0 Replies to “Martin Plowman on Roswell”

1. A great speaker. He needed no props or audio visuals. Just a fascinating topic and an interesting approach. And he has written an intriguing book.

   Reply

2. The speaker comes across as well-meaning, gentle and quite friendly, but he needs to do a lot better on his research before speaking about the subject.
   For example, he should know the event began on the night of 2 July 1947 after an odd explosion was heard (i.e. William Brazel’s family) ending a series of lightning strikes from a thunderstorm that swept over the area, followed by the rancher discovering wreckage the next morning.
   He is incorrect about the world believing in the changed story as presented by the USAF (i.e. weather balloon). Numerous US. reporters questioned the varying size differences of the balloon as stated by USAF representatives Major Marcel, Major Kirton and General Ramey and how this was inconsistent with the amount of debris shown in General Ramey’s office during the photo shot with James Bond Johnson compared to the 1 miles by 200 to 400 feet wide scattering of debris stated by Major Marcel. They also questioned why the USAF denied the materials were to be analyzed at Wright-Field when ABC News learned Wright-Field said that was wrong and was awaiting the materials to arrive. In fact, there were quite a few discrepancies. But with nothing else to go by and with military and civilian witnesses forced to keep quiet in an era where the war jitters remained high, it is not surprising the case was forgotten by the media, but not by the witnesses.
   Speaker also claims none of the witnesses actually saw a UFO. It depends what he means by UFO and whether the seeing of the wreckage by the rancher and his son and daughter, Major Marcel and his son, Sheridan Cavitt, and those who tested the original materials at Roswell AAF constitute parts of a UFO yet to be identified. Unless the speaker is alluding to the possibility that the wreckage is an IFO and therefore just a weather balloon.
   But suppose it was a spaceship, how would the speaker know the materials were not part of one? He says the rancher didn’t see a complete machine or something resembling a flying saucer (or whatever an alien spaceship should look like). If an alien spaceship was hit by lightning and threw debris over a wide area and still kept on going for some distance, it doesn’t mean the lack of a machine at the first debris site constitutes no evidence in support of a possible alien spaceship.
   As for the term tinfoil and balsa wood suggesting it is man-made as used by the rancher, this was really the simplest description he could give for the debris he saw based on what he knew of other materials he could compare the original Roswell wreckage to. But look more closely at the description and the skeptics will discover talk of a shape-memory response in the dark-grey metallic foil (remarkably similar to NiTi), the unusually high temperature resistance of all the materials, extreme hardness due to close crystalline packing of the atoms to help prevent cutting by scissors and other tools. Try doing that to aluminium or tinfoil of the same newspaper thickness as the Roswell foil and tell us precisely what the result is. Do the results compare well with the Roswell materials. If not, why not? Has anyone in the skeptical community actually looked at a metals journal and studied shape memory alloys for a moment and looked at the history and noticed anything interesting? For example, any connections between NiTi, Wright-Field, USAF, Battelle Memorial Institute and 1947-49 period? Do a test on NiTi at the same newspaper thickness and let it activate the shape memory response at room temperature and tell us how it compares to the Roswell foil. Any differences? Then tell us. We like to know more. And tell us whether the USAF had actually used NiTi in early July 1947. And how likely NiTi could be manufactured pure enough to reveal the shape-memory response. Easy you reckon? You obviously have not done your research.
   The speaker also goes on to say he met Walter Haut, the PIO of Roswell AAF, to ask for his opinion, but discovered he wouldn’t say anything. The speaker then assumes this is because he didn’t see anything resembling a UFO (ie. alien spaceship). Quite the contrary, it could also mean that he needed to keep quiet about what he knew and possibly seen. For example, just before his death, he written and signed a new affidavit only to be viewed after his death. Donald Schmitt and Tom Carey discovered he actually did see a UFO brought in from the recovery operation, and alleged bodies. Apparently Walter was allowed by Blanchard to view it briefly.
   Well, that would explain why he had to keep quiet. His life could still be at risk.
   Again that sort of thing requires a little extra research on the part of the speaker to find out, and then give a slightly more balanced response to his audience. Sure, say he believes it is a weather balloon, but back it up with well-researched work and clear evidence as to why.
   It is a pity the speaker speaks amateurish on a subject he has not done a thorough research job on.
   As the presentation title in the video shows, “Seek the Evidence”, skeptics need to do more seeking of the evidence, and that includes all evidence. Don’t gather evidence to support the preferred position of the skeptics and that’s it. That’s not science. That’s no better off than the pro-alien supporters. Show all the evidence and give clear explanations of what the situation might be for each evidence (is it likely to be correct or not and show on the basis of probabilities how likely the evidence might be true based on available scientific facts from the lierature). If you don’t know, then say so. That’s what good scientific research is all about.

   Reply