May 14, 2017 — Nick Redfern

[Han]

Sure it's possible, based on this logic anything is possible.

It's possible that it was a real alien Vehicle, it's possible they were all wearing clown suits and it's possible one of them was called Trevor.

Let's talk about what sounds likely. If humans advance their technology for another 500 years to the point of interstellar capability are we likely to even recognise the capability of our tech vs. Today? Is it likely it would fail in the presence of something so abundant in the universe as radio waves? and is it likely we would crash midair into another vehicle?

Just in what's in our near future we will have AI significantly more capable than humans designing our vehicles, flying them and monitoring them. They will be perfect in every measurable way to a human beings level of comprehension.

I know in the film's the aliens have an Achilles heel that the Americans always find to bring them down but the real interstellar aliens, if they exist...do I need to go on...

That is assuming that the UFO was not biological, for example whales can be disorientated by noise interfering with their echo location, maybe the "radar" had a similar effect on the Roswell UFO?
Also the Titanic (Which was the pinnacle of Naval technology at the time) was sunk by an Ice Cube.
Also a modern Jet can be brought down by birds (that fly or are sucked into its engines).
I am not sure how accurate this is but I have heard that the F-117 lost its "radar invisibility" when it was raining.


I think in war of the worlds (H.G Wells 1897) the ETs were killed by a virus.
I think that like Achilles ET are said to be Mortal (as in killable).
But I think that a lot of the behaviours and abilities allegedly displayed by ET sound more like Immortals (gods), maybe they are/were one and the same thing (Ancient Aliens) or Maybe like Achilles some of them have been imbued with special powers, or alternatively they could be hybrids.

However from my standpoint I think that there is overwhelming evidence that the US during and proceeding WWII were involved in many highly secret investigations into the "technologies of War" especially in terms of "Aerial Warfare" from A-Bombs to Zeppelins, and some of the personnel in the employment of the US were dubious (to put it lightly) characters (Paperclip).

I reckon the last thing they wanted was the focus of the media on them and what they were up to in the desert, and some absolute genius turned a disaster (someone naively admitting that it was a Flying Disk) into a 70+ year mystery that's answer has eluded professional and amateur alike, and just like any good mystery, it gets better over time, taking on the traits and character of the narrator in each telling and re-telling.

Always enjoy Roswell responsibly

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Still think Author Annie Jacobsen given some element of this historical event

‘Area 51’ by Annie Jacobsen - Review

https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/space-chicken.jpg

 

[Randall]

I think a fairer analogy would be technology from the 1500s such as candle light bringing down a modern airliner.

I think that's moving the goalposts to some extent. But if we go with it, then we'd also have to remember that the assumption is that the radar waves came into contact with the craft and for some unexplained reason, that led to a crash. So hypothetically if some jet pilot got distracted by an unexpected light on the ground, it's conceivable that it could lead to some sort of problem. We also know from reports that UFOs take evasive action and implement countermeasures when locked onto by radar, so who knows? Maybe the pilot felt an immediate course change was necessary to avoid incoming fire. It's a reach for sure, but not totally incomprehensible.

Candlelight is also in the electromagnetic spectrum just like radar, and bounces off planes hulls in the same way. Radar sounds fancy because it is a modern technology but it's just electromagnetic waves Let's get specific, radar is radio waves, so if these are bringing down ufos then watch out if your near a metropolitan area with a few radio and microwave transmitters!

Well actually I'm one of those tin-foil hat wearing folks that thinks there's merit in avoiding EM pollution. Workers who service antennas also stay away from their active signal paths because they can cause serious damage or death if you get in front of some of them. The WHO also revised its position on the health effects of wireless transmitters and is no longer saying they're safe to put in schools. I also personally seem to sleep better when my house wi-fi is switched off. There's a good video on it called Resonance - Beings Of Frequency. Posted here: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Dirty Electricity & Smart Meters

And remember Stanton says the impact shows a mid air collision, so not only did radar waves send this advanced craft into miss control but it actually hit another craft (what are the chances, you don't see another ufo for ages and then as soon as you pass through some puny human radio wave machine another one pops up in your way!) And just to stretch credulity this 'indestructible' material that couldn't be burnt, couldn't be torn, couldn't be broken ends up in pieces all over the desert floor? Pull the other one...

I like to remind people ( again ) that according to one account, there were storm clouds in the area, and that after one thunderclap another bang more like an explosion was reported. Maybe it means nothing, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that a 10 billion watt lightning strike hotter than the Sun might wreak havoc on a small scout craft that uses high energy superconducting/fusion power systems, and that even very strong materials might be compromised by an overload of such a system.

 

[marduk]

I don't understand why we're trying to use Roswell as a data point for anything.

 

[Randall]

I don't understand why we're trying to use Roswell as a data point for anything.

Maybe elaborate a little on that. What do you mean by a "data point"?

 

[marduk]

Maybe elaborate a little on that. What do you mean by a "data point"?

Weren't we just speculating what brought whatever down at Roswell?

 

[Randall]

Weren't we just speculating what brought whatever down at Roswell?

Yes, but simply saying "... trying to use Roswell ..." implies that the entire incident is what you were referring to rather than a specific issue , especially when you include the word "anything". And I'm still not clear on what you meant by a "data point".

 

[marduk]

Yes, but simply saying "... trying to use Roswell ..." implies that the entire incident is what you were referring to rather than a specific issue , especially when you include the word "anything". And I'm still not clear on what you meant by a "data point".

I guess I was trying to figure out what it was that you were trying to figure out?

I mean, I'm firmly in the 'never gonna know what happened at Roswell' camp. So speculating what might have brought down whatever was in fact brought down - if anything - I was trying to grok.

 

[Randall]

I guess I was trying to figure out what it was that you were trying to figure out? I mean, I'm firmly in the 'never gonna know what happened at Roswell' camp. So speculating what might have brought down whatever was in fact brought down - if anything - I was trying to grok.

If I read you correctly, you're saying that because we'll probably never know what really happened at Roswell it's pointless to speculate on what might have happened? LOL. Some days I feel like that about the entire field. I've walked away from it more than once and just gone on with everyday life, knowing they're out there, just like knowing other stuff like underwater volcanoes are out there. I just integrate into my worldview and carry on. But eventually I'm faced with just how radical that worldview is compared to those who haven't done that, and it draws me back in.

BTW, some really interesting comments by you on the Strieber thread. I haven't been on as often as I used to be, so I missed them until just now. Have you told us about that before? My memory is like a sieve unless I'm onto something every day, so please forgive me If it slipped my mind.

 

[marduk]

If I read you correctly, you're saying that because we'll probably never know what really happened at Roswell it's pointless to speculate on what might have happened?

I guess I'm wondering how you'd verify it even if you were right?

 

[marduk]

If I read you correctly, you're saying that because we'll probably never know what really happened at Roswell it's pointless to speculate on what might have happened? LOL. Some days I feel like that about the entire field. I've walked away from it more than once and just gone on with everyday life, knowing they're out there, just like knowing other stuff like underwater volcanoes are out there. I just integrate into my worldview and carry on. But eventually I'm faced with just how radical that worldview is compared to those who haven't done that, and it draws me back in.

BTW, some really interesting comments by you on the Strieber thread. I haven't been on as often as I used to be, so I missed them until just now. Have you told us about that before? My memory is like a sieve unless I'm onto something every day, so please forgive me If it slipped my mind.

Not sure. It's mostly stuff I've never spoken to anyone about, including my closest friends and two wives.

There's not a lot to say.

 

[Randall]

I guess I'm wondering how you'd verify it even if you were right?

If I'm getting your drift, I can relate to how sometimes it seems like a waste of time to discuss things that have no practical relevance, but it's not always futile. Just the fact that we talk means there's a connection between believers and people who are interested. In my view that's a good thing in and of itself.

Not sure. It's mostly stuff I've never spoken to anyone about, including my closest friends and two wives.

Two wives? It's probably better not get into that can of worms. LOL.

There's not a lot to say.

Sometimes it's not how much you say, but what you say. Like someone else suggested, I like to leave encounter witnesses to the psychological experts, but that's mainly because I don't believe any specific case has enough evidence to prove it one way or another, and that means I have to tell people who relay their stories that I don't know what to believe with respect to their specific cases, and that is really hard because if the witness is being truthful and sincere, I naturally want to provide the moral support that they need, but I'm just not able to do that without sufficient evidence.

All I can say is that "if your telling the truth, then bla bla bla", and that isn't much comfort to someone who needs individual validation. Believing the phenomena is real isn't the same as believing in them ( the witness ) personally. I absolutely feel horrible about that, but I've also had to accept that people have the same reservations when hearing about my own experiences, so I try to bridge the divide by saying that I do believe others are out there and that those people know who they are and that on some unspoken level we're all part of that larger worldview, and I think that is something special.

That's not to say I think we're "better" or "superior" or somehow elevated above those who live "common" or "mundane" lives, but that there is something valuable in simply knowing what we know on a personal experiential level that only those who have actually had some kind of personal experience seem to be able to fully appreciate.

 

[marduk]

If I'm getting your drift, I can relate to how sometimes it seems like a waste of time to discuss things that have no practical relevance, but it's not always futile. Just the fact that we talk means there's a connection between believers and people who are interested. In my view that's a good thing in and of itself.

I'm not sure I agree.

I mean, there's so much speculation on this already. Throwing more out there does what?

And wasting smart minds thinking about what is now mythology achieves what?

Rational minds in this field are rare as hen's teeth.

Two wives? It's probably better not get into that can of worms. LOL.

Lol, not at the same time.

Sometimes it's not how much you say, but what you say. Like someone else suggested, I like to leave encounter witnesses to the psychological experts, but that's mainly because I don't believe any specific case has enough evidence to prove it one way or another, and that means I have to tell people who relay their stories that I don't know what to believe with respect to their specific cases, and that is really hard because if the witness is being truthful and sincere, I naturally want to provide the moral support that they need, but I'm just not able to do that without sufficient evidence.

All I can say is that "if your telling the truth, then bla bla bla", and that isn't much comfort to someone who needs individual validation. Believing the phenomena is real isn't the same as believing in them ( the witness ) personally. I absolutely feel horrible about that, but I've also had to accept that people have the same reservations when hearing about my own experiences, so I try to bridge the divide by saying that I do believe others are out there and that those people know who they are and that on some unspoken level we're all part of that larger worldview, and I think that is something special.

That's not to say I think we're "better" or "superior" or somehow elevated above those who live "common" or "mundane" lives, but that there is something valuable in simply knowing what we know on a personal experiential level that only those who have actually had some kind of personal experience seem to be able to fully appreciate.

I never really needed validation. You know, if someone could demonstrate that I was crazy, or they were some kind of delusion, I'd actually be happy about that.

But in all those explanations, there's as much hand waiving and magical thinking as there is over on the antigravity thread.

This is a profoundly human experience shared by many. It doesn't fit with anything.

And there's no explanation for it.

 

[Randall]

I'm not sure I agree. I mean, there's so much speculation on this already. Throwing more out there does what?

Speculation opens minds to new ideas and ways of looking at things. It's not unlike brainstorming. It improves communication and has the potential to get others unfamiliar with the subject to think about it as well.

And wasting smart minds thinking about what is now mythology achieves what?

That's a loaded question in that it states as a given that applying smart minds to the subject is a waste of time. In contrast, I think the more smart minds we can apply to the subject the better off we are because it achieves a level of communication and thought about the subject that has more potential to advance our understanding than simply pretending it doesn't have any relevance or significance.

Rational minds in this field are rare as hen's teeth.

Hens have teeth?

I never really needed validation.

I meant validation in the sense of having someone who gets it believe you actually had the experience rather than believing any specific interpretation of what caused it. The person you had the experience with is probably the only person in the world who can provide that level of validation. That is a powerful thing and I hope that on some level that can be seen as a positive rather than a negative.

You know, if someone could demonstrate that I was crazy, or they were some kind of delusion, I'd actually be happy about that.

Sometimes any explanation that can provide closure can be seem preferable, but when that isn't an option, it's been my experience that there are ways to turn otherwise troubling experiences into something positive, and that can be personally transformative.

But in all those explanations, there's as much hand waiving and magical thinking as there is over on the antigravity thread. This is a profoundly human experience shared by many. It doesn't fit with anything. And there's no explanation for it.

Perhaps there is an explanation, but it doesn't correlate to anything you can relate to and/or believe in. IMO the least that you should be able to do is arrive at a most-likely explanation, and if you'd like to share your thoughts further, feel free to start a private conversation. Like I said before, I don't know what to believe with respect to individual cases, but at least I believe people do have strange experiences. So I'm not out to sell you on any particular idea, but neither am I closed minded about the possibilities.

 

[marduk]

I'm on a phone and multiquoting sucks on this forum. So I'll just kind of riff here @Usual Suspect

As a thought experiment, almost anything works to make the noggin stimulated. I guess I'm making a value judgement here in two ways: one, adding to the Roswell noise just degrades any signal left in the noise, and two, isn't worthy of your thinking. You have a fine mind, and that's not something I say often. I'd love to see it continue to be pointed at more worthy topics. Of course it's your decision, and I myself love to waste mine on scotch and b-grade sci fi.

I guess when it comes to Roswell, I just put it in the same category as when I was 8 or 9 and I kept trying to figure out how spider-man's webbing could attach to clouds or empty space in the awesome old cartoon. I think I even wrote something about it at school, and my teacher said "that's nice, but you know it's not real, right?"

Where I'm at with my own experiences is that there is no answer that I have access to. I guess existentially there exists an answer, but like a black hole the information is beyond my event horizon of experience.

That's how I kept myself from going crazy. Or had kids, knowing this shit could happen to them and I could neither protect nor explain.

 

[Randall]

I'm on a phone and multiquoting sucks on this forum. So I'll just kind of riff here @Usual Suspect

As a thought experiment, almost anything works to make the noggin stimulated. I guess I'm making a value judgement here in two ways: one, adding to the Roswell noise just degrades any signal left in the noise, and two, isn't worthy of your thinking. You have a fine mind, and that's not something I say often. I'd love to see it continue to be pointed at more worthy topics. Of course it's your decision, and I myself love to waste mine on scotch and b-grade sci fi.

I guess when it comes to Roswell, I just put it in the same category as when I was 8 or 9 and I kept trying to figure out how spider-man's webbing could attach to clouds or empty space in the awesome old cartoon. I think I even wrote something about it at school, and my teacher said "that's nice, but you know it's not real, right?"

Where I'm at with my own experiences is that there is no answer that I have access to. I guess existentially there exists an answer, but like a black hole the information is beyond my event horizon of experience.

That's how I kept myself from going crazy. Or had kids, knowing this shit could happen to them and I could neither protect nor explain.

Thanks for the compliment. I too enjoy Grade B sci-fi. For that matter pretty much any sci-fi. Lately I've been watching some X-Files reruns I picked up when HMV went under. They're in the old 4 x 3 tube TV format, and it also just happens that I still have an old ( but good ) Sony Trinitron CRT TV. Something about watching the old shows on the old tech actually seems to enhances the viewing experience for me.

 

[marduk]

Thanks for the compliment. I too enjoy Grade B sci-fi. For that matter pretty much any sci-fi. Lately I've been watching some X-Files reruns I picked up when HMV went under. They're in the old 4 x 3 tube TV format, and it also just happens that I still have an old ( but good ) Sony Trinitron CRT TV. Something about watching the old shows on the old tech actually seems to enhances the viewing experience for me.

They're up on Netflix as well.

Some of it aged very poorly.

I've been looking for blakes 7 somewhere, I can't even find it on Apple TV.

Although they did a couple more runs of MST3000 and that's keeping me entertained. My wife however remains unamused.