Roswell for Dummies. :)

a reply to: Scdfa

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.

You don't find it the least bit odd that after over 60 years and tens of thousands of sightings, abductions, interactions, etc. as you claim, that we still don't have an ounce of physical evidence? Nothing that stands up to scientific scrutiny at least. If you buy into the Roswell crash, then you also believe these aliens aren't without fault. If you buy into Travis Waltons story, then you believe objects on these "spaceships" can be physically handled.

No clear photographic or video evidence with a only few cases a year reported would be logical and easily explainable. Many thousands a year reported that's repeated year after year for decades and still nothing clearly stating without a doubt, alien? But... it doesn't stop there. Many believers, such as yourself, claim many physical human to alien interactions, abductions, landings, more crashes, mutilations, implants, etc. So this isn't only a phenomena in our atmosphere, it's crossed to physical Earthbound events. But even so, still no physical evidence? Hmmmm... The way around this is for believers to strongly suggest stories, radar readings, weak leveled physical traces, and the like should be enough for the world to scream !ALIENS!

I'd be interested in seeing examples in every category that you mentioned of what you personally deem strong evidence. But looking over your emotional responses in other threads, it may take a nose dive.

Page 11 in this discussion is excellent. Can't say I have ever seen a better portrayal of the issues associated with Roswell mythology. And I am talking about both sides of the issue. The defenders of the Myth have yet to realize how counter intuitive their "logic" is while the questioners of the Myth are very tolerant of the forceful viewpoint which drives the defenders. Note the care with choice of words there. Not so many years ago this would have devolved into a nasty argument. The change I am seeing is very interesting to me. The days of the "debunkers" versus the "believers" are not yet reflected in this discussion. I would go so far as to describe this page of discussion as "very mature". It seems to be one between those who have really done their homework versus those who have a bit of catching up to do.

Just for grins, the legal-dictionary defines Affidavit as:
"A written statement of facts voluntarily made by an affiant under an oath or affirmation administered by a person authorized to do so by law." During my jury duty experiences, I have seen them used in two types. Expert witness testimony when the expert is not available, and other, an affidavit based on information and belief. The former is accorded more weight and is usually admissible evidence without objection. The other is not normally admissible as evidence if there is a question or objection about it by the other side, since it cannot be cross-examined.

The winning post on the page belongs IMHO to ZetaRediculian. His "chain of events" to the "story dies" is almost pure Occam's razor. Emphasis on the "almost".

I wish I had the diplomacy that Ectoplasm8 articulated to HumanOnEarth, discourage the sad and encourage the glad as it were, how to be direct without being mean. "90 percent of the information" on Roswell is hearsay, stories, not even allowed in a court case. Put a date on the testimony for correlation. If the date of the testimony is post 1978, well, "the tale grows taller on down the line". Heard it from a friend who...heard it from a friend who....I digress. Apology.

For HumanOnEarth, your persistence and drive could be better channeled. First, is it possible there might be some new, and real evidence out there ? Think about that question. Where would be a good place to start looking ? Wonder if any of the original witnesses may have been....uh, financially motivated ? Follow the money kind of thing ? Whatever happened to Mac Brazel ? Seems to me there was a topic in this forum area a while back using the same question, and spelling. Mac versus Mack. Worth a look ?

For mirageman, I think you read too much. (compliment) Makes it hard to comment to you. But there does seem to be a need to comment about your statement of the USAAF versus USAF and misleading stories. The original Roswell thing, was ARMY. After 1 August AF day, 1947, is when USAF ENTERS the picture, but no stories till much later.
And well after the archive fire that destroyed a lot of Roswell related records, 1973 I believe. Is it possible that the supposedly destroyed Roswell archives might still exist in the sense that some may have ended up archived by the Army and not transferred to the new USAF ? Where would you look ?

a reply to: nightwing

I haven't too much time this week. Life gets in the way as we all know.

Not sure what you are meaning about the USAAF and the USAF?

