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

All over your claims LOL.

gif-animated-gif-simon-cowell-glitch-datamashing-Favim.com-643177.gif

Mawhawhaw you kill me
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by conspiracy buff
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Bade

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

That would be this bloke :D

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

This is not the dialog in the video I posted.....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted Today, 02:21 AM

snapback.pngMrSerendipity, on 19 April 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

I don't think they had polaroids in 1947! :no:

:yes:

images.jpeg

:no:

"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 by MrSerendipity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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! :rofl: 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!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Let me first of all say CB, that I also find there are often too many quotes to answer and they seem to be coming thick and fast with this particular topic. I don't think I'll be giving it too much more of my time as I have other things in my life to deal with! I will soon be un-following this topic as my email inbox is chocker-blocked every morning with new replies! Just to add a little bit extra to your comment: Professor Hynek was actually a paid government debunker as well as a skeptic, (and astronomer), who slowly, over a period of time, converted to believing that there was something to the UFO phenomenon. The following link will give you a very interesting read about his experiences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek

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

Have you never heard it announced by a steward or stewardess not to use mobile phones during the flight as they interfere with the aircraft's systems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

An outright silly idea? Did you get that from an informed source or are you simply 'informing by proclamation'? I don't think it's likely there would be as intense radiation in interstellar space as would be emitted by high energy radar here on earth. Of course I haven't been out there to carry out any measurements and neither have you! To encounter dangerously high levels of radiation in interstellar space I think it would be necessary to journey dangerously close to a star.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you or do you not think that paranoia is a legitimate disorder and if you do, where do you draw the line?

I think the ones suffering from paranoia are the US military. They are shaking in their boots that the truth about flying saucers will ever reach the public.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please enlighten this ignoramus, where does the official story not hold up?

Cheers,

Badeskov

Their first release to the press was that they had captured a flying disc. That was retracted a few hours later and replaced by a weather balloon. Then years later they said it was project mogul. I think the cat was let well and truly out of the bag by the first statement!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An outright silly idea? Did you get that from an informed source or are you simply 'informing by proclamation'? I don't think it's likely there would be as intense radiation in interstellar space as would be emitted by high energy radar here on earth. Of course I haven't been out there to carry out any measurements and neither have you! To encounter dangerously high levels of radiation in interstellar space I think it would be necessary to journey dangerously close to a star.

You obviously dont know this,... but this single post of yours explains a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you never heard it announced by a steward or stewardess not to use mobile phones during the flight as they interfere with the aircraft's systems?

Sure I have, why?

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An outright silly idea? Did you get that from an informed source or are you simply 'informing by proclamation'? I don't think it's likely there would be as intense radiation in interstellar space as would be emitted by high energy radar here on earth. Of course I haven't been out there to carry out any measurements and neither have you! To encounter dangerously high levels of radiation in interstellar space I think it would be necessary to journey dangerously close to a star.

Yes, an outright silly idea. There is a reason for that all electronics in space is radiation hardened.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited to add quote and link. From Wiki:

Radiation hardening is the act of making electronic components and systems resistant to damage or malfunctions caused by ionizing radiation (particle radiation and high-energy electromagnetic radiation),[1] such as those encountered in outer space, high-altitude flight, around nuclear reactors, particle accelerators, during nuclear accidents or nuclear warfare.

Most semiconductor electronic components are susceptible to radiation damage; radiation-hardened components are based on their commercial equivalents, with some design and manufacturing variations that reduce the susceptibility to radiation damage. Due to the extensive development and testing required to produce a radiation-tolerant design of a microelectronic chip, radiation-hardened chips tend to lag behind the most recent developments.

Please do note the bolded parts. Shielding is crucial in space, but nothing about shielding around radars.

Edited by badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, an outright silly idea. There is a reason for that all electronics in space is radiation hardened.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Not to mention that nowadays flying saucers would be dropping from the skies as flies sprayed with anti-mosquito stuff...

Edit: spelling.

Edited by bmk1245
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that nowadays flying saucers would be dropping from the skies as flies sprayed with anti-mosquito stuff...

Edit: spelling.

Precisely.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that nowadays flying saucers would be dropping from the skies as flies sprayed with anti-mosquito stuff...

Doesnt make much sense now doest it. :no:

Also, Mr.Serendipity,... Your Buddha quote "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." is a bad translation of the Kalama Sutta — so bad, in fact, that it contradicts the message of the sutta, which says that reason and common sense are not sufficient for ascertaining the truth

But Im guessing you knew that already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesnt make much sense now doest it. :no:

Also, Mr.Serendipity,... Your Buddha quote "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." is a bad translation of the Kalama Sutta — so bad, in fact, that it contradicts the message of the sutta, which says that reason and common sense are not sufficient for ascertaining the truth

But Im guessing you knew that already.

I'm guessing you didn't know it either smart-ass! You must have copied and pasted the quote into Google search and arrived at the 'Fake Buddha Quotes' site! You even copied and pasted the first paragraph under the quote in your reply - aaah! It's interesting that you didn't copy and paste the line under that viz, 'And it's very common as well'. :P So due to your excellent ability at on-line searching I have made an appropriate adjustment to the quote!

Edited by MrSerendipity
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure I have, why?

Cheers,

Badeskov

If the 0.5 watt output from a mobile phone can interfere with an aircraft's systems how much more interference might be caused by high intensity radar? And I'm not talking about the standard radar that is used at airports.

Edited by MrSerendipity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

​You sound very knowledgeable on the subject. It's obvious that you have done an enormous amount of research. I look forward to reading further interesting commentary from you! :passifier:

Edited by MrSerendipity
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing you didn't know it either smart-ass! You must have copied and pasted the quote into Google search and arrived at the 'Fake Buddha Quotes' site! You even copied and pasted the first paragraph under the quote in your reply - aaah! It's interesting that you didn't copy and paste the line under that viz, 'And it's very common as well'. :P So due to your excellent ability at on-line searching I have made an appropriate adjustment to the quote!

You found the page, good, sorry I forgot the link,... so tell me, have you pulled things off the net (even put it in your sig) believe it, claim it as "true" without source checking before?

And no, I wasnt implying that you changed something to make it fit your belief with the I'm guessing you knew that already. ending.

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Cheers,

Badeskov

WRONG BK! Mack Brazel's late daughter Bessie was initially one of the Air Force's star witnesses in their July 1994 Project Mogul report by supporting the Air Force's contention that her father had recovered a high altitude balloon in the first week of July 1947. In recent years before she died, however, she recanted that position and conceded, "It was another occurrence altogether. I had helped my dad gather up weather balloons on a number of occasions. I have come to the conclusion that what my dad found back at that time was something else altogether." :P

Edited by MrSerendipity
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really at this point if the government say,"You're right it was an alien flying saucer that crashed at Roswell" and the CT's would think it was a cover up.

What I find curious if the fact that the term "flying saucer" was created by a reporter in 1947 to describe something that was not saucer shaped. He took a sort of poetic license and then all UFO's (for the most part) were suddenly all saucer shaped after the story made the newspapers......coincidence? The power of suggestion...still going on today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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;

No there has not, you are just a lazy poster.

p101 says that I am operating on an opinion or popular media belief in the Roswell myth.

Indeed you are, and have not given indication otherwise.

Which is pretty funny, considering that we humans all have an opinion on any given topic one way or the other.

Opinion is fine, belief is fine, you are not entitled to your own facts. Amazingly I have3 an opinion as well, and my opinion is insulted by an attack on logic and facts.

It seems as though p101 is content to ridicule those who have contradictory beliefs to his own, which is fine.

Is that how you describe badly losing a debate? This is after all a discussion forum. You are trying to tell me there are facts that indicate the incident that the Roswell Incident was a UFO crash, but that is poppycock. No more than a camp fire story.

Not everyone will agree on topics especially ones as controversially debated as the "Roswell incident" as it is referred to.

I gave you direct evidence that completely disproves your circumstantial evidence, I even gave you a page out of the reports you keep quoting, proving you are quoting misinformation and have not read the reports at all, but feel qualified to dimiss them? Am I supposed to take that seriously?

I could spend hours upon hours finding documents online and doing the point by point debate much like p101 does well.

I do not need hours. Your claims are pretty easy to knock over as they have been regurgitated through the media for decades now. That is what I am trying to point out to you - the separation between fact and fantasy, you seem to take offence to facts if they mess with your fantasy.

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?].

Me too, hence the pictures that you consider ridicule. A little levity goes a long way I find to break up the monotony, and keep these things from getting overheated. Discussion is indeed the point of this forum. If you wish to just post some place and not have other opinions discuss said information, and disprove it if it be wrong, then what you seek is a blog. There you can just say what you want and other not allow comments, or filter them to suit your agenda.

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.

You flatter me. I learn as much here as I share, to me that is the point of the forum. Discussion, a change of ideas and the possibility of solving a mystery. Maybe more like the mystery machine than a scientific debate I would think, as a debate would probably be rather ruthless, quick and painless.

I will say this as well, to dismiss guys like George Knapp, Philip Corso, Jesse Marcel, and Stanton Friedman is quite oblivious and ignorant.

