More Roswell - Silverminnow debunked again
Lou Minatti™
silve...@aol.com (Silvermako) wrote:
>From another news group (USAR List)
>
> MEDIA RELEASE
> (Not to be Released Prior to May 23, 1998)
>
> It has been announced by the University of Texas at Arlington that
>on June 1, 1998, a special exhibit will open in the Special Collections
>Section of the Main Library featuring super-enlargements of the more than
>half-century old famous Roswell UFO crash photographs.
>
> In making the announcement, Dr. Gerald D. Saxon, Associate
>Director for Special Collections, Branch Libraries and Programs,
>University Libraries, stated that the special exhibit will be offered in
>response to an unprecedented demand by the public to view at close range
>details of the newly enhanced photographs of the most famous and
>controversial UFO wreckage, which was "captured" by United States military
>forces near Roswell, New Mexico in 1947.
Dr. Saxon "stated" no such thing. No such "special exhibit" is planned
or scheduled. Did you even try contacting Dr. Saxon before spamming this
"MEDIA RELEASE", Silverminnow? It wasn't hard at all to find him. Took
me about 5 minutes of searching Yahoo.
> Dr. Saxon stated that photographic exhibits at the library usually
>are scheduled at least two years in advance, but that this special photo
>exhibit has been arranged on very short notice due to world wide attention
>once again being focused on the UTA Library following a recent
>announcement that it has finally been established that the photos are of
>portions of the actual Roswell crash debris.
Another great example of UFOology "research" in action. But don't just
take my word for it. Read what Dr. Saxon has to say:
"Lou, Thanks for your email. I haven't announced anything and we are not
planning a special exhibit on the Roswell photos. The
statement that there is a two-year planning cycle for exhibits at UTA is
accurate. Nothing else in the release you forwarded me is."
> Dr. Saxon said that due to a series of recent telephone calls
>being received at the library inquiring as to details of the library
>security system, that increased surveillance plans will be in effect.
>Visitors to the exhibit will not be permitted to bring into the library
>any purses or brief cases but that hand magnifying glasses will be
>allowed.
"Visitors to the exhibit will not be permitted to bring into the library
any purses or brief cases but that hand magnifying glasses will be
allowed." ROFL! Oh, the melodrama surrounding a nonexistent event! Oh,
mercy! And UFOologists wonder why scientists don't take them seriously.
--
My World has been redesigned to better serve your needs.
http://www.concentric.net/~Slaroche/
Includes all-new hate mail and Strange Foreign Objects!
Silvermako
>Dr. Saxon "stated" no such thing. No such "special exhibit" is planned<BR>
>or scheduled. Did you even try contacting Dr. Saxon before spamming this<BR>
>"MEDIA RELEASE", Silverminnow? It wasn't hard at all to find him. Took<BR>
>me about 5 minutes of searching Yahoo. <BR>
Sorry, Lou, but I didn't "spam" this in the Manatti/Imrie fashion, but
posted it on ONE ng of primary interest - this one - after finding it on
another list. Naturally, I will follow up on your research, since you are so
historically full of shit.
But in the interim, for once in your usenet life you did something
consructive, and will send your findings back to the source, while I check on
you myself. . I'll be more than a little pissed if the original "release"
turns out to be a hoax - I don't like being conned and ripped off either.
More later.
SM
Silvermako
> for once in your usenet life you did somethingconsructive, and will send>your
findings back to the source, while I check onyou myself. . I'll be more>than a
little pissed if the original "release" turns out to be a hoax - I>don't like
being conned and ripped off either.
This is Randle's response to the original report of the photos to be displayed
in Arlington. We should have confirmation of Roach's claim to have contacted
Dr. Saxon (you've got to double check everything disinformer Manatti says :-)),
and some information on the origin of the report shortly.
ubj: Re: UFOR: Roswell UFO Crash Photos (Response by Kevin Randle)
Date: 5/26/98 7:57:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: KRandle993 <KRand...@aol.com>
This is becoming one more annoyance in a case filled with them. The
following article is filled with misinformation and mistakes. It is being
widely circulated and it's time to set the record straight, one more time.
Actually, there is no way that these scans could prove this. All it could
prove is that the material in General Ramey's office was a balloon. It
does not debunk the cover up charge. In fact, this allegation comes from,
among others, Brigadier General Thomas J. DuBose who said that the weather
balloon story had been designed to get reporters off General Ramey's back.
He also said, "Actually it was a cover story, the balloon part of it. I
don't know whether it was McMullen [Major General Clements McMullen] or
Kalberer [Colonel Alfred Kalberer, 8th Air Force chief of intelligence] or
who, somebody cooked up the idea of this cover story... we'll use this
weather balloon. That was the direction we were told... We were told this
is the story that is to be given to the press, and that is it, and
anything else, forget it."
The balloon explanation may have come from Washington D.C., according to
DuBose. He did not know who originated the idea. It is clear from DuBose
that a weather balloon was substituted. (See above for exact quote.)
> The newly obtained, digitally enhanced photographs reveal for
The newly obtained, digitally enhanced photographs reveal for the
first time
Not true. Marcel said that the debris would not burn, that those who hit it
with a sledge hammer could not dent it. How can photographs establish this?
> couriered the wreckage from Roswell to Ramey's headquarters in Fort Worth.
> Other packages of the wreckage, still unopened, also appear in the photos
This is a new invention by Johnson, something that he didn't say originally. I
wonder if he also rifled Ramey's desk while he was there. Did he read Ramey's
letters or go through the file cabinents too? This is a ridiculous statement.
> I-beams, some of which included "hieroglyphic-like" characters, possibly
> depicting some unknown writing. One witness described the "figures" as
> similar to the petroglyphs the ancient Native Americans etched on rocks in
> the Roswell area.
How are these symbols, described as "hieroglyphic-like" and "similar to
petroglyphs" translated into the flower design on the tape allegedly used
on Project Mogul radar reflectors? Marcel Sr., when asked to draw what the
designs looked like produced nothing remotely similar to the tape. Marcel
Jr., when asked to draw what the designs looked like produced a single
symbol that could be considered "flower-like," but it does not resemble
those reportedly used on Mogul.
> Further, the witnesses described that some of the material, eventhough very
> thin, when crushed tended to "smooth-out" when released. There also was a
> quantity of black plastic looking material "which looked organic in nature
> that had either been melted or burned." Johnson also described the strong
> odor of burned debris when he was in the general's office with the wreckage.
These witnesses include Bill Brazel, Frankie Rowe and Sallye Tadolini. All
described a material that when wadded up would return to its original
shape with no sign of a wrinkle or a crease. What material are they
describing? Where was it to be found on a Project Mogul balloon train?
> Marcel said that the debris was scattered over a square mile of a ranch near
> Roswell. "It was something that must have exploded above ground and
> fell...it scattered all over."
First, Marcel was not retired from the Air Force but was discharged after
nine years of service. Second, although promoted to Lieutenant Colonel in
the reserve, he never wore that rank on active duty.
The quote, "they took a photo of me on the floor holding up some of the
less- interesting metallic debris," has been reported in three different
versions by Bill Moore. In fact, Marcel told reporter Johnny Mann, upon
examination of the photographs taken in Ramey's office said that they WERE
NOT of the debris that he had brought from Roswell.
> quite rigid and smooth, and the I-beams identical with the witnesses'
> descriptions. Marcel stated that the solid members were mostly square, "of
> varied lengths, and along the length of some of those they had little
> markings...two color markings as I can recall...like Chinese writing." His
> son described the markings as "flower-like" figures printed along the
> sticks.
Witnesses said that the beams were like balsa wood but were not. The
figures were not described by Marcel's son as "flower-like" but as
geometric symbols. And again, only a single symbol drawn by him could be
considered flower-like. The others were nothing like those flowers on the
Mogul tape.
> For some unknown reason, the writers decided that Ramey had
> concocted and executed a careful hoax. It was claimed that he sent the
> real UFO wreckage directly to Wright Field in Ohio for study and while
> the burning of a weather balloon and Rawin target. This fraudulent
> substitute was dispatched along with Major Marcel to 8th Air Force
> Headquarters in Fort Worth.
There is no unknown reason here. Colonel DuBose said as much on August 10,
1990 in video taped interviews that have been conveniently ignored here.
(See quotes mentioned above.) His statements to Billy Cox and published in
FLORIDA TODAY have been conveniently ignored. His statements to Don Ecker
of UFO magazine have been conveniently ignored. The reason it has been
stated is because many of those who were there and who were interviewed
said it.
> There, the bogus material was displayed in Ramey's office and the Star-
> Telegram was invited to send out a reporter-photographer to cover the story.
> Johnson was selected and dispatched by his editor with camera in hand. When
> Ramey told Johnson that he didn't know what the unimpressive looking debris
> was, Johnson took his pictures and left.
This is blatantly untrue. On February 27, 1989 Johnson told Kevin Randle,
"I took two pictures and then they said - but that time said, 前h, we've
found out what it is and you know, it's a weather balloon.
In a second interview conducted on March 24, 1989, Johnson told Randle, "I
posed General Ramey with this debris. At that time I was briefed on the
idea that it was not a flying disk as first reported but in fact was a
weather balloon."
Johnson now claims that he never made these statements, but they were
recorded on audio tape. He has copies of the tapes.
> No other media representatives were allowed to view the debris or to
> take any pictures. All these exotic actions apparently were taken
> solely to mislead and misinform one 21-year-old photographer-reporter.
> Later that day, Ramey summoned a weather officer, Warrant Officer Irving
> Newton, to his office and instructed him to agree that the debris
> displayed was only a "weather balloon" and Newton was then photographed
> by a military photographer holding portions of this debris.
This is demonstratably untrue. A picture was taken of Newton that was not
one of those taken by Johnson. It is clearly taken at a different time and
by a different photographer.
> Other Roswell writers have claimed that Marcel did accompany the actual
> debris to Fort Worth and was photographed by Johnson holding pieces of the
> wreckage. However, the actual debris was switched with the fake "weather
> balloon" before Ramey, Dubose and Newton were photographed. The new studies
> confirm that pieces of the wreckage seen in all the photos actually are
> identical.
Which is what most of those interested in the case have said all along.
The material in the photographs was a balloon. Had it not been for the
statements attributed to Marcel by Charles Berlitz and Bill Moore, there
would be no confusion about this. Moore has described his own book, in
which the quote surfaces for the first time as a "disgraceful hodgepodge
of fact and fiction."
These new studies were unnecessary to prove this point. And since it has
been claimed that the debris was switched BEFORE any photographs were
taken, the point is moot.
> General Ramey then quickly went to a Fort
> Worth radio station and announced > that his weather officer had decided
> that the Roswell crash was only a weather > balloon with an attached radar
> target. Also, a news release was distributed > to the press containing
> this false information. > > The press and the American public accepted the
> story based on the word of a > distinguished war-hero general. There
> never has been any reason given as to > why Ramey would have taken such a
> drastic and risky action to deceive the > press and the public in this
> very dramatic way.
