UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 03:17:26 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 21:24:33 -0400 Subject: Re: Examination of Roswell Photos Clears Air Force >From: ufotruth@ix.netcom.com [William Hand] >Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 07:48:14 -0500 (CDT) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Examination of Roswell Photos Clears Air Force >>Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 01:15:44 -0500 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: John <jvif@spacelab.net> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Examination of Roswell Photos Clears Air Force >> General >>Hi All, >>Stan, Kevin (or anyone else on the list who has researched the >>Roswell case) is this new photo enlargement development >>anything that we can/should get excited about? >>John Velez William responds: >It is just more bull. They are trying to claim that the weather >balloon Junk that Ramey showed in his office to the press was the >real debris found days earlier that was mistaken as debris from a >flying disk. Unless I misread the post they claim that the enlargements show the "I-beam(s)" that Maj.Marcel had mentioned with the "bas relief" raised characters showing on them. The post also mentions the presence of "plastic" or a plastic like material which did not exist in 1947. That's why I was asking guys like Kevin and Stan to comment. I'm curious if it's more "smoke" or "smoking gun." And BTW Bill, it hasn't (yet) been determined that (any disc) terrestrial or otherwise crashed at Roswell! It's what we're all trying to determine. >Well, there is NO WAY that any military officer, or >even a child, could mistake the burnt weather balloon JUNK in >Ramey's office as debris from a crashed flying disk. It is just >IMPOSSIBLE. Yer making some mighty big assumptions here. >It does not matter how much they zoom the images it will >only show more details of the fake weather balloon junk >that let the press photograph after he had the REAL >ET debris taken out. Were you there? You sound so certain about the sequence of events. ET's, saucer debris, again you make huge "assumptions." Let's give this photo biz a good going over and a chance to be checked out thoroghly before you hit the streets chanting, "They've landed!" <G> No-one (more than I) would like to see some "proof" that it's ET's and saucers, but I'm not going to abandon/lose my common sense and ability to apply a little critical thinking in the process. I (think/believe) that we're dealing with an extraterrestrial force/agent - but that's just "my belief." No-one knows for sure with any degree of certainty. Not even you Mr Hand. I'd still like to hear Stans' estimation of these new photo enlargements. We've already heard what Kevin thinks of the photographer and his testimony. Which was pretty compelling stuff Mr Randle! Thank you for posting it. Peace, John Velez
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com