Poll

Are some flying saucers extraterrestrial in origin?

Yes
8 (61.5%)
No
1 (7.7%)
Not Sure
4 (30.8%)

Total Members Voted: 13

Voting closed: September 19, 2013, 10:57:21 PM

Author UFOs (Similar threads merged)  (Read 69267 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #240 on: April 10, 2014, 04:36:15 AM »




                ''It was not of this world... that much, I am sure of''
                                    Maj. jesse Marcel, sr., regarding the debris he found near Roswell in 1947





Major Marcel was a smart cookie, and the intel officer of the base. He was also a straight-shooter. You can't convince me that he could not recognize the wreckage of a balloon, no matter how top secret it was.

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #241 on: April 10, 2014, 06:22:36 AM »



                ''It was not of this world... that much, I am sure of''
                                    Maj. jesse Marcel, sr., regarding the debris he found near Roswell in 1947





Major Marcel was a smart cookie, and the intel officer of the base. He was also a straight-shooter. You can't convince me that he could not recognize the wreckage of a balloon, no matter how top secret it was.

Nor will I try to do so.  I agree Marcel is far and away the most credible "witness" in the Roswell saga, and that he probably believed he was looking at alien technology.  In fact, he is the only person in the whole story I take seriously. Smart cookie or not, he could still have been wrong, however.  In over 30 years as an engineer with the DoD, I worked with, and had work for me, hundreds of USAF officers.  Wearing a uniform and having a duty title is not a guarentee of infallabilty in all matters military. 

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #242 on: April 10, 2014, 06:51:17 AM »
Nor will I try to do so.  I agree Marcel is far and away the most credible "witness" in the Roswell saga, and that he probably believed he was looking at alien technology.  In fact, he is the only person in the whole story I take seriously. Smart cookie or not, he could still have been wrong, however.  In over 30 years as an engineer with the DoD, I worked with, and had work for me, hundreds of USAF officers.  Wearing a uniform and having a duty title is not a guarentee of infallabilty in all matters military.


Well, I certainly agree. And that's based on my many years of wearing the uniform. Trust me, I knew some real boneheads during my time.

The problem I have with the Project Mogul scenario is, those things were dropping out of the skies all over the place. People would come across them, and suspect nothing of them knowing that they were basically weather balloons strapped together in a train, with some type of listening device.

If I am not mistaken, they even offered a reward for people  contacting the authorities after discovering the wreckage.

I don't know, really, I just don't have a solid opinion on what happened in July of 1947 in Roswell. I did have the opportunity to speak briefly with Stan Friedman, and let me tell you, he is a true believer.


Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #243 on: April 10, 2014, 07:32:22 AM »

Well, I certainly agree. And that's based on my many years of wearing the uniform. Trust me, I knew some real boneheads during my time.

The problem I have with the Project Mogul scenario is, those things were dropping out of the skies all over the place. People would come across them, and suspect nothing of them knowing that they were basically weather balloons strapped together in a train, with some type of listening device.

If I am not mistaken, they even offered a reward for people  contacting the authorities after discovering the wreckage.

I don't know, really, I just don't have a solid opinion on what happened in July of 1947 in Roswell. I did have the opportunity to speak briefly with Stan Friedman, and let me tell you, he is a true believer.

And just to be clear, I wasn't implying Marcel was a bonehead, just that he wasn't in the know on Mogul.  I can put myself in that scenario.  My expertise was energetic systems, but my title was aerospace engineer.  If somebody had asked me to identify some gee-whiz piece of ECM or other electonic gear off an aircraft, the odds would have been far greater I'd incorrectly identify it than do so correctly.  Still, that job title would give me credibility to the uninitiated.

Did not know Moguls were "dropping out of the skies all over the place," but it certainly makes sense the military would want to have any that did go down returned to them.  Better to pay Farmer Bob a couple hundred dollars, then debrief him, than to have him show up with a top secret whats-it at the local newspaper and have the classified item pictured on the front page.  Wouldn't surprise me they started that reward program after the Roswell episode.

I have never spoken to Freidman, but I did attend one of his lectures several years ago.  No question, he's all-in with the "it was a crashed alien ship" theory in which he has much invested.  The thing I found disappointing about Freidman when I heard him was he spent a great deal of his presentation criticizing others whose positions on Roswell didn't mirror his own.  I'm not just talking skeptics like Phil Klass, but other ufologists who buy the "crashed alien ship" explanation.
I think we can safely say he wasn't a Phil Corso fan.

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #244 on: April 10, 2014, 07:58:40 AM »
And just to be clear, I wasn't implying Marcel was a bonehead, just that he wasn't in the know on Mogul.  I can put myself in that scenario.  My expertise was energetic systems, but my title was aerospace engineer.  If somebody had asked me to identify some gee-whiz piece of ECM or other electonic gear off an aircraft, the odds would have been far greater I'd incorrectly identify it than do so correctly.  Still, that job title would give me credibility to the uninitiated.

