Annie talks to ground zero about Roswell...Never heard her story..Interesting

There is an advantage to living 12 hours ahead of the states. I can listen to ground Zero or Coast to Coast when day light and not past my bed time..It is 0951 8/20/2013 here and just heard an interesting caller....

Ground Zero is talking about Area 51 hanger 18 et al..... In 2009 witnesses the who came forward about the Roswell crash, before they died. etc etc Most on this sight (ATS) know the dummy drop the airforce said happened (bodies) did not happen until the mid 50's so that is a crock and just one more lie...

Annie calls in she was born in 1937 and at the age of 10 years old the crash happened. Her father was a military crash investigator contracted through General Dynamics...He always had a suit case packed by the door and was ready to go at a moments notice.

He got the call for the crash investigation at Roswell. He went and came back home and kinda spilled the beans to the family. He was one of the guys who flew to Washington with some of the parts and 2 or three bodies from the crash..according to her.

Her story and the way she told it was very interesting...Something happened approx 5 years ago when her father was 96 years old...He or she made a comment (don't remember the particulars) to an investigator and her father got a phone call that scared him so bad he ended up going to the hospital...He died recently and she being old says no reason to hide the truth....etc etc

I am busy packing and getting ready for a Golf tournament so I do not claim everything in this post is spot on just what I heard while running around like a head with it's chicken off....

Maybe one of our member can post a transcript or sound track from the Radio show...I have no idea on how to find much less post to ATS....If someone can not post..... for those who are interested about what might have happened many years ago try and catch a rebroadcast?

I was not at Roswell nor was I part of any investigation so for the the stories, 'told by death bed confessions', and those who know they do not have that much longer to live....Well they have a bit more weight with me than the lies and propaganda that seems to be the SOP for some government agencies..

These are just stories with no pics so take it for what it is worth to you. Myself, something happened, and the total truth has not been revealed IMO...Was it an Alien craft or a weather balloon? Both have an element of truth if the stories are to be believed....regardless interesting...

reply to post by 727Sky


Curiouser and curiouser.

Thanks!

I don´t think we can ever be sure what actually happened.
The ACTUAL truth about Roswell will probably remain as elusive
as the certainty about Jack The Ripper´s identity.
Oh well...

Weather Balloon Cargo Material in the late 40's:
-Small I-Beams
-Foil Material
-3-5 Foot in Size

Crashed Roswell "Flying Saucer" Material in 1947:
-Small I-Beams
-Foil Material
-Pieces found No More Than 3 Feet

Notice anything common between the two? Anyone want to guess at the likelihood or chances that pieces from a spacecraft from another world thousands of years more advanced than us would be constructed exactly as weather balloon cargo from Earth at that time? Just so happens to be in the same small proportions as balloon cargo as well. Hmmmmm...

reply to post by Ectoplasm8


I have to agree with you. There's just nothing about it that says it WAS an alien craft. It's one of those things that won't go away. I'm a believer in Aliens but to me there's just not many cases that are credible.

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
Weather Balloon Cargo Material in the late 40's:
-Small I-Beams
-Foil Material
-3-5 Foot in Size

Crashed Roswell "Flying Saucer" Material in 1947:
-Small I-Beams
-Foil Material
-Pieces found No More Than 3 Feet

Notice anything common between the two? Anyone want to guess at the likelihood or chances that pieces from a spacecraft from another world thousands of years more advanced than us would be constructed exactly as weather balloon cargo from Earth at that time? Just so happens to be in the same small proportions as balloon cargo as well. Hmmmmm...

Usual debunkers trick, ignore the actual evidence presented by the witnesses and pick the pieces that only fit your theory!

However, I-beams that cannot be destroyed by a hammer, bent or sawed and seemed indestructable are hardly the I-beams of a weather balloon. Foil meterial that can be crumpled up and then just opens itself up without any creases or flaws, also does not resemble material from a weather balloon does it? Do you honestly think the head intelligence officer, Maj. Jesse Marcel of the ONLY nuclear base in the world at that time, 509th Army Air Force base at Roswell was fooled by a weather balloon??? As well as all the other 300 or so witnesses who have come forward with little pieces of the story (none exactly the same) that have helped piece the true story together? If it was just a weather balloon, why has the government changed their story so many times?

Believe what you want, debunk all you want but even though many of the witnesses have passed on, the truth is out even if the government and TPTB are still trying to hide it!

reply to post by Ectoplasm8


Ate it hook, line, and sinker, eh?

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
Weather Balloon Cargo Material in the late 40's:
-Small I-Beams
-Foil Material
-3-5 Foot in Size

Crashed Roswell "Flying Saucer" Material in 1947:
-Small I-Beams
-Foil Material
-Pieces found No More Than 3 Feet

Notice anything common between the two? Anyone want to guess at the likelihood or chances that pieces from a spacecraft from another world thousands of years more advanced than us would be constructed exactly as weather balloon cargo from Earth at that time? Just so happens to be in the same small proportions as balloon cargo as well. Hmmmmm...

I just see someone who Is very negative and critical. And someone who is more than likely apart of the vast government disinformation machine.

Your talking about a major, who was in intelligence and read into the weather balloon project. He knew what the weather balloons looked like. He was overwhelmed and excited at the crash site. He had touched and bent the strange material that always retained its shape.

He was emphatically clear they had a crashed aircraft from another world. The way the govt covered it up it was obvious it was in fact a craft of some sort. And they really wanted us to Believe a weather balloon filled several trucks with debris.

I have secured more than one military crash site and I can tell you with certainty that it was not a weather balloon just based on experience of the debris field.

I am not sure what your agenda is, but is becoming more apparent that you have one.

I wish you peace and enlightenment...

The Bot

Originally posted by Hongkongphooey
Usual debunkers trick, ignore the actual evidence presented by the witnesses and pick the pieces that only fit your theory!

However, I-beams that cannot be destroyed by a hammer, bent or sawed and seemed indestructable are hardly the I-beams of a weather balloon. Foil meterial that can be crumpled up and then just opens itself up without any creases or flaws, also does not resemble material from a weather balloon does it? Do you honestly think the head intelligence officer, Maj. Jesse Marcel of the ONLY nuclear base in the world at that time, 509th Army Air Force base at Roswell was fooled by a weather balloon??? As well as all the other 300 or so witnesses who have come forward with little pieces of the story (none exactly the same) that have helped piece the true story together? If it was just a weather balloon, why has the government changed their story so many times?

Believe what you want, debunk all you want but even though many of the witnesses have passed on, the truth is out even if the government and TPTB are still trying to hide it!

How am I ignoring the actual evidence found? I-beams and foil-like material are described by both Jessie Marcel and Jesse Marcel Jr. That's the starting point of the entire case. There's no trickery or side-tracking. And you avoided the question... Which is typical because I never get an answer:
Do you think it's just an incredible coincidence that both balloon cargo and an alien spacecraft are constructed the same way?

I'll could go further and quote Mac Brazel who was the first witness to this material. But of course I'll get the believers with their "the government got him first" etc. Anyway, in his interview, Brazel said he found:

-Rubber strips
-Tin foil
-Tough paper
-Sticks

-Eyelets
-Scotch tape w/ flowers printed on them
-Smokey colored rubber

Take way the rubber strips, eyelets, and Scotch tape and you still have I-beams and foil material.

The Project Mogul balloon cargo I-beams were coated with epoxy for strength for high altitudes. It wasn't a typical rawin-target material that came crashing down on farms in the area. The coverup was to hide the fact the project was used to "listen" for atomic bomb testing in the Soviet Union. That's information they didn't want leaked out. Especially during a time that WWII had just ended a few years earlier, and the development of atomic weapons was a reality now.

Originally posted by dlbott
I just see someone who Is very negative and critical. And someone who is more than likely apart of the vast government disinformation machine.

Your talking about a major, who was in intelligence and read into the weather balloon project. He knew what the weather balloons looked like. He was overwhelmed and excited at the crash site. He had touched and bent the strange material that always retained its shape.

He was emphatically clear they had a crashed aircraft from another world. The way the govt covered it up it was obvious it was in fact a craft of some sort. And they really wanted us to Believe a weather balloon filled several trucks with debris.

I have secured more than one military crash site and I can tell you with certainty that it was not a weather balloon just based on experience of the debris field.

I am not sure what your agenda is, but is becoming more apparent that you have one.

I wish you peace and enlightenment...

The Bot

No, I'm a realist. I'll ask you the same question I asked "Hongkongphooey":

Do you believe it's just an incredible coincidence that both the alien spacecraft and weather balloon cargo were constructed the same way?

Originally posted by dlbott

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
Weather Balloon Cargo Material in the late 40's:
-Small I-Beams
-Foil Material
-3-5 Foot in Size

Crashed Roswell "Flying Saucer" Material in 1947:
-Small I-Beams
-Foil Material
-Pieces found No More Than 3 Feet

Notice anything common between the two? Anyone want to guess at the likelihood or chances that pieces from a spacecraft from another world thousands of years more advanced than us would be constructed exactly as weather balloon cargo from Earth at that time? Just so happens to be in the same small proportions as balloon cargo as well. Hmmmmm...

I just see someone who Is very negative and critical. And someone who is more than likely apart of the vast government disinformation machine.

Your talking about a major, who was in intelligence and read into the weather balloon project. He knew what the weather balloons looked like. He was overwhelmed and excited at the crash site. He had touched and bent the strange material that always retained its shape.

He was emphatically clear they had a crashed aircraft from another world. The way the govt covered it up it was obvious it was in fact a craft of some sort. And they really wanted us to Believe a weather balloon filled several trucks with debris.

I have secured more than one military crash site and I can tell you with certainty that it was not a weather balloon just based on experience of the debris field.

I am not sure what your agenda is, but is becoming more apparent that you have one.

I wish you peace and enlightenment...

The Bot

I think you're the one with the agenda. We're going on nearly 70 years since Roswell happened. Surely some concrete evidence would have come out by now don't you think? I think a lot of you are forgetting that the 40s were when UFOs were just starting to become big here in the states. Therefore it's not unreasonable to think that people would lie. People did lie back then.

So,you personally have secured more then one "military" crash site eh? (whatever that means) But you've got nothing to offer? What proof do you have?

Mac Brazel never described the evidence like that! Absolute lies and again using information that suits your agenda! The scotch tape theory was put forward in the 80's as perhaps being 'hyroglyphic' like! That kind of scotch tape did not exist in 1947. He also gave that interview describing balloon debris after he had been held by the military and HAD changed his story! Why would the military hold Brazel for a week over a weather balloon???

Lydia Sleppy was a Teletype operator working at an Albuquerque radio station in 1947. She said they received a telephone call from John McBoyle of KSWS Radio in Roswell. In her affidavit she recalled McBoyle saying, "There's been one of those flying saucer things crash down here north of Roswell." He'd met Brazel in a coffee shop. Brazel said he'd discovered the object and "had towed it underneath a shelter on his property. Brazel offered to take McBoyle to the ranch to see the object. McBoyle described it as a 'big crumpled dishpan.'" She added the FBI then interrupted the teletype as she tried to send it and ordered that they cease transmission. She said her boss, Karl Lambertz, spoke to McBoyle the next day. "He told Mr. Lambertz the military had isolated the area where the saucer was found and was keeping the press out. He saw planes come in from Wright Field, Ohio, to take the thing away." [65] The station owner, Merle Tucker, confirmed hearing the story at the time. In an interview shortly before his death, McBoyle confirmed seeing an object that looked like “a crushed dishpan,” about 25–30 feet long, impacted in a slope.[66]

Frank Joyce, Roswell radio KGFL news announcer, said he spoke to Brazel when he first reported the incident to Sheriff Wilcox. In earlier interviews, Joyce wouldn't discuss the details of what Brazel told him, saying only that he didn't believe the story, but suggested he report the incident to the base. After Brazel gave his press interview, he called Joyce again and said, "We haven't got the story right." Brazel went to the radio station and told Joyce a balloon story. Joyce responded, "Look, this is completely different than what you told me on the phone the other day about the little green men. Joyce said Brazel responded to the effect, "No they weren't green. Our lives will never be the same again." [67] However, he initially was quoted by Roswell researcher William Moore as saying that he had this conversation with his dying boss Walt Whitmore Sr. Joyce later objected that he had been misquoted; the conversation was with Brazel. Moore was provided corrections by Joyce and changed the attribution to Brazel.[68] In more recent interviews, as first reported by Tom Carey and Don Schmitt in 1998, Joyce has explained this cryptic conversation by saying Brazel first mentioned small, nonhuman beings when he first spoke to him. Initially Brazel was highly stressed over the large quantities of debris that needed to be cleaned up. "Who's gonna clean all that # up?" Then Joyce said Brazel really began "losing it," talking about the "horrible stench" from the dead "little people" he had found at another location. Joyce suggested maybe he had found monkeys from a military experiment. "They're not monkeys, and they're not human!" Joyce then went on to explain that his "little green men comment [referred] back to our original phone conversation."
(From Wikipedia)

Finally to answer your question: Like you the military sought to find something that could be described in a similar way that was not the actual crash material. The sticks you referred to were described by witnesses as a balsa wood material that was indistructable. Tin foil when crumpled will not return to its original state and fibre optic cable is hardly rubber hose!

No, I'm a realist. I'll ask you the same question I asked "Hongkongphooey":

Do you believe it's just an incredible coincidence that both the alien spacecraft and weather balloon cargo were constructed the same way?


Constructed the same way??? How do you figure that?? A bike and Concorde both have wheels, seats and have metal construction however they hardly have the same construction or mode of flight, do they?

reply to post by Ectoplasm8


Why are we even talking about weather balloons anymore? Didn't the AF acknowledge the weather balloon theory was just a decoy to mask "Project Mogul".

So if the original story of a weather balloon was false, maybe the balloon used in project mogul was another way to distort the truth. Either way the Air Force debunked the weather balloon idea themselves when it divulged Project Mogul. Unless I misunderstood something!

The facts are that the government changed their story four to five times since 1947. So which story are we to believe? I tend to believe the off-the-hook and unrehearsed elements of the original press release.

Also people are forgetting the alien bodies recovered,first why would the air force tie dummies onto a mogul balloon if it was just a listening device,also the first crash dummy test didn't happen until 1949 two years after roswell,and it was in the size of a adult male not small and child like.The first crash test dummy was the Sierra Sam created in 1949. This 95th percentile adult male crash test dummy was developed by Sierra Engineering Co. under a contract with the United States Air Force, to be used for evaluation of aircraft ejection seats on rocket sled tests." - Source FTSS. So i believe the Air Force is lying of course they had to come up with a convincing lie about the bodies not unless they were experimenting on deformed children and didn't want that brought out

Originally posted by Cosmic911
The facts are that the government changed their story four to five times since 1947. So which story are we to believe? I tend to believe the off-the-hook and unrehearsed elements of the original press release.

I agree, the original story is the only believable one. The realist want us to believe this very large debris field that reportedly had truck loads removed were from a balloon. It goes on and on.

It brings to mind when the governor of Arizona brought out guy in alien suit after there were thousands of witness from all over the state. Of course the military dropped flares to provide a cover for all the sightings.

Truth be told I am a realist, there are too many sightings world wide for ufo's not to be real. That and I could not explain seeing one myself. My family a and a bunch of other families also saw it. I don't know what it was, I just know something or someone is here.

I want to apologize to the skeptics, you have the right to be Skeptical if you want to be.

The Bot

Originally posted by Hongkongphooey
Constructed the same way??? How do you figure that?? A bike and Concorde both have wheels, seats and have metal construction however they hardly have the same construction or mode of flight, do they?

So you're saying if you blindly walked up to a crash site of a bike with a few pieces left behind, and a crash site of a Concorde with equal amounts of pieces left behind. You would expect them to leave the same type and size of crash material as each other? That's a silly comparison, but makes my point nevertheless. Let's make it even more relatable to Roswell. Say it was pieces of a Concorde from 2013 that came crashing down on the ranch instead of a "flying saucer". Or take any one of the highly advanced aircraft we have today. Relative to the time in 1947, it would be a craft years ahead of it's time. You don't think something completely unrelatable to weather balloon cargo construction would have been left in those cases? Again, we're talking about small lightweight i-beams, and foil. That's all that was left on the scene. It's ridiculous to think nothing construction-wise was left that we couldn't draw a line straight to weather balloon cargo, if it was some exotic craft.

-I-beams found - Same construction method used for weather balloon cargo.
-Foil-like material found - Same construction method used for weather balloon cargo.
-Size of the material found - Same size as weather balloon cargo.

Now, give me something not relatable to weather balloon cargo construction involved in this "crash". The fact is you can't. People run off with "Well they said the properties of this material was super strong." As I pointed out, this wasn't the typical type of rawin balloon to measure wind speed, the balloons that would crash on these farms. It was a balloon designed to travel miles into the atmosphere and maintain a consistent height beyond that of typical weather balloons to listen for Soviet atomic weapon testing. Naturally it would have been designed stronger to withstand different type of forces for prolonged periods. Hence using the successful time-tested rawin type of construction, but with strengthened materials.

Originally posted by Hongkongphooey
Finally to answer your question: Like you the military sought to find something that could be described in a similar way that was not the actual crash material. The sticks you referred to were described by witnesses as a balsa wood material that was indistructable. Tin foil when crumpled will not return to its original state and fibre optic cable is hardly rubber hose!

"Fiber optic cable" was never described by Mac Brazel, Jesse Marcel, or Jesse Marcel Jr. That's just more rubbish added to the story years later.

Also, for materials that's supposed to be so indestructible, it sure broke off in small pieces relative to a large spacecraft. Nothing bigger than 3 feet. Kind of a flimsy way to design and construct a spacecraft that would have to travel light years to arrive here on Earth, or any planet. You know why there were small pieces instead of large sections? Because weather balloon cargo was no larger than 5 feet. Completely consistent with the size of the material found, and inconsistent with a large spacecraft thousands+ years ahead of us.

reply to post by Ectoplasm8


For someone who seems to want to approach things logically and scientifically you're making some big assumptions.

1. You're extrapolating an exact visual concept of the material based on a few words used to describe the material 75 years ago. Even if all of the reports around this event weren't hazy, these words are not enough to be confident of what debris was actually in that field (one way or another).

2. Who says it was a 'large' UFO craft that crashed?

3. If we discover the mysteries of interstellar travel in the next 10-20 years (entirely possible) then we would become starfaring withing 100-150. So why make the assumption that this craft is 'thousands+' years advanced? Sure, it would be more advanced than us to travel the stars, but why so much more advanced?

Originally posted by TheStev
reply to post by Ectoplasm8

 

For someone who seems to want to approach things logically and scientifically you're making some big assumptions.

1. You're extrapolating an exact visual concept of the material based on a few words used to describe the material 75 years ago. Even if all of the reports around this event weren't hazy, these words are not enough to be confident of what debris was actually in that field (one way or another).

2. Who says it was a 'large' UFO craft that crashed?

3. If we discover the mysteries of interstellar travel in the next 10-20 years (entirely possible) then we would become starfaring withing 100-150. So why make the assumption that this craft is 'thousands+' years advanced? Sure, it would be more advanced than us to travel the stars, but why so much more advanced?

1. No, there's no "extrapolating" about this material. What was described initially by the witnesses has stayed the same. Lightweight, small i-beams and foil-like material. If you want to take away interpretation of the materials, you also take away a huge part of this case for the believers. Your argument then would work against your own side of believing.

2. So a small ship built the same as lightweight weather balloon cargo. Doesn't help the alien case any further. This "indestructible" material just so happened to break down to WB cargo material size I guess.

3. That's not even a relevant question. But, like in my example given, what if an aircraft from 60+ years later crashed at Roswell. Doesn't common sense say the materials left behind would be consistent with the materials from an exotic aircraft? Especially one able to travel light years through our galaxy or the universe? Not consistent with weather balloon cargo of that time. How is that so difficult to understand on a very basic, simple level? Once again, you would have to believe that the Roswell spacecraft just so happened to be constructed exactly as weather balloon cargo.