Thursday, July 11, 2013

Mogul and Roswell


I was doing a video lap the other day, which is what I call channel surfing. I found a documentary about Roswell and they were conducting an experiment to recreate the Mogul balloon array and then see what would happen when it fell back to earth. They kept the balloons tethered, I don’t think the array was quite as large as those run in 1947, and they shot down the balloons with a pellet gun. Their debris field was small, there were large amounts of twine or rope that held the array together and the radar targets were not particularly degraded.

Or, in other words, it didn’t match the descriptions of the debris or the field given by those who saw it in 1947.

But that wasn’t what annoyed me about this. It was the idea that the Mogul explanation had enough merit that the producers of the show thought that they needed to attempt to replicate it. It was that anyone who was paying attention still thought that the Mogul explanation was viable based on the documented evidence that is available to us now.

Crary on the left.
So, let’s just start that whole debate again by saying, there was no Mogul Flight No. 4. Dr. Albert Crary’s field notes and his diary entries are quite clear on the point. Flight No. 4 was cancelled… end of story. Period.

Okay, end of story, semi-colon.

Here’s the deal. Crary made it clear that Flight No. 4 had been cancelled. He said that specifically and the other historical evidence backs it up. The first flight noted in New Mexico was Flight No. 5, and that was recovered. Had there been a Flight No. 4 as successful as Charles Moore claimed it was, (with all his nonsensical but very extensive research conducted in the 1990s using winds aloft data from 1947), it would have been noted as the first flight.

Moore in Socorro.
The second notation for June 4, the date of the cancelled Flight No. 4, was that they had flown a cluster of balloons, with a sonobuoy in the afternoon. Crary only told us that they had good reception on the ground for the radio signal but not so good on the B-17 that was also used in their attempts to detect a signal. But he did tell us what that flight was and it did not have the rawin targets. It was just a cluster of balloons and a sonobuoy.

A cluster of balloons is not the same as a full Mogul array. Crary made the distinction in his field notes about this, when all of that material is reviewed. It is quite clear what happened. There was no Flight No. 4 to drop debris up on the Foster ranch, no Flight No. 4 that would have presented a threat to aerial navigation, hence no NOTAM filed for the flight, and nothing to indicate that the balloons headed off to the northeast, flying over those distinctively named towns that Charles Moore remembered all those years later to prove that Flight No. 4 not
A Mogul launch for the Press.
only existed, but had flown off in the proper direction.

We have been pussy-footing around this for years, allowing those who wish to force their views on us set the ground rules, pick the fight, and then we sit back and listen to what they have to say even when that position is indefensible. The field notes and diary make it clear and I do not understand why that clarity is being obscured nor do I understand why there are those who refuse to understand it…

Well, that’s not true. Without Flight No. 4, Mogul fails as an answer. It cannot account for the debris because it never left Alamogordo. If there was no Flight No. 4, then Moore’s role as the man who launched the Roswell case falters and fails and the Mogul experiments are reduced to an attempt to spy on the Soviets. He doesn’t find his name in the newspapers and he isn’t visited by those researching the case and he certainly doesn’t get to appear on TV or participate in a book.

So, there was no Flight No. 4, and I’m not even going to bother with the argument that Mogul wasn’t all that secret… with pictures of it published in the newspapers on July 10, 1947, and the name being used in all sorts of non-classified publications which eliminates another of the legs for the Mogul explanation.

My point is that we shouldn’t even be dealing with this anymore just as we are no longer dealing with a stray rocket or missile (and yes there is a difference) from White Sands, an experimental aircraft accident, an aircraft accident involving an atomic weapons, or a bunch of other things such as John Keel’s Fugo Balloons that have been ruled out by evidence. Mogul should join those and we just shouldn’t entertain arguments about this any longer.

Mogul is a distraction that does not work. Each time someone proposes it, we should tell them the flight was cancelled and demand they provide evidence that it wasn’t. We should tell them that a cluster of balloons is not a Mogul flight and that the debris found on the Foster ranch was simply too wide spread to be that from Mogul let alone a cluster of balloons with a sonobuoy.

We tell them Mogul doesn’t work and if they have no evidence for it, then give it up. Find something that does in fact work, and let us see that evidence.

75 comments:

Anthony Mugan said...

Very much agree with you on this Mogul hypothesis, Kevin.
Whilst there may be some wriggle room on the exact specification of the balloons that were released it is clear that the lack of a formal record of the flight is consistent with this being a test of specific equipment rather than being a full scale constant level balloon flight test, based on the NYU project's documentation where that practice is clearly stated.
I would go further and suggest that Rudiack and Sparks have demonstrated that a flight trajectory ending close to the Foster ranch is outside the envelope of possible trajectories given the actual weather data, without the use of unreasonable assumptions.
It is indeed time that a very clear and concerted message was given that the Mogul hypothesis is completely, quantitatively, untenable. It is important to note that this does not, of course, establish an extraterrestrial origin for the material recovered. The descriptions of the material recovered then does, however, become consistent with the conclusion that the debris wasn't from a Mogul flight.

This is one of the clearest and most secure conclusions that it is possible to make in this whole field. I've double checked the calculations involved and it is all very clear. The Mogul hypothesis is falsified and all should re-adjust there positions on this interesting case accordingly

Larry said...

Well said, Kevin and Anthony.

What ticks me off is the facility with which the 1994/5 Air Force study endorsed the Mogul solution without doing any of the independent research and analysis cited by you two. This, even though they uncovered almost all the data necessary to have actually done such analysis.

Considering that it is possible for a few of us civilians with an actual interest in figuring out what actually transpired to amass the information and arguments that falsify the Mogul hypothesis, you would think it would be a lead-pipe-cinch for the Air Force to have figured it out, if they had wanted to.

David Rudiak said...

Larry, what ticks me off even more is that it wasn't ignorance but deliberate deception. The issue about winds and trajectories wasn't on the table in 1994/5, but whether the flight existed certainly was. They needed a "perp" to explain away Roswell and they found one by inventing a nonexistent balloon flight ("Flight #4").

It is clear from Crary's diary that the flight was cancelled and only a smaller test flight of a microphone was done instead (this was also the case with a cancelled Flight #3 back East). Mogul summary records also have a blank in the numbered flight sequence for #4, along with #3 and #2, with absolutely no flight data in the project summaries, such as trajectory and flight altitude profile, as with real flights. Despite this, they needed a culprit, so "Flight #4" came back to life.

But the deception extended beyond that. They also brought cancelled flights #2 and #3 back to life, made a new flight summary table inserting #2, #3, and #4 back into the flight sequence, and even used wording insinuating that the flights had actually gone up, when clearly they had not.

#2 is the clearest example. In Lt. McAndrew's phony table, e.g., under "landing site" for "#2" McAndrew writes "unknown".

But what NYU's "Special Report No. 1--Constant Level Balloons, May 1947", p. 27, really wrote about the attempted flight was: "Due to the high wind... and due to malfunctioning of the Army receiver in the plane that was to follow the balloons, release was not made. The already-inflated balloons were cut free and the equipment was brought back to New York University."

But this is what McAndrew wrote in his summary: "NOTE: Technical Report No. 1, Table VII, "Summary of NYU Constant-Level Balloon Flights," and Technical Report No. 93.02, Constant Level Balloons, Section 3, 'Summary of Flights,' do not fully account for all balloons flown... Absent from the reports are service flight nos. 2, 3, and 4. Flight no. 2 was flown... in an attempt to obtain acoustical data from an explosion... on the German island of Helgoland. [18].

Footnote 18 then references the same NYU, Special Report No. 1, p. 27, that I first quoted from stating why the flight was cancelled with all equipment stripped off for later reuse.

This is a very facile propagandist at work. Clearly McAndrews own reference makes it unambiguously clear that no flight ever took place, but McAndrew talks about how it "was flown", the landing site was "unknown", etc. This is just flagrant lying.

Apparently for McAndrew's purposes, the balloons alone being cut loose, even with zero attached equipment, was enough for it to become a full-fledged Mogul that "flew" with an "unknown" landing site. The lying about the cancelled "Flight #4" was just an obvious extension of this propaganda ruse.

starman said...

Ruling out Mogul may not itself establish an ET origin for the material, but with all prosaic explanations now eliminated, what alternative is there now? I don't think the skeptics would've clung to Mogul as long as they did if there was a better earthly explanation, of any kind.

David Rudiak said...

That's always been the crux of the UFO enigma: You run out of prosaic explanations for the really outstanding cases, so what else is there? As a top secret USAF Europe document stated in 1948, after consulting with Swedish military intelligence concerning the "ghost rockets" and flying saucers, stated:

"They have been reported by so many sources and from such a variety of places that we are convinced that they cannot be disregarded and must be explained on some basis which is perhaps slightly beyond the scope of our present intelligence thinking.

"When officers of this Directorate recently visited the Swedish Air Intelligence Service, this question was put to the Swedes. Their answer was that some reliable and fully technically qualified people have reached the conclusion that 'these phenomena are obviously the result of a high technical skill which cannot be credited to any presently known culture on earth'. They are therefore assuming that these objects originate from some previously unknown or unidentified technology, possibly outside the earth."

Or as Sherlock Holmes observed, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth.

The fundamental difference between a hardcore skeptic and a "believer", is that the skeptic will always assume there MUST be a prosaic explanation, since they consider interstellar travel, not just improbable, but impossible. So any crappy "explanation" will do, even if it really doesn't fit the facts. In the case of Roswell, the Air Force came up with a nonexistent Mogul balloon flight.

Anthony Mugan said...

I have also run out of alternative suggestions for a small minority of cases. We do need to be a bit careful however as the 'Sherlock Holmes' approach (logical positivism) has not been accepted as a valid scientific approach for many decades. Critical rationalism requires us to test our hypotheses and to try to falsify them.
Testing the ETH without an actual piece of kit is tricky...even spectrographs are likely to just pick up emissions from surrounding plasma for example. The best I can think of is:
Evidence of control in some cases ( e.g. Ellswort, Tehran)
Evidence of mass ( e.g.) Trans-en- Provence)
Statistical evidence (e.g the association of UFO reports with CE4 events... Although this is open to other explanations)
Probably fair to say that the ETH isn't securely established at the moment therefore.

cda said...

Anthony:

"The Mogul hypothesis is falsified and all should re-adjust there positions on this interesting case accordingly".

I have some questions:

1. How much 'readjustment' should we make?

2. Have you seen the contemporary newspaper reports (July 9)?

3. Have you seen the FBI teletype of July 8?

4. Have you seen the photos taken at Ft. Worth?

If you have read or seen these, what conclusions would you make as to the identity of the debris found at the ranch and brought to Ft Worth?

I assume you are not a cover-up or conspiracy promoter. If I am wrong then we need discuss this no further, but if I am right and you are not in the conspiracy brigade then I repeat: From the evidence I have cited, what does it strongly suggest the debris was?

Anthony Mugan said...

Hi CDA
Excellent questions
I would suggest we simply need to acknowledge that whatever the debris was, it wasn't a NYU constant level balloon flight.
For your other questions...as the US Air Force 1994/5 studies acknowledge that the weather balloon storey was put out as a cover storey ( what for is now debatable of course) as first stated by Brigadier DuBose I think we can safely conclude that all the material you reference was part of that understandable process.

OK? I shall leave it to others to assign labels as to what that makes me or not

Ps thanks for the Smith papers

David Rudiak said...

cda wrote:
1. How much 'readjustment' should we make?

Find a REAL prosaic explanation instead of using a nonexistent balloon flight.

2. Have you seen the contemporary newspaper reports (July 9)?

Have you see the contemporary newspaper reports of July 8--base press release saying they had recovered a "flying disc"? Weather balloon/radar target was the SECOND story.

Have you seen the contemporary news stories of July 16, 1945, for the Alamogordo A-bomb test? It was an ammunition depot explosion causing no damage, but some civilians might have to be evacuated because gas cannisters exploded. (What, no mention of the super-secret atomic bomb?)

"Contemporary" U-2 shootdown stories May 5, 1960? It was a NASA high altitude weather research plane that strayed into Soviet territory because pilot passed out from oxygen deprivation. (What, no mention that it was a spy plane?)

"Contemporary" plane crash stories Nevada/Utah border, May 26, 1963? Press was told it was the crash of an F-105 out of Nellis AFB, Las Vegas. (What, no mention that it was really the crash of the top-secret A-12 Oxcart spy plane operating out of Area 51?) Newspapers did note many inconsistencies in the official story but couldn't penetrate the veil of secrecy.

There are many other examples of where the press was lied to and given a cover story. (Classic example--Watergate)

POINT: "Contemporary" stories only tell you what the press was told and how they reported it. They are not necessarily the truth of what happened, which might be "shaded" it bit if it was something secret and deemed to be in the interests of national security to lie about it, thus issue a cover story.

As I've also noted many times before with Roswell, the contemporary stories also have many serious inconsistencies in them, which again strongly suggest a cover story in effect, e.g. Fort Worth photos do NOT match descriptions of debris by Mack Brazel--much less debris, no "rubber strips", no "flower pattern" tape, pristine radar target, only slightly aged weather balloon. Marcel reported debris scattered over a square mile. Marcel, Brazel, Wilcox, Ramey couldn't get their stories straight (Ex's: Ramey saying the object would have been 25 feet across if reconstructed; Brazel saying he told the Sheriff he may have found a flying disc but Wilcox saying Brazel came in reporting a weather meter; Marcel saying Brazel immediately cleaning it up, Brazel saying he waited 3 weeks because he was busy.)

3. Have you seen the FBI teletype of July 8?

Claims debris is single balloon and attached radar target. (What, no multi-balloon, multi radar target Mogul?) FBI never allowed to examine anything. So story again only what FBI was told by military.

4. Have you seen the photos taken at Ft. Worth?

Again, military totally controlled the situation, not the press.

If you have read or seen these, what conclusions would you make as to the identity of the debris found at the ranch and brought to Ft Worth?

By CDA logic, if you only went by the contemporary news accounts, there never was a Trinity A-bomb test, there never was a U-2 spy plane shot down over Russia, there never was an A-12 crash, etc. (With the U-2, the lie was exposed within a few days by the Russians who were in control of the situation instead of U.S. authorities.)

All the press got in 1947 was the official story put out by military. What evidence do the debunkers have that the press was ever told the full story or shown the real debris instead of being fed a cover story?

cda said...

Forget everything folks. Edward Snowden is about to reveal all about UFOs including, presumably, Roswell. Aren't you all breathless with excitement?

KRandle said...

All -

The narrative here is that Project Mogul is NOT responsible for the material retrieved by Brazel and later Marcel. It is not about what was in Ramey's office, FBI memos or anything else.

CDA -

I am tempted to removed your comment because it has absolutely no relevance to this discussion, but it does demonstrate a certain mind set.

David Rudiak said...

Kevin wrote:
The narrative here is that Project Mogul is NOT responsible for the material retrieved by Brazel and later Marcel. It is not about what was in Ramey's office, FBI memos or anything else.

What was in Ramey's office, the FBI memo, etc., do have something to do with whether a Mogul could have been responsible:

Early Mogul balloon trains: about 2 dozen ordinary weather balloons which may or may not have carried several radar targets, altitude control equipment, meteorological paper parachutes or silk parachutes, radiosondes for tracking, maybe a sonobuoy for detecting explosions, plus several hundred yards of twine and nylon fishing line rigging to hold everything together. Total weight, typically around 60 pounds.

What Brazel described: Two small bundles weighing around 5 pounds, one of "smoky gray" "rubber strips" and the other of sticks, tin foil, paper, and tape with flower patterns. Denied any sort of rigging found (no wire or string). No equipment of any kind described.

Roger Ramey: The box-kite like object was about 25 feet across if reconstructed, was a singular balloon and radar target, denied any sort of equipment found. Likewise weather officer Irving Newton described it as an ordinary singular weather balloon/radar target that could have come from any number of weather stations that used them back then.

FBI telegram: FBI told by Ramey's intel officer it was a singular balloon and radar target, no mention of equipment of any kind.

Fort Worth photos: Measured by me as equivalent to a single radar target and probably one used but intact weather balloon (no "rubber strips"), balloon could have fit in a shoe box. Radar target appears to be pristine, i.e. no stained or dirty white paper backing. No one has found any tape or "flower patterns" in the photos. There is no rigging and no equipment of any kind.

So no matter how you slice this, the quantities of debris described and shown in Fort Worth were of an ordinary singular weather balloon/radar target combination with no equipment or rigging, no "flower patterns", and which could have come from anywhere, even according to Ramey's weather officer. There is no connection to a Mogul balloon here, except that these early Moguls also used weather balloons, but MANY of them, and occasionally used radar targets, (though no evidence of such use in N.M. until July 1947).

Brazel's description of debris quantity would come the closest if 90+% of the Mogul vanished, including all the equipment, some of which should have come down with balloons and radar targets, not to mention the rigging, which Brazel denied finding any. The missing hundreds of yards of rigging alone have always been a damning indictment against the Mogul hypothesis, conveniently swept under the rug by the debunkers, starting with the AF.

And then of course there is the complete lack of any documentation of the claimed Mogul flight supposed to be responsible, which in fact was stated as being canceled, with the flight the next day showing up in multiple official histories as being the real first N.M. Mogul flight.

From this the debunkers still argue that what was found, described, and displayed is all perfectly consistent with a Mogul flight that never existed. Mr. Spock would have been appalled by the this astounding display of human illogic.

cda said...

Excuse me, but is not everything DR lists as having been found and reported at the time (in several sources) consistent with it being either:

(i) a balloon of some kind with an attached radar target?
or
(ii) part of a larger balloon array with several radar targets and possibly other instruments?

What I am keen to know, from DR, Kevin or anyone else, is this:

What aspects of the debris, as described at the time in various places, and as shown in the photos, suggest that it came from a visiting ET craft?

Further: given that there are several contemporary sources showing that the debris was balloon/radar reflector debris, can you please produce one iota of such material showing that it was from a visiting ET craft? After 65 years, don't you think this is VERY overdue?

Of course you can always invoke cover-up/conspiracy theory, but that would be a 'get out', and nothing else.

Anthony Mugan said...

Hi CDA
I do agree with you that it is not possible to say for certain that what crashed was an ET craft. I do feel that the various weather balloons shown off on the 8th July and in the days following are a clear red herring. Since 1994 it had been generally accepted that Ramey had substituted this material for what allegedly was Mogul debris. This issue now is that it clearly wasn't a Mogul fllight that required that cover storey.
TheRamey memo does make the ETH quite likely in this case in my opinion, recognising that only small sections can be read with reasonable confidence in my opinion but formally I would suggest that the debris is at this stage unidentified, but definitively not any of the conventional explanations that have been put forward over the years.

cda said...

Anthony:

Did I get you right?

You are saying that it is "generally accepted" that Ramey substituted a balloon and radar target for something else.

It is "generally accepted" by ET believers of course. It is all part of the cover-up/conspiracy idea, which you seem reluctant to admit believing in.

The ONLY people who promote the switch thesis are those who have to find a way to explain why the stuff they insist was an ET craft happens to resemble balloon & radar reflector debris! (And of course the AF told the FBI a lie about it as well).

Before this you say "that it is not possible to say for certain that what crashed was an ET craft".

This implies that there is a high probability that it was an ET craft but that we cannot be certain!

I am saying, or rather asking: Is there ANY contemporary evidence that it was such a craft? In other words, you seem to think there is, say, an 80 to 90% probability of it being ET. I am saying this figure is virtually zero. A big difference.

If you think about it, you cannot be a Roswell ETHer without also being a conspiracist, can you?

David Rudiak said...

cda wrote:
If you think about it, you cannot be a Roswell ETHer without also being a conspiracist, can you?

If you think about it, its more a case of how you can't be an "anti-ETHer" without repeatedly accusing the other side of "being a conspiracist", insinuating the other side is nothing but fanatics and paranoids and has no decent arguments.

This has certainly been the case many times with cda and other skepti-bunkers who weigh in here and elsewhere. I wish I had a nickle for every time I have been called a "conspiracist", even for timidly pointing out there is no real evidence for a Mogul balloon being responsible for Roswell. Instead of addressing the points, the "conspiracist" epithets begin flying.

Earth to cda: conspiracies and coverups do exist, believe it or not, and noting, e.g., that Watergate was a high level conspiracy and cover-up does not make one a "conspiracist", i.e., someone who sees conspiracies everywhere in everything. Big difference.

Anthony Mugan said...

CDA
Hi, my line of argument is that on the 8th July 1947 Ramey suggested the debris was the remains of a weather balloons. Brazel's interview and the photo opportunity of the launch of such balloons were consistent with that statement. In 1994 the Air Force report suggested that what crashed was a Mogul assemblage. As this was a classified project Ramey could not refer to it but gave what, in that scenario, would have been a reasonably close alternative, which would have got to the essence of the misidentification without compromising security. Fair enough.
If mogul falls as a hypothesis however, we can not simply revert back to the weather balloon explanation as if it had never been acknowledged that this was not the actual debris.
We lack enough information to assign a definite probability to the ETH overall and in this specific case. You are partially correct to surmise that for reasons too involved to go into in a short post, I do not think the odds are vanishingly small, but far from certain

Anthony Mugan said...

Just as a postscript - and conscious this is moving slightly beyond the original topic, but...
I suspect that to finish this debate off will require some concrete evidence. On the assumption that we are unlikely to get our hands on the actual debris any time soon that may mean waiting for technological developments that enable the Ramey memo to read with much greater confidence.
I have no idea were things stand with that sort of technology, and not my area at all...

KRandle said...

All -

The narrative here was not about this ancillary issues. It was what was written in Albert Crary's field notes and diary. That was all. Given the diary, and the accompanying information, Mogul was ruled out before the debris left the field.

These other issues seem to underscore the fact, but was not the point here. The post was narrowly defined and done so on purpose.

Anthony Mugan said...

Kevin
In an everyday scenario such as a civil or perhaps even a criminal case were the standard of evidence required is 'beyond reasonable doubt' (I'm British, not sure if it is worded in the same way in the USA), I would tend to agree with you. Crary's diary plus the absence of a NOTAM as you say is all very suggestive. I have a concern that this could be making the 'reasonable man' assumption as in this field almost any room for doubt is taken by some, with some justification, as ruling out anything other than a conventional explanation.
I do think that the points you make plus the trajectory information and the criteria for launch do, collectively rule out the Mogul hypothesis in so many different ways ( it seems to fall at every step) that to attempt to defend it further becomes laughable.
My later comments around the Ramey memo were more about going to the next step and thinking about how to test the ETH, so acknowledge that was going beyond scope
Best wishes

Lance said...

Anthony mentions the NOTAMs above (and accepts the idea without question, naturally).

I asked Kevin quite a while ago if he had NOTAMS for the flights that even the Roswell conspiracists admit DO exist.

Because otherwise the whole argument is rather meaningless. It wouldn't be the first time that a Roswell believer offered a conspiracy buff argument that didn't even follow its own crazy internal logic.

Notice that Kevin never responded.

So I ask again: Kevin do you have NOTAMs for Flight 5&6, for instance?

Thanks and looking forward to your honest reply.

Lance

Gilles Fernandez said...

Good question Lance (by two times now!)...

Will Kevin Randle provide NOTAMs entry(ies) to the well established Mogul flights ? ie, the number #5?

If he fails, his previous argument will have a zero value.

So Kevin, do you have a NOTAM entry recording a Mogul flight or do you cherry-picking once again?

Gilles.

KRandle said...

Lance, Gilles -

Me? cherry picking data?... what about all the nonsense that Mogul was so highly classified that not even those working on it knew the name? Demonstratably false...

However, Charles Moore told Steven Schiff in August 1995 that there was no NOTAM for the June 4 flight because they expected the ascent to remain over restricted territory.

And you miss the point, or rather attempt to divert the conversation which was about Crary's diary saying that Flight No. 4 was cancelled... and the afternoon flight was balloons and a sonobuoy, not a full Mogul rig.

Lance said...

Kevin,

Unbelievable.

So you DON"T have the NOTAM's for any flight, right? Therefore (using Roswell conspiracy logic) there were never ANY MOGUL flights?

See how this doesn't even work inside the logic of your own conspiracy concoction?

You might want to work on that.

Lance

Gilles Fernandez said...

Kevin :
The question(s) was if you have or NOT any data by the NOTAM of flying Mogul Flight(s) well established to have flew/flown (My english is bad), ie the 5#.
In order to see if the use of NOTAM like you did, is important/relevant to judge if or not something flew or not.

You are unable (for now) to provide a NOTAM entry concerning well established Mogul flight(s), but you use your NOTAM argument to claim nothing flew the 4th of June !!!!

Your interpretation of the Crary diary entry of June the 4th is totaly biased too. We have already exchanged about it. A cluster was launched, period. and it is probably a similar one to the drawing of flight #2 and including then, radar-targets. Etc.
You refuse it.

Regards,

Gilles

Gilles Fernandez said...

Mogul was so highly classified that not even those working on it knew the name?

You are wrong imho again. In my book, now in open source (do you will make your books in open source?), I shared the 1946 memo of AMC HQ in this book concerning Mogul in order people judge what was classified or not. Only the dataes obtained and agencement of balloons apparatus were hightly classified (to be short).

Regards,

Gilles

Lance said...

The whole thing with the diary is that all the entries are vague. And it is when the data is vague that conspiracy theorists really go to town! Note above the logical fallacy of finding unsupported (and illogical) meaning from a simple lack of evidence.

Look at the full entry for Flight 7 (accepted even by the Roswell conspiracy buffs as a "real" flight:

"Included cluster of Met balloons"

That is the full thing.

It is eye-opening to see how dedicated conspiracy buffs somehow take the equally vague entry for flight 4:

" Flew regular sono buoy up in cluster of balloons"

And spin that into whatever fits their OMG ALIENS!!!! theories.

In a debate in front of regular people this would generate nothing more than laughter, I would guess. Is it possible that people really wouldn't see the transparently dishonest use of the "data"?

Lance




Gilles Fernandez said...

Yep, Lance,

The DT uses Cary's diary as if he is listing all components of a flight!
That's how DT works...
As if CD is a Scientific log of what composed the cluster(s) of balloons.
Wake up DREAMteam, it is only a Diary!
There are several entries prooving the DT wrong again!
The last, you mentionned is one example.
Note too there is an existing drawing in NYU documentation legended Train for Cluster Flight n°2.
Regards
Gilles

KRandle said...

Lance, Gilles -

Do you have any proof that there was a Flight No. 4? The documentation said that it was cancelled. It doesn't appear in the reports issued by the New York University about their constant level balloon flights. What was happening in New Mexico was not classified, and the name, Mogul appeared, repeatedly in unclassified documents... and Moore knew the name, as demonstrated by other documents long before Robert Todd told him.

This doesn't even address the requirement for NOTAM information, again, as outlined in the documentation that is available... including attempts to get some of the restrictions removed.

And no one said there were no Mogul flights (though we could make the argument there were no Mogul flights in June in New Mexico because those were really NYU flights... an argument of semantics only). We have documentation for the other flights from multiple sources.

And Lance, I never said that this proved "OMG aliens!" only that it demonstrates there was no flight that could account for the debris.

If you have any evidence that shows a Flight No. 4, please present it...

Gilles -

While I admire your use of English, I am afraid that I do not understand your point. I am saying that while the ultimate purpose of Mogul was classified, what was happening in New Mexico in June 1947 was not. And I'm saying that contrary to the notion that those working on it didn't know the name, they used it regularly as various notations in Crary's diary affirms.

cda said...

You don't need a Mogul flight to show what the debris was anyway (although it certainly helps). What you need are the descriptions of the debris given at the time, and some plain common sense.

These descriptions are perfectly clear in the press accounts, the 509th monthly newsletter, the Ft Worth photos and the FBI teletype.

But Kevin and his gang prefer the verbal stories of people who (in most cases) never saw the stuff, and only told their tales some 30 to 50 years afterwards. And the few, very few, who did see the debris had not the slightest idea of what a true alien ET craft would look like since no such thing was known to science, and still isn't.

But don't let the Dream Team be distracted by the mere remarks of John Q. Citizen, and not even a US citizen at that.

Gilles Fernandez said...

It doesn't appear in the reports issued by the New York University about their constant level balloon flights
When you will understand that when NYU flights didn't reach a constant level, they are not listed as Research Flight by the NYU?
It is so hard?

One more time again (5th), dear Kevin, do you have a NOTAM entrie about a Mogul real flight (the #5 or #6), to claim NOTAM recorded what flew and/or not? and to continue to use NOTAM to proove nothing flew this 4 June.

Provide it! Just one entry by the NOTAM concerning a Mogul flight well established as launched ( the #5 or #6)! What are you wainting for? Excepted your NOTAM argument is a zero one...

You can post what you want, Kevin, but NYU launched one apparatus the 4th of June, it is in Crary's Diary ;)
Gilles

David Rudiak said...

Gilles wrote:
Your interpretation of the Crary diary entry of June the 4th is totaly biased too. We have already exchanged about it. A cluster was launched, period. and it is probably a similar one to the drawing of flight #2 and including then, radar-targets. Etc.
You refuse it.


Maybe Gilles should read my first post in this thread, where a Mogul progress report clearly stated that Flight #2 was also cancelled, and ALL gear was stripped off before they cut loose the balloons (couldn't be reused). Because "balloons" went up, does not make it a "Mogul flight", though Gilles still doesn't seem to get this.

Yet, Lt. McAndrew in the AF Report claimed that this planned but clearly cancelled flight "was flown" and the "landing site" was "unknown", both clear lies.

The Mogul report goes on to say the next attempt would be May 8. Crary's diary entry documents that flight too was cancelled, again because of high winds, and gear was again stripped off before releasing the balloons.

The only difference between this cancellation and that of Flight #2, was that Crary goes on to say that they followed the cut-loose balloons in a B-17 while dropping bombs on the ground, suggesting those balloons also carried a microphone to try to detect the explosions.

So this would be very similar to what Crary wrote for the June 4 ATTEMPT in N.M., again cancelled, this time for cloudy weather, but with a "balloon cluster" sent up with a sonobuoy attached to test reception from the air and ground of ground explosions Crary was fond of setting off on the range.

But this was NOT a constant altitude flight. Again (Kevin's point), these non-constant-altitude flights could not go very far since there was no constant altitude equipment attached to keep their airborne over an extended period of time. Instead, such flights would quickly rise to high altitude (above planned constant-altitude range) and then suffer catastrophic balloon failure as the balloons over-expanded and popped, then quickly come down again. (See example of Flight #6, next post, where constant-altitude equipment failed.) That is why Moore claimed they filed no NOTAMs because they wouldn't expect such a stripped-down test of equipment to go off-range.

But any attempted constant-altitude flight that actually went up should have had NOTAMs issued if Mogul was following the law laid down by the CAA. These flights would normally be expected to go off-range and enter civilian airspace as they descended, representing potential hazards to aviation.

David Rudiak said...


Even more complete cluelessness from Gilles:
When you will understand that when NYU flights didn't reach a constant level, they are not listed as Research Flight by the NYU? It is so hard?

Gilles, is it so hard for you to understand that even if a FULLY-EQUIPPED, true constant-altitude flight left the ground but failed, i.e., did NOT achieve constant-level flight, it was indeed STILL RECORDED in Mogul records as a numbered Mogul flight, complete with all tracking data (conspicuously missing for your fictional "Flight #4)

The perfect example was flight #6 only 3 days after your imaginary "flight #4". Stated as a failure in the flight summary because the constant altitude equipment was damaged on launch, it therefore went straight up to high altitude, balloons quickly popped, and came straight down. It didn't go very far, just as one would predict, without constant altitude control.

IT NEVER ACHIEVED CONSTANT-ALTITUDE FLIGHT!! Got that? Yet it is in the flight summaries, complete with its TRACKED altitude profile and ground track, in direct opposition to your statement.

Please point us to a similar documentation of "flight 4", or "flight 2" or flight 3". The reason you won't find anything is because all these constant-altitude flights were written as CANCELLED, they had most or all of their gear stripped off for later reuse, and the already-filled, non-reusable balloons were cut loose sans equipment, though in two cases (cancelled #3 and #4), they also carried microphones to test reception for explosions. But everything else appears to have been stripped off.

Cancelled constant-altitude flight, no flight data because nothing to track, nothing in Mogul records. It's pretty simple, except to Roswell debunkers clinging to the fantasy of nonexistent Mogul balloon flights because they have nothing else.

(That is why McAndrew lied about the equally nonexistent "Flight #2 & #3", to try to lay a basis for the phantom #4 to explain away Roswell).

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

David,

Sorry but "blabla": a cluster of balloons was launched this 4 of June ;)
You can do/write/blabla what you want, but it was and flew ;) Period.

"I"m waiting an entry by NOTAM for established Mogul flights (ie the 5 or 6), because your DreamTeam is using NOTAM to claim nothing flew and then the #4 flight...

Do you have a record by NOTAM of the Mogul flight(s) well established as launched, or not ?

It is a simply question, Kevin is refusing to answer...

Gilles

David Rudiak said...

Lance disingenuously or cluelessly wrote:
The whole thing with the diary is that all the entries are vague. And it is when the data is vague that conspiracy theorists really go to town! Note above the logical fallacy of finding unsupported (and illogical) meaning from a simple lack of evidence.

Look at the full entry for Flight 7 (accepted even by the Roswell conspiracy buffs as a "real" flight:

"Included cluster of Met balloons"

That is the full thing.


Oh really, Lance? That is ALL that is said about Flight #7 in Mogul records, is that what you are saying?

For starters, where does it say anywhere that Flight #7 was cancelled, as was clearly the case for #2, #3, and #4?

Are you really unaware that Mogul summaries also published written summaries of the flight with actual tracking data of Flight #7 in their project summaries, also a balloon schematic? E.g., NYU's "Constant Level Balloons, Section 1, General, November 15, 1949" (Attachment 12 in McAndrew section of AF report) starts with Flight #5 (what, no "flight #4") as the FIRST of the constant level balloon flights in New Mexico, and on page 8 summarizes Flight #7, along with schematic.

"Flight 7: Released from Alamogordo, New Mexico, 0509 MST, July 3, 1947, Descended at Cloudcroft, New Mexico.

"Using a cluster array (fig. 3) of 13 350-gram rubber balloons and four larger lifting balloons, a 52-pound load was carried aloft on this flight. At 54,000 feet, the desired floating level, the lifter balloons were cut free. When the train began to descend below 54,000 feet, lead shot was dropped in increments to maintain buoyancy.

(p. 9) "This altitude-control system operated well enough to produce a height-time curve (figure 4) with one descent checked by ballast dropped. Too much weight was lost in this action, and the train rose until some of the balloons were burst. Subsequent decrement was not checked.

"From this flight it appears that the inherent instability of freely extensible balloons is so great that no simple control will cause them to remain at one pressure level.

"Tracking for the entire flight period was accomplished with a C-54 aircraft. Two theodolite stations were operated, one at the launching site and one at Wafford Lookout, a fire tower about 20 miles northeast of the release point."

Even more detail is provided in NYU's "Technical Report #1", Constant Level Balloon, April 1, 1948, Appendix I, which also includes the ground trajectory of Flight #7. ALL June/July 1947 Mogul flights are documented here, all with balloon schematics and flight profiles. Oh yes, again, the flight sequences starts with Flight #5, not the debunker's imaginary "flight #4"

A bit more is said about your example Flight #7 in Mogul records other than it was a "balloon cluster". Its existence is well-documented not only in the flight summary table, but in the very detailed project summaries.

Where is "Flight #4" Lance, in Mogul records? Or you Gilles? I want a schematic and plots of the flight, just like for all the other June/July 1947 flights (and many flights beyond).

Instead, there is a blank in the flight summary table (along with #2 and #3, also cancelled), and zero detailing about the flight, for the very simple reason that IT NEVER HAPPENED! Mogul's own records refute the whole Flight #4 nonsense of the debunking camp.

Gilles Fernandez said...



I think "Skeptics" will not have an honnest answer by Kevin Randle, if or not the DT have an entry by the NOTAM concerning well established Mogul flights (ie the #5 or the #6)....

Well that's ufology and how is working the DT.

Cya.

Gilles Fernandez said...

You are awesome, David Rudiak ! Bravo!

Lance pointed to you that Crary's diary is zero to understand what a cluster of balloons was composed! Giving the example of his entry concerning Flight #7.

But to invalidate him, you got on NYU entries, then not from the diary!

Sacred David Rudiak!

Gilles Fernandez said...

Where is "Flight #4" Lance, in Mogul records? Or you Gilles? I want a schematic and plots of the flight, just like for all the other June/July 1947 flights (and many flights beyond).

Another your "blabla" and with all respect you deserve.

The NYU team launched an apparatus of balloons the 4th of June.
You can do your best to refuse it, but it was, and it flew! And there is good reasons the apparatus embarked radar-targets ;)
As pro-HET proponent, you continue to elude it. You are not convincing, David.

Cya.

Gilles

David Rudiak said...

In addition to Mogul documentation that Flight #5, June 5, 1947, was the FIRST Mogul balloon in N.M., here are other OFFICIAL, HISTORICAL sources documenting this.

Where is your Mogul balloon flight on June 4, 1947 debunkers? Produce the documention and stop playing your usual disingenuous word games, which is all I've seen from the likes of Lance, Gilles, and cda. Or man up and admit you've got nothing.

1) History of Cambridge Labs, AF Geophysics Laboratory (people in charge of Mogul Project)

http://tinyurl.com/lyt3ogz

"Chronology: From the Cambridge Field Station to the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory 1945-1985" (AFGL, Hanscom AFB, Special Reports, No. 262, 6 Sept 1985), p. 3: “1947, 5 Jun, The first Army Air Forces research balloon launch was conducted at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, by a New York University team working under contract for the Air Material Command. It featured a cluster of rubber balloons. The first polyethylene plastic balloons in this project were launched on 3 July 1947."

2) NASA History of Flight

http://tinyurl.com/mxnwxy2

"Aeronautics and Astronautics: An American Chronology of Science and Technology in the Exploration of Space, 1915-1960 (NASA, 1961), 1945-1949, pp. 49-63: “1947, June 5: First AAF research balloon launch (a cluster of rubber balloons) at Holloman, by New York University team under contract with the Air Materiel Command.”

3) USAF Official History

http://tinyurl.com/kpm238x
http://tinyurl.com/kgfpwgk

"U.S. Air Force: A Complete History" (The Air Force Historical Foundation, 2006), p. 300, “1947, 5 June, A New York University team under contract with the Air Materiel Command launches the Army Air Forces' first research balloon. The cluster of rubber spheres is released at Holloman, New Mexico.”

So both BEFORE and AFTER Air Force COUNTERINTELLIGENCE officers created "Flight #4", official histories instead state that the balloon flight on June 5 (Flight #5) was the first such flight. If nothing else, consider the credibility of the sources: people whose jobs is obfuscate the truth in the interests of national security (AFOSI officers) or professional historians who have no interest in making up anything and seem to UNANIMOUSLY agree on this particular historical FACT.

Lance said...

Well, Gilles already pretty much said it.

On the diary entries, notice how Rudiak says:

"It is clear from Crary's diary that the flight was cancelled..."

And yet when an almost identical diary entry for another flight is shown, he starts talking about other data and suddenly doesn't want to talk about the diary anymore. It's deceptive behavior, of course but hilarious because it's so transparent.

Since Rudiak already understands how he set up a straw man for rhetorical effect instead of addressing the actual issue, I won't reiterate what should be obvious to the non-deluded.

These (the NOTAM and vague diary entries) are just two examples of how committed conspiracy buffs will take disparate data points (or missing data) and spin the wildest of fantasies.

Unfortunately, sometimes those spinning the tales don't take into account the logical problems (even within their own nutty narrative) created by the stories.

It's the exact same technique used by those who "prove" that no planes hit the World Trade Center, that Kennedy's driver killed him, and that the US is currently running concentration camps housing millions.

Lance

David Rudiak said...

Lance blustering wrote:
These (the NOTAM and vague diary entries) are just two examples of how committed conspiracy buffs will take disparate data points (or missing data) and spin the wildest of fantasies.

Pot, kettle, black, Lance. As usual, it is the debunkers taking totally missing data and spinning the "wildest of fantasies", in this case a totally undocumented (zero data), clearly cancelled Mogul flight and turning it into the "solution" for Roswell. (And of course, Lance and Gilles have to throw in his usual gratuitous "conspiracy buffs" when they have nothing to argue.)

Also, as Lance very well knows, I've provided here far more than "vague diary entries" absolutely proving no Mogul flight June 4. Instead, I've referenced six OFFICIAL sources (3 Mogul, 3 other, not Crary's "vague" diary entry) that Flight #5, June 5, 1947 was the FIRST Mogul flight, not one from the day before. How many sources does it take? 10 official sources, 100, 1000 to prove this?

Instead, all I've heard from you Lance, and Gilles, and cda, is a bunch of BS, usual insults, and also some lies or extreme ignorance of facts. (Such as Gilles claiming constant altitude flights that didn't achieve constant altitude were not recorded--shame on you Gilles—where did you dream that one up? Or you Lance, insinuating there wasn't much more mentioned about the real Flight #7 than a vague mention of it being a "balloon cluster" like Crary's discription of the June 4 "flight"--shame Lance—did you bother to read the progress reports with all the recorded data about this flight? Where's the data on "flight #4"?)

Lance and Gilles have provided NO references, absolutely nothing of substance to back up their claims that there was anything like a constant-altitude Mogul flight on June 4. And make no mistake: the USAF in 1994/1995 and Charles Moore both claimed that the debris Brazel found could ONLY be explained by such a flight, not some trivial "balloon cluster" with a test sonobuoy attached that wouldn't have gotten very far. (That's not an opinion, just balloon science 101).

Instead Lance and Gilles take the words "balloon cluster" and turn it into a full-fledged "Mogul" "flight". This is just like McAndrew in the AF Report who lied about a "Flight 2" when Mogul records instead clearly stated it was cancelled because of high winds and radio reception failure, ALL gear was stripped off, and only the non-reusable rubber balloons were released (no doubt another "balloon cluster"). To McAndrew, those useless, cut-loose balloons now alone constituted a "flight". And you guys are playing the same disingenuous word games with the planned but CANCELLED flight of June 4.

The reason there is a big blank in the numbered flight summaries for Flights #2, #3, and #4 (also #9), is because ALL were cancelled, period! The reason no details appear about these flights in any Mogul records (launch time, trajectories, altitude profiles, balloon cutoff altitudes, tracking, time aloft, crash sites, performance, etc., etc.) is because these flights never left the ground and there was NO FLIGHT DATA ON THEM TO RECORD.

In contrast, as I referenced in DETAIL, you can find all the pertinent flight data for REAL June/July 1947 Mogul flights in the Mogul records, STARTING WITH Flight #5 on June 5, 1947. There is NOTHING, ZERO, NADA, for a balloon flight on June 4. The official histories ALL list Flight #5 as the FIRST research balloon flight in New Mexico.

Duhhh, it's really that simple, except to you debunkers who can't let go of this (fanatical psychological denial perhaps). That's why I have to laugh (or snear or roll my eyes) Lance (or Gilles), when you go into your usual tirades about the alleged lack of "critical thinking" by the "UFO believers". Where's your critical thinking on something so obvious as this?

Lance said...

David,

Unfortunately the way conspiracy buffs like yourself work makes it tedious to unravel your claims.

You take a little fact from here and and a gross supposition there and blend them together to form a conspiracy "truth".

I focused on the diary entries specifically and exclusively because you claimed that they proved part of your flying saucer fantasy.

The point I made was that the entry for flight 4 and flight 7 (as well as other flights) are very similar. They are vague and use almost identical language.

In short, they don't prove what you claim they do.

I can see why you NOW want to talk about lots of other documents (after raving on and on about the diary entry. That's just the way conspiracy buffs do things: "You have to understand the whole web, man!"

I'll stick to one topic at time. And this is one that a child can see you have lost.

Lance

David Rudiak said...

More Lance BS: (part 1 of 2)

I wrote: "It is clear from Crary's diary that the flight was cancelled..."

Lance: "And yet when an almost identical diary entry for another flight is shown, he starts talking about other data and suddenly doesn't want to talk about the diary anymore. It's deceptive behavior, of course but hilarious because it's so transparent. Since Rudiak already understands how he set up a straw man for rhetorical effect instead of addressing the actual issue, I won't reiterate what should be obvious to the non-deluded. "

Lance is again claiming that there was essentially no difference between Flight #7 (a REAL flight on July 2, 1947--we know its real because it was recorded in detail) and what Crary's diary wrote for the attempted flight on June 4. Further Lance claims I'm trying to deflect from this.

No,it is Lance again projecting his own deceptive behavior onto others and using a straw man. Not only are there numerous differences between what Crary wrote for the two examples, the "actual issue" is that even if you ignore Crary entirely, Flight #7 is heavily documented in Mogul flight summary tables and progress reports along with the other real Mogul flights, whereas the debunkers claimed flight for June 4 ("Flight #4) has absolutely NOTHING recorded for it anywhere in any Mogul records. That is also true for all CANCELLED flights (such as #2, #3, and #9). They are also missing from Mogul records because no flight, no data.

That is all you really need to know. Cancelled flights have no documentation because there was no data to record. They never left the ground. Real flights had all sorts of data to record, even if they failed. They flew, they were tracked, the flight data was recorded.

This is obvious to the true non-deluded, but not Lance, Gilles, cda, etc.

David Rudiak said...

Response to Lance on cancelled "flight #4" vs real Flight #7 (part 2)

As for what Crary actually wrote for the June 4 cancelled flight compared to the real Flight #7:

June 4: "Out to Tulerosa Range and fired charges between 00 and 06 this am. [what Mogul microphones were trying to detect] No balloon flights again on account of clouds [planned flight previous day likewise cancelled because of clouds]. Flew regular sono buoy up in cluster of balloons and had good luck on receiver on ground but poor on plane..."

"Week of 30 June – 5 July '47 Alamogordo. ...Balloon tests 7, 8, 9, and 10 off this week. Test 7, slated for 1 July postponed [note: not cancelled] until 2 July as equipment was not ready. ...Test 7 at dawn on July 2 with pibal 1 hr first following with theodolite. Winds were very light and balloons up between A [sic] air base and mountains most of time. Included cluster of met balloons. Followed by C-54? [sic] for several hours & finally landed in mountains near road to Cloudcroft. Before gear could be recovered, most of it had been stolen. Stations operating from north hanger [sic], Cloudcroft and Roswell. Shots made unfortunately at Site #4 and picked up good from north hanger, [sic] and from Cloudcroft for awhile. Nothing from Roswell..."

Now notice that with the latter, Crary goes into some detail, including flight number, a delay but not cancellation, launch at dawn, light winds with balloons not drifting far, being followed by a C54 for hours and other actual tracking (theodolite), and a crash site, including the fact that "gear" was stolen by civilians. Balloon microphone signal was picked up at two ground stations but not a third.

Much more detail is in the flight summary table (exact launch time, number, type, and weight of balloons, details of flight gear, total balloon weight, total flight time, tracking details by radiosonde, radiosonde, and chase plane--no radar tracking, % of gear recovered, and brief assessment of constant altitude performance).

And if you go to subsequent Mogul progress reports, balloon configuration schematic, flight trajectory, and flight altitude performance, as I detailed in an earlier post today.

Now compare this with June 4 attempted launch. Two sentences by Crary about what happened, including "no flight AGAIN on account of clouds", no listing in Mogul summary table, nothing in Mogul flight summaries, and I do mean NOTHING. One flight is heavily documented (#7), whereas the other has zero documentation, other than it was cancelled because of clouds.

But Lance accuses me of supposedly not addressing the "actual issue," what he considers a showstopper argument apparently. For June 4, Crary says "cluster of balloons" (lofting a sonobuoy); for July 2, Crary says "included cluster of met balloons". Wow, what a triumph of debunker "logic"! In Lance DebunkerFantasyLand, this makes the two entries "almost identical" and me supposedly guilty of being "deceptive".

This is truly hilarious Lance because the stupidity and dishonesty of your argument is so transparent.

Gilles Fernandez said...

The first polyethylene plastic balloons in this project were launched on 3 July 1947.
lol
With your source, why to not state there was no flight June the 5th (Mogul Flight#5) too?

David, be serious a moment, stop cherry-picking. You well know Alamogordo I expedition was with neoprene balloons, not Polyethylene...

First AAF research balloon launch.

Yeah, "research" balloon, with scientific dataes to use because the cluster reached a constant altitude (level-off). But you well know there were "service" flights too, as the one of June the 4th with no scienific dataes to use, or if you prefer tests in June, making realize to the NYU team the corner-reflectors technic to be bad, because the range of the SR(number forget, sorry) radar, as Moore stated in Charles Ziegler/Benson Saler and Him book...

You use the Crary's diary as if it made a precise listing of what composed the different clusters, but when it is pointed other entries to you, ie. the one for Flight #7, you see how the journal is not like it... which whas our point.

And our question was if you have a record by the NOTAM of well established flights, ie the #5 or #6?

It is you who used NOTAM to claim there was no flight #4, but for this, you must produce an entry for well established flights.

Until it, the use of NOTAM for your purpose about flight#4 is zero...

cda said...

DR writes:

"I want a schematic and plots of the flight, just like for all the other June/July 1947 flights (and many flights beyond)".

I could give a partial answer by saying that in the absence of direct evidence in the official logs there is the discovery of widely spread balloon-like and radar-target-like material on the Brazel ranch some ten days later, as documented in the local newspapers.

I further ask DR:

What do YOU think the debris, as described in the various sources, and as depicted in the 6 Ft Worth photos, was? Recall that the FBI teletype was only discovered 32 years afterwards and more or less confirms what was said in 1947.

I predict that DR cannot provide an answer to the above without invoking conspiracy theory. And in so doing DR will tell us that the 8th AF also told a lie to the FBI, lied in the radio broadcast, manipulated all the press stories and made death threats against civilians.

Conspiracy theory, and all its ramifications, has perforce to be at the root of all Roswell ETHers. There is no alternative.

cda said...

Oh and I forgot to say that the USAF has covered up this amazing scientific discovery for no less than 65 years! At least, so the conspiracy brigade tell us. (Yes, I have said it before; it bears repeating).

But DR, AJB, Kevin and the rest can always reply that their 'witnesses' and other informants are the ones we should believe. There are so many of them (so they say) that they simply cannot all be liars, deluded fools, ageing blabbermouths or people influenced by the interviewers, etc).

Hence the ETs did indeed descend upon us that day in summer '47, folks!

Maybe someone will one day find General Ramey's tombstone, see the secret writing on it and decipher it (finally) to get the proof that we all deserve.

Don Maor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Don Maor said...

Fernandez said:

"But you well know there were "service" flights too"

Wow, here the word "service" looks impressive. With all certainty, this proves the case for the mogul balloon.

Gilles Fernandez said...



Maybe because never you taked a look in NYU documentations? For example, the NYU final report, p.13 (it is the attachment n°10 in the first USAF big report) uses and explain the terms "service" flight to distinguish them with "research" flight. To be very short, only the second type (research) were the flights NYU made fully account.

For example and for my previous points, read Crary's diary at the entry of May 1947 the 8th:

The NYU team is following a cluster of Balloons with a B-17 and a B-29 is scheduled to launch bombs, all of it in East Coast in my Geography of the USA is correct. The B29 have had a pb, and the test was aborted (no bomb(s) launched, jetison of the bombs), but the cluster flew. we are OK? So Our DreamTeam cant say thisone was cancelled or never flew.

Now trie to find this flight in the table summeryzing them (if we follow the DT) by NYU, ie. the table n°7 "Summary of NYU constant level balloons flights", attachment n°27 of the USAF big report.

You will not find this balloons cluster, despite he flew.

Regards,

Gilles

Gilles Fernandez said...

David, you wrote :
"But what NYU's "Special Report No. 1--Constant Level Balloons, May 1947", p. 27, really wrote about the attempted flight was: "Due to the high wind... and due to malfunctioning of the Army receiver in the plane that was to follow the balloons, release was not made. The already-inflated balloons were cut free and the equipment was brought back to New York University."

The Special Report n°1 wrote it about the test scheduled the 18 april 1947. And yes, nothing flew.

But continue your reading, please, of the page 27...
"It is expected that this equipment will be flown about 8 may". This special report was probably written BEFORE the test was done.

Now, go in Crary's diary, you will see that a flight flew -sic- the 8th of May, as expected ;)

And it did not figure in NYU summary, but this cluster flew ;)

So to use the NYU table as you do/did as usual to your followers to claim/demonstrate flights between the #1 and the #5 were canceled, they never existed, or your other rhetorical "blabla" is fallacious.

QED.

(cya, I'm in Hollidays now. I whish to all good summer hollidays).

Gilles

Don Maor said...

Fernandez wrote:

"For example, the NYU final report, p.13 (it is the attachment n°10 in the first USAF big report) uses and explain the terms "service" flight to distinguish them with "research" flight. To be very short, only the second type (research) were the flights NYU made fully account."

One then would hope to find some account of the mogul #4. Maybe not a "fully account" as you say, but at least some record. Where is it?

Anthony Mugan said...

Interesting discussion on a variety of levels. The documentary evidence is quite clear. A service flight is clearly stated in the project documentation as involving the test of specific equipment. These were not recorded in the progress reports as they were not constant level balloon flights. Crary states that the flight was cancelled, but then, after describing explosive tests to 6am, describes a launch of a sonobuoy. This is all consistent data. Moore's recollection that no NOTAM was issued is also suggestive. DR has set out a range of historical sources that are also consistent with the project documentation.
Perhaps understandably the critical response has focused on possible ambiguities in the documentation. The level of emotion is interesting a may be an effective tactic with anyone not aware of the detail, but cuts little ice. The counter arguments presented are weak, but we do need to place this discussion in the full context of available data...TBC

Gilles Fernandez said...

Don Moar.

From 2009/2010, first I appeared in Kevin Blog (as in my 2010 French book free available now), I explained to Kevin, their team is wrong using the table of the NYU to "sell" to people, there were no flights between the #1 and the #5.

This table recences ONLY flights with scientific dataes at constant altitude, not the tests ones of specific equipments or when no scientific dataes are available... I have prooved it several times now, as others did.

If you look the documentation, there was a flight scheduled April 18th (see before), canceled and the Report wrote it will be again tried around May 8th. It was probably with radar-targets, see the drawing of the cluster train n°2.

It is corroborated when you look Crary's Personal Journal (CPJ) at May 8th 1947. A cluster flew, followed by a B17, but the B29 have a pb. So it flew.
This flight is NOT recorded in the Table for this reason (Flight #2?). It was in East Coast.

If you look at May 29th the CPJ, the team is now at Alamorgordo (N.M). A test flight a was done and launched by the team, probably including radar-targets too (flight #3 ?). The flight is not in the NYU table too.

And of course June the 4th, a cluster was launched, and not recorded in NYU Table (Moore said it was impossible to continue to track it by radar due to the range of it) = no scientific dataes. So not in NYU Table (Flight #4?).

You can name or call such NYU clusters as you want, #X, service, test, but they flew !

Two of them have been launched in the vincinity of Roswell and there are good reasons they embarked corner-reflectors, looking like the drawin of train cluster #2,for example.

But the Dream Team will continue to state to their followers, there were no NYU flights at this period, near Roswell, because no record in the NYU table.

That's wrong, false and fallacious.

Anthony Mugan said...

Gilles
You are absolutely correct to state that some sort of balloon cluster was launched and that service flights were tests of specific equipment. Service flights were not recorded in the projects progress reports etc as clearly stated in the documentation. I don't think anyone is saying that nothing was launched . Crary's diary clearly states that they flew a sonobuoy in a cluster of balloons. What the documentation establishes with reasonable confidence therefore is that this was a service flight, presumably testing reception on the sonobuoy and was not a NYU constant level balloon test flight. If it had been a contant level balloon flight it would have been recorded as such.
Whilst that ought to be sufficient evidence (it would have to be equipped as a full scale constant level balloon flight to stand any chance of getting anywhere near the flight duration required etc) that for some reason appears to be insufficient evidence for some people.
To continue my earlier comment therefore I would like to ask if anyone can demonstrate:
a) that a launch time earlier than 5am wouldn't have breached the regulations for weather conditions that the project was operating under
b) that the relatively rapid and smooth ascent trajectory used in the Moore 1997 model is a physical possibility with the cluster balloons used to control lift at that time.

The implications of these two points should be clear to anyone who has studied this in any detail. To stand any chance of the flight duration required before balloons begin to burst due to heating a very early launch time is needed. Given the weather conditions this would have been in breach of the relevant regulations until around 5am at the earliest. Crary's diary suggests a launch after 6am which is more in line with a 'best estimate' of when they should have had clear skies. Moore's model has a rapid ascent phase which is necessary to a avoid the balloons being carried to far to the NE in strong upper tropospheric winds. This shape of as ent curve is a physical impossibility with lifter balloons which gave a distinct drop in lift on release. Indeed it is necessary to assume the same minor malfunction in the ballast mechanism as presumed for flight 5 to get it into the stratosphere at all

Good luck!

An intellectually honest approach woul be to acknowledge that the debris is simply not identified at this time

cda said...

Anthony:

You write: "An intellectually honest approach woul be to acknowledge that the debris is simply not identified at this time"

But an equally 'intellectually honest' approach is to say the debris IS identified, not only at this time but a few hours after it happened, all those years ago.

We have several sources, as I have said before, some official sources, plus more in the press and on the radio. These sources give the answer.

The problem is that several investigators prefer to go by what certain 'witnesses' told them decades afterwards, all without any kind of verification or documentation, coupled with silly tittle-tattle of death threats made by the USAF at the time.

I agree that the Mogul explanation is questionable (though certainly still possible), but this is surely minor beside the descriptions of the material given at the time. Balloon(s) plus radar reflectors WERE involved.

If you doubt this, I ask you: What do you think the debris, as shown in those photos, really is? What do the newspaper descriptions suggest to you?

I would prefer it if you can answer these without recourse to conspiracy theory (which is always at the heart of the ET explanation).

It is false to claim that the material from the ranch is still unidentified after 65 years.

Anthony Mugan said...

Hello CDA
I am in all honesty completely baffled as go why you feel the weather balloon debris you refer to has any relevance. In 1994 the Mogul hypothesis was put forward. This hypothesis requires that the weather balloon material presented by Ramey was substituted for the genuine debris to protect that classified project. That supports DuBose's statement etc.
Are you seriously suggesting we just ignore this official de facto acceptance that the weather balloon storey was a cover storey? I don't think there is any alternative at the moment to simply noting that we do not know what the debris actually was.

Lance said...

Anthony,

You seem to be confused.

I don't think most skeptics suggest that the debris in the photos is anything other than the stuff that was picked up at the ranch.

Marcel confirmed (in several interviews, including on video) that the stuff in the pictures is the same stuff he picked up.

So I'll let you get up to speed and somehow rationalize that into your worldview (which I have no doubt that you will do superbly, just as your fellow conspiracy buff have done already).

Lance

cda said...

Anthony:

I share Lance's confusion about your real views.

You are surely not suggesting that Ramey substituted weather balloon + radar target debris for the Mogul debris? A totally pointless exercise since Ramey could have prohibited all photography anyway, had he wanted to.

The conspiracists always maintain that the substitution was done to put off the public from seeing the (supposedly top secret) ET debris. Quite a difference!

As the USAF 1994 report makes clear, the debris shown in those photos was NOT substituted debris at all - it was the real stuff.

And as Lance says, this has always been the position of the skeptics, including myself.

Don't forget duBose told different stories to different people. Likewise Marcel made a bit of a fool of himself when he first said one of the pics showed him with the real debris but the other (there were only two known at that point) showed him with the substituted debris! What a shambles.

Don Maor said...

Fernandez wrote:

"If you look at May 29th the CPJ, the team is now at Alamorgordo (N.M). A test flight a was done and launched by the team, probably including radar-targets too (flight #3 ?). The flight is not in the NYU table too."

"probably" included radar targets? probably "flight #3". "Probably". The fact is that you are proposing a contradictory scene. Your tale requires the mogul flight #4 to be as unimportant as to have no records, but to be as important as to have confused a high rank military group, triggered a national press release, etc. I have read UFO skeptical articles claiming that Roswell can be explained by the super secret mogul flight #4, and now you come up with this "service", unnamed, unrecorded, flight. It's disappointing.

There was probably more than a cluster of balloons to the Roswell case. Too many witnesses telling strange things, tales of bodies, etc.



Anthony Mugan said...

Hello all
It's been too soon to expect any serious quantitative response to the challenge DR and Brad Soarks developed to the Mogul trajectory hypothesis... In terms of this conversatrsation, the evidence has been in the public domain for some time, but we await with interest for one to appear.

CDA... I can see why pragmatically you are developing the train of though t you are doing. For me there remains a logical problem around this switching back and forward.

Lance - I hope you don't expect a serious reply. It is always encouraging when critics of a hypothesis one argues for get emotional. Actually though, have you genuinely forgotten the very helpful review of my emerging thinking on this topic that you and Tim very kindly provided. You may wish to refer back to that paper regarding the range of references therein.

Anyway looking forward to the next substantive comment from any perspective

Lance said...

Anthony,

Absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Hopefully you do understand that you mischaracterized the skeptical position even though your above response show no admission or knowledge of this.

Lance

David Rudiak said...

Gilles wrote (part 1 of 3)
David, you wrote :
"But what NYU's "Special Report No. 1--Constant Level Balloons, May 1947", p. 27, really wrote about the attempted flight was: "Due to the high wind... and due to malfunctioning of the Army receiver in the plane that was to follow the balloons, release was not made. The already-inflated balloons were cut free and the equipment was brought back to New York University." The Special Report n°1 wrote it about the test scheduled the 18 april 1947. And yes, nothing flew.


Glad to hear Gilles finally acknowledge that “nothing flew” for Flight #2. As a result, it was omitted from the Mogul numbered flight summary table and there was never any published flight data. Perhaps that had something to do with the fact that “nothing flew”?

Similarly Flights #3, #4, and #9 were also stated as being cancelled, are also omitted from the summary tables, and have no published flight data in subsequent project progress reports. Gilles, do you think it remotely possible that the reason they are also missing and have no other documentation is because “NOTHING FLEW?” (Meaning the planned constant-altitude flights with necessary equipment "never flew" but were cancelled.)

Maybe you can also explain why Lt. McAndrew in the 1995 AF Report stated that this attempted but cancelled flight (Flight #2) “was flown”, wrote it back into the flight summaries (where it is missing in the real Mogul flight summary table), with the added touch about the “landing site” being “unknown”? He also called it a “service flight” along with #3 and #4, implying it was a real flight, yet you acknowledge that it “never flew”. How can something both “have flown” and “never flew” at the same time? Debunking arguments are so confusing!

But continue your reading, please, of the page 27...
"It is expected that this equipment will be flown about 8 may". This special report was probably written BEFORE the test was done.


OK, so another constant-altitude flight was to be attempted May 8. I agree.

Now, go in Crary's diary, you will see that a flight flew -sic- the 8th of May, as expected ;)

LOL “As expected?” Really? Here is Crary’s actual entry, which makes it absolutely clear this attempted Mogul constant-altitude flight (probably now renumbered as #3) was equally cancelled because of high winds and the equipment likewise stripped off:

“May 7, Oakhurst Flight scheduled for tomorrow, balloons with instruments going up at Bethlehem – B-17 following balloons iwth recording equipment and B-29 dropping bombs eastward from Atlantic City.

“May 8, Oakhurst. Scheduled balloon flight this morning at 730... Trouble with winds and instruments did not go up...”

Wind problems and “Instruments did not go up” unambiguously tells us this was the end of the planned constant-altitude research flight #3, just as “The already-inflated balloons were cut free and the equipment was brought back” to NYU for later reuse tells us this was the end of flight #2. In both cases, wind conditions caused cancellation of the planned flights. There was no longer any constant-altitude equipment attached to control altitude, therefore no constant altitude data to collect, no flight data to record, and THAT IS THE REAL REASON THEY WERE TOTALLY WRITTEN OUT OF MOGUL RECORDS.

So no, Gilles, the flight did NOT come off “as expected”. Where did you dream that nonsense up?

David Rudiak said...

Response to Gilles (2 of 3)

The only difference is that Crary on May 8 goes on to note that even after removing most of the instruments, they cut loose the balloons, but apparently with a microphone (probably a sonobuoy) attached to test reception of the planned bomb explosions.

“Peoples, Moulton over to Middletown with recording equipment on B-17 following balloons. Had no trouble following them. B-29 started dropping bombs near Atlantic City about 8. Trouble with oil leak in a motor and B-29 had to jettison the bombs and return...”

Translation: The constant-altitude flight was aborted and all relevant instruments removed for later reuse. Balloons could not be reused and would be cut loose, like for aborted Flight #2, but they decided to try to salvage something from the failure by testing microphone reception. In other words, this was transformed from a “research” flight of constant-altitude performance into a stripped down “service flight” of one piece of equipment using the same or some of the same balloons that would be thrown away anyway (all would not be needed to loft a sonobuoy). But this was hardly the planned original flight, now was it?

But according to Gilles, “Now, go in Crary's diary, you will see that a flight flew -sic- the 8th of May, as expected ;)”

And it did not figure in NYU summary, but this cluster flew ;)

So now even though the original flight was obviously completely cancelled, Gilles with a wave of his disingenuous semantic magic wand tells us the the “flight flew” and the “cluster flew” “as expected?” Really? The instruments didn’t go up because of the winds and this was now a “flight” “as expected”? Does Gilles know how to read?

So what Gilles is doing is more word games. What we are seeing here is Gilles and the other debunkers trying to redefine what a “Mogul” balloon “flight” was in order to try to salvage a totally discredited theory. No records of flights #2, #3, and #4. No problem! Redefine them as “service flights” instead of “research flights”, even though there was an enormous difference between the two.

Service flights typically consisted of only a FEW weather balloons in a “cluster” attached to a piece of equipment to test it out. But there was a lot more to fully-configured “research balloon” constant-altitude flights, which in the beginning might consist of up to 30 weather balloons with hundreds of yards of rigging, tracking gear, explosive charges to cut loose balloons and equipment at various stages, constant-altitude gear, parachutes, and an actual payload, such as a sonobuoy microphone.

If you want to see what Charles Moore claimed was a typical “service flight”, here is the drawing he made in the Air Force report, showing a “cluster” 3 350-gm weather balloons lofting 3 radar targets:

http://ufocom.eu/pages/v_us/m_articles/Image18.jpg

Now compare to the “service flight” that Moore, the Air Force, and now Gilles are now claiming caused the Roswell crash at the Foster Ranch (using the schematic for the equally cancelled Flight #2 as a template):

http://www.csicop.org/uploads/images/si/ros_fig.gif

Yep, these balloon “clusters” sure looke “equivalent” to me.

So simply redefine the large research altitude-flights as “service flights” to try to wriggle out of the conundrum that cancelled flights #2, #3, #4 (and #9) do NOT EXIST in Mogul summaries and progress reports. Then you can say that they “flew” “as expected”, even if they stripped off all or nearly all gear and cut the balloons loose. On some of these, they may have kept a piece of equipment attached, in the case of cancelled #3 and #4, a sonobuoy to test the reception of the ground and air.

David Rudiak said...

Response to Gilles (3 of 3)
So to use the NYU table as you do/did as usual to your followers to claim/demonstrate flights between the #1 and the #5 were canceled, they never existed, or your other rhetorical "blabla" is fallacious. QED.

Gilles “QED” “proof” is a propaganda trick of redefining large research constant-altitude flights as unrecorded “service flights” to “demonstrate” “flights” (converted back to meaning large constant-altitude flights) could still exist without being recorded.

Lt. McAndrew in the AF Roswell Report adopted the same dishonest ruse, redefining #2, #3, and #4 as “service flights” and stating that not all “service flights” showed up in Mogul records, instead of admitting these flights were cancelled and never went up as planned.

Besides the shear dishonesty of this, there are other problems that McAndrew, Charles Moore, Gilles, etc., do not want you to think about. Even though now referring to Flight #4 as a “service flight”, McAndrew, Moore, Gilles, etc. are still insisting this was a fully-rigged constant altitude flight. So it was simultaneously a small, stripped down service flight and a large, fully rigged research flight. Cute, huh?

Another deadly problem is that a “service flight” could not stay up that long or go very far because it lacked the constant-altitude gear that stopped its rise to ever greater altitudes. On service flights, the weather balloons would quickly go too high, over-expand, and pop, and then what remained would quickly drop to the ground.

A model example was the real Flight #6 of June 7, 1947, where the flight summary said the constant-altitude gear was damaged on launch. The balloon assembly went straight up well-beyond the planned constant-altitude range, the balloons started popping, and then it came plummeting to the ground. This was very similarly configured to the successful Flight #5 of June 5, 1947, which ALL official histories list as the FIRST such flight (not “Flight #4). Flight #5 achieved long-term constant-altitude stability and stayed in the air three times longer and went four times further than #6, which was deemed a complete failure. Despite #6 being a failure, it was not written out of Mogul records, like #2, #3, and #4, which were indeed cancelled, the REAL reason you won’t find any flight records for them.

If #4 was quickly converted to a greatly-reduced “service flight” to test the sonobuoy, it would not have gotten very far, just as “research flight” #6 did not go far or last long without functioning constant-altitude equipment. This is the real significance of Charles Moore writing in 1995 that they didn’t bother to issue a NOTAM for “flight #4” because they did not expect it to go very far.

That was Moore talking out of both sides of his mouth, just like McAndrew and Gilles, trying to have it both ways. These cancelled research flights were simultaneously small, simplified “service flights” and large “research balloon” flights. Saying no NOTAM needed to be issued was Moore tacitly admitting this was NOT a constant-altitude flight but an substituted small service flight, while saying it was still a constant-altitude flight that did indeed go well off the range and had to have constant-altitude capability to get that far. And the Air Force’s McAndrew took the position that #4 was a “service flight” but also a “constant-altitude” flight to supposedly account for various debris descriptions.

Neat trick huh? Sort of like saying a plane crash was caused by a 747, but the lack of any records for any such crash is accounted for by it also being a piper cub that didn’t register a flight plan.

But to paraphrase Gilles, that’s DEBOONKERY!

Lance said...


Kevin's quote of Moore is:

"Since we launched from just within the restricted air space associated with the White Sands Proving ground and expected the balloons to rise high above the civil air space, we did not notify the CAA in El Paso."

But super-buff Rudiak says:

"This is the real significance of Charles Moore writing in 1995 that they didn’t bother to issue a NOTAM for “flight #4” because they did not expect it to go very far. "

Is that what Moore actually said or did Kevin get the quote correct. I understand that you likely believe yourself to be paraphrasing (apparently you don't understand the concept) but your sentence changes the entire concept. Did Moore say this elsewhere? If so, what is the direct quote? Or did Kevin get the quote wrong? To use your method of argumentation, which one of you is lying?

Lance

Nitram Ang said...

Lance wrote :

"Is that what Moore actually said or did Kevin get the quote correct. I understand that you likely believe yourself to be paraphrasing (apparently you don't understand the concept) but your sentence changes the entire concept. Did Moore say this elsewhere? If so, what is the direct quote? Or did Kevin get the quote wrong? To use your method of argumentation, which one of you is lying?"

Just to repeat for you, Lance and your team - this is not a debate, nor is this an argument... it is an INVESTIGATION.

Lance, I trust that if you ever become a firefighter you can tell the difference between a fire truck and a petrol tanker when connecting up the hoses.

Lance said...

Martin,

You might overlooked the dense endless blocks of text above churned out by Mr. Rudiak in which he call anyone who disagrees with his certifiable ravings a liar or worse.

Oddly, you don't seem to have issue with that.

Ask Rudiak to tell you about neoprene deterioration sometime--he is an expert on that.

This isn't an investigation at all. Notice all the places here on this blog where the conspiracy buffs claim to have "proved" this or that.

Kevin himself has said that there is no doubt about his flying saucer theory.

When there is no doubt, there is no need to investigate. This is the realm of pseudoscience.

And you might just have to get used to folks calling a spade a spade.


Lance

David Rudiak said...

Lance wrote (1 of 2):
"Since we launched from just within the restricted air space associated with the White Sands Proving ground and expected the balloons to rise high above the civil air space, we did not notify the CAA in El Paso."

But super-buff Rudiak says:

"This is the real significance of Charles Moore writing in 1995 that they didn’t bother to issue a NOTAM for “flight #4” because they did not expect it to go very far."


Lance, what goes up must come down. Alamogordo AAF is near Alamogordo town, but the balloons, whether small "service flights" OR research constant-altitude balloons, would quickly rise above civilian air space in Alamogordo. They would then drift at higher altitude above civil air space over government land and White Sands test range.

Smaller service flights, besides being less likely to be run into by an airplane at lower altitudes because they were small, couldn't go all that far because they lacked constant-altitude capability, for the reasons I have already explained. They go up quickly, pop quickly, and come down quickly. Therefore no need to issue a NOTAM on them (just like no NOTAMs normally for regular weather balloons back then, with literally hundreds sent up every day all over the country).

On the other hand, the much larger constant-altitude flights would be expected to go off-range most of the time (and the vast majority did). And this is where the "come down" part comes in. When off-range and they were descending, often into civilian air space, they did pose a potential threat to civilian aviation. Therefore ALL constant-altitude flights SHOULD have had NOTAMs issued to nearby airfields, as demanded by the regulations the CAA imposed on Mogul.

These CAA regulations also imposed clear flying conditions before the balloons could be launched (so pilots could see them and Mogul could see where they were headed). That is one reason why Mogul moved from the East Coast to Alamogordo, where they could expect more clear weather.

The reasons the planned flights were cancelled on June 3 and June 4, 1947, was to comply with CAA regulations. Crary's diary documents there was cloudy weather, thus testing of the constant-altitude flights was suspended. But they could still do a short-time, short-range, small service flight to test the sonobuoy reception, not expected to leave the range and come down in civilian air space. This is all consistent with what Crary wrote on June 4 for what happened in those two sentences. First the constant-altitude flight was cancelled “AGAIN” (like the one the previous morning) becaue of cloudy weather, but with a small sonobuoy test (service flight) substituted.

It is also consistent with Moore in 1995 saying they didn’t issue a NOTAM. No 600’ balloon train, no long flight expected, no NOTAM necessary.

However, it is NOT consistent with them sending up a constant-altitude flight, say if the skies later cleared, which would have demanded a NOTAM to be legal and also would necessarily have been carefully tracked and permanently recorded, just like ALL the other constant-altitude flights that actually went up. They would be carefully tracked both for NOTAM (safety) reasons and to see if they performed their constant-altitude task correctly (key research goal of these flights).

But a short-range, "service flight" with no constant-altitude capability does NOT need to be tracked. There is no point for either safety or research purposes. No tracking data, nothing to record, no records.

You can't have Crary's entry being a delayed constant-altitude flight and not have permanent records for it, as was the case for June 4. That's trying to have it both ways.

David Rudiak said...

Response to Lance (2 of 2):
McAndrew, Moore, and now Gilles are trying to redefine "#4" as a "service flight" to try to get around the very inconvenient FACT that there are NO RECORDS for such a constant-altitude flight. But at the same time, they are insisting it was still a constant-altitude flight.

E.g, here is what Moore said in 1997 in his book chapter in setting up his mathematical wind model:

"I think that Flight #4 used our best equipment and probably performed as well as
or better than Flight #5." (p. 105)

Flight #5 was the REAL, documented flight the next day, what Mogul called their first successful constant-altitude flight, the one ALL official flight histories list as the FIRST such flight.

But Moore was saying "flight #4" was even better, was very explicit about it being a constant-altitude flight (even has a constant- altitude phase twice that of #5--over 5 hours vs. 2-1/2 for #5 in order to make his fraudulent model work).

So it was both a constant-altitude flight to make it last long enough to get to the Foster ranch (still had to cheat with his numbers to do even that), but there is never a decent explanation as to why such a wonderful, successful flight would never be recorded.

You can’t claim that something was a constant-altitude flight while treating it like a “service flight” that wouldn’t be recorded. That’s totally inconsistent, illogical, dishonest, trying to have it both ways, or flagrant lying if you will.

Nitram Ang said...

Hello Lance

I appreciate you putting forward your point of view. But you have to be reasonable as well - The Roswell Incident is quite complicated to put it mildly.

So lets look at what you said again:

"You might overlooked the dense endless blocks of text above churned out by Mr. Rudiak in which he call anyone who disagrees with his certifiable ravings a liar or worse."

OK maybe David could tone it down a bit, but I can understand his attitude to a certain extent. Both he/Kevin have studied the event for decades, made countless trips to Roswell interviewing witnesses etc, written a number of books and our generally regarded as World Renowned experts on the event. They are not "drooling idiots" who don't know what a weather balloon looks like - I think we should treat them with respect, in my opinion they have earnt that.
Of course they are not always right and they admit that.

Roswell is probably not ET (my opinion) but they are right to bag Mogul) - even you admit that Mogul is not the certain answer - and you are worried that if Mogul falls then "you are in trouble" (oh dear - conceding something to the "dream team" - anything but that please...)


"Oddly, you don't seem to have issue with that."

I think both he and Kevin could perhaps try and be a bit more patient - but hey, I hate when people who know a lot less about something that me, want to argue about something they no very little about, when really they should just keep quiet and listen and LEARN....

"Ask Rudiak to tell you about neoprene deterioration sometime--he is an expert on that."

For Mogul to work you have to think about the seven question yes/no test. It's all very, very strange... the solution is therefore going to be something unusual. Remember the people who did see it got very excited because they "had no idea what it was" - this makes it strange...

"This isn't an investigation at all. Notice all the places here on this blog where the conspiracy buffs claim to have "proved" this or that."

It's very difficult to prove something to certain people who simply don't want to believe - they have shown, beyond reasonable doubt that what crashed on the Foster ranch was NOT a weather balloon or any other sort of "dressed up" collection of balloons.

"Kevin himself has said that there is no doubt about his flying saucer theory."

How long ago did he say this Lance - did he say that to your personally or have you read it somewhere? Maybe he is not quite as sure today - but he has no doubt that what landed on the Foster Launch was not Mogul - big difference.


"When there is no doubt, there is no need to investigate. This is the realm of pseudoscience."

This is quite funny really, even you have doubt about your proposed "mogul solution" so there is doubt even in your mind...

"And you might just have to get used to folks calling a spade a spade."

Maybe I will.


Anthony Mugan said...

So, to summarise.
The documentation definitively establishes that NYU Flight 4 was a service flight and not a constant level flight.

Even if we imagine that a constant level balloon may somehow have been launched and the project team didn't bother recording their first successful flight (anyone who has actually done research will find that idea a bit of stretch:
The meterological data plus Crary's diary clearly establish that it couldn't have been launched before around 5am without breaching the regulations governing launches.
The ascent rate would have to be less uniform that originally modelled without breaking the laws of physics, given the equipment used
and therefore it wouldn't have been anywere near the Foster ranch, even allowing considerable margin for uncertainty in the data, which Moore felt was reasonable enough to develop his model with.

After all the shouting is over the Mogul hypothesis is falsified unless anyone can come up with a quantitative model for how it could have happened that doesn't defy the laws of physics.

As Nitram has very well pointed out this does not establish the ETH in any way. It does mean we need to acknowledge that, at this stage, we simply don't know what the debris was.

Still waiting for some sort of quantitative response...

cda said...

Anthony:

Thank you for your analysis of what the object was not. You are now waiting for someone to respond. I respond by putting it back to you, in the form of a question:

Acepting that the stuff was not from a Mogul flight, what is depicted in the six Ft Worth photos, described in the newspapers, and also described in the FBI teletype (which you will recall was only made public 30 years afterwards).

If you do not know, please tell us what it resembles. Please try to avoid invoking conspiracy theory in your answer.

I still await your response.

Anthony Mugan said...

Good morning CDA
That's a very straightforward question to answer. Ramey et al were showing the press the remains of a standard weather balloon. Don't think anyone has the slightest doubt about.
I think it would be quite a challenge to construct a case around that however. Since 1994 the official line has been very clear and one can't undo that history.
As I'm quite influenced, philosophically, by Carl Popper's ideas of critical rationalism I don't have any real problem with saying that, at this time, we just don't know what the debris was, but we can say what is was not. It is then up to the proponents of any other hypotheses, including the ETH, to look to provide tests for those ideas. This may falsify those ideas or lend them support to some degree. That is why I am focused on hard data, as it offers some potential for testing ideas.

Well, good luck with developing your hypothesis although personally I think it would be more challenging to say the debris is unidentified but is the any hard evidence that securely shows an extraterrestrial origin? We then get to Nitram's balance of probabilities point as whist there is some evidence it would be difficult to describe it as secure at this time

Cheers

Anthony