Board Logo
« Roswell question. »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Aug 23rd, 2017, 6:19pm


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 ... 3 4 5 6 7  ...  9 Notify Send Topic Print
 veryhotthread  Author  Topic: Roswell question.  (Read 19200 times)
s9999
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 169
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #60 on: Nov 5th, 2011, 8:40pm »

Seems like a reasonable thought to me.
User IP Logged

drwu23
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 6592
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #61 on: Nov 6th, 2011, 08:46am »

on Nov 5th, 2011, 8:36pm, GForce wrote:
I agree drwu! There's been a number of claims of crashed and recovered alien craft with recovered bodies, not just at Roswell but elsewhere. I have a real problem with these claims. First I seriously doubt an alien craft with ET's at the helm can travel millions of miles through outer space dodging all the space junk out there only to crash on the 3rd rock from the sun. I don't think gravity is that much of a factor. So unless mankind has the ability to shoot down these advanced craft IF they exist the crashes are hard to fathom.

I'm not saying it's impossible that a craft with bodies hasn't been recoved only unlikely IMO. Dan


You and I are in the minority then because most are true Roswell ET believers.
I don't have a problem with space aliens using tech we don't yet understand to get here but the evidence for all of these tales is inconclusive..imo. After reading Alexanders book I think there is a great deal of speculation and theory mongering from the faithful who believe in all the ET stories , saucers and bodies, etc.
In Revelations Dr Vallee cited no less than 17 alleged crashes yet not one managed to be recovered or even photgraphed or some debris picked up by any civilians who were in the area. Those gubbermint guys are really fast & good. wink
I give Roswell a 10% chance of being aliens...and imo that's generous.
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 #62 on: Nov 6th, 2011, 09:48am »

on Nov 6th, 2011, 08:46am, drwu23 wrote:
You and I are in the minority then because most are true Roswell ET believers.
I don't have a problem with space aliens using tech we don't yet understand to get here but the evidence for all of these tales is inconclusive..imo. After reading Alexanders book I think there is a great deal of speculation and theory mongering from the faithful who believe in all the ET stories , saucers and bodies, etc.
In Revelations Dr Vallee cited no less than 17 alleged crashes yet not one managed to be recovered or even photgraphed or some debris picked up by any civilians who were in the area. Those gubbermint guys are really fast & good. wink
I give Roswell a 10% chance of being aliens...and imo that's generous.


I think if alien bodies were ever recovered it's most likely that it was at Roswell however I do think the percentage is slim. So many stories start at Roswell, it's the Alpha of UFOlogy but some are hard to fathom. I remember being interesting in Phillip Corso's stories of reverse engineering alien technology such as fiber optics. On the surface it sound plausable but when you consider the advances in technology made by man before Roswell its not hard to believe that things such as fiber optics were developed without alien technology.

Considering that the Wright Brothers flew in Kitty Hawk in 1903 and just some 40+ years later we had atomic bombs. Consider that we went from Silent movies to color movies and television in about 40 years. All before Roswell. Mankind was making advances on its own!

If we have alien technology and we may it just makes more sense that somewhere along the way during FDR's last years through JFK years that aliens made contact. I'm not saying they did, only that it makes more sense that we were given the technology not reverse engineered it. Maybe an alien craft did crash at Roswell that opened up communication. It's all open for debate and personal belief. Dan
User IP Logged

bonehead
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

"All descriptions of reality are temporary hypotheses."


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1657
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #63 on: Nov 8th, 2011, 12:22pm »

on Nov 4th, 2011, 7:01pm, icepick wrote:
Well the fact that nobody recognized it was proof enough it wasn't a balloon. With that project happening right around there, they saw those float by all the time. I'm certain they would have been able to figure out what the debris was after seeing those.

That's why that one picture was staged too. An obvious balloon, that. You already heard this though. But I've been thinking about what might have hit the ground there. Those crescent shaped vehicles Arnold saw at Mount Ranier sound like one possibility to me. They fit the description of the Horten wing, or a miniature version of the one Northrop developed. I think those might have fooled somebody into thinking it was saucer wreckage. How about yourself?


Oh Gawd, here we go again..... rolleyes

The Horten flying wing as an explanation for the Kenneth Arnold case is a thing which can only be promoted by those who know little to nothing about the subject - either the flying wing or what Arnold actually saw.

The old canard about the "ships" being crescent shaped came from this widely published photo of Arnold holding an artist's rendering of his presumed "ships":


http://www.xenophilia.com/zb/zb0015/arnold.jpg

First of all, what Arnold saw was not "crescent shaped"! Proof for this is also widely available on the net. A quick search reveals Arnold's own drawing of what he saw:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arnold_AAF_drawing.jpg

Not a crescent, but a "heel" shape, much like the shape of the heel of a shoe. If you go back to the original published article on the Arnold sighting which appeared in the premier issue of Fate Magazine, you will find a more accurate rendering of what Arnold saw:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/ufo-history.htm

Interestingly, a photo taken by William Rhodes of Phoenix Arizona weeks after the Arnold sighting, closely matched Arnold's own description of what he saw (Scroll down the page about two-thirtds of the way, it is the first photo you will come to):

http://epub-ebooks.net/sample/11156/the-golden-age-of-flying-saucers-classic-ufo-sightings-saucer-crashes-and-extraterrestrial-contact-encounters

So, we have established that the Horten Flying Wing does not resemble what Arnold himself actually claimed to have seen.

Now let's deal with why the Horten Flying Wing (a.k.a. Ho-IX, Horten Ho-229, or its official designation, Gotha Go-229) cannot have been responsible for the Roswell crash. It is important to know that the Horten Brothers, Walter and Reimar, were not conventional aircraft designers. Their interest in aviation came from Germany's widely promoted pre-war programs revolving around gliders.

As youths, the brothers entered glider competitions with gliders of their own design and creation. Gliders were built from non-strategic materials, primarily wood, fabric and steel. These were the primary materials in every Horten glider design prior to the war. The great innovation of the flying wing design came about because of the brother's obsession with limiting parasitic drag. Parasitic drag would be defined as drag created by any parts of an aircraft that do not contribute to the lift of the aircraft. Of course, an aircraft that consisted of nothing more than a wing would be the ideal design to reduce parasitic drag to a minimum.

When the brothers finally were able to develop a jet powered version of their designs, they naturally reverted to the tried and true methods of aircraft construction that they had practiced for so many years: steel tubing and wood:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

The Horten brothers actually pointed to the work of Jack Northrop in America to encourage the Luftwaffe to supply them with the needed materials and workspace to develop their designs. Northrop proposed a flying wing design for a large bomber aircraft. Since the flying wing design was quite radical and its flying properties unknown, Nothrop developed a flying scale model of the design to test its airworthiness. This aircraft, the Northrop N-9M, was again, constructed primarily of wood and steel tubing, just like the Horten Flying wing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_N-9M

The eventual Northrop B-35 Bomber first flew in June 1946. However, its large size and conventional aluminum structure (which would have been recognized by any aeronautically minded person of the day, especially Army Air Force personnel) preclude it from having anything to do with the Roswell crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_XB-35

So, how do the Horten or Northrop flying wing designs jibe with the multiple witness descriptions of the Roswell wreckage (Okay, NOT the wreckage in the bogus picture of Major Jesse Marcel holding bits of what everybody agrees is a weather balloon)??

Follow the links and decide for yourselves.


on Nov 6th, 2011, 08:46am, drwu23 wrote:
..... I think there is a great deal of speculation and theory mongering from the faithful who believe in all the ET stories , saucers and bodies, etc.....


Yep! And there is an awful lot of speculation and theory mongering among those who disbelieve those stories too. To that statement I would offer the above evidence as 'exhibit one' of just that type of uninformed idle speculation.......

Bonehead
wink
« Last Edit: Nov 8th, 2011, 12:32pm by bonehead » User IP Logged

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Leon
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 275
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #64 on: Nov 8th, 2011, 3:47pm »

on Oct 22nd, 2011, 12:48pm, bonehead wrote:
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





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".





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



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.




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.




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



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.




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




I believe what bonehead did here is referred to as an undressing?

While running the risk of becoming undressed myself, I'll play a bit of devils advocate; regarding the idea that Roswell represents contact with Aliens. How do we know that the government didn't manufacture these beings.
One of the posts mentioned the craft crashing near a facility housing Nazi scientists. Hasn't it been speculated that the Nazis were tampering with genetic engineering? I realize this might seem a bit far fetched, but Bone you've said yourself that titles can cause problems. Is there a risk of running into those same problems labeling the beings who occupied the downed craft?

User IP Logged

bonehead
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

"All descriptions of reality are temporary hypotheses."


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1657
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #65 on: Nov 8th, 2011, 6:34pm »

on Nov 8th, 2011, 3:47pm, Leon (Formerly cowanln) wrote:
I believe what bonehead did here is referred to as an undressing?

While running the risk of becoming undressed myself, I'll play a bit of devils advocate; regarding the idea that Roswell represents contact with Aliens. How do we know that the government didn't manufacture these beings.
One of the posts mentioned the craft crashing near a facility housing Nazi scientists. Hasn't it been speculated that the Nazis were tampering with genetic engineering? I realize this might seem a bit far fetched, but Bone you've said yourself that titles can cause problems. Is there a risk of running into those same problems labeling the beings who occupied the downed craft?


I have not "labeled" anything here. I have not speculated here either. All I have done is lay out some basic facts about certain speculative "explanations" which, once the facts are known, do not hold up to scrutiny.

I never said "alien". You are reading things into my post which simply are not there. I leave any "labels" up to the witnesses. I wasn't there and am not speculating about what they saw. Whatever they saw, all we have is their interpretations of things. I am not in position to judge their explanations.

It seems to me that the only speculating and labeling here has been done by debunkers. And yes, that last word is a label. But it is one I feel they have earned.

Just saying.... wink
« Last Edit: Nov 8th, 2011, 6:44pm by bonehead » User IP Logged

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Leon
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 275
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #66 on: Nov 9th, 2011, 08:35am »

on Nov 8th, 2011, 6:34pm, bonehead wrote:
I have not "labeled" anything here. I have not speculated here either. All I have done is lay out some basic facts about certain speculative "explanations" which, once the facts are known, do not hold up to scrutiny.

I never said "alien". You are reading things into my post which simply are not there. I leave any "labels" up to the witnesses. I wasn't there and am not speculating about what they saw. Whatever they saw, all we have is their interpretations of things. I am not in position to judge their explanations.

It seems to me that the only speculating and labeling here has been done by debunkers. And yes, that last word is a label. But it is one I feel they have earned.

Just saying.... wink


I here ya bone. Apologies for the misread of what you were conveying.
User IP Logged

drwu23
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 6592
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #67 on: Nov 9th, 2011, 11:08am »

on Nov 8th, 2011, 6:34pm, bonehead wrote:
I have not "labeled" anything here. I have not speculated here either. All I have done is lay out some basic facts about certain speculative "explanations" which, once the facts are known, do not hold up to scrutiny.

I never said "alien". You are reading things into my post which simply are not there. I leave any "labels" up to the witnesses. I wasn't there and am not speculating about what they saw. Whatever they saw, all we have is their interpretations of things. I am not in position to judge their explanations.

It seems to me that the only speculating and labeling here has been done by debunkers. And yes, that last word is a label. But it is one I feel they have earned.

Just saying.... wink


I don't think the alien idea holds up to scrutiny any better than the Mogul and other explanations for Roswell.
Something happened but there simply isn't enough objective info to say what it was.
User IP Logged

Festus
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 265
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #68 on: Nov 9th, 2011, 11:35am »

on Nov 9th, 2011, 11:08am, drwu23 wrote:
I don't think the alien idea holds up to scrutiny any better than the Mogul and other explanations for Roswell.
Something happened but there simply isn't enough objective info to say what it was.


You have touched on an interesting point. For most level headed people, the "conventional explanations" put forth for the events at Roswell in July of '47 sound at least as silly as the claim by people who were there that some Little Green Men spilled out of a wrecked space ship. I dunno what happened there, but if the Air Force and the "skeptics" can't do any better than at-least-as-silly-as-Martians, then I think that should tell us something. But what?
User IP Logged

bonehead
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

"All descriptions of reality are temporary hypotheses."


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1657
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #69 on: Nov 9th, 2011, 11:48am »

on Nov 9th, 2011, 08:35am, Leon (Formerly cowanln) wrote:
I here ya bone. Apologies for the misread of what you were conveying.


Thanks Leon!

Because this thread has shown the presence of a swarm of folks here who think the whole Roswell story is rubbish, I would like to make clear that the burden of proof lays squarely on the side of the debunkers. Why? Because they have chosen to disbelieve the testimonials of dozens of people!

In the popular absolutist language that materialists are so fond of, either all of those folks are liars or delusional, or they are not. If those people are not liars or delusional, then the debunkers are nothing more than conspiracy theorists and fabricators of self-deluded BS.

There is no reason to believe all of those witnesses are liars or frauds. This essentially comes down to what folks are WILLING to believe. Debunking, in this case, must come at the expense of all of those witnesses who seem to be telling very similar stories.

So, if one is to disbelieve, they must come up with alternate explanations as to why these people told their presumably confabulated or mistaken stories. The above nonsense shows how poorly they have made their cases: blaming the wreck on human aircraft that don't fit the evidence (no matter how carefully you twist it) and claiming that bodies witnesses saw are (let's list them):

1). Victims of Nazi medical experiments
2). Mutant Japanese dwarves riding in non-existent Nazi aircraft
3). Time-traveling crash-test dummies (that did not appear until well into the 1950s)

This reads like the most wild and irrational conspiracy theorizing extant! shocked rolleyesHonest folks, DARK TRUTH would be proud of you! wink laugh
The simple alternative here is to take the testimony of witnesses at face value. Let's be clear: neither I nor anybody else here KNOWS what these people saw! We weren't there!

However, the witnesses were there. We can either accept their stories, or jump through a large series of fabricated and quite frankly, crazed, explanations in order to maintain that disbelief. Occam's razor is on the side of the witnesses. And since the debunkers (as far as I know) have never done any better than the above laughable examples of half-baked conspiracy theories, it is pretty easy to see which side is being more rational.

If even one of you comes up with a logical explanation that does not sound like the unhinged ravings of a lunatic conspiracy theorist, then I will be more than willing to reconsider my position. But you will have to do a lot better than the above farrago of discursive nonsense. Go ahead, give it your best shot!

But I ain't holding my breath..... kiss
« Last Edit: Nov 9th, 2011, 11:59am by bonehead » User IP Logged

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
ALBERT EINSTEIN
drwu23
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 6592
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #70 on: Nov 9th, 2011, 2:53pm »

Testimonials of dozens of people...?Really? And how credible are these testimonials and these witnesses?
I have read both sides over the years and their testimony has been shredded just like the alternate ideas have been.
Bottom line is that neither side has made a decent case for their position imo.
User IP Logged

MOKSHA
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

SOUL=402 KOPAVI=444 METATRON=636


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4414
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #71 on: Nov 10th, 2011, 5:53pm »

The one idea, that the distance was just to far to travel, seems like a believe system, and NOT a method of proof.
JUST SAYING
User IP Logged

We are not to worry about a grain of sand in our friends eye, when we may have a two by four sticking out of our own
MOKSHA
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

SOUL=402 KOPAVI=444 METATRON=636


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4414
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #72 on: Nov 11th, 2011, 06:10am »

If a craft crashed at Roswell, what had made it crash?
If a craft can fly like the alleged reports, this may be electromagnetic in form.
Radar, was being perfected and amplified at the same exact time, could our experiments with these technologies have aided in this alleged report?
MKW
User IP Logged

We are not to worry about a grain of sand in our friends eye, when we may have a two by four sticking out of our own
icepick
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 5931
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #73 on: Nov 14th, 2011, 01:54am »

Bonehead, Northrop, Horten, it doesn't matter. Flying wings were being tested in the southwest back then. And the concept was never truly abandoned either.

Do you know what caused the Northrop wings to crash? Stall testing, otherwise they were functional. I'm sure this fact led to the demise of the Horten version as well. It was fly by wire and computers which solved the problem.

You might do well to note I've only offered this as a suggestion ............ to possibly make it clear that Roswell lies smack in the middle of one of the biggest flight test ranges out there? If that's not interesting, I don't know what is.

One fact advocates of alien crashes might take note of? Colliding with dust specks at near light speeds produces atomic grade explosions. I suspect a method of coping is necessary. Would such a craft crumble at hypersonic speeds? Pretty iffy in my opinion.
User IP Logged

bonehead
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

"All descriptions of reality are temporary hypotheses."


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1657
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #74 on: Nov 14th, 2011, 12:32pm »

on Nov 14th, 2011, 01:54am, icepick wrote:
Bonehead, Northrop, Horten, it doesn't matter. Flying wings were being tested in the southwest back then. And the concept was never truly abandoned either.


I never said it was. But the Horten flying wing? Definitely "abandoned". For one thing, the sole operational prototype NEVER flew. It was not even fully completed. It was shipped unassembled to the states where it has resided, unassembled, in the possession of the Smithsonian all these years hence.

on Nov 14th, 2011, 01:54am, icepick wrote:
Do you know what caused the Northrop wings to crash? Stall testing, otherwise they were functional. I'm sure this fact led to the demise of the Horten version as well. It was fly by wire and computers which solved the problem.


Actually, it was uninvited stalls that led to the demise of Northrop's immediate postwar attempts at flying wings. The problem with a flying wing, aerodynamically speaking, is that it has no lateral surface area to make stall or spin recovery an easy proposition. On a conventional airplane, the extended fuselage with the rudder at its end acts as a sort of pendulum or lever which can easily counter the forces of a spin. A flying wing does not have that and that is why spin recovery is not good for those designs.

on Nov 14th, 2011, 01:54am, icepick wrote:
You might do well to note I've only offered this as a suggestion ............ to possibly make it clear that Roswell lies smack in the middle of one of the biggest flight test ranges out there? If that's not interesting, I don't know what is.


No, that is not true. The White Sands test range in New Mexico was the spot where nuclear tests took place. It was also a bombing and missile test range. The primary research done there was of rockets and nuke delivery systems. It was never a test range for experimental aircraft. At the time in question, most secret aircraft testing was done at "Muroc Field" (now Edwards Air Force Base) in the Mojave desert of California or Wright-Patterson Field in Ohio. BTW, Edwards AFB was named after a test-pilot who died there testing..... wait for it...... The Northrop Flying wing.

When the local population started growing due to housing developments near the Edwards AFB complex, secret testing was moved to the Nevada desert where it was less likely to be seen by prying eyes. Edwards is over 800 miles from White Sands and Area 51 (or Groom Lake as it was called back then) is more than half that distance. Neither could by any stretch of the imagination be deemed "near" Roswell.

I guess that stuff would be "interesting" if it were true....... wink


on Nov 14th, 2011, 01:54am, icepick wrote:
One fact advocates of alien crashes might take note of? Colliding with dust specks at near light speeds produces atomic grade explosions. I suspect a method of coping is necessary. Would such a craft crumble at hypersonic speeds? Pretty iffy in my opinion.


Ah yes, the old stand-by: materialist declarations that it can't be done! Okay, since you are a nuts&bolts guy, then how do your spaceships from outer space get here then?

Personally, I think this declaration is a canard. As youngster I checked out Daniel Fry's book, "The White Sands Incident" from my local library and read it, many times. That book states that such particulate problems are circumvented by the presence of a sort of "force -field" that exists at a semi-molecular level over the surface of the "ship". Fry claims to have learned this by touching the hull of a saucer which he said felt like a super-smooth "soapy" surface.

In other words, NOTHING actually touches the surface of the craft since it is repelled by a field which repels anything near it. This would also greatly reduce or eliminate surface drag when operating in an atmosphere such as our own. Okay, no proof there, but it is a cogent and workable solution to your "insurmountable" problem. A workable concept is 9/10ths of the way to a workable solution.

If we are talking anti-gravity, then such a system would, by default, create a local field around a craft that counters the natural forces you seem concerned with here. Without that polarity-counter to natural gravity forces, you would have no anti-gravity! Duh.

Besides, we have operated rockets for decades at hyper-sonic speeds that did not necessarily "disintegrate" once those speeds were achieved. I said you would have to come up with better explanations. These are no better than the poorly improvised BS you trotted out before......


on Nov 9th, 2011, 11:08am, drwu23 wrote:
I don't think the alien idea holds up to scrutiny any better than the Mogul and other explanations for Roswell.
Something happened but there simply isn't enough objective info to say what it was.


Thanks Drwu!

Well, I can give up my position now: this cogent and relevant explanation certainly explains why all of those dozens of witnesses were lying and/or delusional and did not know what it was they claimed they were seeing..... rolleyes
« Last Edit: Nov 14th, 2011, 12:47pm by bonehead » User IP Logged

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7  ...  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