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

reply to post by Bwise2


Fairly common, for the government to do that sought of thing.
Military R&D aren't set up for mass production, they often share their IP to the private sector for mass production.

Originally posted by The GUT
reply to post by lme7898354

 

I have to admit, that the alleged statement in your link from the "President of American Computer Company" is at the very least interesting if it's documented.

Who is this "Bob Wolf" that supposedly conducted that interview?

Bob Wolf was directly connected with this link:

(404 PAGE NOT FOUND) accpc.com...
CLICK HERE Become part of the most remarkable story in Human History --CLICK ONE: The ROSWELL 1947 Story CLICK ABOVE FOR THE STORY PRESS RELEASES!! Interactive Bulletin Board and Archive System Thousands of message updates to the Roswell Story! Discuss your ideas ON-LINE! Detailed.

reply to post by mirageman


No. Too many witnesses that were threatened had nothing to gain if they made that up, and going around threatening so many people if they didn't witness actual technology makes no sense (seeing bits and pieces of stuff is not going to pose a threat to government so it wouldn't be a rationale to go around threatening witnesses).

Originally posted by Bwise2
Bob Wolf was directly connected with this link:

(404 PAGE NOT FOUND) accpc.com...
CLICK HERE Become part of the most remarkable story in Human History --CLICK ONE: The ROSWELL 1947 Story CLICK ABOVE FOR THE STORY PRESS RELEASES!! Interactive Bulletin Board and Archive System Thousands of message updates to the Roswell Story! Discuss your ideas ON-LINE! Detailed.

Not exactly a vouch for who he is, just yet, or why we might trust his reporting about his exchange with the 'puter company president.

We also have to take "flying disc had been recovered" in context with previously reported anomalous activity detected by radar in June and early 1 - 4 July.

Right which would further strengthen my argument.  The military were tracking unusual activity,  and they weren't privy to know what it was.

But it was man made....made by brilliant minds and amazing people..Yes, this would be the only rational conclusion IF objects were positively identified as "flying discs" manufactured by humans. But we have not got evidence of this either.

I agree, but because this was top secret testing no such information would be made public. 

In Frank's notes (page 1 ) he writes: 

So if I talk about E.B.E - I am talking about UFO

Then on page 9

The creatures from the E.B.E that crash near Roswell, New Mexico , had 5 creatures. Army people who worked at the crash, said, they had no breathing apparatus, so they could not  go outside Space Craft. The door came off and they had a hard time breathing

.

Heresay.  If I told me neighbour something and suggested he pass this information around my street, by the time this information gets to the end of my street it would likely be a different story.  Your talking about a significant amount of elapsed time from incident by very old peoples recollection of events proportional to what they saw or heard.  There is nothing substantial (diary, photos, materials) to validate Franks story.  It is just that.....a story.

I get the impression that the actual crash did not cause the debris. It was caused by the military presence working on the scene. The alleged loose 'Nut File' pieces could have been easily removed from the craft and not found scattered all over the crash site.   

My wife worked in comms, telemetry and radar for the Navy, she was aware of air and water traffic at the time and was skilled in recognition. I'm going back 10 years now. On a couple of occassions she tracked both airborne and underwater anomolies. The one most interesting to me was an airborne object within striking distance of the aircraft carrier she was working on. The object moved very fast, but came to abrupt stops, made unusual right angled turns and followed a flight pattern she couldn't identify. She would only say, I can identify what I have knowledge of, I can't identify what I don't need to know. She thought it was a man made black ops vehicle, reported up the chain of command and that was the end of it, for her.

So, there you have another "story". Unsubstantiated, and cannot be proven.

These threads are starting to run together.

Which thread was it where we were trying to track down the info on Richard Doty?

Originally posted by JayinAR
Which thread was it where we were trying to track down the info on Richard Doty?

Richard Doty's name has popped up in this thread, and several of The Gut's threads. Probably the most active current discussion of information/sources/documents relating to Richard Doty is in The Gut's most recent thread:
Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain! Alleged Super-Skeptic Tells All!

A quick googling on the history of the transistor led me to this PDF: classes.soe.ucsc.edu...

It describes the development of the transistor as we know it today, starting with inventions/discoveries over a century past. It seems to me that the development of the transistor is clear and progressed naturally (and with great intellect and human creativity!). Having not read the specifics of Corso's claims (for that matter, does he ever even go into specifics?), I cannot really comment on the possibility of non-homosapien involvement in the development of these technologies.

I also cannot seem to find really any points in the described history of the transistor at which there might have occurred a, shall we say, quantum paradigm shift as would be expected with the revelation of exotic cosmo-knowledge. As far as I can tell, there were no sudden evolutions in the scientists' investigations which could have been due to external influence. The ideas behind transistors can be seen, in retrospect, to have been steadily approaching for around 30 years before the first transistor was created in late 1947 (with a gap between the experiment in the 1874 and Lilienfield's FET Patent, granted in Jan 1930 - but I'm basing this off of a couple websites and wikipedia, not thorough research - surely this gap could be filled in).

Shockley's quick discovery/invention/elucidation of the bipolar junction transistor might be the most likely candidate for such an injection of knowledge by an EBE, but if you read about him and his team of solid-state scientists, they all seem to be rather clever folk and just the type of humans to think up things like the transistor. In a logical progression of steps, all recorded as science history.

Hopefully I am not straying too far from the topic at hand, but I must ask how Corso came to believe that reverse-engineered non-human tech (indirectly) led to the invention of the transistor, kevlar, fiber optics? With what weight does he connote his assertions? Does their invalidation invalidate other assertions by association (perhaps whatever claims Corso has made had the same source as the transistor claims and is therefore suspect).

But then again, perhaps EBE gave MIB some super science tips which MIB then fed to scientists to help them along? It seems that much tech attributed to EBE can be seen in larval stages long before Roswell or other incidents. I think any non-human tech which may have been acquired by humans during Roswell or other incidents would not be available publicly and would be reserved for black/unacknowledged projects, maybe not even govt things.

Originally posted by tetsuo
A quick googling on the history of the transistor led me to this PDF: classes.soe.ucsc.edu...

It describes the development of the transistor as we know it today....Shockley's quick discovery/invention/elucidation of the bipolar junction transistor might be the most likely candidate for such an injection of knowledge by an EBE, but if you read about him and his team of solid-state scientists, they all seem to be rather clever folk and just the type of humans to think up things like the transistor. In a logical progression of steps, all recorded as science history.

Corso worked at Pentagon from approx 1961 to 1963. He claims in book, and in live interviews, that the artifacts from Roswell were released in increments to govt contractors so as not to arouse suspicion. As far as contractors were concerned it was not unusual to receive some foreign technology that may have originated from enemy's technological developments. According to Frank's version page 8:

The Nut File, and what they did with it, and how they did it, without the weapons development knowing what they had in their hand. The General Trudeau, and Phil, did not tell what they give them from the Nut File. The Army had about 20 defense contractors, that had top men, and scientists we can trust.

They like it when you give them something new and ask no questions. We will put some of the Nut File in each of the contracts and they will work day and night till they find something even if it takes two years and their funds keep coming in. We will make up the names, and feed them something every two months.

Technological developments IF they were derived from the alleged artifacts of Roswell crash, would have to be those post period 1961-1963. I haven't had time to check out the pdf you linked but when I do study it I will be particularly interested in around the 1963 period.

Ed Mitchell has given a new interview in which he provides, I think, more details about the Roswell witnesses he has been quoting for years. Is this comment new to you guys, too?

www.bloomberg.com...

Originally posted by The GUT
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?

edit on 9-7-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)

Touché.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Ed Mitchell has given a new interview in which he provides, I think, more details about the Roswell witnesses he has been quoting for years. Is this comment new to you guys, too?

www.bloomberg.com...

Thanks

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.

It's steve La Plumes. The Gut.(love ya work by the way)
and here is the link i think your referring to for rendlesham.
Interesting read even if she is a bit of a nutter LOL sacha-christie-infomaniachousewife.blogspot.co.uk...

too many people put their hand in this roswell case and now its a mess

hoaxers, liars, disinformation, naive, hidden agenda... everyone in ufology should start with other case and put roswell in the correct box : modern myth making 101

too many people keeps adding the story and trying to top each other. from a simple incident and misidentification mutated into the biggest con of the century.

how can a simple debris field and a mistaken military officer identification (with his ETH assumptions) be mistaken for real UFO crash and people still believe in it fanatically ? beyond comprehension.. thats the state of US ufology nowadays, filled with liars, cranks and crooks , with fantasist and campfire teller on the flanks..

people forgot that Ken Arnold's sighting at the same year is still unexplained. Arnold's sighting are filled with lot of details thats unexplainable..

people forgot the massively documented and photographed Colares incident (official investigation released by brazilian military). Not a single lecture or analysis appear in US ufology circuit..

everything in US Ufology circuit is only roswell , mj12, conspiracy, dulce, ET and repeated ad nauseum..

theres nothing in roswell case.. other than fancy imagination