Roswell for Dummies. :)

a reply to: mirageman

I think it is relevent to this thread in comparing a classic case like Roswell, where the evidence isnt that good, to other cases where the evidence is much better.

Belgian wave
I read the photo was fake as well, however there are multiple reports by police/others, some on the video I linked, that clearly describe the object in the bogus photo. Are they all lying ? Even the police dispatcher winds up getting a look at the craft. The bogus photo imo, does nothing to this case's credibility.

JAL 1628
The split radar is cover in detail by Maccabee, imo this is one of the best cases out there. Whatever the pilots credibility, there were other people in the cockpit as well as radar confirmation.

However making the leap to UFOs being alien spacecraft is something I am yet to be convinced of. It's not impossible.

I guess if you research enough cases, from the 50s and 60s, objects caught on radar moving at high speeds making right angle turns would not be possible( at least imo) back then (perhaps we have the tech to do it today, who knows). If it isnt us, then it is alien right? what other possibility is there?

I really dont think disclosure is that important, the phenomena is interesting, like watching an episode of modern marvels. What can we do about it if they are there scoping us out?
As I am sure you are aware, thread starting takes up a bunch of time ! But if someone wants to do the research, hopefully I gave them a good starting point

a reply to: 111DPKING111

I guess if you research enough cases, from the 50s and 60s, objects caught on radar moving at high speeds making right angle turns would not be possible( at least imo) back then (perhaps we have the tech to do it today, who knows). If it isnt us, then it is alien right? what other possibility is there?

Let's not rule out aliens. It remains a possibility.

But there is certainly circumstantial evidence that plasma caused by the radar in combination with certain atmospheric conditions could produce very strange radar returns dating back to WWII (foo fighters). There is also "Project Palladium" . This information was kindly provided by another of our members ZetaRediculian in Revisiting the 1952 Washington DC UFO Flap thread. It seems that there was technology available back then designed to create false radar returns.

As I am sure you are aware, thread starting takes up a bunch of time ! But if someone wants to do the research, hopefully I gave them a good starting point

Yes I totally agree with you there! Maybe someone will take up the challenge.

a reply to: mirageman

There is also "Project Palladium" . This information was kindly provided by another of our members ZetaRediculian

Im glad you found that worth the mention. I have been curious about that since stumbling on it a year ago. Im still not sure if its "real" or not. It does sound entirely plausible but it also seems too nice of a fit. I do have to practice what I preach. I really didn't find much on it other than what you linked. Have you found any more about it?

People rarely cite what I think is one of the most compelling cases which actually does have a photo, though admittedly of very poor quality, yet still good enough to rule out many alternate possible explanations.

Its a good case, someone on youtube did a five part series on it - www.youtube.com...
and there are others like it
trumbull ohio - www.youtube.com...

But imo, they both pale in comparison to the Belgian wave where there are a slew of sightings. Whats interesting in the Belgian wave reports, we have a police report of this thing doing what I guess is some kind of recon into the lake.
www.youtube.com...

After some digging, like the Lebanon case, there really is no doubt some craft was observed. Was it just high tech military, or alien? I could possibly see us flying our craft over our own airspace, but why would we conduct some clandestine operation in the Belgian airspace over a period of months?

however I'm 99% sure the "mothership" was a cloud. Even the researcher who 111DPKING111 linked to admits that possibility, though at a different link:

It would be nice to ask Bruce about the cloud theory, Id be curious to know how serious he takes it, hard to believe the JAL had so much trouble shaking a stationary cloud when he is flying at 600mph.

The lights were a separate event and looked like airport lights and were always in the direction of an airport, but the physics of how those lights appeared to be at altitude is at best unclear so we can't say that case is solved, it's not. They also don't explain "heat on the captains face" but I think there are alternate explanations for that such as the likelihood the sensation was from being flush with excitement, combined with the fact that so-called "heat" wasn't reported by any other members of the crew. However the physics of distant lights do explain other aspects of the mystery lights

It seems really a reach to think distant airport lights appeared right in front of the plane, and not just for an instant. Even if you allow for the belief that the lights somehow(magically) appeared directly in front of the plane, how long could it have lasted for a plane traveling at 600mph?

I don't know that much about the Westall Case but there's no photographic evidence, which, at least that much was easier to explain for a 1966 case than it is today, or even as recently as the O'Hare case where it's unthinkable that "UFO" hovered as long as claimed, yet nobody managed to take a picture of it. But with only stories and no photos, it's hard to tell what they saw.

Take a look into the case, you wont be disappointed.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In any case citing a preponderance of UFO cases does nothing to bolster the evidence for each individual case.

If there were only one case like the Lebanon case, I just wouldnt buy it myself personally, without a dead alien corpse or clear polaroids.

originally posted by: mirageman

Are we supposed to find them all ourselves? A few examples would be nice [regarding witnesses].

This first one is an eyesore but the site is fairly comprehensive. Walter Haut signed an affadivit stating that he'd seen, under Ramey's wing, alien bodies in the hangar. Marion Magruder was a Lt.Col. who claims to have seen the spaceship wreckage and bodies in Wright Field post-Roswell cleanup. Ed win Easely admitted it was something more than a weather balloon as well.

Here are 3 and obviously there are dozens but they take time to reference. You really need to read through a book like Witness to Roswell because they put the whole timeline together for you and explain why certain people were able to see certain things, and why some people talk and others don't. Referencing item by item really takes them out of context and the magnitude of the Pro-Roswell case is underplayed.

Again a link to source material directly referring to this gouge, or a picture before and after would add weight to your argument [regarding a fresh gouge as opposed to an older gouge].

Go to this site and search for the word "gouge" -- again, you can get this knowledge from reading one of many books.

I think you will find that there is a lot of collective knowledge on the UFO topic on ATS.

Right, so no books or witness interviews for you then? I think you'll find that if you take the time, Roswell will get your attention once again. Again, you need to watch the lectures, witness interviews, and read full books to really grasp the magnitude of the evidence. ATS posts are bits and pieces. It's the wrong 'forum' for this type of thing.



originally posted by: mirageman

Is it not strange that he never mentioned any alien bodies in his statements 30 years later but was quite happy to declare he'd handled something from outer space?

Let's remember that Marcel died saying that there was much more he knew than what he was talking about publicly. It's long been suspected that Marcel had seen the bodies at site #3 (aka "Dee Proctor's Body Site" ), having been the first official (along with Cavitt) to visit Brazel's ranch at a time when we know that Brazel had already found the bodies, apparently atop that bluff (noted by Frank Joyce during a 1on1 interview [At this point, according to Joyce, Brazel really started losing it.] "Oh, God, Oh, my God. What am I gonna do? It’s horrible. Horrible. Just horrible." -pg.58, Witness to Roswell, Carey and Schmitt). Brazel then went on to talk about the smell and the bodies of "little people."

Marcel arrived at a time when Brazel already knew about the bodies, and Brazel was adament about getting everything removed, so it's quite likely he'd have taken this opportunity to show Cavitt and Marcel the bodies. Again, Marcel never said that but instead mentioned there was more he knew than what we was saying.

Sorry for getting off-topic a bit but I'm trying to show that the pro-Roswell stance should be understood as a whole, not spliced out in pieces because it's the large body of testimony that makes the case and not any 1 single piece of evidence; hence understanding the entire scope is important.

Well assuming there is more than one I could say that they were both co-erced in some ways, perhaps bribed, maybe wanted attention or were simply losing their wits. The onus however lies on you to cite your sources and provide names and their claims.

There's no onus. We're just talking here. Which do you believe is more likely.. 1) your theory above (where hundreds of people managed to tell corroborating lies for the first time in history) or 2) they were telling the truth or 3) other ??

[regarding citizens were threatened for talking] Glenn Dennis, unreliable witness. Kevin Randle says so

Inez Wilcox - This is hearsay testimony from her granddaughter Barbara Drugger.

Frankie Rowe - 2nd hand witness too. No evidence from log books that her father's fire crew venturing out beyond their jurisdiction of Roswell city limits in July of 1947.

Glenn Dennis - he became "unreliable" for giving a fake name to researchers immediately after he mentioned (and I'm paraphrasing) "If you really need a name, then I'm going to give you a fake name, because I promised her that I'd never give out her real name." That's like having to check the "convicted criminal" box on a job application after a cop plants a bag of coke in your car. But alright, let's call him an unreliable witness. Unreliable people can still be threatened.

Inez Wilcox - 2nd hand information? You know, there's a paradox about having an abundance of first hand information when the topic is 'being threatened for talking.' LOL.

Frankie Rowe - this isn't 2nd hand, it's firsthand. She's on video making the statements. Is she a liar? Researchers were able to match her descriptions of the MP (who had New York accent) with Arthur Philbin, the Roswell 509th Bomb Group's only New Yorker -- whom she later circled out of a photo lineup!!



originally posted by: mirageman

You can actually click on the link and read the whole article yourself. There would be no mention of a Mogul balloon because it was not identified as a Mogul balloon until the debris was examined at Fort Worth. Roswell AAF did not launch Mogul balloons. Which may explain why no one there knew what it was.

Patrick Saunders was one of the people involved in covering Roswell's paper trail and he even bragged to his family about it before his death. [edit: I misinterpreted your defense, but my reply may still apply as a mogul paper trail could be planted just as easily as a spaceship crash paper trail could be eliminated.]

[regarding BBC docmentary] The onus is on you to bring up anything you feel is a fallacy and cite your evidence not me.

I know you like using the word onus, but for this one, the onus is on you because you brought the video into discussion. Is there something you'd like to say about the video?



[...I will continue on a forthcoming post...]

originally posted by: HumanOnEarth
originally posted by: mirageman

Are we supposed to find them all ourselves? A few examples would be nice [regarding witnesses].

This first one is an eyesore but the site is fairly comprehensive. Walter Haut signed an affadivit stating that he'd seen, under Ramey's wing, alien bodies in the hangar. Marion Magruder was a Lt.Col. who claims to have seen the spaceship wreckage and bodies in Wright Field post-Roswell cleanup. Ed win Easely admitted it was something more than a weather balloon as well.

Here are 3 and obviously there are dozens but they take time to reference. You really need to read through a book like Witness to Roswell because they put the whole timeline together for you and explain why certain people were able to see certain things, and why some people talk and others don't. Referencing item by item really takes them out of context and the magnitude of the Pro-Roswell case is underplayed.

Again a link to source material directly referring to this gouge, or a picture before and after would add weight to your argument [regarding a fresh gouge as opposed to an older gouge].

Go to this site and search for the word "gouge" -- again, you can get this knowledge from reading one of many books.

I think you will find that there is a lot of collective knowledge on the UFO topic on ATS.

Right, so no books or witness interviews for you then? I think you'll find that if you take the time, Roswell will get your attention once again. Again, you need to watch the lectures, witness interviews, and read full books to really grasp the magnitude of the evidence. ATS posts are bits and pieces. It's the wrong 'forum' for this type of thing.



originally posted by: mirageman

Is it not strange that he never mentioned any alien bodies in his statements 30 years later but was quite happy to declare he'd handled something from outer space?

Let's remember that Marcel died saying that there was much more he knew than what he was talking about publicly. It's long been suspected that Marcel had seen the bodies at site #3 (aka "Dee Proctor's Body Site" ), having been the first official (along with Cavitt) to visit Brazel's ranch at a time when we know that Brazel had already found the bodies, apparently atop that bluff (noted by Frank Joyce during a 1on1 interview [At this point, according to Joyce, Brazel really started losing it.] "Oh, God, Oh, my God. What am I gonna do? It’s horrible. Horrible. Just horrible." -pg.58, Witness to Roswell, Carey and Schmitt). Brazel then went on to talk about the smell and the bodies of "little people."

Marcel arrived at a time when Brazel already knew about the bodies, and Brazel was adament about getting everything removed, so it's quite likely he'd have taken this opportunity to show Cavitt and Marcel the bodies. Again, Marcel never said that but instead mentioned there was more he knew than what we was saying.

Sorry for getting off-topic a bit but I'm trying to show that the pro-Roswell stance should be understood as a whole, not spliced out in pieces because it's the large body of testimony that makes the case and not any 1 single piece of evidence; hence understanding the entire scope is important.

Well assuming there is more than one I could say that they were both co-erced in some ways, perhaps bribed, maybe wanted attention or were simply losing their wits. The onus however lies on you to cite your sources and provide names and their claims.

There's no onus. We're just talking here. Which do you believe is more likely.. 1) your theory above (where hundreds of people managed to tell corroborating lies for the first time in history) or 2) they were telling the truth or 3) other ??

[regarding citizens were threatened for talking] Glenn Dennis, unreliable witness. Kevin Randle says so

Inez Wilcox - This is hearsay testimony from her granddaughter Barbara Drugger.

Frankie Rowe - 2nd hand witness too. No evidence from log books that her father's fire crew venturing out beyond their jurisdiction of Roswell city limits in July of 1947.

Glenn Dennis - he became "unreliable" for giving a fake name to researchers immediately after he mentioned (and I'm paraphrasing) "If you really need a name, then I'm going to give you a fake name, because I promised her that I'd never give out her real name." That's like having to check the "convicted criminal" box on a job application after a cop plants a bag of coke in your car. But alright, let's call him an unreliable witness. Unreliable people can still be threatened.

Inez Wilcox - 2nd hand information? You know, there's a paradox about having an abundance of first hand information when the topic is 'being threatened for talking.' LOL.

Frankie Rowe - this isn't 2nd hand, it's firsthand. She's on video making the statements. Is she a liar? Researchers were able to match her descriptions of the MP (who had New York accent) with Arthur Philbin, the Roswell 509th Bomb Group's only New Yorker -- whom she later circled out of a photo lineup!!



originally posted by: mirageman

You can actually click on the link and read the whole article yourself. There would be no mention of a Mogul balloon because it was not identified as a Mogul balloon until the debris was examined at Fort Worth. Roswell AAF did not launch Mogul balloons. Which may explain why no one there knew what it was.

Patrick Saunders was one of the people involved in covering Roswell's paper trail and he even bragged to his family about it before his death. [edit: I misinterpreted your defense, but my reply may still apply as a mogul paper trail could be planted just as easily as a spaceship crash paper trail could be eliminated.]

[regarding BBC docmentary] The onus is on you to bring up anything you feel is a fallacy and cite your evidence not me.

I know you like using the word onus, but for this one, the onus is on you because you brought the video into discussion. Is there something you'd like to say about the video?



[...I will continue on a forthcoming post...][/quote

edit on 4-1-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

No, you don't need it to, but you're doing an awful lot of support for that side of the argument- "500+ witnesses for the ufo/et case... dead aliens... deathbed confessionals... most probably there were multiple crash sites." and on. Sounds like the lean of your stance would be pretty clear to most. If not an alien spacecraft or balloon... what then?

You misunderstood my intention. I was using clever wording instead of cutting right to the point. My point is that 90% of the information we have points to ETs and a spaceship crash from another world. I meant that it doesn't benefit me, but when I look at the case with a pure set of logic, that's the conclusion I (and countless others) have drawn. Mainly because so many high ranking officers who were there at the time said it was (later in life) -- while NONE really died saying it was Mogul related.



originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

The first witnesses description-
Mac Brazel:
- Sticks
- Tinfoil
- Bundled 7-8 inches thick x 3 foot

This was the story given to press after he was threatened and detained. But before this, he invited all his neighbors, their friends, and practically the entire town of Corona to come take a look. It was a big deal. He was fascinated by the memory material, and also pleaded for someone to come help him remove the wreckage and "little bodies."

Years later when his own family and friends would question what he really found out there, he'd leave the room and shout back "it’s better that you don’t know" or similar (source here). Later, Brazel once walked out of a restaurant with a full plate of hot food on the table. Don't you find this an odd reaction for a guy who only found sticks, tinfoil and balsa wood? Doesn't this throw up a red flag during your research, or do you just frantically keep scouring for items that fit your case and throw away whatever doesn't? I really want to know. What do you make of this?

Bessie Brazel:
- Kite-like sticks
- Double sided material. Foil-like on one side, rubber-like on the other.

It makes sense that she wasn't on the same wavelength as her father because, after being detained, Mack was a changed man and made no attempt to solidify the memory with any of his family members; but rather the opposite. Being so young at the time, and especially being a girl, as time went on Bessie was the most detached from this.

Furthermore, upon being corrected by investigators she later retracted her statement. She'd remembered the wrong event when creating the affidavit (and to my memory, contrary to the majority of the stories you'll read, she wasn't actually present during this event -- and admitted this later).

Jesse Marcel Sr:
- A lot of little wood or plastic like rectangular beams.
- Tough flexible foil-like material.
- Largest pieces about 3 to 4 feet.

Using the words wood-like and plastic-like should be taken literally. They were wood LIKE, and plastic LIKE, albeit not wood or plastic. Have you ever picked up a 2x4 peice of wood, turned to your friend and said "this is very wood-like"??

Wood and plastic and foil were some of the only words in the 1947 vocabulary sufficient enough to describe the materials, except this stuff wouldn't break or burn.

If they were literally wood and plastic, then Marcel would have said "wood and plastic" but he most certainly did not. This is where skeptics get off track and derailed to start believing in something that never happened. To my knowledge the Roswell wreckage never contained wood or plastic by anyone's account who wasn't threatened.

And this isn't a matter of you taking my word for it either. There's a clear path and an obvious correlation between those who claimed to be threatened and those who reported balloon-like material which can be discovered with quick Google searches.

Jesse Marcel Jr.
- Lightweight I-Beams.
- Foil-like material.

In Marcel Jr.'s affidavit, he makes many statements that stray from your list above. This is proof that you're cherry picking evidence to fit your case and not looking at Marcel Jr.'s account as a whole. Here are some items in that affidavit that conflict the weather balloon lie:
- "The material filled up his 1942 Buick."
- "On the inner surface of the I-beam, there appeared to be a type of writing. The writing was a purple-violet hue, and it had an embossed appearance."
- Also, Marcel Jr.'s ibeam drawing resembles no part of a weather balloon, nor any known piece of a Mogul contraption.



I bet there's not one person on this forum who can, with a clear conscience and good faith, and with no (or little) prejudice, swear to everything holy that they've spent hundreds of hours researching the Roswell incident and now believe that it was not ET/UFO related.

In the case of Roswell, there's a remarkably strong correlation between understanding ALL the evidence and being swayed toward the ET/UFO explanation.

a reply to: HumanOnEarth

Hi. Can you provide the list of deathbed confessions that was supposed to make people uncomfortable? I looked at the first 2 names you provided and neither were deathbed confessions. The first name you gave, "Benjamin", I felt was rather weak testimony given that it was on a Sci FI reality TV show. Do you have any more names? Thanks in advance.

originally posted by: HumanOnEarth
originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

No, you don't need it to, but you're doing an awful lot of support for that side of the argument- "500+ witnesses for the ufo/et case... dead aliens... deathbed confessionals... most probably there were multiple crash sites." and on. Sounds like the lean of your stance would be pretty clear to most. If not an alien spacecraft or balloon... what then?

You misunderstood my intention. I was using clever wording instead of cutting right to the point. My point is that 90% of the information we have points to ETs and a spaceship crash from another world. I meant that it doesn't benefit me, but when I look at the case with a pure set of logic, that's the conclusion I (and countless others) have drawn. Mainly because so many high ranking officers who were there at the time said it was (later in life) -- while NONE really died saying it was Mogul related.



originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

The first witnesses description-
Mac Brazel:
- Sticks
- Tinfoil
- Bundled 7-8 inches thick x 3 foot

This was the story given to press after he was threatened and detained. But before this, he invited all his neighbors, their friends, and practically the entire town of Corona to come take a look. It was a big deal. He was fascinated by the memory material, and also pleaded for someone to come help him remove the wreckage and "little bodies."

Years later when his own family and friends would question what he really found out there, he'd leave the room and shout back "it’s better that you don’t know" or similar (source here). Later, Brazel once walked out of a restaurant with a full plate of hot food on the table. Don't you find this an odd reaction for a guy who only found sticks, tinfoil and balsa wood? Doesn't this throw up a red flag during your research, or do you just frantically keep scouring for items that fit your case and throw away whatever doesn't? I really want to know. What do you make of this?

Bessie Brazel:
- Kite-like sticks
- Double sided material. Foil-like on one side, rubber-like on the other.

It makes sense that she wasn't on the same wavelength as her father because, after being detained, Mack was a changed man and made no attempt to solidify the memory with any of his family members; but rather the opposite. Being so young at the time, and especially being a girl, as time went on Bessie was the most detached from this.

Furthermore, upon being corrected by investigators she later retracted her statement. She'd remembered the wrong event when creating the affidavit (and to my memory, contrary to the majority of the stories you'll read, she wasn't actually present during this event -- and admitted this later).

Jesse Marcel Sr:
- A lot of little wood or plastic like rectangular beams.
- Tough flexible foil-like material.
- Largest pieces about 3 to 4 feet.

Using the words wood-like and plastic-like should be taken literally. They were wood LIKE, and plastic LIKE, albeit not wood or plastic. Have you ever picked up a 2x4 peice of wood, turned to your friend and said "this is very wood-like"??

Wood and plastic and foil were some of the only words in the 1947 vocabulary sufficient enough to describe the materials, except this stuff wouldn't break or burn.

If they were literally wood and plastic, then Marcel would have said "wood and plastic" but he most certainly did not. This is where skeptics get off track and derailed to start believing in something that never happened. To my knowledge the Roswell wreckage never contained wood or plastic by anyone's account who wasn't threatened.

And this isn't a matter of you taking my word for it either. There's a clear path and an obvious correlation between those who claimed to be threatened and those who reported balloon-like material which can be discovered with quick Google searches.

Jesse Marcel Jr.
- Lightweight I-Beams.
- Foil-like material.

In Marcel Jr.'s affidavit, he makes many statements that stray from your list above. This is proof that you're cherry picking evidence to fit your case and not looking at Marcel Jr.'s account as a whole. Here are some items in that affidavit that conflict the weather balloon lie:
- "The material filled up his 1942 Buick."
- "On the inner surface of the I-beam, there appeared to be a type of writing. The writing was a purple-violet hue, and it had an embossed appearance."
- Also, Marcel Jr.'s ibeam drawing resembles no part of a weather balloon, nor any known piece of a Mogul contraption.



I bet there's not one person on this forum who can, with a clear conscience and good faith, and with no (or little) prejudice, swear to everything holy that they've spent hundreds of hours researching the Roswell incident and now believe that it was not ET/UFO related.

In the case of Roswell, there's a remarkably strong correlation between understanding ALL the evidence and being swayed toward the ET/UFO explanation.

Thank you so much for this post, Human on Earth. This might be the most informed and informative post I've ever read on ATS.

I am still astounded how so many on here have convinced themselves that Roswell was just a ballon. The mental gymnastics required to conclude that the 509th couldn't tell a weather balloon from an alien ship complete with dead alien bodies, it's simply absurd.

These are the same people who vilify Stanton Friedman, who I regard as probably the most credentialed of all UFologists, living or dead. Some in here paint him as a fraud, and many in here disparage him as a huckster who is in it to make "a quick buck". This is deeply offensive, and I feel he was crucial to getting at the truth regarding Roswell.

Human on Earth, may I ask what is YOUR opinion of Stanton Friedman and his work in Ufology?

a reply to: Scdfa

I am still astounded how so many on here have convinced themselves that Roswell was just a ballon. The mental gymnastics required to conclude that the 509th couldn't tell a weather balloon from an alien ship complete with dead alien bodies, it's simply absurd.

Agreed but that's not what is being suggested. From what I can surmise, the folks on the "non alien" side are suggesting that the original reports are of something unknown made from common materials of the time. From what I have seen presented, that fits. I think everyone agrees that the "weather balloon" story was a cover.

The chain of events would be:

Debris was found that didn't look like anything known though it was made of sticks.

As a "cover" for mogul or some other reason, it was reported to be a crashed "disk".

The story was later changed to a "weather balloon".

Story dies.

The story was brought back to life and sensationalized 30 years later.

A mythology grows around a non event.

See that? No mental gymnastics required.

originally posted by: Scdfa
These are the same people who vilify Stanton Friedman, who I regard as probably the most credentialed of all UFologists, living or dead.

Well I can tell you his fusion propulsion thesis is not really workable, just from the bits of engineerese I've picked up over the years. I'd argue that Jacque Vallee has superior credentials, and indeed, did extremely well for himself in SIlicon Valley. Friedman hasn't done any professional work outside his UFO stuff since he got into the circuit.

I don't know about you, but it was his AMA that sank him for me. He didn't engage any of the good questions, fielded softballs, and waxed about a 'galactic federation'. Goodness, he didn't even respond to JadeStar - and her work was something that IMHO he should have paid attention to.

a reply to: 1ofthe9
Yeah, the AMA was sad. A few years ago, watching Stanton Friedman lectures is what got me interested in the subject again after a number of years. I was a Friedman fan for a short while until his rhetoric started bothering me. Once I realized I was actually a "Noisy Negativist" for asking questions and thinking for myself, I switched teams.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

As a "cover" for mogul or some other reason, it was reported to be a crashed "disk".

if it was a cover it was a big shiny one with flashing lights and bells on - so much so they had to issue a 'cover' for the 'cover'?

it was a highly sensitive base at the height of cold war paranoia - i suspect they were smarter than that

originally posted by: 1ofthe9

originally posted by: Scdfa
These are the same people who vilify Stanton Friedman, who I regard as probably the most credentialed of all UFologists, living or dead.

Well I can tell you his fusion propulsion thesis is not really workable, just from the bits of engineerese I've picked up over the years. I'd argue that Jacque Vallee has superior credentials, and indeed, did extremely well for himself in SIlicon Valley. Friedman hasn't done any professional work outside his UFO stuff since he got into the circuit.

I don't know about you, but it was his AMA that sank him for me. He didn't engage any of the good questions, fielded softballs, and waxed about a 'galactic federation'. Goodness, he didn't even respond to JadeStar - and her work was something that IMHO he should have paid attention to.

I will politely say that I was not aware that jadestar had actually done any work, that is, any research of substance regarding UFOs. Of course, It could be that I just haven't seen that work, I am relatively new here. Could you link me to any of her serious work? I'd be curious to see. I must side with Stanton Friedman on that.

As for Vallee, he's great, and important to ufology, of course, but has he done any significant research into a UFO incident like the work that Stanton has done in the Roswell crash?

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

As a "cover" for mogul or some other reason, it was reported to be a crashed "disk".

if it was a cover it was a big shiny one with flashing lights and bells on - so much so they had to issue a 'cover' for the 'cover'?

it was a highly sensitive base at the height of cold war paranoia - i suspect they were smarter than that

Yes, hence the quotes around "cover". Its one of those things that doesn't quite add up. But I do think there is enough ways speculate about it where we don't need aliens involved.

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: 1ofthe9

originally posted by: Scdfa
These are the same people who vilify Stanton Friedman, who I regard as probably the most credentialed of all UFologists, living or dead.

Well I can tell you his fusion propulsion thesis is not really workable, just from the bits of engineerese I've picked up over the years. I'd argue that Jacque Vallee has superior credentials, and indeed, did extremely well for himself in SIlicon Valley. Friedman hasn't done any professional work outside his UFO stuff since he got into the circuit.

I don't know about you, but it was his AMA that sank him for me. He didn't engage any of the good questions, fielded softballs, and waxed about a 'galactic federation'. Goodness, he didn't even respond to JadeStar - and her work was something that IMHO he should have paid attention to.

I will politely say that I was not aware that jadestar had actually done any work, that is, any research of substance regarding UFOs. Of course, It could be that I just haven't seen that work, I am relatively new here. Could you link me to any of her serious work? I'd be curious to see. I must side with Stanton Friedman on that.

As for Vallee, he's great, and important to ufology, of course, but has he done any significant research into a UFO incident like the work that Stanton has done in the Roswell crash?

I'm in the middle of a bowl of ramen so I can't get the link, but her post should be in the AMA thread.

a reply to: HumanOnEarth

...he'd leave the room and shout back "it’s better that you don’t know" or similar. Later, Brazel once walked out of a restaurant with a full plate of hot food on the table.
.
Let's remember that Marcel died saying that there was much more he knew than what he was talking about publicly. It's long been suspected that Marcel had seen the bodies at site #3 (aka "Dee Proctor's Body Site" )
.
Brazel had already found the bodies, apparently atop that bluff (noted by Frank Joyce during a 1on1 interview [At this point, according to Joyce, Brazel really started losing it.] "Oh, God, Oh, my God. What am I gonna do? It’s horrible. Horrible. Just horrible."

This is not meant to be condescending, but how am I supposed to have a serious discussion with someone who basically believes and has bought into everything they've been told, read, or seen on TV in regards to Roswell? A few of them pointed out above, down to actual quotes you believe were said. It becomes a pointless circle of nonsense. All of what you've said in your response is 100% based on eyewitness testimony and nothing based on actual evidence. Some of these stories told 30+ years after the fact. You also do exactly what you've accused others of, cherry picking. You completely write-off what was initially said and choose to believe what fits into your own personal belief. Your stance and arguments make me question your true vested interest in this case.

You say you're using logic, but skip over the question I've repeatedly asked on this forum- Give me a logical explanation for both this object and weather balloon radar targets being constructed exactly the same way. I pointed out the consistencies with the story of four different people with the beams, foil, and two with size of this object. To which you mainly side-tracked to other parts of the story. The entire point of repeatedly posting those three descriptions is that they are the same. So.... what's your explanation as to why they are constructed the same? Also, what's your explanation of this indestructible material, 'destructing' and spreading out over the property?

The material filled up his 1942 Buick.

This somehow lends itself as evidence of an alien craft? Or an object that was big enough to leave a large debris field with broken pieces stuffed into a trunk, such as a balloon train payload much larger than typical weather balloon radar target?

Using the words wood-like and plastic-like should be taken literally. They were wood LIKE, and plastic LIKE, albeit not wood or plastic. Have you ever picked up a 2x4 peice of wood, turned to your friend and said "this is very wood-like"??

A small strong beam that's lightweight like balsawood, but is plastic-like. Does a balsawood beam with an "Elmers glue type of coating" for strength fit that description? Seems to.

In the case of Roswell, there's a remarkably strong correlation between understanding ALL the evidence and being swayed toward the ET/UFO explanation.

I think it's safe to say a majority of the people on this forum know the points that are used as strong arguments for this being an alien crash. It's the members that are easily swayed by a title, self appointed experts, have a pre-existing belief in aliens, etc. that will be on your side of the argument. I find many members here that don't do much investigation are the ones that buy into many cases. They do very surface and cursory research. They watch a TV show or read articles online and believe. Also, reading 500 books with 500 stories is still 500 stories, it is not actual evidence, unless your bar is set so low that you accept it as enough. When you speak on a subject as extraordinary as aliens and that species having the capability to travel light years, of a spacecraft crashing on Earth, and recovered alien bodies, you should require a little more than tall tales told. You really don't understand the implications of alien visitation on Earth if you so simply accept "aliens are here" based mainly on stories. You do an injustice and undermine the event by being so trivial with your acceptance.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

It's the members that are easily swayed by a title, self appointed experts, have a pre-existing belief in aliens, etc. that will be on your side of the argument. I find many members here that don't do much investigation are the ones that buy into many cases. They do very surface and cursory research. They watch a TV show or read articles online and believe. Also, reading 500 books with 500 stories is still 500 stories, it is not actual evidence, unless your bar is set so low that you accept it as enough. When you speak on a subject as extraordinary as aliens and that species having the capability to travel light years, of a spacecraft crashing on Earth, and recovered alien bodies, you should require a little more than tall tales told. You really don't understand the implications of alien visitation on Earth if you so simply accept "aliens are here" based mainly on stories. You do an injustice and undermine the event by being so trivial with your acceptance.

In this quote you demonstrate that you are not judging the Roswell case on the evidence.

You judge Roswell based on your own opinions on a number of topics of which you have preconceived notions; where aliens come from, "light years" you insist. Read Jacques Vallee. Even if they did travel that distance, how small-minded of you to imagine they travel at our current, transient level of technology. Albany to Buffalo was tough by the Erie Canal, but we got smarter. Well, some of us. Now, we have craft that have left the solar system. Only 100 years after the canal.

You assume that such travel would be extremely difficult for highly advanced beings, you have no evidence for that. On the contrary, Roswell itself is evidence that it may not be so difficult. Roswell, and decades of other sightings and close encounters, that is. Don't you think it is likely impossible that no species in this entire galaxy has a way to travel through space better than we can at our current stage of development..?

That, is the modern equivalent of believing the Sun goes around the Earth. Putting humans at the top of the galaxy's science? Foolish to believe.

Then you tell us that we base our 'belief' on "tall tales told". Another person conveniently forgetting the tens of thousands of encounters that also include evidence beyond testimony; photographs, film, videotape, digital video, radar signatures, physical traces, to the point of exposing some witnesses to lethal levels of radiation.

It is not we, but you who do the injustice, and undermine this event and thousands more, by being so trivial with your denial.

a reply to: Scdfa

You assume that such travel would be extremely difficult for highly advanced beings, you have no evidence for that.

Yes, there is no evidence for "highly advanced beings" from outer space, so it would be impossible to have evidence of what they can or can not do. Correct.

On the contrary, Roswell itself is evidence that it may not be so difficult.

That is a circular argument. You are essentially saying "Roswell is evidence of aliens because they found aliens in Roswell" I could just as easily say "Roswell is evidence for the military using alien cover stories because they used alien cover stories in Roswell".

Roswell, and decades of other sightings and close encounters, that is. Don't you think it is likely impossible that no species in this entire galaxy has a way to travel through space better than we can at our current stage of development..?

Again you have to assume that "decades of other sightings and close encounters" represent aliens when they could just as easily represent a modern mythology. With the complete lack of physical evidence and nothing but stories, we are free to speculate. Nothing is "likely impossible". I'm not sure what that means.How do you show something that is "likely impossible"? Of course advanced civilizations that travel through space are possible. That doesn't mean they are visiting here.

a reply to: HumanOnEarth

Before I respond I really do commend your persistence and the work you've put in here to argue your points.

But because I simply don't have the free time this week I've condensed things a lot.

Walter Haut signed an affadivit stating that he'd seen, under Ramey's wing, alien bodies in the hangar. .... You really need to read through a book like Witness to Roswell because they put the whole timeline together for you.

What makes you think I haven't read Witness to Roswell?

You do know about Walter Haut’s association with Glenn Dennis in founding the Roswell UFO Museum in the 1990s and where his family still hold interest? It was Haut who pointed Stanton Friedman and others in Glenn Dennis’ direction.

He also signed an earlier affidavit in 1993, as Roswell fever kicked into gear, of which he said:

“I am convinced the material recovered was some type of craft from outer space”

Walter also talked of another crash site “40 miles north of town, where the main craft and bodies were found” (separate from the site investigated by Major Marcel). We’ll come back to that one. Haut was also the guy who advised Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt speak to Frank Kaufmann. So we can either believe he was totally bonafide and his witness recommendations ill judged. Or is it possible he was working towards his own agenda? NB** Randle chose to split from writing with Schmitt - check that out.

Perhaps Walter Haut really did see alien bodies in 1947, maybe he simply thought he did after 55 years, or like his acquaintances Dennis and Kaufmann embellished his story to ensure he, his museum and his hometown of Roswell are left with a legacy.

Plus there is an interesting point in his 2002 affadavit Haut states

On Tuesday morning, July 8, I would attend the regularly scheduled staff meeting at 7:30 a.m. Besides Blanchard, Marcel; CIC [Counterintelligence Corp] Capt. Sheridan Cavitt; Col. James I. Hopkins, the operations officer; Lt. Col. Ulysses S. Nero, the supply officer; and from Carswell AAF in Fort Worth, Texas, Blanchard's boss, Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey and his chief of staff, Col. Thomas J. Dubose were also in attendance.

I'd always assumed that Marcel flew out to Fort Worth to meet with Dubose and Ramey. Does any literature confirm the presence of Ramey and Dubose in New Mexico other than websites sourced from his affidavit?

Go to this site and search for the word "gouge" -- again, you can get this knowledge from reading one of many books.

I’ve already been there because I quoted it to you in this post earlier in the thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

5 witnesses mention the word gouge from that list of 22 . Is that significant?

Even if there was a gouge is there any proof it was not there before July 1947.

The other possibility is that it may have been caused by a lightning strike. Investigators others have been digging and digging for years. No odd material has ever turned up to my knowledge to prove a spaceship crashed.
www.roswellinvestigator.com...

Marcel arrived at a time when Brazel already knew about the bodies, and Brazel was adamant about getting everything removed, so it's quite likely he'd have taken this opportunity to show Cavitt and Marcel the bodies. Again, Marcel never said that but instead mentioned there was more he knew than what we was saying. Sorry for getting off-topic a bit but I'm trying to show that the pro-Roswell stance should be understood as a whole, not spliced out in pieces because it's the large body of testimony that makes the case and not any 1 single piece of evidence; hence understanding the entire scope is important.

And Jesse Marcel also told Linda Corley in a 1981 interview:

"Had there been bodies of aliens in the debris, I would have picked them up and brought them in

Source : www.ufoevidence.org...

I assume you are referring to this passage of text in “Witness to Roswell”

Our investigation has concluded that Maj. Marcel had to know about the alien bodies that were recovered from the crash—not second-hand by hearing about them from others in the chain of command, but firsthand from actually seeing them himself. ....

Source : www.tinyurl.com...

So where exactly were these bodies? On the Foster Ranch or on the site where members of the public (an archaeology expedition) had allegedly found dead alien bodies on the other site 40 miles north of Roswell. Or were there two sets of dead bodies?

.....your theory above (where hundreds of people managed to tell corroborating lies for the first time in history) or 2) they were telling the truth or 3) other ??

There aren’t hundreds of people there are actually only a handful of first hand witnesses. But we also have all the people, who deny anything happened, all the records that show nothing out of the ordinary from Roswell and elsewhere.

Don't tell me though......... the work of the evil government and military. So much so that nothing that could ever ‘prove’ once and for all an alien presence on earth has ever been allowed to surface.

I know you like using the word onus, but for this one, the onus is on you because you brought the video into discussion. Is there something you'd like to say about the video?

Yes, although it’s fairly old now, why do you think a BBC documentary leaves things open and says in conclusion that the final words on the Roswell incident may turn out to be a cosmic Watergate?

Right, so no books or witness interviews for you then? .. you need to watch the lectures, witness interviews, and read full books .... ATS posts are bits and pieces. It's the wrong 'forum'.

I think you’ve missed my point there. What I was saying is that it’s very easy to get swayed by one point of view and a number of ATS members know a lot more about specific cases than you or I do. Sometimes it's worth stopping and paying attention. Some posts on ATS are literally "mega-posts" and will offer alternative views to the ones that have been allowed to fester by our own belief systems.

I have read “Witness to Roswell” (a long while ago) amongst others. The problem I have is that there really is no evidence other than people talking. No one took a camera with them or managed to conceal any 'evidence'.

Roswell is all icing and no cake for me. Sweetened up with special alien saccharin for those eager to believe.

There are no bits of the craft to be found anywhere despite the many, many people who apparently handled it.
No photographs of the debris field (and gouge) were ever released. The list of personal testimony is perhaps mistakenly faulty at best and creatively imaginative elsewhere. (Most of them were 'company men' too). This alongside the USAAF and then USAF changing their stories over the decades has all left a very unsatisfactory case to mull over.