I lived in Alamogordo New Mexico for over 10 years. I had a ufo sighting near White Sands Missile Range in 1995. This picture is the crashed disk that I found using satellite photography from the USGS satellite. It is located on the White Sands Missile Range and they built an underground facility next to it. Also they have a tunnel that goes threw the mountain to the NASA Johnson Space Center on the other side of the mountain. This is located at the spot I had my sighting. Also I have verified that strange things are there by people I have talked to that worked at the sight. It is just off of HWY 70 just east of Las Cruces New Mexico. I have a theory that this is one of the Disks that our government found and they are trying to back engineer it. If you look at the spot where the scrape is you can see the partial disk where it hit the ground and scraped up some dirt. It is in black and white so it is hard to see. You have to know what you are looking for. Also that area is marked with all kinds of signs warning trespassers. This is real. I have a theory that this is one of the two disks that crashed in 1947 during the Roswell incident. They stated that two disks collided and one was found as debris and the other one was recovered mostly intact. The Military said that the other disk was recovered just north east of Roswell well if you are the Military and you want to hide something you send them in the opposite direction. This location is located South West of Roswell and the land that it is on was taken from a rancher in 1947 and made into what is now known as the experimental test group located just North of White Sands Missile Range. I think that they forgot to block this imagery from the public. They have blurred out some of the picture but you can still tell what it is. If you need the exact longitude and latitude I can get it for you. Also The disk shaped object in this picture is on the back side of a little mountain. The path that the government built up the front side of the hill to access the site is very clear. Also notice the rock wall they built that surrounds the crash site.
Longitude -106.51714
Lattitude 32.4689830
Let me know what you think.

Also they have a tunnel that goes threw the mountain to the NASA Johnson Space Center on the other side of the mountain.

LOL what a crackpot...those two locations are a state and half away from each other. Do you know how big Texas is?

I love that fact that he doesn't post a pic of his "evidence" here either.

Let me know what you think.
Without even a teensy-weensy bit of evidence what you have presented has to be considered pure nonsense.
Also, poor syntax and incorrect spelling do not help your case. If this post is important to you, why would you be so sloppy about presenting it? If you can't take the time to get it right, why should we take the time to consider it?

<TABLE WIDTH="600" BORDER="1" VSPACE="0" HSPACE="0" CELLPADDING="10" CELLSPACING="0" ALIGN="CENTER">
<TR>
<TD>
Since we seem to be on the subject of weird theorums without any evidence I thought I would introduce one to you that I created. Marvel, Laugh or Ignore it, I care not, however when I first came up with the theory, some rather bizarre things occured in my life that I've gone over on more than one occasion.

<IMG SRC="Http://chatsoba.sprawl-vr.com/images/paradox.jpg" WIDTH="488" HEIGHT="312">

The above image is very simplistic in detail, however it will require a little explaining.
As mentioned there is a timeline, which a point symbolised by a red Square is the "Roswell Incident", further along the timeline is the Seti "WOW" signal... I mention this signal because an important occurance in my life occured around that point in time (so important that if something went wrong I wouldn't have existed).

The Dashed Triangle signifies a "Paradoxal shift" or "Quantum Event". I can't assign an exact date within a timeline here, however it could be suggested that the realisation of how causality works and my relationship to the future from current events from Relativity allowed me to conceive that with the right choices made at the right times I could have been busy working on a clandestine project that involved generating one of the largest Paradoxes/Quantum Jumps in history. However the nature of such paradoxal work would suggestibly cause alot of backstabbing and disgruntledness amongst countries that would have seen their secrecy acts quashed because of such experimentation led to the paradox of me only embarking on the paradoxes creation "As a singularity".

That point in time was important because as time goes on the universe has paradoxes occur where my paths deviate (in the diagram I show one, however in the real universe it could be many universes)

In the future at the hexagon, in one universe I complete the paradox project to be sent back to Roswell 1947, however in the universe I'm currently in I don't do that. Sparing me the life of torment from Researchers, Corporates, PR and of course Governments that want
the use of such technology (And I actually get to laugh at the accomplishment).

(The aspect of this multitude of universal deviations is what I suggest would have created the WOW signal which would probably resinate from the point in Universal Coords that the paradox project would eventually embark upon it's epic journey. Since I would have to exist
for these paradoxes to occur, and the fact that 1947 is before my lifetime [Namely a Grandfather Paradox] it would suggest that the universe would have had a universal distortion from that location.

Also due to the multiverse concept, more than one project could have attempted to go back to the same timepoint which would have been before any deviation, Ergo the collision of the same but yet different craft.)

Now admittedly I'm not expecting you to believe, in fact I'm not even going to bother trying to prove, but it had me in stitches(laughing) just realising the possibilities if such a concept did indeed occur.

For instance "Mind over Matter", or the fact that a "future" project that would eventually exist by definition of Causality, it could in fact come into being "before your existance on this planet".

So you get to enjoy the fruits of you labour before you labour.

I would go into more details, however there is no real need since it matters not if it's right or wrong, it's just a theorum.
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>

Also they have a tunnel that goes threw the mountain to the NASA Johnson Space Center on the other side of the mountain.

LOL what a crackpot...those two locations are a state and half away from each other. Do you know how big Texas is?

I love that fact that he doesn't post a pic of his "evidence" here either.
The http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1997/ar5.html Lyndon B. Johnson space center is on the other side of the mountain it is a Satalite tracking station. Maby you are thinking of the Johnson Space center that is in Huston Texas. Also I did upload a PIC however it dose not seem to appear I will try to upload again.

There may be something with the name "Johnson" on the other side of your mountain, but the Johnson Space Center is in Texas, as blackholesun said. The Kennedy Space Center is in Florida.

Without even a teensy-weensy bit of evidence what you have presented has to be considered pure nonsense.
Also, poor syntax and incorrect spelling do not help your case. If this post is important to you, why would you be so sloppy about presenting it? If you can't take the time to get it right, why should we take the time to consider it?
Sorry about the spelling. Click on the link to se the Photo. I will try to improve.

I think that they forgot to block this imagery from the public. They have blurred out some of the picture but you can still tell what it is.
They've done a pretty good job of blocking it from me. It would take a lot of imagination to see a "disk-shaped object" in that picture. And why do you think they would take the troble to blur out the buildings (I presume) and then forget to blur out the "UFO"? Maybe because they didn't see it either?

Also they have a tunnel that goes threw the mountain to the NASA Johnson Space Center on the other side of the mountain.

LOL what a crackpot...those two locations are a state and half away from each other. Do you know how big Texas is?

I love that fact that he doesn't post a pic of his "evidence" here either.
Just click on the link at the end of the text to see the pic.

Also they have a tunnel that goes threw the mountain to the NASA Johnson Space Center on the other side of the mountain.

That may be. What's the source of your information that verifies/supports this contention?

Also I have verified that strange things are there by people I have talked to that worked at the sight.

Anecdotal "verification" is hardly verification. It only confirms that others believe they saw something.

If you look at the spot where the scrape is you can see the partial disk where it hit the ground and scraped up some dirt. [...] They have blurred out some of the picture but you can still tell what it is. [...] Also The disk shaped object in this picture is on the back side of a little mountain.
http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3561&stc=1

That's not a scrape, it's a region of higher reflectivity due to the angle of the ground toward the sun. Just to the left of the higher contrasted area is a distint shadow, followed by another light area (a hill rising up to meet the sun again) and another shadow. Together, these shadows create a "disk shape" because the hills are tapered on the left/right edges fo the sun's illumination. The area isn't "blurred out," it's simply not showing higher detail because of the contrast limitations.

If you check the source of the image, I'll bet you find that it was taken either early or late in the day.

Besides, cammo net technology is contemporary (at least!) to satelite imagery. Not only would they have erected them to hide the alleged disk, but they would have wanted shade to work in!

Are you talking about region 1, 2, or 3 in the pic below?

<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3565&stc=1>

Are you talking about region 1, 2, or 3 in the pic below?

<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3565&stc=1>
In region one I referred to the scrape area as I thought others would see it. It would appear that some camo is being used here and this accounts for the blurring in the image. I do not believe that it was a result of editing the image. The photo is not conclusive and warrants further investigation. I have some pictures of the signs at the gate to the site and pictures from the highway. I tried to charter a plane to fly over the site however it is restricted airspace. I am currently trying to acquire better imagery of the site.

I'd suggest going to a good photo analyst prior to chartering a plane... they're cheaper.

The dark areas (two) are the results of shadows from the hills. The right-most shadow is in the saddle of the two hills, the hill on the right being the largest and probably the tallest. In sat photos like this, the blurry areas are often the result of resolution limitations. The differences in data available to the optics wasn't significant enough in contrast. This occurs in regions that receive significant illumination or shadow: less detail will be evident in each.

For the image above, region one is indicative of this effect. The "blurry" area isn't the result of edit or "cammo nets," but rather a brighter spot than the surrounding terrain.

What's the lat/long of the site?

I'd suggest going to a good photo analyst prior to chartering a plane... they're cheaper.

The dark areas (two) are the results of shadows from the hills. The right-most shadow is in the saddle of the two hills, the hill on the right being the largest and probably the tallest. In sat photos like this, the blurry areas are often the result of resolution limitations. The differences in data available to the optics wasn't significant enough in contrast. This occurs in regions that receive significant illumination or shadow: less detail will be evident in each.

For the image above, region one is indicative of this effect. The "blurry" area isn't the result of edit or "cammo nets," but rather a brighter spot than the surrounding terrain.

What's the lat/long of the site?

Longitude -106.51714
Lattitude 32.4689830

Also area 2 is a dirt road going up the front face of the hill and area 3 is a very large antena that they have at the site and it is visiable from hwy 70 at night when you drive by the site there are alot of lights at the site indicating alot of activity at the site. If you look at the upper corner of the object in figure one you will see a blured circle looking thing I believe it is a helicopter flying over the site.

As of March 30, 2003, this is what's at that lat/long:

<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3566&stc=1">

Larger resolution and off-center of the lat/long you gave (in a SW direction).

<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3567&stc=1">

As of March 30, 2003, this is what's at that lat/long:

<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3566&stc=1">

Larger resolution and off-center of the lat/long you gave (in a SW direction).

<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3567&stc=1">
This is the area as terraserver shows it.
http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3568&stc=1
Look at this closer photo it is as good as I can get it so far.
http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3569&stc=1

The actual lat/long you want is: Lat 32.46500 Long -106.50100

Here are two 1998 sat photos:

<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3570&stc=1">

<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3571&stc=1">

Its a hill-saddle-HILL arrangement like I said.... Now go to bed. :cool:

The actual lat/long you want is: Lat 32.46500 Long -106.50100

Here are two 1998 sat photos:

<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3570&stc=1">

<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3571&stc=1">

Its a hill-saddle-HILL arrangement like I said.... Now go to bed. :cool:

SkinWalker your photo is worse than my immage. The object has right angle structure and due to the many paths and roads cut in around it proves that it has some value to the military. I am looking for imagery form another Satalite. The immage from 1998 is from the USGS.

Ha! Hills are always of value to the military :)

All kidding aside, you're really digging deep to see anything but a hill here. The two creeks above and below it and the erosional patterns on the SE side are consistent with the contours of the region.

I traped about much of White Sands and will attest to the fact there are many such hills with roads on and around them. White Sands uses much of the reserve for training of US Army ground troops as well as firing missiles of all sorts.

But you're right, the image is from USGS aerial photo, not satellite. If you click on this link, (http://terraserver.homeadvisor.msn.com/image.aspx?t=1&s=12&x=448&y=4491&z=13&w=1) you'll see another link for "Topo Map 1 Jul 1994 (http://terraserver.homeadvisor.msn.com/image.aspx?t=2&s=12&x=448&y=4491&z=13&w=1)" where you'll even see the contour of the hill itself!

Its a hill.

Ha! Hills are always of value to the military :)

All kidding aside, you're really digging deep to see anything but a hill here. The two creeks above and below it and the erosional patterns on the SE side are consistent with the contours of the region.

I traped about much of White Sands and will attest to the fact there are many such hills with roads on and around them. White Sands uses much of the reserve for training of US Army ground troops as well as firing missiles of all sorts.

But you're right, the image is from USGS aerial photo, not satellite. If you click on this link, (http://terraserver.homeadvisor.msn.com/image.aspx?t=1&s=12&x=448&y=4491&z=13&w=1) you'll see another link for "Topo Map 1 Jul 1994 (http://terraserver.homeadvisor.msn.com/image.aspx?t=2&s=12&x=448&y=4491&z=13&w=1)" where you'll even see the contour of the hill itself!

Its a hill.

I lived in the area for over 10 years this area is very arid and only recives three inches of rainfall per year. The object is crashed into the backside of a small mountain the roads you see above it are the crest of the top of the mauntain where no water would run. The area that looks like a scrape is the natural landscape that has been disturbed in a North South direction all the watershed at this site runs in a west to east direction. This is not a natural formation. Eye whitness from the Roswell incendent have stated that the disk was crashed into the back side of a mountain or hill and there were several dirt roads cut into the area surrounding it bingo. Also I think that it is very strange that the signs at the entrance to the site warn of danger from strong electromagnetic pulse now what is up with that?

>>>>Also I think that it is very strange that the signs at the entrance to the site warn of danger from strong electromagnetic pulse now what is up with that?

radar?

plus, has nothing happened in ufo circles since roswell nearly 60 years ago? i thought roswell had been debunked well enough for it to be a non-issue by now.

Starman, I trust you haven't invested to much of yourself in this 'project'. SkinWalker has proved, with minimal effort and consumate skill, what others assumed was the case.
"I lived in the area for over 10 years this area is very arid and only recives three inches of rainfall per year."
That's an average rainfall. Have you heard of flash floods?
"Eye witness from the Roswell incindent have stated that the disk was crashed into the back side of a mountain or hill and there were several dirt roads cut into the area surrounding it."
And just how many desert areas are there in the US with dirt roads crossing them? Your implication is that this is rare. Prove that please.

It's still a hill. Regardless of your opinion of the rainfall in the region, the erosion on the hill is obvious and it does ocurr. In fact, I was on White Sands durring a torrent in '95. It wasn't fun and there was significant flash-flooding.

The EM warnings are likely due to EMP testing, which I know for fact occurred (or occurs) on WS. EMP is, after all, of military importance. Both as a weapon and as a need to develop shielding for electronics in the event an enemy employs an EMP weapon or nuclear device. You can't exactly test these things near the main post or in populated areas.

You're reaching and relying on a belief system to support your conclusions. The belief that an alien spacecraft crashed into the NM desert and that the military covered it up.

Looking at the photos, all that can be discerned is a hill. Unless, of course, one employs his imagination.

Its a hill.

It's still a hill. Regardless of your opinion of the rainfall in the region, the erosion on the hill is obvious and it does ocurr. In fact, I was on White Sands durring a torrent in '95. It wasn't fun and there was significant flash-flooding.

The EM warnings are likely due to EMP testing, which I know for fact occurred (or occurs) on WS. EMP is, after all, of military importance. Both as a weapon and as a need to develop shielding for electronics in the event an enemy employs an EMP weapon or nuclear device. You can't exactly test these things near the main post or in populated areas.

You're reaching and relying on a belief system to support your conclusions. The belief that an alien spacecraft crashed into the NM desert and that the military covered it up.

Looking at the photos, all that can be discerned is a hill. Unless, of course, one employs his imagination.

Its a hill.

I agree with you 100% also It is my belief that we did recover debris from a alien craft in 1947. Why if this is a crashed disk, did they not relocate it to somewhere they could study it. Also this area is where they fly alot of drons and alot of things come crashing down around this site. If it turns out to be some kind of experimental craft that we built it would not shock me. If it turns out to be a rock or part of the terrain then I will except that. I however would like the chance to visit the site to take a look. Do you think they will let me? I have a phone number for the base commander should I call and ask to visit the site?

Skin Walker you are awsome your input has been appreciated and I thank you for your time to respond on this topic.

Your best bet to visit the site might be to go through fish & game. Most bases, I'd bet WS included, have Fish & Game/Wildlife Management divisions. Hunters and anglers have ability to gain access with the right permits & licenses in the right seasons. You might even get a chance under the aspices of photographing, examing the wildlife of the two creeks after flash flooding.

Good luck.

plus, has nothing happened in ufo circles since roswell nearly 60 years ago? i thought roswell had been debunked well enough for it to be a non-issue by now.


Oh dear....

By the way, i never knew Roswell was "debunked" unless you mean the "weather balloon?" :)

Oh dear....

By the way, i never knew Roswell was "debunked" unless you mean the "weather balloon?" :)

I find it funny that people fall for the whole Roswell cover up. The first story was the truth and the government did not do a very good job of covering it up. They forgot to kill all the eye whitneses.

>>>> They forgot to kill all the eye whitneses.

what eye witnesses did they kill? reputable refereneces please.

>>>> They forgot to kill all the eye whitneses.

what eye witnesses did they kill? reputable refereneces please.

I think he means, they forgot to kill all the eye witneses, as in they didint kill any of the eye witneses but they should have/forgot to.

I think he means, they forgot to kill all the eye witneses, as in they didint kill any of the eye witneses but they should have/forgot to.

Speaking of Roswell here is a memo that General Ramey was holding in his hand while he was possing for the photo op on the ballon cover up story.
http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3574&stc=1

Now upon futher inhancement this is part of that memo
http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3575&stc=1
If it was a weather ballon why does Rameys memo mention a disc?

The memo instructs Ramey to ship the recovered items to Patterson and to do a press release on the balloon cover story.

LOL....i guess he posts images of his monitor showing blurry photos because of one thing....its all BS! I'm willing to bet the real "source" looks nothing like that.

LOL....i guess he posts images of his monitor showing blurry photos because of one thing....its all BS! I'm willing to bet the real "source" looks nothing like that.

This was a still immage from the documentry The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence that aired on the Sci Fi Channel. Here is a cool link if you want to check it out.

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/

I did try looking for a better image blow up incase the one in use there was doctored, you have to take into account the amount of fake information that is floating about that hasn't be generated by government conspirators but by people that just want to deliver to the world that smoking gun.

(Such as the Alien Autopsy film, or even pictures of the LochNess Monster)

Especially when there is such sites that contan historical evidence that would explain Roswell all too easily for most to accept:
http://www.gl.iit.edu/wadc/History/Roswell/

I did try looking for a better image blow up incase the one in use there was doctored, you have to take into account the amount of fake information that is floating about that hasn't be generated by government conspirators but by people that just want to deliver to the world that smoking gun.

(Such as the Alien Autopsy film, or even pictures of the LochNess Monster)

Especially when there is such sites that contan historical evidence that would explain Roswell all too easily for most to accept:
http://www.gl.iit.edu/wadc/History/Roswell/


I think it is funny that the link you are refferencing uses events from 1955 to explain the Roswell incedent in 1947. You can tell that they had a limmited budget for that cover story. Also the only reason everyone talks about Roswell is because that was the center of publicity for the incedent. The crash site was closer to Corona New Mexico. Corona is alot further west of Roswell. There is a greate deal more credible evedence for the crash of an alien spacecraft of the Roswell incedent than there is against it.

I think its funny that people are so willing to believe in grandiose conspiracies based on anecdotal accounts from a period in American history when hysteria occurred over an Orson Wells radio broadcast.

There is zero credible evidence to support a crash of alien spacecraft anywhere, much less in Roswell, NM. Anecdotal account alone doesn't qualify as credible evidence.

>>>> They forgot to kill all the eye whitneses.

what eye witnesses did they kill? reputable refereneces please.

Witness Testimony


There seems to be no conventional explanation that squares with the statements found in Gen. Ramey's memo. But when we look at the contents of the message in conjunction with witness testimony, the evidence clearly points to an actual flying saucer crash, as astonishing as this conclusion may seem to many.


This testimony is gone into in much greater detail elsewhere in this Website.

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/

It consists primarily of numerous and consistent descriptions of highly anomalous debris and to a much lesser extent of alien bodies. Here are a few key witnesses:


Major Jesse Marcel: Then the intelligence chief at Roswell and the first to investigate sheep rancher Mack Brazel's find, Marcel confirmed in a number of interviews 30 years later that the crash debris had highly anomalous properties and was "not of this Earth." Marcel also spoke of Ramey's weather balloon cover-up at Fort Worth. Click on link to Marcel for more information on his service record, which belies efforts of debunkers to paint him as hysterical and incompetent. Note particularly highly laudatory post-Roswell evaluations by base commander Col. William Blanchard, Gen. Ramey, and future USAF Chief of Staff Col. John Ryan. New! Marcel's testimony on anomalous debris.
Marcel's sighting before Roswell & other witnesses seeing saucer explode.


Bill Brazel Jr.: Rancher Mack Brazel's son, Bill Brazel independently corroborated many details of Marcel's testimony, including the strange debris, the large, elongated debris field, and his father's story of an explosion in the middle of a violent electrical storm. (Brazel's testimony on debris) New!


Louis Rickett: One of the regular Army CIC agents in Marcel's office, Rickett confirmed the anomolous quality of the debris, a major cleanup operation at Brazel's ranch, high secrecy, and being involved in a subsequent investigation to determine the trajectory of the craft. He was also told by others about the shape of the main craft. (Rickett's testimony on debris) New!


Brig. Gen. Arthur Exon: Though not a direct participant, Exon was stationed at Wright Field at the time, overflew the area soon afterwards, and was later commanding officer of Wright-Patterson AFB. Exon when first interviewed flatly stated, "Roswell was the recovery of a craft from space." Among other things, he confirmed the existence of two main crash sites. Exon also said he heard that bodies were recovered and confirmed the debris was highly anomalous based on testing done by labs at Wright-Patterson. Exon added that he was aware of other crash-recoveries that occurred while he was C/O at Wright-Patterson. Click on link to see Exon's Air Force biography and some of his testimony. (Also testimony in debris section)


New! (Added April 26, 2003)
Brig Gen. Steven Lovekin (served in the Eisenhower and Kennedy White Houses) Although like Exon not a direct participant, Lovekin is yet another high ranking officer talking about being told of crashed New Mexico saucers, of being shown a metallic beam with symbols from a 1947 N.M. crash (presumably Roswell) at a Pentagon briefing in 1959, and also of either 3 or 5 aliens being recovered, one initially alive. He also said he was shown very compelling photographic and radar evidence of UFOs. He also testified of the threats against military personnel given this information if they were to publicly reveal it. Finally, he told of Eisenhower's concern over losing control of the situation with power falling into the hands of private corporations given access to the materials. Lovekin is a Disclosure Project witness. Video testimony; audio testimony. For transcribed exerpts click on Lovekin's link above. Testimony on metallic beam added to debris section.


Brig. Gen. Thomas Dubose: Gen. Ramey's Chief of Staff in 1947, Dubose handled the high-level phone communications between Roswell, Fort Worth, and Washington. Dubose went on record many times about the high secrecy involved (including the matter going directly to the White House), receiving direct orders from Washington to instigate a cover-up, Gen. Ramey's weather balloon cover story, and a highly secret shipment of debris from Roswell to Fort Worth, Washington, and Wright Field. Dubose's damning testimony made him a complete nonentity in the Air Force's 1995 Roswell report, which didn't even bother to identify him in the photos taken of Gen. Ramey with his weather balloon. Click on link to view Dubose's Air Force biography, his sworn affidavit, and a more detailed discussion of his testimony which the Air Force was so eager to avoid.


Sgt. Robert Slusher and "Tim": Crew members on a mysterious B-29 flight from Roswell to Fort Worth on July 9, 1947, transporting a large wooden crate in the bombbay surrounded by an armed guard. Upon arrival, the plane was met by high brass and a mortician. This is probably the flight referred to in the Ramey memo that would ship whatever was "in the 'disc'" to Fort Worth by a B-29 Special Transport plane. Click on link to view Slusher's affidavit and the account of "Tim's" testimony and flight log.


Frank Kaufmann: A highly controversial witness claiming to be one of the exclusive members of a special CIC-team (Army Counter-Intelligence Corp) in charge of the Roswell recovery operation. Nonetheless, some of Kaufmann's claims seem to be corroborated by the Ramey message, including the existence of such a team, the recovery of an intact "disk" with bodies inside, and the special team being responsible for the initial Roswell base press release. Kaufmann also testified to knowing of a wooden crate guarded in a hangar with the bodies packed inside awaiting shipment, perhaps the same crate independently described by Slusher and "Tim." However, in light of the Ramey memo, that places the finding of "victims" and a "disk" on July 8, Kaufmann's statements about a July 5 recovery date for the craft and bodies is almost undoubtably false, as was his crash location. (New! See also recent CUFOS exposure of Kaufmann faking documents -- PDF file.) Shortly before he died, Kaufmann changed this craft/body recovery site to a more westerly location closer to the debris field site. See page on the military cordon for more information about these sites.


Glenn Dennis: A Roswell mortician and another highly controversial witness, Dennis spoke of receiving strange calls from the base about preservation techniques and child-sized coffins. Dennis also claimed to be at the Roswell base hospital, seeing unusual debris in the back of an ambulance including a pod-like object perhaps alluded to in the Ramey message, and being threatened. He also claimed to know a Roswell nurse who assisted in a preliminary autopsy at the base hospital and who described the aliens to him. Click on link to see Dennis' affidavit and summary of his testimony. However, attempts to identify the mystery nurse have proven to be a complete failure after Dennis provided a false name. Some other parts of his testimony also do not add up, making his overall testimony questionable. However, also see some corroborative evidence immediately following Dennis' affidavit, such as David Wagnon, a medical technician, who remembered the nurse fitting Dennis' description, and former
Roswell police chief L. M. Hall., who stated that Dennis was telling him of calls from the base about small coffins for the aliens only a few days after the crashed saucer story broke in the Roswell papers. In addition, other independent witnesses have provided second-hand testimony about small bodies being found with details very similar to those provided by Dennis, including relatives of "Pappy" Henderson, immediately below.


Family and friends of Oliver "Pappy" Henderson: Henderson was one of the senior pilots at Roswell. When the first public stories of a Roswell saucer crash began circulating in 1981, Henderson confided to family and friends of being the pilot who flew bodies of the aliens and crash wreckage to Wright Field. He also claimed to have seen the craft and bodies, and provided a description of the aliens. Click on link for affidavits. (Related testimony in debris section)


Sgt. Robert E. Smith: A member of an air transport unit at Roswell, Smith said he helped load crates filled with debris for transport by C-54's, including one flown by Henderson and his crew. Smith was also among the witnesses to describe the mysterious "memory foil" which he said was in the crates. He further described strangers to the base dressed in plainclothes and flashing ID cards for some unknown project, perhaps part of the special CIC-team mentioned in the Ramey memo and by Frank Kaufmann. Finally he claimed that distant cousin of his was with the Secret Service and was there at the base representing President Truman. (The same name was also provided by Kaufmann.) Click on link for Smith's affidavit.


Earl Zimmerman: Formerly with AFOSI (AF counterintelligence). While in officers' club heard many rumors about flying saucer crash and of it being investigated under the guise of an airplane crash. Several times observed Gen. Ramey and Charles Lindbergh being at base unannounced in connection with this. Like Robert Smith, spoke of seeing an unknown CICman being at base. Col. Blanchard told him it was OK. Later worked with astronomer Dr. Lincoln LaPaz and corroborated story of Roswell CICman Lewis Rickett that LaPaz investigated Roswell afterwards with the help of the CIC to try to determine objects trajectory. Again an airplane crash was the cover story.


Lt. Robert Shirkey: Then the assistant operations officer, Shirkey witnessed the loading of the B-29 that took Major Marcel to Fort Worth to see Gen. Ramey. He said he saw boxes of debris being carried on board, including an I-beam with raised markings and a large piece of metal, brushed stainless steel in color, obviously not part of a tinfoil radar target. He was told it was from a flying saucer. Along with witness Robert Porter, he also stated that the plane's pilot was Deputy Commanding Officer Lt. Col. Payne Jennings, who was now the Acting C/O with Col. Blanchard officially on leave. Nine days later, Shirkey was abruptly transferred to the Philippines to a post that didn't exist. Jennings personally flew him to his next assignment. Click on link to see Shirkey's affidavit and link to other testimony. See also debris descriptions. New!


Sgt. Robert Porter: Was on Marcel's flight to Fort Worth and was handed wrapped packages of debris samples. Said that flight was piloted by Deputy base commander Jennings. He was told on board that the crash material was from a flying saucer. Later, they told him it was a weather balloon. Said debris was loaded onto another plane. Click on link for affidavit.




Other Affidavits


Walter Haut: Former Roswell base public information officer. Issued the base press release. Was pretty sure base commander Blanchard had seen the crash material. In 1980 Marcel told him the photos in Fort Worth were staged and that wasn't what was recovered.


Art McQuiddy: Former editor of the Roswell Morning Dispatch. Said base commander Col. Blanchard admitted to authorizing base press release and of strange material being found by his men.


Judd Roberts: Co-owner of Roswell radio station KGFL owner. Spoke of how they wire-recorded an interview with rancher Mack Brazel for later airing, then withdrew it about receiving warnings from Washington about losing their license. Testified to seeing a military cordon around Brazel crash site.


New! William Woody: Another witness to a military cordon thrown up up north of town along the main highway, blocking access to the west. Click on name for Woody's affidavit.


Lydia Sleppy: Albuquerque teletype operator and one of earliest witnesses. Stated that the story phoned in from field by Roswell radio reporter Johnny McBoyle about seeing the crashed saucer and hearing of bodies was intercepted and cut-off on the teletype wire by the FBI.


Loretta Proctor: Neighbor of rancher Mack Brazel. Brazel told her and her husband of finding strange material before going to Roswell, and showing them a wood-like piece that couldn't be cut or burned. They advised him to go to Roswell and report it. Brazel was detained at the base and complained bitterly of his treatment when he returned. New! See debris descripions for more testimony.


Sally Strickland Tadolini: Another neighbor of Brazel's. Although only 9 years old at the time, remembered Mack Brazel's grown son Bill Brazel bringing over a piece of metallic-looking debris with memory properties to show to her family (incident corroborated by her mother). Described it as tough, resembled a smooth "fabric" like silk or satin, and, of course, unfolded itself to its original shape after being crumpled up. Independently corroborated Bill Brazel's story of finding material and also Marcel's of a metallic fabric material with memory properties which he could blow through (therefore not balloon material). Also remembered the adults talking about Mack Brazel's bad treatment at hands of military.


Dr. Jesse Marcel Jr.: 11-year old son of Major Marcel in 1947, recounts how his father woke up his mother and himself in the middle of the night when he returned from the debris field, showing them the pieces of a "flying saucer." Among other material, he distinctly remembers a small metallic "I-beam" with purplish "hieroglyphics." New! See also debris descriptions for more testimony.


Irving Newton: Weather officer at Fort Worth used by Gen. Ramey to certify identity of weather balloon debris shown in Fort Worth photos. Newton's is a big-time skeptic and the Air Force used his affidavit to bolster their claim that Major Marcel found the remains Mogul balloon and misidentified it as coming from a flying saucer. However, Newton is only a witness to what was shown to him in Ramey's office, not what was found at Roswell. Both Col. Dubose and Marcel said the weather balloon was substituted for the real Roswell debris. Newton's disparaging remarks about Marcel's behavior in Gen. Ramey's office are contradicted by Marcel's record and Ramey's own highly complimentary remarks about him a year later.
ROSWELL PROOF
What really happened


Telegram held in General Ramey's hand provides smoking gun proof of a "disk" crash and the recovery of "the victims of the wreck"


Copyright ©2001 by David Rudiak
Roswell Case Overview
The Public "Roswell Incident"


On July 8, 1947 at 5:26 EDT, an Associated Press news wire announced that Roswell Army Air Field had reported recovering a "flying disk" from a nearby rancher's property, first found "sometime last week," and that it was being flown to "higher headquarters." The curious base press release triggered a national press feeding frenzy.


Later "higher headquarters" was announced to be Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey, head of the 8th Army Air Force at Fort Worth, Texas. The Roswell 509th Bomb Group was a subcommand of the 8th AAF. It was also announced that the recovered "disk" was eventually destined for Wright Field, Ohio, home of the Air Materiel Command and the AAF's aeronautical research labs.


Within about an hour of the press release, Gen. Ramey began putting out an alternate weather balloon version of the story. And about two hours later, the photo at the above right was taken of Gen. Ramey (crouched down) and his Chief of Staff, Col. Thomas Dubose (seated). Ramey repeated his story that what was recovered at Roswell was nothing more than the remains of a weather balloon and its aluminum foil radar target kite shown displayed on the general's office floor. Later Ramey brought in a weather officer to make the identification official.


The press bought the change of story. Just to make sure, the Army and Navy engaged in a
debunking campaign during the following days which involved weather balloon and radar target demonstrations. The weather balloons, the public was told, explained not only what was found at Roswell, but also accounted for the numerous "flying disk" or "flying saucer" sightings that preceded the Roswell events.


Air Force Changes Its Story


This was the official story for the next 47 years until constituents asked Congressman Steven Schiff of New Mexico to look into it. After getting what he thought was the run-around from the Air Force, Schiff in 1994 asked the Congressional General Accounting Office (GAO) to investigate, forcing the Air Force to amend its old weather balloon story. Now it wasn't just any weather balloon. It was supposedly a top secret Mogul balloon made up of multiple weather balloons and radar targets and launched from nearby Alamogordo, N.M.


Three years later, just in time for Roswell's 50th anniversary, one of the USAF counter-
intelligence agents involved in the earlier report issued an additional "Case Closed" report on the stories of bodies being recovered. According to him, the reports of bodies were nothing more than highly distorted memories of "crash dummies" used in ejection tests carried out in New Mexico during the 1950's.
FACTOID 2: Recent attempts by several investigators using the Freedom of Information Act to get a copy of the actual photoanalysis report cited by the Air Force (but never published) has met with responses that they have no idea what became of it. Read the details of the runaround the Air Force gave one investigator as they bounced him from archive to archive for the last 3 years. Why can't the Air Force find their own Roswell report? Why do they still refuse to disclose the identify of the photoanalysis lab?
GEN. RAMEY'S MEMO
FACTOID 1: The Air Force claimed in their 1994/95 Roswell Report that a government photoanalysis lab which they refused to identify ("a national level organization") was unable to "visualize" any "details" in the Ramey memo from first generation prints and negative copies even after digitizing (computer scanning) supposedly because of "insufficient quality." As you look at higher resolution scans readily available to civilians from similar prints, how much "truth" do you suspect was in the Air Force statement?

Ramey Message Summary --
"Disk" and "Victims" found


The message turns out to be a telegram from Gen. Ramey to the Pentagon and
Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg, the acting AAF Chief of Staff at the time. Ramey is providing Vandenberg an update on the very fluid situation in-the-field at Roswell.


The first paragraph describes what had been found. Ramey starts by acknowledging "THAT A 'DISK' IS NEXT NEW FIND." He then adds that
"THE VICTIMS OF THE WRECK" and something else (possibly just "A WRECK") had also been found near the recovery "OPERATION AT THE 'RANCH'." At the end it states that "YOU" (i.e. Gen. Vandenberg) had ordered the "victims" and/or the wreckage "FORWARDED" to "FORT WORTH, TEX."


In the second paragraph, Ramey describes how the situation was being handled. Ramey first states that something "IN THE 'DISC'", probably the bodies of the "forwarded" "victims" (and possibly termed "AVIATORS") would be flown by a B-29 Special Transport or C-47 to the "A1" (personnel director) of some "8TH ARMY****" division, most likely the head flight surgeon at Fort Worth given the context. Wright Field, Ohio, home of the AAF's aeronautical labs, was to assess the Roswell crash object (possibly referred to as an "AIRFOIL").


Finally Ramey outlines how the situation was being treated publicly and how they were going to cover it up. First he assures Vandenberg that the earlier highly inflammatory Roswell base press release (referred to as the "MISSTATE MEANING OF STORY") was the work of an Army counter-intelligence team ("CIC/TEAM"), but that the "NEXT SENT OUT PR" (Press Release) would be
"OF WEATHER BALLOONS." Ramey finishes with the statement that the weather balloon story might be better accepted if they also added weather balloon radar target demonstrations. This apparently was the impetus for the national debunking campaign using the devices that followed over the next few days.





The Ramey Message -- What really happened


Barely noticeable in one of the 1947 photos and clutched in Gen. Ramey's left hand is a slip of paper (boxed in red). Probably unwittingly, Gen. Ramey had the text side facing towards the camera, allowing the text on this paper to be photographed.


When blown up and analyzed, it tells a remarkably different story of events from the one Ramey or contemporary Air Force counter-intelligence wants you to believe.
New! Canadian "Smoking Gun" Documents
Actual 1947 Roswell ABC News radio bulletin

Any Questions about whitnesses?

I think its funny that people are so willing to believe in grandiose conspiracies based on anecdotal accounts from a period in American history when hysteria occurred over an Orson Wells radio broadcast.

There is zero credible evidence to support a crash of alien spacecraft anywhere, much less in Roswell, NM. Anecdotal account alone doesn't qualify as credible evidence.

Skeptic Walker the evidence twords the crash of an alien space craft is far more credible than any evidence you have to disprove it.

Being that there is no physical evidence of a crashed flying saucer, there is no need to gather evidence to "disprove." It would be akin to gathering evidence to disprove the purple dragon that resides within my garage. You can't do that either, since every point of measurement you suggest is easily countered by me: the dragon is invisble, non-corporeal, etc.

Your list of anecdotes above is meaningless. There are doubtless similar lists of "testimonials" for every wild or kooky idea from the effectiveness of prayer to the existence of bigfoot. From the reality of ESP to the idea that shark cartilage cures cancer. And so on.

What drives these "witnesses" is their belief systems, not their critical thinking. Their statuses and positions within society are largely irrelevant.

Being that there is no physical evidence of a crashed flying saucer, there is no need to gather evidence to "disprove." It would be akin to gathering evidence to disprove the purple dragon that resides within my garage. You can't do that either, since every point of measurement you suggest is easily countered by me: the dragon is invisble, non-corporeal, etc.

Your list of anecdotes above is meaningless. There are doubtless similar lists of "testimonials" for every wild or kooky idea from the effectiveness of prayer to the existence of bigfoot. From the reality of ESP to the idea that shark cartilage cures cancer. And so on.

What drives these "witnesses" is their belief systems, not their critical thinking. Their statuses and positions within society are largely irrelevant.

So if I understand you corectly no matter what someone tells you even if it is the president of the United States you would not believe what thy have said unless they can hand you somthing to hold in your hands that you can measure.

What you have to rember is that all arguments contain two elements to prove and to disprove. In this case the argument to prove fact is far grater than to disprove it. In the case of your purple dragon you have offered the proof that by your testimony the Purple Dragon only exiests in your mind and I am compeled to agree with your argument.

The key is to be objective and not to egnore arguments on both side of an issue. When the arguments aginst the Roswell incedent are dissmised as false information you have no choice as to look at the prevailing side of the argument.

It is the job of a Skeptic to be a non believer, as in this case a true Skeptic would not believe even if an Alien Spacecraft landed on the head of the Skeptic.

The fact is the testimony of Credible whitnesses can not be dismised for it is considered Credible. So I present this to you in the form of Credible Fact. You have given me no credible facts against the case you have only provided anadodical general statements. If you are to disprove Roswell incident of 1947 you will have to be more creative than a Purple Dragon in your Garage.

FOCLMFAO at skinny.
Nice response Starman, accurate and most adequate.

See? Those with some intelligence and normal human common sense just don’t take your crapola you try to dish out. That may work on your little juvenile delinquents, not in public though.

As skinny always comes up with “others” ideas and thoughts one tends to wonder at what sort of imaginative capacity may be lacking. Non-lateral thinkers just can’t seem to put 2 and 2 together with out a dozen books about how to.

So if I understand you corectly no matter what someone tell you even if it is the president of the United States you would not believe what thy have said unless they can hand you somthing to hold in your hands that you can measure.

You're suggesting a non sequitur. That I find an extraordinary claim by someone, even a President, to be without credibility doesn't imply that I'll find non-extraordinary claims to be incredible as well.

It is the job of a Skeptic to be a non believer,

It is the job of one who is skeptical to question.

as in this case a true Skeptic would not believe even if an Alien Spacecraft landed on the head of the Skeptic.

No. One who is skeptical would not "believe." Either the evidence of the landing would be convincing or it wouldn't. Being skeptical doesn't mean that one is not willing to accept new ideas, it merely implies that one questions the beliefs that exist without tangible evidence or testable hypotheses.

The fact is the testimony of Credible whitnesses can not be dismised for it is considered Credible.

Simply saying a witness is credible doesn't make he/she so. People are fallible. Their beliefs and pre-conceived notions and biases influence their testimony.

So I present this to you in the form of Credible Fact.

Sorry... it's only incredible speculation. A fact is a concept whose truth can be proved. At best, that an alien spacecraft crashed in Roswell (or anywhere else) is an hypothesis. But an hypothesis that cannot be tested.

You're suggesting a non sequitur. That I find an extraordinary claim by someone, even a President, to be without credibility doesn't imply that I'll find non-extraordinary claims to be incredible as well.



It is the job of one who is skeptical to question.



No. One who is skeptical would not "believe." Either the evidence of the landing would be convincing or it wouldn't. Being skeptical doesn't mean that one is not willing to accept new ideas, it merely implies that one questions the beliefs that exist without tangible evidence or testable hypotheses.



Simply saying a witness is credible doesn't make he/she so. People are fallible. Their beliefs and pre-conceived notions and biases influence their testimony.



Sorry... it's only incredible speculation. A fact is a concept whose truth can be proved. At best, that an alien spacecraft crashed in Roswell (or anywhere else) is an hypothesis. But an hypothesis that cannot be tested.

The argument is the test. There is no evidence that Scott Peterson murdered his wife yet the arguments of the court has rendered a guilty verdict. If we can put somone to death by an argument with no physical evidence then I submit that Credible People can establish fact by testimony alone.

The Scott Peterson case is based solely on physical evidence. There are no witnesses to the murder itself. I haven't followed the case, but I believe there was something about trace evidence and admission by Peterson that several "homemade" anchors existed that are unaccounted for; gasoline soaking a tarp; hairs from Laci in a pair of pliers on the boat; etc.

But the most important physical evidence is the body itself. It proves that the event occurred, even if it doesn't make clear who caused the event.

In the case of the alleged "saucer crash," there are no bodies. No saucers. No rubbings of the spaceship's license plate... nothing. Nothing except the personal bias of several people who want there to be aliens. There is no phyiscal evidence that can conclude that there was a "saucer." There is physical evidence to prove that Laci Peterson is dead.

The argument itself cannot possibly be the "test," since there is no way to falsify the argument. Any test for a hypothesis must be falsifiable.

You could take that arguement and submit that if such a case had hard evidence applied to contradict the verdict, then the current verdict would be re-evaluted.

Skeptics are more then likely to state that Roswell was nothing more than recovery of some blackops project material, and that people identified what was going on wrongly, However their verdict would be altered and re-evaluted if there was real evidence.

The sort of evidence I'm suggesting is like having material sent to multiple labs that all know nothing of the material and having the results all coming back the same and then for that material to be placed somewhere public where anyone could go and see it, to find out how real it really is. Anything less than this would be wasting your time attempting to contest something that contains so little evidence of this kind.

"There is no point flogging a Dead horse"-Unknown

Starman, ones like SkinWalker, walk through there life in a fantasy land not seeing what is going on around them, not seeing evidence as evidence and is akin to ones like Phlogger whose job it is to argue and dismiss all proofs. All attempts of discussion with ones of this type are fruitless.
:D

The Scott Peterson case is based solely on physical evidence. There are no witnesses to the murder itself. I haven't followed the case, but I believe there was something about trace evidence and admission by Peterson that several "homemade" anchors existed that are unaccounted for; gasoline soaking a tarp; hairs from Laci in a pair of pliers on the boat; etc.

But the most important physical evidence is the body itself. It proves that the event occurred, even if it doesn't make clear who caused the event.

In the case of the alleged "saucer crash," there are no bodies. No saucers. No rubbings of the spaceship's license plate... nothing. Nothing except the personal bias of several people who want there to be aliens. There is no phyiscal evidence that can conclude that there was a "saucer." There is physical evidence to prove that Laci Peterson is dead.

The argument itself cannot possibly be the "test," since there is no way to falsify the argument. Any test for a hypothesis must be falsifiable.

You are correct Skinwalker the Scott Peterson case was a poor example.

If it is Physical Evidence you want here it is.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/physicalevidence.htm

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Photographs/Photo324.htm

What a odd photo :eek:

Very strange object.

and this

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Photographs/Photo290.htm

Having said that, most of the photo's on the (excellent) site, seem a bit "suspect"

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Photographs/Photo290.htm

A fantastic site though, thanks for posting the links Starman.

Not seen when photo was taken, we just see it when looking at
photo taken 29 mars 2003.

Taken through front window of a car.

And therein lies the answer: it's one the windshield of the car. A chunk of snow.

Are you gonna use that to explain every single ufo photo that has been taken? ;)

There are plenty of data that could be considered evidence for ufo's, just none that would be considered evidence for alien spacecraft.

And therein lies the answer: it's one the windshield of the car. A chunk of snow.

Also I thought this was intersting.

Good writes that according to information supplied to science journalists, NASA may be in possession of physical evidence relating to extraterrestrial materials. In 1974 a Polish biophysicist and engineer contracted to NASA, was a member of an international team of English, French and Italian scientists which was given some odd metallic and plastic-like material, supposedly originating from the Soviet Union, to analyse. Under analysis with an electronic microscope, the team found small pyramid structures in the nanometre range (ie: one thousand millionth of a metre), showing a kind of super reflectivity. They found alloys that could only have been made in conditions of weightlessness. Other tests showed traces of unusual Kapton and Kevlar-type synthetics. This was in the early 1950s and those materials had not existed at that time. The melting point of the metal samples was above two thousand degrees centigrade, and tests using helium, neon and ruby lasers had no effect. The foil seemed to possess a ‘memory’, like current memory metals, but to a factor of one thousand or better. (Several witnesses of the Roswell crash described a metal with similar qualities.)

What were the results of the independent lab studies conducted of the materials and in what peer-reviewed journal might these results have been published?

Good will believe anything.Even Adamski is partly credible in his eyes.

Good will believe anything.Even Adamski is partly credible in his eyes.

Ok if you want credible how about J. Edgar Hoovar, Jimmy Carter, Gordon Cooper and General Nathan F. Twining.


http://www.outoftheblue.tv/data/Hoover/Hoover.html

Either they're lying, ignroant, misled, delusional, or just have such a will to believe that they simply see what they expect to see... or they saw an alien spacecraft. But there is far more physical evidence for the former five than the latter one.

Another possibility, even a probability, is that their accounts are being misrepresented by UFO-ETI apologists in the same manner that christian apologists promote miracles and creation "evidence" as factual.

In the end, they're just people. Only a fool is impressed by social status alone and relies on this as the single best evidence of credibility.

Either they're lying, ignroant, misled, delusional, or just have such a will to believe that they simply see what they expect to see... or they saw an alien spacecraft. But there is far more physical evidence for the former five than the latter one.

Another possibility, even a probability, is that their accounts are being misrepresented by UFO-ETI apologists in the same manner that christian apologists promote miracles and creation "evidence" as factual.

In the end, they're just people. Only a fool is impressed by social status alone and relies on this as the single best evidence of credibility.

In Washington, D.C., on May 9, 2001, a major press conference was held at the National Press Club, one of the world's premier journalistic organizations, to launch the Disclosure Project campaign. More than 20 military, government and corporate witnesses gave testimony about unambiguous UFO and extraterrestrial events. Many witnesses provided official documentation to support their claims. The goal of the Disclosure Project is to get immunity so that these witnesses can testify freely in open congressional hearings.

Ok I guess you are going to comment that the National Press Club is not credible either. There comes a point where ignorance takes place and you can hide your head in the sand but the world isn't going to go away.

I have repeatedly argued the case with credible sercomstantial and physical evidence from many sources and you make every effort to disprove all evidence. Maby you are afraid of the possibility that there are other advanced civilizations that have visited our planet. Well wether you choose to except it or not the evidence can not be ignored.

This is the scandal of our lifetime. Our government is not telling the truth to the people and therefore has commited acts of fraud, and they are making dicisions on a theological, moral and ethical basis that they no right to keep from the people.
http://www.disclosureproject.org/npcwebcast.htm

Yes - yes. Dr. Greer and his "hundreds of highly-placed eyewitnesses..."

In the end, all they did was talke about what they saw, believed they saw, or concocted in their heads about what they saw since their individual events. NONE of them offered any tangiable evidence to provide context. The one guy that came close was the Air Traffic controller who spoke of "radar tracks," but conveniently didn't offer the data in its original form.

Anecdotal account is not evidence.... it only provide cooberation for evidence. It puts evidence into context.

Yes - yes. Dr. Greer and his "hundreds of highly-placed eyewitnesses..."

In the end, all they did was talke about what they saw, believed they saw, or concocted in their heads about what they saw since their individual events. NONE of them offered any tangiable evidence to provide context. The one guy that came close was the Air Traffic controller who spoke of "radar tracks," but conveniently didn't offer the data in its original form.

Anecdotal account is not evidence.... it only provide cooberation for evidence. It puts evidence into context.

Maby you were asleep when they put Forword Video Tape Audio Tape and Drawings not to mention many official documents.

It must be realy hard for you to read a News Paper when you do not believe any of the text because you have now stated you do not believe the press.

"Video Tape Audio Tape and Drawings...." right.

And to be sure, I take what I read in the news with a grain of salt as well. That's not to say I discount everything in the news, but I believe in the axiom "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Unfortunately, what goes on in the news is often very ordinary and commonplace. But even the news story about a local restaurant that was infested with cockroaches and rats supplied more evidence than the entire disclosure project. I ask you, which is more extraordinary of a claim?

Ok if you want credible how about J. Edgar Hoovar, Jimmy Carter, Gordon Cooper and General Nathan F. Twining.


http://www.outoftheblue.tv/data/Hoover/Hoover.html


Please tell me how that supports Roswell and the existance of alien craft?

He is suggesting that these were important, high-ranking people, therefore they're infallible or more credible than the average kook that claims to have undergone anal-probing. Because these people have seen or (in the case of Hoover) written ambiguous statements regarding UFOs, then it follows that UFOs are alien spacecraft?

Speculative at best.

Please tell me how that supports Roswell and the existance of alien craft?

This is Hover upset that the Airforce took possesion of the Recovered disk at Roswell and did not let the FBI have a chance to examine the wreckage.

What does GORT stand for?

you'll find out about gort here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Earth_Stood_Still

you'll find out about gort here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Earth_Stood_Still

Thanks Boris2

BTW here is a link that helps my claim that somthing crashed at this site during July 1947.

http://www.roswellproof.com/NM_UFO_Reports.html

El Paso, Texas, 9:40 pm
(El Paso Times, 7/9 1947)

Las Cruces, N.M.,
(Las Cruces Citizen, 7/18/1947) [Las Cruces is only 30 miles north of El Paso and the El Paso sightings may be related.]

Yeah.... that helps your "claim." A bunch of people in the 1940's responding to the cultural hysteria generated by the well-documented saucer craze.

Yeah.... that helps your "claim." A bunch of people in the 1940's responding to the cultural hysteria generated by the well-documented saucer craze.

I agree it is a stretch, However, theorys are built on a stretch of the imagination.

I agree it is a stretch, However, theorys are built on a stretch of the imagination.

There are those that would say that "theories are built on tested hypotheses."

Pick up Sagan's Demon Haunted World... read it.

I'll second that,its a tremendous book.

There are those that would say that "theories are built on tested hypotheses."

Pick up Sagan's Demon Haunted World... read it.

Ok then one would say hypothesese are built on a stretch of the imagination. Theories are built on tested hypotheses.

BTW do you work for the CIA or NSA?

Hypotheses are formulated from observed phenomena or events. Imagjnation is then applied to hypothesize the causation. This is where pseudoscience steps in, however.

With pseudoscientific thought, only the desired hypotheses are considered, whereas others are discarded, not considered, or ignored, regardless of whether the remaining hypotheses are more probable or not.

Scientific thought initially includes all hypotheses, then only those that fail tests or are untestable are discarded. From that point, imagination is irrelevant.

Hypotheses are formulated from observed phenomena or events. Imagjnation is then applied to hypothesize the causation. This is where pseudoscience steps in, however.

With pseudoscientific thought, only the desired hypotheses are considered, whereas others are discarded, not considered, or ignored, regardless of whether the remaining hypotheses are more probable or not.

Scientific thought initially includes all hypotheses, then only those that fail tests or are untestable are discarded. From that point, imagination is irrelevant.

Are you saying that hypotheses do not require any imagination?

Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world. -- Albert Einstein

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant.
We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.""If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
- Albert Einstein

"As far as I'm concerned, I prefer silent vice to ostentatious virtue. If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." --Einstein, Albert

Albert Einstein definetly used his imagination.

Albert Einstein definetly used his imagination.
So did J.R.R. Tolkien, but he didn't pretend it was science.

Are you saying that hypotheses do not require any imagination?

Read my second sentance: "Imagjnation is then applied to hypothesize the causation." Observation gives rise to imagination; imagination gives rise to hypothesis; the hypothesis is then tested independently of imagination.

Albert Einstein definetly used his imagination.

But he definately didn't imagine the tests that he applied to the hypotheses he formulated. Nor did he imagine the results of those tests.

BTW do you work for the CIA or NSA?

I'm a student of anthropology and archaeology. Why would you think I held a government position?

BTW do you work for the CIA or NSA?
I work for the ***CENSORED*** and SkinWalker is never at the meetings. :D

I work for the ***CENSORED*** and SkinWalker is never at the meetings. :D

LOL that is funny sideshowbob. Well you here alot about the government spending alot of time monitoring the internet, you never know who you are talking to.I like to talk to intelligent people with new thought and ideas. I think that it is awesome that Skinwalker is an Anthropologist. He is an intelligent individual that has a lot of knowledge about science.

I on the other hand, have a lot to learn. I am attending San Antonio College not my first choice and I have an aptitude for physics.

I want to use my imagination to find the link between the atom and the solar system. I have dreamed of solving the energy riddle of free energy. I also want to experiment with bending the fabric of space. There are many bright minds researching these frontiers and it hard to imagine that I could be of help. However it is my dream.

There are many bright minds researching these frontiers and it hard to imagine that I could be of help. However it is my dream.
:) You can be of help in small ways.

Sideshowbob this is off topic however I am having trouble seperating the quotes to respond to them. Can you tell me how that is done?

Sideshowbob this is off topic however I am having trouble seperating the quotes to respond to them. Can you tell me how that is done?
If you mean "how can you help in small ways?", I guess what I mean is that most scientists contribute small parts of the big picture.
Everybody can't be a Newton or an Einstein, and those who are, usually don't set out to be.
Just learn all you can, use that imagination, but only when it's appropriate (take SkinWalker's advice) and contribute what you can.
:)

Sideshowbob this is off topic however I am having trouble seperating the quotes to respond to them. Can you tell me how that is done?

Starman my suggestion would be to keep the imagination in full gear! When we FINALLY prove aliens do in fact exist you will be rewarded for it. ;)

For instance, let's say we discover alien life and they are those gray's. They fly around in saucer shaped crafts. Oh - and they have big BLACK eyes. Hmm, what a coincedence! Those abductee's they thought were full of shit are truthfull. Those UFO witnesses they considered full of shit, were truthfull.

Everything these scientist's have been debunking and HAVE NOT EXPLAINED for the last 60 years, eventually proven true would illustrate just how lost science became. NASA? What will they say? "We should have seen them"? :eek: I mean, just think about it!

Yes - Everything I said above requires imagination!

It's sad, but Scientists of today have little too offer when it comes to imagination. You have that, just keep using it! Expecially when they say not too! :p

It's sad, but Scientists of today have little too offer when it comes to imagination.

Hmm...strange. Here you are typing an a machine that accesses magnetic data stored on spinning platters that is crammed through a high-speed internet connection into a network of thousands and thousands of computers that share this information with millions of people worldwide on a program designed to allow instant communication to others who are interested in similar topics, all invented by people many time smarter than you...the one with the imagination. And you're using it to bitch and complain about science?!

Shit, you should have respect for everything that the organized outcomes of the scientific method have given you today. And you shouldn't be so pissed off that it hasn't found bridged on the moon or aliens anal probing hillbillies.

SkinWalker, you seem to revel in your close-minded view of the world. How can you be so arrogant as to think that you know for certain what exists and what does not? I'm rather amused at the arguments that go on in this forum, because I see stubborn world views on both sides. One side believes that everything is true and the other believes everything is false. Are there no shades of grey in your viewpoints, Skin and Star? Can you not both simply say that we aren't capable of knowing for sure, yet? I admit freely that I haven't a clue if aliens have visted this planet. However, I will say that I find it highly unlikely that we are the only living species of high intelligence in the entire universe. That is a -very- farfetched idea. I choose to accept the possibility of some ufo sightings being credible and possibly alien aircraft. I choose to live with the possibility and knowledge that I don't know everything, so anything is possible. Hell, I could walk out my front door tomorrow and find Sasquatch sleeping on my front porch. Who am I to say he doesn't exist?

I see stubborn world views on both sides. One side believes that everything is true and the other believes everything is false. Are there no shades of grey in your viewpoints, Skin and Star? Can you not both simply say that we aren't capable of knowing for sure, yet?

I admit freely that I haven't seen any ET's on this planet however would I know if I saw one? I would hope so but maby not. I can only say what I have seen I could not Identify. It could be anything. I do not know for sure that there any ET's visiting the Earth. All I can say is that I am seeking the truth and I do believe our Government is not telling us the truth.

I admit freely that I haven't a clue if aliens have visted this planet. However, I will say that I find it highly unlikely that we are the only living species of high intelligence in the entire universe. That is a -very- farfetched idea. I choose to accept the possibility of some ufo sightings being credible and possibly alien aircraft. I choose to live with the possibility and knowledge that I don't know everything, so anything is possible. Hell, I could walk out my front door tomorrow and find Sasquatch sleeping on my front porch. Who am I to say he doesn't exist?

And to this I agree 100%.

SkinWalker, you seem to revel in your close-minded view of the world. How can you be so arrogant as to think that you know for certain what exists and what does not? I'm rather amused at the arguments that go on in this forum, because I see stubborn world views on both sides. One side believes that everything is true and the other believes everything is false. Are there no shades of grey in your viewpoints, Skin and Star? Can you not both simply say that we aren't capable of knowing for sure, yet? I admit freely that I haven't a clue if aliens have visted this planet. However, I will say that I find it highly unlikely that we are the only living species of high intelligence in the entire universe. That is a -very- farfetched idea. I choose to accept the possibility of some ufo sightings being credible and possibly alien aircraft. I choose to live with the possibility and knowledge that I don't know everything, so anything is possible. Hell, I could walk out my front door tomorrow and find Sasquatch sleeping on my front porch. Who am I to say he doesn't exist?

Amen brotha! I don't believe in everything I hear about - but I wont attack those who believe what I don't

Skin Walker and some debunker's I've seen seem to think you have prove everything you believe on an internet forum.

It's sad, but Scientists of today have little too offer when it comes to imagination.

Hmm...strange. Here you are typing an a machine that accesses magnetic data stored on spinning platters that is crammed through a high-speed internet connection into a network of thousands and thousands of computers that share this information with millions of people worldwide on a program designed to allow instant communication to others who are interested in similar topics, all invented by people many time smarter than you...the one with the imagination. And you're using it to bitch and complain about science?!

Shit, you should have respect for everything that the organized outcomes of the scientific method have given you today. And you shouldn't be so pissed off that it hasn't found bridged on the moon or aliens anal probing hillbillies.

Blackholesun, you're crap above is typical of the arrogance. I don't OWE science anything. More importantly, I was speaking in terms of Space science or astronomy, not computer technology.

Why is it okay to believe in black holes, but crazy to believe in aliens on this board? We DON'T KNOW IF aliens exist, so to claim they don't exist misses the ball IMO.

SkinWalker, you seem to revel in your close-minded view of the world.

You say my mind is closed (whatever that really means), but you fail to demonstrate how by citing any specifics. I'll take that as a statement designed to invoke response and merely your belief since I obviously don't share your own worldview.

How can you be so arrogant as to think that you know for certain what exists and what does not?

I've never once claimed to know what exists or doesn't. I can only state what I've seen evidence for, or noted a lack of evidence to support, various wild claims and speculations of others.

Are there no shades of grey in your viewpoints, Skin and Star? Can you not both simply say that we aren't capable of knowing for sure, yet?

Sure, there are "shades of gray." But I subscribe to the philosophy that there is, in principle, a knowable past and present if a hypothetico-deductive model is applied. I am very critical of those that create hypotheses without following true scientific method then calling it science.

I admit freely that I haven't a clue if aliens have visted this planet. However, I will say that I find it highly unlikely that we are the only living species of high intelligence in the entire universe.

I agree. It seems unlikely that we are the only intelligent species in the "entire universe." It also seems unlikely that other intelligent species picked our galaxy out of billions of galaxies then our planet orbiting one of billions of stars, traveling perhaps billions of light years spending untold energy.

I'd like to believe they do. But I don't allow the things I'd like to believe overrule my critical thinking. There are far too many very prosaic explanations for many, if not most, ufo sightings and claims of intelligently influenced features on planets and moons to simply choose the "alien visitation" hypothesis whilst discarding the prosaic, more likely causes.

I choose to accept the possibility of some ufo sightings being credible and possibly alien aircraft.

Believe it or not, I also accept that possibility. But I've yet to see credible evidence to support that. Remember, an extraordinary claim will, by nature, require extraordinary evidence.

Hell, I could walk out my front door tomorrow and find Sasquatch sleeping on my front porch. Who am I to say he doesn't exist?

If you see him, it was probably someone in the bigfoot suit. Afterall, the Wallaces came clean about the primate suit that Mrs. Wallace wore for the film as a hoax.

I don't OWE science anything.

And science owes you nothing in return. So go back to your make-believe.

Why is it okay to believe in black holes, but crazy to believe in aliens on this board?

How can you ask that question? Because observation upholds theory. For a number of years telescopes have caught GRB from the direction of suspected black holes. Images as the one below:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/images/HSTngc4261.gif

coinside with theory about how an accretion ring behaves around a supermassive object. X-ray, light and radio emissions that are gravitationally shifted to lower wavelengths have been detected around thought to be known black holes. But it is still a theory I admit but a damn good one when looking at the evidence.

We DON'T KNOW IF aliens exist, so to claim they don't exist misses the ball IMO.

I never said I didn't believe in extraterrestrial life. I'm sure it's somewhere out there. But I've seen nothing that would make me assume they traveled here to anal probe rednecks and take apart cows. I've got an over-active imagination. But I never seriously let it blur reality by creating delusions that I can't justify.

Everything these scientist's have been debunking and HAVE NOT EXPLAINED for the last 60 years, eventually proven true would illustrate just how lost science became. NASA? What will they say? "We should have seen them"? :eek: I mean, just think about it!

Yes - Everything I said above requires imagination!

It's sad, but Scientists of today have little too offer when it comes to imagination. You have that, just keep using it! Expecially when they say not too!:p

I do not believe that Scientist are the blame. I do believe that the Government is to blame for keeping secrets form the people. I consider the to be the Scandal of our lifetime.

I would not say all Scientists lack imagination for that is a general statment, And there are Scientists that have imagination and Scientists that lacke imagination. I have imagination and do consider myself to be a Scientist.

I understand that you believe as I do that ET's are here and did crash into the Desert in New Mexico 1947. There is so much evidence that points to this event being much moore than a weather baloon that it can not be denied. Therefor the conspiricy and coverup is hidding the most important event in history and those secrets need to come out into the open. And it is the duty of every American to seek the truth and to not acept the febal lies offered to the public.

You say my mind is closed (whatever that really means), but you fail to demonstrate how by citing any specifics. I'll take that as a statement designed to invoke response and merely your belief since I obviously don't share your own worldview..

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
Quoted on pg. 289 of Adventures of a Mathematician, by S. M. Ulam(Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1976).

Skinwalker is this what you were referring to?

I fully agree with that quote. But I also agree with this one:

"From a drop of water a logician could predict an Atlantic or a Niagara."
--Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
--from Sherlock Holmes in A study in Scarlet, 1929

Doyle also wrote for Holmes, "The temptation to form premature theories upon insufficient data is the bane of our profession." Though I don't remember which book.

But that didn't keep Holmes from saying to Watson on more than one occasion, "the game is afoot!" To love a mystery and rest on baseless assumptions and speculations are two different things.

I do believe that the Government is to blame for keeping secrets form the people. I consider the to be the Scandal of our lifetime.
You must mean the US government - and they must be keeping secrets from every other government too.
The Canadian government, for one, is utterly incapable of keeping anything secret.

I do not believe that Scientist are the blame. I do believe that the Government is to blame for keeping secrets form the people. I consider the to be the Scandal of our lifetime.

I would not say all Scientists lack imagination for that is a general statment, And there are Scientists that have imagination and Scientists that lacke imagination. I have imagination and do consider myself to be a Scientist.

I understand that you believe as I do that ET's are here and did crash into the Desert in New Mexico 1947. There is so much evidence that points to this event being much moore than a weather baloon that it can not be denied. Therefor the conspiricy and coverup is hidding the most important event in history and those secrets need to come out into the open. And it is the duty of every American to seek the truth and to not acept the febal lies offered to the public.

Starman, I agree that the Government probably does cover some of this up due to "reasons of national security".

There in lies the paradox. If these alien bodies or craft's exist, then they are hidden. So how can we prove anything? We can't. That's why this arguing with debunker's will get nowhere.

You would have to prove they are hiding alien bodies. I would love to be in on that investigation...

If there were any sort of coverup, why then do "UFOlogists" keep getting their FOIA requests filled? You'd think that the so-called evidence that the UFOlogists keep "discovering" would have been shredded to prevent it from being seen, not simply marked through of names and classified data and sent out via U.S. Mail to whomever requests it.

Fawcett and Greenwood (1984) wrote a whole book on how the coverup was deep and throughout the majority of the government (United States). They cited a lot of FOIA documents that they believed to be "proof" of an alien-coverup, but they did so by taking things out of context and refusing to acknowlege FOIA documents that did not support their claim. I mean, we're talking about the same government that couldn't keep the lid on "Watergate," the "Iran-Contra Affair," and Abu Ghraib.

No, what we have here is what Daniel Berlyne (1965) discussed as the natural human motivation to reduce conceptual conflict by use of suppression (the reduction of conflict by suppressing thoughts or avoiding information counter to one side of the conflict) and conciliation (a reduction of incompatibility of new information to that of established information).

When stone-walled with "where's the evidence," UFO buffs will nearly alway resort to "the government is keeping it secret." Ironically, that's the very last organization on the planet that would be capable of maintaining such a grandiose secret for so long. Why, the polar split that exists between the right and the left alone is enough reason to spill any beans that one side might have a stake in.

Sources

Berlyne, Daniel (1965). Structure and Directions in Thinking New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Fawcett, Larry; Greenwood, Barry (1984). Clear Intent: The Government Coverup of the UFO Experience. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

...I wont attack those who believe what I don't.

HUH?? Where's the smilie, cause you must be joking. You're entire MO is attacking anyone who doesn't agree with you.

GET REAL FELLA!

If there were any sort of coverup, why then do "UFOlogists" keep getting their FOIA requests filled? You'd think that the so-called evidence that the UFOlogists keep "discovering" would have been shredded to prevent it from being seen, not simply marked through of names and classified data and sent out via U.S. Mail to whomever requests it.

Here is a FOIA document request by Stanton Freedmen regarding Roswell and 80% of the document is blacked out. No there not hididng anything. Not at all.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3617&stc=1


When stone-walled with "where's the evidence," UFO buffs will nearly alway resort to "the government is keeping it secret." Ironically, that's the very last organization on the planet that would be capable of maintaining such a grandiose secret for so long.

Have you herd of the Disclosure project? It has not been kept a secret.
If not here is a free video.

http://www.netro.ca/disclosure/npccmenu.htm

Also here is the link to the website.

http://www.disclosureproject.com/

Now did you listen to President Eisenhower's departing statment in 1961.

"In the counsels of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."

