Roswell Revisited

[badeskov]

Sky is wrong. Provably so. But I still feel sad for Sky because it is very obvious to me that while he actually does have the experience he claims, his beliefs simply filters any critical thinking and opposing views.

To me every day is a day of learning. Sadly, for others this is not the case.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[skyeagle409]

You can see for yourself, several points clearly refuted without doubt, and yet we see the same claims posted in another 5 or 6 pages.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you referring to the post that mentioned a Mogul balloon train flight that never was or an intact disk that was shipped to Wright-Patterson AFB, that obviously could not have been responsible for the huge debris field that Brazel discovered? Or, was it test dummies from another decade and location from the Foster ranch? Which of the three are you referring to?

[bmk1245]

Sky is wrong. Provably so. But I still feel sad for Sky because it is very obvious to me that while he actually does have the experience he claims, his beliefs simply filters any critical thinking and opposing views.

To me every day is a day of learning. Sadly, for others this is not the case.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Heh, remarkably, Sky sounds exactly like a guy (pilot, 20+ years experience on 747) from the same DC show (Sky was referring to earlier) Best Evidence about TWA800 flight: I know! Conspiracy! Cover-up! Blah blah blah... Like Sky on Roswell

[psyche101]

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you referring to the post that mentioned a Mogul balloon train flight that never was or an intact disk that was shipped to Wright-Patterson AFB, that obviously could not have been responsible for the huge debris field that Brazel discovered? Or, was it test dummies from another decade and location from the Foster ranch? Which of the three are you referring to?

Many of them I listed. You did not read my post.

1 - Tombaugh - you are just 100% wrong, tombaugh evaluated his own sighting as a temperature inversion. You omitted information to make it seem he remained puzzled about his sighting, and even implied a spaceship might have been considered. It was not, Tombaugh resolved the sighting himself. You posted a good 10 times after that still trying to insist the sighting was ambiguous, when it never was.

2 - Bird Scan RADAR. You insisted that it was capable of determining any bird in the sky, but the actual information stated the capabilities as able to identify some species, you over exaggerated the capabilities, and it was not fitted o the RADAR i the case we were discussing. You were not only omitting information to make your own claim look good, it never had anything to do with the subject to begin with.

3 - You refuse to admit that MOGUL balloons and Weather balloons come from the same storeroom, they are essentially the same thing. You insist that is not the case, but refuse to answer the posts with photos asking you to point out the difference - because there is none.

4 - You deny Albert Crary's MOGUL flight which did happen, and we have a diary entry to prove it.

5 - Dummy drops. I have been reported you to the mods for posting false information, and look at you, doing it again!!

Read the following part C, and quote it to me if you have the guts to do so, that is after all the only answer you shall receive from me when propagating this lie.

Sky, why does the USAF report says dummies were NOT dropped in 1947, but you insist it does say they were dropped in 1947?

And that dear fellow is just a sample of what I speak of.

.

Edited April 21, 2015 by psyche101

[skyeagle409]

If it were me, and for the record, I grew up on spy thrillers and Mission: Impossible, I'd hide the secret aircraft by carefully crafting a narrative in the media about something wildly different to the reality.

How are you going to hide the crash site of a classified vehicle by reporting to the whole world that the crash site involved a flying saucer? That will bring about worldwide attention to a classified crash site that is suppose to be declared a national security zone.

Aliens fit that bill.

What would have happened if the Air Force reported to the news media that it recovered alien bodies at this classified crash site?

Stealth Jet Believed to Have Crashed : AF Seals Off Site

BAKERSFIELD — An Air Force plane, believed to be one of Lockheed's top-secret stealth jet fighters, crashed and burned in rugged terrain 15 miles northeast of here early Friday, killing the pilot and prompting authorities to impose an extraordinary news blackout.

The Air Force declared the crash site and the airspace above it "a national security area" out of bounds to the press and public.

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-12/news/mn-22615_1_air-force

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-07-12/news/8602190432_1_jet-crashes-crash-site-andy-lightbody

The Air Force declared the crash site a national security zone and at no time did it report that the classified crash site involved aliens. That is how it is done in the real world when classified aircraft crash.

"The USAF has no craft that resemble those reported by Arnold" causes panic because it might be the Ruskies. "No known human technology was at work here" causes curiosity. Curiosity into the phenomenon rather then the technology to boot.

I might add that there are certain areas where classified aircraft operations are conducted and Mount Rainier is not one of them.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Because aim not hiding a crash site of an alien craft by telling very one about it.

I'm turning the reporting of a controlled situation into a shambles, in order to demonstrate firstly how out of our depth we are (and thus making people utter the phrase "do you honk that they could cover something like that up? Really?") and dictating the terms of how future reports will be addressed in the media.

I'm setting the tone, the tune and watching as everyone else reacts.

I give a litany of answers. I make us look bad, thus making people who say "the government did X" look like fantasists.

I establish "the" place for aliens to be studied (Groom Lake/Area 51 etc) while misdirecting people away from the real places such studies might happen.

In effect, th only way Roswellcould be such an utter shambles of confusion is if someone made it that way.

[quillius]

Hi Q,

When you are so prolific in posting on two cases that has essentially been tackled numerous times over, filling the posts with misunderstandings, misconceptions and outright made up claims expect to be countered by numerous posters. Frankly, I find it a tad insulting to those that have put in a lot of time and effort trying to explain this earlier and we see the same made up stuff paraded again.

I just don't think that Sky can help it.

Cheers,

Badeskov

I'm sure Sky would appreciate the assist if you would throw your hat in the ring Q. If you think there are any arguments that Sky has presented that you feel need defending, that is. The ambiguity that Roswell is built upon though is its downfall in my opinion. The indisputable facts of the case don't have anything to do with alien visitation but rather quibbling over who said what and why. It's definitely not the rock solid case for alien visitation that Sky would have people believe. At best there are some questions concerning nomenclature and semantics.

fair enough Gents, I just know how difficult it is to discuss one aspect of any of the said cases let alone trying to cover two at once with many points being debated concurrently.....hence why I thought a debate restricted to two debaters, tackling one point at a time might bring out the best in people.

We have all had it happen here on UM, where we spend 5 pages debating a point only to realise the two debating are talking about two different things...this is only made worse when talking about many posters involved and many different points being argued/discussed.

I am struggling to keep up let alone join in

Quillius' participation in this thread would give it a much needed boost.

Come on Q,....... jump in

I have my shorts on but I see some fins poking out the water....circling ominously. So I think I will use the swimming pool instead

[skyeagle409]

Many of them I listed them you did not read my post.

1 - Tombaugh - you are just 100% wrong, tombaugh evaluated his own sighting as a temperature inversion. You omitted information to make it seem he remained puzzled about his sighting, and even implied a spaceship might have been considered. It was not, Tombaugh resolved the sighting himself. You posted a good 10 times after that still trying to insist the sighting was ambiguous, when it never was.

Well, you know, what he reported was definitely not a B-747 nor any conventional aircraft for that matter.Tell, what did he describe?

2 - Bird Scan RADAR. You insisted that it was capable of determining any bird in the sky, but the actual information stated the capabilities as able to identify some species,...

"...the capabilities as able to identify some species,." Well?!

3 - You refuse to admit that MOGUL balloons and Weather balloons come from the same storeroom, they are essentially the same thing.

"Mac" Brazel stated that he recovered weather balloons before and what he discovered in July 1947, was not a weather balloon, but the fact that no weather balloon were responsible was underlined in 1994 by the Air Force itself. Where are the flying saucer cover stories for Mogul balloons that were recovered by civilians? There are none.

You insist that is not the case, but refuse to answer the posts with photos asking you to point out the difference - because there is none.

The differences in what?

4 - You deny Albert Crary's MOGUL flight which did happen, and we have a diary entry to prove it.

