Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Chris Rutkowskis Queries Stanton Friedman On Roswell and UFOs | VIDEO | INTERVIEW

Bookmark and Share

Chris Rutkowskis & Stanton Friedman

By Chris Rutkowskis

     At Paracon on October 12 and 13, 2012, I had a chance to sit and talk with Roswell UFO proponent Stanton Friedman several times. he agreed to let me post a short Youtube clip of new asking him a few questions. Basically, after all these years, why does he still doggedly believe there is a cover-up, and is there anything left to learn about Roswell? . . .

1 comment :

  1. Roswell is well 'covered up', with very little mention of the markings on the 16mm Kodak Film that show the date of shooting to be either 27, 47 or 67. ie a square and a triangle mark.

    Two segments with three frames each, one clearly showing the autopsy room, were given to Bob Shell, editor of Shutterbug magazine and also a phototechnical consultant for the FBI and the US courts. After a careful physical analysis, Shell confirmed the segments to be pre-1956 16-mm film. In 1956 Kodak changed its film-base from acetate-propionate to triacetate, and the samples were clearly on acetate-propionate film. The film type was Super XX-Panchromatic Safety Film, a high-speed film used for indoor filming but which had a life-span of no more than two years, when cosmic radiation would cause a 'fogging' of the material. Shell is sure the film was exposed and developed within two years. This, at least, dates the film as pre-1958.

    More proof? We got some tech. back-engineered from Roswell. Two Bell Labs scientists were at that time working on minitiarising the vacuum tube,valve. They were trying to keep up with/beat the Russian scientists. Suddenly, without having worked on this new tech. the transistor appears from them, for which they both get the Nobel Prize. According to scientists this tech was 200 years ahead of the then science. Also back engineered was the fibre optics, and microprocessor. Apparently they still cant back-engineer some communication equipment.

    Even so, Stanton falls into his own trap when he says disbelievers are not his business, when he himself ignores the Meier case, with much more evidence of et contact.


Dear Contributor,

Your comments are greatly appreciated, and coveted; however, blatant mis-use of this site's bandwidth will not be tolerated (e.g., SPAM etc).

Additionally, healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published, nor will "anonymous" criticisms. Please keep your arguments "to the issues" and present them with civility and proper decorum. -FW