- President Eisenhower - January 1961

And as I rember not many people knew what the F117 Stealth Fighter was untill the late 1980s. That was a secret that they kept very well since the late 1950s. Now that project was classified Top Secret and ETV's are classified Above Top Secret. Not even the President or Congress has a need to know. Acording to Gordon Cooper you canot track anything in the government that is Top Secret.

Quoat from Gordon Cooper in the documentry Out of the Blue.

http://www.outoftheblue.tv/clips/clips.html#

None of which amount to anything extraordinary.

You have to consider that, even now, there are documents that must have references to various diplomatic contacts deleted in order to maintain positive relations with nations or governments that would prefer it not to be known that they worked with the U.S.

Friedman undoubtedly picked the example which showed the most blacked out pages (why wouldn't he) and didn't show pages that only had a few references to names, etc. blacked out as required by the privacy act. We should expect that FOIA requests, particularly on a scale of disclosure as large as that released to UFO buff and attorny Peter Gertsen in the 1970's. That, by the way, is where all the FOIA documents that "ufologists" have been using in the last three decades have come from. Gertsen requested specific documents from the CIA and they initially declined. Instead of specific documents, they recommended that Gertsen request all of them!

If it was so secret, why be so open? Why not simply destroy the documents? It is infinitly easier to run 3,000 plus sheets of paper through even the cheapest of shredders than it is to go through line-by-line and mark through information covered by the Privacy Act or diplomatic confidentiality. The CIA could even have prepared an anti-UFO document and released that... but what they did release was enough for Fawcett and Greenwood to write a book and proclaim it "evidence" of coverup. Preposterous.

And I thought I had established already that I viewed the disclosure project material and found it to be nothing extraordinary. Its simply a bunch of people patting each other on the back, telling each other what an extraordinary thing the great UFO coverup is without providing any extraordinary evidence to support that claim.

Its all anecdote.

And you really expect Cooper's statement to provide proof of what, exactly? That he witnessed a strange aircraft on an experimental aircraft range?

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/Avro-Avrocar/info/info.htm

In fact, in a 1978 interview with Omni, Cooper evaded any discussion of the Edwards case by saying, "I'd just as soon not get into the Edwards incident. I didn't get to see anything personally, it was all second hand evidence really."

That is if this site's author is to be believed. (http://www.zip.com.au/~psmith/cooper.html) I didn't see any primary sources listed or citations to the Omni issue, but I have a few issues somewhere, I'll see if I have any from that year. The site's author, however, demonstrates (assuming that he's legitimate) that "Cooper was not an eyewitness, and his claim to have been the boss of the cameramen (Bittick and Gettys) was disputed by Gettys and by the man who was Cooper's boss at the time, as well as by the young AF officer who documented the case for Blue Book. The UFO drifted slowly past the cameramen's position, never extended legs, never landed, never soared out of sight."

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2003/jun/m30-007.shtml

James Oberg is that author and VirtuallyStrange.net always struck me as being relatively pro-UFO but also relatively objective and critical of UFO buffs that aren't.

Stryder,

Don't forget the quark theory. Diviation between point A and B means: How further point A is from point B, how greater the forces between them to hold them together.

Radiowaves don't have any mass. They only are limited by their speed. Soo, we can monitor historical events by their echo or realtime sound with some technical device we haven't invelted yet. Nature bless our complexed minds.

:)

James Oberg is that author and VirtuallyStrange.net always struck me as being relatively pro-UFO but also relatively objective and critical of UFO buffs that aren't.

SkinWalker that is exactly how I would explain your actions.

If you are talking about that report from the Air Force "Roswell Case Closed" that was released in the late 1990's, well it supprises me that you are not critical about that report. The report was very unscientific using events that occured in 1955 ie the dummies to explain events of 1947. I would wonder if the report is believed then who are the real dummies in this story? Would it not be the believers?

I think I might have been a bit ambiguous in that quote, I meant to imply that Virtually Strange.net, while it appears objective is, at the same time, critical of UFO buffs that are not objective.

That would have been clear, depending upon where you placed the emphasis in reading it to yourself, I suppose.

As far as the "Roswell Case Closed" report of the 1990's, I wasn't referring to it. I've not read it, though I've read references to it. On the surface, the explanations provided seem prosaic but plausible and, left with the alternative of alien spacecraft, quite probable. Anthropomorphic dummies to evaluate ejection seat technology advances was the key explanation as I remember it. This must have occurred at some point in space and time during the development of jet fighter technology. The late 40's early 50's near White Sands Proving Grounds seems likely to be such point.

I do believe that the Government is to blame for keeping secrets form the people.

Well, I too believe various govts are keeping secrets pertaining to what some people refer to as UFOs from us. Quite simply, I think various world govts want to keep their secret aircraft, secret.

BUT, if you mean that ALL world govts conspire to cover up evidence of aliens, well, that just doesn't fly. For that to be the case, firstly, they'd all have to agree, and see this one issue as mutually beneficial to all, and that would just not happen. I don't think there is a single other issue known, which can illustrate that ALL world govts can agree and co-operate. So, no precedent there.

Secondly, the arrival of aliens on earth would have to have coincided exactly with the period of time (quite recently) where governments had the technology to detect them, and the resources to control the dissemination of information. Now, not all of these technologies have evolved in step, either.

So, we've had RADAR since WWII, but with propeller driven aircraft, and not many jets available, a very limited ability to respond quickly, or intercept any alien craft, nor get there before they are witnessed.

Later on, we have faster interceptors, and thanks to the Cold War, a large military, and lots of govt resources available to respond. Hmm, this is your best period for suppression of information.

But lately? Well, technology is inexspensive, and pervasise, and not just the remit of the Military, or Govt. (ie Stealth bombers can be detected using mobile phone mast arrays.)

People have camcorders, cameras, mobile phones, the internet. There's just no way any Govt could suppress this information anymore, if we're still being visited. We'd have good quality pictures, video, the govt couldn't stop it.

So, any news of aliens before WWII would be well known, and any after. Leaving us the only option to think that if they have been here, it was for a brief period, and they've never been back.

But that is not what many think, is it? Some think aliens have been coming here for thousands of years (before governments even, so an impossibility for govts to suppress) and still come.

So, just how do all world govts work around these obstacles?

BUT, if you mean that ALL world govts conspire to cover up evidence of aliens, well, that just doesn't fly. For that to be the case, firstly, they'd all have to agree, and see this one issue as mutually beneficial to all, and that would just not happen. I don't think there is a single other issue known, which can illustrate that ALL world govts can agree and co-operate. So, no precedent there.

Not all governmets hide UFO information Belgin, France and Russia just to name a few. They have went public on many occasions.

But lately? Well, technology is inexspensive, and pervasise, and not just the remit of the Military, or Govt. (ie Stealth bombers can be detected using mobile phone mast arrays.)

Sure if you have the pilots cell phone number you just call him up and ask him where he is.

People have camcorders, cameras, mobile phones, the internet. There's just no way any Govt could suppress this information anymore, if we're still being visited. We'd have good quality pictures, video, the govt couldn't stop it..

And they do not stop it. Here is a pretty good video.

http://switchboard.real.com/player/email.html?PV=6.0.12&&title=Title&link=http%3A%2F%2Fmfile.akamai.com%2F5022%2Frm%2Fa rtbell.download.akamai.com%2F5022%2Fclips%2FRomane kUFO1.ram

And if you want to check out the exlaination of the video.

http://www.neilslade.com/ufos.html

So, just how do all world govts work around these obstacles?

Not all governments hide this information. Our government in the United States well secrecy is the order of the day. We have more evidence and technowledgy than any other government in my oppinion. We do share our secrets with our close alies. And now I think we are finnaly going to see materials with nano technowledgy that are the same as were discribed in the Roswell incident 50 years ago. So I think secrets are only kept by our government untill they are no longer usefull. If they are hiding technowledgy or evidence of a recovered ETV then it probobly is to the government a matter of national security. The issue of ET's is grater that national security and many great men are working to bring out the truth and they will prevail.

We do share our secrets with our close alies.
Then Canada must not be a "close ally" because, as I said before, the Canadian government is utterly incapable of keeping that kind of secret.
We have no state-of-the-art military technology, so we have no deep, dark military secrets, so we have no experience at keeping secrets.

If the US was sharing those secrets with us, you can bet they'd wind up in the trunk of somebody's car at a hockey game.

Then Canada must not be a "close ally" because, as I said before, the Canadian government is utterly incapable of keeping that kind of secret.

Here is a Canadian scientist that worked with some of the wreckage from Roswell.

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Smith_papers.html

Wilber Smith is his name.

By the way how is everything whith the looney?

There is more physical evidence to suggest that Wilbert Smith was cognatively influenced by the advanced cancer he had than actually in "contact with aliens," a claim which he made on more than one occasion.

If memory serves correct, this was the guy in the late 50's or early 60's that believed there were regions of loose "binding" in the atmosphere and that he could build a meter to detect these regions and thus prevent aircraft accidents. Of all the aircraft accidents that have occurred in the United States since 1960, do you know how many were attributed to "misadventure with loose binding material of the atmosphere?"

Anybody with delusions can sign memos to other people... that doesn't mean other people aren't taking him with a grain of salt.

Not all governmets hide UFO information Belgin, France and Russia just to name a few. They have went public on many occasions.

I presume you mean 'Belgium' and no, those countries haven't gone 'public' and officially declared the existence of UFOs at all. A few people from those countries have made some claims. Big deal.


Here is a pretty good video.

'pretty good'? It's crap! The usual zoomed in, no landscape features for scale, camera shake drivel we're alway offered. Utter rubbish. It's impossible to get an idea of scale, or realtive motion from that clip. Know Why? Because the hoaxer can't his model big enough, or move like a UFO, so they zoom in so you can't compare it's size to anything, and can't tell if it's moving, because we have no reference.


Not all governments hide this information.

So how come aliens aren't proven then, and we don't have the evidence from one of these non conspiratorial countries?

I presume you mean 'Belgium' and no, those countries haven't gone 'public' and officially declared the existence of UFOs at all. A few people from those countries have made some claims. Big deal.

Here is Belgium going public.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc473