466 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

skyeagle409, on 05 September 2011 - 12:38 AM, said:

What NASA  has said? Even astronauts, other than Ed Mitchell, have said the objects are real. On another note in regards to  NASA, we have had secret aircraft flying around with bogus NASA insignias, which brings the U-2 into the limelight. That, in addition that NASA received a warning in 1960 of the dire consequences should ET reality be revealed to the public, which is a motive for NASA to keep quiet.

What has NASA Said? What does Mitchell have to back his wild claims on a 60+ year old story? As far as I can see his claim to fame on this subject is riding his accomplishments that are completely unrelated to the claims. When someone has to rely on things like credentials, and cannot produce proof, that is an appeal to authority, and this is what Ed Mitchell's claim is, an appeal to authority. It is not proof in any form.

Haha, the catchcry of the poor beaten down believer

"It's all a cover up I tells ya!"

No proof, no reason, and from the people who actually are looking for life. They have proof of efforts to contact other life, and they told us all about the WOW! Signal. Who "backs" Mitchell? UFOlogists and the old timers. Not too much evidence there on the believer part, just some third party hearsay, but should I expect more?

And, what does MItchell have? Second hand stories he puts stock in because he walked past the Foster ranch. That might be enough for you, but not a serious research effort.

skyeagle409, on 05 September 2011 - 12:38 AM, said:

What about Cooper and the cosmonauts?

Excuse me? I said

What about Shepard? What about Roosa?

Are you playing: He was doing it, so I did. ??

What about the men on his spaceship? How can they confirm Mitchell's claims? The men who went into space with him?

skyeagle409, on 05 September 2011 - 12:38 AM, said:

Ed Mitichell has the backing of those who were there--military personnel and civilians,--and military and civilian personnel based at Wright-Pattersn AFB, including generals, on down the chain of command..

Excellent, so What about Shepard? What about Roosa?

Ohh civillians!!! Oh, let me take my skeptic hat of right now, we would not have a civillian popping out the odd pork pie would we now!! Never seen such a ting in all my life! What does Lloyd Pye say? Billy Mier? Richard Hoagland, hey lets not stop at one, lets pull al the bigwigs of Alien Tech out shall we! (That is sarcasm Sky, just in case.....)

I do not care who says what Sky, people of all interests and all ideals enter all walks of life. I want proof, that is where your argument lacks. Problem is believers need to make proof for ET, that is just how the ETH rolls, assumption and embellishment is a staple. I just cannot subscribe to such a heavy involvement of imagination. Such is required to come to the assumptions reached.

skyeagle409, on 05 September 2011 - 12:38 AM, said:

Actually, more and more information has been revealed on Roswell, which supports what Ed Mitchell has been saying.

No, that is just fantasy, where is Roswell in relation to where it was in 1980? The same place. I am still saying it is not ET, and you are still saying it is. No matter how much common sense flood out over the years, it matters not how much effort goes into a rational explanation, it matters not that round pegs are going into round holes. The only thing that has advanced over the years on Roswell is the hopes of the blind believers.

Get back to me when it is resolved once and for all, for everybody, not your narrow view. There is no need for you and I to keep repeating the same arguments until we depart this planet, as I doubt agreement will be reached by that time on this tripe, and people will still be arguing back and forth about ET being captured whilst both you and I are pushing up daisies.

Edited by psyche101, 05 September 2011 - 01:23 AM.

[skyeagle409]

psyche101, on 05 September 2011 - 12:58 AM, said:

What has NASA Said? What does Mitchell have to back his wild claims on a 60+ year old story?

The original Roswell headline, which is backed by those who were there on the scene, and military and civilian personnel at Wright-Patterson AFB, two Air Force cover stories in effect to this very day, in addition to the Air Force's own project officer for test dummy operations of the 1950s, who became a believer and whom was stationed at Wright-Patterson AFB.

The Air Force would never have concocted such a sensation story had it not been true, especially the 509th Bomber Group, the world's only nuclear force.

Quote

As far as I can see his claim to fame on this subject is riding his accomplishments that are completely unrelated to the claims. When someone has to rely on things like credentials, and cannot produce proof, that is an appeal to authority, and this is what Ed Mitchell's claim is, an appeal to authority. It is not proof in any form.

It is just a matter of understanding the Air Force's body language over the decades. As you know, I have been right on the money in regards to all three of the Air Force's cover stories, because I know from firsthand experience how the Air Force has been duping the public over the years.

Quote

Haha, the catchcry of the poor beaten down believer

Now, that is very amusing considering that I have been right on the money and that Mogul balloon experiment shown of TV the other night is the icing on the cake that backed my claim on a Project Mogul balloon train fligth #4 that never was. Glad that Joe Nickell was there to see for himself that he was wrong.

Quote

"It's all a cover up I tells ya!"

No proof, no reason, and from the people who actually are looking for life. They have proof of efforts to contact other life, and they told us all about the WOW! Signal. Who "backs" Mitchell? UFOlogists and the old timers. Not too much evidence there on the believer part, just some third party hearsay, but should I expect more?

The folks who were firsthand witnesses and military and civilian personnel at WPAFB support Ed Mitchell.

Quote

Excellent, so What about Shepard? What about Roosa?

What about them?

Quote

Ohh civillians!!! Oh, let me take my skeptic hat of right now, we would not have a civillian popping out the odd pork pie would we now!! Never seen such a ting in all my life! What does Lloyd Pye say? Billy Mier? Richard Hoagland, hey lets not stop at one, lets pull al the bigwigs of Alien Tech out shall we! (That is sarcasm Sky, just in case.....)

Well, the Roswell witnesses were there, not those you have listed, and the skeptics weren't there either. So is it any wonder why they support Mitchell, and not  Phil Klass, Dave Thomas, and Joe Nickell who have now been proven wrong?

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 September 2011 - 01:40 AM.

[booNyzarC]

Deacon_Fall, on 05 September 2011 - 12:54 AM, said:

I was just about to post that exact word. When it comes to the UFO Visitation theory. I'm also agnostic. Although! I also believe that the UFO Visitation theory has more strength and makes more sense to me than something like Christianity. (no offence to anyone)
So while i sit on the fence and honestly have no proof, and believe there is none. (not solid proof that cannot be argued or debated anyway) I have faith that UFO Visitation is a reality.

Cheers Deacon.  I fully understand and respect the belief for alien visitation.  In fact, I held that belief myself once upon a time.  But I've settled into the agnostic standpoint because none of the evidence I've reviewed has been enough to prove the case and I realized that I was putting too much faith in things that didn't deserve it.  The idea is pretty enticing and honestly it was hard for me to let go of it.  I'd held that belief since I was kid but hadn't really spent a lot of time or effort trying to validate it until relatively recently in the last couple of years.  What I've found so far has taken me through a roller coaster ride between belief, disbelief, surprise, and even anger.  It is hard to describe it adequately and fully, so I won't even try in this setting right now.

But at this point I agree that agnostic is the best stance to take regarding ET visitation at the present time.  I look forward to an opportunity to be pushed off of this fence, but I doubt that it will be forthcoming.

[Deacon_Fall]

booNyzarC, on 05 September 2011 - 01:35 AM, said:

Cheers Deacon.  I fully understand and respect the belief for alien visitation.  In fact, I held that belief myself once upon a time.  But I've settled into the agnostic standpoint because none of the evidence I've reviewed has been enough to prove the case and I realized that I was putting too much faith in things that didn't deserve it.  The idea is pretty enticing and honestly it was hard for me to let go of it.  I'd held that belief since I was kid but hadn't really spent a lot of time or effort trying to validate it until relatively recently in the last couple of years.  What I've found so far has taken me through a roller coaster ride between belief, disbelief, surprise, and even anger.  It is hard to describe it adequately and fully, so I won't even try in this setting right now.

But at this point I agree that agnostic is the best stance to take regarding ET visitation at the present time.  I look forward to an opportunity to be pushed off of this fence, but I doubt that it will be forthcoming.

