Roswell Revisited

[Ron Ecker]

For those interested, tonight (July 4) on CNN (9 pm EST) Larry King will host a discussion of the Roswell "crashed flying saucer" case.

[Evan Burton]

Look forward to it. Thanks Ron!

BTW, that is 4 JUL in US time?

[Ron Ecker]

BTW, that is 4 JUL in US time?

Yes. I may not try to listen to the live broadcast, because at 9 pm there will be a fireworks show booming away down the street. I think they rerun King's show at midnight, or used to. But then there will probably be people setting off firecrackers or cherry bombs then too.

[Jack White]

BTW, that is 4 JUL in US time?

Yes. I may not try to listen to the live broadcast, because at 9 pm there will be a fireworks show booming away down the street. I think they rerun King's show at midnight, or used to. But then there will probably be people setting off firecrackers or cherry bombs then too.

I watched the show, which I would rate a B+. The most interesting part to me was an interview

with astronaut Ed Mitchell, who grew up in Roswell and knew the people involved and had

no doubt of the veracity of the Roswell people. They had only ONE debunker, for a change,

and he was a very appropriate wacko who made little sense at all.

Jack

[Guest David Guyatt]

BTW, that is 4 JUL in US time?

Yes. I may not try to listen to the live broadcast, because at 9 pm there will be a fireworks show booming away down the street. I think they rerun King's show at midnight, or used to. But then there will probably be people setting off firecrackers or cherry bombs then too.

I watched the show, which I would rate a B+. The most interesting part to me was an interview

with astronaut Ed Mitchell, who grew up in Roswell and knew the people involved and had

no doubt of the veracity of the Roswell people. They had only ONE debunker, for a change,

and he was a very appropriate wacko who made little sense at all.

Jack

Sadly, I did not see the show. Was there any new information contained in it that would call for a reassessment of cause?

[Evan Burton]

I didn't see anything new. People claimed things, but we still haven't seen any proof. I thought Bill Nye came off as rather obnoxious at times, though he did raise some good points.

[Jack White]

BTW, that is 4 JUL in US time?

Yes. I may not try to listen to the live broadcast, because at 9 pm there will be a fireworks show booming away down the street. I think they rerun King's show at midnight, or used to. But then there will probably be people setting off firecrackers or cherry bombs then too.

I watched the show, which I would rate a B+. The most interesting part to me was an interview

with astronaut Ed Mitchell, who grew up in Roswell and knew the people involved and had

no doubt of the veracity of the Roswell people. They had only ONE debunker, for a change,

and he was a very appropriate wacko who made little sense at all.

Jack

Sadly, I did not see the show. Was there any new information contained in it that would call for a reassessment of cause?

No. But the Mitchell interview was interesting. Most of King's questions were superficial. The graphics were

shown with no explanation. Way too much time was devoted to weather balloons. But negatives were few,

and the overall impression was "government is covering up something."

Jack

[Ron Ecker]

Here's a link to a transcript of the program:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/04/lkl.01.html

There are two things I don't understand. One is the lady saying that her father told her he saw the spacecraft and he "saw the graves." What is that supposed to mean? (King, of course, didn't ask.) Are we supposed to believe that the military dug graves and buried alien bodies right there at the crash site? Or does it mean there were graves at the Roswell base, after the bodies were taken there for examination? Did personnel at the base regularly put flowers on them?

I also don't understand about the pictures that were shown, supposedly taken on site, one of a body bag and one of what I assume was supposed to be part of the spacecraft being put on a truck. Neither King nor any of his guests offered any explanation of where these photos came from. King was totally incompetent to give viewers no explanation whatsoever. It was simply "look at this."

Edited July 5, 2008 by Ron Ecker

[Jack White]

I agree with Ron's assessment. And I too wondered about the "graves" comment.

King was too unfamiliar with the subject to ask pertinent questions. Showing the

photos without any explanation was the weakest part of the show, along with all

the talk about weather balloons. Lots of the weakness is the blame of the producer.

Jack

[Ron Ecker]

To me the highlight of the show was the explanation by Lt. Col. Wayne Mattson, USAF (Ret.) of why the AF has covered up UFOs (whether the Roswell story is true or not). Mattson said, "The Air Force is charged with keeping the skies clear of unwanted craft and if you can't stop one of these UFOs, you're not doing your job. So therefore they don't exist."

I think that's it in a nutshell. That's exactly the mentality that is probably at work.

Reminds me of this memorable exchange in "Young Frankenstein":

Frankenstein: I'm a doctor. Maybe I can help you with that hump.

Igor: What hump?

[Jack White]

To me the highlight of the show was the explanation by Lt. Col. Wayne Mattson, USAF (Ret.) of why the AF has covered up UFOs (whether the Roswell story is true or not). Mattson said, "The Air Force is charged with keeping the skies clear of unwanted craft and if you can't stop one of these UFOs, you're not doing your job. So therefore they don't exist."

I think that's it in a nutshell. That's exactly the mentality that is probably at work.

Reminds me of this memorable exchange in "Young Frankenstein":

Frankenstein: I'm a doctor. Maybe I can help you with that hump.

Igor: What hump?

That is possible, but I think it goes far deeper than that. It shows that the "establishment"

has far greater power than elected officials. Even Presidents or Senators have NO NEED

TO KNOW and thus NOT A HIGH ENOUGH SECURITY CLEARANCE to be entrusted with

secrets such as UFOs.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

To me the highlight of the show was the explanation by Lt. Col. Wayne Mattson, USAF (Ret.) of why the AF has covered up UFOs (whether the Roswell story is true or not). Mattson said, "The Air Force is charged with keeping the skies clear of unwanted craft and if you can't stop one of these UFOs, you're not doing your job. So therefore they don't exist."

I think that's it in a nutshell. That's exactly the mentality that is probably at work.

Reminds me of this memorable exchange in "Young Frankenstein":

Frankenstein: I'm a doctor. Maybe I can help you with that hump.

Igor: What hump?

That is possible, but I think it goes far deeper than that. It shows that the "establishment"

has far greater power than elected officials. Even Presidents or Senators have NO NEED

TO KNOW and thus NOT A HIGH ENOUGH SECURITY CLEARANCE to be entrusted with

secrets such as UFOs.

Jack

I don't know about the US, but Jack is mostly right if we look at the UK. Peter Wright in SPYCATCHER talks about how information was withheld from the PM because the security services thought he might be compromised and / or pass sensitive information on to the Soviets.

Jack, minor point but you have it a little backwards there. In general, people have a security clearance. They then need to demonstrate a "need to know" for access to most material. I can't just go around reading all material at my clearance level willy-nilly; I have do demonstrate a reason to see it. If a person has a need-to-know, then their clearance is normally upgraded to accommodate that need. As I said, very minor point.

I still remain mostly skeptical about Roswell, though I wish someone would produce irrefutable evidence of extraterrestrial visitation. I believe it has happened, and I believe it is still happening... but I won't lower my standards of proof simply to accommodate my own beliefs. There have been too many examples of fakery / misidentification, and this is simply a too important subject to allow those examples to be taken as truthful.

[Guest David Guyatt]

As I have indicated before, my view of "alien visitation" re Roswell and other UFO sightings is that it is probably the most effective disinfo cover story of all time for advanced terrestrial aircraft.

[Evan Burton]

As I have indicated before, my view of "alien visitation" re Roswell and other UFO sightings is that it is probably the most effective disinfo cover story of all time for advanced terrestrial aircraft.

It does explain a lot of sightings.

[Ron Ecker]

David,

How is advanced terrestrial aircraft used if it is kept secret? Are you suggesting that UFOs are test flights? Spanning decades? I would assume that the military would want to develop and use advanced terrestrial aircraft for warfare. In which of our wars over the decades have such aircraft, formerly mistaken as UFOs, ever been used? What known military aircraft today were once "UFOs"? Or is all of this advanced aircraft being saved up for Armageddon?