438 replies to this topic

[lost_shaman]

quillius, on 23 June 2011 - 10:16 PM, said:

The question didnt read like that, you imply he is acting because he should know that both you and Psyche know about the mentions of Roswell, and that this act is ridiculous.
His position is that he thinks Roswell = ET, and I am sure you were not asking him about his position regarding that.
Therefore as I already said I do not know if or why is acting like you say and his reasons for doing so, if you are convinced he is acting then you should address him to find out why.

Quote

The point was that Sky was asked to provide references indicating that Roswell was mentioned, he did so, he was not being misleading when doing so, at least not misleading with the reference and snipping it to fit, as it doesnt need to fit he just had to show the word roswell.

You seem to be defending Sky's position. That's why the question I asked was directed to you and is relevent to you not to Sky.

[Holmesian]

skyeagle409, on 22 June 2011 - 08:18 AM, said:

And, the significance of Colonel Blanchard's career in regards to those two news headlines in 1947.



[/b]If you served in the U.S. military, Blanchard's flourishing military career after the Roswell incident should have told you that senior military officials didn't see the original Roswell news headline as a mistake on his part. In other words, the original news headline is exactly what was recovered. Had Blanchard truly mistaken balsa wood and tin foil as a flying saucer, he would have been removed from his position as commander, and his career would have suffered, but as it was, his career flourished, which tells the real story of  what were recovered,.

The reason why I am handing out these little hints, is my own experience within the Air Force on public relations and its  cover-ups, and from my  first hand experience as well on an Air Force cover-up, which is why I have stated for the record that the original Roswell news headline was actually the news headline of the century.

Hi Sky,

I have asked you this question before in a number of different threads on Roswell and you have never replied directly ( at least to a point of clarification that I will come to in a moment). You have in the past, (and in the post quoted above) pointed to the promotion of Blanchard as evidence of the legitimacy of the report in the Roswell newspaper. You say that this shows that the senior officials of the air force didn't see this head line as a mistake on his part. Yet these presumably are the same officials who according to you have shortly afterwards been involved in covering up the whole story of an alien crash. If they did not believe it was a mistake to release that information to the press why do you say they then went to these great lengths to cover up this story? If they did see it as a mistake to release the story to the press then why did Blanchard's career not suffer, in fact why did it flourish as you say?

You actually did answer that part of my question before. You stated the reason was that the military had to act quickly to control the situation before someone went public with it.

My question was then ( which I will just repeat verbatim from my earlier post rather than type it out again): "The military had to act quickly to control the spread of the strange material, before someone went public with it. Ok, I get that in theory. So Col Blanchard, with this objective in mind and with all his experience that you highlight, decides the best way to do this is to release to the press that they have captured a flying saucer? Really?

And this made him a hero in the eyes of the top brass? That same brass who presumably spent the next 60 years trying to cover up the alien space craft story which you say they were happy that he released to the press? That's how he gained control of the situation? Not only that but his career went on to flourish, I think you said in an earlier post".

Just wondering if you have any response to this which may clarify firstly if I have understood your point correctly involving Blanchard and secondly how you reconcile this.

[skyeagle409]

lost_shaman, on 23 June 2011 - 10:36 PM, said:

You seem to be defending Sky's position. That's why the question I asked was directed to you and is relevent to you not to Sky.

In regards to your CIC hypothesis, I think that you confused the Circleville, Ohio recovery of a weather balloon rawin device,  which was posted in the newspaper at Fort Worth about the same time frame you are talking about, but, that recovery had nothing to do with the Roswell incident.

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 June 2011 - 07:29 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Holmesian, on 24 June 2011 - 04:00 AM, said:

Hi Sky,

I have asked you this question before in a number of different threads on Roswell and you have never replied directly ( at least to a point of clarification that I will come to in a moment). You have in the past, (and in the post quoted above) pointed to the promotion of Blanchard as evidence of the legitimacy of the report in the Roswell newspaper.

Sorry for missing your post before, but in regards to what you have just posted, Yes I have.

Quote

You say that this shows that the senior officials of the air force didn't see this head line as a mistake on his part. Yet these presumably are the same officials who according to you have shortly afterward been involved in covering up the whole story of an alien crash. If they did not believe it was a mistake to release that information to the press why do you say they then went to these great lengths to cover up this story?

Colonel Blanchard, was overly excited about what he handled in regards to the recovered material from the ranch.. He later admitted that he was responsible for the release of that information, (recovery of a flying saucer, which was accurate. However, a cover story had to be brought in rather  quickly because phone lines were being jammed  from Washington to Roswell. There was no SOP to provide Blanchard  with steps to be taken should he recover a flying saucer. Senior officials realized that, so the next step was to cover up recovery operations and deal with the press and jammed phone lines. Damage control was so effective, that the press took the cover story.

The success of how quickly that cover-up was handled,  and the fact that cover story lasted for 47 years before the Air Force threw in the Project Mogul 'monkey wrench' in 1994, probably reflected upon Blanchard in the eyes of senior military officials. It is  unconceivable to think that a military officer who is unable to identify ordinary balsa wood and tin foil, and mistaken such mundane material as a flying saucer, would go onto a flourishing career with promotions and high-level positions to boot.

Sometimes, the whole story is not known and that is where we have to look around for clues in order to ascertain the rest of the story.  

Quote

My question was then ( which I will just repeat verbatim from my earlier post rather than type it out again): "The military had to act quickly to control the spread of the strange material, before someone went public with it. OK, I get that in theory. So Col Blanchard, with this objective in mind and with all his experience that you highlight, decides the best way to do this is to release to the press that they have captured a flying saucer? Really?

Such excitement is what  caused Blanchard to reveal what they had recovered, but, there were no regulations governing  steps to be taken should a flying saucer be recovered.  Since Blanchard broke no regulations, he could not be punished, but I think the senior brass in Washington were just as excited as Blanchard was at the discovery and realize they would probably have done the same if in Blanchard's position, so from his flourishing career after the Roswell incident, Blanchard was the apple in the eyes of senior brass in Washington.

In some cases, not all of what happened, is revealed, and in many cases, they remain locked up behind closed doors.

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 June 2011 - 08:02 AM.

[skyeagle409]

lost_shaman, on 23 June 2011 - 09:32 PM, said:

You seem to think you can prove my hypothesis wrong by simply saying that this person or that person didn't mention it. That does not falsify my hypothesis at all.

BTW, why do you keep saying CIC? My hypothesis is not specifically related to the Counterintelligence Corps, it is simply a counter Intel hypothesis that I agrue originated out of Wright Field.

As mentioned earlier, I think that  you confused the recovery of a weather balloon rawin device in Circleville  about the same time frame of your CIC hypothesis. That  recovery story just happened to make its way to a newspaper in Fort Worth in July 1947. As I mentioned before, Wright-Patterson AFB, would have been  a better base  to concoct your CIC hypothesis, not Roswell AAF, because of Roswell's unique mission and operations.

In regards ot the CIC folks, Caviitt, who was trying to debunk the Roswell incident as a weather balloon, would have been the first to reveal a CIC operaton if true, but he never did. Rickett, was also on the scene as well

Quote

M/SGT. LEWIS RICKETT

[Arrived at the debris site on July 8, after much of it had been cleaned up.]

(Pflock)  Rickett remembered seeing only the foil-like debris and mentioned its peculiar characteristics of unusual lightness and strength.  He also said, "There wasn't very much of it, maybe 40 or 50 small pieces."

(R&S1, Mark Rodeghier interview)  "The MP's, four or five in the first group, were close to the gouge.  There were 25 or 30 others scattered around the perimeter.  The Provost Marshall didn't want anyone just wandering up on it."

My link

In addition, look at the date in regards ot the newspaper covering the story of the Circelville Weather balloon rawin device recovery. Note the storoy below the photo.




My link

And, the list keeps coming on.

Quote

AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT SHIRKEY

(1)  My name is Robert Shirkey

(2)  My address is:  XXXXXXXXXX

(3)  I am ( ) retired  ( ) employed as: __________________________________

(4)  In July 1947, I was stationed at the Roswell Army Air field with the rank of 1st Lieutenant.  I served as the assistant flight safety officer and was assigned to base operations for the 509th Bomb Group.

(5)  During that period, the call a B-29 ready to go as soon as possible.  Its destination was to be Fort Worth, on orders from the base commander, Col. Blanchard.  I was in the Operations Office when Col. Blanchard arrived.  He asked if the aircraft was ready.  When he was told it was, Blanchard waved to somebody, and approximately five people came in the front door, down the hallway and on to the ramp to climb into the airplane, carrying parts of what I heard was the crashed flying saucer.

(6)  At this time, I asked Col. Blanchard to turn sideways so I could see what was going on.  I saw them carrying what appeared to be pieces of metal; there was one piece that was 18 x 24 inches, brushed stainless steel in color.  I also saw what was described by another witness as an I-beam and markings.

