Roswell Debris Confirmed As Extraterrestrial: Lab Located, Scientists Named!

Mornin' Mike,

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Frank Warren
we're aware of experimental aircraft of the day (back then), and there was nothing "then" or now pertaining to one of our aircraft that resembles the exotic debris as described by witnesses.

[...]

the "Flying Disk" [sic] report ordered by Blanchard and written and distributed to the media by Haut would have never taken place, and given the fact that everyone in the country wanted to know "what the Flying Disks [sic] were," using them as a cover story to "hide" an "experimental aircraft" would not have been prudent . . . to say the least!

Staying in the "experimental/secret military" tenet, an official response stating just that would have sufficed--end of story.

Forgetting all that for a moment, this excuse for Roswell, might as well be the balloon story, as it fails to explain so many points; for example the "exotic debris"; the fact that the men who were involved in the latest and most significant technology known at the time, i.e., the A-Bomb could recognize our own aircraft, experimental or otherwise. Moreover, it doesn't account for the bodies.

Finally, in June/July of '47, very few folks were talking "aliens" if at all, and it certainly wasn't presented that way by the media (yet). Flying Saucer didn't equal ET, so the argument is flat on its face.

I do lose my bookmark in discussing this Frank. sorry if I keep bringing up points repeatedly.

I'm not clear any more what you accept and reject in all this. The balloon story is out for you. The alien aspect I'm unclear of. An otherworldly craft implies alien visitation. Even before the "War of the Worlds" 1938 broadcast based on Wells's 1898 novel, the notion was in the air, usually confined to popular fiction.

"Based on my own research," I adhere to the ETH for Roswell. I might add (as previously stated in this thread) ET IMHO does not necessarily mean Zutor, from planet Zulon in the Zeta Ritucla system jumped in his flying saucer, pressed the "hyper-drive button" and traveled here. Moreover, (as previously stated), I didn't come to this conclusion in haste; this is based on years of research, and also not by isolating Roswell, but by being cognizant of the fact that it is but one component of the preponderance of evidence in support of the ETH.

The ET definition for me = "not us."

As to "War of The Worlds" . . . yes it is true that Martians were the focus of the "scare" and post news reports; however, our focus is "the time period surrounding the Roswell event," and as stated, "in June/July of '47, very few folks were talking "aliens" if at all, [pertaining to Flying Saucers] and it certainly wasn't presented that way by the media (yet)."

Somewhere from one of the sources quoted, the writer asserted there were two crashes and the events have been blended by witnesses and researchers. In one, there were supposed recovered bodies.

This would be of enormous significance to the medical establishment and again invokes my argument of why no one seems to know about it.

Mike, you make your arguments based on "your presumptions" of how things should be, without a model or exemplar in support of this notion. You forget that part of the event is the post and ongoing "cover-up."

There are witness affidavits stating that their lives were threatened (to stay quiet); there are others that state they were sworn to secrecy; there were laws enacted (which are still on the books) that penalized servicemen from divulging UFO information--all of "these examples" help to demonstrate why "alien biology" isn't mainstream in the "medical establishment."

My guess is that someone accepting the Roswell story can compromise in believing the military was uncertain initially of whether they had found something from a foreign power or beyond terrestrial origin.

I admit a lot of confusion now on exactly which scenario you find meets the criterion. The problem my be solely on my end. If it's not too much of a demand, could you reiterate for us?

Thanks,

Mike
[edit on 21-6-2009 by mmiichael]

I think part of the confusion (on your part) is my insistence that you go back and start from the beginning; you have admittedly come to a conclusion prior to looking at the evidence.

In your initial comments you were "selling" the balloon flapdoodle--this simply "cannot, and hasn't" stood up to scrutiny; so, once you come to that realization, you have to ask "what was it?" Forget end conclusions . . . mine or anyone else's--just begin there and look at the evidence!

And remember:

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Cheers,
Frank

Mike,

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Frank Warren

I'm afraid Jeff's explanation for Foo Fighters, i.e., being a "nocturnal illusory sensation" is as weak as the "experimental craft" for Roswell.

First, and foremost Foo Fighters (UFOs) were not exclusive to "night time sightings." Moreover, there are reports of the Foo Fighters affecting electrical systems on planes, and they have in cases given "returns" ala radar.

Additionally, they were also sighted over the pacific (no ground lights).

