|
Post by concrete on Mar 10, 2010 0:51:28 GMT 10
Not sure if I can trust things with five fingers, and write in greek.
Spells 'freedom' BTW.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2010 6:28:01 GMT 10
embedding disabled, but is this from the alien autopsy films?
Yeah, watched it. that was always the worst part of that whole sorry saga. Whoever made that bit didnt really read the descriptions given by the witnesses, the "I" beams are way to big, the foil dosnt unfold like it should and the hand print controls are awful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2010 6:32:09 GMT 10
Yes it is, I also found this one, which is also disabled, but I have never seen these photos before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2010 6:33:33 GMT 10
Never been able to work out if this is fake.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2010 6:41:38 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by brillbilly on Mar 10, 2010 9:51:21 GMT 10
i do believe in the roswell inceident,but as for the footage only one can be the real alien or are we to believe in a second crash site at corona. The stories that there was a second crash site are what keeps the Roswellstory going. No matter what explanation the Air Force gives for the debris that Mac Brazel found, it's never good enough if there was a second crash site...
The Roswell Incident and Crash at Corona make a case for a second crash site on the Plains of San Agustin near Magdalena, New Mexico. Thistheory is heavily based on second-hand testimony from a couple named Vern and Jean Maltais. The Maltaises said in 1978 that in February, 1950, an engineer friend of theirs named Grady L."Barney" Barnett told them thathe had been working out in the field near Magdalena, New Mexico on July 3, 1947 when he came upon a crashed disc-shaped object with dead, non-human bodies both inside and outside the craft. But a diary kept by Barnett's wife was subsequently recovered that stated that Barney Barnettwas not on the Plains of San Agustin on July 3, 1947.
The San Agustin story was given new life when a man named Gerald Anderson came forward after television's Unsolved Mysteries telecast a segment about Roswell in January of 1990.
Anderson claimed he and his family had been hunting rocks on the Plains of San Agustin in early July, 1947, when they came upon a crashed UFOwith four alien bodies inside. Although Gerald was only six years old at the time, he told of vivid memories of the scene, including the presence of an archaeologist named Dr. Buskirk and five of his students. But Anderson's testimony soon began to fall apart, and with it the likelihood of a crash onthe Plains of San Agustin. Dr. Buskirk turned out to have been a former teacher of Anderson's, and he was in Arizona at the time, not New Mexico.
Crash at Corona also makes the first case for a second crash site nearRoswell. This case is also heavily based on very little testimony, that of Glenn Dennis and the second-hand stories of Captain Oliver Wendell "Pappy" Henderson, whose daughter and wife said he claimed to have flown debris and bodies to Wright Field. There are discrepancies in Dennis' story as given in Crash and in Truth.
Randall and Schmitt, in The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell, introduce new testimony from Jim Ragsdale, William Woody, Frankie Rowe, Frank Kaufman, and W. Curry Holden. All this seems to point to asecond crash site with bodies recovered, followed by a massive military cover-up. But the testimony of each of these witnesses can be questioned. No information is given about Ragsdale that would bolster his credibility.We know nothing about him, yet his story is presented as if it were gospel. Sources on the net say that with each passing year, his story gets more elaborate and less believable. W. Curry Holden was 96 years old when interviewed by Randle, and his family made a point of mentioning that he "gets confused". Randle says that when he asked Holden if he was at thecrash site, he answered in the affirmative. But why couldn't he name any ofthe students who were with him? The students, being younger, might have clearer memories about what happened.
|
|
|
Post by shatnerswig on Mar 10, 2010 10:21:47 GMT 10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2010 10:53:10 GMT 10
Brill, I still think the two sites were part of the same crash. The craft hit the ground on Brazels ranch and crash further along.
Jesse Marcel also made mention of a second crash site.
I think a lot of these descrepancies can be atributed to the passing years, age of witnesses and leading questions from interveiwers who are trying to further thier own theories.
I remeber reading a thing about Brazels daughter, who claimed the debris was that of a weather balloon, it was trumpeted as proof it was a balloon, until someone found out she wasnt on the ranch in 1947, she was thinking of another incident.
For me it all comes back to marcel, a base intelligence officer would never mistake a balloon and radar array for an alien spaceship.
Plus you have Walter Haut recanting his previous denials on his death bed and admitting the crash had happened and was told to make the original press release.
|
|
|
Post by brillbilly on Mar 10, 2010 11:04:44 GMT 10
all i believe daz is that a craft probley from a non human race crashed for what ever reason in roswell and a massive cover up was rapidly put in to operation
|
|
|
Post by Wes on Mar 10, 2010 12:34:25 GMT 10
Brill, I still think the two sites were part of the same crash. The craft hit the ground on Brazels ranch and crash further along. Yeah Darryl I have always thought that what was originally found was bits and pieces that fell off the ship when it was stuck by lighting. It flew a few miles and crashed. A pulse from a radar hit the ship causing it to become negativity charged, which attracted the lightning. The first spot found was where all the bits had landed spread across a wide area. The second spot was where the craft crashed. This is also where the bodies were found, one maybe a live, depending on which source you follow. The first area is our "weather balloon". When news of the second area, the actual " crash site", started to surface the crash test dummy was added to the balloon story and the two areas become one area. When looking at witness testimony you have to interpret which area the witness was at. That is one reason the stories contradict each other.
|
|