Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Roswell guard ordered to 'shoot to kill'


Recommended Posts

Of course I have heard of the Voyager probes and I am fully aware that they are now entering interstellar space. Can you give me some idea of what levels of radiation they are encountering right now? Are you able to receive and decode their signals? And what in the name of goodness has Jupiter got to do with anything? Anyway, I'm not saying that radar was definitely the cause of the UFOs crashing at Roswell, just that it has been proposed as a possibility. After all it has frequently been stated by credible people who have had UFO encounters, (and in a well know case by a police officer. If you want the link I can let you have it), that the electrics in their cars went dead while a UFO was close by and that they, (the electrics), came back on when the UFO disappeared. So it seems feasible that it could also happen the other way around.

With the shear number of reports of UFO's/Alien space ships flying about why do we not have mass traffic jams caused by one just happening to fly by? Most sightings involve one or small numbers of people oddly enough. That doesn't solve the contradiction though since the 'ship' would still have to fly from somewhere to where the witnesses would be. I cannot recall ever hearing a story where dozens of cars quit working on an interstate or any other road.

This is the problem, the stories cannot be verified at all. They are nothing more than stories and Roswell as you are presenting it is just another story with zero real evidence to support it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try this smart ass! http://xenophilius.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/is-secret-government-radar-cause-the-ufo-crash-at-roswell/ And there are many other accounts of military radar as being a possible cause of the flying saucers to crash at Roswell but I haven't got the time to dig them out just to please you! :passifier:

We have seen that and, no, it has no merit.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Maybe you can help me and quote where Bessie stated that?

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

It is a good point, although not a valid one. While there is certainly some concern regarding aircraft and cell phones, it is more playing it safe as there could be interference. But that said, you completely missed the point. The intensity of electromagnetic radiation in space far surpasses what any radar system here on Earth emits. Thus if ET can make it as far as to here, then they will have no problem with radar systems of Terra Firma.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a good point, although not a valid one. While there is certainly some concern regarding aircraft and cell phones, it is more playing it safe as there could be interference. But that said, you completely missed the point. The intensity of electromagnetic radiation in space far surpasses what any radar system here on Earth emits. Thus if ET can make it as far as to here, then they will have no problem with radar systems of Terra Firma.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Please give your source for what I have highlighted above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Ohhh codswallop. This is such rubbish, do these scare tactics work on FTB's?

What the hell will happen of the public know UFO's are ET craft? A few thousand FTB's will say "I told you so"? The military are not going to be scared of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Not true at all, the first press release aid it was a disc, and that disc just happens to be suspended by a balloon

"The disc is hexagonal in shape and was suspended from a ballon [sic] by cable, which ballon [sic] was approximately twenty feet in diameter. Major Curtan further advices that the object found resembles a high altitude weather balloon with a radar reflector, but that telephonic concersation between their office and Wright field had not [uNINTELLIGIBLE] borne out this belief.

The MOGUL project was a secret project, not even the people on MOGUL knew about MOGUL due to compartmentalisation of the project. When MOGUL became declassified in the 90's the information was released. So it went from Balloon with a RAWIN, to Weather Balloon with a RAWIN (same thing) the a MOGUL balloon with a RAWIN. No change there, but the FTB's? Added aliens, added a second crash, have several conflicting sources that do not line up, and now books claim up to 600 witnesses. Yes, that is right, the claim is 600 people.

Who is changing the story? Not the USAF they said balloon all along. The FTB's have changed the tale to suit the most popular headline going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

You do realise that RADAR track planes each and every day don't you?

Could I trouble you to show us a direct link between such devices and actual RF interference with aircraft systems? As far as I am aware, this has not been scientifically proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Ohh, gee that would have nothing to do with pressure from her brother now would it? Who just happens to be right in the thick of the Roswell tale, but never saw the field. And never agreed with his Father on the debris.

Her recant consists of:

"If Dad said something happened, it happened! No ifs, ands, or buts about it."

But how does that disqualify the initial description given at the time? Not exactly recanting, but bowing to pressure.

In any case, you are stuck on MOGUL, when I feel sufficient evidence exists to indicate that Roswell was a Intelligence Operation to draw away the attention of the public. If you do a search on Lost Shaman Roswell Hypothesis here you might see it in a different light again, but unfortunately for the UFOlogists, still no aliens.

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please give your source for what I have highlighted above.

If I may?

LINK

What is space radiation?

Radiation may be defined as energy in transit in the form of high-speed particles and electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic radiation is very common in our everyday lives in the form visible light, radio and television waves, and microwaves. Radiation is divided into two categories - ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation.

  • Ionizing radiation is radiation with sufficient energy to remove electrons from the orbits of atoms resulting in charged particles, and it is this type of radiation that is evaluated for purposes of radiation protection. Examples of ionizing radiation include gamma rays, protons, and neutrons. Ionizing radiation is different from ion formation that occurs in ordinary chemical reactions, such as the generation of table salt from sodium and chlorine. In such a reaction, only the outermost electron is removed to form a positively charged ion. With ionizing radiation, if the energy is sufficient, electrons other than those in the outermost orbits can be released; this process renders the atom very unstable, and these ions are very chemically reactive.
  • Non-ionizing radiation is radiation without sufficient energy to remove electrons from their orbits. Examples are microwaves, radio waves, and visible light.

Space radiation consists primarily of ionizing radiation which exists in the form of high-energy, charged particles. There are three naturally occurring sources of space radiation: trapped radiation, galactic cosmic radiation (GCR), and solar particle events (SPE).

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you say Space radishes and cosmic garlic ? Remember the Shower tonight ! :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please give your source for what I have highlighted above.

I did already, but you seemed to miss it. So let me ask again, why do you think that electronics that is in space need to be radiation hardened as per the wiki link I quoted earlier? Frankly, I can quote paper after paper, but I am getting an idea that you would readily dismiss it as you just dismissed/ignored the easily readable wiki link I supplied.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you say Space radishes and cosmic garlic ? Remember the Shower tonight ! :tu:

Space Radishes, Cosmic Garlic, it all adds up with the Whirled Peas. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Lost Shaman

I see you! :D

I now what you are going to say about MOGUL, but I am still trying to get these guys to have a look at your Hypothesis, which I have mentioned to them is superior.

It's just going slowly, one step at a time, these guys seem to need to come to terms with MOGUL before you blow their minds with your Hypothesis. Right now, most are struggling with even the test dummies. I have not even got to the service/train terminology there yet, or what actually most likely took of on the day, of course, I find your evaluation sound, and more than plausible. Sort of like a step by step program for FTB's if you will :D

We will get there. I hope.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see your very patient! I admire that. Yeah I still stand by my hypothesis. Too much evidence pointing in that direction to be mere coinsidence IMO.

Man I certaily miss using a real keyboard! Unfortunately I still have to many other priorities right now getting ready for my daughter to come move in with me! It's still going to be several more months before I get a proper internet connection!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try this smart ass! http://xenophilius.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/is-secret-government-radar-cause-the-ufo-crash-at-roswell/ And there are many other accounts of military radar as being a possible cause of the flying saucers to crash at Roswell but I haven't got the time to dig them out just to please you! :passifier:

They still do not produce harmful emissions. They just use two types of RADAR technology to confirm each other. Not going to bring down an RC copter let alone a flying saucer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see your very patient! I admire that. Yeah I still stand by my hypothesis. Too much evidence pointing in that direction to be mere coinsidence IMO.

Man I certaily miss using a real keyboard! Unfortunately I still have to many other priorities right now getting ready for my daughter to come move in with me! It's still going to be several more months before I get a proper internet connection!

I'd send you a computer if I could, cheers mate, good to know you are still around. :tu:

Be good to have some family around - I hope! :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd send you a computer if I could, cheers mate, good to know you are still around. :tu:

Be good to have some family around - I hope! :D

I appreciate the thought psyche!

I have a computer but I loaned it to my sister who is going to nursing school. I dont need it because I have about 15 other things i need to get for my daughter first before I have the extra money to get an internet connection turned on. Its something I want but dont need to survive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the thought psyche!

I have a computer but I loaned it to my sister who is going to nursing school. I dont need it because I have about 15 other things i need to get for my daughter first before I have the extra money to get an internet connection turned on. Its something I want but dont need to survive.

Hey LS, when you get things sorted don't be a stranger. :tu:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to the original thesis of this thread, I had commented on Rich Reynold's Ufo Iconoclast post that Bragalia was over reaching in his "shoot to kill" meme. Since the Bomb Group assigned to Roswell was our only nuclear capable flying unit the "shoot to kill" order would not have been unusual. The provost marshal (head of base security) could not have arbitrary issue this order on his own. There would have been DoD policies that dictated when, how and where this condition was warranted. Bragalia tends to be over dramatic with his descriptions and as one poster on this thread correctly stated that the accurate order would be the implementation of "The Use of Deadly Force is Authorized" policy. This would have been no surprise due to Roswell's flying mission.

I had further commented that if Tony wanted to discern why two security guards were posted at the hangar in question, he should find out what else could have been stored in the hangar besides alleged UFO crash material such as mission essential critical components (bomb sights, navigational components, ordnance release mechanisms, etc). That would have justified the use of two security guards.

I seriously doubt that the hangar had contained a nuclear weapon since Roswell had weapon storage bunkers for that purpose.

Pysch 101 is correct in his numerous posts in that Project Mogul material would have easily fit the security requirements whether the hangar held Mogul crash debris or intact balloons and corresponding detection equipment...not a far reach for a rational conclusion.

Best Regards,

Tim

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to the original thesis of this thread, I had commented on Rich Reynold's Ufo Iconoclast post that Bragalia was over reaching in his "shoot to kill" meme. Since the Bomb Group assigned to Roswell was our only nuclear capable flying unit the "shoot to kill" order would not have been unusual. The provost marshal (head of base security) could not have arbitrary issue this order on his own. There would have been DoD policies that dictated when, how and where this condition was warranted. Bragalia tends to be over dramatic with his descriptions and as one poster on this thread correctly stated that the accurate order would be the implementation of "The Use of Deadly Force is Authorized" policy. This would have been no surprise due to Roswell's flying mission.

I had further commented that if Tony wanted to discern why two security guards were posted at the hangar in question, he should find out what else could have been stored in the hangar besides alleged UFO crash material such as mission essential critical components (bomb sights, navigational components, ordnance release mechanisms, etc). That would have justified the use of two security guards.

I seriously doubt that the hangar had contained a nuclear weapon since Roswell had weapon storage bunkers for that purpose.

Pysch 101 is correct in his numerous posts in that Project Mogul material would have easily fit the security requirements whether the hangar held Mogul crash debris or intact balloons and corresponding detection equipment...not a far reach for a rational conclusion.

Best Regards,

Tim

I will look that podcast up Tim, thanks for the heads up.

Great to see you drop in, always is mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim-

Anthony Bragalia here. I do not generally respond in forums but in this case I must...

You do not tell readers two very vital things: 1) Cox was well aware of procedures and security measures relative to atomic bombs and the planes that delivered them. This is because he had Top Secret clearance and photographed them as part of the 309th Photo Unit at Roswell ! 2) I told you previously that I asked Cox if he thought this may have related to a nuclear event such as an errant weapon/broken arrow. He was adamant that this was not the case. This happened directly after the controversial crash. No one has ever said that the disc/balloon was really a nuke! And Cox heard nothing about an atomic weapon event of any kind occurring at that time. In all the dozens of Roswell vet interviews no one has ever alluded to such a thing either. And official records of course do not reflect that an emergency atomic weapon event ever happened at that time and place.

Two other things:

Mogul balloons, when recovered, were not treated in this way by military or involved scientists. CB Moore would roll over in his grave if he heard such things! Do even some very basic reading to learn more. The material of the Mogul balloon train was not classified- only its mission!

Also, if you read Witness to Roswell Second Edition, Bessie Brazel now states that she had confused the balloon retrievals with her Dad with the crash event North of Roswell. In fact she makes a full recantation and explains why in the book.

Best,

Anthony Bragalia

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tony,

The theme of my posting above and on Ufo Iconoclasts revolves around why were two security guards posted at the hangar. You stated that Cox had a "shoot to kill order". I gave examples of "what else" might have been housed in the hangar that would have turned the area into a "Use of Deadly Force Authorization" zone. And I provided a simple explanation for the provost's implementation of the order, which other posters concurred.

I totally agree with you that Roswell was not a Broken Arrow event as there is nothing in the seemingly self propagating minutia of facts/rumors that support such an event.

I readily admit that your knowledge of the Roswell subject surpasses that of mine by legion. Roswell is not that much of interest to me, but when you post your work in public you will be open to criticism or asked to clarify your stance. I had merely asked for a clarification based on my past experience with military security on bases such as Roswell and other nuclear weapons sites. Could there have been something else in that hangar that was considered mission essential rather than alleged UFO crash debris?

You said: "Also, if you read Witness to Roswell Second Edition, Bessie Brazel now states that she had confused the balloon retrievals with her Dad with the crash event North of Roswell. In fact she makes a full recantation and explains why in the book."

Tony, that's the problem with cases such as Roswell and others, "Bessie Brazel now states..." The story always seems to change over time. The "witnesses" have been data mined to the point that facts and anecdotes become blurred and yet worse, merged into potential confabulation. Notice that these witnesses often quoted are secondary or tertiary sources. You seemly tend to get drawn into this murky psychological morass.

I'm one of the few skeptics that actually defended some of your work and have privately been chastised by some for doing so. Your Socorro hoax hypothesis is a good example where I admired your ability to think out side of ufology's orthodoxy and you took a hit from some of your peers, yet you did not waver. It is my sincere hope that you continue to do so when warranted.

Best Regards

Tim H.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ;)

What are you going on about? "That which you 'bloded', (sic), and coloured for me," states that, 'in 1948 instant photography went on sale to the public for the first time'. In other words it wasn't available to the public in 1947. Whether it was available to the military or not I don't know. They didn't need instant photography anyway as they always had their own photographers and processing specialists and would have been able to turn out finished high quality pictures, (much better than tiny polariods), within an hour. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to the original thesis of this thread, I had commented on Rich Reynold's Ufo Iconoclast post that Bragalia was over reaching in his "shoot to kill" meme. Since the Bomb Group assigned to Roswell was our only nuclear capable flying unit the "shoot to kill" order would not have been unusual. The provost marshal (head of base security) could not have arbitrary issue this order on his own. There would have been DoD policies that dictated when, how and where this condition was warranted. Bragalia tends to be over dramatic with his descriptions and as one poster on this thread correctly stated that the accurate order would be the implementation of "The Use of Deadly Force is Authorized" policy. This would have been no surprise due to Roswell's flying mission.

I don't know if any of you were around in the mid to late 1940's. I was a young lad at the time and I heard the term "shoot to kill" many times from my dad and uncles who were in the war, telling some of their stories. I don't remember hearing the term "The Use of Deadly Force is Authorized" at that time. I made a career of the military and I don't think I heard the latter term until probably in the 60's when I was assigned to special weapons.

Odie

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.