As I have mentioned before, there are no records for a Mogul balloon train flight #4 because it was cancelled, so why did you bring it up again? How about we take a look back a bit. Did you post this:

The flight named #4 did not take of, a service flight did and that was a MOGUL service flight.

I have no idea what was stripped from #4 and used on the service flight, neither do you, and if I could prove a RAWIN was on it, you would just dismiss it anyway. Standard configurations are not always the criteria in a pinch. Which the service flight was after #4 was cancelled.

In your own words, you said: "after #4 was cancelled."

5 - Dummy drops. I have been reported you to the mods for posting false information, and look at you, doing it again!!

The information that I have posted can be found at historical websites.

Sky, why does the USAF report says dummies were NOT dropped in 1947, but you insist it does say they were dropped in 1947?

Did I say they were dropped in 1947? I did not say such a thing. This is what I posted and at no time did I imply that they were dropped in 1947.

The Air Force's crash dummy argument was dismissed by the Air Force's own project officer of the High Dive experiments.

After reading the report, it was very clear that the Air Force sought the deceive the public again, this time, test dummies and accident victims of the 1950s.

Considering that the Air Force claimed in similiar reports that a weather balloon was responsible before it trashed its weather balloon story in 1994, why should anyone take that report seriously, especially after the Air Force has been called a liar by its own members?

Edited April 21, 2015 by skyeagle409

[S2F]

fair enough Gents, I just know how difficult it is to discuss one aspect of any of the said cases let alone trying to cover two at once with many points being debated concurrently.....hence why I thought a debate restricted to two debaters, tackling one point at a time might bring out the best in people.

We have all had it happen here on UM, where we spend 5 pages debating a point only to realise the two debating are talking about two different things...this is only made worse when talking about many posters involved and many different points being argued/discussed.

I am struggling to keep up let alone join in

I have my shorts on but I see some fins poking out the water....circling ominously. So I think I will use the swimming pool instead

I agree, that's why I was willing to let the Phoenix Lights tangent go. In the Best Evidence threads it was a bit of a free-for-all but I'm willing to stay on task if that is what the thread is dedicated to, Roswell in this instance. Every thread strays now and again though I think everyone involved has done a fair job of staying on point, Sky included.

Oz is rather famous for sharks by the way.

[quillius]

I agree, that's why I was willing to let the Phoenix Lights tangent go. In the Best Evidence threads it was a bit of a free-for-all but I'm willing to stay on task if that is what the thread is dedicated to, Roswell in this instance. Every thread strays now and again though I think everyone involved has done a fair job of staying on point, Sky included.

Oz is rather famous for sharks by the way.

I noticed

[skyeagle409]

That does not name the show, and it was this thread.

You wont even give the name of the show now, but feel it is proof?? How does that work?

Apparently, you had missed the boat when I posted:

The Discovery Channel. How's that? Or maybe, Best Evidence: The Roswell Incident (2007)

Now, how about moving on.

[quillius]

I think S2F made a prudent point regarding semantics, which also melts slightly into my point about different points being debated...

The discussion on RADAR identifying species of birds is a prime example.

Its quite simple IMO, it can detect different species but only when the differences in size etc are of a certain level.

I think it was S2F who also (about 3million pages back) pointed out the point was moot either way...

I felt reading the thread Sky was unsure why it was being debated as its in black and white......others however were using the word 'all' when referring to the differentiating between the various species....in a nutshell both parties were right albeit arguing a different point.

[skyeagle409]

Exactly, and it means you cannot use it as proof of anything. With all due respect Sky, your sources like Madson who claimed dummies were dropped in 1947 when the USAF report says no such thing, or the temperature

You got the story all twisted around. Let's set the story straight because it was the Air Force that claimed that test dummies and accident victims of the 1950's were misidentified as aliens in 1947, and It is all there in the Air Force's 1997 Roswell Report for all to see.

Did Sid West, Ben Thompson, Fred Hammond, and a police officer try to dupe the AP for three thousand dollars

They didn't have to. Remember, Mogul balloons had reward tags attached.

..., did they access the data, and were they able to figure out the objective of the program?

