In a posting to http://www.ufocon.blogspot.com/ hosted by the RRR Group and written by Tony Bragalia it was claimed that the "Lt. Colonel who was a major contributor to the Air Force’s official 1997 study that concluded the Roswell ET crash of 1947 is a ‘myth’ – now states that the Air Force’s Roswell report is itself a lie."
According to Bragalia, Lt. Col. Raymond Madson told him that he, Madson, had been the Project Officer for Project High Dive at Holloman Air Force Base from 1956 to 1960 and that he was responsible for dropping the anthropomorphic dummies that lead the Air Force to conclude that these dummies were responsible for the tales of alien bodies recovered in 1947. Madson now says that Captain James McAndrew, who was one of those responsible for the Air Force report, was less than candid in what he said about Madson’s testimony.
In fact, according to Bragalia, Madson said that "the report he signed for McAndrew (which appears in the report) was accurate, but that – in the context of the overall Air Force report – it is misleading. Madson feels that he was ‘used for purposes’ and that his intent was misrepresented – he did not ‘buy into’ the idea of his ‘Air Force dummies as aliens.’ Madson adds that the dummies had tags on them with instructions for getting a $25 reward for their return."
There is some interesting information in that paragraph including that there was a reward for the return of the dummies. But what caught my eye was Madson’s belief that McAndrew had used him. That there had been some manipulation of the data so that the Air Force could reach the conclusion that it wanted.
Bragalia said that Madson confirmed that, saying, "McAndrew was on a mission... and was assigned to carry out a directive... Was McAndrew on a mission to uncover the truth about Roswell?... No, he was on a mission."
Madson, in fact, according to what Bragalia published on the UFOcon blog, believes that what fell at Roswell was extraterrestrial. Madson said that he had an uneasy feeling about the whole investigation and wondered why the Air Force felt compelled to do it.
Ironically, that is the same thing that the late UFO debunker Philip Klass wondered. Why would the Air Force give any legitimacy to claims that something from another world fell at Roswell if there was nothing to the story? Why would the Air Force even care?
But here’s the thing. Bragalia, through Madson, has raised a couple of questions that haven’t been discussed for a number of years. These revolve around the whole Air Force investigation of Roswell. And here is where I can interject some personal experience.
McAndrew called me on a number of occasions. He never seemed to be looking for information, though I told him what Edwin Easley, the Roswell provost marshal had told me. I said I would send copies of the tapes and the transcripts but he was uninterested. I suggested he talk with Brigadier General Arthur Exon, a retired Air Force officer who had some very interesting things to say. I thought he should talk to Patrick Saunders who had been the adjutant at Roswell in 1947, but he never did.
Instead he tried to get me to flip. He said that he could understand my making a buck on Roswell but I could tell him the truth. I didn’t really believe that little green men had been killed in a crash there, did I? He told me repeatedly that no one would think less of me if I told the truth about my motives in the Roswell investigation. I tried to make it clear to him that my conclusions were based on the interviews I had conducted with those involved and that I could put him in touch with many of them. He was not interested.
Can we deduce the Air Force motive, beyond what my impressions were and what Tony Bragalia just discovered in his interview with Madson. Of course. Just take a look at who was interviewed. The Air Force could have talked to a number of high-ranking officers who had been in Roswell in July 1947 and others who had been at Wright Field at the same time. They declined to do so.
They interviewed Sheridan Cavitt who was clearly on the record as saying nothing had happened in Roswell. In fact, he was on the record denying that he had been in Roswell at the right time, then that he had been assigned to the base but hadn’t arrived, and finally, according to what he told the Air Force, he had not only been there but had gone out to recover the balloon.
In fact, Cavitt’s interview with Colonel Richard Weaver is published in the first final report. Weaver visited Cavitt at his home (as did I) and asked him about the trip out to the Foster ranch with Mack Brazel. Cavitt told Weaver that he recognized the debris as a balloon as soon as he saw it. He didn’t explain why he told neither Colonel William Blanchard, the commanding officer in Roswell, nor Major Jesse Marcel, the air intelligence officer, that the wreckage was a balloon. Instead he allowed the "misidentification" to go forward until Brigadier General Ramey launched the weather balloon story.
Weaver, it would seem, if he cared for the truth, would have either asked why Cavitt had not explained the situation to Marcel or Blanchard, or why he hadn’t made the proper identification to them. Even after telling Weaver that he knew it was a balloon, Cavitt still told me that he hadn’t been out to the ranch and he didn’t know why both Marcel and Bill Rickett, Cavitt’s NCOIC in 1947, would say he was there. So, which story by Cavitt was true.
Had the Air Force been interested in learning the truth, rather than interviewing only those people who worked on Project Mogul, and of course, Lt. Col. Madson and many of his crew about dropping anthropomorphic dummies some ten years later, they would have interviewed some of the surviving members of Blanchard’s staff, but they avoided that. Instead the took short exerpts from tapes from the Fund for UFO Research and they used information from witnesses whose stories were suspect.
Those "witnesses" statements he did use were chopped up or from witnesses who had been exposed by UFO researchers including Gerald Anderson, Jim Ragsdale and Glenn Dennis. All three were exposed in my 1997 book, The Randle Report (published about the same time as McAndrew’s report). That didn’t stop McAndrew however.
As I say, I offered to send McAndrew copies of audio and video tapes of the military officers. I offered to send transcripts of those interviews. I offered to supply telephone numbers and addresses, though McAndrew, with the resources available to him wouldn’t have needed that help. But instead, McAndrew just attempted to get me to say that I had been in this for the money. That it wasn’t true.
So, while Bragalia’s interview with Madson is interesting, while it is important because of what it says about the Air Force investigation, it gets us no closer to a final, proven answer. It underscores the mission of the Air Force in their Roswell investigation, which was to bury the case under a pile of irrelevant and inaccurate information. Now there are millions who believe that the Roswell case is explained as a balloon based on the Air Force "investigation."
Tony has exposed just one more flaw in that investigation. He showed how McAndrew manipulated the information to reach the conclusions that he was required to reach. I know the direction of the investigation because I had many conversations with McAndrew and the tone was always the same. I could tell him that I was only in it for the money and he could respect that... but he knew there was nothing to claims of aliens in Roswell.
We now have more ammunition. We can cite Lt. Col. Madson as someone who should know the score and he tells us that his words were manipulated by the Air Force. We have other evidence of that. What we can say is that the Air Force Roswell report clears up nothing. It just adds to the confusion and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the whole purpose.
.jpg)
36 comments:
So in this one post the Air Force report goes from being "accurate" to "manipulated" to "a lie".
How does that happen?
In UFO land anything that does not support your position is a lie.
Hilarious.
Lance
Lance -
Sorry, I don't understand your comment. I have always suggested the Air Force reports on Roswell were less than candid. I have pointed out inconsistencies for many years. I have never believed them to be accurate but a propaganda tool designed to convince people there was nothing to the Roswell case.
How do anthropomophic dummies, dropped some ten years later into areas that had nothing to do with the case explain anything? Why use parts of interviews rather than the whole things? Why not interview the officers who were in Roswell and at 8th Air Force headquarters in Fort Worth? Why not look at what General Exon had to say?
In sketical land anything that doesn't support your view is anecdotal, misidentified, and a hoax.
Equally hilarious.
Are you sure that "lie" means what you think it does?
The dummy explanation is not a blanket explanation of all things Roswell.
Although it is not explained very well in the Air Force work, I think the idea is that witnesses recalling things many years ago confabulate and can confuse things like dates. This should be well established for anyone having a Grandma but perhaps your experience is different.
Someone COULD have seen the dummies (even 10 years later) and later (after Roswell blossomed) tried to connect what they saw to the Roswell myth. After all you met (and supported) many people who apparently created their role in Roswell just for the fun of it.
I will mention that the "best"witnesses you dug up spent a lot of time LYING (using the actual meaning of the word) and I think you have abandoned almost all (or maybe indeed all) of the witnesses who claimed to see bodies
Leaving you with almost nothing of the original bold claims of your first 2 books. Were the Air Force claims any LESS accurate than those?
Reading the above I see the confrontational tone that seems to be what I degenerate to naturally. This is my own failing and shouldn't indicate any actual anger, etc,.
Lance
I am not expecting anything to come of Anthony Bragalia's book when it appears. From what he writes elsewhere it will contain just more anecdotal testimony to add to the multitude we already have. The hard "concrete" evidence (his quotes) is not there, nor is there any likelihood it ever will be.
I feel the 2nd AF Roswell report was redundant, but the reason it came out was that the AF wanted to try and answer those critics who claimed (rightly) that their first Roswell report avoided the issue of 'ET bodies'. Probably their 'anthropomorphic dummies' answer was wide of the mark, but they wanted to avoid calling certain witnesses liars or fantasists, hence the 'dummies' explanation. It was an attempt to give some credibility to the 'bodies' sightings.
There was no furtive 'mission' to debunk Roswell. There was no need to do this. There was a need for the first report, namely to answer the GAO inquiry and Congressman Schiff's request.
Kevin: do you suppose that if McAndrew HAD interviewed the witnesses you had, that he would have got the same answers as you? And if he had not, there would have followed a huge inquisition of who said what to who, and why. In other words, a bit like Cavitt. You might well have ended up with further 'grey basket' evidence and confusion.
Did the dummies match the description of alien bodies i.e. small, disproportionately large heads, thin legs etc? Not to my knowledge. Anyone who confused 1950s dummies, dropped far from Roswell, with events there in 1947, would have to be so far gone mentally I doubt any serious researcher would believe them. People in such a state shouldn't be confused with the phonies like Kaufmann. The latter were clever enough to fool people but they certainly weren't senescent, as one would have to be to mix up dummies with Roswell. I'm sure KDR has not abandoned all the witnesses who mentioned ETs, even if most of the remaining testimony isn't first hand.
"Did the dummies match the description of alien bodies i.e. small, disproportionately large heads, thin legs etc? "
And which direct witness are you referring to?
This is the big problem in this field--even after (I believe) all of the direct witnesses have been revealed as bogus, their claims stand intact for the true believers.
And the zealous belief in EVERYTHING an eyewitness says is rather sad.
As we saw in the recent NJ Hoax, witnesses see things that simply aren't there, they get confused, etc.
And they don't get any better with age.
Roswell became a story many years after the actual (non) event. That people made up stories to be part of Roswell is undisputed--just read Kevin's first 2 books on the subject for a parade of liars like Glen Dennis and his ilk.
Some folks may have slightly embellished (even innocently) a real event like seeing the dummies (which did look strange, no doubt, especially from a distance).
Christ, look at how Walter Haut's story got BETTER and BETTER and BETTER. If he had lived a bit longer, he no doubt would have repaired and piloted the craft away
To grasp details of decades-old memories is folly.
Unless you desperately want them to be true.
As I posted before, there aren't apparently legitimate, surviving first hand witnesses (unless one or more of the MPs who claimed to have seen ETs are still living). But, AFAIK, no evidence has shown that either they, or the associated second hand witnesses, were phony. Has any evidence come to light that Montoya, or Anaya, for example, was really nowhere near Roswell in July '47? Crash dummies just doesn't make any sense. Did Wilcox, Dwyer, Montoya or private Menagh etc (or the second hand Anaya, Rowe, Dugger etc)ever see crash dummies? Were they there at Holloman with Madsen from '56 to '60? Lol. And even if one or more DID see them, I can hardly conceive of someone whose memory is so screwed up that he or she would confuse something seen in the '50s with an event in 1947 being taken seriously by researchers. Now we all know that Dennis was a phony, and I don't trust Haut either. But let's not judge everyone involved by them.
