Board Logo
« Roswell question. »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Oct 19th, 2017, 05:50am


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 2 3  ...  9 Notify Send Topic Print
 veryhotthread  Author  Topic: Roswell question.  (Read 20419 times)
N3KR0T1CU5
New Member
Image


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 3
xx Roswell question.
« Thread started on: Oct 13th, 2011, 8:57pm »

Hi, First of all I am sort of new here. When I say sort of I refer to the fact that I have had an account here but have been inactive on it and after months forgot my password and all that, thus this account was made. First off I do not mean to offend anyone when asking this question, I myself believe the UFO phenomenon to be a reality as I myself have seen a UFO. Ever since the sighting I have sort of been obsessed at figuring out where this thing comes from and the identity of the pilots (man made or "other").

Anyway the question I have about Roswell is a simple one. Does anyone have, or know where I can get a recording of the Mac Brazel interview on the radio station KGFL? A transcript could be helpful but anymore I sort of doubt much documentation on the subject of UFO's primarily because 95% of it seems to be tampered with or made up either by government officials or by believers trying to make a mundane story with a mundane explanation more of a mystery than what it ever was. I have studied the Roswell case a little, even went through the MJ-12 documents and I am still left wondering if all of this wasn't just over inflated by the UFO community. I have read the interviews with Brazel and what he describes when referring to the wreckage he found doesn't at all sound like what and advanced species from another galaxy would use to accomplish space travel (i.e. tin foil and scotch tape).

Now I have read accounts where witnesses claim that Mac was a guest with the military for about a week and that after he returned his story had completely changed (to the scotch tape and tin foil story) and that on the KGFL radio review he was asked why his story had changed and that he replied with a phrase that suggested he had maybe been threatened. I want to know if this account really happened or if this is completely fabricated "information" by UFO believers for whatever reason. Did he in fact run off with the military for a week? Where is the proof of that? If there is no proof where did this info come from? Did in fact he ever change his story?

I firmly believe in government cover ups, but government cover ups do not automatically equal aliens. Usually they equal a secret weapon, or information pertaining to defense. Do I think that the government would cover up the existence of aliens, sure I do, its possible. However it is also possible that a body of UFO believers to completely fabricate info and add it to a story rooted in reality in order to sell more books and so on and so forth. I would go so far as to say that UFO believers have done just as much to muddy the waters of truth on the matter as the government probably has.

So there is my question. A recording of Mac's interview on KGFL? Did he in fact change his story after an alleged week long vacation with the military. I know a lot of UFO sites make a big deal about how he moved from his beloved ranch, but they don't seem to take into account the high volume of visitors on his land after the "crash". Being a simple type guy perhaps he got tired of strangers poking around on his land, invited or not.

« Last Edit: Oct 13th, 2011, 8:58pm by N3KR0T1CU5 » User IP Logged

N3KR0
icepick
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 5931
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #1 on: Oct 17th, 2011, 6:23pm »

Or maybe he just found better land with a better water supply? It happens all the time.

It's true that the government was never forthcoming about Roswell. But this smacks more of covering up covert operations than it does of aliens. There is also the decades of public silence about Roswell to consider. When I was a kid, Kenneth Arnold's sighting at Mount Ranier was the alleged first UFO sighting, not Roswell. And that famous photo shows an army officer posing with something that resembles Mylar far more than it does hull material.

Food for thought, that's all.
User IP Logged

B J Booth
Administrator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1751
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #2 on: Oct 17th, 2011, 6:41pm »

To my knowledge, there is no recording on that interview. Remember that Brazel only worked on the Foster farm, it was not his land. Brazel's story did change after his brief "visit" to the military, and suddenly, he had a brand new pickup truck. wonder why?
User IP Logged

B. J. Booth, UFO Casebook Webmaster
www.ufocasebook.com
icepick
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 5931
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #3 on: Oct 17th, 2011, 7:48pm »

But what does that state or imply? Much .......... or nothing. It all depends on one's viewpoint, but proves nothing. As the police love to say, move along, nothing to see here.

In my mind there was, but it wasn't what popular culture believes. The public has an excellent record for spotting inconsistency in official reports, but in keeping with human tendency, always seems to blow it out of proportion. This isn't like raising alarm about future possibility, it's playing detective without adhering to the rules of proof. In my opinion there wouldn't be such a high level of controversy surrounding these events if the public would only develop some objectivity.

