tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post2607717331237550885..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Twining vs RoswellKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-38820620249899895292020-11-21T18:54:13.487-08:002020-11-21T18:54:13.487-08:00The Twining memo makes sense if the Roswell incide...The Twining memo makes sense if the Roswell incident was caused by illegal high altitude experiments with mutant humans as implied by the research of Nick Redfern. Twining would have known about those crashes and therefore they are not mentioned in his memo because they did not involve "flying discs". The lack of "crash recovered exhibits" more or less kills off the possibility of Roswell being an ET event. With hindsight asking for "pieces" of a UFO might be as naive as asking for a "piece" of a poltergeist - both these phenomena exist but are likely of extra-dimensional origin.Bud Ekinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05979825028335448849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-2562893702418258202016-04-30T18:28:37.049-07:002016-04-30T18:28:37.049-07:00..about Twining and that as base commander "h.....about Twining and that as base commander "he had to know" about the Roswell debris. Can we be sure about that with a high degree of certainty? If I recall correctly, for many months prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, there was a secret military listening post in or very near near the Pearl Harbor naval base (the small group was tasked with intercepting and decoding Japanese radio transmissions). The commander of the US Pacific Fleet, Admiral Kimmel, was never made aware of the facility, and yet FDR and Kimmel's superiors *were* aware of it's existence. Is it possible a situation similar existed with Twining and the Roswell debris?Clarencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17950970228169491036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-35971963336987866302016-04-30T06:42:02.682-07:002016-04-30T06:42:02.682-07:00Mr. Randle, Mr. Rudiak
I think it´s interesting ...Mr. Randle, Mr. Rudiak <br /><br />I think it´s interesting to mention the Air Force Regulations regarding FLying saucers which was brought out by Major Gen. Richard E. O'Keefe years later , which was sent out by he Air force to its commands and leaked by NICAP. <br /><br />While the document considered UFOS as serious buisness it also informed the staff that ""no physical or material evidence, not even a minute fragment of a so-called flying saucer, has ever been found."<br /><br />I found this interesting, when this info came out to public, there were doubts regardig the truthfullness of the communication of the Air Force. <br />The Air Force 1)was seriously concerned about UFOs behind the scene <br /> 2) the Air Force hide facts<br /> 3) the Air Force silenced their personel<br /> <br />These doubts didn´t come from Ufologists, but from none other than Admiral Hillenkoetter!! He demanded : ""It is time for the truth to be brought out in open Congressional hearings,", which says a lot about the transperancy, the Air Force had on this issue. <br />Taken these comments from an Admiral, it make it more plausible that Twining didn´t mention the recovered material in this memo . <br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08869512804072910852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-76083280235959042172016-04-29T14:06:32.069-07:002016-04-29T14:06:32.069-07:00Kevin and others,
I don't know if this as daw...Kevin and others,<br /><br />I don't know if this as dawned on anyone but there has been no mention of the Cape Girardeau crash. I think this event which was 6 years earlier is important when it comes to Roswell. I believe that Cape Girardeau craft would have ended up at Wright Patterson. At the time during 1941 the closest military base looks to be Fort Leonard Wood which is about 100 to 150 miles from CG. The problem back then was the roads were terrible, no helicopters to fly the wreck craft out and likely to big for a railroad flat car. So what happened to it. Well the military could have temporary buried the craft until they get their hands around the problem. But did this craft end up at WP? Hell today, a craft recovery team are more like NASCAR teams from several recent reports. Back in the 1940's craft recovery wasn't organized and this also has come out in the Roswell/Twinning documents. Also back in the early 40's there were deep Christian religion beliefs then. Maybe this also had an effect on the decision making about the down craft in Cape Girardeau. This was and still is bible belt and surely shocked all those who were involved. It's possible the craft was buried and forgotten intentionally but that is speculation. <br /><br />If the down craft did end up at Wright Patterson this would have been a blue print for how to handle a future down alien craft if it was to happen. Of course this is where we are now. I also tend to think that some if not most of the same players (Generals) that have been mentioned in this discussion about Roswell would have been mentioned in Cape Girardeau. The security would have been in place and established. However when I read the Twinning related documents, I read a sense of confusion and in decision. Even the security on the documents should have been higher than Secret then. <br /><br />Here are a could of links you might want about WWII bases and medical personal heads.<br />http://militarybases.com/army/<br /><br />If our ET's for either CG or Roswell was examined by military WWII doctors, there is a good chance that the name(s) were on this list:<br />http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/Malaria/DEFAULT.htm<br />and <br />http://history.amedd.army.mil/biographies.html<br />Take a look and see if any names look familiar.<br /><br />Mr. Sweepyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09966969362028196312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-4869771325681812412016-04-29T13:56:27.603-07:002016-04-29T13:56:27.603-07:00Brian, your reply reads as if I had written no one...Brian, your reply reads as if I had written no one had any idea of supersonic flight until the 'Memo'. Awareness of it, as well as orbiting weapon and recon platforms, "true spaceships", and automatic or remote "push button warfare" etc, was well developed by AAF propaganda from at least mid-war, and written about in the Sunday supplements and in "Popular" this and that magazines. It was an initiative from the very top -- General Arnold, and he founded RAND to develop the concepts. I am certain Colonel McCoy represented Arnold's vision (I don't know about Twining or Schulgen). Also, along with McCoy, Loedding.<br /><br />We don't know the reasons for their opinion, but we can guess that the selection of disc reports provided them included observations of objects that conformed to General Arnold's vision of how a US Aerospace Force would be equipped.<br /><br />One way of characterizing the "Memo" is as an appeal for funding. <br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-9009403114928093182016-04-29T10:39:54.478-07:002016-04-29T10:39:54.478-07:00@ Don
"From our near 70 years later vantage,...@ Don<br /><br />"From our near 70 years later vantage, we know there were no supersonic aircraft in 1947."<br /><br />As Kevin stated, Yeager hit the supersonic mark in 1947. And I'll add that obviously they were working on that effort long before 1947 in order to accomplish it.<br /><br />There were other projects underway at the same time and BEFORE. <br /><br />The historical record shows supersonic ramjets and turbojet engines were basically designed as early as 1929. The Soviets flew unmanned prototype rockets at supersonic speeds in 1934. Every major power had been pursuing it before WW2. It wasn't technology developed after 1947 but well before.<br /><br />I believe this is why the USAAF was concerned over the disc's being powered by supersonic jet engines.<br /><br />Soviets 1947 - Supersonic antipodal bomber based on the Sanger-Bredt suborbital bomber which a 1947 USAAF Technical Intelligence Report highlighted had been started by the Germans at Lofer in 1945.<br /><br />There were others that were intended to achieve supersonic speeds as well:<br /><br />France 1947: Leduc 0.10 ramjet<br /><br />Britain 1944: Miles M.52<br /><br />Germany 1943-1945: Too many to mention<br /><br />My point is engineers had already demonstrated supersonic technology and capability long before 1947. I believe the concern was somebody had finally put it into practical military use before the US.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-67445691584783878652016-04-29T09:50:53.316-07:002016-04-29T09:50:53.316-07:00Brian, you may not know (but CDA surely does) that...Brian, you may not know (but CDA surely does) that I am not a participant in the ET/No-ET debate. Any pro or anti ET comment directed to me is misdirected. That skeptics are satisfied the 47 wave was not about ET spaceships is a matter of indifference to me, as is the satisfaction of ET advocates that there were ET objects. That's why I write ET is your problem (and CDA's, David's, Kevin's). <br /><br />"Credible people saw "something" flying which they couldn't identify. If I'm not mistaken, they (USAF) didn't start chasing these things with orders to shoot them down until 1952.<br /><br />It was the Flap of July 12-29, 1952 that got the Truman administration all worked up since the rash of sightings were all clustered over the Nation's Capitol.<br /><br />The press reported the USAF gave orders to shoot down UFO's which was confirmed by a USAF public information officer stating, "The jet pilots are, and have been, under orders to investigate unidentified objects and to shoot them down if they can't talk them down."