I'd like to add something: A nurse and an MP saw a nonhuman body in the base hospital. I don't think there was much point in bringing a crash dummy there. Lol. I mean, anyone who would confuse memories of a crash dummy with memories of a strange entity in a hospital (years earlier) would have to be INSANE, and this would be obvious to investigators.
"Why would the Air Force give any legitimacy to claims that something from another world fell at Roswell if there was nothing to the story? Why would the Air Force even care?"To me this is the real question, and it can be asked regarding other cases as well.
Why would anyone in officialdom bother with the story at all, whether anyone of the public believes it to be one thing or another, if there is nothing to it? Surely they would have much more important things to do with their time, which it took plenty of to compile their counter-argument.
This is the same question I asked here several posts ago, regarding the "McLaughlin" document.
There too...why would the Army CIG even bother with someone claiming to have pictures of a crash that never even happened?
The reason for the AF reports, as I said before, was to deal with Steve Schiff's request and provide an answer to partially respond to the GAO inquiry. The second report 3 years later was really unnecessary but again the AF wanted to deal with the question of 'bodies' which they were chided about for omitting from their first report. They also wanted to avoid labelling any witnesses as liars or fantasists. Hence the 'anthropomorphic dummies'.
As for confusing dates with events 9 or ten years later (or earlier) this is perfectly possible when considering a 40-year time span. Usually a witness can link events up with other things in their life in the same time period, but unless they attached special importance to an event, I think many , maybe most, people when interviewed in the 1990s, can easily confuse something that happened in, say, 1947 with an event ten years later. For one example, read the transcript of Gen Arthur Exon's interview in Kevin's "Roswell UFO Crash Update" and see how he jumps from one decade to another. Hardly convincing testimony.
Although I utterly dismiss the "crash-test dummy" scenario for the Roswell bodies, there is one thing that I always find odd though.
Nsmely, a reluctance on the part of some to comment on the fact (or maybe just ignorance of the fact) that the dummies were not all 6 ft tall.
Very ironically indeed, the one on display in the UFO Museum at Roswell, is just such an example.
I am 6-foot-one, and having been to the Roswell UFO Museum on numerous occasions, I can assure those who have not been there that I TOWER over the crash-test dummy they have on display.
So, there most assuredly WERE smaller dummies made.
And I always find it odd that no-one ever really comments on the smaller dummy at the museum.
It could actually be good ammunition for those who DO accept the dummy theory.
I just don't know.
I've talked to several dummies, and not one of them would say they were in, or even anywhere near Roswell, N.M. in 1947.
"I think many, maybe most, people, when interviewed in the 1990s, can confuse something that happened in, say, 1947 with an event ten years later."
But in this specific instance, exactly WHO, or what witnesses, saw crash dummies a decade after Roswell? Was someone from the Roswell FD with Project High Dive in the 1950s, so he later associated the dummies with the '47 event? Was the sheriff at Holloman, or the archeologists?
"To me this is the real question and it can be asked regarding other cases as well."
Yes indeed.
As much as I appreciate the time CDA took to clear up the "why" question, I was in fact more-so referring to the mystery from the beginning...in 1947.
Why is there a mystery at all? Not one person who was in that office didn't know what any of the balloons looked like.
Not one of those people would have needed some other lower-grade individual to come in and say, "Oh that?...That's just a weather balloon"
There should never have been an issue at all...because nothing important happened.
Bob is right--why the Army contacted the press IS a mystery.
My hypothesis is that the initial press release (which apparently was delivered only verbally not via hardcopy), was supposed to be a good natured joke intended only for the local media.
This was a time of near-hysteria over saucers.
Perhaps Haut got permission (or Blanchard suggested) to have a little fun with his friends in the local press,
The story spread like wildfire and couldn't be contained. It got so big, that an official denial became necessary.
I know that believers can never accept any prosaic explanation--much preferring to accept dubious, decades-old testimony and hitching their wagons up firmly until the witness is exposed as a big liar (then amazingly, they abandon the witness but hold on to the testimony!).
But anyway my "joke" explanation seems one plausible possibility for what I see as the ONLY mystery of Roswell.
Lance
Thanks Lance, for the hypothesis.
I don't disagree because of any certain witnesses testimony in this case. It is all of their testimonies when combined with the FACT that there were many, many confirmed Unknown impacts going on, in various places.
This one case just happens to have more than the usual witness testimony to compare with those other cases.
Many of the cases have never been vetted, with any degree of vigor. Many more will probably never get that treatment because they were labeled as being meteoric in nature, and forgotten.
Why was this case so different?
No way would something that was later described as being a secret of the day be laid out on the floor to be photographed by the Press.
I feel more the Press release was a plan from the start, which Marcel was not included in on, but instead was utilized for. His testimony of gradual resentment of the military he so loved and served admirably for so many years, when compared along with the letters of praise which appear later, prove this to be possible.
Bob,
Surely you know that ALL of the named direct "witnesses" of bodies and crashed spacecraft have evaporated. Even Kevin (I think) acknowledges that ALL of them proved to be liars.
There are some much more tenuous witnesses but all of the spectacular stuff is simply gone.
All that is left is a little bag of balloon debris: foil paper, sticks, plastic. Since that is all they have, believers had to prop it up with paranormal powers (can't be burned, or bent, etc) but gosh, it still looks a lot like balloon debris.
Bob said:
"It is all of their testimonies when combined with the FACT that there were many, many confirmed Unknown impacts going on, in various places."
I don't really know what you are talking about here but you seem to be suggesting that we can set aside the relatively well researched Roswell case for the greener pastures of other crashes? Perhaps a bit of evidence for those of us can't easily separate Facts from mere wishful thinking?
Lance
Lance:
What I mean is that my continued interest in this case (not centering on the alien bodies fixation)has been that, unlike many of the other cases of impacts, we have several witnesses that give more details, regarding the whole of it, rather than just a document, or a few, that indicates more.
I don't discount all of the witnesses you do, apparently, as per the memory foil.
The record shows several incidences (including a high-grade officer witnessing an unknown object striking the ground next to the road they were traveling on, while en route to the base to which they were assigned, and then bouncing back up into the air to parts unknown...leaving a huge dust cloud behind where it impacted.
There was a lot more going on, besides the apparent civilian/press hysteria, regarding the subject...especially with military witnesses, at the time. They are not talked about very much, even now.
As far as claimed meteoric impacts go, I have only been able to delve into one of them, occurring later, in September 1950, but anyone can see how fervently the Air Force treated the investigations of some of these meteoric impacts.
In the 1950 case, by not allowing the so-called official explanation to deter me, I was able to show, for myself, that there was indeed even more to the story than I even suspected. It showed me that what is needed is a comprehensive side-by-side comparison of claimed meteor impacts with scientific evidence of said impacts, and unknown impacts.
I don't have such a report, as of yet, but it is one of many things I would like to eventually accomplish.
Time to get down to specifics? Maybe.
Perhaps we could have details of 3 cases of the "many confirmed unknown impacts" quoted by Bob Koford. Were they genuinely unknown? Were they genuine impacts? Even with Roswell nobody has ever been found who saw the impact.
As for allowing something that was later said to be a "secret of the day" to be photographed by the press, there was no "secret of the day" at the time, because nobody then knew that the balloon & radar target were secret at all. They had no markings to this effect, and there was nothing to indicate the debris was from a secret project (and it resembled junk anyway). Hence there was, in July '47, no reason to classify the debris, despite what was discovered about Mogul decades later.
CDA-
First of all, let me say that certain aspects of the already well established Ghost Rocket phenomena fulfills this request without me adding anything. In 1946, there were several incidences in Sweden, and according to Timothy Good, a February, 1946 report details the analysis of metal from one of these impacts.
But...I just got home from work, and my youngest has reminded me that I promised to play with him. As soon as I am able to, I will present what I can for you.
This is not NEW information, and I'm not clear on your questioning it. There were many reports of people witnessing apparent impacts of "something", and unless the somethings are definitely, firmly established as meteor strikes, then I will classify them as unknowns, because that's what they are if they aren't known.
I am very tired, but thought this required at least a quick preliminary reply.
This is as a result of only a very brief check through my files:
El Paso Times June 28, 1947Source, "Need To Know", by Timothy Good c. 2007 reproduced on page 65
"Mysterious falling objects reported near Tularosa and Eagle N.M. Friday had not been located or identified late Friday night... There were no rockets fired from the White Sands Proving Ground Friday..."
30 June 1947 Incident#78
Location: Near William Field over Grand Canyon, Arizona
Name of Observer: Lt. William G. McQinty, USN
Altitude: decreasing from 25,000 ft
Speed: "Inconceivable"
Direction of Flight: straight down
30 December 1947"While on an administrative flight from Great falls, Montana, to
fairfield-Suisun Airfield (Fairfield, Ca.), on the night of 30 December 1947,
a possible rocket sighting was made by the pilot, Lt. Col. W. W. Jones, Hq. EPW and the co-pilot, Major A. A. Andrae(sp?), HQ. EPW of a C-54 airplane. At 1926 hours PST, location 42 deg. 09.5 feet North, 114 deg. 22.2 West (near the meeting point of the Nevada, Utah and Idaho state borders) while cruising at 15000 feet an unidentified object, trailing green and blue flames, was viewed for a period of two seconds. The object was descending vertically at a very high rate of speed and seemed to slow down slightly
upon nearing the ground..."
The joke explanation for the press release is barely plausible. With the experience of the Orson Welles broadcast of 1938 behind them, they would've known that something like that could get out of hand. And that could've gotten Blanchard and Haut in trouble with their superiors. If it was a deliberate joke, it's surprising that this wasn't even admitted later. Why didn't they later say it was just a joke that got out of hand? Had that been the case, one or more of the participants would've said so long ago.
Kevin,
Patrick Wells here. I'm contemplating doing a documentary on the supposed exchange program that the "survivor" from the Roswell crash led to. As I'm sure you know, it was called Project Serpo.
I'd love to get you on board as either a subject expert... or you could be the host of the whole thing (we see so little of you in the other documentaries). Anyway, I sent you an email via our usual method (AKO) and I'd love to get your feedback.
The Serpo story is so dubious, I doubt KDR would want to be associated with it.
Starman,
I agree the Serpo story is more than likely a bunch of Oscar Meyer waste product (doesn't even qualify as bologna), however the documentary would be more about the fascination with aliens from Zeta Reticula rather than just about the bogus exchange program.
Thorsun,
Thanks for the clarification but from what I know of KDR's views, I don't think he'll be wildly enthusiastic. The idea of alien origination in the Zeta Reticuli system is based on an interpretation of a star map seen by Betty Hill. Others question that interpretation, and KDR questions the whole abduction account. It is possible that ETs are from a planet orbiting Zeta 1. I think that's a sunlike Population II star, so it seems plausible (unlike McBride's claim that they're from Sirius or Procyon. But I wouldn't bet on it. There have been all kinds of claims, reported by contactees, that ETs are from this or that star or planet--usually suspiciously familiar, or obviously dubious e.g. Mars, or even Mercury. Who knows, maybe Kepler will determine if "Serpo" exists near Zeta 1.
Starman,
I worked with Kevin in Baghdad back in 2003. Of course, in uniform I referred to him as "Sir" since he was a Captain and I was a Staff Sergeant. You are absolutely right in your assessment that he will probably pass on this offer.
I'm certainly open to other ideas for the documentary that would focus on a subject that would be more appealing for participation by experts such as Kevin. I have until the end of May to make up my mind and organize everything into a submission.
Why not a documentary dealing with the viability of the concept of Unknown Flying Objects crashing in general, and being recovered?
Why focus on data that may be completely bogus?
There are other cases that have substance. It would be nice to see some in-depth coverage of the facts and witnesses of these.
Bob,
Thanks for the recommendation. I'm open to that. I want to avoid rehashing what scores of other documentaries have already covered. However, you're suggesting investigating crashes in general as opposed to just Roswell, right?
The approach I would like to take with this is to try to uncover and present the proof. For instance, it's been over 50 years since the Roswell incident and there's bound to be some documents that are now required to be declassifies due to passage of time. As any analyst knows, the singular pieces might not say much, but put them all together and you get a more complete picture.
To be honest I get bored with documentaries that are interview heavy and I wouldn't want to subject the viewers to another one like that. So, the challenge I'm making to myself with this is to make it unique and captivating.
I believe with current technological tools, such as 3DSMax, and Maya, etc., it is viable to produce very realistic renderings of past sightings. I have seen some people's works, and they are ok, such as the one's used in MUFON's recent works.
But even supposedly mundane sightings of 1947, when reproduced, could show why they were out of the ordinary. Such as a witness describing something creating a contrail, but flying at speeds approaching 1000 mph. When we view a modern day jet plane, which might be at 25,000 feet, or so, we know that it is traveling in the area of 400-600 mph, yet it gives us the impression that it is just chugging along, slowly.
For an object to leave such an impression on the observer in 1947,it certainly would have been traveling at an exceptional speed. Such mundane items are important when grouped with the phenomenon as a whole, and when you include the many reports by witnesses of strange objects seen in a dive, and investigators finding no meteorological incidents reported by experts, to have been taking place at the time, the only thing you can do is put it in the Unknown classification, which is what they did.
I agree there are many fascinating stories out there and plenty to be explored. One of the difficulties is to approach the stories from a non-biased persepctive. I don't think anyone would want to give an interview to someone who comes in from the start thinking their story is bogus. However, it's also difficult for anyone with at least an average intelligence to put much credence to a lot of the eye witness accounts. I've been witness myself to some awesome spectacles of fiery objects hurtling towards the ground and others that have literally exploded high above, yet they are easily explained as meteors.
I was watching several documentaries the other day with some of the videos of UFOs and all I could do is laugh since it didn't take a genius to see they were hoaxes - yet they were being taken seriously as possible extraterrestrial craft. The only visual evidence that was of any interest was the still photos and that's only because there was no movement to easily point out how fake they were.
As far as my documentary, I'm happy to announce that my cameraman will likely be Yaron Levy (Saw, House M.D., CSI: Miami). He's an enormously talented cinematographer.
Also, I've got the CG stuff covered since I'm co-owner of Thorsun-Escelce - a computer animation company.
yea...I think you've got the Graphics part down.
Even though the phoenix lights thing has been covered, I haven't really seen anyone show how these sightings of boomerang-shaped objects go back to at least 1949.
Also, giant domino-shaped silvery objects.
As far as the meteor thing goes, I hear you with how just meteors can seem fantastic, but there are are, occasionally extra items associated with even known meteor falls, such as when I looked into the famous Murray meteor sighting of September, 1950, which was a dramatic fireball explosion. I found many discrepancies. Things like the meteorological society saying it happened at 1:30 AM, but all the witnesses who saw the "meteors" say it took place at 10:47 PM. And also, something actually impacted in a swamp in Tennessee.
The final surprise was when a couple of years ago, the Vatican admitted their samples of the Murray meteor were not legit...that they turned out to be terrestrial rock.
Anyway, I've taken too much of this space. Good luck on the project.
Thorsun,
I'm not optimistic that we'll see bona fide documents indicating Roswell was real. Even something which strongly hints at this won't be declassified as long as the subject is TS or above. All we see is bunk like the EBD.
Thanks for all the suggestions. I think I've got the direction I want to go with this figured out and I can't wait to get started on it now.
By the way, has anyone seen the stuff coming from Nancy Lieder? She claims to be in communication with the Zetas and has all these predictions that were told to her from the aliens that supposedly all have come true. She's quite a character. I'll giver her points for predicting the outcome of the election, but I question the labeling of Obama as a star child.
Sounds like just another charlatan. Predicting Obama's election was no great feat; he was long favored to win.
Post a Comment