And to give you credit, your original statement did just that. But your final sentence plays right into the hands of speculation. Speculation is a necessary evil, but it's still an evil. One we should be careful as to how we direct it.

I'm skeptical about Roswell as an alien incident for one reason. Roswell lies squarely in the middle of the region where the Nazi Scientists were taken. So they could work with our scientists in many areas of research. Something crashed at Roswell, but what? One clue might lie in the fact that the most common type of craft to crash is the experimental variety? And might the government seek to hide the existence of such a craft/project? Just a thought.
User IP Logged

beeleaver66
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 477
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #4 on: Oct 18th, 2011, 9:40pm »

Ice you opinions are duly noted. But the facts remain.
And these facts are proof that something crashed to earth there. We can speculate all we want about what crashed.
But why then would the Government announce that a Disc had crashed there? Why would they issue a press release, stating anything of the sort? To hide this from the world? In the middle of the desert. In a Military town, where secrecy could have been easily secured. No, i think the facts and the timeline of events proves that there is more to this event.

Top secret projects that might not have been known or shared with the US Army Air Corps stationed there, does not hold water either. For we know that they possessed Atomic weapons and they already had protocol for non-disclosure of that. This was outside their realm. And so they did the unthinkable. and Under the direction of base commander Colonel William Blanchard , 1st Lt. Walter Haut , the base public relations officer, wrote a press release. The headline of the press release was “RAAF Captures Flying Saucer On Ranch In Roswell Region." Only to change their story the very next day. thats what has always clinched it for me. Why Bother? Why would they have issued the initial press release at all? So that they could inform then dis-inform the public? I dont think they thought this through. Makes no sense. And in that nonsense lies the proof that what they had was in fact not within their standard operating procedures. just my opinion though

User IP Logged

dave54
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1221
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #5 on: Oct 19th, 2011, 10:31pm »

The initial 'disc' press release was a failed attempt at a cover up. Higher ups rapidly realized the 'disc' story was ludicrous and had to backtrack, coming up with a more plausible explanation. The whole episode became a domino chain of errors.


Secret projects are highly compartmentalized. People working in adjacent buildings on the same military base often do not know what the other is doing -- then and now. This was during the Cold War and the military was anally rententive about secrecy -- they even stamped supply orders for toothpaste and toilet paper secret so no one could guess troop strength.
« Last Edit: Oct 19th, 2011, 10:32pm by dave54 » User IP Logged

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This post is 100% gluten free and made with recycled electrons.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
beeleaver66
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 477
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #6 on: Oct 20th, 2011, 1:10pm »

I dont understand why they released anything to the press How popular were flying discs, in 1947? Kenneth Arnoldhuh And do you think a Top Secret Military Base, with Atomic weapons wanted to draw attention to itself, by claiming they had a flying disc? I dont understand why they felt the need to release anything to the public. It was just one man. Mac Brazel, who came into town, and reported the wreckage. Why was this not covered up immediately?
In my opinion, it was because Colonel Blanchard, base commander, felt obligated to publically report something out of his area of specialty. If it was a military project, from some near-by research facility, it is obvious to me, Blanchard would have recognized this fact. And he would not have disclosed anything. He was under no obligation to do so. So why did he? Because it was what he probably felt was World News. And the magnitude of this news, superceded his military protocols. Just my opinion though.
« Last Edit: Oct 20th, 2011, 2:09pm by beeleaver66 » User IP Logged

bonehead
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

"All descriptions of reality are temporary hypotheses."


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1659
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #7 on: Oct 21st, 2011, 12:28pm »

on Oct 19th, 2011, 10:31pm, dave54 wrote:
The initial 'disc' press release was a failed attempt at a cover up. Higher ups rapidly realized the 'disc' story was ludicrous and had to backtrack, coming up with a more plausible explanation. The whole episode became a domino chain of errors.


Nice try. But I have to go along with Beeleaver on this one.

I think you have the whole thing inverted. The truth of the matter is that, in a small town like Roswell, the rumors of a UFO crash were already spreading like wild fire. There are large numbers of people who testify to this fact. In fact, what happened with the press release followed up by a denial was the very best way to squelch those rumors.

