posted by RRRGroup at
Friday, April 08, 2016
Interesting theory proposed by Brian. I see that Kevin has poo-pooed on it. This should provoke a myriad of responses.
By Tim Hebert, at Friday, April 08, 2016
It's a rational speculation, Tim.Kevin's counter is tepid, but will be fleshed out I bet, as you note.RR
By RRRGroup, at Friday, April 08, 2016
I posted Brian's theory on my blog. Hopefully, Brian won't be upset. Hate to see something interesting be buried in the comments section of any blog regardless of whose blog it is.Rich, I did link to your blog...to not do so would have been rude of me:)I did comment that Brian's theory runs contrary to the Mogul crowd which will be interesting to see what comes out of that.
Thank you Tim...I'd like to highlight your blog -- if we're not doing so already in our blog listings at the right of this blog.Send me the link.....rrrgroup-at-gmail.com. (use the @ in place of the at, of course.RR
Well I've a good start with a reasonable discussion on my blog site, with exception to the Minot story, a rarity.Printy and Sawyer make reasonable arguments against Brian's theory...no shame there, as Brian's theory is speculative from the Roswell point of view. But it is being given its proper due consideration which is all that anyone can hope for.Brian has commented on my blog before and perhaps he will chime in a give a go at defending his speculative theory with reasonable people.Rich, my blog url is www.timhebert.blogspot.com/ Remember, it's on a seedy back alley in cyberspace right across from that rickety old seedy joint called Roswell:) No non disclosure agreement required.
By Tim Hebert, at Saturday, April 09, 2016
Thank you Tim...I'll push your blog upcoming.I like Brian's speculative take. The problem for me is that damn Press Release with "flying disk" in it.How did that come about, whether "the accident" was Brian's airplane. Redfern's coterie of Japanese mental patients, or something else, even a balloon or two?RR
By RRRGroup, at Saturday, April 09, 2016
"Flying Disk" could well have come about in one or more of the following ways?1.An overenthusiastic sub-editor writing the headline and rephrasing the reporter's original text.2. An overenthusiastic press officer hearing rumours and going way beyond his remit when speaking to the press.3. A naive press officer allowing reporter(s) to put words in his mouth and given them room to paraphrase them liberally.4. For reasons I can't think of, the press officer played a joke on reporters.5. It was a convenient screen story till someone thought of a better one.6. It was a flying saucer and every single piece of technology since was found on board.
By scherben, at Saturday, April 09, 2016
In the end though you have still got to consider what was actually found and recovered. The descriptions simply do NOT match a crashed B-29 or any other plane, do they? Not the slightest B-29 fragment was left behind. Really? You also have to consider the very long time, 7 decades, since it happened. But I agree it is better than an ET crash and cover-up (again over 7 decades).I cannot accept it. However, it may just have SOME validity.
By cda, at Sunday, April 10, 2016
I consider Brian's ploy to be a nice thought exercise whether it be acceptable or not. It jabs at the heart of the Roswell problem as there is nothing credible to back up the UFO/ET angle.Agree with most that balloon-like debris appears to point in direction of a balloon, regardless of Mogul or other program. But if that is not acceptable and the ET angle stretches any form of common sense then what is left to ponder?
By Tim Hebert, at Sunday, April 10, 2016
Rich -The reason I "poo-pooed" this new idea is that I had looked into Soviet aerial reconnaissance of the United States and learned that there was no record of any attempts prior to the 1950s. They didn't have the long-range aircraft to do it and besides they could buy everything they wanted on the open market. With that in hand, I had no reason to explore it deeper...Just type Soviet aerial reconnaissance into your search engine and see what you learn.
By KRandle, at Sunday, April 10, 2016
Yes, Kevin...BB's speculation is a stretch, but I'm just happy to see someone provide other views, no matter how loopy they turn out.You gotta give Brian props for hanging in there, as he certainly invites general derision.RR
By RRRGroup, at Sunday, April 10, 2016
Brian had a good hypothesis but unfortunately it does not hold up to the physical capabilities of the TU-4. A Google query says the TU-4 had a range of ~6200 km [3852 miles] empty. Wikipedia says it's even less. The distance from Roswell to Moscow is 9465 km [5881 miles] (Most of Russia over 5000 miles from Roswell).The TU-4 had no aerial refueling capability [it appears that the Soviets planned to send those bombers on one-way missions against the US once they were nuclear capable]. For the suggested flight to have taken place the plane would have had to landed somewhere and refueled. Unless this was some kind of "black mission" that the Air Force set-up to steal a plane from under the Soviets noses, the mission would have been possible due to the logistics. The only flight path that such a "theft" could have followed was from Moscow to Thule AFB and from there to Roswell. Given that at the time there were only a few TU-4 and they were still in flight testing mode, it seems to me that the Soviets would have shot it down before it left the country.
By Joel Crook, at Monday, April 11, 2016
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile