Search results

Lol, there are many cases considered "explained" despite the "explanation" being absurd or debunked. MOGUL is the classic examples; others include crash dummies and "swamp gas."

Burisch is a disinfo agent--one of many to appear over the years. What he says may be false but analysis of the purpose of disinfo can go a long way toward revealing the truth.

Not as far as we laymen know. The phenomenon obviously doesn't want people to fully accept its reality, yet.

Not sure it's the same but in one interview Keyhoe put out disinfo. His role as an agent was publicized quite some time ago.

That's the way the phenomenon wants it. They deliberately limit the quality of evidence and even do things to sow some doubt about a sighting representing ET. Our visitors don't want the case for them to be too strong yet.

Lol, contact was made several decades ago, and they have/had better ways of doing it.

Did you report these sightings to a UFO researcher or organization?

All talk of imminent disclosure or invasion is nonsense. Maybe after 2050, around 2100.

It should read Randle's books and better yet, The Alien Grand Design.

It's not sufficient to prove it conclusively--i.e. physical evidence in the public domain isn't--but it is highly suggestive of an unknown (or unearthly) phenomenon.

I neglected to answer this. If you're referring to pics of junk in Ramey's office, there are excellent grounds to doubt them. As records indicate #4 was cancelled, and even if the balloons released did reach the ranch--considered highly dubious--there was nothing else. Wherever they got the junk...

In the case of Roswell, nobody disputes something came down, and testimony points to something highly unusual.

As Gene said, witness testimony, if credible, is sufficient to convict.

Like I just said, there's evidence for something extraordinary and for a confiscation of material, hence a coverup. I didn't say there was conclusive proof lay people are privy to.

Nobody, to my knowledge, ever claimed there were. Certainly nobody with the credibility of a base intel Major. I didn't say witness testimony proved the phenomenon. But it's still evidence something highly unusual came down in '47 and its remains were confiscated and kept out of the public...

Not in the public domain, but again you can't assume something doesn't exist just because the public doesn't have access to it. Also, while we don't have recorded testimony (about this) dating from '47, there was still adequate first hand testimony starting in '78.

In fact Marcel, originally interviewed by Friedman in '78, essentially reopened the case. 1978/80 may have been long after '47 but there was still good first hand testimony.

Nonsense, as Randle's research shows. Witnesses reported unusual metallic debris not balloons. Had it been just balloons the base intel officer would've identified them quickly and easily. A base intel officer and his son are credible, and like many other credible witnesses over the past 75...

Exactly, as sources indicate #4 was canceled, and the others are accounted for. Scratch MOGUL. They were silenced as their later testimony indicates. Edwards mentioned the caee in his '66 book but noted people weren't talking---yet. But still evidence, especially if a witness is deemed...

So you think a base intel officer couldn't identify either, nor Blanchard and his whole staff?? Not that a MOGUL balloon is possible in any event as #4 was cancelled. This is absurd. Several first hand witnesses described highly unusual material, including of course the Marcels. Unusual craft...