Roswell was Soviet plot to create US panic

[skyeagle409 2,909]

Did you provide reports?

Apparently, they obtain reports because you will note the similarities to what has been reported in regards to the Roswell incident and what has been published. So, the fact remains; Roswell was brought up before the 1970s.

[Czero 101 2,700]

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.

So are you denying then that the quote you earlier posted came from Bragalia's mis-quoting of Edward's book...?

Let's deal with this first before you start changing the subject, ok?

Cz

[quillius 1,925]

So are you denying then that the quote you earlier posted came from Bragalia's mis-quoting of Edward's book...?

Let's deal with this first before you start changing the subject, ok?

Cz

Hello Czero,

I dont think Sky mis-quoting is relevant IMO. The discussion started a few pages back around (page 22) when Sky said it was mentioned prior to 1970, he was told it wss not. He then found publications/magazine extracts to show that it was mentioned prior to 1970...thats all. Whether fiction/part quotes etc is besides the point he was making

at least thats how I have followed this line of debate.

[Czero 101 2,700]

Hello Czero,

I dont think Sky mis-quoting is relevant IMO. The discussion started a few pages back around (page 22) when Sky said it was mentioned prior to 1970, he was told it wss not. He then found publications/magazine extracts to show that it was mentioned prior to 1970...thats all. Whether fiction/part quotes etc is besides the point he was making

at least thats how I have followed this line of debate.

Hi Q,

I feel its relevant from the standpoint that it highlights a pattern of dishonest behaviour and, at best, myopic research abilities. He made a claim that a certain portion of text he presented came from the book he cites, even going so far as to post a picture of the book and a link to the Amazon page for said book. However, a very quick search shows that, while the quote does contain words from the book, over half of the actual quote has been omitted and is not from the source provided.

Cz

Edited June 21, 2011 by Czero 101

[quillius 1,925]

Hi Q,

I feel its relevant from the standpoint that it highlights a pattern of dishonest behaviour and, at best, myopic research abilities. He made a claim that a certain portion of text he presented came from the book he cites, even going so far as to post a picture of the book and a link to the Amazon page for said book. However, a very quick search shows that, while the quote does contain words from the book, over half of the actual quote has been omitted and is not from the source provided.

Cz

Hey Cz, thanks for that. So are you saying in fact the book does not contain the words Roswell?

[Czero 101 2,700]

Hey Cz, thanks for that. So are you saying in fact the book does not contain the words Roswell?

No, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, if you look back a few pages you'll see that I posted a screenshot of the Google search of the book.

Cz

[quillius 1,925]

No, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, if you look back a few pages you'll see that I posted a screenshot of the Google search of the book.

Cz

Hey Czero, I thought so, you found it well, considering searching for the obvious word 'Roswell' wasnt working due to teh line break as you pointed out.

Anyhow, therefore does this not mean that Sky was just finding a book that stated the word Roswell, as he was challenged to do?

I am still not getting what is mis-leading about that?

[Czero 101 2,700]

Hey Czero, I thought so, you found it well, considering searching for the obvious word 'Roswell' wasnt working due to teh line break as you pointed out.

Anyhow, therefore does this not mean that Sky was just finding a book that stated the word Roswell, as he was challenged to do?

I am still not getting what is mis-leading about that?

It's about honesty, integrity and holding someone to the same standards that we all are required to abide by here.

It has been shown that the quote Skyeagle provided was from an article written by Bragalia in 2010. In that article, Bragalia cherry-picks portions from the book and refashions them into a quote of his own making. So much of the original quote has been shown to be missing as to justify saying that it is not the same quote.

When shown that the quote he provided could only have come from Bragalia, Skyeagle denies this and brings up a different article all together in an apparent attempt to try and deflect attention from his mistake.

Again, this is about honesty and integrity.

Cz

Edited June 21, 2011 by Czero 101

[quillius 1,925]

It's about honesty, integrity and holding someone to the same standards that we all are required to abide by here.

It has been shown that the quote Skyeagle provided was from an article written by Bragalia in 2010. In that article, Bragalia cherry-picks portions from the book and refashions them into a quote of his own making. So much of the original quote has been shown to be missing as to justify saying that it is not the same quote.

When shown that the quote he provided could only have come from Bragalia, Skyeagle denies this and brings up a different article all together in an apparent attempt to try and deflect attention from his mistake.

Again, this is about honesty and integrity.

Cz

I agree, although I dont see Sky as being dishonest here. Maybe he didnt research the source of the quote properly (as you yourself noticed), but this doesnt take away from the fact that he was challenged to find somewhere that mentioned Roswell and that is what he tried to do.

Surely we are losing the initial points that they were discussing, in that Roswell is mentioned prior to 1970.

If the rest of the text was relevant then I could understand the attack on source and the snipping of text being seen as dishonest and misleading, however the text is not relevant and the only relevance is the mention of the word 'Roswell'......when I say relevant I mean relevant to the point they were discussing, I am not saying it is relevant to proving Roswell, but hey if they choose that line of debate who am I to argue, plus you never know where it may lead

[mcrom901 768]

It's about honesty, integrity and holding someone to the same standards that we all are required to abide by here.

what standards are we supposed to abide by here? please enlighten.... or is it just your perceived version of 'morality'?

When shown that the quote he provided could only have come from Bragalia, Skyeagle denies this and brings up a different article all together in an apparent attempt to try and deflect attention from his mistake.

is it just about cherry picking "mistakes"? or addressing what is being discussed.... can you honestly show where sky "denies" about the 'bragalia quote' exactly?

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.

did he even address it?

[Czero 101 2,700]

what standards are we supposed to abide by here? please enlighten.... or is it just your perceived version of 'morality'?

This board has rules governing the accuracy of material posted and the requirements for posting sources... perhaps you're not familiar with them...?

is it just about cherry picking "mistakes"? or addressing what is being discussed.... can you honestly show where sky "denies" about the 'bragalia quote' exactly?

He says his point has "nothing to do with Anthony Bragalia" after being shown that the quote he is using to make his point could only have come from Bragalia.

Do you not see that as a denial?

did he even address it?

Someone approaching this (or any) discussion honestly would admit their mistake when presented with facts showing the origins of their quote.

Cz

[mcrom901 768]

This board has rules governing the accuracy of material posted and the requirements for posting sources... perhaps you're not familiar with them...?

i'm familiar... but didn't know that you were a moderator.... the report button is your friend...

He says his point has "nothing to do with Anthony Bragalia" after being shown that the quote he is using to make his point could only have come from Bragalia.

Do you not see that as a denial?

still then... he didn't deny the context you're referring to... your above mini-quote from him is out of context btw... in light of the previous sentence, its not that difficult to know as to what he is referring to...

Someone approaching this (or any) discussion honestly would admit their mistake when presented with facts showing the origins of their quote.

since he did not thank you for providing the actual source / full quote... does that mean you should chase him ad infinitum off-topic'ly to prove that he is dishonest or whatever.... and with his further ignoring addressing that issue does not automatically mean that he denies it or you should add up all those personal characterizations...

say your peace and move on man.... in any case, i'm done here... i hope you don't twist my intended point here by applying reductionism to typos...

Edited June 21, 2011 by mcrom901

[quillius 1,925]

He says his point has "nothing to do with Anthony Bragalia" after being shown that the quote he is using to make his point could only have come from Bragalia.

Do you not see that as a denial?

Cz

Hey Cz, exactly his point is not what was said exactly or by whom, it was that the word Roswell was mentioned prior to 1970, as he was challenged to do. So I agree in that it has nothing to do with Bragalia, unless ofcourse Bragalia's quote adds in the word Roswell and then the word is not found in the book quoted...this would be relevant and dishonest (or possibly just bad research) either way this is not the case on this point.

[Vlad the Mighty 33,391]

This is yet another argument that I'm getting thoroughly confused by. It all sounds rather like the Macarthur argument a few weeks back, when someone claimed he said something which it turned out that he did in fact say, only not at the time claimed, or something like that.

[booNyzarC 3,014]

I should leave this alone... but, it should be clarified...

This is yet another argument that I'm getting thoroughly confused by. It all sounds rather like the Macarthur argument a few weeks back, when someone claimed he said something which it turned out that he did in fact say, only not at the time claimed, or something like that.

Actually, MacArthur didn't "in fact say" the quote in question at any time.

But this thread isn't about MacArthur, so I'll just leave it at that. Feel free to review the points in the BE thread if they are still confusing, or PM me for details if you'd like.

[skyeagle409 2,909]

Hey Cz, exactly his point is not what was said exactly or by whom, it was that the word Roswell was mentioned prior to 1970, as he was challenged to do. So I agree in that it has nothing to do with Bragalia, unless ofcourse Bragalia's quote adds in the word Roswell and then the word is not found in the book quoted...this would be relevant and dishonest (or possibly just bad research) either way this is not the case on this point.

Thank you!

As it has been shown, Roswell was in fact, mentioned before the 1970s in multiple publications. Even the reference posted by Cz, Roswell was highllighted in yellow,

[DONTEATUS 3,516]

We would all be Rich beond belief If we had a Dollar for every time someone on this BE thread started a reply with " Show me "

Where did it say ! or a few other quotes from the grey matter gone wild !

Just to type "Roswell" Gets all the blood flowing to the Grey matter well enough !

How about Look for some new doc`s on Pre-1950 Roswell reff`s?

[skyeagle409 2,909]

This is yet another argument that I'm getting thoroughly confused by. It all sounds rather like the Macarthur argument a few weeks back, when someone claimed he said something which it turned out that he did in fact say, only not at the time claimed, or something like that.

I could understand where you are coming from.

He did in fact, speak those words and if anyone who have dealt with the press, would see why, and I highlighted certain words, that were posted in part by the newspaper. I have dealt for years with the press and even provided proof-read drafts of a student in flight training to the Fairfield Daily Republic and to the Vacaville Reporter. In both cases, the news folks edit out portions of the interviews, just as they had done here in Corpus Christi where three TV news stations and the local newspaper covered exhibits in my shop and on the USS Lexington, not to mention the news interview at the airport, which is still online with my photo and that of another airman, so yes, he spoke those words and not all were printed but enough were printed and highlighted to back my point.

I might also add that another poster here was present during my exhibition on the USS Lexington where one of the interviews was conducted with another airman..

In regards to the interviews of the airmen whom I flew in, their interviews were edited and not every word they spoken were presented, but published in part in the newspaper and on the TV news stations anyway. That is the way the press works, and I was also part of a cover-up while serving in the Air Force as well, but not involving UFOs, which gives an advantage to see things in the original Roswell headline that others tend to overlook. For an example, the phone lines were jammed, and the press was getting on the nerves of the military, and we must also remember the mission of the 509th Bomber Group, so it was imperative to get the phone lines unjammed and to not only cover-up the recoveries, but to get the press off of their backs as noted by Dubose.

The Roswell headline was indicative of what was reportedly recovered as the military should have known that making such recoveries public, would have caused a lot of problems, but they was so excited at the time, that it resulted in that famous Roswell headline. Once Pandora's Box was opened, it was too late and the only course of action to be taken was to cover-up with something mundane, and in this case, a weather balloon because the Roswell incident was affecting normal operations at the base and things had to get back to normal as quickly as possible.

There is nothing there to suggest that th Soviets were responsible. Years ago, a KGB agent was interviewed on TV and he mentioned that the Roswell news story is what brought special attention to the Soviets, particularly, Joseph Stalin.

Edited June 21, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409 2,909]

We would all be Rich beond belief If we had a Dollar for every time someone on this BE thread started a reply with " Show me "

Where did it say ! or a few other quotes from the grey matter gone wild !

Just to type "Roswell" Gets all the blood flowing to the Grey matter well enough !

How about Look for some new doc`s on Pre-1950 Roswell reff`s?

I expect more informaton to be revealed on the Roswell incident as more and more folks are coming out into the open. So, it has been shown that Roswell was in fact, mentioned before the 1970s, which was my point all along and another reason why I asked Czero101 to confirm to everyone here, that the reference he provided, had Roswell hightlighted in yellow

. I would also like to ask him to point out the date of that publication in which the word: Roswell, is highlighted in yellow.

Edited June 21, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409 2,909]

No, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, if you look back a few pages you'll see that I posted a screenshot of the Google search of the book.

Cz

Question is, Did the reference you posted yesterday, contain the word: "Roswell" which was highlighted in yellow? What was the date of that publication you posted the reference from?

Edited June 21, 2011 by skyeagle409

[psyche101 23,085]

I agree, although I dont see Sky as being dishonest here. Maybe he didnt research the source of the quote properly (as you yourself noticed), but this doesnt take away from the fact that he was challenged to find somewhere that mentioned Roswell and that is what he tried to do.

Surely we are losing the initial points that they were discussing, in that Roswell is mentioned prior to 1970.

Hi Quillius

It would be prudent to do a quick search on the BE threads. This is an argument that has been brought up many times before. Lost Shaman may have been a little general in his wording this time around is all. Yes, The Roswell Incident received a smattering of exposure. You could count the times it came up over the space of 30 years on your fingers. That is the point. I am quite positive I have said so as well. And those references claim Balloons. Only a fictional novel, which it would be ludicrous to claim was not inspired by Roswell residents, claims something more than balloons. I asked for an Alien reference prior to 1979. One cannot say Roswell was never discussed, the RDR has been displayed more times than I care to mention. I am sorry to see that you think this was a challenge of some sort. Lost Shaman made a comment that Sky took to extremes, fueled by old lost arguments. I really do not care if he posts 9 or 10 references, which would be a struggle, that fact remains that Roswell was by large not discussed for 30 years. Then in 1979 one Stanton Friedman came along and sensationalised the tale, and injected Aliens into the story. If it was that talk of the town, I would expect to easily find in excess of 500 references. That is what Sky originally alluded to. I actually remember saying to him that Roswell was still not as important as he makes out - if I asked ten people in the street who Jesse Marcel was, I doubt I would get a single one who could answer me.

Sky is just trying to turn this onto me and make it personal so that he can in some way claim victory over me. Have you not noticed the unusual amount of attention he gives me? He has been chomping at the bit for ages on that one.

If the rest of the text was relevant then I could understand the attack on source and the snipping of text being seen as dishonest and misleading, however the text is not relevant and the only relevance is the mention of the word 'Roswell'......when I say relevant I mean relevant to the point they were discussing, I am not saying it is relevant to proving Roswell, but hey if they choose that line of debate who am I to argue, plus you never know where it may lead

Yet Sky said it was reported, and then gave us a fictional novel! That is not a report. All Cz is doing is illustrating yet more deliberate cherry picking. He has no horse in this race, he is running his own. There are many aspect of this discussion, Cz's point is merely but one of them.

[psyche101 23,085]

Apparently, they obtain reports because you will note the similarities to what has been reported in regards to the Roswell incident and what has been published. So, the fact remains; Roswell was brought up before the 1970s.

I did not say it was not brought up, I said it was rarely brought up. Have done so many times, and you have posted the look articles many times. Now you include a novel.

Any reference to Aliens in the magazines?

[psyche101 23,085]

Did anyone actually read Cz's post? He did not say Roswell was not in the book, rather the opposite in this post.

He says:

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.

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

Can anyone point out to me where Cz said Roswell was not in the book? Sky seems to think otherwise

Question is, Did the reference you posted yesterday, contain the word: "Roswell" which was highlighted in yellow? What was the date of that publication you posted the reference from?

As we can see above, Cz bloody well told us all HOW to find it!

What is going on here people? Cz's line of questioning the reference is perfectly valid. He did not say Roswell was not in the book, he did not say Roswell was not mentioned. Why can he not object to the cherry picking his diligent efforts uncovered? Is it merely pity for the underdog that I am witnessing here?

[psyche101 23,085]

This is yet another argument that I'm getting thoroughly confused by. It all sounds rather like the Macarthur argument a few weeks back, when someone claimed he said something which it turned out that he did in fact say, only not at the time claimed, or something like that.

Bet you are glad you mentioned Macarthur.......

[lost_shaman 1,515]

Hi Quillius

It would be prudent to do a quick search on the BE threads. This is an argument that has been brought up many times before. Lost Shaman may have been a little general in his wording this time around is all.

Wait... Hold on here. I wasn't being general! I was talking specifically about Marcel trying to convince Newton in front of the Press on July 8th, 1947. Then I said (as far as we know) he didn't say a damn word about it again to anyone until the mid-to-late 1970's. This discussion of references to Roswell before then have nothing to do with the FACT that Marcel didn't mention it all those years.