Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Saru

Roswell guard ordered to 'shoot to kill'

204 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Saru

A serviceman tasked with guarding the Roswell debris was ordered to shoot anyone who tried to get near.

A team of investigators (of which this author is part) has renewed efforts to find and contact the very last living veterans of the Army Air Force who were at Roswell during the time of a UFO crash that occurred in early July of 1947.

arrow3.gifRead more...

PFC Calvin Cox has come forward to reveal his experiences in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

A serviceman tasked with guarding the Roswell debris was ordered to shoot anyone who tried to get near.

PFC Calvin Cox has come forward to reveal his experiences in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947.

A serviceman tasked with guarding the Roswell debris was ordered to shoot anyone who tried to get near.

PFC Calvin Cox has come forward to reveal his experiences in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947.

It must have been a really valuable weather balloon :)
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashotep

I'm sure they would of shot someone over a weather balloon. Evidence they were hiding something more if you ask me.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard

It would be nice, just for once, to get something with a little more substance than someone flapping their lips.

1 crash site, 2, 3, 5,....dead aliens, one live alien, no aliens,... pieces of a craft, a hole craft, big, small,.... at this point the Roswell legend is so polluted. It offers no answers to the UFO enigma.

Roswell is a dead end.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taun

I'm not surprised by the "Shoot to kill" order... Roswell AFB was nearby and it was home to the only nuclear weapons squadron in the world (at that time)... Sort of a "better safe than sorry" attitude, just in case the debris was related to the nuke weapons...

When I was stationed in Germany in the late 70's I was assigned to a Pershing Missile Battalion... I frequently had to pull guard duty on the warhead storage area and we were given "Shoot to Kill" orders as a matter of course... It was always my worry that I would have to shoot someone on my guard post only to find out he was a drunken German national out hunting (a very common sight back then)...

I do not believe that the debris was a 'weather balloon' or even a part of project mogul... Jesse Marcelus (sp) was an intel officer in the Nuke squadron, and he would have instantly recognized any form of balloon - with or with out aluminum foil panels...

I have no idea what it really was, but I am as certain as I can be that it was no balloon...

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
conspiracy buff

I'm sure they would of shot someone over a weather balloon. Evidence they were hiding something more if you ask me.

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. 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. 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? That has always been a glaringly inconsistent point of the Roswell story that did not make any logical sense. 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? It is simple; government has always feared a perceived loss of control and power with these types of revelations. 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;

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/welles-scares-nation

The ensuing panic was so great that Welles was brought to court over what was a perceived publicity stunt. 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. Then it is dropped and not mentioned again because people didn't question government. It is not until later when Jesse Marcel Sr. brings it back up that the Roswell issue is a hot topic once again. His story never waivered in all the years he told it, which again is very telling. 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.

Last, but certainly not least is the government returning in 1994 issuing a "case closed" explanation in which an already explained event was changed yet again with another cover story;

http://www.af.mil/information/roswell/

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?

These are just a few examples not even including the numerous eyewitness accounts that all seem to independently verify each other. It all comes down to one thing; Who has more to gain by lying? The United States Government? Or these quality eyewitnesses[not including the few hoaxes]? Philip Corso takes it one step further in "The Day After Roswell" and explains that indeed a UFO did crash at Roswell in 1947 and that the government covered it up for their own agenda and purposes. 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? Why would guards be ordered to shoot if there was a simple downed weather balloon?

I'm sure there will be plenty of quotes on this one, which I welcome. There are a lot of holes in the official explanations and I'd like to see someone attempt to explain all of that away.

Edited by conspiracy buff
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

I havent been able to make up my mind on aliens yet. :unsure2:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SurgeTechnologies

In one of FBIs old memos from that time... There was written that there are unexplained pieces of the balloon scattered all over... Not a ufo or something similar maybe someone missunderstood..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Esoteric Toad

What I do not understand is why did the story die after it made headlines and was not reborn until the 70's in any big way?

Probably because there was no story and someone dug ti up, changed it around and discovered they could make lots of money peddling it. Even the people of the time didn't care apparenttly. Isn't that odd?

