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 Frank Warren
Stating your opinion as you see it, is not being a wet blanket . . . it is just an exchange of views.
However, in this instance you just happen to be wrong.
en.wikipedia.org...
Attitude polarization, also known as belief polarization, occurs when people who have a belief or attitude interpret evidence for or against that belief/attitude selectively, in a way that shows a bias in favour of their current view. If they are given evidence that agrees with their belief, they accept that it supports their position. If they are given evidence that contradicts their belief, they either ignore the evidence, criticise it, or reinterpret it so that it also supports their original view.
Originally posted by mmiichael
Originally posted by Frank Warren
Stating your opinion as you see it, is not being a wet blanket . . . it is just an exchange of views.
However, in this instance you just happen to be wrong.
Frank,
Thanks again for the thoughtful and informed responses to the points I brought up.
Again retreating to my self-proclaimed Roswell fatigue - let's just say there is always something in the record that dismisses the possibility that there was just incorrect near hysterical response to a weather balloon crash and retrieval that has become inflated to a secret recovery of an alien spaceship.
For someone like yourself who has gone to the effort of doing primary research, actually talking to witnesses in situ, as opposed to relying on the efforts of others, there can be no doubt something very big is being hidden from the public.
And when I start saying things like people's memories are unreliable and they can invent things when prompted, I must come off like the classical close-minded debunker.
Somewhat in my defense, I have had reason to read long transcripts of criminal tries, a few of which involved major criminal conspiracies.
Confoundingly eyewitnesses to critical events often come up with testimony that not only conflicts with what others have said, but forensic evidence and even things they have stated in earlier reports.
The all encompassing example I give in these discussions is from a study in communication theory that showed how stories evolve over time. Sorry if you've read this one before.
Right after Abraham Lincoln was shot in a theatre by John Wilkes Booth, dozens of eyewitnesses were interviewed by the press. With the high profile nature of the event, many of them were repeatedly interviewed by the press and historians for many years after.
The one that illustrates my thesis best is a gentleman in a wheelchair who said he only heard the shot and saw the perpetrator running down the aisle.
Subsequent interviews with the gentleman had hum integrating himself increasingly to the point that 30 years after the event he was telling how he managed to grapple with Booth as he was escaping.
Historians as well as judges and the legal profession deal with this phenomenon regularly. The inherent often subconscious need of many to reinvent events in their minds to fulfill a role of being upright, heroic, honourable, truthful, etc.
People don't so much lie as reconstruct their memories over time.
I am certain this falls on deaf ears before because of something called attitude or belief polarization.
I'll lazily provide the Wikipedia definition
en.wikipedia.org...
Attitude polarization, also known as belief polarization, occurs when people who have a belief or attitude interpret evidence for or against that belief/attitude selectively, in a way that shows a bias in favour of their current view. If they are given evidence that agrees with their belief, they accept that it supports their position. If they are given evidence that contradicts their belief, they either ignore the evidence, criticise it, or reinterpret it so that it also supports their original view.
This I see happening with even objective researchers of the Roswell event.
Conflicting evidence and testimony gets rationalized and only the validating data is accepted.
You may justifiably claim I am doing the same thing, and you are right.
The most important single event in human history may have happened 62 years ago and I blindly refuse to acknowledge it. I will accept criticism for my rigid narrow-mindedness when and if it is demonstrated I am wrong. But for now my assessment of all the information that has come to my attention is that there was no crashed interplanetary vehicle in New Mexico in 1947.
Mike
Originally posted by Frank Warren
This very real "Attitude Polarization" you cite is a "property" in societal programming; most folks who ponder the UFO phenomenon are biased from the get-go. This isn't their fault, we're taught (programmed) that this scenario is akin to folklore, legend etc., and needs to remain there.
In my view, the first step in looking at the evidence in an "objective manner" is to remove the lens (bias) we've always viewed things through--a most difficult task by itself, as history has taught us; however, in doing so we find that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, and the latter "isn't flat."
Originally posted by mmiichael
Originally posted by Frank Warren
This very real "Attitude Polarization" you cite is a "property" in societal programming; most folks who ponder the UFO phenomenon are biased from the get-go. This isn't their fault, we're taught (programmed) that this scenario is akin to folklore, legend etc., and needs to remain there.
In my view, the first step in looking at the evidence in an "objective manner" is to remove the lens (bias) we've always viewed things through--a most difficult task by itself, as history has taught us; however, in doing so we find that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, and the latter "isn't flat."
Thanks again Frank. I hope I'm not wearing out my welcome on your thread.
I started out willing to accept the Roswell story when I first came across it 30 years ago. The supplied evidence seemed convincing. It has only been over the years watching the shenanigans of so many career conmen with things like the MJ12 documents and phony witnesses that by negative opinion formed.
Judges look at not only specifics but the weight of evidence when a smoking gun is absent. The fact that the case relies almost completely on conflicts in the military's statements and secondary level testimony informs me. This is not an unsolved murder, it is the biggest story ever. There should be something by now.
I used to work for someone here in Canada who was involved in designing computerized systems used by the defense industry. He had very high level contacts and I got to know many of his friends. A few explained to me how a number of scientists and intelligence people they knew had gone to great lengths to see if anyone had ever seen documentation or spoken to someone with knowledge of unusual projects involving unknown source technologies or alien life forms. One would guess in a community encompassing thousands of often outside contractors there would be some scuttlebut. The answer was a resounding "no"
No internal or foreign espionage agents, no forthright or greedy whistleblowers, no real evidence of anything technology changing that might be expected from something of this magnitude. Just a ton of anecdotes and speculations.
I believe people like Marcel came to believe their own evolving stories, and that the myth has fed itself.
Like the JFK assassination, the trail has been muddied by a lot of boot prints.
We may never have an unambiguous story of what happened at Roswell.
From what I can tell it was more a blend of bad communication and misguided security concerns than an earth shaking discovery.
I admire your tenacity in trying to get to the actual facts in this mystery. But I think the hoped for breakthrough will continue to be on the horizon.
Man may someday have contact or evidence of other intelligences on our planet, but I don't believe it has happened yet.
Appreciate your time and patience, as always.
Mike
Originally posted by Frank Warren
Case in point, was the secret meeting (on aerial phenomena) at Los Alamos (Feb 1949) with some of the brightest minds in the country, if not the world, i.e., "Teller," "Reines," Manly" and Bradbury to name a few.
[...]
Imagine Truman's surprise when he learned of the "Manhattan Project"; being Vice-President, he assumed he would have been informed about such matters.
[...]
many of the Roswell proponents (not to mention a myriad of other cases) were former military, and involved in the post-cover-up;also, the very theme of this thread is that Nitinol is "Roswell related."
[...]
There is no argument that the "Roswell event" has morphed into another animal; however, that doesn't negate the sober research that has taken place at it's core, nor the preponderance of evidence uncovered.
[...]
My thinking is that the smaller percentage of our species that run things, may some day admit--what has already taken place!:
kevinrandle.blogspot.com...
There are very serious problems with your version of Roswell, and they won't go away. The chief problem is that there is absolutely no documentation on this incident, even after 6 decades (apart from the one brief FBI teletype - big deal).
Consider the situation. Here we have, according to yourself & others, maybe the most important scientific discovery of all time. If you are correct and it was a genuine ET craft that crashed to earth and bodies discovered, there would be literally tons & tons of paperwork & photos on the case. Think of all the military reports, think of all the universities & government institutions (military & civilian) that must have been involved in analysing the wreckage and the bodies over many months or years. Think of all the scientists that were involved. Hundreds, thousands?
There is plenty of paperwork on the green fireballs, plenty on US and foreign experimental aircraft, missiles, nuclear weapons, space projects and so on, even plenty on other UFO events. Blue Book archives run to umpteen reels of microfilm. Yet not one iota has ever surfaced on Roswell.
What has happened? Do you really suppose each & every document on Roswell has either gone missing or been destroyed, or is still under wraps?
What is going on here? Sooner or later you have got to accept that something is seriously, very seriously, wrong with your version of Roswell. It cannot have happened in the way you claim. Cavitt, Rickett, LaPaz, Ramey, Blanchard plus a zillion others must have produced written analyses. Where are they? I repeat: there would be documentation several miles deep on this affair. Where is it, after 60 years?
It has nothing to do with the destruction of trivial papers from the Roswell base during 47-49. It has much more to do with the total absence of any documentation from anywhere at any time.
This has resulted in years of wasted effort by people to decipher the 'Ramey memo', the Ft Worth photos, the MJ-12 forgeries and so on. "If the real documents aint there we shall put them there" is what these people are trying to do. (The same applies to the alleged pieces of debris.)
You will have to face the awful truth one day, I fear, which is this: The Roswell Incident was an event of no significance.
You can always disprove me by locating the said documentation, hardware or bodies.
Originally posted by mmiichael
Originally posted by Frank Warren
Case in point, was the secret meeting (on aerial phenomena) at Los Alamos (Feb 1949) with some of the brightest minds in the country, if not the world, i.e., "Teller," "Reines," Manly" and Bradbury to name a few.
[...]
Imagine Truman's surprise when he learned of the "Manhattan Project"; being Vice-President, he assumed he would have been informed about such matters.
[...]
many of the Roswell proponents (not to mention a myriad of other cases) were former military, and involved in the post-cover-up;also, the very theme of this thread is that Nitinol is "Roswell related."
[...]
There is no argument that the "Roswell event" has morphed into another animal; however, that doesn't negate the sober research that has taken place at it's core, nor the preponderance of evidence uncovered.
[...]
My thinking is that the smaller percentage of our species that run things, may some day admit--what has already taken place!:
Frank,
All your points have merit. Were I to task myself to prove something significant happened at Roswell that remains undisclosed, I would try to take the approach you have, and I'm sure not anywhere as thoroughly and
effectively as yo uhave.
That said, here's what I see:
A lot of serious concern by the US government and military in regards to unknown aerial activity in the wake of World War II. No one could be certain how far along the German or Japanese were with their experimental vehicles. No one in the West knew any more what the Russians had. Add to that the new wild card of it being conceivable there were visitations from
other planets.
It could all amount to nothing. It could amount to another World War or even War of the Worlds.
So much secrecy and brainstorming.
But 60 years later, as far as most of can see, a lot of sizzle and no steak.
I think you and others seize on ambiguities and a growing mythology more than they warrant.
OOPS - cutting this short with someone waiting for me.
My review of the material, intellect, and gut keep saying the same thing. A story more than an history changing event.
More of the same soon.
Mike
Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by Frank Warren
Frank,
I made a couple of posts near the start of this thread,
and I must say your OP I seen as being the most thorough.
It's incredible after four differing explanations by TPTB,
the Army Air Force,The USAF? that people
should think otherwise of what happened in 1947,
Jesse Marcel is now a braggart and a liar from some sources
(the man never talked about it mainstream for years)
I think he comes out quite modest really,whichever way
it was put down for him very quick.
Why is Kenneth Arnold given so much creedence around the same time,
what he described was not flying saucers..the press did that,what he saw
as described by himself was more like a flying wing,(like half a disc)
food for thought there, but i'm sure you know that anyway.
[edit on 30-5-2009 by smurfy]
Originally posted by mmiichael
A comment from Christopher Allan to Kevin Randle on his blogspot on Apr 28 2007 is a good summary of the evidence available on Roswell.
Now I wonder if I skim read it once as I make similar points. Or if we just are applying the same common sense.
I recommend reading the whole page. I would say the truth about Roswell lies in there.
kevinrandle.blogspot.com...
There are very serious problems with your version of Roswell, and they won't go away. The chief problem is that there is absolutely no documentation on this incident, even after 6 decades (apart from the one brief FBI teletype - big deal).
Consider the situation. Here we have, according to yourself & others, maybe the most important scientific discovery of all time. If you are correct and it was a genuine ET craft that crashed to earth and bodies discovered, there would be literally tons & tons of paperwork & photos on the case. Think of all the military reports, think of all the universities & government institutions (military & civilian) that must have been involved in analysing the wreckage and the bodies over many months or years. Think of all the scientists that were involved. Hundreds, thousands?
There is plenty of paperwork on the green fireballs, plenty on US and foreign experimental aircraft, missiles, nuclear weapons, space projects and so on, even plenty on other UFO events. Blue Book archives run to umpteen reels of microfilm. Yet not one iota has ever surfaced on Roswell.
What has happened? Do you really suppose each & every document on Roswell has either gone missing or been destroyed, or is still under wraps?
What is going on here? Sooner or later you have got to accept that something is seriously, very seriously, wrong with your version of Roswell. It cannot have happened in the way you claim. Cavitt, Rickett, LaPaz, Ramey, Blanchard plus a zillion others must have produced written analyses. Where are they? I repeat: there would be documentation several miles deep on this affair. Where is it, after 60 years?
It has nothing to do with the destruction of trivial papers from the Roswell base during 47-49. It has much more to do with the total absence of any documentation from anywhere at any time.
This has resulted in years of wasted effort by people to decipher the 'Ramey memo', the Ft Worth photos, the MJ-12 forgeries and so on. "If the real documents aint there we shall put them there" is what these people are trying to do. (The same applies to the alleged pieces of debris.)
You will have to face the awful truth one day, I fear, which is this: The Roswell Incident was an event of no significance.
You can always disprove me by locating the said documentation, hardware or bodies.
Of course the lack of documentation is a real problem for the Roswell case, but let’s remember, there is some. First is the FBI memo that you mention. Here is the question about that. Why no follow up memos or information? Why nothing to clarify the situation, or, at the very least, correct the inaccurate information? That it hasn’t been found might be significant.
As an ancillary to that, why no mention of Roswell in the Project Blue Book files. Given the media attention to the case, and the fact that other hoaxes are well represented in those files, Roswell should be there but it’s not. That might be significant... and no, the single mention in a short news article about flying saucers in a file unrelated to Roswell does not count.
Second, Ramey might, in fact, be holding a piece of the documentation. If we say nothing else about it, we have to agree on the provenance. We have a date for the photograph, courtesy of the Bettmann Photo Archives, and we know where it came from because we see Ramey holding it. If David Ruidak is right, then we have the smoking gun.
Third, we have the eyewitnesses. Yes, many have been shown to be liars, frauds and charlatans, but that doesn’t negate the few who are solid people and who talked about the crash remains as extraordinary.
Fourth, we have the reaction of the government to this case. Holding a rancher for several days, a PR campaign to “prove” that the flying saucers in general and the Roswell case in particular can be explained as a balloon and a campaign to end discussion suggests something about the case. Why, even that top secret, so important that Charles Moore didn’t know the name of it Project Mogul was revealed in newspapers in the days following the claim by the Army that it had captured a flying saucer.
Fifth, we have the coincidence of the July 9, 1947, AP report in which it is claimed that “The Army and the Navy moved today to suppress stories of flying saucers whizzing through the atmosphere.” Why suddenly, on July 9 did they care when, in the days after the Kenneth Arnold report, they didn’t care.
Finally, the Mogul explanation simply doesn’t work. You can’t put the balloon array on the ranch, there is a real chance that there was no Flight No. 4 which means it explains nothing, and even if there was, the various descriptions of the debris field leave out Mogul. (See the Chronology in another article for more detail about this.)
So, if it wasn’t Mogul, and it wasn’t an aircraft accident, or a stray rocket, or a flying wing, or even the flying wing with deformed Japanese on it, then what was it?
kevinrandle.blogspot.com...
Re: David Rudiak [deciphering a photo enlargement of] ... the Ramey memo; you suggest that Rudiak may be right. I am not going into all the intricate letter-by-letter, word-by-word analysis, as this has been done ad nauseam by others. I will instead give what is known as a 'reductio ad absurdum' answer.
If Rudiak is right, this would be the first official document acknowledging an event of momentous importance to the world, namely the discovery of intelligent ET life and its visit to our planet. Therefore there would be (as per my previous posting) several miles deep of official documentation on it, involving the work of countless scientists, committees, institutions, etc etc. As such the GAO would undoubtedly have unearthed this stuff during their searches (which is what they were contracted to do). Since no such documents surfaced and since all the relevant agencies deny the existence of any such documentation, Rudiak is wrong.
[...]
Re: the FBI teletype, again there was no follow-up because there was nothing to follow up. The AF explained it all at Ft Worth, hence the FBI decided there was nothing further to do. There are no inaccuracies in the teletype either, merely a disagreement between those at Ft Worth, who had seen the debris, and those at Wright Patterson who had not (at least not at that point). Had there been a follow-up message, that too ought to have been found by the GAO.
The AF were concerned enough about the Arnold sighting to send two officers to interview him, and keep in touch with him. They spent far more time on this case than on Roswell, and there is quite a bit of paperwork on the case. These same officers later died in the plane crash after Maury island (another cover-up of course!).
