Materials "from Roswell" crash - likely not alien

[Waterglass]

Guess who just went from AARO to the lab where they sent this sample?

I’ll give you a hint. 

He was just proven a big fat liar by Fugal. Link


Stinks to high heaven, all of this.

Yes he stinks but too many credible others are now following up. Keep an eye on Dr. Gary Nolan, Stanford University, Dr. Jacques Vallee, University of Paris, Dr. Diana Walsh Palsuka, University of North Carolina - Wilminton.

Dr. Steven Greer. Yes the Dr. Steven Greer and also Robert Lazar. Lazar has been vindicated by congressional testimony indirectly by the Navy pilots. I have also been witness to similiar objects in space here in South Carolina performing the same "radical" manuevors that Lazar filmed in the desert in 1989 with the late John Lear. I and others. 

Also look up Biblical Scholar Dr. Michael Heisler. Watch his video on YouTube as his take on UFO's and ET as compared to what was drawn by ancient civilizations. He forwards an excellent thesis. My opinion 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S....2DMadison.

[ArMaP]

I suppose the high-tech analysis folks subjected it to all manner of tests... after all it took two years.

I saw now on the report that they got the specimen in February 2023, from the DEVCOM Ground Vehicle System Center.

[midicon]

[Maxmars]

[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6xtxZwrGLY]

Thanks for that treatment on the subject. 

I know "someone" claimed that this was a piece from the alleged crashed vehicle... but why necessarily are we to assume it had anything to do with propulsion or gravity control?  I mean, why is it all or nothing, "It's either antigrav tech or it's bunk?"  This might not even be a piece of the original object, but something from within it, or something that struck it, no?  It seems entirely out of place to assume anything about this, other than that it's not mind-bending super-tech.

[midicon]

Thanks for that treatment on the subject. 

I know "someone" claimed that this was a piece from the alleged crashed vehicle... but why necessarily are we to assume it had anything to do with propulsion or gravity control?  I mean, why is it all or nothing, "It's either antigrav tech or it's bunk?"  This might not even be a piece of the original object, but something from within it, or something that struck it, no?  It seems entirely out of place to assume anything about this, other than that it's not mind-bending super-tech.

Sometimes it's easier to watch a video, that is of course if it's pretty accurate and covers the topic. I like Anton Petrov.