Roswell 1947

[lost_shaman]

4 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

What do you make of  Roswell radio station KSWS  reporting on July 7 that Roswell residents had been to the debris field? 

Do you have a reference for that?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

22 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Do you have a reference for that?

Teletyper for Radio Station KSWS, Lydia Slepper

It' s still Monday, July 7, when the manager of a local radio station, KSWS, learns of the main crash site. The teletype operator for the station was Lydia Sleppy. She gets a call from station manager John McBoyle saying he had been to the crash site. In a 1990 interview, she tells what happened to her on July 7, 1947:

 

[lost_shaman]

2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Teletyper for Radio Station KSWS, Lydia Slepper

It' s still Monday, July 7, when the manager of a local radio station, KSWS, learns of the main crash site. The teletype operator for the station was Lydia Sleppy. She gets a call from station manager John McBoyle saying he had been to the crash site. In a 1990 interview, she tells what happened to her on July 7, 1947:

 

This is an example of the problem with witnesses and their testimony. This comes from Lydia Sleepy. In her 1993 affidavit she does not remember the exact date other than to say it had to be a weekday, so why do so many UFO websites always list the date as July 7th? Then she says McBoyle told her he ran into Mack Brazel at a coffee shop and Brazel offered to take him to the Ranch to see this 'debris/object'. However, in a 1990 interview with Stanton Friedman she only says McBoyle called to say he had a "hot" story and here she mentions nothing about McBoyle saying he had been to the Ranch with Brazel. Her story had evolved a bit in those three years. 

Then if we believe Walt Witmore Brazel was with him on July 7th giving him in an interview in Roswell that was recorded on a wire recorder. 

If we also believe Marcel then he says he went to the Ranch with Cavitt and Brazel on July 6th and brought Brazel back to Roswell on the 7th. 

So how could Brazel take McBoyle to the Ranch if Brazel was in Roswell on the 7th with Marcel and giving an interview to Witmore? 

The contradictions in the timeline and between the witnesses are hard if not impossible to reconcile. 

Edit: Also if you assume that Brazel was just hanging in a coffee shop and talking to McBoyle and took him to the Ranch on the 7th and then was back in Roswell to give Witmore an Interview then doesn't that also contradict the notion that Brazel was in Military custody against his will as he would have had to driven himself back to Roswell?

Edited January 6, 2019 by lost_shaman

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

3 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

This is an example of the problem with witnesses and their testimony. This comes from Lydia Sleepy. In her 1993 affidavit she does not remember the exact date other than to say it had to be a weekday, so why do so many UFO websites always list the date as July 7th? Then she says McBoyle told her he ran into Mack Brazel at a coffee shop and Brazel offered to take him to the Ranch to see this 'debris/object'. However, in a 1990 interview with Stanton Friedman she only says McBoyle called to say he had a "hot" story and here she mentions nothing about McBoyle saying he had been to the Ranch with Brazel. Her story had evolved a bit in those three years. 

Sleppy's first interview was 1973. I can't account for her changes. Memory loss, of course. By 1990 she was surely elderly.

Quote

Then if we believe Walt Witmore Brazel was with him on July 7th giving him in an interview in Roswell that was recorded on a wire recorder. 

If we also believe Marcel then he says he went to the Ranch with Cavitt and Brazel on July 6th and brought Brazel back to Roswell on the 7th. 

that sounds like a reasonable timeline but I have not seen that date, July 6th given. I'm sure you're right.

Quote

So how could Brazel take McBoyle to the Ranch if Brazel was in Roswell on the 7th with Marcel and giving an interview to Witmore? 

Is it possible that Brazel simply gave directions to McBoyle?  He was local and may know the area.

Quote

The contradictions in the timeline and between the witnesses are hard if not impossible to reconcile. 

Edit: Also if you assume that Brazel was just hanging in a coffee shop and talking to McBoyle and took him to the Ranch on the 7th and then was back in Roswell to give Witmore an Interview then doesn't that also contradict the notion that Brazel was in Military custody against his will as he would have had to driven himself back to Roswell?

