Board Logo
« Roswell question. »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Oct 20th, 2017, 10:11pm


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 ... 4 5 6 7 8  9 Notify Send Topic Print
 veryhotthread  Author  Topic: Roswell question.  (Read 20492 times)
drwu23
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 6592
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #75 on: Nov 14th, 2011, 2:20pm »





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
[/quote]

You're welcome.
Just for the hell of it why don't you list these credible witnesses and what they saw...don't bother with Marcel since he didn't see anything other than questionable wreckage which could have been something he wasn't familiar with. But who are all these others and what specifically did they see.
(And yes..I have read several books already and many online pieces) and I'm not convinced that aliens crashed there. Convince me.

User IP Logged

s9999
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 169
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #76 on: Nov 14th, 2011, 4:17pm »

If they crashed must been little more knowledge then us.
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 #77 on: Nov 15th, 2011, 12:26pm »

on Nov 14th, 2011, 2:20pm, drwu23 wrote:
You're welcome.
Just for the hell of it why don't you list these credible witnesses and what they saw...don't bother with Marcel since he didn't see anything other than questionable wreckage which could have been something he wasn't familiar with. But who are all these others and what specifically did they see.
(And yes..I have read several books already and many online pieces) and I'm not convinced that aliens crashed there. Convince me.


Oh please, now you want me to do your research too? Here is a bibliography for you. These books are presently in my library and i have read all of them:

"The Roswell Incident" by Charles Berlitz and William Moore (the first book on Roswell)

"UFO Crash at Roswell" by Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt

"The Truth About the Crash at Roswell" also by Randle and Schmitt

"Witness to Roswell" by Thomas Carey and Don Schmitt

"The Roswell Legacy" by Jesse Marcel Jr.

Read them yourself and you will have a long list of witnesses that you can doubt (as you already have).

You ask me to: "don't bother with Marcel since he didn't see anything other than questionable wreckage which could have been something he wasn't familiar with."

Of course what Marcel saw was "something he was not familiar with"! Duh. He never said otherwise. Why forget about his testimony when he was an experienced aircrewman who had been around combat aircraft for many years and was trained as an intelligence officer whose business it was to know those things? This "requirement" of yours shows you are not willing to consider any witness testimony at all. So, making a list for you would be a complete of waste of my time.

But let's look at Marcel and what he did and witnessed. With his testimony we can easily reject the idea that what he saw was a weather balloon as the Air Force claimed, then unclaimed, then re-claimed again. Upon loading his large car up with wreckage from the ranch (after Mac Brazel directed him to it) the first thing he did was to stop by his house to wake his wife and son to show them the strange stuff which he was "not familiar with". Marcel knew what a weather balloon was and he would not have done much of anything if Brazel had only shown him a neoprene balloon and foil targets. Any moron would have known what that was, including Mac Brazel who said he had found balloons on the ranch before and this stuff was NOT that.

Marcel senior was excited and mystified by the debris. And this whole episode is covered in Jesse Jr.s book from his own point of view. Of course the Marcels were not the only people to handle the debris. Many others did as well and we find that their individual descriptions of the materials are all very similar: bits of foil with memory properties; cabling that was not wire (sounds a lot like fiber-optics - which had not been "invented" yet at that time); bits of metal that could not be cut, torn, dented or burnt in any way, bits of a plastic-like substance, dark brown in color.

The last material sounds similar to bakelite, an early type of plastic which was available at the time. The other stuff is unexplainable by any known technology of the period. In fact, I have yet to learn of any material, even today, that mimics the properties of the memory metal to the degree described by witnesses. Let's see, does that stuff describe the steel, wood and aluminum Horten flying wing which never actually flew either in Germany or here in the states?

To reiterate, the Roswell case has more independent witnesses than any other case extant. Period. Your position implies that those people are either all liars or delusional. Unless you can come up with an explanation why all of these people told their big lies, or were unable to tell ordinary stuff from extraordinary stuff, then all we have is their word for things. If they are all liars, then it implies a large organized conspiracy on top of those other assumptions. So, that puts Roswell pretty much in the same position as practically any other UFO case out there: it is based on witness testimony alone. Your requirement for "objective info" is a little churlish, given that there is practically none of that for any other UFO case either.