Yes, and in fact, the objectives and how the objectives were to be achieved were publicized in newspapers. Do I need to repost the links?

[skyeagle409]

The Discovery Channel runs all kinds of junk pseudoscience shows.

That won't work for you.

[skyeagle409]

Heh, remarkably, Sky sounds exactly like a guy (pilot, 20+ years experience on 747) from the same DC show (Sky was referring to earlier) Best Evidence about TWA800 flight: I know! Conspiracy! Cover-up! Blah blah blah... Like Sky on Roswell

And, when the smoke was cleared, guess what the Boeing Aircraft Co. revealed by what caused the explosion aboard TWA 800? Hint: It wasn't a missile.

Did you know that another B-747, which was once owned by TWA, also blew up in flight? In other words, that was two B-747s, both owned by TWA at one time or another, that blew up in flight.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

That won't work for you.

Because it's true?

[skyeagle409]

The program was compartmentalised.

That is false because you can find Project Mogul balloon data in unclassified balloon records.

Professor Moore headed up the division from NYU to maintain constant altitude with balloon flights, the military gathered the data, and intelligence inspected said data to see if the MOGUL project could be successful at detecting Russian Nuclear blasts via sound waves. (Dr. Maurice Ewing who had earlier researched the deep sound channel in the oceans and theorized that a similar sound channel existed in the upper atmosphere) The Project was dropped in favour of a collection system mounted to a plane. It was declassified in the early 90's.

The goal wasn't effective at all, which is why the Soviet's first nuclear blast was detected by a modified B-29. BTW, it is apparent that you didn't know the rest of the story about Charles Moore in an interview that you are surely unaware of. In that interview, Charles Moore hinted that he was aware that the Air Force was in the process of concocting yet another cover story, which would address the alien bodies found at one of the two crash sites. In other words, he knew before the fact, that the Air Force was going to dupe the public again.

Charles Moore

For years Moore had maintained to researchers that he was entirely unaware of the codename used by the military for a balloon radiation detection system to be used over the Soviet Union that he had helped to test and implement. This was Project Mogul. He insisted that it was not until 1992 that he was made aware of the actual name of the project by the late researcher Robert Todd.

“Moore claims that he never even knew the supersecret "MOGUL" project codename while he himself worked in MOGUL in the late 40's, had no idea there was a MOGUL codename for what he had been doing until Bob Todd contacted him and revealed it to him in 1992 or thereabouts. Moore uses this bull$***t story to support his claim that MOGUL was so compartmented and supersecret in 1947 that that helps explain why it took so long to come up with the MOGUL balloon explanation for Roswell, and how Roswell 509th would know nothing about MOGUL, how other activities at White Sands would have known nothing of MOGUL, etc.

In fact this is just another of Moore's bold-faced lies through his teeth:

Moore had in his own files a May 12, 1949, letter from White Sands PIO and Navy Unit commander, Cdr. Mclaughlin, to Dr. James Van Allen, discussing how CHARLES B. MOORE HAD BEEN IN CHARGE OF "PROJECT MOGUL" there at White Sands. Moore had this letter in his own files all along and had even shared a copy with McDonald back in 1968!!”

http://ufocon.blogsp...tion-cover.html

Edited April 21, 2015 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Because it's true?

The evidence spoke for itself.

[skyeagle409]

Please show me a 1947 public document stating the objective of MOGUL which was to spy on Russian Nuclear Development.

Read all about Project Mogul's objectives for detecting nuclear explosions, which was widely reported by the press.

Since the United States was the only nuclear power at that time, what other country was the United States concerned about as far as obtaining nukes? Answer: It was the Soviet Union.

Since there was no need for the United States to detect our own nuclear blast, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what country was the focus of those Mogul balloon experiments and I am very sure there were Russians in the United States who knew how to read English in American newspapers.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

The evidence spoke for itself.

Yes, sadly while it was speaking for itself, it was wearing it's undies on it's head, with pencils up it's nose and using Wibble as both a verb and noun.

