Photo enhanced Roswell document.

[ninjashoes]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qNKXj5Ldiww"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qNKXj5Ldiww" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Soul Position]

Very very awesome. Never doubted that there weren't aliens that crashed. Thanks for the post Ninja.

[Neo_Pop]

That's interesting; Sci Fi is going to air something on Roswell tonight 3/7, at 7pm. I think this vid is from that program.

[HarshReality]

the best thing about roswell that gets completley over looked in every argument is this....

closest person(geographically) to the roswell crash site was somthin like a few miles away even more... they reported hearing a "big boom" with fire i belive...

How much of a fuking boom is a weather balloon gonna make?? big enough boom to hear it echo for miles?? What about the ORIGINAL press release from the government "ufo crash's at roswell" a governemnt source released that info and days later after threats and extortion they change it to "weather balloon".. I mean really if yoru gonna lie be good at it.. IMO a big lie will always come out...

look at 9/11 the pentagon, clearly it was a missile but gov insists it was plane.. Recently some jerk form the pentagon(refer to any gov official as jerk)
was in a live interview and said "MISSILE" then quickly backtracked and changed to plane...

My only question is what makes the gov officials cool enough to handle the truth?? but not us firemen, policemen, astronauts, war vets??

Maybe if we knew the truth people would be a little more eager to get involved with nasa, the army or even aeronautical engineering.. right now ther's no interest becuase the results aren't what people want.. they do all this hardwork only to be left in the dark for the important stuff..

[cooncat]

The problem with most conspiracy theorist's logic is that they completely pass over the most probable explanation of the facts in favor of an even more improbable, but more romantic explanation.

Lets just say hypothetically that the letter in question in this video did talk about "victims" of the crash, thereby ruling out the weather-balloon story...I say "hypothetically" because from what I could tell from the video, any transcription of what was written on that letter could be described as inconclusive at best, and "wishful thinking" at worst.

Anyway, lets just say that they are correct and there were victims of this crash, meaning that it wasn't a weather balloon...ask yourselves, what is more probable...that an alien spacecraft crash-landed in the desert, or that a "black" military aircraft that was undergoing testing in the area crashed?

Both scenarios would leave "victims", both would require a coverup story...the difference is, we *know* that top-secret military aircraft exist, and that they are often tested in remote desert locations, and we know that aircraft that are still in testing are much more likely to experience catastrophic failure (that's why they're testing them, after all)...whereas, you'd imagine that aliens capable of traversing the space between the stars would be able to fly around new mexico without kissing dirt.

Other scenarios off the top of my head that are far more likely than the "aliens from outer space" theory include foreign (russian?) spy plane shot down, weather balloon (it's more likely that the transcription of the letter shown in the video was simply wrong or taken out of context than it is likely that aliens crashed there), or any number of other theories.

This is the problem with conspiracy theories, when one little fact of piece of evidence is out of place, people tend to jump immediately to the most wildly improbable explanation, whereas the truth is usually much more mundane.


look at 9/11 the pentagon, clearly it was a missile but gov insists it was plane.. Recently some jerk form the pentagon(refer to any gov official as jerk)
was in a live interview and said "MISSILE" then quickly backtracked and changed to plane...


You might be stretching a little bit there when you say that it was "clearly a missile" that hit the pentagon. I'd like to hear what evidence you have seen that makes you so certain on this point...and try not to just quote directly from "Loose Change".

[faukemonster]

Good stuff. Thanks.

[Blunt Object]

nice post ns

[HarshReality]

You might be stretching a little bit there when you say that it was "clearly a missile" that hit the pentagon. I'd like to hear what evidence you have seen that makes you so certain on this point...and try not to just quote directly from "Loose Change".

I watched the second plane hit the second tower LIVE that day.. That instant i was glued to the T.V...

When the news started repoting live from the pentagon, the first reports were "plane hit pentagon" no specific size was immediatly speculated...

When the live pictures showed the hole in the pentagon, I remember thinking about how lucky they were that it was a small plane they got hit by, Judging by what i saw i was thinking private jet if even that big...
From what i saw LIVE on the scene there was no wreckage at all of an airplane and visually you could see a significantly small hole (considereing a plane caused it.) in the side of the pentagon...

Then to find out later they say it was 747/757boeing.. I say pffttt hahahah absolutly no way a plane that big did that little damage... no fuking way..

If you have footage of that day.. look at the hole in the 2 towers before they fell, then go and look at the hole in the pentagon..
Tell the same size plane hit all 3 targets....

I say missile for the fact 3 sections of pentagon were pierced with perfect holes(like missiles do.)
A highspeed object moving low to the ground is also something a missile is more capable of doing than a plane..
There was apparently no threat of jet fuel seeing as how CITY fire fighters immediatly started putting out the fire when they arrived on scene....
Isn't jet fuel the same supposed thing that brought down the towers??+

[cooncat]

I watched the second plane hit the second tower LIVE that day.. That instant i was glued to the T.V...

When the news started repoting live from the pentagon, the first reports were "plane hit pentagon" no specific size was immediatly speculated...

When the live pictures showed the hole in the pentagon, I remember thinking about how lucky they were that it was a small plane they got hit by, Judging by what i saw i was thinking private jet if even that big...
From what i saw LIVE on the scene there was no wreckage at all of an airplane and visually you could see a significantly small hole (considereing a plane caused it.) in the side of the pentagon...

Then to find out later they say it was 747/757boeing.. I say pffttt hahahah absolutly no way a plane that big did that little damage... no fuking way..

If you have footage of that day.. look at the hole in the 2 towers before they fell, then go and look at the hole in the pentagon..
Tell the same size plane hit all 3 targets....

I say missile for the fact 3 sections of pentagon were pierced with perfect holes(like missiles do.)
A highspeed object moving low to the ground is also something a missile is more capable of doing than a plane..
There was apparently no threat of jet fuel seeing as how CITY fire fighters immediatly started putting out the fire when they arrived on scene....
Isn't jet fuel the same supposed thing that brought down the towers??+

http://ninjashoes.net/forum/showpost.php?p=433961&postcount=38

If some of those pictures don't show, copy and paste the image url into your browser.

"If you have footage of that day.. look at the hole in the 2 towers before they fell, then go and look at the hole in the pentagon..
Tell the same size plane hit all 3 targets...."

The outer wall of the WTC towers was mostly huge picture windows with a lightweight aluminum facade (the bulk of the building's strength was in the core).

The pentagon's outer wall is 18 inches of steel-reenforced concrete, with blast-resistant windows.

There are more variables to take into account than just the size of the plane.

"I say missile for the fact 3 sections of pentagon were pierced with perfect holes(like missiles do.)"

So, you're an expert in the damage patterns of cruise missiles and airliners when crashed into reenforced concrete buildings? You can recognize the damage signature of a missile attack just from a photograph? Wow, you should work for the FBI or something.

"A highspeed object moving low to the ground is also something a missile is more capable of doing than a plane.."

You're right. Planes can't get low to the ground. They have to just fly around the airport and let passengers off by parachute, and then fly away again.

"There was apparently no threat of jet fuel seeing as how CITY fire fighters immediatly started putting out the fire when they arrived on scene....
Isn't jet fuel the same supposed thing that brought down the towers??+"

It's a little harder to fight a fire 70 floors up than it is to fight one on the ground floor. Also, how would it bring the pentagon "down" any further than it already was?

[Evil]

Don't waste your time cooncat.