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

Roswell guard ordered to 'shoot to kill'


  • Please log in to reply
203 replies to this topic

#151    Tim Hebert

Tim Hebert

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 232 posts
  • Joined:17 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 23 April 2013 - 03:35 PM

Going back to the original thesis of this thread, I had commented on Rich Reynold's Ufo Iconoclast post that Bragalia was over reaching in his "shoot to kill" meme.  Since the Bomb Group assigned to Roswell was our only nuclear capable flying unit the "shoot to kill" order would not have been unusual.  The provost marshal (head of base security) could not have arbitrary issue this order on his own.  There would have been DoD policies that dictated when, how and where this condition was warranted.  Bragalia tends to be over dramatic with his descriptions and as one poster on this thread correctly stated that the accurate order would be the implementation of "The Use of Deadly Force is Authorized" policy.  This would have been no surprise due to Roswell's flying mission.

I had further commented that if Tony wanted to discern why two security guards were posted at the hangar in question, he should find out what else could have been stored in the hangar besides alleged UFO crash material such as mission essential critical components (bomb sights, navigational components, ordnance release mechanisms, etc).  That would have justified the use of two security guards.

I seriously doubt that the hangar had contained a nuclear weapon since Roswell had weapon storage bunkers for that purpose.

Pysch 101 is correct in his numerous posts in that Project Mogul material would have easily fit the security requirements whether the hangar held Mogul crash debris or intact balloons and corresponding detection equipment...not a far reach for a rational conclusion.

Best Regards,

Tim


#152    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,830 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 24 April 2013 - 03:21 AM

View PostTim Hebert, on 23 April 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

Going back to the original thesis of this thread, I had commented on Rich Reynold's Ufo Iconoclast post that Bragalia was over reaching in his "shoot to kill" meme.  Since the Bomb Group assigned to Roswell was our only nuclear capable flying unit the "shoot to kill" order would not have been unusual.  The provost marshal (head of base security) could not have arbitrary issue this order on his own.  There would have been DoD policies that dictated when, how and where this condition was warranted.  Bragalia tends to be over dramatic with his descriptions and as one poster on this thread correctly stated that the accurate order would be the implementation of "The Use of Deadly Force is Authorized" policy.  This would have been no surprise due to Roswell's flying mission.

I had further commented that if Tony wanted to discern why two security guards were posted at the hangar in question, he should find out what else could have been stored in the hangar besides alleged UFO crash material such as mission essential critical components (bomb sights, navigational components, ordnance release mechanisms, etc).  That would have justified the use of two security guards.

I seriously doubt that the hangar had contained a nuclear weapon since Roswell had weapon storage bunkers for that purpose.

Pysch 101 is correct in his numerous posts in that Project Mogul material would have easily fit the security requirements whether the hangar held Mogul crash debris or intact balloons and corresponding detection equipment...not a far reach for a rational conclusion.

Best Regards,

Tim


I will look that podcast up Tim, thanks for the heads up.

Great to see you drop in, always is mate.

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

#153    Roswellian

Roswellian

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Joined:09 Mar 2009

Posted 24 April 2013 - 10:51 AM

Tim-

Anthony Bragalia here. I do not generally respond in forums but in this case I must...

You do not tell readers two very vital things: 1) Cox was well aware of procedures and security measures relative to atomic bombs and the planes that delivered them. This is because he had Top Secret clearance and photographed them as part of the 309th Photo Unit at Roswell !  2) I told you previously that I asked Cox if he thought this may have related to a nuclear event such as an errant weapon/broken arrow. He was adamant that this was not the case. This happened directly after the controversial crash. No one has ever said that the disc/balloon was really a nuke! And Cox heard nothing about an atomic weapon event of any kind occurring at that time. In all the dozens of Roswell vet interviews no one has ever alluded to such a thing either. And official records of course do not reflect that an emergency atomic weapon event ever happened at that time and place.

Two other things:

Mogul balloons, when recovered, were not treated in this way by military or involved scientists. CB Moore would roll over in his grave if he heard such things! Do even some very basic reading to learn more. The material of the Mogul balloon train was not classified- only its mission!

Also, if you read Witness to Roswell Second Edition, Bessie Brazel now states that she had confused the balloon retrievals with her Dad with the crash event North of Roswell. In fact she makes a full recantation and explains why in the book.

Best,
Anthony Bragalia


#154    Tim Hebert

Tim Hebert

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 232 posts
  • Joined:17 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 24 April 2013 - 04:22 PM

Hi Tony,

The theme of my posting above and on Ufo Iconoclasts revolves around why were two security guards posted at the hangar.  You stated that Cox had a "shoot to kill order".  I gave examples of "what else" might have been housed in the hangar that would have turned the area into a "Use of Deadly Force Authorization" zone.  And I provided a simple explanation for the provost's implementation of the order, which other posters concurred.

I totally agree with you that Roswell was not a Broken Arrow event as there is nothing in the seemingly self propagating minutia of facts/rumors that support such an event.

I readily admit that your knowledge of the Roswell subject surpasses that of mine by legion.  Roswell is not that much of interest to me, but when you post your work in public you will be open to criticism or asked to clarify your stance.  I had merely asked for a clarification based on my past experience with military security on bases such as Roswell and other nuclear weapons sites.  Could there have been something else in that hangar that was considered mission essential rather than alleged UFO crash debris?

You said: "Also, if you read Witness to Roswell Second Edition, Bessie Brazel now states that she had confused the balloon retrievals with her Dad with the crash event North of Roswell. In fact she makes a full recantation and explains why in the book."

Tony, that's the problem with cases such as Roswell and others, "Bessie Brazel now states..."  The story always seems to change over time.  The "witnesses" have been data mined to the point that facts and anecdotes become blurred and yet worse, merged into potential confabulation.  Notice that these witnesses often quoted are secondary or tertiary sources. You seemly tend to get drawn into this murky psychological morass.

I'm one of the few skeptics that actually defended some of your work and have privately been chastised by some for doing so.  Your Socorro hoax hypothesis is a good example where I admired your ability to think out side of ufology's orthodoxy and you took a hit from some of your peers, yet you did not waver.  It is my sincere hope that you continue to do so when warranted.

Best Regards

Tim H.


#155    Technocrat

Technocrat

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Joined:02 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland

  • "In a perfect world, every dog would have a home and every home would have a dog." Anon.

    "Art is what you can get away with." Andy Warhol.

Posted 25 April 2013 - 12:13 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 23 April 2013 - 12:30 AM, said:

You said:


Posted ImageMrSerendipity, on 20 April 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

I don't think they had polaroids in 1947! :no:


They did, still, check that which I bloded and coloured for you , and get back to me ;)

What are you going on about? "That which you 'bloded', (sic), and coloured for me," states that, 'in 1948 instant photography went on sale to the public for the first time'. In other words it wasn't available to the public in 1947. Whether it was available to the military or not I don't know. They didn't need instant photography anyway as they always had their own photographers and processing specialists and would have been able to turn out finished high quality pictures, (much better than tiny polariods), within an hour. :P

Posted Image


​"​A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely fool proof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams.

#156    odiesbsc

odiesbsc

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 644 posts
  • Joined:18 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montana, USA

  • Some folks drink from the fountain of knowledge. Some folks just gargle and spit it out.

Posted 26 April 2013 - 12:14 AM

View PostTim Hebert, on 23 April 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

Going back to the original thesis of this thread, I had commented on Rich Reynold's Ufo Iconoclast post that Bragalia was over reaching in his "shoot to kill" meme.  Since the Bomb Group assigned to Roswell was our only nuclear capable flying unit the "shoot to kill" order would not have been unusual.  The provost marshal (head of base security) could not have arbitrary issue this order on his own.  There would have been DoD policies that dictated when, how and where this condition was warranted.  Bragalia tends to be over dramatic with his descriptions and as one poster on this thread correctly stated that the accurate order would be the implementation of "The Use of Deadly Force is Authorized" policy.  This would have been no surprise due to Roswell's flying mission.



I don't know if any of you were around in the mid to late 1940's. I was a young lad at the time and I heard the term "shoot to kill" many times from my dad and uncles who were in the war, telling some of their stories. I don't remember hearing the term "The Use of Deadly Force is Authorized" at that time. I made a career of the military and I don't think I heard the latter term until probably in the 60's when I was assigned to special weapons.

Odie

As you slide down the water slide of life, may none of your swimming suits give you a permanent wedgie.

~Ancient Polynesian Greeting~



If the teacher has no DNA testing apperatus, you're probably safe blaming the booger you wiped on her computer screen on someone else.

~American Defense Lawyers' Ethics Training Book for Children~


#157    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,830 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 30 April 2013 - 03:07 AM

View PostRoswellian, on 24 April 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

Tim-

Anthony Bragalia here. I do not generally respond in forums but in this case I must...

You do not tell readers two very vital things: 1) Cox was well aware of procedures and security measures relative to atomic bombs and the planes that delivered them. This is because he had Top Secret clearance and photographed them as part of the 309th Photo Unit at Roswell !  2) I told you previously that I asked Cox if he thought this may have related to a nuclear event such as an errant weapon/broken arrow. He was adamant that this was not the case. This happened directly after the controversial crash. No one has ever said that the disc/balloon was really a nuke! And Cox heard nothing about an atomic weapon event of any kind occurring at that time. In all the dozens of Roswell vet interviews no one has ever alluded to such a thing either. And official records of course do not reflect that an emergency atomic weapon event ever happened at that time and place.

Two other things:

Mogul balloons, when recovered, were not treated in this way by military or involved scientists. CB Moore would roll over in his grave if he heard such things! Do even some very basic reading to learn more. The material of the Mogul balloon train was not classified- only its mission!

Also, if you read Witness to Roswell Second Edition, Bessie Brazel now states that she had confused the balloon retrievals with her Dad with the crash event North of Roswell. In fact she makes a full recantation and explains why in the book.

Best,
Anthony Bragalia


Hi Mr Bragalia

What do you mean "MOGUL balloons were not treated in this way? You accuse Tim of being inaccurate, then you vaguely make some half statement and leave it? In what way? Are you saying that they did not have recovery tags like the below on them?


QUESTIONNAIRE, REWARD AND WARNING TAGS ATTACHED TO PROJECT MOGUL BALLOONS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<^>

QUESTIONNAIRE

Please answer this and send to us so that we may pay you the
Reward.

1. On what date and at what hour was the balloon discovered?

2. Where was it discovered? (Approximate distance and direction
from nearest town on map?)

3. Was it observed descending? If so, at what time?

4. Did it float down slowly or fall rapidly?

5. How much kerosene was there in the tank?

C. S. Schneider
Research Division
New York University
University Heights
Bronx 53. New York

__________________________________________________________________


REWARD NOTICE

This is special weather equipment Sent aloft on research by New York Univetity.
It is important that the equipment be recovered. The finder L requested to protect
the equipment from damage or theft. and to telegraph collect to: Mr. C. 5. Schneider.
York University. 18lst St. & University Heights, Box 12. New York City.
L.S.A. Phone: LUdlow 3.6310. REFER TO FLIGHT #-__________

A dollar ($ ) reward and reasonable reimbursement for recovery expense will be
paid if the above instruction* are followed before September 1949.

KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE. THERE IS KEROSENE IN THE TANK.

___________________________________________________________________


****WARNING TAGS****

_______________________

DANGER!
FIRE!
CUT THESE WIRES
BEFORE HANDLING

_______________________

DANGER!
EMPTY THIS ON GROUND
BEFORE HANDLING

________________________

Only weeks after Roswell, the FBI drew up a one-page memorandum titled Instrument found on farm near Danforth, Illinois. The similarities are nothing short of astounding. Both “objects” were found on ranch-land, both were initially suspected of being flying saucer debris, and in the same way that the Air Force tried to lay the Roswell controversy to rest with its Mogul hypothesis, the material evidence in the Danforth case was also suspected by some within the military of originating with a Mogul balloon array. Considering this, can I ask if you have read Lost Shamans Intel Op's Hypothesis, I know you have spoken with LS in the past, but you seem to avoid this seemingly very sound option. Why is that?