Did not know Moguls were "dropping out of the skies all over the place," but it certainly makes sense the military would want to have any that did go down returned to them.  Better to pay Farmer Bob a couple hundred dollars, then debrief him, than to have him show up with a top secret whats-it at the local newspaper and have the classified item pictured on the front page.  Wouldn't surprise me they started that reward program after the Roswell episode.

I have never spoken to Freidman, but I did attend one of his lectures several years ago.  No question, he's all-in with the "it was a crashed alien ship" theory in which he has much invested.  The thing I found disappointing about Freidman when I heard him was he spent a great deal of his presentation criticizing others whose positions on Roswell didn't mirror his own.  I'm not just talking skeptics like Phil Klass, but other ufologists who buy the "crashed alien ship" explanation.
I think we can safely say he wasn't a Phil Corso fan.


Don`t know if you`ve ever seen this, but it`s kind of interesting. A clip from "In Search Of", hosted by Leonard  "Spock" Nimoy. Nice to hear it from the horse`s mouth, as it were.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z349mbaqRds&feature=youtu.be

Re: Roswell
« Reply #245 on: April 10, 2014, 09:51:27 AM »
The Ramey memo is, interesting... This man probes the truth:



Or, anal-ise it yourself!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Gen_Ramey_Roswell_memo_1947.jpg

 

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #246 on: April 10, 2014, 10:48:46 AM »
The thing I found disappointing about Freidman when I heard him was he spent a great deal of his presentation criticizing others whose positions on Roswell didn't mirror his own. 

OMG, I couldn't agree with you more.  It seems like every article he writes for Mufon is about bashing someone else for not being as good (in whatever way) as him.   He also seems to be one of those people who holds their own academic degree over others as if it makes him better than you or me, and it bugs the shit out of him that Bob Lazar's academic background seems to be false and yet Bob gets so much more attention than he does.   However, just because someone is an idiot in some ways, does not discount everything he/she says.  Friedman has done some good work in regards to the MJ12 documents, for example.    What I don't get is WHY THE FUCK does he believe Betty & Barney Hill?

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #247 on: April 10, 2014, 10:52:50 AM »
And just to be clear, I wasn't implying Marcel was a bonehead, just that he wasn't in the know on Mogul.  I can put myself in that scenario.  My expertise was energetic systems, but my title was aerospace engineer.  If somebody had asked me to identify some gee-whiz piece of ECM or other electonic gear off an aircraft, the odds would have been far greater I'd incorrectly identify it than do so correctly.  Still, that job title would give me credibility to the uninitiated.

The problem with your argument Uncle, is that you have to assume that *EVERY* piece of the balloon was unidentifiable.    Once you recognize one piece as being earthly, you'd be safe to assume it was something other than a crashed saucer.   

What do you have to say about the June Crain testimony?

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #248 on: April 10, 2014, 12:03:18 PM »
Uncle Duke ... I understand your points.  But Mogul was just a cluster of balloons and assorted sensors.  I still don't see how cluster of weather balloons becomes a crashed flying saucer.  Especially in the eyes of trained security officers. 

I've heard that people were offered a $25 reward if they recovered weather balloons in the Roswell area because of the expensive sensor apparatus attached to the balloons.  And $25 in 1947 was a sizable amount.  But the source for this isn't Marcell. Instead it's another voice in the Peanuts gallery.  But I would think that something like that could be verified.  There would be cancelled checks and receipts for issued rewards.

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #249 on: April 10, 2014, 12:18:53 PM »
Interesting analysis

http://www.cufos.org/ros4.html

How could anyone confuse this for a UFO?:



ufo? Not likely:


Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #250 on: April 10, 2014, 03:31:21 PM »
To answer several questions:

1) Yes, I believe a trained security officer could mistake something he has no knowledge of for something else he has no knowledge of.  Not doubting Marcel's integrity or intelligence, just his understanding of what he was looking at.  Phil Klass' book on Roswell put that into perspective for me.

2) Don't understand why ever piece would have to be unidentifiable.  Sure, had he found a vacuum tube with an NSN or part number stamped on it, that would have been obvious to him.  Your arguement assumes Marcel would have been able to identify every component he saw to know they was man made.  This goes back to 1) above. 

3) Yes, I've seen the "In Search of" interview with Marcel, as well as others.  Again, not questioning the man's intergity or intelligence, I have no doubt he probably believed he saw the remains of an crashed alien craft.  I also know USAF pilots who believed they saw and reported UFOs when what they were actually looking at were black aircraft they didn't know existed.  There is a very famous story within the black aircraft community about an ANG A-7 pilot who kept giving radio reports about a UFO that was in fact one of the Have Blue demonstrators.  He finally had an IFE declared for him from the ground, and he was met by OSI at his airplane.  He too was mistaking something he couldn't identify for something unidentifiable.  Same thing happened with the Tacit Blue, I think Knapp's guest a few weeks back told one such story.

4) If June Crain is the woman who worked at WP and claimed to have seen a piece of alien craft, she is not credible to me based on the transcripts I've read on her interviews with a UFO researcher.  It's been a while since I read those transcripts, but some of the things she said would not make sense to anyone who's been in/around the military.  First she showed no understanding of security practices, at least the "need to know" aspects.  I remember her saying she was either shown a piece of or told about the crash by a personnel officer.  Why would a personnel officer have a need to know about something as cosmically classified as a crashed alien craft?  She also said she was told classified information without violating security regs because she was told these things "outside security" or something like that.  That makes zero sense.  I think she's also the woman who claimed to have had a "Q clearance."  This was (is?) a security clearance granted not by the military, but by the DoE (probably the AEC in the late 40s/50s)  While I can understand some military types, like SIOP or nuke armament specialists, might have a Q, it makes no sense for a secretary who wasn't working on a nuke program to have that clearance.  On the other hand, "Q clearance" was a buzz word used frequently in spy books/movies/TV programs back in the day, so it would have been something she would have heard about.  If she's been able to name a real military clearance, one of the really cosmic ones not known to the public, then I'd have been impressed.

4) No need to show me receipts for money paid for returning crashed weather and/or Mogul balloons.  As I said earlier, it makes perfect sense to pay someone to return classified and/or expensive hardware.  In that case, you get the property back, you can debrief the finder, and you keep the story off the front page of the newspaper.  If the Mogul Brazzel found had been marked with the "return for reward" chit, this whole story would probably have died as soon as he was handed his $25.  I bet all of them afterwards were so marked.

5) Research the story of the Republic of China pilot who had to force land his U-2 in some rural community in the western US (Arizona? Utah? Colorado?).  This was before the U-2 was public knowledge, late 50s or very early 60s.  A strange craft makes a forced landing, a little guy speaking some unknown language and wearing a very weird "space suit" is seen by the locals.  They think it's an alien craft flown by a man from outer space,  but almost immediately a USAF transport arrives and extracates both the alien and his craft.  The locals are debriefed and told to be quiet.  It was many years later before they learned what they had seen......a classified aircraft flown by a foreign pilot (also classified we were training RoC pilots to overfly the PRC) that made a forced landing at their small town airport.  The final story was finally told back in the 80s in an article in the Air Force Association's magazine.  Frankly, I'm surprised some naive UFO researcher has not latched onto this story and claimed it's another Roswell.

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #251 on: April 10, 2014, 05:51:10 PM »
4) No need to show me receipts for money paid for returning crashed weather and/or Mogul balloons.  As I said earlier, it makes perfect sense to pay someone to return classified and/or expensive hardware.  In that case, you get the property back, you can debrief the finder, and you keep the story off the front page of the newspaper.  If the Mogul Brazzel found had been marked with the "return for reward" chit, this whole story would probably have died as soon as he was handed his $25.  I bet all of them afterwards were so marked.

A record of payments made for returning debris/equipment would indicate familiarity with the same equipment used in Mogul and would contraindicate the hypothesis that weather balloon debris could be mistaken for a crashed saucer

5) Research the story of the Republic of China pilot who had to force land his U-2 in some rural community in the western US (Arizona? Utah? Colorado?).  This was before the U-2 was public knowledge, late 50s or very early 60s.  A strange craft makes a forced landing, a little guy speaking some unknown language and wearing a very weird "space suit" is seen by the locals.  They think it's an alien craft flown by a man from outer space,  but almost immediately a USAF transport arrives and extracates both the alien and his craft.  The locals are debriefed and told to be quiet.  It was many years later before they learned what they had seen......a classified aircraft flown by a foreign pilot (also classified we were training RoC pilots to overfly the PRC) that made a forced landing at their small town airport.  The final story was finally told back in the 80s in an article in the Air Force Association's magazine.  Frankly, I'm surprised some naive UFO researcher has not latched onto this story and claimed it's another Roswell.

A Republic Of China pilot had to crash land a U-2?  Is this a hypothetical? Or are you saying the Chinese were flying U-2s? I'm confused.

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #252 on: April 10, 2014, 06:10:07 PM »
A record of payments made for returning debris/equipment would indicate familiarity with the same equipment used in Mogul and would contraindicate the hypothesis that weather balloon debris could be mistaken for a crashed saucer

A Republic Of China pilot had to crash land a U-2?  Is this a hypothetical? Or are you saying the Chinese were flying U-2s? I'm confused.


1) Don't follow your point, either a weather or Mogul balloon could have been chitted the same way totally independant of the other.  The idea is to get them back.

2) Yes, the USAF was teaching RoC pilots to fly the U-2.  I went ahead and looked it up for you, here's the story:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/lang/archives/2010/02/27/2003466699


Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #253 on: April 10, 2014, 08:19:32 PM »
1) Don't follow your point, either a weather or Mogul balloon could have been chitted the same way totally independant of the other.  The idea is to get them back.

There was no difference between a mogul balloon and a standard weather balloon.  A paper trail indicating locals were familiar with weather balloons would undermine the mogul story in my opinion. 

2) Yes, the USAF was teaching RoC pilots to fly the U-2.  I went ahead and looked it up for you, here's the story:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/lang/archives/2010/02/27/2003466699

Insane

Here's a thought: is there anything about the military's explanation of the Roswell incident that is demonstrably false?  The idea that crash test dummies created in the 1950's were somehow mistaken for aliens on the ground in Roswell is definitely a reach that borders on an outright lie. 

Maybe I need to pick up a copy of Klass's book. 

I personally don't think Roswell is worth wasting time on.  The story has been so polluted it's difficult to get a sense for what happened and what was invented by people trying to sell a book or people trying to cover up an event.  It's a little like the JFK assassination.  I don't know that we'll ever really know what happened at either place. 

Re: Roswell ... I just can't accept that someone like Marcell would look at neoprene, tin foil and balsa wood and announce that a flying saucer had crashed.  UD I think you and might have to agree to disagree on this one. 

I think there are better stories out there with better evidence.  And since I've had my own sightings I'm not looking to someone else to tell me UFO's might be real.  Experience tells me it's a real phenomena and we aren't being told the truth.

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #254 on: April 10, 2014, 09:35:37 PM »
There was no difference between a mogul balloon and a standard weather balloon.  A paper trail indicating locals were familiar with weather balloons would undermine the mogul story in my opinion. 

Insane

Here's a thought: is there anything about the military's explanation of the Roswell incident that is demonstrably false?  The idea that crash test dummies created in the 1950's were somehow mistaken for aliens on the ground in Roswell is definitely a reach that borders on an outright lie. 

Maybe I need to pick up a copy of Klass's book. 

I personally don't think Roswell is worth wasting time on.  The story has been so polluted it's difficult to get a sense for what happened and what was invented by people trying to sell a book or people trying to cover up an event.  It's a little like the JFK assassination.  I don't know that we'll ever really know what happened at either place. 

Re: Roswell ... I just can't accept that someone like Marcell would look at neoprene, tin foil and balsa wood and announce that a flying saucer had crashed.  UD I think you and might have to agree to disagree on this one. 

I think there are better stories out there with better evidence.  And since I've had my own sightings I'm not looking to someone else to tell me UFO's might be real.  Experience tells me it's a real phenomena and we aren't being told the truth.

Yes, Mogul did use multiple, standard weather balloons, but the actual balloons are not where the money is/was.  It's in the insturment package(s), that's what the money was paid for upon return on either weather or Mogul balloons.  Also remember it was Mogul's mission that was classified, not the balloons or hardware in and of themselves.  Now someone who knew what all that gear was might have deduced the mission, but to Farmer Bob, the chit was all he cared about. And yes, I recommend Klass' book.

The bodies/dummies are to my mind not even part of the story, certainly they were not mentioned in any of the reports at the time of the incident.  Like most of the story, they came along thirty years later as part of the symbiotic process developed by the locals looking for tourism and writers/researchers looking for a job.  Why the USAF decided to address the bodies based on some mystery nurse and an undertaker who helped found the UFO museum there is beyond me.  On the other hand, the USAF take on bodies makes more sense than ideas floated by Nick Redfern and Annie Jacobsen.

Can't agrue with the rest of your post, there are much better UFO cases with better evidence than Roswell.  And like you, I think at least a small percentage of the UFO cases are truly unidentified and some government entity knows more than they are telling.  Roswell is a waste of time, unless you have invested a career in it.

How about that U-2 story?  It had all the makings of another Roswell, in fact the locals in that small Colorado town thought it was an alien craft/space man that landed there for close to twenty years.  No question in my mind if we showed up in Cortez and did some snooping, we'd find people there who don't believe the U-2 explanation and think it was a cover-up of a real alien landing.  It would be just like Roswell in the 70s/80s, people who were alive at the time of the incident and the families/friends of others who have had the story passed down to them who'd be happy to tell their story.   

Might be fun to call the local historical society to see if they can steer me to locals who are devotees of the incident.  Who knows, find a few folks who still believe they had a spaceman for a visitor, shouldn't be too tough to knock out 1500 words for one of the UFO magazines.  If I can sell the idea the craft came through a portal, I'm C2C bound as well.

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #255 on: April 11, 2014, 04:32:58 AM »
2) Don't understand why ever piece would have to be unidentifiable.  Sure, had he found a vacuum tube with an NSN or part number stamped on it, that would have been obvious to him.  Your arguement assumes Marcel would have been able to identify every component he saw to know they was man made.  This goes back to 1) above.

All someone has to do is recognize 1 piece (ie a stick of balsa wood) of Mogul and you would assume it was from earth, not a flying saucer.   I'm not saying all officers are bright, but they aren't dumb enough to say "hey, this thing is from outer space."  The average person is going to assume it's of earthly origin just from the get go.  There would have to be a lot of things unexplainable in order to make someone say "holy shit, this is from outer space."   

Quote
4) If June Crain is the woman who worked at WP and claimed to have seen a piece of alien craft, she is not credible to me based on the transcripts I've read on her interviews with a UFO researcher.  It's been a while since I read those transcripts, but some of the things she said would not make sense to anyone who's been in/around the military.  First she showed no understanding of security practices, at least the "need to know" aspects.  I remember her saying she was either shown a piece of or told about the crash by a personnel officer.  Why would a personnel officer have a need to know about something as cosmically classified as a crashed alien craft?  She also said she was told classified information without violating security regs because she was told these things "outside security" or something like that.  That makes zero sense.  I think she's also the woman who claimed to have had a "Q clearance."  This was (is?) a security clearance granted not by the military, but by the DoE (probably the AEC in the late 40s/50s)  While I can understand some military types, like SIOP or nuke armament specialists, might have a Q, it makes no sense for a secretary who wasn't working on a nuke program to have that clearance.  On the other hand, "Q clearance" was a buzz word used frequently in spy books/movies/TV programs back in the day, so it would have been something she would have heard about.  If she's been able to name a real military clearance, one of the really cosmic ones not known to the public, then I'd have been impressed.

It's been a while sine I read the book that James Clarkson wrote detailing the interviews he did with her, but her testimony was very credible, and from my recollection, in the back of the book the author included her military documentation.   I believe her and I believe Clarkson's research on her background.  I have the book still and can dig it up if needed.  If you want to argue specific points of her testimony or background, then let's do that.   If you haven't read the book, I suggest you get it because it has a lot more in there than I have ever found on the web.

When talking about security breaches, you wouldn't have guessed that the president's security detail was out banging local prostitutes in their hotel rooms recently, or that the USAF's officers would be breaking security protocols when it came to our nuclear aresenal, but this shit can and does  happen.  I'm sure in the 40's and 50's security was more lax than today even. 

The point about the Mogul dummies is addressed by her as well.   And, if the dummies were never part of the story to begin with, then why would the USAF even bring them up at the press conference?   I think you are so extremely skeptical you are missing the obvious.   Should we call you Michael Shermer?   

As for the U2 pilot, I'm frankly surprised that the locals would be assuming this plane was from outer space, but hey, it DID have a funny looking asian guy as a pilot.   I'm sure not everyone was as gullible as the article makes it out to be, and for those who were confused, if an english speaking white guy had gotten out, people would have assumed it was from earth. 

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #256 on: April 11, 2014, 10:03:43 PM »
All someone has to do is recognize 1 piece (ie a stick of balsa wood) of Mogul and you would assume it was from earth, not a flying saucer.   I'm not saying all officers are bright, but they aren't dumb enough to say "hey, this thing is from outer space."  The average person is going to assume it's of earthly origin just from the get go.  There would have to be a lot of things unexplainable in order to make someone say "holy shit, this is from outer space."   

It's been a while sine I read the book that James Clarkson wrote detailing the interviews he did with her, but her testimony was very credible, and from my recollection, in the back of the book the author included her military documentation.   I believe her and I believe Clarkson's research on her background.  I have the book still and can dig it up if needed.  If you want to argue specific points of her testimony or background, then let's do that.   If you haven't read the book, I suggest you get it because it has a lot more in there than I have ever found on the web.

When talking about security breaches, you wouldn't have guessed that the president's security detail was out banging local prostitutes in their hotel rooms recently, or that the USAF's officers would be breaking security protocols when it came to our nuclear aresenal, but this shit can and does  happen.  I'm sure in the 40's and 50's security was more lax than today even. 

The point about the Mogul dummies is addressed by her as well.   And, if the dummies were never part of the story to begin with, then why would the USAF even bring them up at the press conference?   I think you are so extremely skeptical you are missing the obvious.   Should we call you Michael Shermer?   

As for the U2 pilot, I'm frankly surprised that the locals would be assuming this plane was from outer space, but hey, it DID have a funny looking asian guy as a pilot.   I'm sure not everyone was as gullible as the article makes it out to be, and for those who were confused, if an english speaking white guy had gotten out, people would have assumed it was from earth.

Who and what we find "very credible" is a function of experience and background.  My experience with the DoD and as a military history writer tells me Crain is not credible.  If you think otherwise, more power to you.

The "Michael Shermer" comment was obviously meant as a dig, but the fact is many UFO researchers make the job of skeptics like Shermer and Klass very easy.  As a whole, I find many, if not most, have limited knowledge about a lot of the areas they write about, and do little-to-no research to confirm the things they are told.  Here are just three examples:

1) Two authors, one of them a state level officer in MUFON, published a book detailing an alleged crash of a UFO as told to them by a retired USAF fighter pilot who claimed to witness it.  Amazingly, they did no research to verify the man was either a fighter pilot or had served in the USAF at the time of the incident.  Turns out he was never a fighter pilot, and and had served only in the Civil Air Patrol.  The entire story was nothing more than the delusions of a sad old man.

2) A very prominent UFO researcher/author wrote books with a co-author who lied about his education, employment, and research experience.  When the truth came to light, the prominent researcher commented he had no idea his co-author was a phony.  At best this can only mean he never looked into his partner's background. 

3) A well known TV/radio investigative reporter did a story on an alleged UFO sighting at a USAF base.  The story told by the individual who gave the reporter the details revolved around a specific type of aircraft.  A minimal amount of research would have shown the aircraft type mentioned wasn't even in service at the time the sighting was supposed to have occured.

I could mention at least a half dozen more such occurences, but doing so wouldn't make the point any clearer.  Many of the people who are carrying the ball for those of us who want to see the UFO subject taken seriously are instead opening the field to ridicule.  When they get called out for sloppy research and/or ignorance of what they write, they immediately claim they are being attacked by debunkers, government disinformation types, or some other conspiratory elements.  Even more disappointing is even after being discredited/disgraced, these same people continue to pump out articles and books, appear on TV/radio, and speak at conferences.  As I've said before, ufology and politics are the only two fields of endeavor where someone can be totally discredited yet still be continue to work.

I've done "sanity checks" on pre-publication editions of techno-thiller novels for a couple different authors.  I will identify obvious technical/historical errors, as well as give an informed opinion on aspects of the story that I am qualified to comment on.  I've offered to do the same at no cost for UFO writers/researchers who could definitely use the help, for no other reason than to allow the individual to produce a better product that won't be shot down for inaccuracies and poor research.  No one has taken me up on my offer, even had one guy accuse me of being a government plant trying to discredit the field. 

Bottom line, the field would be taken much more seriously if UFO authors/reseachers were more like Michael Shermer, asking questions, recognizing story flaws, and doing reseach when needed.

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #257 on: April 12, 2014, 12:47:15 AM »
Shermer is a joke.  When I first heard him on the radio, I thought, "wow, here's a guy I can agree with."   So much so that I subscribed to the Skeptics magazine.    It is a terrible product, and it is clear to me now that Shermer is just looking to use skepticisim as a tool to make money.    It's easy to poke holes at a story.    Shermer and his cronies take one stance - that whatever they're writing about is wrong, and they're going to tell you why.   You could give me any honest testimony about your own life, and I promise you that I could find some way for someone to say it didn't happen.   

There is plenty of  evidence against the government's version of Roswell, just the fact that they had to come out and dismiss Roswell in the 90's as Project Mogul was itself evidence enough.    If it had truly just been a balloon event, this story would have never needed such attention and would have never been published as a story in the first place.   Look, I don't give a shit if you worked for the military or the DOD or anyone else.    It takes more than one person's approval to publish a story of a flying saucer in the media.   Marcel did not work alone.   He wasn't the only person to be "fooled" by a weather balloon, if that's what you believe.    Obviously you are unwilling to look at the June Crain story further, just dismissing her story because other researchers have lied.   Just because there are a handful of liars out there doesn't mean that her story isn't true.    I'll get Klasses' book and read it, but my guess is that it has its own agenda and makes the same claims that have already heard, which are really unsubstantiated in themselves and would be no more believable than any other witness testimony or UFO researcher's research.   If all I look at is the original article itself, and the government's dismissal of it as Mogul, I am left to say "something happened at Roswell, and it wasn't a fucking balloon."



Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #258 on: April 12, 2014, 01:37:59 AM »
Don't listen to the Ufologist with a book to sell. Listen to the reluctant witness and evaluate his credibility.

When I look at UFO cases, the only ones that interest me are the  ones with credible, knowledgeable, witnesses that have something to lose by coming forward. There must also be some good, hard evidence.

Very few incidents of UFO sightings fit my particular criteria, but there a few that are rather extraordinary.

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #259 on: April 12, 2014, 05:48:34 AM »
Don't listen to the Ufologist with a book to sell. Listen to the reluctant witness and evaluate his credibility.

Agreed, for the most part.   That's why I take everything that Stanton Friedman says with a grain of salt.   As for June Crain, she gave her testimony freely, and wasn't looking for any fame.   It took her a long time to come out with the story according to James Clarkson.   I have actually spoken with Clarkson at length and I believe both him and her.

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #260 on: April 12, 2014, 10:02:54 AM »
Shermer is a joke.  When I first heard him on the radio, I thought, "wow, here's a guy I can agree with."   So much so that I subscribed to the Skeptics magazine.    It is a terrible product, and it is clear to me now that Shermer is just looking to use skepticisim as a tool to make money.    It's easy to poke holes at a story.    Shermer and his cronies take one stance - that whatever they're writing about is wrong, and they're going to tell you why.   You could give me any honest testimony about your own life, and I promise you that I could find some way for someone to say it didn't happen.   

There is plenty of  evidence against the government's version of Roswell, just the fact that they had to come out and dismiss Roswell in the 90's as Project Mogul was itself evidence enough.    If it had truly just been a balloon event, this story would have never needed such attention and would have never been published as a story in the first place.   Look, I don't give a shit if you worked for the military or the DOD or anyone else.    It takes more than one person's approval to publish a story of a flying saucer in the media.   Marcel did not work alone.   He wasn't the only person to be "fooled" by a weather balloon, if that's what you believe.    Obviously you are unwilling to look at the June Crain story further, just dismissing her story because other researchers have lied.   Just because there are a handful of liars out there doesn't mean that her story isn't true.    I'll get Klasses' book and read it, but my guess is that it has its own agenda and makes the same claims that have already heard, which are really unsubstantiated in themselves and would be no more believable than any other witness testimony or UFO researcher's research.   If all I look at is the original article itself, and the government's dismissal of it as Mogul, I am left to say "something happened at Roswell, and it wasn't a fucking balloon."

Just a few comments:

1) I have not read Clarkson's book, but I did hear him relate her story on C2C, then read the complete tanscripts of his interviews with her.  I can't remember for sure, but I think actual recordings of his interviews with her were played on the air as well.  I didn't read the book because I didn't think it was worth my time after hearing/reading what she had to say via C2C/transcripts.  Conversely, I have bought and/or read books after similar scenarios in the past when I found the reseacher and/or story and those involved to be credible. 

2) It was obvious we didn't agree on the entire Roswell incident, I didn't see a need to restate my position again.  You believe it, I don't.  Adults can disagree without being disagreeable.

3) Of course Shermer pokes holes in stories to make money, that's why I called what he does a "job."  In many UFO investigations he does not have to poke very hard however, there are already holes big enough to drive a truck through.  As I said previously we need to make his job far more difficult, take away the low hanging fruit.

4) You apparently missed the point of my post.  Ufology will never gain credibility with the decision makers, purse string holders, or even the general public until the field's standard bearers show they can conduct professional, informed investigations.  This will happen only when we who have an honest, sincere interest in the topic hold those investigators accountable for their sloppy research and the discredit they bring to the field.  How do we do that?  The easiest way is to vote with our wallets; quit buying their books, watching their programs, attending their lectures, etc.  As long as these incompetents, charlatans, and outright frauds are permitted to flourish within the community, the community will continue to be looked upon with disdain by the people we need to positively influence.

5)  While I agree with FtF's point about reluctant witnesses, they problem is the more reluctant the witness, the greater the probability that witness is going to have to be facilitated by a researcher hoping to sell a book (or get on TV/radio, speak at a conference etc.)   It's a Catch-22.

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #261 on: April 12, 2014, 11:28:38 AM »
Now that's what I call an avatar, A51!

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #262 on: April 12, 2014, 01:30:10 PM »
:
5)  While I agree with FtF's point about reluctant witnesses, they problem is the more reluctant the witness, the greater the probability that witness is going to have to be facilitated by a researcher hoping to sell a book (or get on TV/radio, speak at a conference etc.)   It's a Catch-22.

Well, I would tend to agree with the premise you laid out, though there might be an occasional exception (Col. Holt, comes to mind). With that said, I was referring particularly to a few cases that involved police officers, one or two involving career pilots and perhaps one or two other encounters involving career military folks. None of the witnesses in the cases I have in mind ever reaped a financial benefit from their experience. To the contrary, they risked being ostracized by their peers while endangering their very careers.

Additionally, in each case, there was solid evidence to corroborate the witness accounts. Not conclusive evidence, but evidence none-the-less.

One such case was JAL 1628  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incident. With Captain Kenju Terauchi, a 30 year veteran, fulfilling the requisite witness in accordance with my criteria: knowledgeable and a lot to lose.  His official statement is fascinating.

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #263 on: April 12, 2014, 01:51:22 PM »
Now that's what I call an avatar, A51!

LOL.  Yes, its much better to look at than all my previous ones.  Although it does not top Michio Bukakku.

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #264 on: April 12, 2014, 02:51:24 PM »
Well, I would tend to agree with the premise you laid out, though there might be an occasional exception (Col. Holt, comes to mind). With that said, I was referring particularly to a few cases that involved police officers, one or two involving career pilots and perhaps one or two other encounters involving career military folks. None of the witnesses in the cases I have in mind ever reaped a financial benefit from their experience. To the contrary, they risked being ostracized by their peers while endangering their very careers.Additionally, in each case, there was solid evidence to corroborate the witness accounts. Not conclusive evidence, but evidence none-the-less.

One such case was JAL 1628  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incident. With Captain Kenju Terauchi, a 30 year veteran, fulfilling the requisite witness in accordance with my criteria: knowledgeable and a lot to lose.  His official statement is fascinating.

Agreed, but going back to your original point, researchers who told their stories did (or at least tried) to reap financial rewards from those stories.  Thus we have the Catch-22 of avoiding a ufologist with a book to sell about a credible, yet reluctant witness.  Also agree the JAL sighting was extraordinary, I remember when it happened.

It's not just witnesses who risk negatively affecting their careers where UFOs are concerned.  I've attempted to get two different well respected military/aviation history magazines (one in the US, the other in the UK) to accept articles with UFO themes.  The first was the US magazine that has a regular feature entitled "Aerial Oddities".  I proposed an article on "foo fighters" to be told from the perspective of USAAF aircrew who encountered them over Europe and the Pacific.  I had interviews with these aircrew members, as well as copies of their log books and/or personal diary entries relating to their experiences.  Despite admitting what these aircrew had seen was indeed "odd",  my article idea was turned down in no uncertain terms.

For the UK magaizine,  I proposed an article based on the intereception of and ordered firing on a UFO over the UK by USAF fighter pilot Milton Torres in 1957.  Torres' story was one of many made available when the UK released their UFO files to the public several years ago. Again, I was careful to couch the proposed article more from a historical perspective, discussing an American pilot ordered to fire on a craft and how that incident related to air defense of the UK during the Cold War.  I did not even receive a reply.

I should point out I'd written articles for both publications in the past, so I had an established track record.  Their messages were clear, however........no UFO stories, period!  I toyed with the idea of wrting the "foo fighter" article for a UFO magazine, but decided against it lest doing so affected my standing with established military and aviation history magazines.

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #265 on: April 13, 2014, 09:23:26 AM »
Duke, have you ever considered writing  a book on the subject? I think there`s a good bit of material there, especially if you include the POV from the Axis powers, who also experienced the "foo fighter" phenomena. It certainly is interesting.

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #266 on: April 13, 2014, 10:34:04 AM »
Duke, have you ever considered writing  a book on the subject? I think there`s a good bit of material there, especially if you include the POV from the Axis powers, who also experienced the "foo fighter" phenomena. It certainly is interesting.

No need for me to write that book, Keith Chester's "Strange Company- Military Encounters with UFOs in World War II " was published a few years after I approached the magazine with my idea.  I'd rate it as one of the best UFO books I've read in the past twenty years.  If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.

There is one aspect of the "foo fighter" story that has, as far as I can tell, not be told, however.  I've yet to read anything about Soviet experiences with the phenomena.  I've attempted to contact Soviet/Russian UFO researcher Paul Stonehill to get his input on the question, but he's a difficult guy to reach.  A couple of the DMRN hosts are trying to get him as a guest,  hoping to at the very least have the question asked of him during his interview.  If a host can arrange for me to contact Stonehill directly, I'd love to pick his brain if there were Soviet foo fighter experiences.

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #267 on: April 13, 2014, 11:37:33 AM »
According to Annie Jacobsen, the Roswell crash was a Soviet craft designed by the German Horton brothers of HO229 fame.  Stalin at the time had no nuke, so she says he wanted to land an alien-looking craft near the US nuclear base at Roswell, Los Alamos and White Sands to spread fear.  Something went wrong and the craft crashed.  The US covered up to see what they could reverse engineer from the craft.

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #268 on: April 13, 2014, 12:24:23 PM »
According to Annie Jacobsen, the Roswell crash was a Soviet craft designed by the German Horton brothers of HO229 fame.  Stalin at the time had no nuke, so she says he wanted to land an alien-looking craft near the US nuclear base at Roswell, Los Alamos and White Sands to spread fear.  Something went wrong and the craft crashed.  The US covered up to see what they could reverse engineer from the craft.

A different thing entirely than foo fighters, but yes, I alluded to both Annie and Nick Redfern's take on what happened at Roswell earlier.  What each proposes is even less likely than either the USAF explantion or the alien craft hypothesis in my opinion.  You already know what she thinks, but Redfern contends what crashed at Roswell was a captured Japanese (flying wing) glider designed during WWII to be sent over the US attached to a giant balloon, then released to spread biological agents over the population.  Apparently the US was testing the system for possible use against the Soviets.  Don't remember exactly how Redfern explains the bodies, it might have just been the PoW Japanese pilots flying the thing getting mangled during the crash. 

Guess you flip a coin to decide which of those stories is more credible.

Re: UFOs (Similar threads merged)
« Reply #269 on: April 13, 2014, 01:04:38 PM »
Duke, it sounds as if you believe that we are being visited?