From this I suspect that you are only being unreasonable about this particular case based on your own incredulity, and not the "witness only" case itself. Since you have offered no explanation why all those people were all full of crap, you have no "objective info" to support your position either. So, that makes it your non-explanation versus the testimony of dozens of witnesses who say they were there - and whose whereabouts have been verified. You weren't there and cannot know what it was they saw.

That is why I find your objections unreasonable.
« Last Edit: Nov 15th, 2011, 3:36pm by bonehead » User IP Logged

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


member is offline

Avatar

SOUL=402 KOPAVI=444 METATRON=636


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4444
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #78 on: Nov 15th, 2011, 5:00pm »

DAMN,
I am sure glad to NOT take that stance, to be undressed my the,
"BONEHEAD" is truly to be undressed.
NEXT
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
pete4438
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 211
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #79 on: Nov 15th, 2011, 10:54pm »

Well that told him in no uncertain terms!
A few months ago I watched a TV science programme on which they featured 'memory metal'. I don't remember all of the details or what the show was called but it did have the properties mentioned. Someone had made a car with it!
Looked quite spectacular. Although I can't see motor manufacturers being too keen on using the material for obvious reasons.
Pete.
User IP Logged

drwu23
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 6592
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #80 on: Nov 15th, 2011, 11:52pm »

on Nov 15th, 2011, 12:26pm, bonehead wrote:
Oh please, now you want me to do your research too? Here is a bibliography for you. These books are presently in my library and i have read all of them:

"The Roswell Incident" by Charles Berlitz and William Moore (the first book on Roswell)

"UFO Crash at Roswell" by Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt

"The Truth About the Crash at Roswell" also by Randle and Schmitt

"Witness to Roswell" by Thomas Carey and Don Schmitt

"The Roswell Legacy" by Jesse Marcel Jr.

Read them yourself and you will have a long list of witnesses that you can doubt (as you already have).

You ask me to: "don't bother with Marcel since he didn't see anything other than questionable wreckage which could have been something he wasn't familiar with."

Of course what Marcel saw was "something he was not familiar with"! Duh. He never said otherwise. Why forget about his testimony when he was an experienced aircrewman who had been around combat aircraft for many years and was trained as an intelligence officer whose business it was to know those things? This "requirement" of yours shows you are not willing to consider any witness testimony at all. So, making a list for you would be a complete of waste of my time.

But let's look at Marcel and what he did and witnessed. With his testimony we can easily reject the idea that what he saw was a weather balloon as the Air Force claimed, then unclaimed, then re-claimed again. Upon loading his large car up with wreckage from the ranch (after Mac Brazel directed him to it) the first thing he did was to stop by his house to wake his wife and son to show them the strange stuff which he was "not familiar with". Marcel knew what a weather balloon was and he would not have done much of anything if Brazel had only shown him a neoprene balloon and foil targets. Any moron would have known what that was, including Mac Brazel who said he had found balloons on the ranch before and this stuff was NOT that.

Marcel senior was excited and mystified by the debris. And this whole episode is covered in Jesse Jr.s book from his own point of view. Of course the Marcels were not the only people to handle the debris. Many others did as well and we find that their individual descriptions of the materials are all very similar: bits of foil with memory properties; cabling that was not wire (sounds a lot like fiber-optics - which had not been "invented" yet at that time); bits of metal that could not be cut, torn, dented or burnt in any way, bits of a plastic-like substance, dark brown in color.

The last material sounds similar to bakelite, an early type of plastic which was available at the time. The other stuff is unexplainable by any known technology of the period. In fact, I have yet to learn of any material, even today, that mimics the properties of the memory metal to the degree described by witnesses. Let's see, does that stuff describe the steel, wood and aluminum Horten flying wing which never actually flew either in Germany or here in the states?