Finally, if this were a physiological and psychological issue why hasn't it been "consistent" all throughout man's history of flight?

Frank,


You might want to ask him those questions. I think he was providing examples for a good number of reports. The basic point has more to do with how people interpret what they see in different personal and cultural contexts.

Actually, Mike the only question I asked was a rhetorical one; I was rebutting his arguments with facts, which quash his theorem. He posits that Foo Fighters are "a collection of illusory sensations . . . unknown mechanism of nocturnal vision."

The very first item that trumps his premise is the fact that Foo Fighters were also reported during the day!

Secondly, "illusory sensations" don't affect electrical systems, or show up on radar.

They've also been photographed.

Finally, let us not forget that this was thoroughly investigated by the CIC and the notion was that Foo Fighters were a "new weapon" from the Nazi's.

His approach to the UFO phenomenon, from a psychological and folklore perspective, is highly insightful. I recommend a full reading and digestion.

Mike

An interesting perspective that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

"Pilots do not have sufficient information about phenomena of disorientation, and, as a corollary, are given considerable disorganized, incomplete, and inaccurate information. They are largely dependent upon their own experience, which must supplement and interpret the traditions about 'vertigo' which are passed on to them.

When a concept thus grows out of anecdotes cemented together with practical necessity, it is bound to acquire elements of mystery. So far as 'vertigo' is concerned, no one really knows more than a small part of the facts, but a great deal of the peril. Since aviators are not skilled observers of human behavior, they usually have only the vaguest understanding of their own feelings. Like other naive persons, therefore, they have simply adopted a term to cover a multitude of otherwise inexplicable events."

(Vinacke, Edgar. 8 May 1946. "The Concept of Aviator's 'Vertigo.'" Report No.#7. U.S. Naval School of Aviation Medicine, Project (X-148-Av-4-3). Reprinted in Journal of Aviation Medicine. 1948. 19:158-190)

Again we have the benefit of hindsight and a history of human flight; if Foo Fighters were an "illusory sensation" there would be (ongoing) evidence of that before, at the time, and now.

My inclinations actually lean in this direction more than the purely scientific data accumulation approach.

Yet the argument is wrapped in science, i.e., psychology, physiology etc. For the record, I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water, re vertigo etc--I'm only stating that the author's argument for Foo Fighters--is deficient on its face!

I've tried my best to address issues in objective terms in this thread. But there is also subjective component, much larger than most realize. We see it in the choice of sources, the interpretation of evidence, how witness testimony is elicited, what is accepted or rejected, etc.

We we integrate the two approaches we get more comprehensive results - and better answers.

Mike

[edit on 21-6-2009 by mmiichael]

Again we find common ground Mike--there is most certainly a subjective component re the Roswell event and Ufology in general; you mentioned it earlier in the thread--you labeled it "Attitude Polarization" . . . my label is "societal programming," in regards to the masses, and "cognitive bias" in regards to the educated.

Where we differ (in this particular instance) is that I would argue we "acknowledge" these facts; however, that we separate these so-called, "approaches" and stick with a scientific methodology.

Cheers,
Frank

Originally posted by Frank Warren
there is most certainly a subjective component re the Roswell event and Ufology in general; you mentioned it earlier in the thread--you labeled it "Attitude Polarization" . . . my label is "societal programming," in regards to the masses, and "cognitive bias" in regards to the educated.

Where we differ (in this particular instance) is that I would argue we "acknowledge" these facts; however, that we separate these so-called, "approaches" and stick with a scientific methodology.

Thanks for your thoughts Frank,

As you can see, I'm kind of rolling with the punches in this debate. If I read something that sounds convincing, I try it on for size. Weather balloons, experimental Nazi design craft, space ship and aliens, etc.

You dismiss the possibility they did uncover MOGUL weather balloons, or were dumb enough or indulgent of high command to ship the stuff off, the possibility that Marcel changed his story to conform to interviewer expectations, etc. I don't.

Were it my investigation, and accepting a possibility of an alien crash, I would just forget about all this preliminary stuff from Brazel to Wright Patterson. The real story is what was uncovered and what they were able to extract and retroengineer from it.

Was there alien tissue? What kind of anatomy did it have? What was the biochemical makeup? Was in cellular? Was there a circulatory system? A genetic code? And a million other question.

Medical literature is scrupulously documented. These questions would have involved the world's leading forensic pathologists, hematologists, cardiologists, immunologists, geneticists, etc.

As far as I know, not a peep from anyone in any medically related field, not a rumor, not a whisper. And yes, I know, the big bad military psyops took control and swore everyone to secrecy. Ditto the advanced technology. But there's the memory metal and Corso's claims of leaking to people like Bill Gates. Neither of these I buy into in the least.

If this is the Great Event, I'm to believe there's potentially all this advanced scientific knowledge. But for the hundreds of thousands working away at scientific and medical advancements, there is no interaction, no consultation, no new fields opened, etc. And we're talking 60 years now.

It's supposed to be super hush-hush. But Marcel and a couple others blabbed, yet I'm to accept that all the scientific types, maybe thousands, were tight lipped.

It all doesn't wash for me, I'm afraid.

Maybe the world operates in a different way from what I've seen, maybe people are different from what I've been told. We've seen the US screw up every time they try a conspiracy like Bay of Pigs, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. They just can't keep a secret.

Anyway, you get my drift, I'm sure.

Mike


[edit on 22-6-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


Dear mmiichael

For years I had no explanation of why they would bother to lie about what happened at Roswell, or any other reports of such a nature.

Why did we not seam to be getting advanced technology if such a thing had actually occurred? Basically just like yourself as if that had happened we should have Moon bases and Mar’s bases by this time. If Roswell and a like where real what happened to all this knowledge that by this time we should have been able to archive.

It just didn’t add up we see all these very creditable eye witness testimony but nothing comes of it nothing at all.

Are we all barking mad??

If Roswell had just been a product of Project Paper Clip why between here and heaven would that still be top secret? As anything the Nazis had developed back in the 1940”s could have no bearing on today’s technology. Hell it’s on the History channel for goodness sake.

It bothered me no end with no adding up in sight.

Then I remembered this www.museumofhoaxes.com... it had nearly the response of the 1938 Orson Wells production of HG Well war of the worlds. So much so that I believe it was never shown in the good old US of A.

It’s a long story but I watched it with a friend when it was shown and in the house there was a deathly silence during the showing. At the end we looked at each other and dashed for the telephone to ring the BBC.

Naturally we where unable to get through. The lines where totally blocked.

All over the paper the next day it read HOAX. That was true but as Lesley Watkins' said had they just discovered that there was some truth in the story.

In other words to have a chance of understanding what just maybe going on you can not just look at the small picture it is necessary to stand back and imagine the unimaginable.

reply to post by mmiichael


Dear mmiichael

From mmiichael

“Were it my investigation, and accepting a possibility of an alien crash, I would just forget about all this preliminary stuff from Brazel to Wright Patterson. The real story is what was uncovered and what they were able to extract and retroengineer from it.”

Now now Mike you can’t start to unravel a mystery from the middle as with all the best detective novels like the hero you have to start from the beginning. That is the route to the truth.

However I can see that by wishing to ignore the beginning, my slant on the logic of the story must be getting to you a little. After all if it where not for the beginning we would have nothing I whole heartedly agree.

Originally posted by MAC269
Now now Mike you can’t start to unravel a mystery from the middle as with all the best detective novels like the hero you have to start from the beginning. That is the route to the truth.

However I can see that by wishing to ignore the beginning, my slant on the logic of the story must be getting to you a little. After all if it where not for the beginning we would have nothing I whole heartedly agree.

Here's what's happened with the Roswell investigation. The same things are hashed and rehashed endlessly. Because it's a thousand piece puzzle and there are only 6 pieces everyone's trying to fit together for the full picture.

Some new 90 year old guy will come out of the woodwork next month. He will have read the lit or be informed, but claim not. He'll supply some uninformative anecdotes that will lead nowhere. Everyone will be in a tizzy, but nothing will move forward.

If it's believed an alien craft came down, how about digging up some 90 year old government lab technicians instead? A massive questionnaire. Have they ever heard any stories, names, locations.

The genesis of the Major Event is proving to be a dead end in research as far as I can see. But comfort food because there is at least something resembling substance in what I consider a great straw grasping.

The Flying Saucer headline, the world's most important military bases, some vague memos, some shifting memories.

Look, all this makes me a bit uncomfortable because I'm sort of attacking the belief system of complete strangers who are considerate and thoughtful and decent people.