[skyeagle409]

Yes, sadly while it was speaking for itself, it was wearing it's undies on it's head, with pencils up it's nose and using Wibble as both a verb and noun.

In that program, lines that tied the balloons together were spread all over the ground and that is what caught the eyes of the witnesses, and that was from a smaller version of a full-size Mogul balloon train. I might add that there was no widespread metalic debris.

Do you think these balloons could have remained unnoticed for a month on a ranch in New Mexico?

Do they look like a flying saucer?

Edited April 21, 2015 by skyeagle409

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Dunno, how big was the ranch?

I've family whose nearest neighbours are further away then some European countries. You could hide a herd of elephants on those selections and they'd not be found for ages.

[stereologist]

Well, you know, what he reported was definitely not a B-747 nor any conventional aircraft for that matter.Tell, what did he describe?

"...the capabilities as able to identify some species,." Well?!

"Mac" Brazel stated that he recovered weather balloons before and what he discovered in July 1947, was not a weather balloon, but the fact that no weather balloon were responsible was underlined in 1994 by the Air Force itself. Where are the flying saucer cover stories for Mogul balloons that were recovered by civilians? There are none.

The differences in what?

As I have mentioned before, there are no records for a Mogul balloon train flight #4 because it was cancelled, so why did you bring it up again? How about we take a look back a bit. Did you post this:

In your own words, you said: "after #4 was cancelled."

The information that I have posted can be found at historical websites.

Did I say they were dropped in 1947? I did not say such a thing. This is what I posted and at no time did I imply that they were dropped in 1947.

Considering that the Air Force claimed in similiar reports that a weather balloon was responsible before it trashed its weather balloon story in 1994, why should anyone take that report seriously, especially after the Air Force has been called a liar by its own members?

Here we see a typical string of lies posted by Skyeagle409.

1. Tombaugh stated that it was a temperature inversion. The quote has been posted at least a dozen times for you to read and you simply turn around and lie.

2. You purposely misrepresented the bird scan quote. You are purposely lying about its capabilities.

This allows wing-beat patterns to be used to identify different bird groups and, to some extent, even individual bird species.

There is the quote which you have purposely misrepresented. It shows you have no idea what radar is and you are willing to post bald faced lies to cover up your ineptitude.

3. A childish response when shown to be wrong.

4. More denial when the facts show you are wrong.

5. More denial when the facts show you are wrong.

No wonder nothing you post is to be believed.

[stereologist]

Apparently, you had missed the boat when I posted:

Here we have another attempt at a cover up. You were repeatedly asked for the name of the show and discussed the contents of a show you would not name.

So when Psyche101 was asking you to provide the name of the show and you would not do it he had not gotten to the post where you finally revealed the name of the show you were referring to. In fact, I posted the name of the show. It was not hard to find. Why hide the show unless you knew that it was a bad source.

[stereologist]

I think S2F made a prudent point regarding semantics, which also melts slightly into my point about different points being debated...

The discussion on RADAR identifying species of birds is a prime example.

Its quite simple IMO, it can detect different species but only when the differences in size etc are of a certain level.

I think it was S2F who also (about 3million pages back) pointed out the point was moot either way...

I felt reading the thread Sky was unsure why it was being debated as its in black and white......others however were using the word 'all' when referring to the differentiating between the various species....in a nutshell both parties were right albeit arguing a different point.

The bird species issue goes to Skyeagle409's knowledge. He claims to be an expert yet he does not understand that the wingbeat pattern is what distinguishes species and wingbeats are dependent on the size of the bird rather than the species. In fact, articles posted shows that insect swarms can have patterns that are hard to distinguish from birds so swarm speed is used.

Skyeagle409 is clearly wrong and they resort to telling falsehoods because they feel it erodes whatever illusion they believe they have created online as their experience.

Does this have anything to do with UFOs? No. Does this show that Skyeagle409's posts cannot be trusted? Yes. His posts cannot be trusted because of this and misrepresentations of many other issues that have been pointed out time and time and time again.