To reiterate, the Roswell case has more independent witnesses than any other case extant. Period. Your position implies that those people are either all liars or delusional. Unless you can come up with an explanation why all of these people told their big lies, or were unable to tell ordinary stuff from extraordinary stuff, then all we have is their word for things. If they are all liars, then it implies a large organized conspiracy on top of those other assumptions. So, that puts Roswell pretty much in the same position as practically any other UFO case out there: it is based on witness testimony alone. Your requirement for "objective info" is a little churlish, given that there is practically none of that for any other UFO case either.

From this I suspect that you are only being unreasonable about this particular case based on your own incredulity, and not the "witness only" case itself. Since you have offered no explanation why all those people were all full of crap, you have no "objective info" to support your position either. So, that makes it your non-explanation versus the testimony of dozens of witnesses who say they were there - and whose whereabouts have been verified. You weren't there and cannot know what it was they saw.

That is why I find your objections unreasonable.


Read the first 2 books years ago...didnt' impress me, anymore than your post, which is why I asked for your personal favorite witnesses and why you think they are credible and not some book jockey.
You sure sound like a disgruntled believer...but that's not possible since you always claim to be neutral.
You must have a sore butt from sitting on that fence so much.
Thanks for clearing up the non event at Roswell for me.

grin
User IP Logged

icepick
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 5931
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #81 on: Nov 16th, 2011, 12:27am »

How do I think it will work Bonehead? Alcubierre probably figured that one out for us. But advanced hull plating is still necessary. Refer to the Bikini Atoll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l6Q8Q1smwg

Why should nuclear blasts destroy everything? I only stated that something crashing at hypersonic speeds and going to pieces probably would not stand up to the assault. Navies around the world possessed ships that could still float after such an assault, years before nukes existed. But those can't fly ........ as far as I know.

That stall characteristic was pretty powerful, but it took a crash for the air force to give up on the Northrop Wing program:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-49

I'm not going to address the plywood version of the Horten Wing period. We both know the American air force wouldn't go for a wooden jet. If nothing else the Spruce Goose probably held bad memories. Horten was probably directly involved with YB-49 research anyway.

BTW: air testing of advanced aircraft can't be confined to any range. At mach 3, an aircraft will veer completely across a state, just making a turn. The XB-70 made Vandenburg to the Canadian Border in just over thirty minutes. Or about one paint job worth. I'm guessing this has much to do with many of the sightings in Texas with F-16s in tow taking place. Sounds suspiciously like chase planes. No, the American Southwest is stacked full of military craft. Nobody has ever tried to claim they were all operational, including the air force.
User IP Logged

icepick
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 5931
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #82 on: Nov 16th, 2011, 12:46am »

on Nov 15th, 2011, 10:54pm, pete4438 wrote:
Well that told him in no uncertain terms!
A few months ago I watched a TV science programme on which they featured 'memory metal'. I don't remember all of the details or what the show was called but it did have the properties mentioned. Someone had made a car with it!
Looked quite spectacular. Although I can't see motor manufacturers being too keen on using the material for obvious reasons.
Pete.


Got a link to that car? I have a hard time buying nobody putting such a thing to use. I'm betting Mylar. That famous pic is staged.
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 #83 on: Nov 16th, 2011, 12:10pm »

on Nov 15th, 2011, 11:52pm, drwu23 wrote:
Read the first 2 books years ago...didnt' impress me, anymore than your post, which is why I asked for your personal favorite witnesses and why you think they are credible and not some book jockey.
You sure sound like a disgruntled believer...but that's not possible since you always claim to be neutral.
You must have a sore butt from sitting on that fence so much.
Thanks for clearing up the non event at Roswell for me.
grin


Drwu,

Thanks for demonstrating why any lists I made up would have been a waste of time. Since you have made up your mind, a priori, that Roswell is anything but what the witnesses said it was, then you still have not resolved anything because you have offered no explanations as to why so many people either conspired to tell lies or were completely mistaken about what they saw.

That fact may not impress you, but it is the only way your belief will fly. Sorry, until you come up with a rational explanation for your position, your hypothesis is nothing but a wild-eyed conspiracy theory.