Whether a balloon or not it wasn't alienz (JMO of course).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mantis914

I'm still waiting for the soldiers to come forward that actually retrieved the items and gleaned both areas of the debris. One thing I know for a fact I would've done had I been Marcel, Jr. and saw that one piece that had writing. I would've definitely copied it down exactly as it looked or taken a polaroid of it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Esoteric Toad

I'm still waiting for the soldiers to come forward that actually retrieved the items and gleaned both areas of the debris. One thing I know for a fact I would've done had I been Marcel, Jr. and saw that one piece that had writing. I would've definitely copied it down exactly as it looked or taken a polaroid of it.

That is the problem with this story. No evidence what so ever. All hearsay. The number of witness increased dramatically AFTER the rebirth of the story in the 70's. While some look at it as a conspiracy it reeks of jumping on the bandwagon in search of a bit of fame and hopefully some of the proceeds from the books/movies/television....etc.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sweetpumper

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

A friend's dad was there. He's passed, I'd have liked to have talked to him about it. Now all I get is the story from his son.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S2F

There is one glaring discrepancy I see in all of this. Having pulled guard duty myself in the Army, they don't tell you what you are guarding if it is top secret. Not at all. And they certainly don't tell anything important to a PFC. I was promoted to PFC by the time I finished basic training and AIT and I was still green as hell.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quillius

There is one glaring discrepancy I see in all of this. Having pulled guard duty myself in the Army, they don't tell you what you are guarding if it is top secret. Not at all. And they certainly don't tell anything important to a PFC. I was promoted to PFC by the time I finished basic training and AIT and I was still green as hell.

Hey S2F, I couldnt find anywhere that says he was told what he was guarding?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S2F

Hey S2F, I couldnt find anywhere that says he was told what he was guarding?

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

Edited by Slave2Fate
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quillius

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

yes thats how I read it.......

as for the debris descriptions, well thats just nit picking (sarcasm button)

Edited by quillius
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S2F

as for the debris descriptions, well thats just nit picking (sarcasm button)

:lol:

:P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster

What I do not understand is why did the story die after it made headlines and was not reborn until the 70's in any big way?

That's a good question with a plausible answer IMO. These men in the 1950's, 60's, & 70's were in the prime of their lives career wise. They had no choice other than to follow orders to the letter or risk the possible destruction of their careers.

As we got into the 1980's time and age became more on their side - and consequently the risks of finally talking about they had witnessed or heard began to diminish.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard

What I do not understand is why did the story die after it made headlines and was not reborn until the 70's in any big way?

The same reason why nobody gave a rats ass about the Bermuda triangle,... someone desided to write a book about it. Roswell was a non-event for over 30 years, until the UFO nut Stanton Friedman came along.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Esoteric Toad

That's a good question with a plausible answer IMO. These men in the 1950's, 60's, & 70's were in the prime of their lives career wise. They had no choice other than to follow orders to the letter or risk the possible destruction of their careers.

As we got into the 1980's time and age became more on their side - and consequently the risks of finally talking about they had witnessed or heard began to diminish.

That and there just so happen to be a HUGE increase in interest due to movies like Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Everything/UFO was all the rage! Coincidence? I think not. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S2F

From the various times I have had guard duty myself I've never been explicitly given orders to 'shoot to kill' however 'excessive force' was deemed permissible and even encouraged. Some may draw the correlation to the threats to witnesses purportedly given during the Roswell incident however they are two entirely different scenarios. One is intimidation of a possible security risk and the other is a definite security risk/criminal activity. I'm pretty sure that simple intimidation wouldn't garner the permission of excessive force and any threats thereof would have been hollow if intimidation had occurred in the first place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gatofeo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know if this practice still exists.

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

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

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

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
King Fluffs

Riveting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DONTEATUS

Thats just it riveting but one never has a rivet gun when E.T Lands in that back woods farm with Bubba-Joe and his barking dogs to Get one !

:tu::cry:

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.