I don't think Brazel went into custody until after his address to the media on the 8th. He was at RAAF for "a few days".  You have no room in his schedule to put it anywhere before that. but I never saw anybody give a definite dates for his stay at RAAF.

Anyway, there are shades of doubt, as is per usual

 

PS: http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2008/05/lydia-sleppy-1973-interview.html

Kevin Randle's take on the 1973 interview

Edited January 6, 2019 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

@lost_shaman    You're going to like this one, bud    Roswell a Staged Event

In 1976 he and researcher Robert Cornett were researching trace landing cases in the Midwest. They both had an opportunity to interview a former Air Force sergeant who told them that he was tasked to "stage a solution" to a UFO sighting. The sergeant had explained to the investigators that he had trucked the debris of a weather balloon into a town, and, according to Randle, "told all who would listen that this is what they had seen, or what their neighbors had seen. The wreckage contained the silvery elements of the rawin radar reflectors, the neoprene balloon envelope, and the balsa sticks that had formed the frame of the reflector." Randle asked him "how often have you done this?" The sergeant replied, "Only once." When Randle asked him where this had taken place, the sergeant replied, "at Roswell, NM." This remarkable story was told in 1976, years before the publication of the first book on the Roswell crash.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Another RAAF officer tells of a debris field and a "disk" later in life  Pilot Oliver "Pappy" Henderson Flew "disk" to Wright Patterson

Mary Sappho Henderson:

"In 1980 or 1981, he picked up a newspaper at a grocery store where we were living in San Diego. One article described the crash of a UFO outside Roswell, with the bodies of aliens discovered beside the craft. He pointed out the article to me and said, "I want you to read this article, because it's a true story. I'm the pilot who flew the wreckage of the UFO to Dayton, Ohio [home of Wright Field]. I guess now that they're putting it in the paper, I can tell you about this. I wanted to tell you for years." Pappy never discussed his work because of his security clearance. "

 

Funny, isn't it...?   Every time an ex-RAAF officer opens his mouth about the July 7 incident,,  "disk" comes out.  Never "balloon", always disk.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

And yet another RAAF officer, Srgt. Robert Smith, comes forward to say he loaded aircrafts for shipment with crash debris.

Affidavit of Sergeant Robert Smith

"(14)  I'm convinced that what we loaded was a UFO that got into mechanical problems.  Even with the most intelligent people, things go wrong."

What's that now, 7 officers, 6 from Roswell - that all reflect upon "disk". no balloon.

Well, I suppose you can launch your emergency "Get out of jail FREE" macro.... "THey'Z aLl LiArS"!!  - 'cuz that's all ya got! 

If you have to choose between making up 7 different excuses for the 7 different officers involved in this testimony, OR... take the "one answer fits all",, listen to Occam's Razor...

It's a Disk

[lost_shaman]

23 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

@lost_shaman    You're going to like this one, bud    Roswell a Staged Event

In 1976 he and researcher Robert Cornett were researching trace landing cases in the Midwest. They both had an opportunity to interview a former Air Force sergeant who told them that he was tasked to "stage a solution" to a UFO sighting. The sergeant had explained to the investigators that he had trucked the debris of a weather balloon into a town, and, according to Randle, "told all who would listen that this is what they had seen, or what their neighbors had seen. The wreckage contained the silvery elements of the rawin radar reflectors, the neoprene balloon envelope, and the balsa sticks that had formed the frame of the reflector." Randle asked him "how often have you done this?" The sergeant replied, "Only once." When Randle asked him where this had taken place, the sergeant replied, "at Roswell, NM." This remarkable story was told in 1976, years before the publication of the first book on the Roswell crash.

That's interesting, but who was the Sergeant? What year did this take place? 

Also the Roswell events were not an effort to explain a "sighting" to the local residents. 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

10 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

That's interesting, but who was the Sergeant? What year did this take place? 

Also the Roswell events were not an effort to explain a "sighting" to the local residents. 

I don't know who the sergeant was. He was talking to Kevin Randle, a UFOlogist. Was it 1975,, I think?  The whole thrust to that article was to show that stories of Roswell had gotten out well before that 1980 mark. 

right, they were done to convince all americans. I know. I just thought you'd like the story

Edited January 7, 2019 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[Trelane]

On ‎1‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 11:09 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And yet another RAAF officer, Srgt. Robert Smith, comes forward to say he loaded aircrafts for shipment with crash debris.

