Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Persia

Roswell was Soviet plot to create US panic

439 posts in this topic

Hey psyche,

That's an interesting thing to consider. I just don't think it would be as catastrophic as you are thinking. Cosmic rays are basically Hydrogen (Protons) that are traveling very near light speed and they have hit Spacecraft and Astronauts millions (?, Billions? Trillions?) of times without doing damage. For the most part they pass through a lot of matter before they interact with anything, like an Astronauts Cornea which causes a 'Flash' to be seen.

Now consider that if these are already moving very near light speed and we are used to these interactions from Spaceflight. So, thinking of Relativity, if 'our' hypothetical Spaceship is traveling very near light speed itself then the few Hydrogen (Protons) the Spacecraft hits will have no different effect than those we are already used to. This is because no Matter can be observed traveling faster than light, therefore the few we hit can have no more energy than those that strike us in Space. It's just that it's 'our' hypothetical Spacecraft that is moving near light speed and the Protons we hit that seem to be standing still in 'our' way instead of vise verse.

From a Cosmic Rays POV 'our' Spacecraft would be flattened perpendicular to it's direction of Travel whether it is moving near light speed or 'our' Spacecraft is; due to Length Contraction. That is why they can pass halfway through a Spacecraft before causeing a "flash" in an Astronauts Cornea for example.

I have been citing the research of Dr. William A. Edelstein He seems to have a good case?

Special relativity describes how space and time are distorted for observers travelling at different speeds. For the crew of a spacecraft ramping up to light speed, interstellar space would appear highly compressed, thereby increasing the number of hydrogen atoms hitting the craft.

Worse is that the atoms' kinetic energy also increases. For a crew to make the 50,000-light-year journey to the centre of the Milky Way within 10 years, they would have to travel at 99.999998 per cent the speed of light. At these speeds, hydrogen atoms would seem to reach a staggering 7 teraelectron volts – the same energy that protons will eventually reach in the Large Hadron Collider when it runs at full throttle. "For the crew, it would be like standing in front of the LHC beam," says Edelstein.

The spacecraft's hull would provide little protection. Edelstein calculates that a 10-centimetre-thick layer of aluminium would absorb less than 1 per cent of the energy. Because hydrogen atoms have a proton for a nucleus, this leaves the crew exposed to dangerous ionising radiation that breaks chemical bonds and damages DNA. "Hydrogen atoms are unavoidable space mines," says Edelstein.

The fatal dose of radiation for a human is 6 sieverts. Edelstein's calculations show that the crew would receive a radiation dose of more than 10,000 sieverts within a second. Intense radiation would also weaken the structure of the spacecraft and damage its electronic instruments.

Edelstein speculates this might be one reason why extraterrestrial civilisations haven't paid us a visit.

LINK 1

Edelstein's personal interest in this thought experiment began 20 years ago, when his son Arthur asked him if there was friction in space. The father responded that yes, there would be hydrogen bumping off a spaceship. But he soon realized that the stray atoms of hydrogen gas would actually go right through the ship traveling close to light speed, and irradiate both crew and electronics in the process.

More recently, the physicist and his now-grown son calculated the scenario of a spaceship trying to travel halfway across our Milky Way galaxy in just 10 years. That's doable in theory, because special relativity states that time slows down and distances shrink for travelers approaching light speed.

LINK 2

Interstellar space is not quite a perfect vacuum, though it is very close. About one hydrogen atom exists per cubic centimeter (as compared to 10^18 atoms per cubic centimeter on Earth at sea level.)

At normal speeds, even normal deep space travel speeds, the impact of these atoms is negligible. However, during interstellar flight starting at a few percentage points of lightspeed, impacts with these atoms grows much more numerous, and thanks to the velocity of the ship they hit with far greater energy. What results is the ship’s hull being worn and eroded away, with the process happening much more rapidly the greater velocity with which one travels.

Impact with anything larger than a hydrogen atom could have catastrophic effects; a dust particle massing a single milligram would hit a ship travelling at one-third lightspeed with the equivalent force of one ton of chemical high explosives.

Also, as one approaches signifcant fractions of lightspeed, plowing through the interstellar medium may also produce a noticeable amount of drag, potentially reducing the efficiency of a ship’s interstellar drive.

LINK

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evanigum was the best. Dont anyone, even for a second, believe that him leaving had had anything to do with someone else "winning".... It most likely had everything with (like you said) being bored out of his scull with the dishonest/circular resoning that happens all to often here at UM. I can relate to that.

I learned plenty from him. A greate loss indeed.

Most definitely not from a "win", and thanks for clarifying DB, I would hate to see the wrong impression get across.

Indeed Evangium is sorely missed. I too learned much from that fellow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you are full of surprises :D

Would length contraction be of consequence in an ever expanding Universe? In such a situation, can a body be stationary, even relative to the observer?

Yes, Einstein and others discuss this in terms of 'Reference Frames'. There are basically an endless number of 'Reference Frames', and from this arises the notion of "Relativity" in that all the other endless 'Frames of Reference' are observed "relative" to your own 'Reference Frame'. Clearly this gets very complicated, more so than I wish to get into here, but the basic concept is that from your 'Ref. Frame' you can not observe something moving faster than Light Speed and the same is true for all other 'Ref. Frames'.

To answer your question, anything that seems stationary to you can be considered to be in your "Frame of Reference". For a simple example, if you were holding a ball in your hand then it is in your 'Frame of Reference'. If you throw the ball, while it is flying through the air it is in its own 'Frame of Reference', from the ball's POV it is you and the Earth that are moving and from your POV it is the ball that is moving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been citing the research of Dr. William A. Edelstein He seems to have a good case?

Well, Im not so sure this Father son duo has quite a good case. Length Contraction would mean that 'our' Spacecraft would be spread out, flattened. Compared to everything else it would be very thin. So every Atomic structure would be spread out along a flattened plain and these would experience very little Time. i.e. Atomic structures are less likey to interact with themselves muchless other matter.

Typically Cosmic Rays might pass by trillions of Atoms before interacting with one or more, at near light speed 'our' Spacecraft might might be 'flattened' so much that this ratio of interaction stays stable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Einstein and others discuss this in terms of 'Reference Frames'. There are basically an endless number of 'Reference Frames', and from this arises the notion of "Relativity" in that all the other endless 'Frames of Reference' are observed "relative" to your own 'Reference Frame'. Clearly this gets very complicated, more so than I wish to get into here, but the basic concept is that from your 'Ref. Frame' you can not observe something moving faster than Light Speed and the same is true for all other 'Ref. Frames'.

To answer your question, anything that seems stationary to you can be considered to be in your "Frame of Reference". For a simple example, if you were holding a ball in your hand then it is in your 'Frame of Reference'. If you throw the ball, while it is flying through the air it is in its own 'Frame of Reference', from the ball's POV it is you and the Earth that are moving and from your POV it is the ball that is moving.

Hi Lost Shaman

I think I see! Thank you friend. Like when dropping something, and it looks like it goes straight down, but really the earth is turning, so it really does not actually travel in the straight line that we perceive? So if I am following you, then any objects that travel at any non-zero velocity relative to that observer would have to be carefully chosen so that the flight path very accurately constantly relays a stationary frame of reference?

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Im not so sure this Father son duo has quite a good case. Length Contraction would mean that 'our' Spacecraft would be spread out, flattened. Compared to everything else it would be very thin. So every Atomic structure would be spread out along a flattened plain and these would experience very little Time. i.e. Atomic structures are less likey to interact with themselves muchless other matter.

Typically Cosmic Rays might pass by trillions of Atoms before interacting with one or more, at near light speed 'our' Spacecraft might might be 'flattened' so much that this ratio of interaction stays stable.

Could this still not be quite a problem for any particle outside of the ships frame of reference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lost Shaman

I think I see! Thank you friend. Like when dropping something, and it looks like it goes straight down, but really the earth is turning, so it really does not actually travel in the straight line that we perceive? So if I am following you, then any objects that travel at any non-zero velocity relative to that observer would have to be carefully chosen so that the flight path very accurately constantly relays a stationary frame of reference?

Cheers.

I think so, If I'm following you correctly(?), then you are talking about a rendevous in Orbit (Orbital mechanics) as two Spacecraft meet eachother and end up in the same 'Ref. Frame'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could this still not be quite a problem for any particle outside of the ships frame of reference?

Well, No 'Frame' can exceed light speed Relative to another, so if you are traveling near light speed that leaves little room for any other 'Frame' to be moving 'relative' to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think so, If I'm following you correctly(?), then you are talking about a rendevous in Orbit (Orbital mechanics) as two Spacecraft meet eachother and end up in the same 'Ref. Frame'.

:tu:

Well, No 'Frame' can exceed light speed Relative to another, so if you are traveling near light speed that leaves little room for any other 'Frame' to be moving 'relative' to you.

What about a particle moving in an opposite direction, like head on? Would that not create a collision that is for all intensive purposes beyond the speed of light? Like if heading toward a star, but that star had ejected a particle of dust directly at you, and both you and the particle are hypothetically travelling a .9999 c, would you not then have opposing "frames" that culminate in a head on collision beyond the speed of light?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:tu:

What about a particle moving in an opposite direction, like head on? Would that not create a collision that is for all intensive purposes beyond the speed of light? Like if heading toward a star, but that star had ejected a particle of dust directly at you, and both you and the particle are hypothetically travelling a .9999 c, would you not then have opposing "frames" that culminate in a head on collision beyond the speed of light?

The simple answer... No.

If there are two Protons in two different Frames traveling in different directions. Due to Relativistic effects the highest Energy collision that they could have is @ c (light speed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple answer... No.

If there are two Protons in two different Frames traveling in different directions. Due to Relativistic effects the highest Energy collision that they could have is @ c (light speed).

