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.


- - - - -

Maury Island UFO


  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#1    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,983 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 03 September 2013 - 01:45 PM

This case has been commonly quoted as being just a hoax.

I was advised to look into the case and after doing so for a while now find it quite amazing especially with regards to the significance of its 'timing' in the grander scale of things!

Can anyone convince me it was just a hoax, and if so please can you show me why?


#2    dr no

dr no

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,433 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The North of England

  • Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.
    Carl Sagan

Posted 03 September 2013 - 03:32 PM

I think this story is garbage

http://ufos.about.co...mauryisland.htm

and Kevin Randle isn't convinced either http://kevinrandle.b...-ufo-crash.html


#3    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,983 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 03 September 2013 - 03:40 PM

View Postdr no, on 03 September 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

I think this story is garbage

http://ufos.about.co...mauryisland.htm

and Kevin Randle isn't convinced either http://kevinrandle.b...-ufo-crash.html

yes I have read what Kevin Randle has had to say...but as mentioned I am not convinced and there is a lot to be said about the timing. In addition there is more to be said about the two men sent to investigate...but I am sure that will come later.

thanks for the links, however can you sum up some key points that make you say 'hoax/garbage' please (include who started it and why?)

Edited by quillius, 03 September 2013 - 04:01 PM.


#4    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

  • Member
  • 10,009 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London UK

  • It is later than you think.

Posted 03 September 2013 - 04:16 PM

No hoax

No motive for a hoax whatsoever.

It's one of the classic ufo cases that remains totally unexplained.

No evidence that it was a hoax.





Posted Image


#5    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,983 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 03 September 2013 - 04:22 PM

motive.....now theres an interesting line of research...hence why I think its important to establish 'who' and 'why'....

after this I can point out what I believe to be major 'flaws' in Randles piece linked above


#6    phantasia

phantasia

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 519 posts
  • Joined:13 May 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ann Arbor, Michigan USA

  • "Education has failed in a very serious way to convey the most important lesson science can teach: skepticism."
    DAVID SUZUKI

Posted 03 September 2013 - 04:59 PM

View Postzoser, on 03 September 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

No hoax

No motive for a hoax whatsoever.

It's one of the classic ufo cases that remains totally unexplained.

No evidence that it was a hoax.


"Before his death Crisman was peddling a new, improved, UFO-less version of the Maury Island story. He now claimed that the "truth" involved, not flying doughnuts dropping slag, but something even more dangerous: illegal dumping by military aircraft of radioactive waste into the harbor."

http://science.howst...nd-incident.htm

Admitting you lied = HOAX

The truth need never fear ridicule.  ~ Sir Wearer of Hats

Psychosocial hypothesis in Ufology : http://en.wikipedia....cial_hypothesis

#7    theSOURCE

theSOURCE

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,450 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2003
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:41 PM

View Postquillius, on 03 September 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

This case has been commonly quoted as being just a hoax.

I was advised to look into the case and after doing so for a while now find it quite amazing especially with regards to the significance of its 'timing' in the grander scale of things!

Can anyone convince me it was just a hoax, and if so please can you show me why?

Hello quillius.

You really picked a dusty old case there. :)

Personally, I don't think there's enough evidence for this to be anything else but a hoax.

The pictures of the alleged UFO (which were claimed to have come out distorted as though exposed to some kind of radiation) were never shown to anyone. Distorted or not, they at least would have lent some credibility to the claims being made by Crisman and Dahl. How convenient it was that they should disappear from Dahl's car when he went to retrieve them.

The so-called debris ejected by the UFO turned out to be simple slag from a smelting plant. Even Kenneth Arnold compared the debris with common slag he collected from a smelter and found them to be alike.

Dahl eventually admitted that the whole thing was a hoax. Since Dahl (along with Crisman) had initially contacted Raymond Palmer (a publisher who was not above sensationalizing stories of the paranormal) about the incident, there's no reason to believe that he (Dahl) was coerced into retracting his story.

As for the plane crash that killed the two Army investigators (Captain Davidson and Lieutenant Brown), that was a tragic accident, nothing more. Arnold's near-crash was due to error and was simply a coincidence.

I know there's more to the story, but all it does is to help the conclusion that this was a hoax.


#8    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,983 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 04 September 2013 - 07:58 AM

View Postphantasia, on 03 September 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

"Before his death Crisman was peddling a new, improved, UFO-less version of the Maury Island story. He now claimed that the "truth" involved, not flying doughnuts dropping slag, but something even more dangerous: illegal dumping by military aircraft of radioactive waste into the harbor."

http://science.howst...nd-incident.htm

Admitting you lied = HOAX

where was the lie?

he never said he saw ufos to begin with, it was Dahl.


#9    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,983 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 04 September 2013 - 08:20 AM

View PosttheSOURCE, on 03 September 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

Hello quillius.

You really picked a dusty old case there. :)

Hello Source, yes I was pointed to it by a friend.....a devout sceptic :) who doesnt buy the hoax story...that in itself spoke volumes to me.

View PosttheSOURCE, on 03 September 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

Personally, I don't think there's enough evidence for this to be anything else but a hoax.

I dont agree but maybe the discussion will change my view

View PosttheSOURCE, on 03 September 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

The pictures of the alleged UFO (which were claimed to have come out distorted as though exposed to some kind of radiation) were never shown to anyone. Distorted or not, they at least would have lent some credibility to the claims being made by Crisman and Dahl. How convenient it was that they should disappear from Dahl's car when he went to retrieve them.

they were in the hotel for four hours, plenty of time to do the deed especially as it would have been the best time....investigatin happening, AF involved......(if the men in black is to be believed)

View PosttheSOURCE, on 03 September 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

The so-called debris ejected by the UFO turned out to be simple slag from a smelting plant. Even Kenneth Arnold compared the debris with common slag he collected from a smelter and found them to be alike.

the debris consisted of both black lava type material and many sheets of 'newspaper thick' metal. As for Kenneth Arnold he found it interesting enough to get the AF to fly down and see (rather than send samples up) and still discussed the case many years later. I have seen articles playing down his interest but the facts dont support this as far as I have seen

View PosttheSOURCE, on 03 September 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

Dahl eventually admitted that the whole thing was a hoax. Since Dahl (along with Crisman) had initially contacted Raymond Palmer (a publisher who was not above sensationalizing stories of the paranormal) about the incident, there's no reason to believe that he (Dahl) was coerced into retracting his story.

according to the AF who said he admitted a hoax.  FBI agent George Wilcox said that Dahl did not admit a hoax but said if questioned he would say it was a hoax to avoid trouble. As for the hoax theory who instigated it and why? (I will then show you the problems I have with this theory)

View PosttheSOURCE, on 03 September 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

As for the plane crash that killed the two Army investigators (Captain Davidson and Lieutenant Brown), that was a tragic accident, nothing more. Arnold's near-crash was due to error and was simply a coincidence.

two big coincidences coupled with the reporter (Paul Lance) who died mysteriously after two weeks and Ted Morello also, and the fact that Arnold was now investigating UFO's, the Roswell incident happening, the change in the AF/Army etc happening on the following day, Dahl dissapearing.

question for you: did the two AF intellignece guys investigate UFOs already?

View PosttheSOURCE, on 03 September 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

I know there's more to the story, but all it does is to help the conclusion that this was a hoax.

yes I agree there is more to the story, however I think it blows holes in the hoax theory rather than support it.


I would like to know who the other two crew members were that were on the boat with Dahl.
I would like to see the original letter sent to Palmer.
I would like to know why Arnold is claimed to have been uninterested yet brings in the two intellignece guys and speaks about thecase many years later.
I would like to know why Ray Palmer who increased circulation due to his story was fired soon after
I would like to know who instigate the hoax and why. (and how this motive was achieved)

plus a few other things :)


#10    brlesq1

brlesq1

    Fan Dancer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined:22 Feb 2009
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The Music Box

  • Reality is highly overrated.

Posted 04 September 2013 - 08:32 AM

I've never heard of this one. Interesting story. But I don't know if I'd go so far as to make a movie out of it.

Forget what they told you. You want the truth, follow the money.
In this life, things are much harder than in the afterworld. In this life, you're on your own.--Prince

#11    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,083 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 04 September 2013 - 09:17 AM

Hi Q

Having advised you this was worth looking at, it would be remiss of me to leave you with it on your own. I agree with you, the case is interesting and I believe historically significant, being the first instance of MIB. Looking at it properly though, UFOlogists have spread so much erroneous information about wanting this to be proof of ET that any serious look at the subject is quickly dismissed.

As soon as Anthony Bragalia said it was a hoax I was suspicious that it might actually be genuine. I genuinely respect Kevin Randle and his UFO reports, in my opinion he is the brightest spark on that block of UFOlogists, and the only one probably worth giving the time of day to. But he has been wrong, is human, and capable of human error like all of us. I completely believe his reasons for feeling Roswell is a genuine ET incident are too basic and fail to explain anything more than Kevin's personal struggle with the convoluted and polluted information at hand. Kevin did say on the page:

Quote

It should be noted that no material with anything unusual about it has ever surfaced, though Crisman had suggested in the 1960s he still had some of it. The photographs were supposedly taken by the military, through no one ever saw them and in the 1960s, Crisman suggested that he had made duplicate negatives so that the military had not gotten them all, but, of course the pictures never surfaced.

This is a picture. That did make the Tacoma Times in 1947.

Posted Image


The entire argument is based solely around Crisman. I think because he is an easy target, not so much to say on Harold Dahl. Crispins wild tales of underground people set a precedent. Crisman however was reportedly angry at the mention of damage to the boat, and went on to support the claim later. But Dahl has no such history, before or after the claimed event. We have Dahl's son, daughter and wife declaring it a hoax, which seem pretty cut and dry, unless you look as suggested by others at the Roswell incident. (Bragalia's take: Crisman drew upon elements of genuine UFO encounters such as Arnold's and Roswell's because Crisman was good at copying. )
Whilst many claim the Roswell Incident most likely influenced the tale of Maury Island, it took place 12 days after Maury Island, as far as I understand, Dahl had already circulated the tale of debris.

Personally I do not see much alike other than the very basics. The Roswell Material is described as flat metal which reforms, the Maury Island material is described as both slag and volcanic rock.
Much is also made of Kenneth Arnold's disappointment, yet the men themselves did not contact Arnold. It is fair enough that Arnold did not think much of the debris, but what was he expecting? Isotopic analysis would have confirmed this immediately  I do not know that such was ever carried out.

But a most interesting connection I find is the appearance of Men In Black for the first time, when we consider that the USAF initially denied that they had any debris at all, but changed the story after the plane crash, and the very fact that his wife went hysterical when a reporter showed up at their house, told Dahl to stop lying, and went so far as to pull a knife on him to shut him up.That does not strike me as an embarrassed woman, but one who is in real fear. His son claims it never happened, so does his daughter who was not a witness, and claims the family dog never died. No reason to say that is not that is true, but again, it strikes me as particularly strange that in "those times" that a family would not stand behind the father. We have seen torn cases of siblings, notably the Roswell incident, yet not here. Jesse Jr and Jesse Snr argued until the day Jesse Snr died about the shape of Roswell debris, yet that matters to nobody but skeptics. Jesse stood behind Dad, Bessie did not, she eventually had to be coerced into making a benign statement saying if her father said it was true then so be it. I have to say she sounds pressured, and she did it at a very late date many years after the incident, which I think coincided with some of Jesse's Roswell activities. Eventually despite early statements and disagreements they stood behind dear old dad like any loyal family member would. Not hard to put 2 and 2 together there. Not Dahl's children  Considering the reactions, it strikes me that if one case of MIB was ever true, this would have to qualify as best candidate. It might mean nothing, too. But the wife pulling a knife was the first strange thing I noticed in this family unit. They were not ever divorced, they do not seem to have had personal problems that would result in such animosity. I do not believe the Military Issue Death threats, but do not hold the same confidence with CIA. And they would do a stupid experiment that put lives in danger. How they manage to keep the doors open continually amazes me. The people who funded the men who stare at goats.

The debris was considered ordinary aluminium on sight but as far as I know was never tested, and it held a square rivet. More likely to be earthly in origin I admit. Being square does not by any means ET. But all the same it is odd, and not explained. Just another strange thing to add. Perhaps no connection to ET, but like Cash Landrum, it could have been some sort of military experiment that is being covered up for the sake of money. Even perhaps embarrassment, but then again  who knows. the ETHer's always say just one has to be true. I doubt that is the case at all, who knows maybe it is and this is it. Sounds more like wishful thinking to be honest, but their exuberance for this to be ET I feel left too many questions unanswered and stole any credibility the story had. It's the most underrated claim in UFOlogy IMHO and definitely is not entirely explained. I feel analysis of the hoax claim, which was later retracted, was solely based on one mans credibility, whilst completely ignoring the other. The claims from the siblings that it never happened were long after the incident, however this puts a huge fly in the ointment, and I feel a reason why many do not go past Crisman. It's also why The Source is probably right, and as long as those statements exist, they cannot be denied, believe them or not. It does not mean all of the hard questions have been answered though.

And I am sure you have more to add to this. As you say timing. And something about pilots and debris ;) This happens, next thing the Roswell Incident initiates a saucer frenzy, all around the same time the Twining Memo suggests a covert study in UFO's. This incident may not have happened, it may not be ET, but I do not think focusing on Crispin is a thorough and valid study to result in a firm conclusion. After all, he never even claimed to have been part of the incident. But no matter how you look at it, as the first instance of MIB, it is historically significant with regards to the subject overall be it hoax, or other.

Good to see another notice the interesting angles without being drowned out by ET or Hoax. The subtleties of the incident make it quite a mystery as opposed to a big shiny UFO.

Cheers Mate.

Edited by psyche101, 04 September 2013 - 09:29 AM.

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

#12    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,083 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 04 September 2013 - 09:19 AM

View Postbrlesq1, on 04 September 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

I've never heard of this one. Interesting story. But I don't know if I'd go so far as to make a movie out of it.

Put a topless lady in it. I'll pay to see it then.

Heck, they made a movie out of Travis Waltons dreary tale, ever seen the movie? If not stock up on no-doze first. Can't be worse than 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

#13    Hazzard

Hazzard

    Stellar Black Hole

  • Member
  • 11,757 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Inside Voyager 1.

  • Being skeptical of the paranormal is a good thing.

Posted 04 September 2013 - 09:35 AM

View Postzoser, on 03 September 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

No hoax

No motive for a hoax whatsoever.

It's one of the classic ufo cases that remains totally unexplained.

No evidence that it was a hoax.


Holy smoke!!

So, a science fiction movie and one of the silliest TV show of all time is all you need to believe in this one??!!

Why am I not surprised!? :lol:



Personaly I dont have the time to get into this case right now,... I have to catch a plane to Greece in a couple of hours. I would just like to say that unexplained to me is just that - UNEXPLAINED. Until that illusive hard scientific exhibit A that we all are waiting for changes that, unexplained has nothing to do with ET.

Edited by Hazzard, 04 September 2013 - 09:36 AM.

I still await the compelling Exhibit A.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -Edmund Burke

#14    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,983 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 04 September 2013 - 12:54 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 04 September 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

Hi Q

Having advised you this was worth looking at, it would be remiss of me to leave you with it on your own. I agree with you, the case is interesting and I believe historically significant, being the first instance of MIB. Looking at it properly though, UFOlogists have spread so much erroneous information about wanting this to be proof of ET that any serious look at the subject is quickly dismissed.

As soon as Anthony Bragalia said it was a hoax I was suspicious that it might actually be genuine. I genuinely respect Kevin Randle and his UFO reports, in my opinion he is the brightest spark on that block of UFOlogists, and the only one probably worth giving the time of day to. But he has been wrong, is human, and capable of human error like all of us. I completely believe his reasons for feeling Roswell is a genuine ET incident are too basic and fail to explain anything more than Kevin's personal struggle with the convoluted and polluted information at hand. Kevin did say on the page:



This is a picture. That did make the Tacoma Times in 1947.


Posted Image


The entire argument is based solely around Crisman. I think because he is an easy target, not so much to say on Harold Dahl. Crispins wild tales of underground people set a precedent. Crisman however was reportedly angry at the mention of damage to the boat, and went on to support the claim later. But Dahl has no such history, before or after the claimed event. We have Dahl's son, daughter and wife declaring it a hoax, which seem pretty cut and dry, unless you look as suggested by others at the Roswell incident. (Bragalia's take: Crisman drew upon elements of genuine UFO encounters such as Arnold's and Roswell's because Crisman was good at copying. )
Whilst many claim the Roswell Incident most likely influenced the tale of Maury Island, it took place 12 days after Maury Island, as far as I understand, Dahl had already circulated the tale of debris.

Personally I do not see much alike other than the very basics. The Roswell Material is described as flat metal which reforms, the Maury Island material is described as both slag and volcanic rock.
Much is also made of Kenneth Arnold's disappointment, yet the men themselves did not contact Arnold. It is fair enough that Arnold did not think much of the debris, but what was he expecting? Isotopic analysis would have confirmed this immediately  I do not know that such was ever carried out.

But a most interesting connection I find is the appearance of Men In Black for the first time, when we consider that the USAF initially denied that they had any debris at all, but changed the story after the plane crash, and the very fact that his wife went hysterical when a reporter showed up at their house, told Dahl to stop lying, and went so far as to pull a knife on him to shut him up.That does not strike me as an embarrassed woman, but one who is in real fear. His son claims it never happened, so does his daughter who was not a witness, and claims the family dog never died. No reason to say that is not that is true, but again, it strikes me as particularly strange that in "those times" that a family would not stand behind the father. We have seen torn cases of siblings, notably the Roswell incident, yet not here. Jesse Jr and Jesse Snr argued until the day Jesse Snr died about the shape of Roswell debris, yet that matters to nobody but skeptics. Jesse stood behind Dad, Bessie did not, she eventually had to be coerced into making a benign statement saying if her father said it was true then so be it. I have to say she sounds pressured, and she did it at a very late date many years after the incident, which I think coincided with some of Jesse's Roswell activities. Eventually despite early statements and disagreements they stood behind dear old dad like any loyal family member would. Not hard to put 2 and 2 together there. Not Dahl's children  Considering the reactions, it strikes me that if one case of MIB was ever true, this would have to qualify as best candidate. It might mean nothing, too. But the wife pulling a knife was the first strange thing I noticed in this family unit. They were not ever divorced, they do not seem to have had personal problems that would result in such animosity. I do not believe the Military Issue Death threats, but do not hold the same confidence with CIA. And they would do a stupid experiment that put lives in danger. How they manage to keep the doors open continually amazes me. The people who funded the men who stare at goats.

The debris was considered ordinary aluminium on sight but as far as I know was never tested, and it held a square rivet. More likely to be earthly in origin I admit. Being square does not by any means ET. But all the same it is odd, and not explained. Just another strange thing to add. Perhaps no connection to ET, but like Cash Landrum, it could have been some sort of military experiment that is being covered up for the sake of money. Even perhaps embarrassment, but then again  who knows. the ETHer's always say just one has to be true. I doubt that is the case at all, who knows maybe it is and this is it. Sounds more like wishful thinking to be honest, but their exuberance for this to be ET I feel left too many questions unanswered and stole any credibility the story had. It's the most underrated claim in UFOlogy IMHO and definitely is not entirely explained. I feel analysis of the hoax claim, which was later retracted, was solely based on one mans credibility, whilst completely ignoring the other. The claims from the siblings that it never happened were long after the incident, however this puts a huge fly in the ointment, and I feel a reason why many do not go past Crisman. It's also why The Source is probably right, and as long as those statements exist, they cannot be denied, believe them or not. It does not mean all of the hard questions have been answered though.

And I am sure you have more to add to this. As you say timing. And something about pilots and debris ;) This happens, next thing the Roswell Incident initiates a saucer frenzy, all around the same time the Twining Memo suggests a covert study in UFO's. This incident may not have happened, it may not be ET, but I do not think focusing on Crispin is a thorough and valid study to result in a firm conclusion. After all, he never even claimed to have been part of the incident. But no matter how you look at it, as the first instance of MIB, it is historically significant with regards to the subject overall be it hoax, or other.

Good to see another notice the interesting angles without being drowned out by ET or Hoax. The subtleties of the incident make it quite a mystery as opposed to a big shiny UFO.

Cheers Mate.

Gidday mate,

great to see you put on the boots again for this :)

many great points including one i hadn't really figured out.....why the son and daughter denied it! I think you put on interesting scenario forward here that merits more investigation.

I had looked at the knife attack and found it incredibly strange and like you say it makes no sense to be suggest these are actions of an embaressed wife.

The timing is indeed very significant and there may even be some scope at looking at connections to the LS theory involving Roswell and Psyops?!?!? but will wait before getting to that complicated aspect/theory.

I really want to peel it right back to the who and why, if its to be a hoax. I also want to go back to the very start and find out more info on the two crew members, then I can move through the story a bit at a time....

will be back soon, lets see what we can dig up.

thanks for joining in.

:tu:



oh and the MIB aspect...this will follow soon after I look into the crew members.


#15    dr no

dr no

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,433 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The North of England

  • Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.
    Carl Sagan

Posted 04 September 2013 - 03:15 PM

View Postquillius, on 03 September 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:



thanks for the links, however can you sum up some key points that make you say 'hoax/garbage' please (include who started it and why?)


I think the fact that Dahls son who was allegedly there denied it happened,him and his sister also said no family pet was killed.Dahl himself couldn't make up his mind about the incident,changing his story and denying it happened.The debris was terrestrial.
The incident wasn't reported to the police
Ray Palmer gave Arnold a tidy sum to go investigate the matter so he could print an article on the case after being contacted by Crisman (not Dahl who was supposedly there)
Crisman as a person had no credibility,remember this is a guy who claimed a Dero encounter in the army
Those are the main bones of contention for me.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users