I recently watched the 1979 documentary again "Ufo's are Real" and it has the interview with the late Maj. Marcel who is alleged to have discovered part of the Roswell wrekage. Although I am not cetain if it was a Weather Ballon from Project Mogul or a UFO; it's hard to believe that Marcel wouldn't know what he saw. Afeterall, he was part of the most advanced bomber divison in the world. Why would he lie about his account?

As many have already mentioned there were contradictions on the Goverment repsond with "Roswell case closed" which talked about crashed test dummies in 1947 when the project didn't begin until the early 1950's.

What does everyone believe? Was Roswell a classified scientific experiment called Project Mogul or was it something else?

We now know that no balloon of any kind was responsible for the Roswell incident, and it is amazing that there are folks who actually believed the Air Force's 1997 Roswell Report in regards to the test dummies and accident victims of the 1950s to explain an incident in 1947, but then again, that is typical of the way the military has been explaining away UFOs all of these years, especially after the Robertson Panel's Report of 1953.

If you look at the Air Force's explanations for some of the UFO case files in Project Blue Book, they are just as ridicules, yet there are those who have accepted the Air Force's story regardless.

QUOTE(RushMaiden @ Sep 2 2007, 03:39 PM)
I recently watched the 1979 documentary again "Ufo's are Real" and it has the interview with the late Maj. Marcel who is alleged to have discovered part of the Roswell wrekage. Although I am not cetain if it was a Weather Ballon from Project Mogul or a UFO; it's hard to believe that Marcel wouldn't know what he saw. Afeterall, he was part of the most advanced bomber divison in the world. Why would he lie about his account?

As many have already mentioned there were contradictions on the Goverment repsond with "Roswell case closed" which talked about crashed test dummies in 1947 when the project didn't begin until the early 1950's.

What does everyone believe? Was Roswell a classified scientific experiment called Project Mogul or was it something else?




With respect for your excellent in-depth research, we now know that no UFO crashed near Roswell. And those who believe the Air Force's modern explanation need a refresher course which should start with the original articles and documents none of which state that a nuts-and-bolts craft crashed. There is no doubt and I join you here in saying that those who gave the modern explanation are just as stupid as the explanations. However, I've already stated that Major Marcel's testimony cannot be trusted and it doesn't matter what documents you dredge up to indicate that he was a good soldier or not. The facts, found by researchers such as Kal Korff and Karl Pflock, which I trust indicate otherwise. His son is about the biggest nutcase associated with the deep pile of hot, steamy b.s. called The Roswell Crash. But only when associated with a UFO.

umm, no, no you dont. you have no conclusive, irrefutable evidence that a ship didnt crash near roswell.
and why cant marcel be trusted? did you know him?

Do YOU have irrefutable evidence that a ship crashed near Roswell? The ball is on your court. It is not up to me to prove a negative. I didn't know Marcel but his b.s. could never pass muster. Why don't you do some research as Kal Karl did?

No you don't!

I think I heard the people who found it could not burn it.

In the views of Karl Pflock and Kal Korff, what crashed at Roswell in 1947? I might add, that UFO debunker, Tim Printy, got himself in hot water because of Karl Pflock.

So you will believe someone who is completely biased and a professional debunker in Korff, but not Marcel. That is irresponsible. Why should anyone listen to someone whose mission when he sets out, is to debunk UFOs at Roswell and not just research the whole case. How easy it must be for a debunker to get his hands on evidence that nothing unordinary happed at Roswell. The government probably just sends the "official" documents in the mail. Here is an interesting article about the credibility (perhaps lack thereof) of Korff. Click me

ahh, the whole 'its not up to me to prove why i just said im right'...........i expected more from you.
theres alot more evidence pointing towards why something did crash (a possible ufo) instead of nothing at all. and just because you dont beleieve someone doesnt mean their full of s***. you cant say he was all b.s.
anywho, maybe if You do some research youll see why theres more evidence pointing towards something crashing near roswell. but i cant get irrefutable evidence something crashed, because the government wont let the public know, or give any info. any document youd get from the freedom of info act would be mostly blacked out. as alot are.
but we have testimonies from eyewitnesses claiming exaclty what they saw. and basically each story corroborates the other. some in great detail, and from reliable people. which is more than evidence than people have, when they say "yeop, they said it was a weather balloon. must be true"

You need to stop believing the popular b.s. and educate yourself properly about what you want to discuss.
""One point of view is self-reinforcing while restricting critical thinking."

excuse me there dorothy, you said i need to educate myself? hmmm, coming from the one sided skeptic who claims everyone whos been talking about an account they had, or what actually happened, is full of b.s. uh huh.....you dont have many friends do you?
ive watched plenty of videos debating both sides, and gone through alot of books. i know when not to believe what someone is saying, ok.
like you for example.

As a skeptic, Roswell is one of the hardest to discount, BUT the fact we have nothing but testimony is very damning. If there was one case I could possibly believe in it would be this. Once again I would still need more substantial proof to become a real beleiver in it.

i hear what youre saying raven. cant blame you. i will do the same when people make certain claims about religion. But, in this case its just some of the testimonies are coming from pretty credible people. not some 90 year old farmer who just sold a cow for magic beans 3 days ago, saying he knows exaclty what happened.
and they have some evidence pointing towards something actually crashing. unfortunately not enough (or not enough released to us) to convince some people.

QUOTE(SkepticalEd @ Sep 3 2007, 05:06 AM) "You need to stop believing the popular b.s. and educate yourself properly about what you want to discuss."
"One point of view is self-reinforcing while restricting critical thinking."



You may have watched plenty of videos debating both sides and gone through a lot of books, and lord knows there's a million of them out there written by all of the 1,000+ Roswell "witnesses," but have you at least looked at "Roswell: Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe" by Karl T. Pflock, "The Roswell UFO Crash: What They Don't Want You to Know" by Kal K Korff, and "The Real Roswell Crashed-Saucer Coverup" by Philip J. Klass. Those 3 books provide more believable research results than all of the pro-POVs.

"One point of view is self-reinforcing while restricting critical thinking."

QUOTE(Eric Raven The Skeptic @ Sep 3 2007, 05:40 PM)
As a skeptic, Roswell is one of the hardest to discount, BUT the fact we have nothing but testimony is very damning. If there was one case I could possibly believe in it would be this. Once again I would still need more substantial proof to become a real beleiver in it.



I have never bought any of the popular pro-UFO-crash explanations because I know that these explanations were put forth by certain people intent on milking a pregnant cash cow. It is so simple to accept the original accounts after also learning what those times were like as far as us versus Russia and secret projects that not even highly-placed military officers knew about, or learning that those same military officers had a certain reputation of exaggerating, or that people such as Stanton Friedman had no desire to see his cash-cow bubble burst, it all smells.

UFOs crashing, bodies being relocated to storage or autopsies, debris being taken for reverse-engineering, nutsoid military officers such as Corso, ridiculous claims made by Lazar about reverse-engineering, geezus, is there no end?

Forget about religion, it's easier to believe that a UFO did crash near Roswell!

whaaaa? lol
come on, no way. you dont think a ship (holding alien or even human test pilots) could have crashed?

I think there is more to the AF explainaton, but basically, it covers the incident well IMHO. I didn't think any AF explaination offered a nuts and bolts aircraft, or have I understood this incorrectly?


What is your idea of the incident? I would appreciate any insights you can offer.

I think the AF explaination cover the story well because

• Crary's diary does contain a notation saying a ballon went up. It coincides with the supposed flight #4.
• As proof, Mogul train #4 is claimed to have not existed, it is also used as evidence that it did take of, but had a different flight path. Both explainations are offered on some sites as proof. How can it take of, yet not take off? As such, and taking into account the diary refernce, I think it is only fair on both sides to remove this evidence unless undeniable proof can clarify it's validity.
• People, people, the air force DID NOT say the alleged aliens were the anthropomorphic dummies. This point is quite clear, yet it is mis-quoted in almost every instance. It has been offered as a possible explaination for the alien memories. They also admit it does not coincide wth the time frame. They suggested, and were quit right to do so, that a very traumatic event, like the downed bomber on base, could be the catalyst for these memories that seem to have no real basis as far as the AF is concerned.
• The debris field is hearsay. No confirming evidence exists. It's one word against another, and neither can prove it either way. As such it is non-evidence.
• The Media sweep of the town has been exposed as a hoax story.
• No proof exists as to wether Brazel was detained for hours, days or the week. Witnesses place both. As such, it is non-evidence. It cannot be proven unless a dated photoraph shows up confiming his whereabouts.
• Even the FBI website has documents saying it was a ballon. Other FBI documents say otherwise. Is it code, is it words to be taken at face value? Is it evidence?
• President Clinton saw it as nothing after investigating the incident.
• The local township treat the entire incident as a joke.
• The latest report show over 600 witnesses and 11 crash sites. We also have a new site 150 miles away from the brazel ranch. Seems a whole fleet must have crashed. The story grows daily. Very little corroboration despite the OP's remark that stories corraborate. They do not. That's why such controversy.
• Crash dates change constantly, almost to the day.
• The unbreakable craft broke.
• The description of the craft describes a very small unit. Hard to imagine something about as big as a mini to travel interstellar distances.
• All pictures of the debris show man made items.
• The Ramey memo is a straw grab with obviously no validity. No software can read words accurately from a blob.
• In "The Roswell Incident" book, Brazel is described as leading the Army to a second crash site on the ranch, where the Army was "horrified to find civilians [including Barnett] there already." Yet not a single witness had the foresight, or wonder to stash a piece of this revolutionary material.
• No big jump in tech from reverse engineering. We still need fossil fuels and a couple days to reach the moon. After 70 years, we should have colonised Mars.
• In 1947, the United States was in the opening stages of a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and as a result, put in place numerous secret military programs to gain intelligence on the Soviets, particularly on their nuclear programs.
• Any witnesses or such public supporters with so called proof turn out to be nut jobs like Bob Lazar or David Icke. No evidence exists to this day. Isn't that rather strange?

