Roswell 1947

[Trelane]

I'm not saying anything or making judgements of character on anyone so please don't attempt to sheepdog me into that crowd. The data is incomplete at best. Also. there has been demonstrable misrepresentations of the truth by those who have made a lucrative business out of the incident and subsequent publications and speaking tours.

As far as Marcel is concerned who knows what his deal was. I know I have encountered and pulled security on items I couldn't accurately identify until my security debriefings. Again, not uncommon and definitely not out of the realm of possibility.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Trelane

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 minutes ago, Trelane said:

I'm not saying anything or making judgements of character of anyone so please don't attempt to sheepdog me into that crowd. The data is incomplete at best. Also. there has been demonstrable misrepresentations of the truth by those who have made a lucrative business out of the incident and subsequent publications and speaking tours.

As far as Marcel is concerned who knows what his deal was. I know I have encountered and pulled security on items I couldn't accurately identify until my security debriefings. Again, not uncommon and definitely not out of the realm of possibility.

fine, trelane. believe as you wish.

 

A balloon, 400-500 mph. uh huh.

[Trelane]

Just now, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

fine, trelane. believe as you wish.

 

A balloon, 400-500 mph. uh huh.

How do you know that definitively?

I believe as I have experienced, not as I wish. Certainly not from random searches on the internet and sketchy documentaries that make wild, and unsubstantiated claims.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Just now, Trelane said:

How do you know that definitively?

I believe as I have experienced, not as I wish. Certainly not from random searches on the internet and sketchy documentaries that make wild, and unsubstantiated claims.

And somehow you know that "a weather balloon" is NOT a "wild, and unsubstantiated claim". Amazing how that works, huh?

Trelane, you do know that the newspaper article was based on information prepared by Marcel, right? I don't know why you call it an unsubstantiated claim!?

Like I said, 3 eyewitnesses whose stories meld. And you have a military intel officer who referred to it as a flying saucer. If you want to disavow everything from the newspaper, that's your prerogative.

All I know is, without substantiation, I won't dismiss that article. Wishful thinking is not a reliable way to do business

[Trelane]

3 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And somehow you know that "a weather balloon" is NOT a "wild, and unsubstantiated claim". Amazing how that works, huh?

Trelane, you do know that the newspaper article was based on information prepared by Marcel, right? I don't know why you call it an unsubstantiated claim!?

Like I said, 3 eyewitnesses whose stories meld. And you have a military intel officer who referred to it as a flying saucer. If you want to disavow everything from the newspaper, that's your prerogative.

All I know is, without substantiation, I won't dismiss that article. Wishful thinking is not a reliable way to do business

Don't get me wrong, I do believe something occurred. I think it has a more terrestrial answer and nothing as exotic as an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

It is unsubstantiated because no one has been able to verify the items initially and subsequently described. I am not and have not been referring to Marcel at all. I have been asking about those individuals who have been lining their pockets off of those wild and unsubstantiated claims of alien technology.

I understand your point of view, I simply disagree. I require something more tangible and verifiable. I am confused though by your confrontational approach towards debating topics.

[Minimalists]

1 minute ago, Trelane said:

Don't get me wrong, I do believe something occurred. I think it has a more terrestrial answer and nothing as exotic as an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

It is unsubstantiated because no one has been able to verify the items initially and subsequently described. I am not and have not been referring to Marcel at all. I have been asking about those individuals who have been lining their pockets off of those wild and unsubstantiated claims of alien technology.

I understand your point of view, I simply disagree. I require something more tangible and verifiable. I am confused though by your confrontational approach towards debating topics.

Quote

I have been asking about those individuals who have been lining their pockets off of those wild and unsubstantiated claims of alien technology.

Thats all this Alien/UFO stuff is a money pit for smooth talkers who can make people believe the sky is falling.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 minute ago, Trelane said:

Don't get me wrong, I do believe something occurred. I think it has a more terrestrial answer and nothing as exotic as an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

It is unsubstantiated because no one has been able to verify the items initially and subsequently described. I am not and have not been referring to Marcel at all. I have been asking about those individuals who have been lining their pockets off of those wild and unsubstantiated claims of alien technology.

I understand your point of view, I simply disagree. I require something more tangible and verifiable. I am confused though by your confrontational approach towards debating topics.

Ok, Ok. Well, that is a whole new issue, then. Of course, follow the $$$. But it's not a necessary part of gleaning what happened that day, which is priority #1 to me.

The newspaper never said they were wrong and do a retraction, nor did any of the civilian witnesses. Instead, the *military* eventually did an about face. So what really happened on that day is nicely outlined in that newspaper article.

And why are you confused by my confrontational approach? I know that after a while with us bantering about the article that you just ain't buying it. But because you can't substantiate why you think it's "all bull", as one poster put it, it tells me that your stance is that you demand a certain outcome and you will take any means to get there, including clubbing the witnesses. And that's when I realize that it's time for me to back out because we are not learning from eachother and we are not going to agree.

