either it's Our Tech (CAN/USA) that crash landed, or it's Their's (China/Russia/Extra Terrestrial [Dimensional???]).
They are?? Idiots!! "Canada's Roswell" happened in 1967:Like what ndrwrld said, there's much more transparency when a military craft crashes. There's always a press release. Why would the military crash a craft in the middle of know where for an exercise. They're already pinning this as the Canadian Roswell.
Woah, this one is only really registering with me on a 2nd read of this post...Galactic Wisdom Conference | Conference
According to this:
Tickets sound steep at $97-247, but if you think about it, that’s dirt cheap when you look at what he promises you’ll be able to do there:
- Have an appointment with a medical psychic.
Roswell ET photo is a MUMMIFIED BOY: Researcher unmasks image that claimed to show alien life 'beyond any doubt'
Images allegedly taken between 1947 and 1949 on Kodachrome film
UFO 'scientists' charged $350 for people to attend unveiling of photos
Researchers used software to zoom in and clear up part of the image
They found the placard says: 'Mummified body of two year old boy'
Arctic UFO Photographs, USS Trepang, SSN 674, March 1971 - The Black Vault Case FilesThis got started when I heard from one of my sources in Europe that some pictures that I might want to take a look at were making the rounds.
These turned out to be the pictures that a French Paranormal magazine called Top Secret published. They claimed that they received them from an anonymous source. That is all they have have said publicly so far.
Top Secret source and mine are unrelated. I made connections in the intelligence community in Europe years ago in a project unrelated to UFOs. It was for the Congo’s Mokele-mbembe project that I was working on. They have always been reliable, but you know how these things go, you never really know.
I have used them on information based on Russian UFOs in the past, and they have been very reliable with that.
I’m obviously trying to directly get access to Top Secret‘s original source, so we’ll see. By the way, feel free to contact them yourself or anyone that you feel can help.
Obviously, I want to stay on point with this, and be part of whatever comes out in this case, but the important thing is to get to the truth, and “The Black Vault” name is extremely well respected and that can very much help.
Here is what we know so far. The original anonymous source claims that these:
1) The photos were taken from a United State Navy submarine.
2) The location was between Iceland and Jan Mayen island in the Atlantic Ocean.(Jan Mayen belongs to Norway, and is only inhabited by the Norwegian Meteorological Institute and the Norwegian military.)
3) They were taken in March of 1971.
4) The Submarine was the Navy’s USS Trepang (SSN 674) and the Admiral on board was Dean Reynolds Sackett.Obviously, the next step is to try and locate this Admiral Dean Reynolds, if he exists.
5) The Submarine came upon the object by “accident,” as they were in the region on a routine joint military and scientific expedition. Officer John Klika was the one who initially spotted the object with the periscope.
This obviously implies that it wasn’t ours, and unfortunately doesn’t explain the different objects seen in the pictures.
Top Secret claims that on one of the pictures, there were some inscriptions. I don’t have a version of this, and it is too faint to see on these photographs.
Upper left it says “Official Photograph. Not to be Released. CT.”
In the bottom right corner it says (sic) “Unauthorized Disclosure Subject. Security Certificat SSN 674. Criminal Sanction”
I cannot confirm these at the moment, and I don’t know if the spelling of Certificat is just a reproduction error, since these were revealed in their magazine.
This is all I have so far, and I’ll keep sending you whatever additional info I have.
Update:No doubt the people looking at it have excellent credentials. That is why I don't understand how they determined the specimen's age based on the radiographs (x-ray pictures). I don't know why they did this when it is clear from the photographs that there are no epiphyses present. And it is also clear from the radiographs that there are no teeth present. At six years of age all the deciduous (milk) teeth would be present with permanent (adult) teeth growing underneath them. This would be really obvious because teeth are more dense than bones and they would be noticeable white spots even on the low resolution radiographs. A 6 year old's teeth look something like:
I am also not sure how they arrived at age from the epiphyses. Epiphyses are parts of the bone at the end of the shafts (in case of long bones) that fuse onto the end when the bone is done growing (i.e., when you reach your adult height). They are called secondary centers of ossification in this illustration:
At 6 years of age, they would not be fused onto the long bones but would be visible on the dried out specimen in the pictures.
Maybe the tissue around the ends of the long bones has mineralized and now appears more opaque on the radiographs that it would in a live specimen, and this is why they aged it the way they did. Perhaps because they are medical doctors they are used to working with medical imaging and are not familiar with how immature bones actually look. I am a physical anthropology/skeletal biology PhD student and I have examined a lot of fetal skeletons. We often find them in archaeological contexts where the mother and child die in pregnancy or in childbirth and are buried together. So I am familiar with the morphology of fetal bones and I am pointing out that there isn't too much out of the ordinary here except the squished skull and the extended position of the limbs.
The trouble with science in the UFO community is that it is most often second hand information. It is UFO enthusiasts interpreting the words of the scientists and real meanings get lost in this interpretation.
Published by some friends and colleagues of mine:
International Experts Refute 'Alien' Mummy Analysis, Question Ethics And Legality