• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Roswell Dummies

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Irishseekers said:
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?
Click to expand...

Let my try and be more clear.

Witness: " I saw an alien body in 1947 in Roswell"

Air Force scenario #1: "No, you just saw some of our test dummies in 1947" (they didn't say this, probably because they didn't exist)

Air Force scenario #2: "What you saw were test dummies in the 1950's and CONFUSED IT with a wreckage you saw in 1947" (this is what they did say calling it "time compression")

See the difference??

But #1 is what I hear echoed all the time like the Air Force got their boot stuck in their mouth with an official and checkable lie. #2 is apparently what happened, which just makes the Air Force look like a bunch of feeble-minded, make anything up, dumbasses. If people are going to rip into Roswell, then they best stay on track with who said what.
 
TClaeys said:
Let my try and be more clear.

Witness: " I saw an alien body in 1947 in Roswell"

Air Force scenario #1: "No, you just saw some of our test dummies in 1947" (they didn't say this, probably because they didn't exist)

Air Force scenario #2: "What you saw were test dummies in the 1950's and CONFUSED IT with a wreckage you saw in 1947" (this is what they did say calling it "time compression")

See the difference??

But #1 is what I hear echoed all the time like the Air Force got their boot stuck in their mouth with an official and checkable lie. #2 is apparently what happened, which just makes the Air Force look like a bunch of feeble-minded, make anything up, dumbasses. If people are going to rip into Roswell, then they best stay on track with who said what.
Click to expand...

No, i understood your points from your previous points. I was just underlineing my opinions, to the Roswell case.

Your right, but this suggestion by the Airforce, is almost insulting to people who claim something different

Memorys, of something like this happening to you, i dont think you would ever forget or mix it up, even if you are very old and slightly absent minded.The Airforce explantation given is a clever one because it introduces doubt. Why change your story so many times, if your sure to what happened.The Airforce, it one that seems confused not the eyewitness's.
 
Decker said:
The Air Force did NOT make the report available until the press conference, the reason? It was so phony...
Click to expand...

Do you mean they revised it, to change some of its most glaring goofs?

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
Click to expand...

Back in the '90s I was under the impression that researchers like Friedman had to determine that the dummies weren't around until the '50s. IMO it's a bit odd that they used time compression, when they could've claimed actual dummies were used in '47--hoping most people, save for a few researchers, would buy it. So can we really be sure this time compression line wasn't a last minute alteration?
 
Something happened and it definately was not a weather balloon or a dummy.The Airforce, issues the statement' they have captureing a flying disc 'but later retracted that and claimed it was a weather balloon. Brazel siad he found wreckage, i dont think he ever siad he saw a craft, yet somebody in the Airforce (hault)seems to have believed they had captured a whole object, how could you determine, it was a flying saucer, if all you found was pieces of wreckage. it would take time to analyse what you have and hopefully by reconstruction determine what it was? They came out with the statement too fast.

Somebody, in high authority, issued the other statement about the weather balloon.The Air force, with the dummy explantation did'nt go after High ranking officers, there case was mainly based on civilian memorys. That somehow, they were mixing memorys from something that happened in 1950s and confuseing it with the 1947 event. It can be possible, but everyone? to me that is simply insulting.
 
Irishseekers said:
yet somebody in the Airforce (hault)
Click to expand...

Haut. ;) Maybe you confused him with Halt of Bentwaters.

seems to have believed they had captured a whole object, how could you determine, it was a flying saucer, if all you found was pieces of wreckage. it would take time to analyse what you have and hopefully by reconstruction determine what it was? They came out with the statement too fast.
Click to expand...

Just prior to Roswell, there were reports by Arnold and others of flying discs or saucers. While the Foster material was fragmentary, they just assumed, given its apparently unearthly nature, that it was from one of the strange craft.

Somebody, in high authority, issued the other statement about the weather balloon.The Air force, with the dummy explantation did'nt go after High ranking officers, there case was mainly based on civilian memorys. That somehow, they were mixing memorys from something that happened in 1950s and confuseing it with the 1947 event. It can be possible, but everyone? to me that is simply insulting.
Click to expand...

IMO it's impossible, especially if "time compression" referred to civilian witnesses. Again, did any of the Roswell civilian (or any other) witnesses see the 1950s Sky dive dummies?? How could they confuse something they never saw, to my knowledge, with an event in '47??
 
Trajanus said:
Haut. ;) Maybe you confused him with Halt of Bentwaters.



Just prior to Roswell, there were reports by Arnold and others of flying discs or saucers. While the Foster material was fragmentary, they just assumed, given its apparently unearthly nature, that it was from one of the strange craft.



IMO it's impossible, especially if "time compression" referred to civilian witnesses. Again, did any of the Roswell civilian (or any other) witnesses see the 1950s Sky dive dummies?? How could they confuse something they never saw, to my knowledge, with an event in '47??
Click to expand...

Was it not Walter Haut, who was the press officer at the time. Sorry, if i am mistaken.

Yes, your right about the reports
But, would you not verify what you have first, before you issue such a statement? wreckage that is in pieces could be of any design.That is why, i think they might have captured something whole not in pieces.

I agree, with your last statement.
 
Irishseekers said:
Was it not Walter Haut, who was the press officer at the time.
Click to expand...

Sure.


wreckage that is in pieces could be of any design.That is why, i think they might have captured something whole not in pieces.
Click to expand...

Not at the Foster ranch. Marcel, Brazel and others mentioned a lot of pieces. I never heard of any report of an intact craft, at least not there.
 
Trajanus said:
Just as I suspected, the AF did originally claim that test dummies were dropped over NM at the time of Roswell. Friedman's investigation exploded that LIE (as he put it), and sure enough, they invoked time compression.

http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sf-government-lies2.html
Click to expand...


Well now that is interesting!! Thanks for finding that. That really clears up the question I had then. So, although I didn't get through much, he first said that the dummies were dropped in 1947. Then in Case Closed, he stated that there was this time compression deal. Thats a big deal IMO. I wonder if there are some other transcripts somewhere that detail the comments specifically. Good find.

It's interesting that the AF would even need to address the alien bodies. It seems that they could have just said "No, you're just full of shit" or just ignore it. The fact that they addressed the issue is sort of strange even. Hmmm
 
TClaeys said:
It's interesting that the AF would even need to address the alien bodies. It seems that they could have just said "No, you're just full of shit" or just ignore it. The fact that they addressed the issue is sort of strange even. Hmmm
Click to expand...

I think by the mid '90s, there was enough witness testimony concerning bodies, e.g. in Randle's books, to force the government to try to debunk it somehow. But it seems at first they didn't "do their homework" hence the dummy goof.
 
Back
Top