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

Posted (edited)

You might want to have another look at the post and reply to it. You are just cherry picking what you can find so that you may again clamber upon your soapbox. Address the subject matter please. Can you answer the question? Why did Irving Newton say in his affidavit:

That it was a weather balloon, and Marcel said it himself, that wasn't what he recovered. Dubose also backed Marcel's statement that the material he posed with in Ramey's office, was not what was recovered on the Foster ranch.

* Jesse Marcel---The infamous photograph of Brigadier General Roger Ramey displaying the wreckage was unquestionably a fake, staged later "strictly for the press."

* Thomas Dubose---"The material shown in the photographs taken in Maj. Gen. Ramey's office was a weather balloon. The weather balloon explanation for the material was a cover story to divert the attention of the press."

* Arthur Exon---"Concerning the cover-up, Exon pointed out that there were no secret balloon or weather devices that could account for the debris. The lab men and officers at Wright Field, because it was their job, would have known if the debris fit into those categories. The balloon explanation was ready-made. "Blanchard could have cared less about a weather balloon," said Exon.

* Marcel himself has been quoted by a disinterested third party. Reporter Johnny Mann accompanied Marcel to Roswell in 1980 to interview him about the UFO crash. Mann found the picture of Marcel posed by the weather balloon and told him, "Jess, I gotta tell you. This looks like a weather balloon."

"According to Mann, Marcel said, "That's not the stuff I found on the ranch." In other words, the only ones to report that Marcel was photographed with the "real" debris was Moore and Shandera.

My link

In addition:

Mogul 4 That Never Was

Gildas Bourdais

"It appears clearly in the documents included in the thick Roswell Report of the Air Force, in particular the reports of the New York University, which do not mention at all a Mogul 4 flight,..."

"Moore himself does not remember such a launching."

"....and the diary of geophysicist Albert Crary, who was the manager of these launchings. He wrote clearly that the flight had been cancelled during the night of June 3 to 4 because of cloudy weather. After that cancellation, Crary launched in the morning a more simple balloon cluster, such as the NYU team would launch everyday in White Sands, for the purpose of training and testing equipments."

"And Brazel did not find any of the equipments of a Mogul train (page 108).

This is easily explained if we admit that, as stated by Crary,

there was no Mogul 4 launching!"

"The idea that the Air Force officers of Roswell could have

mistaken that for a "flying disk" becomes even more uncredible

than in the case of a "huge" balloon train. All they had to do

was to break one ot the balsa sticks to understand what kind of

material they had."

The idea that the cover-up was decided to protect the top secret

Mogul project falls down. On the contrary, the idea that the

cover-up was decided to hide the discovery of a flying disk is

reinforced.

My link

So, Newton must have been mistaken, because it is evident that the material in Ramey's office was staged as noted by Marcel, Exon, and Dubose, both of whom posed with the material in Ramey's office. Brazel also noted that what he foound, was not a weather balloon, and he should know considering that he recovered weather balloons before.

In addition, why Mogul balloons were not launched on cloudy days. You will also note that the balloon folks had to obtain clearance as well.

April 17, 1947

Mr. C. J. Stock, Secretary

New York Subcommittee on Air Space

365 Madison Avenue

New York 17, N. Y.

Reference: New York Meeting No. 12 Subject No. 26, New York Case #X6

Dear Sir:

Receipt of the minutes of the above meeting are acknowledged with thanks.

However, on reading them, a discrepancy was noted. We believe the weather

conditions agreed upon for Phase 2 operations were not a cloudless sky, but

no ceiling under 20,000 ft.

We realize that there might be occasions &en the clouds present would

not constitute a ceiling. Yet, due to chaotic or unstable sky conditions,

our balloons might be considered an unseen hazard to aircraft.

It is therefore requested that we be permitted to fly these rapidly

rising, high altitude balloons after obtaining clearance on days

when there are no more than scattered clouds in thin layers up to

20,000 ft. and visibility greater than three miles.

Thia is an important point, as the phenomena which we hope to measure

is not a frequent one and our chances to investigate the remote phenomena

are markedly reduced if we have to wait for cloudless skies and the phenomena

to coincide.

This would have been brought to your attention earlier. However, we are

unable. until yesterday, to confirm our impressions with the representatives

of the Army Air Forces who were present at the meeting.

Yours very truly,

C. S. Schneider

Research Assistant

*********************************************************

DEPARTMENT OF Commerce

CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION

385 h@dison Ave.

New York 17. N. Y.

New York University

College of Engineering

Research Division

University heights

New York 53, N. Y.

Attention: Mr. C. S. Schneider, Research Assistant

Mr. Schneider

This is in reply to your letter of April 17th.

It is true that at N.Y. Airspace Subcommittee Meeting # 12. We advised

you that the Phase II operations would be restricted to weather conditions

in which the sky was clear of clouds below 20,000 feet and th, visibility

at least three miles at all altitudes up to and including 2O,C00 ft. However,

it was indicated that these conditions were subject to concurrence and approval

by the Washington Airspace Subcommittee.

In order to expedite final approval of this case, coordination was effected

with the Washington Airspace Subcommittee immediately subsequent to our Meeting # 12. It was related as a result of such coordination that the

Washington Committee felt that the ceiling restriction was inadequate in

the interests of air safety and required that a cloudless sky condition be

specified.

This information was relayed to the members of the N.Y. Airspace Subcommittee

and they in turn concurred with this amendment in the interest of air safety.

The minutes of New York Meeting #12 were amended accordingly.

Yours very truly,

C. J. Stoek

Secretary, N. Y. Airspace Subcommittee

**************************************************************************

Schneider didn't like it and asked that the restrictions be somewhat lifted to allow more Flights and he was told that after review MOGUL Balloon launches could only be done under conditions of cloudless skies.

This shows that when Crary states on June 3 and 4 , that "Balloon Flight was canceled due to cloudy skies" and "No Balloon flight again on account of clouds " is refering to MOGUL balloon trains.

Of course on the 5th of June when a MOGUL Train is launched it is documented clearly in Dr. Crary's Diary.

....................................................

June 5 Thurs. Up at 4 to shoot 2 charges for balloon flight. Whole assembly of constant-altitude balloons set up at 0500. Fired charges at 0537 and 0552, then soon buzzed by plane to return. Receiver at plane did not work at all. Ground receiver worked for a short time but did not receive explosions. B-17 and most of personnel out to Roswell - recovered equipment some 25 mi east of Roswell.

...................................................

My link

So, Marcel, Dubose, and Exon, confirm that the material in Ramey's office was placed there as a cover and not recovered by Marcel on the Foster ranch. In addtion, further documentation on why Project Mogul balloons were not launched on cloudy days. and the differences between Mogul balloon trains and ordinary service balloons that were used for training and testing purposes.

Balsa wood and tin foil were well known to Marcel, so there was no way he was going to confirm that the material on the floor as the material he recovered. In his video interviews, he made that fact quite clear so there was no mistake at what Marcel was saying.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I just find this fascinating, merely a few months after the roswell crash, bell labs releases the transistor...

"This is a story which, if true, could ultimately change the way you and I look at our Televisions, Radios, PCs, and other electronic equipment. If proven, it could lead to vast change in the modern world, change even beyond what modern technology has already done in this Century. In fact, if it turns out that Humanity is not alone in the Universe: that all by it self would force us to alter the way we look at Religion, Science, Politics and, even, Human Society. What you are about to read is a remarkable story, as of yet unconfirmed. What do you think?

YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ THE AMERICAN COMPUTER COMPANY STORY ABOUT THE ROSWELL INCIDENT ON JULY 7, 1947 and one person's story about an alleged transfer of Alien Technology to Bell Laboratories."

http://www.subversiveelement.com/Roswell_ACC_Original.html

Hi Cassandra

Sorry, I am not convinced that this information is any more than hogwash. It says:

[uPDATE NOTE: According to one of our Scientific/Academic Sources, prior to 1947 there were no Transistors in use, only raw germanium and selenium diodes composed of naturally occurring elements -- mined from Bauxite and other mines. After September of 1947 and the alleged alien technology transfer to Bell Labs by the US Department of Defense, the entirely ARTIFICIALLY comprised Silicon 'Transistor' suddenly emerged at Bell Labs, arsenic doped in trace quantities into specially prepared Silicon produced remarkable changes in the 'conductive properties' of Silicon, when Boron and other gases and liquids were used to deposit it in the Silicon base. This produced the "Transistor" effects that had not been discovered by researchers working with rectifiers in over a hundred years. Some claim that these transistors were made of Germanium, as well, however, the effect that caused the transistor to work, hadn't been observed by any researcher, prior to September of 1947. Also, while silicon's capability to conduct electricity had existed for a long time, it had been as a "static collector" - something bearing absolutely no resemblance to the Transistor. Could it have been a result of studying how an Alien electronic computer or communications device worked? Could scientists have recreated the effect with Man Made devices, and the Alien Computer made of elements whose function had to be "mimicked" with earthbound substances?]

Raw Germanium and selenium diodes were indeed transistors. In fact, they were the transistors in use in 1947! (In 1947, John Bardeen and Walter Brattain at AT&T's Bell Labs in the United States observed that when electrical contacts were applied to a crystal of germanium, the output power was larger than the input. Solid State Physics Group leader William Shockley saw the potential in this, and over the next few months worked to greatly expand the knowledge of semiconductors. The term transistor was coined by John R. Pierce as a portmanteau of the term "transfer resistor") Physicist Julius Edgar Lilienfeld filed the first patent for a transistor in Canada in 1925, describing a device similar to a field-effect transistor or "FET". Know why it was not"observed"? Lilienfeld did not publish any research articles about his devices, nor did his patent cite any examples of devices actually constructed. And then in 1934, German inventor Oskar Heil patented a similar device. The above claim then really falls of the rails when it claim that the first silicone transistor was created in 1947. Not the case. See above how it says:

After September of 1947 and the alleged alien technology transfer to Bell Labs by the US Department of Defense, the entirely ARTIFICIALLY comprised Silicon 'Transistor' suddenly emerged at Bell Labs

Well, no I am afraid. The silicone transistor was still yet to come, and did not arrive until 1954. In fact silicone too had roots that far precede the Roswell incident. It bears mentioning that Frederick Kipping began work on Silicone polymers around the 1890's. The provided article says:

Our Scientific Commentator went on to tell us: The materials used to identify the Transistor function and to create one, required, for the times, very advanced technology to manufacture that didn't exist in 1947

Absolute codwallop. Copper is still a better conductor than silicone, that is why silicone is classified as a semi conductor. To be honest, all I am seeing is a story that is not true, and much smoke and many mirrors. The method of creating "pure" silicone (99.9%) was first trialed in 1854, and is still in use today.

Now we had working transistors before 1947 as well. From 1942 Herbert Mataré experimented with so-called duodiodes while working on a detector for a Doppler RADAR system. The duodiodes he built had two separate but very close metal contacts on the semiconductor substrate. He discovered effects that could not be explained by two independently operating diodes and thus formed the basic idea for the later point contact transistor.

This was a development that had beginnings in 1925, and was well recognised by 1942. Experimentation in newer materials made the device perform better. That is all, the transistor did not suddenly appear in 1947, it already had decades of research and testing behind it.

I can totally agree with but one sentence on that page:

RUMOR and CONVENTIONAL FOLK LORE have claimed that a UFO crash landed in the areas of Roswell, New Mexico,

i'm sorry, i don't think you get what i mean... i had typed up a lengthy reply but ended up deleting it. i don't think you would have understood it.

but i do have to say this, do you honestly think schoolkids are going to have the slightest clue about what is within the realm of possibility for space travel? like... are you kidding me?

As long as you are clear in your message, I am sure I would have understood it. I have a reasonable pool of general knowledge.

Unfortunately, and perhaps ironically, you missed what I said. I said that yes, school-kids these days do know about wormholes and dark matter. My 9 years old would not miss a space doco with me, we rather enjoyed Hawkings "into the Universe" which we just watched again over the weekend. I doubt too many are well up to speed on quantum theory, or what dark matter may actually represent, but the basic descriptions that you gave on the many hypothesis of alternate forms of theoretical space travel, yes indeed.

What I was saying in a nutshell is that the theories you offered, by Michio Kaku, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking are also discounted by those same people as a way to traverse space in a physical craft. Michio Kaku is a futurist, when he says that Aliens might be able to traverse Light, he is speaking from his imagination, if he had something solid behind these thoughts, don't you think he would have built an FTL ship himself?

I strongly suggest that you attempt to delve into the theory behind the Einstein-Rosen bridge, and look at the problems associated with actually using one of these fantastical contraptions. You need a power source the size of a star. And then you still have to hurtle through space without irradiating yourself, or leaving yourself full of tiny holes. The Einstein-Rosen bridge was discovered by Albert Einstein and his colleague Nathan Rosen, who first published the result in 1935. However, in 1962 (some time ago, I am not sure why you think kids today would not be up on this) John A. Wheeler and Robert W. Fuller published a paper showing that this type of wormhole is unstable, and that it will pinch off too quickly for light (or any particle moving slower than light) that falls in from one exterior region to make it to the other exterior region. Dark matter is the big revelation (or perhaps in this instance, new buzzword) that people are pinning their hopes on as a power source to keep the wormhole open. However, Dark Matter seems to be a weak force, like gravity. There has never been an observable wormhole, neither in nature, nor in the lab. It is a pretty open ended ideal, and will accept anything from FTL to time travel as a possible consequence. I find that too loose to be getting excited about just yet. Our own Orion Project back in the 50's seemed to have better hopes for traversing interstellar space.

The 25x38 reference is from bill mcdonald, forensic reconstruction specialist. He spoke to and worked with witnesses of the craft including lt. haut and came up with a reconstruction of the craft that was eventually made into a model kit for the testors corperation. he talks about the craft in the video i linked to earlier "top secret files roswell" at the 19 minute mark.

So it was not from any witness? Yet I gave testimony from 2 alleged first hand witnesses? Bill McDonald does not conform with any alleged first hand witness? He even claims the craft is delta shaped, not egg shaped.

Can you give me a reason to take McDonalds extrapolation as more likely than the two direct witness stament's I gave you? And can you please tell me why a second hand extrapolation is favoured over direct witness claims?

And He got this all from Ben Rich and Kelly Johnson didn't he. The problem is that Johnson and Rich never, as far as I'm aware, claimed to be Roswell witnesses. McDonald basically said that they made death bed confessions to him that the Skunk Works were using alien tech, revelations McDonald kept to himself until both men were dead and couldn't complain about having words put in their mouths.

i think a 25x28 craft could easily make that size debris field via an explosion or high speed collision.

I am afraid that you are wrong about that. It has been proposed by an Engineer that the 600 foot MOGUL tran was considered too small to have ,ade the alleged debris field! - LINK Not that I like Galganskis work, he uses far too many assumptions. It is a guess at best IMHO.

Can you cite why a 25.28 foor craft would make a 3/4 of a mile long and 300 feet wide (your dimensions) or any solid proof that the field even existed - I am meaning more than hearsay?

i don't have any lab results, i only link to the video because i found it interesting. take it for what its worth.

I was actually referring to this claim from your previous post:

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.

Well now adressed, the transistor was certainly not conceived "just after 1947" I was wondering who determined the piece to be 99.9% silicone, which would make it to be considered "pure silicone" and this can be extracted directly from solid silica or other silicon compounds by molten salt electrolysis, and as stated, we have been doing this since the late 1800's.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That it was a weather balloon, and Marcel said it himself, that wasn't what he recovered. Dubose also backed Marcel's statement that the material he posed with in Ramey's office, was not what was recovered on the Foster ranch.

[/color]

[/color]In addition:

[/size]So, Newton must have been mistaken, because it is evident that the material in Ramey's office was staged as noted by Marcel, Exon, and Dubose, both of whom posed with the material in Ramey's office. Brazel also noted that what he foound, was not a weather balloon, and he should know considering that he recovered weather balloons before.

In addition, why Mogul balloons were not launched on cloudy days. You will also note that the balloon folks had to obtain clearance as well.

So, Marcel, Dubose, and Exon, confirm that the material in Ramey's office was placed there as a cover and not recovered by Marcel on the Foster ranch. In addtion, further documentation on why Project Mogul balloons were not launched on cloudy days. and the differences between Mogul balloon trains and ordinary service balloons that were used for training and testing purposes.

Balsa wood and tin foil were well known to Marcel, so there was no way he was going to confirm that the material on the floor as the material he recovered. In his video interviews, he made that fact quite clear so there was no mistake at what Marcel was saying. [/b]

What is all this rubbish? I asked you to explain to me why Marcel tried to convince Newton that the Balsa sticks had Alien writing on them. Here we have a clean cut case of clear misidentification by Marcel. If he could tell Balsa wood at a glance, why did he try to convince Irving Newton that Balsa wood was an Alien product?

It was not Newtons mistake, the mistake was Marcels, like how you never explained why he twice said that Haut made the press release all on his own. What is going on with Marcel? You say he cannot be fooled, yet here he definitely is. Please try to refrain from breaking forum rules by flooding and answer the question please. I do not need 100 links on your credulous belief of this story, I ask for a direct answer please.

And although not appropriate for the forum, I do have a suggestion for your balloon fixation. Lets stick to the real debate here, and what actually happened at Roswell - CIC thanks. Repeating these boring tales you insist on keeping alive is getting a bit too much. Do you always have the same conversation over and again at home?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is going on with Marcel? You say he cannot be fooled, yet here he definitely is.

Well either that or he is just playing his Counter Intel. role, playing it up within earshot of the gathered group of Press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well either that or he is just playing his Counter Intel. role, playing it up within earshot of the gathered group of Press.

Exactly ;) I sort of alluded to this in another post where I said "Was Marcel a complete dolt, or a soldier better than any of us imagined".

Hard to say exactly what went on, but there is more than one way to skin this cat, no aliens required. Sky was closer to your hypothesis than ET when he was asking about Marcels role.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What is all this rubbish?

We have Marcel's video interviews, and others who have confirmed his accounts as well.

asked you to explain to me why Marcel tried to convince Newton that the Balsa sticks had Alien writing on them. Here we have a clean cut case of clear misidentification by Marcel. If he could tell Balsa wood at a glance, why did he try to convince Irving Newton that Balsa wood was an Alien product?

There were no writing on balsa sticks of the kind that have been described. And once again, the material in the office was planted and had nothing to do with what Marcel recovered on the Foster ranch.

It was not Newtons mistake, the mistake was Marcels, like how you never explained why he twice said that Haut made the press release all on his own. What is going on with Marcel? You say he cannot be fooled, yet here he definitely is. Please try to refrain from breaking forum rules by flooding and answer the question please. I do not need 100 links on your credulous belief of this story, I ask for a direct answer please.

No one confused any balsa wood and tin foil as a flying saucer. The material on the floor in Ramey's office was obviously planted, and later, confirmed no only by those who posed with the material, which was part of a weather balloon, but the Air Force trashed the weather balloon in 1994 as well, which vindicates the statements of Marcel, Dubose, and Exon,who have stated for the record that the material in Ramey's office was planted.

And although not appropriate for the forum, I do have a suggestion for your balloon fixation.

There are those who continue to throw in a balloon train fight #4 that never was. There were no balsa wood nor tin foil recovered on the Foster ranch.

Lets stick to the real debate here, and what actually happened at Roswell - CIC thanks. Repeating these boring tales you insist on keeping alive is getting a bit too much. Do you always have the same conversation over and again at home?

As noted before, the news headline had nothing to do with a counter-intelligence suggestion that has been posted. You have to know the mission of the 509th Bomber Group, and place yourself in the shoes of the commanding officer to understand why it was urgent to throw in a cover story.

Now, we have two additional cover stories in effect today, and that further throws cold water on that counter-intelligence suggestion.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Exactly ;) I sort of alluded to this in another post where I said "Was Marcel a complete dolt, or a soldier better than any of us imagined".

Hard to say exactly what went on, but there is more than one way to skin this cat, no aliens required. Sky was closer to your hypothesis than ET when he was asking about Marcels role.

Right, while being circumstantial like many other things it totally fits with my hypothesis. The debris in Ramey's office was absolutely a torn up RAWIN target yet Marcel was trying to convince Newton this was real Alien Spacecraft debris in front of the Press 'hoard' that was gathered, yet we hear nothing more about it until the late mid-seventies. This is very strange behavior but in the context of my hypothesis it makes sense considering that the Press was present and my hypothesis states the whole operation was directed towards the Press.

Edited by lost_shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, while being circumstantial like many other things it totally fits with my hypothesis. The debris in Ramey's office was absolutely a torn up RAWIN target yet Marcel was trying to convince Newton this was real Alien Spacecraft debris in front of the Press 'hoard' that was gathered, yet we hear nothing more about it until the late mid-seventies.

What is the date here?

Look_1967b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the date here?

Look_1967b.jpg

An article that says the incident involved a balloon. What is your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, while being circumstantial like many other things it totally fits with my hypothesis. The debris in Ramey's office was absolutely a torn up RAWIN target yet Marcel was trying to convince Newton this was real Alien Spacecraft debris in front of the Press 'hoard' that was gathered, yet we hear nothing more about it until the late mid-seventies. This is very strange behavior but in the context of my hypothesis it makes sense considering that the Press was present and my hypothesis states the whole operation was directed towards the Press.

This shows us that Marcel did know the difference, but pushed another line. What else would explain that but CIC? Nothing that I can think of. Certainly not covering up for ET. Marcel is quite more of an enigma than he first seems. I guess it would be prudent to learn the lessons that the US learned when at war with Japan's Kamikaze pilots, in that sometimes people do things another would not consider to benefit their country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

An article that says the incident involved a balloon. What is your point?

That is Newton posing with the material in Ramey's office. That was during the 1960s, well before Stanton Friedman interviewed Marcel. In other words, the Roswell incident was brought up before the 1970s.

In that article, it mentions the year, 1947, and Fort Worth, which is where the photo was taken.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is Newton posing with the material in Ramey's office. That was during the 1960s, well before Stanton Friedman interviewed Marcel. In other words, the Roswell incident was brought up before the 1970s.

In that article, it mentions the year, 1947, and Fort Worth, which is where the photo was taken.

Come one Sky don't be soo 'dense'. Before the Sun Set in California on July 8th 1947 this was an International Press story. The Fact that almost no-one ever disscussed it again (excepting the Look article) conforms with my suggestion that it was meant to discourage the Press in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is Newton posing with the material in Ramey's office. That was during the 1960s, well before Stanton Friedman interviewed Marcel. In other words, the Roswell incident was brought up before the 1970s.

In that article, it mentions the year, 1947, and Fort Worth, which is where the photo was taken.

Like LS said.

There are like 3 articles floating around that call the Roswell incident balloons. Do you call that "heavy discussion" or "limelight" do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Come one Sky don't be soo 'dense'. Before the Sun Set in California on July 8th 1947 this was an International Press story. The Fact that almost no-one ever disscussed it again (excepting the Look article) conforms with my suggestion that it was meant to discourage the Press in the first place.

I think that you are missing something else. Other publicaitons brought up the Roswell incident during the 1950s and 1960s, and they have been posted before, but it seems that there were those who were unaware that Roswell was brought up during the decades of the 1950s and 1960s.

Here's one example.

serious22.jpg

In his 1966 "Flying Saucers: Serious Business" book on page 76 he writes:

"There are such difficult cases as the rancher near Roswell, New Mexico, who phoned the Sheriff that a blazing disc-shaped object had passed over his house at low altititude and had crashed and burned on a hillside within view of his house. We were not told, however, why the military cordoned off the area while they inspected the wreckage."

My link

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so has this become the new "bicker endlessly about Roswell thread", regardless of whether the bickering in question has anything to do with the absurd Socviet plot story? Or has it been decided that the Soviet plot is so absurd that this has become the general Roswell bickering thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you are missing something else. Other publicaitons brought up the Roswell incident during the 1950s and 1960s, and they have been posted before, but it seems that there were those who were unaware that Roswell was brought up during the decades of the 1950s and 1960s.

Here's one example.

serious22.jpg

In his 1966 "Flying Saucers: Serious Business" book on page 76 he writes:

"There are such difficult cases as the rancher near Roswell, New Mexico, who phoned the Sheriff that a blazing disc-shaped object had passed over his house at low altititude and had crashed and burned on a hillside within view of his house. We were not told, however, why the military cordoned off the area while they inspected the wreckage."

My link

Now you re calking paperbacks solid proof?

This is also from the book I believe:

Lorenzo Flores said in his statement:

"Then we saw four little men come out of it. They were approximately three feet tall. When they realized that we there, the four of them grabbed Jesus and tried to drag him toward the thing. I could do nothing but take my shotgun, which was not loaded, and I struck one of them with it. The gun seemed to have struck something as hard as rock-it stung my hands- and it broke the gun in two pieces . . . it was too dark to see features of their faces, but we did notice the abundant hair on their bodies and great strength."

Same aliens as Roswell, or a new lot? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so has this become the new "bicker endlessly about Roswell thread", regardless of whether the bickering in question has anything to do with the absurd Socviet plot story? Or has it been decided that the Soviet plot is so absurd that this has become the general Roswell bickering thread?

Is it not true that it is on Topic to attempt to falsify this Authors 'plot'? If I can do so with an 'alternative' hypothesis that is 'Older' than this Authors hypothesis, is that NOT a legitimate arguement to make?

You seem to suggest this is 'off Topic' or 'not related'. I honestly don't think you can make such a claim that would stand up to scutiny. Of course your personal track record of actually disscussing these points you are trying to make has become exceptionally poor lately. Therefore I'm not even going to pretend any longer that you actually have any desire to respond to people like myself who bother to quote and reply to your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it not true that it is on Topic to attempt to falsify this Authors 'plot'? If I can do so with an 'alternative' hypothesis that is 'Older' than this Authors hypothesis, is that NOT a legitimate arguement to make?

You seem to suggest this is 'off Topic' or 'not related'. I honestly don't think you can make such a claim that would stand up to scutiny. Of course your personal track record of actually disscussing these points you are trying to make has become exceptionally poor lately. Therefore I'm not even going to pretend any longer that you actually have any desire to respond to people like myself who bother to quote and reply to your posts.

what are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

what are you talking about?

I quoted you verbatim. What I was talking about is absolutely obvious.

ETA: Do you need an example? I recently on another thread said I thought you misunderstood Occam's Razor. I personally would NEVER let such a supposition stand! I would either refute it, modify my position, or offer a correction.

You on the other hand don't seem to care to respond to issues raised and IMO you seem to act 'Jilted' just because someone might question your opinion.

Edited by lost_shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I quoted you verbatim. What I was talking about is absolutely obvious.

i'm afraid it's not to me. "Of course your personal track record of actually disscussing these points you are trying to make has become exceptionally poor lately."

Would you care to point to a few examples of what you have in mind. For example, in this thread I have primarily talked about the alleged Soviet plot, have I not, and elucidated reasons as to why i believe it is improbable? Do you have any other examples elsewhere that have given rise to this criticism of yours?

Edited by 747400

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so has this become the new "bicker endlessly about Roswell thread", regardless of whether the bickering in question has anything to do with the absurd Socviet plot story? Or has it been decided that the Soviet plot is so absurd that this has become the general Roswell bickering thread?

You are more than welcome to bring something to the table if you do not like the debate. But as Lost Shaman said, falsifying this claim is on topic. I do keep asking Sky to leave the balloons alone, but he keeps forcing the subject with a constant barrage of questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm afraid it's not to me. "Of course your personal track record of actually disscussing these points you are trying to make has become exceptionally poor lately."

Would you care to point to a few examples of what you have in mind. For example, in this thread I have primarily talked about the alleged Soviet plot, have I not, and elucidated reasons as to why i believe it is improbable? Do you have any other examples elsewhere that have given rise to this criticism of yours?

Yes, if your are going to make this a point of contention then I'd also point out the numerous times on numerous threads where you have offered nothing more than a "drive by" opinion concerning the Goldilocks Zone for example where I know for a FACT that myself and booN and others have taken a considerable amount of Time to reply to your posts only to be ignored while you "keep buggering on" with the same opinion that you do not disscuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if your are going to make this a point of contention then I'd also point out the numerous times on numerous threads where you have offered nothing more than a "drive by" opinion concerning the Goldilocks Zone for example where I know for a FACT that myself and booN and others have taken a considerable amount of Time to reply to your posts only to be ignored while you "keep buggering on" with the same opinion that you do not disscuss.

I don't know what's got into you, but you seem to be throwing a tantrum or something, so i think it's probably best if I leave you alone for a while.

Have a nice day.

No, actually, ok, what would you wish that i do? What have people painstakingly taken the time to explain that I have ignored and, as you charmingly put it, "keep buggering on" with the same opinions? Is it just that I don't dismiss things out of hand, and like to speculate about things, and does this offend you? Well, I'm sorry if that is not scientifically rigorous enough to satisfy you. This is regrettable, but I'm afraid you're not going to put me off. So, again, I repeat, have a nice day.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what's got into you, but you seem to be throwing a tantrum or something, so i think it's probably best if I leave you alone for a while.

Have a nice day.

If by 'tantrum' you meant the ability to answer the question you challenged me at answer, then consider it a 'tantrum' and I'll consider it an answer.

No, actually, ok, what would you wish that i do? What have people painstakingly taken the time to explain that I have ignored and, as you charmingly put it, "keep buggering on" with the same opinions? Is it just that I don't dismiss things out of hand, and like to speculate about things, and does this offend you? Well, I'm sorry if that is not scientifically rigorous enough to satisfy you. This is regrettable, but I'm afraid you're not going to put me off. So, again, I repeat, have a nice day.

:)

Again, I'll point to the post I made where I suggested you misunderstood Occam's razor. You haven't replied. Also you mentioned the Goldilocks Zone multiple times over the last month, yet dispite the fact that multiple people replied to you I don't think you replied in kind to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Now you re calking paperbacks solid proof?

:

That was back during the 1960s. It proved that the Roswell incident was in fact, brought up before the 1970s, Look at the date of this book.

************************************************************************************************

Flying Saucers on the Attack (Harold Wilkins 1954)

On page 71 Wilkins offers the following regarding the incident at Roswell:

"Close to the place where the first atomic bomb was tested, a rancher in Roswell, New Mexico, U.S.A. said, in July 1947, to have found a flying saucer. It landed on his ranch, and was inspected by officers of the 509th atomic bomb group of the 8th U.S. Air Force, who sent it to a ‘higher quarter.’ This reported find followed a report from Dr. C. J. Zohn, guided missile expert of the U.S. Naval Laboratory, that he and two other scientists had sighted a flying saucer near White Sands, New Mexico, a proving ground to which public access is prohibited. Down came U.S. Army authorities who declared this was merely a weather balloon; despite the plain statement of Mr. Ivan R. Tannehill, weather bureau chief forecaster, that it was unlikely that this mysterious object speeding through the skies at a speed above the rate of transmission of sound waves, could have been a weather balloon. He pointed out that weather balloons have been in use for many years."

***********************************************************************************************

And, there are still more stories on the Roswel incidentl before 1970.
Edited by skyeagle409

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.