<br /><br />Did anyone ask about how long a time they "have been" under such orders? David or Kevin can note the details of the AF's preparedness prior to 1952 re the saucers. 1948 has a series of encounters, too. But you are probably right that there was no presidential or pentagon "mandate" then...that I know of.<br /><br />As for documents from the era from whatever source, they cannot be read as if they were addressed to us. None of the writers and editors ever gave a instant's thought that they would be read in the 21st century, and in many cases that no one but those on the distribution lists would ever read them. This is even true of newspapers, the 'shelf life' of which is a few hours.<br /><br />Mostly I dislike importing in to the 1940s, the rhetoric of ufology (both advocate and skeptic) which begins after 1949 and is really ETology.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-80095108932862769572016-04-29T09:22:13.422-07:002016-04-29T09:22:13.422-07:00All -
This idea that there had been no intercepts...All -<br /><br />This idea that there had been no intercepts, or attempted intercepts prior to the Washington National sightings (which were by no means the only sightings in the country at the time) is false. While not all had permission to fire, there are newspaper articles from the July 4, 1947 weekend of aircraft either on alert or in the air searching for the flying saucers with an idea of photographing them. In January 1948, Thomas Mantell was asked to intercept and identify a UFO near Fort Knox, Kentucky.<br /><br />And on a historical note, Chuck Yeager made the first supersonic flight in the Bell X-1 in 1947 (October I believe but I'm to lazy to look it up.)KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-72323632714684902672016-04-29T08:38:43.498-07:002016-04-29T08:38:43.498-07:00CDA: "I agree Twining could have used the wor...CDA: "I agree Twining could have used the word 'landed' instead of 'crashed', or even both words. One can always say a memo or letter could have been worded, or punctuated, better"<br /><br />I'm not sure of this, but I think 'crash recovery' may be a 'term of art' referring to air technical intelligence work.<br /><br />"but this hardly advances the ET cause, does it?"<br /><br />ET is your problem.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-44234222660696838622016-04-29T08:26:23.341-07:002016-04-29T08:26:23.341-07:00CDA: "The reason the guys at AMC were of the ...CDA: "The reason the guys at AMC were of the opinion the flying discs were 'real' is...that many of the observers were military or experienced civilian pilots. I assume it was this that caused Twining and his guys to opine the sightings were real. They did not want to offend observers. 'Real' used in this sense merely means not imaginary. They had seen something real."<br /><br />That may be; it's as good a guess as any. My point is we do not know their reasons. I doubt though they would recommend an expensive project just to not offend the observers. The "something" that was real was pretty well defined in the "Memo": a supersonic aircraft. <br /><br />The skeptics' opinion must be: they were wrong. From our near 70 years later vantage, we know there were no supersonic aircraft in 1947.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-15848452470496513302016-04-29T07:21:22.129-07:002016-04-29T07:21:22.129-07:00Brian:
I like your quote about Martians/Venusians...Brian:<br /><br />I like your quote about Martians/Venusians understanding English! Reminds me a bit of those contactees Adamski and Allingham in the days of old.<br /><br />Re Gen. Samford's press conference of July 29, 1952, don't forget that Gen Roger Ramey spoke near the end, I believe about radar, scrambling of jets, and UFOs. This was the same man who, according to the ETHers, knew all about the Roswell aliens and, of course, took the great secret to his grave. (Every time we talk about ETs I can picture Ramey rolling in his grave!)cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-67104091624128896702016-04-28T19:25:31.521-07:002016-04-28T19:25:31.521-07:00@ Don
"Do you think they were considering ET...@ Don<br /><br />"Do you think they were considering ET? Whatever exhibits they might have had, they wouldn't have to have added up to, or even suggested, a supersonic aircraft."<br /><br />I'm in agreement with CDA's explanation. <br /><br />Credible people saw "something" flying which they couldn't identify. If I'm not mistaken, they (USAF) didn't start chasing these things with orders to shoot them down until 1952.<br /><br />It was the Flap of July 12-29, 1952 that got the Truman administration all worked up since the rash of sightings were all clustered over the Nation's Capitol.<br /><br />The press reported the USAF gave orders to shoot down UFO's which was confirmed by a USAF public information officer stating, "The jet pilots are, and have been, under orders to investigate unidentified objects and to shoot them down if they can't talk them down."