Monday, April 04, 2016

Truth about Mogul

Over on Rich Reynolds UFO Conjectures we’ve just had a lesson in some of the skeptical thought processes. In a conversation that was tangential to the main point, one of the commentators
Dr. Albert Crary
 wrote, “The only plausible explanation is Flight #4 did fly and there were many, many errors in how it was recorded (incorrectly) giving the impression it never did fly at all.”

My first thought was, “Seriously?”

The leader of Project Mogul in New Mexico was Dr. Albert Crary and it is his field notes and his documentation that apparently, according to some in the skeptical community, contained “many, many errors.”

And what were those errors?

He wrote, of Flight No. 4, scheduled to be launched at dawn on June 4, 1947, “Out to Tularosa Range and fired charges between 00 [midnight] and 06 this am. No balloon flights again on account of clouds. Flew regular sono buoy up in cluster of balloons and had good luck on receiver on ground but poor on plane. Out with Thompson pm. Shot charges from 1800 to 2400.”

Nothing really confusing here when you understand the New York University balloon project in New Mexico. They were attempting to create a constant level balloon, one that would remain at a specific altitude for a long period carrying a microphone to be used to detect explosions on the ground, or more specifically, atomic detonations by the Soviet Union. The ultimate purpose was to spy on the
Mogul test detonation.
Soviets, though I suspect that none of those in New Mexico knew that.

The note about “No balloon flights again,” referred to the attempt on June 3. And here is where Charles Moore, who would later claim he launched the Roswell saucer, got the idea of flights in the dark. The diary said, “Up at 0230 am ready to fly balloon but abandoned due to cloudy skies.” We know, based on the other reports and documentation that the CAA, forerunner to the FAA, that “Restrictions on the project is the Civil Aeronautics Authority requirement that balloon flights be made only on days that are cloudless to 20,000 feet.”

We know that a sonobuoy is in reality a microphone and it would be used to detect the explosions and transmit that information. According to the notes, that worked fine with the ground receiver but not as well for that in the aircraft, which we know was a B-17 according to other information in the notes.

Notes elsewhere show that a “cluster of balloons” is not a full array. According to the documentation, “This cluster method is of use and interest only as a stop-gap method of lifting the Army equipment to altitude now, and has been the method used while awaiting delivery of the non-extensible plastic balloons…. A flight was made on 3 April 1947 using this method. A cluster of 12 balloons meteorological [yes, that was the wording in the report] carrying a radiosonde, a 15 lb. dummy load and a series of ballast dropping devices was released from the football field at Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.” This is from “Special Report #1, May, 1947.”

So, where is the evidence that Flight No. 4 flew? The field notes said expressly that it did not. We know that their fallback position, when the full array was cancelled, was to fly a cluster of balloons to perform other experiments, and we have a definition of what is meant by a cluster of balloons.

Charles Moore in New Mexico.
Photo copyright by Kevin Randle.
For those who wish to invoke Charles Moore’s statement that Flight No. 4 was launched at sometime around 0300, in the dark and apparently in cloudy weather, we have the documentation to show that this is, to be generous, an error on his part and not from the notes in Crary’s diary. They arrived on the morning of June 3 at 0230 to prepare for the dawn launch, and in fact the June 5 launch was made just after dawn as required by the CAA instructions which are documented.

But never let the documentation get in the way of an explanation when you can confound the issue. Another comment over at UFO Conjectures was, “… missing data on the Mogul flight is a wrinkle, but you’re [the above comment] surely correct some sort of ‘admin’ error is to blame.”

But there is no missing data because the flight had been cancelled. The cluster of balloons was not a full array and the first launch of a Mogul flight in New Mexico was on June 5 and it is accounted for in the records. There was no admin error but a precise record of what happened until Charles Moore changed his story and complicated the issue to keep the myth of Mogul alive for his own, personal reasons.

Here’s something else. The Mogul array displayed in the Air Force report was Flight No. 2 and contained rawin targets which are necessary to explain the metallic debris reported by so many of those stationed in Roswell in 1947. But Flight No. 5, the first flight in New Mexico, and the one used by Karl Pflock to demonstrate the size of the arrays has no rawin targets. In fact, none of the illustrations of the make-up of the arrays in New Mexico show any rawins as part of the package. The only exception seems to be the demonstration array launched from Alamogordo on July 10 which needed rawins to explain the debris. All the flights were launched in the daylight, most in early morning until November when some were launched in the afternoon.

Further, the idea that the soldiers at Roswell were unaware of what these arrays were is false. First, Dr. Crary, on May 20, wrote that he had been over at the RAAF to fill with gas. Later, Moore would claim that he was turned back at the front gate even though he was driving a weapons carrier drawn from and with the markings of the Alamogordo Army Air Field on it while carrying the remains of a Mogul flight. On June 5, Flight No. 5 landed some 25 miles east of Roswell, which means that whole array would have been visible from the airfield which means tower crews and others on the airfield would have seen one in flight. The CAA required NOTAMs, which meant that the operations staff would have been aware of them as well, and such information would have been passed not only to flight crews but to the group commander.

All this documentation is available in various sources including Pflock’s book, Roswell: Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe and the massive Air Force report which provides details about the balloon project in New Mexico, which Charles Moore made clear was the New York University balloon project and not Mogul. Mogul, a name that was clearly known to those in New Mexico in 1947, as demonstrated by Crary’s field notes and diary, was the code name for spying on the Soviets and it was the mission that was classified, not the name nor the experiments in New Mexico which negates the idea that Mogul was so highly classified that very few knew the name or what the arrays looked like.

The conclusion borne out by all the documentation is that it is not filled with “many, many errors” nor the idea that the “missing data on the Mogul flight is a wrinkle,” but that Flight No. 4 was cancelled, first on June 3 and then on June 4. Had it flown as Moore claimed, had it produced results as good as if not better than Flight No. 5 as Moore claimed, it would have been listed in the documentation.

The point here is that I’m at a loss to understand the tenacious way that debunkers cling to the Mogul explanation in the face of the evidence that has been mounted against it. I fail to understand how they can be so dismissive of that documentation by saying things like “The only plausible explanation is Flight #4 did fly and there were many, many errors in how it was recorded (incorrectly) giving the impression it never did fly at all,” and “…missing data on the Mogul flight is a wrinkle, but you’re [the above comment] surely some sort of ‘admin’ error is to blame.” The data are not missing and the evidence is quite clear.

And yes, I know that the documentation for a crash of an alien spacecraft is based almost solely on witness testimony gathered decades after the fact and there is some documentation that what was found was not alien, but there are some areas where it is not as clear cut as it is with Flight No. 4. I also realize that the elimination of Flight No. 4 as the culprit does not translate into evidence that what fell outside of Roswell was alien. It only means that this particular explanation, when you examine all the evidence, has failed. 

97 comments:

albert said...

@Kevin,
It seems to me that Flight #4 is the only 'mundane' explanation available the even comes close to explaining the Roswell event.

Debunkers hold fast to that wooden plank, and ignore the lifeboat named 'Unexplained', which is anathema to the Debunkers Creed.
. .. . .. --- ....

cda said...

"I know that the documentation for a crash of an alien spacecraft is based almost solely on witness testimony gathered decades after the fact".

The word "almost" is redundant.

KRandle said...

CDA -

That's your take away from this? There is some documentation, but it has problems.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin:

>>I'm not certain why you have a problem with the suggestion that the records are likely incorrect, after all in one of your previous posts you described the controversy well:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2013/08/a-few-facts-about-project-mogul.html?m=1

>>You wrote:

"The point where we begin to see some real controversy and the possibility of a balloon array is a note in Crary’s diary for June 4 that said, “Flew regular sonobuoy mike up in cluster of balloons…”

8. A cluster of balloons was launched later in the day on June 4. Crary noted only that it was a cluster that carried a sonobuoy. Given the restrictions on the balloon flights by the CAA, and given Crary’s descriptions of other, similar flights, it can be suggested that this was only a cluster of balloons with a limited number of balloons and a sonobuoy but no rawin radar targets.

8a. A cluster of balloons was launched later in the day on June 4. This was the delayed Flight No. 4 that carried a full array including the rawin radar targets that scattered the metallic debris found by Mack Brazel."

>>Now you have also stated many times before the following:

"Flight No. 4 was cancelled, first on June 3 and then on June 4. Had it flown as Moore claimed, had it produced results as good as if not better than Flight No. 5 as Moore claimed, it would have been listed in the documentation."

So clearly then, when I or anyone else references "errors" concerning records administration, we are referring to the facts you wrote yourself regarding Crary's notes referencing a flight that DID take place but which was (probably) not recorded properly.

Your reasons 8 and 8a (above) are plausible enough to explain that an array did probably fly, but was initially recorded as cancelled without later correction.

If 8a is correct, then you have your debris as described in the ORIGINAL newspaper accounts which clearly refers to balloon related junk.

If for technical reasons you don't want to call this "Mogul" or "Flight #4" because it wasn't recorded by Moore or anyone else (meaning cancelled), then fine.

I think you make some problematic assumptions when you state that 1) Moore was turned away at the gate therefore men at the base clearly knew what a Mogul balloon was, 2) that tower personnel would have seen Flight #5 in air and crash 25 miles away so men at the base all knew what a Mogul array was, that 3) Moore would have claimed Flight #4 a success before #5., 4) That base command surely knew what a Mogul array was because they had been informed of its details by the CAA.

I'm sure there is a rather simple explanation for the records not being as complete, but to say no balloon material could have possibly flown since there is no entry for it other than "cancelled", flys in the face of the two probable explanations you have proposed yourself.

If that's the case, then the records are incomplete creating the notion that no balloon could have flown, leading one to conclude it must be "something else" which it most likely was not.

Brian Bell said...

@ Albert:

Which is more probable:

A) An interstellar alien space craft made of reinforced tinfoil, lacquered wood sticks, tape, neoprene, metal rings, and a radiosonde crashed in 1947,

OR

B) An NYU balloon array under a not so classified Mogul project consisting of Rawin targets, neoprene balloons, and a radiosonde fell from the sky and busted up creating an early and somewhat reactionary report that it was a flying saucer?

It may be "mundane" to you, however I'd love you to detail your "much more fantastic" theory that aliens hundreds of thousands of years ahead of our technology chose to travel between the stars with a ship made of common balloon array material.

Do tell us how they do that....

Nitram Ang said...

Kevin

Just to remind you what was written ("I know that the documentation for a crash of an alien spacecraft is based almost solely on witness testimony gathered decades after the fact".) is based solely on the first thought that entered his mind after reading your article.

Regards
Nitram

Don said...

Is there any mention in the press of a balloon re Roswell prior to the Ft Worth/Ramey Reveal? No, it is not the Brazel interview.

What is mentioned is an "instrument", "weather meter" and maybe "device" (I can't recall)...oh, yeah "flying disc".

The AAF pushed the shiny metallic "weather meter" as the thing. The balloon is an inconsequential item in The Reveal (it is under Ramey's shoes). The "flying disc" is the device they are displaying. The balloon is the way they decided to get it aloft -- for some reason...but what? Besides the term of art 'flying disc', why would there be any question that pile of trash was once some object in the sky? No one saw it in the air or fall from the sky. Brazel and Ramey were told agree on that. So what was the problem? I mean, why did they need to put the thing up in the sky?

Don

John's Space said...

Kevin,

When you say the flight was cancelled then what happened to the balloon? In the scenario that you present was the balloon the same in the cancelled No. 4 and the flown No. 5?

cda said...

Yes the 'weather meter' is the thing, not the balloon. But as DR often points out, this weather meter (i.e. a radar reflector maybe 4 ft in size) is described as 20-25 ft in diameter in some of the reports. I claim this is simply a journalist confusing the diameter of the balloon with that of the 'weather meter', and therefore a simple reporting error. DR naturally takes this as indicating something more sinister.

Brian has got it right. Why would anyone, in 1947, give a moment's thought to debris, described exactly as terrestrial balloon material plus radar reflectors, as being from a visiting ET craft? The reason people did have such thoughts decades later is very obvious.

Can anyone present some evidence or testimony, demonstrably shown to be from 1947, suggesting the debris was part of an ET spaceship?

Yes a Mogul flight is wrong, as these test flights were only rehearsals for the actual Mogul flights (over Russia), which were intended to follow weeks or months afterwards.

KRandle said...

Brian –

>>I'm not certain why you have a problem with the suggestion that the records are likely incorrect, after all in one of your previous posts you described the controversy well:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2013/08/a-few-facts-about-project-mogul.html?m=1

I in wrote 2013 as noted by Brian:

"The point where we begin to see some real controversy and the possibility of a balloon array is a note in Crary’s diary for June 4 that said, “Flew regular sonobuoy mike up in cluster of balloons…

“8. A cluster of balloons was launched later in the day on June 4. Crary noted only that it was a cluster that carried a sonobuoy. Given the restrictions on the balloon flights by the CAA, and given Crary’s descriptions of other, similar flights, it can be suggested that this was only a cluster of balloons with a limited number of balloons and a sonobuoy but no rawin radar targets.

“8a. A cluster of balloons was launched later in the day on June 4. This was the delayed Flight No. 4 that carried a full array including the rawin radar targets that scattered the metallic debris found by Mack Brazel."

But this was based on what Charles Moore had written. He said, “Crary’s diary entries for June 4 are puzzling because they are contradictory.”

But I now know this statement is in error. In 2013, I hadn’t found the definition for a cluster of balloons and had to extrapolate what it meant based on other entries. Moore, on the other hand, because he was one of the project engineers had to know what it meant but concealed that information. So the diary entry isn’t contradictory but straight forward. Flight No. 4 was cancelled. The cluster of balloons was large enough to carry a sonobuoy aloft but didn’t carry any rawins or other equipment. It was the “stop-gap measure” used to test the microphone so that the day wouldn’t be wasted.

We also know that there were no rawins on Flight No. 4. Moore attempted to suggest that the rawins had been removed because of the poor reception on the on the cluster flight but that wasn’t referring to the radar as Moore would like us to believe, but on the radio transmissions from the sonobuoy. They had no plans to track it by Watson radar at that time. Moore made this up because without the rawins on the mythical Flight No. 4, there was nothing to scatter the foil-like debris.

You now write, “Now you [quoting me] have also stated many times before the following:

"Flight No. 4 was cancelled, first on June 3 and then on June 4. Had it flown as Moore claimed, had it produced results as good as if not better than Flight No. 5 as Moore claimed, it would have been listed in the documentation."

You then write, “So clearly then, when I or anyone else references ‘errors’ concerning records administration, we are referring to the facts you wrote yourself regarding Crary's notes referencing a flight that DID take place but which was (probably) not recorded properly.”

No, this is what Moore was suggesting and in the interest of fairness in the argument, I make mention of it. Had you gone to the source, which was Moore’s 1995 report on the University of New York balloon project, you would have seen all this in context and understood it. Please note that I am not endorsing Moore’s claim, merely pointing out what he said… but this was before I had a definition of the cluster of balloons. The errors aren’t in Crary’s notes, but Moore’s interpretation of them and given who he was, he had to know the truth… If Flight No. 4 was not launched, then the Mogul theory is gone.

KRandle said...

Part Two

You write, “Your reasons 8 and 8a (above) are plausible enough to explain that an array did probably fly, but was initially recorded as cancelled without later correction.”
The reasons are based on what Moore had written that we believed to be accurate. We now know that it is not. New information supersedes the later information. So we know that no array flew that day, just a cluster of balloons carrying the microphone (sonobuoy) with no radar targets, no long 600 foot train and nothing to scatter metallic debris. If what Brazel had found was this launch, then he would have recognized the balloons for what they were because, while there were more than one, they were still neoprene weather balloons with no rawin radar targets.

You wrote of my original thoughts, “If 8a is correct, then you have your debris as described in the ORIGINAL newspaper accounts which clearly refers to balloon related junk.”

But 8s is not correct. It was based on the faulty information created by Moore for just the confusion it raised and suggested at that time in an attempt to present all relevant information. We now know that information wasn’t relevant nor was it accurate.

You wrote, “If for technical reasons you don't want to call this "Mogul" or "Flight #4" because it wasn't recorded by Moore or anyone else (meaning cancelled), then fine.”
Except it is not for a technical reason, it is because the Mogul flight was cancelled and a cluster of balloons with a sonobuoy do not make it a Mogul flight. It had no array and it had no rawins and we know this because of the documentation that is clear and extensive. The only problem is Moore’s fudging of the information and for those of you who don’t get it yet, Moore lied.

