Roswell Dummies

[TClaeys]

I haven't read "Case Closed", the Air Forces last rebuttal of the Roswell stuff. But what is repetitively said is that that dummies were what the people were seeing, not dwarfish aliens. But these dummies weren't used before the fifties so how could they be responsible for the sightings of the commonplace Greys?? The governement was caught in a lie.

So, just as a dinstiction, is this what the government said?? I recall that the witnesses, at sometimes very old age, were not remembering the incidents correctly and that they were blending memories with memories of these 1950's dummy events. This is very different than saying the dummies were there in 1947 and that they are caught lying.

So whats the deal here??

 

[Unky]

I haven't read "Case Closed", the Air Forces last rebuttal of the Roswell stuff. But what is repetitively said is that that dummies were what the people were seeing, not dwarfish aliens. But these dummies weren't used before the fifties so how could they be responsible for the sightings of the commonplace Greys?? The governement was caught in a lie.

So, just as a dinstiction, is this what the government said?? I recall that the witnesses, at sometimes very old age, were not remembering the incidents correctly and that they were blending memories with memories of these 1950's dummy events. This is very different than saying the dummies were there in 1947 and that they are caught lying.

So whats the deal here??

The Air Force's explanation for why witnesses in 1947 Roswell were confusing sightings of alleged alien bodies with crash test dummies from Project High Dive in 1953 was something they call "time compression".

The idea of time compression is: Time that occurs between novel memories begins to fade so that recollections become blended together; suggesting that senile minds loose the ability to recollect the precise timing of events they witness.

The time compression idea was asserted by Colonel John Haynes during the "Roswell: Case Closed" Pentagon briefing in 1997 and remains their official explanation for why people remember seeing alien bodies.

 

[Trajanus]

The Air Force's explanation for why witnesses in 1947 Roswell were confusing sightings of alleged alien bodies with crash test dummies from Project High Dive in 1953 was something they call "time compression".

The idea of time compression is: Time that occurs between novel memories begins to fade so that recollections become blended together; suggesting that senile minds loose the ability to recollect the precise timing of events they witness.

The time compression idea was asserted by Colonel John Haynes during the "Roswell: Case Closed" Pentagon briefing in 1997 and remains their official explanation for why people remember seeing alien bodies.

Even so, the notion is ridiculous. What Roswell witnesses saw the dummies in subsequent years? Also, Friedman pointed out that the dummies were bigger than the size of reported ETs. I doubt they had the gray features either. It's a lie alright.

 

[Kieran]

Lies to cover up more lies, is all what was happening here. The Roswell base, as far as we know it to be, was on full alert. Would it happen, if the explantations given by the Airforce was correct? Yet, according to what knowledge and reports we have, doctors and nurses were on full alert also.For dummies and weather balloons. It does'nt make sense.

Why, would a Major US Airforce base, release a statement in the first place that they had found a flying disc.
Anyway, 'you look at it' it does not make sense.There is something to this case, but is so long ago could we ever get to any real answers?

 

[Unky]

Even so, the notion is ridiculous. What Roswell witnesses saw the dummies in subsequent years? Also, Friedman pointed out that the dummies were bigger than the size of reported ETs. I doubt they had the gray features either. It's a lie alright.

No question there. Most rational people would raise an eyebrow to such a tale unless you happen to be a journalist working for the NY Times or Washington Post. Then you would be inspired to rush headlong into the embrace of a half-witted explanation like this because it affords you the opportunity to make light of the "foolish lunatic fringe" in your next column.

Air Force Details a New Theory in U.F.O. Case

 

[Trajanus]

For dummies and weather balloons. It does'nt make sense.

There were witnesses who saw unusual bodies at the base hospital. Honestly, I don't see how anyone could confuse hospital patients with crash dummies dropped years later. Anyone that far gone mentally wouldn't have been taken seriously by anyone.

There is something to this case, but is so long ago could we ever get to any real answers?

Probably not until there's finally disclosure--but who knows how long that'll take.