Sure there has. General DuBose said "He [Major General Clements McMullen,
deputy commander of SAC] called me and said that I was... there was talk
of some elements that had been found on the ground outside of Roswell, New
Mexico... Nobody, and I must stress this, no one was to discuss it with
their wives, me with ramey, with anyone. The matter as far as we're
concerned was closed..."
McMullen told them to put out the fire as quickly as possible. This sounds
like a reason that General Ramey would take such an action.
> Vandenberg in Washington."
>
> Dubose: "Well, that's true. None of us knew what it was."
This is a direct contradiction of what DuBose was quoted as saying on
August 10, 1990. It could also be interpreted to mean that the material
found in Roswell was unidentified, but that the debris in Ramey's office
was not. Clearly the stuff on the floor is from a balloon and radar
detector.
> Dubose: "That's absolutely right."
And, if that is absolutely right, then the mystery has been solved. But
that is the point here. The material photographed was a balloon and no
matter how Shandera tries to spin the conversation, this is not what
DuBose told other investigators. Those comments are taped, but Shandera
has never shared a copy of his tape with anyone. In fact, both DuBose and
his wife said that Shandera did not tape the conversation and he didn't
take notes. What we have is Shandera's reconstruction of the conversation
based on his memories of it. There is no way to independently verify it.
> Shandera: "So not you or anyone else ever switched that material for
> Dubose: "We never switched anything. We were under orders from
> Washington to look at that material. We wouldn't have switched
> anything. We were West > Pointers -- we would never have done
> that." >
> Shandera: "But General Ramey did put out a cover story that it was a
> weather device."
> Dubose: "Yes. We were ordered to get the press off our backs --
> things were getting out of hand."
Shandera's interview is in direct conflict with what General DuBose told many
others including Billy Cox of FLORIDA TODAY. Cox, in a letter written after
his interviews with DuBose said that Shandera's report was the result of a
close questioning about a narrow point of view of an elderly man. That DuBose,
when asked general questions, suggested that the balloon in Ramey's office was
not the real debris found in Roswell. DuBose told investigators on video tape
that he had never seen the "real" debris. This suggests that what was
photographed on the floor was not the "real" stuff.
>
> Memories of witnesses may dim over the span of half a century and
more. But
> West Pointer General Dubose remembered that day in July of 1947 very
> accurately it now appears. But digitally enhanced, super-enlarged photos
> taken by a 21-year-old reporter-photographer provide even a more convincing
> record. The debris of the Roswell crash photographed in General Ramey's
> office is indeed genuine. General Ramey, General Dubose and Lt. Colonel
> Marcel all were telling the truth about the Roswell Incident of 1947. Their
> reputations remain intact! And now the public also will be able to view the
> famous photos and speculate for themselves whether debris is from an
> extraterrestrial spacecraft or some earthly earth device. Now that it has
> been established what the Roswell wreckage is NOT -- maybe modern technology
> can help to solve the half-century old mystery of what the Roswell debris in
> fact IS!
All the photographs can establish is that the wreckage in General Ramey's
office is of a weather balloon. If it was NOT the wreckage recovered
outside of Roswell, as has been said by a number of different witnesses,
then it proves nothing. You can blow up the pictures until they are
billboard sized, and they will still be of a balloon, which is exactly
what almost all of the researchers claim.
> released finally clearing General Ramey of any wrongdoing in handling the
> Roswell Incident.
No one ever suggested that General Ramey had done anything wrong. He was
following his lawful orders and he was protecting national security. This
statement is a red herring.
This whole thing is filled with inaccuracy, error and misinformation. And,
finding the symbols on the sticks, if the computer enhanced photos can be
believed has proved nothing. But remember, such photographs would not be
admissable in a court in some states because it is so easy to manipulate
photos with computers.
KRandle
----------------------------------------------
Lou Minatti
Silvermako wrote:
>
> >Dr. Saxon "stated" no such thing. No such "special exhibit" is planned<BR>
> >or scheduled. Did you even try contacting Dr. Saxon before spamming this<BR>
> >"MEDIA RELEASE", Silverminnow? It wasn't hard at all to find him. Took<BR>
> >me about 5 minutes of searching Yahoo. <BR>
>
> Sorry, Lou, but I didn't "spam" this in the Manatti/Imrie fashion, but
> posted it on ONE ng of primary interest - this one - after finding it on
> another list. Naturally, I will follow up on your research, since you are so
> historically full of shit.
I hear that UTA is opening an exhibit titled Silverminnow's Credibility.
"Visitors to the exhibit will not be permitted to bring into the library
any purses or brief cases but that hand magnifying glasses will be
allowed."
> But in the interim, for once in your usenet life you did something
> consructive, and will send your findings back to the source, while I check on
> you myself. . I'll be more than a little pissed if the original "release"
"Check on you myself." What the hell is that supposed to mean,
Silverminnow?
> turns out to be a hoax - I don't like being conned and ripped off either.
You've just described the entire "science" of UFOology.
> More later.
Oh boy.
Lou Minatti
I just noticed that you snipped out alt.ufo.reports. The topic is
Roswell - certainly of interest to UFO buffs, I'm sure you would agree.
alt.ufo.reports added back in.
Silvermako
>0>I just noticed that you snipped out alt.ufo.reports. The topic is<
>Roswell - certainly of interest to UFO buffs, I'm sure you wo
Roach, you are full of shit again, fantasizing. I say that because it's more
civilized than saying lying your ass off. There was never any alt.ufo.reports
address on that last post to snip. As you know from very vitriolic previous
discussions with Imrie and others, I don't spam to multiple newsgroups, and
couldn't if I wanted to.
