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 1
archernyc

Roswell: Two Crashes, Not One

322 posts in this topic

Could this be part of the documents legally destroyed that the GAO draft report claims were destroyed illegally?

It doesn't matter if it was legal or illegal, because a lot of records that we should have about this case are not available, not at any level. If these had confirmed the ballon stories they would have produced them, but we know from Marcel, DuBose and other witnesses that they do not.

Newton just seems to be the odd man out here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were referring to Arthur Rudolf and the other rocket scientists at Dora-Nordhausen, who were building the V-2 rockets with slave labor; people like Klaus Barbie and other SS and Gestapo types who had been involved with every kind of war crime; and then scientists like Kurt Blome, Hubertus Strughold and many others, who had conducted medical experiments in the concentration camps. In short, just about any and every time of war criminal might get a free pass if they had some useful scientific, intelligence or military knowledge.

That is sad isn't it, to think of the blood spilled, and the pain and anguish associated to earn that information. It does not seem worth it. I do not know how one can take a hippocratic oath, and then denounce it so readily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if it was legal or illegal, because a lot of records that we should have about this case are not available, not at any level. If these had confirmed the ballon stories they would have produced them, but we know from Marcel, DuBose and other witnesses that they do not.

Newton just seems to be the odd man out here.

I always thought the Crarey Diary Entry and Professor Moore were good corroboration for Newton. But as you say, legal or not legal means the same thing to research when the information is simply not there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think that amateurs and outsiders have been trying to break the UFO cover up for decades--with the help of some insiders, including some generals and presidents. There's nothing knew about that and they have had some successes, although it's been very difficult.

With today's technology though, it seems rather strange that people do so much talking, and so little looking. But that's the way things are it seems. Todays tech sure puts things like Greer's Moon bases to bed quickly, yet he still gets an audience.

It would be good to see one of the more reputable crowds associated with UFOlogy get some kit together and start some serious investigation, but funds are always a problem I suppose. Someone has to pay for this sort of thing and most people I assume don't have all that much to splash around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be good to see one of the more reputable crowds associated with UFOlogy get some kit together and start some serious investigation, but funds are always a problem I suppose. Someone has to pay for this sort of thing and most people I assume don't have all that much to splash around.

They aren't going to get any money from the government, that's for sure, and although Congress recommended back in the 1960s that a group of universities take up research into UFOs, that never happened either, thanks to Ed Condon.

As an aside, I came across some information that Condon was also involved in the classified investigation of UFOs back in the 1950s, and that he was much better informed about this subject that he ever let on. His real opinions were almost certainly not the ones he put into the report that carried his name, but I'll have to look into this further.

In any case, I think the only way a credible private investigation of UFOs could be done is if some wealthy private donor would put up a lot of money over a very lengthy period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday Kludge!

Too long mate :D

That it has. Kinda got wrapped up in the 9/11 storm (and got my 2nd star in the process :clap:) and lost track of the UFO world. Maybe I'll acquire #3 here.

I agree that something happened, and as you say, the trail has not only grown cold, but also grown over with many intertwining tales of intrigue, such is the nature of the Roswell tale, however this is why I like to focus on the scant few documents from the time frame that do exist,

Scant few that are real rather than bogus. Sadly there is still a lot of chaff with the wheat which isn't a good thing. Being able to establish a trail back to the source isn't always easy to do thanks to creativity on several fronts.

I think Lost Shamans Intel Ops hypothesis has legs like Rhonda Burchmore.

NO one has legs like Ms. Burchmore! And they go right up and make perfect ... errr ... ummm ... yeah, like that. :whistle:;)

It has merit. I tend to favor anything that involves the least number of persons or agencies since it makes things a lot easier to manage. Throwing out a few red herrings helps as well.

The Twining Memo is to me a smoking gun that the USAF wanted the general public and press out of the way so they could have a good close look at the phenomena. When you put that next to the 3 other RAWINS found in 48 hours within the Roswell incident, and then the possible connection that LS is working on with Grant, it's looking pretty solid.

There are two problematic things that come to mind about the Twining memo and they're both picayune. First, it's undated which doesn't go with military correspondence. Second he refers to the USAF as the Army Air Force (AAF) even though they had become a separate branch prior to it being written. The former could have been oversight and the latter old habit so I can set them aside for now. Anyway, there are two reasons they didn't want civilians and reporters around. First, the Air Force had something they didn't want generally known. Second, the civilians et al were getting underfoot and hampering investigations. It's like at any accident or other situation. There always the gawkers and newsies who contribute nothing except the occasional desire to shoot them wholesale to get them out of the way.

