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 4
Saru

Roswell guard ordered to 'shoot to kill'

204 posts in this topic

You know it would be hilarious if in fact Roswell was just an decoy for an real UFO encounter they wanted to keep secret. That they did all of these out of the way things to build people's interest in what had happened in Roswell so they could conduct the real UFO expedition un-noticed...well I noticed America, I noticed!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say Get-er-Done ! Sir Friedman should keep to the Book deals ! ITs makes more cent`s And besides,We all Know that The Little Green men are all Out In Las Vegas ! running the Gameing Halls !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THANK YOU!!!!!

Any serious research into the Roswell event notices a lot of alarming inconsistencies and outright contradictory happenstances in the governments accounts of what actually happened.

And even more inconsistencies in the accounts of the government accounts of what actually happened.

First, it was claimed that it was a captured UFO. That was an official press release by the army and by those who could obviously tell the difference between a downed weather balloon and possible ET craft.

And by one who had such a penchant for pulling pranks that it was even commented on in his evaluations.

You're telling me that these people trusted with the most cutting edge technology of their modern times could NOT tell the difference between a weather balloon and something from another world?

Sounds about as silly as the same "people entrusted with the most cutting edge of technology of their modern times" sending out a news release about a UFO.

That has always been a glaringly inconsistent point of the Roswell story that did not make any logical sense.

Especially considering that no one seems to actually remember what the release actually said, who received it, or even who sent the thing originally.

Ok, then it is retracted and then told to the public that it was a simple weather balloon. If you assume the above was true, you'd have to ask why the government would cover this up?

Wait...if we assume the weather balloon thing was true...then what exactly is being covered up?

It is simple; government has always feared a perceived loss of control and power with these types of revelations.

Not really that big a deal. Indeed, one of the reasons the paper was so willing to headline a UFO story was because it was currently the hot buzz among the readers. Just a couple of weeks earlier, the whole UFO fad was kicked off with Kenneth Arnold's incorrectly reported sighting, followed by a sighting of "flying saucers" (as per what the public had been told Arnold saw, but which wasn't what he actually saw). No wonder the Roswell paper wanted a bite of the apple.

One need look no further than the War of the Worlds scare back in 1938 to see proof of how widespread panic can cause those in control to worry;...SNIP...The ensuing panic was so great that Welles was brought to court over what was a perceived publicity stunt.

He actually wasn't (the broadcast station was, but all suits were dismissed). Welles, famously, only paid out to one man who had spent his shoe money to escape from the martians. That man did get new shoes. Otherwise, much like Roswell, the War of the Worlds Panic has been greatly exaggerated. Mostly by the enemies of this new technology, the newspapers, who were afraid of being supplanted as the reiging media source.

There was no widespread panic. Those who were frightened enough to take action mostly did so in the form of a call to the radio broadcaster (amusingly, and in a way quite familiar to how we see some believers react today, the reaction to being told this was merely a play was occasionally to respond with an acussation of covering up the truth). The only place that did have some actual cases of panic was a little burg called Concrete, which had an unfortunately timed power outage, leading many to conclude there was some truth to the reports. A surprising amount of people believed this was actually an invasion by the Germans, a la "Red Dawn".

Do you really believe the world to have been a different place a mere 9 years later? This was a highly controversial topic back then as it still is now.

It's really not that controversial, not then, nor now. UFO reports are still pretty much news filler. They just aren't taken seriously.

It is not until later when Jesse Marcel Sr. brings it back up that the Roswell issue is a hot topic once again.

But he didn't bring it up, did he? It was Stanton Friedman who went to Marcel (the guy with the aforementioned prankster streak).

His story never waivered in all the years he told it, which again is very telling.

His story waivered fairly regularly, if not by him, then by the people who retold it.

This is a military man who was a part of the same group that controlled the nuclear bomb. Yet, skeptics will claim he could not tell the difference between a downed weather balloon and a possible ET craft? Another inconsistency.

Not sure why you believe an intel officer with exposure to nuclear engineering would be any better at determining a weather baloon than anyone else, but Marcel was a pilot, which is why he would recognize a weather balloon. This does not, however, mean that he was covering up a UFO. All it means is that he was covering up something secret.

Those who have read this summary to the event will see that the government yet again adds another cover-up story element. Why would the government have anything to add if not to hush those questioning the official story? The military NEVER adds anything after giving an official answer to anything. But they suspiciously changed their story with this follow up to their initial cover story?

You know, I'm not even going to follow the link. I am willing to bet that the CT logic is so predictable that what is being referred to here is the whole "bodies/test dummies" thing, and the silly argument that the government added this to the Roswell story.

The fact of the matter is that the military didn't add it to the story. The Roswell fan club added bodies after finding a reference to bodies in some obscure report. The military pointed out that these "bodies" were dummies from a different activity at a different time. In other words, the military wasn't adding to the story; the military was correcting the story.

Which, in the world of CT logic, is evidence of involvement.

They back engineered the technology and implemented it into our own technology including various fields more notably in our US aircrafts and reconnaissance. Is this coincidental?

Amazingly so. It coincides almost perfectly with the continuous discoveries and research by human scientists which led to the piecemeal technological advances that led to all of these crafts which had been in the university and research tables for years and years. To bad we didn't find this earlier. Would have saved all those places a lot of work.

Why would guards be ordered to shoot if there was a simple downed weather balloon?

Simple. They wouldn't. They wouldn't even be ordered to shoot if there were nuclear bombs in the place. You don't order guards to shoot. You train them to know when to shoot and when not to.

In the four years I served as a master-at-arms, the only time I heard the words "shoot to kill" was during basic training from our gunny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Maybe the shoot to kill order was given for whatever was in the hangar... Not to stop anyone going in , but to stop whatever was in there from getting out.

Edited by Antilles
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the shoot to kill order was given for whatever was in the hangar... Not to stop anyone going in , but to stop whatever was in there from getting out.

Perhaps except for one little bit:

Major Easley had commanded Calvin in absolute terms to “shoot and kill anyone who tried to enter the hangar that was not authorized to do so.”

*From OP article.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say Get-er-Done ! Sir Friedman should keep to the Book deals ! ITs makes more cent`s And besides,We all Know that The Little Green men are all Out In Las Vegas ! running the Gameing Halls !

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. :passifier:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You should remember, Rafterman, that Stanton Friedman is a scientist

Mr. Friedman is not a scientist. He allegedly worked as one a long time ago, although I have been unable to unearth any scientific publications attributed to him during that time. Being a scientist is a job description, not a lifelong title one is given.

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.

If we go by his standards of research from the UFO field, I would never hire him as part of my research group - he would probably be booted out rather quickly based on sloppy work.

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.

I agree with Rafterman in labeling Mr. Friedman a UFO nut and the reason is how Mr. Friedman propagates his beliefs. He is preaching and holds no qualms in presenting information out of context or to leave out crucial information to make his claims look valid. He is, at best, a very sloppy and exceptionally inept researcher. At worst....

He has a belief and he has hinged all his credibility at trying to prove his assertions. Unfortunately things started falling apart between his hands and instead of moving on, he got obsessed with it. Not the most objective person, I daresay.

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 them? They are still only stories without anything tangible to really discuss.

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?

Again, what about them? As above, many, many cases have been discussed here and we have yet to see any form of tangible evidence. And how are they "obviously structured"? Radar is not infallible, nor are the people behind the radar screens. And we know that some atmospheric phenomena can exhibit exactly the behavior as you describe.

Not to mention the many police officers who have reported some incredible aerial events. Are all of those people 'UFO nuts' as well?

Of course not, nor was Rafterman alluding to that as far as I could tell. They generally don't run around propagating false information and make up things, whereas Mr. Friedman is in my opinion.

You seem to be a typical example of the mindset, 'don't bother me with the facts my mind is made up'!

I can't speak for Rafterman, but that is not my impression of him. And that said, the facts have been discussed here numerous times and only by the stretch of Mr. Friedman's imagination do they even remotely support the crashed ET hypothesis.

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.

One would think that a race capable of crossing interstellar space would have some very reliable technologies, however, the possibility naturally exists.

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.

I have a feeling that Mr. Friedman would be rather reluctant to debate this subject with people actually well versed in it.

You might find the following of some interest:

<snip>

Not really, but thanks for posting.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm still waiting for the soldiers to come forward that actually retrieved the items and gleaned both areas of the debris

Do you think those people would still be alive ?

One would think that a race capable of crossing interstellar space would have some very reliable technologies, however, the possible naturally exists.

Youtr talking about many variables and unknowns in how an alien species might coexist. Just because your flying the ship doesnt mean you can rebuild all the other components from the ground up on a technologically inferior world. And certainly all tech regardless of who made it is prone to have accidents or failures. I agree

Edited by AsteroidX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi AsteroidX,

I am not really sure what you mean by this:

Youtr talking about many variables and unknowns in how an alien species might coexist. Just because your flying the ship doesnt mean you can rebuild all the other components from the ground up on a technologically inferior world. And certainly all tech regardless of who made it is prone to have accidents or failures. I agree

I was not thinking of co-existing or similar, but simply wondering about how likely it is that a space-faring race capable of crossing interstellar space would come to Earth and crash.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2. If you hit one satellite out there it could cause a failure that causes a crash (I believe we had a couple up in the year of Roswell) .....Just as a couple examples of HOW its possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2. If you hit one satellite out there it could cause a failure that causes a crash (I believe we had a couple up in the year of Roswell) .....Just as a couple examples of HOW its possible.

I would think that a space-faring race capable of circumventing the dangers of space would be able to navigate around our satellites. Honestly, I personally do not see the crash due to mechanical failure or the like as very plausible. But that just my opinion.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that a space-faring race capable of circumventing the dangers of space would be able to navigate around our satellites. Honestly, I personally do not see the crash due to mechanical failure or the like as very plausible. But that just my opinion.

Cheers,

Badeskov

It would be much like a professional race car driver having an accident driving to the corner market after winning an entire racing season unscathed. It could happen but it's unlikely.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would think that a space-faring race capable of circumventing the dangers of space would be able to navigate around our satellites. Honestly, I personally do not see the crash due to mechanical failure or the like as very plausible. But that just my opinion.

I dont disagree but we know to little on how there travels would take place. So really theres no data to even start a hypothesis on how. I seen it like this travel from point A to B very fast. Now you would know satellite A would be at your B when you arrived. And at minimum you have a collision. We already know you cannot travel across the stars at less then light travel unless you have 100's to 1000's of years to waste each one way trip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2. If you hit one satellite out there it could cause a failure that causes a crash (I believe we had a couple up in the year of Roswell) .....Just as a couple examples of HOW its possible.

The first artificial satellite was 'Sputnik 1' and it was launched by the Russians on 4th October 1957, a good ten years after Roswell.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already know you cannot travel across the stars at less then light travel unless you have 100's to 1000's of years to waste each one way trip.

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!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont disagree but we know to little on how there travels would take place. So really theres no data to even start a hypothesis on how.

Indeed we one data point to work from and that data point is us. But given the dangers and challenges facing any race crossing interstellar space, I am just hard pressed to see a mechanical failure or poor piloting causing a crash.

I seen it like this travel from point A to B very fast. Now you would know satellite A would be at your B when you arrived. And at minimum you have a collision. We already know you cannot travel across the stars at less then light travel unless you have 100's to 1000's of years to waste each one way trip.

Well, we do collision avoidance all the time in space when launching something and I am sure ET would do the same. But as pointed out in the previous post, there were no artificial satellites back in 1947.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed we one data point to work from and that data point is us. But given the dangers and challenges facing any race crossing interstellar space, I am just hard pressed to see a mechanical failure or poor piloting causing a crash.

Well, we do collision avoidance all the time in space when launching something and I am sure ET would do the same. But as pointed out in the previous post, there were no artificial satellites back in 1947.

Cheers,

Badeskov

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that a space-faring race capable of circumventing the dangers of space would be able to navigate around our satellites. Honestly, I personally do not see the crash due to mechanical failure or the like as very plausible. But that just my opinion.

Cheers,

Badeskov

It is my understanding from what I have read that the two flying saucers were accidentally or otherwise brought down at Roswell by the use of two high intensity radar beams which, (radar), seems to interfere with their navigation systems. Also on the night of the crash there was a very violent thunder storm which could also have been a contributing factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my understanding from what I have read that the two flying saucers were accidentally or otherwise brought down at Roswell by the use of two high intensity radar beams which, (radar), seems to interfere with their navigation systems. Also on the night of the crash there was a very violent thunder storm which could also have been a contributing factor.

I think the point that badeskov is trying to make is that something as innocuous as radar and yes, even lightening, bringing down an interstellar craft would likely mean the craft itself probably would not have survived the trip here to begin with. Even our own passenger airlines get hit on average once a year by lightening and don't drop out of the sky.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my understanding from what I have read that the two flying saucers were accidentally or otherwise brought down at Roswell by the use of two high intensity radar beams which, (radar), seems to interfere with their navigation systems. Also on the night of the crash there was a very violent thunder storm which could also have been a contributing factor.

I too have heard that, however, it is an outright silly idea to be blunt. As S2F correctly stated, space is choke full of radio emissions and cosmic radiation, some orders of magnitude more powerful than anything we could hope to create here on Earth.

So to ech S2F, if they could be brought down by radar (let alone a 1947 era radar), they wouldn't be here in the first place as they couldn't traverse interstellar space.

Cheers,

Badeskov

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point that badeskov is trying to make is that something as innocuous as radar and yes, even lightening, bringing down an interstellar craft would likely mean the craft itself probably would not have survived the trip here to begin with. Even our own passenger airlines get hit on average once a year by lightening and don't drop out of the sky.

Been on 3 flights hit by lightening. Still here :-)

Cheers,

Badeskov

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been on 3 flights hit by lightening. Still here :-)

Cheers,

Badeskov

You do something to p*** off Zeus or what? :lol:

Glad to hear that it'll take more than a few zaps to take you out, I think you might be missed around here. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my understanding from what I have read that the two flying saucers were accidentally or otherwise brought down at Roswell by the use of two high intensity radar beams which, (radar), seems to interfere with their navigation systems. Also on the night of the crash there was a very violent thunder storm which could also have been a contributing factor.

I have no idea where you read this sci-fy nonsense..... maybe you need to check your sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It must have been a really valuable weather balloon :)

The operation it was likely initiating certainly was. MOGUL trains had tags on then telling people to stay away and that they claimed flammable and or explosive substances. That got people to call the Military and they got their stuff back, instead of it decorating someones mantle.

Edited by psyche101

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 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.