Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Ramey Memo


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#136    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,578 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TEXAS

Posted 25 July 2007 - 03:37 PM

Quote

Read it how you want, I have outlined it for you. If no balloon went up, we surely must have already had alien technology because sonobuoys don't fly by themselves.


Of course not, but as I pointed out it was still perfectly fine to launch small weather balloons. This is what was launched that carried the sonobuoy, a small "cluster" 3-5 Balloons that carried the 2.4 Lbs sonobuoy aloft. That was a service flight, not a 600 ft. "Balloon Train".

The service flight here is no different than the balloons sent up to carry the TNT charges that Crary mentions in his Diary. Those were not 600 ft "Balloon Trains" either.


Quote

The NYU rep supported this. Instead of closing your eyes, how about explaining the sonobuoy with self powered flight?


Explained above, for the third time now on this thread IIRC.

Quote

You can say NO BALLOON FLIGHTS all you like. Fact is,no balloon flight was successful on the day, and unsuccessful flights were not recorded. That was standard practise.


I'm not the one saying "NO BALLOON FLIGHTS" that it what Dr. Crary recorded in his Diary entry on June 4th. Again it was a "cluster" 3-5 350 gram Neoprene Balloons that carried the sonobuoy aloft, not a 600 ft "Balloon Train".

Quote

Lucky he made that partial entry referring directly to a FLYING sonobuoy and how aircraft were unsucsessful in tracking them on June 4th ! Otherwise there would be 0% proof of flight #4 hey. It is quite clear this entry is in concunction with the NYU documentatin and is in relation to Project Mogul.


What you seem to fail to understand is that the sonobuoy was carried aloft by a few Neoprenes and not a 600 ft "MOGUL Balloon Train". It's perfectly clear from Dr. Crary's Journal entry that NO constant altitude Balloon Trains were launched on June 4th due to clouds. A sonobuoy was sent aloft instead carried by a few Neoprenes. There is a HUGE difference between a "cluster" of Neoprenes and a 600 ft constant altitude Balloon Train.







Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

#137    karl 12

karl 12

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,760 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Europe

Posted 25 July 2007 - 03:44 PM

Its interesting that ,over the years,the US army has given four completely different ,completely contradictory explanations for events at Roswell (so even they do not appear to know).
Also its worth pointing out that none of the US soldiers and senior officers ,each with years of experience,could identify the object.
The surrounding area was gone over 'with a fine tooth comb' (local police were denied entrance) and then the 'object' was driven under military guard to the Air force base where soldiers where given 'shoot to kill 'orders with regard to trespassers(sounds a bit much for a balloon).
Hundreds of credible townsfolk report being intimidated and threatened with violence by the military if they discussed the event and the local radio and TV stations were 'ransacked and looted' by military police.
The local radio and TV stations were also threatened with 'immediate removal of operating license' if they mentioned the subject on air.
The local undertaker reports the military enquiring about four child size coffins and the local hospital was closed down to the public and put under military guard.
Now with the progress in photographic enhancement techniques,the General Ramie memo appears to state the phrases 'Alien Victims ' and 'Crashed disc'.
Sounds a bit fishy to me wink2.gif


Edited by karl 12, 25 July 2007 - 08:39 PM.


#138    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,544 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 25 July 2007 - 08:09 PM

Quote

Operation Highdrop was offered as a possibility for failing memories. The Air Force has always said the memories would have to be displaced, accidents all sorts of trauma could offer such strange memories.


That was made up by the Air Force  and there are those who took that bait as well.

Quote

I don't believe the Air Force said they WERE the dummies, they said that may be the incident that is causing these memories. Another believer tale blown out of all proportion.
I though it quite tolerant of the air force to offer explainatins and offer to help what is obviously a psychological problem.
What about it? Got any pictures to verify the size?


Yes! Note the large heads and eyes the witnesses have been talking about, but most of all, note that they are the four-foot high aliens that the witnesses spoke of as well.

linked-image

You will also note that they are time travelers since they didn't do their testing until the 1950s, which meant that they took a time machine back to 1947.

Quote

Lieutenant Colonel Sheridan Cavitt though the debris was a balloon.


Many skeptics refused to take Sheridan Cavitt seriously after it was proven that He wasn't telling the truth.

Edited by skyeagle409, 25 July 2007 - 08:10 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#139    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 32,471 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 26 July 2007 - 07:25 AM

Quote

The History Channel, huh? Woah, let me step back a minute.... That's too much. I must rethink everything as it pertains to Roswell, now.

That's very good, there psyche... Very good. *pats him on the back*

But, can you subtract 1947 from 1953? Heck, guess what, that IS six years!
  How did that work? ohmy.gif


So you dismiss this report? I would have thought a thorough investigation would cover all angles. Have you even seen it?

In fact, all I was saying is the opening of the case is on film in that special. I guess that is good enough reason to bag it hey.  rolleyes.gif

No kidding, you are as good as I at mathematics!!!! Good for you!!!!!!!

The point here is NO ALIENS existed untill 1978. Highdrop was offered as an explaination, I shall go into this further down the page where you bring this point up again attempting to say I need help. Hey, big of you, I think so much more of you.

Heck, why can't you guys take a page out of Sky's book? Some civillity and backing you claims well goes a long way toward gaining respect and credibility. If you want to keep up the sarcastic front and snide rermarks I will give as good as I get.

Quote

An interpretation is dependant on the indivdual making an observation. If they interpret it otherwise, they interpret it otherwise... Please explain this, if you would... Maybe I'm just thinking on it too much.


Maybe you are.
You have offered "how can you say it was a balloon"
You are interpreting the information otherwise. The burden of proof lays with you.

Quote

*clap*
Talk about "gems"...


Glad you enjoyed it, and glad I could explain it to you so you could understand thumbsup.gif

Quote

Explain to me how that is a "tale"... The Air Force came up with it.


The Air force offered it as a POSSIBLE answer to the memories they could not otherwise explain. It was never claimed this WAS the alien bodies. There are also ties to horrific crashes and the trauma associated with them. Some crashes of the time are also listed. Miss that bit did you?
The Air Force ALWAYS said it was 6 years after the event, in fact it's in that documentary you keep piling rubbish on.

Quote

A psychological problem, huh?
Did you know that "certain" people who feel the need to resort to mental health comments are actually very insecure? This has nothing to do with psychological issues.


No, it doesnt have anything to do with psychological issues.

It has to do with shock and trauma.

Shock and trauma can harm psyche. Why did you think I was refering to them as crazies? Are you insecure?

QUOTE(*EnIgMa* @ Jul 26 2007, 01:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So?



What do you mean So?

Damn typical of believers.

The balloon could not make a debris field that big!!!!!

Either could the described craft!!!!  Hrmmzz,,,, better forget that bit.....

QUOTE(*EnIgMa* @ Jul 26 2007, 01:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
How did witness reports suddenly become a part of your argument? You really do amaze me....


The orginal reports are a record of events. I am discounting all the stuff that made an appearance 30 or 40 years after the event.
I said 600 witnesses is unreliable considering the event. I have taken many of Sky's documents in with no argument. I have been trying to eliminate baloon #4. I have not ever said ALL witness counts are unreliable.

QUOTE(*EnIgMa* @ Jul 26 2007, 01:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
My mistake. Yes, I was indeed speaking of the trajectory of the balloon...


Thank you, and that is proof how???

QUOTE(*EnIgMa* @ Jul 26 2007, 01:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So, here we have it psyche, the material was not unbreakable... Good one?
I think you just won your case. rolleyes.gif


Bout time you saw sense original.gif

QUOTE(*EnIgMa* @ Jul 26 2007, 01:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yes, he does disagree... So what?
I'll give witnesses that disagree with you, but I guess their statements are inadmissable as they interfere with your objective?


Nope quote away. I'll accept anything verifiable from a reputable source. If I can't explain it, I'l conceded. No biggie, I've conceded to Sky twice that I can think of.

You see, I am for fair, I don't care if it it was a saucer or not, I am just trying to track all available data and apply the process of elimination. If it turns out it was a saucer GREAT. The available documentation does not appear (to me) to lead to that conclusion.

QUOTE(*EnIgMa* @ Jul 26 2007, 01:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Official report? Oh, ok...


Yes, what of it.
What I stated is true, you are being extremely disrepectful with your accusations to people that are ready to die for you.
The Government is not out to keep alien beings from you!!

QUOTE(*EnIgMa* @ Jul 26 2007, 01:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Verify? No. But many witnesses have said the same...


How many? A number of reputable collaborative people with no reason to lie will be considered.
Sky told me only his sons can verify this claim when I asked him a couple weeks ago, as I could not find an eyewtiness testimony that said the incarceration went beyond 4 hours. Whitmore's son says he was at their place.

QUOTE(*EnIgMa* @ Jul 26 2007, 01:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Can you verify this CLAIM?


KSWS station manager George Walsh who broke the story - does not recall any such sweep.

QUOTE(*EnIgMa* @ Jul 26 2007, 01:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'll admit my use of the word evidence was a little loose... I will give you that. I can recognize that.

Those were all indications that no Mogul balloon was responsible, none-the-less.
edited



I don't think so and I feel I debated that point successfully.

Hrrmmzz this might make a good wallpaper....

QUOTE(*EnIgMa* @ Jul 26 2007, 01:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think you just won your case.


Edited by psyche101, 26 July 2007 - 07:28 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#140    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 32,471 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 26 July 2007 - 07:31 AM

Quote

That was made up by the Air Force  and there are those who took that bait as well.
Yes! Note the large heads and eyes the witnesses have been talking about, but most of all, note that they are the four-foot high aliens that the witnesses spoke of as well.


You will also note that they are time travelers since they didn't do their testing until the 1950s, which meant that they took a time machine back to 1947.
Many skeptics refused to take Sheridan Cavitt seriously after it was proven that He wasn't telling the truth.



I am ready to drop Sheridan Cavitt if we drop all circumstantial evidence. Glen Dennis doesn't come up to high on the trust scale either.

If that was what the Air forces said "the dummies Definitly were the Alien bodies", OK, but they only said, maybe this can explain these memories? We don't know where they got them? They also said it was 6 years after the event. Nothing to uncover, it was admission.

Edited by psyche101, 26 July 2007 - 07:32 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#141    Mind_Freak

Mind_Freak

    Supreme Reptilian Overlord

  • Member
  • 2,321 posts
  • Joined:24 Sep 2005
  • Location:Bohemian Grove

  • When one starts to question the very nature of reality, the mind is truly working.

Posted 26 July 2007 - 11:31 AM

First off, psyche, let me say that my sarcasm was overdone, and I replied hastily after I read your "oooooohh the big bad government" comment. I also felt like you already had me pegged as one of those "believers" (which I didn't quite appreciate), when all I was trying to do was show that I didn't think that Project Mogul was the culprit...

... So I hope we can at least 'level-out' right here.

Quote

So you dismiss this report? I would have thought a thorough investigation would cover all angles. Have you even seen it?

I don't dismiss it at all... It's just nothing new to me. Which means I have already considered it, and still do consider it. I just still have my doubts.

Quote

Heck, why can't you guys take a page out of Sky's book? Some civillity and backing you claims well goes a long way toward gaining respect and credibility. If you want to keep up the sarcastic front and snide rermarks I will give as good as I get.

I have addressed my sarcasm yesterday, and I hope we are at some kind of truce.

As far as backing up the claims, I really don't feel the need to. It's just not worth it around here, to me. Skyeagle does a damn good job of showing stuff that I would have to. Just because it doesn't come from me, doesn't mean I don't know it, or expect other people to know it...

Quote

You are interpreting the information otherwise. The burden of proof lays with you.

I'm not too sure about that in this case... I am not the one claiming Project Mogul was responsible.

Quote

No, it doesnt have anything to do with psychological issues.
It has to do with shock and trauma.
Shock and trauma can harm psyche. Why did you think I was refering to them as crazies? Are you insecure?

Perhaps you should reread that little bit you posted, it sure didn't sound like you were talking about "shock and trauma."

Quote

Damn typical of believers.

The balloon could not make a debris field that big!!!!!

Either could the described craft!!!!  Hrmmzz,,,, better forget that bit.....

I'm not a believer... That's get past that.

Can you tell me what the egg-shaped craft was made up of? How it was constructed? How it would react under extreme pressure, etc?
It's a little premature to say that the craft couldn't cover an area that big.
To go down a different road, it has been said that there were two crafts. One was responsible for the debris field, and one was found miles away, pretty much intact. I'm not saying that's how it was, just putting the idea out there.

QUOTE
The orginal reports are a record of events. I am discounting all the stuff that made an appearance 30 or 40 years after the event.

Should that really be done? I mean, don't you think the perfect opportunity to let the cat out of the bag is when it's finally gaining public attention again? It would be much easier to hold on to a secret when no one is really talking about it... IMO.
QUOTE
I said 600 witnesses is unreliable considering the event. I have taken many of Sky's documents in with no argument. I have been trying to eliminate baloon #4. I have not ever said ALL witness counts are unreliable.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. wink2.gif
QUOTE
Thank you, and that is proof how???

I didn't say it was proof, but it is pretty damning evidence that when calculated by an unbias person, the trajectory of the balloon for that day (if it even went up), considering the wind currents, would have landed the balloon miles away from where they said it was found.
QUOTE
Nope quote away. I'll accept anything verifiable from a reputable source. If I can't explain it, I'l conceded. No biggie, I've conceded to Sky twice that I can think of.

Haut's affidavit, for one? That seems reputable to me...

QUOTE
You see, I am for fair, I don't care if it it was a saucer or not, I am just trying to track all available data and apply the process of elimination. If it turns out it was a saucer GREAT. The available documentation does not appear (to me) to lead to that conclusion.

I don't care if it was a saucer either, in fact, I don't think it was (an alien saucer, at least).
QUOTE
What I stated is true, you are being extremely disrepectful with your accusations to people that are ready to die for you.

This is called a non-argument.
QUOTE
The Government is not out to keep alien beings from you!!

I never said they were...? I think this is one of our problems...
QUOTE
Sky told me only his sons can verify this claim when I asked him a couple weeks ago, as I could not find an eyewtiness testimony that said the incarceration went beyond 4 hours. Whitmore's son says he was at their place.
KSWS station manager George Walsh who broke the story - does not recall any such sweep.

A week is an exaggeration. A few days is what was actually said.
QUOTE
I don't think so and I feel I debated that point successfully.

Then we are pretty much done discussing this, yes?
QUOTE
Hrrmmzz this might make a good wallpaper....

grin2.gif... I'm glad you liked it.


To end, again, I apologize for my antics yesterday, and I hope this post will perhaps serve to shine a better light on me... thumbsup.gif

Edited by *EnIgMa*, 26 July 2007 - 12:06 PM.

------------

#142    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,578 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TEXAS

Posted 26 July 2007 - 04:10 PM

Quote

The point here is NO ALIENS existed untill 1978.


I assume that by saying "NO ALIENS existed" you mean no-one spoke about Aliens in relation to this event (Roswell) prior to 1978. If that is what you meant, that is not correct at all.

I can name three independent sources not involved with Roswell at all that mention crash retrievals and recovery of "Bodies" by the Military in New Mexico in 1947!

Here is one an FBI Memo to J. Edgar Hoover dated March 22, 1950 which reads in part.

"An investigator for the Air Forces stated that three so-called flying saucers had been recovered in New Mexico. They were described as being circular in shape with raised centers, approximately 50 feet in diameter. Each one was occupied by three bodies of human shape but only 3 feet tall, dressed in metallic cloth of a very fine texture. Each body was bandaged in a manner similar to the blackout suits used by speed flyers and test pilots. "

http://foia.fbi.gov/hottel_guy/hottel_guy_part01.pdf


That's of course 28 years before any Roswell witness ever came forward and only 32 months after the summer of 1947!

This document is no fake either, its right there on the FBI's own FOIA Reading Room!

You'll also note this Memo predates any crash test dummy experiments mentioned in the Roswell Report!

Take note of the similarities to Roswell in this 1950 Memo to Hoover... Disks!!! ... Metallic Cloth!!! ... Bodies!!! ...3 feet tall!!! ... U.S. Military!!! ... New Mexico!!! ... 1947!!!

That alone, in my mind, should be enough to conclusively show that the Roswell "story" is as old as the Roswell event itself, not something that just manifested itself in 1978. The Memo is completely independent of Roswell or Roswell witness'.

Now, mind you, (1)this Memo is not the only "miraculous" coincidence that we are dealing with here. The thing is that no one sees these "miraculous" coincidences if they are strictly focused on the Roswell events and not on the "Big Picture" so to speak of the History, peripheral events, and evidence that IMO are important and relevant. (2)I've already talked about Gen. Twining and his UFO investigation and the Rawin Targets that I think are likely a Counter Intelligence operation that involved Roswell! (3)The fact that so many Military witness' agreed with Marcel Sr. is another "miraculous" coincidence. (4)The fact that the FBI and Air Force were "spying" on the Army in New Mexico is another "miraculous" coincidence!

Edited by lost_shaman, 26 July 2007 - 08:31 PM.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

#143    Agent. Mulder

Agent. Mulder

    Only man to have fought Sasquatch. And lived...

  • Member
  • 15,163 posts
  • Joined:08 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:london, ontario

  • ...highly unlikely, but not outside the realm of Extreme possibility.

Posted 26 July 2007 - 08:12 PM

Quote

The point here is NO ALIENS existed untill 1978.

It was never claimed this WAS the alien bodies. There are also ties to horrific crashes and the trauma associated with them. Some crashes of the time are also listed. Miss that bit did you?



1) actually, ever heard of Aurora? The Texas version of Roswell. it happened in 1897

2) they believed they were might have bee alien bodies (or i guess they said 'they werent human'). due to their small size, larger heads and their different body colour.

the truth is out there....

#144    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 32,471 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 27 July 2007 - 02:38 AM

Quote

I assume that by saying "NO ALIENS existed" you mean no-one spoke about Aliens in relation to this event (Roswell) prior to 1978. If that is what you meant, that is not correct at all.

I can name three independent sources not involved with Roswell at all that mention crash retrievals and recovery of "Bodies" by the Military in New Mexico in 1947!

Here is one an FBI Memo to J. Edgar Hoover dated March 22, 1950 which reads in part.

"An investigator for the Air Forces stated that three so-called flying saucers had been recovered in New Mexico. They were described as being circular in shape with raised centers, approximately 50 feet in diameter. Each one was occupied by three bodies of human shape but only 3 feet tall, dressed in metallic cloth of a very fine texture. Each body was bandaged in a manner similar to the blackout suits used by speed flyers and test pilots. "

http://foia.fbi.gov/hottel_guy/hottel_guy_part01.pdf
That's of course 28 years before any Roswell witness ever came forward and only 32 months after the summer of 1947!

This document is no fake either, its right there on the FBI's own FOIA Reading Room!

You'll also note this Memo predates any crash test dummy experiments mentioned in the Roswell Report!

Take note of the similarities to Roswell in this 1950 Memo to Hoover... Disks!!! ... Metallic Cloth!!! ... Bodies!!! ...3 feet tall!!! ... U.S. Military!!! ... New Mexico!!! ... 1947!!!

That alone, in my mind, should be enough to conclusively show that the Roswell "story" is as old as the Roswell event itself, not something that just manifested itself in 1978. The Memo is completely independent of Roswell or Roswell witness'.

Now, mind you, (1)this Memo is not the only "miraculous" coincidence that we are dealing with here. The thing is that no one sees these "miraculous" coincidences if they are strictly focused on the Roswell events and not on the "Big Picture" so to speak of the History, peripheral events, and evidence that IMO are important and relevant. (2)I've already talked about Gen. Twining and his UFO investigation and the Rawin Targets that I think are likely a Counter Intelligence operation that involved Roswell! (3)The fact that so many Military witness' agreed with Marcel Sr. is another "miraculous" coincidence. (4)The fact that the FBI and Air Force were "spying" on the Army in New Mexico is another "miraculous" coincidence!



Nice one, had me for a second there wink2.gif

The memo is WRITTEN by the FBI. It also clearly states this is not evidence provided by the FBI but Mr. Informant. It does not in any place offer creedence to this story. It even makes the (what seems to me to be tongue in cheek) description as
"so called flying saucers".
It goes on to state that the "informant" says the saucers crashed because of the experiments being carried out.
So our 1947 sonobuoys and neoprene balloons affected advanced alien intergalactic equipment? That's a big pill to swallow.

Clicky - This official FBI document offers official correspondance between government departments explaing what actually was recovered - and that it was balloons recovered. For all we know the investigator mentoned in the memo you provided could have been Bob Lazar.

Same source. The document you have provided is from an ambiguous source. The document I have provided is very cleary the official position on this incident.

PS, Reading back, I see you actully filled the requirement. I don't think this is reliable, as for all we know the investigator could be anybody, still, I asked for a record before 1978.
Hats off to you, I concede and shall leave this point unless I can offer verified opposing evidence.

Edited by psyche101, 27 July 2007 - 07:50 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#145    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 32,471 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 27 July 2007 - 02:52 AM

Quote

1) actually, ever heard of Aurora? The Texas version of Roswell. it happened in 1897

2) they believed they were might have bee alien bodies (or i guess they said 'they werent human'). due to their small size, larger heads and their different body colour.



That's more like it buddy, come forward thumbsup.gif


Thank you for the offering, I appreciate news of all encounters.

Yes I have heard of this one, didn't someone attempt to dig up the body?

Quote

In an interview with Time magazine in 1979, Etta Pegues claimed that S.E. Hayden, the local correspondent who sent the news of the incident to nearby newspapers in Dallas and Fort Worth, "Wrote it as a joke and to bring interest to Aurora. The railroad bypassed us, and the town was dying."


I'd like to see something like this in current times. Most "intruiging" cases seem to be very old and all the evidence gone. As air travel was a bit of a marvel for the times it seems logical to assume that mis-identifications would be more than common in this era.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#146    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 32,471 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 27 July 2007 - 07:39 AM

Quote

First off, psyche, let me say that my sarcasm was overdone, and I replied hastily after I read your "oooooohh the big bad government" comment. I also felt like you already had me pegged as one of those "believers" (which I didn't quite appreciate), when all I was trying to do was show that I didn't think that Project Mogul was the culprit...

... So I hope we can at least 'level-out' right here.
I don't dismiss it at all... It's just nothing new to me. Which means I have already considered it, and still do consider it. I just still have my doubts.
I have addressed my sarcasm yesterday, and I hope we are at some kind of truce.


Definitly crossed wires. I must admit the last thing I expected from here was such a civil post. We both got a little sarcastic, all level.
I guess we are passionate about the same thing just looking through the fence from different angles. I just don't think the Government are organised enough to carry this on for 60 years without major bumbles. (especially through the Clinton administration? He seemed to have more than enough on his hands just staying out of the tabloids) I have dealt with them before,(in more instances than just contracting) and seen contractors charge them $35.00 for a $0.01c tech screw at new parliment house. All the departments I have dealt with are not the most efficient. I even know a fellow who has his initials inscribed at the top of the new flagpole devil.gif

I am pleased you have seen the doco. I think all evidence has to be scrutinsed. I accept your doubts with more mutual respect after this post. I thought if nothing else, it gives a god insight into the AF view. I try to consider both views with equal conviction.

Truce original.gif Happy to *Holds hand out*


Quote

As far as backing up the claims, I really don't feel the need to. It's just not worth it around here, to me. Skyeagle does a damn good job of showing stuff that I would have to. Just because it doesn't come from me, doesn't mean I don't know it, or expect other people to know it...

I'm not too sure about that in this case... I am not the one claiming Project Mogul was responsible.
Perhaps you should reread that little bit you posted, it sure didn't sound like you were talking about "shock and trauma."

I'm not a believer... That's get past that.


He sure does doesn't he.
Sorry, I have not seen your debates on the subjct. I can understand re-hashing old information time in and time out can be frustrating and boring. I hope I can offer a fresh viewpoint in at least some parts neither of us may have considered before.

I saw that as the Air Force offered a reasonable explaination, and those that oppose that view are requred to show why and how that view eventuated, and how it corroborates with all instances.

I apologise for my grammar, I assure you that my intention all along was trauma. I can see how that could be interpreted two ways.

huh.gif Wow, I must admit, this post holds some suprises, I had you pegged as a hardcore believer.

Quote

Can you tell me what the egg-shaped craft was made up of? How it was constructed? How it would react under extreme pressure, etc?
It's a little premature to say that the craft couldn't cover an area that big.
To go down a different road, it has been said that there were two crafts. One was responsible for the debris field, and one was found miles away, pretty much intact. I'm not saying that's how it was, just putting the idea out there.


If the ballon train could not make the field, and the craft was physically smaller, it stands to reason neither explaination fits the evidence.
The craft is very small for eyewitness reports, Haut's own desription.

What applies to the balloons surely applies to the craft?

Quote

He describes a metallic egg-shaped object around 12 - 15 feet in length and around 6 feet wide.


In addition the material was described as unbreakable, belted with a 16 pound hammer. How could an intergalactic craft be so small, or destruct so badly when it is designed for the depths of space? The description just does not seem to fit a vehicle that has to traverse such a harsh environment, yet was brought down by interferance of the sonobuoys? It sounds a bit Sci Fi I reckon.

Quote

Should that really be done? I mean, don't you think the perfect opportunity to let the cat out of the bag is when it's finally gaining public attention again? It would be much easier to hold on to a secret when no one is really talking about it... IMO.


Yeah, the 11 crash sites, 600 witnesses, the amounts of fraudulent (on both sides) documents. The evidence is mounting into a big mess that will never be sorted through.

If we could uncover one unexplainable discrepancy that cannot be argued, I'd personally like to pursue that. I concede a cover up far more important could certainly be hiding behind Projet Mogul. I'd just like to see Mogul 100% no argument disproved. If it is not to blame, I figure proof is hiding somewhere. Not in an ambiguous form either, perhaps that is my belief LOL.

QUOTE(*EnIgMa* @ Jul 26 2007, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Ok, thanks for the clarification. wink2.gif

I didn't say it was proof, but it is pretty damning evidence that when calculated by an unbias person, the trajectory of the balloon for that day (if it even went up), considering the wind currents, would have landed the balloon miles away from where they said it was found.


That is true, but the unbias person runs a site that also insists there was no balloon?
That sort of makes me think there is less to the balloon story.

QUOTE(*EnIgMa* @ Jul 26 2007, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Haut's affidavit, for one? That seems reputable to me...
I don't care if it was a saucer either, in fact, I don't think it was (an alien saucer, at least).


This is my biggest problem, for every piece of evidence, we have reliable anti-evidence. Sort of like Newtons law isn't it LOL.

All the media personel in town know nothing of this sweep, only one man made the claim.
I really am suprised, I thought you were arguing for a saucer. I will take all your future posts in a different light. I think we may actually make a good team in the end.

QUOTE(*EnIgMa* @ Jul 26 2007, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This is called a non-argument.


Fair enough, consider the point dropped.

QUOTE(*EnIgMa* @ Jul 26 2007, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I never said they were...? I think this is one of our problems...


I have misinterpreted you in more ways than one. I guess we are both used to the same debates.

QUOTE(*EnIgMa* @ Jul 26 2007, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
A week is an exaggeration. A few days is what was actually said.


Agreed. Brazels sons say a week, another reports range from a few hours to a few days. So many conflicting stories...........media personell say he was back that afternoon, Whitmore's son says he was at their place.
I can't figure where he was, but 4 media reports have him in town that afternoon. I hev been going with the numbers here.

QUOTE(*EnIgMa* @ Jul 26 2007, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Then we are pretty much done discussing this, yes?


If you like, but if you can offer more input, or links, I'd appreciate it. Thank you for this post.

QUOTE(*EnIgMa* @ Jul 26 2007, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
grin2.gif... I'm glad you liked it.
To end, again, I apologize for my antics yesterday, and I hope this post will perhaps serve to shine a better light on me... thumbsup.gif


I feel we both have a better understanding of our positions. I hope this covers my sarcastic behaviour as well.
My apologies as well. thumbsup.gif

Edited by psyche101, 27 July 2007 - 07:46 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#147    Mind_Freak

Mind_Freak

    Supreme Reptilian Overlord

  • Member
  • 2,321 posts
  • Joined:24 Sep 2005
  • Location:Bohemian Grove

  • When one starts to question the very nature of reality, the mind is truly working.

Posted 27 July 2007 - 03:01 PM

Quote

Definitly crossed wires. I must admit the last thing I expected from here was such a civil post. We both got a little sarcastic, all level.

Glad to hear it... It's a funny thing being an adult, isn't it? laugh.gif

Quote

I guess we are passionate about the same thing just looking through the fence from different angles. I just don't think the Government are organised enough to carry this on for 60 years without major bumbles. (especially through the Clinton administration? He seemed to have more than enough on his hands just staying out of the tabloids) I have dealt with them before,(in more instances than just contracting) and seen contractors charge them $35.00 for a $0.01c tech screw at new parliment house. All the departments I have dealt with are not the most efficient. I even know a fellow who has his initials inscribed at the top of the new flagpole devil.gif

Fair enough... But I will point out that the president probably wouldn't be "in the know." I think they ended that after Kennedy.

Quote

I am pleased you have seen the doco. I think all evidence has to be scrutinsed. I accept your doubts with more mutual respect after this post. I thought if nothing else, it gives a god insight into the AF view. I try to consider both views with equal conviction.

Good... Good. That's really the best thing you can do, really.

Quote

Truce original.gif Happy to *Holds hand out*

thumbsup.gif  *shakes hand*

Quote

He sure does doesn't he.

I feel bad about it sometimes... lol
QUOTE
Sorry, I have not seen your debates on the subjct. I can understand re-hashing old information time in and time out can be frustrating and boring. I hope I can offer a fresh viewpoint in at least some parts neither of us may have considered before.

To tell you the truth, that's why I replied to one of your posts on this subject. You don't see me replying to just anyone, do you? wink2.gif

QUOTE
I saw that as the Air Force offered a reasonable explaination, and those that oppose that view are requred to show why and how that view eventuated, and how it corroborates with all instances.

Eeek... Alright, I guess (grin2.gif):

Link <------- This is a review on Charlie Moore's Trajectory calculations.
Link <------- This is an engineer looking at the debris field in comparison to the PMH (Project Mogul Hypothesis).


The witness testimony describing the material are all consistant with Marcel's description, and Marcel was aware of Mogul's existence. He couldn't identify it (the material)...

Those are some reasons why I'm not a big fan of the PMH...

QUOTE
I apologise for my grammar, I assure you that my intention all along was trauma. I can see how that could be interpreted two ways.

Not a problem... I was hoping you wouldn't be that tasteless. original.gif
QUOTE
huh.gif Wow, I must admit, this post holds some suprises, I had you pegged as a hardcore believer.

You're not the first... You probably won't be the last. It's just the way I carry myself, I guess.
QUOTE
If the ballon train could not make the field, and the craft was physically smaller, it stands to reason neither explaination fits the evidence.
The craft is very small for eyewitness reports, Haut's own desription.
What applies to the balloons surely applies to the craft?

While that is true in theory, we still can't be sure.
QUOTE
In addition the material was described as unbreakable, belted with a 16 pound hammer. How could an intergalactic craft be so small, or destruct so badly when it is designed for the depths of space? The description just does not seem to fit a vehicle that has to traverse such a harsh environment, yet was brought down by interferance of the sonobuoys? It sounds a bit Sci Fi I reckon.

I think this is grossly misrepresented. Obviously the material was not unbreakable, any material has it's limits. What was said was that it couldn't be burned, creased, or dented, and when one would crumple it up, it would reform to it's original shape (some reported the sound of sulofane(sp?) when it would unfold).

As far as the interference being the cause of the craft, that is one theory... As i've stated earlier, another is two of these crashing into each other.
QUOTE
If we could uncover one unexplainable discrepancy that cannot be argued, I'd personally like to pursue that. I concede a cover up far more important could certainly be hiding behind Projet Mogul. I'd just like to see Mogul 100% no argument disproved. If it is not to blame, I figure proof is hiding somewhere. Not in an ambiguous form either, perhaps that is my belief LOL.

Well, I can't quite offer that, but I can offer reasonable doubt (if it doesn't already plague you).


------------

#148    Mind_Freak

Mind_Freak

    Supreme Reptilian Overlord

  • Member
  • 2,321 posts
  • Joined:24 Sep 2005
  • Location:Bohemian Grove

  • When one starts to question the very nature of reality, the mind is truly working.

