The reason why it was indeed a balloon found in 1947 Roswell is that if the cover story were based on a secret aircraft, then it would have given the public a reason to think that the government was in at least possession of 'super' material. This due to the reports (or potential reports at that time) of hard 'metals' that wouldn't break, burn, and exhibited magic-like properties. The best way to get away from those possible public perceptions, is to make the cover story talk about neoprene, aluminum, and balsa. Essentially, materials that have 'nothing' to do with what you would find in a secret US craft, thus, no hook for the public mind to put two and two together. Since there were no connections between balloon materials, and reported 'alien' material, there was really nothing to talk about. This concept helps to keep the story quiet. That's why the story can't change that basic element, because if the materials were to be different (namely hard metal engine based aircraft), it would give some substance to the reports of magic propertied 'alien' metal. This would then lend itself to strengthening the story of alleged ufo crash, and keep it alive. Since the balloons contain no similar material (very sharp and purposefully ridiculous contradiction), then there is no supportive evidence lended to the reports of strange unearthly material. Brilliant stuff. The method worked really well. The last thing you will see them say is that it was a secret US craft. They'll say balloons, parachutes, and dummies, but nothing that would give a supportive link to unearthly materials. Well, at least they didn't try to say that it was a huge paper airplane in secret development. I vote that the next announcement from the government about 1947 Roswell be a radical change from the weather balloon, to being that of a secret paper airplane of huge proportions. "Project PaperCut was responsible for developing and testing stealth paper airplanes, using highly covert methodologies. At that time, the public could not be allowed to know the impact of developing stealth paper airplanes. If word got out, flocks of people would be spending their own time developing paper airplanes, which would in essence, potentially bring about possible 'National Security' violations. Also, weigh heavily what could have happened if another 'War of the Worlds' occurred, and the general public had stealth paper airplane technology at their disposal." So folks. It was indeed a weather balloon.
Doood, There's a few problems with what you posted. The material described was unlike anything we know of today as far as pieces which" Flowed like water" and returned to its original shape. Haven't you wondered why Marcel who was familiar with all types of aircraft and weather balloons described it as alien to anything he has seen. Also, what about all of the testimony from civilians and military personel (especially before their deaths) swearing they saw alien bodies at the crash site, while they flew them to other parts of the country, and when they were examined. It seems unlikely that all the people involved would talk about aliens especially when doing so would cause dire consequences. [This message has been edited by Alien (edited November 29, 1999).]
Here is some more perspective to make things clearer. If they had of said that it was a downed secret US plane (nothing alien), it would have still made a good cover story, since it would better coincide with the reported stories of the time. Actually, from one perspective, a cover story of a downed US plane would have been better. Why ? Here are some reasons: 1) The debris. Ballons don't cause debris of a large area, like what was reported. A Plane would have. Pieces of metal everywhere would have better fit a downed US plane. The balloon story doesn't fit the picture as well. 2) The material. The explanations given by Marcel and son, as well as other witnesses, would have better fit material found from a downed US plane. The materials of the weather balloon aren't even similar in any way to the reported stories of what the material was (flowed like water, etc..). A plane crash would better fit the situation because it would have more similar material, such as hard metals. 3) Impact damage. A plane could have caused impact damage similar to what was reported. A balloon with lightweight materials would not be able to cause the impact damage to the terrain 4) Bodies. Radar balloons don't carry bodies, yet planes can. The government could have said that the bodies reported were actually small airplane pilots in special suits. The pilots were small due to weight limitations in the test US plane. This would have fit far better, than to say it was a radar balloon, which doesn't even take into account the alleged presence of bodies. 5) Recognizance. The fact that Marcel was very familiar with the balloons, and even with radar technologies, does not leave much room for believing that he misidentified the crashed 'something'. However, if the cover story were a secret test US plane that no one had seen before, it could have been easily mis-identified, even by Marcel. It would have been much more believable that the crash was that of a US plane, and had been misidentified. 6) No balloons. Marcel did not report the presence of any balloons. So, a plane would have fit better, because a plane would not have any balloons. So, the architect of the original cover story had a real big reason for using the balloon story, even though a downed plane would have fit the facts much, much better. Why did they say it was a weather balloon ? Because of the reasons that I outlined in my first message. It kills the story, and the link to the strange materials. The government felt that it was more important to kill the link to the reported 'alien' materials, than to match most of the items above, by saying it was a downed airplane. People had to believe that the materials were earthly, and simple. It was no problem that the cover story didn't match any of the reports from witnesses, just so long as the nature of the materials found were kept from the public mind. Just think, what would have happened if they had originally said it was a downed US plane.