(7)  Several days later, a B-25 was scheduled to take something to Ft. Worth.  This was the second flight during this period: the third was a B-29 piloted by Oliver W. "Pappy" Henderson directly to Wright-Patterson.

(8)  I learned later that a Sergeant and some airmen went to the crash site and swept up everything, including bodies.  The bodies were laid out in Hanger 84.  Henderson's flight contained all that material.

(9)  All of those involved--the Sergeant of the Guards, all of the crewmen, and myself--were shipped out to different bases within two weeks.

(10)  I have not been paid or given anything of value to make this statement, and it is the truth to the best of my recollection.

Signed:  Robert Shirkey

30 April 1991

Signature witnessed by:

Lupe V. Sandoval

My link

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 June 2011 - 08:38 AM.

[quillius]

lost_shaman, on 23 June 2011 - 10:36 PM, said:

You seem to be defending Sky's position. That's why the question I asked was directed to you and is relevent to you not to Sky.

It wasnt defending his position, I was merely pointing out that (he thought) he was being asked to find mention of Roswell pre-1970, which he then went on to do. It was alluded to that he may have been being misleading with that particular source which I did not think was the case so I spoke up.

As I already said Skys posiition regarding Roswell is pretty apparent, as is yours. My opinion on what happened would be purely speculative with little knowledge to base it on. So far it seems your hypothesis has obvious grounds with what little I know and it makes far more sense than the balloon theory. At the same time I dont discount the possibility of a craft crashing there.

I think what would be quite interesting would be for you to start a thread and lay out the hypothesis in full to maybe allow for it to be put to the test. I am not saying it hasnt been put to the test at certain times here on UM and on other sites, I just think it would make a good thread.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

skyeagle409, on 24 June 2011 - 08:10 AM, said:

As mentioned earlier, I think that  you confused the recovery of a weather balloon rawin device in Circleville  about the same time frame of your CIC hypothesis. That  recovery story just happened to make its way to a newspaper in Fort Worth in July 1947. As I mentioned before, Wright-Patterson AFB, would have been  a better base  to concoct your CIC hypothesis, not Roswell AAF, because of Roswell's unique mission and operations.

In regards ot the CIC folks, Caviitt, who was trying to debunk the Roswell incident as a weather balloon, would have been the first to reveal a CIC operaton if true, but he never did. Rickett, was also on the scene as well



In addition, look at the date in regards ot the newspaper covering the story of the Circelville Weather balloon rawin device recovery. Note the story below the photo.




My link[/color][/font]

And, the list keeps coming on.

There's some interesting stories there. I wonder what the one below that means. "AMERICANS WHO SEE FLYING SAUCERS ADVISED BY EUROPE TO TAKE PLEDGE".  They mean, lay off the booze a bit?  

Edited by 747400, 24 June 2011 - 12:43 PM.

[DONTEATUS]

They will just keep sweeping it under the table Sky ! Dont worrie Be Happy !
Those that know can sleep with there doors locked,those that want to learn more can Look up more.

[lost_shaman]

skyeagle409, on 24 June 2011 - 08:10 AM, said:

As mentioned earlier, I think that  you confused the recovery of a weather balloon rawin device in Circleville  about the same time frame of your CIC hypothesis. That  recovery story just happened to make its way to a newspaper in Fort Worth in July 1947. As I mentioned before, Wright-Patterson AFB, would have been  a better base  to concoct your CIC hypothesis, not Roswell AAF, because of Roswell's unique mission and operations.

I'm not confusing anything Sky. This was only one of three Rawin Targets in the local papers around Wright Field following the Secret investigation that Gen. Twining ordered on July 2nd. Wright Field would not have been a better place to conduct such an operation because they already dealt with exotic and foreign aircraft, confusing a RAWIN would make them look bad. Also the point was to fool the Press so they would leave the Flying Saucer story alone so the secret investigation could take place without Press following the story, so conducting it at Wright Field would have been counter productive especially if the operation didn't work.

Roswell was a great place to do this because it is very remote and the National Press would have a hard time getting there, moving the Story over to Ft. Worth further isolated the Press. This wasn't to hide crashed Aliens but rather to make the National Press feel foolish for the 'frenzy' in which they were covering the Flying saucer story.

Edited by lost_shaman, 24 June 2011 - 04:55 PM.

