It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Weaver's report says there was a cover-up at Roswell, only not the "flying saucer" recovery conspiracy that is commonly alleged. Nor was the incident an airplane crash, a nuclear accident, or a missile test gone wrong. In fact, says the Air Force, the answer to the Roswell controversy lies in a top secret research project that for reasons of national security was sheltered from the public. The answer, in short, is Project MOGUL.
After the World War II, the United States turned suspicious eyes on the Soviet Union, and worried most of all about Russia's budding nuclear program. One of many efforts to track the progress of Soviet nukes was Project MOGUL, a set of experiments designed to determine the ability of balloon-carried sensors to detect the far-away blasts of nuclear bomb tests. MOGUL "cluster flights" or "balloon trains," carrying multiple acoustic sensors and radar tracking devices, were lofted through the clouds by up to two dozen weather balloons connected in a string measuring hundreds of feet in length. (Air Force 1st Lt. James McAndrew produced a detailed summary of Project MOGUL to accompany Col. Weaver's report.)
I hate to busrt your bubble, but the military came out in 1995 and admitted that the "Roswell" incident was nothing more than a "spy balloon" experiment, and the "aliens" that were found were nothing more than military dummies.
Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
... Why the hell would the OSI agents, reveal their identities and then go on to share some of America's darkest secrets with a dude that runs a UFO museum in Roswell?
He had nothing, he knew nothing. If they had already intercepted him via the first phone call, then logic would state they would already have delt with the old guy and got the metal back. They could of left it at that and let this guy believe he was hoaxed.
Instead they show up, tell him some secrets, confirm to him for no reason that he wasn't being hoaxed and then leave him with more secrets.
Yet he has no proof. All he has is his own 'notes' and all his leads are either 'false names' or of the 'never heard of them again' type. If you can't research it, you can't debunk it! Brilliant.
The story sounds legit up to when he arrives at the meeting point, then it turns into an imaginary tale. I dare say this guy got hoaxed and had the hard part of the story already made for him so he created a tale to promote his museum.
I'm usually pretty open with this stuff but this just stinks of creative writing.
[edit on 18-11-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]
Originally posted by FEMA
I conducted a search for the original story. Here is a link:
www.rense.com...
Hope this helps.
Originally posted by WalksThroughTime
Might I suggest you go back to the site, look at the "contact" page,
send him an email, and ask him these questions. That's what research
is all about, isn't it?
You have questions...doubts.... that need answers. Then go to the source
and ask.
The only thing you are presenting here is your own assumption and
speculations.
You'll never know until you ask.
Originally posted by WalksThroughTime
Shrouded...
If you don't care that much, as you say, then why do you go on and on about it?
Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
... Not everything is an emotion journey, especially on a message board. Somethings are just interesting to observe and this is one of those moments.
You don't literally have to care about something to interact with it.
Originally posted by longhaircowboy
my only problem with your post is that you say a lie is 80% truth....well then it isnt a lie....look it up in your funk & wagnel.....a lie is a lie period.
stan friedman has dedicated his life to the pursuit of the truth and while he makes no claim to have uncovered the WHOLE truth i would defer to him re: roswell
and again as to telling fake from real stan has more than once proved it can be done
[edit on 24-11-2005 by longhaircowboy]
Originally posted by longhaircowboy
i understood exactly what you said. but me thinks you were refering to half truths which are not lies. a lie contains no truths. thats why they call em lies. again look it up. if you can point me to some reference that says a lie is not really a lie but a hodge podge of truths and untruths then i would be happy to check it out. but my websters makes no mention of truths being part of a lie. as a matter of fact one of the defs uses the word untruth.
sorry wasnt tryin to make you mad just pointing out a minor discrepency.
using two opposite terms in one sentence reminds me of an oxymoron: military intelligence. me thinks thou doest protest too much.
love everyone
[edit on 24-11-2005 by longhaircowboy]
Perhaps I should have said something more like the best way to hide the truth is to have stories which have 80% truth and then the 20% untruth would be acceped just like the 80% truth.
[edit on 24-11-2005 by longhaircowboy]