Annie Jacobsen's Area 51 [Roswell Version 11.0]

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Annie Jacobsen's Area 51 [Roswell Version 11.0]

Postby murnut » Mon May 30, 2011 3:33 am

.




It get's good for me around the 6:25 mark....lol







"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am


Re: Annie Jacobsen's Area 51

Postby Access Denied » Mon May 30, 2011 4:19 pm

Thanks for posting that here Andy, too funny. Yet another “secret” source bites the dust when subjected to some independent verification… who knew that would happen?

Now had Annie (and those who came before her like Nick Redfern who wrote the equally misguided book BS in the Desert) done her homework in this case, she would have known that none of the primary Roswell witnesses (those who can actually be confirmed to have seen the debris) reported seeing bodies in 1947 or when the story was first resurrected some 30 years later by Stanton Friedman and Co. in the late 70s/early 80s. It wasn’t until the 90s after primary witnesses like Jesse Marcel Sr. were dead that the story was conflated by Roswell “researchers” with the Aztec hoax and numerous second and third hand “witnesses" started coming out of the woodwork claiming to have seen bodies.

Anyway, seems Mrs. Jacobsen has been down this road before…

Northwest Airlines Flight 327
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_ ... Flight_327

During the flight, Annie Jacobsen, a writer for WomensWallStreet, believed that the men were acting suspiciously. She claimed that one of the flight attendants had previously notified an air marshal on board the flight that she thought the men were acting suspiciously, but the air marshals later said that a flight attendant had merely passed on Jacobsen's concerns. Jacobsen and her husband became increasingly vocal when they believed that their concerns were not being taken seriously, to the point that air marshals believed that the couple might themselves be terrorists, trying to draw them out to reveal their identities.

In a series of articles for WomensWallStreet titled "Terror in the Skies, Again?," Jacobsen claimed that several other Flight 327 passengers have corroborated her story. One was so frightened by what she witnessed that she no longer travels by air. Others said they were convinced they were about to die. One such passenger confirmed the story to the Washington Times.

However…

Upon arriving in Los Angeles, the 14 men that Jacobsen saw were detained for questioning and identity verification. The Federal Air Marshal Service concluded that they were Syrian band members en route to a San Diego casino to perform. Jacobsen claims, however, that only two of the men were briefly investigated and nobody has determined where the men went after leaving the airport. The Sycuan Casino & Resort confirmed that Syrian singer Nour Mhanna performed there two days later, and that he brought his own backup band.

Oops.


ETA: Nick Redfern reference.

ETA2: Link to just the good part on ABC News site in case the YouTube gets 86ed...

Questioning 'Area 51' Author
"Nightline's" Bill Weir challenges Annie Jacobsen on radical claims in book.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/q ... r-13699901
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Annie Jacobsen's Area 51

Postby James Carlson » Tue May 31, 2011 11:27 am

"I'm not sure that it's my job to prove it; it's my job to report it." It is this twist of ethics that allows people like this (and Robert Hastings, et al) to discuss pure crap as if it has some factual basis. This manaic who has no understanding of journalistic ethics whatsoever is publicizing nothing more than the qualities that reveal the differences between the Washington Post and the National Enquirer. These people are pure garbage out looking for a quick and unearned profit. I have only one question: how long will it take her to hit the UFO lecture circuit? This woman has enacted a trashy marketing scheme in order to dupe idiots and fools. It's pathetic. Papa Joe Stalin invented Roswell? She should be ashamed of herself.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Annie Jacobsen's Area 51

Postby Gilles F. » Tue May 31, 2011 11:39 am

Access Denied wrote:
Now had Annie (and those who came before her like Nick Redfern who wrote the equally misguided book BS in the Desert) done her homework in this case, she would have known that none of the primary Roswell witnesses (those who can actually be confirmed to have seen the debris) reported seeing bodies in 1947 or when the story was first resurrected some 30 years later by Stanton Friedman and Co. in the late 70s/early 80s. It wasn’t until the 90s after primary witnesses like Jesse Marcel Sr. were dead that the story was conflated by Roswell “researchers” with the Aztec hoax and numerous second and third hand “witnesses" started coming out of the woodwork claiming to have seen bodies.


Greetings Access Denied and friends,
Perfectly. Recently, I discovered an interview made by Mr Bragalia :
http://bragalia.blogspot.com/2011/05/ar ... swell.html
It is awesome to realize how much the interview is not standardized (as it is in criminology or in cognitive interview in order to avoid suggestion/suggestibility mecanisms), the questions oriented and how the interviewer presents (non consciously imho) a background which can favorize or will maximize the induction of "false memories", by suggestion/suggestibility mecanisms.
The interviewer (T. Bragalia) is suggesting what he personnaly believes about Roswell event. It could conduce to the replies "wished" by the interviewer. In few times, M. O'Donnell will become a new Roswell (ETH version) protagonist and "second hand" witness? Who knows !
I mean that IF the interviews made by 90's researchers follow such a methodology not controling the suggestions/suggestibility induced by them, consciously or not, it is easy to have an idea how the bodies have been added in the Roswell myth... Or at least to well understand that the "methodology" and the interview are potentialy or hightly biaised (consciously or not, It is not "intentional" by the interviewer imho).
My opinion only (?).
Regards,
Gilles Fernandez
Gilles F.
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Annie Jacobsen's Area 51

Postby astrophotographer » Tue May 31, 2011 2:44 pm

Gilles F. wrote:I mean that IF the interviews made by 90's researchers follow such a methodology not controling the suggestions/suggestibility induced by them, consciously or not, it is easy to have an idea how the bodies have been added in the Roswell myth... Or at least to well understand that the "methodology" and the interview are potentialy or hightly biaised (consciously or not, It is not "intentional" by the interviewer imho).
My opinion only (?).


Nothing new with this interview. I have seen some of his e-mails to others in the past where he goes into the "pleading/begging" mode and asks the person to finally open up and tell everyone the truth. I am not sure what the witnesses think (actually I know what the one person did think he tried this on) when he does this kind of special plea. I think it is his standard mantra to get the witness to say what he desires if they are open to suggestion. Usually, when he encounters more strong-minded individuals, they probably state "what are you talking about I am telling you everything I know", which makes them "hostile witnesses" and part of the conspriracy where they were sworn to secrecy. You then see Bragalia writing negative things about them. I think this blog posting of his is probably typical of his interview technique. It is shoddy work and designed to get the answer he desires or make the person a "hostile witness" and, therefore, part of the grand conspiracy/cover-up.

AB is just a tabloid "journalist". I would not consider his research really worth much. I am sure there are those that think different but those are people who just "want to believe" and are not interested in "the other side of the coin".
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: Annie Jacobsen's Area 51

Postby ryguy » Tue May 31, 2011 2:54 pm

James Carlson wrote:"I'm not sure that it's my job to prove it; it's my job to report it." It is this twist of ethics that allows people like this (and Robert Hastings, et al) to discuss pure crap as if it has some factual basis.


Yup - I call it the Camelot-mindset...(Project Camelot by Ron's Org/Scientologist Bill Ryan), where you do not need to fact-check, trace down sources or confirm claims - you just need to run off and spread the lies and cons (so long as they confirm your own personal beliefs, that is).

Gotta love it!

AD - have you read Redfurn's book?

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Annie Jacobsen's Area 51

Postby James Carlson » Tue May 31, 2011 9:08 pm

Does anybody remember watching All the President's Men with Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford? Great movie!! You should read the book as well. It contains a number of references to standard journalistic ethics regarding what you can publish and when. Those guys didn't publish squat unless they had at least one (and preferably two) independent verifications. You can't just take the insane ramblings of some psychotic out of central casting and call it factual; you can't even call it "based on fact". These irresponsible hacks in the UFO communities could learn a thing or two from real journalists. This woman is obviously a brainless twit out to make a buck off of the same people NICAP and MUFON have been duping for decades (although in their defense, they probably don't consciously consider it "duping").

When I was growing up, I was taught that an ethical society should care for it's less educated and less intelligent members, and that this was a sacred responsibility, like caring for the aged and infirm. Unfortunately, after Nixon popped the cork, we got all cynical and Reaganesque. Now the state of Texas keeps trying to execute the mentally challenged, the governor of Alaska can be thought of as a valid contestant on 2012's political take home version of The Price is Right even after quitting only half-way through her term the one decent job she was actually elected to perform, and even the most pathetic example of congenital hubris in the world today can be a juke box hero with stars in his eyes by simply making up a story in which the requirements for "good" or "decent" are necessarily loosened, and tossing in a UFO or two! Annie Jacobsen has proven that ETH isn't even a qualifier anymore -- all you really need is a flying saucer (or the suggestion of one). Toss in a few mentally handicapped 13-year-olds who have been surgically deformed in the most outrageous use of theoretical medicine since The Human Centipede and you've got yourself a rocket to the moon.

I don't know any more why we still use terms like fiction or non-fiction whenever we rate books for the best-seller lists. I vote that we have just one list -- call it friction, that way you could at least have some suggestion of its actual worth when the homeless, the maladjusted, and the senile who have been abandoned as Medicare frauds toss another copy into the fireplace so they don't freeze to death. At least then we wouldn't have to listen to some poor sap who pays way too much attention to talk radio try to score a point with the Art Bell crowd by saying "look here -- it says it's non-fiction! That means it's true!"

In any case, until that day comes along and I can look my wife in the eye and say, "Hey! That was my idea!" with way too much enthusiasm, thereby giving her permission to say, "Yeah, it's pretty lame alright," I'm going to look for something sweet and fluffy with meringue in the center. If I'm lucky, I'll have my own Remembrance of Things Past moment, and I'll be able to watch a little CNN without getting sick to my stomach.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Annie Jacobsen's Area 51 [Roswell Version 11.0]

Postby Access Denied » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:01 am

Nice rant James, tough to argue with that. :)

Gilles F. wrote:It is awesome to realize how much the interview is not standardized (as it is in criminology or in cognitive interview in order to avoid suggestion/suggestibility mecanisms), the questions oriented and how the interviewer presents (non consciously imho) a background which can favorize or will maximize the induction of "false memories", by suggestion/suggestibility mecanisms.

Absolutely, well put Gilles. It appears Bragalia has unwittingly exposed his deceptive methods (and no doubt that of other “researchers” like him) for everyone to see in his rush to be the first to “expose” Annie’s source, thus calling into serious question (as if there wasn't enough reason to already as Tim pointed out elsewhere here long ago) anything he’s ever put forth as “witness testimony” or “research”.

I’d bet dollars to donuts that a more careful interrogation of O'Donnell by professional investigators or skilled journalists would reveal his source to be one of (or intimately related to) the usual suspects…

[affectionately referred to here as Scammers Inc.]

AB: Alfred, have other people called you about this?

AO: I’m not going to say anything at all about that.

Hmm…

If fact early on Robert Hastings wanted to pin it on John Alexander.

[not an entirely unreasonable suggestion in my opinion given his geographical proximity and “impressive” credentials]

ryguy wrote:AD - have you read Redfurn's [sic] book?

No, I've never seen any reason to, do you? As far as I’m concerned it’s a “solution” to a non-existent “problem”… the historical record (including numerous declassified documents) and all the primary witness accounts are consistent with TOP SECRET Project MOGUL and the Air Force was eventually forced to admit there was indeed a cover-up. Case closed. What else is there to explain?

[funny how when folks actually get the official disclosure they demanded they ignore it]

Now, for the “true believers” who wouldn’t dare give skeptics the time of day, Kevin Randle’s review is worth noting…

A Different Perspective: BS In the Desert*
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2005/11 ... esert.html

Redfern’s theory hinges on the integrity of his anonymous, but alleged first-hand witnesses. Once, five or six years ago there were a number to [sic] stories told by alleged first-hand witnesses about themselves, what they had seen, and about alien bodies. Frank Kaufmann talked in detail about these things, as did Gerald Anderson, Jim Ragsdale and Glenn Dennis. Kaufmann offered copies of official documents to prove who he was. He had a letter that if authenticated, proved Roswell has been a spaceship crash.

Redfern, in an interview conducted for UFO Review (found at http://www.uforeview.net) said that the witnesses he refused to name had proven who they were by documents in their possession. To Redfern, this is proof that they are who they claim to be and that their tales can be trusted.

Sound familiar?

Of course Randle, like Bragalia, predictably goes rapidly downhill from there with this spectacular lapse of logic and reason…

So, if Redfern is wrong, and this wasn’t some kind of horrendous and illegal experiment, what is the answer? It’s the same as it has been for the last two decades. It was extraterrestrial.

[sigh]

Denial: Not a river in Africa.

AD

P.S. I've updated the title of this thread to better reflect the topic at hand.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Annie Jacobsen's Area 51 [Roswell Version 11.0]

Postby ryguy » Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:36 pm

Access Denied wrote:
ryguy wrote:AD - have you read Redfurn's [sic] book?

No, I've never seen any reason to, do you? As far as I’m concerned it’s a “solution” to a non-existent “problem”… the historical record (including numerous declassified documents) and all the primary witness accounts are consistent with TOP SECRET Project MOGUL and the Air Force was eventually forced to admit there was indeed a cover-up. Case closed. What else is there to explain?


Ah - okay. Well, up above you called the book misguided, so I figured you must have gotten around to reading it.

I was going to ask your opinion about some of the declassified documents Redfern provided - but it's hard to explain the context and the time period at that point in history (regarding Japan's high-altitude balloon program against the U.S. - which hasn't made it into many history books), without actually writing a book. There's so much interesting documented history there - I'm still actively following up those leads by digging up more documents at various FOIA reading rooms. It's really interesting stuff that our government got mixed up with.

If you ever do read Redfern's book, I think a discussion about that era would be well worth it's own thread. He brought up some pretty cool documented history that not many people know about, but there are other areas (particularly concerning the bodies) where the evidence gets flimsy and you do have to take much of that with a (very large) grain of salt.

There's more to the book than the bit about the bodies. As is usually the case, many of these "believer" investigators have discovered evidence related to something - but then they twist the good evidence into poor conclusions.

In my humble opinion, simply dismissing the whole thing and not looking at all isn't really an option. There's good stuff there - it just isn't about the bodies. :-)

However, having read the book, I wouldn't really call it misguided - but I would say that although the attempt was a good one, it eventually missed the mark by a bit toward the end.

Kevin Randle's review holds little water for me - he simply needs some way to turn the discussion back to the ETH.

Don't let the title mislead you!

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Annie Jacobsen's Area 51 [Roswell Version 11.0]

Postby Access Denied » Wed Jun 01, 2011 2:45 pm

ryguy wrote:I was going to ask your opinion about some of the declassified documents Redfern provided - but it's hard to explain the context and the time period at that point in history (regarding Japan's high-altitude balloon program against the U.S. - which hasn't made it into many history books), without actually writing a book.

Well, my understanding was all that was fairly well documented and written about long before Redfern stumbled onto it and besides, wrong year…

[it ended in 1945 when WWII did… with a bang]

Fire balloon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon

The bombs caused little damage, but their potential for destruction and fires was large. The bombs also had a potential psychological effect on the American people. The U.S. strategy was to keep the Japanese from knowing of the balloon bombs' effectiveness. In 1945 Newsweek ran an article titled "Balloon Mystery" in their January 1 issue, and a similar story appeared in a newspaper the next day. The Office of Censorship then sent a message to newspapers and radio stations to ask them to make no mention of balloons and balloon-bomb incidents, lest the enemy get the idea that the balloons might be effective weapons. Cooperating with the desires of the government, the press did not publish any balloon bomb incidents. Perhaps as a result, the Japanese only learned of one bomb's reaching Wyoming, landing and failing to explode, so they stopped the launches after less than six months.

The press blackout in the U.S. was lifted after the first deaths to ensure that the public was warned, though public knowledge of the threat could have possibly prevented it.

For example, here’s an interesting declassified Navy film at NARA…

JAPANESE PAPER BALLOON
http://www.archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.13084

I find conflating documented history with an undocumented modern myth misguided but to each his own… :)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Annie Jacobsen's Area 51 [Roswell Version 11.0]

Postby ryguy » Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:35 pm

Access Denied wrote:[it ended in 1945 when WWII did… with a bang]


No it didn't. The end of the war only marked intense U.S. interest in the Japanese research (and consideration of giving Japanese scientists immunity in order to learn more about all of their work - again, this is documented). Balloons were only one part of it, but the technology certainly did not just die in 1945... Much of what the Japanese learned in all of their experiments (not just balloons - BW research as well) were incorporated into U.S. research.

I find conflating documented history with an undocumented modern myth misguided but to each his own… :)


I'm not really sure what you're trying to say - and the selected Wiki quote was only a very tiny segment of the entire documented history. Before deciding what's documented and undocumented, I'd suggest you start with this 170 page document from the National Archives and then we can discuss.

http://www.archives.gov/iwg/japanese-wa ... uments.pdf

That's just the tip of the iceberg - this is a huge area that is ripe for additional digging and research. This is fascinating stuff. Or you could dismiss it without even reading it - to each his own. :-)

Come on man, go dumpster-diving with me. Read the book!

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Annie Jacobsen's Area 51 [Roswell Version 11.0]

Postby ryguy » Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:47 pm

Speaking of interesting, some select quotes from the document listing on the last pages of the PDF above:

"Constituent letter to Sen. Bill Bradley about article "Now it can be Told" by Lloyd Shearer demands investigation of the Japanese "war crimes" and of U.S. complicity in them."


U.S. complicity in them? Wouldn't that make for an interesting story.

"State response to Congressional inquiry notes "Apprehension and prosecution of U.S. officials responsible for allegedly 'covering up' the matter are not issues that can be properly addressed by the Department of State.""


"Germ Warfare by Japan Charged. Article in "Stars & Stripes" Red Star article claims Japan "planned large scale germ warfare against the Allies. Reports that Russian uncovered a special bacteriological warfare station near Harbin."


Toward the end, prior to the bomb(s), Japan was also threatening manned flights against the West - of course even after thousands of balloons, that particular threat was never carried out. With that said, I would imagine the U.S. investigators that explored Japanese research would have been at least interested in exploring the concept.

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Annie Jacobsen's Area 51 [Roswell Version 11.0]

Postby Access Denied » Wed Jun 01, 2011 4:07 pm

Well, I'm not sure what Japanese biological weapons research has to do with Roswell but here's what Nick has to say about all this in his reply to Christopher Allen's comment on his blog...

More On Area 51, Roswell, Jacobsen, Etc.
http://desertdarkness.blogspot.com/2011 ... n-etc.html

....my book says NOTHING about biologically mutated people. Nor does it even involved handicapped people found at Roswell!

What my book actually says (but which has been misinterpreted by many) is two things: (A) that in May 1947, somewhere in NM, several high-altitude balloon experiments were undertaken involving 3 or 4 physically handicapped people, and that in later years became linked with the legend of Roswell 2 months later; and (B) that the Roswell crash itself involved a large balloon array that had suspended below it a flying-wing, glider-type craft that was piloted by a TRAINED CREW - nothing handicapped about them at all!

You may find the above surprising given that people have claimed i have said things like deformed bodies were found at Roswell. I have never said that. Neither does my book.

My book points out there were allegedly several expeirments in mid-47 New Mexico - the high-altitude balloon events of May, and the Roswell event of July.

The former allegedly involving handicapped people, the latter an entirely normal crew. But that over time, the tales fused, because both projects involved some of the same people, as it all fell under a banner to exploit Japanese balloon-based technology.

All undocumented hearsay from an anonymous source of course...

AD
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Annie Jacobsen's Area 51 [Roswell Version 11.0]

Postby James Carlson » Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:04 pm

No repeat of my last here (sorry!) just a quick question: I've read a lot of bio material about Stalin, and he was very far from being as crazy as Jacobsen seems to be insisting upon. He was extremely paranoid, he had a criminal relationship with everybody, even his own family, and he's one of the very few people in all of history who possessed these qualities but was nonetheless considered a figure of heroic stature by those people he ruled over. He was a natural sociopath -- an odd fish if ever there was one -- but he wasn't the lunatic Jacobsen's scenario calls for Now, granted, those people who knew him well acted for their own benefit, and refused completely to discuss Stalin in any negative light whatsoever (this habit having been shown to be dangerous to one's health), and it's true as well that, like Hitler, Stalin tended to surrond himself with sycophants having a similar criminal bent to their personality. I'll even agree that Stalin's brutality and will was to a great extent a reflection of his peasant upbringing and the pain-filled environment of his youth; none of that, however, could possibly explain the personality defects that Jacobsen has apparently championed in this book.

We're talking about a new form of insanity that has never been documented in any way, shape, or form. The costs of this little Roswell exercise, a stunningly narrow minded approach to foreign policy, would have been insurmountable during a period when Stalin was trying to institute a clearly internal concentration of power within the USSR while desperately doing everything possible to simply catch-up to western technological development. He was a techno-thief, not a development wizard! He would never have even considered an approach like this to somehow disturb the American post-war psyche. What could he possibly gain? What would be the point of it? Even if he had succeeded, any results would have been temporary at best -- and none of those results would have brought about any benefit whatsoever to Stalin or anybody else in the USSR, excepting a possible case of the giggles. This would have been the most expensive, possibly the cruelest, and definitely the most technologically savvy practical joke in all of history, but being a practical joke means it would have focused American attentions for a relatively short period of time, and any actual advantages would have never trickled down to the Soviet Union. Stalin would have centered on that, before anything else, and would have likely executed the person who suggested it for wasting his valuable time!

We're talking about a people and a military that had no idea, aside from starting another war, on how best to disrupt the Berlin Airlift. Stalin, and to a great extent everybody he placed in positions of influence around him, could not possibly have carried an offensive strategy like this to completion -- and if it was even possible for them to do so (and I'm pretty sure the only people who would ever agree to that condition would be the uneducated lunatics who get their knowledge of world history from comic books), there's no actual payoff for the expenses incurred. Am I missing something? In 1947, they were just imagining satellites, and their understanding of rocketry was limited to the kind that were expected to explode at the end of the journey. They didn't even possess the surgical expertise to create the "pilots" for this venture -- Hell, I doubt anybody did. I can't even believe that there were 3-4 mentally handicapped 13-year-olds left in Russia by 1947. We're talking about a nation that let half of its own population starve to death in the center of their own breadbasket republic. The life-expectancy of a handicapped child must have been lower than Nazi Germany, for chrissake, and Hitler had already instituted a program of euthanasia as necessary for his master race! And I can guarantee that if Mengele was in Russia in 1947, he would have died there as well, just like all of the other science-minded Germans who were convinced that a paycheck in rubles was more generous than a bullet in the back of the head. More to the point, Mengele was not the genius a mission like this would have required. He was a brutal hack who enjoyed slicing up twins, and in the process of doing so, he discovered nothing that wasn't already known by simply examining plant reproduction. When it was finally disclosed what he had been doing throughout WWII, most people were stunned at the pointlessness of it all.

If Stalin could have actually completed something on this level, does anybody believe for one second that he would have wasted it entirely on a practical joke in the desert of New Mexico? Good God in Heaven, the Germans were at least 2-3 generations ahead of Russia in technology, and they couldn't get a flying saucer to work right even when pressured to do so on pain of death and democracy! Hell, the Americans couldn't do it either, and everybody expected that to happen by the end of 1957. Please correct me on this, because I might be missing something, but is there anybody in the world these days who believes that the Coanda Effect can still be harnessed sufficient to actually fly something like Jacobsen describes?

Thanks, Annie -- you've given the world's silly and over-imaginative representatives something truly worthless to mull over while they ignore the actual history and science that shows exactly how careless and pathetic your attempts to make a decent living have been. Someone should give her a medal.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Annie Jacobsen's Area 51 [Roswell Version 11.0]

Postby subdivisions » Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:12 am

Thanks, Annie -- you've given the world's silly and over-imaginative representatives something truly worthless to mull over while they ignore the actual history and science that shows exactly how careless and pathetic your attempts to make a decent living have been. Someone should give her a medal.


HAHA, is anyone suprised that someone has found away to re-invent the Roswell Incident? With the absence of any real proof, any incident is open to interpretation, or obsfucation or even ridicule. As someone that wants to believe in ufo's, I am still waiting for the proof. I can't allow myself to believe in something that on the surface, is ambigious at best. Hazy memories, reluctant sources, and "journalists" of questionable backgrounds and ethics have done more harm to ufology than any government program of denial or discreditation, IMO.

It's not Jacobsen's fault, it's ours, because we buy the books, go to the conferences and follow them on twitter. There are not enough of us who are willing to demand hard proof from the people hawking their wares.

Ugh, I'm rambling! Sorry about that.
There's a long road,...I've gotta stay in time with, YEAH!
I've got to keep on chasing that dream,...though I may never find it.
I'm always just behind it!
User avatar
subdivisions
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 7:14 am

Next

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

cron