Search results

All talk of imminent disclosure or invasion is nonsense. Maybe after 2050, around 2100.

It should read Randle's books and better yet, The Alien Grand Design.

It's not sufficient to prove it conclusively--i.e. physical evidence in the public domain isn't--but it is highly suggestive of an unknown (or unearthly) phenomenon.

I neglected to answer this. If you're referring to pics of junk in Ramey's office, there are excellent grounds to doubt them. As records indicate #4 was cancelled, and even if the balloons released did reach the ranch--considered highly dubious--there was nothing else. Wherever they got the junk...

In the case of Roswell, nobody disputes something came down, and testimony points to something highly unusual.

As Gene said, witness testimony, if credible, is sufficient to convict.

Like I just said, there's evidence for something extraordinary and for a confiscation of material, hence a coverup. I didn't say there was conclusive proof lay people are privy to.

Nobody, to my knowledge, ever claimed there were. Certainly nobody with the credibility of a base intel Major. I didn't say witness testimony proved the phenomenon. But it's still evidence something highly unusual came down in '47 and its remains were confiscated and kept out of the public...

Not in the public domain, but again you can't assume something doesn't exist just because the public doesn't have access to it. Also, while we don't have recorded testimony (about this) dating from '47, there was still adequate first hand testimony starting in '78.

In fact Marcel, originally interviewed by Friedman in '78, essentially reopened the case. 1978/80 may have been long after '47 but there was still good first hand testimony.

Nonsense, as Randle's research shows. Witnesses reported unusual metallic debris not balloons. Had it been just balloons the base intel officer would've identified them quickly and easily. A base intel officer and his son are credible, and like many other credible witnesses over the past 75...

Exactly, as sources indicate #4 was canceled, and the others are accounted for. Scratch MOGUL. They were silenced as their later testimony indicates. Edwards mentioned the caee in his '66 book but noted people weren't talking---yet. But still evidence, especially if a witness is deemed...

So you think a base intel officer couldn't identify either, nor Blanchard and his whole staff?? Not that a MOGUL balloon is possible in any event as #4 was cancelled. This is absurd. Several first hand witnesses described highly unusual material, including of course the Marcels. Unusual craft...

This is patently absurd. MOGUL consisted of ordinary junk such as balloons, easily recognizable to a base intel officer and not displaying the extraordinary properties reported by witnesses. As has been pointed out many times, MOGUL may have been classified but not the materials used in it. Had...

It's noteworthy that after "inexplicably, inexcusably mistaking" a mogul ballon for something exotic (which caused an awful ruckus) Col. Blanchard and subordinates incurred no censure, but were promoted. But traces seen in association with unusual flying craft and with strange effects like no...

Credible witnesses HAVE told "yarns" i.e. reports for which there is no prosaic explanation. When associated with reports of unusual flying craft they constitute evidence of them.

Testimony of credible witnesses carries some weight. I didn't say it was sufficient in itself but part off the body of evidence. Like I said before, UFOlogy isn't based solely on witness testimony. There are various physical traces (known to the public).

Evidence for ET is not limited to testimony. Your opinion. The testimony of several people concerning confiscation of material with extraordinary properties, or associated with an unusual flying thing, is evidence. Not incontrovertible proof, but evidence of a coverup.

I meant there are good grounds to think the government has proof. You can't assume there's no proof just because lay people don't have access.

Witness testimony about confiscation of physical evidence.