Posted 27 July 2007 - 03:02 PM

Quote

That is true, but the unbias person runs a site that also insists there was no balloon?
That sort of makes me think there is less to the balloon story.
This is my biggest problem, for every piece of evidence, we have reliable anti-evidence. Sort of like Newtons law isn't it LOL.

It's definately a b***h... original.gif

Quote

I really am suprised, I thought you were arguing for a saucer. I will take all your future posts in a different light. I think we may actually make a good team in the end.

I was just thinking that myself, actually... Hmmm.  wink2.gif

Quote

I have misinterpreted you in more ways than one. I guess we are both used to the same debates.

Again, not the first, not the last (i'm sure).

Quote

Agreed. Brazels sons say a week, another reports range from a few hours to a few days. So many conflicting stories...........media personell say he was back that afternoon, Whitmore's son says he was at their place.
I can't figure where he was, but 4 media reports have him in town that afternoon. I hev been going with the numbers here.

It is an unavoidable, yet seemingly unsolvable problem...

The reports that have him in-town that afternoon, they didn't happen to mention him driving a brand new shiny truck, did they?

Quote

If you like, but if you can offer more input, or links, I'd appreciate it. Thank you for this post.

I would enjoy continuing to discuss this with you, especially now.

And absolutely, are there things in particular you would like further input on, or links for?
QUOTE
I feel we both have a better understanding of our positions. I hope this covers my sarcastic behaviour as well.
My apologies as well. thumbsup.gif

I was hoping it may come to this.

Respect is gained. thumbsup.gif

------------

#149    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,578 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TEXAS

Posted 27 July 2007 - 04:35 PM

Quote

Clicky - This official FBI document offers official correspondance between government departments explaing what actually was recovered - and that it was balloons recovered. For all we know the investigator mentoned in the memo you provided could have been Bob Lazar.

Same source. The document you have provided is from an ambiguous source. The document I have provided is very cleary the official position on this incident.


That, July 8th 1947 FBI Memo, is not official correspodence. When you see a sentence that say's "[ Blacked out ] further advised..." that also tells you the information is from an informant because informants names are always [ Blacked out ] in FBI Memos. Furthermore the Memo from the Field office goes on to state that "Telephonic conversation between their office ( Gen. Ramey's office? ) and Wright Field had not borne out this belief."

In other words the FBI Field office is saying that they were advised over the phone by the Eighth Air Force HQ that the 'disc' was a weather balloon and a radar reflector, but that is not what Eighth Air Force HQ and Wright Field are saying to eachother over the phone lines!!!  (Remember that Counter Intelligence Operation I was talking about?)



Quote

PS, Reading back, I see you actully filled the requirement. I don't think this is reliable, as for all we know the investigator could be anybody, still, I asked for a record before 1978.
Hats off to you, I concede and shall leave this point unless I can offer verified opposing evidence.


O.k. moving on to independent source number two, people whos names we certainly know.

Here in correspondence dated from March 10, 1950, Col. Robert H. Blount, Chief, Medical Research Division, Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Air Force, advises Dr. Robley D. Evans, Department of Physics of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, that "It has recently been rumoured that one of these so-called flying saucers crashed in (New?) Mexico; however, the details are somewhat bizzare at this moment."

http://209.132.68.98/pdf/blount_evans.pdf

So here we have a confirmation that is completely independent from Roswell that there were "rumours" at a fairly high level within the military by 1949-50 that there were "crashes" and the details of which were "bizarre", and again isolated to a specific geographic area (if not New Mexico!). Note that is also consistent with the March 22, 1950 FBI Memo to Hoover from Guy Hottel (SAC) in the Washington D.C. Field Office which is responsible for, amoung other things, information comming out of the Pentagon.

Oh, and look... I completely forgot about this independent source so lets make that four independent sources saying the same thing...

The Jan. 9th, 1950 edition of TIME Magazine had a story titled 'Visitors from Venus' which at one point in the article says...

"Some time ago, according to one version, a large space ship crashed in flames in New Mexico. Its 15 crew members were burned to a crisp, but luckily some of its instruments remained intact. One was a radio receiver, over which at short intervals came cryptic messages in an unearthly tongue.

While U.S. observers were studying the wreck, the story went, a second space craft crashed near by. Both of its two occupants were killed, but one of their bodies, thrown free, was found in good condition. The interplanetary visitor was about three feet tall and a bit primitive, even monkeylike, in appearance. His body was rushed to the Rosenwald Foundation in Chicago for expert examination."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,811681,00.html

So here agian we have the same version of events, a crash and a retrival with Bodies in New Mexico, before 1950, "some time ago".

Edited by lost_shaman, 27 July 2007 - 07:16 PM.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users