My newsreader doesn't permit it. If a particular news item applies to more
than one ng, I may, but very rarely, post separately to the other group
.Certainly you can refresh your memory on all of that from dejanews.
Still talking through your underpants, huh, Lou?
I received telephone verification that the Roswell photgraphs will be
exhibited, according to his information, , less than an hour ago, in spite of
a great deal of reluctance to waste my time and energy checking out a
theoretically reliable news release posted on the net. Next step is to
contact Dr. Saxon myself, to A) verify the the phone verification B) Verify
you contacted him and C) verify that he said what you said he said,. rather
than distorting his words, as you have a habit of doing when trying to make a
point, if he will provide that information. Does that answer your question?
Sleep well, Roach
SilverMinnow - a big, vicious, voracious minnow with very sharp teeth <LOL>
.
Nick Humphries, via Deja News
In article <199805271933...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
silve...@aol.com (Silvermako) wrote:
>
> >Dr. Saxon "stated" no such thing. No such "special exhibit" is planned<BR>
> >or scheduled. Did you even try contacting Dr. Saxon before spamming
this<BR>
> >"MEDIA RELEASE", Silverminnow? It wasn't hard at all to find him. Took<BR>
> >me about 5 minutes of searching Yahoo. <BR>
>
> Sorry, Lou, but I didn't "spam" this in the Manatti/Imrie fashion, but
> posted it on ONE ng of primary interest - this one - after finding it on
> another list. Naturally, I will follow up on your research, since you are
so
> historically full of shit.
>
> consructive, and will send your findings back to the source, while I check
on
> you myself. . I'll be more than a little pissed if the original "release"
Looks like you picked the right hobby to be interested in...
And why are you contacting Randle when checking out what Saxon said or didn't
say? Why not do as Lou did and ask Saxon yourself?
Nick Humphries, via Deja News.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Matt Kriebel
In article <199805280237...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
silve...@aol.com (Silvermako) wrote:
>>0>I just noticed that you snipped out alt.ufo.reports. The topic is<
>>Roswell - certainly of interest to UFO buffs, I'm sure you wo
>
>Roach, you are full of shit again, fantasizing. I say that because it's more
>civilized than saying lying your ass off. There was never any alt.ufo.reports
>address on that last post to snip.
Ooops
Path:
netaxs.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master
From: Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.ufo.reports
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Subject: More Roswell - Silverminnow debunked again
Date: 26 May 1998 21:01:35 EDT
Organization: Proud member of THE ILK!®
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <356B64...@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: loumi...@yahoo.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts001d04.hou-tx.concentric.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; I)
Xref: netaxs.com sci.skeptic:377152 alt.ufo.reports:51246
silve...@aol.com (Silvermako) wrote:
<snip>
>I received telephone verification that the Roswell photgraphs will be
>exhibited, according to his information, , less than an hour ago, in spite of
>a great deal of reluctance to waste my time and energy checking out a
>theoretically reliable news release posted on the net.
Awwww, big bad skeptics made you actually confirm nonsense for a change?
That's too bad. Must be themind control we have over you to make actually
check out a fact for once.
> Next step is to
>contact Dr. Saxon myself, to A) verify the the phone verification B) Verify
>you contacted him and C) verify that he said what you said he said,. rather
>than distorting his words, as you have a habit of doing when trying to make a
>point, if he will provide that information. Does that answer your question?
Bluff city.
--
Matt Kriebel * The Hessian Web Page:
got...@netaxs.com* http://www.netaxs.com/~gothic/Hessian.html
*********************************************************************
The truth is out there, but the speculation is way, *way* out there.
Jamie Schrumpf
In article <199805272139...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
silve...@aol.com says...
>
[snip]
>Actually, there is no way that these scans could prove this. All it could
>prove is that the material in General Ramey's office was a balloon. It
>does not debunk the cover up charge. In fact, this allegation comes from,
>among others, Brigadier General Thomas J. DuBose who said that the weather
>balloon story had been designed to get reporters off General Ramey's back.
>
>He also said, "Actually it was a cover story, the balloon part of it. I
>don't know whether it was McMullen [Major General Clements McMullen] or
>Kalberer [Colonel Alfred Kalberer, 8th Air Force chief of intelligence] or
>who, somebody cooked up the idea of this cover story... we'll use this
>weather balloon. That was the direction we were told... We were told this
>is the story that is to be given to the press, and that is it, and
>anything else, forget it."
>
>The balloon explanation may have come from Washington D.C., according to
>DuBose. He did not know who originated the idea. It is clear from DuBose
>that a weather balloon was substituted. (See above for exact quote.)
Actually, it was a sigint balloon, intended for use over the Soviet Union. Of
course, the _weather_ balloon part was a coverup for (illegal) overflights of
Soviet territory, but it _was_ a balloon.
[snip]
>> Further, the witnesses described that some of the material, eventhough very
>> thin, when crushed tended to "smooth-out" when released. There also was a
>> quantity of black plastic looking material "which looked organic in nature
>> that had either been melted or burned." Johnson also described the strong
>> odor of burned debris when he was in the general's office with the wreckage.
>
>These witnesses include Bill Brazel, Frankie Rowe and Sallye Tadolini. All
>described a material that when wadded up would return to its original
>shape with no sign of a wrinkle or a crease. What material are they
>describing? Where was it to be found on a Project Mogul balloon train?
Sounds like mylar to me. No doubt in use by the military long before it hit
the local Hallmark card shop for birthday balloons...