I whole heartedly agree. It's interesting to note that whether its religion, ET theories or physics. All of these beliefs and knowledge are just used to explain what humans currently don't understand. The search for knowledge and our own purpose is one that will never end, regardless of whether ET's are visiting (and proven to be) or not.
So i think Agnostic is a perfect way to describe my stance on MANY theories about what we do (or don't) know.
Because really, who are we to say that something is completely impossible? (within reason)
I think agnostic is the open minded way to look at things.

[booNyzarC]

Deacon_Fall, on 05 September 2011 - 03:10 AM, said:

I whole heartedly agree. It's interesting to note that whether its religion, ET theories or physics. All of these beliefs and knowledge are just used to explain what humans currently don't understand. The search for knowledge and our own purpose is one that will never end, regardless of whether ET's are visiting (and proven to be) or not.
So i think Agnostic is a perfect way to describe my stance on MANY theories about what we do (or don't) know.
Because really, who are we to say that something is completely impossible? (within reason)
I think agnostic is the open minded way to look at things.

Cheers Deacon.  For the most part I agree with you mate.  Have a good night.   

[psyche101]

skyeagle409, on 05 September 2011 - 01:23 AM, said:

The original Roswell headline, which is backed by those who were there on the scene, and military and civilian personnel at Wright-Patterson AFB, two Air Force cover stories in effect to this very day, in addition to the Air Force's own project officer for test dummy operations of the 1950s, who became a believer and whom was stationed at Wright-Patterson AFB.

NASA has nothing to do with the original Roswell headline. That is what we were discussing. His bosses, his superiors, his colleagues. None of which are standing beside him in these interviews.

I understand your knowledge on Roswell is somewhat limited, but please refrain from debates already had. Madson is an embarrassment to the USAF with his jealousy of McAndrews for writing the report and not giving im a big enough mention, and you have not proven otherwise. When you can tell me why he has not taken his claims to court, and blown this entire operation wide open, like he claims to have the knowledge to do so, but continues to surround himself with UFOlogists and crackpots, then get back to me. His words are still in the report, so as a starting point, I suggest you get McAndrews to retract them so we can see that Madson claim can be substantiated. At the moment, this claim is no more than a whine. I am sure you remember when you posted this "revelation" here for S2F and I. Neither of us came away with any more of an impression that Madson is upset that McAndrews got all the limelight for the USAF Roswell reports despite Madsons contribution. If you are falling for Madsons antics to alert people to his "plight" then that says all it needs to about your research methods. This is very clearly a waste of space and no more than a case of sour grapes. And what does it prove? One more person has jumped on the bandwagon with absolutely nothing more than babble to support an ET claim.

I know this is your ploy to try and get people to talk Roswell, your favourite subject, but please put your personal wishes aside for the good of the forum.

skyeagle409, on 05 September 2011 - 01:23 AM, said:

The Air Force would never have concocted such a sensation story had it not been true, especially the 509th Bomber Group, the world's only nuclear force.

I see, then why is there so much toing and froing about who released the headline? There should be no roo for debate there.

And the only nuclear capable force was at a military base, where else would you carry out military operations, like CIC????

skyeagle409, on 05 September 2011 - 01:23 AM, said:

It is just a matter of understanding the Air Force's body language over the decades. As you know, I have been right on the money in regards to all three of the Air Force's cover stories, because I know from firsthand experience how the Air Force has been duping the public over the years.

That is more than laughable, you did not even realise that you were supporting the reports with regards to a weather balloon until I Pointed that out to you. No, you have not been "on the money" at any stage, nor at any place, only in your mind, If you had been on the money at any point then you and I would not be having this conversation, nor would Lost Shamans Intel Ops Hypothesis exist. You are on a different continent to "the money" The only place you are victorious is in your head. And as we can see over the years you seem to have very little understanding of Air Force procedures, and go astoundingly quiet when technical details on RADAR arise. You actions speak loud and clear, you just cannot hear them over they loud praises that you sing for yourself.

Understand this. I was "on the fence" until I met you. As you tried harder and harder to battle skeptics who protested your outrageous claims I saw who really had information that I could follow up, I saw how much you rely on hearsay and imagination. I saw you have no respect for fact, you cherry pick every piece of information that you rely upon. Your "proof" made me turn from "on the fence" to "Hard core skeptic" That is how "good" your argument is Sky. And the saddest factor being that you are still pushing the same unsubstantiated imaginative tripe that you were then. You are personally turing people away from ET, but at least one either swallows what you have whole, or they try to digest it, and digesting that feral pile of imagination causes one to bring it back up and expel it.

skyeagle409, on 05 September 2011 - 01:23 AM, said:

Now, that is very amusing considering that I have been right on the money and that Mogul balloon experiment shown of TV the other night is the icing on the cake that backed my claim on a Project Mogul balloon train fligth #4 that never was.. Glad that Joe Nickell was there to see for hmself that he was wrong.

Ohh, another television Pseudo Documentary stands by your side! And? Honestly, Sky, the purpose of these shows is entertainment, they are not hard core science like you think they are. The History Channel has a special called Roswell Case Closed. Does that mean you are wrong as well? What do you honestly expect a TV special to say? Roswell was on here on Saturday night too, on Unsolved Mysteries about 11:30 PM. It said the exact same thing every pseudo documentary says when it tells the tale of Roswell. They all do. This is how people in the media put food on the table and pay the mortgage. How many times do you think they could Air a real story n Roswell that says, pfft, no aliens here. ?? Do you think people would keep watching it to see a mystery solved with a mundane explanation? Of course they would not. That is why there is one MOGUL pseudo documentary, and hundreds of Alien ones, as Aliens will sell better than balloons every time. The saddest part is that you cannot see this blatant and plain observation.

skyeagle409, on 05 September 2011 - 01:23 AM, said:

The folks who were firsthand witnesses and military and civilian personnel at WPAFB support Ed Mitchell.

And as I said, many others that stand beside those listed above do not. So what? Potato Potatoe? What does this prove? Does it prove anymore than some people colluded on an outrageous tale that they cannot prove in any way shape or form? Are you saying this sort of thing never has happened? Do these people not also work for the same institution that you are telling us not to believe?

skyeagle409, on 05 September 2011 - 01:23 AM, said:

What about them?

The original question still stands. Where do they back MItchell.

skyeagle409, on 05 September 2011 - 01:23 AM, said:

Well, they were there, and the skeptics weren't. So is it any wonder why they support Mitchell, and not  Phil Klass, Dave Thomas, and Joe Nickell who have now been proven wrong?

Who was there? WHo has a piece of spaceship did you say? That would be a good way to verify presence, because the army cleared the site up pretty pronto didn't they? Not like it was along running tourist attraction or something you cannot even confirm the size of the debris field, you just run with the description that suits your purposes. That is not a difficult task, there are many stories to choose from. Just that none seem to add up........

Edited by psyche101, 05 September 2011 - 03:37 AM.

[psyche101]

Deacon_Fall, on 05 September 2011 - 03:10 AM, said:

I whole heartedly agree. It's interesting to note that whether its religion, ET theories or physics. All of these beliefs and knowledge are just used to explain what humans currently don't understand. The search for knowledge and our own purpose is one that will never end, regardless of whether ET's are visiting (and proven to be) or not.
So i think Agnostic is a perfect way to describe my stance on MANY theories about what we do (or don't) know.
Because really, who are we to say that something is completely impossible? (within reason)
I think agnostic is the open minded way to look at things.

It is like you are reading my mind. Almost scary!

[quillius]

booNyzarC, on 04 September 2011 - 09:10 PM, said:

Well said cassandra.  I think you've hit the nail on the head regarding where we should probably all be sitting when it comes to this subject.  The word I use, though not often, is agnostic.  That is how I am regarding alien visitation; agnostic.  When it comes to ET life itself, somewhere out there, I'm completely a believer in that.  I just don't see any reason to believe that alien life has actually visited us here on Earth.  I'm open to the possibility, but won't jump off the fence unless I have adequate reason.

hello Boon, interesting comments. I am not sure I am understanding your stance fully then. I was sure that anyone that sits on the fence neither belives in visitation nor do they not belive in visitation. I dont think you are sitting on the fence, I thought your belief is firmly that you do not believe in visitation, is this not correct? if this is then you cant be on the fence. I thought I was on the fence then realised I actually believe in the ETH therefore I am not really on the fence, and I am confident you are not either.

Yes I agree that you are open to the possibility as I am that we have never been visited....but I think both of us only leave this door slightly ajar.

By not knowing, that doesnt put us all on the fence. Knowing would be conclusive either way and would not require belief. People ask for 'scientific evidence' to prove the ETH....again this eliminates belief and moves us to knowing...until then we have believers and non-believers and the few that sit on the fence that dont believe either way.

I think you will also note the comparison made by many posters, agreeing with your stance on agnostic view, that it is the same as religion...and I know this is not your stance i.e. you do not view the two the same (even though I have struggled with the concept)....and I know you covered that off by saying 'agree with most' as opposed to all, without going into detail.



oh and as for Edgar Mitchell, I give his view a lot more credence than you guys as I do anyone with that sort of career/background.....why are we so quick to dismiss his view. We are quick to repeat and shout about Hyneks 'non-believer' status.....we are quick to take a pilots word (8 years or so after the event) that he flew one of the jets that dropped the flares over phoenix (without proof) yet anyone claiming support of cover ups or the ETH is brushed aside as 'hearsay' or 'opinion'.....


One last thing the responses some have put up by NASA...if they really are hiding something what are we expecting them to say...ok ok you guys caught is Mitchell is right...?????

[thewonderman]

psyche101, on 04 September 2011 - 11:40 PM, said:

Even though he states clearly that his information does not come from the Government, it comes from his mates, the "Old Timers"?

I dont think so. The hypothesis would have to make sense to be plausible.




Then you did not read NASA's statement regarding MItchell and his claims. Gee, that is some in depth research.



In layman's terms, the above means "he is talking out of his ass". But he served his country and we are giving him respect for his efforts to further science.

Im sorry to say but just beacuse some NASA official has came out and said he is talking out his 'ass' you belive them?

Im not saying you should belive what this guy has said but to just disregard it like that and belive what NASA or the goverment tells you is pretty stupid if I say so.

If NASA didn't want you to know about this stuff then simple thing is you wont no neither will I or anyone else in the public for that matter..

1. There is a reason why this is so seceret and that most documents realting to the phenonma(if any) are eyes only, and are locked away forever.

2. If infact a UFO did crash which was not from earth, then we would be the last people to no about it especially if they some how gained knowledge from this 'ufo' i.e advanced tech.. materials or other things they may have found.

3. There is quite a few people from the Military that have came out and gave us some information regarding this.. one person who I find most crediable is Ed Fouche, he has proved documents and was not in it for the money, If you take the time to research this guy then Im sure you will learn a few things, I dont belive everything he has to say but he has gave and put the information out there and its to you to take the crediable bits from that.

4. Hmm I wonder why we only get second hand or third hand testimonays let me tell you because the people ITK will not put there jobs or life at risk and would be against their contracts or oath anyway, plus do skeptics really belive people have photos, docs explaining showing E.T or UFOs' I highly doubt it. These are locked away forever and EYES ONLY.

I belive that their is a lot of stuff regarding this we don't know and will never know simple as that unless you work hard and have very high grades you will just be classed as another taxpayer simple, Its their own little world they have and will not let me, you or the gernal public IN!

Edited by thewonderman, 05 September 2011 - 12:51 PM.

[booNyzarC]

quillius, on 05 September 2011 - 10:24 AM, said:

hello Boon, interesting comments. I am not sure I am understanding your stance fully then. I was sure that anyone that sits on the fence neither belives in visitation nor do they not belive in visitation. I dont think you are sitting on the fence, I thought your belief is firmly that you do not believe in visitation, is this not correct? if this is then you cant be on the fence. I thought I was on the fence then realised I actually believe in the ETH therefore I am not really on the fence, and I am confident you are not either.

Yes I agree that you are open to the possibility as I am that we have never been visited....but I think both of us only leave this door slightly ajar.

By not knowing, that doesnt put us all on the fence. Knowing would be conclusive either way and would not require belief. People ask for 'scientific evidence' to prove the ETH....again this eliminates belief and moves us to knowing...until then we have believers and non-believers and the few that sit on the fence that dont believe either way.

I think you will also note the comparison made by many posters, agreeing with your stance on agnostic view, that it is the same as religion...and I know this is not your stance i.e. you do not view the two the same (even though I have struggled with the concept)....and I know you covered that off by saying 'agree with most' as opposed to all, without going into detail.

Well quillius, I am actually on the fence regarding ET visitation.  In the purest sense I consider myself agnostic in this regard.  That being said, I can see how some might come to the conclusion that I'm dead-set against the whole notion when I take such a no holds barred approach to debunking certain cases and claims.

Just because I don't accept the tripe that UFOlogy pushes as its "evidence" doesn't mean that I'm closed off to the possibility of visitation.  It means that I've come to recognize that most of UFOlogy isn't really about ET visitation at all.  I consider it to be just a propaganda machine designed to take advantage of people's ideas about ET visitation.  In essence, it captures the imagination of the masses in a way that few other things can, and it milks people for as much as it can whenever, however, and wherever it can.

If UFOlogy presented itself as entertainment, I'd not have an issue with it.  But it doesn't do that.  It presents itself in the guise of science while offering only a pseudo-scientific approach.  In that sense I find it to be dishonest, and I find those who push its party line to be contributing either knowingly or unknowingly to that dishonesty.  But I consider that distinctly separate from the actual question of ET visitation itself.

The fact that UFOlogy has been so successful with capturing the imagination of the masses is an indicator to me that Carl Sagan's concerns about society in general weren't unfounded.  For some reason a significant percentage of our population appears to be losing its capacity for critical thinking.  I find this apparent intellectual regression deeply disconcerting.

And if the truth be told, the whole UFO phenomena is also separate from these questions; or it should be anyway.  I like lost_shaman's approach of researching what the phenomena represents without the stigma of agenda that comes from attempting to validate the ETH.  The phenomena is real.  The question of what it is should be taken without preconception and assumption as much as possible and each case looked at individually instead of as part of an overall "mountain" of supposed evidence for alien visitation.

quillius, on 05 September 2011 - 10:24 AM, said:

oh and as for Edgar Mitchell, I give his view a lot more credence than you guys as I do anyone with that sort of career/background.....why are we so quick to dismiss his view. We are quick to repeat and shout about Hyneks 'non-believer' status.....we are quick to take a pilots word (8 years or so after the event) that he flew one of the jets that dropped the flares over phoenix (without proof) yet anyone claiming support of cover ups or the ETH is brushed aside as 'hearsay' or 'opinion'.....

Giving Ed Mitchell credence has nothing to do with this at all.  I admire the man for his professional accomplishments and I find him to be honest, trustworthy, and respectable.  The fact remains, however, that he isn't providing first hand information related to the ETH.  He is talking about things that he has been told by other people and expressing his belief in those things.  The pilot who dropped flares over the BGR (not over Phoenix, but well south of Phoenix...) has given us a first hand account.  His first hand account matches the available evidence to a T.  Surely you see the distinction here?

quillius, on 05 September 2011 - 10:24 AM, said:

One last thing the responses some have put up by NASA...if they really are hiding something what are we expecting them to say...ok ok you guys caught is Mitchell is right...?????

If Mitchell is right he's right.  Regardless of that it doesn't change the fact that the content of his message right now consists solely of his beliefs based on things he has been told.  If something additional comes to light which is verifiable and corroborates his stated beliefs, it would be that additional something that was responsible for swaying the skeptical viewpoint on this; not Mitchell's current statements.

[skyeagle409]

psyche101, on 05 September 2011 - 03:30 AM, said:

NASA has nothing to do with the original Roswell headline. That is what we were discussing.

NASA?! Then, why did you post the following?

psyche101 posted:

Quote

What has NASA Said? What does Mitchell have to back his wild claims on a 60+ year old story?

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 September 2011 - 06:54 PM.

