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 mab22
it would be interesting if we knew the font to recreate the picture in the same conditions and then compare, kind of hard though as you'd need to take into account camera type, distance ,lighting and paper angle,
Originally posted by The Shrike
I keep recommending one source above others although any serious researcher can come up with similar information except that you can't interview any longer those who have passed on. But we're fortunate to have their present testimony to compare against the past. The present testimony is proof that what believers want to accept has no basis in fact.
Here are some research comments by Karl Pflock as found in his book "ROSWELL: Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe" (2001), page 209, and this is not best nor it illustrates the major participants' changed testimony:
"Somewhat more rooted in reality are the attempts of the Roswell Photo Interpretation Team (RPIT) and others to ferret out the meaning of words on a piece of paper Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey is seen holding in two of the photographs taken of him on July 8, 1947, as he poses beside the NYU-Mogul debris brought to Fort Worth by Maj. Jesse Marcel. J. Bond Johnson, the man who took the photographs in Ramey's office, founded and heads RPIT, which is dedicated to analyzing the images he and Fort Worth Army Air Field public information officer Maj. Charles Cashon captured in Ramey's office.
When first contacted by Roswell researchers in 1989, Johnson had very hazy memories of the events forty-two years before, but seemed to accept the weather balloon and radar target explanation. It was not long before he found the opinions of crashed-saucer proponents persuasive, and he seems sincerely to believe he was duped by the army in 1947. He now devotes much of his time to proving this through interpretation of what is shown in his and Cashon's photos. Among other things, Johnson and RPIT claim they have "'proved conclusively'" that the debris photographed in Ramey's office could not possibly have been part of a New York University balloon project flight train, this despite all the evidence to the contrary."
Originally posted by debrisfield
(snip)
Originally posted by debrisfield
Pflock, a former CIA employee and certified hoaxer, whom Cavitt referred to as "our debunker" to Weaver, also can't be trusted in many of his statements.
Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
reply to post by debrisfield
Anyone who completes a college or university bachelor degree has been trained in critical thinking.
i.e you evaluate all evidence and then form a conclusion based on ALL evidence.
As you said The Shrike cherry picks evidence, accepts the testimony that supports his predetermined conclusion only, then ignores conflicting testimony and/or disparages the credibility of the witness with conflicting testimony.
And then insults people who don't agree with him when presented with facts he can't explain.
If The Shrike submitted any papers using these methods of critical thinking while studying at college or university he would fail the assignment, plain and simple. Its known as BAD SCIENCE. He could get some academic help, but if his work did not change he would never achieve a bachelor degree.
The Shrike would benefit from a university education.
The Shrike, I have not once said I have formed a conclusion about the Roswell incident so don't assume that I am a believer of the alien space craft theory. I am merely being objective.edit on 28/12/1010 by Krusty the Klown because: Kan't spell
Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
reply to post by The Shrike
You still haven't answered my question The Shrike.
Why are you here? You say you already know the answer to this issue. So why do waste your time on these threads?
Do you believe you are really helping people by insulting them?
Originally posted by The Shrike
I learned about Roswell in 1957 while stationed at Sidi Slimane AFB, Morocco.
I touched the Roswell debris.
Originally posted by annella
Originally posted by The Shrike
I learned about Roswell in 1957 while stationed at Sidi Slimane AFB, Morocco.
I touched the Roswell debris.
So you say you touched some ' debris'.
Would you agree that if you touched anything, it was what the Military WANTED you to touch? ( or at least had no problem with?)
And would you also agree that you have no way of proving it WAS the actual pieces collected from the Ranch?
Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Even the FBI used the term "disk" referring to a hexagonal object (radar reflectors might be described as hexagonal) attached to a balloon:
what do you mean 'might be described as'....
the data reads....
FBI DALLAS 7-8-47 6-17 PM DIRECTOR AND SAC, CINCINNATI URGENT FLYING DISC, INFORMATION CONCERNING. MAJOR CURTAN, HEADQUARTERS EIGHTH AIR FORCE, TELEPHONICALLY ADVISED THIS OFFICE THAT AN OBJECT PURPORTING TO BE A FLYING DISC WAS RE COVERED NEAR ROSWELL, NEW MEXICO, THIS DATE. THE DISC IS HEXAGONAL IN SHAPE AND WAS SUSPENDED FROM A BALLON BY A CABLE, WHICH BALLON WAS APPROXIMATELY TWENTY FEET IN DIAMETER. MAJOR CURTAN FURTHER ADVISED THAT THE OBJECT FOUND RESEMBLES A HIGH ALTITUDE WEATHER BALLOON WITH A RADAR REFLECTOR, BUT THAT TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION BETWEEN THEIR OFFICE AND WRIGHT FIELD HAD NOT xxxxxxxxxx BORNE OUT THIS BELIEF. DISC AND BALLOON BEING TRANSPORTED TO WRIGHT FIELD BY SPECIAL PLANE FOR EXAMIN INFORMATION PROVIDED THIS OFFICE BECAUSE OF NATIONAL INTEREST IN CASE xxxx AND FACT THAT NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, ASSOCIATED PRESS, A OTHERS ATTEMPTING TO BREAK STORY OF LOCATION OF DISC TODAY. MAJOR CURTAN ADVISED WOULD REQUEST WRIGHT FIELD TO ADVISE CINCINNATI OFFICE RESULTS OF EXAMINATION. NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION BEING CONDUCTED.
foia.fbi.gov...
Where did Ramey get proper obscure term and shape description for a radar target?--probably scripted by military intelligence or counterintelligence
The term RAWIN in "DEM/RAWIN" was a meteorological jargon term for a RAdar WINd target. Not only was Gen. Ramey telling the press he thought the rubble in his office might be a weather balloon and radar target, he obviously knew it was judging, among other things, through his use of proper terminology. Later bringing in a weather officer (Irving Newton) for official identification was obviously just for show.
In addition, Ramey and his minions were describing the shape of the RAWIN targets as "hexagonal" (such as in the FBI telegram out of Dallas and Reuter's stories). The problem here is that a radar target might only be so described by somebody looking at the outline of a fully assembled and intact target directly from the top or bottom. But all Ramey had to look at was a torn-up target with pieces laying on the ground. It is quite impossible to deduce a "hexagonal" shape in such a state. So where did Ramey get the "hexagonal" shape description? Not from weather officer Newton, who came in later and instead called it a "six-pointed star". Only somebody quite familiar with intact radar targets might refer to them as "hexagonal", so apparently Ramey was provided the "hexagonal" RAWIN description as part of a prepared script, again possibly from counterintelligence or intelligence. (see Ramey's impossible hexagon story for details)
www.roswellproof.com...
moreover in regards to fbi's involvement....
Mr. (name blacked out) also discussed this matter with Colonel L.R. Forney of MID (Military Intelligence Division). Colonel Forney indicated that it is his attitude that inasmuch as it has been established that the flying disks are not the result of any Army or Navy experiments, the matter is of interest to the FBI.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I frankly don't see how anyone can listen to Marcel's description of the debris and not conclude it's project mogul
i suppose you are referring to the infamous mogul flight #4.... in other words charles moore's hallucinations....
The number 4 flight of this experimental balloon MOGUL, the only one which could have landed near the ranch at the time….never went up.
That’s right. MOGUL Flight 4 was never launched. That is according to notes taken on that day. IT WAS A NO LAUNCH DAY BECAUSE OF BAD WEATHER JUST LIKE THE DAY BEFORE.
ufomedia.blogspot.com...
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The Air Force report by its own admission is incomplete.
is full of holes would sound more appropriate.....
which allegedly consisted of...
"the box kite"... which came to be known as the "flying disk"...
something like this....
n the 'material' DEBRIS being the radar reflectors ONLY...
which SURPRISE SURPRISE..... they still have an original piece left....
but what about the rest of the material....
aahhh.... sheridan cavitt had described a black box in the wreckage...
Moore succeeded in locating him and visiting his house for an interview. However, Cavitt refused to talk about the incident. Years later he also refused to talk to Randle and Schmidt. However, he did talk to the Air Force invesigator and the story below is what he claimed actually happened. The astute reader will realize that Cavitt's testimony is about as solid as a Swiss cheese (full of holes).
www.nicap.org...
but according to mogul expert richard muller @ around the one hour mark....
the microphones were suspended via springs inside the 'disks'..... whilst the radar reflectors sent back the data that was being 'heard'...
then we have the balloon design contradictions.....
left only with drawings for flight#2..
which along with flights # 4 & 9 are missing in the reports....
The difficulty in reconstructing flight 4 was that aside from a diary entry, there was little information on where it flew, and only hints as to what tracking devices were on the flight. The latter was important, as radars, sonobuoys and theodolites were used initially for tracking Mogul flights, only to be later discarded in favour of radiosondes as flights proved to drift well beyond the circa 40-mile tracking range of radar. Records for other flights exist, and they show that flight 2 had rawin reflectors for radar tracking, but flight 5 had a radiosonde. Moore deduced that the fact that flight 4 was lost strongly suggested that flight 5’s use of a radiosonde for tracking was a direct result of the inability to track flight 4 with radar. Of course, if flight 4 didn’t have radar reflectors, it could not have been the source of the debris on the Foster ranch.
en.wikipedia.org...
but according to af report.... attachment #27 - table no.7 (summary of nyu constant-level balloon flights)...
flight#5 was launched on 5th june 1947... i.e. having a gap of ONLY one day with flight#4 @ june 4....
which brings us to the conclusion... that moore's 'deductions' have no basis in reality....
on the contrary.... flight#4 was more likely to have had a radiosonde...
Professor Moore also commented: "Flight Number 4 was launched on June 4 (1947) and it was tracked by the B-17 and by the radar
well... www.project1947.com...
n finally... when the af was asked why they thought they saw disks....
they show clips of payloads from nasa's experiments of 1972....
Originally posted by Schaden
Originally posted by debrisfield
Pflock, a former CIA employee and certified hoaxer, whom Cavitt referred to as "our debunker" to Weaver, also can't be trusted in many of his statements.
I didn't know Pflock was ex-CIA. How interesting. Where did Sheridan Cavitt refer to him as our debunker ?
I already knew Weaver was an ex psychological warfare expert.
Is it really an astounding statement?
Originally posted by debrisfield
In explaining to fellow counterintel officer Cavitt his background, Weaver said , "I would kind of like to know how THEY did it [those who keep the Roswell secrets], because IN MY REAL JOB we handle all the Special Programs [Special Access Programs or Black Projects] that do keep all the secrets. And we would like to figure out THEY do it so we can duplicate it. Because it is very hard to keep secrets, as you well know."
Weaver was admitting he was one of the guys [actually the head guy, as stated elsewhere in the Roswell Report] in charge of keeping the secrets for the very Top Secret SAPs and would like to know how the Roswell secrets had been kept so successfully. That's an astounding statement, pretty much an admission by Weaver that Roswell had been covered up and continues to be covered up.
An example of activity sometimes cited by pro-UFO writers to illustrate the point
that something unusual was going on was the travel of Lt Gen Nathan Twining,
Commander of the Air Materiel Command, to New Mexico in July, 1947.
Actually, records were located indicating that Twining went to the Bomb
Commanders’ Course on July 8, along with a number of other general officers,
and requested orders to do so a month before, on June 5, 1947 (Atch 14)....
The above are but two small examples that indicate that if some event happened
that was one of the “watershed happenings” in human history, the US military
certainly reacted in an unconcerned and cavalier manner. In an actual case, the
military would have had to order thousands of soldiers and airman, not only at
Roswell but throughout the US, to act nonchalantly, pretend to conduct and
report business as usual, and generate absolutely no paperwork of a suspicious
nature, while simultaneously anticipating that twenty years or more into the
future people would have available a comprehensive Freedom of Information Act
that would give them great leeway to review and explore government documents.
The records indicate that none of this happened (or if it did, it was controlled by
a security system so efficient and tight that no one, US or otherwise, has been
able to duplicate it since. If such a system had been in effect at the time, it would
have also been used to protect our atomic secrets from the Soviets, which history
has showed obviously was not the case). The records reviewed confirmed that no
such sophisticated and efficient security system existed.
I touched the Roswell debris.
The official report says if it happened it was a better security system than the one used to protect the atomic secrets. That begs the question, why wouldn't the US use the best security system they had to protect atomic secrets? So it seems to me like Weaver and the official USAF report are asking pretty much the same question.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Very nice discovery.
Maybe that book by Philip J Corso, "The Day After Roswell" is mostly true after all?
That's pretty ironic. We might already actually have disclosure of most of this.
I didn't know Pflock was ex-CIA. How interesting.