Wow. I have to say its unfortunate people to turn so hostile when defending there views. Its not really necessary in my opinion. Remember you have your freedom of thought at the least. Or as my favorite shirt says "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. -Kierkegarrd"

We all have to remember that we all may or may not have different views and opinions on any number of topics and if some one just doesnt agree then so be it. Its always better to discuss then argue. Exchange views and ideas, not high velocity rocks. =D

Sky

I was having a good think about this the other night, and wondered if Radar records exists of the object? As we have an AFB in the vicinity I thought it may be a reasonable bet?
What I would think would be a good set of collaborating evidence would be radar backing the theodolite sighting, backing the location, and lining up with the groove.
If the trajectory could be determined, and it lines up with the groove...........?
That would prove that a large metallic object, not a balloon crashed wouldn't it? As the evidence of the groove was produced in 2002? This might be enough collaborating evidence to positively identify a crash?

Just a thought, I wondered what you may think.

^^
Ahhh...that was the point of my post, I don't think there was actually any hostillity intended, I have been debating Sky from the same side of the fence as JimOberg and just wanted to vouch for Sky's character from the other side, he has always shown me a polite and understanding manner, I was hoping to return the favour.
Hope that is clearer

Naw, I knew exactly what you were saying and really I was just taking the neutral ground. Reading through this section I was seeing alot of the harsh statements. At least I perceived them that way from various posters. I wasnt directing that at you strictly believe me on that.

Feel the love!! =D

First of all, the debris in the photo is not what was recovered on the Foster ranch, according to those who posed with the debris. An official document also suggested the use of a weather balloon rawin device as a cover-up, which corroborates those who've said the debris was placed there as a means to cover-up the incident.

In this photo:




How many of these items can you list that are evident in that photo?

* Dribblers

* Parachutes

* 28 balloons

* 17.5 pound payload

* Ballast Tubes

* Radiosode

* Several rawin devices with flowered tape

* Yards and yards of braided line used on Mogul balloon trains

* Sono Buoy

I asid this before, Lost Shaman is adamant record exist that say the weather we very mild. When I found where I had heard the weather was bad, it turned ut to be a doco, which I could not post.

Bushes acting as anchors on the ground with a balloon in strong winds would spread debris very far and wide indeed.

No picture appears of the field, no evidence exists to prove it was of large size.

At least one of these?

* Several rawin devices with flowered tape

Which shows the list is incorrect?

Are there any witnesses other then Marcel that saw the wreckage and believe it was switched?
General DuBose viewed it and said what you see in the pictures if what Marcel delivered to him.

Marcel has a habit of telling porkies, shouldn't that taint his testimony?


DuBose testimony

The field is quite large. Certainly not as large as your outback, but quite large. The field in question is actually a part of "desert", if you will, west of the tail of the Rockies, where miles and miles of flat landscape exists; or at least it's quite flat to someone brought up in the northern Rockies.

An interesting part of this thread is that it is somehow assumed that we all should believe what the government or the military states. Having spent my time in the military, with the last few months in communications aboard ship (when not flying), on station at Yankee, I will vouch for this: the military tells the truth ONLY when it behooves them to do so. In three tours of Vietnam, I can recall few times when the truth was told, and almost never to the public; nor was the truth told to the media, who in turn did not tell the truth to the public. That is perhaps one reason there are still quite a number of Vietnam vets roaming the homeless streets: no one told it like it was.
If your "proof" consists of quotes from military men, officers or otherwise, or if it consists of FBI or CIA, then all such data should be considered something less than hearsay.

My mistake, once again I have not explained myself properly.

I meant the size of area covered by wreckage. Commonly (by me ) reffered to a field of debris, but my context did not clarify that, my mistake. I unwittingly had shortened Field of debris to field.

That seems to be where most of the proof is, none seems to actually exist to support anything other than the Mogul theory. I know the government does get involved in cover up incidents, Sky has proven that beyond doubt. I would have to hope it is a means to an ends as their primary mission is to serve and protect.
The only other source seems to be media, much more unreliable IMHO than Government. We have to choose the lesser of two evils in some cases I fear.

Hey psyche101,

I would have to completely disagree with you on this "Government" Vs. "media" credibility issue. One of the basic foundations of our democratic society is the First Amendment and the 'Freedom of the Press'.

"The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." - Thomas Jefferson, 1787

So really it's our right to openly question our Government via the media.

It is not 'current' training, it is training that occurred in the 1950's, according to Tighe.

I doubt there are any surviving records the story was ever told -- it was in class discussion.

Nope! Not even that.

That rawin device was placed there as a means of a cover-up and not recovered on the Foster ranch. Even Charles Moore initially stated that no Mogul balloon was involved.

Can you zoom us in on where the flowered tape is?

Why is McClelland believable, when he provides no documentary support of his claims?

There are those who still believe that a Mogul balloon flight was responsible even though it has been shown that no Mogul balloon was involved.

Then, there are the test dummies and accident victims of the 1950s to explain an event in 1947, and you can find support for such explanations on those skeptical web sites that have been used against believers.

Once again.

Why is McClelland believable, when he provides no documentary support of his claims?

Don't blame it on what OTHER people believe or don't believe.

Actually, I am not into what McClelland says.

Fair enough.

What I am into, are remarks attributed to Marcel, which he'd never said and taken up by skeptical web sites.

Hang on, how do we know that particular RAWIN devce was indeed placed there. Surely you of all people are not basing that on speculation? DuBose is a Brigadier General and feels the Roswell story is wildly incorrect. He also thinks that what we see in that pic is what came from Brazels ranch.

You asked for any of the list to be shown, there is example 1.

Charles Moore would not have stated anything about Project Mogul to the press at the time, he would have been fired for doing so, and possibly charged.

"No, it wasn't a balloon, we were spying on the enemy Don't worry about it. My mistake!"

When his testimony is used in favour, why is his credibility suddenly no longer in doubt?

Marcel claimed that he personally flew the UFO wreckage to Carswell AFB. He could not have done so, for he was never a pilot.

Lydia Sleppy: Claims she was operating a teletype machine announcing the recovery of the flying disk when her teletype suddenly went dead and broadcast an ominous message from the FBI back to her ordering her to stop broadcasting the story in the interests of national security.

Truth: A check with all relevant FBI field offices and their headquarters turned up no evidence that the FBI sent any such message, nor did they have the monitoring equipment in place to do so. Furthermore, the type of teletype machine in use by Sleppy at the time would have required her to throw a "receiver" switch in order for her to receive an incoming transmission. There was no way that the FBI could have "interrupted" her as she claims.

These sort of Urban legends strongly suggest that a great deal of zealous enthusiasm has been injected into the story as well. It certainly loosens credibility of the crashed UFO scenario. One does not have to have been taken in by the Government to have serious doubts that this is a true account, one just needs to read the medias paper trail. It is a meandering hodge pode of contradictions. If dis-informatin was the idea, the Governement should have just asked the press to cover the story in depth and not bothered to offer explainations. The current paper trail available today shows no reason to accept the UFO crash scenario. It leads to the opposite conclusion.

The interesting and intelligent observations by yourself and now Shaman and Enigma are the best evidences I can find to date as to a good debate for the UFO crash scenario.

What did you think of my Radar confirmation idea? I think that would be convincing evidence? If such information was available, and it should be, it would 100% discount a balloon wouldn't it? Can that scenario be verified do you think?



Great point, and dead right, we need to question the Government and the media is a great way to do that, however, surely you agree that the media Jefferson spoke of is quite a different animal to the low life of today? The Government also holds acountability, the media does not. The Government can be charged. Media can be directly responsible for death (Lady Di) and still get away with it.
Considering today's tabloids, and incorrect headlines, little credibility is deserved. For Government, this is building a society, to the media, this headline is cash - that alone taints the credibility of todays media. They are driven to provide the entertaining story, not present the truth. I might have believed it from pioneers in the media industry in Jeffersons day, but not in a world where Prada has major circulation.
I might give credibility to CNN or the like, but that is why these mainstream organisations have no major stories on the likes of Dulce. If such a realiable source could offer further information on Roswell, sure, I would give it fair and neutral consideration. To date, I do not know of any such major organisation offering serious creedence to the account. In such cases, wouldn't the Discovery Channel be considered a more reliable and truthful source? We know that the special documentary they provided reveals the Air Force to be telling the truth - if correct.

Remember, the media in this case have had to rely on the Government for their information. It is simply my opinion they had a great story and refuse to let go, even 70 years later, after all, it is still a money spinner and would have made such organisations a great deal of turnover in that time. Don't kill the cashcow.

or the possibility.

From the media's stance, it is driven by cash. The would gain nothing from disclosure that the AF was telling the truth the whole time. They would only lose. No more Roswell stories. The town would also suffer a tourism blow.

What motivation can be offered for the possibilty? You wont hear a revealing statement from the press I reckon.

Cash drives these things nowadays, not truth.

The shape!



Not according to his affidavit!



So you see, there is nothing there where Dubose stated that the material he posed with came from the Foster ranch.



It was Charles Moore who initially stated that his Mogul balloon was not responsible. It was also Charles Moore who saw a UFO over the area as well.







Yes indeed! Besides, a B-29 was used to detect the Soviet's first nuclear blast.

Which of the Air Force's four stories relating to the Roswell incident are the truth? Surely, all four can't be correct!

There was a reason why the Air Force blocked investigators, including Congressman Steven Schiff (R-NM), from getting at the heart of the matter in regards to the Roswell incident. Congressman Schiff was so astounded, that he said the issue was even larger than the UFOs themselves and called it another government cover-up.

Washington Post, January 14, 1994!

I am glad you brought that up because radar in the area was used to confirm the UFO accounts of scientist and engineers at White Sands, as noted in their report.

Can you extrapolate please, I asked



I am not intending to be rude, I really do not understand how this answers the question.



Question 7? Not in that very question, and he admits to a cover up, which is in linne wth the AF story.



Isn't the source of the claim that the wreckage in Ramey's office was replaced by that of a weather balloon is none other than, once again, Major Jesse Marcel. ? He has already lied about being a pilot on record? Why would his testimony be taken over that of a Brigadier General? WE know he was present when the wreckage was brought into Ramey's office. There's no disputing this fact, because DuBose met the B-29 personally when it arrived at Carswell AFB (Fort Worth) from Roswell carrying the debris that Marcel had collected.

In an interview, he said this



And held up that view in the subsequent interview, and one after that as well. His credibility is far more credible than that of Marcel as well?



He may have indeed seen a UFO. He still says that the wreckage was not from an Alien caft.



That is true. No debate there.

I would say any story after all projects are declassified deserves investigation.

Sciff had trouble, but Clinton said he had a look and it was not all that interesting.

Are any available for the Roswell Incident?

If a Radar record could tie in with Moores sighting, which tied in with the day and time, and radar should be able to ascertain a trajectory, and if that lines up with the groove.....I think it would be a stronger case. It woud certainly take the ballon right out of the picure on velocity alone confirmed by Radar. Is such information readily available that you know of?

I for one believe that a UFO did crash at Roswell. I've seen many documentaries on this topic and have read a great deal on the topic and I have to say that I'm more of a believer now than I ever was. I have to say that I owe a great deal of that to one of the UFO communities biggest allies, Dr. Stanton Friedman. This man is unbelievable! To add to his credibility as an extremely intelligent man, aside from being a Ufologist, he's also a nuclear physicist. So, needless to say, he's a very, VERY smart man, one not easily fooled. He has done a great deal of research on the Roswell incident (not to mention countless other UFO incidents) and also believes that a UFO did crash there. He has presented some very compelling evidence which I personally think is very, VERY hard not to believe. Also, in the photos of the Roswell wreckage, you can see that Jesse Marcel is holding a paper. In a documentary I watched on this incident a man, whose name I don't recall, zoomed in on the the letter in the pictures and has painstakingly pieced it together for the most part. If his work is correct, then the paper in Jesse Marcel's had does indeed mention the recovery of alien bodies. If you saw this documentary you'd probably better understand how compelling this evidence really is. Well, thats it for my thoughts on this topic, for now at least. Later.

frick. i dont know if they have a radar record of that lying around. and if so, im not sure if its available to the public.
sky? you would know

As all the projects from the era are apparently disclosed, if they exist, they should be.

It would certainly wipe a balloon clear from the story wouldn't it I thought about it, and figured this would be pretty hard evidence to contest if all the pieces line up.

You mean the Ramey memo? Sorry, that one is a fraud. No way can you read that text accurately with the best computer inn the world. Not unless the original photo is wall sized. As press took the pic, I'd say that sort of resolution was not used.

Marcel has been proven to tell a porkie or two, and has been constantly acused of attempting to write himself into the history books. He even claimed to have flown the wreckage in personally, except...he is not a pilot?

Friedman has lost some credibility with th Majestic 12 debacle. In the early 1990s Friedman had placed a newspaper ad in the local paper soliciting witnesses to Roswell, Professor Moore wrote to Friedman and later met him and his coauthor, Don Berliner, at a hotel in Socorro.

When asked as to how their discussion went, Professor Moore said bluntly that Friedman and Berliner did not want to hear his side of the story and then accused him and his group of being part of the coverup.

It is curious that nowhere in Friedman and Berliner's Crash at Corona is this meeting ever mentioned, nor has Friedman ever noted it in his published writings, nor has he ever refuted the overwhelming and convincing evidence that the whole Roswell UFO hysteria was caused by people who didn't know the identity of the recovered material, the discovery of which just happened to take place during that unique period of time in mid-1947 when the flying saucer craze was first sweeping America. He may be an intelligent man, but this is tainted by his underlying agenda.

There is excellent evidence for and against. Doco's too, the History Channel did an excellent one explaining Mogul in well. Best to make sure you check out both sides thouroughly

The mogul documentary still left me wondering. What did you think of it?

I thought it was excellent. It gave a fair objective view. It shows how Mogul was involved, and why the balloon stories can be accepted, there is some good footage of a couple balloon trains going up. Great overview on Mogul. Up until I had seen that footage, I too had wondered how anybody could mis-identify a ballooon as a UFO. Seeing a balloon on the doco fill and lift of in the waning sunlight, making it look a glowing orange, with the lines and payload almost invisible from a distance it sure looked like a large strange craft. I was really suprised. It also says how the Anthropomorphic dummies are a possible explaination for the Alien body memories. It clearly states that the dates are wrong, but as no saucer was recovered, it is all they can offer, either that or a warped memory left by an extremely traumatic event, and they offer a couple plane crashes, dates and descriptions of the victims.

To me it also casts great doubt on the authenticity of the disappearing nurse. It covers pretty much all angles.

I have seen may people say "it's crap" but only from believers, and never why it is crap. It is not at all crap and like any case, both sides should be researched clearly before any conclusion can be reached. It is a clear and consise report that covers the facts well. It offers dates, names and places. Any claim made on the show is easily researched for authenticity.

I think my favourite bit was when the archives were opened. It may have been a let down, but I think we all expected that I found it very interesting. Well worth a watch.

Welp, like I said. It still left me wondering. Werent the dates of the whole mogul thing off? I thought that was one of the oddities people based it on. Guess Ill have to go look that one up now.

Cheers for the feedback!

NP

No, I think you ae thinking of operation highdrop. That was to explain the possibility of the memories people hadof the alien bodies. In the documentary the USAF points out the dates do not match.

Hmmm.Very very possible. Im sure youve noticed my memory is horrid when it comes to names lol. Ill have to see if I can track the both down on the history channels site.

Remember that those were not the Balloons used in early June 1947. The first MOGUL Balloon trains, the only ones that could possibly account for Roswell, used your average everyday off the shelf 350 gram Neoprenes.







psyche101 do you not remember just a couple of weeks ago when I pointed out to you that the rumors of "Alien bodies" predate the Anthropomorphic dummy testing?




See above.

I am sure that if the radars were operating at the time, they caught something, and from time to time, I have heard they did.

What many people are unaware of, was that there were times, enlisted military personnel flying aircraft. It was no unusal for people to handle the controls of an aircraft even though their official military specialty were not that of a crewmember. During the time I was TDY for two weeks at Kelly AFB, TX., I found that were enlisted pilots in the military.



That is impossible! There were no Mogul balloon train involved in the Roswell incident because the Air Force made up that story, just as it made to the storie regarding the weather balloon, test dummies and accident victims.

By any chance, is that the same Air Force that said for 47 years that a weather balloon was responsible for the Roswell incident and then admitted that no weather balloon was involved? Is that the same Air Force that changed its story to a Mogul balloon flight that never was? Is that the same Air Force that said alien bodies of 1947 were test dummies and accident victims of the 1950s?

If the answer is yes to any of those questions, then apparently, there is a little bit of a problem.

See these are the anomalies I remember hearing on the documenteries. All I remember is I wasnt still unclear of what really happened. In other words I didnt really buy what the AF was saying.

No doubt, I was just saying that I too thought "how on earth could somebody mistake a balloon" for a UFO? I thought it would be really quite easy to tell, until I saw that footage. It opens the possibility to me that other mis-identifications are possible under differing conditions. The footage was quite spectacular. One of the reasons I really like that particular special. It has good working examples on it.



Yes, excellent info, sat me down quick LOL, not what I was meaning here though, it does indeed say in the documentary that possibly anthropomorphic dummies were used and that they could not be sure this was the answer as the dates do not match up. The doco does not offer that as a sole explaination, but a possiblity. It just seems I see it on these boards as the absolute explaination from the Air Force, when my research shows this was not the case at all, and never has been. The dates are a discrepancy for both explainations, and the Air Force has said this all along. I think it is dishonest to say "this is what the AF said" when they actually said - "maybe this happened *shrugs shoulders* Could be trauma from a horrific crash?" Not "It was Anthropomorphic dummies!!" I was directly referencing the doco in this case, not drawing a conclusion.

BTW, I'd like to say I certainly in no way was meaning to refer to your good self, or Enigma to be included amongst the few I refered to in my last statement. A structured debate is good for both sides no matter the outcome, as long as that outcome is accurate.

Nope. Mogul looked at weather too, so I guess it was in a way a weather balloon.




Nope. The Crary diary entry says a balloon went up. I have not seen yet satisfactory evidence to conclusively prove that no balloon went up on the day nor that Mogul did not go up. All it shows is that a balloon flight that day failed. It is well known that failed flights were not recorded. Had Crary not made a partial entry, absolutely no record would exist. As at least a partial one indeed does, and it cannot be disproved 100% successfully without doubt, that it was not what crashed in Roswell.
If it could, it would have been proven to be non-evidence long ago, and not still doing the rounds. It is ambiguos evidence true, but for both directions.



Once again, no. The air force has offered this, as well as crash trauma as possible explainations. Never concrete evidence.



If only that easy, as Enigma put it, certain things about this case plaugue one's reasoning. Darn it, you're not helping you know, you are making it hard to wrap this into a nice little bundle LOL. All the evidence for and against is so bloody wishy washy, this debate will wage beyond our lifetimes I fear. I certianly admit, you make a nice easy conclusion "a bit of a problem" LOL, Keep me on my toes Sky.

Marcel never trained as a Pilot from what I can see? I am sure many personel get to ride in the cockpit, but I cannot find anywhere that shows Marcel was trained as a pilot? He certainly would not be landing an aircraft with sensitive material - that'd be all they would need, a UFO crashing twice - imagine that cover up!



No, they did not make Mogul up, that was a real operation.

Possible explainations on the dummies. Not definites.

Well, if we can find them, and they line up with the trajectory of the object that caused a groove, which was determined was a strong possiblity, then BAM, we have some evidence that really discount's a baloon. No matter how hard they come down, no matter the payload in this instance, no balloon will make a groove in the earth like the one described.

If we had one photo of the debris field, I'd also be happier with the balloon theory. The partial maybes are just too ambiguous to me. The craft are just too unbelievable as well. Just to darn small to traverse a Galaxy. It defies sensibility.

Hope that cleared it up a little in concerns to the documentary. The following responses were more a personal view based on research, not really a review on the doco as you asked. There is as good evidence for in this case as there is against. From my perspective, I am just trying to look at all the facts from an outside view. I think the documentary lines thes up in an easy to understand fashion. I am not sure why you would not buy what the AF said in that particular Doco, hopefully you will have a chance to review it again soon so that we may discuss any parts of it you are uncomfortable with. If you are looking for evidence "for" just tell Skyeagle the Air Force is telling the truth LOL. He will give you enough info to keep you busy for a year. LOL. (Meant as a compliment Sky) Just remember to keep an objective viewpoint when evaluating each side and lets fact guide your desicion, not personal preference.
Good luck with it. Quite a can of worms you are opening there.

On the contrary, the Air Force said, "A" weather balloon, not a Mogul balloon train. In other words, when the Air Force stated back in 1947 that "A" weather balloon was responsible, it wasn't talking about a Mogul balloon train, which had as many as 28 balloons. Singular vs. plural. And, Mogul balloon flights were not, as you know, not your typical weather balloon flights.



But, that wasn't a Mogul balloon flight! There were no such flight on June 4, 1947. Check it out. Only a service flight was conducted and service flights were expendable and no effort was made to recover them and why service balloons didn't carry reward tags and questionnaires unlike Mogul balloons, and by that fact, you can determine that the service balloon was not a Mogul balloon.

Add to the fact there are no flight records for any Mogul balloon flight and that Charles Moore stated in the Air Force report there were no association between service balloons and others and you have the fact that no Mogul balloon was launched that day and why A.P. Crary writes in his diary that the Mogul balloon flight for June 4, 1947 was cancelled. And, the debris wasn't discovered on the Foster ranch until early July, which is further proof that no Mogul balloon train had landed on that ranch between June 4, and July 4, 1947, in addition that no equipment of any kind that was associated with a Mogul balloon train were recovered nor noted.



The evidence lies in the fact that the Air Force made up the Mogul balloon story. For instance, the Air Force knew that a service balloon flight was launched on June 4, 1947 and not a Mogul balloon train, which is why there are no records pertaining to any Mogul balloon flight, and the Air Force knew that service balloon flights were not Mogul balloon flights, so there was no reason to send militiary personnel to recover a service balloon that was expendable in the first place. Also, it has already been proven beyond any doubt that no balloon of any kind could have caused the kind of debris field as reported by the military.

QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Sep 15 2007, 10:19 AM)
Is that the same Air Force that said alien bodies of 1947 were test dummies and accident victims of the 1950s?




Not many skeptics took that false story, and rightly so. Like I said before, that is like saying, an B-747 crashed in California in 1986 because it was shot down over Berlin in 1944.

a

I knew people who have piloted aircraft but couldn't log any time because they were not rated pilots, but were in company with a rated pilot.



The story that the Air Force made up was that a Mogul balloon flight, that never was, was responsible for the Roswell incident.

I would never expect the Air Force to release such information during a full- blown cover-up. Like shooting itself in the foot!