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

#46    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 20 April 2013 - 11:34 PM

View PostRafterman, on 20 April 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

Most don't realize the history of the Roswell crash.  I'm sure many of you won't like what I'm about to say, but here goes:

Other than the initial newspaper article that was retracted the next day, no one associated Roswell with UFOs until 1978.  So what happened in 1978 that brought it all back to life?  Was it a whistleblower that finally told the truth?  Was it the discovery of unclassified records?  Nope.  It was simply the National Enquirer reprinting the original Roswell Daily Record article about a UFO crash and conveniently not mentioning anything about how it was retracted the next day.  It wasn't until that point - 31 years after the incident - that the UFO world took notice.

Here is a very interesting review of the timeline and how the story was essentially created by none other than Stanton Friedman and two authors - Moore and Berlitz

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4079

You can listen to the 10 minute podcast or read the transcript.  But here is the gist of the analysis:

....the Roswell Daily Record reported that a Flying Saucer was captured, and the following day, printed a correction that it was merely a weather balloon, along with an interview with Mac Brazel, who deeply regretted all the unwanted publicity generated by his misidentification.

It should be stressed that this was the end of the incident, and nothing further was said or done by anyone, until 1978 (that's 31 years in which nobody remembered or said anything), when the National Enquirer, on what must have been a slow news day, reported the original uncorrected news article from the Roswell Daily Record. UFO fans went nuts. Stanton Friedman, an obsessed UFO wacko, started interviewing everyone he could find who was still alive who had been connected with the incident and began constructing all sorts of elaborate conspiracies. These primarily centered around Major Marcel, who agreed that Friedman's assertion was possible — that the government was covering up an actual alien spacecraft.

Two years later in 1980, UFO proponents William Moore and Charles Berlitz published The Roswell Incident. There wasn't much new information in this book, it was essentially a collection of suppositions and interviews with a few people who were still alive, or their relatives. Even so, by this point, it's important to note that the story really had not grown beyond the question of what debris had actually been recovered from the Foster Ranch in 1947.

Upon the book's publication, the National Enquirer tracked down Marcel and published their own interview with him. This was all well and good, but since there still wasn't any new information or any evidence that Roswell was anything other than the Project Mogul balloon, things quieted down for a long time.

The story finally started to break open for real in 1989. The TV show Unsolved Mysteries devoted an episode to an imaginative "reconstruction" of what some of these authors had written.

It seems fairly clear to me that the whole Roswell story as so many know it today is simply a post hoc creation driven by folks who simply wanted to make a buck.  Not dissimilar to the whole Mothman story, what actually happened and the story we know today are lightyears apart.


You should remember, Rafterman, that Stanton Friedman is a scientist who has personally investigated the UFO phenomenon for 39 years, (which I'm sure you haven't), and during that time he has studied an awful amount of government documents and interviewed a great many people regarding the Roswell incident. By calling him a 'UFO nut' you are similarly labelling everyone else with the belief that there IS something to the subject. You seem to forget that Stanton isn't the only 'UFO nut' around. What about the pilots both civilian and military who have seen with their own eyes and reported very real and mysterious objects close to them in the sky making impossible manoeuvres, (for earthly aircraft that is)? What about the radar operators both air and ground control who have reported seeing on their screens objects, (obviously structured), moving at incredible speeds and making right angled turns without any deceleration? Not to mention the many police officers who have reported some incredible aerial events. Are all of those people 'UFO nuts' as well? You seem to be a typical example of the mindset, 'don't bother me with the facts my mind is made up'! So why couldn't it have been a flying saucer that crashed, (two of them actually). I'm sure that, (like ours), their technology isn't perfect either. I'm think Mr. Friedman would be more than willing to debate you on the subject which I think you would decline! Do some serious research and you might have a change of mind.


You might find the following of some interest:


SCIENTIST CHALLENGES AIR FORCE REGARDING UFOs.


Nov. 13, 1997.
By Stanton T. Friedman.


"Frankly I am sick and tired of the US Air Force lying to the public, the press, and members of Congress about UFOs," said nuclear physicist Stanton T. Friedman at a public lecture “Flying Saucers ARE Real” in Albuquerque. “I have had a serious interest in UFOs for 39 years, lectured in a dozen countries, and visited seventeen document archives,” he continued. “For 50 years there has been massive misrepresentation about UFOs in general, and in recent years the Roswell Incident in particular. The Air Force has come up with four different answers for Roswell:

A flying saucer.
A radar reflector and weather balloon.
A Mogul balloon train over 500 feet long with 23 balloons, sonobuoys, etc.
And most recently, a Mogul balloon train plus crash test dummies dropped at least six years AFTER the 1947 crashes Southeast of Corona and West of Magdalena.”

Friedman, who spent fourteen years as an industrial nuclear physicist working on a wide variety of classified, highly advanced nuclear systems for major corporations, was the first civilian investigator of the Roswell Incident.

"I hereby challenge Colonel Richard Weaver, author of the outrageously misleading huge volume ‘The Roswell Report: Fact Vs Fiction in the New Mexico Desert’, and USAF Captain James McAndrew, author of the 1997 ‘The Roswell Report: Case Closed’, to a formal debate.

"These two officers have made a mockery out of serious investigation. They have used all the tools of the propagandist with selective choice of data, false reasoning, false claims, positive and negative name calling. These reports should be listed under fiction in the library.

"The Mogul explanation doesn’t fit. There are gross differences among the testimony of their witnesses, and they ignore the testimony they don’t want to consider while claiming falsely that they have talked to all the original witnesses still alive who handled material totally different from the Mogul explanation.

"They left out vital aspects of quotes from the FBI. They falsely tried to claim the Roswell story came to light because of a story in a tabloid in 1978. That story didn’t appear until 1980 after a colleague and I had talked to 60 people connected with the case. I was falsely portrayed as somebody who gets his UFO stories from tabloids.

"The fact is in 1978 I was the first to talk to a key witness, Major Jesse Marcel the intelligence officer for the only atomic bombing group in the world in 1947. I was referred to him by an old ham radio buddy of his who had seen the press stories in 1947. Jesse never sought publicity. I discussed many of these false charges in my book 'TOP SECRET MAJIC'.

"One of the silliest official USAF stories is the crash test dummy nonsense. I spoke in person with Colonel Madson, whose picture is in the Case Closed volume and was heavily involved in the research program. He is adamant that the explanation doesn’t fit. Remember that the dummies had to be the same height and weight as air force pilots. None were dropped anywhere near the two crash sites and none were dropped earlier than 6 years AFTER the 1947 events.

"They used a crazy explanation for the red-headed officer observed independently at the Roswell Base Hospital, and in the Plains of San Augustin. World class pilot, Joseph Kittinger, was a redhead and was at the Roswell base hospital after a ballooning accident. But it was twelve years later! If the explanation doesn’t fit, one must acquit. As it happens, I was the first to hear the two independent stories about the nasty red haired officer and the black sergeant, an unusual combination for 1947. The Air Force says nothing about the black sergeant, or the two independent stories.

"There are many other examples of massive misrepresentation by the Air Force about UFOs. The USAF Office of Special Investigations even told its own units to ignore their own regulations if they received an FOIA request from me about UFOs. The USAF apparently even lied to the CIA recently, falsely claiming that half the UFO sightings after 1955 were the results of observations of super secret reconnaissance aircraft, the U-2 and later the SR-71. But there was no increase in the number of sightings after 1955. Why would anybody report a very high flying aircraft moving in a straight line and never making right angle turns, as stopping on a dime, instantly reversing direction, or silently landing and taking off in the middle of nowhere, like UFOs so often are observed to do???

"The Pentagon based Air Force Liaison officer has written numerous one page letters in response to constituent requests for information about Roswell to congressmen. It took me five pages to correct all the false claims he made.

"Colonel Weaver wrote a researcher that the Operation Majestic 12 Documents, which are the subject of TOP SECRET/MAJIC are known by everybody to be BOGUS. In response to my Freedom of Information Act request for any memos, letters, documents, etc. supporting this ridiculous and baseless claim, I was told, ‘There are no records available.’ This is a clear case of research by proclamation.

"Doesn’t the Air Force have a responsibility to those who pay the bills to be honest? Or are they above the law? I repeat my challenge:

"USAF officers McAndrew and Weaver, do you have the courage of your convictions? Name the date and place. Perhaps Larry King or Walter Cronkite or Ted Koppel would be willing to act as moderator.”

Stanton Friedman.


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.

#47    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,321 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • I know someday
    you'll have a beautiful life
    I know you'll be a sun
    In somebody else's sky
    But why can't it be mine? -Pearl Jam

Posted 20 April 2013 - 11:43 PM

View PostMrSerendipity, on 20 April 2013 - 11:34 PM, said:


You should remember, Rafterman, that Stanton Friedman is a scientist who has personally investigated the UFO phenomenon for 39 years, (which I'm sure you haven't), and during that time he has studied an awful amount of government documents and interviewed a great many people regarding the Roswell incident. By calling him a 'UFO nut' you are similarly labelling everyone else with the belief that there IS something to the subject. You seem to forget that Stanton isn't the only 'UFO nut' around. What about the pilots both civilian and military who have seen with their own eyes and reported very real and mysterious objects close to them in the sky making impossible manoeuvres, (for earthly aircraft that is)? What about the radar operators both air and ground control who have reported seeing on their screens objects, (obviously structured), moving at incredible speeds and making right angled turns without any deceleration? Not to mention the many police officers who have reported some incredible aerial events. Are all of those people 'UFO nuts' as well? You seem to be a typical example of the mindset, 'don't bother me with the facts my mind is made up'!

Are there any of those characteristics that can't be explained by possible atmospheric anomalies like plasmas?



Hint: The answer is no. UFO does not equal ET. Or to put it more understandably, ET comprise a fairly small percentage of the possible explanations for UFO's.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#48    Scudbuster

Scudbuster

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts
  • Joined:24 Mar 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana

  • "This Train will stop at Tucumcari"

Posted 21 April 2013 - 12:34 AM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 20 April 2013 - 11:43 PM, said:

Are there any of those characteristics that can't be explained by possible atmospheric anomalies like plasmas?



Hint: The answer is no. UFO does not equal ET. Or to put it more understandably, ET comprise a fairly small percentage of the possible explanations for UFO's.

Exactly - and as Leslie Kean pointed out in her very good recent book -  "UFO's: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go On The Record", about 95% of all cases are explainable or outright bogus, but that remaining 5% is quite intriguing indeed.

Edited by Scudbuster, 21 April 2013 - 12:35 AM.


#49    DBunker

DBunker

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,486 posts
  • Joined:26 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • I prefer to know, not just to believe.

Posted 21 April 2013 - 12:46 AM

Stanton Friedman is a sloppy investigator, at best...... at worst he is a lier. A snake-oil slinger making loads of money from giving the gullible UFO nutties what they crave so badly.

Now that communications technology has made it possible to give global reach to the bizarre and archive it forever, it is essential for men and women of reason resolutely to counter the delusions of the fringe element. James S. Robbins

#50    coolguy

coolguy

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,396 posts
  • Joined:06 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:east islip , new york

  • Star trek rules

Posted 21 April 2013 - 03:40 AM

Interesting they where guarding something they did not want people to know they had ufo and aliens.


#51    HecticSherlock

HecticSherlock

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 102 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville,Al

  • "I hate having to jump into convo's, idea's, or subjects without prior knowledge or facts to back me up..but if religion can do it!"

Posted 21 April 2013 - 03:57 AM

You know it would be hilarious if in fact Roswell was just an decoy for an real UFO encounter they wanted to keep secret. That they did all of these out of the way things to build people's interest in what had happened in Roswell so they could conduct the real UFO expedition un-noticed...well I noticed America, I noticed!


#52    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,031 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 21 April 2013 - 04:32 AM

I say Get-er-Done ! Sir Friedman should keep to the Book deals ! ITs makes more cent`s And besides,We all Know that The Little Green men are all Out In Las Vegas ! running the Gameing Halls !

This is a Work in Progress!

#53    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 April 2013 - 05:43 AM

View Postconspiracy buff, on 19 April 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

THANK YOU!!!!!

Any serious research into the Roswell event notices a lot of alarming inconsistencies and outright contradictory happenstances in the governments accounts of what actually happened.

And even more inconsistencies in the accounts of the government accounts of what actually happened.

Quote

First, it was claimed that it was a captured UFO.  That was an official press release by the army and by those who could obviously tell the difference between a downed weather balloon and possible ET craft.

And by one who had such a penchant for pulling pranks that it was even commented on in his evaluations.

Quote

You're telling me that these people trusted with the most cutting edge technology of their modern times could NOT tell the difference between a weather balloon and something from another world?

Sounds about as silly as the same "people entrusted with the most cutting edge of technology of their modern times" sending out a news release about a UFO.

Quote

That has always been a glaringly inconsistent point of the Roswell story that did not make any logical sense.

Especially considering that no one seems to actually remember what the release actually said, who received it, or even who sent the thing originally.

Quote

Ok, then it is retracted and then told to the public that it was a simple weather balloon.  If you assume the above was true, you'd have to ask why the government would cover this up?

Wait...if we assume the weather balloon thing was true...then what exactly is being covered up?

Quote

It is simple; government has always feared a perceived loss of control and power with these types of revelations.

Not really that big a deal.  Indeed, one of the reasons the paper was so willing to headline a UFO story was because it was currently the hot buzz among the readers.  Just a couple of weeks earlier, the whole UFO fad was kicked off with Kenneth Arnold's incorrectly reported sighting, followed by a sighting of "flying saucers" (as per what the public had been told Arnold saw, but which wasn't what he actually saw).  No wonder the Roswell paper wanted a bite of the apple.

Quote

One need look no further than the War of the Worlds scare back in 1938 to see proof of how widespread panic can cause those in control to worry;...SNIP...The ensuing panic was so great that Welles was brought to court over what was a perceived publicity stunt.

He actually wasn't (the broadcast station was, but all suits were dismissed).  Welles, famously, only paid out to one man who had spent his shoe money to escape from the martians.  That man did get new shoes.  Otherwise, much like Roswell, the War of the Worlds Panic has been greatly exaggerated.  Mostly by the enemies of this new technology, the newspapers, who were afraid of being supplanted as the reiging media source.

There was no widespread panic.  Those who were frightened enough to take action mostly did so in the form of a call to the radio broadcaster (amusingly, and in a way quite familiar to how we see some believers react today, the reaction to being told this was merely a play was occasionally to respond with an acussation of covering up the truth).  The only place that did have some actual cases of panic was a little burg called Concrete, which had an unfortunately timed power outage, leading many to conclude there was some truth to the reports.  A surprising amount of people believed this was actually an invasion by the Germans, a la "Red Dawn".

Quote

Do you really believe the world to have been a different place a mere 9 years later?  This was a highly controversial topic back then as it still is now.

It's really not that controversial, not then, nor now.  UFO reports are still pretty much news filler.  They just aren't taken seriously.

Quote

It is not until later when Jesse Marcel Sr. brings it back up that the Roswell issue is a hot topic once again.

But he didn't bring it up, did he?  It was Stanton Friedman who went to Marcel (the guy with the aforementioned prankster streak).

Quote

His story never waivered in all the years he told it, which again is very telling.

His story waivered fairly regularly, if not by him, then by the people who retold it.

Quote

This is a military man who was a part of the same group that controlled the nuclear bomb.  Yet, skeptics will claim he could not tell the difference between a downed weather balloon and a possible ET craft?  Another inconsistency.

Not sure why you believe an intel officer with exposure to nuclear engineering would be any better at determining a weather baloon than anyone else, but Marcel was a pilot, which is why he would recognize a weather balloon.  This does not, however, mean that he was covering up a UFO.  All it means is that he was covering up something secret.


Quote

Those who have read this summary to the event will see that the government yet again adds another cover-up story element.  Why would the government have anything to add if not to hush those questioning the official story?  The military NEVER adds anything after giving an official answer to anything.  But they suspiciously changed their story with this follow up to their initial cover story?  

You know, I'm not even going to follow the link.  I am willing to bet that the CT logic is so predictable that what is being referred to here is the whole "bodies/test dummies" thing, and the silly argument that the government added this to the Roswell story.

The fact of the matter is that the military didn't add it to the story.  The Roswell fan club added bodies after finding a reference to bodies in some obscure report.  The military pointed out that these "bodies" were dummies from a different activity at a different time.  In other words, the military wasn't adding to the story; the military was correcting the story.

Which, in the world of CT logic, is evidence of involvement.


Quote

They back engineered the technology and implemented it into our own technology including various fields more notably in our US aircrafts and reconnaissance.  Is this coincidental?

Amazingly so.  It coincides almost perfectly with the continuous discoveries and research by human scientists which led to the piecemeal technological advances that led to all of these crafts which had been in the university and research tables for years and years.  To bad we didn't find this earlier.  Would have saved all those places a lot of work.

Quote

Why would guards be ordered to shoot if there was a simple downed weather balloon?

Simple.  They wouldn't.  They wouldn't even be ordered to shoot if there were nuclear bombs in the place.  You don't order guards to shoot.  You train them to know when to shoot and when not to.

In the four years I served as a master-at-arms, the only time I heard the words "shoot to kill" was during basic training from our gunny.


#54    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,276 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 21 April 2013 - 06:21 AM

Maybe the shoot to kill order was given for whatever was in the hangar... Not to stop anyone going in , but to stop whatever was in there from getting out.

Edited by Antilles, 21 April 2013 - 06:21 AM.


#55    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,321 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • I know someday
    you'll have a beautiful life
    I know you'll be a sun
    In somebody else's sky
    But why can't it be mine? -Pearl Jam

Posted 21 April 2013 - 07:09 AM

View PostAntilles, on 21 April 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

Maybe the shoot to kill order was given for whatever was in the hangar... Not to stop anyone going in , but to stop whatever was in there from getting out.

Perhaps except for one little bit:

Quote

Major Easley had commanded Calvin in absolute terms to “shoot and kill anyone who tried to enter the hangar that was not authorized to do so.”
*From OP article.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#56    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 21 April 2013 - 12:17 PM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 21 April 2013 - 04:32 AM, said:

I say Get-er-Done ! Sir Friedman should keep to the Book deals ! ITs makes more cent`s And besides,We all Know that The Little Green men are all Out In Las Vegas ! running the Gameing Halls !

I fully accept that the UFO world is full of disreputable people who are just out to make some easy money. The saying is that 95% of all UFO sightings can be easily explained. I would go further and say that 95%, if not a lot more, of people in the UFO fraternity are charlatans and frauds. However, I honestly believe that Stanton Friedman is one of the genuine ones. :passifier:

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.

#57    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,409 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 21 April 2013 - 03:45 PM

View PostMrSerendipity, on 20 April 2013 - 11:34 PM, said:


You should remember, Rafterman, that Stanton Friedman is a scientist who has personally investigated the UFO phenomenon for 39 years, (which I'm sure you haven't), and during that time he has studied an awful amount of government documents and interviewed a great many people regarding the Roswell incident. By calling him a 'UFO nut' you are similarly labelling everyone else with the belief that there IS something to the subject. You seem to forget that Stanton isn't the only 'UFO nut' around. What about the pilots both civilian and military who have seen with their own eyes and reported very real and mysterious objects close to them in the sky making impossible manoeuvres, (for earthly aircraft that is)? What about the radar operators both air and ground control who have reported seeing on their screens objects, (obviously structured), moving at incredible speeds and making right angled turns without any deceleration? Not to mention the many police officers who have reported some incredible aerial events. Are all of those people 'UFO nuts' as well? You seem to be a typical example of the mindset, 'don't bother me with the facts my mind is made up'! So why couldn't it have been a flying saucer that crashed, (two of them actually). I'm sure that, (like ours), their technology isn't perfect either. I'm think Mr. Friedman would be more than willing to debate you on the subject which I think you would decline! Do some serious research and you might have a change of mind.


Saying Stanton Friedman is a "scientist" is a bit of a stretch.  A more accurate description is that he was a bench physicist with only a masters degree who worked for GE for 14 years.  For almost 40 years now, he's been a "UFO expert" and author.  So to claim he is a "scientist" or even a nuclear physicist is laughable.

The guy is a kook and a charlatan who does questionable investigations and manufacture stories in order to sell books.

And yes, I would gladly debate him on the subject of UFOs and I know I would win because, well, there are no UFOs.

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
                                                                                                                                           - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World:  Science as a Candle in the Dark

#58    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,650 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 21 April 2013 - 03:46 PM

View PostMrSerendipity, on 20 April 2013 - 11:34 PM, said:

You should remember, Rafterman, that Stanton Friedman is a scientist

Mr. Friedman is not a scientist. He allegedly worked as one a long time ago, although I have been unable to unearth any scientific publications attributed to him during that time. Being a scientist is a job description, not a lifelong title one is given.

Quote

who has personally investigated the UFO phenomenon for 39 years, (which I'm sure you haven't), and during that time he has studied an awful amount of government documents and interviewed a great many people regarding the Roswell incident.

If we go by his standards of research from the UFO field, I would never hire him as part of my research group - he would probably be booted out rather quickly based on sloppy work.

Quote

By calling him a 'UFO nut' you are similarly labelling everyone else with the belief that there IS something to the subject. You seem to forget that Stanton isn't the only 'UFO nut' around.

I agree with Rafterman in labeling Mr. Friedman a UFO nut and the reason is how Mr. Friedman propagates his beliefs. He is preaching and holds no qualms in presenting information out of context or to leave out crucial information to make his claims look valid. He is, at best, a very sloppy and exceptionally inept researcher. At worst....

He has a belief and he has hinged all his credibility at trying to prove his assertions. Unfortunately things started falling apart between his hands and instead of moving on, he got obsessed with it. Not the most objective person, I daresay.

Quote

What about the pilots both civilian and military who have seen with their own eyes and reported very real and mysterious objects close to them in the sky making impossible manoeuvres, (for earthly aircraft that is)?

What about them? They are still only stories without anything tangible to really discuss.

Quote

What about the radar operators both air and ground control who have reported seeing on their screens objects, (obviously structured), moving at incredible speeds and making right angled turns without any deceleration?

Again, what about them? As above, many, many cases have been discussed here and we have yet to see any form of tangible evidence. And how are they "obviously structured"?  Radar is not infallible, nor are the people behind the radar screens. And we know that some atmospheric phenomena can exhibit exactly the behavior as you describe.

Quote

Not to mention the many police officers who have reported some incredible aerial events. Are all of those people 'UFO nuts' as well?

Of course not, nor was Rafterman alluding to that as far as I could tell. They generally don't run around propagating false information and make up things, whereas Mr. Friedman is in my opinion.  

Quote

You seem to be a typical example of the mindset, 'don't bother me with the facts my mind is made up'!

I can't speak for Rafterman, but that is not my impression of him. And that said, the facts have been discussed here numerous times and only by the stretch of Mr. Friedman's imagination do they even remotely support the crashed ET hypothesis.

Quote

So why couldn't it have been a flying saucer that crashed, (two of them actually). I'm sure that, (like ours), their technology isn't perfect either.

One would think that a race capable of crossing interstellar space would have some very reliable technologies, however, the possibility naturally exists.

Quote

I'm think Mr. Friedman would be more than willing to debate you on the subject which I think you would decline! Do some serious research and you might have a change of mind.

I have a feeling that Mr. Friedman would be rather reluctant to debate this subject with people actually well versed in it.

Quote

You might find the following of some interest:

<snip>

Not really, but thanks for posting.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited by badeskov, 21 April 2013 - 03:55 PM.

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#59    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 21 April 2013 - 03:49 PM

Quote

I'm still waiting for the soldiers to come forward that actually retrieved the items and gleaned both areas of the debris

Do you think those people would still be alive ?

Quote

One would think that a race capable of crossing interstellar space would have some very reliable technologies, however, the possible naturally exists.

Youtr talking about many variables and unknowns in how an alien species might coexist. Just because your flying the ship doesnt mean you can rebuild all the other components from the ground up on a technologically inferior world. And certainly all tech regardless of who made it is prone to have accidents or failures. I agree

Edited by AsteroidX, 21 April 2013 - 03:52 PM.


#60    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,650 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 21 April 2013 - 03:58 PM

Hi AsteroidX,

I am not really sure what you mean by this:

View PostAsteroidX, on 21 April 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

Youtr talking about many variables and unknowns in how an alien species might coexist. Just because your flying the ship doesnt mean you can rebuild all the other components from the ground up on a technologically inferior world. And certainly all tech regardless of who made it is prone to have accidents or failures. I agree

I was not thinking of co-existing or similar, but simply wondering about how likely it is that a space-faring race capable of crossing interstellar space would come to Earth and crash.

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users