Kids tested material from Roswell UFO debris, claims witness

[SNIP]

youtube channel video mentioned:
.
www.youtube.com...
.
Single youtube video on that channel:
.
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW - Two Kids Secretly Tested Roswell UFO Material
.
www.youtube.com...
.

.
. . .
.
"The woman we call ‘Jill’ painted such great word pictures, and there was such feeling in the way she told her story that written words couldn’t capture it,” explained Joyce. “So we set up our own YouTube channel just so we could posted it as a video.”
.
. . .
.
One day, John told Jill he had a surprise for her and showed her a strange metal that Jill remembered to be about 8 inches by 11 inches, similar to a sheet of paper. She said it looked like aluminum, but it was heavier. John told her to stand back. He then wadded up the sheet of metal and threw it at Jill. Before the metal could reach her, it transformed back into a flat sheet.
.
This feature is similar to a property of the metal described by others who say they handled the Roswell debris. In particular, Dr. Jesse Marcel, Jr., who, as a child, handled debris his father alleges to have collected from the Roswell crash site. His father was an Air Force intelligence officer stationed at the Roswell Army Air Field in July of 1947.
.
. . .
.
Even so, soon after, when John saw Jill playing with Silly Puddy, he was so fascinated by the Silly Puddy he offered to trade Jill the mystery metal for the Silly Puddy. After some consideration, Jill accepted. That night, while riding her bike with the metal in her bicycle basket, Jill noticed the metal reacted strangely when light hit it.
.
. . .

.
I think this is quite consistent with Jesse Marcel Jr's narrative of his experience with the 'foil' from one of the Roswell crashes.
.
I dialogued with him a bit via email before his death. He always seemed very authentic and high in integrity, to me.
.
I had not heard of the phenomenon of the foil reacting to light as mentioned in this narrative.
.
I don't think this is shocking news. But it is another puzzle piece that affirms some of the data already on the puzzle table.
.
I see no reason at all to disbelieve the narrative.
.



Mod Note: removed a link not allowed here on ATS.

I also came across metal material that comes back to shape, with know sign of wrinkles, it was material developed for the Navy. a reply to: BO XIAN

a reply to: mikefunctions

Thanks.

You may be aware that the Navy has been much more in charge of such exotic UFO derived technologies than the Air Force has.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Interesting. Of course, video's like these are easily faked and there seems to be no proof for it at all, but interesting nevertheless.

I wonder if it is plausible at all that military personnel would be allowed to handle assumedly ET / alien materials like what stories like these suggest. So, some high rank officers took these materials with them to their houses - I find that quite hard to believe, frankly, And then they somehow lost track of it for days, so their kid could snag it and play with it, even "tested" the materials - on the base. Makes you wonder if the dad's and mum's in those days were total idiots: a 8 x 11 " piece of metal is hardly easy to hide, especially if the darned thing keeps popping into it's original shape..

Dunno. Let's see where this goes.

a reply to: BO XIAN

I see no reason at all to disbelieve the narrative.

I see every reason to disbelieve the narrative , why would anyone believe this ?

a reply to: ForteanOrg

I think initially . . . folks didn't know exactly what to do . . . there was the secrecy with the atom bomb program. And, as folks got 'up to speed,' the UFO secrecy surpassed that, evidently. There seems to have been a period, though, when, as Marcel Sr demonstrated, there was a little bit of functional discretion--at least--as acted out by some few folks.

Lots of things are possible. We weren't there. Time will eventually tell. For some contrarians, there will never be enough proof until a UFO or orb lands in their lap and castrates them. For others, every wind of rumor is more than sufficient "proof" for all kinds of wild claims.

a reply to: BO XIAN

I've just finished watching the video.

I did not find her story convincing. She has the tried and true way of many liars of giving small cues to evoke a response from the listener. Such evoke cues are done to further pull the listener into the narrative by getting the listener to respond rather than the person standing there arms folded in a defensive posture. (Very similar to a salesperson attempting to hand you their product during the sales pitch to get you more involved and accepting of the item.)

The story is simply too fanciful with not a shred of supporting evidence. Give me the details of her family and her friend John, and I'll reconsider.

a reply to: Aliensun

very interesting story...why are we only hearing about this now????

originally posted by: BO XIAN

I see no reason at all to disbelieve the narrative.

Fine. There is no reason to automatically disbelieve this narrative, but there is no reason to automatically believe it, either (and I realize you never said you were automatically believing it).

I mean, what if some guy claims he was a witness in 1947, and claimed that the foil acted simply like common aluminized Mylar (common today, not common then)? Would you see reason to disbelieve him?

I have a paper clip that you can bend all up every which way and you drop it in hot water and it bends back in the original shape

Silly Putty was not released until 1949 and then in only very limited distribution as an adult novelty. It did not gain wide traction until 1950 when the New Yorker ran an article on the compound and it was not until 1955 that it was considered more a children's toy than an adult's. They fabricated that part of the narrative so it makes the entire story not believable.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

It's merely one puzzle piece. If it seems to fit a lot of other puzzle pieces, MAYBE there's something to it.

Of course, that doesn't deter the rabidly hostile contrarian naysayers from throwing a lot of dust in the air with great haughty incredulity and disdainfully looking down their long pointed noses with shaking long fingers about how trashy this puzzle piece is.

Ho hum.

Some folks seem to be born to whine and be disagreeable.

I just collect puzzle pieces . . . loosely . . . sort them as a past time . . . loosely. Comment on those that are interesting TO ME . . . loosely.

Starting in 1962 and 1965 depending on which collection of puzzle pieces are involved, I've amassed a considerable collection that has kind of all mushed together in my flawed memory. Nevertheless . . . the collection has been very supportive of the 'understanding and prediction' aspect of psychology in terms of what the oligarchy was likely to do and where it was headed.

So, I'll just keep on collecting puzzle pieces that interest me . . . and I'll keep on refining my predictions about the oligarchy. They've held up pretty good so far. The main aspect that no one seems to have a handle on is timing. And most corporation folks know that long range planning mostly does NOT work. So it is logical that even the oligarchy has only a rough timeline in hand--one that's constantly adjusted.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That could certainly be a deal breaker, alright.

I wondered about the silly putty aspect. Just seemed a bit out of place, somehow.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Silly Putty was not released until 1949 and then in only very limited distribution as an adult novelty. It did not gain wide traction until 1950 when the New Yorker ran an article on the compound and it was not until 1955 that it was considered more a children's toy than an adult's. They fabricated that part of the narrative so it makes the entire story not believable.

At 2:20 She says it was 1957; so if Silly Putty was considered more a children's toy after 1955, then the Captain Kangaroo Silly Putty Commercial in 1957 would seem consistent with your statements. Not "fabricated" at all.

a reply to: redmage

1957 is not 'shortly after' Roswell. It is a decade later.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Where are you getting "shortly after Roswell"?

It seems like you're debating a claim that no one has made, and that your Silly Putty knowledge actually falls perfectly inline with her 1957 narrative.

Captain Kangaroo ran October 3, 1955 to December 8, 1984; so even that lines up with the 'Silly Putty timeline', and her 1957 claim (since it couldn't have been earlier than 1955 watching the Captain).

Thread closed for review, due to the links used in the OP.

Thread is now reopened.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
I had not heard of the phenomenon of the foil reacting to light as mentioned in this narrative.

I don't recall him ever mentioning an "edge" or "side-on" view of a piece, but I seem to recall Bob Lazar mentioning the "sport model" craft seeming to react to light and touch almost like a dull yet somewhat "iridescent" oil-slick.

originally posted by: redmage
Where are you getting "shortly after Roswell"?

His father was an Air Force intelligence officer stationed at the Roswell Army Air Field in July of 1947.

Even so, soon after, when John saw Jill playing with Silly Puddy, he was so fascinated by the Silly Puddy he offered to trade Jill the mystery metal for the Silly Puddy.