Roswell's death knell
twi...@worldnet.att.net
What is the real Roswell incident?
Is it the mundane debris found at the Foster Ranch or is it
the strange belief system set up by a number of people to
sell large numbers of books?
1) If it is the former, it is not very much.
The debris was called in the press release and prior to
Ramey's calling it a balloon and a radar target:
"According to information released by the department, over
authority of Maj. J. A. Marcel, intelligence officer, the
disk was recovered on a ranch in the Roswell vicinity, after
an unidentified rancher had notified Sheriff Geo. Wilcox
here, that he had found the instrument on his premises. "
It was called an instrument, a weather meter, and a number
of other things besides a flying disc.
2)Where did it crash?
Randle and Schmitt have it landing to the north of Roswell.
But, the people who owned that site in 1947 have stated that
it didn't happen and couldn't have happened since they
didn't have a road to get to that spot and it was accessible
only by horseback, not by Army wrecker.
Friedman has it landing elsewhere. There is a lot of
acrimony between the two camps regarding this.
Friedman apparently likes Jim Ragsdale's second affadavit
site, but apparently the reason he likes it is to "get"
Randle and Schmitt.
3) The destruction of all the documents from RAAF.
The destruction of documents was used as a strong point for
the AF coverup. Of course, most of the people who made this
point didn't understand anything about it, including the
only errors that the AF made were in not destroying all of
the documents. They should have according to regulations
but instead sent a lot of documents to St. Louis instead of
properly destroying them.
4) The Roswell believers frequently point to the Twining
Letter and the Schulgen "memo" as evidence that the UFOs are
real.
The Twining Letter is virtually always quoted out of
context. It states that it is the opinion of AMC that these
things are real but goes on to warn that this is an opinon
based on observations since they don't have any physical
evidence. (This is well after Roswell!)
The Schulgen "memo" that is usually quoted is a hoaxed memo
(See Crash at Corona) and not a real memo. The real
Schulgen "memo" is about Russian airplanes and how those, in
the AF's opinion, are the flying discs. Since this is also
after Roswell, it is impossible to reconcile this with
Roswell being a crashed alien spacecraft.
The Top Secret Analysis clearly doesn't know what flying
objects are and this is more than a year after Roswell.
The Top Secret Memorandum to the Secretary of the Joint
Intelligence Committee also doesn't know what flying saucers
are despite it being nearly two years after Roswell.
The AFSAB is told that they'd give almost anything to get
their hands on a crashed flying disc so that they could
figure out what these things are. This is also after
Roswell.
5) Ramey didn't have the chance to get a sounding balloon
that had been out in the Sun for three weeks and an ML-307
since neither of these were in use in Fort Worth nor
Roswell.
So, where did he get this debris? And, how did he know that
it would match so accurately with what Brazel told everyone?
6) Most of the "witnesses" used by the author's of popular
books have been shown to be lying.
Now, tell us again about how Roswell is the best case for
flying saucers...
grouchy
Geez, Twitchly, I hate to say it but it still puzzles me as to how the
military could have THREATENED so many Roswellites over such a laughable
matter as a dumb balloon.
It also puzzles me as to how that bomber group with the atom bomb
couldn't tell a piece of foil from an alien craft for 1-2 days.
Death knell to your lame post? AYE. - grouchy
grouchy
Marty Fouts wrote:
>
> >> grouchy writes:> grouchy> Geez, Twitchly, I hate to say it but it still puzzles me as
> grouchy> to how the military could have THREATENED so many
> grouchy> Roswellites over such a laughable matter as a dumb balloon.
>
> Ah, come on, that one's _easy_. If the current version of what went
> down at Roswell were true, the military would have been very unhappy
> about the USSR getting wind of the detection experiments being
> performed. I've been threatened by the military for a lot less than
> that.
>
Well, it may be true that the military would be most unhappy about the
media broadcasting information about spy balloons, yes. So why would
they get upset if the media reported a UFO? You seem confused.
Come on, guy, you don't threaten people who are deluded about a crack
pot UFO and little green men, right? You laugh at them. You know that,
I know that, and the military knows that. Fact is, they were upset
about the leak at the radio station to the point where they threatened
to take his license and shut him down the very day he would dare say
another word about the UFO. It's pretty simple.
> grouchy> It also puzzles me as to how that bomber group with the
> grouchy> atom bomb couldn't tell a piece of foil from an alien craft
> grouchy> for 1-2 days.
>
> New material. AFAIK, being part of a bomber group required no
> training in material handling or analysis. Do you have reason to
> believe it might have?
>
Yes, I do: Balloons for gathering intelligence in their jurisdiction
means that they would either know what was going on or would know who to
ask. Certainly they would not confuse a balloon with a UFO, or they'd
have to get checked out at the local loonie farm. Trained observers in
military matters don't make such lunatic mistakes.
> As an experiment, give some of the reflective mylar tape used in model
> rocketry to your favorite marine and ask him or her what they think it
> is. And remember that reflective mylar tape is pretty common now but
> was brand new then.
Geez, Marty, you make it sound like rocketry science but we're not
talking about identifying the material - just the object made from it.
Like this: "Ok, men, is this object here a UFO piloted by little green
men, or could it be something like a new fangled weather balloon?"
Marty and Twitchly: "Tough question, Sarge. Lemme see it a little
closer. Hmmm, well, it is about 30 feet across, disc shaped, metallic,
and these dying and dead little people here seem to be draped all around
it. Hmmm, I'd say it's a ..... lemme think, Sarge, lemme think .......
hmmmm.... damn, I'll say BALLOON?"
Bzzzzzzt!
David Rudiak
Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
> >> grouchy writes:
> grouchy> Geez, Twitchly, I hate to say it but it still puzzles me as
> grouchy> to how the military could have THREATENED so many
> grouchy> Roswellites over such a laughable matter as a dumb balloon.
>Ah, come on, that one's _easy_. If the current version of what went
>down at Roswell were true, the military would have been very unhappy
>about the USSR getting wind of the detection experiments being
>performed. I've been threatened by the military for a lot less than
>that.
So if that was the case, why did non-Mogul military personnel stage a phony
Mogul launch for the press the very next day at Alamogordo, and use it to
explain what Brazel had found (even claiming a phony launch date to correlate
with Brazel's stated find date)? They went so far as to identify one of the
labs involved in the balloon flights, supposedly a big no-no. Russian spies
finding out about the balloon launches doesn't seem to have been one of their
concerns. Besides, any spy with a pair of binoculars could have easily seen
them assemble and launch their balloons.
Mogul people interviewed today claim they weren't too concerned about security
because the balloons were large and impossible to hide, and also made of generic
materials. They presumed that nobody would be able to figure out what they were
really up to even if they did find them.
> grouchy> It also puzzles me as to how that bomber group with the
> grouchy> atom bomb couldn't tell a piece of foil from an alien craft
> grouchy> for 1-2 days.
>New material.
What new material? Sounds like a typical skepto-urban myth at work here. The
balloon trains at this time were made primarily of standard neoprene rubber
weather balloons, and maybe radar reflectors made mostly of aluminum foil/paper
and balsa wood. Everything was bound together with nylon fishing twine. Real
exotic stuff - huh?
> AFAIK, being part of a bomber group required no
>training in material handling or analysis. Do you have reason to
>believe it might have?
>As an experiment, give some of the reflective mylar tape used in model
>rocketry to your favorite marine and ask him or her what they think it
>is. And remember that reflective mylar tape is pretty common now but
>was brand new then.
There was no mylar or reflective mylar on Mogul at this time. Where'd you dream
that one up? Mylar wasn't experimented with on the balloon for several more
years, according to Mogul engineer Charles Moore. Nor was there any other
reflective/aluminized type of plastic used.
Aluminized mylar is regularly dragged out of some debunking closet as a supposed
"explanation" of why people were confused. It's a typical delusional,
pseudo-skeptic time-warp theory. Mylar wasn't used in June/July 1947 on these
balloons -- period. The only ones confused here are the ill-informed debunkers.
Scott A. Munro
On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 18:16:37 -0500, grouchy <xple...@idt.net> wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> What is the real Roswell incident?
>>
>
>Geez, Twitchly, I hate to say it but it still puzzles me as to how the
>military could have THREATENED so many Roswellites over such a laughable
>matter as a dumb balloon.
I'd say it's equally strange that they would threaten so many people,
yet _not_ threaten so many others who were equally (or more) deeply
involved.
>It also puzzles me as to how that bomber group with the atom bomb
>couldn't tell a piece of foil from an alien craft for 1-2 days.
It puzzles me why so many people who think they know about Roswell
still continue to insist that people in 1947 thought that what
"crashed" on the Foster Ranch was an alien spaceship. There is not the
slightest evidence that anyone _in 1947_ thought they were seeing an
alien spaceship.
>Death knell to your lame post? AYE. - grouchy
If the inconsistent claims of military threats and the false assertion
that anyone thought that the Roswell debris came from a spaceship are
the best evidence you can provide for Little Grey Men at Roswell, I
wold suggest that you think twice before using the word "lame" to
describe anyone else.
-----
Scott A. Munro http://www.nextdim.com/users/smunro/
UFOs, Jack the Ripper, politics, fiction,
computer art, and other strange subjects.
Proud member, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy™
twi...@worldnet.att.net
grouchy <xple...@idt.net> wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> What is the real Roswell incident?
>>
>
>Geez, Twitchly, I hate to say it but it still puzzles me as to how the
>military could have THREATENED so many Roswellites over such a laughable
>matter as a dumb balloon.
Well, maybe they didn't. Stories just tend to grow as you
know.
>
>It also puzzles me as to how that bomber group with the atom bomb
>couldn't tell a piece of foil from an alien craft for 1-2 days.
Because they hadn't seen such a thing and didn't know what
these flying discs were?
After all the press release apparently calls it an
instrument at one point. And, apparently Marcel and Cavitt
attempted to make a kite out of it.
>
>Death knell to your lame post? AYE. - grouchy
Nope. Merely statements without supporting evidence.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
grouchy <xple...@idt.net> wrote:
<snip>
> "Tough question, Sarge. Lemme see it a little
>closer. Hmmm, well, it is about 30 feet across, disc shaped, metallic,
>and these dying and dead little people here seem to be draped all around
>it. Hmmm, I'd say it's a ..... lemme think, Sarge, lemme think .......
>hmmmm.... damn, I'll say BALLOON?"
>
>Bzzzzzzt!
When did Marcel say that there were little dead people
draped all around it?
Marcel also didn't attempt to describe it.
Brazel said it appeared to be mostly tin foil.
"The intelligence office of the 509th Bombardment group at
Roswell Army Air Field announced at noon today, that the
field has come into possession of a flying saucer.
According to information released by the department,
over authority of Maj. J. A. Marcel, intelligence officer,
the disk was recovered on a ranch in the Roswell vicinity,
after an unidentified rancher had notified Sheriff Geo.
Wilcox here, that he had found the instrument on his
premises. "
Imagine calling a metallic disk shaped object with little
bodies all around it an instrument!
"tried to make a kite out of it, but could not do that and
could not find any way to put it back together so that it
would fit. "
Imagine two experienced military men attempting to make a
metallic disc 30 feet across with little bodies draped all
over it into a kite!
"When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape,
and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8
inches thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20
inches long and about 8 inches thick. In all, he
estimated, the entire lot would have weighed maybe five
pounds. "
Funny, how well the AAF taught their people to pack isn't
it?
I wish they could teach my wife to pack a 30-foot metallic
disc with bodies all around it into a five pound package!
"Considerable scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed
upon it had been used in the construction. "
Aha, Harry B's Floral Tape Interstellar Drive (pat pend)!
twi...@worldnet.att.net
DRu...@aol.com (David Rudiak) wrote:
<snip>
>So if that was the case, why did non-Mogul military personnel stage a phony
>Mogul launch for the press the very next day at Alamogordo,
BULLSHIT ALERT!!!!
The Alamogordo launch was held the very next day by Watson
Labs.
And, what program did Watson Labs have?
Project Mogul!
And, what did Major Pritchard say at this launch?
"We use the balloons rather than aircraft in the experiment
because it is slower in the air and can be more readily
studied and floowed." he said. "It goes higher than the eye
can see and a radar set is employed to follow its course."
The experiment! And, what was on of the experiments that
Watson Labs had?
It is pretty clear that they were certain that their Project
had been the cause of the debris from the descriptions of
the debris and were attempting to hide Mogul in plain sight!
<snip>
>
>Mogul people interviewed today claim they weren't too concerned about security
>because the balloons were large and impossible to hide, and also made of generic
>materials. They presumed that nobody would be able to figure out what they were
>really up to even if they did find them.
They weren't.
The only things that they were worried about was that the
Russians might figure out the purpose of Mogul.
The Mogul balloons and ML-307s were not classified.
And, why did they have to do the launch at Alamogordo?
They didn't have any ground radars at Roswell or at Fort
Worth. No ground radars, means no sounding balloons and no
ML-307s.
So, where did Ramey get a sounding balloon that had been out
in the sun for three weeks and a crumpled ML-307 from if
FWAAF and RAAF didn't have any?
Prof Moore says that the debris in Ramey's office looks just
like a sounding balloon that has been out in the sun for
three weeks and a ML-307.
Perhaps, it was the debris that Marcel flew with from
Roswell and that he found on the Foster ranch!
<snip>
>What new material? Sounds like a typical skepto-urban myth at work here. The
>balloon trains at this time were made primarily of standard neoprene rubber
>weather balloons, and maybe radar reflectors made mostly of aluminum foil/paper
>and balsa wood. Everything was bound together with nylon fishing twine. Real
>exotic stuff - huh?
Yep. It sounds just like what was found at the Foster
ranch:
"When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape,
and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8
inches thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20
inches long and about 8 inches thick. In all, he
estimated, the entire lot would have weighed maybe five
pounds. ...
Considerable scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed
upon it had been used in the construction. "
<snip>
>The only ones confused here are the ill-informed debunkers.
>
You mean those asses who claim that unpigmented neoprene
sounding balloons were launched by the hundreds each day?
Well, they are wrong. Launches were not that common except
possibly by Operation Thunderstorm who seems to have had
most of the radars necessary for this work. In fact, when
the 8th AF wanted to use one of those radars they tried at
White Sands since they didn't have them at RAAF or FWAAF!
You mean those asses who claim that Roswell and Fort Worth
had radars and sounding balloons and ML-307s?
They didn't. But, it would have been stupid for them to
have some since they didn't have the necessary radars.
You mean those asses who claim that only one of the things
Marcel claimed was incorrect?
He made many more statements than that that are incorrect.
You mean those asses who maintain that the Kaumann crash
site is the real one despite the McKnight affadavit?
Oh those asses.
Jean van gemert
In article, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>material randomly strewn about. Second, most of the people involved
>weren't "trained observers" in the sense that they were trained to
>look at crash sites and determine what crashed.
Err... Exactly what sort of "training" <gasp> would one need to
recognize ordinary foil, paper, balsa wood, twine, rubber, and
aluminium, as ordinary foil, paper, balsa wood, twine, rubber,
and aluminium? :)
____________________________________________________________________________
Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.html
____________________________________________________________________________
grouchy
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>
> When did Marcel say that there were little dead people
> draped all around it?
>
I did not mention Marcel, but now that you bring up his name I'll have
to chime in with his son's testimony. I don't remember it word for
word, natch, and I'm not going to go dig it up. I've seen him
interviewed enough to know that he is credible when he says he saw some
of the debris in his home as his dad showed it to him. He is also
credible when he says that what his dad displayed for the STAGED photo
op had nothing to do with the I-Beam and weird foil, etc. that his dad
showed him.
In fact he goes into some detail about the I-Beam. He goes into detail
about many of the pieces of strange wreckage, like the foil that snaps
back to form and cannot be cut or disfigured. He saw it; he knows. I
say he's credible, and I also say he knew his dad better'n you.
- grouchius
SPHINX Technologies
In article <34f3086f...@news.nextdim.com>,
Scott A. Munro <smu...@nextdim.com> wrote:
>
>It puzzles me why so many people who think they know about Roswell
>still continue to insist that people in 1947 thought that what
>"crashed" on the Foster Ranch was an alien spaceship. There is not the
>slightest evidence that anyone _in 1947_ thought they were seeing an
>alien spaceship.
>
>that anyone thought that the Roswell debris came from a spaceship are
>the best evidence you can provide for Little Grey Men at Roswell, I
>wold suggest that you think twice before using the word "lame" to
>describe anyone else.
Scott, anyone who is even faintly informed on the "Roswell Incident" knows
that the debris found on the Foster Ranch was not the main body of the
flying disk, and that no bodies were found on the Foster Ranch. What *WAS*
found there was debris in considerable quantity, more than one car full,
of very unusual materials including very tough and lightweight beams that
couldn't be broken (try that with Balsa wood), and "foil" that RESEMBLED
aluminum foil UNTIL YOU TRIED TO TEAR OR CUT IT, which it refused to let
you do. It obviously WAS NOT aluminum foil or even aluminized Mylar.
The nearly intact disk and alien bodies, according to the archeologists and
others who saw them being "cleaned up" by the military, were found elsewhere,
at a second crash site some miles distant.
Please don't perpetuate the confusion. Become INFORMED about what was
reported by the witnesses, and you'll find it easier to make sense out of
the reports.
-John Sangster
Wellesley Hills, MA
Dan Hollis
In sci.skeptic SPHINX Technologies <sph...@world.std.com> wrote:
: The nearly intact disk and alien bodies, according to the archeologists and
: others who saw them being "cleaned up" by the military, were found elsewhere,
: at a second crash site some miles distant.
Which goes to show that space aliens shouldn't drink-n-fly. Could end up
flying your craft smack into the ground.
Or maybe space aliens are just sucky pilots.
-Dan
Matthew J Wilson
Dan Hollis <goe...@sasami.anime.net> writes:
Depends. If you go so far as to accept claims that they've been visiting
for thousands of years, I'd say that only one crash in all that time is a
pretty good effort. Of course, if they've only come by the once, well,
that's pretty bad.
--
Matt.
SPHINX Technologies
In article <wkpvkc1...@mjf.vip.best.com>,
Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>
>I've done crash site stuff, back in my search-and-rescue days, and I
>couldn't tell a Lear Jet on the ground from an F15, both of which I've
>had to inspect for corpses. It takes more skill than you might imagine
>to look at pieces of something and figure out what that something
>originally was.
>marty
>
Yes, but it doesn't take very much skill AT ALL to tell aluminum foil from
a foil that can't be cut, torn, severed with a hatchet, or made to crumple
up and stay that way.
Or to tell balsa wood beams from beams of similar weight that can't be
bent or broken.
Unless you're a UFO debunker, that is.
Jean van gemert
In article, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>We're going around in circles here.
You may be, I'm not. :)
[Summarizing your point:]
>It takes more skill than you might imagine to look at pieces of something
>and figure out what that something originally was.
That's not the point. We're not asking wether Marcel was capable
in assessing what sort of object had dropped to the grounded but
wether he'd have been able to identify -ordinary- things like balsa
wood or twine for what they were, which I think we (unless Jesse
Marcel was a braindead moron) can confidently assume. In short
you don't have much of a point here.
Jean van gemert
In article, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>or willing to rely on conflated testimony that didn't appear until
>years after the incident.
Amazing how often people change their tune when the
arguments don't hold.
>Not to be trusted for testimony.
That's right, screw the entire human history. :)
>You do remember that all of the allegations you are describing
>didn't appear until later, don't you?
Which is hardly evidence that those "allegations" have no
basis in fact, just that no one bothered to investigate the
case any sooner.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
grouchy <leb...@idt.net> wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>>
>> When did Marcel say that there were little dead people
>> draped all around it?
>>
>
>I did not mention Marcel, but now that you bring up his name I'll have
>to chime in with his son's testimony. I don't remember it word for
>word, natch, and I'm not going to go dig it up.
That is because it doesn't agree with what you are claiming.
> I've seen him
>interviewed enough to know that he is credible when he says he saw some
>of the debris in his home as his dad showed it to him. He is also
>credible when he says that what his dad displayed for the STAGED photo
>op had nothing to do with the I-Beam and weird foil, etc. that his dad
>showed him.
I'm sorry but he has stated that the material could be the
same material except for the missing I-Beam. Additionally,
Kent Jeffrey had him hypnotized to see if any new info could
be found out. No new info came out and no differences of
any significance were stated during the session.
"According to Jesse's best recollection, the material laid
out on his kitchen floor, which was representative of that
at the site, consisted primarily of pieces of metallic foil,
a short beam or "stick," and a few pieces of a plastic or
Bakelite-like substance. Certainly, such mundane debris
would not constitute the wreckage from any kind of
sophisticated vehicle or craft, much less one capable of
interstellar travel."
>
>In fact he goes into some detail about the I-Beam. He goes into detail
>about many of the pieces of strange wreckage, like the foil that snaps
>back to form and cannot be cut or disfigured. He saw it; he knows. I
>say he's credible, and I also say he knew his dad better'n you.
And, his dad can beat my dad?
The wreckage he describes fits the photos and what was
reported by Brazel both directly and via Wilcox.
>
>- grouchius
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>
>>material randomly strewn about. Second, most of the people involved
>>weren't "trained observers" in the sense that they were trained to
>>look at crash sites and determine what crashed.
>
> Err... Exactly what sort of "training" <gasp> would one need to
> recognize ordinary foil, paper, balsa wood, twine, rubber, and
> aluminium, as ordinary foil, paper, balsa wood, twine, rubber,
> and aluminium? :)
And, that is what they said it was. They just needed some
training to determine what it was from.
From Kent Jeffrey's site:
"According to Jesse's best recollection, the material laid
out on his kitchen floor, which was representative of that
at the site, consisted primarily of pieces of metallic foil,
a short beam or "stick," and a few pieces of a plastic or
Bakelite-like substance. Certainly, such mundane debris
would not constitute the wreckage from any kind of
sophisticated vehicle or craft, much less one capable of
interstellar travel."
Which fits Jesse Marcel Jr.'s affadavit dated May 6, 1991.
" ... There were three categories of debris: a thick, foil
like metallic gray substance; a brittle, brownish-black
plastic-like material, like Bakelite; and there were
fragments of what appeared to be I-beams. On the inner
surface of the I-beam, there appeared to be a type of
writing. This writing was a purple-violet hue, and it had an
embossed appearance. The figures were composed of curved,
geometric shapes. It had no resemblance to Russian, Japanese
or any other foreign language. It resembled hieroglyphics,
but it had no animal-like characters ...... "
Now, Jean, how does that equate to crashed alien spacecraft?
twi...@worldnet.att.net
sph...@world.std.com (SPHINX Technologies) wrote:
>In article <wkpvkc1...@mjf.vip.best.com>,
>Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>>
>>I've done crash site stuff, back in my search-and-rescue days, and I
>>couldn't tell a Lear Jet on the ground from an F15, both of which I've
>>had to inspect for corpses. It takes more skill than you might imagine
>>to look at pieces of something and figure out what that something
>>originally was.
>>marty
>>
>Yes, but it doesn't take very much skill AT ALL to tell aluminum foil from
>a foil that can't be cut, torn, severed with a hatchet, or made to crumple
>up and stay that way.
Unfortunately, Marcel didn't say most of this. He did say
many years later that it couldn't be dented, but the
qualification he made regarding this comment was deleted
from the motion picture to make it seem more unEarthly.
Marcel also claimed he didn't notice anything unusual about
the debris until an airman back at the base said that he
couldn't cut it.
However, he also claimed that the material photographed with
him was the real debris. That claim is also backed up by
Johnson who took the photo.
That photo shows the remains of a ML-307 and a sounding
balloon that has been left out in the sun for three weeks.
>
>Or to tell balsa wood beams from beams of similar weight that can't be
>bent or broken.
>
>Unless you're a UFO debunker, that is.
>
>-John Sangster
> Wellesley Hills, MA
>
Nope. Marcel claimed he didn't notice anything unusual
about the debris until someone told him it was different.
>
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
> >> SPHINX Technologies writes:
>
> SPHINX> In article <wkpvkc1...@mjf.vip.best.com>, Marty Fouts
> SPHINX> <fo...@null.net> wrote:
> >> I've done crash site stuff, back in my search-and-rescue days,
> >> and I couldn't tell a Lear Jet on the ground from an F15, both of
> >> which I've had to inspect for corpses. It takes more skill than
> >> you might imagine to look at pieces of something and figure out
> >> what that something originally was. marty
> >>
> SPHINX> Yes, but it doesn't take very much skill AT ALL to tell
> SPHINX> aluminum foil from a foil that can't be cut, torn, severed
> SPHINX> with a hatchet, or made to crumple up and stay that way.
>
> SPHINX> Or to tell balsa wood beams from beams of similar weight
> SPHINX> that can't be bent or broken.
>
> SPHINX> Unless you're a UFO debunker, that is.
>
>or willing to rely on conflated testimony that didn't appear until
>years after the incident. Amazing thing human memory. Not to be
>trusted for testimony. You do remember that all of the allegations
>you are describing didn't appear until later, don't you?
>
And, don't forget:
In The Effects of Time Delay and Credibility on Eyewitness
Testimony by Jason Seiler, Jason Zawada, Debra Heard, Karrie
Smith, Marcy Broysdal:
"The effect of prolonged time intervals between the
introduction of misleading information and recall tests were
studied to determine if higher rates of the misinformation
effect were produced. The variable of perceived credibility
of an eyewitness was also examined to find whether it
influenced the likelihood of accepting false testimony. This
experiment was based on previous research initiated by
Loftus (1975) on metamemory and the misinformation effect in
eyewitness testimony. Based on the premise that memory for
an event becomes weakened with time, increased time
intervals should result in larger acceptance of
misinformation. Results of the experiment, obtained by
analysis of accuracy and confidence levels, were consistent
with this finding. Social factors such as perceived status
also affected the susceptibility of individuals to the
misinformation effect... Results from these experiments
suggest that information to which a witness is exposed
following an event is integrated into the individual's
memory, regardless of the veracity of the information
(Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978). Another striking finding
from misinformation studies includes high reports of
subjective confidence ratings by individuals concerning the
accuracy of their memory, even when they incorrectly
recalled an event (Loftus & Hoffman, 1989). The likelihood
of false information about an event being adopted as
truth is affected by the interaction of several factors,
including age, cognitive, affective, environmental and
social variables ( O'Sullivan et al., 1995). "
Also, try looking at:
Loftus, E.F., & Loftus, G.R. (1980). On the permanence of
stored information in the human brain. American
Psychologist, 35, 409-420.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
sph...@world.std.com (SPHINX Technologies) wrote:
<snip>
>The nearly intact disk and alien bodies, according to the archeologists and
>others who saw them being "cleaned up" by the military, were found elsewhere,
>at a second crash site some miles distant.
>
<snip>
And, please tell us where this second crash site is located!
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>
>>We're going around in circles here.
>
> You may be, I'm not. :)
>
>[Summarizing your point:]
>>It takes more skill than you might imagine to look at pieces of something
>>and figure out what that something originally was.
>
> That's not the point.
Translation: I can't answer your point.
>We're not asking wether Marcel was capable
> in assessing what sort of object had dropped to the grounded but
> wether he'd have been able to identify -ordinary- things like balsa
> wood or twine for what they were, which I think we (unless Jesse
> Marcel was a braindead moron) can confidently assume. In short
> you don't have much of a point here.
>
Well, we know that he tried to make a kite out of the
material.
We know that he claimed that the debris he was photographed
with was the real debris.
What does that photo show?
Tin foil, smokey rubber, etc.
I don't think you have much of a point here.
Scott
In <6d1cof$f...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
>I'm sorry but he has stated that the material could be the
>same material except for the missing I-Beam. Additionally,
>Kent Jeffrey had him hypnotized to see if any new info could
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>be found out. No new info came out and no differences of
>any significance were stated during the session.
OMIGOD ! twitch, I can't believe you using this to support
your argument. Please tell me it's just because you haven't had your
first cup of coffee yet !
--
Scott
Visit Ed Anger On-line at:
http://wwnonline.com/edanger.htm
[MEDICAL WARNING: If you have high blood pressure or psychological
problems, avoid reading this man's commentaries at all costs.]
Louann Miller
In article <wkd8gc1...@mjf.vip.best.com>, fo...@null.net says...
>
> >> SPHINX Technologies writes:
>
> SPHINX> In article <wkpvkc1...@mjf.vip.best.com>, Marty Fouts
> SPHINX> <fo...@null.net> wrote:
> >> I've done crash site stuff, back in my search-and-rescue days,
> >> and I couldn't tell a Lear Jet on the ground from an F15, both of
> >> you might imagine to look at pieces of something and figure out
> >>
> SPHINX> Yes, but it doesn't take very much skill AT ALL to tell
> SPHINX> aluminum foil from a foil that can't be cut, torn, severed
> SPHINX> with a hatchet, or made to crumple up and stay that way.
>
> SPHINX> Or to tell balsa wood beams from beams of similar weight
> SPHINX> that can't be bent or broken.
>
> SPHINX> Unless you're a UFO debunker, that is.
>
>or willing to rely on conflated testimony that didn't appear until
>years after the incident. Amazing thing human memory. Not to be
>trusted for testimony. You do remember that all of the allegations
>you are describing didn't appear until later, don't you?
www.parascope.com, which is as fond of strange data and gummit
conspiracy as the next web 'zine, has an article about Roswell
in the current issue which postulates no aliens whatsoever.
THAT may be Roswell's death knell.
Harry Bosch
Jean van gemert wrote:
>
> In article, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>
> >We're going around in circles here.
>
> You may be, I'm not. :)
>
> [Summarizing your point:]
> >and figure out what that something originally was.
>
> in assessing what sort of object had dropped to the grounded but
> wether he'd have been able to identify -ordinary- things like balsa
> wood or twine for what they were, which I think we (unless Jesse
> Marcel was a braindead moron) can confidently assume. In short
> you don't have much of a point here.
Jean, why are you calling Marcel a brain-dead moron? Just
because he tried to make a kite out of the debris? You
don't suppose that's what he thought it might be, do you?
You don't suppose that he recognized balsa wood and twine
for what it was but was not able to understand what it
could have been before disintegrating. I'll bet that is
why he thought it might be a kite.
Harry
--
========================================
"A five pound space ship made of sticks,
and foil,and floral tape? Oh, my!"
The Roswell debris.
har...@chatlink.com
========================================
Harry Bosch
> : others who saw them being "cleaned up" by the military, were found elsewhere,
> : at a second crash site some miles distant.
>
> flying your craft smack into the ground.
>
> Or maybe space aliens are just sucky pilots.
>
Hi Dan.
They sure as hell shouldn't drink and try and fly a 5 pound
spaceship made of sticks, foil, heavy paper and held together
with scotch tape. Which was powered by a rubber band wind
up interstellar warp drive.
But then they might have been convinced that there really
were intelligent believers on sci.skeptic.
Regards,
Jean van gemert
In article, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
> Jean> That's not the point. We're not asking wether Marcel was
> Jean> capable in assessing what sort of object had dropped to the
> Jean> grounded but wether he'd have been able to identify -ordinary-
> Jean> things like balsa wood or twine for what they were, which I
> Jean> think we (unless Jesse Marcel was a braindead moron) can
> Jean> confidently assume. In short you don't have much of a point
> Jean> here.
>
>At the time, not all of the materials used in the balloons were
>-ordinary- things.
Which were? Aluminized mylar? :)
Scott A. Munro
>In article <34f3086f...@news.nextdim.com>,
>Scott A. Munro <smu...@nextdim.com> wrote:
>>
>>It puzzles me why so many people who think they know about Roswell
>>still continue to insist that people in 1947 thought that what
>>"crashed" on the Foster Ranch was an alien spaceship. There is not the
>>slightest evidence that anyone _in 1947_ thought they were seeing an
>>alien spaceship.
>>
>>If the inconsistent claims of military threats and the false assertion
>>that anyone thought that the Roswell debris came from a spaceship are
>>the best evidence you can provide for Little Grey Men at Roswell, I
>>wold suggest that you think twice before using the word "lame" to
>>describe anyone else.
>>Scott A. Munro http://www.nextdim.com/users/smunro/
>
>Scott, anyone who is even faintly informed on the "Roswell Incident" knows
>that the debris found on the Foster Ranch was not the main body of the
>flying disk, and that no bodies were found on the Foster Ranch. What *WAS*
>found there was debris in considerable quantity, more than one car full,
>of very unusual materials including very tough and lightweight beams that
>couldn't be broken (try that with Balsa wood), and "foil" that RESEMBLED
>aluminum foil UNTIL YOU TRIED TO TEAR OR CUT IT, which it refused to let
>you do. It obviously WAS NOT aluminum foil or even aluminized Mylar.
>
>The nearly intact disk and alien bodies, according to the archeologists and
>others who saw them being "cleaned up" by the military, were found elsewhere,
>at a second crash site some miles distant.
>
>Please don't perpetuate the confusion. Become INFORMED about what was
>reported by the witnesses, and you'll find it easier to make sense out of
>the reports.
>
You accuse _me_ of perpetuating the confusion?
You are the one spewing this crap about a second crash site, for which
there is not one single shred, or even a shred of a shred, of
contemporary evidence.
Indeed, the evidence for the second crash site is so laughably weak
that there are now at least _four_ main crash sites, each with its own
partisans, and not a single one with decent evidence to back it up.
Roswell is a joke, and a perfect illustration of why UFO buffs are
justly ridiculed.
-----
Scott A. Munro http://www.nextdim.com/users/smunro/
SPHINX Technologies
In article <6d1e43$j...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
<twi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
><snip>
>>The nearly intact disk and alien bodies, according to the archeologists and
>>others who saw them being "cleaned up" by the military, were found elsewhere,
>>at a second crash site some miles distant.
>
>And, please tell us where this second crash site is located!
You can find that information in Stanton Friedman's book Crash at Corona
or TOP SECRET/MAJIC (the Friedman book, not the codeword), I believe.
Maybe even in The Roswell Incident, by Berlitz & Moore. Most of these are
available in any major bookstore or library.
Do your homework, twitch!
All of the above books are highly recommended as background reading on
this high-profile UFO crash recovery case, for the benefit of new readers
of this newsgroup, and to irritate twitch by fanning the flames of visibility
of the background information he so loves to cover up.
Feel free to recommend your own favorites, twitch!
SPHINX Technologies
In article <34f4c19c...@news.nextdim.com>,
Scott A. Munro <smu...@nextdim.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 00:02:16 GMT, sph...@world.std.com (SPHINX
>Technologies) wrote:
>>Scott, anyone who is even faintly informed on the "Roswell Incident" knows
>>that the debris found on the Foster Ranch was not the main body of the
>>flying disk, and that no bodies were found on the Foster Ranch. What *WAS*
>>found there was debris in considerable quantity, more than one car full,
>>of very unusual materials including very tough and lightweight beams that
>>couldn't be broken (try that with Balsa wood), and "foil" that RESEMBLED
>>aluminum foil UNTIL YOU TRIED TO TEAR OR CUT IT, which it refused to let
>>you do. It obviously WAS NOT aluminum foil or even aluminized Mylar.
>>
>>others who saw them being "cleaned up" by the military, were found elsewhere,
>>at a second crash site some miles distant.
>>
>>reported by the witnesses, and you'll find it easier to make sense out of
>>the reports.
>
>You accuse _me_ of perpetuating the confusion?
>You are the one spewing this crap about a second crash site, for which
>there is not one single shred, or even a shred of a shred, of
>contemporary evidence.
Oh, you're saying they SHREDDED the evidence? Interesting admission.
Probably true, too, after all, a lot of communication records were found
to be missing when the GAO investigated. /:^)\
^------- Mars Face Smiley(tm)
I H Spedding
>In article <34f3086f...@news.nextdim.com>,
>Scott A. Munro <smu...@nextdim.com> wrote:
>>
>>It puzzles me why so many people who think they know about Roswell
>>still continue to insist that people in 1947 thought that what
>>"crashed" on the Foster Ranch was an alien spaceship. There is not the
>>slightest evidence that anyone _in 1947_ thought they were seeing an
>>alien spaceship.
>>
>>If the inconsistent claims of military threats and the false assertion
>>that anyone thought that the Roswell debris came from a spaceship are
>>the best evidence you can provide for Little Grey Men at Roswell, I
>>wold suggest that you think twice before using the word "lame" to
>>describe anyone else.
>>Scott A. Munro http://www.nextdim.com/users/smunro/
>
>Scott, anyone who is even faintly informed on the "Roswell Incident" knows
>that the debris found on the Foster Ranch was not the main body of the
>flying disk, and that no bodies were found on the Foster Ranch. What *WAS*
>found there was debris in considerable quantity, more than one car full,
>of very unusual materials including very tough and lightweight beams that
>couldn't be broken (try that with Balsa wood), and "foil" that RESEMBLED
>aluminum foil UNTIL YOU TRIED TO TEAR OR CUT IT, which it refused to let
>you do. It obviously WAS NOT aluminum foil or even aluminized Mylar.
Which of the *contemporary* eyewitness accounts - not 30 year old
recollections - reports any of this.
>The nearly intact disk and alien bodies, according to the archeologists and
>others who saw them being "cleaned up" by the military, were found elsewhere,
>at a second crash site some miles distant.
>
>Please don't perpetuate the confusion. Become INFORMED about what was
>reported by the witnesses, and you'll find it easier to make sense out of
>the reports.
Being informed means considering and weighing *all* the available
evidence, not just cherry-picking those bits that fit your pet theory.
Ian
TPrinty
Sphinx writes:
>Oh, you're saying they SHREDDED the evidence? Interesting admission.
>Probably true, too, after all, a lot of communication records were found
>to be missing when the GAO investigated. /:^)\
Actually, you forget, once again, that these documents were destroyed during
the transfer to ST Louis. This destruction was completely authorized at the
time (not illegal as UFO buffs want everyone to believe). Even more
interesting is that all incoming communication traffic to Washington, Ft Worth,
and Wright field was found and there was no mention of crashed saucers. So who
were they supposed to be communicating with? MJ-12? Sorry, the GAO found a
complete "Zero" and the UFO conspiracy fanatics had to grasp on this one item
to make something out of nothing. Nice to see that you jumped into that boat
too without investigating the matter further.
Tim Printy
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>
>>We're going around in circles here.
>
> You may be, I'm not. :)
No, he is not, you are.
>
>[Summarizing your point:]
>>It takes more skill than you might imagine to look at pieces of something
>>and figure out what that something originally was.
>
> That's not the point. We're not asking wether Marcel was capable
> in assessing what sort of object had dropped to the grounded
That is the point. All we know is that he thought that it
came from a flying disc. We don't know what he thought a
flying disc was.
He claimed that he thought nothing of the material until he
got back to the base. Which disagrees with what his son
stated later.
We know that the descriptions closely agree with a sounding
balloon and a radar target.
<snip.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>
>>or willing to rely on conflated testimony that didn't appear until
>>years after the incident.
>
> Amazing how often people change their tune when the
> arguments don't hold.
>
That is why everyone calls you singing Jean!
>>Not to be trusted for testimony.
>
> That's right, screw the entire human history. :)
Don't you just love the way Jean takes quotes out of
context?
>
>>You do remember that all of the allegations you are describing
>>didn't appear until later, don't you?
>
> Which is hardly evidence that those "allegations" have no
> basis in fact, just that no one bothered to investigate the
> case any sooner.
>
Which is hardly evidence that those "allegations" have any
basis in fact. Which is what you are claiming without
evidence.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
> >> Jean van gemert writes:
>
> Jean> In article, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>
> >> or willing to rely on conflated testimony that didn't appear
> >> until years after the incident.
>
> Jean> Amazing how often people change their tune when the arguments
> Jean> don't hold.
>
>It might be, but I haven't done that. The problem with the sort of
>out-of-context cut-n-paste-to-fit quick rejoiner that you use is that
>it is far too easy to distort what is actually being said. But then,
>that isn't an uncommon approach among 'believers' in any field when
>they don't have hard evidence.
>
> >> Not to be trusted for testimony.
>
> Jean> That's right, screw the entire human history. :)
>
>You are not much of a historian, I take it. "History", besides being
>written by the winners, is full of bad testimony that is taken as
>gospel.
>
> >> You do remember that all of the allegations you are describing
> >> didn't appear until later, don't you?
>
> Jean> Which is hardly evidence that those "allegations" have no
> Jean> basis in fact, just that no one bothered to investigate the
> Jean> case any sooner.
>
>Ah, so you are asserting that real aliens appeared dead in the desert
>but weren't investigated until decades later. I detect a need for a
>reality check.
>
>I _will_ concede that the great age of an allegation is not perfect
>proof that it is not based in fact, but you should learn that the
>longer the lapse in time between an event and concerted interest in
>the event the less accurate memory is, even in an honest observer.
>
>The Roswell observers have been treated in ways that anyone familiar
>with criminal investigation would realize would make their testimony
>extremely difficult to trust.
For example, here is part of a taped interview between
Randle and Johnson (Photographer of the debris):
(Johnson had just told Randle that he wasn't certain whether
Ramey's explanation was true)
Randle: "They realized that it (the debris) was something
extremely unusual. That it really was an alien spacecraft.
Then Ramey comes up with this weather balloon nonsense."
Johnson: "Right....That was a hoax, I think.... I think I
was duped."
Randle: "Yes. You and all the rest of the reporters were
duped."
That alone shows why Johnson later disagreed with what
Randle wrote and said that Randle didn't ask him what
happened at FWAAF but told him what happened there!
>Roswell exhibits examples of why it is
>so hard to ressurect a cold murder case after a long time and have any
>luck finding the killer.
>
>Most people are bad observers, even when trained. Only an extremely
>small number of people are both good observers and have good
>memories. Most people when asked leading questions try to find answers
>that they believe will please the interviewer.
And, research has shown that how the question is phrased can
have a large effect on what the answer is.
Test subjects were shown a movie of a traffic accident in
which no barn appears.
When the subjects were asked:
"Did you see a barn?" only 2.7 percent answered yes.
When the subjects were asked:
"Did you see the barn?" 17.3 percent answered yes!
The use of the word "the" carried the implication to the
witnesses that there was a barn in the movie.
How many eyewitness accounts are corrupted by the manner of
asking the questions by untrained UFO researchers?
>
>The available written record disputes most of the latter testimony,
>and in the vast majority of cases, this is a sign that the latter
>testimony is the result of faulty memory.
How very true.
>
>The _best_ a dispassionate observer can say about Roswell is that
>lacking _any_ physical evidence, Roswell is sufficient to arouse
>suspicion that the US government covered up some kind of crash. But
>there is not enough evidence to make any sort of strong claim about
>what crashed.
>
>marty
>
>--
>marty fouts mailto:fo...@null.net http://www.best.com/~mjf
>
>Don't go to so much trouble. The sky belongs to us all
> -- Jean Cocteau
twi...@worldnet.att.net
s...@ns.net (Scott) wrote:
>In <6d1cof$f...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net
>wrote:
>
>>I'm sorry but he has stated that the material could be the
>>same material except for the missing I-Beam. Additionally,
>>Kent Jeffrey had him hypnotized to see if any new info could
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>be found out. No new info came out and no differences of
>>any significance were stated during the session.
>
> OMIGOD ! twitch, I can't believe you using this to support
>your argument. Please tell me it's just because you haven't had your
>first cup of coffee yet !
>
He had given his testimony many times before. The hypnosis
was to see if any new info would come out.
They checked his testimony under hypnosis against his
earlier testimony to see if any confabulation had occured or
false memories had been implanted.
The testimony agreed with his earlier testimony, which
doesn't show that it is correct only that no false memories
were introduced.
That testimony showed nothing truely incompatable with a
twi...@worldnet.att.net
sph...@world.std.com (SPHINX Technologies) wrote:
>In article <6d1e43$j...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> <twi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>><snip>
>>>The nearly intact disk and alien bodies, according to the archeologists and
>>>others who saw them being "cleaned up" by the military, were found elsewhere,
>>>at a second crash site some miles distant.
>><snip>
>>
>>And, please tell us where this second crash site is located!
>
>You can find that information in Stanton Friedman's book Crash at Corona
>or TOP SECRET/MAJIC (the Friedman book, not the codeword), I believe.
>Maybe even in The Roswell Incident, by Berlitz & Moore. Most of these are
>available in any major bookstore or library.
>
>Do your homework, twitch!
Unlike you, I have. I have Friedman's book right here as I
also have The truth about the UFO crash at Roswell and other
books and documents.
Alas, Friedman's site has absolutely no evidence for it,
except for Gerald Anderson's testimony and he hoaxed a diary
to make up that evidence.
Barnett's site is pretty well destroyed by Randle in his
book. As well as Barnett's widows diary.
Friedman is now accepting Jim Ragsdale's second crash site,
which Randle disagrees with.
Of course, Randle accepts Jim Ragsdale's first crash site
which the McKnight affadavit blows out of the water.
Do you also accept Friedman's quoting of the Schulgen "memo"
in Chapter 3? That has been shown to be a hoaxed document.
What about the fact that Friedman knew about the Top Secret
Analysis but didn't discuss it or all of the documents he
quoted out of context to make his point when the documents
didn't say what he wanted them to say?
What about the fact that Friedman doesn't agree with Randle
even on the day that Brazel found the debris? Let alone the
fact that what they published as the date has virtually no
support from contemporary documents.
>
>All of the above books are highly recommended as background reading on
>this high-profile UFO crash recovery case, for the benefit of new readers
>of this newsgroup, and to irritate twitch by fanning the flames of visibility
>of the background information he so loves to cover up.
It doesn't irritate me to be able to point out all of the
places where they are wrong or they have quoted documents
out of context, etc.
If Friedman is now accepting Ragsdale's latest crash site,
is he swearing off his older crash sites or does he now push
three spaceships crashing?
>
>Feel free to recommend your own favorites, twitch!
>
Well, first I'd recommend that the readers not spend money
to enrich those people who live off of Roswell.
Go to:
http://www.roswell.org
to see what one believer found out when he really checked up
on Roswell and the authors of the popular books.
Pflock's Roswell in Perspective is a good choice also from
FUFOR.
Go to:
http://www.iufog.org/project1947/
to see some wonderful work at presenting the facts by a team
of dedicated believers.
Then look at:
http://www.parascope.com/articles/0597/schulgen.htm
to see the excellent work exposing the hoaxed Schulgen memo
that Friedman uses to such purpose.
Then read MUFON Journal: March 1993 for the exposure of
Gerald Anderson who is the source of a great deal of
Friedman's book.
Then write to the International UFO Musuem for a copy of the
McKnight affadavit showing that Randle's chosen crash site
doesn't exist.
Then go get a cold beer and laugh at all of this!
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>
>> Jean> That's not the point. We're not asking wether Marcel was
>> Jean> capable in assessing what sort of object had dropped to the
>> Jean> grounded but wether he'd have been able to identify -ordinary-
>> Jean> things like balsa wood or twine for what they were, which I
>> Jean> think we (unless Jesse Marcel was a braindead moron) can
>> Jean> confidently assume. In short you don't have much of a point
>> Jean> here.
>>
>>At the time, not all of the materials used in the balloons were
>>-ordinary- things.
>
> Which were? Aluminized mylar? :)
>
How many People had seen unpigmented neoprene that had laid
out in the sun for three weeks?
Balsa wood impregnated with white glue to make it even
stronger wasn't normal.
Nor was the foil attached to parchment to make it strong and
light.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
sph...@world.std.com (SPHINX Technologies) wrote:
>In article <34f4c19c...@news.nextdim.com>,
>Scott A. Munro <smu...@nextdim.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 00:02:16 GMT, sph...@world.std.com (SPHINX
>>Technologies) wrote:
>>>Scott, anyone who is even faintly informed on the "Roswell Incident" knows
>>>that the debris found on the Foster Ranch was not the main body of the
>>>flying disk, and that no bodies were found on the Foster Ranch. What *WAS*
>>>found there was debris in considerable quantity, more than one car full,
>>>of very unusual materials including very tough and lightweight beams that
>>>couldn't be broken (try that with Balsa wood), and "foil" that RESEMBLED
>>>aluminum foil UNTIL YOU TRIED TO TEAR OR CUT IT, which it refused to let
>>>you do. It obviously WAS NOT aluminum foil or even aluminized Mylar.
>>>
>>>The nearly intact disk and alien bodies, according to the archeologists and
>>>others who saw them being "cleaned up" by the military, were found elsewhere,
>>>at a second crash site some miles distant.
>>>
>>>Please don't perpetuate the confusion. Become INFORMED about what was
>>>reported by the witnesses, and you'll find it easier to make sense out of
>>>the reports.
>>
>>You accuse _me_ of perpetuating the confusion?
>>You are the one spewing this crap about a second crash site, for which
>>there is not one single shred, or even a shred of a shred, of
>>contemporary evidence.
>
>Oh, you're saying they SHREDDED the evidence? Interesting admission.
>Probably true, too, after all, a lot of communication records were found
>to be missing when the GAO investigated. /:^)\
<snip>
Sorry, John, you're even wrong here.
The GAO found that for a small amount of communications
records "...the document disposition form did not properly
indicate the authority under which the disposal action was
taken."
They weren't missing they were destroyed. But, then, they
were supposed to have been destroyed. The only thing that
wasn't exactly as it ought to be was that they didn't fill
out the part of the form showing the authority under which
the disposal action was taken!
In fact, the AF can really only be taken to task for letting
any of the records survive since document disposal
regulations required that they be destroyed and not sent to
St. Louis!
Air Force Regulations in existance at the time the documents
were destroyed state clearly that records "accumulated AT OR
BELOW WING LEVEL will be scheduled as one item and destroyed
after two years...It is clear from the foregoing that agency
records management officials, if acting in accordance with
agency regulations then in force, SHOULD have destroyed the
records in question rather than transfer them to St. Louis"
(Emphasis in original!)
So no communications evidence or any other evidence was
improperly shredded or missing.
Jean van gemert
In article, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>Yes. Aluminized mylar wasn't that ordinary at the time. Mylar was a
>fairly new material at that time...
Earth to Marty... there was NO aluminized mylar on these early
Mogul flights. The (supposedly responsible) Moguls exclusively
used neoprene rubber weather balloons. Neither the Air Force,
Mogul documents, or any of the Mogul people suggest that the
radar reflectors used any sort of aluminized plastic. Restating
the issue which you so clearly avoid: Do you think Marcel was
incapable of recognizing *ordinary* twine, paper, rubber, and
balsa wood?
Scott
In <6d4122$h...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
>He claimed that he thought nothing of the material until he
>got back to the base. Which disagrees with what his son
>stated later.
twitch, *tell* me you're not pitting father against son now.
C'mon _guys_ !! These are still *people* you are talking about !
Bad kitty !
--
Scott
http://www.kpig.com/welcome.html
"Listen to the PIG on-line. You'll thank me."
Scott
In <6d42dh$q...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
Do you *agree* with this methodology ? Do you feel it is
*credible* and *supportive* of your argument ? Don't you think this
whole Roswell thing has gotten out of hand ? *Hyp-MO-tizin'* a 60+
year old man to prove or disprove this or that theory ??!! Don't you
think it is time we all move on the to the say oh, I don't know ...
the 60's ... or maybe the 70's or ... oh! I know, maybe the 80's ? Am
I a radical ? Why do I ask so many questions ? Is it ever gonna stop
raining ? IS IT ??! Where did I put my medication ? What time is
'X-Files' on ? Where's the remote ? Wha ?? The batteries are dead ??!
Cabin fever. It's not pretty. Give generously this year.
--
Scott
Victim #120432-030-95747-6742, El Nino, 1998
e-mail me to sign up for the "Stop the 300+ line Roswell posts"
unarmed militia
TPrinty
Marty writes "I'm not avoiding the question. You keep asking the wrong
question. Note your emphasis on the word *ordinary*. Ask me the question "Do
you think Marcel would when querried years later have difficulty remembering
how he identified fragments that he had seen after they had been baked in the
New Mexico sun?" and the answer is_yes_."
I think the question is not how they could not identify the fragments but what
the definition of a "flying disk" was in 1947. Today, a flying
saucer/UFO/flying disk indicates some form of alien spaceship (although the
term UFO does not mean this-many feel that UFO is the same thing). However, in
July 1947, the accounts indicate a lot of people trying to determine what they
were. Some reports indicate that they were just simply metallic objects of
some kind. Read contemporary accounts at the "1947" web site that Twitch
posted (I believe it is www.iufo.org/1947 or something like that). I think you
will find the stories revealing as to what the general thought process was. It
can also shed light on how Marcel, finding this strangely shaped aluminum foil
debris may have thought it was from some form of "flying disc" (note: not alien
spaceship - the ETH was not even considered a possible explaination at this
point). Marcel, also may have thought about that $3000 dollar reward (as
Brazel could have been) for retrieval of a "flying disc".
It is interesting to note that Jesse and his family never kept any fragments
(Jesse Jr said that his mother swept fragments out the back door without a
thought!!!!! Does that sound exotic?) or any newspaper clippings. Perhaps
there was embarassment? I am sure Jesse Sr probably got some good natured
ribbing from his fellow officers too.
Tim Printy
Scott A. Munro
>In article <6d1e43$j...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> <twi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>><snip>
>>>The nearly intact disk and alien bodies, according to the archeologists and
>>>others who saw them being "cleaned up" by the military, were found elsewhere,
>>>at a second crash site some miles distant.
>><snip>
>>
>>And, please tell us where this second crash site is located!
>
>You can find that information in Stanton Friedman's book Crash at Corona
>or TOP SECRET/MAJIC (the Friedman book, not the codeword), I believe.
Yeah, and you can find completely different information in Randle and
Schmitt's books.
>Maybe even in The Roswell Incident, by Berlitz & Moore.
Yep. Again, different information than what is in Friedman's or
Randle's books, but still. . . .
> Most of these are
>available in any major bookstore or library.
>
>Do your homework, twitch!
I laugh at you.
>All of the above books are highly recommended as background reading on
>this high-profile UFO crash recovery case, for the benefit of new readers
>of this newsgroup, and to irritate twitch by fanning the flames of visibility
>of the background information he so loves to cover up.
>
>Feel free to recommend your own favorites, twitch!
>
>-John Sangster
> Wellesley Hills, MA
>
-----
Scott A. Munro http://www.nextdim.com/users/smunro/
Jean van gemert
In article, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>Earth to Jean. It was _you_ who asked if someone could recognize
>Aluminized Mylar. I merely pointed out that doing so would have been
>highly unlikely.
This is getting silly. You said in response to my suggestion
that Marcel would have had no trouble recognizing what the
crashed balloon would have been made of:
"At the time, not all of the materials used in the balloons were
-ordinary- things."
I then asked:
"Which were? Aluminized mylar?"
You answered with:
"Yes. Aluminized mylar wasn't that ordinary at the time."
Since I was asking you what sort of materials could have
been "unusual" for Marcel not to properly recognize them
and you answered with a resounding "yes" to "aluminzed
mylar", it's certainly proper for me to assume you believe
this stuff was used.
>You keep asking the wrong question.
No, I'm asking the right question, you just like to pretend
it's the wrong one. :)
>Ask me the question "Do you think Marcel would when
>querried years later have difficulty remembering how he
>identified fragments that he had seen after they had been
>baked in the New Mexico sun?" and the answer is
>_yes_.
"Years later" is a stupid argument, obviously Marcel thought
they were unusual enough to bring them back to RAAF right
after he looked at the stuff. Someone who's just found twine,
"baked" pieces of paper, rubber etc. would do this?
>I'd even go so far as to hazzard that he'd have trouble recognizing
>the fragments after they had been mangled and lay strewn about the
>dessert.
Balloons had been found and returned to the base *before*,
and no one seemed to have "trouble recognizing fragments"
in those cases. In fact, Mogul crashes would have looked
like the crash of multiple neoprene weather balloons, nothing
more, nothing less. The neoprene rubber was supposed to
smell very bad and there should have been several hundred
feet of twine strewn all over the ground. Recoveries of these
balloons are documented, read Charles Moore's description.
>training. *ordinary* materials don't look so ordinary after they've
>been in the upper atmosphere and then lain on the dessert floor.
Absolute nonsense, see above.
>I know I had trouble recognizing the various components of a Lear Jet
>when I had to search a crash site, and I _knew_ what it was I was
>looking at and for.
This is getting stupid, the analogy is absurd. Any devastation
from a plane crash is -far- more severe than can be expected
from a balloon that's just dropped to the ground. Two, none of
this is about "recognizing components" (e.g. identifying part
X as a piece of the engine), but if people are able to assess
what sort of material they're holding in their hands (*not* what
purpose it served).
David Rudiak
Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
> >> Jean van gemert writes:
> >> At the time, not all of the materials used in the balloons were
> >> -ordinary- things.
> Jean> Which were? Aluminized mylar? :)
>Yes. Aluminized mylar wasn't that ordinary at the time. Mylar was a
>fairly new material at that time, as Dupont didn't release it
>commercially until 1952,[1] and so it would have been unlikely that
>anyone not having access to prereleased mylar would have any idea of
>its properties. This is another example of how understanding
>collateral information and historical context can help validate or
>debunk a story.
Boy, you just don't give up, do you? There is zero evidence, ZERO, that mylar,
aluminized or otherwise was used on the Mogul balloon clusters in June/July
1947. The balloons were standard neoprene rubber balloons in June, and neoprene
or polyethylene (same as grocery plastic bags) in July. The radar reflectors
were made of balsa wood, paper, aluminum foil, scotch tape, glue, nylon twine,
and some small metal connectors. There was instrumentation and miscellaneous
this and that, but no part of it resembled any sort of foil.
None of the Mogul documents indicate any use of mylar or exotic materials.
Mogul engineer Charles Moore who assembled and launched these balloons, has
specifically denied the use of mylar at the time in question, saying they tried
it experimentally for balloon material several years later, but NOT in 1947.
Now that's the true collateral information and historical context. Everything
else is just your smokescreen to conceal that you haven't done any homework at
all on Mogul.
Go down to your local library, look through the 1995 A.F. Roswell report chock
full of Mogul documents and a lengthy interview with Moore, and tell us if you
find anything about "aluminized mylar" being used.
>Neither were a lot of materials developed earlier but put on hold for
>various reasons. For example, Teflon, which was developed _much_
>earlier, was so uncommon that when NASA used it early in the space
>program they actually pawned it off as a NASA spin-off technology and
>a lot of people believed the idea. That and the transistor are the two
>technologies most commonly misattributed to the space program prior to
>the claims made for high temp ceramics during the shuttle program.
>[1] See http://www.dupont.com/corp/science/discovery.html
This is all very interesting (if also somewhat erroneous but we'll let that
pass), and has nothing to do with your completely false claims about aluminized
mylar being on Mogul. This is a skepto urban myth that refuses to die, no
matter how many times a wooden stake is driven through its heart. Seemingly the
only "source" the debunkers can cite is some skeptical article they read
somewhere by some other debunker.
Jean van gemert
In article, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> blathered:
>Have you noticed that I was asked if I thought Marcel would recognize
>aluminized Mylar, and have responsed to that, not if I thought the
>Mogul balloon clusters used it?
No, you were asked about non-ordinary materials that would have
been on the balloon. Stop back-pedaling and behave like a man.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
s...@ns.net (Scott) wrote:
>In <6d4122$h...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net
>wrote:
>
>>He claimed that he thought nothing of the material until he
>>got back to the base. Which disagrees with what his son
>>stated later.
>
> twitch, *tell* me you're not pitting father against son now.
The Father is dead, Scott.
And I'm not doing anything but relating their stories.
>C'mon _guys_ !! These are still *people* you are talking about !
Yes. As are the gov't people who have been defamed.
>
>
> Bad kitty !
>
Purr!
twi...@worldnet.att.net
s...@ns.net (Scott) wrote:
>In <6d42dh$q...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net
>wrote:
>
>>s...@ns.net (Scott) wrote:
>>
>>>In <6d1cof$f...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm sorry but he has stated that the material could be the
>>>>same material except for the missing I-Beam. Additionally,
>>>>Kent Jeffrey had him hypnotized to see if any new info could
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>be found out. No new info came out and no differences of
>>>>any significance were stated during the session.
>>>
>>> OMIGOD ! twitch, I can't believe you using this to support
>>>your argument. Please tell me it's just because you haven't had your
>>>first cup of coffee yet !
>>>
>>He had given his testimony many times before. The hypnosis
>>was to see if any new info would come out.
>>
>>They checked his testimony under hypnosis against his
>>earlier testimony to see if any confabulation had occured or
>>false memories had been implanted.
>>
>>The testimony agreed with his earlier testimony, which
>>doesn't show that it is correct only that no false memories
>>were introduced.
>
> Do you *agree* with this methodology ?
There is no doubt that Kent Jeffrey went to considerable
lengths to avoid the major problems with hypnosis.
If Marcel Jr.'s testimony had changed it would have opened
all sorts of concerns. The fact that it didn't change
indicates that no confabulation nor false memories were
introduced during this session.
Which may be significant.
>Do you feel it is
>*credible* and *supportive* of your argument ?
Marcel Jr.'s testimony is not supportative of a crashed
alien spacecraft which is the real question.
>Don't you think this
>whole Roswell thing has gotten out of hand ?
Yep. Especially the way the popular authors use only the
quotes that support their views.
<snip>
> Cabin fever. It's not pretty. Give generously this year.
>
I think you mean Cabin Fever, it's SAD.
(Pun intended)
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>
>>Yes. Aluminized mylar wasn't that ordinary at the time. Mylar was a
>>fairly new material at that time...
>
> Earth to Marty... there was NO aluminized mylar on these early
> Mogul flights. <snip>
Earth to Jean, he didn't say that there was. He merely
answered your question which was clearly a set-up and let
you fall into your own trap.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
DRu...@aol.com (David Rudiak) wrote:
>Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>
>> >> Jean van gemert writes:
>
>
>> >> At the time, not all of the materials used in the balloons were
>> >> -ordinary- things.
>
>> Jean> Which were? Aluminized mylar? :)
>
>>Yes. Aluminized mylar wasn't that ordinary at the time. Mylar was a
>>fairly new material at that time, as Dupont didn't release it
>>commercially until 1952,[1] and so it would have been unlikely that
>>anyone not having access to prereleased mylar would have any idea of
>>its properties. This is another example of how understanding
>>collateral information and historical context can help validate or
>>debunk a story.
>
>Boy, you just don't give up, do you? There is zero evidence, ZERO, that mylar,
>aluminized or otherwise was used on the Mogul balloon clusters in June/July
>1947. <snip>
Boy, you just don't give up, do you? He didn't state that
mylar was used on the Mogul balloons.
He merely answered Jean's question.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
DRu...@aol.com (David Rudiak) wrote:
<snip>
>
>So if that was the case, why did non-Mogul military personnel stage a phony
>Mogul launch for the press the very next day at Alamogordo, and use it to
>explain what Brazel had found <snip>
Non-Mogul military personnel sounds really suspicious. Did
any of these non-Mogul military personnel have any knowledge
of the project?
What is the truth of the matter?
Major Pritchard, the man who gave the demonstration for the
press worked closely with Crary. On April 7th, 1947, for
instance, Crary gave Pritchard a progress report for the
project to date.
Who was Crary?
Crary was the NYU/Watson Labs Field Operations Director for
the Constant-altitude balloon project (i.e., Project Mogul!)
The newspaper article lists four officers, Pritchard,
Seigel, Dyvad, and Mangum as being involved with the balloon
project which wasn't quite true. Pritchard did work closely
with Crary and was knowledgeable about Mogul. Dyvad ,
coordinated the radar activities with Project Mogul even
though he wasn't actually involved with that project.
David has also claimed at different times that all the
Project Mogul NYU/Watson Labs people had left Alamogordo on
July 8th, the day prior to the demo.
Which is not the truth.
Crary, the Watson Labs Field Operations Director left by car
on July 9th the day of the demo!
Further, three of Crary's staff, Don Reynolds, Sol Oliva,
and Bill Edmonston lived in Alamogordo!
Some of the details given out and printed in the newspaper
clearly relate only to Project Mogul.
Scott
In <6d6kar$4...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
twitch purred:
>>>He claimed that he thought nothing of the material until he
>>>got back to the base. Which disagrees with what his son
>>>stated later.
me:
>> twitch, *tell* me you're not pitting father against son now.
>The Father is dead, Scott.
Free at last, free at last.
twitch, let the man rest in peace.
>And I'm not doing anything but relating their stories.
I disagree. I believe you are trying to smear Marcel on these
newsgroups. There is no need to do that. It's very poor form.
You have convincing evidence that supports your argument, it
is not necessary to try and personally destroy this man. He made some
mistakes in his life, I think most everyone agrees with that.
>>C'mon _guys_ !! These are still *people* you are talking about !
>
>Yes. As are the gov't people who have been defamed.
Exactly !
twitch, you are *better* than that. Rise above it all. Set an
example !
>> Bad kitty !
>>
>Purr!
Awww, how can I stay upset at you ? You're just so adorable !
--
Scott
s...@ns.net
twi...@worldnet.att.net
s...@ns.net (Scott) wrote:
>In <6d6kar$4...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net
>wrote:
>
>twitch purred:
>>>>He claimed that he thought nothing of the material until he
>>>>got back to the base. Which disagrees with what his son
>>>>stated later.
>
>me:
>>> twitch, *tell* me you're not pitting father against son now.
>
>
>>The Father is dead, Scott.
>
> Free at last, free at last.
>
> twitch, let the man rest in peace.
Nothing I do here will alter whether or not he rests in
peace.
>
>
>>And I'm not doing anything but relating their stories.
>
> I disagree. I believe you are trying to smear Marcel on these
>newsgroups. There is no need to do that. It's very poor form.
Actually, I am not smearing him. I am pointing out that he
told many "there I was stories" after he had been out of the
AF for 30 years.
He served honorably in the AF.
There is good and bad.
>
> You have convincing evidence that supports your argument, it
>is not necessary to try and personally destroy this man. He made some
>mistakes in his life, I think most everyone agrees with that.
Actually, many people don't. They try to claim that he
never changed his story, that there is only "one"
disagreement, etc.
Marcel's credibility is a key to Roswell since his was the
testimony that started the whole myth.
The credibility of Ragsdale, Dennis, Kaufmann, etc. are all
legitimate subjects as long as their testimony is used to
support the myth.
<snip>
>
>>> Bad kitty !
>>>
>>Purr!
>
> Awww, how can I stay upset at you ? You're just so adorable !
>
Damn it, Scott, when you're right, you're right!
>--
>Scott
>s...@ns.net
Scott
In <6dbvds$b...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
twitch:
>>>The Father is dead, Scott.
me:
>> twitch, let the man rest in peace.
>Nothing I do here will alter whether or not he rests in
>peace.
twitch, you underestimate yourself.
twitch:
>>>And I'm not doing anything but relating their stories.
me:
>> I disagree. I believe you are trying to smear Marcel on these
>>newsgroups. There is no need to do that. It's very poor form.
>Actually, I am not smearing him. I am pointing out that he
>told many "there I was stories" after he had been out of the
>AF for 30 years.
So when people bring it up, you point out that human memory is
leaky, and 30+ year old stories rarely resemble what actually
happened. Present your evidence for what "really" happened, and put
the burden of proof on Marcel where it lies. And you've presented your
argument and you haven't called anybody's character into question. See
how easy it is.
I know you know this.
>He served honorably in the AF.
>
>There is good and bad.
>
As your "punishment", you are requested, in all fairness, to
upload a 500+ line post describing the good things that Jesse Marcel
did.
me:
>> You have convincing evidence that supports your argument, it
>>is not necessary to try and personally destroy this man. He made some
>>mistakes in his life, I think most everyone agrees with that.
>Actually, many people don't. They try to claim that he
>never changed his story, that there is only "one"
>disagreement, etc.
There are people who think we didn't land on the moon. There
are people who think the earth is flat. Get up, right now, go kiss
your wife, give her a hug. Tell her you love her.
Let it go, twitch.
You are a cute kitty. If you were a large-mouth bass, you
would've been stuffed and mounted over somebody's fire place by now.
>Marcel's credibility is a key to Roswell since his was the
>testimony that started the whole myth.
So attack the testimony. It can't be that hard, nothing really
happened, right ?
>The credibility of Ragsdale, Dennis, Kaufmann, etc. are all
>legitimate subjects as long as their testimony is used to
>support the myth.
If you destroy Marcel's *testimony*, then they are just
supporting hot air, right ?
twi...@worldnet.att.net
s...@ns.net (Scott) wrote:
>In <6dbvds$b...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net
>wrote:
>
>twitch:
>>>>The Father is dead, Scott.
>
>me:
>>> twitch, let the man rest in peace.
>
>
>>Nothing I do here will alter whether or not he rests in
>>peace.
>
> twitch, you underestimate yourself.
>
I hereby grant you two extra decades of afterlife.
Where I grant that afterlife will depend on your answer!
>
>twitch:
>>>>And I'm not doing anything but relating their stories.
>
>me:
>>> I disagree. I believe you are trying to smear Marcel on these
>>>newsgroups. There is no need to do that. It's very poor form.
Nope. I am pointing out how the story he told gullible UFO
investigators disagrees on the points we can check.
What does that say about those points that we can't check?
>
>
>>Actually, I am not smearing him. I am pointing out that he
>>told many "there I was stories" after he had been out of the
>>AF for 30 years.
>
> So when people bring it up, you point out that human memory is
>leaky, and 30+ year old stories rarely resemble what actually
>happened.
Which is all true.
>Present your evidence for what "really" happened, and put
>the burden of proof on Marcel where it lies. And you've presented your
>argument and you haven't called anybody's character into question.
I'm afraid Scott the other side has for many years been
bringing Marcel and his unstained character into the fray.
I'm showing that they were wrong on this.
Not during his military time, which was honorable but he
started telling "there I was" stories to gullible UFO
investigators.
Marcel is the key on which Roswell rests.
>See
>how easy it is.
>
> I know you know this.
>
>
>>He served honorably in the AF.
>>
>>There is good and bad.
>>
>
> As your "punishment", you are requested, in all fairness, to
>upload a 500+ line post describing the good things that Jesse Marcel
>did.
>
He was good to his mother.
499 lines more of same.
>
>me:
>>> You have convincing evidence that supports your argument, it
>>>is not necessary to try and personally destroy this man. He made some
>>>mistakes in his life, I think most everyone agrees with that.
>
>
>>Actually, many people don't. They try to claim that he
>>never changed his story, that there is only "one"
>>disagreement, etc.
>
> There are people who think we didn't land on the moon. There
>are people who think the earth is flat. Get up, right now, go kiss
>your wife, give her a hug. Tell her you love her.
Now you want me to lie?
>
> Let it go, twitch.
>
> You are a cute kitty. If you were a large-mouth bass, you
>would've been stuffed and mounted over somebody's fire place by now.
>
>
A lot of people at one time have claimed that they have
stuffed me over their mantle.
I'm still here and they aren't.
>>Marcel's credibility is a key to Roswell since his was the
>>testimony that started the whole myth.
>
> So attack the testimony. It can't be that hard, nothing really
>happened, right ?
I am. He made a lot of statements that can be checked and
were checked. A lot of the statements aren't true.
>
>
>>The credibility of Ragsdale, Dennis, Kaufmann, etc. are all
>>legitimate subjects as long as their testimony is used to
>>support the myth.
>
> If you destroy Marcel's *testimony*, then they are just
>supporting hot air, right ?
>
I think so but a lot of believers are now trying to use
Ragsdale, et al. to prop up a non-Marcel Roswell.
patterson robert
Hey you guys......read The Day After Roswell by Lt. Col. Philip J.
Corso. This book explains a lot re misconceptions and confusion on
the part of parties on both sides of the whole alien/ Roswell argument.
This guy was a WWII Military Intelligence Commander who became second-in-
command of Pentagon "foreign technologies" desk through approx. 1962. He
then became a congressional advisor.
He details, in this memoir of his, just what happened at Roswell and how
the technology discovered there has been covertly infused into our own
technology/ R&D and how "black" ops, cover-ups, & propaganda were used to
keep the info. about these seemingly "hostile" ( according to the military)
beings and their technology from the public.
I'm not sure that I believe or discount 100% of it, but one thing is for
sure...........................these pentagon cats usually a) don't talk
about this stuff at all unless they feel compelled by a sense of duty
( or orders ) to do-so &/ or they've retired and want to assuage their
consciences; b) Given their sense of duty and, other factors, it would
be highly unlikely that they would lie about this stuff once they've
retired - unless they were ordered to do-so. This, I'd think, would be
especially true because they'd be very concerned about their legacy and/
or were motivated by a sense of self-importance &/ or reconciliation
before death; and c) This guy ( Corso ) is not the only high-up insider
who has talked, and all of those who have spoken have all said the same
exact types of stuff. So, the majority of it all is either a coordinated
propaganda move to thwart attantion away from U.S. military tech. advancements
or the truth or some combo. thereof. I suspect the latter option and can't
see how anyone who reads this book could feel otherwise.
Regardless, this book is a fascinating account of twentieth
century history in that it tracks, simultaneously, an accurate account
of the events with which we are already acquainted and the secret,
"inside" reality of the White House, the military, the political
landscape, & the intelligence community. Replies are welcome.
Scott
In <6dej66$s...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
>I'm afraid Scott the other side has for many years been
>bringing Marcel and his unstained character into the fray.
>I'm showing that they were wrong on this.
That's very true. But as a warrior of TRVTH, you must rise
above attacking the person. Present the evidence, state the facts. You
can argue Roswell without calling Marcel's character into question.
And anyway, how do you *prove* somebody is lying ? All you can
show is that somebody said something that is unsupported or
contradicted by objective evidence. It doesn't establish an intent to
lie.
lie: to make a statement one *knows* is false, esp. with
*intent* to deceive.
liar: a person who tells lies.
I guess, my contribution to this thread is basically a big
plea to "Say it ain't so, twitch". I know you are better than this,
you don't have to stoop to attacking the person. It's beneath you !
>Marcel is the key on which Roswell rests.
This is a *very* interesting statement, twitch.
I assume you meant "Marcel's *story* is the key on which
Roswell rests."
>>>He served honorably in the AF.
Please provide some evidence to support this statement.
twitch:
>>>The credibility of Ragsdale, Dennis, Kaufmann, etc. are all
>>>legitimate subjects as long as their testimony is used to
>>>support the myth.
me:
>> If you destroy Marcel's *testimony*, then they are just
>>supporting hot air, right ?
>I think so but a lot of believers are now trying to use
>Ragsdale, et al. to prop up a non-Marcel Roswell.
c'mon twitch, you know better ! There is no "Roswell" without
Marcel's story.
--
Scott
"For every problem, there is one solution which is simple,
neat and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken
Bob Henderson
patterson robert wrote in message ...
>Hey you guys......read The Day After Roswell by Lt. Col. Philip J.
>Corso. >sure...........................these pentagon cats usually a)
don't talk
>about this stuff at all unless they feel compelled by a sense of duty
>( or orders ) to do-so &/ or they've retired and want to assuage their
>consciences;
Or they if they are delusional and/or are seeking to profit from others
gullibility.
> b) Given their sense of duty and, other factors, it would
>be highly unlikely that they would lie about this stuff once they've
>retired - unless they were ordered to do-so. This, I'd think, would be
>especially true because they'd be very concerned about their legacy and/
>or were motivated by a sense of self-importance &/ or reconciliation
>before death;
Oh you mean like Ollie North.
>and c) This guy ( Corso ) is not the only high-up insider
>who has talked, and all of those who have spoken have all said the same
>exact types of stuff.
Who? References please.
>So, the majority of it all is either a coordinated
>propaganda move to thwart attantion away from U.S. military tech.
advancements
Huh? I see, after spending billions on technology, some of which has turned
out to be useful stuff, the military wants to NOT take credit for it!
>or the truth or some combo. thereof. I suspect the latter option and can't
>see how anyone who reads this book could feel otherwise.
>
>Regardless, this book is a fascinating account of twentieth
>century history in that it tracks, simultaneously, an accurate account
>of the events with which we are already acquainted and the secret,
>"inside" reality of the White House, the military, the political
>landscape, & the intelligence community. Replies are welcome.
>
Change your wording - "inside" reality - above, to "paranoid fantasies".
twi...@worldnet.att.net
s...@ns.net (Scott) wrote:
>In <6dej66$s...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net
>wrote:
>
>>I'm afraid Scott the other side has for many years been
>>bringing Marcel and his unstained character into the fray.
>>I'm showing that they were wrong on this.
>
> That's very true. But as a warrior of TRVTH, you must rise
>above attacking the person. Present the evidence, state the facts. You
>can argue Roswell without calling Marcel's character into question.
You cannot without addressing Marcel's credibility, however.
Marcel told a lot of there I was stories when he was talking
with gullible UFO investigators and that is pertinent info.
The same as the stories that Jim Ragsdale told.
The same as the stories that Glenn Dennis told.
The same as the stories that Kaufmann told.
Why do you not complain about it when I point out that they
all told "there I was stories" to gullible investigators?
>
> And anyway, how do you *prove* somebody is lying ? All you can
>show is that somebody said something that is unsupported or
>contradicted by objective evidence. It doesn't establish an intent to
>lie.
How do you prove perjury in court then?
You show that what they said wasn't true and that there are
very good reasons to believe that they knew the info wasn't
true.
That fits Marcel, that fits Ragsdale, that fits, Dennis,
that fits Kaufmann, etc.
For instance Marcel claimed that he didn't know about his
promotion to Lt. Col. in the reserves until he got out.
Yet, he requested that promotion in writing and when he was
informed that he had it if he would sign the required oath,
he signed the oath immediately.
Or, his claim that he had 3000 hours as pilot in charge
since 1928.
The FAA certainly is unaware of this.
3000 hours is one hell of a lot of air time! A Col. in the
Soviet Air Force normally only had 2000 hours of flight time
as pilot in charge!
Those two are pretty good evidence.
>
> lie: to make a statement one *knows* is false, esp. with
> *intent* to deceive.
>
Yep. That certainly fits Marcel and his tales. He didn't
expect to make money off of it but that isn't requied.
> liar: a person who tells lies.
See above.
>
>
> I guess, my contribution to this thread is basically a big
>plea to "Say it ain't so, twitch". I know you are better than this,
>you don't have to stoop to attacking the person. It's beneath you !
I am not attacking Marcel, or Ragsdale, or Kaufmann, or
Dennis, etc. I am attacking the things that they said which
are blatantly false and suggesting that the other things
that they said cannot be trusted without overwhleming
evidence.
<snip.
>
>>>>He served honorably in the AF.
>
> Please provide some evidence to support this statement.
His personnel file is available and shows he served
honorably. He also apparently served honorably in the TX
National Guard and the LA National Guard.
>
>
>twitch:
>>>>The credibility of Ragsdale, Dennis, Kaufmann, etc. are all
>>>>legitimate subjects as long as their testimony is used to
>>>>support the myth.
>
>me:
>>> If you destroy Marcel's *testimony*, then they are just
>>>supporting hot air, right ?
>
>
>>I think so but a lot of believers are now trying to use
>>Ragsdale, et al. to prop up a non-Marcel Roswell.
>
> c'mon twitch, you know better ! There is no "Roswell" without
>Marcel's story.
>
I suggest that you try reading some of the articles here.
They disprove your statement.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
cyb...@nospam.worldnet.att.net (Brian) wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 23:20:20 GMT, sped...@mognet.u-net.com (I H
>Spedding) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 03:28:25 GMT, cyb...@nospam.worldnet.att.net
>>(Brian) wrote:
>>
>>(...)
>>
>>>If you are basing your belief on what the military has said about
>>>Roswell, boy are you GULLIBLE. I've heard witnesses say on
>>>documentaries on TLC or Discovery that people have seen bodies from
>>>the crash at Roswell. So if they've seen bodies, surely there was a
>>>craft. Col. Corso even saw the bodies! Col. Corso even had pieces of
>>>the crashed saucer! The headlines of the Roswell Daily Record of
>>>Tuesday July 8, 1947 declared that a flying saucer crashed on a ranch
>>>in the Roswell region. The army even admitted it until they changed
>>>their story and called it a balloon for security purposes. Maj. Jesse
>>>Marcel's son was on Art Bell a year or two ago and said the pieces of
>>>the crash he saw in the kitchen of the home he lived in DEFINITLY did
>>>not come from a weather balloon! The testimony of Jesse Marcel's son
>>>alone shoots down the theory that it was a weather balloon.
>>>
>>>You no doubt will continue to believe in lies from the military, while
>>>those with rational minds can see the evidence that indeed a saucer
>>>crashed at Roswell.
>
>>There is no physical evidence of a UFO crash.
>
>There's lots of people who have seen the physical evidence. Jesse
>Marcel's son, Col. Corso, and people who have testified to this in
>documentaries to name a few.
Yep.
Let's see, we have Jim Ragsdale. Of couse, we know he lied
about it.
We have the word of Glenn Dennis's nurse friend. Of course,
we know he lied about her even existing.
We have the word of Frank Kaufmann. Of course, we know he
has told many different stories.
We have the word of Gerald Anderson. Of course, he tried to
back up his story with hoaxed documents.
We have...
>
>>Whatever witnesses may have claimed many years later, contemporary
>>descriptions of the wreckage are more consistent with debris from a
>>balloon.
>
>None of the descriptions I have heard sounded anything like a weather
>balloon.
What part of:
"was a flimsily-constructed, kite-like object measuring
about 25 feet in diameter and covered with a material
resembling tin foil. "
Or:
"too lightly constructed to have carried anyone and that
there was no evidence that it had had a power plant of any
sort. "
Or:
"AAF sources ruled out the possibility that it might have
been an army weather-kite. "
Or:
""seemed more or less like tinfoil." The rancher described
the disc as about as large as a safe in the sheriff's
office.
The safe is about three and one-half by four feet. "
Or:
"There is some indication that the object might have been
attached to a balloon which squares with the description of
meteorological equipment we have in use,"
Or:
"looks like a six-pointed star, is silvery in appearance and
rises in the air like a kite."
Or:
"bright wreckage made up on rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather
tough paper and sticks. "
Or:
"They tried to make a kite out of it, but could not do that
and could not find any way to put it back together so that
it would fit. "
Or:
"the tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks made a bundle about
three feet long and 7 or 8 inches thick, while the rubber
made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long and about 8 inches
thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot would have
weighed maybe five pounds. "
Or:
"Considerable scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed
upon it had been used in the construction.
No strings or wire were to be found but there were
some eyelets in the paper to indicate that some sort of
attachment may have been used. "
Don't you understand, Brian?
>Jesse Marcel's son alone described a pile of debris far
>larger than any weather balloon.
Jesse Marcel Jr. in Affidavit dated May 6, 1991.
" ... There were three categories of debris: a thick, foil
like metallic gray substance; a brittle, brownish-black
plastic-like material, like Bakelite; and there were
fragments of what appeared to be I-beams. On the inner
surface of the I-beam, there appeared to be a type of
writing. This writing was a purple-violet hue, and it had an
embossed appearance. The figures were composed of curved,
geometric shapes. It had no resemblance to Russian, Japanese
or any other foreign language. It resembled hieroglyphics,
but it had no animal-like characters ...... "
No spaceship there, Brian!
Bessie Brazel Schreiber in affidavit dated September 22,
1993.
"..The debris looked like pieces of a large balloon which
had burst. The pieces were small, the largest I remember
measuring about the same as the diameter of a basketball.
Most of it was a kind of double-sided material, foil-like on
one side and rubber-like on the other. Both sides were
grayish silver in color, the foil more silvery than the
rubber. Sticks, like kite sticks, were attached to some of
the pieces with a whitish tape. The tape was about two or
three inches wide and had flowerlike designs on it. The
'flowers' were faint, a variety of pastel colors, and
reminded me of Japanese paintings in which the flowers are
not all connected. I do not recall any other types of
material or markings, nor do I remember seeing gouges in the
ground or any other signs that anything may have hit the
ground hard. The foil-rubber material could not be tom like
ordinary aluminum foil can be tom..."
No spaceship there, Brian.
Sally Strickland Tadolini affidavit dated September 27,
1993.
".. What Bill showed us was a piece of what I still think as
fabric. It was something like aluminum foil, something like
satin, something like welltanned leather in its toughness,
yet was not precisely like any one of those materials. ...It
was about the thickness of very fine kidskin glove leather
and a dull metallic grayish silver, one side slightly darker
than the other. I do not remember it having any design or
embossing on it..."
No spaceship there, Brian.
Robert R. Porter affidavit dated June 7, 1991
" On this occasion, I was a member of the crew which flew
parts of what we were told was a flying saucer to Fort
Worth. The people on board included ... and Maj Jesse
Marcel. Capt. William E. Anderson said it was from a flying
saucer. After we arrived, the material was transferred to a
B-25. I was told they were going to Wright Field in Dayton,
Ohio. I was involved in loading the B-29 with the material,
which was wrapped in packages with wrapping paper. One of
the pieces was triangle-shaped, about 2 1/2 feet across the
bottom. The rest were in small packages, about the size of a
shoe box. The brown paper was held with tape. The material
was extremely lightweight. When I picked it up, it was just
like picking up an empty package. We loaded the triangle
shaped package and three shoe box-sized packages into the
plane. All of the packages could have fit into the trunk of
a car. ...When we came back from lunch, they told us they
had transferred the material to a B-25. They told us the
material was a weather balloon, but I'm certain it wasn't a
weather balloon..."
No spaceship there, Brian!
Irving Newton stated:
"..I walked into the General's office where this supposed
flying saucer was lying all over the floor. As soon as I saw
it, I giggled and asked if that was the flying saucer ... I
told them that this was a balloon and a RAWIN target...
while I was examining the debris, Major Marcel was picking
up pieces of the target sticks and trying to convince me
that some notations on the sticks were alien writings. there
were figures on the sticks, lavender or pink in color,
appeared to be weather faded markings, with no rhyme or
reason ...
During the ensuing years I have been interviewed by many
authors, I have been quoted and misquoted. The facts remain
as indicated above. I was not influenced during the original
interview, nor today, to provide anything but what I know to
be true, that is, the material I saw in General Ramey's
office was the remains of a balloon and a RAWIN target."
No spaceship there, Brian.
<snip>
>>Secret and Top Secret documentation from the period make it quite
>>clear that, whatever their interest in - and concern about - UFO's,
>>the authorities had no physical evidence in their possession.
>
>If you've read any documentation to that affect, it's just
>disinformation.
Amazing, he knows this without having read any of it at all!
<snip>
twi...@worldnet.att.net
hu...@scripps.edu (Robert S. Huber) wrote:
>cyb...@nospam.worldnet.att.net (Brian) wrote:
>
>> sped...@mognet.u-net.com (I H Spedding) wrote:
>>
>> >There is no physical evidence of a UFO crash.
>>
>> There's lots of people who have seen the physical evidence. Jesse
>> Marcel's son, Col. Corso, and people who have testified to this in
>> documentaries to name a few.
>
>No son, it doesn't work that way. I'm sure I can find several people who
>have seen the physical evidence for Nessie, Bigfoot, and fairies as well.
Well, for fairies, we not only have reliable witnesses, we
have photos as well!
"These numerous testimonies come from people who are very
solid and practical and successful in the affairs of life.
One is a distinguished writer, another an ophthalmic
authority, a fourth a lady engaged on public service, and so
on. To waive aside the evidence of such people on the
ground that it does not correspond with our own experience
is an act of mental arrogance which no wise man will
commit."
(Credible peole reporting incredible things!)
Of course, that quote is from
THE COMING OF FAIRIES by Arthur Conan Doyle which is arguing
that fairies are real!
And, don't forget the scientist Joseph Glanvill in
Saducismus Triumphatus complained
about the excesive skeptism on the part of some of his
colleagues.
"We have the attestation of thousands of Eye and
Ear-witnesses, and those not of the easily-deceivable vulgar
only, but of wise and grave discerners; and that, when no
interest could oblige them to agree together in common
Lye... For not only the melancholick and the fanciful but
the grave and the sober, whose judgements we have no reason
to suspect to be tainted by their imaginations, have from
their own knowledge and experience made reports of this
nature.
...a single relation for an Affirmative, sufficently
confirmed and attested, is worth a thousand tales of forgery
and imposture, from whence a universal Negative cannot be
concluded."
So, we have wonderful and reliable witnesses to the facts
that witches are flying around on broomsticks and making
people ill!
What a shame that those nasty old skeptics won't believe
good honest and reliable eyewitnesses!
<snip>
twi...@worldnet.att.net
cyb...@nospam.worldnet.att.net (Brian) wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 16:47:02 -0800, Harry Bosch <har...@chatlink.com>
>wrote:
>
<snip>
>>
>>OK Brian.
>>
>>A saucer crashed at Roswell. It was made from tinfoil,
>>tough paper and sticks. It was held together with a lot
>>of Scotch Tape and was powered by a rubber band wind-up
>>interstellar, FTL, sub space drive. Oh yes, it weighed
>>5 pounds.
>>
>>Did I leave anything out? Oh yes, it was decorated with
>>floral tape.
>
>What kind of a pitiful reply is that?
Accurate.
> There's plenty of evidence that
>it was a saucer.
And, there is plenty of evidence that it was an instrument,
a "weather meter", etc.
The exact same evidence, as a matter of fact.
>The pieces of the debris alone added up to far more
>than any weather balloon.
A neoprene sounding balloon, when fully inflated, can reach
about 20 feet in diameter.
Brazel said, you do know who Brazel is, I hope?
"The balloon which held it up, if that was how it worked,
must have been about 12 feet long, "
The AF said, you do know who the AF is, I hope?
"Army Air Force Headquarters said later that the officer who
had seen the object held a strong opinion that it might be a
meteorological device. "There is some indication that the
object might have been attached to a balloon which squares
with the description of meteorological equipment we have in
use,"
And:
"It would have had a diameter of about 20 to 25 feet if
reconstructed, the officials added."
Gee, it sounds just like a weather balloon and a radar
target, doesn't it?
> I would say more but your reply just isn't
>motivating me to say anything more.
>
Good job then, Harry!
Robert S. Huber
cyb...@nospam.worldnet.att.net (Brian) wrote:
> Twitch, I'm not reading your post. I normally don't. I did scan it and
> saw that you mentioned my name, so I'm only replying to tell you I
> consider the majorities of your posts CRAP, and not worth reading.
>
> --
> Brien
> cyb...@nospam.worldnet.att.net
> To reply by email, remove nospam. from address
Translation: "Twitch is a big meanie! But just because I'm replying to
his post, IT DOESN'T MEAN I READ HIS POSTS! I DON'T! I DON'T! I DON'T
READ HIS POSTS! That big meanie Twitch wanted evidence, so I took my
marbles and went home!"
*Chuckle!*
--
All time is all time. It does not change. It does not lend itself
to deviations. It simply _is_. Take it moment by moment and you will
find that we are all, as I've said before, bugs in amber.
(paraphrased from a Tralfamadorian zoo keeper)
Robert S. Huber
cyb...@nospam.worldnet.att.net (Brian) wrote:
> >A neoprene sounding balloon, when fully inflated, can reach
> >about 20 feet in diameter.
>
> Roll it up good and tight-it'll fit in a shoebox.
The only reason this is being discussed is because you mentioned somebody
spread out the debris on a kitchen floor or something. We all know a
deflated balloon can be folded up, but that isn't the point, is it? If
you wanted to display a balloon, would you bundle it up into a little
package, or would you lay it out upon a floor?
Brian
Twitch, I'm not reading your post. I normally don't. I did scan it and
saw that you mentioned my name, so I'm only replying to tell you I
consider the majorities of your posts CRAP, and not worth reading.
--
Brian
Brian
On Tue, 03 Mar 1998 17:26:28 GMT, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>cyb...@nospam.worldnet.att.net (Brian) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 16:47:02 -0800, Harry Bosch <har...@chatlink.com>
>>wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>>
>>>OK Brian.
>>>
>>>A saucer crashed at Roswell. It was made from tinfoil,
>>>tough paper and sticks. It was held together with a lot
>>>of Scotch Tape and was powered by a rubber band wind-up
>>>interstellar, FTL, sub space drive. Oh yes, it weighed
>>>5 pounds.
>>>
>>>Did I leave anything out? Oh yes, it was decorated with
>>>floral tape.
>>
>>What kind of a pitiful reply is that?
>
>Accurate.
>
>> There's plenty of evidence that
>>it was a saucer.
>
>And, there is plenty of evidence that it was an instrument,
>a "weather meter", etc.
>
>The exact same evidence, as a matter of fact.
>
>>The pieces of the debris alone added up to far more
>>than any weather balloon.
>
>A neoprene sounding balloon, when fully inflated, can reach
>about 20 feet in diameter.
Roll it up good and tight-it'll fit in a shoebox.
>> I would say more but your reply just isn't
>>motivating me to say anything more.
>>
>Good job then, Harry!
Proof that idiot skeptics can't stand the truth. "If we can get rid of
the truth, it can't hurt us." The motto of idiot skeptics.
SPHINX Technologies
In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.98030...@umbc10.umbc.edu>,
patterson robert <rpa...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>Hey you guys......read The Day After Roswell by Lt. Col. Philip J.
>the part of parties on both sides of the whole alien/ Roswell argument.
>This guy was a WWII Military Intelligence Commander who became second-in-
>command of Pentagon "foreign technologies" desk through approx. 1962. He
>then became a congressional advisor.
>
>He details, in this memoir of his, just what happened at Roswell and how
>the technology discovered there has been covertly infused into our own
>technology/ R&D and how "black" ops, cover-ups, & propaganda were used to
>keep the info. about these seemingly "hostile" ( according to the military)
>beings and their technology from the public.
More precisely, he tells a TALE of what he ALLEGES happened at Roswell and
thereafter.
That TALE can be ALL TRUE, ALL FALSE, or PART true and PART false.
There are various motives for EACH of these possibilities.
>I'm not sure that I believe or discount 100% of it, but one thing is for
>sure...........................these pentagon cats usually a) don't talk
>about this stuff at all unless they feel compelled by a sense of duty
>( or orders ) to do-so &/ or they've retired and want to assuage their
>consciences; b) Given their sense of duty and, other factors, it would
>be highly unlikely that they would lie about this stuff once they've
>retired - unless they were ordered to do-so.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Very true. First of all, some say you NEVER QUITE RETIRE from Intelligence
jobs. And, yes, an intelligence officer who has "officially" retired
might well be thought to be a good "mouthpiece" for releasing, with high
credibility, a STORY that Counterintelligence wants floated about in the
public view.
This, I'd think, would be
>especially true because they'd be very concerned about their legacy and/
>or were motivated by a sense of self-importance &/ or reconciliation
>before death; and c) This guy ( Corso ) is not the only high-up insider
>who has talked, and all of those who have spoken have all said the same
>exact types of stuff.
Now, "the same exact TYPES OF stuff" is fuzzy enough that it's hard to
be sure whether to agree or disagree with your comment.
Several other people who have retired have said SOME of the same things,
or some SIMILAR things, but Corso's book is kind of unusual in that it
paints a picture of a bunch of "exotic" technology that is recognizably
similar to modern technology that most reasonable people will be sure was
invented by strictly down-to-Earth, human means. And in some cases weaves
the tale together with allegations of how alien visitors might have used
that technology -- one thinks of the gee whiz picture Corso paints of a
small, hand-held laser pointer like device, and the idea that it was actually
maybe a surgical instrument, and gee, might have been used for field surgery
upon various parts of the bovine anatomy.
Which might indeed have been the case, but this totally fails to give credit
to the many human scientists who paid their dues and laid the groundwork
for the very HUMAN invention of the laser and the hologram.
So, the majority of it all is either a coordinated
>propaganda move to thwart attantion away from U.S. military tech. advancements
>or the truth or some combo. thereof. I suspect the latter option and can't
>see how anyone who reads this book could feel otherwise.
OK, you've probably come to the correct conclusion here, although your
earlier comments made me fear you'd been snookered hook, line and sinker,
to mix a few metaphors.
Yes, alas, I fear that Corso's book is indeed a clever and ALMOST skillful
disinformation hatchet job, subtler than most, but still a bit heavy-handed
in that the weaving together of all and only all of the 'believer' lore of
Roswell and environs has a slightly sophomoric feel to it, literarily
speaking. It's as if the author had a "hit list" of all the bizarre claims
that he had been ordered to link together, in order to discredit them by
further interweaving them with several carefully chosen bizarre claims that
any reasonably well-educated person would KNOW to be false (whether or not
that was in fact true). The net effect is more like a badly-written episode
of "Dark Skies" than like a real, sincere expose.
>Regardless, this book is a fascinating account of twentieth
>century history in that it tracks, simultaneously, an accurate account
>of the events with which we are already acquainted and the secret,
>"inside" reality of the White House, the military, the political
>landscape, & the intelligence community. Replies are welcome.
I started browsing the book with some interest, when I first encountered
it over at the local bookstore. I was quite disappointed as my initial
enthusiasm for this apparent "insider expose" evaporated into recognition
of the semi-subtle DI job it really was.
It's been said that the best way to get a lie believed is to hide it between
two truths. On the other hand, the best way to get the TRUTH DISBELIEVED
may be to hide a few provable lies within it, so sincere and competent people
will judge it all to be lies, just because the few parts they can CHECK on
can be shown to be lies. I think that's the essence of the strategy behind
Corso's book.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
cyb...@nospam.worldnet.att.net (Brian) wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Mar 1998 17:16:02 GMT, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>Twitch, I'm not reading your post. I normally don't.
What a wonderful open-minded attitude that you have.
>I did scan it and
>saw that you mentioned my name,
Ah, Brian, you're even wrong here. The quotes at the top
show I responded to a post by you.
I didn't mention your name.
>so I'm only replying to tell you I
>consider the majorities of your posts CRAP, and not worth reading.
>
Translation: You can't answer any of the references and
points I bring up so you avoid them.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
cyb...@nospam.worldnet.att.net (Brian) wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Mar 1998 17:26:28 GMT, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>cyb...@nospam.worldnet.att.net (Brian) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 16:47:02 -0800, Harry Bosch <har...@chatlink.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>OK Brian.
>>>>
>>>>A saucer crashed at Roswell. It was made from tinfoil,
>>>>tough paper and sticks. It was held together with a lot
>>>>of Scotch Tape and was powered by a rubber band wind-up
>>>>interstellar, FTL, sub space drive. Oh yes, it weighed
>>>>5 pounds.
>>>>
>>>>Did I leave anything out? Oh yes, it was decorated with
>>>>floral tape.
>>>
>>>What kind of a pitiful reply is that?
>>
>>Accurate.
>>
>>> There's plenty of evidence that
>>>it was a saucer.
>>
>>And, there is plenty of evidence that it was an instrument,
>>a "weather meter", etc.
>>
>>The exact same evidence, as a matter of fact.
>>
>>>The pieces of the debris alone added up to far more
>>>than any weather balloon.
>>
>>A neoprene sounding balloon, when fully inflated, can reach
>>about 20 feet in diameter.
>
>Roll it up good and tight-it'll fit in a shoebox.
Ah, Brian, who said it would fit in one shoe box? Robert
Porter said it was one large piece and would fit in three
other shoe box sized boxes.
Would you please post the reference which stated that the
entire balloon would fit in one shoe box?
Further, a balloon, and I realize that you don't know this,
inflated is somewhat larger than when it isn't inflated.
Additionally, the balloon was in fragments and all of it
probably wasn't there. The amount of material from the
ML-307, the vast majority of the debris, is very compact if
shredded.
>
>
>>> I would say more but your reply just isn't
>>>motivating me to say anything more.
>>>
>>Good job then, Harry!
>
>Proof that idiot skeptics can't stand the truth. "If we can get rid of
>the truth, it can't hurt us." The motto of idiot skeptics.
>
Gee, Brian, wasn't it you who stated:
"Twitch, I'm not reading your post. I normally don't. I did
scan it and saw that you mentioned my name, so I'm only
replying to tell you I consider the majorities of your posts
CRAP, and not worth reading."
Proof that you can't stand the truth, the motto of some
idiot believers.
Harry Bosch
Hi twitch.
Well I just knew it would boil down to name calling. Brian
can't come up with ANY evidence, other than "you have to take
my word for it, cause I said it's so" Sorry Brian, I don't
believe you. I think you are like the rest of the believers
that are to lazy to go out and find facts. Read a book and
know everything there is to know about the subject. I think
it was called "the dumbing of America".
Have a nice day Brian, your posts are beginning to deteriorate
terribly.
Regards,
Harry
--
========================================
"A five pound space ship made of sticks,
and foil,and floral tape? Oh, my!"
The Roswell debris.
har...@chatlink.com
========================================
Robert S. Huber
cyb...@nospam.worldnet.att.net (Brian) wrote:
> >Hi twitch.
> >
> >Well I just knew it would boil down to name calling. Brian
> >can't come up with ANY evidence, other than "you have to take
> >my word for it, cause I said it's so" Sorry Brian, I don't
> >believe you. I think you are like the rest of the believers
> >that are to lazy to go out and find facts. Read a book and
> >know everything there is to know about the subject. I think
> >it was called "the dumbing of America".
> >
> >Have a nice day Brian, your posts are beginning to deteriorate
> >terribly.
>
>
> Hmmm, another pitiful reply. The evidence is so overwhelming it would
> shatter your life if you somehow had to believe it. And to those of
> you like HUBER, don't bother asking for more evidence. You're just
> wasting my time. You lack the appropriate knowledge to even accept the
> truth.
Brian, you're more fun than a barrel of monkeys. Hell, you remind me a
lot of Yosemite Sam (Twitch = Bugs Bunny).
Now repeat ofter me Brian:
"Open that draw bridge rabbit!"
"Close it! Close it! Close it up again!" (voice muffled)
*Chuckle*
Brian
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 16:29:35 -0800, Harry Bosch <har...@chatlink.com>
wrote:
>Hi twitch.
>
>Well I just knew it would boil down to name calling. Brian
>can't come up with ANY evidence, other than "you have to take
>my word for it, cause I said it's so" Sorry Brian, I don't
>believe you. I think you are like the rest of the believers
>that are to lazy to go out and find facts. Read a book and
>know everything there is to know about the subject. I think
>it was called "the dumbing of America".
>
>Have a nice day Brian, your posts are beginning to deteriorate
>terribly.
Hmmm, another pitiful reply. The evidence is so overwhelming it would
shatter your life if you somehow had to believe it. And to those of
you like HUBER, don't bother asking for more evidence. You're just
wasting my time. You lack the appropriate knowledge to even accept the
truth.
>Regards,
>
>Harry
>--
>========================================
> "A five pound space ship made of sticks,
> and foil,and floral tape? Oh, my!"
> The Roswell debris.
> har...@chatlink.com
>========================================
--
twi...@worldnet.att.net
cyb...@nospam.worldnet.att.net (Brian) wrote:
<snip>
>Hmmm, another pitiful reply. The evidence is so overwhelming<snip>
Hmmm, another pitiful reply. The evidence is so
overwhelming that you consistently fail to provide any of it
but merely state it exists.
Despite all the evidence against your religious position.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
hu...@scripps.edu (Robert S. Huber) wrote:
>cyb...@nospam.worldnet.att.net (Brian) wrote:
>
>> >Hi twitch.
>> >
>> >Well I just knew it would boil down to name calling. Brian
>> >can't come up with ANY evidence, other than "you have to take
>> >my word for it, cause I said it's so" Sorry Brian, I don't
>> >believe you. I think you are like the rest of the believers
>> >that are to lazy to go out and find facts. Read a book and
>> >know everything there is to know about the subject. I think
>> >it was called "the dumbing of America".
>> >
>> >Have a nice day Brian, your posts are beginning to deteriorate
>> >terribly.
>>
>>
>> Hmmm, another pitiful reply. The evidence is so overwhelming it would
>> shatter your life if you somehow had to believe it. And to those of
>> you like HUBER, don't bother asking for more evidence. You're just
>> wasting my time. You lack the appropriate knowledge to even accept the
>> truth.
>
>Brian, you're more fun than a barrel of monkeys. Hell, you remind me a
>lot of Yosemite Sam (Twitch = Bugs Bunny).
>
>Now repeat ofter me Brian:
>
>"Open that draw bridge rabbit!"
>"Close it! Close it! Close it up again!" (voice muffled)
>
>*Chuckle*
Either that or "Which way did he go, George? Which way did
he go?"
Harry Bosch
Hi twitch.
Well, some folks is ignorant but they learn and get smart. It
is quite obvious, that we have here one of them critters that
will never, ever get any smarter. To tell the truth, I am just
getting tired of some horses ass saying "I say it's so, so you
have to believe it". I'm sure that these type of folks don't
have a clue as to what they are talking about. It is so much
easier to spout rhetoric than it is to go out and do a teeny
bit of research and investigation. These folks are like the
Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, "If they only had a brain".
You show them evidence and all they do is scratch their ass
right between their eyeballs. "Evidence?" They say. "That can't
be evidence, it doesn't comply with what I believe." I have
all the admiration in the world for these folk's mothers.
It must have been an extraordinary job "potty training" them.
Even to this day some have not learned which end is input and
which end is output. Maybe someday I will learn how they
get output from both ends.
Anyway twitch, I have to give up on this one. He/she/it is
a lost cause. "The evidence is so overwhelming it would
shatter your life if you somehow had to believe it." Yep,
it prolly would shatter my life if I had to believe your
"evidence". Oh! By the way. What evidence? Did you
show any evidence? Nope just more excrement output.
Sorry twitch, you are on your own with this one, it seems
it doesn't have any capacity for learning. I am "wasting"
it's time, it is to busy to post ANY data or evidence, we
just have to believe it, because it said so.
Oh yeah!
Brian
On Thu, 05 Mar 1998 18:20:29 -0800, Harry Bosch <har...@chatlink.com>
wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
Hehhe, another Twitch clone. Since Twitch is unable to think for
himself, how worse off can his clones be. I gave you evidence and you
don't believe it, your loss not mine. And Huber, no doubt you'll read
this, don't bother wasting my time with those trivial questions, all
the important information and questions have been answered.
>
>Oh yeah!
>
>Regards,
>
>Harry
>--
>========================================
> "A five pound space ship made of sticks,
> and foil,and floral tape? Oh, my!"
> The Roswell debris.
> har...@chatlink.com
>========================================
--
twi...@worldnet.att.net
cyb...@nospam.worldnet.att.net (Brian) wrote:
Hehhe, not.
>Since Twitch is unable to think for
>himself, how worse off can his clones be.
Let's see, twitch examines the evidence, the real evidence
and now what it published in most popular books so that
makes him unable to think for himself.
Brian accepts what some popular authors say who are making a
killing off of Roswell and he thinks he thinks for himself.
Brian is one off-base dude.
>I gave you evidence and you
>don't believe it,
No, you don't give evidence. You post info you read in
popular books without even examining all of the
contradictions.
>your loss not mine. And Huber, no doubt you'll read
>this, don't bother wasting my time with those trivial questions, all
>the important information and questions have been answered.
>
Yep. Roswell tweren't a crashed alien spacecraft.