[remainder snipped]
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Schrumpf http://www.access.digex.net/~moncomm
"No physicist started out impatient with commensense notions, eager to replace
them with some mathematical abstraction... Instead, they began, as we all do,
with comfortable, standard, commonplace notions. The trouble is that Nature
does not comply." -- Carl Sagan, _The Demon-Haunted World_
Lou Minatti
Silvermako wrote:
>
> >0>I just noticed that you snipped out alt.ufo.reports. The topic is<
> >Roswell - certainly of interest to UFO buffs, I'm sure you wo
>
> Roach, you are full of shit again, fantasizing. I say that because it's more
> civilized than saying lying your ass off. There was never any alt.ufo.reports
> address on that last post to snip.
Path:
netaxs.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master
From: Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.ufo.reports
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Subject: More Roswell - Silverminnow debunked again
I'm starting to wonder if you're just a troll, Silverminnow. Regardless,
you are definitely becoming killfile material.
> As you know from very vitriolic previous
> discussions with Imrie and others, I don't spam to multiple newsgroups, and
> couldn't if I wanted to.
> My newsreader doesn't permit it. If a particular news item applies to more
> than one ng, I may, but very rarely, post separately to the other group
> .Certainly you can refresh your memory on all of that from dejanews.
>
> Still talking through your underpants, huh, Lou?
>
> I received telephone verification that the Roswell photgraphs will be
> exhibited, according to his information, , less than an hour ago, in spite of
> a great deal of reluctance to waste my time and energy checking out a
> theoretically reliable news release posted on the net.
"Verification" from whom, nitwit?
> Next step is to
> contact Dr. Saxon myself, to A) verify the the phone verification B) Verify
> you contacted him and C) verify that he said what you said he said,. rather
> than distorting his words, as you have a habit of doing when trying to make a
> point, if he will provide that information. Does that answer your question?
Keerist you are a kook.
> Sleep well, Roach
>
> SilverMinnow - a big, vicious, voracious minnow with very sharp teeth <LOL>
Your teeth are just nubs.
Lou Minatti
Wow! I busted you snipping a newsgroup without stating you had done so
yet again! Naughty little Silverminnow, naughty! Not only are you a
liar, you're not even a good liar!
Silvermako wrote:
>
> >0>I just noticed that you snipped out alt.ufo.reports. The topic is<
> >Roswell - certainly of interest to UFO buffs, I'm sure you wo
>
> Roach, you are full of shit again, fantasizing. I say that because it's more
> civilized than saying lying your ass off. There was never any alt.ufo.reports
> address on that last post to snip.
Path:
netaxs.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master
From: Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.ufo.reports
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Subject: More Roswell - Silverminnow debunked again
I'm starting to wonder if you're just a troll, Silverminnow. Regardless,
you are definitely quickly becoming killfile material.
> As you know from very vitriolic previous
> discussions with Imrie and others, I don't spam to multiple newsgroups, and
> couldn't if I wanted to.
> My newsreader doesn't permit it. If a particular news item applies to more
> than one ng, I may, but very rarely, post separately to the other group
> .Certainly you can refresh your memory on all of that from dejanews.
>
> Still talking through your underpants, huh, Lou?
No, that's your forte.
> I received telephone verification that the Roswell photgraphs will be
> exhibited, according to his information, , less than an hour ago, in spite of
> a great deal of reluctance to waste my time and energy checking out a
> theoretically reliable news release posted on the net.
"Verification" from whom, nitwit?
> Next step is to
> contact Dr. Saxon myself, to A) verify the the phone verification B) Verify
> you contacted him and C) verify that he said what you said he said,. rather
> than distorting his words, as you have a habit of doing when trying to make a
> point, if he will provide that information. Does that answer your question?
Keerist you are a kook.
> Sleep well, Roach
>
> SilverMinnow - a big, vicious, voracious minnow with very sharp teeth <LOL>
Your teeth are just nubs. And those nubs have lots of cavities.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
silve...@aol.com (Silvermako) wrote:
<snip>
> Marcel
>Jr., when asked to draw what the designs looked like produced a single
>symbol that could be considered "flower-like," but it does not resemble
>those reportedly used on Mogul.
That is your opinion, but not Kent Jeffrey's opinion.
Newton is the person who first stated that the debris was
from a radar target.
"During the sessions in Washington, D.C., the professional
illustrator who was present drew a very accurate depiction
of what Jesse, Jr., remembered -- the "I-beam-like" member
with the symbols on it. After learning what a good
recollection of the symbols Newton had, I arranged for him
to work with the same illustrator so that we might have
side-by-side sketches from the same perspective for
comparison.
As it turned out, the resemblance between the two sketches
was remarkable. Even the artist commented that "it sure
seemed like these two men were describing the same thing."
Probably most amazing was the closeness of the color that
the two men remembered. Other than Newton's color being more
faded, the colors are nearly identical."
So if the debris was a radar target and the sketches are
similar, blooey goes your claim.
And, how many years afterwards was this? Now, what does all
the research into eyewitness testimony and memory say about
how accurate this is?
It is amazing that they symbols drawn are even close to each
other.
>
>> Further, the witnesses described that some of the material, eventhough very
>> thin, when crushed tended to "smooth-out" when released. There also was a
>> quantity of black plastic looking material "which looked organic in nature
>> that had either been melted or burned." Johnson also described the strong
>> odor of burned debris when he was in the general's office with the wreckage.
>
>These witnesses include Bill Brazel, Frankie Rowe and Sallye Tadolini. <snip>
But these statements disagree with the statements from
Bessie Brazel Schrieber. Her testimony agrees with her
father's statements.
Bill Brazel didn't live during this period at the ranch,
while Bessie helped her father pick up the debris.
Frankie Rowe's story is to put it mildly, suspect, etc.
And, according to Prof. Moore, a strong odor as described
was a characteristic of the technique that he used to make
the balloons more elastic and increase the flight time.
>
>> Marcel said that the debris was scattered over a square mile of a ranch near
>> Roswell. "It was something that must have exploded above ground and
>> fell...it scattered all over."
>
>First, Marcel was not retired from the Air Force but was discharged after
>nine years of service. Second, although promoted to Lieutenant Colonel in
>the reserve, he never wore that rank on active duty.
>
>The quote, "they took a photo of me on the floor holding up some of the
>less- interesting metallic debris," has been reported in three different
>versions by Bill Moore. In fact, Marcel told reporter Johnny Mann, upon
>examination of the photographs taken in Ramey's office said that they WERE
>NOT of the debris that he had brought from Roswell.
>
But in the motion picture UFOs are Real, Marcel said that
the reporters did see the real debris.
>> quite rigid and smooth, and the I-beams identical with the witnesses'
>> descriptions. Marcel stated that the solid members were mostly square, "of
>> varied lengths, and along the length of some of those they had little
>> markings...two color markings as I can recall...like Chinese writing." His
>> son described the markings as "flower-like" figures printed along the
>> sticks.
>
>Witnesses said that the beams were like balsa wood but were not. The
>figures were not described by Marcel's son as "flower-like" but as
>geometric symbols. And again, only a single symbol drawn by him could be
>considered flower-like. The others were nothing like those flowers on the
>Mogul tape.
Isn't it amazing how you can accept one statement but not
others? The symbols from the debris in Ramey's office
looked like the symbols drawn by Newton.
So are you know claiming that that was the real debris but
made to look like a radar target?
>
>> For some unknown reason, the writers decided that Ramey had
>> concocted and executed a careful hoax. It was claimed that he sent the
>> real UFO wreckage directly to Wright Field in Ohio for study and while
>> the burning of a weather balloon and Rawin target. This fraudulent
>> substitute was dispatched along with Major Marcel to 8th Air Force
>> Headquarters in Fort Worth.
>
>There is no unknown reason here. Colonel DuBose said as much on August 10,
>1990 in video taped interviews that have been conveniently ignored here.
As you ignore the other statements made by Gen. DuBose in
that same time period.
>(See quotes mentioned above.) His statements to Billy Cox and published in
>FLORIDA TODAY have been conveniently ignored. His statements to Don Ecker
>of UFO magazine have been conveniently ignored. <snip>
What about the two totally different versions of the tale
that DuBose told Ecker on the same day?
What was the age of DuBose in 1990?
>> There, the bogus material was displayed in Ramey's office and the Star-
>> Telegram was invited to send out a reporter-photographer to cover the story.
>> Johnson was selected and dispatched by his editor with camera in hand. When
>> Ramey told Johnson that he didn't know what the unimpressive looking debris
>> was, Johnson took his pictures and left.
>
>This is blatantly untrue. On February 27, 1989 Johnson told Kevin Randle,
>"I took two pictures and then they said - but that time said, 前h, we've
>found out what it is and you know, it's a weather balloon.
>
>In a second interview conducted on March 24, 1989, Johnson told Randle, "I
>posed General Ramey with this debris. At that time I was briefed on the
>idea that it was not a flying disk as first reported but in fact was a
>weather balloon."
>
>Johnson now claims that he never made these statements, but they were
>recorded on audio tape. He has copies of the tapes.
>
And, what type of interview technique was used during the
interviews?
Shortly after Johnson said he was uncertain whether Ramey's
explanation was true:
Randle: "They realized that it 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."
<snip.
>> Other Roswell writers have claimed that Marcel did accompany the actual
>> debris to Fort Worth and was photographed by Johnson holding pieces of the
>> wreckage. However, the actual debris was switched with the fake "weather
>> balloon" before Ramey, Dubose and Newton were photographed. The new studies
>> confirm that pieces of the wreckage seen in all the photos actually are
>> identical.
>
>Which is what most of those interested in the case have said all along.
>The material in the photographs was a balloon. Had it not been for the
>statements attributed to Marcel by Charles Berlitz and Bill Moore, there
>would be no confusion about this. <snip>
What about Marcel's statements in the flick?
Further, where did Ramey get an ML-307 radar target that was
a prototype?
That tape wasn't used on the production models but only
during the development. Project Mogul was using the
prototypes but no other project as there weren't very many
of them.
"In 1943, Major Fletcher was able to have a small number of
these early targets fabricated by small manufacturers in
Manhatten's garment district. ... there were problems with
the first production targets... Reportedly, the manufacturer
used some tape that he had in stock to make this
reinforcement. The tape, as Colonel Trakowski remembers,
was a source of amusement for him and Major Peterson because
it carried a pinkish purple abstract flower pattern on the
backing, which put some art onto utilitarian targets.
On 21 November 1944 the ML-307/AP modified target was
renamed ML-307B/AP... the usage of "Scotch Acetate Film,
Type AL as made by Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., St. Paul, or
equal" for reinforcting the laminated panel attachments."
So, after 21 November 1944, no flowered tape was used in the
manufacture of ML-307s.
So, where did Ramey get a number of ML-307 from the
preproduction prototype phase for the ML-307B model?
Preproduction prototypes are not issued to field troops for
operations!
<snip>
>> Vandenberg in Washington."
>>
>> Dubose: "Well, that's true. None of us knew what it was."
>
>This is a direct contradiction of what DuBose was quoted as saying on
>August 10, 1990. It could also be interpreted <snip>
And, it could also not be interpreted in that way.
>
>> Dubose: "That's absolutely right."
>
>And, if that is absolutely right, then the mystery has been solved. But
>that is the point here. The material photographed was a balloon<snip>
No. The material was several balloons and several radar
targets. The only project using trains of balloons and a
number of radar targets was Mogul.
<snip>
>All the photographs can establish is that the wreckage in General Ramey's
>office is of a weather balloon. If it was NOT the wreckage recovered
>outside of Roswell, as has been said by a number of different witnesses,
>then it proves nothing. You can blow up the pictures until they are
>billboard sized, and they will still be of a balloon, which is exactly
>what almost all of the researchers claim.
And, Marcel said that the reporters saw the real debris.
<snip>
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes,
our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot
alter the state of facts and evidence.
Silvermako
><BR>
>That is your opinion, but not Kent Jeffrey's opinion.<BR>
>Newton is the person who first stated that the debris was<BR>
>from a radar target.<BR>
><BR>
Twitch, let's get this straight for the benefit of all those l'il wannabe
skeptical debunkers out there. I know you're researched Roswell, and have an
amazing font of knowledge of techology around that time frame. I've learned to
respect your opinions over the years.
BUT - the above is not my opinion. I don't know. I wasn't there at Roswell.
Very few of us know anyone who was. I do know that I've had a lengthy career
in which I've had a LOT of exposure to ufos, including one very impressive
sighting, almost an encounter, and years of tracking the things. My
background's well publicized on dejanews for those unpleasantly self appointed
debunker kids who care to look.
What that's all about is (reiterating, as you know of my background): I know
that ufos not only exist, but have defied terrestial technology over the 46
years since I first witnessed a ufo track. For that reason, I am very
inclined to believe the original Roswell press release regarding a flying
saucer crash. - but I don't know for sure, nor does anyone else except those in
government agencies who know where the records and data are.
Basically, I've been tossing this new Roswell stuff out to get as much feedback
as possible, filtering out bullshit from the ego trippers like Lou Manatti and
kids who can't read a post and/or jump to ridiculous conclusions based upon
their highly inflated perception of their own knowledge, rather than
intelligent research. I have no patience with those types at all.
Hopefully, it presents some new perspectives to guys like you, and brings me
feedback from those who have researched it more than I. But the bottom line
remains, everything we think we know today is speculation. Only the Army and
Air Force have the facts and data - and I'm not even sure they know what's
where 51 years after the event.
Among the more recent revelations is the possibility of contemporary technology
being the result of back engineering extraterrestial technology dating back to
at least WW2. Corso's book advocates that, of course, but a lot of others have
been preaching the same gospel - unfortunatley including ACC. Since my own
career involved field operations, than program management and mgt systems,
intiatally in space track radars, then manned space systems, reentry vehicles,
propulsion systems, and finally satellite and lightwave commnications systems,
I was rarely involved in pure engineering in the applied research, design, and
development disciplines. My concerns involved the functional suitablility,
maintenance and support of end items in the operational phase of the
systems/acquistion life cycle. I therfore don't know the origin of some of our
technological breakthroughs, but am enlightened enough to know that they often
pushed far beyond state of the art, to the point where I think Corso's claims
regarding back engineering of extraterrestial hardware have some credibility.
Again, neither I nor any concerned individual not directly involved in the
events or subsequent coverups knows these answers for sure - and hope above all
that I do have the opportunity to see some of those answers fall out before I
check out of this incarnation.
Incidentally, did you ever locate that book I mentioned eons ago,
Secrets of Cold War Technology, Project HAAR and Beyond, relative to HAARP and
the evolution of related technology since WW2? Based upon previous discussion,
IMO you're familiar with a lot of the content, but it's still a worthwhile
resource.
SilverMako
Silvermako
>And why are you contacting Randle when checking out what Saxon said or
And why don't you read the posts and pay attention to what they're saying?
Where did you ever get the idea that I contacted Randle? Go back and read
Randle's response to the intiial news release carefully, so that you understand
what it is and what it says. . One of the first qualifications for intelligent
scepticism is the ability a read and assimilate information. You might also
read my previous post regarding contacting Dr. Saxon - and Texas Arlington.
SM.
Silvermako
Read the post, Lou. No snips. You're full of shit, as usual.
>BR>
>I'm starting to wonder if you're just a troll, Silverminnow. Regardless,<BR>
>you are definitely quickly becoming killfile material.<
Sherilyn's already promised to killfile me - obviously I got to him after
shooting him down in several areas over the past few years, and severely
damaged his ego. The difference between you and sherilyn is Sherilyn's got a
functioning brain - aside from that, you're both playing around these
newsgroups on very tiresome ego trips.
If that truth hurts you all that much, Roach, kill file away :-).
I'm posting a lot of stuff lately hoping for feedback from knowledgeable
people, but can't resist exposing you bullshit artists playing the same tired
old games. . I suppose that's trolling in a sense. Like I said, kill file
away - that way you won't have to get yo' po' li'l ol' se'f all bent out of
shape about mean old minnows tearing chunks out of your tender ass.
SilverMinnow - the big ol' nasty 230 lb minnow with big ol' nasty shark teeth
<roflmao>
.
Lou Minatti
alt.ufo.reports added back in.
Silvermako wrote:
>
> Read the post, Lou. No snips. You're full of shit, as usual.
From: Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.ufo.reports
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Subject: More Roswell - Silverminnow debunked again
> >BR>
> >I'm starting to wonder if you're just a troll, Silverminnow. Regardless,<BR>
> >you are definitely quickly becoming killfile material.<
>
> Sherilyn's already promised to killfile me - obviously I got to him after
> shooting him down in several areas over the past few years, and severely
> damaged his ego. The difference between you and sherilyn is Sherilyn's got a
> functioning brain - aside from that, you're both playing around these
> newsgroups on very tiresome ego trips.
Yup. We debunk your bunk. And it's so easy to do so.
> If that truth hurts you all that much, Roach, kill file away :-).
Getting ready to. Your posts are useless. At least Earl is funny. You're
just a bore.
> I'm posting a lot of stuff lately hoping for feedback from knowledgeable
> people, but can't resist exposing you bullshit artists playing the same tired
> old games. . I suppose that's trolling in a sense. Like I said, kill file
> away - that way you won't have to get yo' po' li'l ol' se'f all bent out of
> shape about mean old minnows tearing chunks out of your tender ass.
Problem is, your teeth are dull and full of cavities.
> SilverMinnow - the big ol' nasty 230 lb minnow with big ol' nasty shark teeth
> <roflmao>
Lou Minatti
Silvermako wrote:
>
> ><BR>
> >That is your opinion, but not Kent Jeffrey's opinion.<BR>
> >Newton is the person who first stated that the debris was<BR>
> >from a radar target.<BR>
> ><BR>
>
> Twitch, let's get this straight for the benefit of all those l'il wannabe
> skeptical debunkers out there. I know you're researched Roswell, and have an
> amazing font of knowledge of techology around that time frame. I've learned to
> respect your opinions over the years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Imrie is a debunker! Three cheers for Imrie! (Re:
Evidence)
From: silve...@aol.com (Silvermako)
Date: 1997/05/19
Message-ID: <19970519170...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
<snip>
You can't, Twitch, and based upon your other fun and games since I've
been
following these ngs, you're either too lazy or lack the competence to do
your own research. I suspect it's the former. Until you come up with
that example, citing the studies, researchers, research scenarios and
final
reports, you remain full of shit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't sound like much respect going on!
> BUT - the above is not my opinion. I don't know. I wasn't there at Roswell.
> Very few of us know anyone who was. I do know that I've had a lengthy career
> in which I've had a LOT of exposure to ufos, including one very impressive
> sighting, almost an encounter, and years of tracking the things. My
> background's well publicized on dejanews for those unpleasantly self appointed
> debunker kids who care to look.
Indeed, thanks to DejaNews we can easily discover what an unpleasant,
consistently incorrect UFO buff you really are.
> What that's all about is (reiterating, as you know of my background): I know
> that ufos not only exist, but have defied terrestial technology over the 46
> years since I first witnessed a ufo track. For that reason, I am very
> inclined to believe the original Roswell press release regarding a flying
> saucer crash. - but I don't know for sure, nor does anyone else except those in
> government agencies who know where the records and data are.
You're not exactly a stellar witness for the accuracy of UFOology,
Silverminnow. I doubt very much you've convinced any of us heathen
skeptics.
> Basically, I've been tossing this new Roswell stuff out to get as much feedback
> as possible, filtering out bullshit from the ego trippers like Lou Manatti and
> kids who can't read a post and/or jump to ridiculous conclusions based upon
> their highly inflated perception of their own knowledge, rather than
> intelligent research. I have no patience with those types at all.
Intelligent research... you mean like posting a phony "Media Release"
without bothering to do even basic fact-checking?
> I have no patience with those types at all.
You don't have any patience with those who debunk your posts.
<usual X-Files paranoia snipped>
John C. Kalinowski
Silverfish is a troll.
A tiny little insect that pisses everyone off and pisses on every thread
that he enters. Full of shit, nasty and abusive, threatening at times. I
usually just skip the little prick and any thread that he enters.
I suggest that everyone ignore the moron and eventually he will leave.
THE MAGIC 8-BALL SAYS- He's a dickhead
twi...@worldnet.att.net
silve...@aol.com (Silvermako) wrote:
>><BR>
>>That is your opinion, but not Kent Jeffrey's opinion.<BR>
>>Newton is the person who first stated that the debris was<BR>
>>from a radar target.<BR>
>><BR>
>
>Twitch, let's get this straight for the benefit of all those l'il wannabe
>skeptical debunkers out there. I know you're researched Roswell, and have an
>amazing font of knowledge of techology around that time frame. I've learned to
>respect your opinions over the years.
>
>BUT - the above is not my opinion.
I didn't say it was. You just posted it.
<snip>
>What that's all about is (reiterating, as you know of my background): I know
>that ufos not only exist, but have defied terrestial technology over the 46
>years since I first witnessed a ufo track.
Well, we have found lots of them were hoaxes and
misinterpretations.
>For that reason, I am very
>inclined to believe the original Roswell press release regarding a flying
>saucer crash. - but I don't know for sure, nor does anyone else except those in
>government agencies who know where the records and data are.
Do you believe the original Roswell press release regarding
the fact that it was also an "instrument"?
<snip>
>Incidentally, did you ever locate that book I mentioned eons ago,
>Secrets of Cold War Technology, Project HAAR and Beyond, relative to HAARP and
>the evolution of related technology since WW2? Based upon previous discussion,
> IMO you're familiar with a lot of the content, but it's still a worthwhile
>resource.
>
Nope. I am so far behind in my reading that I wonder if
I'll ever catch up. I'm looking at Project Sign reports and
things like some of the FBI memos now.
And my wife insists that I spend sometime each day working
on our next book.