Doood, I guess I misunderstood your post I agree that a secret plane would have been a better cover story.The balloon story only made many look into the incident more closely because that explaination did not fit the facts or eyewitness testimony of the crash landing that night. I think the reason they were forced to use the balloon story is because it was first reported to the news that it was a saucer that crashed and was recovered.This I feel was their biggest mistake.
I have a theory that will make everyone happy.. The crash was caused by a UFO running into a weather balloon equipted with radar sheilding so thats why the aliens couldn't see it.. they hit the ballon crashed (Hey this also explains the Two crash sites).. Wow Im good.. thoughts? comments? My way is the only way that works out %100 ------------------ (Midnight@golden.net) (Ouch.my.head) (http://home.golden.net/~midnight/)
Eeerrrrr, Midnight.... How come a weather balloon ( which you track by scope and/or radar), had radar sheilding? Darn!.. and we were so close to solving the mystery too!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Dave.
Awwwwww Crap .. Now I guess I have to go back to the ol' Aliens can't drive worth S#!t theory. ------------------ (Midnight@golden.net) (Ouch.my.head) (http://home.golden.net/~midnight/)
It was no balloon. Short and simple. The government issued a bulletin that they had a crashed UFO(UNidentified...) to radio and newspaper which went on the air and printed pretty much within 24 hours. Now if i was a balloon how in the hell could anyone from the military not know it. Plus i saw a special on this very subject and they checked the records(given to the show) to see if any planes or balloons were in the roswell area and there were none. The balloon bs doesnt hold up even for re-tired military men and women who told their story. Their are i think like 2 or 3 photos of the metal which display hieroglyphic type markings. Now tell me what a balloon what ever type it maybe would have those markings on it?
That's just the thing. The balloon story is very contrary to UFO. Essentially, we (whomever is of the opinion) say yes (UFO), the government says no (balloon). Now if they had of said it was a plane, then it would be: We say yes (UFO), the government says 'possibly/maybe' (plane). So long as one side is adamant yes, and the other side is adamant no, then there is a stalemate. Unless of course there is irrefutable proof, to which none seems to exist. That's the whole point to the weather balloon not fitting the potential facts. It has to be as opposite as possible, but stay within current knowledge of physical reason (ie, they wouldn't say it was a paper airplane carrying people). I'm sure the people who need to keep secrets are pretty happy with a stalemate. Just so long as the status is quo. "You lied. No I didn't. Yes, you did. No, I didn't. Yes, you did. No, I didn't. Yes, you did. No, I didn't. On and on and on and on.... etc...." End result, stalemate.
Modern-iconoclast, I seem to recall seeing a documentary that showed that the "hieroglyphic markings" spelled out "V I D E O" in fancy letters. I don't recall what show it was or much else about it - did anyone else see that? ------------------ www.indigenousrocks.com
The documentary/science fiction special you are refering to was that alien autopsy film. Aren't we lucky to find a crashed alien(?) craft from who knows where and then we don't even have to drag anything off to the cryptologist shop to translate their language! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! [This message has been edited by Dave (edited December 05, 1999).]
The Air Forcew presented a very reasonable explanation for the crash, complete with respectable evidence. Do you really think we can believe all of the eyewitness testimonies? At least half of the supposed eyewitnessess are liars, probably more. How else would you explain the two different crashes (each one requiring the other didn't happen)? If you can accept that people could be wrong about the day, why not the year? or why not the exact thing they saw?