Walter Haut was the USAAF (United States Army Air Force) press officer based at Roswell during the "crash". It was the USAAF (yes the army - the Air Force was not yet an independent service) who put out the press release about the "Flying Disk" and then re-tracted it. It was the USAF (I'm sure everyone knows that's the United States Air Force) who then issued their own investigation and changed the story in the 1990s admitting that it was actually a top secret Mogul project amongst many other things.

There were a lot of Roswell records supposedly destroyed.

Although there remains a large collection of files boxed up in College Park. Maryland. which were released under FOIAA in the early 2000s.



Much of it contains mundane clippings of news files and video tapes. Although the remains of the original radar reflector (or the substituted debris ) is also stored there.

The RAAF base Morning Reports are there but show nothing :



Of course there are those who will argue that the evil government replaced all those reports whilst destroying others to make everything look like it wasn't a cosmic conspiracy.

But then strangely the US Government's own 1990s reports on Roswell actually did show some very interesting photographs they found in archives.







Who said there wasn't a spacecraft ever housed at Roswell?

You just have to do your homework as many of us have done. Nothing here is new I've covered all of this before in other posts.

a reply to: nightwing

Well, thankyou for that information.
I don't think I've read about "Roswell" records being destroyed by fire, before.
Ties in with other information I read recently, regarding Air Force pilots who have had real encounters and filed reports to command, and when later requesting to add information to the report, or enquire about the report, are told that the documents have been "Lost" or "Destroyed by a Fire".

Obviously Something has been going on, in the skies over the USA and the rest of the World, for the past 70 years or so........
And one of the main "Things" seems to be a coverup by US Govt agencies, with regard to this complete subject.

a reply to: mirageman
The radar reflector stored in a wooden crate in the National Archives along with the Roswell case files is below. It appears to be an example of a Mogul balloon radar target of the era and not any actual debris. The Mogul targets had foil with a backing as described by some witnesses which made it flexible, strong, and not easily torn.

a reply to: gort51

I think what you would remember would be a slight indication in The Report of Air Force Research Regarding The "Roswell Incident", July 1994, under the search methodology section which mentions difficulty with "lost or misplaced documents" and "This included, for example, a small amount of missing "decimal files" from the 509th Bomb Group at Roswell that covered the years 1945-1949, that were marked on the index as "destroyed." In the paragraph just above this last paragraph, Robert Todd is credited with assistance in the search for records.

Although not in the above reference, I take the fire from this paraphrase of what Robert Todd says about this situation as of July 5, 1996

Shipment lists have surfaced that list the contents of 36 boxes of research and development files transferred in August 1960 to what was then the Air Force Records Center in St. Louis Missouri, including files that were created and maintained by Air Materiel Command (AMC). These 36 boxes of records (referred as an "accession" and maintained according to the old War Dept decimal filing system) included the following interesting titles:

000- Flying Discs- "Sign", "Grudge" 1947-1950

MX-1011- "ROCKFISH", "MOGUL" Projects Acoustical Research (1946 thru 1950)

According to William G. Seibert, Archivist, Military Operations Branch, National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis, Missouri: "This accession was stored in our 6th Floor vault area, and along with most of the rest of the contents of that floor, was destroyed during our disastrous fire in July 1973. Any remaining classified material from that vault, because it was not in usable condition, was removed to an incinerator and was destroyed."

Note that Mogul has another name as well, ROCKFISH

So I have been looking into some of these Roswell "deathbed confessions" trying to understand the comment that was made earlier. So far the ones I have come across are claims from the children of the people supposedly making the confessions. Seems like other family members can't back up the story. So there is no way to verify any of these stories or even if the claim was made by the actual witness in the first place. So why would so many of these people tell the same story to their family members just hours before they died? The answer is "its mythology" since I couldn't find one instance of this actually occurring.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

The radar reflector stored in a wooden crate in the National Archives along with the Roswell case files is below. It appears to be an example of a Mogul balloon radar target of the era and not any actual debris. The Mogul targets had foil with a backing as described by some witnesses which made it flexible, strong, and not easily torn....

The source I used was Popular Mechanics - June 2003

.....We even found the remains of the infamous balloon reflector, which UFO buffs claim the government planted at the crash site....

But looking at those pictures it may well be only an example. The parts of the spaceship remain elusive as ever

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

If you want to know more about Walter Haut's affidavit and how it was created then there is an interesting column in the MUFON Journal - Sept 2007 by Haut's daughter and Director of the Roswell UFO Museum,Julie Shuster.

In a nutshell :

*The draft of the affidavit was written by "Witness to Roswell" author Don Schmitt, with Haut’s approval.
*The Roswell UFO Museum notary was used along with a visitor to the UFO Museum as a witness.
* The affidavit was not placed on display in the Roswell UFO Museum but was released first in Carey/Schmitt's book - "Witness to Roswell"

There is also a review of the above book by the nuclear physicist, and 'paranormal' researcher Stanton Friedman in the linked publication.

a reply to: mirageman

Thanks. The other Friedman article was a doozy. After I get a good dose of Friedman rhetoric, I understand where a lot people around here get theirs. His ability to sound rational while being completely irrational is remarkable.

a reply to: mirageman

mirageman>>Not sure what you are meaning about the USAAF and the USAF?

I think it helps to reduce confusion if you separate the two as completely independent topics. When I emphasize that the first topic is the ARMY response, I am organizing the first instance into the original "Roswell", which has the famous characteristics. The ARMY news release is historical fact, and can be regarded as a rather unique event. Historical fact is tangible evidence of "something". Further, near as I can tell, the ARMY news release was initiated by the ARMY in a more or less voluntary fashion. Which suggests to me that WHO directed that release and WHY is the key to the entire original incident. No mythology there.

Jump to the mid 90's and the USAF now reports on the "Roswell Incident". Characteristics are grossly different. The USAF reports are NOT voluntary and are NOT to respond to the "great" work of Ufologists or to alleviate concerns of the public. Plain and simple, the USAF is directed (thru GAO) to respond to a Congressional Inquiry. Since the original "Roswell" has been superceeded by mythology, and elements of that myth are present in the Congressional Inquiry, it is not surprising that the USAF report will contain and even address elements of the mythology. The change that so many point to between the different "stories" from the military HAS to be there to some extent.

However, the methodology used by the USAF is the stunning item for me and I have yet to see serious Roswell researchers pounce upon it, probably because it was so well camouflaged they cannot see it. The USAF actually copied the standard approach used by Ufologists, eye witness testimony, sworn statements....say WHAT ? When I first saw this goofy-ness, my first reaction was to think that the USAF is intentionally trying to encourage the myth makers and feed them ammo. I mean just look at the comments about the "different stories" in this thread. I don't mean disinformation, I mean actual encouragement. Sheesh !

gort51 made a comment above about never having heard of archive fires and destroyed records which actually was the key for me in breaking out why the USAF would go UFO-goofy in their methods. I now have this picture of a group of young AF types, all of whom born and grew up in the Post 78 Roswell myth era, many probably Ufology fans themselves, suddenly tasked with answering a "Congressional" ASAP. They race off to the archives to start quoting facts and data and costs only to find that Poop Happens. Its GONE. It aint there Boss. What now ?
The Boss says be creative, use your imagination, you got 30 days !

On a more novel level, I really like your Roswell spaceship, but it sure looks familiar. That is how we used to package (fiberglass housings) antennas for safe shipping. It looks way too small to be ULF but it might be VLF radar.

a reply to: nightwing

gort51 made a comment above about never having heard of archive fires and destroyed records which actually was the key for me in breaking out why the USAF would go UFO-goofy in their methods. I now have this picture of a group of young AF types, all of whom born and grew up in the Post 78 Roswell myth era, many probably Ufology fans themselves, suddenly tasked with answering a "Congressional" ASAP.

richard weaver was in charge of the 94 report - i've seen a couple of suggestions that he was richard doty's boss at afosi during the 80s

I dont think we will ever know the full truth, great thread.

a reply to: nightwing

Thanks for clarifying what you meant regarding the USAF/USAAF. I was only briefly pointing out how both had changed their stories. And yes it does seem the Air Force did attack the investigation from looking at UFO literature and following it's leads to explain the mythology.

The "Roswell spaceships" are real photographs of a craft taken at Roswell AFB.

In the below video you can hear Bill Nye arguing that one of the photos looks faked (specifically about 4:30 into the video)



He is totally and utterly wrong. The picture is totally genuine and his analysis could not be more wrong.The USAF even confirms that NASA eventually used this technology to take us out into the solar system and explore our nearest planetary neighbour.

It's all in their report:

The Roswell Report: Case Closed

Those who know the truth know I'm telling the truth.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

Can you provide the list of deathbed confessions that was supposed to make people uncomfortable?

I use the term loosely for people who have exposed the truth regarding debris or bodies (usually at the tail end of their lives) about Roswell well after 47' to their families, friends, researchers, etc. This would include but not be limited to: Walter Haut, Joseph Shoals, Mary Gardner, Darwin Rasmussen, Edwin Easley, Melvin Brown, Homer Rowlette, Mike Magruder, Robert Lida, Patrick Saunders, Frank Cassidy, and George Wilcox.



originally posted by: Scdfa

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.

Thank you. I'm an author but not on the Roswell topic.

I am still astounded how so many on here have convinced themselves that Roswell was just a balloon. 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.

Absolutely. And even a mogul balloon with train wouldn't cover the land area described as large as "three quarters of a mile long," nor would it take ~50 men 3 days to clean up. Project Mogul was top secret, but the material wasn't.

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

I wouldn't be the person to ask about Stanton, but I mostly concur with you.



originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

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.

I'm not sure I follow here. Do you mean that his opposition literally caused you to abandon all of your previous findings and convert to a skeptic/agnostic? Keep in mind Stanton was a little overwhelmed by the volume of questions and had to quickly choose a stance for each answer. Long, well-thought replies were a rare premium at the time.



originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

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.

Only IF we turn our backs on the staggering amount of testimony.



originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

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. 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?

I already responded to this in great detail on page 11. To summarize, the material used for balloon radar targets IS NOT similar to the material used to construct of an interstellar ship; and it was threats and secrecy agreements which caused pro-Mogul/balloon public statements to be made so that the story would become purposely convoluted/covered. If you think this is a simply a hunch, I can provide plenty of sources where people were threatened.

Also, what's your explanation of this indestructible material, 'destructing' and spreading out over the property?

I responded to this also. Here's an excerpt "Marcel meant that it couldn't be broken by humans in conventional ways." In other words, the craft likely ascended to the desert floor at mind-bending speeds and spread out like confetti upon explosion or initial impact -- but that same material, by human standards using primitive testing, was deemed "indestructible" (according to a few primitive tests). This crosses no logical boundaries at all.

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.

Agreed. Stories on their own aren't enough proof for me. But when we start getting dozens of stories (no, hundreds) that are all the same AND VIRTUALLY NONE that follow any other story-line, (even from top officials who originally orchestrated the event --> practically all of them confessed it was UFO/ET) well then, it takes a big set of blinders to not see that there's a theme here. The opposition literally have nothing in their hands that can be corroborated.



originally posted by: Scdfa

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.

Best post I've read in a while. Thanks for that.



[ ...more coming in a forthcoming post... ]

originally posted by: mirageman
What? I fear the Gut has turned to the Dark Side.

Well not really. Years ago back in the 1980s and 1990s in my more innocent days, this all seemed exciting and some of the UFO lore was very believable. The mainstream media paid the usual jokey approach to the UFO topic. Meanwhile the "UFO media" was generally controlled by those wanting to promote the conspiracy, new age religion, aliens are here. Those sort of angles on the subject.

But then I had to ask why would aliens land in a field and pass their great knowledge on to seemingly random, very ordinary people? How come nearly every single photo of a UFO from the pre-digital age looks too grainy to make out exactly what it is or looks fake. Why were aliens once humanoids from the Solar System and then became little grey guys from further away once our science advanced?

Now in these days of the information superhighway it seems that those classic pillars of Ufology are wobbly and in some cases crumbling. Roswell, Rendlesham, Travis Walton, Kecksburg, The Hills Abduction, Socorro and more have all been subject to heavy sceptical analysis down the years. With a global communication and information resource it is now no longer the case of having only a single TV report, newspaper clip, or book to source information from. We can, if we choose, weigh up both sides of the equation. Although many choose their own belief and filter out that which doesn't fit it. Many authors even twist the facts to satisfy their audience to sell books, DVDs etc. So I have always been wary of many stories even though I still think maybe one day something will turn up trumps for us. Perhaps we'll find an alien artifact in the solar system or even here on earth.

My deep down suspicion is that much of what goes on (especially Stateside) in the world of UFOs is very much linked into the activities of the Miltary Industrial Complex.



Reply:

I never followed the notion that all of these peculiar events could be explained by the MIC or how one can reasonably attribute such abilities to clandestine projects by military persons.

I suppose that's a more comforting thought, but it seems like these UFO type of events have been reported for hundreds of years and there does not appear to be a way to connect those dots to the MIC.

I think many who embrace the MIC theory are simply tired of thinking critically about the subject and are seeking a unifying explanation since concrete answers seem so elusive.

Understandable I suppose---but the MIC explanation seems embraced primarily out of frustration.

originally posted by: mirageman

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

Thanks for recognizing that. Roswell's one of those few topics where people take a particular stance for all the wrong reasons (and this happens on both sides of the debate). Bothers me.

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?

Slightly bothersome but doesn't pose much of a problem in my opinion.

NB** Randle chose to split from writing with Schmitt - check that out.

Also troublesome but doesn't cancel out any of his work as far as I'm concerned. When I checked the story from both sides it seemed like just a little resume glorification.

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?

I've never looked into this (but I will be doing so now) so I'd be the wrong person to comment.

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

During a recent archaeological dig, a backhoe dragged off the top layer of soil and an obvious gouge was underneath which had been filled in with a looser substrate than that surrounding it. Could it have been from another event or operation unrelated to 47'? Possible, but this was precisely where multiple witnesses had pinpointed the 47' gouge mark.

Also, when witnesses spoke of this, they approximated the object bounced or skipped here, which would imply that it was fresh at the time. And if I were describing the same thing in present tense, I'd probably just say "gouge" and not use the words "fresh" or "new."

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...

Linda's tapes were supposedly non-retrievable, and it's quite possible she never actually interviewed Marcel. But let's assume she did. I'm not so sure he'd have been quick divulge this; so his response makes sense. And the pro-Roswell stance doesn't need Marcel to have been shown the bodies by Brazel.

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?

I wish there were an end-all solution to where the bodies and craft were located, how many bodies, etc. By all accounts the whole scene was pandemonium and only the big guys knew all the answers -- the paradox being that these highest ranking men divulged the least. So we don't have the full picture and never will. Here's what it seems like:
- touchdown point --> sand turned to glass, and an indestructible (and inexplicable) black box on the ground
- debris field --> gouge mark, multiple types of debris
- body site --> several bodies scattered along the top of a craggy bluff
- craft site --> disc/egg shaped craft, more debris, and possibly more bodies

There aren’t hundreds of people there are actually only a handful of first hand witnesses.

But there ARE hundreds including 2nd and 3rd hand, and virtually all of their stories ARE in fact corroborating. This would be impossible if they'd just collaborated together on a giant lie. Try playing the phone game and the word "spaceship" turns into "monkey" before you can unwrap a piece of gum. With a couple of small exceptions, the mere fact that everyone's telling the same story is quite suggestive, and a proverbial thorn in the skeptics foot.

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.

Really? I'd like to get a list of those people who were first hand witnesses to nothing. Don't be giving me second-hand information either, (even if you've got hundreds of them) because I'll claim mass-hysteria.

And where's your evidence? Where are your photos of the debris field with a Mogul balloon strewn across it? Where's the box of tin foil, sticks and tape? It's time to start beating you guys with your own stick.

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?

I'll be reviewing this video again.



[I'm skipping over content that wasn't directly related to Roswell]



originally posted by: mirageman

Although there remains a large collection of files boxed up in College Park. Maryland. which were released under FOIAA in the early 2000s.

This collection were reports from the 90s investigators, NOT 1947 reports that were secret and released upon FOIAA request. This is a common misconception. Not that you had fallen to it, but I just wanted to point this out for other readers.

Of course there are those who will argue that the evil government replaced all those reports whilst destroying others to make everything look like it wasn't a cosmic conspiracy.

I don't have to claim that, since the guys who were there at the time admitted it themselves. Here's one: source So record destroying fire is just a fire then? Maybe, but it's amazing how willing some people are to be sheeple. Not you specifically, but people who hold the double-standard of not believing the government about ANYTHING except in the case of UFOs.

But then strangely the US Government's own 1990s reports on Roswell actually did show some very interesting photographs they found in archives.

Nice find. I'll bet the guys making the reports popped a bottle of champaigne when they came across these babies. How predictable they'd include the photos just so pinhead debunkers could later say "Oh, maybe this is why people got confused."



originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

The Mogul targets had foil with a backing as described by some witnesses which made it flexible, strong, and not easily torn.

And this stuff was flame retardant, too? And folded out flat on it's own?



originally posted by: davpar01

I don't think we will ever know the full truth

Agreed. These weasels were quite sharp at making the whole thing just a convoluted mess. Or maybe just the passage of time, or both.



originally posted by: mirageman

In the below video you can hear Bill Nye arguing that one of the photos looks faked (specifically about 4:30 into the video)

This guy (Bill Bye) is a complete tool who does nothing but embarrass himself as he stumbles around grasping at straws -- every single straw -- until the timer runs out. He's as clumsy as a cow on roller-blades.

a reply to: HumanOnEarth

I'm not sure I follow here. Do you mean that his opposition literally caused you to abandon all of your previous findings and convert to a skeptic/agnostic? Keep in mind Stanton was a little overwhelmed by the volume of questions and had to quickly choose a stance for each answer. Long, well-thought replies were a rare premium at the time.

No. It had nothing to do with the AMA. What I observed all on my own was that Friedman contradicts himself constantly. He has been repeating the same thing for years in almost mindless manner. What happens is people then repeat this mindless nonsense. " If you can't attack the data..." and then goes on to call anyone who disagrees with him a debunker or disinfo agent!

a reply to: The GUT

How many here use to believe that Roswell might hold the smoking gun and then through continued research realized that Roswell WAS modern mythology?

The Roswell incident was an extraterrestrial event. I have done extensive research and found that Project Mogul was not classified and that Roswell debunker, Charles Moore, was named as head of Project Mogul in an unclassified letter. In fact, I found that Charles Moore also reported tracking a flying saucer over New Mexico and I decided to do further research and found that Project Mogul scientist not only confirmed Charles Moore's flying saucer tracking, but they tracked flying saucers over New Mexico as well. To further add, Project Mogul balloon trains were sometimes recovered by civilians for rewards and in one case, a Project Mogul balloon train was left lying beside a highway where it was vadalized. That is not indicative of a classified program. I found the name; Project Mogul in unclassified references which once again, proved that Project Mogul was not classified because Project Mogul balloons were nothing more than simple research balloons. In the end, the Soviet's first nuclear blast was not detected by a Project Mogul balloon, but by a modified B-29 carrying special filters that detected radioactive fallout from the Soviet's nuclear test. To sum it up, the Air Force duped the public on Project Mogul and Roswell.

Would love to hear peoples thoughts on the memory metal so many people actually handled.

Is there some official explanation? Presumably someone in the military knows what this material was and could produce or at the very least tell us how it is made.

The last info I have read about it has it linked back to Wright Patterson

link 1

link 2

As most probably already know, there is a continuing discussion of the Roswell case in many of Kevin Randle's blogs for those who have an interest in the case. The comments section is entertaining even if you have no interest in the blog = )