Roswell crash : New whistle-blower (or hoaxer?)

From the bottom of page 9---interesting spelling in the original:

"……EBE they shot down in Germany in 1974 with a Maser-Lazar Beam."

That Lazar, he gets around, eh?

reply to post by The GUT


I guess I'm a bit touchy because I get newbies asking me to post their stuff that often. I can't recall if Roswell has been among the items to be solicited with me or not but could well have been. They're among the few items I actually do delete and don't even archive. Oh well... I'd also seen cross posting from members who cannot post themselves being a major mod issue so haven't considered it on that basis as well. It was surprising to see here.

reply to post by intrptr


Nice post. Say I were to go back in time, to about the 1500's. I make a friend and decide to give him something to remember me by, so I give him a butane lighter. He's going to use it until it runs out of butane. He might even be able to use the flint and wheel to create sparks to start a fire. After that he's just going to hang on to it. I haven't changed history, because, there is no way for him or any one in that time period to be able to reproduce that lighter. No where to make a plastic housing, no way to manufacture the metal parts and no way to even refill it with butane. Technology cannot advance with out having the infrastructure to support it.

reply to post by IsaacKoi


Page two, directly before the description of a supposed body;

"There was about thirty wooden crates nailed shut. I open the the box, the contents enclosed in a thick glass container, submerged in blue liquid, almost as heavy as yelling(?) solution, the body was floating in the fluid."

I've a few problems with this:

1. We have 30 wooden crates reported. At the top of the page, not quoted, it's described that the crates are reported as being Top Secret.
a,) I have no direct military experience, so, one question I have is; Are personnel without security clearances allowed to handle material(s) above their security clearance, as in this supposed case for manual labor?
b.) If no, then, "Pat" would either have had a Top Secret clearance, This is all a fabrication, there was a mistake in allowing non-approved personnel access to sensitive material, or people without security clearance have access to materials above their clearances all the time.
c.) If this material was SO important, the body of an extraterrestrial at that, wouldn't there be a security detail guarding this shipment? The biggest threat concern to any security conscious agency or enterprise is the threat concern from within. With such a supposedly important shipment, one would think there'd be a security detail present at all times to prevent unauthorized opening of crates out of curiosity.

2. We have 30 crates, and the one with a supposed alien body just coincidentally happens to be the one that gets opened out of mischief for curiosity's satisfaction?

3. There's a body in a glass container filled with a heavy blue fluid?
a.) Who ships anything in glass cases? Glass can crack, or break regardless of how thick it is. What would happen if there was an accident, or the wooden crate got dropped?
b.) Who ships anything supposedly Top Secret in a container (albeit inside a wooden crate) that anyone can essentially walk up to, open and see the entire contents?
c.) A sealed and locked against tampering, and insulated against physical shock like a dropped crate steel casing would make more no-brainer sense for shipping such high-value perishable material.

4. There was a blue liquid?
a.) Did preserving agents like formaldehyde come in different flavors and colors at the time?
b.) What preserving agents were available at the time as well as being tried true that could be reliably counted on as a suspension and preservation agent.
c.) Any colored preserving agent would likely contain a risk factor for staining any material held in preservative suspension. It doesn't stand as credible that an alien body would be handled so haphazardly as to risk having it stained blue.

5. Shipment of biological materials, possibly a biohazardous risk in a crate along side other crates with other materials non-biological as if all of it requires equal rough handling, and peek a boo opportunities from every curious serviceman on the planet.

These are just a few problems found on page 2.
I've yet to read the rest, but with this many problems on just page two, I'm of the opinion this story is just another story.

1a) It has definitely happened where I work.

I have had these notes since 2007 and initially put them aside because, as Isaac also observed, there was nothing in them that could not have been feasibly derived from subsequent literature--In particular Corso's book 'The Day After Roswell' published in 1997.

However, with the 66 year Anniversary of Roswell incident bringing the notes back to mind, I decided to retrieve them and seek a second opinion. This is how I came to post on ATS. But firstly, to dispel any ideas that I am a hoaxer, Isaac has sufficient means to identify me through my private emails, fax number etc. Also, I have sent Isaac photo's of Frank and his 20 years of military service certificate issued in 1964 by US Army Tripler General Hospital.

Firstly, before I begin to argue the validity of Frank's notes I refer you to the video Isaac has posted on page one of this thread. Listen closely to what Corso says about when he first encountered the crates from the Roswell crash site. 8:15 to 11:15 minute mark. www.youtube.com...

Corso makes a point of saying he only had a cursory viewing of crate contents 10 - 15 seconds, and because he didn't know what it was he put it in back of his mind until get future corroboration to evaluate what 'thing is" ...and then he promptly forgot about it. Corso makes quite a point of stressing these decision were made within seconds of viewing contents of crate. Literally a 'don't go there moment'.

If this is true then how do we account for the detailed
description of the contents of crates he gives in The Day After
Roswell (pp 18-19). He even states that he spent more time than he
should have on this examination.

To write such a detailed description Corso could have relied on 'corroboration' provided by Pat. See page 2 of notes.

reply to post by Druscilla


See page 5 begins:

Pat was at Port Riley.....the cargo manifests said plane parts, parts for B29 - Wing tank - P51. They wouldn't think anything of the shipment except it was going the wrong way. But as we found out they were cargo from Roswell, air crash 4 July, 1947"

It appears to be the 'gossip' of the military personal that classified cargo as 'Top Secret'.

Also, I suspect that this specific crate was briefly viewed by Corso because of its shipping invoice "to Wright Field.and on to Walter Reed Army Hospital".(see bottom page 2) Not the usual destination of plane parts.

Originally posted by intrptr
Corso is a fake. The corporations that developed fiber optic cable, lasers and the silicon transistor were represented in a show about his claims. I don't know if it was Day after Roswell or some other. Each of his claims were debunked in turn by the engineers that worked at these companies and were directly involved in these projects.

That is the problem with silly claims like Corso's. There was no sudden leap in technology, if you did some research you can see the progression from the first transistor, first integrated circuit all the way up to today's microprocessors.
There is no sudden leap, but a steady progression as people learnt and developed better technology. The same with lasers, optical fibre etc etc.

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
My first impression upon receiving these 10 pages of notes is that they are more than a little rambling and confused, with the purported source(s) of information being unclear.

Frank was 88 when he wrote out these notes...not 28

Most of the content of these 10 pages could fairly easily have been written by anyone that has read Corso's book

Frank claims he has no knowledge of Corso's book (he has not lived in America since 1965). It can readily be shown that Corso relied on secondary sources for content in book ex Corso describes in book detailed description of his examination of ET although he has verbally admitted that he only viewed ET for 10 - 15 seconds.

Also, Corso begins his book with an account of the actual Roswell crash without being there:

Although I wasn’t there that night, I’ve heard many different versions. Many of them go like this...:.

Corso then proceeds to describe events over seven pages all based on secondary sources. In view of Corso's reliance on secondary sources I would not dicard Frank's version as a possible primary source.

Furthermore, there are some factual issues with the handwritten information.

For example, while the notes by “Frank” supposedly relate to information supplied by “Pat” in or around 1952, but the notes include information up to the mid-1990s. Some of that information is simply wrong, e.g. reference to information on UFOs being declassified in the mid-1990s when the US Air Force’s UFO documentation was declassified much earlier than that.

Frank was referring to declassification of Roswell Incident. His notes were intended to bring me up to speed on UFO business related to Roswell.

According to Wiki en.wikipedia.org...

In response to these reports, and after United States congressional inquiries, the General Accounting Office launched an inquiry and directed the Office of the United States Secretary of the Air Force to conduct an internal investigation. The result was summarized in two reports. The first, released in 1995, concluded that the reported recovered material in 1947 was likely debris from Project Mogul. The second report, released in 1997, concluded reports of recovered alien bodies were likely a combination of innocently transformed memories of military accidents involving injured or killed personnel, innocently transformed memories of the recovery of anthropomorphic dummies in military programs like Operation High Dive conducted in the 1950s, and hoaxes perpetrated by various witnesses and UFO proponents. The psychological effects of time compression and confusion about when events occurred explained the discrepancy with the years in question. These reports were dismissed by UFO proponents as being either disinformation or simply implausible. But at the same time, several high-profile UFO researchers discounted the possibility that the incident had anything to do with aliens.

Due to basic factual errors in the content of the rambling 10 pages of notes, I don't really expect the above details to be provided and/or checked out.

I have provided photo of Frank taken 8 July 2013 and photograph of 20 years Army service certificate from Triplar.
I am not in the position to blurt Frank's details all over the internet. This is a sensitive situation.

reply to post by hellobruce


As someone with a background in electronics I can confirm what you say, I still have some of the early transistors, maybe they'll be collectibles one day

However, I think it odd that someone like Corso would use something so easily debunked!
Why? Because it was meant to be debunked!

Lets forget everything thats been said over the years and go back to the few days when the event took place.

1. The ARMY announce they found a flying saucer.
2. It hits the newspapers.
3. The army change their mind and say "Its just one of our top secret balloons" and they allow the press to take pictures.

I find it hard to believe they could mistake a ballon for a flying saucer. And I certainly do not believe they would provide details of a secret balloon project, even if it really was a balloon.

Something happened at Roswell, and all the stuff thats come out since is just to muddy the waters.

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
AAARRRGGG, cursive is the dumbest thing a school ever taught anyone!

If you want the truth it's all there in black & white for you to decipher... Reminds me of the 'Some people would say it was a hoax if something turned up on their own front garden' (for want of a better quote) scenario.

Originally posted by VoidHawk

 

As someone with a background in electronics I can confirm what you say, I still have some of the early transistors, maybe they'll be collectibles one day

However, I think it odd that someone like Corso would use something so easily debunked!
Why? Because it was meant to be debunked!

Lets forget everything thats been said over the years and go back to the few days when the event took place.

1. The ARMY announce they found a flying saucer.
2. It hits the newspapers.
3. The army change their mind and say "Its just one of our top secret balloons" and they allow the press to take pictures.

I find it hard to believe they could mistake a ballon for a flying saucer. And I certainly do not believe they would provide details of a secret balloon project, even if it really was a balloon.

Something happened at Roswell, and all the stuff thats come out since is just to muddy the waters.

Or, alternatively, a sometimes brilliant intelligence officer decides that, to throw the Russians off the scent, they can claim it was a flying saucer and kill two birds with one stone. Meaning on the one hand that the secret project is clouded by the ufo allegation---AND just might put the fear into them there Rooskies that we had access to phenomenal extraterrestrial technology.

Then, a cooler head prevails and realizes that the military is gonna be bombarded out of their skulls with demands and some social consequences. They then show a simple weather balloon rather than something more complex and top secret.

Years later, another sometimes brilliant intel guy(s) sees a value in propagating a myth. And, thus, we are ever the "mushroom" of victimology.

There are intelligence folk ALL over and intertwined with this story from day one. Then follow Maury Island, MJ-12, SERPO, etc. All those have the undeniable fingerprints of the alphabets, too.

Corso, of course, was a true-blue intelligence professional as well. I, and others, proffer that the ol' boy did one last, deceptive, job for his "alma mater" before he left this pale blue dot

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by IsaacKoi

 

Page two, directly before the description of a supposed body;

"There was about thirty wooden crates nailed shut. I open the the box, the contents enclosed in a thick glass container, submerged in blue liquid, almost as heavy as yelling(?) solution, the body was floating in the fluid."

I've a few problems with this:

3. There's a body in a glass container filled with a heavy blue fluid?
a.) Who ships anything in glass cases? Glass can crack, or break regardless of how thick it is. What would happen if there was an accident, or the wooden crate got dropped?
b.) Who ships anything supposedly Top Secret in a container (albeit inside a wooden crate) that anyone can essentially walk up to, open and see the entire contents?
c.) A sealed and locked against tampering, and insulated against physical shock like a dropped crate steel casing would make more no-brainer sense for shipping such high-value perishable material.

The body is in a crate market "Belly Tank". Belly tanks were made from fiberglass developed during WW11. It can be surmised that the tank containing body was made from fiberglass not glass.

Originally posted by The GUT

There are intelligence folk ALL over and intertwined with this story from day one. Then follow Maury Island, MJ-12, SERPO, etc. All those have the undeniable fingerprints of the alphabets, too.

Corso, of course, was a true-blue intelligence professional as well. I, and others, proffer that the ol' boy did one last, deceptive, job for his "alma mater" before he left this pale blue dot

After discussion with Frank I suspect the same thing. But the web is very complicated. Frank claims he was under orders to find out everything Pat knows--he was gathering intelligence for army. Frank says that he has never heard of name Bill Brown who tips off Corso to check contents of crates.(Sargent Brown is good friend of Corso in book). This man corresponds with Pat though. The Military were interested in what Pat had to say (whether it was true or false). Before I go on does anyone have any information on Sgt Bill Brown?

Gosh dangit!
This stuff is hard for me to make sense of.
A couple of observations.
1. At times the writing looks very nice--almost artistic even--but other times, in the same sentence even, it looks like chicken-scratch I have to squint and twist my tongue at to read. That strikes me as...odd.
2. I have read through one particular section twice already and fail to get the context entirely, but in the span of three or four paragraphs, Corso is referred to as Lieutenant, then Major, and finally Colonel. I may be wrong, but it seems the author can't make up his mind what the man's rank is.
Did anyone else catch that?

ETA: yeah, I am sure of it. Page 5 starts with duty officer Lieutenant Corso. Two paragraphs later, same day even, he is now Major Corso. Then the story continues on page 6 calling him a Colonel.

Now if these diaries were "originally written" 60 years ago, I would have to conclude they are fictional.
Hard to mistake a lieutenant with a colonel.

Originally posted by JayinAR
Gosh dangit!

I have read through one particular section twice already and fail to get the context entirely, but in the span of three or four paragraphs, Corso is referred to as Lieutenant, then Major, and finally Colonel. I may be wrong, but it seems the author can't make up his mind what the man's rank is.
Did anyone else catch that?

Frank tends to refer to Corso in last sense that he knew him as Lieutenant(early 60's). Then Frank talks about Corso as a Major in past when discovers Crates and and Colonel when he works for Trudeau. Allow for rank changes over the period being discussed. I would suggest when relating notes from diary he simply ad libs bits of info - it is not all verbatim.

And about the writing....he is an old man...give him a break

reply to post by Bwise2


I may be misreading it, but on page five I was quite sure he said "later that day" and calls him major, after having just called him Lieutenant.
I read it several times. I'll give it a few more gos.

I wasn't faulting him for the writing. I just found it odd that some words are actually quite nice. Most are very hard to read though.

Sorry, but I gotta call HOAX.
Here is why:

(excerpt from page 5):

"Pat was at Fort Riley. and the duty officer (note his position) was Lieutenant Corso.. That day 4 trucks came (from?) Fort Riley and unloaded all of their cargo from Fort Bliss, the cargo manifests said plane Parts, Parts for B-29 - wingtank - P51,
They wouldn't think anything of the shipment except it was going the wrong way. But as we found out, they were cargo from Roswell air (search??), 4July1947.
When Pat went on duty THAT NIGHT, the boys told me about the crates or boxes. I was inside looking when DUTY OFFICER (again, same position) came, MAJOR Corso."

This is clearly the same day. Written (supposedly) at the same time, but later that day in a diary.

No service member is going to confuse a Lieutenant Duty Officer for a Colonel.
Just doesn't work that way.

Sorry to the guy presenting the info, maybe the old man is pulling your chain. But this, in my eyes, is definitely a HOAX.
The very next page starts with him being referred to as Colonel. Could be a different time frame, but it is hard to tell. At the very least, what I outlined above is erroneous.

ETA: not to mention the fact that there are major gaps in the chain of causality throughout the entire thing. For instance, in the excerpt above..."but later we found out it was the wreckage from Roswell"... please sir, do explain HOW you found that out! Instead the entire thing reads like talking points of some sort and does not follow any sort of story telling logic. At all.

reply to post by The GUT


I said

Something happened at Roswell, and all the stuff thats come out since is just to muddy the waters.

And I stick by that

You said-

Or, alternatively, a sometimes brilliant intelligence officer decides that, to throw the Russians off the scent, they can claim it was a flying saucer and kill two birds with one stone. Meaning on the one hand that the secret project is clouded by the ufo allegation---AND just might put the fear into them there Rooskies that we had access to phenomenal extraterrestrial technology.

Not happy with that
If you want to throw someone off the sent the best thing to do is not let them get the sent in the first place. Also wouldn't making the suggestion that you had alien tech be more likely to draw attention?


As to what actually did take place I doubt we'll ever know, but I'll tell you what convinced me that something did happen.
I was watching a docu about Roswell, cant remember which one, but they held a meeting with the towns people and filmed it.
Quite a few people turned up at the meeting, and among them were about 5 older people who kept butting in and saying "Nothing happened, none of it is true". They were persistent and kept repeating that line over and over.
Had those people said "We didn't SEE anything", that would have been fine, but they didn't, they insisted that nothing happened. How can they make that claim? Surely the most they can really say is "We didn't see anything".
What they were doing was so obvious, and it was clear it's still an issue, otherwise those people would not have been there trying to make it all go away.

So, like I said above, I firmly believe something happened, but exactly what
If forced to make a guess I'd go for - A military saucer crashed.

Have you ever looked into the Rendlesham case? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that one.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
Have you ever looked into the Rendlesham case? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that one.

Haha...you want me to be even more unpopular with those that think Rendlesham is one of the greats in ufology?! I'll look up a thread where I joined in the discussion and send it via U2U. In the meantime, are you familiar with a cat by the name, I think, of Steven LaPlame? I don't know if he was discussed on the thread I have in mind, so if you have the time or inclination look him up with Rendlesham added as a search term.

When I bring up the psyops theory in regards to the UFO phenomenon many folk assume I'm denying that something real and astounding is behind it. That's not true. I just feel--in the interest of truth--that we have to try and separate the manufactured mythologies from the truly anomalous or we waste time spinning our wheels in cow shizzle.

The truth is that it's my passion for the enigma that drives it, not skepticism. Those who would use this--one of our greatest mysteries--for various intel reasons really, really tick me off. Shame on them.

As always, VoidHawk, mucho respect even when we disagree...although a military prototype certainly isn't out of the question I agree. That still wouldn't negate the mythology being used to propagate a storyline that some folk really seem to want to make us believe.