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.
Originally posted by Access Denied
Wrong again. He mentions it here on another page…
Popular Roswell Myths
Scroll down to “Myth #10: Huge security measures were taken to protect the retrieval of the saucer.”
Bill Rickett described being stopped prior to getting to the debris field when he went out with Sheridan Cavitt on the 8th of July.
Would you like to rephrase that maybe?
However, I produce this to help inform those that wish to get a second opinion and understand all the events that had happened. I offer that opinion and have the sources to back it up. Unfortunately, the amount that is in these sources is not as informative as the direct quotes. I am not talking about edited documents but the ENTIRE story told by the witness. A web site with all these available would help immensely in amateur research (although I find Karl Pflock's two books on the subject very informative because he lists all the affidavits of the witnesses and some very good source documents). Some may feel that I have edited out a lot of the testimony but remember I am not here to support the theory of a crashed saucer. I feel many of these people exaggerated the facts and some are just plain lying.
Most noteworthy is Robert Todd, who has endured my questions and provided a wealth of documents for me to peruse through and clear up some misunderstandings.
Originally posted by lost_shaman
Here is what Tim Printy say's phrased in his own words.
However, I produce this to help inform those that wish to get a second opinion and understand all the events that had happened. I offer that opinion and have the sources to back it up. Unfortunately, the amount that is in these sources is not as informative as the direct quotes. I am not talking about edited documents but the ENTIRE story told by the witness. A web site with all these available would help immensely in amateur research (although I find Karl Pflock's two books on the subject very informative because he lists all the affidavits of the witnesses and some very good source documents). Some may feel that I have edited out a lot of the testimony but remember I am not here to support the theory of a crashed saucer. I feel many of these people exaggerated the facts and some are just plain lying.
So if it doesn't support Tim Printy's theory , he decides its lies, it's edited out because he's not writting these articles to support "the theory of a crashed saucer".
Of course he's supporting Robert Todd's MOGUL theory.
Most noteworthy is Robert Todd, who has endured my questions and provided a wealth of documents for me to peruse through and clear up some misunderstandings.
Tim Printy and the Air Force Report's Star witness is C. B. Moore. Moore explains in his Interview from the Air Force Report that Robert Todd had already convinced him that MOGUL was responsible for Roswell.
Moore said in the interview " Todd. Todd does everything."
And of course C. B. Moore's '94 interview affirms Robert Todd's MOGUL theory , but only after C. B. Moore is "convinced" by Todd sometime in '92 MOGUL Balloons were responsible for Roswell.
He does a very thorough job of debunking that whole scenario in my opinion I might add. Maybe you should read it.
Originally posted by nightwing
"The lack of references such as the Roswell books that were written prior to the report shows that maybe they didn’t even read them.
How can you say the report was a serious investigation into the Roswell incident if they didn’t even reference any books that pertain to the subject?" == Hal
Wow. The USAF should have used UFO books to answer congress? Gads ! Thats worse than using the NI. But you can bet they read them.
Originally posted by nightwing
"The experiment was part of an 18-month $200,000 cosmic ray research program being conducted under a contract with the Office of Naval Research. "
From Skyeagle reference.
That aint Mogul.
Originally posted by nightwing
The USAF must use credible sources and primarily from
their own "required" documentation. The "promoters" are totally free to use any source, including fantasy, as long as it "sells". The
USAF does not profit from their "reports". The "promoters" make a living and reputation from theirs. Not exactly
a match, I would think ?
But I do not see where it "discredits" anyone. If so, who and how ?
Wow. The USAF should have used UFO books to answer congress? Gads ! Thats worse than using the NI. But you can bet they read them.
Originally posted by lost_shaman
Actually there is a list of Books reviewed on Page 15 of the report. One of which was "Roswell Incident" Berlitz , Moore (1980).
Can't wait....you working on a topic for a new thread ?
Originally posted by Access Denied
AAF headquarters later revealed that a "security lid" has been clamped on all but the sketchiest details of the discovery.
This would tend support both the MOGUL and UFO explanations but of course you already know which one I favor… by this time (3 weeks later) Ramey undoubtedly knew it was part of a sensitive project.
AAF spokesmen would say only that the "saucer" was a flimsily-constructed, kite-like object measuring about 25 feet in diameter and covered with a material resembling tinfoil
Unfortunately we don’t know who all these “AAF spokesmen” (implying more than one) were. The very next sentence specifically quotes Ramey via telephone but that doesn’t mean he was the one who said it. I believe 25 feet in diameter is the size Cavitt gave for the debris field so maybe he or someone else was misquoted?
AAF commanders in New Mexico refused to permit the object to be photographed on the grounds that it was "high level stuff,"
I would assume that was due to an order from Ramey (or Blanchard?) who wanted it delivered to him for identification first before allowing it to be photographed just in case it was of a sensitive nature… probably just standard procedure.
Part of the reason why so many have come to accept MOGUL as the only explanation that fits the actions and descriptions of the most credible witnesses is it makes sense that nobody knew exactly what is was until it got to Ft. Worth because those involved up until that point evidently had never seen a RAWIN target before.
It is pretty a confusing case… much less so I've come to find out once you’re able to separate yourself from what you may have taken for granted (i.e. learned from popular culture or from reading biased books and opinions exclusively) and stop trying to scrutinize and interpret everything as possible evidence for/proof of a crashed UFO
"What I saw in the material... it was some very exotic
material... there was a lot of foil," Marcel said. "There were
some beams that had some strange writing on it and I realized
right off the bat this was not anything I'd ever seen before."
When asked what the symbols on the beam looked like, Marcel said
that "there were some mathematical symbols... geometric forms."
Originally posted by Access Denied
Originally posted by lost_shaman
Let's talk about paying attention then...
I was paying attention the problem is it's irrelevant
Apparently whoever wrote this article didn't see what I pointed out to you Access Denied , when I pointed out that David Rudiak has posted pictures and transcripts of an article from the same News Paper that J. Bond Johnston worked for on July 11, 1947 that shows a Mobile RADAR launching un-pigmented Neoprene's and RAWIN RADAR Targets from Ft. Worth , Texas.
So what? There is NO evidence to support yours or anybody else's theory that the debris that was photographed was switched and didn't come from Roswell. These theories are all based on conjecture and Marcel's claim that we were. Marcel's a proven liar and his claims contradict the evidence...
There was no cover-up. Due to a huge comedy of errors (see my previous posts) involving rancher Mac Brazel, Maj. Jesse Marcel, other military personnel and the press, an inaccurate story was published on July 7th, 1947 in the newspapers claiming the military had recovered a crashed “flying saucer”. What was recovered in fact were the misidentified remains of a crashed balloon and radar target from a classified project.
This weak semantic argument is the one most commonly used to try and discredit the AF report.
There was a flight on June 4th and it’s the only flight recorded in Dr. Crary’s journal between Flight 3 and 5. All balloon flights done during Project MOGUL were numbered sequentially therefore the flight on June 4th is “MOGUL” Flight 4.
In fact the AF report does provide a record of MOGUL Flight 4 from Dr. Crary’s journal. There is no record of Flight 4 in the NYU reports because Flight 4 ended up being a “service flight” instead due to clouds. The same is true for Flight 2, 3, and 9.
Originally posted by Access Denied
The flight on June 4th could not account for the debris found on Brazel’s ranch because it was only a “service flight” which wasn’t configured like the drawing of MOGUL Flight 2 in the AF report that clearly shows RAWIN targets weren’t used and Flight 5 was the first “MOGUL” flight in NM which did.
While it’s true Flight 5 was the first “constant level” balloon flight in NM to use RAWIN targets, the “service flights” also used RAWIN targets.