You wrote: “I think you make some problematic assumptions when you state that 1) Moore was turned away at the gate therefore men at the base clearly knew what a Mogul balloon was, 2) that tower personnel would have seen Flight #5 in air and crash 25 miles away so men at the base all knew what a Mogul array was, that 3) Moore would have claimed Flight #4 a success before #5., 4) That base command surely knew what a Mogul array was because they had been informed of its details by the CAA.”

Nope. I should have mentioned that Moore was carrying the remains of Flight No. 5 in the back of his weapons carrier. All I’m saying here is that Moore and his crew had interaction with those at RAAF. Crary had been to Roswell in the weeks prior with the same mission, that is, to gas up his weapons carrier and had no trouble at the gate. The tower crew might not have known the name, but they would have seen the array as it drifted through their airspace. NOTAMs would have told them what it was, but Moore also said that some of the Mogul people had been to the base earlier to enlist their aid in tracking the balloons. If Flight No. 4 was as successful as Flight No. 5, then there would be no reason for it not to be noted as the first successful launch in New Mexico. It would have been included in the records. Flight No. 6 is in the records as “unsuccessful.” And, given the NOTAMs, the base command structure would have been aware of the launches because of the possible hazard to aerial navigation which was the purpose of the NOTAMs.

KRandle said...

Part III -

You wrote, “I'm sure there is a rather simple explanation for the records not being as complete, but to say no balloon material could have possibly flown since there is no entry for it other than "cancelled", flys in the face of the two probable explanations you have proposed yourself.”

Nope. The flight didn’t fly and we now know what a cluster was. The two explanations are a result of the information provided by Moore which we now know is not accurate. Had Moore been candid in his report, there would have been no confusion. Mogul did not fly; a cluster of balloons did.

You wrote, “If that's the case, then the records are incomplete creating the notion that no balloon could have flown, leading one to conclude it must be "something else" which it most likely was not.”

The problem is not that the records are incomplete or in error but that Moore provided faulty information to promote the idea that there had been a Flight No. 4. Balloons did fly, long after dawn, but this was a cluster of balloons and not a full array. The documentation cannot be clearer on that point. The only confusion comes when looking at the nonsense spouted by Moore which has now been straightened out based on the extensive documentation available.

KRandle said...

CDA -

You wrote, "Brian has got it right. Why would anyone, in 1947, give a moment's thought to debris, described exactly as terrestrial balloon material plus radar reflectors, as being from a visiting ET craft? The reason people did have such thoughts decades later is very obvious."

Yes, precisely, why would anyone give it a second thought if it was terrestrial balloon material? The question implies its own answer. It was terrestrial balloon material, which is not to say it was alien, only that it was not terrestrial balloon material.

And there are many implied statements from 1947 suggesting something other than terrestrial balloon material and there are a host of other sources suggesting something alien long before Bill Moore and Stan Friedman convinced the unwitting and the slow witted that they saw something else.

albert said...

@Brian,

'B' is more probable. But your question is irrelevant, and has no relation to my comment. There's a universe of possibilities for 'A', including the one you pulled out of your ass.

"...it may be "mundane" to you, however I'd love you to detail your "much more fantastic" theory that aliens hundreds of thousands of years ahead of our technology chose to travel between the stars with a ship made of common balloon array material..."

It IS mundane to anyone with at least two brain cells connected together. "...your much more fantastic theory.." Whom are you quoting? Not me.

You well understand my metaphor, so take your debunking tactics elsewhere. They are tiresome, add nothing to the discussion, and demean your intelligence (which you have demonstrated by your insightful comments).
. .. . .. --- ....

David Rudiak said...

Brian Bell prattled:
What is more probable
A) An interstellar alien space craft made of reinforced tinfoil, lacquered wood sticks, tape, neoprene, metal rings, and a radiosonde crashed in 1947,
OR
B) An NYU balloon array under a not so classified Mogul project consisting of Rawin targets, neoprene balloons, and a radiosonde fell from the sky and busted up creating an early and somewhat reactionary report that it was a flying saucer.


Classic, skeptobunker strawman argument, totally ignoring the third option that has been debated now for nearly 40 years, namely an alien space craft (or maybe some highly sensitive secret project for which we have yet to find any evidence) which crashed and was covered up, using the SINGULAR balloon and radar target that Gen. Ramey displayed. (And which his Chief of Staff Gen. Dubose flatly stated was a cover story to get rid of the press--something ELSE entirely was recovered.)

There is no multi-balloon, multi-radar target debris pictured in Ramey's office, and the quantity of debris described or shown was ALWAYS small and lacked anything that would clearly tie it to a Mogul balloon, such as a sonobuoy or altitude control equipment. Brazel, in fact, denied finding ANY balloon rigging of any type, by itself ruling out a Mogul balloon train, which would have left hundreds of yards of it lying on the ground tangled in the desert scrub. You can't miss something like that.

In fact, Lt. James McAndrew, who interviewed Moore, brought this up and asked Moore if the rigging could have disintegrated in the sun. Moore said he didn't think so, and McAndrew dropped the subject and then swept this embarrassing HUGE hole in the Mogul theory under the rug. I wonder why McAndrew never mentioned it again and left it out of his report?

Brazel described two small bundles of debris he allegedly rolled together, one of "rubber strips" and the other of foil and sticks. He said the weight maybe was five pounds. The debris in Ramey's office (one balloon, one radar target) would have weighed well under two pounds. Mogul balloon train weight on liftoff (using the real Flight #5 or #6 from June 5/7, right after the fictitious #4) was ~26 kg or about 60 pounds. Does anybody see a problem here?

Brazel NEVER described finding an intact meteorological balloon, only "rubber strips", also saying everything was in small pieces. He later added he had found two weather balloons previously, but what he found this time didn't resemble in "any way" those other balloons. Yet we have an intact weather balloon in Ramey's office, not Brazel's "rubber strips".

In fact, the entire Mogul balloon hypothesis rests on Brazel's description of tape with flower patterns that Charles Moore claimed were used on their radar targets for reinforcement. Problem is, nobody can find said "flower tape" in the photos taken in Ramey's office. It ain't there.

So I would pose the question differently. What is more probable: 1) A totally nonexistent, cancelled Mogul balloon flight explains Roswell, or 2) Something else crashed (we won't even say space craft) that was so sensitive, that they covered it up using an ordinary RAWIN weather balloon? The testimony of those who were actually involved and there also confirms #2 (Marcel, but most notably Gen. Dubose, who also said he personally took the phone call from his superior Gen. McMullen ordering a cover up and that the weather balloon was nothing but a cover story.)

cda said...

Kevin:

The press reports at the time point clearly towards a terrestrial explanation for the debris. They do NOT in any way point to an extraterrestrial one.

Please tell us exactly which reports, either from 1947 or in fact anything up to 1950, even suggest an extraterrestrial answer to the debris.

I have to put a time limit of 1950 on it because by then Scully's book was out and thereafter ETH was in people's minds for almost any UFO seen, especially those over New Mexico, whether in the sky or on the ground. The plain truth is that Roswell was almost totally ignored by ufologists (notice I said "almost", the very word I said you should omit in your article) until the Moore/Friedman investigations beginning in 1978.

Yes I know David Rudiak and a few others tell us that the Ft Worth photos show substituted balloon debris and that even the Roswell newspapers somehow contain not Brazel's own words and remarks but words force-fed to him by the military, as part of some giant deception. But this sounds too much like a way out of a dilemma for DR. He cannot explain the photos or the press report. Hence the need to invoke conspiracy theory. It is a convenient 'way out', nothing else.

I repeat: where are the "implied statements from 1947" that you are talking about? Are they from actual witnesses or are they by newspaper writers? Let us see them, please. And I don't mean references to SF or whether life exists on Mars.

KRandle said...

CDA -

RAAF Captures Flying Saucer on Ranch in Roswell Region...

Say what you will, but even in 1947, one of the definitions of flying saucer was spacecraft. Might not have been the best definition or the preferred one, but it was a definition...

Brian Bell said...

Kevin:

Thank you for the clarification on your earlier post (which I cited) where information and details have since been updated.

You state that a balloon array with radiosonde was sent up, but it did not have any radar tracking units.

Can we say with absolute certainty this is the case?

I know you say the documentation is clear, but is there any chance that the array had one or two Rawin targets attached that simply were not recorded? Can we be absolutely certain there was no error made in any of the documentation?

And if there is no error, we are still left with the early descriptions of the debris being very much (if not identical to) balloon related material.

I suppose there is a slim outside chance the witnesses described it as such because they had no context other than what they knew of terrestrial balloons.

If we remove the NYU and Mogul tests and proceeding flights, is there still a possibility for a hitherto yet unknown terrestrial explanation to what Brazel found?

While this is just pure conjecture on my part (and without documentation), I ask you have all of these hypotheses been absolutely ruled out?:

Non-Mogul / NYU conjecture:

1) A wayward and lone Soviet reconnaissance balloon modelled after Fugo that was intended to spy on occupied Japan, Canada, or the US which they immediately abandoned after it failed and was found?

2) A US Weather Service balloon that just happened to be carrying radar tracking units for some unknown and mundane scientific purpose?

3) A balloon array and radar tracking unit flown for some scientific project out of Los Alamos?

4) An undocumented Project Thunderstorm experiment to capture data on those massive storms over New Mexico? This classified project was going on at the very same time the Roswell incident occurred, with oversight from AMC at Wright? (Yes I realize the project was based on the East Coast and Florida).

"The Thunderstorm Project was significant for many reasons, as evidenced by the fact the War Department gave it priority second only to the Bikini atomic bomb tests. It was the nation's first large-scale scientific study of thunderstorms and the first multi-agency meteorological project mandated and funded by Congress."

5) An early General Mills / ONR pre-Helios polyethylene balloon test to demonstrate viability before moving forward?

6) Some other University's scientific project that required a balloon array and tracking system, but the attempt was a one-time effort only (they couldn't find the balloon afterwards etc.) The same could be said for some inventor using post-war surplus items who lost his experiment and didn't have the means to find it?

7) A classified AEC project testing the viability of an aerial dispersal mechanism for biological or radioactive toxins gone wrong? (After all some of these people did die of cancer decades later). Project still classified because of legal and moral political reasons?

8) And the one that skeptics and ET'ers all seem to hate, that being a Cold War era classified test of an antigravity propulsion system on a test craft overseen by German scientists in Operation Paperclip?

Nitram Ang said...

Hello David

I will answer the question that CDA and his cronies will not answer...

Something else crashed (that was probably very sensitive) and they covered it up using an ordinary RAWIN weather balloon.

I have no idea really what that "something else" is but It's important to keep an open mind. But as you know, the "debunkers" are very ridged in their views because they have no other "plausible" explanation.

Regards
Nitram

Brian Bell said...

David? Are you finally changing your mind?

You wrote:

"Classic, skeptobunker strawman argument, totally ignoring the third option that has been debated now for nearly 40 years, namely an alien space craft (or maybe some highly sensitive secret project for which we have yet to find any evidence) which crashed and was covered up, using the SINGULAR balloon and radar target that Gen. Ramey displayed."

Ah....you missed my option "A", the aliens who crashed their saucer made of foil and sticks! There's your "alien" explanation! Read it again.

But more importantly, are you now WILLING to admit that what crashed may have been a top secret classified project?

Prior to this you just trashed that possibly. Change of heart?

Please explain...

Nitram Ang said...

Brian you still don't get it...

If there was a crashed saucer - then we must all surely agree that the material shown in Ramey's office was "switched" - nobody is saying that a crashed saucer from another planet (if there are such things - flying saucers that is, not planets...) was made of foil and sticks.

Even Lance would have to CONCEDE that one...

Personally I'm more than happy to concede that what crashed MIGHT have been a top secret classified project - and David is also (he has told me that in his exact words) - but you need to tell us exactly what that "project" is and provide documentation that CDA keeps asking others for.

Good luck with that BB...

Regards
Nitram

KRandle said...

Johns Space -

According to Moore, the equipment was removed and the balloons were either released or used for other purposes, such as flying a sonobuoy to test the radio reception. According to Moore, the helium couldn't be returned to the bottles and everyone who has ever received a helium filled balloon for a birthday, a get well, or any other occasion knows that the helium slowly seeps out so they have a short life.

KRandle said...

Brian -

Most of the answers to your long list of questions is in the original post and in my lengthy response to you. We just don't have to go through it again. The documentation is there and Mogul is not.

I tried to make it clear by noting that the elimination of Mogul does not take us directly to the extraterrestrial and you are free to draw your own conclusions from that. And you can throw up clouds of other projects but none have been labeled as the culprit, none are still classified, and the Air Force in their investigation eliminated all but Mogul.

Finally, I did not post your nasty response to Albert because your comments were directed at him personally and his were of a more generic nature. If you wish to take out the nastiness and remove the last line, then fine...

I will note, once again for the record, that Marcel DID NOT change his picture statement three times. Bill Moore did that in his attempts to keep up with the number of pictures taken in Ramey's office... and the changes began in the 1990s, at least four years after Marcel had died. It was Moore who cropped the picture of Marcel so that it looked different than those of Ramey and Ramey and DuBose. The record is fairly clear on these points as well.

cda said...

Nitram Ang (Angela Martin?):

It is you who still does not get it. Nothing was switched in Ramey's office. The simple reason for this is that the photographer(s) were allowed to take photos of the debris. Had any genuinely top secret debris been present (even if not shown in the photos), NO photographs would have been permitted at all. In fact the photographer (J.Bond Johnson) would have been turned back at the gate. The risks of him seeing the genuine debris were too great. Some people even say the real debris was present in Ramey's office, hidden in the background, whilst the substituted debris was photographed; a wholly preposterous notion!

You say you are "happy to concede that what crashed MIGHT have been a top secret classified project".

Again, do you really suppose a photographer would have been allowed to take pictures of the ersatz debris while the real classified stuff was still present but hidden, knowing the risks involved?

This whole idea that ANY debris was switched is simply a convenience for the conspiracy brigade who have to fall back on this excuse to explain why the said debris resembles balloon & radar reflector.

By the way, why was Johnson never threatened with death if he saw something he ought not to have seen? Others were, but not Johnson. Perhaps these threats were made only at Roswell and not Fort Worth.

David Rudiak said...

Regarding whether Roswell base would have known about the Moguls, in one case Charles Moore clearly phonied the data to distance one flight, #5, that came very close to the base on June 5, 1947. In Mogul records and ALL official histories of flight, such as NASA's, #5 is the actual FIRST N.M. balloon flight (not the nonexistent #4), crashing about 16-17 air miles due east of Roswell base, according to the original ground track plot in Mogul records. (Crary's diary confused the issue by saying 25 miles from "Roswell”, probably the ground distance from Roswell town during recovery, not the air distance from the base.)

However, while #5 was in the air, it actually came much closer to the base than that and lingered in their air space for over an hour. Control tower operators, plane spotters, and weather observers should have noticed it. It was also being followed by a B-17, which should have been in contact with the control tower and explaining what they were doing there circling around in their airspace.

I have maps at my website illustrating this:

www.roswellproof.com/Flight4_Addendums.html#anchor_3600
www.roswellproof.com/files/flight_5.gif

Also:

www.roswellproof.com/Flight4and5_changes.html
www.roswellproof.com/files/flt5orig.gif (original Mogul ground plot)
www.roswellproof.com/files/fl4early.gif (a Moore phonied "without change" plot)

If you look at the correct map of #5’s trajectory (before Moore altered it), #5 passed only 4 ground miles south of “Roswell” (meaning Roswell AAF, not the town) and about 7 air miles away while it was coming down. It lingered in Roswell air space for roughly an hour while it was at its peak and then started descending, plenty of time for the base to have spotted it and its chase plane (which followed it all the way to its crash site).

Please read my write-up on how Moore played games with this. As noted, he altered the map twice in write-ups, including his 1997 book, while claiming in one case, "The plot for Flight #5 was taken without change from Figure 32 in NYU Balloon Project Technical Report #1."

But in reality he changed the plot in three major ways, all which made it appear that #5 didn’t come as close to the base as it really did:

1) He removed Roswell base (marked only as “Roswell” on the plot, but from location meaning Roswell AAF) from the original Mogul plot and substituted the town 6 miles to the north. Now instead of #5 passing about 4 (ground) miles south of the base, it appeared to pass 10 miles south of "Roswell".

2) He moved Roswell town about 2-3 miles west

3) He moved the crash site about ~13-14 miles east

The net effect was to about double the distance to the crash site and closest approach from the base.

Brad Sparks got into an email debate with Moore about this mediated by Karl Pflock. Even after Sparks pointed out that he had really altered the map, Moore continued to insist #5 got no closer than 15-20 miles from the base (lie), and also tried to claim Roswell base may not have seen it because of clouds. However, Mogul documentation (which Moore used to make his plot) proves that #5 was tracked visually 90% of the time from Alamogordo through a theodolite (surveying telescope), or all the way to Roswell, and they only lost track of it because an intervening mountain range got in the way as it came down. Clouds had nothing to do with it. However, Moore did admit it likely that the chase plane would have been in communication with the base.

Playing games with the actual data like this is an unambiguous example of just how devious Moore was in trying to advance the Mogul hypothesis. Similarly, he used multiple mathematical cheats in his model trajectory calculation to get his "Flight #4" "exactly" to the Foster ranch. His trajectory hoax and alterations to the #5 map were all very calculated, designed to advance a crashed Mogul as the “explanation” for Roswell.

KRandle said...

CDA -

Can you cite the authority for Johnson being turned back at the gate, knowing full well that there were other, highly classified operations on the base?

Could it be that Johnson wasn't threatened because he had seen nothing of consequence? His role was to photograph the weather balloon and the highly degraded rawin, though he wouldn't have know that.

Why, we all know there was no switch even though two of those in Ramey's office who were interviewed said it was... Newton didn't arrive until the display was properly set in Ramey's office... and you are aware, of course, that Johnson made comment that it was odd he had been directed to Ramey's office as opposed to that of the PIO>

cda said...

Kevin:

I never said Johnson was turned back at the gate. I merely said that if the debris and the whole event was as top secret as you claim then no civilian would have been allowed on the base at all - let alone a newspaper photographer!

This would have been necessary until all such materials had either been safely locked away or moved to a secure location off base. This would have been impossible in the rushed and highly volatile period facing Ramey on that day. It would have been close to an emergency situation. Other classified material (from the past) was stored in a safe, secure location and had nothing to do with the supposed Roswell space debris. After all, it was the latter that was allegedly far more secret than anything made on earth (and punishable by death if anyone 'talked'), according to the conspiracists.

David Rudiak said...

Kevin wrote:
So, where is the evidence that Flight No. 4 flew? The field notes said expressly that it did not. We know that their fallback position, when the full array was cancelled, was to fly a cluster of balloons to perform other experiments, and we have a definition of what is meant by a cluster of balloons

It's more than Crary's field notes. All REAL flights had some sort of write-up in Mogul summary reports, often showing their engineering schematic, flight path, etc. Summary tables were also made, giving basic information about each flight, such as configuration, flight time, tracking, etc.

However, if a flight was canceled, it was (surprise!) NOT in the summary reports or tables, for the very simple reason that if it never got off the ground; there was no data to record.

We have two very good examples of that preceding the attempted (but canceled) Flight #4, namely #2 and #3, also canceled, also written out of the project summaries, also not in the summary table.

For #2, its fate was clearly explained in the first Mogul report (NYU Special Report No. 1, May 1947): "Release was attempted 18 April. Due to high wind at 830 EST, the time of release, 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 NYU. It is expected that this equipment will be flown about 8 May."

No ambiguity there. However, in the 1994/95 McAndrew section of the AF Roswell report, he referenced that exact section I quoted and claimed it indicated that Flight #2 "was flown". He did the same thing for the equally cancelled #3 (the May 8 attempt), then created a NEW summary table with #2 & #3 now existing along with the cancelled #4 from June 4.

That's just flagrant lying.

What happened with that May 8 re-attempt using the same equipment? Crary's diary describes another cancellation due to winds, but with some of the balloons used to loft a likely sonobuoy microphone (with bombs dropped so it had something to pick up) with a chase plane following, probably to test reception:

"Scheduled balloon flight this morning at 730... Trouble with winds and instruments did not go up. ...[Personnel] with recording equipment on B-17 following balloons.... B-29 started dropping bombs near Atlantic City..."

So again, all reusable equipment was stripped off for later use, but in this case they used some of the already inflated balloons to loft a sonobuoy to test reception. This sounds very much if not exactly what happened on June 4, the reputed Flight #4, which Crary's diary also says was canceled (because of cloud cover) but they salvaged something by lofting another sonobuoy to test reception from the air and ground.

These smaller test flights lofting a particular piece of equipment were not the larger constant-altitude flights of a true Mogul. They lacked all the C-A equipment and other paraphernalia, including any radar targets (unless they were testing radar targets), which were no longer needed for careful tracking to see if the balloons were working properly. Because they weren't C-A, nothing restrained them from climbing quickly to high altitudes where the balloons exploded and came right down again. These test flights did not last long and did not travel very far.

However, Moore and the AF claimed that what landed at the Foster Ranch WAS a large C-A flight. (E.g., Moore's trajectory hoax absolutely demanded it, Moore going so far as to claim that #4's C-A equipment worked even better than the real successful #5 the next day.) But if it was a C-A flight, it WOULD have been recorded as such instead of being a big hole in the records, like was the case for #2 & #3. However the AF and Moore did try to have it both ways, going so far as to even claim that #2 & #3 existed when they clearly did NOT, to make a case for a #4 explaining Roswell.

KRandle said...

CDA -

You have suggested that if the material from Roswell was highly classified, that Johnson would never have been allowed on the base. Please cite your authority for making this claim.

Remember, of course, that access to the airfield itself would have been restricted so that no one without a line badge or an escort could have gotten onto it, that Johnson wasn't going to the airfield, and the debris, as it transited FWAAF would not have been unloaded from the aircraft (expect for a small sample that could be shown to Ramey and which could easily be locked into a safe) there would be no reason to deny Johnson access to the base. You are pulling your objections out of thin error and have no real working knowledge of the air base activities.

And this thread, of course, is not actually part of the discussion which is that Mogul Flight No. 4 was cancelled and the inability by some to understand what that means.

David Rudiak said...

I see that CDA likes to use straw man arguments, like Brian Bell. Both, e.g., start with the assertion that what was in the Ramey office photos was necessarily what was recovered from the field by Marcel/Cavitt/Brazel. However, this very thing has ALWAYS been a basic bone of contention between the "pro-saucerites" and "anti-saucerites" ("pro-balooneyists"?)

Two men who were actually involved and in the photos, Marcel and Gen. Dubose, both later testified that the debris in the photos was a cover story, NOT the stuff recovered at Roswell. Dubose also made it quite clear that he personally took the call from Gen. McMullen, deputy chief of the Strategic Air Command, ordering a cover-up, and they came up with the weather balloon idea. The very ordinary, standard meteorological, SINGULAR balloon/radar target in the photos was NOT the real Roswell debris, but the cover story.

www.roswellproof.com/dubose.html

Even if you further assume this came from a "top-secret" Mogul balloon flight, the only thing "top-secret" about Mogul was the purpose of the project. NONE of the equipment at the time was classified--NONE! In fact, a few months later they wrote up the results of their early constant-altitude flights in the Journal of Meteorology, fully picturing the equipment and some of the trajectory and altitude profiles. No secrets there, just basic science and engineering that could also be applied to research other than spying on the Russians.

So as long as no real debris was out in the open and only a shill, totally unclassified weather balloon and radar target was visible, guys like photographer Johnson could take all the pictures he wanted, no problem. In fact, Ramey would be desirous of that to advance his weather balloon debunking of the Roswell base recovered "flying disc" press release. It's called a photo op.

A classic, well-documented example of a cover story (that ultimately failed) was the 1960 U-2 incident. The CIA had NASA claim that it was one of their own weather planes that had strayed into Soviet territory after the pilot allegedly passed out from oxygen deprivation. They release phony transcripts of the pilots supposed conversations before he blacked out.

Then at Edward's AFB, they repainted the tail of a U-2 with a NASA logo and phony ID number, inviting the press to take pictures--the staged photo op.

The problem was, the pilot did not commit suicide as expected and destroy the plane with explosive charges. The Soviets had the pilot and the spy camera equipment from the crashed (but not pulverized) plane. So they quickly exposed the cover stories for what they were--fabrications to hide from the public and world what had really happened. In that case, the American government was not able to completely control and contain the situation since the crash had happened in hostile territory.

This is why it is so preposterous to claim that if only balloon debris was described or shown in 1947, that is what it HAD to be, never considering even the possibility that could be a cover story for something else entirely, just like "NASA weather plane" for the U-2. (If the debunkers only went by the initial newspaper stories for the U-2, 70 years later they would still be arguing it wasn't a spy plane but NASA's.)

When the principles like Dubose tell us the weather balloon was a cover story, maybe its time for the skeptobunkers to think slightly out of their very tiny box, and at least consider it as possible.

cda said...

Kevin:

You REALLY think only a small sample could, or would be shown to Ramey, which could then be locked away?

Ramey was such a cool, calm AF General that a strongly suspected ET craft would have been hidden from him amid all the inevitable excitement accompanying such a discovery? I say those few 'in the know' would have been literally 'over the moon' regarding it all, if such a thing really happened. Yet you claim it would have been as simple as pie for such people to quietly go about their normal business. They even invite civilian photographers onto the base and pretend nothing of importance happened!

Perhaps USAF personnel never show any emotion or sense of excitement, even over a thing like this. (But as I have never served in the US military, who am I to pronounce on matters like this?)

My 'authority' for saying Johnson would have been refused admission to the base? Just plain common sense. Assuming, of course, the stuff WAS as highly secret as you and others claim it was. Think of all the fevered activity surrounding the base were a suspected ET craft to have arrived there.

What you have been claiming all these years is that this event marked the most significant scientific, and then highly top secret, discovery of all time, yet the generals at Ft.Worth just went about their business as if nothing had happened. Meanwhile Ramey, calm as ever, simply swapped the ET debris for an ordinary balloon in a matter of minutes, and thereafter never told a living soul about it for the remainder of his life. Oh really?

Yes I have strayed from the topic. And yet....

Brian Bell said...

PART I

@ Nitram -

No, I think YOU actually missed the point. It's fairly simple.

The point is the early witness descriptions of the material found describe it fairly consistently as "wood-like sticks" or "balsa wood sticks", "rubber", "foil", and so on.

Since Brazel and the others described the debris in this way (balloon-like material) then clearly that IS what he found, unless space faring aliens fly spacecraft made from such material.

While some here claim the real debris (exotic "alien" saucer wreckage) was "switched" for common looking balloon components, they fail to acknowledge Brazel's reported descriptions and how those match exactly what was photographed in Ramey's office.

And before someone here says, "Oh yeah? The July 9 news articles are faulty because Brazel was 'forced' to change his description of the material as part of a massive cover-up", please note this unintelligent excuse doesn't fit the facts....AT ALL. The July 9 news article simply clarifies details of what witnesses described anyway.

And before someone resurrects DuBose's comments, he only said they were told to change the STORY about what was found to a simple "weather balloon". The only person claiming a switch is Marcel (or Bill Moore if you believe Kevin's point of view). And yes DuBose did say they lifted a kite up and down to smash one, but that doesn't cover the blackened neoprene material seen in the Ramey photos. Call that faulty memory...

Why is all of this important?

Because Brazel and others described the same "balloon-like" material even before the supposed "switch" took place.

And just to drive this home, the fact that Brazel DID NOT reference any "corded string" in his initial description to the press is irrelevant.

Why?

Because the fact remains the material photographed in Ramey's office DIDN'T have any string either!

For anyone who has not been sucked into Roswell alien mania, the "wooden sticks, rubber, and foil pieces" that Brazel first described to the press match EXACTLY what was shown in Ramey's office. There wasn't any string there either. It was just "wooden sticks, rubber, and foil" sitting on the floor.

Now that means David's continuous rant that the Ramey photos DO NOT show any "string" is a mute point because Brazel didn't say he found any string to begin with!

Brian Bell said...

PART II

So either the material shown in those photos is the SAME (or IDENTICAL looking) material to what Brazel brought in from the field (or that Marcel picked up), or it really IS the "alien" wreckage others claim it to be.

And if indeed alien material, then those aliens ARE flying around in ships made of "sticks, rubber, and foil". Of course that's impossible, but clearly others here will disagree just to have their "story".

On final note, let's take Robert Porter's description of the debris carried to Fort Worth:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zO99r0NkgUI

He says it was wrapped in brown paper and tape, could fit in the backseat of a car, that it contained one triangular piece (sounds like a part from a Rawin to me), with 2-3 "shoe boxes" of additional material. He also said that it felt "like an empty package" concerning weight.

Porter also states there was nothing unusual about their arrival at Fort Worth; no massive security detail, no people hurriedly scrambling about in panic, no convoy of military trucks, no doctor waiting for alien corpses, and no endless train of wooden crates filled with exotic "space ship material".

Now isn't it funny that the junk in the Ramey photos appears to be the same as what Brazel and others described right down to and including Porter's "brown wrapping paper" seen resting against the wall behind Marcel who proudly holds up one large piece of material (with a smile on his face) that just happens to look triangular in shape?

I suppose I could write something like Kevin did by saying, "How can Roswellians who insist that aliens crashed claim material was "switched" and that Brazel was "forced" to say what he did continue to ignore the obvious facts sitting right before their eyes?"

To any onlooker it's fairly easy to see that the material descriptions of the debris and that which was displayed in Ramey's office match pretty well.

We can then conclude if the junk found WASN'T from an NYU or Mogul flight, then clearly it was from some OTHER terrestrial balloon project.

Hence my question about whom has explored in depth all of the alternate balloon possibilities (no one) IS relevant.

KRandle said...

Brian -

In all your balloon scenarios, you provided absolutely no evidence for them. Just wild speculations... and when that failed, you invented a Project Thunderstorm balloon launch in New Mexico when you knew full well that the base of operations for Thunderstorm was Orlando. In an attempt to make it viable, you could have at least pointed out that some of the scientists involved were from the University of New Mexico (which I mention cautiously because someone will then assume launches in New Mexico when there is no record of them)... and no records mean no evidence and Thunderstorm is now eliminated, but you knew that.

So, no, you balloon scenarios do not fly (pun intended) because you have no evidence for any of them launching balloons in New Mexico. You can't just make up stuff.

And no, Brian, you seem to not understand the situation in Ramey's office. When finally shown the photographs, Marcel said it wasn't the stuff he had brought from New Mexico. The balloon, then, according to Marcel, was not what he had found. Had you actually wanted to make your case, you would have noted that Marcel told Linda Corley that the real debris was in Ramey's office, but they had covered it with all that butcher's paper you see on the floor. The balloon material was spread out on top of it. That is the more damning statement... and yes, I realize I shouldn't have to make your case for you but you do such a poor job of stating it, it hardly seems fair. I mean you made a big deal out of a statement by Loretta Proctor never realizing that she hadn't actually seen the symbols on the debris but was reporting what she had been told.

Nearly everyone agrees that the material in the photographs is a weather balloon and a degraded rawin target. The question is, was this the stuff that Marcel found or was it put there for the reporters to see so that the story would be killed?

Oh, and yes, Brian, I have looked into balloon operations, I have several Navy manuals and documents on microfilm but since there is no hint of these operations in New Mexico, I have just not mentioned them.

CDA -

Sorry but your "common sense" is not sufficient for your claim that had there been real alien spacecraft at FWAAF, Johnson would have been turned back at the gate. His role was important in killing the story, and as I said, he didn't go near the flight line, he apparently went no where else on the base, his movements were controlled, so there would be no reason to stop him no matter what your common sense tells you about military operations.

Nitram Ang said...

BB wrote:

"The point is the early witness descriptions of the material found describe it fairly consistently as "wood-like sticks" or "balsa wood sticks", "rubber", "foil", and so on."

David's post later shows the problem with this statement, namely the "assertion" that what was in the Ramey office photos was recovered from the field by Marcel/Cavitt/Brazel. The argument from the experts (you know, the people that have interviewed dozens of witnesses and been to the "scene of the crime" on a number of occasions)is that the stuff was "switched".

Just to repeat, the stuff in the photos was not the stuff actually found by Brazel on the ranch...

Two men who were actually involved and in the photos, Marcel and Gen. Dubose, both later testified that the debris in the photos was a cover story. Again more evidence that the stuff was "switched".

What is so difficult to understand here...

There is no need to panic CDA. If the stuff was switched, it doesn't mean necessarily that the real stuff was alien (huge sigh of relief)...


Brian you wrote:

"Now that means David's continuous rant that the Ramey photos DO NOT show any "string" is a mute point because Brazel didn't say he found any string to begin with!"

If Brazel didn't find any string (there would have been some for him to find if mogul is the answer) then you have provided further support for the argument that the stuff was switched...

Regards
Nitram

Nitram Ang said...

CDA wrote:

"Some people even say the real debris was present in Ramey's office, hidden in the background, whilst the substituted debris was photographed; a wholly preposterous notion!"

I agree with you CDA and so does at least one other pro-ET researcher...

"Again, do you really suppose a photographer would have been allowed to take pictures of the ersatz debris while the real classified stuff was still present but hidden, knowing the risks involved?"

You are correct again CDA - the stuff was obviously switched and none of the real stuff would have been in the room...

Regards
Nitram

Tommy Bahama said...

Was there any other UFO sightings around Roswell after 1947?

The reason I ask is the premise is an UAP was visiting something worthy of observation. It would make sense that if one UAP did not return then another would be sent to search for the lost vehicle, and or to continue to conduct observations since the site(s) was deemed of some value which required observing in the first place. If no other vehicle(s) were observed flying, or landing in the area then one may want to examine the premise that Roswell was visited in 1947.

Now, if there were additional sighting, then this provides another path for consideration, and review as the two events may be related.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin - you wrote:

"In all your balloon scenarios, you provided absolutely no evidence for them. Just wild speculations.."

Yes and I pointed that out from the very beginning too - that was obvious. If you want to refer to them as "wild speculations" then fine.

Add them to the other "wild speculations" I've read on your blog posts from ET believers who insist they are correct yet have no real evidence to support their speculations either.

You know...the pro-ET scenarios where people claim:

1) Aliens are visiting the earth and have been doing so for eons...

2) The Roswell debris is alien spacecraft material and hence "proof" of extraterrestrial life...

3) There's a worldwide UFO conspiracy taking place...and it all started in July 1947...

4) Our galaxy is filled with intelligent alien civilizations and they are technologically superior to humankind...

5) The Roswell saucer was a "scout ship" from a larger mothership orbiting earth...

6) The Roswell affair was really time traveling humans from our very distant future...

7) Alien bodies were recovered at Roswell and later autopsied at Wright Field and/or Los Alamos Labs...

8) Roswell debris was the source for technological advances in human science to include the transistor and Nitinol...

9) SOM 101 is a real document and proves there is a worldwide conspiracy to hide the truth about aliens...

10) An alien saucer crashed into a Mogul balloon and that explains what happened...

Now I've read all of these comments on your blog before and many people here claim they are correct about these statements...and THEY have no PROOF either...just "wild speculation" they consider valid and important as real evidence that aliens are visiting earth.

The point behind my clearly stated SPECULATIVE balloon alternatives was to see whether anyone is open to alternative hypotheses since they insist the evidence states the material was NOT in anyway NYU or Mogul despite the fact it was first described as balloon debris when found!

It seems to me the ET crowd prefers an explanation that employs a simple minded problem solving algorithm:

Moore's lies + cancelled flights = NOT Mogul NOT NYU

NOT Mogul NOT NYU = NOT any sort of balloon of any kind from anywhere EVER

NOT any sort of balloon of any kind from anywhere = PROOF OF COVERUP and PROOF OF ALIEN SAUCER CRASH

This sort of thinking is flawed. The whole reason I posted speculative balloon-related alternatives was to TEST whether or not Roswellians were even open to prosaic balloon alternatives other than Mogul (or if they had investigated them at any length). But clearly they aren't and haven't!

So....while you and others claim it couldn't have been any sort of balloon project without even having taken an equally in depth look for even the remotest possibility that it was just demonstrates that ufologists are knuckleheads who refuse to consider or explore alternatives.

Science is the exploration of hypothesis yet unproven based on speculation that there is a reason or cause for something not fully understood. It all starts with speculation and then investigation.

If ET'ers refuse to explore alternatives when tangible evidence suggests the debris was balloon material but NOT Mogul or NYU, how can they conclude IT MUST BE ALIEN?

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Aren't cda and Brian also forgetting the statements of others at RAAFB about the sizeable crate(s) of material loaded into and secured in the bomb bay, with several military guards, intended to be flown on to Wright Field after the show and tell in Ramey's office? Only one or two small packages of additional materials rode up front with Marcel (if I remember correctly) and he carried them into the meeting with Ramey while the plane stood locked and guarded at a distance on the field.

Anthony Mugan said...

Hello all (part 1)

Whilst I’m sure this will not resolve the debate, as the NYU Flight 4 hypothesis is clearly seen as critical to a sceptical position (a massive strategic error – but that’s not my problem), it is interesting to summarise the facts that are known for certain or beyond reasonable doubt. I will not go into the massive issues with Moore’s alleged trajectory here.

1. Launching Flight 4 as a constant level flight in the early hours of the 4th June would have breached the launch restrictions placed on the project

Evidence:
On 20th March 1947 the Air Co-ordinating Committee (New York Subcommittee) agreed to NYU releases with a restriction that there was no cloud below 20,000 feet and visibility was at least three miles in all directions up to 20,000 feet. This was amended after consultation with the Washington Air Space committee to require a cloudless sky (Appendix 2 of Moore,. C. B. et. al., 1948, ‘ Technical Report No. 1; Ballon Group Constant Level Balloon Project’, New York University; Appendix 13 in Weaver R and McAndrew, J., 1995, ‘The Roswell Report: Fact Versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert’, USAF, p693 and following in my pdf version)

This was later further modified by the Fort Worth sub committee to require additional co-ordination with Biggs field, but this was in August 1947. I am therefore not certain if NOTAMs were required before August 1947 or not but it is certain they needed a cloudless sky immediately above the launch site with visibility of a minimum of 3 miles on all directions at all altitudes.

Available weather data is available on David Rudiak’s site at:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Flight4_Trajectory.html#anchor_3596

This has 40% altostratus at Columbus, 130 miles SW of the launch site at 23:14 on the 3rd June clearing to scattered cirrus at 02:11 on the 4th. Alrostratus is typically between 2400-6100m (7900-20,000 feet). Wind speeds in these altitude ranges were from the SW towards the NE with total North easterly speeds (from Moore’s wind speed data) in a range from 17mph (at 9800 feet) to 53 mph at 19600 feet.

Using the fastest of these speeds indicates that at the earliest there could have been less than 40% cloud cover at the launch site was 2hrs and 25 mins after the weather reading at Columbus which is 01:39hrs. The scattered cirrus noted at 02:11 at Columbus would have been over the launch site by 04:36 at the earliest. Note these times take the highest wind speed which was at the upper limit of the altitude range for altostratus. We do not know the actual rate of clearing but it is highly likely it was rather slower than the above times. Using the slowest windspeed implies it would be largely clear (but still with scattered cirrus after 9am.

Overall therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that the sky at the launch site would not have been completely cloudless before 5am at the absolute earliest and credible windspeed / cloud alititude combinations push this back to highly probably after 6am.

Anthony Mugan said...

Part 2

To continue...

2. The relevant project reports state that they list all NYU flights that attempted constant level flight. They note that other balloon releases occurred (e.g. to test specific items of equipment) but they were not equipped as constant level flights

Evidence:

Section 5 of Moore,. C. B. et. al., 1948, ‘ Technical Report No. 1; Ballon Group Constant Level Balloon Project’, New York University; Appendix 13 in Weaver R and McAndrew, J., 1995, ‘The Roswell Report: Fact Versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert’, USAF. (pp572-3 of my pdf version).

To quote:

“Section 5. Flight Summary
A summary of pertinent information on all flights made to date is included in Appendix 1 as table VII. Also shown there are flight train diagrams, time-height curves, trajectories and photographs of significant flights, grouped by flight numbers. The flight numbering system
has been revised since its inception and now only those flights in which an attempt was made to control the altitude of the balloon are included in the summary. Excluded are flights made to test special gear and launchings which were not successful”

3. We therefore have a totally consistent picture of regulations, meteorlogical data, formal project reports and Crary’s diary. The constant level flight was cancelled due to the weather. What was released later was not a constant level flight but a test of specific equipment. Such a release would have gained altitude quickly, suffered balloon failure at altitude and come back down with a short ground distance covered. (evidence – see the results of the various flights recorded in the project reports for scenarios and discussion)

In conclusion – to attempt to cling on the the NYU flight 4 hypothesis by invoking administrative errors is lamentable. There is no evidence the team covered up a flagrant breach of regulations but rather full and totally consistent evidence that they acted completely professionally.

NYU flight 4 is falsified – totally, 100% certain and we haven’t even got into the trajectory issues of an imaginary flight 4, where it also fails. This in isolation does not establish the ETH for Roswell so can I ask that everyone just accepts the evidence that whatever the debris was, it wasn’t a constant level NYU flight or explain why you feel this is even a remote possibility.

cda said...

Kevin:

Your reply to BB indicates that you still adhere to the idea that the real stuff was present in Ramey's office, albeit covered with brown paper, while Johnson was taking the pics. This idea is preposterous. Having told us time after time how top secret this operation was, are you now saying a photographer was allowed onto the base to take these staged pics WITH THE TOP SECRET DEBRIS ACTUALLY PRESENT IN THE ROOM?

And even if the precious stuff was not in that room, I repeat: If the whole ET thing was to be so secret as you claim, there is NO WAY any civilian, photographer or otherwise, would have been permitted past the front gate. It would be far too risky on that day. It would have to wait until ALL security precautions had been taken, which I guess would be at least 24 hours. This was a completely new and extraordinary event, something the USAF had never had before. Nuclear weapons and such were 'old hat' by then, but this was something entirely new.

But General Ramey keeping quiet about everything at that July 1952 Washington conference, and then going even further by taking this awful never-to-be-revealed secret to his grave, so that his underlings can 'reveal' it years later?! If you want to buy that idea, that is your choice.

Oh and Marcel did say he was pictured in ONE photo with the actual debris, then the stuff was switched for the other photo (only two were known at that point). An idea even dottier than the proposed 'switch' for all six (or was it seven)?

KRandle said...

Brian -

Here is what I wrote about the elimination of Mogul, "I also realize that the elimination of Flight No. 4 as the culprit does not translate into evidence that what fell outside of Roswell was alien."

I have labeled many of the things you mention as untrue and hoaxes... With the SOM 1-01, there is a physical document and almost all of us realize that it is a hoax (as just a single example of the difference between your made up list of possible sources of the balloon material and the items you mentioned)...but again, this isn't about all these ancillary issues but about the fact that Mogul was not responsible for the debris found by Mack Brazel.

BTW, it's moot not mute.

CDA -

I didn't say I subscribed to that idea (the real debris covered by the butcher paper) I was suggesting that if Brian had a clue, that should have been his argument because it was much stronger than most of what he had said... the idea that the real debris was covered by butcher paper, as Marcel told Linda Corley, is just wrong. I'm surprised that you didn't understand the point... I was helping Brian.

And I'll leave you to sink into your quick sand of "common sense" belief that no one would have been allowed on the base as the debris transited the airfield because there is nothing I can say that would dissuade you from this unfounded conclusion.

Tommy -

Yes there were other sightings in Roswell... Wilmot talking about something seen on July 2, and other sightings in the region... and sightings all over the US.

Brian Bell said...

@ Nitram (Angela Martin)

You wrote: "If Brazel didn't find any string (there would have been some for him to find if mogul is the answer) then you have provided further support for the argument that the stuff was switched..."

No. I said the fact that Brazel didn't find any string AND that none was displayed in Ramey's office supports the notion the material was the same, or at least from the same batch of debris. Furthermore, I'm pointing out that since IT WASN'T NYU/Mogul, the early descriptions of the debris indicate it was still balloon-related material (possibly from a different project) AND ufologists refuse to consider that and have failed to inquire deeply on the alternatives in favor of their "alien bias".

You also stated: "Marcel and Gen. Dubose, both later testified that the debris in the photos was a cover story". Yes they did. Marcel finally concluded that after initially stating the debris he was photographed with WAS WHAT HE FOUND, and then altering his story to say that it was a "mix" of the two, and finally that it was all "switched" and not the real alien stuff. DuBose? Yes he said the "story" was changed to imply the material found was just a common ol' weather balloon - THE STORY.

@ Jeanne

You wrote: "Aren't cda and Brian also forgetting the statements of others at RAAFB about the sizeable crate(s) of material loaded into and secured in the bomb bay, with several military guards, intended to be flown on to Wright Field after the show and tell in Ramey's office?"

You didn't watch Porter's interview. He was the flight engineer on the B-29 and because his job is to ensure the aircraft performs correctly he would have known about crates in the bomb bay. He never said there were any. He said it was a few shoe boxes and a triangular two-foot piece wrapped in paper. He also said quite plainly there wasn't any hullabaloo after landing - he went to lunch.

@ Anthony

You wrote: "...accept that it wasn’t a constant level NYU flight or explain why you feel this is even a remote possibility."

My point is that IF it wasn't, as you state, why is the debris still described as balloon-related material from the very get go by the witnesses themselves? If it's not NYU then fine. What balloon project was it from? Has any ufologist explored the alternative balloon theories? Their answer is NO. They favor an alien spacecraft that was built from "tinfoil, balsa wood sticks, neoprene, eyelets, radiosondes, and flowered tape". If that's what was found, then clearly it came from another balloon project.

@ David

I find it FUNNY that you OMITTED from your website Loretta Proctor's statement that Mack Brazel also said he found tape with writing on it which is clearly seen in her videotaped interview. You quote everything else she said more than once..but not that part. Is it fun misrepresenting facts in favor of your alien bias?

KRandle said...

Brian -

Glad to see you abandoning the Mogul bandwagon since the evidence rules it out.

You wrote, "Furthermore, I'm pointing out that since IT WASN'T NYU/Mogul, the early descriptions of the debris indicate it was still balloon-related material (possibly from a different project) AND ufologists refuse to consider that and have failed to inquire deeply on the alternatives in favor of their "alien bias"."

I see that you still can't read. How deeply do we need to go? I have reported here that Albuquerque launched weather balloons and rawins, I have researched the Navy balloon projects but the times and equipment rule them out. Polyethylene did not make its appearance until after July 8, I have a letter from the AMC dated April 18, 1949 (as opposed to 18 April 1949) prepared for A. C. Trakowski, Jr.'s signature that discusses balloon launching and say, "The 3 July 1947 balloon launching No. 8 at Alamogordo was a cluster of balloons and not was recovered, and so might be suspect of being the cause of some of these reports. However, although not recovered, this flight was terminated in the New Mexico Tularosa Valley only a few miles northwest of Alamogordo."

It also said, "A listing has been compiled of all balloons launched by these laboratories and its contractors for special atmospheric research purposes..."

I have been to both White Sands and Alamogordo checking on the records, and I have found nothing that would account for the debris found by Mack Brazel on any of the dates published for the recovery, or the size of the debris field as related in newspapers of the time that provided dimensions.

I learned more than I cared to about the Japanese Balloon Bombs which was floated (yes, there's that pun again) in 1990 proving that it wasn't one of those.

I reject your claim that we haven't looked deep enough... and remind you that you threw out Project Thunderstorm knowing full well that the project was located in Orlando and that there is no documentation that any of it was conducted in New Mexico.

You cherry pick your data to make your points and forget that Robert Slusher reported the size of the crates... and that Robert Smith discussed making the crates.

And now I go back to doing the important things rather than answering your never ending comments that are riddled with errors and your balloon bias (see, we can throw out those sorts of things as well).

cda said...

I throw in a new suggestion, which to my knowledge has not been made by anyone before, and it is this:

How do we know the recovered radar target had any connection with the balloon debris? It certainly was found on the same ranch on the same day, but Brazel did not inspect his ranch every day and may well have ignored it for a week or more. When he stumbled on the debris he assumed the balloon fabric and the sticks & tinfoil all formed a single device, but maybe he was wrong (as were others who saw and handled the debris).

So perhaps the launched balloon was just a cluster, as in Crary's notes for June 4, and the hexagonal reflector was part of a separate device, launched on another date but not documented. After all, the balloon fragments were spread over a very large area, according to the reports. But the radar reflector pieces were concentrated in a much smaller space, weren't they?

Food for thought? It at least gets around the problem of Crary's notes not mentioning radar targets.

David Rudiak said...

Jeanne Ruppert wrote: (1 of 2)
Aren't cda and Brian also forgetting the statements of others at RAAFB about the sizeable crate(s) of material loaded into and secured in the bomb bay, with several military guards, intended to be flown on to Wright Field after the show and tell in Ramey's office? Only one or two small packages of additional materials rode up front with Marcel (if I remember correctly) and he carried them into the meeting with Ramey while the plane stood locked and guarded at a distance on the field.

Jeanne,

You may be confusing the July 9 B-29 crate flight the next day, suspected of carrying bodies, with the July 8 Marcel B-29 flight carrying debris Marcel and Cavitt brought back from the field carried in TWO vehicles. (Crate flight: www.roswellproof.com/B29_flight_July9.html)

Marcel said he had filled his vehicle with boxes of debris, which was just a small fraction of what was left behind. In one interview, Marcel indicated that they had "half a B-29-full" of debris on his flight. (whatever that meant)

Brian did a little cherry-picking of evidence by mentioning ONLY the small, wrapped packages that Sgt. Robert Porter, on Marcel's flight, mentioned handling. But he left out the rest of Porter's testimony, which initially in "The Roswell Incident” (but not later) included MORE debris on board under armed guard: "… whatever was in the cargo hold was escorted by an armed guard which had been assigned to it at Roswell." (Other Porter statements in affidavit: www.roswellproof.com/porter.html)

Porter however was in the midsection of the plane separated from the rear cargo section. He recalled his small packages being brought in a staff car and then handed to him.

To fully understand what happened, it is important to add in Marcel's testimony and Lt. Robert Shirkey's, asst. operation officer at Roswell, who also indicated much more debris on board. Shirkey saw Marcel's plane being loaded with BOXES of debris (mentioning specifically one large metal piece like brushed stainless steel being carried under someone's arm and a small metallic "I-beam" with purplish writing on it, much like Marcel Jr. described seeing at the Marcel house.) The box with the I-beam and other aluminum-looking shards of metal was being carried by Marcel, who flew to Fort Worth in the pilot's cabin, again separate from Porter. This is presumed to be the more interesting debris samples that Marcel said he took for Ramey's inspection.

Shirkey remembered the OTHER boxes were being carried by 7 or 8 men in blue suits ("FBI types"), who also boarded the plane in the rear compartment with the boxes. (This would corroborate the "armed guard" guarding the cargo hold that Porter initially remembered.) After the "FBI types" had boarded with their boxes, Shirkey recalled a car pulling up with packages handed through the hatch in the mid-section, where Porter was. This is probably what Porter remembered handling.

The main point here is that cargo was carried in three different sections, Porter's being only one of them. The bulk of the cargo was in the cargo hold being guarded. Both Porter and Shirkey stated they were told the plane was carrying parts of a crashed flying saucer. (Shirkey's affidavit at www.roswellproof.com/shirkey.html but much of the above in his 1999 book “I Was There”)

David Rudiak said...

(2 of 2)
Porter also indicated that the plane's crew consisted mostly of upper-ranking officers, Roswell Deputy and Acting Base Commander Lt. Col. Payne Jennings acting as pilot. Shirkey also remembered seeing Jennings in the pilot's seat. (With probably a hundred other qualified pilots to choose from, somehow only the base commander would do to ferry Ramey's singular weather balloon and radar target using an entire B-29.) Other officers were Roswell Executive Officer on Blanchard's staff, Lt. Col. Robert Barrowclough, Maj. Herb Wunderlich of the 1st Air Transport Unit, Maj. Marcel, and Cpt. William Anderson (who told Porter on board it was from a flying saucer).

Obviously much more than Porter's wrapped packages were on board.

In fairness to Brian, he is not the only one who thinks Porter's wrapped packages are the weather balloon and radar target later shown in the Ramey office photos. So do Schmitt and Carey, after pointing out that wouldn't have been all that was on board, and wouldn't it be a bit of overkill to use a B-29 full of officers and a security guard to transport a balsa kite and rubber balloon? After Marcel put his box on Ramey's desk, Ramey took him to a map room to have him point out where this happened. When Marcel got back, he said the balloon and broken target had been substituted and laid out on the floor. Schmitt/Carey believe/suspect that the shill weather balloon that Porter handled was brought in after Marcel left the room with Ramey. Therefore, they believe the balloon material in the photos came from Roswell (but was not necessarily brought back from the field by Marcel/Cavitt).

Porter also indicated that when they got to Fort Worth, the officers were allowed to leave (including Marcel with his box), but they had to wait for a guard to be posted before they could leave the plane and get something to eat. (Point: No need to post a guard unless something of value or classified still on board. Brian left out this part of Porter's testimony as well.)

When they got back they were told the debris on board had been transferred to a B-25 bound for Wright Field. Porter and the rest of the crew were now informed all they had transported was a weather balloon and to forget about it. Porter didn't believe the story, though not knowing what he had handled.

Nitram Ang said...

Brian wrote:

"I'm pointing out that since IT WASN'T NYU/Mogul."

Brian it is very pleasing to see you writing this. Obviously mogul is clearly flawed as David, Kevin and Anthony have painstakingly showed, maybe you could help, demonstrate this to Lance and his mentor...


Kevin clearly frustrated wrote in reference to Brian"

"I see that you still can't read. How deeply do we need to go? I have reported here that Albuquerque launched weather balloons and rawins, I have researched the Navy balloon projects but the times and equipment rule them out. Polyethylene did not make its appearance until after July 8, I have a letter from the AMC dated April 18, 1949 (as opposed to 18 April 1949) prepared for A. C. Trakowski, Jr.'s signature that discusses balloon launching and say, "The 3 July 1947 balloon launching No. 8 at Alamogordo was a cluster of balloons and not was recovered, and so might be suspect of being the cause of some of these reports. However, although not recovered, this flight was terminated in the New Mexico Tularosa Valley only a few miles northwest of Alamogordo."

It also said, "A listing has been compiled of all balloons launched by these laboratories and its contractors for special atmospheric research purposes..."

I have been to both White Sands and Alamogordo checking on the records, and I have found nothing that would account for the debris found by Mack Brazel on any of the dates published for the recovery, or the size of the debris field as related in newspapers of the time that provided dimensions."

Brian - it is quite obvious that Kevin and David have done a lot of research that you, CDA and perhaps myself, are simply not aware of. Perhaps your comment about certain ufologists are "knuckleheads" who refuse to consider or explore alternatives does NOT include Kevin and David - I agree that some pro ET researchers do not consider the alternatives properly, but I would NOT put KR & DR in this group.

Might I suggest you amend your posting accordingly.

KRandle said...

CDA -

You just keep making up stuff. According to Bill Brazel (Mack's son) and Tommy Tyree, both worked as ranch hands for Mack, and they said that he was in that particular field practically everyday. It is where there was a source of water for the sheep so that he visited it regularly. They seemed to suggest he was there four or five times a week, so the idea that the debris had laid out there for a long period is rejected.

Nitram Ang said...

CDA

With the greatest of respect maybe you could send some of your "instant theories" to Lance for "peer review" before posting.

It is no surprise many people believe the Roswell event to be ET event when we have yourself "championing" the skeptic view...

Regards
Nitram

Gilles Fernandez said...

Kevin wrote: "Notes elsewhere show that a “cluster of balloons” is not a full array".

Wow: I'm assisting on the conversations we have from 2009, and you writting/opening "an again and again" thread cause you know the case closed or hardly lacking of evidence (only one).

I'm sure that yourself (Kevin) facing your mirror, you now dont believe Roswell as an ET crash. ;)


AGAIN, "cluster" is used in the drawing of flight #2 in the NYU documentations and depicting a full array. As "cluster" used here or there and for full array assemblies too.

Wow, it looks like as a "revival" of previous fallacious arguments or your opinion presented to your readers as facts.

Nothing new concerning Roswell? Aaah, the Roswell slides fiasco, sorry...

Regards,

Gilles

cda said...

Nitram (Angela Martin?):

"It is no surprise many people believe the Roswell event to be ET event when we have yourself "championing" the skeptic view..."

The reason so many believe the ET view is that the ET origin of UFOs became a romantic fantasy, popular with ufologists since 1950 or earlier. The Roswell case in particular became a popular special ET case due to "The Roswell Incident" book, published in 1980, and many other books, magazines, lectures, TV shows, etc. since then. These were all aired and published long before I came on the scene.

So your remarks are, quite simply, twaddle.

The ET theory stands on its own merits (if it has any) and does not depend on what I and other skeptics say.

And no I shall not be sending my "instant theories", or even the not-so-instant ones, to Lance, or Zoam, for peer review. Who, if anyone, peer reviews your own writings? Perhaps you think they don't need it.



Kevin:

Are you sure Brazel covered the whole ranch four or five times a week, or only certain portions thereof? The RDR says he was on his ranch on June 14, saw the debris, and implies he did not visit this particular spot again until July 4. I agree it only implies this. It does not specifically say he never visited in between those dates. We just do not know.

Brian Bell said...

Wow Kevin....I guess we can can conclude (now) what your "hot button" is.....balloons!

You know, the "devils in the details" as they say.

So querying the seemingly mundane and irrelevant is necessary to completely rule out anything missed in the analysis rather than simply jumping to the conclusion aliens crashed at Roswell (which, by the way, is a speculative assumption based on circumstantial and suggestive evidence only).

Hence the questions regarding how far anyone has gone to explore alternative projects or errors in the flight records.

Have you ever asked your counter parts in Russia to explore whether or not Cold War Soviet records indicate they experimented with high altitude spy balloons over North America? Probably not.

What perplexes me most though is your continued insistence that Roswell was an alien event when you stated in one of your last (recent) podcast interviews that in reference to the eight witnesses that claimed bodies were recovered you state quote, "I no longer believe any of them were involved..."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s5mA0LEgqBc (@ 44:35)

Yet, your recent rebuttal directs me to the testimony of people like Slusher, Thompson, Quigley, and Osepchook who all claim alien corpses were on that flight.

Why?

Perhaps the unnamed person who claimed "we made history" on the return flight was simply a dullard who believed the rumors going around were true - after all that's what Haut's press release said, right?

"The many rumours regarding the flying disc...."?

It's no surprise to me that rumors were floating around, or that a bunch of men pulled for an unexpected flight detail might conclude their cargo contained "little people's corpses". Such events can certainly fuel more rumors, mythology, and conspiracy theories following a press release like Haut's.

Of course this all assumes the flight actually carried wooden crates in the bomb bay to begin with, but of course let's just go ahead and ignore that Porter (the flight engineer) never said there were any in his interview and testimony.

Sure, the guy responsible for flight safety and aircraft weight distribution just forgot to mention his bomb bays were laden with wooden crates and packed with MP's hanging on for dear life while they attempted to guard the corpses...

And let's not forget a B-29 has a tunnel over the bomb bay so crew don't have to enter the bay anyway. Where they worried someone was going to open the pressurized hatch at the rear of the aircraft and "take a peek"?

https://www.google.com/?client=safari#q=b-29+bomb+bay+crew+access+hatch&hl=en&noj=1&tbm=isch&imgrc=g7f6CuqoyshY3M%3A

KRandle said...

Gilles -

The debate is over. We know what a cluster of balloons means because we have a definition from the New York University documents. We know that Crary's field notes and diary is not confusing and contradictory because it is clear that the flight was cancelled at dawn and not launched hours earlier as Moore would have us believe. The diary tells us that the flight was cancelled and then they flew a cluster of balloons with a sonobuoy in it, meaning a microphone. Moore's suggestion that the trouble with this somehow translated into trouble with the radar is untrue. Mogul is not the answer... which is not to say that it was an alien craft.

CDA -

I didn't say he rode the whole ranch but that he did get to that particular field because that was one of the water sources for the sheep. I do not know how often he rode the whole ranch, only that he made it to that field because of the water source. That information was supplied by Bill Brazel and Tommy Tyree and I have no reason to doubt it.

Brian -

You cited Porter as a source suggesting little debris and I cited other sources, specifically Slusher and Roberts who suggested larger crates. I did not mention the other two... and it was Felix Martucci who allegedly said that they had just made history... oh, and since you didn't get it, Smith was not on a flight and Slusher was on a different one as was Martucci... and no one said anything about anyone opening the bomb bay to take a peek... you just made that up.

You know, they say on the Internet that the quickest way to get an answer is to post inaccurate information... you are a master of that.

Brian Bell said...

@ Nitram:

There are plenty of "knuckleheads" in ufology. You can attribute my comment to anyone you wish, but I prefer not to name names.

I'd like to see a scholarly paper or book that shows all of the research that has been explored by ufologists regarding alternative explanations rather than just books about why Roswell can only be an alien event. I am not referring to the material presented by the USAF during its investigation either.

I do not subscribe to some of what the two USAF Roswell reports conclude for the same reasons you and others do. Government in general, is not known for necessarily writing great reports or doing a thorough check of all facts. I know because I read some really poorly written reports while serving in the Federal Government. I presume the people tasked with doing this work did the best job they could and the efforts they put into it are detailed well in their executive summary:

http://www.roswellfiles.com/Articles/AirForceReport.htm

Personally I believe a balanced point of view is better when researching any hypothesis, and unfortunately some here have pronounced the Roswell event was an indeed an alien saucer crash without having completely exhausted all alternatives or putting all of their work on the table showing exactly why other alternatives aren't sufficient. I think the same of the USAF's final report.

Clearly Kevin has laid out here, in more detail than I have read before, exactly why he believes NYU/Mogul cannot account for the debris found and that no errors were made in the record books. Of course this makes him angry to have to do so. He doesn't like his opinions to be challenged.

I still wonder though why this debris was first described as having similar if not identical elements as other weather related balloons. The fact that the material was frequently described as tinfoil, wooden-sticks, tape with markings, etc. certainly suggests it had something to do with the balloons and targets used at that time. Obviously there is testimony that it was balloon debris, but no ET supporter will accept those statements.

Is the fact the debris looked like balloon material just a coincidence? Does crashed saucer material actually resemble components used in balloon arrays at that time?

@ CDA:

I have often thought the same thing as you suggested - that the material was something left from an earlier flight, or which dislodged itself from an earlier array and simply landed where it was found. Although clearly no one here will tolerate such a suggestion since they are convinced no balloon of any kind could possibly explain what people found on that isolated ranch back in '47.

Brian Bell said...

@ Kevin

"...and no one said anything about anyone opening the bomb bay to take a peek... you just made that up."

No. I presume, based on the claims that MP's were detailed to the bomb bay to "guard the crates" while hanging on for dear life on the flight "that made history", and because "FBI" types (as David claims) were onboard in the rear flight compartment, that someone must have been worried a passenger would dare climb into the bomb bay (with hammer in hand) to crack open the nailed crates just to eyeball the "alien corpses".

Why else would anyone claim that MP's flew in the bomb bay? Joy riding? Thrill seekers? No more seats in the flight compartment?

And you nicely avoided answering the question as to why you would rebut anything I wrote with a reference to witnesses who claimed bodies were in those crates when you yourself have said publically you no longer believe the eight witnesses who claimed they saw them.

So which is it? You believe there were bodies or you don't believe there were bodies?

Likewise I might add the quickest way to dodge things you don't want to answer on the Internet is to change the subject and accuse or belittle the one asking the questions...

Anthony Mugan said...

Hello all

Just to follow up on a couple of the comments / discussions above.

CDA:
I think Kevin has pretty much addressed your suggestion but one additional point might be relevant.
We have to be mindful of the physics of how these balloon clusters and arrays operated. Without altitude control fitted there are two broad scenarios for what would have happened.
In the unlikely event that they had simply attached the sonobouy to the whole balloon array (minus salvageable equipment) it would have gone up like an express train to considerable altitude, suffered catastrophic failure as the atmospheric pressure got too low for the balloons and come back down like the same express train - very short distance covered.
In the more likely scenario - supported by the use of the term 'cluster' and the fact they evidently knew what they were doing, that the sonobuoy was attached to a smaller cluster to balance the weight at a given altitude it may have lasted in the Troposphere for some time until solar heating burst the balloons. During this time it would have been carried to the NE (not in the right direction and too short a flight time). Usually these balloons from this time period started failing by around 9am if launched at dawn (this one probably went up later as per earlier discussions).

In short there is no conceivable way the sonobuoy / cluster of balloons without altitude control could have got into anywhere near the Foster ranch.

So for that and the reasons Kevin outlined (plus the sheer improbability of two separate bits of two unknown balloons landing in the same field) I don't think that idea is a runner.

Brian - hello

I can understand where you are coming from. Whilst I have now come to my own conclusions as to what happened at Roswell, if we go back a few years I was actually looking initially to get to a point where I could 'sign off' and dismiss the case as it was one of a small number of 'awkward' cases preventing a conclusion close to that of the 'organised confusion' model argued by Ruppelt back in the 50's and more recently by Swords et al in 'UFOs and Government'. Step one of that process was to see if the Flight 4 idea was remotely possible - it really isn't. Step 2 was to see if there was anything else that might give a conventional explanation. I quickly found that a number of others (including Kevin) had already done considerable work on that very question and every idea anyone had come up with had already been ruled out convincingly.

So I think that we are at the point where to argue for a conventional explanation we need a specific proposal with some actual evidence to support it. It needs to be something that would warrant the level of attention given it by the 509th. I think people react to those sorts of suggestions as we are not in the 1980s - this subject has moved on a lot and any proposals need to reflect the current state of knowledge and have to have a degree of evidence to support them.

Overall I do think the level of attention given to this by the 509th (intelligence and counter intelligence officers sent out to pick up debris, a range of senior officers on the flight etc), is important although not decisive. It shows how the situation was perceived at the time

Gilles Fernandez said...

Kevin,

We have had such discussions ad nuseam in the past. You wrote the debat is over, but it is yourself who are opening again (and again) a debat which would be over? Sounds paradoxal!

1) There is the possibility the flight was planned at the start of the night and "cancelled" (between midnight and 3AM), but the flight launched later (between 3AM and 6AM because Crary still shooting charges in the test range - from midnight to 6AM he was shooting explosing charges as because the sky was clearing). Maybe with some items removed.

I mean the narrative/excerpt in question may be interpreted in its continuity, aka the flight was in reality DELAYED due to the clouds, but not cancelled stricto sensu, and launched when the sky cleared enough, cause the excerpt was writen as "one item". When the meteo was better, they attempted the launch (with probably some items removed or not, I dunno).

2) As if the flight is not reported in the documentation or famous table, it does not mean it have been cancelled, or never flown, not existing or never taking place, but simply because no scientific (tracking) dataes to analyse (the cluster got more than 40 miles and left the range of SCR584.

3) As the launch of the cluster of balloons may have not striped off/removed ALL the items (aka to be for CERTAIN a cluster including "only" balloons + sonobuoy as you offer to your readers as "debat over"), and in particulary radar-reflectors may have remained for several reasons/possibility in the following lines.

Cause radar-targets are expandable and items present in previous cluster - like the assembly for flights#2), not need of them for the following and next flight(s) in day time and other tracking material, they probably needed them in order to track the cluster cause still night (even good Moon) and dark, it was a good test to see if the radar SCR584 are able to track the cluster and with that test including radar-targets, discovering that in the West Coast, the balloons are flying to fare away to be SCR584 radar tracked - they left the range of the radar after about 40 miles - , etc.).

4) You well know that the next flight taking place during night time was flight #8 (in July) and because night/dark, it have been/ it needs to be tracked by radar. So, the cluster launched that 4 June and "at night" "must" imho be radar traked and probaly then including radar-targets because that what how they tracked clusters (see drawing of flight#2).

In essence, a flight taked place that 4 june 1947 (and at least another one end of May in alamagordo I expedition, but always forgoten and why not another good candidat?) before whatever you will claim and there are several reasons/possibilities it had incorporated radar-targets in its assembly/apparatus.

But I understand you will never conceall it: you must destroy Mogul in order it remains here an apparent mystery.

Regards,

Gilles (and his brocken English, sorry for the readers)

Brian Bell said...

@ Anthony -

Indeed. You wrote:

"So I think that we are at the point where to argue for a conventional explanation we need a specific proposal with some actual evidence to support it."

I'll offer yet another proposal that I doubt has ever been considered. If it has I'd be surprised.

Yes this one is based on documented facts, although the speculative portion is simply mine. It may sound to some as impossible, but no more impossible than the speculations that aliens crashed near Roswell. At least we have facts that could support it.

PART I - FACTS:

1) In 1943 Stalin wanted to pursue the development of a long range multi engine strategic bomber.

2) During 1944 and 1945, three intact US B-29's and one wrecked one were interned with their crews after landing near Vladivostok after bombing raids on Japan.

3) Stalin immediately ordered his aviation industry to "reverse engineer" the B-29 in no more than two years (1947). The project was the TU-4.

4) The TU-4 project was well underway early in 1945. An increase in quality control and sheer perseverance moved things along. The end of the war with Japan made no difference in the production effort. It was full speed ahead. The U.S. had previously not believed the Russians had the capability to clone the B-29, it seemed totally inconceivable. The public Russian debut in the Aviation Day parade in August 1947 changed their minds. The U.S. found itself in a panic situation when they learned the TU-4 was indeed a reality, capable of hitting any target in the U.S. There were reports of “one way” missions by hundreds of TU-4s carrying nuclear bombs attacking the U.S. This forced the U.S. to beef up their Radar systems, surface to air missiles, and interceptor jet fighters.

5) The initial production TU-4's were first flown in May 1947 several months ahead of the July 7 Roswell incident. The US had no knowledge they existed at that time thinking the Russians could not reverse engineer the aircraft.

6) The Soviets were challenged by the complexity of the bomber, and it drove them to evaluate how to develop new alloys and composites to keep the aircraft within targeted weights - they had to come up with ways of making things lighter, which they achieved within 1% of the B-29's weight.

7) The Soviets captured a great deal of German Luftwaffe industrial technology at the close of WWII. That included experimental aircraft material including advanced composites (plastic impregnated wood) and titanium alloys.

8) It is well known that during the Cold War Soviet aircrews and allied communist nations defected by flying their aircraft to the West. The first officially reported incident of a Soviet defection occurred October 9, 1948 when Piotr Pirogov and Anatoly Barsov defected by flying their TU-2 bomber from the USSR to Linz, Austria.

8) The Soviets also began their own atomic weapons research in 1943. US intelligence predicted the Soviets could not achieve the bomb until 1952 while Britain predicted 1953.

9) With the help of German scientists captured at the close of WWII (Soviet Alsos) the Russians shocked the world when they detonated their first A-bomb in 1949. This achievement was facilitated by acquisition of plutonium and uranium between 1945 and 1947.

10) The TU-4 was being developed simultaneously with the Soviet A-bomb and Stalin's plan was to use the reverse engineered plane as the delivery vehicle for his A-bomb over US territory. The TU-4 was intended to be a "one way" non-return strike bomber that could hit any target in the US. It did prove to have the range to accomplish this.

Brian Bell said...

PART II - SPECULATIVE HYPOTHESIS:

1) A Soviet TU-4 was flown from Russia to the US in July 1947 by a flight crew intent on defecting to the West. The planes had already been in full production for two months before the incident and aircraft were available to do so.

2) The aircraft had full capability of accomplishing this long-range flight, and could be flown successfully with a crew of four men (not the full compliment of eleven) consisting of pilot, copilot, navigator, and flight engineer.

3) Soviet aircrews trained in the captured US B-29s beginning in 1945 and had the skill to accomplish this mission since that was what they were intended to do if deployed - a one-way trip.

4) The TU-4 entered US airspace undetected. As an exact clone of the B-29 it was visually not identified as a Soviet aircraft.

5) The Soviets were well aware of the 509th being located at RAAFB and its significance in the Cold War. The defectors were intent on landing their atomic capable TU-4 as close to the 509th as possible and deliver it into the hands of US intelligence.

6) Fuel loss and weather conditions forced the aircraft to land short of RAAFB. The aircraft attempted to ditch but hit the ground once and bounced leaving portions of the fuselage scattered over the Foster Ranch. Perhaps one crew member was even thrown out of the aircraft onto the ranch due to the impact or faulty decompression during decent (hence the rumors Brazel also saw a body in the debris field).

7) The pilot flew several miles more before crash landing near Corona. The plane disintegrated and despite near empty fuel tanks partially exploded leaving a burn mark and the burnt remains of three or four crew members. Perhaps one even survived.

8) Not understanding what they had discovered in the debris field, and concluding no one was looking for this aircraft, Marcel thought the material found was from one of the many saucers currently being reported. Cyrillic symbols or Russian markings on composite wreckage compounded the problem.

9) Following the discovery of the primary crash site, intelligence quickly reversed the initial disc report to mislead the press concerning their discovery.

Brian Bell said...

PART III

10) The Pentagon chose to hide the truth to avoid war panic and embarrassment that their strategic bomber was copied by the Soviets and had entered US airspace undetected.

11) The subject remains classified to this day as a matter of breached US national security, our inability to prevent Soviets from entering our airspace, and pride and embarrassment. Furthermore the records were destroyed just as reported by the USAF and GAO.

12) The testimony of Chester Barton is correct, but he saw the broken remains of a Soviet copy of the B-29.

13) No B-29 crash was reported since it wasn't our aircraft. So it can't be found in USAF crash records.

14) Barton's claim about radioactivity warnings were correct because they didn't know if this plane was carrying the A-bomb or was an attempted preemptive strike against our base at RAAFB.

15) Material was crated and shipped to Wright Field since Air Technical Command is were all foreign material was sent for evaluation. Even the bodies.

16) David's Ramey memo is correct. The "disc" reference in parenthesis is a covert recall to Haut's initial claim it was a disc, and the "victims of the wreck" are the Soviet flight crew.

KRandle said...

Brian -

Here's a thought... rather than posting all these wild speculations, why not do a little investigation to see if there is anything to support your idea? For example, when the Soviets were trotting out some of the recovered balloons and cameras from Project Genetrix, why wouldn't have provided the evidenced that the Soviets had been spying on us in violation of international law as we were doing to them. Seems to me that this would have been the perfect time for us to show the evidence of a Soviet manufactured and modified B-29 used in that spying attempt and, of course, in 1995, they could have trotted that out to end the Roswell discussions because the Soviet Union no longer existed...

And while you're at that, why not investigate the possibility that what crashed was really a Nazi prototype from Antarctica, taken there before the Nazi regime collapsed. The Nazis, aware of the atomic research in New Mexico could have been attempting to learn exactly how large our nuclear stockpile might be before they began a new attempt to dominate the world.

Just a couple of thoughts here.

cda said...

The matter of the Roswell bodies supposedly seen and recovered has had several explanations over the years:

1. Genuine ET bodies (as per the pro-ET Roswell proponents)
2. Deformed Japanese war prisoners used as guinea pigs in experiments (Nick Redfern)
3. Test 'dummies', or models (USAF 2nd Roswell Report, 1997)
4. Russian pilots in back-engineered Soviet B-29s flying over Southwest USA (Brian Bell, above)
5. Nazi pilots in new prototype aircraft launched from Antarctica (Kevin Randle above, and suggested occasionally by others before him).
6. Totally fictitious and imaginary (Roswell skeptics, including myself)

I invite those interested to rank the above in order of probability of being the true answer. Are there any other ideas I have omitted?

David Rudiak said...

It's no surprise to me that rumors were floating around, or that a bunch of men pulled for an unexpected flight detail might conclude their cargo contained "little people's corpses". Such events can certainly fuel more rumors, mythology, and conspiracy theories following a press release like Haut's.

Of course this all assumes the flight actually carried wooden crates in the bomb bay to begin with, but of course let's just go ahead and ignore that Porter (the flight engineer) never said there were any in his interview and testimony.

Sure, the guy responsible for flight safety and aircraft weight distribution just forgot to mention his bomb bays were laden with wooden crates and packed with MP's hanging on for dear life while they attempted to guard the corpses...


I'm not surprised that BB can't seem to get anything straight. Here again is a classic example of his gross ignorance of the facts in the Roswell case.

In this case, he is mish-mashing TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FLIGHTS into one. Robert Porter was on a July 8, 1947, B-29 flight taking Marcel with recovered debris from Roswell to Fort Worth. There NEVER was any mention of a crate in the bomb bay on this flight, not by Porter, not by anyone else. All that was mentioned by anyone was debris in small boxes and packages being loaded on the plane, of no significance to the safety or balancing of the plane, thus no concern to Porter from that standpoint.

What we call the B-29 crate flight was the NEXT DAY, July 9, from Roswell to Fort Worth.

http://www.roswellproof.com/B29_flight_July9.html

Surviving crew members on this flight who were interviewed included Sgts. Robert Slusher (flight engineer), Ernest Lloyd Thompson, and Arthur Osepchook, all of the 393rd Bomb Squadron. All separately agreed a large crate was loaded into the bomb bay under high security, though Osepchook said he never actually saw it. Slusher and Thompson both did see it and also commented it was surrounded by MPs (all officers) who rode in the bomb bay with it, forcing them to fly at unusually low altitude (the bomb bay wasn't pressured).

All remembered one crew member (Lt. Felix Martucci) stating afterward that "We've made history", after recognizing a former classmate of his, an undertaker, greeting the crate in Fort Worth. Thompson remembered recognizing a doctor from the base hospital being on the flight, disguised as a security officer. All remembered the rumors at the base about the crashed flying saucer and later associating the crate flight with the crash, perhaps carrying bodies. Martucci in particular, they recalled, had deduced the crate must have contained bodies from the crash because his undertaker friend had taken possession of the crate at Fort Worth. All remembered being debriefed, told nothing had happened, but not to talk about it with anyone.

Another witness found was Cpl. William Quigley (also 393rd Bomb Sq.), who said he was ordered to stand guard during the loading of the plane, something that had never happened to him before or since. Another highly unusual aspect was that a double curtain was erected around the bomb bay during loading, instead of the usual single curtain used during loading of A-bombs to prevent anybody outside from seeing in. In this case, those standing guard walked the corridor between the two curtains, so they couldn't see inside either. Quigley said they had orders to shoot to kill if anyone unauthorized entered the area.

Slusher, as flight engineer, did indeed need to balance the plane, and commented on this when interviewed. The crate WAS of concern to him. But Brian is confusing Slusher's role with Robert Porter's, who was on a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FLIGHT the previous day, the reason Porter, as a flight engineer, had no reason to comment on something in the bomb bay, because nobody ever claimed anything was transported in the bomb bay. That's another BB made-up "fact".

KRandle said...

CDA -

Please don't associate me with the nonsense that Nazis in Antartica were responsible for the Roswell case. This crackpot idea belongs to others and I used it as an example of how crazy some of the theories are and why there is no need to investigate them. If you look at any of the "facts" about this, you'll find they don't hang together... so, of course, the idea has a zero rating and a zero chance of being the answer.

David -

I really wish you would tone down your comments. I understand what you mean by ignorance, someone who hasn't studied the evidence to the point where there is knowledge of it. I understand that you mean a person is unschool but can, with work replace his ignorance with knowledge. Some will take offense at the word and accuse me of a double standard, which is something I attempt to avoid... and sometimes fail at. There is no rule that says I have to be consistent in my administration of the blog.

KRandle said...

All -

We have strayed far from the point of this post, which is that Mogul is eliminated as the culprit... Sorry, Gilles, but the evidence and documentation is on my side on this. Doesn't mean what fell was alien, only that this particular answer doesn't work.

Flight No. 8 was a special case and was launched in conjunction with a rocket experiment at White Sands, which meant the restricted area was expanded because of the rocket firing. That test was cancelled, but after the balloons had been launched. The second attempt, later in the day resulted in an accident in which, I believe, 13 men were injured by some sort of acid leak, and that attempt was also cancelled. They had to launch the balloons before the rocket so that they would be in position... but, as I say, this was a special case and in no way negates the conclusion that Flight No. 4 was cancelled. It just never flew and the cluster of balloons was made up of no more than a dozen balloons and a sonobuoy... the poor reception in Crary's diary referred to the radio and had nothing to do with radar. This really is a dead issue now.

Brian Bell said...

@ CDA

"Are there any other ideas I have omitted?"

Yes. You forgot "ant men" from the underground world in the hollow earth, and of course human time travellers from our very distant future proposed by Nitram (or shall we say Angela Martin).

By the way, are you still of the opinion that the debris found was an NYU flight or some derivative that fell loose and was not recorded?

Steve Sawyer said...

There is an essential problem with Brian's hypothesis, as Kevin notes above:

If a cloned Soviet B-29 had crashed near Roswell, why would it remain secret even today, with the US Air Force issuing two reports in the mid-90's that the "Roswell incident" was simply Mogul flight #4, with dummies the explanation for bodies seen and recovered?

Mogul #4 never flew, the "dummies" explanation doesn't fly, and most importantly, it would seem that nearly 70 years after the fact, the US government would have no need to cover up a cloned B-29 crash in New Mexico.

If that had occurred, it would have been the best way to explain away all the speculation about Roswell that began in 1978/80, and the Roswell theories that have surfaced over the past 35+ years, thus ending such "extraterrestrial speculations."

Why would the USAF continue to cover-up a Soviet crash even today? The theory, while interesting, seems to me to have no real merit or logic to it. Or, actual evidence.

Brian Bell said...

@ Steve -

Well Steve, we have to admit there's also an 'essential problem' with the ET explanation for Roswell.

It's based on verbal testimony only, most if not all 30 years after the incident, and of course we have no photos, sample debris, alien specimens, official documents, or crashed saucer as physical evidence. Nothing but video interviews, audiotapes, and affidavits of which many reference the event from second or third hand story tellers who's facts don't always match up.

The essential problem is that under the ET hypothesis a person can make up anything they want and claim it is true. You, me, them, anybody.

In fact many did just that. The list of former star witnesses found to have fabricated their stories include:

Dennis
Anderson
Haut (most recently)
Kaufmann
Joyce
Ragsdale

And there are likely others too.

Despite no tangible evidence, people still adamantly believe the event was extraterrestrial. They can't even fathom a terrestrial explanation and loath any suggestion regarding other secret projects possibly being the culprit.

My suggestion above is pure speculation, and yet it is founded on factual information until you get to my clearly labeled speculative comments. We can't say the same for the ET hypothesis.

You also ask:

"Why would the USAF continue to cover-up a Soviet crash even today? The theory, while interesting, seems to me to have no real merit or logic to it. Or, actual evidence."

As I said, there is no actual evidence for a UFO crash with alien bodies. None. Just stories. My theory actually does have 'merit' and it sequentially follows a 'logic' based on other defections, the race for military superiority, and Cold War espionage; all factual events during the same time period.

Why would it not be disclosed? Well, as I said the records have been destroyed just as it was reported. Additionally we all have questioned the robustness of the USAF's official investigation. I don't think the Air Force even cared much about the investigation from the very onset.

In the world of espionage there are many things that have not been revealed to us the general public. There remain records from WWII that are classified to this day. But more importantly if the USAF did know this information, what incentive would they have had to report it in the 1990's? I don't think they care much about UFO buffs, or at least not enough to "get them off their back".

More importantly, would they want to reveal that in 1947 a Soviet bomber actually did penetrate US airspace unchallenged, that it could have carried a bomb and attacked any targeted city, and our Air Force had no idea it was coming? I think the embarrassment factor would be enough for some high level official to tell someone it's still best to leave the story alone.

David Rudiak said...

Kevin,

Heavens, Kevin, I simply said Brian showed obvious "ignorance of the facts" (since he got EVERYTHING completely wrong), not that he was an ignoramous.

Given his MANY monumentally incorrect statements about Roswell, saying he is ignorant of the facts is itself a statement of fact. In this particular instance, he totally confused two completely different plane flights. From this platform of mass confusion/ignorance on his part about the facts, he then launched into a tirade of remarks ridiculing statements about the case by researchers like me or you, a clever way of personally insulting us in an indirect way.

If anybody should be admonished to tone it down, shouldn't it be Brian?

On another note, one of Brian's ridiculing remarks was the notion that MPs would ever possibly be in the bomb bay guarding a crate being carried there, despite this being the testimony of two crew members, Slusher & Thompson. Both men also stated the plane had to fly at low altitude (4000 to 9000 ft) as a result (because the bomb bay wasn't pressured), which was another highly unusual aspect of the flight (normally a B-29 would fly up around 25,000')

However, it is a fact that bomb bays were often used to carry passengers. In the crate flight case, it wasn't out of necessity, but because the guards were supposed to stick close to the thing they were guarding (imagine that), like the other plane flight he got it confused with (Marcel flight to Fort Worth), where the guard rode in the rear cargo bay with the boxes they carried on board.

One of my father's few WWII stories when he was in the AAF stateside doing administrative work is that he and other personnel would have to fly to other bases in bomb bays fitted with chairs and was always terrified of the pilot accidentally hitting the bomb bay door release and everybody falling out. On one PBS radio show I listened to talking about the U.S. POWs imprisoned by the Japanese, when the survivors were flown home at war's end, many of them were placed in the bomb bays. In one tragic instance, my father's fear came true. The bomb bay doors were accidentally opened and the POW's fell to their deaths over the Pacific.

While this is largely anecdotal, you can do Google searches and come up with other examples, such as one Churchill flight (in "Chasing Churchill: The Travels of Winston Churchill") where Churchill and his doctor slept in the main cabin, but, "The rest of the party slept in the bomb bay. ...one senior officer remarked, I hope the pilot remembers he is carrying people, not bombs."

http://tinyurl.com/churhill-flight

And here's another example of passengers being placed in bomb bays at great discomfort:

http://tinyurl.com/1943-flying-magazine

“Nearly every American aircraft to date has confounded its critics by showing itself to be quickly adaptable to nearly every flying task. Consolidated’s Liberator is typical of this capability... Because all the British Liberators were bombers, passengers and cargo were dumped unceremoniously on the bomb bay doors for the 8-to-10-hour flight from Newfoundland to England. To say that the passengers ‘roughed it’ is putting it mildly... They had to wear heavy flying suits because bomber’s bomb bays are not equipped with heaters. Despite the suits, passengers many times came close to freezing.”

But with Roswell, saying guards traveled in the bomb bay guarding a crate brought snorts of derision from Brian, supposedly because no one would or could ever travel in a bomb bay. Reality says otherwise.

KRandle said...

Brian -

Though you doubt that we have done our homework on these alternative explanations, I will suggest your Soviet copy of the B-29 (known as the TU-4 Bull) did not enter service until 1949. It seems unlikely that they would have been flying one over the US in 1947...

Brian Bell said...

Kevin -

That's not correct.

What you refer to is the date when all of the bombers ordered were completed and when they were officially organized into squadrons for active deployment.

What you are forgetting is the fact that those aircraft went into factory production in 1947, several months before July. They began reverse engineering in 1945. Two years later they had them in production. Crews were also being trained using one of the US bombers before 1947 as well.

That's why they flew one of the completed TU-bombers in August 1947 for the world to see. Some were rolling off the production line prior to July 1947. It's all well documented.

Anthony Mugan said...

Good morning Brian

Just a few very preliminary thoughts on ways to test your TU 4 idea if you want to pursue it.

1. There could only have been a vey small number of TU-4 flying by the beginning of July 1947. A total of about 20 were produced by the end of 1947 and they certainly had 4 by the August Moscow parade. It may be possible to identify the exact aircraft produced and what happened to them.
2. These early aircraft were all for test purposes (as Kevin notes it didn't come into operational use until 1949). Where were they being flow in June 1947? Presumably at some test facility but is this identifiable and if so was it in range of Roswell?
3. Only a small number of test pilots / aircrew would have had access to them at this time. We know the first test flight in May was by Nikolai Rybkov - who else was in the unit(s) involved in testing and what happened to them?

More generally
Why would a defecting aircrew choose to go to a destination at the extreme limits of range and try to land at what must have been one of the most sensitive (and hopefully well defended) bases in the continental United States, as opposed, to say, the shortest possible route to a civilian airstrip in Japan, the USA or Canada?
How do you reconcile the fact that western intelligence agencies became aware of the TU 4 after the August 1947 Moscow parades where there was an over-flight by several examples? There doesn't seem to be any indication of earlier awareness of it?

All the above extremely preliminary - but it doesn't sound very likely to me at this stage. It would be fascinating to see if you can take the idea forward with some concrete evidence.

cda said...

Brian:

Although being an ET skeptic like yourself, I do not accept your thesis. I agree any terrestrial solution is preferable to an extraterrestrial one, but we must remember what was actually recovered from the ranch. The descriptions fit balloon and radar reflector debris very well. They do not fit aircraft debris, whether from Russia, USA, UK or anywhere else.

So unless the TU4 dropped some balloon debris in a flight over New Mexico I just do not see how the TU4 can possibly be involved in the case.

The only alternative, it appears to me, is that a TU4 DID overfly NM at that time and have may even crashed in the desert, but that the US military gathered it all up and never left any traces; then they followed this by the 'switch' at Ft Worth and told Brazel to invent a 'balloon story' for the press.

But this takes us into conspiracy theory again, and is the very thing the ET proponents continually tell us. The difference being that instead of an ET cover-up there was a Russian TU4 cover-up.

If the descriptions match balloon/radar target debris, as I am confident they do, then unless there was, and still is, a conspiracy or cover-up for 7 deacdes, your thesis falls and fails.

What is your conclusion over the matter of the bodies witnesses say they saw (or say they know someone who saw them, etc)? Were these bodies Soviet ones, US ones, or were they entirely fictitious? I believe the latter. What is your view?

Yes we can, I think, agree they were NOT ET bodies.

KRandle said...

Brian -

The first flight of the Tu-4 Bull prototype was May 19, 1947.... On August 3, 1947, four B-29-type aircraft participated in a Soviet airshow. Although the original thought was that these were the three B-29s captured by the Soviets, one of those had been disassembled for reverse engineering. Clearly, at least two of those aircraft had to be of Soviet manufacture… which, of course, doesn’t mean that one was available to be flown to New Mexico in June 1947. The range of the TU-4 is about 3500 miles, so, from where did the aircraft take off to reach southern New Mexico and return to its base, or any base of a sympathetic nation? What are the odds that the Soviets would fly one of their aircraft over southern New Mexico in June 1947 in what would be a one-way mission? They knew they couldn’t get it back and there is a good chance that it would crash. If we accept the statements attributed Brazel that he found the debris on June 14, then the prototype was flying over New Mexico less than month later (and if he found it in earlier July, that’s only about six weeks) because they simply didn’t have time to produce more and one source suggests the first of the planes to roll off the assembly line weren’t available in June 1947. Yes, production began immediately, but how many did they have in June 1947, or even the beginning of July.

You’ve done a nice job of diverting the discussion from the fact that Mogul is not the answer by introducing this idea. However, the evidence doesn’t support this, especially when you insist that the material that Brazel brought into Wilcox’s office more closely matched a balloon than a Soviet TU-4. And you overlook the fact that Marcel, Blanchard and Cavitt would have been able to identify the debris of a B-29, even if it was a Soviet copy or that the writing described was not the Cyrillic alphabet, but images that resembled the Chinese or Japanese figures.

My point was always that we looked into these things and found nothing persuasive to lead us to the conclusion that what fell was a Soviet copy of a B-29. We just couldn’t bend the facts to fit that and besides, had that been the answer, the Air Force would have produced in 1994.

The bottom line, however, is that like Mogul Flight No. 4 there is no evidence that the Soviets were responsible for the debris. Speculation about what they could have done or what they had doesn’t make the theory viable. For that you need evidence, not wishful thinking.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

David Rudiak, you are correct about my temporarily conflating the July 8 flight to Ft. Worth with the July 9 flight to Wright Field. It's been a number of years since I read your online Roswell research, which was foundational in the opinion I formed about what happened at Roswell and its official cover-up. Thank you for your clarifications concerning the two flights and for all of the other research data and enlightenment you continually bring to these discussions.



Brian Bell said...

@ CDA:

No worries. As I mentioned it wasn't my intention to claim THIS (a TU-4) is the answer. Merely to point out prosaic explanations can fit if ufologists bother to dig deeper.

Of course Kevin and others claim it's totally impossible as for them my example stretches credulity...but isn't that exactly what Roswell supporters do? Claim aliens landed without any factual information at all? A conclusion rooted in nothing tangible and physically verifiable?

At least my speculative example is based in the reality the Soviet's DID back engineer our B-29 and people did defect in their aircraft. My suppositions have a foundation in some real facts that can be substantiated as a foundation to go on even if totally insufficient.

If we accept what Kevin and David claim about Mogul/NYU - that being no flight could have been missed or launched to account for the incident, and no other balloon debris from something else could account for it (since no records verify it), then we have to ponder the real possibility the NYU project isn't the true explanation. That is IF we accept that no recorded errors exist.

Personally I think the USAF simply gave their best explanation based on what they could find - something "Mogul" seemed to be their "best answer". I don't think they were ordered to lie and coverup anything - they couldn't find conclusive records either!

I can see why Kevin and David deny NYU/Mogul based on what they have examined. But are they right to then claim it can only be an alien saucer crash? I don't think so - other prosaic explanations are possible - hence my purely speculative example of the TU-4 based on aviation facts as a starting place.

I don't know what crashed in 1947 but something did. I think there are many possibilities that might still fit - including the possibility that there could still be errors in the records somewhere. At present it doesn't seem like it. We don't have anything more to go on unless it's found.

Yes the debris still seems to me to be balloon-like material. Hard to miss that fact. I believe the exotic descriptions can be explained.

Bodies? Well we have no proof of any bodies whether aliens, humans, monkeys, or some other creatures. Nothing at all. At the moment there's no real evidence or testimony of bodies that is believable based on the first hand accounts originally collected.

John's Space said...

Kevin,

So is it your theory that since Flight No. 4 didn't fly, the mid-90s investigation (or cover up) chose that flight to explain Roswell since there was no record of where it landed? Of course there wouldn't be because it never flew. So all that they had to do was to fuzz up the issue of the cancelation. It's sort of a weak approach for the government to take but then they did try to explain claims of bodies being reported with dummies for tests that were conducted years later.

cda said...

Kevin:

You might have pointed out, in a semi-humorous way, that the wreckage was transported from Roswell to Ft Worth in a B-29. So what is being proposed in this new scenario is that the debris from a Russian made back-engineered, captured B-29, that flew over the USA and crashed, was flown to Ft Worth in a real B-29, on the way to Wright Field so that the engineers there could presumably re-assemble it (i.e. 'forward engineer' it) into a real B-29 once again. Does this make sense?

Now that would be a real story! Or is it rather off-topic?

Brian Bell said...

@ Anthony

Thanks for the response. These are good questions and quite reasonable. I can't answer them all nor was it my intention to do so.

Let's remember the main thrust of my point was to demonstrate to ET proponents that despite what they claim (or don't want to discuss), they seem never to dig deeper on the prosaic possibilities OTHER than spending energy denying Mogul/NYU.

Sure Kevin looked into V1-V-2 tests, the flying wing, and other balloon reports. But, Ufologists seem to never go further.

After digging into a few alternatives, pro-ET'ers IMMEDIATELY return to the alien scenario while claiming (all along) their explanation is the ONLY possible.

Roswell is stuck - dead in the water - and without Ufologists showing a willingness to dig deeper outside their paradigm, a real answer will likely never be found.

Why not look at a speculative hypothesis? The fact no one has before is clear evidence (to me) they're stuck in a one-answer only world with poor evidence.

>>> Could such a flight be made?

This aircraft was designed to fly a max range of 6200 km or 3347 nm. That range includes 3,000 kg of bombs and a full compliment of eleven crew and all weapons. In this scenario the range would obviously be extended since no armament would be carried including six crew members who weren't needed. Recall that Stalin's plan was to use them as a "one-way" bomber that could strike as deep as Los Angeles without refueling.

From one of the Soviet's arctic staging grounds (Franz Land), the distance is about 7100 km or 3800 nm - a possible flight path considering it didn't make its destination.

But if you leave from
Petropavlovsk air base on the Kamchatka Peninsula, operational since 1939, the distance is 7425 km - also a path.

Surprisingly this path takes the aircraft just north (over) Corona, NM and into Roswell in the EXACT directional path of the reported debris field and "second crash site". This is easily mapped using flight calculators.

>>> What could have caused the crash?

The flight compartment would have been pressurized giving credence to the notion that an internal "explosion" jettisoned a crew member out (not that anyone can prove it). In fact, the Russians documented problems reverse engineering this capability including others. However I would propose fuel may have been an issue (besides technical failure). This was an early production model after all. Problems were also encountered with manufacturing fuel tanks among other things.

It's important to note that some components were stripped from the US B-29's and used in early production models (particularly the one that flew in the parade in August 1947) until adequate Russian made duplicates were available. That's documented too.

Soviet records indicate they had difficulty replicating various parts (like electronics and tires). Russian spies in the US were given the responsibility for obtaining parts and components from surplus US Army material (which they did). Obviously the spy network in the US was very active, and more so than most Ufologists ever discuss or perhaps admit.

>>> Number of serviceable aircraft available in July 1947?

Good question. I'm sure there's an answer. For one to have flown in May 1947 as the Soviet records indicate, construction probably began in early 1947. Of course it only requires ONE to have made the flight. And if a prototype, so what? How many countries would like to get their hands on a prototype of a currently classified US aircraft today? Many I think.

Perhaps...just perhaps, all those rumors of back engineering crashed alien saucers is just a derivative of the truth - the Soviet's back engineered one of OUR bombers!

Then again...it's all speculation.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin - not to beat a dead horse, but....

"If we accept that Brazel found the debris on June 14...."

Unfortunately, Kevin, you've never committed to that - so all of a sudden you are? That raises problems for you in other areas. I'm surprised. You've been an advocate of a July discovery.

"However, the evidence doesn’t support this, especially when you insist that the material that Brazel brought into Wilcox’s office more closely matched a balloon than a Soviet TU-4."

Ok - does that mean you now agree that the debris looks more like balloon material as you state above?

"Speculation about what they could have done or what they had doesn’t make the theory viable. For that you need evidence, not wishful thinking."

We can say the same about the alien hypothesis, right? I think so.

cda said...

Brian:

"We can say the same about the alien hypothesis, right? I think so."

Absolutely right. The ONLY evidence for the ET hypothesis is what a few 2nd- or 3rd- hand witnesses told investigators between 30 and 50 years afterwards. There has never been a scrap of hard evidence to support the ETH. (Hence all the futile hoaxes and phony hardware that some enterprising souls have tried to fool us with, the most recent being those slides).

However, because of the complete lack of even one tiny piece from a B-29 or TU-4 to back up your idea, I think it has very close-to-zero probability. The other missing thing is documentation. Surely there were and are SOME technical papers by those who were involved in the recovery, or those analysists at Wright Patterson. Where are these papers?

Everything of your hypothesis rests on speculation (as Kevin says). The trouble with his and the ET-proponents' ideas is that they too rest entirely on speculation. They must do, for one simple reason: there is no such thing an an ET craft known to science, whereas at least both B-29s and TU-4s ARE known to science.

But ETs are a far more romantic, exciting and 'gripping' form of speculation than foreign-made B-29's aren't they?

Brian Bell said...

@ David -

Since you brought up Churchill in your response, I thought it might amuse you to consider yet another variation of a "one way" flight (I'll bring this back to Mogul and your aliens in a minute).

You realize this WAS the Cold War, right? Were you aware that in 1946 Churchill began a campaign encouraging the US to deliberately strike the Soviet Union by dropping the A-bomb on Moscow? Several sources have verified this. He was advocating to Truman to do this well ahead of the July Roswell incident, and afterwards too.

https://www.icij.org/blog/2014/10/churchill-urged-us-wipe-out-moscow-bomb

I'm sure the Soviets knew this. They didn't have the bomb yet themselves but knew the devastation it would cause. We know the nuclear arms race was a game of ensuring Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), using what Dulles called a strategy of "brinkmanship".

Let's speculate that Stalin, a tyrannical mass murdering dictator, decided to purposely fly one of his new bombers directly at Roswell (our Atomic hub) as means to simply send a message; "We have strategic bombers just like yours - identical in fact - so don't test us or we'll use them." Not a defecting crew, but a bomber on a "one way" mission to deliver a threatening and deliberate message.

Their clone of the B-29 wasn't a secret weapon - so they lose nothing in technology gain other than using a trump card that says "we got them too". In fact, it's just what brinkmanship calls for - letting the enemy know you have power too.

Wouldn't our government hide such a thing at that time, maybe afterwards too? I think so.

If true, would a U.S. President announce to the country they have been lying to us for decades, because the Soviets intentionally flew the equivalent of an attack bomber into our country less the bombs to do the damage?

Now, let's suppose your intergalactic alien friends thought much the same thing.

Did they deliberately crash their saucer to tell us "hey folks we're here!", or did one of those little guys just fall asleep at the wheel and go off the road and crash? Or did he just glance away for a microsecond and fly right through a Mogul array?

You tell me. Better yet, show me an alien hypothesis based on some historical facts rather than questionable decades old testimony from people who embellish and change their stories as time goes on.

While you're denying why this couldn't be Mogul or a Soviet aircraft, please tell me your "second best guess" since Angela Martin states you're willing to consider a prosaic "super secret project" as your alternative.

KRandle said...

CDA -

Just to get this straight, there were some first-hand witnesses who gave testimony about this... if you choose to believe what they said, which clearly you do not. But to suggest only second and third-hand witnesses is inaccurate.

Brian -

On your list of liars, you left out Robert Shirkey and Barney Barnett.

Nitram Ang said...

Brian wrote:

"Personally I think the USAF simply gave their best explanation based on what they could find - something "Mogul" seemed to be their "best answer". I don't think they were ordered to lie and coverup anything - they couldn't find conclusive records either!"

For what it's worth I would agree with you on that BB...

BB continues

"If we accept what Kevin and David claim about Mogul/NYU - that being no flight could have been missed or launched to account for the incident, and no other balloon debris from something else could account for it (since no records verify it), then we have to ponder the real possibility the NYU project isn't the true explanation. That is IF we accept that no recorded errors exist."

Agreed - so what is the answer if KR & DR are right? - there is only one real alternative on the table??

BB further wrote

"I can see why Kevin and David deny NYU/Mogul based on what they have examined. But are they right to then claim it can only be an alien saucer crash? I don't think so - other prosaic explanations are possible - hence my purely speculative example of the TU-4 based on aviation facts as a starting place."

Unfortunately this is not entirely correct - they have not said it can "only be an alien saucer crash" However, based on their decades of research it is fair to say they see that as the most likely answer to what happened.

Finally BB agrees

"I don't know what crashed in 1947 but something did."

If only you could convince CDA...

Regards
Nitram

Nitram Ang said...

Steve wrote:

"Why would the USAF continue to cover-up a Soviet crash even today? The theory, while interesting, seems to me to have no real merit or logic to it. Or, actual evidence."

I think Brian has a point here in that maybe nobody still working at the USAF really knows what happened in July 1947.

Brian's possible explanation certainly appears to be more likely to be correct than the official explanation, particular if he has a correct reading of the Ramey memo (I can't believe I'm actually raising this again) as you could at least have "bodies" with his explanation.

I am not saying that I agree with his hypothesis - and yes, there are a LOT of problems with it - but at least it seems a little more sensible and structured than some of the nonsense written by some of the skeptics...

Regards
Nitram

Nitram Ang said...

Kevin wrote:

"My point was always that we looked into these things and found nothing persuasive to lead us to the conclusion that what fell was a Soviet copy of a B-29. We just couldn’t bend the facts to fit that and besides, had that been the answer, the Air Force would have produced in 1994."

Kevin, I agree that you and your team have done an excellent job in terms of researching the event. I am not convinced that the Air Force did the same during the "review" in the 1990's and accordingly if Brian's explanation was correct it's quite possible in my opinion that they wouldn't have been able to discover this!

All they had to do was give some sort of "boring" solution to it all...

Having said all this, you are correct that Marcel, Cavitt and others would have recognized the "Soviet material" for what it was.

Regards
Nitram

Paul Young said...

Brian Bell...
"6) Fuel loss and weather conditions forced the aircraft to land short of RAAFB. The aircraft attempted to ditch but hit the ground once and bounced leaving portions of the fuselage scattered over the Foster Ranch. Perhaps one crew member was even thrown out of the aircraft onto the ranch due to the impact or faulty decompression during decent (hence the rumors Brazel also saw a body in the debris field).

7) The pilot flew several miles more before crash landing near Corona. The plane disintegrated and despite near empty fuel tanks partially exploded leaving a burn mark and the burnt remains of three or four crew members. Perhaps one even survived."

An entertaining theory...
A replicated B-29, but with the added capability of being able to crash...leave a substantial part of itself behind in the form of debris...then bounce back to being airbourne and carry on for many miles (Incidently, what is the supposed distance between Foster site and 2nd site)...before finally giving up the ghost.

I hate it when these foreign reverse-engineer boffins plagiarise our stuff, and dramatically improve the product.
The Japanese did the same kind of things to us! They turned our Triumph motor bikes into Hondas...

Brian Bell said...

Listen -

I have no proof this happened, and yes, it's speculative just like the ETH. But it's not Mogul/NYU or some other top secret test that can't be found.

It's an interesting conjecture...and...all of the following hotly debated issues would be settled:

1) It reinforces that it wasn't NYU/Mogul.

2) It's an event rooted in real-world historical 1947 events with a tangible earthly origin - a crazed tyrannical dictator.

3) Two crash sites like some witnesses claim...whoo hoo!

4) Initial confusion over what it was since "no one was looking for it" etc.

5) Why there are no official crash reports on file concerning our aircraft.

6) Why crates were packaged and shipped to Wright Field (and maybe even those trucks people claim).

7) A reason why it wasn't disclosed at the time and a cover story was created to dupe the American public.

8) International and diplomatic reasons why top level military personnel wouldn't talk to politicians about it - they might tell the public the Soviets "attacked us" or stir up problems.

9) Exon gets to fly over his two crash sites; DuBose's testimony becomes fact.

10) Truman gets to form a committee - not on aliens - but on how to propagandize a message to the US public about the coming reality of nuclear war.

11) Aliens? Well since Haut's press release incorrectly called the thing a "disc" officials allowed rumors about aliens to continue (even fueled them) as a simple way of scrambling the message concerning the truth. You wouldn't want Johnny writing home to mother that the Soviets just flew a bomber at our atomic base and and every town in America could become Hiroshima.

12) Brazel was held for a few days to be "debriefed" not to disclose what he knew.

13) David's interpretation of the Ramey memo is accurate.

14) All those balloon demos orchestrated by the USAF was part of the ongoing cover-up.

Yes of course there are problems, but no more and potentially less than an ET wreck.

And before it comes up, I'm not suggesting Annie Jacobsen was correct, or that Nazis flew from Antarctica or the moon.

But maybe Jacobsen was "diverted" with some aspect of the truth blended into a fictional story. The same for "reverse engineered" technology. The same for comments like, "let's just say you aren't on the wrong path" concerning investigative direction - meaning "alien = foreign".

Brian Bell said...

@ Nitram:

"...if Brian's explanation was correct it's quite possible in my opinion that they wouldn't have been able to discover this!"

This is reinforced by the fact the Roswell records were reported destroyed in the GAO/USAF investigation. Just more Cold War nonsense lost in the shuffle.

"...Having said all this, you are correct that Marcel, Cavitt and others would have recognized the "Soviet material" for what it was."

That depends on what was left on the debris field. Initially they may have been confused and minds filled with "Saucers and Soviets" (sounds like a title of a book). Later I'm sure they would have known the truth - at least Cavitt. Marcel? Well they kept him in the dark...isn't that the claim? The others? Yes - Blanchard, Ramey, DuBose sure. But they were part of the cover-up, right?

"I think Brian has a point here in that maybe nobody still working at the USAF really knows what happened in July 1947."

Exactly.

@ CDA

Yes I know - more conspiracy. But there are some conspiracy theories that have been shown to have been real afterall.

Nitram Ang said...

Listen Brian

I do like the way you are trying to "link" things together and your theory appears to be thought through rather than just "instantaneous" but there are still problems:

1. There would not have been two crash sights - the crash would have left everything together - the material would not have been spread across a mile or whatever and

2. Marcel, Cavitt and others would have recognized the "Soviet material" for what it was.

Regards
Nitram

cda said...

Nitram (or Angie Martin)

How do you know there were two crash sites? Everyone accepts there definitely was one. Whether there were any others is certainly disputable. Some writers tell us there were three or even four.

Also, how do you know "the crash would have left everything together"? Can you say this about some recent aircraft crashes on earth? Wreckage can and has often been scattered over a wide area.

Yes I agree Marcel, Cavitt etc would, or should, have recognised a back-engineered B-29, TU-4 or whatever.

Brian Bell said...

@ Nitram

You wrote:

"1. There would not have been two crash sights - the crash would have left everything together - the material would not have been spread across a mile or whatever and.."

>>> I don't know about that. We have records that indicate aircraft can create a wide debris field with multiple impact locations. Not every aircraft comes down smack into one spot on the ground.

We have an example from 1963 where a US X-plane (an NF-104A) came down hit the ground, left debris, than broke up into pieces over a quarter of a mile. That jet isn't really that big and much smaller than a TU-4.

- Oh but wait...maybe those claims we saw it on radar and "shot it down" really are correct! (I say in jest but think about it...)

You also wrote:

"2. Marcel, Cavitt and others would have recognized the "Soviet material" for what it was."

>>> Not if what they found was scraps of metal and fuselage ribbing, silver fabric, etc. in small pieces. They may have conjectured it was Soviet or one of their own, but wouldn't get confirmation until the "second crash site" was located....that is if it even existed! By then it's classified.

Nitram Ang said...

CDA quickly wrote

"How do you know there were two crash sites? Everyone accepts there definitely was one. Whether there were any others is certainly disputable. Some writers tell us there were three or even four."

I don't know that there were two crash sites (there are 0 if you are correct and something only "fell").

My comment was made in reference to a comment made by Brian - he thought that "his idea" would somehow allow for a second site...

His (BB) point is that everything doesn't necessarily "come down smack into one spot on the ground" - my point is that usually the stuff is by and large found together and an aircraft certainly doesn't hit the ground and then fly off again for several miles and land (crash/fall!) again somewhere - but no doubt someone will try and prove this wrong too...

Wind Swords said...

We can all pontificate about how a an object could crash in more than one spot (or have pieces fly off) and then have a main crash somewhere else. But there is only one crash site we know of at this point - the Foster ranch. Yeah, a lot of testimony about site 2 (or 3, or 4). But no one can take us to the those sites and say "this is where it came down". Only Brazel and his son could do that. Unless and until we have something more than just testimony that there was a second site (with the really "good" stuff) we only have the testimony of anomalous flexible metal. No craft, no bodies, but lots of paper, rubber, sticks and foil.

As for Mogul Flight 4 - we know for certain that something went up, though it wasn't a full array. We don't know - for certain - what it had or didn't have. The diary entries are not an official history. So it did have a sonobuoy, but does that mean it had no rawins at all? If - and I do mean if - they had attached a bunch of things including a rawin (or 2) in anticipation of a full array launch, would they have bothered to remove them? I am not an expert in this area, but everything I have read here tells me that rawins are basically cheap and plentiful in supply. If that's the case then maybe they were just left on. Why bother taking them off? Now if that happened would they have noted it in the diary/log? It seems very possible to this admittedly non-expert that they could very well have not mentioned it.

As for the belief that the time of the launch and the weather conditions would not have made it possible for the cluster to come down on the foster ranch I have to admit that the evidence is very strong for this conclusion. But it seems to me to not be conclusive. We are talking about weather here and the weather in 1947 to boot. We have winds aloft data for that time, but how accurate is it? Do we have data for every square inch of the area? No possibility of unusual unrecorded air currents to have occurred? Of course the answer is yes. Look, our own weather forecasters today don't get it right and they are using computers, satellites and Doppler radar. So I will admit that it is not probable that the cluster could have made it to the ranch based on the evidence that Kevin et. al. has offered. But it is still *possible*. More possible imho than it was an interstellar craft.

Anthony Mugan said...

Wind Swords
Hello...apologies for the delayed reply. I do agree with you that we need to be very careful about assuming accuracy in the meteorological data where we don't have actual data. For example much of the higher altitude data used by Moore and others (including myself) are an extrapolation from Flight 5 trajectory information.
More fundamentally however I think we can definitively say from the official records that what was released was not equipped as a constant level flight. At that point it becomes certain that the balloon cluster could not have survived long enough to stand any chance of getting anywhere near the required distance.
We can also definitively say that a launch prior to 5am ( and almost certainly before 6am) would have breached regulations from contemporary weather records that we do have. Again a later launch equates to shorter flight time with the extensible balloons they were using at the time due to solar heating.
There are some other certainties that can be arrived at if you want to model an imaginary constant level trajectory. In particular the ascent phase used by Moore would be right for altitude control equipment used later in the project (dribbler valves) but not for the clusters of lifter balloons and ballast release mechanisms in use at the time. This is a bit beside the point as we know it wasn't a constant level flight but using the incorrect ascent model speeds up entry to the stratosphere which turns out to be one of several critical but questionable assumptions in Moore's trajectory.
The key thing though is the physics of what would have happened to a cluster of balloons ( in broad terms, allowing for the imprecision in that term) not equipped with constant level control. Whichever way you look at it leads to a short flight time ( see the NYU Technicak report and various Progress Reports for full details)