[skyeagle409]

psyche101, on 05 September 2011 - 03:30 AM, said:

I understand your knowledge on Roswell is somewhat limited, but please refrain from debates already had. Madson is an embarrassment to the USAF with his jealousy of McAndrews for writing the report and not giving im a big enough mention, and you have not proven otherwise.

Well, it has been proven that McAndrews was found to have falsified the Air Force's 1994 and 1997 Roswell reports, so why wouldn't Colonel Madson be upset at McAndrews for misusing the information he supplied to the Air Force for its 1997 Roswell report for the sole purpose of misleading the public? After all, McAndrews tried  to mislead  the public in regards  to the Air Force's 1994 Roswell report on Project Mogul, so here are two cases where McAndrews deliberately tried to mislead the public and got caught.

Quote

When you can tell me why he has not taken his claims to court, and blown this entire operation wide open, like he claims to have the knowledge to do so, but continues to surround himself with UFOlogists and crackpots, then get back to me

Do you think that Ed Mitchell is going to absorb the cost of going to court?

Quote

His words are still in the report, so as a starting point, I suggest you get McAndrews to retract them so we can see that Madson claim can be substantiated.

Just as Madson has said, McAndrews was on a mission planned by the Air Force and it is clear as day that McAndrews attempted to mislead the public by manipulating the use of Madson's photos and documents.

Quote

I see, then why is there so much toing and froing about who released the headline? There should be no roo for debate there.

And the only nuclear capable force was at a military base, where else would you carry out military operations, like CIC????

In regards to a CIC operation, such an operation would have been conducted from Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, not from Roswell AAF because such an operation was not the mission of the 509th Bomber Group. Those who have not served in the military are vulnerable to such flawed disinformation..

Quote

Honestly, Sky, the purpose of these shows is entertainment, they are not hard core science like you think they are.

The Mogul balloon demonstration was presented on camera and skeptics invited to prove once and for all, that it was impossible for any balloon to have created such a debris field and the point was proven in the presence of skepitcs.

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 September 2011 - 07:37 PM.

[skyeagle409]

psyche101, on 05 September 2011 - 03:30 AM, said:

Who was there? WHo has a piece of spaceship did you say?

Wright-Patterson AFB.

Quote

That would be a good way to verify presence, because the army cleared the site up pretty pronto didn't they?

Yes they did. The fact that Major Edwin Easley, and his men were involved, shows that what crashed was of high value and had nothing to do with any balloons as indicated by Ed Mitchell.

In addition, at time line 8:50, Ed Mitchell explains why mankind will eventually leave Earth, which I have been saying for years, that the universe could be filled with advanced civilization refugees looking of new homes in our galaxy and the ocean covers most of the Earth's surface and as scientist will tell you, we know more about the surface of the moon than we know about the ocean floor and if you check history, many UFO reports are of objects rising from beneath the ocean waves.

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 September 2011 - 07:53 PM.

[TheMcGuffin]

Most of the Project Moon Dust documents are still locked away, as are the records of the Air Force Intelligence units that did the real UFO investigations, along with the records of the Army's Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit.  If there are records about actual UFO crashes, capture of live aliens and all that, then they would be in these--if they survive at all.  I have heard that the Defense Intelligence Agency still has control of these military records about UFOs, for the are not in the National Archives, presidential libraries, Library of Congress or even personal collections of papers.

I know that because I've checked all those places.  We know that the DIA does have some very interesting UFO records because of the few that have been declassified, like the 1976 Tehran case.  

Until we have the complete historical record, though, no one will ever be in any position to say what the "real story" about UFOs is.  I do indeed think the US government is in a better position to know more about this than any other organization in the world, except maybe the Russian and Chinese governments and the Vatican.  We rarely get UFO records from any of those, either, although some that we do have are intriguing.

Like I've said before, part of the reason that the whole thing was classified Top Secret and need-to-know back in 1947 was that some of these aliens were suspected of being hostile.

[DONTEATUS]

Its mor likely that mankind will leave this planet, and sooner than we want at the rate its frying off into space! E.T. better hurry up if they want to come and eat us before were way over cooked !
Can you say cotton ball cough !!!!