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

#158    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,830 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 30 April 2013 - 03:11 AM

View PostMrSerendipity, on 25 April 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

What are you going on about? "That which you 'bloded', (sic), and coloured for me," states that, 'in 1948 instant photography went on sale to the public for the first time'. In other words it wasn't available to the public in 1947. Whether it was available to the military or not I don't know. They didn't need instant photography anyway as they always had their own photographers and processing specialists and would have been able to turn out finished high quality pictures, (much better than tiny polariods), within an hour. :P


Congrats, you did get the bolded.

All I did was answer your query. You said you did not think we had Polaroids in 1947, I am sure we are now both agreed that we most certainly did.

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

#159    Technocrat

Technocrat

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Joined:02 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland

  • "In a perfect world, every dog would have a home and every home would have a dog." Anon.

    "Art is what you can get away with." Andy Warhol.

Posted 30 April 2013 - 03:36 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 03:11 AM, said:

Congrats, you did get the bolded.

All I did was answer your query. You said you did not think we had Polaroids in 1947, I am sure we are now both agreed that we most certainly did.

Instant photography was 'NOT' available to the public until 1948!

Posted Image


​"​A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely fool proof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams.

#160    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,830 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:14 AM

View PostMrSerendipity, on 30 April 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

Instant photography was 'NOT' available to the public until 1948!


The military is "NOT" the public. The cameras "DID" exist.

Crikey Moses, and I thought you got it. Sheesh.

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

#161    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 5,049 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 01 May 2013 - 08:44 AM

I do hope Tim responds to Anthony and also that Anthony responds to Psyche. Throw LS into the mix and we could have an interesting debate develop.


#162    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,830 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 01 May 2013 - 09:13 AM

View Postquillius, on 01 May 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

I do hope Tim responds to Anthony and also that Anthony responds to Psyche. Throw LS into the mix and we could have an interesting debate develop.

I think Tim did respond to Anthony, post #154 mate. He pointed out that Tony, like most UFOlogists is supportive of an every changing story, when it is often claimed that was what the USAF did.

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

#163    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 5,049 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 01 May 2013 - 09:18 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 01 May 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

I think Tim did respond to Anthony, post #154 mate. He pointed out that Tony, like most UFOlogists is supportive of an every changing story, when it is often claimed that was what the USAF did.

how the hell did I miss that....I even went over the last few pages reading them twice...... :w00t: :unsure2: :cry:


#164    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,491 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TEXAS

Posted 01 May 2013 - 10:02 AM

View PostTim Hebert, on 24 April 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:


Tony, that's the problem with cases such as Roswell and others, "Bessie Brazel now states..."  The story always seems to change over time.  The "witnesses" have been data mined to the point that facts and anecdotes become blurred and yet worse, merged into potential confabulation.  Notice that these witnesses often quoted are secondary or tertiary sources.

Tim,

Whats wrong with the example you are useing? Both Mack Brazel and his daughter Bessie claimed they found weather balloons before! They are both primary sources. She only changed her story to say that she thinks she was remembering an earlier event when  she found a weather balloon with her dad. Thats consistent with Mack's statements at the time that he'd found weather balloons before.

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

#165    Technocrat

Technocrat

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Joined:02 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland

  • "In a perfect world, every dog would have a home and every home would have a dog." Anon.

    "Art is what you can get away with." Andy Warhol.

Posted 01 May 2013 - 10:24 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 01 May 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

The military is "NOT" the public. The cameras "DID" exist.

Crikey Moses, and I thought you got it. Sheesh.

Prove it!

Posted Image


​"​A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely fool proof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users