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

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

Not having the book I went to Google books which allows you to do a search for a word or term within a book and it will display a part of the book where that word is found. In searching for Roswell, it returned "Your search - Roswell - did not match any documents." Maybe someone with access to the book could double check but unless the Google search is off, it looks like Roswell is not mentioned in that book.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Flying_saucers_serious_business.html?id=8n9TAAAAMAAJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not having the book I went to Google books which allows you to do a search for a word or term within a book and it will display a part of the book where that word is found. In searching for Roswell, it returned "Your search - Roswell - did not match any documents." Maybe someone with access to the book could double check but unless the Google search is off, it looks like Roswell is not mentioned in that book.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Flying_saucers_serious_business.html?id=8n9TAAAAMAAJ

The quote does appear on page 76 as referenced. I searched for "rancher" and found it right away. The Google search probably can't find "Roswell" since the word gets hyphenated to "Ros-well" due it "wrapping" to the next line of text.

ETA...

Unfortunately we are not able to get more information or the rest of the quote, but it does look like the actual text that Skyeagle quotes is accurate for only the first sentence.

UMbookpage1.jpg

While the link he provides does go to an Amazon page about the book in question, it does not actually reference the text he has posted in his quote.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Ok, I will leave the balloons alone as you wish, because no balloons were involved anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not having the book I went to Google books which allows you to do a search for a word or term within a book and it will display a part of the book where that word is found. In searching for Roswell, it returned "Your search - Roswell - did not match any documents." Maybe someone with access to the book could double check but unless the Google search is off, it looks like Roswell is not mentioned in that book.

http://books.google....id=8n9TAAAAMAAJ

I once posted that reference to that book some time ago and another poster who had the book, confirmed the text.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quote does appear on page 76 as referenced. I searched for "rancher" and found it right away. The Google search probably can't find "Roswell" since the word gets hyphenated to "Ros-well" due it "wrapping" to the next line of text.

ETA...

Unfortunately we are not able to get more information or the rest of the quote, but it does look like the actual text that Skyeagle quotes is accurate for only the first sentence.

UMbookpage1.jpg

While the link he provides does go to an Amazon page about the book in question, it does not actually reference the text he has posted in his quote.

Cz

Thanks CZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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."

I did a little more searching and found something interesting...

The quote that Skyeagle posts above, while definitely appearing in the book cited, does not appear as he has shown.

From The Day Before Roswell

Frank Edwards "Flying Saucers - Serious Business"

This is where I read the only report I have seen about the event, published post-Roswell in such detail, decades before Major Marcel broke his silence and came forward.

"There are such difficult cases as the rancher near Roswell, NM who phoned the sheriff that a blazing disc-shaped object had passed over his house at low altitude and had crashed and burned on a hillside within view of the house The sheriff called the military: the military came on the double quick. Newsmen were not permitted in the area. A week later however the government released a photograph of a serviceman holding up a box kite with an aluminum disc about the size of a large pie pan dangling from the bottom of the kite. This, the official report explained, was a device borne aloft on the kite and used to test the radar gear by bouncing the signals off the pie pan. And this, we were told, was the sort of thing that had so excited the rancher. We were not told however how the alleged kite caught fire.- nor why the military cordoned off the area while they inspected the wreckage of a burned-out box kite with a non-inflammable pie pan tied to it."

I have highlighted the sections of the quote missing from the one Skyeagle has presented.

The full quote as I have shown above also appears intact on various other websites:

ROSWELL UNLEASHED: The Pen Before the Sword (about half-way down the page)

FRANK EDWARDS, ROSWELL: Truths Behind the Veil (long page, quote appears about 1/5 down the page)

While I can understand the use of an abridged quote for the sake of brevity, it falls upon those using such a quote to ensure that they inform the readers that they are not using the full quote, or are using only sections of the quote, and that they provide a link to the full unaltered quote.

To do otherwise is to gives the appearance of cherry-picking at best, dishonest and deliberate misdirection at worst.

ETA...

Is seems that the compressed quote does appear on some websites. Skyeagle's quote contains a typo which makes it a little easier to find the actual source, or at least a list of potential sources:

Roswell Crash Talk, Before all the Hoopla (about half-way down)

Roswell Crash Openly Discussed Prior To Hoopla - page 4 (second paragraph)

There are other links. What they all have in common is that they are all reposts of an Anthony Bragalia article which seems to have first been posted at The UFO Chronicles.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Its a bloody paperback. A story book, fiction, you understand? Anyone can write a book, the more enthralling the story, the better the sales count. It was never said it was not brought up at all, it was said that little attention was paid and that is true. Everyone has seen the smattering of articles that paint balloons, and this paperback has been brought to light. Where are the aliens?

Ok, I will leave the balloons alone as you wish, because no balloons were involved anyway.

That would be nice as the balloon flight that did take place is a bit beyond your comprehension. I am tired of trying to help you understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I did a little more searching and found something interesting...

The quote that Skyeagle posts above, while definitely appearing in the book cited, does not appear as he has shown.

From The Day Before Roswell

I have highlighted the sections of the quote missing from the one Skyeagle has presented.

The full quote as I have shown above also appears intact on various other websites:

ROSWELL UNLEASHED: The Pen Before the Sword (about half-way down the page)

FRANK EDWARDS, ROSWELL: Truths Behind the Veil (long page, quote appears about 1/5 down the page)

While I can understand the use of an abridged quote for the sake of brevity, it falls upon those using such a quote to ensure that they inform the readers that they are not using the full quote, or are using only sections of the quote, and that they provide a link to the full unaltered quote.

To do otherwise is to gives the appearance of cherry-picking at best, dishonest and deliberate misdirection at worst.

ETA...

Is seems that the compressed quote does appear on some websites. Skyeagle's quote contains a typo which makes it a little easier to find the actual source, or at least a list of potential sources:

Roswell Crash Talk, Before all the Hoopla (about half-way down)

Roswell Crash Openly Discussed Prior To Hoopla - page 4 (second paragraph)

There are other links. What they all have in common is that they are all reposts of an Anthony Bragalia article which seems to have first been posted at The UFO Chronicles.

Cz

Hi Cz

Thank you for the heads up. The blue and red is a great way to illustrate just how the ETH version of Roswell is carefully constructed to bolster the Roswell ETH. Astounding people are happy to be deceived like this, and yet still claim the Government is the one to look out for. I would say the snake oil salesmen are the ones to be wary of. You would think that modifying a source so heavily to assist ones personal view would be against the forum rules, wouldn't you?

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi Cz

Thank you for the heads up. The blue and red is a great way to illustrate just how the ETH version of Roswell is carefully constructed to bolster the Roswell ETH. Astounding people are happy to be deceived like this, and yet still claim the Government is the one to look out for. I would say the snake oil salesmen are the ones to be wary of. You would think that modifying a source so heavily to assist ones personal view would be against the forum rules, wouldn't you?

Cheers.

Hi Psyche,

With regards to the bolded section above, yes I do believe it should be against the rules where clear intent can be shown.

However, to be fair, in this case it seems that the source chosen by the poster was the one doing the cherry-picking (to call it what it actually is) and the poster in question is only "guilty" of not doing enough "homework" in regards to finding the actual quote from the book being presented as backup for his position, and not posting the actual source of the quote used.

This last part could be seen as deliberately misleading, in this it implies that the quote appears as written in the book, when a 1-minute Google search actually shows this to be not entirely true. I don't wholly believe that this was the result of deliberate dishonesty, but is more likely just the result of deliberate laziness and a lack of adequate research skills.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take bets on whether this little nugget will rise up again at some point in the future, presented pretty much the same way? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Psyche,

With regards to the bolded section above, yes I do believe it should be against the rules where clear intent can be shown.

However, to be fair, in this case it seems that the source chosen by the poster was the one doing the cherry-picking (to call it what it actually is) and the poster in question is only "guilty" of not doing enough "homework" in regards to finding the actual quote from the book being presented as backup for his position, and not posting the actual source of the quote used.

This last part could be seen as deliberately misleading, in this it implies that the quote appears as written in the book, when a 1-minute Google search actually shows this to be not entirely true. I don't wholly believe that this was the result of deliberate dishonesty, but is more likely just the result of deliberate laziness and a lack of adequate research skills.

Cz

Hi Cz

The only thing is that the original poster also placed the book cover in his post for reference. I do feel that if he is to present a source that he would be accountable for it. I would assume this is where he took his quote from. In fact, I have little doubt that Sky knew the entire sentence all along. It would not be the first example of Cherry picking that we have seen.

Cheers.

Take bets on whether this little nugget will rise up again at some point in the future, presented pretty much the same way? ;)

Would not be the first, will not be the last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Cz

The only thing is that the original poster also placed the book cover in his post for reference. I do feel that if he is to present a source that he would be accountable for it. I would assume this is where he took his quote from. In fact, I have little doubt that Sky knew the entire sentence all along. It would not be the first example of Cherry picking that we have seen.

Yep, that's what I meant by this part of my last post, although I may not have worded it as clearly:

However, to be fair, in this case it seems that the source chosen by the poster was the one doing the cherry-picking (to call it what it actually is) and the poster in question is only "guilty" of not doing enough "homework" in regards to finding the actual quote from the book being presented as backup for his position, and not posting the actual source of the quote used.

This last part could be seen as deliberately misleading, in this it implies that the quote appears as written in the book, when a 1-minute Google search actually shows this to be not entirely true. I don't wholly believe that this was the result of deliberate dishonesty, but is more likely just the result of deliberate laziness and a lack of adequate research skills.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, that's what I meant by this part of my last post, although I may not have worded it as clearly:

Cz

I see, thanks. I think it is probably that your level of amicability exceeds my own ;)

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Its a bloody paperback. A story book, fiction, you understand?

I do believe that it is talking about the Rosell incident. Exactly as what has been reported in regards to the Roswell incident, and yet, there are those who have claimed that the Roswell inicident never came up, but it has been shown that in fact, Roswell has been brought up before the 1970s.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Cz

Thank you for the heads up. The blue and red is a great way to illustrate just how the ETH version of Roswell is carefully constructed to bolster the Roswell ETH. Astounding people are happy to be deceived like this, and yet still claim the Government is the one to look out for. I would say the snake oil salesmen are the ones to be wary of. You would think that modifying a source so heavily to assist ones personal view would be against the forum rules, wouldn't you?

Cheers.

I goes on to say this: From that link.

Though sparse on information in his 1956 lecture, Edwards later expanded on the story. 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."

A review of the literature reveals other (brief) mentions of the Roswell crash event:

1) "Flying Saucers on the Attack" (Harold Wilkins, 1954)

2) "Flying Saucer Review" (Volume 1, No. 1, Spring, 1955)

3) "The Flying Saucer Story" (Brinsley LePour Trench, 1966)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The quote does appear on page 76 as referenced. I searched for "rancher" and found it right away. The Google search probably can't find "Roswell" since the word gets hyphenated to "Ros-well" due it "wrapping" to the next line of text.

ETA...

Unfortunately we are not able to get more information or the rest of the quote, but it does look like the actual text that Skyeagle quotes is accurate for only the first sentence.

UMbookpage1.jpg

While the link he provides does go to an Amazon page about the book in question, it does not actually reference the text he has posted in his quote.

Cz

I think I see Roswell highlighted in yellow. Am I correct? If so, then that proved my case that Roswell was brought up before the 1970s. Please confirm for us all, that word highlighted in yellow above, is the word, Roswell.

Aferward, could you supply us with the date of that publication in which the word, Roswell, is highlighted in yellow?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi Cz

Thank you for the heads up. The blue and red is a great way to illustrate just how the ETH version of Roswell is carefully constructed to bolster the Roswell ETH. Astounding people are happy to be deceived like this, and yet still claim the Government is the one to look out for. I would say the snake oil salesmen are the ones to be wary of. You would think that modifying a source so heavily to assist ones personal view would be against the forum rules, wouldn't you?

Cheers.

Actually, it proves that the Roswell incident was in fact, brought up before the 1970s. I hope you noticed what was said about the U.S. Naval Labaoratory, because it has been confirmed that they too, have been tracking flying saucers over the area as well.

From that book. reference that I posted.

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."

My link

Now, read the following.

Navy Officer Tells

HOW SCIENTISTS TRACKED A FLYING SAUCER

by Commander Robert B. McLaughlin, USN

In its January issue TRUE said that the flying saucers are real and interplanetary. Its story was widely supported by the nation's press and radio. TRUE's findings are here confirmed by Commander McLaughlin, a rocket expert at White Sands Proving Ground, who worked independently of this magazine's investigation. He reveals how a troup of Navy men and scientists tracked a flying disk with a precision instrument and tells of flights he and others witnessed.

My link

Everything is coming together in regards to the Roswell incident.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe that it is talking about the Rosell incident. Exactly as what has been reported in regards to the Roswell incident, and yet, there are those who have claimed that the Roswell inicident never came up, but it has been shown that in fact, Roswell has been brought up before the 1970s.

Rarfely came up Skyeagle, rarely, Get a grip, you are a littl e over excited about 3 ambiguous references. I do not know how you qualify a paperback as "reported".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it proves that the Roswell incident was in fact, brought up before the 1970s. I hope you noticed what was said about the U.S. Naval Labaoratory, because it has been confirmed that they too, have been tracking flying saucers over the area as well.

From that book. reference that I posted.

You do not read a single post you reply to do you? Soapbox time again already?

We were discussing the quote that you omitted the bulk from. Your paperback is not a report. That is what you said it was. It is not. It is fictional.

Now, read the following.

Everything is coming together in regards to the Roswell incident.

How do you come to that conclusion from an old document? That article is dated 1950!! Coming together? LOL, yeah right. Any day now huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Rarfely came up Skyeagle, rarely, Get a grip, you are a littl e over excited about 3 ambiguous references. I do not know how you qualify a paperback as "reported".

The issue is, did Roswell come up before the 1970s? Yes, or no.

Are the words, Roswell, New Mexico, mentioned in the references I posted,? Were those references from the 1950s and 1960s?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

We were discussing the quote that you omitted the bulk from. Your paperback is not a report. That is what you said it was. It is not. It is fictional.

Apparently, there are similarities of what has already been reported, and what is found in those publications,which date before the 1970s..

How do you come to that conclusion from an old document? That article is dated 1950!! Coming together? LOL, yeah right. Any day now huh?

Dated in the 1950s, and yet, there were those who have claimed that Roswell never came up until the late 1970s, which is incorrect as noted in those publications. It is all coming together because over the decades, more information have been revealed in regards to the Roswell incident and we can expect more as time rolls on, and the Soviets were not involved either.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Rarfely came up Skyeagle, rarely, Get a grip, you are a littl e over excited about 3 ambiguous references. I do not know how you qualify a paperback as "reported".

Read what has been posted. The mentioning of a UFO crashing, Roswell, New Meixco, and a report to a sheriff. Nothing there about a flying saucer crashing in New York City, New York, but a refences of a flying saucer crashing in Roswell, New Mexico in publicatons dated before the 1970s.

In addition, the mentioning of the U.S. Navy, which coincides with a report from a Naval officer at White Sands, New Mexico confirming that scientst, and himself as well, observing flying saucers over the area and one of those witnesses was none other than Charles B. Moore, who made his own report, which was published in LIFE magazine.

Referring to one of the publicaitons I posted, where naval laboratory was mentioned, take note of thes words in the following article: Office of Naval Research

LIFE MAGAZINE, April 7, 1952

HAVE WE VISITORS FROM SPACE?

The Air Force is now ready to concede that many saucer and fireball sightings still defy explanation; here LIFE offers some scientific evidence that there is a real case for interplanetary saucers.

INCIDENT 3. On April 24,1949 at 10:20 a.m., a group of five technicians under the general supervision of J. Gordon Vaeth, an aeronautical engineer employed by the Office of Naval Research, were preparing to launch a Skyhook balloon near Arrey, N. Mex. A small balloon was sent up first to check the weather. Charles B. Moore Jr., an aerologist of General Mills Inc. (pioneers in cosmic ray research) was tracking the weather balloon through a theodolite -- a 25-power telescopic instrument, which gives degrees of azimuth and elevation (horizontal and vertical position) for any object it is sighted on. At 10:30 a.m. Moore leaned back from the theodolite to glance at the balloon with his naked eye.

Suddenly he saw a whitish elliptical object, apparently much higher than the balloon, and moving, in the opposite direction. At once he picked the object up in his theodolite at 45 degrees of elevation and 210 degrees of azimuth, and tracked it east at the phenomenal rate of 5 d of azimuth-change per second as it dropped swiftly to an elevation of 25 d. The Object appeared to be an ellipsoid roughly two and a half times as long as it was wide. Suddenly it swung abruptly upward and rushed out of sight in a few seconds. Moore had tracked it for about 60 seconds altogether.

The other members of his crew confirmed his report. No sound was heard, no vapor trail was seen. The object, according to rough estimations by Moore and his colleagues, was about 56 miles above the earth, 100 feet long and was traveling at seven miles per second.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, there are similarities of what has already been reported, and what is found in those publications,which date before the 1970s..

So why does the quote you've posted, which apparently comes from Anthony Bragalia, a 2nd hand source you neglected to mention, omit over half of the actual quote from Frank Edwards' book...?

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is, did Roswell come up before the 1970s? Yes, or no.

Are the words, Roswell, New Mexico, mentioned in the references I posted,? Were those references from the 1950s and 1960s?

Did you provide reports?

Did they discuss ET?

Was your reference fictional?

It has been said time and again, that RARELY did Roswell come up. Most references speak of balloons. You are trying to make out it was the talk of the town. It was not. I suppose you are going to post the RDR as another supporting source LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So why does the quote you've posted, which apparently comes from Anthony Bragalia, a 2nd hand source you neglected to mention, omit over half of the actual quote from Frank Edwards' book...?

Cz

Anyone can obtain the books where Roswell is mention in those publications dated before the 1970s, which will prove my case that Roswell was in fact, brought up before the 1970s. And, to underline my point that has nothing to do with Anthony Bragalia, read the following article and note the date, photos, and note that the article is referring to the Roswell incident.

Look_1967b.jpg

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.