Did FBI just admit to roswell ?

[Monica]

It's from a serious, dedicated investigator.

Yes, from what I just read, he is apparently a serious, dedicated investigator. So if that is indeed his conclusion (that it's a hoax) then his opinion does indeed have merit. It still doesn't prove anything one way or the other, but it should be taken into consideration.

Not sure what that has to do with the doc. Why do you think it has something to do with the doc?

Because the doc is about a UFO crash with bodies, and that's the description of the 'explosive' case. Unless there is another famous case of a crash with bodies?

But it wasn't listed as the explosive case. That's your conclusion. One which doesn't make sense to me.

I don't understand why it wouldn't make sense to conclude that the explosive case of a crash with bodies, is this case, since it is about a crash with bodies.

But you are probably more knowledgeable about UFO cases than I am. I really don't keep up with it too much. So are there other cases of crashes with bodies? (sorry for the dumb question but I'm not really into UFOlogy.)

If so, then I can see how my conclusion might not make sense. If this is the only case, then it does make sense to conclude they're referring to the same case.

Now it seems that you are confusing the original Roswell incident press release with this document.

OK. Please enlighten me. Are you saying there was the original Roswell case, and then this doc was later, about another (possible hoaxed) case?

Then, are there no docs about the Roswell case?

Again, I apologize for my ignorance. I'm not even really all that interested in documentation of UFOs, except when they hit the mainstream news.

Or what an amazon.com reviewer has to opine?

Right.

But since I don't have the actual book in my possession, the amazon.com reviewer's opinion is at least as valid as the author of that article that says Dr. Maccabee thinks it's a hoax. (So we're even, haha. )

Accepting our conclusions is a 'belief'. It's sort of like a short-hand way of saying that.

I disagree. To me, I might accept something as a working conclusion, until I find more data, which might then alter my conclusion. It doesn't become a belief until I know it's true.

Conclusions are subject to change. Beliefs tend to be more solid. And even they can change, if the person remains open-minded. This may just be semantics, but to me a belief is more solid than a conclusion. There is no emotional investment in a conclusion, but there might be with a belief.

For example, Christians believe Jesus died for their sins. It's a rock-solid belief with them, unshakable. In contrast, I have concluded that the 3 skyscrapers were felled with explosives, not fire from jet fuel. This is my conclusion, after reviewing the forensic evidence. But I don't have the same intensity of belief as a religious person does. And my conclusion can be easily changed, if I encounter new evidence.

Conclusions are reached after reviewing evidence. Beliefs often have no evidence at all, but are often irrational, superstitious, or based on subjective experience. (There's nothing wrong with belief...it's just different from conclusion.)

It's been on the FBI website a few years ago - at least 7 years now. It was also publicly released 34 years ago to a scientist

Sometimes it takes a long time to filter down into the mainstream.