To out them blindly is much worse. You have not been able to counter one argument. ith the information that was provided what was it? Like 60 discrepancies that other UFOlogists picked up? And these were his peers! And your blind following of Friedman again shows your just a poster boy. Can you deny that he is hat father of the Roswell Aliens? I see you added George Knapp to the list, would you like to discuss his claims "individually"? I reckon he is planted to make UFO nuts look even kookier!

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.

What's the name of Corso's book again? Ohh yeah, the Day After. That would be accurate, he missed the entire show but still wanted a piece of it, as I said, every claim he has made is not doubted by me, but [roven wrong by history itself, you have more than just a skeptic on your hands to qualify those erratic claims. Same if you want to discuss Marr's book, it is full of contradictions. Just throwing the names out there means very little. You have not even said what it is about these marvellous authors and such that you feel is convincing, you just point at a title.

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 what about the real world evidence that I have presented that tears this circumstantial evidence to shreds? You have not had the gumption to discuss so much as one point, you just show up every few days and have a whine and repeat yourself. Pretty disapoiting actually, I had hoped for more from you.

Would you prefer that everyone just pretends the real evidence simply does not exist. and ohh and ahh over the made up stuff?

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?

I have already adressed this for you, read these words from J Allen Hynek would you, this is after all the second time I have posted them recently.

His main point led him to the title of his speech: "The Embarrassment of the Riches." He was aware that the quantity of UFO sightings was much higher than the Project Blue Book statistics. Just this puzzled him. "A few good sightings a year, over the world, would bolster the extraterrestrial hypothesis—but many thousands every year? From remote regions of space? And to what purpose? To scare us by stopping cars, and disturbing animals, and puzzling us with their seemingly pointless antics?"

You guys just like to misinterpret in investigation as proof of ET. You have it all wrong. You guys who love Hynek also dumped in him big time, I have mentioned this many times recently as well, perhaps this time you may read it?

In late March 1966, in Michigan, two days of mass UFO sightings were reported, and received significant publicity. After studying the reports, Hynek offered a provisional hypothesis for some of the sightings: a few of about 100 witnesses had mistaken swamp gas for something more spectacular. At the press conference where he made his announcement, Hynek repeatedly and strenuously made the qualification that swamp gas was a plausible explanation for only a portion of the Michigan UFO reports, and certainly not for UFO reports in general. But much to his chagrin, Hynek's qualifications were largely overlooked, and the words "swamp gas" were repeated ad infinitum in relation to UFO reports. The explanation was subject to national derision.

yeah good going fellas, dump on the best chance you ever had. Now you ar stuck with the likes of Friedman, Mier, Lazar.

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.

Not at all, read Hyneks quotes above.

Remember how he worked for the Government? Remember how he was upset that investigations were not honest in his opinion? He would know if there was something to know right? But he is quoted as saying:

In the November 21, 1977 (page 97) edition of Newsweek ("The UFO's Are Coming") by Peter Gwynne and Katrine Ames, Hynek is quoted as saying: "We have the questions, not the answers".

Now is it just me, or do I seem to know a great deal more about your hero than you do?

It all started with Kenneth Arnold and Roswell.

Kenneth Arnold too thought what he saw was man made, and not from space, he said so in a letter the the military. IS this more of your "circumstantial evidence"? Because it is just rehashed media nonsense.

arnold_gram.jpg

Note that Kenneth Arnolds own words are "I felt certain they belonged to the Government"

Those were the two main events that started the UFO field of research.

And you are spreading the media version of events, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual phenomena, how else do you explain the above information?

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.

I did not do that at all, but the real sad part is this is like the third or fourth time I have quoted this man, and the above information over the last couple of weeks. It is very rude of you to skip all the posting in the meantime or pretend it never existed, and then just keep regurgitating the same horse hockey over and again. As far as I am aware this is a discussion forum, and discussion its a two way street, and you are not the one directing traffic. Free speech being used as it was meant to be. I wont swallow your snake oil. Or the medias.

The mere fact that we have multiple investigators doing independent research and coming up with similar results is telling.

All coming up with nothing? That is telling.

The only actual results we have that explain any of the UFO's from antiquity are fro meteorology and physics. Sprites, plasmas - the 4th state of matter - and earthlights are being demystified before our very eyes. Hessdalen being a crowning achievement. UFOlogists just write tall tales.

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.

I di not dismiss it, I prove it wrong, that be where you and I part ways. You seem to think repeatability strengthens validity? Why that is I have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:no:

"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

You said:

snapback.pngMrSerendipity, on 20 April 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

I don't think they had polaroids in 1947! :no:

They did, still, check that which I bloded and coloured for you , and get back to me ;)

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not the dialog in the video I posted.....

Do you know if a dialogue is online, and does it clear up any of the questions you had before you read it?

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.