I'm not on some self validating vendetta against Roswell believers. But squint as hard as I can, I don't see an indication of a momentous event.

And once the plane load of crashed saucer, alien corpses, Nazi prototype,
balloon debris are delivered, there's a stone cold trail for the better part of a century.

Where's the file clerk for the alien photos? Where are the scientific breakthroughs that came out of thin air?

Why are all the stories starting with "I wasn't there, but know a guy who..."

Even when people recount stories of visitations by the Virgin Mary we get better details. Same with ghosts.

The constant elusiveness of substantiation screams out to me.

---

Anyway, this is another one of those late-nighters, first draft, no revision.

So hope it comes across as coherent and lucid.

Thanks for listening.


Mike


[edit on 23-6-2009 by mmiichael]

Evenin' Mike,

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Frank Warren
there is most certainly a subjective component re the Roswell event and Ufology in general; you mentioned it earlier in the thread--you labeled it "Attitude Polarization" . . . my label is "societal programming," in regards to the masses, and "cognitive bias" in regards to the educated.

Where we differ (in this particular instance) is that I would argue we "acknowledge" these facts; however, that we separate these so-called, "approaches" and stick with a scientific methodology.

Thanks for your thoughts Frank,

Backatcha!

As you can see, I'm kind of rolling with the punches in this debate. If I read something that sounds convincing, I try it on for size. Weather balloons, experimental Nazi design craft, space ship and aliens, etc.

I can see that, and therein lies the problem; you're trying to fit scenarios into your predetermined conclusion . . . in short--your working backwards.

You dismiss the possibility they did uncover MOGUL weather balloons, or were dumb enough or indulgent of high command to ship the stuff off, the possibility that Marcel changed his story to conform to interviewer expectations, etc. I don't.

I dismiss the balloon excuse simply because the evidence quashes the notion. As far as "shipping stuff off" . . . you've lost me there; "indulgent" isn't an adjective to often used in the military. Re Marcel, he didn't "change his story."

Were it my investigation, and accepting a possibility of an alien crash, I would just forget about all this preliminary stuff from Brazel to Wright Patterson. The real story is what was uncovered and what they were able to extract and retroengineer from it.

Methinks the "real story" is a matter of interpretation; your notion seems to be associated with the medical field; I would wager the larger picture is the idea that "we're not alone."

As far as the investigation goes, nothing can be forgotten or overlooked; researching the Roswell incident or any historic event is much like an archeological dig; one must sift through a large amount of material looking for the the most minute piece of evidence.

Was there alien tissue? What kind of anatomy did it have? What was the biochemical makeup? Was in cellular? Was there a circulatory system? A genetic code? And a million other question.

Medical literature is scrupulously documented. These questions would have involved the world's leading forensic pathologists, hematologists, cardiologists, immunologists, geneticists, etc.

Again. Mike you make presumptions without an exemplar . . . except from the movies; we're talking about a postwar world entering a new cold war; an environment (from our perspective) that was framed in secrecy and solidifying it with a new National Security Act and new intelligence agencies as well as a restructuring of the military body. "Sharing" important information wasn't prudent nor coveted. This is not to say that some very bright people weren't involved with it at various levels.

As far as I know, not a peep from anyone in any medically related field, not a rumor, not a whisper. And yes, I know, the big bad military psyops took control and swore everyone to secrecy. Ditto the advanced technology. But there's the memory metal and Corso's claims of leaking to people like Bill Gates. Neither of these I buy into in the least.

I assume your using "Gates" as a metonymy. and I believe Corso's claim was that the "memory metal" ended up at Monsanto and Dow Chemical.

You make light of how the military and or government keeps its secrets; however, this is something that isn't left to speculation. Moreover, "security oaths," as well as "NDA's" go hand in hand with "compartmentalization" and "security classification."

If this is the Great Event, I'm to believe there's potentially all this advanced scientific knowledge. But for the hundreds of thousands working away at scientific and medical advancements, there is no interaction, no consultation, no new fields opened, etc. And we're talking 60 years now.

Of course the rebuttal is that there is all of the above.

It's supposed to be super hush-hush. But Marcel and a couple others blabbed, yet I'm to accept that all the scientific types, maybe thousands, were tight lipped.

Again Mike you make your arguments by presumption, proclamation and innuendo; not to be brash but saying a "couple of people have blabbed" is delusive to the facts, and just because people you know didn't tell you that they were involved with UFOs doesn't negate the fact that it "others" were.

It all doesn't wash for me, I'm afraid.

Of this I'm sure. ;>)

Maybe the world operates in a different way from what I've seen, maybe people are different from what I've been told. We've seen the US screw up every time they try a conspiracy like Bay of Pigs, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. They just can't keep a secret.

Anyway, you get my drift, I'm sure.

Mike

[edit on 22-6-2009 by mmiichael]

There's no doubt that "secrets have been exposed" Mike; however, they have also been kept. I don't think your perception of how the world works, and or how you see people is to far off in general; however, based on our discourse you are certainly nescient in certain areas (no offense).

Cheers,
Frank

Originally posted by Frank Warren

Frank,

Of course I unfairly vent all my latent hostility towards the Roswell event and UFO investigation in general. You, in kind, are polite, reasonable, rational, accomodating. You have the facts and data behind you. I spew out half-remembered often conflicting factoids which you can shoot down without even lifting your weapon off the table.

I gather you assessment is that the military did indeed find artifacts form something they concluded was outworldly and chose to conceal it by giving a series of explanations and cover stories.

My guess is there was little usable yield from examining the evidence. Possibly the limitations of technology were a factor.

(and wouldn't it be a hoot if for once the metal on their ships was actually an alloy commonly found on Earth)


That's the best scenario I can salvage given the information available to me, my way of organizing information, your counterpoints, and the environment in which this is being discussed.


I'm quite pleased to have you deservedly take the upper hand in this discussion. The rational UFO investigator vs the know it all skeptic.

So let me reiterate for the sake of clarity. They found something but couldn't make heads or tails of it.


Await your reply,

Mike

Mornin' Mike,

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Frank Warren

Frank,

Of course I unfairly vent all my latent hostility towards the Roswell event and UFO investigation in general. You, in kind, are polite, reasonable, rational, accomodating. You have the facts and data behind you. I spew out half-remembered often conflicting factoids which you can shoot down without even lifting your weapon off the table.

Aside from being intelligent and articulate--your honest! ;>)

I gather you assessment is that the military did indeed find artifacts form something they concluded was outworldly and chose to conceal it by giving a series of explanations and cover stories.

Yes, as I have detailed twice in this thread.

My guess is there was little usable yield from examining the evidence. Possibly the limitations of technology were a factor.

I disagree; from the ground up, the realization of the event was/is beneficial. Moreover, scientific methodology would most certainly yield "something."

(and wouldn't it be a hoot if for once the metal on their ships was actually an alloy commonly found on Earth)

AS mentioned previously, for me ET = "not us." Reports of UFOs are evidenced throughout our history; "if" UFOs of the past are related to ET, then ET does not necessarily have to have come from elsewhere (recently).

Moreover, an alloy "wouldn't be found," it has to be made' however, I wouldn't be taken aback if alloys were similar.

That's the best scenario I can salvage given the information available to me, my way of organizing information, your counterpoints, and the environment in which this is being discussed.

I'm quite pleased to have you deservedly take the upper hand in this discussion. The rational UFO investigator vs the know it all skeptic.

What is very common amongst anti-Ufologist "enthusiasts" is that they don't do their homework; I don't mean this in a derogatory way; I attribute this to what we've discussed earlier i.e., "Attitude Polarization" or "Societal Bias" etc. Minds are made up in advance; the notion is "it can't be," so why bother to listen to the minutiae.

This is why I often talk about taking "baby steps" in regards to the evidence, or starting from the beginning, etc.

On the other hand, there are those who take an "anti-ET" position who are self-proclaimed "skeptics" and offer a face to the media e.g., the McGaha's, Shermer's and now Bill Nye ad nauseam, who also "have not" done their homework--this is shameless, unscientific and misleading to be polite. This group does not have an excuse; given their "public positions" they should do the work or not come to the table!

In either case, the evidence always wins!

So let me reiterate for the sake of clarity. They found something but couldn't make heads or tails of it.


Await your reply,

Mike

I believe the men on the periphery (at the debris field) certainly couldn't make heads or tails of what they were looking at; the men further up the food chain would be a different matter of course.

Conversely, men (of any rank or position) at a crash site "with bodies" would have a different perspective altogether.

Cheers,
Frank

Originally posted by Frank Warren
I believe the men on the periphery (at the debris field) certainly couldn't make heads or tails of what they were looking at; the men further up the food chain would be a different matter of course.

Conversely, men (of any rank or position) at a crash site "with bodies" would have a different perspective altogether.

Frank,

Everything you say makes perfect sense. But in the context of there having been a momentous discovery for which documentation is not forthcoming.

I know it's vexing when I say that it doesn't gel for me. you in turn will say closer examination of evidence needed, baby steps have to be taken, correlation of other UFO events have to be considered.

I ask where is the evidence, indication, even hint that something of extraordinary importance was found beyond the initial discovery which still for me is clouded in ambiguities.

Skepticism, at least from me, is not an attempt to dismiss something that has a claim of historical importance, or to put down those who seriously track this matter.

It really is just a classic request for the evidence of an extraordinary claim.

I risk repeating myself. But the elusiveness of evidence here, as in any investigation, can be revealing.

It's either been successfully expunged from the records and covered up. Or it was never there in the first place.

Accuse me of having a closed mind and already coming to a conclusion.

But I await anything that will demonstrate my conclusions are not warranted.

Show me the MONEY (or MONEY SHOT)


Mike

Mike,

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Frank Warren
I believe the men on the periphery (at the debris field) certainly couldn't make heads or tails of what they were looking at; the men further up the food chain would be a different matter of course.

Conversely, men (of any rank or position) at a crash site "with bodies" would have a different perspective altogether.

Frank,

Everything you say makes perfect sense. But in the context of there having been a momentous discovery for which documentation is not forthcoming.

Mike, with your repetitive presumptions that every significant scientific mind on the planet would know about Roswell, with equal diligence I have to keep reminding you that the entire event was, and continues to be covered up; that all the puppies at the food dish back in 1947 didn't get along and still don't to this day. We just finished fighting a world war that went on much longer then then we were "overtly" involved with, and were entering a cold war--keeping one's cards close to the chest was SOP. Even the puppies of the same breed, i,e., Navy, Army, Air Force were self-serving.

Moreover, you repeatedly paint Roswell as "public" discovery akin to the revealing of Einstein's theory of general relativity or the discovery of penicillin--it is not! The brush you need to use is one from the canvas of the NDRC, OSRD and the RDB, along with the frame work of the National Security Act (1947), which gave birth to the CIA and NSC, as well as the National Military Establishment.

I know it's vexing when I say that it doesn't gel for me. you in turn will say closer examination of evidence needed, baby steps have to be taken, correlation of other UFO events have to be considered.

Bingo!

I ask where is the evidence, indication, even hint that something of extraordinary importance was found beyond the initial discovery which still for me is clouded in ambiguities.

The first "hint" begins with the press release (admission) authorized by the commander of the only nuclear equipped air base in the world, "RAAF Captures Flying Saucer On Ranch in Roswell Region"

From there comes the declarations of some of the witnesses, some whom were directly involved with the cover-up, some who handled or transported debris, and yet others who declared they transported "bodies":

Colonel Thomas Dubose
Major Jesse Marcel
Mack Brazel
Loretta Proctor
Phyllis McGuire
Sheriff George Wilcox
Frank Joyce
Colonel William H. Blanchard
Sgt. Lewis Rickett
Sgt. Robert Smith
Bill Brazel
Sally Strickland Tadolini
General Arthur Exon
Lt. Robert Shirkey
Dr. Jesse Marcel Jr.
Steve Lytle
Steven Lovekin,
Art McQuiddy
Sgt. Robert Smith
Earl Zimmerman
Lt. Walter Haut
Lt. Colonel Payne Jennings
Glenn Dennis
Captain. Oliver Henderson
Sappho Henderson
Mary Groode
John Kromshroeder
Lt. Chester P. Barton
PFC Eli Benjamin
Sgt. Frederick Benthal
S/Sgt. Milton C. Sprouse
Dr. Robert Sarbacher
Eli Benjamin
S/Sgt. Robert Slusher
PFC Lloyd Thompson
Blanche Wahnee
Meyers Washnee
Dan Wilmot
Robert Thomas
Lydia Sleppy
Dee Proctor
Norma Gardner
Sergeant Melvin E Brown
Captain Armstrong

(This list goes on . . .)

This is over course is separate from the news paper reports of "Flying Saucers" being seen all over the country (and the world) at the time, and the PTB's public admission that "they weren't ours."

The point being is the evidence is there Mike, all one needs to do is "look."

Skepticism, at least from me, is not an attempt to dismiss something that has a claim of historical importance, or to put down those who seriously track this matter.

It really is just a classic request for the evidence of an extraordinary claim.

Skepticism is a core ingredient of the competent researcher; it goes hand in hand with logic and scientific method or a similar framework thereof. The best skeptics, I have found are in fact Ufologists.

In your regard, "based on our colloquy here," I would argue that you have "dismissed" the elements or the conclusions presented here, not because of the "evidence in hand," or a strong rebuttal against it, but because of a "perceived situation" (by you) that you feel "should exist" given the "pro" Roswell arguments. This in my view is akin to "fuzzy logic."

I risk repeating myself. But the elusiveness of evidence here, as in any investigation, can be revealing.

It's either been successfully expunged from the records and covered up. Or it was never there in the first place.

Accuse me of having a closed mind and already coming to a conclusion.

But I await anything that will demonstrate my conclusions are not warranted.

Show me the MONEY (or MONEY SHOT)

Mike

The "money" shot comes in small denominations Mike, but "100 one dollar bills" still equals a "Benjy!"

Cheers,
Frank

Here's something new that relates to the Roswell crash....

www.gravitycontrol.org...

The casing material allows for new insights into the function of UFO.

reply to post by Frank Warren


I'll respect your request to not get involved with the thread but I feel compelled to say this. Anything that carries the name Anthony Bragalia is to be immediately suspect as not being factual as his many other articles prove.

Anyone desiring to not only proceed with this thread but to believe what is presented, remember I told you so!

reply to post by observe50


In 1980 I saw a UFO over Tucson and nearly wet my pants. The thing was the size of a football field and triangular. UFOs are real. I think Roswell really happened.

STRONG KUDO'S go to Stanton Friedman.

He's the dude that brought Roswell to the world.

Originally posted by mmiichael

Show me the MONEY (or MONEY SHOT)

Mike

What if there isn't one ?

Take the Manhattan Project - maybe Hiroshima was the money shot (and apologies to any that would see that description as insulting) but if for whatever reason the bombs weren't dropped then would that project subsequently have been kept secret ?

Even knowing that the Manhattan Project definitely existed can verifiable detailed evidence be shown - probably only to the same extent that can be proposed of truth behind Roswell claims (although without checking maybe I'll be put straight on that).

The difference perhaps is that one you have been taught is history, the other the opposite.

Originally posted by mmiichael
The real story is what was uncovered and what they were able to extract and retroengineer from it.

Was there alien tissue? What kind of anatomy did it have? What was the biochemical makeup? Was in cellular? Was there a circulatory system? A genetic code? And a million other question.

Medical literature is scrupulously documented. These questions would have involved the world's leading forensic pathologists, hematologists, cardiologists, immunologists, geneticists, etc.

As far as I know, not a peep from anyone in any medically related field, not a rumor, not a whisper. And yes, I know, the big bad military psyops took control and swore everyone to secrecy. Ditto the advanced technology. But there's the memory metal and Corso's claims of leaking to people like Bill Gates. Neither of these I buy into in the least.

If this is the Great Event, I'm to believe there's potentially all this advanced scientific knowledge. But for the hundreds of thousands working away at scientific and medical advancements, there is no interaction, no consultation, no new fields opened, etc. And we're talking 60 years now.

It's supposed to be super hush-hush. But Marcel and a couple others blabbed, yet I'm to accept that all the scientific types, maybe thousands, were tight lipped.

It all doesn't wash for me, I'm afraid.

Quite right. I might not know from alien saucers, but as long as I've been on Earth, I think I know a little bit about people. And the bigger the secret, and the longer the time, the harder it is to keep it. After a while, the big boogie man of government threats turns out to be less logical and more convenient to those with a tall or half-remembered story to tell.

Roswell excites people because it tells them something they already believe. It tells them what they want to hear. But in the end, according to the research that extends past the small (yes, small) group of people who want to be a part of the ride, there's just nothing there. If alien technology was reverse engineered, it sure didn't help the U.S. win any wars. Velcro? Come on.

I like a good story as much as the next guy. But this Roswell thing has too many plot holes and a really lame payoff. Namely, none.