<br /><br />"Talk them down.." is interesting in that it shows four years after the Twining memo they were still thinking these objects were terrestrial in nature and obviously piloted.<br /><br />What does that tell us?<br /><br />So if they really thought they were piloted by Martians or people from Venus what made them think other worldly creatures would understand and speak English?<br /><br />At the same time the USAF also countered that by stating the objects showed no evidence of intelligent control. Probably to calm the public's fears the craft weren't the Soviets planning some clandestined bombing raid on Washington, DC.<br /><br />All of this lead up to Maj. General Samford's famous press conference at the Pentagon where he stated the investigation would continue but that most sightings were misidentifications of natural phenomenon and showed no discernible pattern or evidence warranting concern over national security.<br /><br />So in this case, 1947, there wasn't any mandate to chase saucers yet. That came four years later.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-59943509091384923842016-04-28T05:30:32.004-07:002016-04-28T05:30:32.004-07:00DR:
By admitting points 1, 2 & 3 in your post...DR:<br /><br />By admitting points 1, 2 & 3 in your posting are anecdotal in nature, you have seriously weakened your case that Twining (and AMC) knew about Roswell. Where are the documents about Roswell? Why have none surfaced after all this time? These 'witnesses' are simply repeating what interviewers put into their minds several decades afterwards, and what the interviewers wanted to hear. Had any of the 'witnesses' even heard of the case until 1980 when the first book came out? I wonder.<br /><br />Of course Twining's son said Roswell was "treated as a historical fact within the Twining family". But not before c. 1980, I am positive.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-73283781316758063402016-04-28T05:20:30.170-07:002016-04-28T05:20:30.170-07:00Don:
The reason the guys at AMC were of the opini...Don:<br /><br />The reason the guys at AMC were of the opinion the flying discs were 'real' is that there were, in those early days, a large number of sightings compressed into a small timeframe (2 or 3 weeks), and that many of the observers were military or experienced civilian pilots. I assume it was this that caused Twining and his guys to opine the sightings were real. They did not want to offend observers. 'Real' used in this sense merely means not imaginary. They had seen something real.<br /><br />I agree Twining could have used the word 'landed' instead of 'crashed', or even both words. One can always say a memo or letter could have been worded, or punctuated, better, but this hardly advances the ET cause, does it?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-39759632125209104982016-04-27T21:46:49.870-07:002016-04-27T21:46:49.870-07:00Brian Bell said...
@ Don
"Due to th...Brian Bell said...<br /><br /> @ Don<br /><br /> "Due to the absence of a comma between "exhibits" and "which", it is possible to read it as not that there were no exhibits, but there just wasn't any of the exhibits that was undeniable proof."<br /><br /> >>> Well if Roswellians are correct, months ahead of this memo a super-secret cargo of crashed debris and dead alien bodies were flown to AMC for evaluation. That included "memory foil" that was so strong it couldn't be broken and yet "poured like liquid metal". So I think your suggestion might be incorrect. If those "exhibits" weren't convincing enough as undeniable proof then again the folks at AMC were blundering fools to state they didn't have enough debris to confirm ET crashed. I think it more likely they wrote the truth - they had nothing.<br /><br />***<br />ET is not my issue. 2h is 'uncertain' as to whether they had no exhibits at all, or had exhibits which, however, did not undeniably prove the existence of the object of their opinion. Do you think they were considering ET? Whatever exhibits they might have had, they wouldn't have to have added up to, or even suggested, a supersonic aircraft.<br /><br />cda said...<br /><br /> Don:<br /><br /> I agree that Twining's memo does not strictly rule out the possibility that some other branch of the AF or the navy might have had access to "crash recovered exhibits". But this is hardly the point, since pro-ETHers stress that the Roswell debris was shipped to Wright Field for examination (or at least the bulk of it was). They insist that people like Generals Exon and du Bose said precisely this, 40-odd years later. It certainly was the logical place for the debris to go, if it indeed went anywhere beyond Roswell & Ft.Worth.<br /><br />***<br /><br />ET is not my issue. Do you know why "the command" was of the opinion flying discs were real? I don't. If you know, please, refer me to the document. My guess, fwiw, is it was the "evasive" action reported. It suggests intelligence which is why they then refer to the discs being "controlled either manually, automatically or remotely."<br /><br />And why "crash" only? Why choose that alone as the source of undeniable proof?<br /><br />You tell me.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-75156397975544114812016-04-27T13:18:07.306-07:002016-04-27T13:18:07.306-07:00The following is anecdotal in nature, but indicate...The following is anecdotal in nature, but indicates some of those involved with Project SIGN (and the earlier Twining memo) DID know about Roswell:<br /><br />1. Kevin in his "UFO Casebook" said he ran into a Colonel, formerly with Project Sign. At the time of the Sign 1948 Estimate of the Situation, the Colonel had ben a lieutenant. He claimed Sign personnel did know about Roswell at some level and they included New Mexico crash debris in their list of evidence in their first draft of the Estimate before Gen. Vandenberg ordered it removed.<br /><br />2. Twining's son, Nathan Twining Jr., said his father never provided any details about Roswell, but the Roswell incident (i.e. saucer crash) was treated as a historical fact within the Twining family.<br /><br />3. In communications I had with researcher Wendy Connors, she said that based on interviews with some surviving Sign personnel, Col. McCoy DID know about the Roswell crash but lacked clearance to get at the actual data. He was very frustrated by this. This is another way of looking at any claims by him that they lacked crash debris. He didn't directly know, so he couldn't make any definitive claims that they did have crash debris.<br /><br />However she was was told two members of Sign WERE directly involved with Roswell: civilian engineers Alfred Loedding and George Towles. Loedding was said to have visited Roswell many times afterwards and Towles "was sent to Roswell in place of Col. McCoy because he was the person who handled all deeply classified material coming into and out of WPAFB." Loedding and McCoy were key Sign personnel writing the fabled 1948 Estimate of the Situation stating that flying saucers were ET.<br /><br />Neither Loedding or Towles is listed among the five engineering heads at the end of the Twining memo. According to the Project 1947 website, they were (handwritten at end in more complete copies):<br /><br />"This letter was coordinated by: <br />Col. Moore Ch. Aircraft Lab<br />Mr. A. Dicky Ch. Propeller Lab<br />Gen. D. L. Putt Engr. Div<br />Col. Minty Ch. Power Plant Lab<br />Gen. Brentnall T-3 <br /><br />The only name I recognize was Gen. Donald Putt. The late Joel Carpenter has some background on Gen. Putt in his article on the Lockheed Kelly Johnson UFO sighting of 1953. <br /><br />http://www.nicap.org/reports/lockufoinc.htm<br /><br />According to Carpenter, Putt was one of the engineering stars of the A.F., with a degree from Cal Tech. He was the military supervisor of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, one of the groups on the distribution list of the Twining memo. He was anything but hostile to UFOs, in fact, "In December 1948 Project RAND missile expert James Lipp had written a paper at Putt's request that examined the possibility that UFOs were extraterrestrial spacecraft that used propulsion principles comparable to known or foreseeable rocket technology. (The fascinating paper was published as an appendix to the final report of Project SIGN.)"<br /><br />Project RAND was another R&D group on the Twining distribution list. In 1953, Putt was championing the Canadian AVRO saucer project to back-engineer a working saucer (but using human jet technology). You'll notice the AVRO engineers were basing the design of their chopped saucer on Kenneth Arnold's descriptions of what he saw, since their head engineer considered this sighting to be reliable. The AVRO project never did produce a working saucer, but the point is back-engineering attempts WERE undertaken, and this was a strong component of the Twining memo.<br /><br />Not only did the Twining memo state the saucers were REAL, further actions on their part for years afterward indicated they were treated with total seriousness. Engineers tend to be very hard-headed, practical people, who are only interested in things they think are real and can be made to work.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-67910298408966161432016-04-27T12:34:02.767-07:002016-04-27T12:34:02.767-07:00CDA -
You misread (to some extent). I was asked a...CDA -<br /><br />You misread (to some extent). I was asked a question about this idea that there was a classification, or classifications, above top secret. I used the Roswell case in my illustration, and the idea that something was classified two points above top secret. It was not meant to prove anything, other than how some of these classifications worked, and that this idea of two points above was actually sort of a lateral step. So in this case all that really mattered was the discussion of classifications rather than a suggestion that Roswell was classified as anything...KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-33431288983093018692016-04-27T10:13:27.584-07:002016-04-27T10:13:27.584-07:00@ Don
"Due to the absence of a comma between...@ Don<br /><br />"Due to the absence of a comma between "exhibits" and "which", it is possible to read it as not that there were no exhibits, but there just wasn't any of the exhibits that was undeniable proof."<br /><br />>>> Well if Roswellians are correct, months ahead of this memo a super-secret cargo of crashed debris and dead alien bodies were flown to AMC for evaluation. That included "memory foil" that was so strong it couldn't be broken and yet "poured like liquid metal". So I think your suggestion might be incorrect. If those "exhibits" weren't convincing enough as undeniable proof then again the folks at AMC were blundering fools to state they didn't have enough debris to confirm ET crashed. I think it more likely they wrote the truth - they had nothing.<br /><br />@ David<br /><br />"LeMay was first contacted asking if maybe the discs weren't one of our own projects. LeMay said no (sorry, Brian Bell), therefore further investigation seemed warranted."<br /><br />>>> It works both ways David. If Twining didn't tell Schulgen the truth as Kevin claims, then obviously LeMay could have lied too. In fact, LeMay may have known of a secret project all along and let his subordinates simply chase ghosts as means to deflect attention from the real story just as Kevin claims Twining did with Schulgen. If one of them can supposedly lie about aliens to hide the truth, they could have easily lied about domestic secret projects just the same. There's nothing in these documents that leans towards ET unless you take each statement out of context and read into it what you want.<br /><br />And by the way, those wind tunnel tests you mentioned at AMC which began prior to the end of 1947....well facts have it that was Loedding's work which began before July 1947. It has nothing to do with crashed alien saucers. In fact it favors my hypothesis more.<br /><br />@ CDA<br /><br />Indeed this seems to be the case. It's probably why some knucklehead chose to insert alien nonsense into the Schulgen memo. If they don't say what you need them to say, I guess ufologists simply prefer to alter the documents and broadly circulate them.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-64324206062517474182016-04-27T09:27:22.804-07:002016-04-27T09:27:22.804-07:00Kevin:
"This is why some claim that the Rosw...Kevin:<br /><br />"This is why some claim that the Roswell case was classified two points above top secret."<br /><br />Who made this claim? I have only read of one such mention of "two points above...", and that was by the Canadian Wilbert Smith in his notes after an interview with Robert Sarbacher in Sept 1950. But he was referring to UFOs in general, not to Roswell. Moreover, his actual words were "two points higher THAN THE H-BOMB".<br /><br />In fact, in all the Smith memos and correspondence referred to by David Rudiak (above), there is a total absence of any mention of Roswell. <br /><br />A further point: There is no documentation at all to indicate Roswell was ever 'top secret', let alone above this level. It is, and always has been, merely an assumption made by the ET brigade, based on interviews 40-odd years afterwards. <br /><br />I am willing to stand corrected if you can supply something indicating Roswell was ever "two points above top secret".cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-54079383918590406032016-04-26T15:28:43.086-07:002016-04-26T15:28:43.086-07:00CDA -
I am attempting to put this all into a hist...CDA -<br /><br />I am attempting to put this all into a historical context with military secrecy and security, chain of command, and classification thrown into the mix. Given all that, in its historical context the Twining memo does not close the door completely, especially when you review other government secrets and the attempts to keep them out of the hands of those who have no need to know. My point (among others) was to provide the historical context and to show that this is not the death sentence for the Roswell case. It is extremely worrisome and that some see it as the end of the discussion is understandable. <br /><br />Craig McDaniel -<br /><br />Actually when you reach top secret, code words come into play. This is why some claim that the Roswell case was classified two points above top secret. According to that way of thinking, the Roswell case would have been noted as "Top Secret - Annex - Chase so that to see the Roswell material, you would need not only a top secret clearance but also one that that was top secret - annex and to get to the really good stuff you would need top secret - annex - chase (and for all the nuts out there, I made up these two codes words just as an illustration... they are not real).<br /><br />You could say that Garrett might have had a top secret clearance but didn't have either the annex or the chase endorsement... maybe Schulgen had top secret annex but not the chase endorsement so he would see some of the stuff but not all of it. Please note, again, that we're dealing with government classifications, but the code words of annex and chase, and who might have held what endorsement is clearly my speculation, used to illustrate the system.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-19175874252390628142016-04-26T14:08:20.708-07:002016-04-26T14:08:20.708-07:00Kevin, Thank you for the reply to my question abou...Kevin, Thank you for the reply to my question about security classifications. I have purchases a couple of your books and taken an interest in the subject after seeing a very big cylinder that was close. So in short, I am fairly new at analyzing the UFO subject and understand the high level of interest in the subject.<br /><br />The reason for the question about security is I tend to stand back and look at the big picture first before going into details. Part of the big picture I see is not only did Twitting, the US military to the White House have their hands on something totally new and unexpected but they had immediate new problems to deal with like raising the security. The military didn't want the FBI or other government organizations involved that had civilian control or people they couldn't trust or control themselves. This left Twitting and the other Generals creating the rules as they go along. Clearly Ramey didn't know what to do but learned really quick if he had to throw good officers under the bus.<br /><br />So back to my original question about security. Someone or a group decided to create a whole new security class far higher than any other to date in July 1947. Rules was created on the fly and day to day in 47 and 48. This created much confusion in the top and higher levels of the military. Whoever was a part of that team is something you are looking at as I read you comments. <br /><br />Is this a good summary of your research and thoughts? Again I am new at this but I do have solid decision marking experience from business. Thanks again.<br /><br /><br /><br />Mr. Sweepyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09966969362028196312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-14921975346601420292016-04-26T11:35:12.975-07:002016-04-26T11:35:12.975-07:00There is a VERY strong back-engineering component ...There is a VERY strong back-engineering component to the Twining memo, first stating that it might be possible to build a disc with some of the observed characteristics (but would be "extremely expensive", a true understatement). It strongly urged an official investigation with a wide distribution list, including multiple agencies involved in advanced aeronautical research and development, namely:<br /><br />JRDB/RDB: Research and Development Board, headed by Dr. Vannevar Bush (the same group that met in a suddenly called meeting by Gen. Vandenberg the morning of July 8, 1947, simultaneous with the staff meeting at Roswell, also fingered by the Smith/Sarbacher/Canadian embassy 1950/51 documents as housing a supersecret group headed by Bush investigating the "modus operandi" of the saucers.<br /><br />NACA: National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, became NASA in 1958. Vannevar Bush headed this 1940-41. Bush remained on the Board of NACA through the end of 1948. Dr. Jerome Hunsaker (MIT) was chair 1941-1957.<br /><br />NEPA: Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft. An Air Force project, headed by Gen. Curtis LeMay (Deputy head of AF R&D who was briefing Vandenberg just before that JRDB meeting July 8, 1947). Another briefer was Dr. Henry Bowles, of MIT, a close associate of Bush, and advisor to the Secretary of Defense. Another important figure in NEPA was Dr. Edward Condon (yes, THAT Condon).<br /><br />RAND: Acronymn for Research ANd Development: Created by Gen. Hap Arnold (head of AAF), the same Dr. Bowles, and others in 1945, operated under Douglas Aircraft initially. They reported directly to Gen. LeMay. First white paper was in 1946: "Preliminary Design of an Experimental World-Circling Spaceship" (artificial satellites).<br /><br />Air Force Scientific Advisory Group: Started by Hap Arnold during WWII, initially headed by Dr. Theodore von Karman. LeMay again played an important role in setting it up and was an ex-officio member, more or less running the operation out of his Pentagon office.<br /><br />You'll notice a great deal of crossover between these groups in personnel and R&D. Guys like LeMay and Bush had their fingers in a lot of pies and everybody knew everybody else.<br /><br />The NICAP website has some important historical contextual info on the Twining memo, including the fact that the complete memo shows HEAVY input from five heads of the aeronautical engineering department, T-3. (written in script at end of memo). Therefore it WASN'T just an intelligence memo of T-2 written solely by Col. McCoy with Twining signing off on it. <br /> <br />http://www.nicap.org/twining_letter.htm <br /><br />Other notable items:<br />1. Twining had the authority and had already launched his own investigation around July 2 (in fact was quoted in the newspapers saying people were obviously seeing something and they were looking into it. Similar quotes from Vandenberg appeared July 4).<br /><br />2. BEFORE writing Twining, LeMay was first contacted asking if maybe the discs weren't one of our own projects. LeMay said no (sorry, Brian Bell), therefore further investigation seemed warranted. Then Twining/AMC was contacted. <br /><br />3. Alfred Loedding, civilian engineer with T-3/AMC, was heading the disc investigation and in August learned of AAF Air Intelligence radar cases from Japan, which AMC didn't have. He told McCoy who requested the reports. AF intelligence completed an analysis of the radar cases (but it is unclear if they shared with AMC). In any case, it would seem the REALITY of the discs (Schulgen/Twining/AMC) was NOT based on just eyewitness reports, but independent PHYSICAL corroboration of reality. (Roswell or no Roswell).<br /><br />Not mentioned at the NICAP site but known to be true, AMC a month after the Twining memo was already beginning wind tunnel tests on disc models, so engineering studies were under way before Project Sign was official set up at the end of December.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-6739048729458473592016-04-26T11:04:36.249-07:002016-04-26T11:04:36.249-07:00"The lack of physical evidence in the shape o..."The lack of physical evidence in the shape of crash recovered exhibits which would undeniably prove the existence of these objects."<br /><br />Due to the absence of a comma between "exhibits" and "which", it is possible to read it as not that there were no exhibits, but there just wasn't any of the exhibits that was undeniable proof.<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-28570735476788578592016-04-26T10:21:04.082-07:002016-04-26T10:21:04.082-07:00Brian:
What Kevin is saying, in a roundabout way,...Brian:<br /><br />What Kevin is saying, in a roundabout way, is this:<br /><br />Since Schulgen did not refer to Roswell (or any other landed/crashed disc) in his memo to Twining on flying discs, so Twining, despite having an actual crashed disc his possession at Wright Field, deliberately told Schulgen exactly the opposite in his reply.<br /><br />As I said before, Kevin is desperately trying to show that if an official memo says X is false, it may still (by a suitable re-interpretation) actually mean X is true. <br /><br />Kevin made a fatal mistake in bringing up the Twining memo. It has been public for 40 years now and we still have the ETHers trying to make it mean the exact opposite of what it says!cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-81023972809012590302016-04-26T09:37:20.148-07:002016-04-26T09:37:20.148-07:00To all:
In actuality, there has been evidence for...To all:<br /><br />In actuality, there has been evidence for this type of thing in the BB files all along. That is, that one group not informing the others about certain parts of the whole story.<br /><br />First of all, it seems likely, because of what certain of the documents within the files say, that the Army General Staff is the reason the Air Force is gathering the data in the first place. This would mean that the Joint Chiefs were the top dogs, and others in the Air Force knew it. For all we know this might have been in place even before the Roswell affair. If certain aspects could't be discussed out of turn, then they weren't going to do it at any level. Especially if, because the Army was in control, the others might not have known the full story anyway.<br /><br />When you consider the McLaughlin affair that took place a few years later, remember that the Army PIO was the one who ordered the other parties in the room to ignore what the Commander was saying, because "the Army still considered the subject SECRET."<br /><br />McLaughlin even balked, saying something like, "whaddya mean, everybody knows this stuff...its no secret," whereupon the Army PIO got very agitated with him. It was clear that McLaughlin was purposely trying to buck the secrecy.<br /><br />There are other examples in the files as well, showing a discrepancy between the different Armed Forces, as to whether or not there was anything that could't be talked about.Bob Kofordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739226809252915992noreply@blogger.com