Legal mate, WG Siebert challenged the GAO claim that the documents were destroyed illegally, and he defended the action with Paragraph 53b of the Air Force Manual 181-5 [13] which clearly states that records "accumulated at or below wing level will be scheduled as one item and destroyed after two years"

Y'know, if this were sufficiently important then they would have gone up to Wing level if not higher.

But then again, Congresman Schiff deliberately released the draft report to the public, not the final which I believe was corrected on this point, obviously to create the controversy.

He was playing to the folks who wanted the investigation in the first place. He pointed to the GAO report and said that was legit. The fact that the GAO was later found to be wrong was out of his hands. He had done what he said he'd do. Remember, he was a politician.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two problematic things that come to mind about the Twining memo and they're both picayune. First, it's undated which doesn't go with military correspondence. Second he refers to the USAF as the Army Air Force (AAF) even though they had become a separate branch prior to it being written. The former could have been oversight and the latter old habit so I can set them aside for now.

My understanding is that it was dated Sept. 23rd. It was one of the last memos written while the AAF existed. The AAF ceased to exist after Sept. 26th.

Anyway, there are two reasons they didn't want civilians and reporters around. First, the Air Force had something they didn't want generally known. Second, the civilians et al were getting underfoot and hampering investigations. It's like at any accident or other situation. There always the gawkers and newsies who contribute nothing except the occasional desire to shoot them wholesale to get them out of the way.

I agree that is why it was done if my hypothesis is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With today's technology though, it seems rather strange that people do so much talking, and so little looking.

Thing is, the internet is largely to blame for this. While it makes searches et al easier, it also causes people not to question what they find there so they never do any independent research. "It's on the internet so it must be true," is all too often heard/read even though what's on the internet is so often contradictory when it comes to things like Ufology.

Todays tech sure puts things like Greer's Moon bases to bed quickly, yet he still gets an audience.

Lear didn't fare any better. :td: :td:

It would be good to see one of the more reputable crowds associated with UFOlogy get some kit together and start some serious investigation, but funds are always a problem I suppose. Someone has to pay for this sort of thing and most people I assume don't have all that much to splash around.

Depends on how you want to do it. When I was still on the mainland, I had a pretty cool setup (discounting a radio telescope which wasn't part of the UFO package) that consisted of a magnetometer, gravimeter, geiger counter and a few other toys which I can't remember right off. These were all on top of a mast so as to keep them isolated as much as possible from any influences from surface sources. (Thunder storms, high winds and other things tended to drive them somewhat insane but that wasn't a major issue since I could account for those rather wild readings.

The geiger counter was CD surplus and I think they're still available although better equipment is as well and the rest was homemade from ideas and information gleaned from a great number of sources, most of which involved the great sin of actually reading magazines and books. The dead tree kind. The technology available now is significantly better and I suspect making a fully portable system wouldn't be that difficult. This way one could be taken to a hot spot and left running on internal batteries.

Now, I know someone's gonna say I should come up with a design for one. Maybe I will someday but I can't help but believe that all the information is on the web for the electronics tech savvy folks who want to spend the time. I have other projects that are more pressing at the moment (One's a set of kinda Waldos to compensate for hand motor control issues which have to be completed before I can make anything.) but I can offer a few ideas if anyone wants to take it on.

If one wants to chase down data to share with others, the internet can provide a means of communications so people in a given locale can pass on information gleaned from local offline sites to other like minded individuals. I'm not talking about websites but mailing lists and the like. This keeps it small, friendly and free of ... ummm ... "irritants." Just a thought ...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that it was dated Sept. 23rd. It was one of the last memos written while the AAF existed. The AAF ceased to exist after Sept. 26th.

The changeover was on 18 September, 1947, so a date of 23 September, 1947, falls within the realm of "old habits."

Anyway, there are two reasons they didn't want civilians and reporters around. First, the Air Force had something they didn't want generally known. Second, the civilians et al were getting underfoot and hampering investigations. It's like at any accident or other situation. There always the gawkers and newsies who contribute nothing except the occasional desire to shoot them wholesale to get them out of the way.

I agree that is why it was done if my hypothesis is correct.

It's true of any investigation scenario. Now it's complicated by the whole "right to know" attitude which is basic crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be good to see one of the more reputable crowds associated with UFOlogy get some kit together and start some serious investigation, but funds are always a problem I suppose. Someone has to pay for this sort of thing and most people I assume don't have all that much to splash around.

I think a lot of people were looking to NatGeo's new show, Chasing UFOs, for this very reason. It is NatGeo and they have the equipment, but they are getting nowhere fast and just antagonizing the UFO community with their shenanigans. NatGeo has lost a lot of credibility with me, but I guess since the tv channel is owned by Rupert Murdoch (Mr. Sensationalism), it was to be expected.

James Fox had a good reputation prior to this show, so I hope his personal credibility recovers from this fiasco.

Edited by archernyc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That it has. Kinda got wrapped up in the 9/11 storm (and got my 2nd star in the process :clap:) and lost track of the UFO world. Maybe I'll acquire #3 here.

Gidday Mate

Best of luck with that, I am sure you will find enough conversation here to do so. We certainly have some wide ranging opinions here :D

Scant few that are real rather than bogus. Sadly there is still a lot of chaff with the wheat which isn't a good thing. Being able to establish a trail back to the source isn't always easy to do thanks to creativity on several fronts.

Indeed, but some did survive, and I think if we follow what the purpose of said documentation was, we have something of a clearer picture than that which the media has been distorting for 60+ years.

NO one has legs like Ms. Burchmore! And they go right up and make perfect ... errr ... ummm ... yeah, like that. :whistle:;)

It has merit. I tend to favor anything that involves the least number of persons or agencies since it makes things a lot easier to manage. Throwing out a few red herrings helps as well.

We certainly agree on the valued qualities of Ms Burchmore :D My what a lady. :D

I find the hypothesis is hard to falsify, when I first heard LS mention it, I thought i gave a pretty good list of sound questions to challenge the hypothesis, and I found it could not be falsified by myself, I might be blowing my own horn a bit here, but I think I have a decent understanding of the incident and I am suitably impressed with his information. I'd like to see anyone try to falsify it, but most people seem to fear it. I have never seen it suitably challenged.

There are two problematic things that come to mind about the Twining memo and they're both picayune. First, it's undated which doesn't go with military correspondence. Second he refers to the USAF as the Army Air Force (AAF) even though they had become a separate branch prior to it being written. The former could have been oversight and the latter old habit so I can set them aside for now. Anyway, there are two reasons they didn't want civilians and reporters around. First, the Air Force had something they didn't want generally known. Second, the civilians et al were getting underfoot and hampering investigations. It's like at any accident or other situation. There always the gawkers and newsies who contribute nothing except the occasional desire to shoot them wholesale to get them out of the way.

Further to Lost Shamans information, Nathan Twining did not write the memo, it was more likely drafted several days before during or just before the official handover. And the second reason listed above is pretty much Lost Shaman's hypothesis in a nutshell, but regarding the phenomena as a whole. I do not hink they had something they did not want others knowing about, I think the Twinning memo indicates it was something they felt they needed to know about something. And I feel it is highly likely that the cold war added to that level of paranoia.

Y'know, if this were sufficiently important then they would have gone up to Wing level if not higher.

Indeed, but considering the compartmentalisation involved in MOGUL, many records would be perceived below that were associated with the proposal.

He was playing to the folks who wanted the investigation in the first place. He pointed to the GAO report and said that was legit. The fact that the GAO was later found to be wrong was out of his hands. He had done what he said he'd do. Remember, he was a politician.

I do believe he knew that the final draft contradicted the version he had, but went ahead anyway, a deliberate act to mislead the public, and as you say, I agree it was more likely a political stunt. I guess he is held up as some holy grail because he gave something to hype the tale up again. People do not seem to mind being lied to about Roswell as they get to discuss the subject yet again. I honestly think some believe that if one talks about it enough that it will become a real story. It has become the mother of all urban legends.

Funny how people do not trust politicians with real time problems such as expenditure, but the second one steps up and says he saw a UFO he suddenly stops being "a bloody pollie" and becomes "Mr Congressman", but they do the same thing with Charles Moore, with Roswell and his balloons he is considered a vile liar, but in the same breath his white sands sighting is held up as a truthful recollection. I think some parties try to have it both ways. Not very convincing though.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of you been to New Mexico and like Roswell to be exact ? If E.T picked this place to crash not one ,but Two ships out there ,Im not flying with them even If they have sent the next pilots back to flight training for 800 years ! You Dont fly half way across the Universe and splat down into the out- backs of nowhere !

Shamee !Shamee ! You gotta do better than that E.T Crash in TImes Square at Least !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of you been to New Mexico and like Roswell to be exact ? If E.T picked this place to crash not one ,but Two ships out there ,Im not flying with them even If they have sent the next pilots back to flight training for 800 years ! You Dont fly half way across the Universe and splat down into the out- backs of nowhere !

Shamee !Shamee ! You gotta do better than that E.T Crash in TImes Square at Least !

Well, see, it's like this. The Old Pros are flying the motherships across interstellar space but it's the young'ns who fly the scouts etc. Out in space, they don't have to deal with gravity wells during their training etc so when they do get caught in one they're in deep doodoo. The good ones make it back. The not so good ones litter the landscape. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, see, it's like this. The Old Pros are flying the motherships across interstellar space but it's the young'ns who fly the scouts etc. Out in space, they don't have to deal with gravity wells during their training etc so when they do get caught in one they're in deep doodoo. The good ones make it back. The not so good ones litter the landscape. :yes:

Don't you think that far more advanced ETs would have far more advanced hardware/software than we do? We have already planes that doesn't require that much input from pilots...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think that far more advanced ETs would have far more advanced hardware/software than we do? We have already planes that doesn't require that much input from pilots...

It was a joke ... you know like the funny kind except different apparently. And, to give a serious answer, I would think so but if that's the case then why do they crash?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a joke ... [...]

I got that.

[...] And, to give a serious answer, I would think so but if that's the case then why do they crash?

In Imaginationland only...

:whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Imaginationland only...

:whistle:

Okay, let me rephrase that. How come there are so many reported crashes? I don't know that they are real or not - or at least in a number of cases - since there is no overwhelming evidence available either way. To say flat out they didn't happen requires the same level of evidence that saying they did happen does. Kinda sucks but there it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, see, it's like this. The Old Pros are flying the motherships across interstellar space but it's the young'ns who fly the scouts etc. Out in space, they don't have to deal with gravity wells during their training etc so when they do get caught in one they're in deep doodoo. The good ones make it back. The not so good ones litter the landscape. :yes:

You could well have something there. Also of course, if there were two of them, well... two hotshots, perhaps showing off to each other, and perhaps to the ladies* watching aboard the mothership, at low altitude, in poor visibility & bad weather, over unfamiliar terrain... it's a recipe for disaster, isn't it. :no:

* or equivalent

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think that far more advanced ETs would have far more advanced hardware/software than we do? We have already planes that doesn't require that much input from pilots...

Well, even advanced terrestrial aircraft do still plunge into the ocean from time to time... AF447, for example. And the point I remarked above, while semi-jocular, i think could have some truth to it: however advanced one's technology, it can't prevent something flying into the ground, or (if there were two of them) into each other. I expect anyone involved in aviation or Spaceflight would say that it's much more fantastical to imagine that any super advanced tech would be immune from simple and probably avoidable accidents.

Edited by 747400

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What causes most airplane crashes? Weather, pilot error, mechanical failure, and while weather might not be a factor for ET, unless he and his machines are 100% perfect and god-like, then they are liable to failures, misjudgments, breakdowns and accidents.

Mark Cashman even has the "Breakdown" category as part of his UFO classification system, in which the "occupants" are involved in some type of repair activity.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CEgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mufon.com%2FMUFONNews%2Farch009.html&ei=afkvUN7WDISS9QSDiIGYAg&usg=AFQjCNF-ET4fBuK_QfPjAQqSuU7oGb075A&sig2=68D70-7tax97BaV5cYa6wQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For that matter, the 1964 Zamora incident may have been some type of breakdown, since when he first arrived on the scene he observed the two "occupants" doing some type of work on their craft, but they took off quickly when they saw him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my book even an Advanced race of BEings that have survived themselfs and on to a very high level of tech, Would no more crash ,and leave trash on our planet than we ??? Hum Now that you think about it We have crashed so many things on other moons and planets that we should be getting a littering fine just about now ? I bet we gonna owe a boat load Lucy ! I bing telling dem to stop crashing on other worlds !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, let me rephrase that. How come there are so many reported crashes? I don't know that they are real or not - or at least in a number of cases - since there is no overwhelming evidence available either way. To say flat out they didn't happen requires the same level of evidence that saying they did happen does. Kinda sucks but there it is.

There are many fancy stories with no substance flying all around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, even advanced terrestrial aircraft do still plunge into the ocean from time to time... AF447, for example. And the point I remarked above, while semi-jocular, i think could have some truth to it: however advanced one's technology, it can't prevent something flying into the ground, or (if there were two of them) into each other. I expect anyone involved in aviation or Spaceflight would say that it's much more fantastical to imagine that any super advanced tech would be immune from simple and probably avoidable accidents.

Yeah, but we only 100+ years in the air, and since 1980's number of accidents (during which the aircraft has suffered such damage that it is not in a position to be used anymore and that it is removed from service) is in steady decline:

accidents_per_year-1.png

(having in mind that overall aircraft movements is over 74 million per year (as in 2010))

PS: Data in the graph was taken from here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but we only 100+ years in the air, and since 1980's number of accidents (during which the aircraft has suffered such damage that it is not in a position to be used anymore and that it is removed from service) is in steady decline:

(having in mind that overall aircraft movements is over 74 million per year (as in 2010))

PS: Data in the graph was taken from here.

of course; but bear in mind that in our year 1947, They may have just been starting to explore this planet, so however good their preliminary research*, there may well have been a bit of a learning curve involved for operating in the environment of this planet.

*i.e. it was more than "mostly harmless"

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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.