Ohh agreed, sorry I worded myself badly. The collision might appear to exceed light speed to another frame of reference, but yes, light speed would not have been traversed. But even at .999999(recurring perhaps) of c, such a collision would have enough kinetic energy to destroy both objects would it not? Or at least do serious damage to the larger object? A particle of dust would have a tremendous impact at this velocity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'd like to see an inflatable spacecraft manage a collision with a hydrogen atom at the speeds required to cross the Galaxy. I see the application for local exploration, but not going to be much chop in deep space I would think.

An inflatable spacecraft has proven itself already, and that is, an inflatable spacecraft is far superior to a spacecraft made of metal. That was also noted in my reference as well.

See, you have the information still all back to front! Will you ever read the reports you claim to know so well? The Air Force reports state a service flight was the culprit, and I have shown you the page from the report that states such. And it was never "trashed" by the crybaby Madson, he had an objection. Not the same thing. You are again being a drama queen. And it is a completely unsupported notion, back to the question of a courtroom Sky. Please answer it before you make this erroneous claim yet again (and again and again and again.....)

The Air Force's 1994 Roswell Report has been proven as false, and remember, a service balloon cluster is not a Project Mogul balloon train. Big differences already outlined in detail. And, no balloon crash site on the Foster ranch in June either, which means that the service balloon never fell on the Foster ranch that month. Besides, downed balloons do not look anything like flying saucers as evident in the recoveries of downed Mogul balloons by ordinary civilians.

I even posted a downed balloon train that was recovered by two other civilians to underline my point as well. In that case, the balloon train wasn't reported as a flying saucer either,nor was there a cover story to that recover.

Both Air Force Roswell Reports have been proven as false and even the Air Force's own project officer has attacked McAndrews for misleading the public in the Air Force's 1994 and 1997 Roswell Reports.

Roswell%252520Fact%252520Vs%252520Fiction%2525201994%252520Report%252520Page%25252026%252520.jpg

Notice that there was no Mogul balloon flight listed in your reference. The reason is, A. P. Crary wrote that the balloon flight was canceled due to clouds, as was the case on June 3, and that ony a cluster balloon flight with a single sonobouy attached was carried aloft and notice there were no mention of any rawind devices as equipment.

That shows the problems with the Air Force's Roswell Reports. Note Moore's description in detail of the material. None of that material was found on the Foster ranch either in June nor in July. The service balloon was launched on June 4, and nothing was found on the ranch during the whole month of June, which proved that the service balloon landed somewhere else other than on the Foster ranch smf and was not responsible for the Roswell incident.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You have said this before and again I have to ask you where you expected all that to fit?

It could have fit on top of the material, however, the material in Ramey's office, was not the material recovered on the Foster Ranch. In fact, Debose went into detail as to how they destroyed a rawin device and used it as a cover-up. Dubose is one those who posed with the material and both, he, and Marcel have indicated that the material in Ramey's officer was placed there as a cover-up, which was evident by the fact that the Air Force said that material was a weather balloon, but in 1994, the Air Force threw out its weather balloon cover story which in effect, vinicates the statements made by both, Marcel and Dubose, that the materia was placed there as a cover-up and not recovered on the Foster ranch.

Now concerning Brazel's custody, I would like to ask you yet again, have you ever heard of The Posse Comitatus Act.

Yes, but still, there was no reason for the military to take a civilian into military custody over an unclassified Project Mogul balloon train. After all, the military didn't take that policeman in Flatbush into custody for recovering a downed Mogul balloon, nor did the military take rancher Sid West into custody for recovering a downed Mogul balloon train, nor did the military take any civilian into custody for recovering a Project Mogul balloon.

The fact that Brazel was taken into military custody lends support that what he discovered, was what the military had initially reported, which of course, was the recovery of a flying saucer. The fact that Brazel's story had changed after his release, shows that the military worked on him to get him to change his story.

Several were found within a few day of Roswell! This is obviously what the military wanted to happen. No, no cover story for poor old Sid, the CIC operation was now in place.

But, there was a cover-up for what Brazel had discovered, which wasn't a balloon. He recovered weather balloons before and stated for the record that what he found, was not a weather balloon despited the revised military statement in the newspaper.

Timing was not right was it?

IMG_2686.jpg

Because humans are individual, each and every recovery will have some unique aspect.

Look at the desciptions of the objects in that report. In 1948, the Air Force's EOTS concluded that such objects were "Interplanetary Spaceships, and I might add that EOTS came from Wright-Patterson AFB. Colonel Raymond Madson, who was the Air Force's project officer for "Project High Dive," test dummy operations and who supplied material for the Air Force's 1997 Roswell Report, became a believer and he was assigned at Wright-Patterson AFB.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Sky...it's great to see you back Buddy!! This joint's been dead without you! :tu:

And I would very-much like to see that photo!...is it at all possible?

I will try to locate that photo. It was displayed in the open with other missiles.

Anyway...I would just like to say...that I find it impossible to acknowledge the possibility of the Roswell UFO Incident being anything at all to do with a 'Russian scare tactic', or a hoax perpetrated by 'any earthly' foreign government for that matter!

To me...the whole notion is about as believable as the popular (and growing) theory that todays UFOs

are descended from 'Nazi UFO inventions'! ...A theory, that I find fantastical at best!, and puzzling that people can be so gullible as to believe in such an outlandish 'story', which is mainly down to a couple of Italian fantasists by the names of Guiseppe Belluzzo and Renato Vesco, a couple of 'chancers' that these links debunk pretty-comprehensively!

http://naziufomythos...majorlusar.html

http://naziufomythos...enatovesco.html

I'm not a debunker, as you know...but I hate such silliness as this , giving yet more ammunition to the 'They'll believe anything brigade'!!

Cheers.

You are correct, and thanks for the links. :tu: There have been so many things that have clouded the UFO enigma in general, and Roswell in particular, they do a lot of harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well according to his own words, he did indeed allow the debris to remin for days, despite the sheep. Are you going to "set Brazel straight" now are you? As according to you he obviously got his own story wrong. You will need a Ouija board. Maybe see Boon, but he has helped you understand enough in the past, might be a big ask there. You would want to be real nice to him.

LINK

Look at the June 14,date he gave. That was the revised date he gave after his released from military custody. Frank Joyce, the peson who interviewed Brazel, questioned his changed of story. The discovery of the debris field wasn't made until July, not in June.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Air Force's 1994 Roswell Report has been proven as false NO IT WASN'T, and remember, a service balloon cluster is not a Project Mogul balloon train. Big differences already outlined in detail. And, no balloon crash site on the Foster ranch in June either, which means that the service balloon never fell on the Foster ranch that month. Besides, downed balloons do not look anything like flying saucers WE DON'T KNOW THAT. THEY COULD LOOK EXACTLY LIKE FLYING SAUCERS. WE'VE NEVER HAD A FLYING SAUCER TO COMPARE as evident in the recoveries of downed Mogul balloons by ordinary civilians.

I even posted a downed balloon train that was recovered by two other civilians to underline my point as well. In that case, the balloon train wasn't reported as a flying saucer either,nor was there a cover story to that recover.

Both Air Force Roswell Reports have been proven as false NOPE and even the Air Force's own project officer has attacked McAndrews for misleading the public in the Air Force's 1994 and 1997 Roswell Reports.

Notice that there was no Mogul balloon flight listed in your reference. The reason is, A. P. Crary wrote that the balloon flight was canceled due to clouds, as was the case on June 3, and that ony a cluster balloon flight with a single sonobouy attached was carried aloft and notice there were no mention of any rawind devices as equipment.

That shows the problems with the Air Force's Roswell Reports. Note Moore's description in detail of the material. None of that material was found on the Foster ranch either in June nor in July. The service balloon was launched on June 4, and nothing was found on the ranch during the whole month of June, which proved that the service balloon landed somewhere else other than on the Foster ranch smf and was not responsible for the Roswell incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It may be well known, I do not follow up too closely with claims from known fraudsters, and the Roswell tale is littered with such. What I find intriguing here is that this is claimed to be a reproduction right? Aliens that speak English but have a different text?? Co-incidence?

santilli's props are considered to be a very loose reproduction. key word there is loose, he missed all the importatn details. he created the props and video footage so he could sell it to television networks. later he admitted to be the creator of the famous alien autopsy video in 2006.

If I might be so bold as to ask you, what do you think the odds are that some species someplace in the Universe decided to build a ship out of materials that look just like Balsa wood, tinfoil and rubber, yet have different properties, and manage to visit another planet in the Universe, and then crash in the exact same location that the local inhabitants happen to be testing for Nuclear explosions with devices made from Balsa wood, tinfoil and rubber? Identical in appearance but with different qualities? From different parts of the Galaxy?

The odds are far more than staggering I would say.

this is my answer: i think that balsa wood and rubber was NOT part of the debris at all. neither was tinfoil. there was some material that resembled tinfoil, but had very extraordinary properties. the bulk of the debris was metal or metal-like fragments. jesse's marcels own words "we filled the truck up, it took us a good part of the day to do that, because it was such small fragments and we had to do a lot of picking". there were some larger chunks of debris, but most of it was small pieces or fragments. there was also the beam-like or i-beam pieces that jesse AND his father both recall having purple glyphs.

i think the small fragments is an important detail. for crash debris to have lots of small fragments, there must have been some type of explosion or the material itself was very hard and brittle and sort of "shattered". similar to the way a sword shatters that has a hard temper. the image of small fragments being scattered 3/4 of a mile long and 300 feet wide just doesn't fit the description of a balloon debris. balloon debris doesn't explode or shatter. and as i mentioned before, army soldiers were lined up shoulder to shoulder on hands and knees to "vacuum up" every last remaining piece. jesse sr. own words "they vacuumed that place up".

speaking of fragments, it reminds me of a video i saw recently where someone donated an alleged piece of the roswell craft to be analyzed. it turned out to be pure silicon. but the interesting part was the isotope levels of the piece was non terrestrial. this is the video.