[The Religious Hoax]

I see that a point of contention here is a lack of coverage or reporting on Roswell prior to 1970.  This shouldn't surprise anyone since the MSM's messaging and content was (and probably still is) controlled by the CIA's propaganda department, it's all right here for you to read about:

http://www.unexplain...0

Any claims about a lack of coverage or conflicting stories about Roswell by the MSM are 100% complete garbage.  The original local article published in Roswell is still the best piece of evidence that something did happen in 1947, as this local paper wasn't censored on time.

[mcrom901]

The Religious Hoax, on 24 June 2011 - 04:45 PM, said:

This shouldn't surprise anyone since the MSM's messaging and content was (and probably still is) controlled by the CIA's propaganda department

they killed him...

http://www.abqjourna...s-suddenly.html

[The Religious Hoax]

mcrom901, on 24 June 2011 - 05:08 PM, said:

they killed him...

http://www.abqjourna...s-suddenly.html

FYI, your link doesn't work.

[skyeagle409]

lost_shaman, on 24 June 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

I'm not confusing anything Sky. This was only one of three Rawin Targets in the local papers around Wright Field following the Secret investigation that Gen. Twining ordered on July 2nd. Wright Field would not have been a better place to conduct such an operation because they already dealt with exotic and foreign aircraft, confusing a RAWIN would make them look bad. Also the point was to fool the Press so they would leave the Flying Saucer story alone so the secret investigation could take place without Press following the story, so conducting it at Wright Field would have been counter productive especially if the operation didn't work.

Roswell was a great place to do this because it is very remote and the National Press would have a hard time getting there, moving the Story over to Ft. Worth further isolated the Press. This wasn't to hide crashed Aliens but rather to make the National Press feel foolish for the 'frenzy' in which they were covering the Flying saucer story.

Thanks for posting the map.

It depicts where Wright-Patterson AFB is located in relation to Circleville. As I've mentioned earlier, Wright-Patterson AFB would have been a better location to put forth your CIC hypothesis, not Roswell AAF, and the  time frame of the Circleville recovery fits right in there with your CIC hypothesis and the fact the story in Circleville made it to a newspaper in Fort Worth, pretty much spells it out. It was just a coincidence that the Roswell incident occurred at roughly the same time as the Circleville recovery and the Muroc AFB incident.

Saucers were reported over the Roswell area before, and after the news headline hit the wires. In fact, balloon scientist  in the area were also reporting that they were observing flying saucers over the White  Sands, New Mexico area. At the same time the military reported recovering a flying saucer in New Mexico, flight test folks in California were reporting saucers overflying their area, which has been documented and check the date.

MUROC AFB INCIDENT, CALIFORNIA
July 8, 1947

My link


And then, compare the date of July 8, 1947, with the date of this headline.

RAAF Captures Flying Saucer

My link


Check the location where scientist were making their observations


HOW SCIENTISTS TRACKED A FLYING SAUCER

My link


So when you tie the Roswell incident with the Muroc AFB incident, which were roughly in the same ballpark as far as the time frame is concerned, it shows that something extraordinary was taking place in the skies of the American Southwest, and their reports were of flying saucers, and when you add the reports of scientist  tracking and documenting their own observations of flying saucers over the area, it is something that cannot be taken lightly.

Tthose within the CIC have testified the that exotic material they observed had exhibited extraordinary properies and have said so decades after the fact, and their testimonies show that the Roswell incident was not the result of a CIC operation. Roswell debunker, Sheridan Cavitt, would have been among the first of the CIC folks to blow the whistle on such an operation, but as history has shown, neither Cavitt, Marcel, nor Rickett, have testified that the Roswell incident was the result of a CIC operation.

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 June 2011 - 07:19 PM.

[skyeagle409]

747400, on 24 June 2011 - 12:42 PM, said:

There's some interesting stories there. I wonder what the one below that means. "AMERICANS WHO SEE FLYING SAUCERS ADVISED BY EUROPE TO TAKE PLEDGE".  They mean, lay off the booze a bit?  

Someone should ask the Europeans about those G'host Rockets' they have been reporting.

[DONTEATUS]

The story my Friends is Blowing in the Winds,as do most things in here ! Why not just accept that things that may seem unbelievible are indeed
things that maybe real,And Visa-versa. Reality is just another way to explain what one wants to believe.
the Reality of the UFO world is we dont know Its Unidentified afterall.As for E.T`s They Gotta Be Real ! I watch the News every night about L.A & Hollywoods Peeps,Thats proof enough for me !

Edited by DONTEATUS, 24 June 2011 - 08:24 PM.