Thursday, December 22, 2011

David Rudiak Joins the Dream Team

We have expanded the team yet again. Dr. David Rudiak, who has done a great deal of work on the “Ramey memo” has accepted our invitation to join us as a consulting researcher along with Tony Bragalia and Chris Rutkowski. I’ll add here that we had planned on this long ago, but Tom thought I had sent the invitation to David and I thought he had. When we learned that neither had, I then sent one.

Rudiak (seen here at the International UFO Museum in Roswell, photo courtesy of Tom Carey) is one of the experts (and maybe only expert) about what happened in Ramey’s office on July 8, 1947. He wrote to me that, “I've reconstructed the debris in a computer ray-tracer and proven there is only one radar target there and probably one balloon (or what would fit in shoe box), in other words NOT what you would expect from a multi-balloon, multi-target Mogul but perfectly consistent with Ramey and Newton's description of a singular balloon/target and Dubose/Marcel's substituted weather balloon.”

He also said, “Another of my Roswell specialties are my various histories of the period. I have expertise in how the story was reported in numerous news outlets, not just a few. I think I have compiled the most extensive collection of U.S. and international Roswell stories anywhere. These stories present many angles and contradictions that just a few articles do not provide and tell us a lot about how the cover-up was handled. E.g., I have found only two or three newspapers out of hundreds carrying a rare AP sub-version quoting Sheriff Wilcox declining to answer further questions about the "disc" saying he was ‘working with those fellows at the base.’ That I consider to be very telling and corroboration for what his family was telling us decades later. Why are Marcel, Brazel, Wilcox, Ramey, and the press release telling sometimes very different stories, often contradicting the balloon story? Why do the AP, UP, and RDR versions of the press release differ in many details?”

David’s expertise isn’t limited to just the Roswell case, but includes the history of the time. He emailed me that, “And I think I may have the most extensive collection of UFO reports from the area, which I compiled from reviewing every regional paper I could lay my hands on. This demonstrates that Roswell didn't happen in a vacuum, which may have prompted Ramey, Kalberer, and White Sands commander Turner debunking the saucers over a week before Roswell blew up. One very interesting news article I have from a Las Cruces newspaper recounts how on the night of July 8 a fireball steaking out of the south over the Organ mountains broke up, followed by search lights from White Sands Proving Grounds sweeping the sky afterward for an indefinite period of time.”

He, along with Brad Sparks, reworked the mathematics of the Mogul flight number 4, which the skeptics claim is responsible for the debris, showing that it did not come nearly as close as Charles Moore, a Mogul engineer, suggested. (I’ll point out here the Moore’s calculations couldn’t bring the balloon array closer than seventeen miles.) Rudiak’s figures suggested that the balloon array launched from Alamogordo wouldn’t have come as close as Moore suggested. More importantly, it appears that there was no flight number 4.

Combine David’s training and research with the expertise and knowledge of other team members, including their various experiences in researching UFOs, participation in the military, and their understanding of the history of UFOs from the beginning (which is to say as far back as the nineteenth century and farther) and allows for the most comprehensive look at the Roswell case ever undertaken. David’s assistance and knowledge will prove invaluable in this research project.

83 comments:

cda said...

Of the six dream team members, five are 100 per cent committed believers in the 'Roswell was ET' thesis (all right I concede this figure can perhaps be reduced to 99.5 per cent with some of the five), even if they do not all agree on each and every aspect of the case. By the very nature of the case, these five are therefore all conspiracists.

The sixth member is a semi-skeptic, a fence-sitter who leans a bit towards the skeptical side.

What does this say about the likelihood that the final conclusion of your research team will be any different from what it is now, and has been for the last 20 years?

Autumnforest said...

It sounds like the dream team is becoming a reality. I'm on the edge of my seat, you know? Good luck!

KRandle said...

CDA -

First, I asked some other skeptics to join the team but for various (and good) reasons they declined. I think that Chris is a fine member and will do his part to uphold the skeptical line.

Second, while you are correct that some of the members of the team are pro-alien, I like to think that I'll go where the evidence leads and I believe that Tom will follow that path as well. In fact, I believe that we all are committed to the truth as opposed to our point of view.

Third, who would you suggest, remembering that we don't want someone who is so rabid in his or her disbelief that he or she will reject evidence out of hand.

I see this project as a search for the truth and I plan to call it as I see it.

If you have a constructive suggestion, I would certainly love to her it.

Synergy said...

I thought this was pretty much a no brainer from day one. The Dream Team is lookin' pretty solid! This is an exciting time. I do agree with cda on the lopsidedness of the team though, but I can also understand skeptics refusing to even get involved. For many, skepticism towards Roswell also means apathy towards Roswell. It's unfortunate.

Kevin (or David): Concerning the news coverage of the event... I can never seem to get past the fact that Mack clearly states in his second interview that Vernon and Bessie were there. Bessie would have been old enough to remember something as dramatic as a crashed flying saucer. Carey and Schmitt only gloss over it in Witness to Roswell, leaving the impression that Mack was clearly there alone (perhaps I'm mistaken and need to re-read that part).

Bessie, of course, has given contradictory testimony. Brother Bill is often quoted as saying Mack wasn't at the house for days when he arrived, yet another source quotes him as saying Mack was there with the kids.

"Dad was in the ranch house with two of the younger kids ... so the next day he rounded up the two kids and took off for Roswell..."
(The Roswell Incident, pg 85 & 86)

Is this just another example of Moore claiming testimony never reported to anyone else? Has Bill been asked of this discrepancy?

It just seems so confusing to me. And for it to be confusing to me, I'm sure it's plenty confusing to outsiders and perhaps a little off-putting. The skeptics contend that Mack was clearly there with wife and kids. Some ETH researchers claim the family was home in Tularosa (despite what Mack stated in the Newspaper -- what evidence is there of this, and WHY would he make that detail up of all things in that interview?). And then it would seem there are some that are open to the possibility that Bessie and co. were there but clearly she forgot how earth shattering the find was? Really??

This is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for me in debating Roswell. A clearer, more concise chronology would go a long way. Perhaps one exists and I've simply overlooked it, or forgot.

cda said...

Synergy:
You have hit on a problem indeed. And recall Bill Brazel saying, to Moore: "Strangely enough, when dad first got into Roswell it was the weather bureau he called first about this stuff he had found". (R.I. UK edition p.85)

True, this a 30+ year old memory and may be of dubious value. But has any other writer mentioned this? If not, why not? And why is this testimony ignored when so much 'pro-ET' testimony is accepted?

But these bits of dubious and contradictory testimony pop up everywhere with the case. It is up to the 'dream team' to resolve them, although it is very difficult to see how they can at this distance of time.

Kevin:

I admit you will have severe problems recruiting a Roswell skeptic. One possible contender is Nick Redfern (out on a limb). But my suggestion now is that you do not try to go beyond the six you have. Further people are likely to cause clashes and splits. But that risk is there already.

Synergy said...

Given that Moore has a history of falsifying testimony (Dubose, Marcel, etc.) -- among other things -- I normally never take anything he reports seriously. Especially considering Moore denounced his own book. Rather, I wanted to know if there was any independent confirmation for the testimony he reported.

And overall, Brazel's statement in the newspaper about his family having been at the home is something I have not seen thoroughly contested with verifiable evidence nor explained to my satisfaction logically as to WHY he would lie about his family being present as seems to be implied (at least to me) by most ETH supporters.

I like Nick Redfern as the Roswell skeptic. His alternative theory is the best I have seen put forward, but certainly has holes and is mostly stood up by flimsy anonymous testimony (if I remember correctly), and Stanton gave a pretty firm rebuttal given his expertise in nuclear propulsion. It also contradicts consistent testimony from multiple sources of no radio activity being found (going from memory). Nevertheless, something akin to the Redfern theory seems to be one of the more plausible alternatives.

Gilles. F. said...

Greetings Kevin,
Five persons are from the past twenty years and defenders of the ETH-version of Roswell and parts of your "team ":
You Kevin;
D. Schmitt : so the "To Whom It May Concern" 1995's letter have been forgotten by you? ;
T. Carey, A. Bragalia, D. Rudiak.

So you guys have auto-proclamed yourselves a sort of dreamteam. Neutral? I'm doubtfull.

Kevin, let me know : do you think you will revisite your articles, blogs and books or you will promote again& again the same and the ETH "Gospels" the 5 members of your Team have ALREADY promoted?
What will be new and neutral, skeptic?
Regards,
Gilles Fernandez

Lance said...

I think I'll write down my prediction of what the team's prediction will be right now put it in an envelope.

Such suspense!

Lance

Nick Redfern said...

Synergy

I admit that when you're dealing with whistleblowers, it's incredibly difficult to prove anything, or even come to a solid conclusion.

However...two things re your comment re radiation:

1. None of my sources ever said anything radioactive came down at Roswell. What they said was that the device that came down on the Foster Ranch (involving, they said, three sites) was just a large balloon array and a glider, hence no radiation at all at Roswell. Some people who read my book still believe I wrote that the Roswell device was radioactive, or that strange, deformed bodies were found at Roswell. I was told neither. Gliders and balloons are not radioactive, and the bodies I was told - were of trained pilots, but relatively short stature, around 5' 5".

2. Every one of my sources said (I make this very clear in the book) the military of 1947 had NO aircraft at the time that involved nuclear propulsion - none at all. What they did say on this matter was that there was a radioactive element to one crash at White Sands (not Roswell) in May 47. What that radiocactive connection was, I never got a straight answer. But, they did say human experiments were done that were of interest to the nuclear aircraft people, but that there was no viable nuclear powered aircraft then.

KRandle said...

Gilles –

I have a question for you, or more accurately, I’m going to turn this around on you. We all KNOW that Project Mogul is not an adequate solution. Will you look at the facts and let me know what you think?

We know that Mogul was not highly classified as repeatedly claimed. The balloons and rawin radar targets were off the shelf items and should have been easily recognizable to the soldiers at Roswell.

The name Mogul was known to the scientists and engineers working on the project as proved by Dr. Crary’s diary in which he used the name Mogul a number of times. Charles Moore should have known the name because a letter sent to James van Allen to introduce Moore mentioned that he had been one of the people working with Mogul.

Pictures of the balloons and arrays were published in the newspapers in early July. True, the project name wasn’t included, but the fact remains that the project was though of as unclassified experiments.

Charles Moore told me that he, along with a colleague or two, had gone to Roswell to ask for assistance in tracking the balloons. Although he did not remember who he briefed, it is logical to assume it would have been officers in the Operations section and that would include Intelligence. It might not have been Marcel, but might have been Captain James Breece (who died long before we even tried to find him).

The Mogul team was required to alert the FAA about their balloon flights which could pose a threat to aerial navigation and the FAA published NOTAMs (Notice to Air Men) about the flights. So the Operations section in Roswell would have been aware of the flights because they would have been responsible for checking the NOTAMs. (We are attempting to find an archives that contains the NOTAMs to see what might have been said.)

Flight No. 4, identified as the culprit, never officially took place. Dr. Crary’s diary said it was cancelled. Charles Moore said that they would strip the equipment from the cancelled flights and let the balloons go because “they couldn’t put the helium back in the bottles.”

Charles Moore’s own analysis of the winds aloft data (which I supplied to him and I have a letter from him asking for additional charts, something he later “forgot”) couldn’t put the balloons closer than 17 miles to the Brazel ranch. He knew this was close because he “remembered” that flight... It is clear that he used every mathematical trick he could to move the balloon array as close as possible, but analysis of Flight No. 5, with winds aloft data that was close to that for No. 4, put the balloon array east of Roswell.

Mogul was made up of neoprene balloons and rawin radar targets... the polyethylene balloons were used after July 8 so they don’t come into play... were standard. They decayed in the sunlight rapidly and disintegrated. The picture in Ramey’s office shows the remains of a single balloon and the debris consistent with a single rawin. There is no explanation as to why the rawin is ripped to shreds. A similar rawin found in the days prior to the Roswell find was intact. I might add that the farmer who found it knew what it was, as did the local sheriff and the newspaper reporter.

The ultimate purpose of Mogul, to spy on the Soviets, was classified and it might be that no one on the Mogul team knew this. However, the project itself, to create a constant level balloon, was not classified, nor were the experiments in New Mexico, nor was the equipment and certainly not the name.

And finally, in the newspaper article that everyone loves to quote, Mack Brazel said that he had found weather observation devices on two other occasions but this wasn’t like that... except, of course, had it been Mogul, it would have looked exactly like that.

Given all this, it is clear that Mogul does not explain the material retrieved at Roswell. Can you agree with that?

Synergy said...

Nick,

Thanks for the clarification. I have a further question, now that you are here. What makes you so sure the testimony you received was not the product of a deliberate disinformation campaign? I just have a hard time understanding why dozens of on-the-record RAAF military men, whose identities and backgrounds we can verify, contradict that theory so starkly?

Lance said...

Hi Kevin,

I hope your report will carefully reveal your rationalizing of Marcel's admission (twice) that the material he is pictured with IS the same crap he picked up at the ranch.

I find that to be the most obvious sign of a religious, rather than scientific, foundation for your (and most of your cohorts) research.

Happy Holidays!

Lance

Lance said...

Oh, also I wonder if Don will pick up on his story about the nun's diary, which is cited in your books but apparently not actually seen by anyone other than the ever-so-reliable Don.

Will you be using the same, your-word-is-good-enough-for-me protocol that you used in the past because that always seems to work out well.

Best,

Lance

KRandle said...

Lance -

Your tone, as usual, is less than charitable, even in this holiday season.

You forget that when Marcel was shown the pictures in Moore's book, he said, "That's not the stuff I found." This was reported by Johnny Mann, then of New Orleans TV station WWL.

So, we have Marcel looking at the pictures of him in Ramey's office and saying it was not the right stuff... Not a rationalization, but a statement of fact.

Second, I'll deal with the nuns story when I have the opportunity and get all the facts about it.

But you must give us time to complete all the work and not continue to snipe from the sidelines. Everything will be documented this go around.

Lance said...

Well, Kevin it seems that you and your team have started with many key points already "proven" (as mentioned in the above post). Can you really wonder why skeptics might see this effort as starting out rather poorly (but quite predictably)?

Every assumption you mention thus far is aimed at futhering a non-prosaic explanation, not to mention the stacked deck nature of the team itself.

So I wanted to just mention a few of the scars that still plague the case (there are many many more). Yes, it is true that when asked enough times, Marcel FINALLY got the cue and answered "correctly". That you are willing to just let this slide shows a lot about you, I suggest, but doesn't seem to get us close to anything like fair inquiry.

I have much respect for you, Kevin, so don't think of these comments as personally motivated. This is the kind of sniping that one might welcome (or at least respect) in a open, inquiry.

Merry Xmas,

Lance

David Rudiak said...

Is there really a David Rudiak or is he just a modern myth invented by some UFOlogists to get the faithful to read their blogs or sell books?

Tom Carey's photo of the alleged "David Rudiak" the gullible might claim as "proof" that he does exist. But we all know how easy it is to fake photos with Photoshop. Same with documents, like birth certificates or driver's licenses, purported to prove the veracity of such claims. Just ask the Obama Birthers! All such documents are clever frauds or disinformation, some perhaps ploys to smoke out Soviet spies.

Or possibly the aging Tom Carey, with the fog of time and encroaching dementia, just thought he took a photo of "David Rudiak" at the Roswell museum instead of some gawking tourist in Bermuda shorts. But like all such sightings of "Rudiak", none are reliable because eyewitness testimony cannot be trusted--ever! This is true even if hundreds--nay thousands--claim to have seen or had a close encounter with him in the last 60+ years.

All kidding aside, thank you Kevin for the introduction and invite to the alleged "Dream Team" (whose existence is also extremely dubious).

Will "Rudiak" be a player on the six-man "Dream Team" or left sitting on the bench while the other five cloy for the adulation of the buffs? Stay tuned!

KRandle said...

Lance -

Your immediate rejection of everything that does not agree with your world view is the reason that many skeptical arguments are ignored.

In the Mogul analysis (which does not lead to anything other than a rejection of Mogul) with which facts do you disagree and what are your counter arguments?

Just how do you know that "... it is true that when asked enough times, Marcel FINALLY got the cue and answered 'correctly'?" What is your evidence for this? Or is this simply a rationalization to reject an inconvenient fact?

We are going to review everything, but there are some facts that are not in dispute...

BTW, do you accept what Sheridan Cavitt had to say... even when he told me that he had never participated in the recovery of a balloon?

Gilles. F. said...

Part 1 :
Greetings Kevin,
First, merry Christmas to all of you.
There exists several things convincing me on the radar targets and balloons thesis impossible to summerize in one post.

I dont think the 2 or 3 people going to the ranch are All the soldiers at Roswell. I'm not sure the others at RAAF have been so much impressed. Or no press release for example and to be short.
The goal and the scientific dataes of Mogull were hightly classified (mémo 6 july 1946 HQ/AMC) by Top Secret. It is an HISTORIOGRAPHICAL source (not an anecdote or a testimony I mean). That's not nothing! The materials themselves not of course.
We have already discussed the fight of the 4 june 1947. What or not you want to have, the facts are that :
A cluster of balloons flew with a Mike sonobuoy as stipulated by another HISTORIOGRAPHICAL document - the Crary's Diary - (not an anecdoct, not a testimony, not a legacy, not a memory).
The drawing of the fligh n°2 (last may East Coast cluster configuration before Almogordo end may-june 1947 expedition) shows us UNDOUBTLELY radar targets attached in the Balloons cluster (The Drawing of cluster n°2 is another HISTORIOGRAPHICAL source then, in the NYU documents, not a testimony, not a memory, etc.).

There exists a 1947's newspaper article (Bergen -New Jersey- Evening Record 12 july 1947) mentionning Victor T. Hoeflich as the "conceptor" of the radar targets (HISTORIOGRAPHICAL source). He was the director or advisor of the American Merri Lei Corporation, a toys factory (Historiographical sources including patents, publicity, toys journals, again, not...), we have the adress at Brooklyn and Manhattan (depending the period) .

We have too a 1946 ML307(C) blue print where it is explained a DETAIL that witnesses CANT INVENT(indicated only by a little note 22 in the blueprint ! and in the right marge of the document ! if you watch the blueprint with great attention) if they were not facing such a material :
The assembly must be reinforced with 3M Acetate scotch TAPE or egal (historiographical source again). Do you understand the impossibility to invent such a detail if you are not facing such radar target ??? But an ET craft or ET debris have a TAPE too ?? What a coincidence (among several others !) ;)

To follow.

Gilles. F. said...

Part 2 :

We HAVE by another (impossible) coincidence many many 1940's 3M candy and Toy's acetate scotch TAPES with symbols (historiographical sources AGAIN and AGAIN).
I gived you in this blog several screenshoots if you remember.

Dunno if people "realize" the range of this argument and then how we are MULTIPLYING the coincidences to have an ET craft or ET debris. A toy manufactury was in charge of the radar targets, a BP stipulates to reinforce the assembly with 3M tapes or egal and there exists candy and toy's 3M tapes with symbols...

and one the grand finale details of these fireworks is imho the following:

Several testimonies as the Brazel newspaper interview mentionned a tape with symbols, or BETTER. Loretta Proctor stated that and in an episode taking place BEFORE Brazel goes in Roswell then, when the Proctor "motivated" Brazel to go to Roswell. I mean and "insist" that you CANT INVOKE your cover-up things you use regarding Brazel interview.

Loretta stated :

Affidavit 5/5/1991 : "There was also something he [Mac Brazel] described as tape which had printing on it. The color of the printing was a kind of purple."

Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt, UFO Crash at Roswell, 1991 : "He said there was more stuff there, like a tape that had some sort of figures on it. "

She cant invent (as the others) such a detail. It is a DNA mark here in our discussion imho and there must be used a "stupid" and impossible chain of coincidences to eliminate the radar targets SIGNATURE(s). Too much mimic UFO stuff and coincidences, sorry Kevin.

In other words, there are many many HISTORIOGRAPHICAL sources driving, conducting us inevitably and inescapably to the radar targets and balloons materials, and not on Extratterestrial or dunno what the myth started in the 80's. The 3M scotch tape is one of them.

Well, you will maybe find historiographical sources and elements about ET bodies, ET craft too. Who knows? You are a dreamteam after all.
I would be the first to applause, cause, believe me, I would have been very overwhelmed to find anything other than the thesis that I defend (regarding the Roswell case or ufology in general, where I found only elements in favor of the sociopsychological approach of the UFO phenomenom I defend humblely in France).

Cordialy, and happy hollidays and end of the year for all !

Gilles Fernandez

Nick Redfern said...

Synergy:

The short answer to your question is how I can be sure I wasn't lied to is: I'm not so sure!

In every single radio show I have done for the book, I have always pointed out that there is absolutely no way i can rule out the possibility I was deceived.

Or, it's possible the people who related the account to me were deceived, since - aside from one, who claimed to have seen bodies - all of them got their data from being exposed to files on the Japanese angle years ago, not from being at Roswell at the time or seeing bodies.

So, despite what some have said on this matter too, I have never been of the opinion that I could not have been deceived.

However, what I have pointed out is that if this is disinfo, it's one with a long history.

Again, contrary to what people have said, this Japanese angle did not begin with me.

For example, while it is quite well known that John Keel promoted his Japanese Fugo balloon theory for Roswell in 1990, less well known is that in the same year Keel received and published data on Japanese manned balloons in the US in the 40s, covered up by the US military, and which (the latter) is similar to what i was told.

Leonard Stringfield, in 1991, published a story about Japanese-related experiments on bodies, undertaken at Los Alamos.

The family of Roswell witness, Melvin Brown, has said that the bodies he saw in his words, could have "passed for Chinese."

In 1997, Popular Mechanics published a story saying they had been "told" a story of a forthcoming release of documents in that year which would explain Roswell as being a Japanese type Paperclip type accident.

The list goes on.

Since publication of Body Snatchers a number of people have told me accounts of Fort Stanton, suggesting I should look further into the issue of what was afoot at Fort Stanton during the war and immediately afterwards re Japanese people held there.

I have some interesting 1948 through 1951 files on phyically and mentally handicapped people held at FT. Check out the distance from FT to the Foster ranch. Not far at all.

Also, I have official files on the death of a young boy in Lincoln County, NM in the 40s, who died from a rat bite. The files on the young boy's death (which occurred at Fort Stanton, where he was taken after he fell ill) were circulated to the Atomic Energy Commission, the CIA, the FBI, and AFOSI.

The reason: there was a suspicion that the form of plague that killed the boy might have been deliberately introduced into Lincoln County via biowarfare.

And, one of the documents focuses on Japan's Unit 731, and reviewing the US's files on 731 to determine if any post war Unit 731 activity was going on in NM, and of all places in Lincoln County!

I published part of this story in a volume of the Australian "Darklore" book series a few years ago, but I have much more on this I am publishing in 2013.

So, even though I can't rule out the very real possibility of being deceived, it's the fact that the core Japanese story has actually been around for decades, and that additional info has surfaced in other ways, that makes me keep the door open on all this.

If I was the only one told the Japanese story, of course I would be suspicious. But, the fact is, when we go looking, we find I wasn't the first, and those who came before we were years ago.

Lance said...

Hello Kevin,

Are you really suggesting in regard to the Mogul flight stuff that you are unaware of any refutations of Dr. Rudiak's claims?

There are several prominent ones.

Perhaps this is just another of your facts not in dispute?

It seems unwise to show your hand so early.

But since everyone already knows the cards you are holding, I suppose that it doesn't really matter.

Lance

KRandle said...

Gilles, Lance -

It is clear that we are talking passed one another. I said that the purpose of Mogul was classified, but the experiments and equipment in New Mexico was not. I quote from a letter dated August 10, 1995 by Charles Moore. He said, “Further, to set the record straight, the New York University activity under which the balloons were launched at Alamogordo during that period was UNCLASSIFIED.” (Emphasis added.)

He also wrote, in that same letter, “...none of us involved with the balloons at the time knew the project name...”

From Albert Crary’s diary, “Dec 11 [1946] Wed. Equipment from Johns Hopkins Unicerity [sic] transferred to MOGUL plane.”

From another letter dated 25 August 1947, “...these specimens definitely had no connection whatsoever with the ‘Mogul’ project...”

Lance, have you read Charles Moore’s report dated March 27, 1995?... it is filled with qualifications and it is clear that he had to extrapolate the winds aloft data above 20,000 feet, which means he guessed. There are no hard facts in his guesswork about the flight of No. 4. A close reading of that document tells us that he was guessing and he knew it.

I did not mention Dr. Rudiak’s information, but what can be established as fact. It is clear to me, however, that you reject everything that does not fit into your world view... My point was that there are some facts that are rejected because they don’t lead to Mogul, but I have the documents and information to suggest otherwise.

Synergy said...

Nick,

Very interesting indeed. It's certainly a much more sound hypothesis than Mogul, in my opinion, but still doesn't jibe with the testimony of most of the on-the-record witnesses who described the debris and the solid object recovered.

Many independent witnesses (Fulford, Haut, MacPherson, Talbert, Smith) describe a solid object transported on a flatbed truck under a tarp, all with almost identical dimensions. Marcel described material "as thin as foil in a pack of cigarettes" (on video) that he was specifically able to bounce a sledgehammer off of without making a dent. Has any such material found its way to the open, consumer market yet? Is it being used to protect our troops? The memory metal is another interesting factor, of course. And wouldn't such a top secret flight project (with hell to pay if exposed to the public eye) have more effective tracking and recovery as a major priority, and not have to rely on a rancher to point them to the crash site?

However, your hypothesis is absolutely worth the attention of the "dream team," in my opinion, as it makes far more sense than "public enemy #1:" Project Mogul.

cda said...

Now that Christmas is over (I think!) we can get down to some hard talking.

Kevin:

Whatever you or your team think, say or do, there is still one fundamental and insurmountable problem with your ET crash hypothesis. I have said it before and will repeat it. It is this:

There is no way, absolutely none, that the landing of an ET craft and bodies on our planet could occur in modern times and still, after 64 years, be officially known only to a select few at the top of ONE country's armed forces. It would be a scientifically proven fact long long ago and be known the world over.

There are scientists who would give five years of their lives to get a glimpse of such debris and/or bodies. Yet they are, according to you, denied this.

And you still believe, and want us to believe, that this great cover-up exists and has existed for all this time.

Until you (and your dream team) can finally divest yourself of this 'ET and conspiracy' flim-flammery, Kevin, I suggest you will have zero credibility, certainly to the scientific world and to those in charge at government level.

You have not, and I predict never will, laid your hands on one single item of documentation proving that ETs landed or crashed in New Mexico in 1947, or at any other time.

Despite the above, I wish you all a Happy New Year, with exciting NEW discoveries.

Gilles. F. said...

Kevin,
With all due respects, it was not my humble main point. Brazel's interview mentioned a tape with symbols among the stuffes he found (as many other elements conducting us to balloons + ML307 materials, as Marcel and him tried to assemble a "kite" - ML307 is a sort of kite -, etc.). Your dreamteam claims this interview was forced. Of course, we CANT find an agreement on it, but forgot please this debat for the moment.

The problem here is that Loretta Proctor, concerning an episode taking place BEFORE Brazel gones to Roswell (then your drived/forced interview theory could not been invokated here) stated:
"There was also something he [Mac Brazel] described as TAPE which had printing on it.  The color of the printing was a kind of purple." (Affidavit 1991).
He said there was more stuff there, like a TAPE that had some sort of figures on it. " (your UFO crash at Roswell, 1991). (I emphazed deliberatly)

You cant then invoke for her elements dicted/forced by the awesome cover-up you defend.

