The rules are The Rules. We are in the process of creating special rules for CT. But answering all questions with citations, if possible, considered polite. (Which IS one of our rules.)

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

No, sorry, i am going to insult your intelligence. Now im going to say what you said to me! you dont know me! dont start all this rubbish about games, just talk about the case. If you want to start the insults, dont start them with me!

Tell me how im wrong? in my opinions? i really want to know.

You know what RAF. I dont mind discussing this case with people on here, and i have not insulted anyone, and there have been some good points made on this thread. Its not about Giving evidence all the time raf, its also about learning something new, if that means learning something that steers towards the government explanation, so be it. I really dont care either way how it turns out, but i still interested in the case, like many people. Because i dont have the evidence that will turn all de-bunkers heads, does not mean i cant speculate and do a bit of my own thinking by looking into the case. If you want to share your views on how i was wrong, then be my guest.

But dont insult me saying i am this and that, when you dont even know me my friend

I was under the impression that spock was referring to the rules of science, not to the rules of this board....

But I could be wrong.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Well yes, actually, because Roswell happened so long ago any information would have been declassified under the fifty year rule. But the government came back and said there was no iinformation on record to declassify! So the government can't have it both ways. Either they neeeded to cover up something secret or there was nothing secret to cover up in the first place. One or the other bu not both. The American public are entirely stupid.

In my opinion, militery

What 50-year rule? A board member here related that there is still stuff from WW1 that is still classified.

Do you have sources of information that say that the govt said there was nothing classified going on?
Even if they did say that, how do you know that that wasn't part of the cover story too?

You must want to get banned. Even insulting a group of people is not allowed under the rules.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

That would not be wise...

I don't need to tell you how you are wrong, you need to tell us how you are right.

When it is strongly implied that those who don't agree with the "conspiracy" idea are unquestioning of the government, I take that as an insult.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Military what?

A military crash?

If so, then why expect a full story to be released? How do we know that they weren't doing something so secret or making classified studies, that it must still be secret to this day?

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Actually, no. The US Government is not my government; neither do I believe that it always tells the truth. Far from it.

But in the Roswell case they seem to have demonstrated quite well that they now have no hidden information, and therefore nothing to hide, and were simply trying to explain the available data in good faith. Perhaps some of their conclusions are not correct; but I would suggest that any quest into government files, no matter how deep, will not find any extra worthwhile information at this late stage. (or perhaps only trivia).

This is the province of historians, now; I think the most likely verdict of history is that the event was suppressed (probably at a fairly junior level) to avoid making Blanchard et al look like idiots.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

Depending on who Spock is referring to by 'you', he may well be correct here, and is not insulting anyone in particular. The fact is that there is some body of people who collectively make the rules, and that the rules do change when it is convenient to change the rules. How can anyone argue with that. That is just good government. You wouldn't stick with a dumb rule that was inconvenient just for being stubbornly consistant.

On the other hand, it may be that Spock is more narrowly talking about the social rules of discussion in this forum, which are really just between him, R.A.F., jay1976, Grand_Lunar, et. al, and not specified by the forum here. Really, I can't tell the context, but if he is referring to only this final grouping, then it is for you folks to work out.

I'm not saying that I agree with Spock's position about what information exists, and or what information should be available, but it's OK for him to talk about this.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

So in that case why are you asking us to provide evidence when the government holds all the cards. What you are saying in effect is we should trust the government on this. Sad to point out that most governments are deeply mistrusted by a lot of ordinary people.

Not at all...but there is absoluely no need to "make up stuff" which is essentially what Roswell is...

Point being??? so we should dis-believe what the government says about everything???

edited to add...and darn it, he got himself banned, again!!

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

For when you return (again)...

While I don't always agree with my govt (and don't always trust it to do the right thing), I don't see a reason to worry over stuff like Roswell, nor reason to hold the surpression of those events against the govt.

Now, when it comes to climate data surpression, that's another story.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

I think that a lot of young people today don't realize that the big concern back in '47 was not aliens from outer space, but the Russians. The newspapers and movie newsreels of that era were filled with stories about how the Russians were gradually taking over Eastern Europe and there were stories about how they had captured some German rocket engineers during the War, who were working on all kinds of secret planes, rockets, and space craft for the Russians.

If you watch the 1947 movie "The Lady From Shanghai", there was a character in the film who kept predicting that all the major cities of the world would eventually be blown up with atomic bombs during the next war, and I remember seeing movie newsreels about possible future threats of air attacks from the Russians.

I think the main concern in 1947 about Kenneth Arnold's sighting and the Roswell crash was a concern that the Russians might be sending secret rockets and new kinds of space craft to the US during tests in preparation for an atomic or chemical attack on the US. There were even a few Hollywood movies back in those days specifically about attacks from Russia and attacks from secret groups of Nazis who had escaped from Germany and were working on secret space craft in the jungles and mountains of South America.