 

[TClaeys]

What I'm really trying to point out is some people (Balthasar for example) point out that the Air Force said that people SAW these dummies in 1947. That is just not true. What the Air Force said is that people were "misremembering" (time compression) any events with dummies and confusing it with an inaccurate date.

I'm not taking any side here or anything, just pointing out the distinction that isn't made by some researchers. And I'm not on Dennis case or anything either, but I've heard this numerous times and the distiction needs to be made I think. Because then people think "Wow, the Air Force absolutely made up this lie by telling all of us that what people saw in 1947 were dummies that weren't used until the fifties." But that, in itself, is just disingenuous and simply wrong.

Can't we at least be honest about what the Air Force actually said?? I'm certainly not defending the Air Force's story, just getting the record straight. It does the Roswell situation no good by making stuff up like this IMO. And if I'm not understanding Dennis, then please correct me, but it seems like he just said this on his last interview with the Paracast.

It is one thing for the AF to get caught in a blatant lie that can be fact checked, but quite another to offer up a plausible (I guess) theory as to why people remember "beings". Not that I'm buying it, but, ... you get what I'm saying right??

 

[Kieran]

There were witnesses who saw unusual bodies at the base hospital. Honestly, I don't see how anyone could confuse hospital patients with crash dummies dropped years later. Anyone that far gone mentally wouldn't have been taken seriously by anyone.




Probably not until there's finally disclosure--but who knows how long that'll take.

Exactly, It does'nt make sense. If the reports are geniune and the eyewitness's are factual. Then, why do skeptics still not question it?
The Airforce, have an opinion, that something happened, not a capture of a flying disc, but the evidence 'to me, suggests they are lieing or maybe they havent got a clue to what really happened?

Anyone with a skeptical mind would see something is not quiet right with the explanations given.

Disclosure, i dont think, it will ever happen by Goverment hands.

 

[Kieran]

It just logical, if there was a secret balloon called Mogul and it crashes. It could explain the Base being on Alert since it is a classified program. But it doesnt explain, The base putting the doctors and nurses on alert, because doctors and nurses have only one job of careing for the sick and fixing someones body when physical damage happens.
The other Explanation makes no sense at all, you dont need doctors and nurses for dummies, and you certainly dont need to put a major USA base on alert for lost dummies.

 

[Trajanus]

the distiction needs to be made I think. Because then people think "Wow, the Air Force absolutely made up this lie by telling all of us that what people saw in 1947 were dummies that weren't used until the fifties." But that, in itself, is just disingenuous and simply wrong.

OK but I don't think it makes any difference. We're talking about a time difference of several years (1947-53), added to different places and circumstances. If dummies had been dropped near Roswell, say, in '48, "time compression" would be somewhat more believable. I submit, however, that the actual time difference makes the AF "explanation" as absurd as a claim that dummies were seen in '47. Anyone that senile wouldn't have been taken seriously in the first place.

 

[Trajanus]

The other Explanation makes no sense at all, you dont need doctors and nurses for dummies, and you certainly dont need to put a major USA base on alert for lost dummies.

Of course they didn't yet exist anyway, but it makes the dummy notion all the more absurd--how could anyone confuse beings in a hospital with dummies dropped years later? Only someone so far gone nobody would've listened in the first place.

 

[TClaeys]

OK but I don't think it makes any difference.

I see your point.

But I do think it makes a difference because one is an outright lie by a researcher that is supposed to be objective in finding the "truth" and the other is pointing out how absurd a theory proposed by the AF is. One is intellectually and factually dishonest and the other is an honest assessment of whether the time compression theory holds water. Lies begetting lies does no good service to finding the truth IMO.

If the time compression thing is such a leaky theory then why bother making stuff up about the AF and witnesses seeing dummies in 47?? Stick to the facts and the weak theories, don't brandish it with something that isn't even true.

 

[Kieran]

I see your point.

But I do think it makes a difference because one is an outright lie by a researcher that is supposed to be objective in finding the "truth" and the other is pointing out how absurd a theory proposed by the AF is. One is intellectually and factually dishonest and the other is an honest assessment of whether the time compression theory holds water. Lies begetting lies does no good service to finding the truth IMO.

If the time compression thing is such a leaky theory then why bother making stuff up about the AF and witnesses seeing dummies in 47?? Stick to the facts and the weak theories, don't brandish it with something that isn't even true.

It simple. If the dummies didnt get used till the 1950's then that Explanation is no longer valid. Notting else can be siad, the Explanation does not fit with the historical fact. Airforce, didnt think do the research or maybe they didnt care.

 

[Trajanus]

But I do think it makes a difference because one is an outright lie by a researcher that is supposed to be objective in finding the "truth" ....If the time compression thing is such a leaky theory then why bother making stuff up about the AF and witnesses seeing dummies in 47??

Maybe he just misinterpreted the AF position. Btw are we sure the AF didn't hastily change its story from '47 dummies to time compression upon realizing the former was invalid?

 

[Trajanus]

It simple. If the dummies didnt get used till the 1950's then that Explanation is no longer valid. Notting else can be siad, the Explanation does not fit with the historical fact. Airforce, didnt think do the research or maybe they didnt care.

They actually maintained that people later confused the '50s dummies with the Roswell incident. But that's absurd. First, what evidence is there that any of the Roswell witnesses later saw dummies? And is it really credible that all of the witnesses suffered from "time compresson"?

 

[TClaeys]

It simple. If the dummies didnt get used till the 1950's then that Explanation is no longer valid. Notting else can be siad, the Explanation does not fit with the historical fact. Airforce, didnt think do the research or maybe they didnt care.

You're not understanding my point. The Air Force didn't use this excuse.

 

[TClaeys]

Maybe he just misinterpreted the AF position. Btw are we sure the AF didn't hastily change its story from '47 dummies to time compression upon realizing the former was invalid?

That's an interesting point. I don't know. It's not in the book as far as I know or it would be easy to confirm. But it could be. That would be a really interesting find wouldn't it?? Then they would be caught in an "official" lie.

 

[Decker]

The entire "report" was BS from the get-go.

I was interviewed on MSNBC and then the NBC Nightly News the day the report was released. The Air Force did NOT make the report available until the press conference, the reason? It was so phony that a simple scan of the report (once I had it) showed how full of hot air it was. Also, remember this was the THIRD time they floated an explanation to explain Roswell. Once I got my hands on our copy I went thru it with a fine tooth comb. For example ... page 45 they have photographs of the NASA Voyager-Mars probe, the NASA Viking "flying saucer" shaped probe flown in 1972 to explain shapes of things that the witnesses saw in 1947! Later they used tests of anthropomorphic dummies starting in 1953-54 to explain witnesses claims of seeing bodies in 1947 ... and to explain this the briefer said it was because of time-compression, whatever in hell that was. I have the report sitting right next to me as I type this message and could go on for pages ... but then I have a life. Whatever in hell the Roswell crash was ... it sure as hell wasn't any damn kind of balloon. I don't believe for a split second that Brazell, Marcel, Blanchard, Haut, or any of the other guys there EVER mistook a balloon for a saucer. When Col. Blanchard authorized Walter Haut to release the press report that they got their hands on a Flying Disk, or Flying Saucer, that is exactly what in hell they meant. And if for no other reason, and anyone here that ever served in the Armed Forces will tell you .... The Army, the Navy, Marine Corps or the Air Force DO NOT PROMOTE GUYS THAT EMBARRASS THEM ... and Marcel, Blanchard and all those other guys DID GET PROMOTED. Marcel retired a Light Colonel, Blanchard had he not died, would have ended up running the Air Force. I don't know about you but that told me TONS about this case.

Decker

 

[CapnG]

If you ask me the only real Roswell Dummies are people who buy the official story...

 

[Kieran]

You're not understanding my point. The Air Force didn't use this excuse.

No, i understand what your trying to say and the arguments your pointing at. But, i stick to what i siad regarding the dummies, if they were used till the 1950s. How were they dummies. Roswell, happened in 1947, there is a problem there with the time line that is yet to be fully answered.
It still doesnt answer, why a Major USA base would be on full alert. It doesnt seem logical that all this was caused by something from a dummy crashing landing from a parachute. Think about in your head does it seem logical to you?