Parallely, we have several HISTORIOGRAPHICAL sources (then real/official/historical documents)demonstrating :
V. Hoeflich was "in charge" of the radar-targets, that he was a toys manufacturer east coast located, we have a 1946 blueprint of ML307 indicating IN MARGE to reinforce the structure with 3M acetate scotch TAPE or egal, and we have found 3M candy and toys TAPES used in the toys area then with symbols, we have proof NYU/Mogul used radar-targets in their balloons clusters, and we have proof there was a NYU/Mogul team in time and place of the Roswell event, etc. That's not imputable only by a collection of testimonies or anecdotes, but CORROBORATED by historiographical sources.

My double question is simple : Do you really think it is only a pure coincidence (among many others "mimic" elements) that your debris you think so "exotic" have a TAPE like the 3M one, which is a detail "DNA like" of the radar-targets in time and place of your event?
How can a serious investigator like you to take out the table this embarrasing tape, revealing imho the ML/307 nature of the debris?
Because it is SO IMPOSSIBLE for me to have this coincidence "twice". In a sens, to have a tape with symbols on the radar-targets is ALREADY processing from a chain of coincidences and it is itself relativaly surprising. But an exotic material, like a Extraterrestrial spacecraft crashing in time and space where and when the NYU/Mogul team was, presents a tape with symbols too!
I'm skeptic (euphemism)...
Regards,
Gilles Fernandez

Nick Redfern said...

Synergy:

Yep, the points you bring up re the memory metal, tracking the craft etc are all valid ones, and particularly with the memory metal, I have always said that this is deeply problematic when it comes to addressing the possibility of a terrestrial explanation.

As for the craft or object being transported etc, my sources did confirm that, so everyone pretty much agrees there was a transfer of a device or object, regardless of the origin.

According to the interviewees, this was the scenario:

In the post-war era, various new and novel aircraft designs were planned. One, was a hybrid balloon-aircraft, involving a large balloon array held hard and fast below the array, which could be released and then flown by the crew. Not, as some have said, some flimsy Japanese Fugo balloon holding up a swaying, dangling glider.

Their words were that a very large, tough balloon array, rigidly attached to which was a Horten-inspired (but not Horten-built) glider that was designed to detach from the balloon array.

The story told me continued that something went wrong, and the result was that everything crashed to earth, with the glider at one location, and the balloon debris at another.

The reason for the different locations being that the glider was a heavier body that plunged downwards as the crew struggled to control it, and the balloon array fell slower and further away, being lighter. They maintained there was a further site, a third site - the "bodies site," where at least one crew member's body, or parts, were found.

Aside from the bodies site, this is why, in their words, there were two wholly separate and clearly delineated sites for the recovery of aircraft/balloon materials - because the two sites involved different parts of the device - a large balloon array at one site, and a Horten-like glider at the other.

I cannot, of course deny (and as per my previous post, never have denied) the possibility I was deceived, but to a degree it makes sense regarding why there should be two sites with different materials at each site, if the device itself was a hybrid comprised of 2 aspects - a huge balloon array and detachable glider.

Nick Redfern said...

Synergy:

As for the tracking etc of the craft and balloons, at least in part this was explained in the following fashion:

The gliders and bodies, I was told, were recovered by the military, who knew where it had come down, aside that is, from one body, which appeared to have been sucked out the craft when it detached and damaged and plunged to earth.

So, the glider was tracked to its point of impact. As for the balloon array, which came down at a separate site, but not too far away, there was less of a concern about that because in the view of my interviewees (rather, ironically, this is one of things that has been brought up about Mogul) the balloon materials were simply that - balloon materials, which if anyone stumbled upon them, would be perceived as just balloon debris.

In other words, the balloon debris (like Mogul balloon debris) would not reveal to the person who found it what it was secretly being used for. All the person who found it would know, is that it was a large area of balloon debris, that probably originated with the military, and the military could claim it was weather balloon debris because there was nothing else in evidence to suggest otherwise, because the craft and bodies had been recovered at the other site.

I was further told that had Brazel only found balloon materials, the recovery at that site would probably have been very low-key, because of that above issue of the pile of balloon materials not giving away what they were secretly being used for.

But, in the absolute worst-case scenario, what I was told happened is that Brazel, while working the ranch, stumbled on something else -the one body that got sucked out the glider as it spiralled down to earth, and fell separate to the glider and the rest of the crew who died when it hit the ground.

The military, I was told, scooped up the gliders and crew quickly, and the balloon material (at first) was less of a priority, but the balloon site quickly thereafter became a priority because the same man who found the balloon material, found the remains of the missing body too.

It was one thing, I was told, for Brazel to find a large field of balloon materials, which was an issue that could be controlled and contained, by saying, yep it really was one of our balloons (whether a weather balloon then or Mogul today).

But, the body issue took things to a different level, and threatened to expose what really happened.

So, with the body site (not at all far from the balloon site) found by Brazel, this is why - I was told anyway - that this then became a big, critical problem. Because, Brazel could be informed by the military that he had just found an Army balloon (weather-based or otherwise).

But, I was additionall told, Brazel was no fool, and would realize the body was (or body parts were, the story gets a bit hazy on the condition of the Brazel body find) linked with the debris field, and that - by default - this would rule out a weather balloon etc.

So, that's why the debris site became such a priority.

I was openly and actually told that when the glider site was secure, the recovery of the balloon materials was seen as a very low-key issue, and some viewed it as not even necessary, because a big balloon afrray is just...well...a big balloon array, and shredded and fallen to earth in a remote area gave nothing away about its purpose.

But the body did, and that the body and the debris were said to have been found by the same man - Brazel - put everything into chaos and led to the need for a cover-up and containment of the debris and single body sites.

Nick Redfern said...

Synergy:
One additional thing, the single body/body parts said to have been stumbled on by Brazel, as I was told it anyway, appears to be directly connected to the Dee Proctor "something else" story about a find on the Foster Ranch.

cda said...

Nick:

Your thesis suffers from the same problem as the ET one, though not to the same extent. It is still 'secret' and only a few top guys in the military know about it. There is (as with the ET idea) no documentation whatever to support your thesis, only tales told to you decades afterwards, by the same sort of people (of course not the same people) who told Randle, Schmitt, Friedman and the rest about the supposed ETs.

You are trying bravely to keep your thesis intact, just as the ETHers are on theirs.

By now you certainly ought to be able to lay your hands on some real, telling, documentation - there will be plenty of it if you are right.

Where is this documentation? Can we see it, please?

Gilles:

You have some good points, very good. But Kevin prefers to believe his own informants, not what is documented. And if, say, Melvin Brown saw this, that and the other, then he is telling the literal truth. Never once has Kevin told the story of how Brown's tale emerged - Brown first told his amusing tale to his two young daughters round about the period of the Apollo landings, and embellished it with time; finally one daughter repeated it (or parts of it) to Timothy Good in London in the late 1980s. It progressed from there, by some unknown means, to Randle & Schmitt for their book. And to this day Brown still counts as a star witness to Roswell.

But Melvin Brown told the literal truth, didn't he? After all, he would have been sworn to secrecy like all the others (but still managed to tell his children). Perhaps Brown thought that being resident in the UK would preclude him from being extradited and court-martialled. Shades of Gary MacKinnon!

Sourcerer said...

Synergy: Kevin (or David): Concerning the news coverage of the event... I can never seem to get past the fact that Mack clearly states in his second interview that Vernon and Bessie were there.

He did not clearly state. In fact he didn't state at all.

I don't know what you mean by the second interview. There was one with both the Daily Record and the AP's Jason Kellahin present.

Kellahin's byline article has "on June 14 he sighted some shiny objects."

"On July 4, he returned to the site with his wife and two of his children, Vernon, 8, and Bessie, 14. They gathered all the pieces they could find."


The Daily Record:

"Brazel related that on June 14 he and an 8-year old son, Vernon, were about 7 or 8 miles from the ranch house"

"July 4 he, his wife, Vernon and a daughter, Betty, age 14, went back to the spot and gathered up quite a bit of the debris."



According to Bill, their mother wasn't at the ranch, but at home in Tularosa at the time.

I have reasons to believe Bill's recollection is of the summer of 1947 and likely accurate in detail about this.

The complete quotations of Mack Brazel from the published interview:

Daily Record:

""whispered kinda confidential like"

"I am sure that what I found was not any weather observation balloon," he said. "But if I find anything else besides a bomb they are going to have a hard time getting me to say anything about it."

Kellahin:

"If I find anything else short of a bomb it's going to be hard to get me to talk,"

"At first I thought it was a kite, but we couldn't put it together like any kite I ever saw," he said. "It wasn't a kite."

"When I went to Roswell I told Sheriff George Wilcox about it" he continued. "I was a little bit ashamed to mention it, because I didn't know what it was."

"Asked the sheriff to keep it kinda quiet," he added with a chuckle. "I thought folks would kid me about it."

"I didn't hear any more about it until things started popping," said Brazel. "Lord, how that story has traveled!"

The reporters did not quote him on anything about what he found. They do not offer one quotation about what it looked like.

The actual Brazel quotations contradict the things he is supposed to have said. There is a downright lunar demarcation between the actual quotations and what the reporters imply he said. He may have said those other things, but the reporters separately chose not to quote him. This is the contradiction in the interview. Brazel said it was not a weather balloon or its kite, but the statements imputed to him describe a weather balloon and a kite.

My advice to anyone reading the 1947 Roswell news stories is to recognize allusions to a single balloon and single a "kite" as coming from the army, no matter who is supposed to have said it.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

So much skeptical nonsense, so little time.

Gilles: Still obsessed with "flower tape" and nonexistent Mogul balloon flights. As I've asked him before, could he please point out the tape with symbols in the Fort Worth photos if it were there? The photos certainly exist and can be blown up to very high resolution. Nobody can find "flower tape".

As for Flight #4, and #3, and #2, perhaps he can point to the Mogul document or documents saying they actually existed, instead of the documents we have showing a big blank in the numbering sequences and other statements about cancellation.

The most flagrant example of lying about these nonexistent flights was Cpt. McAndrew, the AF counterintel. agent in the modern AF Roswell reports (also Charles Moore to some extent). Mogul documents about Flights #2 & #3 are explicit the flights never got off the ground because of high winds and equipment failure, therefore it was stated all the reusuable equipment was stripped off, then the already-inflated and non-reusable weather balloons were cut loose. Yes, balloons went up, but no equipment, there was no more constant-altitude flight and no tracking of the balloons. As constant-altitude test flights, they ceased to exist. That is the very SIMPLE reason they are not recorded in the records of attempted constant-altitude flights, ALL of which WERE recorded if they got off the ground and were tracked, even if deemed failures in other respects.

But NOOOO, according to McAndrew and Moore, in order to justify the existence of "Flight #4", also just a blank in the records with an attempted flight noted as canceled because of cloudy weather, Flights #2 & #3 also had to come back to life. Instead of using real Mogul documents with these flights written out (because they didn't exist), they created their own, with Flights 2, 3, 4 back in the numbered sequence. McAndrew even went so far as to say #2 was successful and detected a distant explosion in Helgoland. Oh really? Amazing how it did this with all equipment stripped off and only rubber balloons flying around. This was McAndrew raising #2 Lazarus-like from the dead.

Charles Moore also got into the spirit of altering Mogul records to try to support the idea that Mogul caused Roswell. A pretty simple and obvious one of his frauds was redrawing the real Mogul trajectory plot of the real Flight #5 that passed very close to Roswell base, while simultaneously claiming he redrew it "without change". This can be easily see at my website:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Flight4_Addendums.html
http://www.roswellproof.com/Flight4and5_changes.html

But what he REALLY did was:
1. Remove "Roswell" (for the base) from the original map while leaving substituting "Roswell" (for the town to the north), thus removing the evidence that #5 passed only 4 miles south of the base (original Mogul plot), now making it seem it really passed 10 miles from "Roswell".
2. Move the real marked crash site from ~16 miles due east of the base to ~31 miles east.
3. Lied in an email debate with Brad Sparks mediated by Karl Pflock that #5 passed no closer than 15 to 20 miles of the base (instead of the real 4 miles from the actual Mogul map).
4. Also lied that Roswell base wouldn't have been able to see #5 because of cloud cover (when the real records show no cloud cover and optical tracking clear to Roswell from Alamogordo, almost 100 miles away—but the base couldn't see the balloons from 4 miles).

David Rudiak said...

(part 2)
Now Lance is claiming my claims have all been "refuted". Yes they have been allegedly "refuted" by liars and propagandists like Tim Printy and Dave Thomas. Printy's "refutation" of the map question, e.g., was to invent reasons why Moore would alter the map, instead of addressing the simple FACT that Moore DID make big alterations to the #5 map which deliberately distanced #5 from the base while twice claiming, "The plot for Flight #5 was taken without change from [Mogul records] Figure 32."

As for my statements about Moore's fraud in plotting a #4 trajectory, they have also never been refuted, unless the rules of math have changed and Lance thinks numbers like 100/12.1 = 350 or 852/2.8 = 100 are correct.

So not only did Flight #4 never exist, various debunkers continue to defend Moore and his various Mogul frauds designed to support the Mogul hypothesis even when the frauds are objectively provable by anybody capable of reading a simple map or doing simple math.

I have had long debates on UFO Updates with both Tim Printy and Dave Thomas, both of whom got their ass kicked, because fraud is fraud and no amount of debunker propaganda song and dance can make 100/12.1 = 350 or make a clearly altered map unaltered. I cannot possibly reproduce the detailed arguments here, but for a small sampler of how Printy disingenuously debates on the very easy to see Moore Flight #5 map fraud, see here:

http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2002/nov/m06-024.shtml
http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2002/nov/m08-003.shtml

Nick Redfern said...

CDA:

The lack of documentation on the Japanese angle to Roswell is discussed in my book extensively.

The answer I got is a simple one, but whether it's true, or people accept it, is another matter entirely.

The answer I got was that because the 1947 events/human experimentation was based around high-altitude balloons and gliders - - in other words, no advanced technologies (and because there were aspects of the experiments that were near-illegal and involving data acquired from Unit 731, and a kind of Japanese equivalent of Paperclip) - - all the documentation was destroyed to protect the guilty, and ensure the secret could never be proved.

That might sound odd, but as it was explained to me, when the experiments were shown to be of no particular value, and research began to focus more on rocketry, high-altitude spy-planes etc, what would be the point in secretly storing a bunch of balloon debris and a smashed gilder - and even the unfortunate crew? It would be pointless, because there was nothing unique, technologically advanced, etc etc.

It's like with the weather balloon and Mogul balloon scenarios - no-one expects to find the material evidence held anywhere, and documentation might be scant to non-existent.

Same with the balloons (and gliders) in the story told to me - no point in keeping balloon wreckage or glider wreckage. And, if you want to hide the truth, why not destroy the paperwork on a semi-illegal, not-entirely-sanctioned project, where not much was put into print to ensure a lack of paper-trail in the first place?

There's only one viable scenario for preserving the documentation, the bodies and the debris - and that is if Roswell was an ET event.

If Roswell was NOT an ET event, it's entirely possible that NO paper-trail exists, which would mean the truth is not being hidden, but - instead - the truth has been destroyed, and as a consequence, lost. Aside, that is, from fading memories.

Finally, you say: "You are trying bravely to keep your thesis intact, just as the ETHers are on theirs."

Totally dead wrong. If I was "bravely" trying to keep my thesis intact (it isn't actually mine, it's one told to me, and then related by me), I would be talking about the book all the time.

But, I'm not. Simon & Schuster published the book 6 and a half years ago, and the only reason I am talking about it here is because Synergy asked questions about the book and its contents, and I replied.

Had Synergy not asked questions, I would not now be commenting here or, as you word it, trying to bravely keep my thesis intact.

I talk about the book when I have new data to add to what I said in the book back in 2005. Or, I talk about it when people ask about it. Period.

David Rudiak said...

Gilles may also want to explain the following:

The vanishing Mogul twine

A real Mogul balloon train would have been held together with hundreds of yards of twine and string, including the radar targets. So, Gilles:

1.Where is any of the string/twine in the Fort Worth photos? Please point it out. In particular, where is the suspension string attached to the radar target there. Hmmm, doesn't seem to exist, just like you would expect if it were a fresh radar target just taken out of box, also supported by other evidence in the photos, such as debris adding up to just one target and separate bare sticks that were to be inserted and glued into the targets only after they were unfolded and assembled.

2.Where is the hundreds of yards of twine/string in the Mack Brazel or Marcel interviews, or mentioned by anybody else? If anything, the Daily Record interview of Brazel has him DENYING its existence, saying instead “No strings or wire were to be found but there were some eyelets in the paper to indicate that some sort of attachment may have been used.” Sounds like the military may have shown him a fresh radar target out of the box as well, without suspension string, which was added later when you actually got around to suspending the thing from a balloon.

Capt. McAndrew brought up the subject of the critically missing twine in his interview with Charles Moore, asking him if the sun could have caused it to disintegrate. When Moore said no, McAndrew dropped the subject and it was never brought up again by McAndrew or anybody else in the AF disinformation Roswell report, since the absent twine/string totally disproved the Mogul hypothesis all by itself.

The false insinuation that all Moguls carried radar targets

Gilles has claimed that because a schematic for a proposed (but canceled) Flight #2 shows radar targets, this somehow “proves” the equally canceled “Flight #4” must have had radar targets. But a simple persusal of the Mogul summary tables shows that of the early N.M. Moguls of June/July 1947, ONLY Flight #8 had any radar tracking (though ALL were tracked by radiosonde). The claim that “Flight #4” was designed with only radar targets (but no radiosonde) is not supported by any document and rests solely on the decades-old memories of one Charles Moore, who initially said he had no memory of such a flight.

The vanishing multiple Mogul radar targets and balloons:

I have extensively analyzed the Fort Worth photos, reconstructing the radar target to match the photos in a 3D computer ray tracing program. This PROVES there is one, and only one radar target there and only enough balloon debris to fit in a shoe box. This doesn't even add up to 2 pounds of debris. What happened to the multiple Mogul radar targets and weather balloons, or even Mack Brazel's “five pounds” of “rubber strips” and sticks and foil rolled into two bundles. And was the minute amount of photographed debris scattered over Brazel's 200 yards across or Marcel's 1947 “square mile”, and why would anyone care? Why didn't Brazel just bring it to Roswell when he first reported, and why would it be necessary to send out the two top intel people at Roswell driving two vehicles to pick up remaining few ounces of fragments? Why would it even be flown to Fort Worth by a B-29 piloted by the acting base commander, and still forwarded to Wright Field for further identification. What was so special about this very ordinary and common weather balloon debris and target?

Nick Redfern said...

CDA:

One other thing on the matter of why there is a lack of files on the Japanese angle:

Everyone I interviewed was agreed on one thing.

That one thing was that the Roswell event fell not under a UFO banner (or the government's response to UFO activity in 47), but under the category of the so-called "human experimenation" angle that really came to light in the 1990s.

And on that matter...

On 15 January 1994, President Bill Clinton officially appointed an Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE); the purpose of which was to investigate reports of what might possibly have been unethical medical experimentation conducted on human beings and funded by the government as far back as the mid-1940s and up until the mid-1970s.

The members of the Advisory Committee were fourteen private citizens from around the country:

A representative of the general public and thirteen experts in bioethics, radiation oncology and biology, nuclear medicine, epidemiology and bio-statistics, public health, the history of science and medicine, and law With the assistance of hundreds of federal officials and agency staff, the Committee retrieved and reviewed hundreds of thousands of government documents; some of which were secret and were declassified only at the Committee’s request.

Even after this extraordinary effort, the historical record remained incomplete, however, and the Committee conceded that, "some potentially important collections could not be located and were evidently lost or destroyed years ago."

That last quote - re "lost" and "destroyed" may be central to the whole Roswell affair if it involved human experimenation and was not an ET event.

It would be truly ironic if the actual hard evidence for Roswell (if non-ET) really was lost or destroyed, as it would demonstrate that today's government is not engaged in a Roswell cover-up, but is as in the dark as we are.

If people want to find hard evidence of Roswell, they had better hope that Roswell was ET, because if it wasn't, there may be no way to ever prove what happened.

Gilles. F. said...

Well, doctor Rudiak have reconstructed the Ramey memo too : what a serious reference in the academic field... There is a consensus in your dreamteam about Rudiak Ramey's memo analysis, or?
Another ufologists "saw" symbols in the F.W. sticks.
So, I think the pro-HET and complotist theoricians must provoke a sort of Council of Nicaea-like in order to attain a consensus in the Roswell text narrations and (pseudo) photo analysis.

My intervention was directed to Kevin Randle, who is in my humble (naïve) opinion the more skeptic of the 5 HET-proponents of your auto-proclamed dreamteam.
Regards,
Gilles Fernandez

David Rudiak said...

You'll notice how Gilles uses the typical skeptical tactics of dodging points he can't answer and instead trying to take the discussion off on irrelevant tangents. But I'm asking for very simple, concrete stuff like:

1. Show us the alleged "flower tape" in the Fort Worth photos.

2. Show us the hundreds of yards of missing Mogul twine and string in the Fort Worth photos? (And why did Mack Brazel specifically deny finding any such material?)

3. Where are the missing radar targets and balloons (not to mention all the other Mogul equipment) in the Fort Worth photos? In the real world, there is less than 2 pounds of debris, only one target, and perhaps only one balloon in the photos.

4. Show us Mogul documents proving the existence of "Flight #4" (or #2 or #3), all clearly canceled flights and therefore missing from actual Mogul records, (instead of endlessly inventing preposterous reasons why these nonexistent flights existed?).

That'll do for now.

cda said...

Nick:

It is probably unfair of me to debate with you because I have never read your book. I will only say that I find your thesis (or that of your informants) most improbable, but at the same time it is better than the ET one. Yes, maybe a lot of documentation was destroyed, either intentionally or by accident. Again, this most certainly would NOT have happened had Roswell been ET.

DR:

You surely do not expect EVERYTHING that was recovered to be shown in those Ft Worth photos? Neither would you expect everything to be in that office either. Some items could easily be missing (and most of the debris, I assume, was left at the ranch anyway). So, we can easily say that both the twine and the scotch tape are missing. So what? Perhaps at the time they were deemed unimportant.

As STF would say: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". And we know a nuclear physicist must know what he is talking about.

As to whether 100/12.1 = 350 or 850/2.8 = 100, you are referring to a graph (table 5) whose slope changes VERY rapidly at the start and end points and are using linear interpolation at points where it was never meant to be used. Moore did not mention these extremes and it is wrong for you to imply that we can linearly interpolate and produce these bogus figures. Having said this, I agree that his graph/table is certainly erroneous in places. This is because he didn't check the proofs, I believe.

But heed the wise words of Stan Friedman. (They have come back to haunt him!)

Nick Redfern said...

CDA:

You say: "It is probably unfair of me to debate with you because I have never read your book."

The unfortunate reality is that, as Roswell gets older and older, debating becomes pointless - period.

I really do hope the Dream Team achieves something truly significant because, regardless of what each of us believes, thinks, or concludes about Roswell, we all want to know what happened - even you, CDA!! And when I say we want to know, I mean we want hard, defintive proof, not strongly held opinions or views on what happened.

But, the harsh reality is that just more and more testimony on the number of bodies, the number of sites where different things were found, the shape of the eyes the bodies had, blah blah blah, is just not enough to take the case to the next level.

Don't get me wrong, but such things can never PROVE what happened at Roswell. All they can do is deepen the fascination and add to the controversy suggesting something significant occurred that deeply worried the government/military and was hidden.

But, the Dream Team needs to find a way to get beyond just adding to testimony. Maybe, based on what Tony B has said at The UFO Iconocalst(s) recently in a comment to one of my comments, we may be on the verge of getting past just more testimony.

I certainly hope so, whatever the outcome.

But, if the future just brings more and more testimony and nothing else, Roswell will inevitably drift ever deeper into Jack the Ripper territory - namely, it will become a very old mystery, filled with countless theories, but no hard facts or evidence to ever support them.

The goal of the Dream Team (because the stakes realy are that high) should be to find and acquire hard evidence, and nothing less.

How it does that, I don't care. But it's the ony way to go from the totally tiresome debate of "There were 4 bodies," "No, there were five and they had black eyes." "No, they had human-looking eyes." "Sheridan Cavitt lied." "No he didn't." "Yes, he did." And on and on.

To progress, we need to get beyond addressing how many bodies, how many sites, what Easley knew, what Cavitt was hiding, and instead find a way to get to the crown-jewels, so to speak.

If that can be done, Ufology may prove its case. If it can't be done, it will be endless, torture-like debate and tedious obsessive-compulsive dissection of every tedious aspect of the increasingly tedious affair.

Gilles. F. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Rudiak said...

cda wrote:
You surely do not expect EVERYTHING that was recovered to be shown in those Ft Worth photos? Neither would you expect everything to be in that office either.

Here we have a good example of how debunkers try to rationalize away inconvenient facts. If you look at all the published descriptions back in 1947, including people like Brazel, Wilcox, Ramey, and Marcel (except for Marcel saying it was scattered over a square mile), hardly anything was recovered. Ramey and his people were pushing the singular weather balloon/radar target, which would weigh, at most, about 1.5 pounds. Brazel mentioned 5 pounds of rubber strips and stick and foil-paper, gathered up and rolled into two bundles.

If there was more than one balloon and radar target, how did they so perfectly separate them out from what was shown to form exactly the material of one radar target and no others in the FW photos? And where are Brazel's rubber strips, instead of apparently one, slightly used, intact balloon in much better shape than one left out in the sun for a month?

And why bother to reduce the debris, if there was only 5 pounds? How much space was that going to take up on Ramey's floor anyway?

Some items could easily be missing (and most of the debris, I assume, was left at the ranch anyway).

Yeah, it must have been a real chore to lug 5 pounds of alleged balloon debris back to Roswell after sending your two top intel people in TWO cars. Cavitt in his AF interview claimed the crash area was no bigger than his living room and there was hardly anything, which could easily fit in one car.

But debunkers like cda always want it both ways. There was hardly anything, but most of it was left at the ranch, or it was too much to display on Ramey's floor.

So, we can easily say that both the twine and the scotch tape are missing. So what? Perhaps at the time they were deemed unimportant.

Notice how cda dodges my point that Brazel in his interview is quoted saying there was no string/twine/wire found, when this is quite impossible for a real Mogul crash, or even a regular weather balloon/radar target crash? The suspension string of the targets was tied on, you know, with things called knots to those eyelets on the radar targets that Brazel mentioned had no string. And the Scotch tape (which Brazel also mentioned) was part of the construction and structure of the targets and at least some should still be attached to the target.

But none of this can be found in the FW photos, including Gilles supposed "DNA" proof of tape with patterns on it. But there should have been hundreds of yards of string/twine at the crash site of a real Mogul. Yet nobody mentions it, none can be seen in the photos, and Brazel even specifically denied finding it.

And AF debunker McAndrew dropped the subject like a hot potato when he couldn't come up with even a lame explanation for its absence. I wonder why.

David Rudiak said...

Part 2 response to cda:
As to whether 100/12.1 = 350 or 850/2.8 = 100, you are referring to a graph (table 5) whose slope changes VERY rapidly at the start and end points and are using linear interpolation at points where it was never meant to be used. Moore did not mention these extremes and it is wrong for you to imply that we can linearly interpolate and produce these bogus figures. Having said this, I agree that his graph/table is certainly erroneous in places.

Another fine example of inventing B.S. reasons for wrong numbers and trying to rationalizing away clear fraud by Moore. One can go to Moore's table and see for oneself:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Flight4_Table5.html

39 out of 40 of Moore's rise/fall rates are wrong by at least 5% or more, 16 are off by 20% or more, and 12 by 40% or more. Graphically:

http://www.roswellproof.com/files/flt4riseratecompare.gif

It is just plain lying to insinuate the errors are minor or there are proper "explanations" like interpolation error or problems with rapdily changing "endpoints", or this being the result of the table printed in a confusing way (Dave Thomas' and Tim Printy's latest lie as to why Moore doesn't even pass grade school math standards). But it doesn't matter if you shift the various numbers forward, backward, between rows, left/right, upside down, interpolate them, or average them with some complex formula, there is simply no way to fix these outrageously false numbers which are wrong top, bottom, and all points in between.

This is because he didn't check the proofs, I believe.

Yeah, it's all the result of Moore not checking the proofs, and no doubt his dog ate the "real" table. Or was it Dave Thomas/Tim Printy's latest claim that Moore said there was nothing wrong with the table, except the the table was printed in a confusing way by the publisher?

The story keeps changing as to why everything is falsified, and not one of them is remotely plausible, other than deliberate fraud by Moore and more deliberate lying and obfuscation by the debunkers defending him. We haven't even touched on how Moore deliberately and secretly set up portions of the table in direct conflict with his stated assumptions and also calculated it wrong, all in order to take it "exactly" to the Foster Ranch crash site.

And I notice even cda won't touch Moore's likewise deliberate falsification of the real Flight #5 trajectory map in order to distance the flight from Roswell base, to bolster his claim that the base didn't know of Mogul.

Now all this deliberate deception and propaganda about Mogul (like also bringing nonexistent Flights 2, 3, 4 back to life like McAndrew and Moore did) would be totally unnecessary if Mogul was the real explanation.

Gilles. F. said...

"But none of this can be found in the FW photos, including Gilles supposed "DNA" proof of TAPE with patterns on it."

Doctor Rudiak :
The Tape is a thing mentionned by several the witnesses, not a from a magician hat.
Historiographical sources allow serious searchers to see there was a 3M tape or egal needed to reinforce any ML307 assembly (it is a blueprint mention), as there exists 3M toy/candy tapes with symbols, as a toy manufacturor was in charge of the radar-targets...
Period.

Loretta Proctor, as Brazel or others have mentionned a TAPE with symbols, in an episode for Loretta taking place BEFORE your cover-up fallacious claims regarding Brazel newspaper interview.
She have invented/supposed a TAPE with patterns on it too?

Mouarf, "Doctor" Rudiak...

David Rudiak said...

Part 1 response to Gilles:
I wrote: "But none of this can be found in the FW photos, including Gilles supposed "DNA" proof of TAPE with patterns on it."

Gilles: Doctor Rudiak : The Tape is a thing mentionned by several the witnesses, not a from a magician hat.

The only direct one would be Brazel in 1947, not others 30 to 50 years later, people whose testimony you all claim to be "unreliable", "tainted", etc. if it supports a story you don't want to hear.

E.g., Mogul's Charles Moore or Albert Trakowski: Never saw a thing that was found at Roswell and testimony dates from 40+ years later. Their only claim is that such tape was on the radar targets they used.

Historiographical sources allow serious searchers to see there was a 3M tape or egal needed to reinforce any ML307 assembly (it is a blueprint mention),

And human eyeballs and computer blowups of FW photo negatives allow serious researchers to see nothing like "flower tape" exists in these photos. Where is it Gilles?

Same for the missing twine/string that should be there. Where is it?

as there exists 3M toy/candy tapes with symbols, as a toy manufacturor was in charge of the radar-targets... Period.

Again, "proof" of absolutely nothing. So Scotch tape was used to make balsa wood kites, even ones for the Army. So what? I used Scotch tape to make balsa wood kites when I was a kid. Even when I was five, I wouldn't have confused it with anything exotic. Using tape on radar targets doesn't somehow prove this is what crashed at the Foster Ranch.

And if it was specifically decorated Scotch tape Brazel found (the alleged tape with purple patterns), then why can't any be found in actual photos of the the supposedly real Roswell debris displayed in Fort Worth? Please answer directly for a change.

So, you'll no doubt ask, why did Mack Brazel mention Scotch tape and tape with patterns in his RDR interview? More to the point, why did he mention the tape but say nothing about the all the string/twine that NECESSARILY should have accompanied it, in fact specifically denied finding it, only noticing eyelets where string or wire would be attached? Same thing applies to the FW radar target—no string anywhere attached to the target, when it should have been there.

There really is a very simple, non-balloon crash explanation for all this. When Brazel was in military custody (part of Loretta Proctor's testimony you fail to mention below as well as numerous other witnesses, like Brazel Jr. and Provost Marshall Easley), they took a fresh radar target out of a box in preparation for his interview. Such a fresh target would NOT have string attached (same with a fresh target at Fort Worth). Maybe this particular target was brought in from Alamogordo and had the tape with purple patterns on it that Moore and Trakowski described, so Brazel described the target having Scotch tape and also tape with patterns. But that doesn't “prove” this is what he found, only what he described. Remember, Brazel ALSO said he found some letters, yet NO letters have been found on the FW radar target. And Brazel also said he was quite sure it wasn't any sort of weather observation balloon at the end of his interview, saying it didn't resemble “in any way” two weather observation balloons he had previously found on his property.

David Rudiak said...

Part 2 response to Gilles:

Loretta Proctor, as Brazel or others have mentionned a TAPE with symbols, in an episode for Loretta taking place BEFORE your cover-up fallacious claims regarding Brazel newspaper interview.

Well excuse me, but did Loretta Proctor mention this in 1947 or in one of her later statements more than 40 years later (such as her 1991 affidavit)? In fact, this is exactly the sort of testimony that many times before Gilles has sanctimoniously and hypocritically dismisses as "tainted" and "unreliable" if it points to something like a flying saucer crash, witness coercion, etc.

Gilles would have to argue out of both sides of his mouth that Proctor's statements about Brazel telling her of patterned tape were totally reliable, then contradict himself saying her other statements supporting something much stranger were totally unreliable. This would include her many statements about the woodlike piece that she personally witnessed couldn't be cut, marked, or burned, Brazel telling her of memory metal, also before going to Roswell, not being able to cut ANY of the material (think that applies to Scotch tape Gilles?) or Brazel being surrounded by soldiers in Roswell, according to her husband, and being detained at the base for almost a week and complaining about it afterward.

Using the usual hypocritical debunker "rules of evidence", ONLY witness statements that can be interpreted to support his position are acceptable, but none of the others.

or the tape coiuldn't She have invented/supposed a TAPE with patterns on it too?

Well, yes she could, such as perhaps reading about it in the newspaper or Brazel mentioning to her after he got back from Roswell, not before, then confusing the timeline after 40 years—you know your normal “tainted” confused witness explanation.

And, of course, there were many other things she said which you obviously do not like. Did she also invent the uncuttable/unburnable dowel she witnessed, the memory metal, Brazel's detention? I want a direct answer from you for a change. If her tape with patterns testimony is acceptable, why isn't her other testimony?

Still waiting your "explanation" for how hundreds of yards of Mogul twine and string can vanish, so much so that even Brazel denied finding it.

Also still waiting actual Mogul documents showing that Flight #4 ever existed (or Flight #2 or #3, both also canceled but claimed to exist by McAndrew and Moore.) Kind of hard to recover Mogul material of any type if there was no flight.

Mouarf, "Doctor" Rudiak...

Arf, arf, arf, "Doctor" Fernandez. Take that!

Lance said...

So it's shaping up, Kevin, that Mogul is untouchable, your witnesses are untouchable, everything about the case is untouchable.

Dr. Rudiak calls folks who disagree with him liars (in his very first few sentences!) above without comment from you. Your sensitivity to this kind of thing apparently only extends to the other side. Nice.

I wonder where the evidence is going to take you guys (or for that matter, why you even need any)?

Lance

Gilles. F. said...

Well, you are copying pasting more or less your conspiro theorist website. Nothing new. If you are claiming an extraterrestrial spacecraft crashed in N.M. in 1947 with bodies and all, you have the burden of the proof. Until now, your thesis is academicaly considered as pure fiction, a real myth in the anthropological semantic of the term.

A la C. A. Ziegler or B. Saler, you are more or less making as usual and it smells you are more or less writting a new version of the myth from the historical Roswell incident, adding distorted elements of these historical incident, elements coming from the pre-1978 saucers stories, and pre-1978 shared beliefs of the UFO community and finally new ideas depending and creating a new version of the myth. Probably now you will add as new elements the pseudo-Nitinol connection and new second/third or more hand witnesses elements requiring you to construct ad hoc a new scenario.

You well know the string have been mentionned by William Brazel, for example, in Stanton Friedman and Don Berliner, Crash at Corona, in 1991 : "[There was] something on the order of heavy-gauge monofilament fishing line... The "string", I couldn’t break it."

After the tape 3M-like, another mimic detail of your extraterrestrial spacecraft in balsa sticks and laminated foils.

I supposed you were re-investigating the case, but you are more or less exhuming your previous narratives of the myth you have yourselves constructed in the past 2 decades and you will probably add pseudo- new elements to obtain a new version as mythes are constructed. You have already opened the simili discussion with a "it is prooven Mogul is disprooven" as if it is well established. That's not serious.

Well, if you have new blood or new elements (historiographical documents for example) than the same and past narratives, it could be interresting. I left the room because "deja-vu" is not my cup of tea.

Regards,

Gilles.

cda said...

Gilles:

Isn't the real point that trying to disprove the Mogul hypothesis by examining all these photos and witness statements in minute detail does not advance the 'ET plus cover-up' thesis one iota?

DR:

If you are so positive about this 64-year cover-up (something unprecedented in scientific discovery) perhaps you can locate just ONE item of documentation that supports your views. There must be tons of papers, photos, analyses, minutes of meetings and so on about this remarkable discovery. Both you and Kevin, and anyone else for that matter, have discovered precisely NOTHING in the 64 years since it took place, apart from the infamous MJ-12 papers. Zillions of such documents yet not a single one has ever leaked out. Truly remarkable!

As per the nuclear physicist/crashed saucerologist Stanton Friedman's famous theorem: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", so I have nothing to add to my remarks about Moore's 'phony' calculations and tables, or the absence of tape and string in the Ft Worth pics.

If Moore really was guilty of falsifying his figures to get the result HE wanted, you are just as guilty of falsifying yours to get the result YOU wanted.

Methinks I detect a certain bitter disappointment on your part to get your thesis accepted by the scientific community.

We can only hope the dream team come up with something better than the 'ET plus cover-up' drivel.

cda said...

A thought:

Friedman's Theorem can be used both ways, i.e. because nobody has found any documentation on 'Roswell was ET', this does not prove no such documentation exists.

Good ole Stan. He has successfully shown that, if the dream team conclude that Roswell was ET, then they cannot lose, should anyone use the 'lack of official docs' argument to attempt to disprove them.

Stan is a true genius. What about it, Kevin?

KRandle said...

Gilles -

The Bill Brazel interview you cite was not conducted by Stan Friedman and Don Berliner, but by Don Schmitt and me and was first reported in our first book. They used it without credit or attribution. This is not the only place in their book that they used the research of others without providing proper credit.

Second, Bill Brazel did not talk of string or twine but of material that he described as like monofilament fishing line, but that conducted light along it. If you wish to use this to support the Mogual explanation, please tell me where they got what is, in essence, fiber optics.

And finally, "absence of evidence is sometimes evidence of absence." I have disliked Stan's propagandist phrase for a long time.

Gentlemen, all this criticism about our work because I pointed out some things about Mogul that change the landscape? It was not highly classified, they had told the men at Roswell about the project, it was reported in newspapers, the name was known to the various participants, and the equipment was nothing special... and off we go drawing all sorts of conclusions about an investigation that you have not seen. For you skeptics, the only answer you'll accept is something mundane. I watch you change the discussion and ignore the points you don't like. Didn't say that Mogul was untouchable... said that it was badly flawed with myth information (as opposed to misinformation).

You've already said that you'll accept no testimony... if it happens to lead to the alien. Seems you reject one chain of evidence simply because you don't like it.

We will continue to do our research and I plan to stay as neutral as possible in this, looking for the evidence that will allow us to establish what happened at Roswell, regardless of where it goes.

David Rudiak said...

So it's shaping up, Kevin, that Mogul is untouchable, your witnesses are untouchable, everything about the case is untouchable.

I would say that if you read the comments of skeptics like Gilles, Mogul is indeed untouchable. He won't even listen to arguments such as various Mogul documents showing that certain flights were canceled, including Flight #4, the alleged cause of the Roswell incident. That SHOULD kill all the arguments about Mogul right there. A nonexistent balloon flight cannot account for anything, but not in SkeptoWorld. Mogul must be defended at all costs, even if it can't possibly explain anything.

Dr. Rudiak calls folks who disagree with him liars (in his very first few sentences!) above without comment from you. Your sensitivity to this kind of thing apparently only extends to the other side. Nice.

When USAF counterintelligence agents misuse documents to bring nonexistent flights back to life in order to debunk Roswell, I call that lying. The most flagrant example was Flight #2, where Lt. McAndrew referred to a Mogul document to support its existence, but when you read the actual document it says the flight was canceled because of high winds and equipment failure and all equipment was stripped off before cutting loose the already inflated weather balloons. But McAndrew claimed the flight went up and was used to detect a distant explosion in Helgoland.

On top of that, the whole sequence of Flight #2, #3, and #4 were written out of the summary records and all three were shown as being canceled for various reasons. But McAndrew, and also Charles Moore both created new summary tables with 2, 3, 4, back into the Mogul sequence. Thus dead balloon flights brought back to life to support the notion that #4 caused Roswell.

So what do you call this Lance--truth-telling?

The other people I called liars were Moore and the defenders of his various other clear-cut Mogul frauds. One was the trajectory map he claimed he was copying "without change" from Mogul records, but he instead made various changes to distance the flight from Roswell base and further lied about it in an email exchange with Brad Sparks when Sparks challenged him.

And the other major fraud (there were others) was his "Flight #4" trajectory plot "exactly" to the Foster Ranch, full of all sorts of bogus mathematical ruses to get it there.

But I suppose you think numbers like 852/2.8 = 100 and 100/12.1 = 350 are just fine if they come from Moore and his defenders.

I've been called "incompetent" and/or a "character assassin" by these same people for having pointed this out, people like Dave Thomas, Tim Printy, and even our own CDA in an email many years ago. Nice.

So tell us Lance, is 100/12.1 = 350? Are the Moore defenders who say there is nothing wrong with such numbers and call me "incompetent" for mentioning it truth-tellers or obvious liars? This isn't a trick question.

And if I recall correctly, you started off calling me a nefarious "liar" numerous times in this blog and others just because I interpreted a news article differently than the way you liked it. That was a simple difference of opinion, not deliberate and objectively provable deception like map alteration, phony math, and nonexistent balloon flights brought back to life.

You don't seem to mind the name-calling when it comes from your side of the aisle, including yourself. What you don't like is the push-back from the other side when they have the temerity to point out that the skeptical Emperor has no clothes. Nice.

To get at the truth, first you have to point out the flagrant lies, whatever side they come from. I don't accuse people of lying unless they clearly deserve it.

Gilles. F. said...

I dont care if you want to call a flight "service 4", "#4" or "x".

June 1947 the 4th, a cluster of balloons with a sonobuoy, followed by a plane, was launched and flew from Alamogordo and was not recovered. And it is historiographicaly mentionned in the Crary's diary, a document in time and place of your event. PERIOD.
If you have a cristal ball to CLAIM there were not radar-targets attached on it or simply what was his exact configuration, you have super power. Well, you are yet David Rudiak, I know.

But please, stop to claim here and there NOTHING flew and all was cancelled/annulated from Alamogordo as Balloons clusters before the flight of June the 5th (flight number 5).

That's a lie.

Now, I wait new things as Kevin seems to have indicated in Richie's blog, because it seems we have the same discussions as before.

Gilles

David Rudiak said...

CDA disingenuously wrote:
If Moore really was guilty of falsifying his figures to get the result HE wanted, you are just as guilty of falsifying yours to get the result YOU wanted.

Apparently Moore numbers like 100/12.1 = 350 and 852/2.8 = 100 are now spun by cda to "IF Moore was really guilty of falsifying his figures".

Earth to CDA: There is no "if" about 100/12.1 = 350 being correct. And there are dozens of other examples of Moore's phony math just like this, some much worse in terms of altering the results. (Another example of Moore's "ifs" was his obvious Mogul map alterations to bolster his anti-Roswell arugments while claiming he was copying the map "without change.")

That alone was bad enough, but CDA is also accusing me of falsifying MY numbers.

Pray tell, CDA, exactly which numbers did I falsify "to get the results I wanted"? I demand specific examples since you are now accusing me of deliberate fraud.

Sorry Lance, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to call CDA a flagrant liar here for his again defense of Moore's obviously fraudulent math and totally baseless accusations against me.

When the debunkers can't refute the arguments, the next step is obviously character assassination of the researchers who make them. This is par for the course in Ufology. I've been running into it for years with regards to my pointing out Moore and his various Mogul-related frauds.

E.g., CDA many years wrote me an email claiming I didn't understand how Moore was really calculating his table and labeled me "incompetent". And he's right back at in again, only this time also accusing me of fraud.

Nice.

David Rudiak said...

Gilles wrote:
I dont care if you want to call a flight "service 4", "#4" or "x".

June 1947 the 4th, a cluster of balloons with a sonobuoy, followed by a plane, was launched and flew from Alamogordo and was not recovered. And it is historiographicaly mentionned in the Crary's diary, a document in time and place of your event. PERIOD.

...But please, stop to claim here and there NOTHING flew and all was cancelled/annulated from Alamogordo as Balloons clusters before the flight of June the 5th (flight number 5).

That's a lie.


It is NOT a lie that there is no Flight #2, #3, or #4 in Mogul records, since these planned CONSTANT-ALTITUDE flights were all indicated as canceled, including by Crary's diary. Usually when a flight was cancelled, all salvageable gear was stripped off and already-inflated and non-reusable weather balloons were cut loose. The reusable stripped-off gear included the constant-altitude equipment plus tracking equipment like radiosondes and radar targets.

Sometimes to salvage something for the day, they also tested a remaining piece of equipment carried aloft by the balloons they cut loose. In the case of June 4, Crary's diary indicates they tested sonobuoy reception in the air and the ground carried aloft by a surviving balloon cluster.

But this was NOT by any stretch a fully-configured constant-altitude flight, which is absolutely required, according to Charles Moore and the USAF, to account for what Mack Brazel found. In fact, it is absolutely integral to Moore's entire "Flight #4" trajectory calculation.

As NASA aerospace engineer Larry Lemke previously pointed out, in support of my claims about Moore's trajectory calculation, there was absolutely no hope in hell of getting any sort of balloon to the Foster Ranch on June 4 without a constant-altitude flight.

You are right we have been all over this before. Since you won't listen to me, I suggest you go back and read Larry's very well-reasoned arguments on a previous blog here a year ago:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2010/11/kal-korff-paint-ball-warrior.html

Gilles. F. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gilles. F. said...

We are reaching finaly an agreement. Clap clap Doctor Rudiak.
A NYU/Mogul team cluster of balloons was launched June 1947 the 4th from Alamogordo.
The complex assembly was followed by a plane (surely a B.17).
I think it was a more or less complex NYU balloon assembly cause the B17 following it and the weight of a Mike sonobuoy.
I mean he was both tracked by theodolithe, by a plane and radar in order to have altitude dataes, as usual in NYU flight.

The cluster passed out the range of the little ground radar (more or less 40 miles) . Then no altitude dataes were available for the scientists team.
Without altitudes dataes, this cluster of NYU balloons cant be a research flight, as Larry right explained.
The team abandonned the radar target system cause to follow the cluster with ground radar + radar-targets have prooven their limits by this flight?
Back to radio-sonde then?
It is a possibility.

Anyway, a "complex" cluster of balloons of the NYU/Mogul team was launched this 4th june 1947.

Regards,

Gilles Fernandez

cda said...

Let me repeat: Moore did not EVER state, or imply, that 852/2.8 = 100 or that 100/12.1 = 350.

This is DR's bit of number trickery and nobody else's. I concede that Moore's table has anomalies, errors and is based a lot on rough estimates of wind speeds and directions, but it is entirely wrong for DR to attribute the above arithmetical 'howlers' to Moore. The graph shows very rapid changes in slope at these points, thus any use of linear approximations is useless and meaningless, so why does DR quote these bogus figures when he knows Moore never used them in his calculations? Moore printed a table with some erroneous values, and did not check the proofs. He also said his tables were not the final word.

For what it is worth I would say that the 52,000 in Moore's table should be 51,000. Yes, it is pure speculation on my part.

This would still yield a false value in the calculations, but at least it would smooth things a bit and the 'howler' would be greatly reduced.

Enough said on this. I hope the dream team wastes no further time and effort on this tiresome matter. In the end, it does not further the 'ET plus cover-up' thesis one iota.

KRandle said...

All -

This is getting out of hand. I've let some of this go on, but I don't like the allegations of lying. It is always possible to disagree without accusing the other side of lying.

This conversation is not covering the same grouned that we have gone over before. Unless you have something knew, feel free to post. If not, please let it go.

Lance said...

Hello Dr. Rudiak,

Hopefully you have noticed a new tone from me in regards to ad hominem? Let me apologize for earlier ad hominem and pledge to try avoid such in the future.

On the issue we earlier discussed, I still contend that you are not supported by the evidence and that this is not a matter of opinion. Unfortunately we never got anyone to even bother to look at what we were arguing about and in that vacuum I think our own rhetoric became more heated than it need to be.

From my perceptive, it seems to me that you often take a point that is (at best) an assumption and turn it magically into a hard fact. You often say how things should have been, and insist therefore that they were that way.

Additionally, I humbly suggest that your copious invective (which really must dwarf my own admitted transgressions along that line) doesn't have its intended effect. My own writing in that vein rarely did either.

Having just read Tim Printy's account of the Mogul opinions, (http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/rudiak.htm) I would think that most folks can see the difference in approach.

Notice in the piece, how Tim admits and attempts to correct mistakes he may have made, how he shows mistakes that Moore made and how he makes an attempt to get things right.

I think that is the way to get to the truth.

Alas, it appears that Kevin intends to simply ignore such work.

I think Kevin is off to a horrible start in regards to his stated intentions for this project. At least two of the people (not referring to Dr. Rudiak) on his dream team seem to be terribly bad choices in support of the truth (one of them spectacularly proven so).

Is there any way you, Dr. Rudiak, can suggest that (for instance) Mogul can hashed out by skeptics and you without resorting to calling everyone liars at first blush?

Best,

Lance

cda said...

I have said my final words on this matter and wish to apologise to DR for implying he is a liar. DR did attribute some arithmetical calculations to Moore that Moore never made. I shall leave it at that, and hope we can now return to a calmer mode of debate.

David Rudiak said...

cda wrote:
Let me repeat: Moore did not EVER state, or imply, that 852/2.8 = 100 or that 100/12.1 = 350.

Followed next post by:

I have said my final words on this matter and wish to apologise to DR for implying he is a liar. DR did attribute some arithmetical calculations to Moore that Moore never made. I shall leave it at that, and hope we can now return to a calmer mode of debate.

Despite the "apology" (after just accusing me of being "just as guilty of falsifying [your numbers] to get the result YOU wanted"), what we get is just more disingenuous rubbish and word games ftom CDA.

Here CDA is trying to mince words by saying Moore never explicitly "stated" that 852/2.8 = 100 or that 100/12.1 = 350.

He doesn't have to "state" it, because his table directly implies it by what is actually written there and by something called simple math, something Moore was very capable of doing elsewhere but strangely unable to do with his "Flight #4" table.

Rise/fall rates are very simple things to calculate. You divide the difference in altitude by the elapsed time. In fact Moore has no trouble doing them all perfectly in reconstructing rise/fall rates for real Flights #5 and #6. See these tables from his book:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Flight5_Table2.html

http://www.roswellproof.com/Flight6_Table3.html

E.g., in his Flight 5 table, first interval from 0 to 10 minutes, altitude changes from 4069 to 12000 feet or 7931 feet in 10'. Rise rate = 7931/10 = 793 ft/min, just like Moore has in his table.

But for his "Flight #4" table:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Flight4_Table5.html

...the first interval has the altitude changing from 4069' to 4921' or a difference of 852 feet in 2.8 minutes. So the CORRECT calculated rise rate according to the table, calculating exactly like Moore did elsewhere (or anyone would do) for Flight 5&6, should be 852/2.8 = 304, right?

Well apparently wrong according to Moore and CDA. The "real" answer is Moore's "100". Look at the Moore's table for yourself.

So calculating exactly like Moore does for Flights 5 & 6 (the only correct way to calculate the rise rates), the math the way most of us learned it in school says the answer should be 304. According to CDA, Moore never said or implied it was 100 (even though his table says exactly that), and furthermore, CDA says I just don't understand how Moore calculated it.

He's quite right. I don't understand how 852/2.8 = 100 (again what Moore's table says, not something I invented).

I leave it to other people to decide who is really "falsifying your numbers to get the result YOU wanted." I also leave it to others to suggest words to describe what CDA has AGAIN done here. Apparently I am being admonished for using the "L" word.

Lance said...

Good Lord,

I just spent some additional time looking into the Mogul arguments and I have to say that this issue seems particularly silly to me. And it really doesn't require all the mathematics.

Among all of the other Mogul flights, which crashed all over the place, (at wildly different locations) several landed near Roswell and one undisputedly landed quite near the Foster Ranch (Flight 38).

Moore constructed a proposed flight path for Flight #4 (or whatever it is pedantically preferred to be called) that admittedly used a lot of assumptions, perhaps made some math errors, and may be completely wrong.

But the fact remains that it IS possible that #4 could have ended up at the place that the foil paper, strings and sticks that everyone contemporaneously reported were found.

That anyone might PROCLAIM that they know exactly where the wind might blow or not blow 60 years ago using such sketchy known data is fooling himself or trying to fool others.

This is just plain dumb.

What some seem to be pretending is that if we gave them some limited wind data and a window for an imprecise launch time, that they could tell us where a balloon array crashed within at least 17 miles.

I call BS on this.

Note that Moore only called his musing a "possible trajectory".

That those on the other side speak with all the surety of religious fervor, claiming holy inerrancy should make the thoughtful person pause before accepting these articles of blind faith.

Best,

Lance

cda said...

"He doesn't have to "state" it, because his table directly implies it by what is actually written there and by something called simple math"

I suggest to DR that Moore fitted a quadratic curve through the early tabular points on his graph as a better approximation to the slope there than a straight line.

By doing so, he got an answer which still looks wrong in the table but is much nearer to the correct value (145 approx) than 304 is.

The reason he did not do this with the other table is that the graph looks closer to a straight line, hence he decided a simple division, i.e. linear rise, was good enough. True, we cannot read Moore's mind but it is a reasonable assumption.

Go on, do the "simple math" and check for yourself.

The table is erroneous in places as I have said, but Moore never used or implied the dotty arithmetic 852/2.8 = 100. NEVER!

Lance is right. Moore called it a 'possible trajectory'. And it still is.

I still wanted very much to end the debate. Apologies to Kevin, but....

Lance said...

I wonder, CDA, if we skeptics bear some responsibility for the Mogul mess?

Would we have been better off simply saying that weather conditions made a Mogul crash at the ranch a reasonable possibility rather than using sketchy data to try to achieve an exact match?

Lance

David Rudiak said...

Lance is right. Moore called it a 'possible trajectory'. And it still is.

Tomorrow I will enter a poker tournament and will win with a royal flush.

Well, it's "possible", isn't it?

Winning my hypothetical poker tournament with a highly improbable hand would become much more "possible" if I dealt off the bottom of the deck, marked the deck, had cards up my sleeve, had a confederate in the game, etc. It's called cheating, and the more ways you cheat, the harder it becomes to detect.

Moore likewise cheated in multiple ways and got away with it for years before Brad Sparks and I finally went back over his model and discovered his numerous cheats. I have been talking only about his phony rise/fall rates like 852/2.8 = 100 and 100/12.1 = 350 because the fraud is very easy to see here.

But there were other sources of fraud, such as Moore claiming he was using a perfect altitude-control balloon (the nonexistent Flight #4), but instead secretly set up his table such that the balloon rose and fell much faster than even the faulty real Flight #6, or any other weather balloon Mogul. Why? Because this drastically shortened the trajectory on both the rise and fall sides, else the model would result in very large overshoot of his desired crash area. (We're talking about dozens of miles of miss here.)

And another major cheat to shorten trajectory was running the calculation of his table BACKWARDS on the rise side, in fact directly opposite of the instructions he wrote at the bottom of the table (which were carry winds up to next higher level, NOT down to next lower level, the way Moore secretly did it).

So CDA's piffle that Moore ran some complicated "quadratic function" for the rise rates and that somehow explains them (it doesn't, not by a long shot) wouldn't matter, because there are other cheats that Moore employed, and other Mogul fraud Moore committed, such as surreptitiously altering a Mogul trajectory map while claiming to copy it "without change".

If you catch somebody with a marked deck and cards up their sleeve, does it really matter even if you didn't catch them dealing off the bottom of the deck? A cheater is a cheater.

It is pretty clear that all the debunkers attacking me here and defending Moore have never bothered to run the calculations or read the arguments on my website and are arguing from total ignorance. But the fact remains you can't get an ordinary balloon flight anywhere near the Foster Ranch on June 4, 1947 without magical thinking.

Moore's model REQUIRED a constant-altitude flight to keep it up long enough and fly for an extended period in the stratosphere. But such a constant-altitude flight never existed (the canceled "Flight #4"), so Moore (and the USAF counterintel debunkers) simply created one out of thin air. But even with a phantom balloon with perfect equipment, Moore STILL couldn't get the flight to the ranch. That's why he resorted to numerous cheats to get it there, then bragged on a Sci Fi special in 1997 that the winds were "exactly right" and he had calculated a path "exactly" to the ranch.

Lance may not know the full history here. It wasn't me who made the claim that the wind data strongly supported a Mogul flight crashing at the Foster Ranch. It was Moore, quickly followed by other Roswell debunkers like Dave Thomas and Karl Pflock who spun it as virtually proving the case.

Now that it has been shown Moore cheated, we are getting another spin from Lance. Well, the wind data is now totally unreliable, there are too many variables, etc., etc., so it is still "possible". In a sense, Lance is somewhat right, but that wasn't the original story from the debunking camp. If anything, this shows how the debunkers keep changing the story to try to salvage Mogul when another of their Mogul myths gets exploded.

David Rudiak said...

Lance wrote:

Among all of the other Mogul flights, which crashed all over the place, (at wildly different locations) several landed near Roswell and one undisputedly landed quite near the Foster Ranch (Flight 38).

Several landed "near" Roswell, but Roswell is eastish of Alamogordo and 60-70 miles SE of the Foster Ranch, while the ranch is NNE of Alamogordo.

So? If you actually plot the directions the Moguls went, in a period of several years, only 2 or 3 headed up in roughly the direction of the Foster Ranch. Prevailing winds took the vast bulk of them to the east or south. I have this all plotted on my website:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Mogul_Crashes.html

You'll see only 5 of 52 plotted crashing "near" Roswell (Numbers 5, 11, 38, 82, & 90). Four of the five crashing "near" Roswell crashed 50 or more miles from the Foster Ranch. (Not exactly a near miss, considering the Foster Ranch is only 85 miles NNE of Alamogordo.)

As for Lance and Flight #38, which he claims "undisputedly" landed "quite near" the Foster Ranch, perhaps he can define "quite near" for us and how he determined this.

The only information we have about #38 from the Mogul summary table is that it crashed approximately "50 miles north of Roswell AAF". But exactly 50 miles north is still 40 miles or so east of the Brazel debris field. Is this "quite near"?

Of course, with the uncertainty about what was meant by 50 miles "north", MAYBE it crashed 20 or 30 miles west of north, which would be at least nearer the Foster Ranch (but I leave it to the reader if this qualifies as "quite near"). But equally MAYBE, it crashed 20 or 30 miles east of north, or not even remotely "near".

Again Lance, please explain the source of your indisputable "quite near" claim.

Lance said...

Dr. Rudiak,

Your site does provide many resources and is much appreciated.

As you are well aware, the vague "about 50 miles north of Roswell" note could put Flight 38 right at Foster Ranch or 100 miles away.

You do yourself a disservice (and hurt Kevin's team's credibility as well) if you insist on taking vague data and insisting that it must take your own interpretation and no other.

Among the many Mogul flights, knowing for sure that one came down twenty to fifty (as you suggest, quite correctly) miles from the ranch is exceedingly close when you consider that some of the flights went more than a thousand miles elsewhere.

If we were throwing a friendly game of darts (as we may do some day, no?) and you threw one in the second ring of the board while I threw one out the door into another time zone, I would graciously say that you were quite close to the bullseye!

Your closeness to the case may be causing you some blindness to that which is directly before you. Seeing the plot of the flights (which you kindly provided) would allow ANY reasonable person to say that at least one of the flights landed quite close to the ranch.

Step back and let me know if you can see this. And if you can't or if Kevin can't or if any of the "dream team" can't then I suggest you only hurt your own position, whether you realize it or not.

Best,

Lance

David Rudiak said...

3 part response to Gilles:
We are reaching finaly an agreement. Clap clap Doctor Rudiak.

No, I don't think so.

A NYU/Mogul team cluster of balloons was launched June 1947 the 4th from Alamogordo.

One more time Gilles... There is ONLY mention in Crary's diary of a cluster of balloons going up with a sonobuoy to test microphone reception on the ground and air. (the ONLY thing we might agree on based on the diary--clap, clap).

But aren't you leaving out the rest of the story? This is written only after the previous sentence saying the planned flight had been canceled because of cloud cover (just like the day before).

In addition, there is no numbered research Mogul for this day. In fact, the first numbered N.M. Mogul, the real Flight #5 the next day, June 5, is noted as the first successful N.M. flight in Mogul records, and as simply the first N.M. balloon cluster flight period in NASA and USAF histories of flight. Only in the fevered imaginations of anti-Roswell debunkers was the first N.M. flight the nonexistent, mythical “Flight #4” of the 1994 USAF counterintelligence team report and soon-after Charles Moore.

To any reasonable person, a proper reading of Crary's diary and absence of any actual research balloon flight in Mogul records should prove there was no "complex" flight, as you put it below, on June 4.

Instead, there was a much simpler test flight of equipment following an actual "complex" flight cancellation. Nobody disputes such simpler equipment tests were done, but you are playing games and trying to change it back into actual, fully-configured research flight, which was canceled, never went up, and is the REAL reason it is not recorded in Mogul records.

You invented a "complex" balloon flight based on nothing. What you still don't seem to get is that, by definition, a "complex", i.e. an intended, fully-configured constant-altitude research flight was ALWAYS logged as a numbered flight in the flight summaries IF IT WENT UP, even if it failed.

Further, all these flights were carefully tracked with multiple systems to determine if they did indeed achieve constant-altitude flight. They NEVER removed these actual launched flights out of the records, even if they failed or with poor flight data. They ONLY removed the ones that never flew and therefore had ZERO flight data of any kind. (But below, you claim not only did such a flight go up on June 4 and was carefully tracked, which means they would have retained the flight and the data, they instead threw it out because of alleged incomplete data, which is total bunk and contrary to historical fact of what they REALLY did.)

Why are there missing numbered flights in the sequence, like #2, #3, and #4. If you read the details in the Mogul sumamries, the reason was simple. These flights were all canceled for various reasons. Equipment was stripped off for reuse later (stated explicitly for #2 & #3), which included radar targets, radiosondes, constant-altitude control equipment, etc. Any inflated weather balloons could not be reused, so they were cut loose (not true of later polyethylene balloons).

Sometimes a piece of equipment was left attached to the balloons, I guess on the theory of why waste some balloons and a day's work when we can still do something useful, even if not the planned constant-altitude research flight.

David Rudiak said...

Part 2 response to Gilles:
The complex assembly was followed by a plane (surely a B.17).

It only says they tested reception of the sonobuoy in the air. Whether they actually followed the simplified balloon cluster by plane is nothing but speculation on your part, whereas you represent it as some sort of certainty above and below.

I think it was a more or less complex NYU balloon assembly cause the B17 following it and the weight of a Mike sonobuoy.

Again, your assumptions represented as certainties, such as being followed by plane.

As for the sonobuoy, weight around 15 pounds. Typical loft weight of a typical 350 mg Mogul weather balloon about 2 pounds. So maybe an 8 to 10 balloon cluster to loft a test sonobuoy. But still this is well below the 24-28 weather balloon trains they used for a fully-configured constant-altitude research flight, which had to lift considerably more weight.

I mean he was both tracked by theodolithe, by a plane and radar in order to have altitude dataes, as usual in NYU flight.

And now you have invented it was also tracked by theodolite and radar. Based on what Gilles--your psychic abilities?

First of all, there is ZERO documentation of any of this. Remember the missing Flight #4 (and #2 & #3) in Mogul records? There are no flight records because they never went up.

Second, a simpler test of equipment with a much smaller balloon array does NOT require careful tracking, much less multiple tracking systems, if any tracking at all.

Why? Because ONLY the constant-altitude research flights required such careful tracking to see if they were performing properly, plus they were likely to stay up in the air much longer (because of constant-altitude capability instead of going straight up and straight down), hence much more likely to drift into air lanes and pose a hazard to aviation.

The cluster passed out the range of the little ground radar (more or less 40 miles) . Then no altitude dataes were available for the scientists team. Without altitudes dataes, this cluster of NYU balloons cant be a research flight, as Larry right explained.

No, this is total garbage, which you have previously stated here to try to "explain" why there is no Flight #4 in Mogul records.

The altitude data didn't suddenly cease at 40 miles in these flights, so they had to throw the whole flight out. E.g., the real Flight #5 the next day had no radar tracking, but was tracked visually and/or by radiosonde for over 100 miles, and followed to the ground by plane.

And real constant-altitude flights that actually went up, were NEVER thrown out of the records because of incomplete tracking data. Almost none of them had complete altitude data, usually because the vast majority of them drifted well beyond tracking range.

David Rudiak said...

Part 3 response to Gilles:
The team abandonned the radar target system cause to follow the cluster with ground radar + radar-targets have prooven their limits by this flight?

Again you are stating speculation as certainty. This is nothing but another of Charles Moore's "memories" with no documentation to back it. Why should Moore's claim decades after the fact (especially with all the provable hoaxing he did), be considered reliable, whereas you automatically dismiss multiple-witness testimony to far stranger things? Again you are cherry-picking testimony.

Back to radio-sonde then?
It is a possibility.


Point is, again it was Moore who claimed no radiosonde and only radar targets. This would have made it absolutely unique flight in the whole Mogul program, since every other Mogul was tracked by radiosonde. And his story that it carried no radiosonde because they had no automatic recorder also doesn't make sense, because they could hand-record the data if necessary, just like Mogul records indicated they did on some other flights.

Just how reliable are Moore's comments about anything? (From bitter experience, I only consider him reasonably reliable when he is commenting about something for which he has no my-Mogul-caused-Roswell agenda.)

Anyway, a "complex" cluster of balloons of the NYU/Mogul team was launched this 4th june 1947.

No, total invention on your part, again presented as certainty. There is ZERO documenation of your phantom "complex" balloon flight. Had it been as you claim, it certainly would have been logged in Mogul records, as ALL others were. It was not. There was no such flight. QED!

But Gilles, you are so wedded to the idea that there HAD to be such a flight, it is quite clear that even historically indisputable facts cannot penetrate your psychological denial barrier. Hence your repeated, unadulterated nonsense about the totally undocumented "complex" flight that ceased to exist in Mogul records because all the tracking data magically vanished at 40 miles. Even if the latter bunk claim were true, they NEVER threw out such flights if they actually went up and were tracked exactly as you claim. Again, you want to have it both ways.

David Rudiak said...

As you are well aware, the vague "about 50 miles north of Roswell" note could put Flight 38 right at Foster Ranch or 100 miles away.

But Lance, it was YOU who wrote that Flight #38 "indisputably" landed "quite near" the Foster Ranch.

When challenged, you are now forced to admit there was nothing "indisputable" about it at all, in fact the location is so vague maybe it could even have been "100 miles away".

But never fear, Lance will soon try to spin himself out of a corner. You see, even 100 miles is "quite close" compared to a 1000 miles. See below.

You do yourself a disservice (and hurt Kevin's team's credibility as well) if you insist on taking vague data and insisting that it must take your own interpretation and no other.

Hypocritical piffle. When Lance and I initially came to loggerheads last year because he didn't like my interpretation of a news article on my website, he didn't consider it a disservice to himself or others to label me a low-down "liar" about 100 times over in this and other blogs.

But Lance can take vague data and turn it into absolutist language like "indisputably" "quite close" and that's just peachy.

If Lance had instead written that Flight #38 "may have" or "possibly" come close to the ranch I wouldn't be busting his chops here. (Even I have considered the possibility, but for different reasons--e.g. it much better fits Bessie Brazel Schreiber's descriptions of debris.)

Among the many Mogul flights, knowing for sure that one came down twenty to fifty (as you suggest, quite correctly) miles from the ranch is exceedingly close when you consider that some of the flights went more than a thousand miles elsewhere.

And this, folks, is known as spin. You see, even 50 miles becomes "exceedingly close" compared to 1000 miles, and that's the only Mogul (#11) we know with any certainty that actually came that close.

Never mind that #11 was actually blown east of Alamogordo, and not NNE, the actual direction of the Foster Ranch. And also never mind the Foster Ranch was only 85 miles from Alamogordo, so even 50 miles away in a different direction is not exactly "close".

I'm surprised Lance didn't invoke Flight #58 that ended up in Quebec 1500 miles away. 50 miles then becomes only 3%. That practically on top of Mack Brazel's head--as a percentage. But I think the rest of see this as Lance just playing silly games with the numbers.

Even if we accept a low-ball 20 mile or even 10 mile figure for a Flight #38 crash site, that's one out of 52 balloon crashes I have graphed on my website, meaning an improbable event. Prevailing winds almost always took the balloons off in a completely different direction, e.g. #11 above which crashed 50 miles away while flying nowhere near the Foster Ranch because it headed East, not NNE.

A low probability or remotely possible event is exactly that. The likelihood of a balloon train from Alamogordo ending up at the Foster Ranch was statistically quite low from the gitgo, based on actual Mogul records. It becomes infinitesimal when you consider there are no unaccounted for numbered Mogul flights.

And that is the real reason why the debunkers had to invent the mythical "Flight #4".

Lance said...

Hmm...

This doesn't seem to be helping anything. Still lots of name calling, etc.

I find it funny that I am accused of spin control since I don't have any part of the story to control.

Yes, for me 100 miles is still quite close in the context of things.

It appears that we can't discuss stuff civilly. I suspect that will be the hallmark of Kevin's effort. He must be so proud.

Lance

Gilles. F. said...

Greetings Doctor Rudiak,

You are making no one denial barrier for sure... Please, dont accuse others of thing you are not applying for yourself.

- May 1947 the 29th and June 1947 the 4th, there were 2 NYU/Mogul team clusters of Balloons, indicated as launched in time and space of the Roswell event in the Crary's diary. Call them #3 or #4, 3, 4, the clusters of the 05/29/47 and the 06/04/47 if you want. You have no precise indication how they were agenced.

- There is no reason they were not with radar-targets attached on them. Better, we know the previous apparatus (april/may 1947?) HAVE ML307 atatched and it is prooved by another historiographical sources (the NYU drawing of the cluster n°2).

- May the 8th, there were a B17 following a "complex" balloons cluster in "Middletown", and B29 launching bombs (I'm not pointing the cancelled flight in Bethleem by Moore - balloons assembly breaks on the ground if I well remember, but the one with Peoples).
I dont see this fligh in the NYU table too, you do?
This flight is for you another mythical flight, or?

It means that clusters of Balloons that flew have not as correlat to figure in the NYU table (to be short, it is only for "research" flights, the ones with altitudes dataes, without failure, etc...).

In essence, two clusters of balloons at least were launched in Alamogordo I expedition before the one of the 5 june. There were not recovered.

Regards,

Gilles.

cda said...

Lance:

Never mind. You and I are both 'hypocrites' or 'drooling idiots' (maybe Gilles as well?). A pity, but you can't contradict a PhD any more than you can a nuclear physicist.

I propose, in a semi-light-hearted vein, that the skeptics get together and form a 'wide awake team' to counter the noisy ETHers on the 'dream team'.

In the meantime I offer Dr Rudiak the following, from the Roswell Daily Record:

"They tried to make a kite out of it, but could not do that and could not find any way to put it back together so that it would fit".

Please, Dr Rudiak, tell me: What do you think this object was? Was it something that resembled a kite, i.e. something terrestrial that had got damaged by a fall (such as a 'hexagonal' radar reflector), or was it something dropped by a visiting ET craft that crashed in NM, that just happened to resemble an earthly kite, complete with scotch tape?

Yes, Brazel did say what he was "sure what I found was not any weather observation balloon", but he was referrring to the sticks and tough paper he tried to make a kite out of, not the balloon fabric.

Oh, and this description matches very well that given at Ft.Worth (and in the photos) on the same day at about the same time.

The best DR can do is to presume both press stories were a concoction put together by some amazing military cover-up orchestrated by Ft. Worth and Roswell that afternoon.

Once again, I ask DR: What is the debris described above? And where do you think it came from, a nearby USAF base or Zeta Reticuli?

Kevin may like to answer the above as well. Or he decide it is up to the 'dream team' to answer in due course.

Sourcerer said...

CDA: "In the meantime I offer Dr Rudiak the following, from the Roswell Daily Record:

"They tried to make a kite out of it, but could not do that and could not find any way to put it back together so that it would fit"."



It is not from the Daily Record, but from Jason Kellahin's AP story.

You left out the last sentence. Brazel is quoted: "It was not a kite".

The Daily Record story never mentions a kite, and the AP story never mentions a weather balloon. This is one of the lunar demarcation lines in the 'interview'. Another is that Brazel is quoted about what it wasn't, not about what it was. The implied attributions to Brazel -- nearly the entirety of the "interview" -- describes a weather balloon and its kite. But the quotations of Brazel are clear: he said it was neither.

Brazel doesn't contradict himself. The "debris" parts of the story do not come from him, if we accept the direct quotations in the stories.

Kellahin plays off the story out of Ft Worth. Prior to the above he wrote:

"The statement ["press release"] was later discounted by Brig. General Roger Ramey, commanding general of the Eighth Air Force of which the RAAF is a component. Gen. Ramey said Brazel's discovery was a weather radar target."

And that's when Kellahin apparently asks Brazel if it was a "kite". Brazel says "It was not a kite".

Where did Kellahin, Brazel, and "Skeritt" (according the Kellahin's affidavit, the name of the Daily Record reporter interviewing Brazel) learn about the weather balloon and its "kite"? And when? This sets a timeframe for the interview. The Ft Worth story might have come over the Daily Record's AP feed while they were setting up for the interview.

Maybe David could nail down the timeframe more accurately.

It is obvious to me at least that Brazel refers to weather balloons and "kites" because he was asked about it by the reporters. He was asked because the Ft Worth story was on the wires. He denies it.

The best advice I can give about reading the 1947 news stories is to realize that **ALL** references to a single balloon and a "kite" come from the army period. No one else is quoted on **WHAT IT WAS** except Colonels and Generals, and they said it was a weather balloon and its "kite".

Brazel only says what it wasn't.

Lance: "But the fact remains that it IS possible that #4 could have ended up at the place that the foil paper, strings and sticks that everyone contemporaneously reported were found."

Who else besides Generals and Colonels make up "everyone"?

Regards,

Don

Sourcerer said...

I'll mention another issue worth considering: was there confusion evident in the various stories beginning with General Ramey's 20 or 25ft kitelike object? Were the Generals and Colonels, and reporters, and Brazel unclear as to the differences between a weather kite and a weather balloon and its radar target kite?


Regards,

Don

Sourcerer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Terry the Censor said...

I don't care about the Roswell case. My main interest is abductions and, unavoidably, the rhetoric proponents use in the absence of physical evidence.
After reading the long heated debate in the comments, I think it's necessary to point out a few things:

1) none of the evidence cited or arguments deployed leads to an alien spaceship
2) rather, what we have in the comments seems to be about nothing more than establishing the existence of a government conspiracy
3) and refuting the refutations of skeptics

None of the three objectives result in a spaceship.

Therefore, some modesty is called for.

David Rudiak said...

Don (Sourcerer) wrote:
Where did Kellahin, Brazel, and "Skeritt" (according the Kellahin's affidavit, the name of the Daily Record reporter interviewing Brazel) learn about the weather balloon and its "kite"? And when? This sets a timeframe for the interview. The Ft Worth story might have come over the Daily Record's AP feed while they were setting up for the interview.

Maybe David could nail down the timeframe more accurately.


This much we can be reasonably certain about:

1. Kellahin was in Albuquerque and took down the Roswell base press release over the phone, thus the one to get it out over the AP wire at 2:26 pm MST.

2. AP did not go after the Roswell story nationally until 3:10 pm MST. (AP chronology: http://www.roswellproof.com/AP_Chronology.html) This is when Kellahin would have been dispatched to Roswell to cover the story.

3. Kellahin would have had to drive 200 miles to Roswell by the most direct route over old two-lane highway. Drive time direct to Roswell: 3-1/2 to 4 hours. Arrival time: Not until around 7:00 pm at the earliest.

4. Time Ramey was first putting out the weather balloon radar target story to several news sources: Within about an hour of the press release, therefore roughly 3:30 pm.

5. Time the weather balloon story became official and reported by AP: 3 hours after press release, or about 5:30.

6. Kellahin didn't arrive in Roswell until well AFTER AP and other news outlets were already reporting the weather balloon/radar target "solution" to Roswell.

7. Kellahin also claimed to not drive directly to Roswell but stopped for a time a short distance off the main highway (allegedly at Foster Ranch) where he allegedly saw Brazel in the presence of the military at a balloon crash site. Although skeptics claim this is more proof that it was a Mogul crash at the Foster Ranch, the ranch was not a mile or two off the main highway, but probably at least a two-hour drive over dirt roads. It was quite impossible given the time restrictions for Kellahin to have made it all the way out to the Brazel debris field and back to Roswell, unless the interview took place around midnight.

8. Kellahin said they all left the site and headed to Roswell because it was getting late in the day with darkness approaching. Sunset July 8, about 8:10 pm MST. Drive time to Roswell (30 to 40 miles on the highway north of town) 30-45 min. Kellahin arrival time Roswell, alternate scenario, roughly 8:30 p.m. Interview shortly afterward?

9. The RDR reported the interview took place "late in the day". Kellahin said late afternoon or early evening. Best guess, between 7:30 and 9:00, but still well AFTER the weather balloon/radar target story became official by at least 2 hours, thus plenty of time to "coach" Brazel in what to say.

10. Kellahin also spoke to Sheriff Wilcox, whom Kellahin reported in interviews and his affidavit was very circumspect in his comments. Example from affidavit: "Wilcox said the military indicated to him it would be best if he did not say anything."

11. A rare regional AP story, dateline Roswell, perhaps based on Kellahin speaking to Wilcox, similarly reported that Wilcox deflected further remarks about what Brazel told him about the object, explaining, "I'm working with those fellows at the base."

12. Same story also reports Wilcox saying Brazel made discovery only 2 or 3 days before (thus contradicting official story from Fort Worth and Brazel of mid-June discovery, but agreeing with original press release of "sometime last week").

http://www.roswellproof.com/AP5_July9.html

cda said...

You can see an example of the absurdity of the Roswell saga by noting DR's number 7 where he talks about the impossibility of Kellahin getting to the Foster ranch.

Here are two further notes:

1. Kellahin would not have known the way, period. It was far too out in the boondocks. Hence he could never have visited the ranch unless accompanied by Brazel. Also, it was over open range land, only accessible by truck or jeep.

2. Kellahin says in his affidavit that there were "three or four" USAF guys at the ranch. Yet various so-called 'witnesses' have told Kevin and other researchers that the whole area was cordoned off by numerous armed guards for a week or so. So how on earth did Kellahin ever set foot there, even if he knew the way?

What value has Kellahin's testimony? What value has anyone else's after 4 or 5 decades?

What a shambles!

cda said...

A follow up to my last bit:

Kellahin never said in either the RDR or the Tucumcari newspaper (where he wrote a summary) that he visited the site. VERY strange omission if indeed he went there. Yet his affidavit says he did indeed go there, etc.

This is getting crazier and crazier.

Dream Team: please help!

David Rudiak said...

cda wrote:
You can see an example of the absurdity of the Roswell saga by noting DR's number 7 where he talks about the impossibility of Kellahin getting to the Foster ranch.

The absurdity is some skeptics (e.g. Karl Pflock) believing he could have made it to the Foster ranch given the limited time frame. That is all I'm going on, not whether Kellahin would have known his way out there. Kellahin was a Roswell native, so he may very well have known where the Foster ranch was, but that isn't the key point.

The same absurdity in the past has been used by some (again example Karl Pflock) as supportive evidence that there was a balloon crash at the Foster ranch, when Kellahin could not possibly have been an eyewitness to what was found at the ranch.

What value has Kellahin's testimony? What value has anyone else's after 4 or 5 decades?

And now we return to the regularly scheduled skeptical flippant dismissal of ALL old testimony.

Tell us CDA, do you dismiss all of your own personal recollections after 4 or 5 decades as being false or totally unreliable?

Back in the real world, old memories potentially have great value (like having my mother go through old photo albums and tell us who the strangers in the photos were).

When doing a history, such memories just have to be cross-correlated with other testimony or information for accuracy.

Except for the mistaken Foster Ranch visit, Kellahin's memories generally track pretty well with other information, as I discuss in much more detail on my website:

www.roswellproof.com/kellahin.html

Even Kellahin's balloon crash site "memory" may have value, if there really were such a site, but NOT at the Foster ranch, instead much closer to Roswell, near the highway, and north of town.

David Rudiak said...

cda wrote:
Kellahin never said in either the RDR or the Tucumcari newspaper (where he wrote a summary) that he visited the site. VERY strange omission if indeed he went there. Yet his affidavit says he did indeed go there, etc.

This is getting crazier and crazier. Dream Team: please help!


Dream Team to the rescue! (Need to start charging for this service.)

I am actually in agreement with CDA that it is strange (but not exactly "crazy") that Kellahin would not include anything in his AP story about visiting Brazel at the ranch. Seems like an exclusive if he had done it, the only reporter actually out at the scene of the crime.

Likewise Kellahin recalled AP photographer Robin Adair with him and taking photos of Brazel at the ranch debris field, which they did not use, which is again rather strange if it had really happened.

Adair when interviewed disagreed that he had been with Kellahin, instead saying he was in El Paso when he got the call to go to Roswell and had to charter a small plane to fly in. On the way there, he said they tried to overfly the ranch and debris area, but were waved off by soldiers and others brandishing weapons. (Got to protect the rubber, sticks, foil, and paper from prying eyes!)

What we DO know for a fact is that both Kellahin and Adair covered the Brazel interview for AP in Roswell at the Daily Record sometime in the evening of July 8. We know that because the RDR carried a separate story about it and Kellahin wrote an AP article with his byline that appeared in mostly regional papers the next or following day (not just the Tucumcari paper). Adair also took a picture of Brazel that he wirephotoed out at 6 am the next morning. Again we know that because the RDR article mentions it as the first wirephoto ever out of Roswell.

So, for a fact, a photo of Brazel was taken by Adair, but in Roswell, and Kellahin did speak to Brazel, but in Roswell again, not at the Foster ranch. There is currently no evidence either of them met Brazel or took photos of him out in the field.

That is an example of cross-checking somebody's old memories against other testimony and other evidence for consistency in detail. To dismiss all such old memories out-of-hand can result in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.