Sunday, May 06, 2012

The Roswell Investigation and the Skeptics

I have seen, over the last several months, nothing but criticism from the world of the skeptic about our efforts to assemble a team to investigate the Roswell claims. We have published little about our investigation, other than to announce the members of the team, and the skeptics and debunkers have found nothing to like about it. They are convinced that all we will do is reinforce the ideas that have already been published. That is, we’ll endorse the extraterrestrial and that is it.


In fact, I believe that the only answer they will accept is that Roswell was something mundane, most probably a weather balloon array launched from Alamogordo on June 4, 1947. If we determine anything else, regardless of what evidence we might uncover, it will be rejected as more of the same. They all know that there has been no alien visitation and therefore anything that suggests otherwise is the result of poor technique and investigation on our part.


Any eyewitness testimony that suggests otherwise is the result of poor memory, confabulation or outright lying. Nothing these people say will be believed, unless they provide testimony that what fell was something mundane, most probably a weather balloon array launched from Alamogordo on June 4, 1947.

If, however, the eyewitness testimony reinforces the balloon explanation, then those memories are accurate and reflect reality. It doesn’t matter if those memories are can be proven false with documentation, they must be believed because they lead directly to the accepted explanation.

As I say, all this is ridiculous because we haven’t completed our work. We have developed some interesting leads, but the skeptics are already rejecting our research without seeing any of it.

I’ll give you two minor examples of what we have found. First, I spent some weeks trying to learn if there was any sort of archive that would house NOTAMs. Now, I realize that there really is little of historical value in a NOTAM. These are simply notices to airman about temporary conditions that would affect flight operations. It might be a runway closing, it might be something about lighting at an airfield, or it might be something that could pose a threat to aerial navigation such as the launch of an array of balloons that could cause trouble for an aircraft.

You would think that the answer would be simple to find, but it wasn’t. I called, wrote, emailed and communicated with a couple of dozen different agencies most of them within the FAA. I finally learned that no such archive exists. The rules said that the NOTAMs be held for a short period and then destroyed when no longer useful.

When you think about it, that makes sense since there would have been tens of thousands of them and most would have little historical importance. In other words, once the runway was reopened, who really cared that it had been closed for two weeks half a century earlier... Or that the arrays of balloons that could create an aerial hazard were no longer being launched around Alamogordo. It would have been nice to see, exactly, how the NOTAM was worded, but that information is long gone.

The second point is also relatively minor. The skeptics complain that no one saw the object in the air. We, and by we I mean Don Schmitt, Tom Carey and I have found several different witnesses to an object in the sky at the right time. First was William Woody, who recently died, and who, as a youngster saw something streak across the sky while working outside late one night with his father. Days later, they thought they would go in search of it but were turned back by the military cordon.

Second was E. L. Pyles, who was serving with the 509th Bomb Group in 1947. He said that as he was walking across the base, he saw something flare across the sky. Karl Pflock dismissed this testimony, writing that Pyles couldn’t remember much. Pyles, according to Karl, said, "It was in forty-seven. I don’t remember the month or the date."

In the next paragraph, in attempting to learn about the time of night, Karl asked a couple of questions. Pyles replied that a "few days later," he saw the "RAAF Captures Flying Saucer" story. That means that he couldn’t put an exact date on it, but did identify it as the first week in July, 1947, contrary to Karl’s statement a couple of sentences earlier. In other words, Karl’s criticism was inaccurate, but the skeptics never called him to task on it.

Third are the nuns. We had information based on what had been written in personal diaries. We believed then, and I believe now, that information is accurate. We, as had others, traced those diaries to Oklahoma, but we now have new information on their location. We are attempting to get permission from the church to review them and end this problem. In other words, we hope to see the diary entries in question.

What the diaries would do was put a date on this astronomical phenomenon, whatever it might have been. We should get a good description of it as well as the time it fell. It could be an important bit of documentation. Of course, until we see the actual entries, we won’t know how good that documentation is or even if it is there.

I remember back in the bad old days as the Condon Committee was working their magic, and those on the skeptical side complained that the UFO enthusiasts would accept no answer other than we were being visited. I realized then that Condon had a tough job because of that.

Now I see the same thing from the other side of the fence. It would be nice if the critics would wait until we complete our work and publish the results. They might be surprised by what we find...
Then again, we might be.



94 comments:

Wade said...

Several time recently, you've raised the point with critics of the selective acceptance of testimony for memories that stretch back decades. It seems obvious that with folks like Lance and CDA, they either ignore your point or try to obfuscate with misdirection, attacking along some other line. It's interesting to me that the "logic" of sceptics can't seem to handle the simple point you raise.

cda said...

Kevin:

You write:

"The skeptics complain that no one saw the object in the air. We, and by we I mean Don Schmitt, Tom Carey and I have found several different witnesses to an object in the sky at the right time."

I am sorry, Kevin, but you have not. There are no witnesses anywhere to "an object in the sky at the right time".

This is because you simply do not know "the right time", and never will. If you are trying to link an object discovered in the desert with one seen in the sky you need to know exactly when the said object descended to earth, and you do not. You know when it was first discovered by Brazel (but seem to want to reject the June 14 date he gave) but that is all. When did it fall or crash to earth? Nobody knows. The USAF say it was probably late on June 4 but you refuse to accept their answer.

How can any of these possible 'confirmations' sightings of things in the sky be any use to you? Even if you could pinpoint the exact date and times of the nuns sighting and E.L.Pyles or Woody's sightings, how would they help? According to Pflock Pyles thought he saw a meteor. Where do you go from there? Brazel certainly did not find bits of a meteorite, did he? Similarly the nuns' sighting sounds like a meteor, but where does that lead us?

It is not a matter of skeptics accepting decades old witness testimony if it fits their beliefs and rejecting it if it does not; it is instead that you have highlighted some utterly useless potential testimony.

Please explain how locating this eyewitness evidence (if you succeed) will further your investigation into solving the Roswell object's identity.

I should add that Moore and Friedman originally proposed that the object seen by the Wilmots on the evening of July 2 was the one that crashed partly on the ranch and partly on the Plains of San Augustin! I take it that you do not go along with that ridiculous diagnosis. Even if we omit the Plains crash, the Foster ranch connection is totally unproven and unjustified.

paul thompson said...

Good luck, Kevin. I will be looking for first hand witness testimonry and, importantly, corraborative evidence of same.

Also, be careful of people who may have hidden agendas. Glen Dennis, for instance. He is a Roswell business owner, including part ownership in one of the UFO museums. He clearly has a vested interest in keeping the story alive in order to attract tourists and tourist dollars to Roswell. Will that fact be included, if you cite Dennis? Let it all hang out...ALL of it, and let the reader decide.

KRandle said...

CDA -

I should have said the right time frame... meaning the first week in July, something fell that was big enough and bright enough to cause interest.

Paul -

I have not believed the Glenn Dennis tale for more than a decade, after we failed to find his alleged nurse and then he changed her name on us. Glenn, as I understand it now, is seriously ill... any mention of him will include all the relevant facts.

cda said...

Kevin:

If you established that something did fall in the first week of July it would amount to useless data as the object was allegedly found on June 14.

Also, you would have to be positive that whatever was seen in the air was seen in the right vicinity of NM, i.e. near the Foster ranch (or possibly near one of the other sites!).

My questions and severe doubts remain.

David Rudiak said...

cda wrote:
If you established that something did fall in the first week of July it would amount to useless data as the object was allegedly found on June 14.

Depends on which version of the find you choose to believe, the original one of the press release ("sometime last week"), or Brazel's 5 or 6 hours later (the remarkably precise June 14).

Or which version of Sheriff Wilcox's story do we believe--the one he told AP ("several days before" or "two or three days before") or the one he told UP ("three weeks ago")? Shouldn't we also consider his AP quoted statement that he was "working with those fellows at the base" when he refused to add more to the description of what Brazel allegedly found, or the fact that various members of his family said he was coerced with death threats? Wilcox doesn't seem to have known which story to tell.

And shouldn't we also consider the fact that the story wasn't officially changed to around mid-June 2 or 3 hours later in the stories to emerge from Fort Worth after Ramey changed "flying disc" to weather balloon?

And finally, shouldn't we also consider how Brazel himself recanted much of his story of finding some sort of balloon, saying it wasn't a balloon and he wouldn't report anything again unless it was a bomb. And shouldn't we also consider the many witnesses of how Brazel fell under military custody at the time he made his statements and was held at the base against his will?

The story isn't so simple as Brazel said June 14, therefore early July shouldn't even be considered.

Also, you would have to be positive that whatever was seen in the air was seen in the right vicinity of NM, i.e. near the Foster ranch (or possibly near one of the other sites!).

That's why I personally like the Wilmot story, since they reported in the Daily Record that the flying disc they saw was headed in the direction of the Foster Ranch when it flew overhead the night of July 2. But it gets better. Jesse Marcel Sr. told Linda Corley in his last interview that when he went back to Roswell around 1980 and spoke to Wilmot's son, Paul Wilmot told him his parents not only saw the object fly overhead but explode off in the distance. Then, said Marcel, the rancher came to Roswell a few days later to report the exploded flying saucer.

Another interesting detail is that when I checked weather records, there was thunderstorm activity in central N.M. July 2 and July 4, but nothing in early or mid-June. This agrees with the story both Marcel and Brazel Jr. told of Brazel Sr. finding the debris the next morning after an extremely violent thunderstorm at night with a huge explosion that was different than thunder.

I've also been told by Tom Carey and Don Schmitt of locating a few neighboring ranchers who remembered the loud explosion.

Weather balloons don't explode.

Besides the Wilmots, there were also numerous UFO reports in the Roswell and White Sands areas before, during, and after July 8, which I have summarized at my website:

www.roswellproof.com/NM_UFO_reports.html

E.g., witness Sgt. Earl Fulford (also a witness to picking up the "memory foil" on the debris field and an object on a flatbed being taken to the hangar at the base) told of seeing three discs hovering over the base several days before the story came out. That's when he and his skeptical buddies realized that there might indeed be something to those flying disc stories.

Lance said...

Hi Kevin,

Your account above of the supposed nun evidence further obscures something that I think you and your former partner have been obscuring since it first appeared in your second Roswell book.

From the account you write above, you seem to be saying that you and Don have NEVER seen the diary accounts. Yet your earlier book cites these entries in a way that honest people use when they actually have referred to and vetted the material.

Will the Dream team be using the same kind of maverick research methods where you can cite things as you imagine them to be rather than actually, you know, seeing the real evidence?

Those damn skeptics and their baseless concerns!

Lance

cda said...

DR:

"Then, said Marcel, the rancher came to Roswell a few days later to report the exploded flying saucer."

Brazel never reported an "exploded flying saucer". Marcel also never reported such a thing, at least not in '47 although he may well have hinted at such in the early 1980s. You can guess why.

Nobody, repeat nobody, reported that anything "exploded" at the time.

But the main point I am making is that irrespective of what witnesses saw in the sky in early July there is simply NO WAY of linking these with what was found on the ranch. For two good reasons:

1.
Nobody knows when the object landed or crashed. They only know when it was discovered, which may be several days later. And if Kevin and DR refuse to accept the given date, this only makes the situation worse.

2.
Unless an aerial sighting can be positively linked with the stuff on the ranch (such as known time, location and description) it is useless data. How can a bright light or streaking yellow object possibly be relevant to the ranch debris 75 miles away? It would be a huge leap of faith to connect them (see e.g. Moore/Friedman over the Wilmots sighting).

If Kevin wants to establish some confirmation of Roswell by an aerial sighting of something at "the right time" he had better determine which is "the right time", say within 2 hours at most.

As things stand, we cannot establish a crash date with any accuracy.

And to take the opposing side, I accept that even if we knew for certain that a balloon plus radar reflector was seen in the sky over the desert 'sometime' in early July, this would be equally useless as data in support of the USAF Mogul answer.

You have undertaken an impossible task, Kevin. What can you expect after 65 years?

David Rudiak said...

cda wrote:
"Then, said Marcel, the rancher came to Roswell a few days later to report the exploded flying saucer."

Brazel never reported an "exploded flying saucer". Marcel also never reported such a thing, at least not in '47 although he may well have hinted at such in the early 1980s. You can guess why.

Nobody, repeat nobody, reported that anything "exploded" at the time.


Not strictly true. Marcel was quoted in numerous AP stories saying the debris was scattered "over a square mile."

He used the same description 30+ years later when interviewed by Leonard Stringfield, also adding that the rancher told him of hearing the gigantic explosion in the midst of the thunder and lightning explosion, then finding the debris the following morning when he checked to see what had happened.

And Brazel Jr., who never met Marcel, told exactly the same story of the thunderstorm, explosion, and his father finding the debris the next day.

(That is also why I brought up the weather records. The monsoon season in New Mexico with its violent thunderstorms generally doesn't begin until late June/early July. The weather records for June 1947 bear this out--no rain or thunderstorm activity in early through mid-June, with the first rains and thunderstorms beginning June 23.)

The July 8 press release's "sometime last week", no doubt based on Marcel's findings out in the field interviewing Brazel, also helps bracket the date. The debris was found by Brazel in early July and the crash/explosion happened the night before. There was thunderstorm activity in the Foster Ranch region July 2 & 4, but not other days in early July.

Finally the Wilmot story in the Daily Record July 8 of the saucer flying overhead at high speed the night of July 2 in the direction of the Foster Ranch, coupled with Paul Wilmot's statements to Marcel around 1980 that his parents saw the object actually explode in the distance, takes on added importance.

Can we prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what specific object crashed and exactly when? No, but so what? The bulk of the evidence points to an early July crash, and something of high significance obviously happened, or Col. Blanchard wouldn't have sent out his top two intelligence officers to investigate, each driving their own vehicle because the rancher described a lot of debris.

The remains of a real Mogul balloon crash could have been brought back in a cardboard box on the rear of a moped. Not even Mogul engineer Charles Moore trying to boost his Mogul theory was ever so brazen as to claim that Mogul crashes would be scattered over so wide an area--never happened. The balloon arrays would come down in a much more confined area.

Scatter 60 pounds of balloon and other material over a square mile and what have you got--some minor littering. The balloons themselves would have deteriorated into dust in a month's time out in the sun. They were made to disintegrate.

The point is, the Mogul-that-never-was-to-begin-with would never have cause such a fuss even if it existed, which it didn't.

Synergy said...

cda,

At times, I think you make very important points and keep the ETHers on their toes. However, this is not one of those times.

Proof and evidence are not necessarily synonymous. There are degrees of evidence. You seem to be taking it as "either it can be absolutely proven to be connected to the crash or it is utterly worthless" ignoring the context with which the examples were used! They were referenced in refutation to the critical argument that nobody saw anything out of the ordinary in the sky around the general time of the crash. As Kevin demonstrated, that is untrue.

There may exist no further evidence to make a definitive link. The sightings and the true debris may not have been linked at all. However, to refer to these reports as "useless data," especially given the context with which the examples were used, is a sign of desperation for dismissal.

cda, do you feel as though Roswell should be dropped like a hot potato and given up on by UFO researchers completely, whether new leads exist or not? Imagine what the world would be like if researchers in all fields gave up so easily.

Synergy said...

Has anyone ever left a 1947-era neoprene balloon out in the New Mexico desert sun for a month as a test to determine characteristics for certain?

Synergy said...

Better yet, why not construct a balloon train as close to Mogul flight 4 as possible (even assuming the foil, etc. went up with it) and leave the whole thing in the desert for a month to see what happens after a month of weathering?

Afterwards, you can time how long it takes for 3 people to clean up the debris, and whether or not the debris can fit readily in the back of a car or truck similar to the make and model used.

It sounds so arbitrary and simple, silly even, and yet it might be an incredibly useful demonstration.

I know a similar "experiment" was used in a TV show Kevin (if I remember correctly) happened to be involved in, along with Robert A. Galganski, but all it involved was the shooting down of a Mogul-like balloon train and an instant visual assessment.

cda said...

Synergy:

Certainly there were plenty of sightings in the general vicinity during this period, i.e. within a few days before or after. The UFO era had just begun and was in full swing.

You talk about "researchers in all fields gave up so easily". Nobody should give up altogether if they have something new and relevant. In the case of Roswell Kevin has told us nothing new so far that has not been documented before in his writings.

Let me put this to you or Kevin:

What do you think would be gleaned or learned about the incident if Kevin did locate the nuns' diary entries and discovered that they did indeed witness a bright flaming object one night, say on July 2, 3 or 4? Can its location be determined with any likelihood of being correct?

How would this sighting further the investigation? How would it establish the identity of the debris on the ranch when we do not know what day or time this debris came down to earth and there is no descriptive sighting data?

Since the ET proponents do not accept the June 14 date, and insist it was in early July, we shall be at a standstill (again) and thus get nowhere. The sighting will be taken as 'confirming' that the object fell to earth that night, when it does nothing of the kind.

So yes, it will end up as useless data, perhaps not 100% useless but only 95%. Big deal.

But I concede the 'dream team' may (just) prove me wrong.

cda said...

Synergy:

Your balloon train experiment is indeed a useful suggestion. Trouble is, who is going to fork out the money for the experiment?

Synergy said...

cda,

One way you could pay for the experiment would be to get a TV show like Fact or Faked to go along with it! Long shot, I know. Even if we got them to go along with it, you know how TV producers are...

As for what the diaries would "prove"... As I suggested earlier, it would simply constitute a stronger association than no diary records at all. It may be impossible to ever establish a direct link, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do as much as we can to come as close as possible to confirm or deny a piece of evidence. Furthermore, the context with which the examples were used was in refutation to critical arguments that nothing out of the ordinary was seen in the general location and time period makes it worthwhile. I don't think it has to PROVE anything to warrant further verification. You don't need to hit a home run every time.

Synergy said...

Bare minimum, one neoprene balloon shouldn't be too expensive. Even leaving just that out in the New Mexico desert for a month would be very useful.

Synergy said...

I would inflate the balloon first to stretch the neoprene beforehand. I'm uncertain as to whether that would make any significant difference, though.

In fact, I found one with a simple google search for $30: http://www.torontosurplus.com/scientific-3/general-scientific-equipment/weather-balloon-4-5-foot-diameter-neoprene-tan.html

Not exactly breaking the bank.

KRandle said...

Synergy -

A neoprene balloon left in the sun would turn black and disintegrate in a very short period... as little as a week. It basically turns to ash and is blown away. I suppose you could suggest they were biodegrabable so that they wouldn't be cluttering up the landscape since they are launched all the time.

Synergy said...

I don't doubt it, but having a working demonstration of the time scale of disintegration would more effectively refute the claims that degraded neoprene could have been present in Ramey's office, as was claimed, if Mogul was the culprit. As simple as it would be, it would carry more weight than words.

David Rudiak said...

Synergy wrote:
Has anyone ever left a 1947-era neoprene balloon out in the New Mexico desert sun for a month as a test to determine characteristics for certain?

Mogul engineer Charles Moore (who lived in Socorro) did a number of such demonstrations and showed that the neoprene balloon material deteriorated into a darkened, brittle flakes in a matter of only two to three weeks. In his Air Force interview with Lt. McAndrew, McAndrew compared it to paper ash.

The Sci Fi channel in 1997 did a debunking program hosted by Alan Alda, where Moore again showed the neoprene with only 2 to 3 weeks exposure. You could see it breaking up and when he shook it you could hear it crinkle much like cellophane, i.e., it was obviously very brittle and had lost its orignal rubber-like pliability.

Moore was trying to argue that this matched Brazel's description of "smoky gray" material, but Brazel in his Daily Record interview additionally claimed he collected "rubber strips" supposedly 3 weeks after he first found the debris and that he could roll up into a bundle. Doesn't sound like brittle paper ash flakes to me.

Further, the photos in Fort Worth show a seemingly intact, flexible ballooon, not a bunch of blackened ash-like flakes or "rubber strips".

The balloon material in Fort Worth is darkened somewhat, but engineer Robert Galganski also did some tests and demonstrated that the neoprene balloon he tested was already darkening in a matter of hours, from milky white to light brown, and these were tests on the ground back in New York where Galganski lived, not in New Mexico.

A balloon lofted 10 miles or so into the stratosphere would be irradiated by much more intense ultraviolet light, on the order of an order of magnitude or more, which would cause correspondingly faster deterioration. Four hours at high altitude would probably be equivalent to about several days ground exposure.

The conclusion is that the photos of the balloon in Fort Worth are of a relatively recent used balloon, not one left out in the sun for at least 3 weeks. Also Brazel's description does NOT match what would be expected from a balloon or balloons with 3-4 weeks N.M. sun exposure, and also supposedly flown at high altitude before coming down.

alanborky said...

cda if you pply the logic of your thinking (particularly in your first contribution) to everything then Archaeology as science dies right there as does Astronomy (from the Big Bang theory onwards) as does Evolution.

This's true also of all the so-called psuedo sciences including Ufology (as a way of proving and disproving the existence or non-existence of 'flying saucers') as well as crime detection (a la CSI) not to mention the possibility of criminal convictions.

If though you only apply these 'rules' to Kev concerning Roswell then me Socrates an' Plato (an' a whole bunch of other Ancient Greeks) not to mention Lao Tse the Buddha and countless other ancients and moderns can't back you to the hilt.

Synergy said...

DR,

Interesting. It seems odd, however, that a debunking show citing the work of a key Roswell debunker would use a demonstration that strongly contradicts the preferred conclusion. How did they reconcile this issue?

David Rudiak said...

Synergy wrote:
Interesting. It seems odd, however, that a debunking show citing the work of a key Roswell debunker would use a demonstration that strongly contradicts the preferred conclusion. How did they reconcile this issue?

The point was to demonstrate how the neoprene darkened with exposure to sunlight. The usual line after that is that this is "consistent" with what is seen in the photos, either failing to observe the obvious inconsistencies or deliberately ignoring them. E.g., no Brazel "rubber strips" in the photos and no disintegrated ash-like neoprene balloon, what Brazel really should have found.

("Consistent" is a standard catch-all Roswell debunking word, sweeping all the inconsistencies of the official story under the carpet. Thus what's in the photos is supposedly "consistent" with Brazel's newspaper story description or "consistent" with the wreckage of a Mogul balloon.)

Synergy said...

DR,

Thanks for the responses! I was able to find this show after a bit of digging for anyone else that wants to see what a neoprene balloon looks like after 2-3 weeks of sunlight from ground level:

Copy and paste this massive link into your address bar --

http://vsx.onstreammedia.com/vsx/pbssaf/search/search?pageSize=5&query_op2=must_contain&query_field2=clabel_Category&query_op3=eq&query_field3=clabel_Access&query3=Public&search_type=VIR_CAT_CLIP&sort=vlabel_Date&sort_dir=-&sort2=VIR_ASSET_ID_FIELD&sort_dir2=%2B&pageStart=150&query2=&query=beyond+science



Alternatively, go to www.pbs.org/saf/. Click watch online. Then enter "Beyond Science" into the search bar (it's what I did anyway). Go to page 151-155, and it's the obvious "Aliens Have Landed" clip.


The neoprene is shown @ 8:15. Judge for yourself.

Synergy said...

Or here's a direct link instead: http://vsx.onstreammedia.com/vsx/pbssaf/search/PBSPlayer?assetId=69068&ccstart=0&pt=0&preview=

I wish there was an edit function...

Kurt Peters said...

...I still await the definitive comment on this debate from Kernel Kalvin Korff.....


....waiting....

....waiting

TheNurse said...

A nurse would likely wonder why so many 'men' HATE the Roswell event...

Lance said...

Thanks for the above video link.

The material in the Ft. Worth photos is almost a dead match for the stuff that is shown by Moore in the video link.

Dr. Rudiak's claim that the balloon material is much more pristine is not supported by the actual photos, which show rough edges and pieces of the dark material on the rug. This is VERY clear in the higher rez photo that Dr. Rudiak sent me.

Lance

Lance said...

I prepared an exhibit of my claim above and am happy to share it. Just email me...

The ballon material in the Ft. Worth photos is shredded and fragile looking---pieces have flaked off onto the floor.

Lance Moody

Synergy said...

Lance,

Do you have a link for the high res version? Can you point out the chips? The material in the photograph looks fuller to me, not a flat flaky crisp. I only have low res photo's, however.

Where do you suggest they got the radar reflector (singular) from if flight #4 was stripped of this material? Where is the flower tape?

It seems to me the material shown is of a single balloon and radar target not consistent with Mogul. Nor would it warrant the reaction that followed in its recovery.

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

Lance wrote:
The material in the Ft. Worth photos is almost a dead match for the stuff that is shown by Moore in the video link.

Dr. Rudiak's claim that the balloon material is much more pristine is not supported by the actual photos, which show rough edges and pieces of the dark material on the rug. This is VERY clear in the higher rez photo that Dr. Rudiak sent me.


Of course I think this is mostly nonsense and Lance is badly in need of an eye exam. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Check out Synergy's links to the debunking 1997 Scientific American Frontiers program. Charlie Moore shows the very blackened and very, very tattered neoprene balloon that he states he left out in the sun for only 2 to 3 weeks. The thing looks shredded. It is obviously also very brittle because you can literally hear it rustle like cellophane as Moore handles it.

The skeptics claim Brazel found the remains of the mythical Mogul Flight #4, supposedly launched June 4. (But in reality canceled because of clouds, thus absolutely no documentation in Mogul records that it ever existed as a real flight.) But Brazel said he ignored the material he supposedly found June 14 and didn't collect it until July 4.

The point here is that the material would have sat in the sun for a minimum of 3 weeks, if not 4+ weeks (if from the mythical Mogul) and been in the full brittle, badly tattered, falling apart state, if not worse, of Moore's 2-3 week demo neoprene balloon.

Why in the world would Brazel refer to such material as "rubber", which most people normally think of as very pliable and flexible material that certainly does not rustle when you handle it. And where are Brazel's "rubber strips" in the photos that he claimed to have "rolled" into a bundle? If you tried to "roll" Moore's brittle neoprene into a bundle, it would probably fall apart.

Just before Moore showed his tattered, black neoprene, he showed a pristine neoprene balloon. I would say Ramey's singular balloon in the Fort Worth photos is much closer in appearance to the pristine balloon, except for the darkening of the material, which wouldn't take all that long with sun exposure. (Even new balloons came down already partially darkened from intense UV exposure in the upper atmosphere.) You can see the folds and stretch marks of the rubber in the photo. The material still appears vey pliable and flexible, as would be expected of "rubber".

And the quantity? Aside from Ramey and his weather officer Newton saying it was a singular weather balloon, it is also possible to measure the approximate volume, which I have done by recreating the scene in a computer ray tracer. The balloon material would have fit in a shoe box.

Point, where are all those many balloons from Mogul #4? Why did Ramey and his people always refer to the balloon in the singular, and stress it was no different than the many other singular balloons sent up by the weather services every day. Perhaps because it was no different?

If the quantity and condition don't fit, you have to acquit. The never-existent "Mogul #4" is not guilty of causing the Roswell incident.

You have the same problems with the singular rawin target in the photos and the nonexistent flower tape. And then there are those hundreds of yards of string and twine of a real Mogul that Brazel specifically denied finding even a single piece of. There is none tied to the radar target in the photos either, yet it SHOULD be there.

As I said to Synergy, the standard debunking line is that what is shown in the Fort Worth photos is "consistent" with Brazel's descriptions and what would be expected from a real Mogul, when that is very clearly NOT the case. The debunkers sweep all the gross inconsistency's under Ramey's rug in order to make Mogul fit.

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

Dr Ruidak continues to use the straw man argument that everything in the photo is everything that got picked up.

How does he know this?

Roswell logic.

Again, I am happy to send along the blowup of the image I prepared that demonstrates flecks of dark stuff around the ballon and a shredded fragile appearance in general. Some of the edges show a very ragged appearance. In short, it looks exactly like the weeks old stuff that Moore showed.

But who are you gonna believe, David Rudiak or your lying eyes?

Lance

Lance said...

I created a link for the exhibit:

http://lancemoody.typepad.com/Shredded%20Debris.jpg

Lance

Synergy said...

DR,

Actually, with Mogul flight #4 allegedly launched on June 4th (against all documentation), being collected on the 4th of July by Brazel suggests Moore should have tried leaving the neoprene out for a full month for more accurate results. The material in the video I linked was the result of neoprene exposure in a little more than HALF that time.

However, I received Lance's version of the high res photograph. There is indeed, very clearly, dark debris on the rug. One of the edges appears as though it could be rough/shredded. The rest of the material looks more wrinkled than tattered, to me anyway.

Synergy said...

Lance,

Right above the shoe of Ramey, there is a section of neoprene that is far closer to fresh neoprene in color, wouldn't you agree?

Lance said...

Hi Synergy,

Yes, I do agree--there are several places that are of varying textures/colors.

There is one place that appears to have flaked completely away--leaving just a flap of material.

There is another more rubbery looking section as you mention.

In general, the material looks more or less like the weeks old stuff that Moore demonstrated.

Knowing EXACTLY how much something would deteriorate in an unknown situation (was it somewhat covered by foliage or other debris or something?) is the kind of thing that only a Roswell expert would be willing to pretend to know.

Lance

cda said...

Moore specifically said how he used to dip the balloon fabric in boiling water to make it more durable. There is also something about this in the 'Alamogordo News' article of July 10.

Brazel also hid portions of the debris under some brush. We do not know the exact date of this.

I doubt that he hid any pieces of a suspected ET craft in this way!

Lance said...

By the way, I think Moore says that his dark material was out 2 or 3 weeks. Using 2 weeks as a set in stone figure is inadvisable.

Lance

Synergy said...

I assume we can agree that the material in the photograph is less deteriorated than the material shown by Moore representing 2-3 weeks of exposure at ground level. I also assume we can agree that deterioration would accelerate the higher the altitude. And that Mogul debris would have been more deteriorated than the Moore sample by a considerable margin even if only exposed to light at ground level over the span of a month. None of the evidence appears to support Mogul in this sense. The material appears to represent debris of a much more recent weather balloon with one balloon and one target, which cannot be ruled out as what Brazel actually found, but introduces a lot of inconsistencies in hos and others original stories if true.

Thank you cda for the preservation method. Why not use this in his experimental model then, however? Still worth considering.

Lance said...

"I assume we can agree that the material in the photograph is less deteriorated than the material shown by Moore representing 2-3 weeks of exposure at ground level."

No, the sample we have is insufficient to assume this.

"I also assume we can agree that deterioration would accelerate the higher the altitude. And that Mogul debris would have been more deteriorated than the Moore sample by a considerable margin even if only exposed to light at ground level over the span of a month."

Again, no. It's possible but not demonstrated. I suspect that, like many things, there is a range of what might have happened..we have a very small sample, we don't know the circumstances of the fallen debris (was it covered up or sheltered in some way, etc.).

"The material appears to represent debris of a much more recent weather balloon with one balloon and one target"

When you say "much", aren't you doing the same thing as when you said 2 weeks after Moore said 2 or 3 weeks?

What Dr. Rudiak does, it seems to me, is postulate a lot of things with absolute surety. He knows exactly what every person would have done, exactly how the wind might have blown, exactly how rubber might have deteriorated. These things are possible only within context of the paranoid style. Regular folks can't claim these kinds of things.

Show a regular person the debris exhibit I made and a still frame of the pristine balloon from the video and the weeks old balloon debris and see which they think look more alike.

Lance

David Rudiak said...

Lance wrote:

What Dr. Rudiak does, it seems to me, is postulate a lot of things with absolute surety.

Pot, kettle, black. You'll notice below, it is Lance who postulates things with "absolute surety."

He knows exactly what every person would have done, exactly how the wind might have blown, exactly how rubber might have deteriorated.

What I've stated about balloon condition is based exactly on the experiments of others, particularly Charles Moore, who demonstrated on multiple occasions that mere ground exposure to sun will deteriorate a neoprene balloon into a rag-tatter of brittle broken pieces in two to three weeks exposure, not even the 3-4 weeks of Brazel's story.

And in his Air Force affidavit, Moore stated that the flown balloons broke up into blackened flakes in a matter of only days.

Is that what the Fort Worth photos show? No, not by a long shot, despite Lance's "surety" to the contrary.

These things are possible only within context of the paranoid style. Regular folks can't claim these kinds of things.

So now my points about balloon condition, which can and have been tested by experiment, are nothing but "paranoia" and some form of elitism. Those down-to-earth "regular folks" know better than me. Oh well...

Typical Lance, he has nothing much to argue, so he has to resort to insults and hand-waving arguments.

Show a regular person the debris exhibit I made and a still frame of the pristine balloon from the video and the weeks old balloon debris and see which they think look more alike.

Consider it done, in much more detail than Lance. I've just thrown up a new web page:

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

Rather than endlessly debating with Lance and his few, mostly near-microscopic black flecks near the main mass of balloon material (which amazingly he knows with his own brand of "absolute surety" must be from the balloon--some are so small they may be nothing more than photo defects or other dirt), please have a look at the various photos and graphics on the web page and make up your own mind.

These include photos of Charle's Moore's various demonstrations, including from the Scientific American Frontiers program, photos from the USAF report showing how the neoprene decayed into flakes, an experiment by engineer Robert Galganski, showing the neoprene material darkening on the ground and stiffening up in a matter of only hours (with a mottled appearance looking very much like the material in Fort Worth), various views of the balloon material in the Fort Worth photos, and finally a reconstruction of the materials in one of the photos I did in a computer ray-tracer.

It should be quite clear from these photos, even to the non-"paranoid" and those "regular folk", that Moore's very blackened, badly tattered falling apart neoprene balloon material from 2-3 weeks of ground exposure doesn't really match up at all with the Fort Worth photos.

Also there is hardly anything there. Where are the two dozen or so weather balloons from a Mogul? Or the multiple radar targets?

So in the end, the pseudo-scientific, "non-paranoid", "regular folk" debunkers have a totally undocumented Mogul balloon that was instead clearly canceled, and a single, slightly used weather balloon that doesn't match up with a month-old one, and a single radar target.

Yet despite all this, Lance knows with "absolute surety" that Mogul MUST explain what happened.

David Rudiak said...

Synergy wrote:
Actually, with Mogul flight #4 allegedly launched on June 4th (against all documentation), being collected on the 4th of July by Brazel suggests Moore should have tried leaving the neoprene out for a full month for more accurate results. The material in the video I linked was the result of neoprene exposure in a little more than HALF that time.

Yes exactly. First no evidence that there ever was such a flight--total undocumented in Mogul records.

Then the one month gap between when the non-existent Mogul flew and when Brazel said he finally got around to collecting the debris.

Besides Moore's typical 2-3 week demos of the the neoprenes blackened, badly tattered condition, he also stated in his AF affidavit, that the flown balloons were often reduced to black flakes in a matter of days.

However, I received Lance's version of the high res photograph. There is indeed, very clearly, dark debris on the rug. One of the edges appears as though it could be rough/shredded. The rest of the material looks more wrinkled than tattered, to me anyway.

Again, see my new web page and Robert Galganski's experiment, showing darkening on only ground exposure very similar to what is seen in the Fort Worth photos, with a very mottled appearance and many light patches.

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

Again, flown balloons have much more intense exposure to UV radiation at high altitudes. A few hours in the air is like several days on the ground, probably why Moore stated that with an additional few days on the ground, they often found nothing but black flakes.

Yes, maybe there are a FEW small pieces from the balloon, but some dark spots so so small they could be anything, including dust on the negative or other dirt, and one round dark spot he points to near Ramey's shoe is more likely to be a small knothole on the wooden floor, similar to other round knotholes seen elsewhere in the photos.

(To scale this, the stripes on Ramey's rug are approximately one inch wide. Most of Lance's black spots are probably no more than 1/10th inch wide, if that.)

Such tiny specks are hardly some sort of "proof" that this is a month-old balloon of Brazel's story. I see it like you--a darkened, but mottled, seemingly mostly intact balloon, with numerous pleats, looking very much like the elastic folds of a fresh balloon (examples also on my web page).

This is probably a flown balloon (out of hundreds sent up everyday) that was recovered after no more than a few days of ground exposure. Hence the intact, pliable, pleated look to it, with a heavily mottled coloration, not the uniformly blackened look of Moore's experimental balloons of 2-3 weeks.

As for Lance's "shredded edge", what he has is an edge about half an inch wide, with mottled, crinkled aluminum foil underneath it. Lance's "shredded edge" could be a small tear in the main balloon envelope, which wouldn't be any great surprise, maybe also confused with the crinkled light/dark coloration of the foil underneath.

Now what did Brazel describe? Lots of small pieces, which he described as "smoky gray" (not black) and as "rubber stips", supposedly scattered over a 200 yard area. He then supposedly gathered them all up into a "bundle".

But from Moore's experiments and statements, after a month, there should have been nothing more than lots of blackened flakes similar to a photo from the USAF Roswell report I also have on my new page, comparing them to a pristine, pleated neoprene balloon.

The condition of a month-old balloon sitting in the sun would have resulted in black flakes and badly tattered edges all over the place. We don't see that.

Also, as I show on my website, the volume of the balloon is about that of a typical shoe box. Gee, all the balloons of the "giant" Mogul condensed down into a shoebox.

Lance said...

Speaking about the condition of the balloon in the only high-rez version of the photos that I have: the condition is ragged and shredded and apparently flaking. It is like this in several locations, not in just one place.

There are also some other sections (if they are from the same balloon, which is hard to tell) that look less like parchment and more rubbery.

Dr. Rudiak speaks of other balloons and how long they lasted and what happened to them etc, etc.. It's like someone looking at one snowflake and insisting that all snowflakes are precisely the same.

That the balloons are variable in their construction and condition is apparent from the literature like the Federal Meteorological Handbook No. 3. A simple matter like how the balloon is stored and its age can cause a drastic change.

As for the flaking I noted, perhaps high rez versions of each of the photos could falsify or confirm my contention? Does anyone else have high rez versions of the other photos?

The little flecks I pointed out are exactly what one might expect from a weather damaged fragile piece of plastic as shown in the photo. They are small flakes. Earlier he and Kevin were waxing on about how they balloons would deteriorate to dust--now David complains about the particles being small!

The page you put up, David, only shows crappy low res versions of the photos. It's like gazing into tea leaves which can be the exact thing you want them to be or the exact words you want them to read, etc etc.

Lance

David Rudiak said...

Lance wrote:
(1 of 2)
Speaking about the condition of the balloon in the only high-rez version of the photos that I have: the condition is ragged and shredded and apparently flaking. It is like this in several locations, not in just one place.

Followed at the end by:

It's like gazing into tea leaves which can be the exact thing you want them to be or the exact words you want them to read, etc etc.

I'm afraid Lance is doing his own version of tea-leaf reading here. Now the balloon is all "ragged" and "shredded". Instead it is almost entirely a coherent mass with a lot of rounded pleats and folds like a new pliable balloon, with at most maybe a few small flakes off the main mass. Lance could point to only one tiny "jagged" edge, which could be nothing but a small tear, which would hardly be earthshaking in a balloon, for crying out loud.

There are also some other sections (if they are from the same balloon, which is hard to tell)

Yes, hard to tell, but still the volume is no bigger than a shoe box no matter how you shred it, so hardly the likely remains of some 2 dozen plus Mogul balloon train, for which you have not a shred of documentation really existed, speaking of shreds.

Instead what the photos show is just what you would indeed expect from a SINGLE, standard 350 mg meteorological balloon, which also happens to coincide with what Ramey said it was as well as his weather officer Newton.

I have spoken with Newton in the present. He's a big skeptic, but was of the opinion then and now it was nothing more than a standard singular weather balloon and singular radar target, same story as in 1947. Newton doesn't believe it came from a Mogul, since it was indistinguishable from the standard singular rawin balloon used at many weather stations all over the country. They demonstration exactly that at Fort Worth base 2 days later.

You can see all the tiny black specks and mostly imaginary "jagged edges" you want Lance, but it doesn't change the very tiny amount of balloon debris there or the fact that this was indeed the official story back then that this was all that was found.

that look less like parchment and more rubbery.

Yes, in fact to my eye almost ALL of it has those rounded pleats and folds that you would see in a new or only slightly used rubber balloon.

Dr. Rudiak speaks of other balloons and how long they lasted and what happened to them etc, etc.. It's like someone looking at one snowflake and insisting that all snowflakes are precisely the same.

I speak of actual experiments. You wave you hands.

That the balloons are variable in their construction and condition is apparent from the literature like the Federal Meteorological Handbook No. 3. A simple matter like how the balloon is stored and its age can cause a drastic change.

Yes, they would deteriorate even FASTER, not slower, if they were stored for lengthy periods of time. You have your argument ass backwards Lance.

As for the flaking I noted, perhaps high rez versions of each of the photos could falsify or confirm my contention? Does anyone else have high rez versions of the other photos?

The little flecks I pointed out are exactly what one might expect from a weather damaged fragile piece of plastic as shown in the photo. They are small flakes.

Most are extremely tiny, about the size or smaller than this "o", not even clearly off the balloon--could easily be one of your favorites Lance--photo defects. I also see similar sized white specks scattered here and there.

David Rudiak said...

(2 of 2)
Earlier he and Kevin were waxing on about how they balloons would deteriorate to dust--now David complains about the particles being small!

Brazel spoke of "rubber strips" scattered over 200 yards that he had to collect. If they were nothing but tiny specks, how and why would he bother to collect them?

Yes could be very tiny fragments off the main mass, but hardly anything at all. Doubt if real if they add up to even 1 gram out of 350 grams of the main balloon. That's hardly a case for a month-old balloon in the elements.

The page you put up, David, only shows crappy low res versions of the photos.

Well, the video from the Sci American Frontiers program is low res to begin with. What do you expect? Still no problem seeing the pleats and folds of Moore's fresh balloon, or the extremely blackened, ragged, torn-up, and brittle state of the balloon exposed for only 2 to 3 weeks. Doesn't really look anything like the FW photos.

Nothing lo-res or ambiguous about Galganski's photos--from obviously pliable milky white neoprene to darkening and stiffening neoprene in only 5 hours ground exposure. The point here is that the balloon in Ramey's office didn't have to have that much exposure to get that darkened but very mottled appearance, not that very blackened appearance from Moore's lengthier exposures. Neoprene balloons deteriorate very quickly in the sun.

As for the four pics from Ramey's office, half-res from the original high res scans for Net economy. Try saving or opening in another page.

You may see an additional black fleck or two from different angles, but again all accounted for from a slightly aged neoprene balloon.

Think total lack of elasticity and black paper ash-like flakes only after a month in the sun and elements, being "bundled" up, perhaps stuffed into the small round paper package in the photos. Real neoprene would just break up into numerous flakes after such treatment, not look mostly like a pleated, pliable, coherent mass with only a few possible tiny specks nearby.

And however you see it, still only a very tiny amount of balloon material that would fit in a shoebox. I still fail to see the "Mogul" in all this, even conjuring up the debunkers imaginary one.

Lance said...

David,

So it's not flaking. But if it IS flaking, it doesn't matter! The ever unfalsifiable theory!

If particles of the thing were flaking off, that certainly has not been demonstrated as happening in the very short time period available under your conspiracy theory.

I, of course, wasn't suggesting that Brazel collected the little flakes. I was suggesting that they might have flaked off in the office from the tattered balloon we see in the picture.

I don't reject the experiments you cite with a hand wave. I merely assert that a range of outcomes is possible and that every snowflake is not alike.

As you know, there is some confusion as to the exact timing of some of these informal experiments related to Moore. He later said that he meant months instead of weeks in one experiment, I believe. The whole thing is not well documented and it doesn't seem fair to pretend that it is.

If you have any other high rez versions of the other photos, I will be happy to examine them for other flakes and to confirm or deny the flakes I noted in the one photo.

I have privately suggested to you that better scans of the photos are needed and that such scans might solve your memo idea and I think that such scans might also further shed light on the condition of the balloon. I have also offered to chip in on the cost of obtaining such scans.

Again, I see above that you want to talk about lots of other things other than the issue I brought up--the tattered and apparently flaking balloon debris that you would have us all believe is almost pristinely out of the package. I'm sticking to that one issue in this exchange because it may actually allow us to learn something.



Lance

Kurt Peters said...

Mr. David Rudiak -

...your opinions are all well and good, but until I see a cogent analysis of them posted by Professor Tony Bragalia, I simply must defer any reply....

cda said...

"Professor Tony Bragalia"? He must be flattered. And what, precisely, is he a professor of?

There is a case in this analysis of being over-technical or over-analytical. The real point is why should anyone believe the debris displayed in Ramey's office is anything other than what was recovered from the desert?

The only type of person who believes this is a conspiracist, i.e. someone who insists General Ramey, guided by his Washington chiefs, decided, in the space of literally an hour or so, to substitute some new or very recent balloon debris for the real recovered debris, hoping to fool the press and public. Then to allow a press photographer to take some pictures of this and thus hoodwink the world for as long as 65 years (!) that we have NOT been visited by ETs when these few knew all along that we had indeed been visited. Under no circumstances can ANYONE, even today, outside this small circle be told the great news.

This is the philosophy of the conspiracy brigade and no-one else, and will continue ad infinitum. It may even continue after we get a genuine ET visit, say by the year 3000.

We can analyse these photos ad nauseam and reach no final conclusion.

The whole thing is getting way beyond a joke, particularly when a perfectly good, maybe not 100% accurate, explanation for the event was given at the time. It only changed 32 years later when a crashed saucer diehard happened to meet a retired USAF officer who only had vague memories of the event, did not even know when it happened and kept no diary, no records, and no photographs.

Boy what a marvellous story. The kind of thing 'dream teams' are made of.

Lance said...

CDA says:

"We can analyse these photos ad nauseam and reach no final conclusion. "

Oh, I think in some cases there may be conclusions in the photos. I think, for instance, that the memo text might actually be recoverable with a better source. The methodology used so far has not been ideal (I am not faulting Dr. Rudiak in this, doing it the right way is probably expensive and complicated and we all do this stuff as more or less a hobby).

It's funny above that David first said I needed my eyes examined and then decided that I was seeing things microscopically!

I explain above a method for confirming or falsifying my claim. No interest.

First he tries to sell us on the idea that the balloon in the photos was a soft pristine new balloon that had apparently been thrown out into the sun for a few hours and the brought in to fool the public.

Now I think I have shown evidence that that the balloon was almost surely older and more weathered than this.

If anything, it is hilarious to see the new rationalizations!

Lance

Don said...

CDA wrote: "The real point is why should anyone believe the debris displayed in Ramey's office is anything other than what was recovered from the desert?"

The real point is why anyone would think the AF would transport a balloon/kite from the Foster Ranch to Ramey's office even if it was Mogul that was found.

It wasn't needed for a forensic analysis. It was needed for a photo-op.

Regards,

Don

cda said...

Lance:

Is it worth the expenditure to examine the Ramey memo in greater detail?

I do think we have reached the end of the line on this. Further blow-ups will only reveal more graininess and remember the USAF had a good go at it and failed. Has there been any advancement in this kind of thing in the last 16 years?

What I am saying is that you would be expending perhaps $20,000 (?) or more on something that still ends up inconclusive. The debris photos offer a bit more hope, but even then there will be disputes and debates. Certainly if I were to choose between the debris photos and the contents of that piece of paper I would go for the former. But what then...?

There comes a time when one just has to apply a bit of common sense to these things. Scientists are not the least interested. Some ufologists are; conspiracists are, of course; the USAF has long disposed of the case. There are no documents, hardware or bodies, and I confidently predict there never will be (as do you I presume).

Would you 'invest' money in getting these photos further examined in the hope of finally solving this matter? More important, would the ETHers accept the virtually inevitable negative conclusions of such an examination?

cda said...

Don:
"It was needed for a photo-op."

Didn't they any photographers in Roswell?

The reason it went to Ft Worth is because Ramey wanted to see it (on the way to Wright Field).

Maybe the plane needed a refuelling stop anyway.

Lance said...

CDA,

I don't know what the Air Force did but the method used by Dr. Rudiak got fairly close to recovering text (some text is legible) and it was not ideal methodology (using a print instead of the original negative).

Of course, it all could be an inconclusive waste and, if it really costs $20K, maybe it is too expensive to consider--certainly too expensive for me!


Lance

Don said...

Lance wrote: "What I am saying is that you would be expending perhaps $20,000 (?) or more on something that still ends up inconclusive."

All anyone needs is the negative, a light table, and a 20x. One could determine whether there is enough detail difference between the existing scans and the negative to make proceeding worthwhile.

My guess is the memo would not show up much better than it does now, although it would be worth it to take a peek under the scope. Unlike digital files, a frame of film is a 3 dimensional object. It can resolve a lot of detail but the limit is due to the opaque (or nearly so) grains of silver clumping up in depth, resulting in "grain" rather than image detail. Digital images reach their limit of resolution with the pixel-size, film with the random clumping of silver, so it depends how that went in the memo area.

In any event, I'd want a retouch worker to examine it. For example to determine in the balloon portion what is string and what are scratches.

Regards,

Don

Don said...

CDA wrote: "Didn't they any photographers in Roswell?"

Does it matter?

"The reason it went to Ft Worth is because Ramey wanted to see it (on the way to Wright Field)."

It was a photo-op to put the cap on their weather balloon/rawin story. That's all. Ramey's natural curiosity, right.

The reason is they called it a rawin target and that has to be suspended from a balloon, so that's why there had to be a balloon. They weren't doing an analysis of whatever was found on the ranch. They needed something for a photo-op. One weather balloon or rawin, like orange cats, looks pretty much like another.

I am, it seems, more skeptical than the skeptics, since I can't bring myself to believe in the story in the press release, nor anything else that was in the press.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Lance wrote (part 1)

So it's not flaking. But if it IS flaking, it doesn't matter! The ever unfalsifiable theory!

If particles of the thing were flaking off, that certainly has not been demonstrated as happening in the very short time period available under your conspiracy theory.


Charles Moore USAF affidavit: "Some of the material would almost look like dark gray or black flakes or ashes after exposure to the sun for only a few days."

Is it your "conspiracy theory" that he never wrote that?

NOT a month, a few days. Moore was also speaking about recovered balloon material that had already flown at high altitude, where it would get very intense UV exposure. One reason the neoprene balloons typically pop after a few hours (causing descent of the rest of the balloons, payload, etc.) is because of this deterioration of the neoprene (another reason being extreme cold).

UV radiation increases approximately 5% for every 1000 feet increase in elevation. Therefore weather balloons at 60,000 feet are getting about 300% more UV irradiation than at sea level.

I, of course, wasn't suggesting that Brazel collected the little flakes. I was suggesting that they might have flaked off in the office from the tattered balloon we see in the picture.

My point is that it clearly does NOT take Brazel's 30 days in the sun to get such deterioration and minor flaking, as we see in Ramey's balloon. A balloon could be in the Ramey state (darkened but mottled, still showing rounded folds and pleats like an unused elastic balloon) after only a few days or less exposure, especially if already flown at high altitude.

I don't reject the experiments you cite with a hand wave. I merely assert that a range of outcomes is possible and that every snowflake is not alike.

As you know, there is some confusion as to the exact timing of some of these informal experiments related to Moore.


Not really. Out of Moore's own mouth, his demos were always of 2 to 3 weeks duration.

Seems like you want to invoke your own conspiracy theory here Lance. Ooh, Moore didn't really say 2 to 3 weeks. He must have been misquoted, not doubt by those unscrupulous Ufologists trying to make a buck.

He later said that he meant months instead of weeks in one experiment, I believe.

This is nonsense. In ALL these experiments, Moore was showing that the neoprene balloon material deteriorated to a very blackened, brittle, ragged state in only 2 to 3 weeks of ground exposure. Those were his own words. I have three examples on my website, including his 1997 Scientific American Frontiers interview where you can hear him saying it.

If I remember correctly, it was Pflock who tried to change it to several months in the late 90's after I started pointing out that Ramey's balloon was in much too good a condition to have lain in the sun for a month. Then all of a sudden, it became "months" instead of "weeks", and I think Pflock used Moore as the reference.

Or the story completely changed when the the original emperor was shown to have no clothes. What a surprise! This is typical of the skeptical camp who want to have it both ways.

The whole thing is not well documented and it doesn't seem fair to pretend that it is.

You simply don't like that Ramey's balloon doesn't pass the "two to three" test of Moore's own multitude of demonstrations.

But the FACT remains, that Moore in these demonstrations ALWAYS used the 2 to 3 week figure, and also added in his affidavit that flown balloons could be in a dark flake-like state after only a few days when recovered.

David Rudiak said...

Lance wrote (part 2 reply)

If you have any other high rez versions of the other photos, I will be happy to examine them for other flakes and to confirm or deny the flakes I noted in the one photo.

Lance, the point isn't that there isn't deterioration of the balloon. The point is that it isn't deteriorated nearly enough for a month-old balloon in the sun. A few tiny flakes off the main mass here and there doesn't change that. So what? That would also be consistent with a used balloon only a few days or less old.

I have privately suggested to you that better scans of the photos are needed and that such scans might solve your memo idea and I think that such scans might also further shed light on the condition of the balloon. I have also offered to chip in on the cost of obtaining such scans.

You can order up your own 8x10 prints for cheap from the Univ. of Texas at Arlington and do your own scans. If you want to focus in on the balloons, ask them to also blow up the area of the balloon and immediate surrounds in another print.

Again, I see above that you want to talk about lots of other things

You mean the FACT that there is hardly any balloon material there in the photos, about a shoebox full, and consistent with Ramey's single weather balloon story of 1947. What happened to the giant Mogul balloon crash with its many weather balloons that is supposedly pictured in Ramey's office? (Pflock, e.g., made that claim, and again used Moore as a reference.)

Yes, that is another very embarrassing gross inconsistency with the modern Mogul balloon theory. I can see why you and other skeptics don't want to discuss it further and instead sweep it under Ramey's rug along with all the other serious inconsistencies.

other than the issue I brought up--the tattered and apparently flaking balloon debris that you would have us all believe is almost pristinely out of the package.

At best slightly flaking balloon. "Tattered" is mostly your imagination, nothing remotely like Moore's truly very ragged, tattered neoprene with 2 to 3 weeks exposure. Anyone can see that most of Ramey's balloon mass is made up of rounded pleats and folds.

I never said the balloon was "pristine" or nearly pristine. I have argued that it resembled a pristine balloon in that it still has the rounded pleats, folds, and stretch marks of a new balloon or slightly used balloon, strongly suggesting it is still at least partially elastic, i.e., not the brittle, ragged material of Moore's 2-3 week demos.

Also the mass is clearly mottled with a number of light areas, quite unlike Moore's very darkened and unmottled 2-3 week samples.

Bob Galganski showed with a very simple experiment how quickly sample neoprene darkened and stiffened up after only 5 hours ground exposure. In fact, when his color photo is converted to gray-tone, the 5-hour neoprene strongly resembled the darkened but mottled appearance of Ramey's balloon.

David Rudiak said...

Quick addendum to my last post:

Lance wrote:
He later said that he meant months instead of weeks in one experiment, I believe.

I responded:
"This is nonsense. In ALL these experiments, Moore was showing that the neoprene balloon material deteriorated to a very blackened, brittle, ragged state in only 2 to 3 weeks of ground exposure. Those were his own words. I have three examples on my website, including his 1997 Scientific American Frontiers interview where you can hear him saying it.

"If I remember correctly, it was Pflock who tried to change it to several months in the late 90's after I started pointing out that Ramey's balloon was in much too good a condition to have lain in the sun for a month. Then all of a sudden, it became "months" instead of "weeks", and I think Pflock used Moore as the reference.

"Or the story completely changed when the the original emperor was shown to have no clothes. What a surprise! This is typical of the skeptical camp who want to have it both ways."


If I also remember correctly, Moore in his chapter in the debunking Benson/Salor Roswell book of 1997 was also talking out of both sides of his mouth when he claimed back then that Marcel couldn't identify the balloon as a balloon because it was in such a badly deteriorated state after a month in the sun.

But the balloon in Ramey's office is nowhere near that deteriorated. Even a five-year old would recognize it as some sort of big balloon.

So it is both so deteriorated into an ash-like, flake-like state it can't be recognized, but simultaneously it is not. Or it deteriorates to an unrecognizable state in 2 to 3 weeks (Moore's own words and demonstrations), but when pointed out that Ramey's balloon isn't like that, it becomes several months.

Like I said, Moore and the uncritical skeptics wanting it both ways.

Lance said...

David shows his zealotry in these responses that include lots of words but don't say anything.

Notice how he writes again about a multitude of unrelated topics. This is classic conspiracy theorist MO.

He twists words to mean the opposite of the speaker's intent.

Simply put, what I am suggesting is this:

The balloon debris in the pictures shows signs of deterioration.

How much deterioration?

No one knows. But it does appear to be flaking into pieces and have many ragged edges.

I suggest that the debris looks closer to the stuff that Moore identified as having 2-3 weeks exposure than a new balloon that the Army threw out into the sun for a few hours).

The "tests" that David describes by Moore are undocumented as far as I know and casual. Moore didn't reckon with the mind of a conspiracist to take casual statements and then pretend that these statements are empirically perfect (if they suit the purpose of the conspiracist).

Did Galganski report that his balloon was flaking into bits after a few hours in the sun? Of course not.

Notice how now David has gone from pretending that the balloon was a new one pliable and perfect (something he can tell from the photos, yet!) to admitting that it may have been flaking into pieces (but they are small pieces so that doesn't matter somehow--everyone knows that small flakes mean small exposure, right?).

This is beyond silly--it's embarrassing.

But I encourage David to keep talking because as I hope we will soon see--he is digging himself into a hole.

Lance

Don said...

Does anyone know why the skeptics gave up the serviceable 1947 weather balloon and rawin story in exchange for AFOSI's Mogul story? I don't believe there was any balloon involved in the landing on the ranch, but Cavitt's position, in comparison to the skeptics' Byzantine maze of Mogul, begins to make sense.

Lance, David has described the materials in Ramey's office in a way that makes them "perfectly consistent" with a weather balloon launched and landed "some time last week".

In B.M. (Before Mogul) you might have presented his case in support for the anti-ET position. But that was then...

Btw, does anyone have information of a "Mrs Whedon of the Army Engineers" circa 1947?

Regards,

Don

cda said...

Don:

The reason the weather balloon + rawin story of '47 was changed into the Mogul story was that (i) Robert Todd unearthed the facts about the Mogul program and began publishing them in his "Cowflop Report" and (ii) the USAF dug up much more information and published it in their huge 1994 volume.

Hence Mogul became the kingpin. But even without Mogul there was never any need to posit anything other than a balloon (of some sort) and a radar reflector, or reflectors, as the debris found on the ranch.

The contemporary newspaper descriptions support this solution. The testimony given to STF and others post-1978 started the ET ball rolling, nothing else.

I simply do not understand your reluctance to accept, in the main, these press accounts.

What is your true position on this case? Or are you just an agnostic?

There is no certainty that Cavitt was ever involved. We only have Marcel's shaky memories, 30-plus years later, to support this. As I said before, Marcel didn't know the date, kept no written notes and had no photos either at the desert or back home of the debris.

This may explain his Cavitt's contradictory remarks and why ETHers blow hot and cold over whether to believe him.

The conspiracy idea is so preposterous as to be laughable. Brazel was told what to say to correspond with what Marcel said at Ft Worth, regarding dates, descriptions, etc. Yeah sure!

Yet this is the sort of thing the 'dream team' members have been telling us incessantly in their writings.

Can you please tell us, in plain English, where you stand on the matter. Or if not, what you are aiming for in your research.

David Rudiak said...

cda thoughtlessly wrote:
There is no certainty that Cavitt was ever involved. We only have Marcel's shaky memories, 30-plus years later, to support this. As I said before, Marcel didn't know the date, kept no written notes and had no photos either at the desert or back home of the debris.

More cda bunk. For starters, the newspapers said Marcel was accompanied by at least one person. (And we must always believe the newspapers, mustn't we?)

In Brazel's RDR press interview, Brazel said he and Marcel were accompanied by a "man in plain clothes" when they went to the ranch.

The AP story by Kellahin reported it as "a man in civilian clothes whom Brazel was unable to identify."

CIC officers typically wore plain clothes and hid their rank and even their name. They're the spooks in the Army.

The RDR in the July 8 recovered flying saucer story stated, Marcel "and a detail from his department went to the ranch and recovered the disk."

United Press reported it as, "officials at the Roswell Army Air Base were notified and an officer and an enlisted man came to the sheriff's office to claim the object."

Clearly if Cavitt wasn't with Marcel, someone strongly resembling him was.

And finally, Cavitt himself, when interviewed by the USAF in 1994 claimed he went out to Brazel's place. In his interview, he claimed he went only with his assistant Rickett, but when they did his affidavit, it became Marcel and Rickett.

But I guess cda must have forgotten about that as well.

This may explain his Cavitt's contradictory remarks and why ETHers blow hot and cold over whether to believe him.

More cda bunk. Maybe, just maybe, it's hard to believe Cavitt's story because he kept changing it. When researchers like Kevin, Don Schmitt, or Stan Friedman came around, he claimed to be never involved and initially claimed he was never even stationed at the base. Then talking to the AF, he was involved, but when visited again by Kevin, he again claimed non-involvement.

You don't have to be an "ETHer" on a jury to question the veracity of a witness who keeps changing their story like that.

The conspiracy idea is so preposterous as to be laughable.

Yes, all those witnesses saying Brazel was held at the base and told them he was coerced are all "laughable", including provost marshal Easley, who admitted to Kevin they indeed held him there under armed guard.

Also "laughable" are Sheriff Wilcox's family saying he too was coerced, even though he was quoted in 1947 saying he was "working with the fellows at the base", using that as a rationale NOT to answer further questions.

Brazel was told what to say to correspond with what Marcel said at Ft Worth, regarding dates, descriptions, etc. Yeah sure!

Yes, totally ridiculous, since it was still horse and buggy days with no telephones, radios, telexes, airplanes, etc., for rapid communication to try to coordinate such a story.

No way could Brazel telling his balloon/not-balloon story several hours AFTER Ramey's weather balloon story that the balloon was now the official explanation. That would have been completely impossible.

cda, thank you again for demonstrating the total inanity of the skeptical position.

David Rudiak said...

Lance, David has described the materials in Ramey's office in a way that makes them "perfectly consistent" with a weather balloon launched and landed "some time last week".

In B.M. (Before Mogul) you might have presented his case in support for the anti-ET position. But that was then...


Don, you just don't get it do you? The imaginary "giant" Mogul #4 with it's two dozen plus weather balloons and multiple radar targets, is completely "consistent" with Ramey's stated and photographed solo weather balloon and radar target, which his weather officer Newton, also said was no different then dozens of other solo balloon/targets used all over the country. (a position maintains to this day.)

The alleged Mogul #4, which would have weighed in at around 60 pounds and had several hundred yards of rigging plus multiple pieces of equipment (had it really existed), is also completely "consistent" with Brazel's mere 5 pounds of foil, rubber strips, and sticks, denial of finding any rigging or any sort of equipment that Mogul might have carried, and final denial of even finding a weather balloon.

Mogul is also completely "consistent" with Cavitt's modern story of finding a tiny balloon crash no bigger than his living room and denial of finding anything like Brazel's "flower tape", which also can't be seen in the photos, but it is still "consistent".

In SkeptoWorld, everything is completely "consistent" even when it obviously is not.

At least Cavitt and Ramey remained faithful to the original story of the small singular balloon and radar target. The modern Mogul people don't have a clue.

Don said...

Chris wrote "I simply do not understand your reluctance to accept, in the main, these press accounts."

Common sense. On a breaking big story nothing will have been fact checked. Prudence required going to the reliable source, which, in this case meant the AF which had taken the case out of civilian hands. You can read the UP wires Frank Joyce saved on David's website and see the queries re fact checking. Look at the misspellings in the news stories.

Do you want David to post here once again all the variations in the press of just when the object landed, or what and how much Brazel stored, bundled?

Nothing in the press, or in PBB, or in any ufo book or article should be accepted without first putting your nose to the original and verifying it.

"Can you please tell us, in plain English, where you stand on the matter. Or if not, what you are aiming for in your research."

For my way of research, Roswell presents hardly any entre. There is no paper trail. I find that really odd. So, what I do is create a simulation. What is needed are a political and a relief map of the region.

Simulation 1: it is your job to collect, transport, and deliver the grounded remains of Mogul Flight #4 to those who are able to expertly identify it.

Simulation 2: it is your job to collect, transport, and deliver to a secure area the remains of a small space ship and alien bodies.

None of the 'scripts' I run get me anywhere near Roswell or the RAAF, or Ft Worth.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Lance:

You're last post is full of deliberate lies and distortions. Never did I say Ramey's balloon was a "new one, pliable and perfect." That's a flagrant lie. I said it was used, but in much better condition than Moore's demos of neoprene balloons with 2-3 weeks sun exposure.

Never did I say Robert Galganski had demonstrated that the balloons were "flaking into bits" after only a few hours exposure. That's flagrant lie number two on your part.

What I really said was that Galganski showed the neoprene darkening and stiffening up after only 5 hours sun exposure on the ground. The point was that it didn't take all that long for the neoprene to darken up and deteriorate, thus what Ramey displayed was more like a balloon with at most a few days exposure, since his balloon still seemed mostly together and pliable in appearance, also not uniformly darkened as in Moore's 2-3 week demos.

And I made the very important point that the photos PROVE beyond any doubt that there was hardly any balloon material there. I measured it, and it would all fit in a show box. That practically destroys the Mogul hypothesis right there.

But when you have nothing to argue, you go to your Lance default mode: insulting and telling the Big Lie, hoping nobody bothered to read what I really wrote.

So instead of properly addressing OBJECTIVE points I raised based on experiments, measurements, and photographic evidence, you instead accuse me of "zealotry" and resorting to "conspiracy theories".

What sort of "zealotry" or "conspiracy theory" is involved in pointing out that the balloon material in Ramey's office would fit in a shoe box? How is that "consistent" with a Mogul balloon recovery?

What really happens is that when I raise such points, the skeptics change their story, make up their "facts", or cook up their own conspiracy theories. E.g., Pflock claimed their were multiple balloons and targets in the photos, even though there clearly are not when properly examined. Or Pflock claimed it took months, not weeks, for the balloons to deteriorate.

Or instead of Ramey showing ALL of the debris (which the modern USAF debunkers claimed), I've heard "explanations" that because there is so little of it, he must have withheld most of it so as to not disclose the secret of Mogul.

The must have had seances with Ramey to come up with that one.

Don said...

Chris, the thing about my simulations is they were based on normal behavior, but Roswell, RAAF, and Ft Worth are involved and that means to me the situation was not normal. The simulations are just simulations and do not produce proof, just questions about the normalness of the Roswell story as it was told by the press, which stories were based nearly entirely on one source, the AF.

A simulation 1 scenario has the Mogul debris end up at Alamogordo, not Ft Worth or Wright Field, for example.

The Roswell events that happen in 'real time' rather than 'sometime before' are the story hitting the wires around 2:30pm MT, and the Ft Worth photo op and the Brazel interview that evening. I think the Daily Record's "at noon today" is very significant.

Regards,

Don

Lance said...

"And I made the very important point that the photos PROVE beyond any doubt that there was hardly any balloon material there. I measured it, and it would all fit in a show box. That practically destroys the Mogul hypothesis right there."

And of course you have a signed affidavit from the participants and documented proof that says:

"Everything that was picked up on the ranch is in these photographs!"

Until you can prove this, you don't even have a point. This is just so silly.

Let me see if I can explain it to you (knowing that it will do no good):

Dick and Jane own a lot of books.

Dick takes a photo of some of the books.

Are all of Dick and Jane's books in the photo?

No. No, No.

Where are the rest of the books?

They are not in the picture.

There they are.

They are on a another shelf.

Jane laughs.

Lance

Don said...

So, Chris, what's a paper pusher like me to do in the absence of paper? Look for related material and try to get a handle on the thinking of the AF as it might pertain to Roswell.

Since Nick Redfern already posted it, it saves me the trouble.

Incident #88

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2011/02/roswell-deflating-mogul/

If Nick is reading he may want to look at MAXW-PBB3-10 in which the footnote gives some information about Mrs Whedon.

I'm reorganizing my site and moving it, but there are still a few things about Roswell on it.

http://www.foreshadower.net

Regards,

Don

cda said...

DR:

I never said that nobody accompanied Marcel to the ranch. I merely said that it was, quite probably, not Cavitt. You may recall that it was only when Bill Moore located the newspaper reports (after a long search, since Marcel could not remember the date) and found mention of a second man going to the ranch, that Marcel told Moore/Friedman that someone else went with him. Until then Marcel said nothing about another man being with him.

In his initial interview with Moore/Friedman in Sept 1982 Cavitt denied being there at all. He claimed to know nothing about the affair. Later he revised his story then retracted parts of it and so on. By the time the USAF met him in 1994 it was a "yes I was there, but....." story he told McAndrew (or was it Weaver?).

So I can claim, quite properly, that neither you nor any investigator, has shown conclusively that Cavitt was at the ranch. Yes, you can prove SOMEONE else was there, but who was it? And how many others were there, if any?

How anyone can possibly trust Easley's testimony I cannot understand. Look, for example, at his recorded interview with KDR in ROSWELL UFO CRASH UPDATE. What a shambles. It is the same shambles with General Exon too. Read it yourself. Yet these are supposed to be reliable testimonies from those who "were there".


Don:

The lack of a paper trail is a very good pointer to the fact that nothing extraordinary happened. It was initially reported as a 'flying disc' then retracted and explained as something quite ordinary. Simple as that.

And yes, if ETs were involved there would be a paper trail large enough to fill a living room (i.e. far far more than the mere shoe box DR says was needed to store the Mogul balloon!).

Don said...

Chris wrote "The lack of a paper trail is a very good pointer to the fact that nothing extraordinary happened."

My point is not whether the incident on the Foster Ranch was an ordinary or extraordinary event, but that the absence of any paper trail is abnormal.

I think the events as reported by the press (and gotten almost solely from the AF) are abnormal, beginning with Brazel reporting his find to the Chaves County Sheriffs.

My understanding of Roswell is unrelated to that of the Roswell investigators, pro or con ET, of the past 30 years.

When I comment on Roswell, I do not line up for or against, or refer to, their opinions.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

cda wrote:
The lack of a paper trail is a very good pointer to the fact that nothing extraordinary happened. It was initially reported as a 'flying disc' then retracted and explained as something quite ordinary. Simple as that.

Not so simple. More a case of the dog that didn't bark. There should be some sort of paper trail, even for a screw-up.

CDA again plays dumb and acts like this was a totally nothing event. If it was truly nothing, probably none of us would have ever heard of it.

But it was a big deal back then. The newspapers were full of front page, headline news about the new flying saucers. Speculation was rampant. There was an air of anxiety in the air. Were they Russian? Were they ours? Were they the Martians finally here?

Then the nation's atomic bomber base puts out an OFFICIAL press release that they actually had one in their possession.

The story was understandably a media sensation, front page news in practically every newspaper in the country, carried in many newspapers abroad.

Newspapers carried stories about the Pentagon being tied up in knots handling all the phone calls. Same with Roswell and Fort Worth. Acting AAF Chief of Staff Vandenberg had to personally deal with it, reported going to the Pentagon press room to deal with the PR crisis.

Then it all turns out to be a monumental screw-up? Senior officers at Roswell couldn't distinguish a supersonic flying saucer from a pound of balloon garbage?

In the REAL world not inhabited by debunkers in denial, the Army would have launched an internal investigation to find out what happened, and maybe a few heads would have rolled. Ramey and Vandenberg would have made sure of that. Such a widely publicized screw-up would have been highly embarrassing. And do you really want fools in charge at your sensitive atomic bomber base?

But nobody has ever found any record of such an investigation. It should have been, but wasn't--the dog that didn't bark.

Other records should exist that nobody can find. Marcel and Blanchard should have written something up. Nada. Same with Ramey--it was his subcommand. Nada. No record of the plane flights, such as Marcel's to Fort Worth or the flight from their to Wright Field that the FBI and media were told about. Nada.

And the FBI was told that their Cincinnati office would be told the results of the examination at Wright. Mas nada.

More nada with paperwork from Wright Field.

Compare with the Illinois "flying disc" case the next month that Don just brought up. The FBI turned it over to Wright Field, they did a very exhaustive analysis and sent back a detailed report to the FBI. Nothing but a hoax made of old radio parts. They even went so far as to run down the likely radio it was made from.

That didn't get any publicity at all, yet generated a fair amount of paperwork within the FBI and Army and a detailed response from Wright Field.

But Roswell--nada. And cda doesn't find that at least a little bit curious.

And yes, if ETs were involved there would be a paper trail large enough to fill a living room (i.e. far far more than the mere shoe box DR says was needed to store the Mogul balloon!).

Not hard at all to hide top secret paperwork. Try getting your hands on Los Alamos atomic documents from the 1940s. Bet they fill a warehouse. Most of them are still classified.

And where did I ever say only a shoebox was needed to store a "Mogul" balloon? What I said is that is all Ramey showed. A real Mogul would have required several dozen shoe boxes.

But cda knew that. He's just playing games again.

Don said...

David, were any of the disc stories that got a big play in the press during the Wave not found in the files -- besides Roswell?

A note on Incident #88. It began on July 5, 1947 with an unsigned telegram sent from New York, NY to the War Dept. which forwarded it to the FBI.

That's another difference with Roswell. Brazel's report was a civilian matter. The AAF never claimed the object was military. Brazel never implied it was military. He reported it to a civilian official, a sheriff. It was not a military matter. According to the delimination agreements between the AF and the FBI, Roswell ought to have been investigated by the FBI, not the AF. But except for the FBI telegram, there is no chatter in the released FBI files over the matter, much less a formal report. And that is very odd.

Btw, David, I appreciated the "don't get it" comment 8-)

Regards,

Don

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

Don wrote:
David, were any of the disc stories that got a big play in the press during the Wave not found in the files -- besides Roswell?

Not that I'm aware of offhand. But I've never really dug into it either.

When I think of the really BIG cases besides Roswell that got a lot of publicity, e.g. Arnold's sighting or the Smith United Airlines sighting of July 4, all made it into Air Force files.

Good question, why not Roswell? Kevin has raised the same question. Why not even a newspaper clipping or a short note about it? Yet you see some truly nothing cases in there that got zero publicity.

A note on Incident #88. It began on July 5, 1947 with an unsigned telegram sent from New York, NY to the War Dept. which forwarded it to the FBI.

That's another difference with Roswell.


Interesting point. Sounds like the description of the recovered object did not grab the Pentagon's attention, obviously nothing significant, therefore let the FBI take care of it. (Much like the Air Force "toilet seat" memo several months later about letting the FBI investigate cases of ash can covers, toilet seats, etc., which so enraged FBI director Hoover.)

Whereas, again, Roswell was treated as special by the military right from the beginning. Blanchard sent out his top two intel officers, Marcel and Cavitt. According to Marcel, after he first spoke to Brazel at the Sheriff's office and reported back to Blanchard, they both agreed that it sounded like the crash of a highly unusual craft of some kind. Blanchard ordered him to take Cavitt along and take two vehicles, since Brazel had described so much debris.

I really don't think a little bit of rotting rubber, balsa wood sticks, and aluminum foil would have held much interest for either Blanchard or Marcel, or required both Marcel and Cavitt to go out to investigate.

Brazel's report was a civilian matter. The AAF never claimed the object was military. Brazel never implied it was military. He reported it to a civilian official, a sheriff. It was not a military matter. According to the delimination agreements between the AF and the FBI, Roswell ought to have been investigated by the FBI, not the AF. But except for the FBI telegram, there is no chatter in the released FBI files over the matter, much less a formal report. And that is very odd.

Another interesting point. As the "toilet seat" memo said, the Air Force didn't want the FBI nosing around any really significant cases, which the Air Force only was to investigate. Seems like that mindset went back to at least Roswell.

Btw, David, I appreciated the "don't get it" comment 8-)

Well Don, obviously you STILL don't get it. CDA assures it it was a totally nothing event, therefore nothing "odd" about a missing paper trail or anything else about Roswell. Apparently Marcel and Blanchard didn't get the memo and investigated a "toilet seat" case that the Air Force normally handed off to the FBI.

Don said...

David wrote "Another interesting point. As the "toilet seat" memo said, the Air Force didn't want the FBI nosing around any really significant cases, which the Air Force only was to investigate. Seems like that mindset went back to at least Roswell."

Hoover denied the CIC request for a "joint investigation" of the Rhodes case (however, the Phoenix FBI Office didn't get the memo in time to prevent it). The only reason I can think of why Hoover wouldn't cooperate with the AF was the delimitation issue. He said it was ok for his agents to conduct an investigation, but no joint investigation.

After the toilet seat memo the following month Hoover withdraws the FBI from saucer investigations. The FBI would forward any saucer inquiries to the AF and that was that. He seems to have taken delight in sending the goofiest saucer letters he received to Pentagon generals.

CIC/AFOSI wanted the FBI out of saucer investigations, is what I make of it. I think the stories the AF was telling the FBI about "subersives" attempting to spread hysteria and distrust, and Soviet planes dropping discs from high altitude began to seem to Hoover as goofy as the specail letters he was forwarding to General McDonald.


Regards,

Don

cda said...

DR writes:

"Other records should exist that nobody can find".

also

"Not hard at all to hide top secret paperwork."

also

"CDA again plays dumb and acts like this was a totally nothing event. If it was truly nothing, probably none of us would have ever heard of it."

These are all indicators of a conspiracist mind. A good response is that, yes, nobody had heard of it (except for a brief 24-hour period in '47, quickly forgotten) for 30+ years until a crashed saucer zealot (Friedman) and two popular writers of the paranormal (Berlitz and Moore) first brought it to the attention of the world. Had they not done so, we would still be unaware of it.

The records "that should exist" do not exist. Conspiracists tell us that this is because the USAF is still hiding them. Normal logic tells us they never existed because the event was too trivial and unimportant to produce written records.

I can claim the GAO would have located any such records (which is what they were charged to do). They didn't. Were the GAO incompetent? Were the GAO being deceived all along? Presumably DR would say "yes they were".

As for it being "top secret paperwork", again this shows a conspiracist's mindset. NOBODY can say whether any such paperwork was top secret or not, since nobody has seen it!

The 'top secret' aspect of it all is an assumption, nothing else, by those who want to promote a long suppressed (for 65 years now) official knowledge of an ET visit to earth.

Vandenberg et al rushing about the Pentagon in panic-stricken mode? But, lo & behold, Vandenberg's log shows nothing about it. Maybe the press exaggerated that part of the story. Not so, say the conspiracists. The logs were redacted or the event was deliberately omitted. Normal logic says the event was considered insignificant and therefore not logged.

Funny, but I have a feeling we have gone over this ground before, several times.

Steve M said...

CDA
Isn't there a declassified Top Secret report that shows that the USAF have never recovered crashed alien craft.

cda said...

Steve:

Maybe. But you surely don't believe that, do you? As the wise guys will tell you, this was only 'Secret' not Top Secret. And we know, from Friedman's theorem, that a Secret report can never refer to matters that are, or were, Top Secret. Get it?

Don said...

I think the earliest mention of the crashed saucer is the Twining memo. It is kind of a mantra "crash recovered exhibits" chanted by the guys from then on.

I think it is the best evidence there was a crashed saucer -- or that a lot of guys in the AF believed there was. It's not very good evidence, of course.

It really does seem like the only way they could imagine there being any physical evidence of the saucers is if one crashed. No one refers to "landed saucer exhibits" or any other kind of "exhibits".

Even Scully makes the point the three saucers, though disabled, did not crash land.

So, along with the 'flying disc', 'ufo', and the 'ETH', we can credit the AF with originating the concept of the "crashed saucer".

Regards,

Don

Don said...

What might have happened depends on what Brazel said to Marcel. If he described a bunch of balloons and "kites", Marcel likely would have called his peer at AAAF; it might not have gotten to Blanchard even. If Brazel described a crashed saucer (with or without alien crew), I don't know what Marcel would have done. Depends on what he knew. Cavitt likely would have known what to do next: give it to the FBI.

The only way I can think of that results in Marcel, Cavitt, and Rickett heading off to the ranch that evening is if Brazel's description strongly suggested an aircraft crash. Marcel would know if there were any reports of still missing aircraft the past few weeks. If there were none, then it would be unidentified and suspicious and that's why the CIC goes out to the ranch.

What they found on the ranch is, of course, what is disputed.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don wrote:
The only way I can think of that results in Marcel, Cavitt, and Rickett heading off to the ranch that evening is if Brazel's description strongly suggested an aircraft crash. Marcel would know if there were any reports of still missing aircraft the past few weeks. If there were none, then it would be unidentified and suspicious and that's why the CIC goes out to the ranch.

Marcel never mentioned Brazel bringing any debris samples with him when he first came to Roswell and reported to the Sheriff. I have always found that incredibly odd, since it would have been so easy to do and used to back his claim of finding a flying disc or anything at all.

It also flies in the face of the Sheriff's family, who said Brazel DID bring samples with him, and once Marcel and the AAF got involved they were quickly confiscated from the Sheriff. We also have the Sheriff Wilcox quote back then of "working with those fellows from the base" in explanation of why he wouldn't say more about what Brazel found.

And finally we have Gen. Dubose's testimony of the highly secret flight of a bag of debris from Roswell bound for Washington when news first came from Roswell base about the find. Dubose said he was handling things for Ramey because Ramey was away from the base. Local newspapers confirm Ramey was away from the base Sunday July 6 attending an air show in his home town of Denton, Texas and visiting his family there.

My point is that if Brazel did bring debris samples, which I suspect he did, then Marcel and Blanchard had more than just his descriptions of the debris and crash site to suspect a crash of a highly unusual aircraft, and that's what triggered them both into highly serious investigative mode. I doubt a simple description of rotting rubber balloons, balsa wood sticks, and aluminum foil would get their feathers all rustled. However, descriptions of unbreakable, uncuttable debris and "memory foil" probably would.

The other thing that seemed to get their attention was Brazel's description of an extremely large debris field. Marcel himself was quoted back then saying debris was scattered over a square mile. That is why, Marcel said, Blanchard wanted him to take Cavitt along to assist him in assessing the scene and picking up as much as they could, also why they went in two vehicles instead of one.

What I still don't understand is why Marcel would neglect to mention this important part of the story (even if to deny that Brazel brought samples), unless he simply forgot. It's certainly a question I would want to ask him if he were still around.

David Rudiak said...

I wrote (part 1 of 3)
"CDA again plays dumb and acts like this was a totally nothing event. If it was truly nothing, probably none of us would have ever heard of it."

Followed by cda's usual inane commentary:
These are all indicators of a conspiracist mind. A good response is that, yes, nobody had heard of it (except for a brief 24-hour period in '47, quickly forgotten) for 30+ years until a crashed saucer zealot (Friedman) and two popular writers of the paranormal (Berlitz and Moore) first brought it to the attention of the world. Had they not done so, we would still be unaware of it.

Hah, hah. I get accused of a having a "conspiracist mind" only to have cda quickly spout his usual conspiracy theory that Roswell was created by Friedman, Berlitz and Moore who planted the idea of a crashed saucer in the minds of the witnesses. No, Roswell was created by the RAAF in 1947 saying they had captured a flying disc.

The records "that should exist" do not exist. Conspiracists tell us that this is because the USAF is still hiding them. Normal logic tells us they never existed because the event was too trivial and unimportant to produce written records.

cda deliberately ignoring the point I raised that Roswell was one of the most highly publicized saucer cases of its time, literally front page/headline news in this country and abroad.

Was this the result of "saucer zealots" pumping up a "nothing" case? No it was because a very important Air Force base put out an official press release that they actually had recovered one.

Yet nary a word in Project Blue Book files, even though far less publicized or unpublicized trivial cases, including recovered radar targets, are in there, such as the Circleville radar target of around July 6.

Let's repeat, since cda is again being deliberately obtuse: Roswell became widely known because of an official press release from an Air Force base that they had captured a flying saucer.

And this should have generated all sorts of internal paperwork, even if it was a colossal screw-up. All sorts of reports would have necessarily been written, such as the promised analysis from Wright Field to the FBI, that the GAO couldn't find. What happened to it? Where is the internal analysis from Wright Field about what was supposedly flown to them? Where is the internal investigation that necessarily would have been launched into why the officers of an important base could screw up so badly? Why didn't any of the officers involved get demoted, thrown out, transferred to Siberia? ( And if it was a stupid Mogul recovery, why isn't there anything in Mogul files, since they recorded the basic recovery data on all their other balloons?)

The absence of ANY paperwork is just way off the radar of standard operating procedure for the military.

And that it was largely forgotten afterward is only a tribute to the success of the military debunkery (the weather balloon story).

And BTW, cda, your continual idiotic argument that anything barely mentioned for decades means its unimportant is contradicted by all sorts of very important historical events, some of them deliberately buried for security reasons, such as the Enigma decoding program in the U.K. or the illegal radiation experiments on civilians conducted in the U.S. that were buried for 50 years. Yeah, all "nothing" events according to you.

David Rudiak said...

Part 2 of 3:

I can claim the GAO would have located any such records (which is what they were charged to do).

The FBI Roswell telegram specifically mentioned that the FBI in Cincinnati was to be informed of Wright Field's examination of the debris. Therefore the GAO DID go looking for the follow-up memo to the FBI that SHOULD have been written, but either never was or was deeply buried.

Yet we have all sorts of paperwork from the Illinois hoax radio parts disc of the same period, where the FBI received a very detailed report back from Wright Field, but nothing at all about Roswell.

But cda sees nothing odd about this.

They didn't. Were the GAO incompetent? Were the GAO being deceived all along?

The GAO went looking in FBI files and those of Wright Field and could not find the promised report back to the FBI. Nor could they find any paperwork at all, anywhere, except for the one FBI Dallas telegram of July 8.

Presumably DR would say "yes they were".

It actually takes a conspiracist mindset to NOT see that something is very odd here.

As for it being "top secret paperwork", again this shows a conspiracist's mindset. NOBODY can say whether any such paperwork was top secret or not, since nobody has seen it!

No, it takes a fool to argue that an actual flying saucer crash wouldn't be highly classified if the powers that be decided to bury it.

In January 1949, we DO have an FBI document where they state that the subject of flying saucers and the green fireballs WAS classified "top secret". We have seen very few of these "top secret" documents. And BTW, the FBI was informed of this because the green fireballs had triggered a search by the CIC and AFOSI for possible crash remains, headed by Dr. Lincoln LaPaz. They wanted the FBI to assist them in locating and interviewing witnesses to the fireballs so that LaPaz might triangulate a trajectory that could lead them to crash remains.

Likewise, we have another "top secret" document from the USAF Europe citing the opinion of Swedish military intelligence that their analysts believed the saucers and the earlier "ghost rockets" over Sweden seen to explode and crash into lakes were of extraterrestrial manufacture, since no nation on earth could duplicate the observed performance.

But I guess one has to have a "conspiracist mindset" to read such "top secret" documents saying the subject is "top secret", including searches for physical debris, and come to the conclusion that the subject is "top secret".

The 'top secret' aspect of it all is an assumption, nothing else, by those who want to promote a long suppressed (for 65 years now) official knowledge of an ET visit to earth.

If you say so. Maybe you should try reading the documents saying the subject is "top secret", even though a child would realize something of this import would be highly classified.

David Rudiak said...

Part 3 of 3:
Vandenberg et al rushing about the Pentagon in panic-stricken mode? But, lo & behold, Vandenberg's log shows nothing about it.

Another incredibly lame argument: If Vandenberg didn't write it down, it never happened. And, of course, cda doesn't find that the least bit curious, even though Vandenberg's log the previous day goes into great detail about his dealings with a hoax disc case from Houston that didn't get much publicity at all, and was based on nothing more than a newspaper rumor.

But Roswell, which was all over the radio and in all the newspaper, not a single word, even though it was the result of an official release from one of Vandenberg's commands that they had an actual flying disc (did I forget to mention that?).

Maybe the press exaggerated that part of the story. Not so, say the conspiracists.

Hah, hah. More irony Another stupid conspiracy theory from cda. The press made it all up. Yep, major newspapers like the NY Times and Washington Post with their Pentagon correspondents, made up the story of Vandenberg going to the Pentagon press room to handle the crisis. Now how do you "exaggerate" something like that? Either Vandenberg did it or he didn't.

The logs were redacted or the event was deliberately omitted. Normal logic says the event was considered insignificant and therefore not logged.

cda does not have "normal logic" at all. The newspaper stories PROVE Vandenberg went to the press room to deal with Roswell, which resulted from the press release from the RAAF, not some silly rumor. The newspapers also reported the Pentagon being flooded with calls from reporters clamoring for details. Not only was Vandenberg's routine disrupted, so was the entire Pentagon.

But cda says this was a "nothing" event not worthy of mention in Vandenberg's log, therefore it must be so.

To people with truly "normal logic" the fact that Vandenberg's log doesn't say anything about an obviously significant event that disrupted his command, is another dog that didn't bark.

Don said...

David, regarding Brazel bringing samples...

No matter the different stories of when Brazel found the object, fact is it had been down for awhile. Is there any reason, any urgency, to visit the site at night? Why not wait til morning? Whatever created the urgency could have been "exhibits".

David wrote: "What I still don't understand is why Marcel would neglect to mention this important part of the story (even if to deny that Brazel brought samples), unless he simply forgot. It's certainly a question I would want to ask him if he were still around."

I wouldn't expect the military men involved to be straightforward or forthcoming about it all. I won't say they were lying -- I mean Marcel and probably Haut -- but that there are places they would not go.

The Rhodes case has so much interesting information in it about this period...

In the Hayden Hewes' Rhodes story in 1978, Rhodes recalls the 'Espionage Act' letter Col. McCoy sent him 30 years earlier. Through this time (a May 1977 interview by GSW) Rhodes was not forthcoming or straightforward about the case. It appears four prints and two negatives were returned to him in 1954. When Dr McDonald interviews him in the mid 1960s, all he got was a newspaper clipping from Rhodes. In 1977 GSW gets what appears to them to be "first generation copies" of the second photo. Since the article doesn't show a full frame, we don't know if it was cropped.

I haven't been able to find out what the SHG got from Rhodes. For all we know, his negatives are sitting in a box somewhere where the SHG once had roamed.

Two things of interest and why I mention it, it demonstrates the effect of "the oath of secrecy" even on those who are telling some things about the "secret". And two, just how good someone's memory can be about unusual circumstances thirty years later.

Regards,

Don

cda said...

DR writes, sarcastically:

"Yep, major newspapers like the NY Times and Washington Post with their Pentagon correspondents, made up the story of Vandenberg going to the Pentagon press room to handle the crisis."

Really? Look again at those two reports and you will not find the word "crisis", although one of them does use the word "excitement", which has a very different meaning.

In other words, the so-called "crisis" is an invention of the conspiracists. (Surprise!)

DR should realise that if his ET crash + conspiracy idea is true, Vandenberg's logs would certainly have entries about it, maybe under a code word, not only for July 8 but for July 9, 10, 11 and the rest of the month as well as for, probably, August. Think of all the conferences, reports, teletypes etc. that would ensue.

The same would apply to Gen. Spaatz's logs (as AF Chief of Staff) for July and August, and beyond.

So get to it DR, find those logs. Goddammit, there must be SOMETHING in writing about it all, mustn't there? Or was it all deliberately erased?

Synergy said...

To all Roswell researchers -- Please look into Jacque Fresco. There may be a connection between Fresco and Roswell.

Fresco was interested in flying saucer designs as early as the late 30's and early 40's. Here is one such design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jacque_Fresco_-_Flying_Saucer.jpg

Jacque Fresco has mentioned in various lectures and Q&A's (albeit briefly) that he also helped Frank Scully investigate UFO reports, particularly photographs (and was not impressed). These can be found with a simple youtube search. He has also mentioned nitinol and memory materials in his lectures and in his documentary Future by Design (about 41 minutes and 50 seconds in).

It is known Fresco did indeed work at Wright Field in the 40's. It is not inconceivable, being that he was considered "a man twenty years ahead of his time" that his assistance would be requested in any crash retrieval analysis.

Moreover, given his previous interest in such designs, maybe the design was his own!!

Synergy said...

It is doubtful, however, that he would welcome discussion of the issue. He is 110% motivated toward promoting his RBE model to the world before his death (quickly approaching the century mark). Furthermore, he has a hard enough time defending the feasibility of the RBE model, he wouldn't take the chance of being discredited further by a connection to UFOs and Roswell.

Konrad, Poland said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Konrad, Poland said...

Have you heard about new tv show "Chasing UFOs" on National Geographic Channel?

A part of this new series description:

'While investigating video of a possible UFO in New Mexico, the team ends up at the famed crash site in Roswell where they uncovered tantalizing evidence of a military cover-up.'

http://tvblogs.nationalgeographic.com/2012/05/23/introducing-the-chasing-ufos-team/

I wonder what it might be. Something the Dream Team already knows or maybe sth that top researchers are unaware of?

cda said...

I had a brief look.

"With its combination of adventure, travel and hard-hitting science, this series offers a radical new spin on this unexplained phenomenon. Instead of just stories, Ryder, Ben and James are out to get evidence. And what they uncover could change what we know and believe about another intelligence among the stars."

Funny, but I seem to have read this sort of thing before, ad nauseam.

The team look more like film stars than real investigators. And the above sounds like spin. A lot of spin.

And there will be nothing new under the sun, or stars, either. At least that is my prediction.

But then I'm only a skeptic.

Shilpy Akter said...

"Tax season is right around the corner. If you are looking for someone you can trust to prepare your tax return go to www.davehallsba.com"
For more information plz click this link
Start-up Business
small business help
business success
business entity
tax help