Roswell guard ordered to 'shoot to kill'

[badeskov]

Was that your Toy last month in the News Bades ? Laser guns to Drone !

D... it, sshhh....

No, in seriousness, it was not. But we do laser range finding and mission critical coms/control for air and space borne platforms. And some of our lasers, well, you don't want to inadvertently put any of your digits in the light path

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited April 22, 2013 by badeskov

[psyche101]

The Day After Roswell by Philip Corso was an interesting book to read.

Fiction always is. It's how the ETH stays alive. I always thought the title was accurate in a sense though, Corso is certainly a day behind everyone else regarding that tall tale.

[psyche101]

I was a U.S. Air Force Security Policeman (Law Enforcement Specialist) at Lowry Air Force Base, in Denver, Colo., 1975-76.

We had a classified building there that we guarded. We sat at a desk inside the door and checked identification. At times, for ramped-up security, we controlled entry at its surrounding fence line and carried M16 rifles and Remington 870 shotguns.

Inside the building, beyond the desk we sat at, was a long hallway of green linoleum that eventually turned to the left, beyond our sight.

Within our sight, at the end of the hallway before it turned left, the tiles became red.

We were instructed that if anyone -- ANYONE -- ignored our identification check and reached those red tiles about 30 feet away, despite our shouts to them to return, we were authorized to shoot them. In the back, if necessary. No one with an unchecked identification was allowed to enter the red tiles. And those who worked there knew it; they ensured their I.D. got checked.

Shooting would have been done with the Smith & Wesson Model 15 .38 Special revolvers were carried on our belt. We didn't keep a rifle or shotgun at the desk.

And what was in the building? We guarded it for more than a year before we learned that it was a receiving station for surveillance satellites. Apparently, to emphasize its importance, we were given a quick tour beyond the end of the hallway.

Lowry Air Force base closed down in the 1990s, so I have no reservations about revealing the building.

I never ONCE heard the order, "Shoot to kill." I suspect that order is a fabrication, perhaps dating from old Hollywood movies.

Anyone in the service I've ever spoken with has merely said they were authorized to shoot an intruder. That's it, "authorized to shoot."

On some military installations, particularly those holding nuclear weapons, signs on the fenceline will say, "USE OF DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED."

And that's it ... no "Shoot to Kill" or some such thing. Merely the fact that, if you enter beyond this fenceline, you may be fired upon.

BUT ... and this is a but bigger than a Seattle prom queen's ... deadly force is only authorized to stop an equally deadly act, or an act that will result in permanent debilitating injury.

Trying to enter a nuclear storage facility certainly qualifies as a potentially deadly or debilitating act, and the use of deadly force would be authorized.

Climbing over the fenceline and standing there with a grin wouldn't qualify.

HOWEVER, never discount the fact that the responding mllitary policeman does not know your intent. And he does not know if you have a pistol in your pocket.

If he pulls up and you make a quick movement that would lead any reasonably thinking person that you're going for a weapon, he would be authorized to shoot.

Whether the military policeman kills the suspect is immaterial. He shoots to stop. Forget what you see in the movies about shooting someone in the leg or shoulder. You shoot for center mass, the biggest target available: the chest and abdomen.

I really doubt this soldier's assertion that he was told to "shoot to kill." I served under some old sergeants, who joined the Air Force in the late 1940s and early 1950s (the Air Force was created in 1947), and they never once said such a thing. We were told, "Shoot for center mass" or "shoot to stop." The meaning was clear: shoot, and keep shooting, until the threat no longer exists. Generally, this means that the person is down on the ground, not moving, or indicates surrender.

When I was in the Air Force, if you shot someone you were almost immediately transferred far away from that installation. This was done to avoid retaliation by friends or family members of the person shot. It also isolated you away from other service members that might be involved, so you couldn't collude on an alibi.

I don't know if this practice still exists.

"Shoot to kill?" I don't believe it.

What was in the building at Roswell? It was the beginning of the Cold War, tensions were high, and I understand that the weather balloon carried instruments to "listen" for an atomic blast in the Soviet Union. This would have been a highly classified project.

Guards can employ deadly force to protect high-level national secrecy, in some instances. I suspect that secrecy on this project was very high, and certainly would have qualified.

:nw: :nw: :nw:

Thank you very much for sharing your real world experience. This sounds more like the military we know and love

[psyche101]

I don't think they had polaroids in 1947!

[psyche101]

so much for a weather balloon skeptics and non believers.never believe a "official story" especially from the governments and the military and the mainstream media that is being controlled and manipulated people and this goes to all humanity.i hope i see a UFOs and E.Ts in my lifetime soon and the next if decide to come here to earth lol

if i was just nothing like they claim they wouldn't give such a order

Why do I suspect that you have no clue what the official story actually is? Would I be right in betting you too have not read either USAF report, yet feel qualified to discuss, and summarily dismiss them? And that is what, based on hearsay from woo woo sites? This is what convinces you?

But yer, the ebil gummit did it right.

[psyche101]

Then that leaves it up to Cox's personal interpretation right? He may not have been guarding anything to do with the Roswell Crash. From the description of what Cox was guarding it doesn't exactly fit any other descriptions we have about the debris recovered from Roswell, unless there is something I'm missing?

Quote of the thread my man

[S2F]

Guns blazing huh psyche?

[psyche101]

​You should remember, Rafterman, that Stanton Friedman is a scientist who has personally investigated the UFO phenomenon for 39 years, (which I'm sure you haven't), and during that time he has studied an awful amount of government documents and interviewed a great many people regarding the Roswell incident. By calling him a 'UFO nut' you are similarly labelling everyone else with the belief that there IS something to the subject. You seem to forget that Stanton isn't the only 'UFO nut' around. What about the pilots both civilian and military who have seen with their own eyes and reported very real and mysterious objects close to them in the sky making impossible manoeuvres, (for earthly aircraft that is)? What about the radar operators both air and ground control who have reported seeing on their screens objects, (obviously structured), moving at incredible speeds and making right angled turns without any deceleration? Not to mention the many police officers who have reported some incredible aerial events. Are all of those people 'UFO nuts' as well? You seem to be a typical example of the mindset, 'don't bother me with the facts my mind is made up'! So why couldn't it have been a flying saucer that crashed, (two of them actually). I'm sure that, (like ours), their technology isn't perfect either. I'm think Mr. Friedman would be more than willing to debate you on the subject which I think you would decline! Do some serious research and you might have a change of mind.

You might find the following of some interest:

SCIENTIST CHALLENGES AIR FORCE REGARDING UFOs.

Nov. 13, 1997.

By Stanton T. Friedman.

"Frankly I am sick and tired of the US Air Force lying to the public, the press, and members of Congress about UFOs," said nuclear physicist Stanton T. Friedman at a public lecture “Flying Saucers ARE Real” in Albuquerque. “I have had a serious interest in UFOs for 39 years, lectured in a dozen countries, and visited seventeen document archives,” he continued. “For 50 years there has been massive misrepresentation about UFOs in general, and in recent years the Roswell Incident in particular. The Air Force has come up with four different answers for Roswell:

*SNIP*

"USAF officers McAndrew and Weaver, do you have the courage of your convictions? Name the date and place. Perhaps Larry King or Walter Cronkite or Ted Koppel would be willing to act as moderator.”

Stanton Friedman.

You know the guy Corso the credulous are banging on about here? This is what Stan has to say about him. These guys cannot even agree on a crashed saucer? Each one of the has a different copy of "The Truth"

LINK - Friedman on Croso.

Seriously, ti's a three ring circus, Friedman, Rudiak and one other a-hol.

Edited April 22, 2013 by psyche101

[psyche101]

Guns blazing huh psyche?

[S2F]

HAHAHA that's awesome!

[psyche101]

I fully accept that the UFO world is full of disreputable people who are just out to make some easy money. The saying is that 95% of all UFO sightings can be easily explained. I would go further and say that 95%, if not a lot more, of people in the UFO fraternity are charlatans and frauds. However, I honestly believe that Stanton Friedman is one of the genuine ones.

Considering this crash took place on a ranch, and that according to all reports there were many civillians on site before the military arrived, can you explain to me how not one persion picked up and pocket a piece of flying saucer? Honestly could you contain yourself? No way I could. Yet not a single stich of the alleged saucer exists to this day, yet according to MRs. Brazel, Mac's wife, the man who made the initial call, she thought it was useless rubbish and swept it out the back door. Rumour has it the homestead where the family lived put down a concrete slab shortly afterwards, and if Aliens parts really did ever exist, there are most likely still "bits" of what many called a saucer or disk under that very slab protected by concrete to this day.

Everyone knows this tale, it just does not seem important enough to break up an old concrete slab for. Pretty valuable huh.

HAHAHA that's awesome!

LOL on fire this morning. ANZAC day this week, looking forward to it

[psyche101]

The reasons I can think of would be in the way they use to interstellar space travel (which is an unknown variable).

We have probes in Interstellar space. It's not a complete mystery.

[psyche101]

We already know from Einstein's laws that it isn't possible to travel at or even near the speed of light. According to Einstein the mass of an object increases as it accelerates and at the speed of light its mass would fill the entire universe. So light speed travel in the normal sense will only ever be science fiction. It has, however, been proposed that if it were possible to compress the gravitational field in front of a craft and to expand the gravitational field behind it it would then be possible to travel through the 'fabric of space' at even faster than light speed and the time on board the craft would remain in sync with the earth. I think that will be the future of interstellar travel and is most likely the means that is used by the ETs, if they really exist!

There are even more ideals than the Alcubierrie drive, the main problem with this one is although Alcubierrie did the maths, it stops there. We do not know where to begin building this concept.

We can actually reach the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy in theory in a mere 12 years using length contraction and time dilation. Some food for thought

[badeskov]

Well, rather than believe some tidy little made up hypothesis of why it didn't happen, I think I will favor someone who was actually there:

How about Bessie Brazel, who is one of the witnesses and never changed her story.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[psyche101]

Well, rather than believe some tidy little made up hypothesis of why it didn't happen, I think I will favor someone who was actually there:

I cannot see the clip, can anyone enlighten me of what is is?

Who is still alive and saw the debris? What does she say? Hint - See Bades post. I have her affidavit on the page previous if you care to check it out, I suggest you cast an eye over Irving Newtons statement while you are there.

[DONTEATUS]

Roswell is what it is,A Disinformation story end of Book !

[badeskov]

I cannot see the clip, can anyone enlighten me of what is is?

Who is still alive and saw the debris? What does she say? Hint - See Bades post. I have her affidavit on the page previous if you care to check it out, I suggest you cast an eye over Irving Newtons statement while you are there.

It's the interview duboise, and, no, nothing new.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[psyche101]

It's the interview duboise, and, no, nothing new.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Thanks Bade

I thought it might have been one of the Marcels, but cannot see it.

That would be this bloke

GTD’ denote Gen.Thomas DuBose:

JHS: There are two researchers (Don Schmitt and Kevin Randle) who are presently saying that the debris in General Ramey’s office had been swtiched and that you men had a weather balloon there.

GTD: Oh Bull! That material was never switched!

JHS: So what you’re saying is that the material in General Ramey’s office was the actual debris brought from Roswell?

GTD: That’s absolutely right.

JHS: Could General Ramey or someone else have ordered a switch without you knowing it?

GTD: I have damn good eyesight - well, it was better back then than it is now - and I was there, and I had charge of that material, and it was

never switched

[Emphasis added.]

Korff goes on with this, writing, "In a third interview conducted a couple of weeks later by Shandera while visiting DuBose’s home in Florida, the general related the following details:

JHS: Now as to this Roswell business - let’s begin with when Jesse Marcel came

over from Roswell with this material.

GTD: Yes. Well, as best I can recall, I met the airplane that came in from Roswell and I took a canvas mail pouch with this debris over to General Ramey’s office...

JHS: Did you see additional debris on the plane?

GTD: No, I was just handed this canvas mail pouch with the stuff in it, and

headed

straight to Roger’s [General Ramey’s] office.

[Emphasis added.]

JHS: Now again, these other researchers (Schmitt, Randle and Friedman) are saying that you guys switched this stuff and that this stuff was some kind of a weather balloon, and that you did that to fool the press and the press never saw the real stuff.

GTD: Nah.

LINK

[Zeta Reticulum]

Guns blazing huh psyche?

When they let him outa the ward, and he gets his internet time ... yep then he explodes

[psyche101]

When they let him outa the ward, and he gets his internet time ... yep then he explodes

All over your claims LOL.

[psyche101]

[Zeta Reticulum]

All over your claims LOL.

Mawhawhaw you kill me

[conspiracy buff]

There has been too much quoting since my last reply to go back and do the point and counter point thing, especially with p101. What I will say is pretty brief and simple;

p101 says that I am operating on an opinion or popular media belief in the Roswell myth. Which is pretty funny, considering that we humans all have an opinion on any given topic one way or the other. It seems as though p101 is content to ridicule those who have contradictory beliefs to his own, which is fine. Not everyone will agree on topics especially ones as controversially debated as the "Roswell incident" as it is referred to. I could spend hours upon hours finding documents online and doing the point by point debate much like p101 does well. I very rarely post on here and when I do, it is simply for fun and discussing of these unexplained mysteries[which is the point of this forum, is it not?]. I liken Mr. P101 to a scientific debate team leader, he loves the being the guy who knows everything, despite the fact that much of us are operating under our own set of beliefs. Which in itself makes the ridiculing thing quite childish.

I will say this as well, to dismiss guys like George Knapp, Philip Corso, Jesse Marcel, and Stanton Friedman is quite oblivious and ignorant. These guys had direct knowledge of the actual events[Marcel and Corso] and the others like Knapp & Friedman have spent considerable amounts of time researching this topic. Just read "The Day After Roswell" by Philip Corso or "Alien Agenda" by Jim Marrs. These books offer not only circumstantial evidence that the Roswell event was indeed a UFO related happening, but also compile the best of UFO sightings and abductions and other topics related to the overall scope of everything that ties back into Roswell. And last, but not least, is J. Allen Hynek. He was the governments researcher into all of these UFO cases on Project Blue Book who went in as an admitted skeptic and became a believer. He seen these cases up close and personally investigated them as they happened. How do you explain an admitted skeptic like Hynek becoming a believer? No, that does not support Roswell that Mr. Hynek believed there was something to the phenomena, but it does tie back into the event indirectly. It all started with Kenneth Arnold and Roswell. Those were the two main events that started the UFO field of research. And I'm quite sure p101 will counter that Hynek was a nut or that his research didn't matter or whatever the counterpoint may be. The mere fact that we have multiple investigators doing independent research and coming up with similar results is telling. To keep dismissing all of the circumstantial evidence on Roswell and other UFO incidents is quite arrogant and contrary to finding the truth, whatever that may be.

Edited April 22, 2013 by conspiracy buff

[Technocrat]

Posted Today, 02:21 AM

MrSerendipity, on 19 April 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

I don't think they had polaroids in 1947!

"The Polaroid Corporation was founded in 1937 by Edwin H. Land. It is most famous for its instant film cameras, which reached the market in 1948, and continued to be the company's flaghip product line." Link here: http://camerapedia.w...m/wiki/Polaroid

"1948: Instant photography goes on sale to the public for the first time with the Polaroid Model 95, which gets its name from its $95 starting price." Link here:http://www.stuff.tv/...-instant-camera

"The introduction of the Polaroid Land camera, in 1948, marks the beginning of the brand's legacy in instant photography." Link here:http://www.polaroid.com.au/history

Edited April 22, 2013 by MrSerendipity

[Technocrat]

Saying Stanton Friedman is a "scientist" is a bit of a stretch. A more accurate description is that he was a bench physicist with only a masters degree who worked for GE for 14 years. For almost 40 years now, he's been a "UFO expert" and author. So to claim he is a "scientist" or even a nuclear physicist is laughable.

The guy is a kook and a charlatan who does questionable investigations and manufacture stories in order to sell books.

And yes, I would gladly debate him on the subject of UFOs and I know I would win because, well, there are no UFOs.

You are wrong and very wrong. For your information, Stanton Friedman is a BSc. and a MSc. in physics and he worked for 14 years with such companies as GE, GM, Westinghouse, TRW Systems, Aerojet General Nucleonics, and McDonnell Douglas in such highly advanced, classified, eventually cancelled programs as nuclear aircraft, fission and fusion rockets, and various compact nuclear power plants for space and terrestrial applications. So a 'bench scientist'? Come on wise up! Please try to make sure that your brain is in gear before operating hand or mouth! Oh, and 'there are no UFOs' aren't there? A typical example of 'informing by proclamation' without studying the evidence! I am sure if it came to a debate between you and Stan that he would talk you under the table easily!