Affidavit of Sergeant Robert Smith

"(14)  I'm convinced that what we loaded was a UFO that got into mechanical problems.  Even with the most intelligent people, things go wrong."

What's that now, 7 officers, 6 from Roswell - that all reflect upon "disk". no balloon.

Well, I suppose you can launch your emergency "Get out of jail FREE" macro.... "THey'Z aLl LiArS"!!  - 'cuz that's all ya got! 

If you have to choose between making up 7 different excuses for the 7 different officers involved in this testimony, OR... take the "one answer fits all",, listen to Occam's Razor...

It's a Disk

My take is the term "disk" was either their interpretation of what they observed or it was an unofficial term that was utilized without proper approval before the initial press release. I'm not saying anyone was lying intentionally initially because honestly I have no idea. I am only stating my opinion of a logical explanation to an event that involved the US military and what their normal procedure are and what they were in 1947. Again, only my opinion.

Let's say I make a claim of an event, produce an official memorandum for record (MFR) and an accompanying DA 2823 swearing me to my knowledge (as I perceive the event). This doesn't make this an actual fact or accurately describe the reality of the situation experienced. So, sworn affidavits and the like are likewise subjective to the person and their perception (or interpretation) of the specific event. The facts of the event and the contributing factors are what drives the train on much of this. Outside of the claim of a disk their is no other corresponding evidence produced.

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 hours ago, Trelane said:

My take is the term "disk" was either their interpretation of what they observed or it was an unofficial term that was utilized without proper approval before the initial press release.

Yup. "Interpretation".  Here is what I believe the events were:  July 6, Marcel, Cavitt et al went to the Foster ranch and to Brazel's house to see what he had for evidences. Marcel called RAAF to come collect said evidences. Marcel/Cavitt go back on the 7th, with the recovery truck/s not far behind. Blanchard, Marcel, Cavitt, Haut discuss the evidences. Blanchard tells Haut to prepare a report. The report goes out the morning of the 8th.  "The many rumors regarding the flying discs became a reality yesterday when the intelligence office of the 509th (atomic) Bomb Group of the 8th Air Force, Roswell Army Air Field, was fortunate enough to gain possession of a disc through the cooperation of one of the ranchers and the sheriff's office of Chaves county."    It's crystal clear what Haut was talking about when he said "disk". It was the same type of "disk" that the people of Roswell had been rumoring about for weeks, a "flying disk".  "Disk" is not a secret military code word. As a Public Information Officer, Haut is supposed to talk to the citizens on their level, not in military jargon. Haut made it clear to the citizens. RAAF had the type of disk the citizens spoke of.

I am sure the people of Chavez County interpreted this release the way I interpret it, the way Haut intended it. They had a crashed "flying disk".

And yes, Blanchard made the move without approval from above, the biggest mistake of them all.

Quote

I'm not saying anyone was lying intentionally initially because honestly I have no idea. I am only stating my opinion of a logical explanation to an event that involved the US military and what their normal procedure are and what they were in 1947. Again, only my opinion.

I hear ya. And LS thinks they were fabricating.  Personally, I think LS's theory holds *at this point* but falls apart in the future when many officers at  RAAF speak out. All say "disk".  No one says "fabrication", no one says "balloon".   To me, it's - "take the obvious".  Disk.

Quote

Let's say I make a claim of an event, produce an official memorandum for record (MFR) and an accompanying DA 2823 swearing me to my knowledge (as I perceive the event). This doesn't make this an actual fact or accurately describe the reality of the situation experienced. So, sworn affidavits and the like are likewise subjective to the person and their perception (or interpretation) of the specific event.

Loosley spoken, they could be mistaken. Hmmm, well, they would actually all have to be quite daft to make that scale of blunder. But if we assume that they did blunder in their assessment, you still have to contend with remarks made in the future by the many RAAF officers involved. Are they then all fabricating this disk...?  If they're hiding something else that was secretive to the military, why not just say it was a balloon instead of contradicting the official Air Force byline?  Tough question. Maybe it is because what the military was really hiding was.... a disk. 

Quote

The facts of the event and the contributing factors are what drives the train on much of this. Outside of the claim of a disk their is no other corresponding evidence produced.

 

It depends on what one calls "evidence". I say human testimony is evidence, others in here argue that with me. 

If seven women of the #MeToo movement said that Senator Joe sexually abused them, would you believe these women?  Most people would. No-brainer.

Edited January 8, 2019 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, Trelane said:

My take is the term "disk" was either their interpretation of what they observed or it was an unofficial term that was utilized without proper approval before the initial press release. I'm not saying anyone was lying intentionally initially because honestly I have no idea. I am only stating my opinion of a logical explanation to an event that involved the US military and what their normal procedure are and what they were in 1947. Again, only my opinion.

Let's say I make a claim of an event, produce an official memorandum for record (MFR) and an accompanying DA 2823 swearing me to my knowledge (as I perceive the event). This doesn't make this an actual fact or accurately describe the reality of the situation experienced. So, sworn affidavits and the like are likewise subjective to the person and their perception (or interpretation) of the specific event. The facts of the event and the contributing factors are what drives the train on much of this. Outside of the claim of a disk their is no other corresponding evidence produced.

 

The term Disc was commonly applied to RAWIN targets. Here are several examples :

Earl is just doing what all the crappy UFOlogists have already done. Hyping up the term disc to be more than it is. The above clearly shows that people were calling RAWIN devices discs at the time. Taking the wildest interpretations and insisting they are accurate descriptions is how people build a spaceship out of a RAWIN target. It's just a childish diversion. 

 

PS @LostShaman, I'm not convinced the DuBose references of wrecking a RAWIN on purpose supplied are from reliable sources. 

Edited January 8, 2019 by psyche101

[psyche101]

31 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

It depends on what one calls "evidence". I say human testimony is evidence, others in here argue that with me. 

If seven women of the #MeToo movement said that Senator Joe sexually abused them, would you believe these women?  Most people would. No-brainer.

Anecdotes are not evidence. This is probably one of the most unsound and childish arguments in this entire thread. 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

23 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Anecdotes are not evidence. This is probably one of the most unsound and childish arguments in this entire thread. 

You call it an anecdote, I call it an analogy and it speaks quite well for what humans may accept for "evidence".  It took four women to identify themselves and accuse Senator Al Franken of sexual abuse for him to step down from office. That's quite powerful and backs up my contention 100%. Human testimony can be a strong evidence.

Tell me something... if you disagree with somebody, why the ad hominems?    Are you devoid of anything that is constructive to say?

 "CHILDISH"....  Just throw a slur out there.  Good job. 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

52 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

The term Disc was commonly applied to RAWIN targets. Here are several examples

a military Public Information Officer would not use military lingo when addressing citizens because it may confuse them. Haut knew what he was doing. I outlined it above.  I showed that he likened the "disk" that RAAF had in their possession to be of the type of disk that the citizens of Roswell had been rumoring about seeing in the skies for some time.

Your argument applies to military people addressing military people only, not when addressing citizens.

[psyche101]

6 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

You call it an anecdote, I call it an analogy and it speaks quite well for what humans may accept for "evidence". 

Your misusing the term to fulfill your own predetermined conclusion. No it doesn't. The Griffith Innocence Project has directly illustrated human testimony to be flawed, having overturned 75% of the cases they have reexamined eyewitnesses testimony VS DNA evidence. 

It proves that testimony is notoriously unreliable. 

6 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

It took four women to identify themselves and accuse Senator Al Franken of sexual abuse for him to step down from office. That's quite powerful and backs up my contention 100%. Human testimony can be a strong evidence.

No it doesn't at all. 

There were photos of the creep grabbing a sleeping service woman on  the boobs. That's hard evidence. And better than testimony. You are lying when you say it was pure testimony that exposed that creep. 

6 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Tell me something... if you disagree with somebody, why the ad hominems?    Are you devoid of anything that is constructive to say?

 "CHILDISH"....  Just throw a slur out there.  Good job. 