The Mogul answer fits quite well if you go by the 1947 accounts. It is not such a good fit if you go by accounts given 30-50 years afterwards. It has its problems sure, but it is a far better answer than the ET one. (A 60 year ET secret indeed. And not one iota of hardware or paperwork to back it up).
Brazel held incommunicado by the military for a week? I just don't believe it. Brazel, and other civilians, never once saying anything about this amazing, extraordinary discovery (if that be what it was) until his death? I don't believe that either.
Elsewhere you talk about General Exon. According to Karl Pflock Exon did not even have second-hand evidence about wreckage & bodies, let alone firsthand evidence. His story was based entirely on rumors he had heard at WPAFB. And rumors do not count as secondhand or even thirdhand evidence. They are rumors, nothing else. Perhaps Exon was referring to rumors following the Scully book in 1950, as certainly was Sarbacher in his infamous letter of Nov 1983. (The Exon story is in Pflock's book, p.124. )
David Rudiak and others are clutching at straws. And that is all they ever will be clutching at.
Originally posted by kidflash2008
Major General Ramey (a name repeated in the Roswell crash) had given a press conference to deny flying saucers were anything but natural phenomena. Why give a press conference on flying saucers if the papers will do the job of repeating the weather inversion/balloon theories?
[...]
Is it any wonder why the Roswell crash holds such sway?
Roswell: The UFO case that keeps giving
home.comcast.net...
Originally posted by mmiichael
Frank,
A follow-up with Christopher Allan's reply to Randle and summation of the documentation. An inevitable bias, Allan looks at the bigger picture and draws the same conclusions I do.
An abundance of dot connecting embroidered by prompted witness testimony and suggestion. But nothing emerging despite so much effort that is consistent with a historical and scientific event of incredible magnitude.
kevinrandle.blogspot.com...
Re: David Rudiak [deciphering a photo enlargement of] ... the Ramey memo; you suggest that Rudiak may be right. I am not going into all the intricate letter-by-letter, word-by-word analysis, as this has been done ad nauseam by others. I will instead give what is known as a 'reductio ad absurdum' answer.
If Rudiak is right, this would be the first official document acknowledging an event of momentous importance to the world, namely the discovery of intelligent ET life and its visit to our planet. Therefore there would be (as per my previous posting) several miles deep of official documentation on it, involving the work of countless scientists, committees, institutions, etc etc. As such the GAO would undoubtedly have unearthed this stuff during their searches (which is what they were contracted to do). Since no such documents surfaced and since all the relevant agencies deny the existence of any such documentation, Rudiak is wrong.
Re: the FBI teletype, again there was no follow-up because there was nothing to follow up. The AF explained it all at Ft Worth, hence the FBI decided there was nothing further to do. There are no inaccuracies in the teletype either, merely a disagreement between those at Ft Worth, who had seen the debris, and those at Wright Patterson who had not (at least not at that point). Had there been a follow-up message, that too ought to have been found by the GAO.
The AF were concerned enough about the Arnold sighting to send two officers to interview him, and keep in touch with him. They spent far more time on this case than on Roswell, and there is quite a bit of paperwork on the case. These same officers later died in the plane crash after Maury island (another cover-up of course!).
The Mogul answer fits quite well if you go by the 1947 accounts. It is not such a good fit if you go by accounts given 30-50 years afterwards. It has its problems sure, but it is a far better answer than the ET one. (A 60 year ET secret indeed. And not one iota of hardware or paperwork to back it up).
Brazel held incommunicado by the military for a week? I just don't believe it. Brazel, and other civilians, never once saying anything about this amazing, extraordinary discovery (if that be what it was) until his death? I don't believe that either.
Elsewhere you talk about General Exon. According to Karl Pflock Exon did not even have second-hand evidence about wreckage & bodies, let alone firsthand evidence. His story was based entirely on rumors he had heard at WPAFB. And rumors do not count as secondhand or even thirdhand evidence. They are rumors, nothing else. Perhaps Exon was referring to rumors following the Scully book in 1950, as certainly was Sarbacher in his infamous letter of Nov 1983. (The Exon story is in Pflock's book, p.124. )
David Rudiak and others are clutching at straws. And that is all they ever will be clutching at.