You are not going to accomplish any of the above in a 15 foot craft. If you ask a physicist why FTL is impossible, he will tell you that energy is the problem. I do not get the advocates of FTL, just where is the limit in this scenario? There has to be one. You cannot just keep going faster and faster. FTFTL? It is a very open ended ideal. I am not saying people should not keep trying, but it sure would not hurt to at least look down some other avenues.

you don't know this. how can you know what the limits are in terms of space travel? we don't even know what dark energy/matter is. we haven't even scratched the surface and you are telling me what the limits are? the ONLY thing we have are theories. and by the way, the craft was allegedly 25ft wide and 28ft in length.

I guess that is where we differ. There is more way to "skin a cat" but not with a 15 foot craft that is purported to have zipped over here from Zeta Reticuli. I do not even hold much hope for the handful of examples you posted, each problem overcome births another 100. From an energy source to navigating Hydrogen atoms, makes me think this will never do it this way, and even so, with the Universe at 156 billion light years, and growing, this still only opens up a small portion of space to us.

i never mentioned zeta reticuli, for all we know the craft could be from another galaxy, or dimension, who knows? and we have no way of knowing how large the universe actually is, we only have the "observable universe" that is how far we can see. nobody knows how far it goes, for all we know it may be infinite, with big bangs going off like popcorn. nobody knows for sure, all we have are theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i never mentioned zeta reticuli, for all we know the craft could be from another galaxy, or dimension, who knows? and we have no way of knowing how large the universe actually is, we only have the "observable universe" that is how far we can see. nobody knows how far it goes, for all we know it may be infinite, with big bangs going off like popcorn. nobody knows for sure, all we have are theories.

Or my favoured theory, it was a small probe or recconnaisance craft launched from a bigger craft somewhere. Then it wouldn't need to cover the vast distances of space at faster than light Speeds. My other theory to account for the debris is that maybe it collided with something, or perhaps just got disoriented in bad weather and went in at high speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

An inflatable spacecraft has proven itself already, and that is, an inflatable spacecraft is far superior to a spacecraft made of metal. That was also noted in my reference as well.

Please answer the question. How will an inflatable craft manage high speed collisions. A particle of dust would have enough kinetic energy to kill every singe occupant.

It could have fit on top of the material, however, the material in Ramey's office, was not the material recovered on the Foster Ranch. In fact, Debose went into detail as to how they destroyed a rawin device and used it as a cover-up. Dubose is one those who posed with the material and both, he, and Marcel have indicated that the material in Ramey's officer was placed there as a cover-up, which was evident by the fact that the Air Force said that material was a weather balloon, but in 1994, the Air Force threw out its weather balloon cover story which in effect, vinicates the statements made by both, Marcel and Dubose, that the materia was placed there as a cover-up and not recovered on the Foster ranch.

If you put it on top of the material, then you would be complaining about what was hidden under it. Lets be realistic. That extensive list was never going to fit into that little office.

Is the material in Du Boses office exactly what Irving Newton saw? That should answer your question for you.

We know it was a cover up - allegedly for MOGUL, but CIC would be the correct answer.

Yes, but still, there was no reason for the military to take a civilian into military custody over an unclassified Project Mogul balloon train. After all, the military didn't take that policeman in Flatbush into custody for recovering a downed Mogul balloon, nor did the military take rancher Sid West into custody for recovering a downed Mogul balloon train, nor did the military take any civilian into custody for recovering a Project Mogul balloon.

The fact that Brazel was taken into military custody lends support that what he discovered, was what the military had initially reported, which of course, was the recovery of a flying saucer. The fact that Brazel's story had changed after his release, shows that the military worked on him to get him to change his story.

The fact that Brazel was invited you mean, according to said act. Did that policeman in Flatbush claim his wreckage was a flying saucer and try to screw over an organisation for $3,000.00? No, So that is why he did not draw the same level of attention that Brazel did.

Brazel related that on June 14 he and an 8-year old son, Vernon, were about 7 or 8 miles from the ranch house of the J. B. Foster ranch, which he operates, when they came upon a large area of bright wreckage made up on rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper and sticks.

At the time Brazel was in a hurry to get his round made and he did not pay much attention to it. But he did remark about what he had seen and on July 4 he, his wife, Vernon and a daughter, Betty, age 14, went back to the spot and gathered up quite a bit of the debris.

But, there was a cover-up for what Brazel had discovered, which wasn't a balloon. He recovered weather balloons before and stated for the record that what he found, was not a weather balloon despited the revised military statement in the newspaper.

He stated that he was not going to let anything out. And it may or may not have been a balloon. You have not so much as proven the existence of the debris field as yet. Each and every question I ever threw at lost Shaman regarding his hypothesis was answered admirably and immediately. I know that you are incapable of such and reply with the same line cut and pasted time and again. If you had valid information, you would be in Lost Shamans footsteps, you are not.

Look at the desciptions of the objects in that report. In 1948, the Air Force's EOTS concluded that such objects were "Interplanetary Spaceships, and I might add that EOTS came from Wright-Patterson AFB. Colonel Raymond Madson, who was the Air Force's project officer for "Project High Dive," test dummy operations and who supplied material for the Air Force's 1997 Roswell Report, became a believer and he was assigned at Wright-Patterson AFB.

You have not so much as read the report. It says in page 17:

In the 195Os,anthropomorphic dummies were not widely exposed outside of scientific research circles and easily could have been mistaken for something they were not. Today, anthropomorphic dummies, better known as crash test dummies, are easily identifiable and are even the “stars” of their own automotive safety advertising campaign. During the 1950s when the U.S. Air Force dropped the odd-looking test devices from high altitude balloons in its program to study high altitude human free-fall characteristics, public awareness and stardom were decades away. It seems likely that someone who unexpectedly observed these dummies at a distance would believe they had seen something unusual. In retrospect, when interviewed over 40 years later, they could accurately report that they had seen something very unusual.

When are you going to explain why the project officer does not take his claims through official channels and sticks with UFO sites? You answer should tell you what importance Madson's antics hold.

Now can you answer this question:

Why are you so fixated on a balloon conversation when you know I support the CIC Hypothesis? Is this just a flame, or is there some ultimate point to the endless repetition?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Air Force's 1994 Roswell Report has been proven as false, and remember, a service balloon cluster is not a Project Mogul balloon train. Big differences already outlined in detail.

No, it has not been proven false, Lost Shamans hypothesis has falsified it. When it goes through official channels we will then see what outcome is favoured.

I do find it amazing that it took many posts to help your understand the differece between Service Flight, and MOGUL train, and from time to time, you still have serious problems, so as I told you this, why are you repeating it back to me?

And, no balloon crash site on the Foster ranch in June either, which means that the service balloon never fell on the Foster ranch that month. Besides, downed balloons do not look anything like flying saucers as evident in the recoveries of downed Mogul balloons by ordinary civilians.

We do not know what a flying saucer looks like. You do not know what a flying saucer looks like. Have you got your Ouija board out yet to set Brazel straight, seeming as you say he is lying about his own recollection?

I even posted a downed balloon train that was recovered by two other civilians to underline my point as well. In that case, the balloon train wasn't reported as a flying saucer either,nor was there a cover story to that recover.

It does not underline your point, it underlines Lost Shamans.

Both Air Force Roswell Reports have been proven as false and even the Air Force's own project officer has attacked McAndrews for misleading the public in the Air Force's 1994 and 1997 Roswell Reports.

The projects officer attacked McAndrews for taking all the limelight. It is a personal problem between those men, not an epiphany. Do you deny that these men have a personal problem?

Notice that there was no Mogul balloon flight listed in your reference. The reason is, A. P. Crary wrote that the balloon flight was canceled due to clouds, as was the case on June 3, and that ony a cluster balloon flight with a single sonobouy attached was carried aloft and notice

Notice how I have pointed this put to you when I was helping you understand MOGUL. The cluster is the service flight in the 1997 report.

there were no mention of any rawind devices as equipment.

That shows the problems with the Air Force's Roswell Reports. Note Moore's description in detail of the material. None of that material was found on the Foster ranch either in June nor in July. The service balloon was launched on June 4, and nothing was found on the ranch during the whole month of June, which proved that the service balloon landed somewhere else other than on the Foster ranch smf and was not responsible for the Roswell incident.

Where is it? Show me where the NYU flight #4 did land then so we can put the ideal to rest and move on to the real explanation - CIC.

Why are you so fixated on a balloon conversation when you know I support the CIC Hypothesis? Is this just a flame, or is there some ultimate point to the endless repetition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the June 14,date he gave. That was the revised date he gave after his released from military custody. Frank Joyce, the peson who interviewed Brazel, questioned his changed of story. The discovery of the debris field wasn't made until July, not in June.

Military invitation you mean. Frank Joyce has already been shown to be embellishing the tale, what did his boss say about the alleged military sweep?

I do not recall any such thing.

Have you taken you the dates with Mack Brazel aas yet?

Why are you so fixated on a balloon conversation when you know I support the CIC Hypothesis? Is this just a flame, or is there some ultimate point to the endless repetition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That alleged piece from the roswell crash, that is 99.9% silicon got me thinking... Silicon is a well known semiconductor, and the transistor was invented shortly after 1947. Coincidence? I did a quick search on google and got a ton of hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

santilli's props are considered to be a very loose reproduction. key word there is loose, he missed all the importatn details. he created the props and video footage so he could sell it to television networks. later he admitted to be the creator of the famous alien autopsy video in 2006.

I know about Alien autopsy, and one of the reasons I give the fraudster a wide berth. He enjoys fooling people, so why give him the time of day I feel. So I take it he really has no relevance here?

this is my answer: i think that balsa wood and rubber was NOT part of the debris at all. neither was tinfoil. there was some material that resembled tinfoil, but had very extraordinary properties. the bulk of the debris was metal or metal-like fragments. jesse's marcels own words "we filled the truck up, it took us a good part of the day to do that, because it was such small fragments and we had to do a lot of picking". there were some larger chunks of debris, but most of it was small pieces or fragments. there was also the beam-like or i-beam pieces that jesse AND his father both recall having purple glyphs.

Cassandra! Goodness! That is not the question I asked, you. You can consider it a resemblance for all intensive purposes, that does not change my question. Here look:

If I might be so bold as to ask you, what do you think the odds are that some species someplace in the Universe decided to build a ship out of materials that look just like Balsa wood, tinfoil and rubber, yet have different properties, and manage to visit another planet in the Universe, and then crash in the exact same location that the local inhabitants happen to be testing for Nuclear explosions with devices made from Balsa wood, tinfoil and rubber? Identical in appearance but with different qualities? From different parts of the Galaxy?

Jesse Marcel's testimony

These looked something like balsa wood, and were about the same weight, ...One thing that impressed me about the debris was the fact that a lot of it looked like parchment, I even took my cigarette lighter and tried to burn the material we found that resembled parchment and balsa, but it would not burn, the pieces of metal that we brought back were so thin, just like tinfoil in a pack of cigarettes.

The Brazel and Marcel family testimony

Bessie Brazel, Mac's daughter: - "There was what appeared to be pieces of heavily waxed paper and a sort of aluminum-like foil. "The debris looked like pieces of a large balloon which had burst. The pieces were small, the largest I remember measuring was about the same as the diameter of a basketball. Most of it was a kind of double-sided material, foil-like on one side and rubber-like on the other. Both sides were grayish silver in color, the foil more silvery than the rubber. Sticks, like kite sticks, were attached to some of the pieces with a whitish tape.

Son Bill Brazel Jr: "There was some tinfoil and some wood and on some of the wood it had Japanese or Chinese figures." "There was some wooden-like particles I picked up. These were like balsa wood in weight, but a bit darker in color and much harder.

Jesse Jr.: "[it was] foil-like stuff, very thin, metallic-like but not metal, and very tough. There was also some structural-like material too — beams and so on. Also a quantity of black plastic material which looked organic in nature, "There were three categories of debris; a thick, foil like metallic gray substance; a brittle, brownish-black plastic-like material, like Bakelite; and there were fragments of what appeared to be I-beams

Sheridan Cavitt:

"It was a small amount of, as I recall, bamboo sticks, reflective sort of material that would, at first glance, you would probably think it was aluminum foil, something of that type

J. Bond Johnson: Fort Worth Star-Telegram reporter/photographer:

"It wasn’t an impressive sight, just some aluminum-like foil, balsa wood sticks, and some burnt rubber that was stinking up the office."

Is that not enough corroboration for you?

i think the small fragments is an important detail. for crash debris to have lots of small fragments, there must have been some type of explosion or the material itself was very hard and brittle and sort of "shattered". similar to the way a sword shatters that has a hard temper. the image of small fragments being scattered 3/4 of a mile long and 300 feet wide just doesn't fit the description of a balloon debris. balloon debris doesn't explode or shatter. and as i mentioned before, army soldiers were lined up shoulder to shoulder on hands and knees to "vacuum up" every last remaining piece. jesse sr. own words "they vacuumed that place up".

So this "unbreakable material" broke into a million tiny pieces on contact with dirt, yet our soft aluminium aircraft manage to retain some shape after a bomb tears them open at 30,000 feet, and it plummets to the earth? (see Lockerbie disaster) Can you explain why unbreakable material would be less durable than aluminium, which as you know is quite soft.

The stories of material being tiny pieces, and yet unbreakable do not support each other.

There are several stories that claim a tiny debris field through to a huge one. Can you explain to me how you managed to discount every testimony that says it was tiny, and what proof did you find that the larger description was the correct one? I would be more than interested in your findings here and would appreciate if you could display your workings.

speaking of fragments, it reminds me of a video i saw recently where someone donated an alleged piece of the roswell craft to be analyzed. it turned out to be pure silicon. but the interesting part was the isotope levels of the piece was non terrestrial. this is the video.

Hehe, you have a go here? Can you post the official results of pure silicon? It is an old key or something tat has been heated, hammered, and presented. Where are these amazing properties demonstrated with this metal? It does not fit the field descriptions at all, does it.

you don't know this. how can you know what the limits are in terms of space travel? we don't even know what dark energy/matter is. we haven't even scratched the surface and you are telling me what the limits are? the ONLY thing we have are theories. and by the way, the craft was allegedly 25ft wide and 28ft in length.

I do know this. Heck, most schoolkids these days know this. Space is incredibly vast, and dangerous. Massive resources are required to just survive in space. The ideal that Dark Matter is usable are ONLY theories, an the theories you told me about - wormholes, bending space-time etc agree with the above conclusion. It is part of said theory!

I feel what you are suggesting here is nothing short of "magic" You are the one telling me these theories existed, I am only brining you up to speed on them. They are not open ended ideals and do have parameters. I do not have any time for pure imagination, and fail to see how it is useful in a conversation like this.

Now I gave you links to witnesses that described the length of the craft in their own words, may I ask that you return that courtesy with your claim please. That is actually a forum rule, but I suspect you would be unaware of such being quite new here. - LINK UM sourcing FAQ.

And the 25x28 Ft craft still would not make that alleged debris field. Remember the proposed MOGUL train is 600 foot long. Now you tell me, would that make the huge debris field, or would a 25x28 foot craft?

i never mentioned zeta reticuli, for all we know the craft could be from another galaxy, or dimension, who knows? and we have no way of knowing how large the universe actually is, we only have the "observable universe" that is how far we can see. nobody knows how far it goes, for all we know it may be infinite, with big bangs going off like popcorn. nobody knows for sure, all we have are theories.

I like the multiverse theory, it makes sense to me, and I see no reason why such would not be so. Yes, there could be other Universes popping up every ten minutes, but we are not going to know about them. From your comments I feel that you do not have a grip on the distances involved with space, which I find a shame, I had hoped my Alien example with the light speed ship might help get the point across. What you have described would not be "The Observable Universe" The "Observable Universe" is the extent of the repercussions from the big bang. You are speaking of whatever lies beyond our Universe. We do have estimates for how far the observable Universe goes, although I did offer a misprint with the estimate of 156 billion light years, that was a mistake made when Dr. Neil Cornish of MSU reported his findings and Discover took him to be speaking of a radius when he was actually talking diameter. LINK A simple media mistake, now corrected. Perhaps you should have a better look at Doppler effect, this may clear much of your misconception here - LINK

You did not have to mention Zeta Reticuli, Serpo already has, which was inspired by Roswell. I guess it comes dow to how much of ETH you accept, and how much you reject. That is where I find the ETH falls down flat on it's face. It is a product of cherry picking via personal preference. I feel the only reliable documents are the actual ones from the time frame, and they do not allude to the ET nonsense associated with Roswell. That is a media cook-up.

Cheers.

That alleged piece from the roswell crash, that is 99.9% silicon got me thinking... Silicon is a well known semiconductor, and the transistor was invented shortly after 1947. Coincidence? I did a quick search on google and got a ton of hits.

Can you post the lab results, or link to them please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or my favoured theory, it was a small probe or recconnaisance craft launched from a bigger craft somewhere. Then it wouldn't need to cover the vast distances of space at faster than light Speeds. My other theory to account for the debris is that maybe it collided with something, or perhaps just got disoriented in bad weather and went in at high speed.

And your support for this theory is......?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And your support for this theory is......?

It was summarised quite well by someone else in the "Gray Aliens and the operation of their Ships" thread...

This could also be the reason there are many many more sightings of aircraft and flying objects rather than biological life forms.

I imagine it would take a lot of resources for any race to traverse space. It might just be that much more efficient to send a small unmanned object with a much higher level of intelligence to survey and study.

Manned operations to earth would probably be very few and far between which is why actual encounters with so called "greys" are much less in number than simple UFO sightings.

We do the same thing on earth, how many manned missions to the moon and mars have there been in comparison to unmanned bot missions?

So i would say that a lot of the time the piloting of the ships that people see is probably done by an incredibly powerful computer, or an onboard artificial intelligence of some kind.

When the greys actually do partake in a manned mission, im guessing that the flight system would be much similar. With overide controls in case of emergency

And since all the talk of bodies, which has led to the subsequent squabbling about crash test dummies and all the rest of it, was subsequent embroidering (was there any mention of bodies in the original RDR story?; I'm sure if such a sensational thing had been found, they'd have trumpeted that in foot-high headlines), it seems very much more probable that this is how an exploration program would be carried out, don't you think? I don't know why people always seem to insist that UFOs must be manned; it seems much more logical that unmanned craft would be used, at least in the initial stages. It would also answer may of the question that you and others have raised, about the plausibility of expecting ETs to zip across the galaxy in a small craft FTL, since by sending robotic craft (or if it was manned, launching it from a parent craft), they wouldn't need to. The mother ship, if such there was, might, but it'd probably be a lot easier to accommodate the technology, whatever it may be, in a much larger craft, wouldn't it.

If you're referring to my suggestion about how it might have crashed, that is of course pure speculation, but based on debris that's found from air crashes, and that there doesn't seem to be any talk of a great big crater, it would seem reasonable to surmise that it broke up in the air, don't you think?

Edited by 747400

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.