And thanks for serving, BTW.

 

[Dejarma]

11 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Ok, Ok. Well, that is a whole new issue, then. Of course, follow the $$$. But it's not a necessary part of gleaning what happened that day, which is priority #1 to me.

The newspaper never said they were wrong and do a retraction, nor did any of the civilian witnesses. Instead, the *military* eventually did an about face. So what really happened on that day is nicely outlined in that newspaper article.

And why are you confused by my confrontational approach? I know that after a while with us bantering about the article that you just ain't buying it. But because you can't substantiate why you think it's "all bull", as one poster put it, it tells me that your stance is that you demand a certain outcome and you will take any means to get there, including clubbing the witnesses. And that's when I realize that it's time for me to back out because we are not learning from eachother and we are not going to agree.

And thanks for serving, BTW.

 

you still haven't answered my question- here it is again:

how do you know of the Roswell incident?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

4 hours ago, Dejarma said:

you still haven't answered my question- here it is again:

how do you know of the Roswell incident?

Yes, Dejarma. And there is a good reason for that. :-)

And it has something to do with me having to already posted my evidences combined with my disdain to do "go fetch" for a hostile. 

Have a nice day, chap

[Minimalists]

9 hours ago, Trelane said:

I'm not saying anything or making judgements of character on anyone so please don't attempt to sheepdog me into that crowd. The data is incomplete at best. Also. there has been demonstrable misrepresentations of the truth by those who have made a lucrative business out of the incident and subsequent publications and speaking tours.

As far as Marcel is concerned who knows what his deal was. I know I have encountered and pulled security on items I couldn't accurately identify until my security debriefings. Again, not uncommon and definitely not out of the realm of possibility.

Unless they have been in the military they are not going to understand how it works.....I never had to go to any security debriefings but I did have a secret clearance.

[psyche101]

On 11/10/2018 at 4:17 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

That's nice. Unfortunately, the first news release by the military never mentioned a balloon, only a "flying disk". The eyewitness never mentioned a balloon either. So even though that object may have existed, it certainly was not what the military reported recovering.

The military meteorology terminology for the radar target is disc. According to records Irving Newton from metereology identified it immediately as the 'disc' (check the records) not the balloon array is what was actually recovered as you can see in the photos. 

The description accurately fits the above. 

[psyche101]

11 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

From the same article, eyewitness, Wilmot.

" Wilmot said that it appeared to him to be about 1,500 feet high and going fast. He estimated between 400 and 500 miles per hour."

400 - 500 MILES PER HOUR... a freekin' Balloon???

More likely a meteor produced by The Sagittarid/Alpha Scorpid streams and possibly even the same meteor witnessed by William Woody who reported a brilliant meteor. 

[stereologist]

On 11/9/2018 at 4:01 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

The issue is OVER, stereo. I posted to you with a purpose. I have achieved my purpose. I proved that your assumption was wrong and that mine was right. Here it is: The military did NOT notify the media of crashed "flying disk" based only on information from Brazel, but on information their INTEL had, based on their own discovery of crashed  object.

Now, I am NOT going to continue to post on this issue just so you can pout like a child. It's OVER. get used to it.

 

Here you continue to be a liar. Your purpose appears to be nothing other than to lie about what other people have posted.

Here you are a liar again. I never suggested any of the rather inane lies you are posting.

So time for you to grow and stop being a whiny 3 year old.

[stereologist]

21 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Good stuff Alien.

The first link shows that a military officer was responsible identifying the of object as a disk.

From link1-----------

The intelligence office of the 509th Bombardment group at Roswell Army Air Field announced at noon today, that the field has come into possession of a flying saucer.

According to information released by the department, over authority of Maj. J. A. Marcel, intelligence officer, the disk was recovered on a ranch in the Roswell vicinity, after an unidentified rancher had notified Sheriff Geo. Wilcox, here, that he had found the instrument on his premises.

Major Marcel and a detail from his department went to the ranch and recovered the disk, it was stated.

(two civilian eyewitness also were cited and they said that they saw a flying disk aglow and flying low)

-------- From link2

But we know how the trogs will play it,,, (THEYZ ALL LIARS!)

I guess being truthful is not part of what you strive for.

Here is what is at the link

Quote

In contrast to the above article which appeared in the Tuesday, July 8th paper, on the VERY NEXT DAY, that is, Wednesday morning July 9th, the paper reported that the "flying disk" found near Roswell: 1947 was NOT a disc or saucer, but instead a weather balloon or weather device. Some quote General Ramey while others quote "informed" sources, including senators in Washington. Reports are military officials toured news media offices in Roswell, Albuquerque, and Santa Fe retrieving original copies of the press release sent out the day before by RAAF that revealed the Army had a "flying disk" in their possession.

What it states is that when the military went to the site of the ranch where a civilian named Brazel reported a flying disk to the sheriff, the military decided to use a flying disk as the cover story for one day till General Ramey told them to state it was a weather balloon.

 

[stereologist]

20 hours ago, Trelane said:

Beyond the small group of people who have reported the incident, who else has made statements to corroborate the initial claims?

No one. There are plenty of people that do the Earl.Of.Trumps and lie about events.

There was the teletype operator that claimed her transmission was interrupted by the FBI. That was not possible since the device had a send/ receive switch. It could not do both at the same time.

There was the person claiming to have touch the pieces that could not be bent or cut. They were never there at the ranch to see the material.

Lots of people have jumped on the bandwagon but ALL after 1978 when the books were written.

[stereologist]

14 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

yup. MRS. wilmot. and the guy who owned the ranch it hit, Brazel.

I thought you knew all this stuff?

Once again you are wrong. Brazel was not the owner.

[stereologist]

13 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

Trelane, I don't know what to tell you.

Marcel was the there, got the whatever back to base and made a report.

If the bleepin' guy doesn't know the difference between a disk and a balloon, then there is your salvation.

And of course we can ad lib for Mr+Mrs. WIlmot, and for Brazel, too, simply by hitting the unbeliever's tried and true all purpose "get me out of this jam" macro button, "Theyz all liars, drunks, and crazies"

weigh the probability, Trelane.

The issue was never about telling the truth. Marcel was there to determine if it was military equipment and if so to avoid disclosure of that equipment. This was a cover story to cover up what really was found by Brazel.

No one but you is saying they are all liars, drunks, crazies or anything else. The only liar is you and the evidence is very clear in this thread. You have repeatedly lied about my posts.

[Trelane]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Lots of people have jumped on the bandwagon but ALL after 1978 when the books were written.

That's what bugs me the most. I literally never heard one thing about Roswell until the 40th anniversary rolled around and the first books were getting on the news. It is painfully obvious observing the people jumping on board to get their share of the gullible public's money.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Trelane said:

That's what bugs me the most. I literally never heard one thing about Roswell until the 40th anniversary rolled around and the first books were getting on the news. It is painfully obvious observing the people jumping on board to get their share of the gullible public's money.

Quite a few people I read about made early statements that they never saw the debris. Suddenly they talk about how it could not be bent or cut or burned.

I've been to Roswell but never bothered with the museum or things like that. I was out hiking in the area.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

The military meteorology terminology for the radar target is disc. According to records Irving Newton from metereology identified it immediately as the 'disc' (check the records) not the balloon array is what was actually recovered as you can see in the photos. 

The description accurately fits the above. 

 

So the description fits nicely...?

How about this - it streaked across the sky at 400-500 mph

Is that a nice fit? They just don't make balloons like thy used to

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

Here you continue to be a liar. <SNIP>

Bye, Stereo. do svidaniya.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

I guess being truthful is not part of what you strive for.

Here is what is at the link

What it states is that when the military went to the site of the ranch where a civilian named Brazel reported a flying disk to the sheriff, the military decided to use a flying disk as the cover story for one day till General Ramey told them to state it was a weather balloon.

 

LOL and you know that, right??

The military's decision to use "flying disk" had NOTHING at all to do with intel officer Marcel's detective work, it all had to do with Brazel's statement that the military got second hand. You are pathetic.

I enjoy watching squirm like an eel when you can't get around the truth.

[stereologist]

14 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Bye, Stereo. do svidaniya.

When you lie about my posts I will point it out. That is called evidence and I have posted the direct evidence that you lied.

Not sure why you resort to repeated lies, but you do.

[stereologist]

11 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

LOL and you know that, right??

The military's decision to use "flying disk" had NOTHING at all to do with intel officer Marcel's detective work, it all had to do with Brazel's statement that the military got second hand. You are pathetic.

I enjoy watching squirm like an eel when you can't get around the truth.

No idea why you are so confused about the order of events and what happened. It wouldn't hurt you to learn before spouting ignorance.

There is no evidence at all that Marcel did any detective work. He simply collected debris that he handed over to Ramey. It is Ramey that corrected the original cover story.

Brazel was the first on the scene. Marcel came at least 24 hours later. There was no recovery crew as you falsely claimed. Brazel was not the ranch owner as you falsely stated.

You pretend that the military cover story is completely factual. No one in 1947 thought any of it was true. It would not be till 1978 that this bad cover story is revived.

It is clear that your bellicose blatherings are not interested in the truth but in only in your degenerate attempts at spouting delusions.

[stereologist]

25 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

So the description fits nicely...?

How about this - it streaked across the sky at 400-500 mph

Is that a nice fit? They just don't make balloons like thy used to

The cover story that was made up by Marcel, possibly based on the words of Brazel, and was sounded rejected by his superiors the very next day.

Pretending that a cover story is in any way factual is laughable.