And guess what? My position requires no presumptive hurdles to be cleared because I have not assumed anything. I only think that the large swathe of stories have merit. As I said previously, Occam's razor is on the side of the witnesses, not the witness bashers.


on Nov 16th, 2011, 12:27am, icepick wrote:
How do I think it will work Bonehead? Alcubierre probably figured that one out for us. But advanced hull plating is still necessary. Refer to the Bikini Atoll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l6Q8Q1smwg

Why should nuclear blasts destroy everything? I only stated that something crashing at hypersonic speeds and going to pieces probably would not stand up to the assault. Navies around the world possessed ships that could still float after such an assault, years before nukes existed. But those can't fly ........ as far as I know.


Sorry Ice, this is a total non-sequitur for me. I have no idea what you are talking about or its relevance to this discussion. You are going to have to supply some context for me to get your point, whatever it was.....



on Nov 16th, 2011, 12:27am, icepick wrote:
I'm not going to address the plywood version of the Horten Wing period. We both know the American air force wouldn't go for a wooden jet. If nothing else the Spruce Goose probably held bad memories. Horten was probably directly involved with YB-49 research anyway.


Why not address the wooden Horten flying wing? You were the one who brought it up! That crazy idea of yours doesn't look so good now, does it? rolleyes

Crediting either one of the Horten brothers with "direct involvement" with the Norhrop flying wing is yet another falsehood you could have avoided with a simple google search. Follow the link and scroll down to the section titled "Post World War II":

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

It says Reimar emigrated to Argentina and Walter never left Germany, after unsuccessful attempts to interest China and the UK in his ideas: Yet another of your poorly improvised assumptions bites the dust. Just a thought here: it might help if you actually researched these conspiracy theories of yours before you wrote them down......


on Nov 16th, 2011, 12:27am, icepick wrote:
BTW: air testing of advanced aircraft can't be confined to any range. At mach 3, an aircraft will veer completely across a state, just making a turn. The XB-70 made Vandenburg to the Canadian Border in just over thirty minutes. Or about one paint job worth. I'm guessing this has much to do with many of the sightings in Texas with F-16s in tow taking place. Sounds suspiciously like chase planes. No, the American Southwest is stacked full of military craft. Nobody has ever tried to claim they were all operational, including the air force.


Yeah, but we are talking 1947 here. It wasn't until October of 1947 that the newly renamed United States Air Force (formerly Army Air Force) claimed to have surpassed mach 1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_X-1

To whit: "On 14 October 1947, just under a month after the United States Air Force had been created as a separate service, the tests culminated in the first manned supersonic flight, piloted by Air Force Captain Charles "Chuck" Yeager in aircraft #46-062, which he had christened Glamorous Glennis after his wife. "

C'mon. What does all of this crap have to do with July 1947? Usually when somebody suddenly finds themselves in a hole, they stop digging. Just sayin'...... wink
« Last Edit: Nov 16th, 2011, 12:23pm 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 #84 on: Nov 16th, 2011, 1:50pm »

on Nov 14th, 2011, 2:20pm, drwu23 wrote:
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


You're welcome.
Just for the hell of it why don't you list these credible witnesses and what they saw...don't bother with Marcel since he didn't see anything other than questionable wreckage which could have been something he wasn't familiar with. But who are all these others and what specifically did they see.
(And yes..I have read several books already and many online pieces) and I'm not convinced that aliens crashed there. Convince me.

[/quote]

One of the most credible witnesses in this case is the Military itself. Its constant changing of story has made for a some very muddied waters here. They left the door open to much speculation and in turn made anything labled "official" coming from them subject to scrutiny.

If it was a balloon just say its a weather balloon why say its a saucer. If its a spy balloon why say its weather balloon?
User IP Logged

icepick
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 5931
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #85 on: Nov 16th, 2011, 3:14pm »

Well Bonehead, you're the one in a hole, but you continue to deny it for some reason. I very clearly explained the dust grain to atomic level blast issue carefully at least three times. But still you claim not to understand.

As far as flight testing in the southwest goes, get real. All you need do is a little reading to discover both government and industry flew planes from base to base all the way from California to Pensacola to test them, dating clear back to the late 1920s. But you continue to try to find some technicality to stick on.

The Horten Wing I already explained why I wouldn't address. Refer back to that. And if you would read a little further, you would know that one brother spent an extended period at Wright Patterson after the war. Yes, I'm fully aware that one stayed home. The other wasn't required to stay here, nor were any of the thousands of research personnel rounded up in Operation Paper Clip. Ask the government about the specifics regarding the immunity granted those who needed it, not me. They've never made me privy to any special information, and deny most of the FOIA requests I've made. Probably has something to do with my activities back in the great stoned age.

I don't know Bonehead. Sometimes you are a very open minded thinker, but at others you take a very narrow focus and stay there. This puzzles me, but I'm sure you feel you have your reasons, so that's fine with me. You should hold to whatever makes you happy. But you really should extend the same courtesy when your focus is narrow. Not try to convince others yours is the only way.

Your end point views are often the same as mine as far as life standpoints go, so yes, I do find it curious how you got there at times. But means do mean little if the ends are right, so I'm cool. (Just letting you know I'm not really picking as hard as it sounds BTW. I just wanted you to stop and realize that you do that yourself though, when you're convinced you're right and somebody else is wrong) In other words, it's all a game of semantics. I won't ask why.

Take care
Tim
User IP Logged

MOKSHA
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

SOUL=402 KOPAVI=444 METATRON=636


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4444
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #86 on: Nov 17th, 2011, 3:58pm »


on Nov 16th, 2011, 12:46am, icepick wrote:
Got a link to that car? I have a hard time buying nobody putting such a thing to use. I'm betting Mylar. That famous pic is staged.


A car that is lighter then air, with the strength of superior magnetic potential, WOW.
IMAGINE THAT
If I get one, I'll call spirit 1.

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
pete4438
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 211
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #87 on: Nov 17th, 2011, 10:50pm »

Gentlemen, please accept my sincere apologies. I got it mixed up!
I was watching a science programme then switched to CSI New York. It was on CSI NY that I saw the metal!!
The CSI team investigated an apparent 'James Bond' type car used in a murder.
I now feel suitably embarrassed. embarassed embarassed embarassed
User IP Logged

drwu23
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 6592
xx Re: Roswell question.
« Reply #88 on: Nov 18th, 2011, 11:19am »

Quote:
Drwu,

Thanks for demonstrating why any lists I made up would have been a waste of time. Since you have made up your mind, a priori, that Roswell is anything but what the witnesses said it was, then you still have not resolved anything because you have offered no explanations as to why so many people either conspired to tell lies or were completely mistaken about what they saw.

That fact may not impress you, but it is the only way your belief will fly. Sorry, until you come up with a rational explanation for your position, your hypothesis is nothing but a wild-eyed conspiracy theory.

And guess what? My position requires no presumptive hurdles to be cleared because I have not assumed anything. I only think that the large swathe of stories have merit. As I said previously, Occam's razor is on the side of the witnesses, not the witness bashers.


You write long posts analyzing various ufo aspects but often say little in the end about what you believe and to me you are still sitting on that proverbial fence.
Do you or do you not believe aliens crashed at Roswell since you obviously seem intent on supporting the case and it's witnesses? Or is this just an exercise in semantics and philosophy of argumentation ?

« Last Edit: Nov 18th, 2011, 12:22pm by drwu23 » 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 #89 on: Nov 19th, 2011, 1:41pm »

I try to remain objective on Roswell BECAUSE of the witnesses and the fact the government admits now to the cover-up. Although the cover-up is probably just another cover-up.

If ever alien bodies were found it was probably at Roswell. Notice I said if ever. I am certain of one thing and that is that it was a craft and not a balloon. So to the witnesses it was by definition a UFO. MOST of the witnesses IMO are credible! I still think it may have been one of our black projects but I don't rule out alien craft. Although I'm well on the fence...maybe behind it where recovered alien bodies are concerned. Some of the witnesses there are suspect IMO. That's the weaker argument.
User IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8  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