There is no evidence currently to support the Alien/UFO hypothesis. Opening the archives proved this.

K, shoot me down Sky, I look forward to what you will show me.
I know you will start with the Ballloon, you cannot do that whilst roswellproof claim it both did not leave the ground, yet manged to disprove the Mogul theory with a different flight path. Both explainations cannot be right. They must agree if it is to be considered for evidence. I would prefer an unbiased source to prove the diary entry does not refer to flight 4, not what people reckon, or what should be, but actually some way of proving that entry is not referring to a balloon at all. I understand you have good reason for your stance, just I ask you to remember, I do not.

Hi Mulder

I know you believe, I know why Skyeagle believes, may I ask what is your motivation? Just interested, what sells the story to you? I ask because I have come to know you and know I will recieve a genuine and non-malicious reply, perhaps you have seen something I missed? Is it a particular point, or the whole story does not sit right with you?

Actually, the Air Force knew that no Mogul balloon flight #4 took place on June 4, 1947. A.P. Crary states that the Mogul balloon flight for June 4, 1947, was cancelled due to clouds, in keeping with the stipulation between the CAA and the balloon teams, that no Mogul balloon flight be launched on cloudy days, but only a service balloon was launched, which was not a Mogul balloon train. Let's read the small print in the Air Force's own 1994 Roswell Report in regards to service balloons.



It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure the Air Force made up the Mogul balloon story, especially since latter experiments have already proven beyond any doubt that no Mogul balloon train was responsible for the Roswell incident. In fact, the service balloon didn't even carry a rawin device that day.



Remember, in the Air Force's own Roswell Report, only a service balloon was launched and according to what was written in that report , there was no association between service balloons and the Mogul balloon trains we are talking about and that is why there are no flight records for Mogul balloon flight #4 because it never took place. Now, researchers are coming around that yes indeed, there were no such flight as Mogul balloon flight #4.

Given the fact there were many miliary personnel on multiple days cleaning up the debris, it doen't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the crash site #1 was massive.



Actually, not! And, I wouldn't be surprised if there are those who will claim that this article was a hoax.





Actually, numerous friends and Brazel's own family have stated that Brazel was taken into custody for a week. After all, guess who brought Brazel to the radio station?! None other than the U.S. military.



That was another cover story. No one in the military would have spend thousands of dollars to fly a simple weather balloon all the way to Wright-Patterson AFB to find out what it was. Once again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.



Not surprising considering that the GAO noted that important documents relating to the Roswell incident were destroyed without authorization decades ago.



I don't think so considering that flying saucers were flying all over the area before the Roswell story hit the headlines. In fact, a civilian saucer report made it to the press just before that of the military.



Only two crash sites were confirmed.



The generally accepted date is July 1947, not the Air Force's cover date of June 1947, a whole month before the local headlines made world news.



Unbreakable by hand, not by impact. Do you remember the unsinkable ship?




Never assume that aliens have to think like us humans.



Surely, you are not talking about the Roswell cover photos that have been proven as such? The same photos that those who posed with the debris, have stated the photos were nothimg more than a cover-up and the object was not what was recovered by the military. Don't forget that official military document stating the use of a rawin device as a cover-up. Besides, the rewin device in the photos are obvously hand-torn.

Sonobouys flew on the day, they were supported by a ballon. Unless Crary was to come forward and decipher it's meaning personally, it can be used by either side. Mogul was being tested n the day, the University was in attendance and there is a partial entry in the Crary diary to corroborate the AF explaination. I remember, boy do I remember, you are one of the finest it has been my honour to debate. I still can only find conjecture to prove no Mogul flew on the day, I know it does not take a rocket scientist, but this seems to me a basic stumbling block that is somewhat glossed over and taken for a generalised meaning. I am not 100% sure it is a correct interpretation. If so certain, it must be easy to clarify completely and remove all doubt.
AFAIK there are no flight record because all Mogul trains that failed were scrapped altogether from the record. This was standard practise, and has been recorded as such. If people are finding good enough evidence to change their position on this item, can you offer me a link? I would appreciate evaluating any new information.
Now the supposed date has changed anyway, from July to early June, how does this affect the outcome of the balloon conclusion? Do you know of this development? What is your take on it?

Why do some researchers insist it did go up, but has a very different trajectory, and that alone is supposedly proof that absolves Mogul?

The small print on the AF explaination says



It does not offer them as a solution. Just a maybe.

Judging what is depicted, it is clear enough that it show that no weather balloon was involved and weather balloons didn't carry passengers.



Perhaps, they thought that the military could be trusted, but apparently not.



I doubt that! The military would have needed revolutionary manufacturing means to produce exotic materials. After all, compare the computers of the 1940s with computers of today. Was there any means to manufacture microchips in 1949?



But, Mogul balloon trains were not classified and occasionally recovered by civilians for rewards after adding their technical imput on questionnaires that were carried aloft on Mogul balloons. In some cases, Mogul balloons were not even recovered and left lying in open fields and that is not indicative of any classified object. That can be underlined by the fact the military was unaware of any downed classified project of theirs at the time of the crash. In other words, there was no downed classified project of the military at any of the two crash sites.



A truck that you passed on the freeway recently could have been loaded with alien bodies (ET) or parts of a flying saucer.

That sonobuoy was no more classified than a truck tire and since it was tied to a service balloon, anyone who recovered a service balloon, could have kept the service balloons as their own personal property, since the balloon teams didn't want them back, and as Charles Moore indicated in the Air Force's own 1994 Roswell Report, that is why service balloons didn't carry "Return To," or "Reward Tags," unlike Mogul balloons.



The Air Force goofed IMO, as to what they'd published in its 1994 and 1997 Roswell Reports.

It would behoove you to consider your sources. None of the three is scientific in nature, while all three have agendas.

I like real, honest-to-God facts, not some BS written by people who make their living by tossing same.

You see, I remember some of the things that hit the news back then; the incident lived for several years and was discussed among people. While it may be said that I was young then (true), it may also be said that there are things that one remembers quite vividly until death. That was one of those things.

In my own opinion, the situation is this: enough was said then to cast doubt on government stories. The 'debunkers' and skeptics are nothing more than that, making claims with little fact. Using such nonsensical sources as wikipedia is ridiculous from the start: anyone can go in there and modify to his own liking, after all. My parents kept the headlines from that era about the 'crash' for years (I wish I had those papers now); I've yet to see evidence to suggest that something didn't come down near Roswell, nor have I seen evidence that it was either an ET saucer or (especially not) a weather balloon. That means the jury is still out, but the inclination is that something occurred that was extraordinary.

One must consider the fact that there has been a concerted effort by agencies to deny even the existence of the crash or to make it mundane: this implies that something happened that those same agencies do not want to be public knowledge.
That simple fact inclines me to think it did. See, I lived one of those lies in Vietnam, where the "cause" of the troop buildup was a damned lie by our illustrious president. It still is accepted that one of our ships was attacked, yet only in two places have I seen the lie exposed. It certainly isn't much of a leap to assume a similar thing happened with Roswell.

As to that crap about not having to prove a negative, that's another piece of BS from wikipedia. Why is it anyone uses that thing when the very person who started it has abandoned it in favor of a similar but accurate site? Perhaps everyone should read what Robert McHenry has to say.

wow, and people get mad at us for believing in 'everything' we hear or read. when clearly you believe "oh, the FBI posted on their website it was a balloon. and if its on the net, it must be true".
and why are people who you disagree with, or assume what they say is impossible to be nut jobs? like bob lazar? i dont personally know him, so i cant make any judgements. just like you cant. sure you can have an opinion, like 'i dont beleive what he says' but hes not a nut just because you dont believe in something that could be possible. you cant say all the witnesses are crazy because they were there and saw something, when you were......pfft, god knows where. but not where they were. so how can they be nut jobs? doesnt make sense.
and no evidence exists to the Public. when people send a request by the freedom of info act, the document comes back half blacked out in most cases (if theyre even lucky enough to get one). they hide alot of it.
now im confused, if theres nothing to hide, and the government knows theres nothing to hide (like you do), then why cant they send the full documents? with all the info people want. because if theyre not going to find anything, because nothing happened, then whats the big deal?

SkepticalEd: "Wikipedia is not involved in your responsibility to prove a negative. Let's change the challenge's wording and use Carl Sagan's version:
'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.' In reality, any claim requires proof. You just can't go around giving hearsay a supporting platform. If you want to accept or believe that a UFO crashed in Roswell, that's your perogative. But you can't then tell anyone that it is true and expect them to accept your word as factual since all you've done is repeat something someone said. I could never be like that. And if I have a choice between two explanations I'll side with the one that is prosaic (least complicated)."

Mulder,

You misunderstood me.
I was attempting to say the FBI has documents for and against. THe question I was asking is, which is true, are either true, are both false? I feel it cannot be considered evidence either way because it contradicts itself. Quite a few are onto this site now, and often say, look at this official FBI documents, that proves it, when they omit the fact that documents to the contrary are on the same site. They cannot be for and against. That's why the speculation, is it code? What? As we don't really know, we cannot use it to decipher a bigger mystery when we cannot decipher what we are looking at. Besides, you are not a total believer, you listen to good sense and go from there. Possibles are different from just anything
I am saying, do not believe these documents. They cancel each other out. If one is not proof, neither is the other.
Lazar is just too easy to see through. His science doesn't work. Easy as that. He has all the secrets, why aren't we mass producing intersellar vehicles in the private sector? Because he is full of it. What a market jump that would be!! I can make an accurate assumption based on a current understanding of pysics and reading the mans historical information. And I don't think all witnesses are crazy, but seriously, don't you think that 600 witnesses is a bit much to believe, when only one, possibly two actual witnesses are still living? I reckon people born in the last 20-30 years claiming to be witnesses are very probably nutjobs. I think many would agree. Perhaps even your good self.

Good question, but, when were the documents blacked out? Was it before the information act released them? Do the parts contain detail that could possibly offer a trace to sensitive military personell? Does it breach the privacy act if left in place? Was the typed memo found to be a grave mistake and removed so the forces don't look stupid? Do the parts contain information in regards to a still classified project? Even if it did have the print in place, if they state it is an untrue document it would be invalid anyway, and we would have more conspiracies to unravel weather they exist or not.

I don't know why the parts are blacked out, but there are so many possibilities once again, so it is not a convincing argument either way. These things often puzzle me, why can't I own a copy of Windows? Speculation can lead for or against, and is valid either way, it proves nothing.

I think if one looks closely and in an unbiased manner at the AF description, it fits really well. Is it the whole idea you do not feel comfortable with, or is there a particular niggling bit that does not sit right with you? I would be interested in your view.

Hope I cleared that up

Hang on, are you saying Projecft Mogul is classified here?

But you just said




Would a balloon stilll be classified as part of Mogul if a flight failed, and was scrapped from the official record? That would certainly explain the non-existant flight #4? It would also cover the partial diary entry describing a flight on the day #4 was scheduled for?
Or would it simply go back down a class as nothing of value is associated with it after failure of it's mission?

What does the Crary entry refer to then? Something took the Sonobouys up on the day, what was it? It was never designed to carry passengers. The AF reprt denies the Aliens altogether. The explaination of the dummies is a big maybe from them. Nothing they have released offers this as an absolute conclusion.



Even if the military coiuld be trusted, could you stop yourself from taking an alien trinket? I couldn't. There were supposedly many civillians at the site befor the military arrived, not one teenager snaffled a ray gun? Not one curious soul took some heiroglyphics or unbreakable material? Hard to believe.



No, but we had computers in 1948 and they are now household use. Where are the space vehicles? Why are we bpund to slightly better versions of what we already had? Where is the big reverse engineering leap?



If a failed flight carrying no important data, why classify it? Being Mogul does not mean classified, it depended on the Mogul mission and it's data, didn't it?



Trucks crash by the dozen every day, why never one contining Alien bodies oir ET parts? What about weigh stations? Hijacking? Why would these transports be exempt? The above show no obviouis security to avoid such mishaps.

Once again, two stories exist. In one, two people gather the material, in the second, many people gather the material.
Who is telling the truth, how do you know. What has you convinced as to the size of the field. Is there a list of personell, a memo deploying the assigned crew, a picture, an estimted time frame, a report, anything at all?

The latest story is that months were needed to clean the debris. Now we have a choice of hours, days, weeks and months, Pretty well covers any story on either side doesn't it. Bloody annoying I'd say.



The claim there was a media sweep was from a single source - reporter Frank Joyce - and none of the other media personnel - like KSWS station manager George Walsh who broke the story - recall any such sweep. Hoax.

The headline cannot be denied, when personnel who were experienced with balloon experiments and their equipment saw the material, the misidentification was clarified, and a correction issued to the media.
Speaking of fine print, read that whole article? It says a bit further down



Now, how on earth did we get 600 witnesses?



Numerous media personalities also say the saw him hours later in a shiny new truck. Wasnt the media offering a three thousand dollar reward? Perhaps he was even kept quiet by the media so they may offer a more entertaining and sellable story. It seems far more plausible to someone like myself who has never had a convincing UFO experience than a covered up downed tiny interplanetary craft kept secret by one reasonably inefficient organisation. Anyone who trusts the Media over the Government has rocks in their head. The media have no accountability, they say what they want. To be honest, it has made the media millions and millions in stories, documentaries etc. hasn't it.



No, the FBI documents I refer to say it was a downed disc, they also say the story is laughable and that it was a balloon. If presenting both as evidence, niether qualify as they are from the same source and contradict each other. Only fair isn't it?



What abut the FBI documents everyone offers as proof? How did they evade this sweep internally? It'd be shooting ducks in a barrell wouldn't it?



Yes, but I really think Kenneth Arnold strated this ball rolling, and the two incidents are unrelated. Like when a mechanic fixes your brakes and a tail light goes out. Many people wil blame the mechanic as circumstances appear to tie the incidents together, when in fact, they are entirely unrelated.



Officially ? When added up, there were as many as 11 reported alien recovery sites and these recoveries bore only a marginal resemblance to the event as initially reported in 1947 or recounted later by the initial witnesses. Some of these new accounts could have been confused accounts of the several known recoveries of injured and dead from four military plane crashes which occurred in the vicinity from 1948-50 another theory for the alien bodies. It explains better the revulsion felt by people who witnessed the alleged alien bodies as well.



This is why I have so much trouble with this case in particular. So many things keep changing, it makes the pill hard to swallow. If we could narrow down an exact date everyone agreed on, it may change many factors associated with current explainations.



Sure do, the Titanic, built by men in the early 1900's I imagine a spacefaring species to be somewhat more advanced than us at the beginings of our industrial revolution?
It just seems to make no sense. The craft is too small to travel great distances, a shattering material? Even we don't build things like that anymore, not even windscreens. The materials were supposedly egg shell thin and withstood blows froma 16 pound hammer. Why not shatter then? The concentrated impact would surely have some effect if slamming into dirt destroys the thing entirely?



Not thinking, physical parameters, fuel, nourishment. Essentials every living thing needs to survive. No room for any of this in the craft described. In fact, it would be flat out housing the alleged occupants. I cannot see an interstellar craft beng the size of a mini and shoehorning a crew in for several years with no resources at all. To say that is a possibility requires a leap of faith that would clear the Grand Canyon twice over. ROFL, I guess we do have some "Evil Kenevil" believers, but such a leap seems destined to crash and burn.



Are any other photo's available? If the huge wreckage site was littered with civillians and reporters, how come not one piece of photographic evidence exists to this day? The militray could not have completely searched every single person and their house in town. One can say they are hand torn, once agan, speculation only. It is an obeservation of a ossibiity, not something one can base a conclusion on. The only photo's in existance support the military's story, why do non corroborate other claims?

Only a service balloon flight, not a Mogul balloon flight, and there are differences between the two.



Just a cluster of balloons, and a simple sonobuoy, which were nothing that would have been of interest to the military had it gone down in an open field, much less generate the focus of international attention. That is why service balloons were expendable and as a result, no effort was made to recover service balloons.



Do not listen to what the Air Force has to say on the issue in its Roswell Reports because the reports are all part of the cover-up scheme. The Air Force knew that no Mogul balloon was responsible responsible for the Roswell incident, and the Air Force knew that test dummies and accident victims had nothing to do with Roswell, but it figured that it could pull it off anyway after looking at the success of duping the public for 47 years that a weather balloon was reponsible, knowing that no weather balloon was responsible either, but the Air Force managed to pull off its false stories anyway because the public trusted the military. To put it in perspective, look at it as the public allowing the fox (Air Force) to guard the hen house because the fox says; "trust me!"



I know that I would have kept some for myself and probably someone took some debris as well, but some housemaid came across the remains in the living room and history was dumped into the trash can.



Yet, there was no capability to manufacture microchips back then and look at what we are now getting involved with now.





I'll point at the State of Ohio.



Makes you wonder why there have been flying saucers flying overhead for centuries and yet we are still flying around in conventional aircraft using conventional propulsion systems. If those flying vehicles are millions of years more advanced than a B-747, then we might have to wait awhile before such crafts are used for everyday travel by us.



But, they were not classified, and in fact, the Soviet's first nuclear test was detected by a B-29. I think that the Soviets had it all figured out on what we were doing when the military began releasing the nuclear detection objectives of the balloons and other information in newspapers around the country.






High-value cargo of the government.

Excellent infromation yet again, thank you.

I see you have included a list of Mogul Payload, is that standard? If so, is a list available for service balloons for comparison.
If the ballon story were proven to be true, wasn't it lost, and on Brazels Farm for a few days? As such it would be a missing item, and with no interest shown at all untill Brazell told them of the debris, it seems to fit in well with the fact that it was relatively unimportant at the time?
I know government agencies wont tell the truth 100% of the time, but when you have them and the media as options, I see them as the lesser of two evils.

The list also says

* Several rawin devices with flowered tape---not recovered nor photographed

Yet we have many pictures of the recovered rawin device, in some cases suspected to be shredded by hand? I have seen the photographs myself, how can this claim be correct?

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
It is SO socially and intellectually r******ed!!!! to continue to imply or state that there is no evidence that a ship DID NOT crash near Roswell!!! My ears! They're BLEEDING! MAKE IT STOP!

I have NO conclusive evidence that YOU are not a gnome working for the government on a mission to befuddle the minds of UFO theorists on UM, but that does NOT make it true! Capiche?

We can compare the two following photos.

yes. now you know how hard it is to talk to someone who wont believe anything, unless it runs up and slaps then in the face, knees them in the sack, and laughs at them. capiche? get the point?

And so you'll side with nonsense such as balloons? And those people that make a living being incompetent, unscientific debunkers and "skeptics"? Best to keep an open mind, pal, and let facts be facts, rather than discounting what is because someone else says it isn't. Perhaps one day you'll learn that many people, including scientists, have vested interests in what they think is the status quo.
Certainly I believe something crashed in Roswell, simply because something did. Using the correct interpretation of "UFO", that something was and still is unidentified; as to what it was, well, it is a UFO.
All you've done yourself is repeat what someone else said, but your sources are questionable. Many programs on History have used those same sources, and I've yet to see one wherein these creatures could even remotely be called scientific.
Funny. I tend to side with the one that offers the most facts: hard, cold, unequivocal facts, even if I don't like them.

I think this drags us back to the old arguments. No one has to prove, or should be asked to prove that a ship did NOT land or crash at Roswell. Rather , they should prove that one DID.

Did one? Maybe...maybe not. I don't know, but I know SOMETHING happened there, and that there was a wealth of disinformation tossed about.

During a conversation I had with the late Gene Tighe, in the 1980s I recall, after he had long retired as head of the DIA, we were discussing Russian space hardware (my main interest) and figuring out what it was for, from fragmentary data. For some reason it occurred to him to tell me a story about a notorious military intelligence officer who broke the first law of field work -- he jumped to a conclusion about the interpretation of what he was looking at, which (as they teach you on Day-1 in intel school) field workers should strenuously avoid NOT doing because it colors your subsequent perceptions, selections, and activities.

The guy's name was Marcel, he said (and Tighe didn't even know I was interested in UFOs too), and in the 1950s when Tighe had gone to intel school at the Anacostia Annex of the US Navy Yard in DC, the story of Marcel and his championing the 'flying disk' he had found (the most important discovery in human history, he announced) was THE primary negative example the instructor gave of how a military intelligence officer can FAIL his responsibilities by becoming the advocate of a particular interpretation (ANY interpretation) of the raw material it is his duty to obtain.

The lesson was, don't EVER let yourself be suckered into going off the deep end like Marcel did. Your professional product will suffer, and you might wind up the subject of a negative example at some future military intel class.

But the lesson is a sound one -- for any witness, or field officer, open-mindedness and non-judgmental methodicalness were and still are critical to not missing anything, to not overlooking a clue that later analysts might determine was the key to a reliable interpretation. To jump to one conlusion and then to gather and present evidence in support of that, and only that, interpretation was unprofessional and harmful to reliably figuring out the event under consideration.

Tell us, how can anyone confuse ordinary tin foil with memory metal? Is He implying that tin foil has the same properties as memory metal? We are being led to believe that military personnel of the world's only nuclear-capable bomber force, could not identify ordinary material that any child over 8 years old could have identified? And, balsa wood and just that, balsa wood.

In your position, why did you bring this up knowing that tin foil does not exhibit the same properties as memory metal? This is the way UFO debunkers work. Throw a bunch of aluminum foil and balsa wood on the desk of any Wing Commander at any air force base and see if you can convince any of them that the debris is from a 'flying saucer.'



Remember, Marcel wasn't the only person who've claimed that the object wasn't a weather balloon, but that didn't convince the skeptics because they continued to claim that it was a weather balloon, that is, until 1994, when the air Force finally admitted after 47 years, that it wasn't a weather balloon after all, which proved that Marcel was correct in that respect.

I must add the Marcel had nothing to do with the press release where it was said that the military recovered a "flying saucer." Neither Marcel, nor Haut, had the authority to go to the media with that story without permission. As it was, Colonel Blanchard was the officer who ordered the released of that story to the press, based on what he saw in the debris, which meant that He was convinced that the material was that from a "flying saucer."

I am not arguing an interpretation, just providing second-hand comments that may be germane. Just because Marcel may have been the laughingstock of the military intelligence community does not by any means prove that he did NOT come across a crashed flying saucer.

Your knee-jerk hostility to any evidence that you think may shake your conclusions does not speak well for your openmindedness.

Not hostile by any means, just the way I work. Just ask Tim Printy.

Hah! Get used to it. Anything other than complete compliance will be met with hostility, and being branded as a government paid "debunker". Like any one would NEED to pay me to come here and laugh at some of this stuff!

Talking about laughing material, I can list some really good attributes of a debunker, and past comments by them on UFO case files that have not only proven them wrong, but has shown that they threw the laws of physics right out of the window-of-reality in order to debunk those case files.

And you are restraining yourself, uh, why?

Have at it, you always do...

Well, there are those who are intent on trying to stuff a hundred pounds of nonsense into a five pound bag of reality and all I am saying is, stop trying and here is the reason why!

When I see something that isn't right, then I tend to speak up. Tim Printy knows that, and why He was forced to make his correction, and the folks at the web site of the Federation Of American Scientist have been corrected by me as well, and that was in regards to bad information on the Air Force's F-15 Eagle. Since then, they have made their corrections on that aircraft.

And you can compare the proverbial apples and oranges! How can you be so unfair while trying to convince us that your research is valid? The Roswell balloon debris is alleged to have landed sometime before it was discovered by "Mac" Brazel. Allegedly the weather at the time was stormy meaning thunder, lightning, and possible high winds. Anything in the air at that time would have been blown around, dragged around and shredded. The device being held by the young lady is in pristine condition. Meaning that it just was not subjected to the same weather conditions and may have just gently landed, complete.

Offer fair comparisons in the future.

Just telling it like it is!



Looking back into history, Mac Brazel recovered weather balloons before, but He stated that what He found this time, wasn't a weather balloon.



But, what does that mean? There still wasn't enough material in a Mogul balloon train to create the kind of debris site on the Foster ranch, a fact noted in a recent Mogul balloon experiment where lines, used to tied Mogul balloons together, were not evident in the cover-up photos and not one single piece of a Mogul balloon nor its equipment, were even recovered because records show that no Mogul balloon was responsible.



Shrubs would have acted as anchors since Mogul balloons had lots of braided lines and the width of the debris site also excludes any balloon as responsible.

Let's take a look at the time period of interest.



So you see, there is nothing in there that even remotely suggest that a Mogul balloon was responsible for the Roswell incident. Look at what wasn't recovered and note the equipment here.

Exactly right!!


So why does the list have it as not recovered, when it clearly was?

That's interesting information. Marcel is an example in how not to do things in current training. That would indicate the Air Force believes it's own story.

If I may, I'd like to say I have been debating Sky for some time on this, and he does offer very good information (actual documents, official memo's, vidoes etc.) and does not resort to narky tactics, and displays inordinate amounts of patience when discussing a certain point. I feel you may have recieved his comment incorrectly. It is not in his character to outwardly insullt without reasonable provocation, as a skeptic, I enjoy his company a great deal. He keeps us on our toes quite a bit.
As has been my experience.