The initial claim was like release valve, letting off pressure building up in the rumor mill. Then the turn-around denial killed the story as dead as they could make it. Whether Blanchard was in on the cover-up or unwittingly made the initial statement (only to piss off the higher -ups), once all the BS about weather balloons came out, the result was the same.

And it must be remembered that the primary reason that Jesse Marcel later talked about the case to Stan Friedman, was because it still rankled him that he was made to look like a foolish chump by the whole balloon story. Jesse Marcel was the intelligence officer of the world's only nuclear equipped bomber squadron. The idea that an individual held in such high esteem by his superiors could not tell a weather balloon from something unusual and unexplained is the really implausible story here.

I find it strange that so many think the Roswell story is a load of BS. Of all the UFO cases ever vetted, this one has more witnesses than any other. If all those dozens of people were just a bunch of liars, then how come their stories seem to support each other so well? There is no single UFO case ever that has more corroborative testimony attached to it. I tend to think the disbelievers or conspiracy theorists have either not read much of the literature around the case, or they have preconceived agendas of their own which prevent them from taking the witness testimonials at face value.

Sorry Tim, but your "alternative theory" of the whole thing being the result of Nazi mad scientists is beyond laughable. I think you should read some of the many Roswell books again, with an open mind (rather than a made up one) and see if those dozens of testimonials really correspond with your tall tale.... wink
« Last Edit: Oct 21st, 2011, 12:30pm by bonehead » User IP Logged

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
ALBERT EINSTEIN
GForce
Mod Director
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

You'll never find happiness until you find yourself!


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 6396
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #8 on: Oct 21st, 2011, 1:01pm »

I tend to side with Beeleaver and bonehead where Roswell is concerned. It does have a lot of witnesses who for the life of me I can't figure out why they'd lie. Some even waited until their death beds to confess.

Regardless to who's it is, I have no doubt that it was a craft and not a weather balloon that crashed. I still don't think the entire truth has been released or uncovered. That also holds true for Rendlesham Forest.
Dan
User IP Logged

icepick
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 5931
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #9 on: Oct 21st, 2011, 11:17pm »

The fact that the story literally died for decades is of itself suspicious though Dan. And memories are known for all sorts of issues over that length of time. I fully realize that many people suddenly claimed knowledge starting in the 1980s, but many of those stories vary quite a bit, and not one out of so many alleged accounts has ever offered up one single shred of concrete evidence that this was an alien ship. If you will think about it, what crashes more? Experimental aircraft or interstellar ships?

Hmmm, we don't know the answer to that either, do we?

All we know for certain is that something crashed there in 1947. What has given this story more credibility in modern times is the fact that Hollywood utilized it as a plot vehicle, particularly in one TV show that was fairly well done, and it took care to never state a definite. All of those fake pictures of alien bodies, as well as that autopsy video, were so poorly done that they nearly turned it into a joke. The many reports in recent times, along with alleged deathbed confessions, are controversial at best. They're heresay, nothing more. If this were a court case, every single one would have been tossed out.

But we do know there was a crash. So much controversial evidence has turned up to support this tale, that a lot of people are starting to doubt this as well, despite there being physical evidence.

Personally, I can't convince myself this was anything other than military though. It has that feel.

There's also the fact that when there was military involvement in a genuine sounding report, like JAL 1628 over Alaska for example, official denial is lukewarm at best, and quite often is non existent. Anything resembling a cover up just doesn't seem to happen.

Not so with Roswell. This is more like Kecksburg, where direct military involvement was obvious. Nothing but disinformation, denial, and disappearing evidence is the norm in these cases. To me, this behavior smacks of something to hide. Like their something.

Just about as credible a case as there's ever been is Rendlesham. And we all know how direct military involvement in that one was. But while there was a couple of halfhearted denial statements about it, the military almost sounded disinterested. I see a pattern here myself, but that could just be me.

Nut I will point something out about Rendlesham before somebody beats me to the punch. I don't know if this means anything or not, but the description of the UFO(s), while in flight, not on the ground, is pretty similar to the Foo Fighter reports from WWII. BTW, this is the story I would like to hear everybody get hot on the tail of. The American Government compiled a huge archive about them.

