The Instigator
Rockylightning
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
sherlockmethod
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

The Roswell Incident Was A Government Coverup

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
sherlockmethod
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,537 times Debate No: 11456
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

Rockylightning

Pro

Resolved that the Roswell Incident Was A Government Coverup.

First I will introduce evidence to this debate, then explain how this evidence implies a government cover up.

But First, some backround history:

The Roswell UFO Incident was the alleged recovery of extra-terrestrial debris, including alien corpses, from an object which crashed near Roswell, New Mexico, USA, in June or July 1947. Since the late 1970s the incident has been the subject of intense controversy and the subject of conspiracy theories as to the true nature of the object which crashed. The United States military maintains that what was actually recovered was debris from an experimental high-altitude surveillance balloon belonging to a classified program named "Mogul"[1]; however, many UFO proponents maintain that in fact a crashed alien craft and bodies were recovered, and that the military then engaged in a cover-up. Project "Mogul" was (sometimes referred to as Operation Mogul) was a top secret project by the US Army Air Forces involving microphones flown on high altitude balloons, whose primary purpose was long-distance detection of sound waves generated by Soviet atomic bomb tests.

Now onto my points

1. Project "Mogul"

According to a local rancher who went out to examine the wreckage states that "Most of the debris consisted of lightweight, thin-gage, flat or slightly curved, sheetlike fragments exhibiting physical properties atypical of late-1940s technology. There appears to have been two distinct types at the site: (1) foil-like pieces easily crumpled by hand which completely recovered their original shape and showed no signs of wrinkling when released; and (2) pieces which could not be deformed or damaged by any means, even when whacked with a 16-pound sledgehammer. I refer to both kinds of debris, which would not burn, as thin-shell material. (Common thin-shell products—which do not possess such extraordinary deformation characteristics—include Saran wrap, balloon film, aluminum foil, and motor-vehicle and aircraft body panels.) "

2 Pictures Showing Project Mogul Balloons

http://www.cufos.org...
http://theunexplainedmysteries.com...

As you can see in these photos, if one of these balloons were to suddenly "pop", it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE that it would create a loud noise and a fiery crash (as witnesses reported) These balloons also did not contain much metal. And as you can see, did not have ANY sort of characters on them. While I do see a high altitude balloon popping as a valid argument, there are many flaws with that argument. First, the equipment on board the "mogul" balloons was made to detect Soviet Ballistic Missiles. No equipment pieces or parts were found on the site. Next, a balloon would fall straight down, but the crash site clearly reveals a trail behind the wreckage, indicating a sloped descent.

2. Why the military would cover it up...
Let me start out with a quote from "The Roswell Incident"
"While working at the Wright Patterson Air Force Base in 1955, Mrs. Norma Gardner had been assigned to a post involving the cataloging of all incoming UFO related material. She was given a top security clearance.
At one point duing the course of her assignment, she said, she had witnessed the conveyance of two humanoid bodies by cart from one room to another. She not only saw the bodi but handeled the paperwork on their autopsy reports. These bodies preserved in a chemical solution, were etween four and five feet tall, with generally humanlike features except that the heads were large relative to the bodies and the eyes were slanted. Mrs. Gardner told of her experiences when she was bedrdden with cancer, observing dramatically "Uncles Sam can't do anything to me when I'm in my grave"

Onto my point.

Why would the US want to cover this up? Easy. If YOU were running the government and someone comes to you and says "Sir, we have discovered that extraterrestrial life exists" Would you just blurt it out to the public? NO! To prevent mass hysteria, you would keep it quiet, and maybe let it out slowly and painfully.

I await my opponent's points and refutations.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.ufoevidence.org...
http://roswellproof.com...

"
sherlockmethod

Con

This will make the second debate I have taken concerning Roswell and Mogul. My last debate was not reviewed by many, but my burden was higher in that one. Here, my opponent offers the position that the Roswell incident was a crash site from an alien craft and the military covered up the crash so as to prevent mass panic. I wish aliens did land as I have a few questions, but I must disagree with Pro as he will not be able to provide any evidence of life forms from that crash, nor will he be able to provide supporting evidence for technological items that we could not produce at that time. I have looked, and hoped, but it is not there. I think alien life is very plausible, but so far, I have found no reliable evidence to support the contention that they have landed at Roswell, or anywhere else for that matter.

Pro gave a brief description of the "Roswell Incident" but we need to understand the hype surrounding this event and the facts that we can gather from the start. The wiki does not do it justice.

First things first, on June 27, 1947, a pilot, Kenneth Arnold, reported seeing some strange objects in the night sky and many newspapers reported the incident. The reports came in as "flying saucers" or "flying disks". I will grant that Arnold's sighting is interesting, but many non extraterrestrial explanations exist. Arnold's sightings are not the subject of this debate, but please note that many newspapers, US and foreign, ran the story. THEN:

July 8, 1947, The Roswell Army Air Force base reportedly gave a press release concerning a "flying saucer". The news reports of the release are well documented but no original copies of the release itself exist. http://ufologie.net...
The release was given shortly after Mr. and Mrs. Wilmont reported seeing an object fall from the sky. No one in the community came forward with the story until this release was presented in the local Roswell paper. The Roswell paper reported the next day that a rancher had found wreckage in a field on June 14 but did not report it at that time. He contacted the Sherriff after reading about flying disks, the sheriff then contacted the USAAF so they could examine the wreckage. No disks were found. No aliens were found. The newspapers got it wrong. Here is what we have:

1.Reports of flying disks
2.Reports of seeing something crash
3.A crash site
4.Media Hype
5.A flying disk must have crashed at Corona; a rancher found the disk; the USAAF took the disk.
6.A modern myth is born

My opponent is taking a heavy burden as he must show that an alien craft crash landed and that the military covered up the event. He will not be able to do so.

Project Mogul:
My opponent starts by attacking the most plausible explanation for the Roswell crash in referencing project Mogul. He bases his claim of crash site materials on a collage of eyewitness accounts and nothing more. My opponent quoted from this article: http://www.cufos.org... concerning the debris from the crash site, but we have a problem, the rancher in question never made the claims my opponent attributes to him. The rancher did not claim these points, the engineer writing the article wrote this quote and he gathered the information by selecting second hand accounts that agree with his alien debris idea. The engineer writing the article never saw the debris, ever. He never even saw the crash site. He references a previous article (which he wrote), but no copy is available online and my library does not carry UFO magazines, sadly. The problem with the debris is that no one can produce the evidence, and many of the accounts are second hand, and the claims contradict the first account the rancher gave to the Roswell paper. Here is what the Rancher said:

"When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long and about 8 inches thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot would have weighed maybe five pounds.

There was no sign of any metal in the area which might have been used for an engine and no sign of any propellers of any kind, although at least one paper fin had been glued onto some of the tinfoil." http://www.roswellfiles.com...

Too easy. Here is a list of some of the quotes: http://www.roswellproof.com...
From a pro alien site none the less.

In further trying to remove Mogul from the hypothesis, my opponent claims the balloon chain could not account for the fiery crash. What fiery crash? The husband and wife claimed the object in the sky made little sound, and Rancher Brazel made clear he never saw anything crash. Source your claim as many witness accounts changed dramatically. As for characters on the debris, the mogul balloons did have characters on them and here they are: http://www.csicop.org... any yes equipment was found at the site and the balloon chain does not have to fall straight down, nor is implausible for it to leave a debris trail, I don't know where Pro got this information.

Norma Gardner:
Interesting statement indeed! Now, provide proof that Mrs. Gardner even worked at Wright Patterson and whether she had security clearance of any kind, ever. She may have, but I can't find it. And who heard this confession? I have found this quote but I cannot find a single point of verification. Also, why in the hell would anyone let a secretary type up the autopsies of aliens in the first place? The best way to keep a secret is to involve as few people as possible. They would have typed their own reports. Where did the writers of the book get the quote?

My opponent explains why the military would cover up the incident, but so far has not shown any alien incident occurred in the first place. He has not met his burden.
Debate Round No. 1
Rockylightning

Pro

Let me remind you this debate is not about whether the Roswell Incident was real, it is whether it was a government coverup.

The Incident may have been "media hype" but the government NONE THE LESS tried to cover it up! I will explain this in my next point.

It would seem logical to conclude that an intelligence matter classified two secrecy levels higher than the Hydrogen-bomb is unlikely to be revealed except to those with the very highest security clearances. Yes, this incident was classified TWO SECRECY LEVELS HIGHER than the H-bomb. Why would balloons falling from the sky be so important? I don't know. If it was ACTUALLY project mogul, then why did the government place such restrictions on it.

Now I would like so give my opponent something to think about (not exactly related to the debate, but still gives reason why the government would want to cover up)

One of the most fascinating questions that occurs when contemplating the universe is whether there other life exists, equally or more intelligent than we. Are there alien eyes looking at our star or our galaxy and do these creatures ask the same cosmological questions we ask? Nobody knows, although the straightforward application of the Copernican Principle suggests that we cannot be unique in the universe.

Is there other life in the universe? How can we begin to answer that question, in the absence of direct evidence to answer the question in the affirmative? One way is through something known as the Drake equation, named after the astronomer Frank Drake. It is not really an equation to be solved, so much as it is a way of systematizing the unknowns. Here is how it works. Let us say we wish to estimate the quantity N, the number of technological civilizations in the galaxy. Of the n stars in the galaxy, only some fraction fp of them will have planets. Only some average number of planets per star, (H), will be potentially habitable. Of the habitable planets, there is a fraction fl that will develop life. Now of the planets that develop life, how many will develop intelligent life? Use fi for that fraction. Only some fraction of intelligent species ft will develop technology. So given all these things, we can write

N = n � fp � H � fl � fi � ft

Some of these factors are easier to estimate than others. There are about 100 billion stars in the Milky Way so we will use that for n. There now seems to be some direct evidence for planets around other stars, but as yet we still don't know what fraction of stars would have planets. If we are optimistic, then we would take a fraction near one, essentially saying that all stars have planets. What number of planets per star would be habitable? The planets would have to be located at a distance from their star that is neither too hot nor too cold. In our solar system there are three that are potentially habitable, Venus, Mars, and the Earth. Some stars would support fewer, or possibly no, habitable planets. Let's say that, on average, only one in 10 stars with planets has one planet that could support life. What have we got so far?

N = 100,000,000,000 � 1 � 0.1 � fl � fi � ft

This still leaves a lot of potentially life-bearing planets!

The next three fractions are the especially tricky ones. If life can develop, does it? Opinions differ widely on this topic. This is where the recent Life on Mars issue has some application. If this development holds up, then life developed on both Mars and the Earth and it becomes much more problematic to say that life is incredibly difficult to get started on any given planet. If you believe life is inevitable, given habitable conditions, then make fl =1.

Now, if life forms, does it become intelligent? A difficult question. Life has been around on Earth for billions of years and we (modern humans) came on the scene only in the last 100,000 or so years. And any life on Mars that may have once existed (if it did) died out completely. For purposes of an estimate, let's take the ratio of 100,000 years of humans to 1 billion years of life, giving us 1 in 10,000 planets with life that develop intelligence.

Does intelligent life inevitably develop technology? Good arguments can be made either way. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly inevitable about humanity's rise to technological prowess. Although it happened rapidly once it got going, did it have to happen? Could an intelligent creature stay as a hunter/gatherer or simple tool-user for the entire length of its existence? Who knows? Let's adopt the attitude that intelligence necessarily leads to technology and say that ft = 1. So we have

N = 100,000,000,000 � 1 � 0.1 � 1 � 0.0001 � 1 = 1,000,000

One million planets with technologies!

C'est pourquoi l'incident de Roswell �tait une op�ration de camouflage du gouvernement.
Fermer votre discours par une phrase en fran�ais
sherlockmethod

Con

I thank my opponent for his response. All points from my round 1 carry as Pro never addressed them. Pro used rd 1 to explain to us about alien sightings concerning the event and why the military would cover up the alien encounter. He presented this material with the resolution, as instigator he must substantiate it. As I said in rd 1, he cannot do this. Pro brought alien life forms into this debate, I simply responded. He cannot divorce himself from it now.

Pro claims the events at Roswell were classified two levels above the H-Bomb. What is this clearance called, Pro? Where did you get this information? Clearances are not as big a deal as "need to know" so I am interested in where Pro got this information. Project Mogul was a top secret project and was not just a bunch of balloons (Pro linked the project). The project was top secret as it related to detecting enemy missile tests. Where are you getting this information about two levels above the H-Bomb?

The military responded as we should expect when a top secret project crashes. The "cover up" had nothing to do with aliens. If Pro did not wish to discuss aliens and Roswell, I ask that he explain why both of his arguments center on extraterrestrials?

The remainder of Pro's second round is irrelevant to this debate. I made clear that I accept the possibility of life on other planets and this debate is about Roswell. I have no need to address this matter any further.

Pro has dropped all points of contention and is far from upholding the resolution he provided. And he avoided all of my questions. Going into our conclusions Pro has not met his burden.
Debate Round No. 2
Rockylightning

Pro

Rockylightning forfeited this round.
sherlockmethod

Con

My conclusion will be short. My opponent was unable to submit a final round and contrary to his comments, I addressed his attempt to remove the extraterrestrials from the Pro position. All points have been covered. Pro did not meet the burden for instigator. I do not vote on my debates unless my opponent forfeits, and this one is very close to a forfeit as Pro offered so little after RD 1. I urge a vote for Con and I will take most debates concerning Roswell and the Majestic 12 documents as I have yet to find a convincing case supporting the pro alien position. I am still looking…the truth is out there. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
If Pro had offered proof that data related to the incident was classified, that could have helped prove it was a cover up, but he offered no such proof. He just made an unsupported claim. It is really not credible that security classifications "above the hydrogen bomb" exist, let alone that Roswell data was so classified. The Drake equation stuff was irrelevant, so Pro effectively posted nothing for that round. The forfeit was bad conduct, of course. "Nonetheless" is one word, etc.
Posted by Rockylightning 4 years ago
Rockylightning
I disproved your points in the second round by saying that its not about whether it existed, but whether it was a cover up.

You dropped my point in round 2!
Posted by Rockylightning 4 years ago
Rockylightning
yes you're part of the conspiracy now.

Quiet
Posted by Rockylightning 4 years ago
Rockylightning
AWW DANG It!

FORFEITED!
Posted by Spaztoid 4 years ago
Spaztoid
Yes.
Posted by belle 4 years ago
belle
lol what does the drake equation have to do with roswell?

*isn't impressed
Posted by sherlockmethod 4 years ago
sherlockmethod
No, I do not work for the government, but I was an active duty member of the US Air Force, am I part of the conspiracy now?
Posted by Spaztoid 4 years ago
Spaztoid
You know sherlockmethod, if you work for the government, you will be giving Rockylightning the debate. So... do you work for the government?
Posted by Rockylightning 4 years ago
Rockylightning
ha..........
Posted by sherlockmethod 4 years ago
sherlockmethod
I saw a fish do that once Koopin, but I'm not going to say too much about it until I'm on my deathbed. Men in black are watching me, and my fish...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by belle 4 years ago
belle
RockylightningsherlockmethodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
RockylightningsherlockmethodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 4 years ago
Rockylightning
RockylightningsherlockmethodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32