Its an accurate descriptor. Your approach is dishonest and predetermined. Hard to respect that. Like all UFO alien nutters, you offer a distorted view of evidence to support utter nonsense. If you want constructive, then read my posts more carefully. The information to support the claims I have made is all there. 

[psyche101]

11 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

a military Public Information Officer would not use military lingo when addressing citizens because it may confuse them.

Nonsense. The full description of of RADAR wind targets is discussed in the articles. And it's directly associated with RAWIN targets on multiple instances. Quite clearly the terms are associated in general. 

11 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 Haut knew what he was doing.

His story changed several times!!! 

Mythmaker is what Haut is!! 

11 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I outlined it above.  I showed that he likened the "disk" that RAAF had in their possession to be of the type of disk that the citizens of Roswell had been rumoring about seeing in the skies for some time.

And from all those Newspaper articles it's plainly more than obvious that what they were seeing, photographing and reporting as discs were balloon trains with RAWIN targets. 

11 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Your argument applies to military people addressing military people only, not when addressing citizens.

There are citizens holding up RAWINS as discs. The FBI memo says the disc was suspended by a balloon.

Quote

EIGHTH AIR FORCE, TELEPHONICALLY ADVISED THIS OFFICE THAT AN OBJECT PURPORTING TO BE A FLYING DISC WAS RE COVERED NEAR ROSWELL, NEW MEXICO, THIS DATE. THE DISC IS HEXAGONAL IN SHAPE AND WAS SUSPENDED FROM A BALLON BY CABLE, WHICH BALLON WAS APPROXIMATELY TWENTY FEET IN DIAMETER.

That's the same thing. Military people relating to Military people RAWIN targets as 'discs' and civilian sources doing the very same. 

 

[Trelane]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 As a Public Information Officer, Haut is supposed to talk to the citizens on their level, not in military jargon. Haut made it clear to the citizens. RAAF had the type of disk the citizens spoke of.

I am sure the people of Chavez County interpreted this release the way I interpret it, the way Haut intended it. They had a crashed "flying disk".

And yes, Blanchard made the move without approval from above, the biggest mistake of them all.

Loosley spoken, they could be mistaken. Hmmm, well, they would actually all have to be quite daft to make that scale of blunder. But if we assume that they did blunder in their assessment, you still have to contend with remarks made in the future by the many RAAF officers involved. Are they then all fabricating this disk...?  If they're hiding something else that was secretive to the military, why not just say it was a balloon instead of contradicting the official Air Force byline?  Tough question. Maybe it is because what the military was really hiding was.... a disk. 

It depends on what one calls "evidence". I say human testimony is evidence, others in here argue that with me. 

If seven women of the #MeToo movement said that Senator Joe sexually abused them, would you believe these women?  Most people would. No-brainer.

Point 1: Happens all the time actually. Taking into consideration again this is right after WWII, the PIO or PAO as they are now called was not as well trained in news releases as they are now. Terminology varied from command to command based on commanding officer preference.

Point 2: I am only stating for those on site and what they saw for interpretation. Of course the locals with no first hand knowledge would accept and repeat what was put out by government. This was in an era where the general public overwhelmingly trusted what was said by the military and government officials.

Point 3: Or maybe something else????

Point 4: Again that is subjective as to what our individual opinion is of that. I don't feel we need to argue over opinions. Ours apparently is different and I'm fine with that.

Point 5: Conversely, wrongly accused people can openly state in court they are not guilty and are sent to jail for decades, some death row. only to find out on the back side they are in fact innocent.

 

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

57 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Your misusing the term to fulfill your own predetermined conclusion. No it doesn't. The Griffith Innocence Project has directly illustrated human testimony to be flawed, having overturned 75% of the cases they have reexamined eyewitnesses testimony VS DNA evidence. 

It proves that testimony is notoriously unreliable. 

No it doesn't at all. 

There were photos of the creep grabbing a sleeping service woman on  the boobs. That's hard evidence. And better than testimony. You are lying when you say it was pure testimony that exposed that creep. 

Its an accurate descriptor. Your approach is dishonest and predetermined. Hard to respect that. Like all UFO alien nutters, you offer a distorted view of evidence to support utter nonsense. If you want constructive, then read my posts more carefully. The information to support the claims I have made is all there. 

 

Says the man that OPENLY distorts Wilmot's testimony to support his predetermined view. Tell me about it!  And you have NEVER supported the claim that it was a meteor. all you did was move your lips to get your desired outcome. In fact I  proved to you 3 different ways how it could not possibly be a meteor and you STILL marched on with your unsubstantiated bull story.

The man that sits in here pushing this theory that Haut, in his report to the media, is describing a RAWIN when he says "disk". Another pile of manure that you manufacture so as to get your desired, predetermined result.

YA. Tell me about it.  I know why you resort to ad hominems and you know why. Because that is your nature. 

[psyche101]

36 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Says the man that OPENLY distorts Wilmot's testimony to support his predetermined view.

You are the only one distorting information. Every sensible evaluation of Wilmots sights results in a meteor. All you have to support your predetermined conclusion of Disc is a bad description of a meteor. 

36 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Tell me about it! 

You seem to be the one telling other everything they should accept about Roswell, and you don't even know who Arnold is and why he is relevant. It obvious that your just another Roswell noob championing UFOlogy. You seem to know less about the incident than any other poster here, yet claim to have all the answers. 

36 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And you have NEVER supported the claim that it was a meteor. all you did was move your lips to get your desired outcome.

That's an outright lie. I have you the names of both meteor showers, and sightings by at least two other groups that saw a meteor. Your either blind, deliberately ignorant or both. 

And I'm typing. My lips remain motionless. 

36 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

In fact I  proved to you 3 different ways how it could not possibly be a meteor and you STILL marched on with your unsubstantiated bull story.

No you haven't. You said it had no tail. Parralax error easily accounts for this, and duration was longer than normal, which would simply be exaggeration of the time frame due to the wonder of an inexperienced observer. 

You have in no way at all proven the sighting was not a meteor. You have arrogantly stated that opinion. 

36 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

The man that sits in here pushing this theory that Haut, in his report to the media, is describing a RAWIN when he says "disk". Another pile of manure that you manufacture so as to get your desired, predetermined result.

I have both military and civilian references from the time frame. That proves your full of crap Earl. 

36 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

YA. Tell me about it.  I know why you resort to ad hominems and you know why. Because that is your nature. 

You get what you give. Have you ever read your own posts back? Your a very unpleasant character Earl. You are rude and condescending but the worst of it is that in this thread, you have shown quite clearly that you are the most uniformed poster regarding this event in the whole thread, yet arrogantly chastise other with UFOlogy crap. You nerd a mirror if you want to see why nobody respects you. Have a look at yourself sometime.

[NYCEddie]

You people are unbelievable, fighting with each other over semantics! 37 pages of bs and the discussion was over right at the beginning with the link to Kal K. Korff's article. For shame.

 

Edited January 9, 2019 by NYCEddie
Left out a word.

[Leo Krupe]

15 hours ago, NYCEddie said:

You people are unbelievable, fighting with each other over semantics! 37 pages of bs and the discussion was over right at the beginning with the link to Kal K. Korff's article. For shame.

 

Man, that's what internet forums are all about! At the risk of damning with faint praise, I'll give the people here credit though--they're not as vitriolic as some places on the net.

Seriously though, in any discussion forum, you can't really expect a complete and final resolution to any issue, particularly one as viscous and amorphous as UFOs, ghosts, monsters, and other relatedly assorted topics. After all, this is the Unexplained Mysteries board, not necessarily a scientific board (and even if it were well and truly scientific, you can bet there'd be a lot of wild speculation, depending on the topic--theoretical physics comes to mind).

I find this entertaining, even though I'm a boring ol' skeptic who doesn't believe in alien visitation, much less abductions. But following the conversations, and occasionally getting into the thick of it (when I have the time to devote to it) can be relaxing or it can get my adrenaline pumping. No matter what though, it gets my brain working and I can work on not only critical thinking skills, but argument/debate skills.

 

[afe92018]

I posted this in the wrong place. The event I talked about was not near Roswell but was in the western U S in a desert area.The only person I have told about these events is my grand daughter.She says this needs to be told.She is all the family I have. My son and his wife died from a car  accident and my grand son died from cancer and my wife has passed.The planet the "aliens" came from is very cold except for certain regions.The warmth in these regions comes from the mountains. Sunlight is very weak there but the mountains there absorb sunlight and over milions and millions of years and has warmed the rock. They have mined this unique rock and use it for light and heat.Only in these regions can they grow crops.When they arrived here they had brought food with them which is somewhat similar to oats grown here on earth The water they brought with them is not water as we know it. It is dark red in color and has nutrients in it which is a major part of their food source.Their life span on their planet is about 350 or so of our earth years on their home planet that would be about 1 and one half years or rotation around the sun.I will write more later about this.

[the13bats]

2 hours ago, afe92018 said:

I posted this in the wrong place. The event I talked about was not near Roswell but was in the western U S in a desert area.The only person I have told about these events is my grand daughter.She says this needs to be told.She is all the family I have. My son and his wife died from a car  accident and my grand son died from cancer and my wife has passed.The planet the "aliens" came from is very cold except for certain regions.The warmth in these regions comes from the mountains. Sunlight is very weak there but the mountains there absorb sunlight and over milions and millions of years and has warmed the rock. They have mined this unique rock and use it for light and heat.Only in these regions can they grow crops.When they arrived here they had brought food with them which is somewhat similar to oats grown here on earth The water they brought with them is not water as we know it. It is dark red in color and has nutrients in it which is a major part of their food source.Their life span on their planet is about 350 or so of our earth years on their home planet that would be about 1 and one half years or rotation around the sun.I will write more later about this.

 

 

 

Quote

I know something about this...….I was not there when it happened but was involved quite a few years after it happened. I know that all the "aliens" have died.Some of them survived many years here. There were two crafts each with eight beings in each craft.,one burned up trying to enter earth's atmosphere the other  made a somewhat less than perfect landing that resulted in the death of one of the eight.They misjudged the effects of earth's gravity. The immediate effects of gravity and pressure  were nearly fatal to all of them. Trying to communicate with them was nearly impossible eventually translation started started to evolve.Why did they come to earth? They came from the edge of our system and have been observing earth getting brighter, think about it electric lighting etc being observed form afar. Their decision to come to earth was made after they observed the  A bomb detonations in the mid- forties.Why didn't they leave? I am going to say that Bob Lazar was somewhat correct concerning a certain element that is not available on Earth.I was with them daily for a few years learning about their home,their society, etc.They were most peaceful beings.I will be adding to this, I am getting old and my health is failing and with the help of my grandchild I am posting this

 

great story, i had to include your first post, reminds me of tales told by frank Kauffman,

so before i go any further do you have a shred of proof or evidence of any of your claims?

[Trelane]

On ‎1‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 12:37 PM, Trelane said:

Point 1: The misidentification by those on the ground (US Army Air Force/ Military Police) and another unit or agency( US Army Intelligence) working separately to create a diversion is not contradictory. They actually are complimentary as I process it mentally.

Point 2: Not saying it was a rocket per se. There may have been an experimental aircraft or equipment (non-lethal) that was being tested. The item malfunctioned or was compromised by weather/atmospheric conditions. The bases  would not necessarily have classified access to know about a secret project being tested due to "need to know" basis. PFC Smith working in the control tower or SGT Jones on perimeter security would not have the need to know about a top secret test.

Point 3: As I stated, this was the beginning of the Cold war and it was known that Soviet agents were infiltrating the US by this point. Unfortunately, the National Security Act of 1947 had not established separate intelligence entities as we know them now. Much was left to the discretion of the officers in the Army at the time. There may have been a discussion or mention of that would be good use if one of our __________ crashes, is seen by onlookers, or goes missing. I think there was a snowball effect that drove how the UFO craze took hold over the US in the 1950's. It could very well have been prevented if the officers and subsequent agents had been better at reporting protocols and information releases to the public much of nonsense could have been prevented.  It wasn't to distract from the presence of German personnel, it was the items they were creating that need attention diverted away from.

I don't think there's much else to say about this.