The big "flying saucer" craze in the US didn't start until Hollywood starting making flying saucer movies in the early '50s.

The government could not reveal all the information about these issues because, if the Russians were sending rockets and things to the US, the government didn't want the Russians to know that we either were or were not aware of it. There was a lot of military and spacecraft information that the government would not mind the public knowing about, but the public in the US was also filled with Russian spies who reported to Moscow everything that our government said.

But speculation without evidence is meaningless. If you don't have evidence to back up your point, you're not learning something new. You're participating in a thought exercise. True, this is some of what Einstein did for relativity and such, but let's remember that he has also been backed up by experimental data.

If you have Netflix, may I recommend putting the Unsolved History episode about the first few notorious "alien encounters" on your list? It also has an interesting section about the fallibility of human memory.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

So what does this tell you?

It tells me that as the evidence changes, so does the De-bunkers position. Strangely I have yet to see any UFO, HB, or 9/11 CT's change their position when the evidence changes, what does that tell you?

The De-bunkers position is based on evidence, I'll say that again in case you missed it, evidence. It's not based on speculation and rumor. That does mean that as more evidence comes to light that the De-Bunkers' position will change, it should, if they started with one story and refused to budge on it regardless of the evidence then that'd be being close minded (Oh, and which group refuses to budge regardless of the evidence?)

The trouble here is that the UFO'ers etc all expect that their story should be accepted by default, but all they have is speculation and possible holes in the official version. Simply poking holes in the governments story doesn't mean yours can replace it by default, you have to provide evidence that you are right, it's that simple, and guess what, if you can, then the De-bunkers will move to defend your evidence, but that's the rub, you have to actually provide the evidence to back up your claims, if you can't, why shouldwe believe your speculation over other evidence that has been provided?

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Oh please!

I have provided many holes in the case, if you dont think they are right, tell me why

hhhmmmmm!

Militery crash, as in secret project or something like that. I dont know when the full story will be released, but im sure it will. Maybe thats true about classified, i have not doubted that.

Whats made up?

That tells me that they are as bad as eachother. You get de-bunkers who are not even interested in a case, they just de-bunk it without studying the case. You get believers who at a case, believe its alien or whatever, and thats it, they will keep to this no matter what.

i have already come across some de-bunkers on here who so obviously dont look at the cases, but still de-bunk them, what does that tell you?

I have listed some of the lies and holes in the roswell case, if you think they are rubbish, tell me why.

You seem to put every believer into this catagory

Well tell me about the evidence provided that makes you believe in project M and the dummies?

Stuff about alien autopsies, ect.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

I was talking about my point of view on the case, which is downed militery craft and the cover-up that is still going on today

One recent theory which involves a 'crashed military craft' has been put forward by Nick Redfern. His 'Bodysnatchers in the Desert' book suggests that it was an experimental vehicle filled with Japanese POWs. I have never heard such bizarre and absurd nonsense in my life.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

I have not heard that one too.

Well, I can't seem to find many holes and lies to argue against at the moment. If you would like to post a few we can perhaps examine them and see which are deliberate lies and which are just intriguing gaps in our knowledge.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

Right, because of course you use POWs in illegal experiments so that you will get into a lot of trouble with the international community if they are found out, after all its not as if they will try and sabotage stuff is it (particularly as given their culture they are likely to consider their own survival to be optional (kamikaze anyone?)). {can be observed adding Nick Redfern to the list of people to try to set on fire with his mind}

I am VERY tired of you trying to tell us what we have or haven't "looked at" simply because we disagree with you. You really need to STOP THAT!!

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

What! you are really begining to get on my nerves RAF i have said my opinions, i have said why there are holes, i have not moaned at anyone, or had a problem with anyone, only you.
You have not even spoke about the case, and i am sure that you have not even looked into the case.

So i suggest you stop talking down to me, becasue i find that insulting. Why is it only you that is like this on here?

Then I must be doing something right.

Then you should report me to the mods...as I have done you.

See...there's your problem, asserting something that you know NOTHING about. How are you so "sure"?? (Other than the fact that I disagree with you.)

How am I talking down to you? I simply do not agree that you have presented evidence that there was a conspiracy. Will you ever be presenting that evidence???...or will you continue to try and make this "personal". You're not fooling anyone with this "tactic".

Like what??? I know I'm not the only one who is asking that you provide evidence for this "conspiracy". I'm just not the kind that "handles" people with kid gloves. If you believe that the nature of my posts breaks the rules of this board, then report me to the mods.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

And there is the answer. Thats all you really want to do, and thats why i have complained. You have no basis to complain about me

Bull...you continue to post that "we" haven't investigated Roswell simply because we do not agree with your "conclusions". I would have no "complaint" with you, if only you would stop saying that...understand??

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

All I really "want to do" is compel you to provide evidence that there actually was a "conspiracy". Why don't you channel your energies into proving that??

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov