Did FBI just admit to roswell ?

[unity100]

Seems much more likely to me that it's real. Here we have the most famous of all UFO incidents...there seems to be much more motive for trying to cover it up, than there is for it to be hoax.

Not that that matters, of course. But sometimes the simplest explanation really is the correct one. Occam's Razor. (Though it is often misapplied.)

So what's the 'simplest explanation'? The made up one?

the simplest explanation is that, just like how it happened immediately after roswell, there are still sources suppressing and repressing the information. this may be a court judge that had his ear bent on behalf of 'national security' interests, it may be some talking head not telling things he was told not to.

What does that have to do with this document though?

i really dont know what you are talking about then.

[zenmaster]

So what's the 'simplest explanation'? The made up one?

What do you mean "made up one"? Which one is made up?

It seems to me that the simplest explanation is that it really happened, they covered it up, they released it, but they know that by now, most people don't even care and won't even notice.

disclosure with a little d. Eating away at the populace, a little at a time. Very low-key, so that those who wish to not accept it, can have the free will to not accept it.

At least at this point. That might all change in the next year, as the veil thins.

I totally missed your train of thought because I thought we were talking about the subject of this thread.

It is interesting that the presentation of 'mere facts' can ruin a person's development because of possible misunderstanding. Same thing with healing or hurting.

---

The guy that requested this document in the first place, believes it's a hoax: http://www.openminds.tv/old-fbi-ufo-files-655/
What other actual research do you want? Continue believing what you want to believe, of course.

[Bring4th_Austin]

The guy that requested this document in the first place, believes it's a hoax: http://www.openminds.tv/old-fbi-ufo-files-655/

I don't quite understand...who would be perpetuating a hoax here? The FBI agent mentions this information came from an Air Force investigator. Would this not be a legitimate Air Force investigator, or are we questioning the source the AF investigator got his info from?

I suppose the fact that there is no mention of how the AF investigator concluded these things hampers credibility, but where's the hoax?

[Raman]

The guy that requested this document in the first place, believes it's a hoax: http://www.openminds.tv/old-fbi-ufo-files-655/

That is not a relationship that proves anything. It is not even a valid correlation.

[Monica]

What other actual research do you want? Continue believing what you want to believe, of course.

Or so that website says.

But a reviewer of Dr. Maccabee's book states:

Here you'll examine proof positive of government incompetence, outright lies, and Orwellian "double-speak" intended to steer the public away from certain explosive facts. And exactly what kinds of explosive facts are we talking about, do you wonder?

In "UFO-FBI Connection" you will read the revealing testimony of radar operators who tracked UFOs over Washington, D.C. in July 1952. But perhaps more importantly, you'll also read the first-person account of Dr. Maccabee's conversation with a scientist who confirmed mind-boggling allegations of an official recovery of UFO crash debris and corpses of alien beings.

...which seems to contradict the notion that he thought the doc was a hoax.

from http://www.amazon.com/UFO-FBI-Connection...P1HP485QFM

This reviewer also states:

Dr. Maccabee fearlessly but calmly blows the whistle on government sloth, stupidity, and arrogance, as well as on the occasional "red herring" press release aimed at misleading the public, the media, and naïve investigators.

If this particular doc was one such red herring, I doubt if it would have been listed as the 'explosive' case.

Furthermore, if the govt. circa 1950 wanted to cover up the existence of UFOs, why would they fabricate the most outlandish UFO story of them all - the mother of all UFOs! - a crashed UFO complete with bodies? That would only serve to draw attention to the very thing they were trying to cover up.

What other actual research do you want?

Well, I'd be more interested in what Dr. Maccabee actually says in his book, than in an article written about him by someone else.

Continue believing what you want to believe, of course.

I don't see any point in believing or disbelieving. We can only choose to accept what seems to us to be the best conclusion.

[zenmaster]

The guy that requested this document in the first place, believes it's a hoax: http://www.openminds.tv/old-fbi-ufo-files-655/

I don't quite understand...who would be perpetuating a hoax here? The FBI agent mentions this information came from an Air Force investigator. Would this not be a legitimate Air Force investigator, or are we questioning the source the AF investigator got his info from?

I suppose the fact that there is no mention of how the AF investigator concluded these things hampers credibility, but where's the hoax?

But the AF investigator didn't 'conclude', he interviewed someone who told him the story.

---

The guy that requested this document in the first place, believes it's a hoax: http://www.openminds.tv/old-fbi-ufo-files-655/

That is not a relationship that proves anything. It is not even a valid correlation.

It's from a serious, dedicated investigator.

---

What other actual research do you want? Continue believing what you want to believe, of course.

Or so that website says.

But a reviewer of Dr. Maccabee's book states:

Here you'll examine proof positive of government incompetence, outright lies, and Orwellian "double-speak" intended to steer the public away from certain explosive facts. And exactly what kinds of explosive facts are we talking about, do you wonder?

In "UFO-FBI Connection" you will read the revealing testimony of radar operators who tracked UFOs over Washington, D.C. in July 1952. But perhaps more importantly, you'll also read the first-person account of Dr. Maccabee's conversation with a scientist who confirmed mind-boggling allegations of an official recovery of UFO crash debris and corpses of alien beings.

...which seems to contradict the notion that he thought the doc was a hoax.

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

from http://www.amazon.com/UFO-FBI-Connection...P1HP485QFM

This reviewer also states:

Dr. Maccabee fearlessly but calmly blows the whistle on government sloth, stupidity, and arrogance, as well as on the occasional "red herring" press release aimed at misleading the public, the media, and naïve investigators.

If this particular doc was one such red herring, I doubt if it would have been listed as the 'explosive' case.

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

Furthermore, if the govt. circa 1950 wanted to cover up the existence of UFOs, why would they fabricate the most outlandish UFO story of them all - the mother of all UFOs! - a crashed UFO complete with bodies? That would only serve to draw attention to the very thing they were trying to cover up.

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

What other actual research do you want?

Well, I'd be more interested in what Dr. Maccabee actually says in his book, than in an article written about him by someone else.

Or what an amazon.com reviewer has to opine?

Continue believing what you want to believe, of course.

I don't see any point in believing or disbelieving. We can only choose to accept what seems to us to be the best conclusion.

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

---

The fact the FBI is offering this PDF speaks volumes regarding the disclosure movement. That would not have happened even a few years ago.

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, Bruce Maccabee.

[Bring4th_Austin]

The guy that requested this document in the first place, believes it's a hoax: http://www.openminds.tv/old-fbi-ufo-files-655/

I don't quite understand...who would be perpetuating a hoax here? The FBI agent mentions this information came from an Air Force investigator. Would this not be a legitimate Air Force investigator, or are we questioning the source the AF investigator got his info from?

I suppose the fact that there is no mention of how the AF investigator concluded these things hampers credibility, but where's the hoax?

But the AF investigator didn't 'conclude', he interviewed someone who told him the story.

Where can I confirm this information? The memo only says that the AF investigator "stated" all of the claims, without any remark on why he made the claims, whether he believed them, or how the information was gathered (interview or otherwise).

Are there additional FBI or AF comments on this memo about where the AF investigator got this information?

(And from this comment, I'm guessing the hoax would be from the AF investigator's interviewee)
==================================

I just caught the part of the memo I think you're referring to about an interviewee:
"According to Mr. (Censored) informant, the saucers were found in New Mexico due to the fact that the Government has a very high-powered radar set-up in that area..."

This is implying the information about the radar set-up causing the crash was from an informant, no reference to how the rest of the information was gathered. Was this what you were talking about?

[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.

[3DMonkey]

Here is an opinion. Roswell will forever be clouded with doubt. People who are interested are already interested. This document itself won't turn new heads. It is more likely to get washed out with the rest of Roswell hoopla. It strengthens us who already have decided to believe it really happened. Monica, we do believe a lot of all this non scientifically proven things.

Common sense tells me that if you can't trust the officials, then you can't trust the officials. Period. Either you do or you don't. In my strong opinion, disclosure is not the duty of the people that covered it up to begin with. Neither do I want disclosure to come from the very source that hide it from us.

This letter does not state implicitly "we, the FBI, the US government, lied to the public about Roswell." THAT would be disclosure, but I wouldn't trust their intentions the least bit.

We are disclosure. I don't know what my chakras are doing. Is there evidence to conclude I have them? I don't what happened at Roswell, is there evidence to conclude anything happened? Word of mouth isn't evidence. Seeing is conclusive. Imagining is believing.

All we know is that somebody wrote something on a piece of paper. That's it for this thread. Somebody wrote something we like to read. Period.

As for my BELIEF in Roswell, the most convincing thing to me has been the direct words from the daughter of a man involved. She said, " on his death bed my father looked at me and finally said 'something did happen and don't let them tell you otherwise". That's on video, for all to see. Disclosure? No. Convincing to we who want to listen? Yes.

[Monica]

Common sense tells me that if you can't trust the officials, then you can't trust the officials. Period. Either you do or you don't. In my strong opinion, disclosure is not the duty of the people that covered it up to begin with. Neither do I want disclosure to come from the very source that hide it from us.

Very astute point!

Except, even then, it might not be so black-and-white, because:

1. 'Officials' aren't unchangeable. They are people, subject to the same cosmic and cyclical influences the rest of us are. Some might even - gasp - have consciences! Many of the people who initially lied are no longer working for that governmental agency, or may even have passed from 3D. So, while the entity of government still exists, it is populated with different people, some of whom might be Wanderers undercover, who might find ways to 'leak' info to the public.

2. Let's say the officials who made the decision that the public wasn't ready to know about aliens 60 years ago, were indeed acting with benevolent intentions. They just wanted to prevent a panic. Now, 60 years later, after thousands upon thousands of sci fi movies, tv episodes, books etc., the public is more ready. The game has changed! So their objective now might not be the same as it was 60 years ago.

Disclosure? No. Convincing to we who want to listen? Yes.

Yes. Sometimes the most convincing thing is the littlest detail. Like the airline pilots who say they don't believe a highly decorated pilot would give up his cockpit. It's those little things that ring true and convince us.

Here's one of my favorite Star Trek scenes, about being convinced when there is no irrefutable evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHBI64imK...re=related

The scene starts at 1:45.

[3DMonkey]

Even then , if those wanderers knew my stubborness, they knew they'd need a non government position to convince me. Silly government employed wanderers, don't you know?

[Namaste]

For those interested, our friend Mr Wilcock has been referencing this in his new blog post...

http://divinecosmos.com/index.php/start-...rebinladen