasn't done their research' (despite the fact you admit to having done none yourself), and placing them all in some sort of cabal with an ingrained belief in UFO's. It really is too ridiculous- you claim I "talk without showing any common sense, logic, and reason" whilst continuing to contradict yourself by clinging to your handful of de-bunk authors like some sort of life raft-

I wouldn't start a thread, or make wild claims, unless I had thoroughly researched my subject and had more than a few quotes from a very narrow band of authors to back up what I was saying. Seems 'evidence' or 'research' might be something you should look into next time.

reply posted on 12-11-2012 @ 04:26 PM by icunir1

reply posted on 13-11-2012 @ 01:46 AM by The Shrike

Originally posted by Thunda
reply to post by The Shrike

I'm sorry if Ive upset you, Mr Shrike, but I can assure you I really don't have a problem with you per se. What I do have a problem with is people making big claims of putting to bed a 40+ year old mystery by reading a couple of paperbacks. Then to compound that by claiming that everyone who doesn't agree with you 'hasn't done their research' (despite the fact you admit to having done none yourself), and placing them all in some sort of cabal with an ingrained belief in UFO's. It really is too ridiculous- you claim I "talk without showing any common sense, logic, and reason" whilst continuing to contradict yourself by clinging to your handful of de-bunk authors like some sort of life raft-

I wouldn't start a thread, or make wild claims, unless I had thoroughly researched my subject and had more than a few quotes from a very narrow band of authors to back up what I was saying. Seems 'evidence' or 'research' might be something you should look into next time.

You didn't "upset" me, it takes more than disagreeing. But the trouble that I find with your respnses is that you don't seem to understand that the alleged UFO crash at Roswell is not based on fact. You can read the false reports 'til you're blue in the face and you still are not going to wind up with a real crash, just the mistakes that were made by a couple of individuals. Historical facts support the simple explanations.

You decry that I rely on a couple of paperbacks (sic) that offer more realistic information about the events and the characters in the hugely and immensely popular play "UFO Crash At Roswell" than you will ever find in all of the books that have been written pro-crash.

I am sure that if you and all of the other believers were to read just those 2 books by Pflock and Klass (and throw in Korff's effort) you'd abandon the continued belief in something that never took place. I read all of those books starting with the original Berlitz and Moore and I even attended a lecture by Berlitz. I know what's in those books that people put a lot of store in. Life is better enjoyed when you have a balanced point of view and as long as you and all of the other believers continue to ignore the other side of the coin, a two-headed coin will always fool you.

This thread is about finding the other balloon artifacts that are still possibly where they fell. If found they would be the biggest nails you ever saw hammered on the Roswell coffin and Pflock and Klass would stop spinning in their graves!

reply posted on 13-11-2012 @ 03:13 AM by chunder

Originally posted by The Shrike

Historical facts are that what was found by Brazel and Ramey were not the remnants of a non-nuts-and-bolts alien craft. They described clearly what they found.

Without going into the detail I thought the generally accepted chain of events was that there were at least two "crash sites" - the Brazel reported debris field and the mass army retrieval site witnessed by the archaeological team.

The Brazel debris field being that of a weather balloon or similar that was then used as a decoy.

Alternatively are you trying to argue that the original press release of a recovered flying disk simply referred to the radar target "disk" (as sometimes referred to) attached to a weather balloon, the newspaper incorrectly extrapolating that into a flying saucer ?

If you are going to keep referring to the writing of others please state some specific points rather than the whole book.

reply posted on 14-11-2012 @ 09:18 PM by anomalie

Too many here claiming to be sceptics but all im seeing is pseudo scepticism.. a real sceptic is not bias nor do they go about looking for anything and everything to support their own beliefs.

The OP is just whining about 'believers' which makes it difficult to read his post if you got anything of value then say it and stop whinging and maybe i'll take you seriously.

reply posted on 14-11-2012 @ 10:38 PM by The Shrike

Originally posted by chunder

Originally posted by The Shrike

Historical facts are that what was found by Brazel and Ramey were not the remnants of a non-nuts-and-bolts alien craft. They described clearly what they found.

Without going into the detail I thought the generally accepted chain of events was that there were at least two "crash sites" - the Brazel reported debris field and the mass army retrieval site witnessed by the archaeological team.

The Brazel debris field being that of a weather balloon or similar that was then used as a decoy.

Alternatively are you trying to argue that the original press release of a recovered flying disk simply referred to the radar target "disk" (as sometimes referred to) attached to a weather balloon, the newspaper incorrectly extrapolating that into a flying saucer ?

If you are going to keep referring to the writing of others please state some specific points rather than the whole book.

Never mind what I say, which I seem to repeat ad nauseaum. Go to the original reports. Ignore the popular authors and those that try to imitate the authors. Stick with the original reports. Then, when you are totally confused, either buy or borrow the two books that are worth more than all of the pro-UFO books. If the two authors' research doesn't at least make you wonder, instead of accepting a pro-UFO POV willy-nilly, then it doesn't really matter 'cause you've been sold a bill of goods empty of reality.

Read my words: no UFO crashed near Roswell or anywhere else on the planet and no one can produce any evidence for such an event. I don't have to prove a negative. Those claiming that a UFO crashed near Roswell have to produce the evidence and it'll never happen because the evidence does not exist. You are free to believe whatever you want but I don't operate on beliefs.

You gotta read the 2 books, whole, because they are about only one topic: Roswell. You'll find that the two authors come up with the same info even though they did not collaborate. You'll also learn from the two authors what facts the popular authors changed or omitted.

You'll find out that Haut's original press release was a rush job which got "translated".

edit on 14-11-2012 by The Shrike because: To add comments.

reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 12:36 AM by Ectoplasm8

Originally posted by anomalie
Too many here claiming to be sceptics but all im seeing is pseudo scepticism.. a real sceptic is not bias nor do they go about looking for anything and everything to support their own beliefs.

The OP is just whining about 'believers' which makes it difficult to read his post if you got anything of value then say it and stop whinging and maybe i'll take you seriously.

There's no one more bias, close-minded and one sided about this case than the believers. If you are to give a true honest opinion about Roswell, you need to not only read books/articles/videos that support the claims, but also the ones that don't.

There isn't a need to search for "anything and everything" to validate my thoughts, nor is there for anyone else that doesn't believe a UFO crashed. Show us the physical item from this case that can be scientifically studied and proven not to be from earth and created by an alien race, and we'll believe. It's really that simple. We don't need any support system for this claim because after 65 years of stories, not one ounce of alien material has shown up. That's a 100% fact.

reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 04:54 AM by Jay-morris

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

Originally posted by anomalie
Too many here claiming to be sceptics but all im seeing is pseudo scepticism.. a real sceptic is not bias nor do they go about looking for anything and everything to support their own beliefs.

The OP is just whining about 'believers' which makes it difficult to read his post if you got anything of value then say it and stop whinging and maybe i'll take you seriously.

There's no one more bias, close-minded and one sided about this case than the believers. If you are to give a true honest opinion about Roswell, you need to not only read books/articles/videos that support the claims, but also the ones that don't.

There isn't a need to search for "anything and everything" to validate my thoughts, nor is there for anyone else that doesn't believe a UFO crashed. Show us the physical item from this case that can be scientifically studied and proven not to be from earth and created by an alien race, and we'll believe. It's really that simple. We don't need any support system for this claim because after 65 years of stories, not one ounce of alien material has shown up. That's a 100% fact.