In them they also have gun camera footage. Literally miles of the stuff, but it has yet to see the light of day. Sounds interesting, but also off topic. Where Roswell is concerned, after weighing everything I've ever come across, my gut just screams military covering their top secret tracks, that's all. Yes, I could be wrong. Of course so could you. But if I'm wrong, then the military bucked their pattern with this one. I don't see any way this story will ever be resolved, for either side.

Now do you see why I said we should refocus on the Foo Fighters? grin We would win that one. They can't really deny all those reports which they made themselves, can they?
User IP Logged

beeleaver66
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 477
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #10 on: Oct 22nd, 2011, 01:45am »

The following is from Walter Haut's testimony on an affidavit:

from this site: http://www.roswellproof.com/haut.html

A key topic of discussion at the morning meeting was how to deal with the situation, since members of the press and public already knew something was going on. Haut gave insight into the reasoning behind Blanchard's perplexing flying disc press release which Haut delivered to the local Roswell media. Gen. Ramey wished to divert attention away from the more important craft/body site by acknowledging the remoter, less accessible debris site, but providing few details. Haut believed Ramey was acting under direction of his superiors at the Pentagon. It was discussed whether to tell the public the full truth, but this was decided against, and thus began a cover-up that continues to this day.

If this is true, and probably is, I think it helps to explain a possible reason for the press release. If you go on to read this man;'s affidavit, it appears that he was made a part of this history by Col Blanchard. Strange the Base commander would choose the Base Public Information officer?
« Last Edit: Oct 22nd, 2011, 01:48am by beeleaver66 » User IP Logged

bonehead
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

"All descriptions of reality are temporary hypotheses."


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1659
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #11 on: Oct 22nd, 2011, 12:48pm »

on Oct 21st, 2011, 11:17pm, icepick wrote:
The fact that the story literally died for decades is of itself suspicious though Dan.


Not really. Back in those days, right after World War II, if the feds said "jump", people only followed with "how high?". In testimonial after testimonial nearly every witness talks of secrecy oaths and direct threats of violence or loss of pensions and such. If you read the literature, you find these things are nearly universal in witness statements and, given the social climate of the day, people simply shut-up about it because they thought it was the "patriotic" thing to do. No great mystery there.

But apparently you missed or ignored all of that stuff. Maybe you were too busy thinking about Nazi spaceships when that stuff came up......? wink



on Oct 21st, 2011, 11:17pm, icepick wrote:
And memories are known for all sorts of issues over that length of time.


Yeah, i know what you mean. If I actually saw something like a smashed ship and dead bodies that clearly were not human, I would forget that too. rolleyes

Some memories stay with you your entire life because they were so unusual or alarming. Sure, details may fade, but the essential memory can stay with you permanently - primarily because it was so "off the charts".



on Oct 21st, 2011, 11:17pm, icepick wrote:
I fully realize that many people suddenly claimed knowledge starting in the 1980s, but many of those stories vary quite a bit, and not one out of so many alleged accounts has ever offered up one single shred of concrete evidence that this was an alien ship.


Nobody "suddenly" remembered those things. They had always remembered them. As I said above, many of those people were haunted by those memories. And, if they were true, why wouldn't they be? Your bias is showing loud and clear here.

So nobody turned up any pieces of whatever it was. No surprise there either. If you read the literature, you find out why that was true. Well, unless you have a predisposition to disbelieve the whole thing.

However, since you think Roswell is a steaming pile of BS, and Rendlesham is the "real deal", let's see those corroborating "concrete" pieces of the Rendlesham object....

C'mon, we're waiting........ kiss

on Oct 21st, 2011, 11:17pm, icepick wrote:
If you will think about it, what crashes more? Experimental aircraft or interstellar ships?

Hmmm, we don't know the answer to that either, do we?


Ah, the old non-sequitur tactic! Let me guess: the answer is "experimental aircraft"?

Did you say that you were once on a debating team? Because if you were, you probably are aware that this tactic is not only bad argument, but prone to easy dismissal since it essentially switches the debate from real argument to substitution by false premises. The assumed corollary here is that because "spaceships" are rare and aircraft more common, then this couldn't be a "spaceship" (your word, not mine).

That is not a real argument, but a seemingly logical statement that has nothing to do with the actual argument at hand. Sorry Ice, that is bad form.


on Oct 21st, 2011, 11:17pm, icepick wrote:
All we know for certain is that something crashed there in 1947.... The many reports in recent times, along with alleged deathbed confessions, are controversial at best. They're heresay, nothing more. If this were a court case, every single one would have been tossed out.


That is not true either. A pretty high proportion of the testimonials are from first-hand witnesses who were actually there and saw what they claim to have seen. Those types of witnesses are the type that are accepted by our courts. Maybe not by you - because your are predisposed to disbelieve them, not because they are the "wrong kind" of witnesses, but because you have an agenda that rejects their statements without consideration because you have already made up your mind that they are all liars.

That sounds more like a kangaroo court than an impartial hearing of the evidence. Just saying.


on Oct 21st, 2011, 11:17pm, icepick wrote:
But we do know there was a crash. So much controversial evidence has turned up to support this tale, that a lot of people are starting to doubt this as well, despite there being physical evidence.

Personally, I can't convince myself this was anything other than military though. It has that feel.


What "feel"? I don't feel what you are feeling. I guess it must just be you, then.

on Oct 21st, 2011, 11:17pm, icepick wrote:
There's also the fact that when there was military involvement in a genuine sounding report, like JAL 1628 over Alaska for example, official denial is lukewarm at best, and quite often is non existent. Anything resembling a cover up just doesn't seem to happen.

Not so with Roswell. This is more like Kecksburg, where direct military involvement was obvious. Nothing but disinformation, denial, and disappearing evidence is the norm in these cases. To me, this behavior smacks of something to hide. Like their something.


Yeah, something to hide! Duh!

"Their something"? That is only speculation on your part. The only reason you are speculating is because you refuse to take the evidence at face value. If you just take the testimony at face value, you won't have to speculate so much.


on Oct 21st, 2011, 11:17pm, icepick wrote:
Just about as credible a case as there's ever been is Rendlesham. And we all know how direct military involvement in that one was. But while there was a couple of halfhearted denial statements about it, the military almost sounded disinterested. I see a pattern here myself, but that could just be me.


I don't have any huge problems with the Rendlesham case. But if you are comparing cases (which you are), Roswell has a great deal more witnesses. Unfortunately, they are all getting old now and dying at an accelerating rate. That means that this story is slowly slipping under the bus of time.

But Rendlesham never had the gravitas or number of witnesses that Roswell has. My only question to you is: why do you question one case and accept the other? The one you reject has more witnesses and less divergence between their stories.

Bias would be my guess. wink


« Last Edit: Oct 23rd, 2011, 11:49am by bonehead » User IP Logged

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
ALBERT EINSTEIN
HAL9000
Guest
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #12 on: Oct 22nd, 2011, 1:04pm »

If the Roswell 'object' had been a balloon suspended device, wouldn't it have tended to drop straight down, therby making little impact on the ground. No the kind of damage usualy refered to as a 'crash' ?

just a passing thought.

HAL
User IP Logged

GForce
Mod Director
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

You'll never find happiness until you find yourself!


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 6396
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #13 on: Oct 22nd, 2011, 1:54pm »

Icepick the story died because no one was talking the the mass media bought whatever the government told them. The military/government were saviors in their eyes for winning the war(WWII) Investigative reporting didn't come along until the late 60's early 70's. The press even covered up JFK's affairs.

It should also be noted they were no UFOlogists pushing the envelope and those who had any knowledge were afraid to come forward.

Threats will have that effect on people! I'm not saying it was an alien craft but I surely don't buy a weather balloon. I still think somewhere someone has a piece of the craft and will come forward. My two cents anyway! Dan
User IP Logged

N3KR0T1CU5
New Member
Image


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 3
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #14 on: Oct 23rd, 2011, 08:46am »

Wow, first of all thanks so much to everyone for putting in their 2 cents, or buck 50, or 5 bucks and 65 cents wink. Secondly I really should keep closer attention to this forum because now I have read so much in responses that my head is all scattered with thoughts and thus my post will probably be a little scattered as well. Apologies in advance.

HAL, I am absolutely embarrassed to admit that I have never once thought of the incident in in the terms of a balloon crashing to earth and "exploding". I don't know why I never thought of it in those terms. You are absolutely correct, balloons (especially ones made of wooden sticks, tin foilish material, and scotch tape) do not crash into anything but instead deflate, lose altitude, and sort of half ass fall to the ground. No dramatic explosion happens and so on and so forth. So thanks for that input, I feel stupid for never taking that into consideration while pondering the balloon (of any kind) story.

Bonehead, I honestly have to agree with your stand point. Folks will sit there and challenge a Roswell UFO cover up for many reasons. First off they try and claim that the years of silence somehow invalidates the witness testimony. The Roswell incident happened at a time when folks were still VERY patriotic and very obeying of anything anyone with an official position of authority told them to do. If a cop, or a soldier, or an agent told someone not to say anything they didn't and in doing this had this sort of pride about them for a "job well done for my country". Back in those days conspiracy theories of any kind concerning our government were laughed at more than they are today and conspiracy theorists were shunned and mocked, instead of today where they can post their theories on the net and gain an audience of people who fancy them professors or theologians of some high degree. Talk of a flying disc and aliens just didn't all of a sudden get introduced in the Roswell story in the 80's, it had always been there to a noticeable degree, but as the years passed folks seemed to get less tight lipped about what they claim they saw. People also seem to forget that the Roswell incident happened back when national communication was not as fast as it is today, which I always thought lent credence to a cover up of some kind because there was more time to carry out a cover up. I as well have always seen the official statement of a flying discs being recovered as a huge red flag that something truly strange WAS actually recovered. No matter WHAT if the object that crashed was simply just a top secret aircraft why in the world would officials ever use a claim of a flying disc to cover up secret aircraft? Why would they not have just used weather balloon story to begin with, or hell, even a paper airplane made by little jimmy on 3rd street would have been smarter and more believable than using flying disc as an attempt to cover up a secret defense project.

Also, in the time the incident occurred why would the government even bother with a cover up at all? Mac Brazel went into the police station and reported that he might have a downed flying disc on the property. If it were just a balloon, project Mogul or otherwise, it is more likely, especially in those times, that the peices would have been picked up and there would have been absolutely no need to say anything at all to the public. Further more if a balloon had just lost its way and drifted down to the ground the public wouldn't even be interested in it. Of all the secret balloon tests and even aircraft that have undoubtedly crashed on property all over the nation how much of it was found by folks without a big story of any kind coming of it? I think the ONLY reason why the balloon statement was ever made in the first place was to directly counter the initial flying disc report. Had the flying disc story never have been reported by the military I doubt anyone would know about a mundane top secret balloon crash to this very day. Sure the towns people would know but would have stopped talking about a downed "balloon of some sort" just as soon as it happened. I hope what I am saying makes even a little sense, sorry again for being so scattered lol.

As far as death bed confessions I have a LARGE problem with folks trying to dismiss the death bed confessions for a very simple reason. If I am about to die, I do NOT at all want my last words to be a fabricated lie about space aliens. I would wager to say the vast majority of people on this planet feel the same way, not to mention folks in Roswell from a very no nonsense generation who never had time for fairy tales of aliens previous to what they perceived to be a VERY odd and strange event in the Roswell Incident.

As far as Brazel changing his story and apparently getting a new truck for it, I guess my question still stands. Where does this info come from? I fear that I may be pretty under read on these reports. Can someone point me in a direction as to where these reports came from?

On another note I distinctly remember seeing a special of some sort where a team went to the crash area and did a dig there. I remember they found a large impression in the layers of earth there that could have only been made by something heavy and traveling EXTREMELY fast slamming into the earth. I also remember they found some sort of strange material in bedded in the earth there and they sent that material to a Wells Fargo bank to have it locked up while they tested it further. I don't remember seeing any follow up to that documentary and I can not for the life of me remember what it was called.

My god this is scattered, sorry again. Ill try and keep up with the replies better from here on out.
« Last Edit: Oct 23rd, 2011, 08:59am by N3KR0T1CU5 » User IP Logged

N3KR0
Pages: 1 2 3  ...  9 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 19,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls