tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post286573717568571073..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Kal Korff Paint Ball WarriorKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger173125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-64543775821080691332018-01-19T11:55:04.895-08:002018-01-19T11:55:04.895-08:00I never said I 100% believed/trusted Korff.....in ...I never said I 100% believed/trusted Korff.....in fact, I detailed some criticisms of his work. <br /><br />Aside from Klass (whom I never considered very objective) Korff was one of the first I remember giving in-depth reasons to be skeptical about some of the principal Roswell "witnesses". (Since his book came out years before Pflock's.)<br /><br />I've added 'Roswell in the 21st Century' to my reading list.<br /><br /><br />09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-22180480391400882432018-01-19T09:50:17.085-08:002018-01-19T09:50:17.085-08:00Sorry, bu Korff invented information and provided ...Sorry, bu Korff invented information and provided nothing of substance or relevance to the Roswell case. If you read through the comments here, you'll see more evidence of this. If you wish to quote a skeptical source, I would suggest Karl Pflock's Roswell: Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe and if you want the latest and what I believe to be the best analysis of the Roswell case, as it stands today, then that would be Roswell in the 21st Century.<br /><br />You don't need to remind me about what I said... I quoted from Corley's book in my latest. It does not cast Marcel in the best light, but it does provide insight into his make up and story telling. All that is quite worrisome, as I have said. But, to understand it all, you need to be aware of it all... Korff and Todd did not understand some of the military jargon nor how the military functioned because neither had ever served in the military.<br /><br />Believe him if you wish, but your theories would be better supported by ignoring him completely and using the better skeptical sources such as Pflock.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63354898116491737602018-01-18T15:14:54.615-08:002018-01-18T15:14:54.615-08:00No, Kal was wrong because Marcel didn't say a ...<i>No, Kal was wrong because Marcel didn't say a word about reading it on TV... rather than relying on the nonsense that Korff wrote, why not read Linda Corley's For the Sake of My Country, which provides four hours of interview by Marcel to get a clear picture of the man. Korff's hate filled diatribe doesn't really provide a proper perspective... In fact, if Korff said the sun rose in the east, I'd go look. You might want to visit the blog Kal Korff is an idiot to get an understanding of him.</i><br /><br />Kal may have been wrong the way he stated it above. But in his book 'The Roswell UFO Crash' he states it this way [attributed to Todd]:<br /><br /><i>"In fact," he [Marcel] claimed, "I wrote the very report president Truman read on the air declaring that Russia had exploded an atomic device." Curiously, President Truman never went on the air to announce the Soviet A-Bomb explosion. Instead the White House issued a written statement....</i> (p. 67; hardcover edition) <br /><br />By everything I've found, that is correct. And I have found no proof that Marcel had anything to do with the issued statement.<br /><br />And let me remind you (since you brought up Corley's interview) that on Martin Willis's show (on 11/2/2016) you say about Ms. Corley's interview with Marcel that he "is saying things that are very disturbing, that suggest that maybe he tended to embellish things a bit". So I think you've had some of the same concerns about him [Marcel Sr.] that I have.<br /><br />My thoughts on Kal? Aside from the fact he came across as a bit self-important/pompous, one big criticism I had is he would reach the end of Person X's testimony and dismiss it by saying it needed corroboration from others. He would get to Person Y's testimony (that seemingly corroborates X's) and dismiss it with the same complaint. And I'm sitting there thinking: <i>Isn't that the corroboration you were looking for?</i><br /><br />I also noticed how he put people who believed Roswell involved an ET through a meat grinder......meanwhile he seemingly accepted (just about without question) those who backed his p.o.v.. (Like Charles Moore.) <br /><br />But I was pleased (at least) to see some critical thinking applied to some "witnesses" (like Kaufmann, Ragsdale, etc) for a change. To me, their story smelled from the get go. <br /><br />Anyway, thanks for your replies.09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-16758347730284681222018-01-18T14:24:03.411-08:002018-01-18T14:24:03.411-08:00Just a point you might have missed... The purpose ...Just a point you might have missed... The purpose of Mogul was classified but what was going on in New Mexico was not. Pictures of a Mogul launch were published in the newspapers on July 10. Charles Moore told me that the ladder in one of the pictures was the ladder he bought in Alamogordo...<br /><br />The name, Mogul, appears in Dr. Crary's diaries, which proves that those in New Mexico knew the name of the project.<br /><br />No, Kal was wrong because Marcel didn't say a word about reading it on TV... rather than relying on the nonsense that Korff wrote, why not read Linda Corley's For the Sake of My Country, which provides four hours of interview by Marcel to get a clear picture of the man. Korff's hate filled diatribe doesn't really provide a proper perspective... In fact, if Korff said the sun rose in the east, I'd go look. You might want to visit the blog Kal Korff is an idiot to get an understanding of him.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-12706423069679504302018-01-18T13:58:54.450-08:002018-01-18T13:58:54.450-08:00"Marcel said he retired from the AF because t...<i>"Marcel said he retired from the AF because they had kept him so busy especially after he wrote the very report that Harry Truman read on TV re the Soviets exploding their first A Bomb." <br /><br />Marcel said that he had been in the service for eight and a half years as well as the National Guard and felt he had a duty to his family, which is not what Kal said here.<br /><br />He didn’t say that Truman read his report on TV, but read it on the air, which is not the same thing. Yes, it’s splitting a fine hair, but one that Kal would be quick to split if the situation was different.Kal continues his rant, writing, "Truman NEVER READ ANY SUCH REPORT on TV. <b>Marcel was also NOT the author.</b> The fact is, Project Mogul was as classified as the ABomb project during WW II. It was one of our top secrets."<br /><br />We know that Truman didn’t read a report on TV, but on the radio, so Kal is wrong. </i><br /><br />But the question is: did Marcel have anything to do with whatever the White House read on "air"/announced? I've never seen any proof that he did. And this avoids that question.<br /><br />And by the way, at least initially, Truman may have not read such a statement on the "air" (anywhere) after all. (Which means Kal is right.) A 9/24/49 article (by A.A.P.) I am seeing in several newspapers just says that "The White House said that the President gave the information to his cabinet this morning." <br /><br />Nothing I am seeing in the archives I am reading indicates the first White House release of this info came via a on-air announcement (via radio or TV). Just a issued written statement.09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-77151738164816619092010-12-19T03:21:34.053-08:002010-12-19T03:21:34.053-08:00cda:
Sure, earth has existed for over 4 billion y...cda:<br /><br />Sure, earth has existed for over 4 billion years. But ETs are far more likely to have visited us in recent times than in the distant past. The closer to the present, the greater the likelihood that alien civilizations arose and progressed, found earth and reached it. Population II systems are said to be metal deficient, so there might not have been any ETs until well after earth was formed. The proliferation of sightings in recent times makes perfect sense.starmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09884942748644499035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-2945398755019936852010-12-19T02:38:45.220-08:002010-12-19T02:38:45.220-08:00DR cannot see that the story about the phone lines...DR cannot see that the story about the phone lines being jammed on July 8 was all part of the military 'cover story'. Since DR assures us that the press were the victims of a grand cover-up, why could not this extra tale of the phone lines being jammed be part of this cover-up? After all, the press, in regards to Roswell, only printed what the military told them to, didn't they?<br /><br />Now you see where this endless argument gets us. Precisely nowhere.<br /><br />DR writes "Similarly he can't believe deep, dark secrets can be kept for decades". <br /><br />It is DR who simply cannot, or won't, realise that there are certain secrets the US military have no control over. This is one of them. Yes they CAN keep their atomic secrets, they CAN keep their secret missiles/planes top secret (provided they don't fly them into hostile countries), but they cannot keep ET secrets, not unless the ETs fortuitously never crash again or decide never to approach our planet again. <br /><br />So I say to DR: Stop kidding yourself. ETs probably have visited us in the distant past. But in the New Mexico desert in 1947? Not one iota of a chance.<br /><br />But I still eagerly await DR's, and Kevin's, hard evidence that they did so.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-13912851016768377252010-12-18T18:40:58.560-08:002010-12-18T18:40:58.560-08:00"Why does somebody who thinks it's all bu..."Why does somebody who thinks it's all bunk spend endless time arguing and belittling the topic?"<br /><br />Well, they have to don't they, you know; given as how it must be especially galling with regard to comfort zones sans imagination when they are confronted with the awful realization that they, by their own 2D definition, must be right every single time... where you only have to be correct once.<br /><br />Where does informed money go?<br /><br />That's the fuel of their artless intransigence and non-informed insouciance, right there.Alfred Lehmberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02028589165474437987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-65720451065220930102010-12-18T18:00:23.687-08:002010-12-18T18:00:23.687-08:00Starman wrote:
Lol, so it's probable ETs got h...Starman wrote:<br /><i>Lol, so it's probable ETs got here in the distant past...If they could get here in the past, why not on a continuing basis, why not in '47 and NOW? You think the evidence for aliens getting here in the distant past is better than for them getting here in '47 and subsequently?? I think the problem with some people in this field is that they don't have the stomach for it. The idea of ET visitors is fine, provided they aren't something we may have to deal with HERE AND NOW. The idea is OK only if they can't traverse interstellar distances or it only happened in the distant past, or won't until the distant future......</i><br /><br />That's about the size of it. Carl Sagan played the same game as do most SETI scientists. Aliens in the distant past or many light years away are OK. Just don't let them get too close.<br /><br />What we see here is classic psychological denial, and denial is rooted in fear. I think many debunkers are scared to death it might be true, hence the endless denial and everything that goes with it, such as arguments so stupid, illogical, and dishonest you would think they would be ashamed to be associated with them.<br /><br />CDA is a good example of this. Why does somebody who thinks it's all bunk spend endless time arguing and belittling the topic? Doesn't he have something useful to do? He strikes me as somebody trying to keep the boogeyman at bay by beating it with a stick and reassuring himself with rant and ritual whenever the absurdity of his arguments is pointed out.<br /><br />If he doesn't believe it, then it never happened. Like he can't believe Ramey might lie to the FBI. So was it really a singular weather balloon and radar target that threw high Roswell officers into a tizzy? That was Ramey's story. If it wasn't the truth-- and I don't know of any debunker today who would argue it was true--then Ramey lied to the FBI, QED. But CDA can't believe it, therefore it never happened.<br /><br />Similarly he can't believe deep, dark secrets can be kept for decades. Therefore Roswell never happened. And never mind many historical examples to the contrary. You want secrets? Just request them from the government and they will hand them right over to you. CDA says so.<br /><br />Latest example, over on ufocon he's arguing that all the news stories about phone lines being jammed into Roswell (or the Pentagon for that matter) following the Roswell press release aren't true because he doesn't believe it. Even what should be undeniable historical fact must be denied if it doesn't fit into his personal belief system. <br /><br />(Maybe he's forgotten or never knew that long-distance phone traffic used to be handled by human operators at manual switchboards instead of automatic switching systems. There was no direct dialing back then. The local and long-distance operators would literally tell the callers that they couldn't place the call at that moment because of a lack of free phone lines into an area.)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-87716584533354140612010-12-18T07:39:07.666-08:002010-12-18T07:39:07.666-08:00There is no real evidence for ETs visiting earth i...There is no real evidence for ETs visiting earth in the distant past (apologies to von Daniken et al). But I would say the likelihood is that they did so, and maybe did so many times. How long has our planet existed? Some 4 billion years. This rather increases the probability that ETs did visit us sometime in the past, doesn't it?<br /><br />Regarding traversing interstellar distances, the ETs would still have had to do so had they come in 1.947 billion BC as if they had come in 1947AD. However, they would have found a rather different planet in those far off days, comapred to what it is today. <br /><br />One big difference is that the ETs would not have endured a lot of blathering earthlings arguing for decades afterwards about whether they did in fact make the visit!cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-31107731403961757822010-12-18T03:29:31.507-08:002010-12-18T03:29:31.507-08:00Lol, so it's probable ETs got here in the dist...Lol, so it's probable ETs got here in the distant past...If they could get here in the past, why not on a continuing basis, why not in '47 and NOW? You think the evidence for aliens getting here in the distant past is better than for them getting here in '47 and subsequently?? I think the problem with some people in this field is that they don't have the stomach for it. The idea of ET visitors is fine, provided they aren't something we may have to deal with HERE AND NOW. The idea is OK only if they can't traverse interstellar distances or it only happened in the distant past, or won't until the distant future......starmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09884942748644499035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-39404251744159619562010-12-15T15:03:34.398-08:002010-12-15T15:03:34.398-08:00My question:
"Where, please, are all the doc...My question:<br /><br />"Where, please, are all the documents, the bodies and the debris after these 6 decades?"<br /><br />DR replies: <br /><br />"The same place atomic secrets are: locked up indefinitely in vaults."<br /><br />No Mr. David Rudiak, they are not. They never were and are not now. They do not exist. They are merely part of your grand fantasy, part of your obsession with 'Roswell was ET'. No such secret would, or could, be kept 'indefinitely' as you claim. You will not acknowledge that this type of secret is TOTALLY different from any of those you bring up in your blog postings. <br /><br />There was no cover story, no lying to the FBI, and no false newspaper story over an event the USAF had absolutely no control over (something you do not address). The ETs could have blown the whole story within hours, maybe minutes, i.e. even quicker than Russia did over the U-2. <br /><br />Fortunately mainstream science knows this and is getting on with the business of looking for genuine evidence of life in space and, even possibly, intelligent life. I wish them well, and hope they are never diverted by the twaddle put about by the Roswell ET believers.<br /><br />Despite the above it is entirely possible, and even probable, that the earth HAS been visited in the distant past by ETs. But by distant past I mean long long before recorded history.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-85225163315421693422010-12-15T13:17:21.514-08:002010-12-15T13:17:21.514-08:00Part 3 (end):
And even if Brazel hadn’t come to t...Part 3 (end):<br /><br />And even if Brazel hadn’t come to town until July 7 reporting a possible crashed saucer, this is still over a day before the press release. Based on how seriously Blanchard and Marcel obviously treated the story (would Ramey’s singular weather balloon and radar target engendered such interest?), likely the “crashed saucer” account would have been relayed up the chain of command, much like Dubose said.<br /><br />The point is, any number of people would have had more than “2 hours” to plan a cover story. There had already been stories and photos in the press about the July 5, Circleville, Ohio, radar target crash perhaps explaining the flying saucer stories, so I suspect military intelligence/ counterintelligence decided to run with that and expand on it, including the use of saucer-debunking balloon demos in the days after Roswell, including at Fort Worth AAF on July 10 and Alamogordo on July 9. UP, INS, and Scripps-Howard newspapers all reported the military deliberately ridiculing the saucers and running an intense campaign to stop all the rumors. <br /><br /><i>4. Where, please, are the all the documents, the bodies and the wreckage after these 6 decades?</i><br /><br />The same place atomic secrets are: locked up indefinitely in vaults. No doubt CDA will argue the public should have unlimited access to these as well.<br /><br />As Larry tried to point out in his excellent posts, atomic secrets are born secret, and can stay secret FOREVER, without a mandatory classification review after 25 years, like state secrets (which can also stay secret forever, if deemed so in the interests of national security). The system developed to protect nuclear secrets was created during the war without any sort of public hearing, unlike the National Security Act of 1947, which officially established the CIA and NSC. The originally super-secret NSA was created by Truman through executive order, again without any sort of Congressional act or public review.<br /><br />I fail to see why the flying saucers, probably perceived by the military and political leaders, as an enormous potential threat to national security, wouldn’t engender a similar sort of instantaneously imposed system of secrecy, much like that set up for atomic energy, not subject to classification review, and completely outside of the public domain.<br /><br />On the other hand, the challenge I lay down to CDA and Gilles was much simpler: show me the documents proving a Mogul balloon crash happened at the Foster Ranch and was recovered by the military. There is no classification here to worry about, and I am still waiting for that incriminating document that proves their case… and waiting, and waiting…. <br /><br />An even simpler challenge was showing us the “flower tape” described by Brazel as actually being in the Fort Worth photos, which anybody can get copies of. At least that might show us a possible connection between what was displayed in Fort Worth and what Brazel claimed he found. But nobody can find it. Even the Air Force debunkers in 1994 had to concede that their mystery supersecret photoanalysis lab couldn’t find it either.<br /><br />And here’s yet another very simple challenge. Put a neoprene weather balloon out in the summer N.M. sun for a month and demonstrate that it would look like the FW balloon in Ramey’s office, i.e., still pliable and mostly intact. Real demonstrations by Charles Moore showed reduction to brittle, black, ash-like flakes after only 2 to 3 weeks such exposure. I also have a photo by engineer Bob Galganski testing neoprene balloon rubber in the sun, showing it turn brown and stiffen up after only 5 hours sun exposure. So how come the balloon in Ramey’s office is in such good shape if it took Brazel an entire month to recover it?David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-13439628647247271512010-12-15T13:11:25.469-08:002010-12-15T13:11:25.469-08:00Part 2:
There is none of Brazel’s “flower tape” in...Part 2:<br />There is none of Brazel’s “flower tape” in the FWST photos. And of course, ZERO documentary evidence that Crary’s June 4 test flight carried radar targets, much less radar targets with “flower tape”. Neither Brazel or Ramey described Crary’s sonobuoy or multiple balloons being found, which would have been the case if Brazel had found the June 4 test flight. Brazel denied finding any string or wire by which the balloon held up the object. None shows in the FW photos either. Where did it go? <br /><br />Why is the balloon in the FW photos still mostly intact, a slightly weathered balloon (the neoprene balloons significantly darkened and decomposed in only a day). But Brazel claimed not picking debris up for an entire month after Crary’s June 4 test flight. Why wasn’t Ramey’s balloon decomposed to brittle, black, ash-like flakes, which would have been the condition of the balloon after a month in the sun. <br /><br />Why did Brazel instead describe all the balloon pieces as small or rubber strips? How could Brazel roll such pieces and strips into a bundle, if they were nothing but ash by then? <br /><br />Why did Brazel deny finding any sort of weather balloon at the end, after claiming he did find a balloon? The weather balloons of Crary’s small test flight would have the same as any other weather balloon.<br /><br />The point is, the story and descriptions by Brazel, what was shown and described in FW, and Crary’s June 4 flight are grossly inconsistent with one another<br /><br />2. Are you really telling us that the USAF (on orders from Gen. Ramey or above) lied to the FBI in their phone call to the Dallas office on the afternoon of July 8 (knowing that the message was going to reach FBI HQ, also knowing that this lie could be blown at any time, showing up the USAF and the FBI as blithering idiots)?<br /><br />Ramey told the FBI that all that was found was a singular balloon and its attached radar target Is CDA arguing that is indeed all that was found?. What happened to Crary’s balloon cluster with sonobuoy? CDA, as is usual in DebunkerDebate, is trying to have it both ways. It was both things simultaneously.<br /><br />Unless CDA wants to argue it was nothing but a balloon and radar target, then obviously the FBI was lied to. And as I’ve pointed out twice before when CDA raised his usual red herring, only two days later J. Edgar Hoover was already grousing how the Army wasn’t cooperating with the FBI and was withholding information on the flying discs. And then there was the Dallas FBI being told that the Cincinnati FBI would be informed by Wright Field the results of their analysis of the “disc” being flown there. But nobody can find any subsequent report to the FBI.<br /><br />But CDA can’t believe the FBI would be lied to, therefore it never happened. How typical CDA. Let’s just let CDA write all the history books. No research or logical reasoning would be required, since CDA’s beliefs alone would determine what really happened and what did not.<br /><br /><i>3. Do you really think Gen Ramey was so clever that he, and maybe others, could fix a plot within two hours or so to cover up something completely unknown to science, and which he had absolutely no control over?</i><br /><br />Why does CDA assume Ramey dreamed the whole thing up on his own or that they had only 2 hours to come up with a cover story? Is it barely conceivable that military intelligence and/or counterintelligence might have come up with this? <br /><br />Back to historical reality. Marcel reported to Blanchard early morning July 8, about 7 hours before the press release from the base, and 8 hours before Ramey started putting out a balloon story. Back in Washington, they were already aware of something important cooking in Roswell, including Dubose’s story of the secret air shipment of debris by colonel courier to Washington, probably on Sunday, July 6, when Ramey was out of town. This would probably have represented debris samples Brazel had brought to town with him.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-26305706755276178112010-12-15T13:07:50.043-08:002010-12-15T13:07:50.043-08:00I wrote:
"What we see here on the part of CDA...I wrote:<br />"What we see here on the part of CDA and Gilles is a lot of backpedaling. To remind anybody bothering to read this, this all began when I challenged CDA and Gilles to produce the documentation that there ever was a Flight #4. Since there is none, they are now forced to concede as much, but are still trying to salvage a balloon hypothesis by claiming some sort of balloon flight still took place"<br /><br />CDA:<br /><i>A balloon flight of some sort DID take place. It is in Crary's notes. I do not care whether it was numbered #4, #3A, #3B or anything else. It DID take place. That is all that matters. Also, it was not recovered, at least not in the official logs. </i><br /><br />It wasn’t numbered anything, since only flights of constant-altitude balloons were numbered and recorded, but ONLY if they actually went up. All that was mentioned in the Crary diary is a smaller test flight sent up after the constant-altitude balloon flight was cancelled by cloud cover. From this, guys like CDA conclude this still MUST have been responsible for the Roswell incident.<br /><br /><i>We do not know what it consisted of. DR says one thing, Moore another. We simply do not know, and never will.</i><br /><br />“DR” says it consisted of a sonobuoy lofted by a cluster of balloons, because that is what Crary’s diary says. “DR” does not invent other equipment, like the debunkers’ radar targets, that Crary doesn’t mention. Crary doesn’t say anything else about it, other than they tested reception of the sonobuoy from the ground and air. They did not need to track or recover such a test flight, therefore it is unlikely such a test flight carried any sort of tracking equipment, such as a radiosonde or radar reflectors, which again Crary doesn’t mention.<br /><br />To say that this test flight carried radar targets is pure speculation, all based on the recovered memories of Charles Moore, caught confabulating about all sorts of things to try to support the Mogul hypothesis. And this is now the whole case of Gilles and CDA: two short sentences in Crary’s diary about a small test flight on June 4. Such fluff seem to constitute “proof” in DebunkerVille.<br /><br /><i>Instead of going over all this again & again, let me put these to DR:<br /><br />1. What do you think the RDR (two reports) and the Ft Worth ST for July 9 are describing? Does it sound like a wrecked craft from an interplanetary/interstellar civilisation or does it sound like something terrestrial, launched from a nearby AF base? If not launched from some nearby base, how do you think it got there?</i><br /><br />It’s called a cover story, like the U-2 spy plane crash in 1960 being called a NASA weather plane that went off course. NASA participated in the cover-up, putting out false transcripts of the pilot’s supposed last moments as he supposedly passed out from a faulty oxygen system. I bet CDA still believes that original story was true as well, since he can’t believe they would lie so blatantly, since they might get caught and be hugely embarrassed. See his comments below about how he can’t believe Ramey would lie to the FBI.<br /><br />How did the debris in Fort Worth get there? Uhhh, perhaps some humans following orders rustled it up and placed it there? <br /><br />They had hours to prep Brazel after Ramey’s balloon story. All they had to do was show him old balloon material and a dirt-common radar target and ask him to describe it. That’s one possibility, and not exactly hard to do. They didn’t even need to show him a balloon, since Brazel had found two weather balloons on his own before this. <br /><br />There are many differences between Brazel’s descriptions and the story/photos out of FW. The FWST and the surviving photos show a balloon and radar target, described by Ramey and his men as a singular balloon and radar target, also confirmed by my computer analysis. A singular balloon and target would weight only a little over one pound, not Brazel’s “5 pounds” in the RDR story.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-76157743273243509072010-12-15T09:53:38.412-08:002010-12-15T09:53:38.412-08:00"What we see here on the part of CDA and Gill..."What we see here on the part of CDA and Gilles is a lot of backpedaling. To remind anybody bothering to read this, this all began when I challenged CDA and Gilles to produce the documentation that there ever was a Flight #4. Since there is none, they are now forced to concede as much, but are still trying to salvage a balloon hypothesis by claiming some sort of balloon flight still took place"<br /><br />A balloon flight of some sort DID take place.<br /><br />It is in Crary's notes. I do not care whether it was numbered #4, #3A, #3B or anything else. It DID take place. That is all that matters. Also, it was not recovered, at least not in the official logs. We do not know what it consisted of. DR says one thing, Moore another. We simply do not know, and never will. <br /><br />Instead of going over all this again & again, let me put these to DR:<br /><br />1. What do you think the RDR (two reports) and the Ft Worth ST for July 9 are describing? Does it sound like a wrecked craft from an interplanetary/interstellar civilisation or does it sound like something terrestrial, launched from a nearby AF base? If not launched from some nearby base, how do you think it got there?<br /><br />2. Are you really telling us that the USAF (on orders from Gen. Ramey or above) lied to the FBI in their phone call to the Dallas office on the afternoon of July 8 (knowing that the message was going to reach FBI HQ, also knowing that this lie could be blown at any time, showing up the USAF and the FBI as blithering idiots)?<br /><br />3. Do you really think Gen Ramey was so clever that he, and maybe others, could fix a plot within two hours or so to cover up something completely unknown to science, and which he had absolutely no control over? <br /><br />4. Where, please, are the all the documents, the bodies and the wreckage after these 6 decades? <br /><br />Kevin: you can help DR with the answers if you so wish.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-26964041943319806862010-12-14T16:42:12.127-08:002010-12-14T16:42:12.127-08:00Response to Gilles, Part 4 (end)
The drawing of t...Response to Gilles, Part 4 (end)<br /><br /><i>The drawing of the cluster number 2 shows us without doubt RADAR TARGETS on the assembly. There is no reason to stop their use when NYU/Watson Labs team came in Alamogordo from East Coast.</i><br /><br />This is how illogical these pro-Mogul arguments get. The planned Flight #2 had radar targets, therefore a totally undocumented flight 6 weeks later MUST have had them as well. <br /><br />By similar reasoning, we know that Flight #8 July 3 had radar tracking, therefore presumably carried radar targets, therefore all previous and following documented flights must have also, including ones within days, since there is no reason not to use them, right? Unfortunately for such speculations, engineering schematics and flight summaries clearly indicated they did not, however reasonable such speculation might be.<br /><br />Similarly ALL documented Mogul flights of this period carried radiosondes for tracking, including the planned #2, therefore so should #4. Yet Moore claimed, with his debunker-perfect 40+ year old memory, that “Flight #4” carried no radiosonde because they didn’t bring a recorder with them. Then he used the supposed absence of a radiosonde to try to explain away how they could have an actual flight, yet never record it (no flight data), while simultaneously claiming they tracked it by radar and visually from air and ground. On such two-faced nonsense is the whole Mogul theory based.<br /><br /><i>And it is really and hightly reasonable, as Moore explained, that such flights, and probably the one of the 4 june, is the flight with which the team had learned that this technic is not possible here (cause the balloons passed out the range of the SR584) and then ML307 were no longer used in subsequent test flights in Alamorgordo, but radio-sondes.<br /><br />On that very reasonnable base, 4 june flight is an excellent candidat for Foster Ranch wreckage and debris testimoned in FWST and RDR Brazel interview newspapers.</i><br /><br />All that Crary’s diary says for the test flight that followed the cancelled constant-altitude flight of June 4 is that it was a sonobuoy hoisted by a balloon cluster to test reception in the air and on the ground. They didn’t need tracking to do such a test, and Crary says nothing about a radiosonde, radar targets, or any sort of optical tracking being involved. Such tracking was only necessary for the constant-altitude flights to see if they were performing properly in their constant-altitude objective.<br /><br />Again, to claim that this June 4 test flight carried radar targets is pure speculation on the part of all the debunkers, not supported by one shred of documentation. It’s all Moore’s say-so, based on his supposed recovered memories, all of which the debunkers treat as absolutely infallible. With DebunkerLogic, pure conjecture turns into certainty. Therefore Mack Brazel, unquestionably, found a balloon flight with radar targets from a June 4 launch.<br /><br />And finally, even a test flight does not explain how even a small balloon cluster of maybe half a dozen weather balloons hoisting a sonobuoy, even assuming it carried radar targets, could reduce itself to no sonobuoy and exactly one slightly weathered balloon and one radar target without rigging and no Mack Brazel “flower tape” by the time it gets to Fort Worth. That is all that is shown in the photos and was also the story that Gen. Ramey and his men put out there—SINGULAR balloon and target, no equipment found.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-50648013497658503112010-12-14T16:39:04.209-08:002010-12-14T16:39:04.209-08:00Response to Gilles, Part 3
But as, already pointe...Response to Gilles, Part 3<br /><br /><i>But as, already pointed by CDA here or myself in another thread on this excellent blog, the real and crucial points are not the numbering system or to label with a number the different flights and tests the historiographical sources show us. That's "secondary" imho.</i><br /><br />What we see here on the part of CDA and Gilles is a lot of backpedaling. To remind anybody bothering to read this, this all began when I challenged CDA and Gilles to produce the documentation that there ever was a Flight #4. Since there is none, they are now forced to concede as much, but are still trying to salvage a balloon hypothesis by claiming some sort of balloon flight still took place.<br /><br />The problem is the USAF debunkers, and then Charles Moore insisted, followed by endless other debunkers aping the arguments, that you had to have a complete, fully-configured, 600 foot constant-altitude Mogul balloon flight, which were the real numbered flights. Much smaller test flights don’t count, typically composed of only a few balloons and no tracking or constant-altitude equipment. According to Moore, these test flights typically involved only 3 to 5 weather balloons hoisting some specific piece of equipment to be tested, not a 600 foot balloon train with 24-28 weather balloons, and supposedly 3-5 radar targets, parachutes, radiosonde, batteries, altitude control equipment, hundreds of yards of rigging, etc.<br /><br />E.g., the USAF insisted that Mack Brazel’s 600 foot across debris field description was a perfect fit for one of these large Mogul trains. Descriptions of “bakelite”-like material by Jesse Marcel Jr. they equated to plastic tubes from the altitude control ballast system. Parchment-like material described by Marcel Sr. was equated to paper parachutes of the large Moguls. But if all that is unaccounted for are these much smaller test flights without altitude-control, radar targets for tracking, no parachutes, etc., then the whole claimed “match” of materials and debris field size falls apart.<br /><br />Not that it really matters, since there are numerous mismatches in the debris descriptions that the USAF swept under the carpet. For example, McAndrew asked Moore about Mack Brazel’s claim that he found no rigging. Could the hundreds of yards of balloon twice, string, etc. have disintegrated in the sun? No, said Moore, and that was the last we heard the issued raised. McAndrew certainly wasn’t going to mention that “little” incongruity in his disingenuous summary. <br /><br />And Mack Brazel’s description of only 5 pounds of debris didn’t help much either. What happened to the rest of the fictitious 600 foot Mogul Flight #4? And how could weather balloon material left in the sun for a month still be described as pliable rubber strips? Again, that can’t happen, since the neoprene material by that time would disintegrate into brittle black ash-like flakes hardly resembling any sort of balloon material anymore.<br /><br /><i>What it is important imho is that 29 may and 4 june,NYU apparatus have been launched at Alamogordo without any doubt.</i><br /><br />“Apparatus” or “test flights” do NOT equal true constant-altitude flights, which were a whole different animal. The reason the lying McAndrew and almost equally lying Moore tried to invent nonexistent Flights #2 and #3, was to make a case for the equally nonexistent #4.<br /><br />Ironically it was McAndrew, not Moore, originally who pushed the idea, Moore instead opting for a small test flight on June 4, not the obviously cancelled “Flight #4”. Then he flip-flopped and insisted it DID require a complete constant-altitude flight, and started championing the nonexistent #4. And here we are 15 years later still arguing over obviously nonexistent Mogul balloon flights, because AFOSI counterintelligence agents and Moore decided to invent them to supposedly explain Roswell.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-4869454418378920642010-12-14T16:34:19.708-08:002010-12-14T16:34:19.708-08:00Response to Gilles, Part 2
Taking into account 18...Response to Gilles, Part 2<br /><br /><i>Taking into account 18 april flight have not been released (no launch), I dunno if it could be the #2. That's why I supposed the 8 may one would be this number#2 (service) because at least something flew, but without possibility to record constant altitude dataes. Or, the 18 april flight is the number#2 because attempt have been made (in the assembly) to obtain constant altitude dataes even if not released. Dunno.</i><br /><br />The real Flight #1 is recorded April 3. The next noted attempt was April 18, but obviously fully cancelled because of wind and instrument problems. The report that mentions this also had an appendix with surviving schematic of the planned Flight #2 included. The report also says they removed the gear and would try again May 8, so whether this was now Flight #2 attempt #2, or Flight #3, attempt #1, I don’t know either. <br /><br />All I know from the documentation is that neither attempt worked because of winds and none of the instruments left the ground. So neither was a flight (even if McAndrew flagrantly lied about April 18). I also know from the documentation that there is no recorded #2 or #3, and it is pretty clear that is because they never happened. And I also know there is similarly no record of #9, because it too was cancelled. And I think I can similarly conclude there is no recorded #4 because it too never came off. <br /><br />Thus Crary’s entry on June 4 of “no balloon flight again” because of cloud cover means exactly that. Crary used “balloon flight” to refer to constant-altitude flights of early June after the main Mogul team arrived June 1. He notes them assembling “balloon flights” on June 1 and 2, failed attempts at “balloon flights” June 3 and June 4 because of clouds, and real “balloon flights” on June 5 and 7, the real Flights #5 and #6. Flight #5 is also specifically noted as a constant-altitude balloon array.<br /><br /><i>Moore counts as #2 the one of the 18 april, 3# the one of the 8 may and 4# the one of the 4 june. He was here in time and place, have decades of experience, so I'm more confident on Moore than any others (myself included^^).</i><br /><br />Yes, Moore certainly doesn’t agree with you or McAndrew of a “Flight #3” on May 29, maybe because he was one of the major Mogul flight assemblers and launchers, and he himself didn’t arrive until June 1 with most of the rest of the team, as noted by Crary. Maybe Crary also calling this only a “flight test” by 2 guys also failed to convince Moore that they were carrying out true constant-altitude flights with a skeletal crew lacking him and most of the other Mogul flight people. So I certainly side with Moore on this one. No fictitious Flight #3 on May 29, and strike two against the disassembling McAndrew of the USAF.<br /><br />However, Moore also wasn’t exactly honest either, since there was no “Flight #3” on May 8, which Moore invented out of whole cloth. Again, cancelled because of winds and the constant-altitude and maybe tracking instruments never left the ground. Only some sort of transmitter test flight took place. <br /><br />And even though Moore’s fake table notes that “Flight #2” of April 18 was a “failed flight” and had “no data”, he doesn’t make it clear that it too NEVER HAPPENED. He still included it in the table as if it had flown, only they never obtained data from it, therefore not recorded. That was just deliberately misleading on his part.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-8116835669304678002010-12-14T16:27:06.992-08:002010-12-14T16:27:06.992-08:00Response to Gilles (More Mogul Madness), Part 1
Yo...Response to Gilles (More Mogul Madness), Part 1<br /><i>You wrote:"So 2 or 3 people from NYU (ambiguous) on May 28, hardly enough to assemble and send up a large Mogul balloon train and then track it properly"<br /><br />Well, it needs only 5 men to launch the inflated balloons, according to NYU TR n°1 p.25, as from the pictures I have, more or less the same number to assemble the balloons. Not an hard task then, taking into account there was people on the place (with Crary, as others NYU came the 28 may).</i><br /><br />But Crary doesn’t say that. He says only two guys sent up the “flight test”. So now you’re inventing more people being involved to salvage a nonexistent constant-altitude flight on May 29, when it is quite clear this was a small test flight of some kind, which is the real and obvious reason it was unnumbered and unrecorded in Mogul reports. Only the large constant altitude balloon flights were numbered and recorded. <br /><br />If they DIDN’T go up, then there are blanks in the numbered flight sequence. That again is the real reason there is no Flight #2, #3, and #4. This argument is about all the games being played by the USAF, Moore, yourself, and, yes, other debunkers to create nonexistent constant-altitude flights missing from the records, the sole purpose being to argue that the nonexistent #4 caused the Roswell incident.<br /><br /><i>If I suggested flight #2 (as service one) was maybe the one of the 8 may, and not the one of the 18 april, it is because the same document is stating about the numbering system (at least for me): p.27 it states that only flight which an attempt to obtain constant altitudes dataes are numbered, but later the same chapter states that are excluded launch failures and test for special gears.</i><br /><br />Yes, exactly Gilles. On both April 18 and May 8, it mentions high winds and the equipment never leaving the ground. What equipment are they talking about? Mainly the constant-altitude control equipment. That is why there is no mention of actual constant-altitude flights in the Mogul reports and tables for these dates. On May 8 you correctly observe some sort of balloon flight still took place, but it obviously wasn’t a constant-altitude flight, not when Crary’s diary notes that the equipment never got off the ground.<br /><br />In the case of April 18, absolutely no flight of any kind happened. Instead a Mogul report says it was canceled because of winds and equipment failure, the reusable gear removed for a later attempt May 8, and the non-reusable, already-filled balloons “cut loose”. Yes balloons still went up, but there was nothing attached and this was no longer a constant-altitude flight. THAT is why there is a hole in the numbering sequence. <br /><br />Despite this McAndrew, a counterintelligence agent of AFOSI, lied in the AF report and claimed there still WAS a Flight #2 on that date. This is the most flagrant example of the lying and deception in the debunkery camp to create fictitious Mogul flights, to support the equally fictitious Mogul Flight #4 on June 4, which Crary’s diary clearly indicates was canceled “again” because of clouds. <br /><br />Moore played a similar game with the May 8 attempt, insinuating it too took place, but calling it Flight #3. And you and McAndrew are playing the same game with a May 29 test flight, trying to turn a simple “flight test” by 2 guys into a full-blown Mogul constant-altitude flight, before the bulk of the Mogul team, including Moore, had even gotten there. It is only when the full Mogul team arrived June 1 that Crary’s diary indicates that the NYU team was indeed assembling “balloon flights”, meaning constant-altitude research flights.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-52511100249971353782010-12-12T07:55:17.085-08:002010-12-12T07:55:17.085-08:00Cda makes a good point. The argument is that ET is...Cda makes a good point. The argument is that ET is not a US (or any earthly) project, therefore, the initiative is ET's and it is not under any nation's control. Neither do we know anything about ET's purpose, mission, psychology. Once ET is in the mix, we can barely speculate with any authority, for which reason cda's point is not unassailable since ET seems content with secrecy, and it fails if it is ET that imposes secrecy rather than the US.<br /><br />I would be expecting comments detailing events, not of our making or in our control, that we have managed to keep secret for decades.<br /><br />Larry has not yet introduced counter intelligence, which is more to the issue than the US system of classification.<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-76439409487245168462010-12-12T05:55:46.136-08:002010-12-12T05:55:46.136-08:00David, one more time, I'm not a "debunker...David, one more time, I'm not a "debunker", I do my best to understand the case sincerly and honnestly. Sorry if I dont reach the same conclusion than yours (An ET spacecraft versus Balloons + ML307).<br /><br />You wrote:"So 2 or 3 people from NYU (ambiguous) on May 28, hardly enough to assemble and send up a large Mogul balloon train and then track it properly"<br /><br />Well, it needs only 5 men to launch the inflated balloons, according to NYU TR n°1 p.25, as from the pictures I have, more or less the same number to assemble the balloons. Not an hard task then, taking into account there was people on the place (with Crary, as others NYU came the 28 may).<br /><br />If I suggested flight #2 (as service one) was maybe the one of the 8 may, and not the one of the 18 april, it is because the same document is stating about the numbering system (at least for me): p.27 it states that only flight which an attempt to obtain constant altitudes dataes are numbered, but later the same chapter states that are excluded launch failures and test for special gears.<br /><br />Taking into account 18 april flight have not been released (no launch), I dunno if it could be the #2. That's why I supposed the 8 may one would be this number#2 (service) because at least something flew, but without possibility to record constant altitude dataes. Or, the 18 april flight is the number#2 because attempt have been made (in the assembly) to obtain constant altitude dataes even if not released. Dunno.<br /><br />Moore counts as #2 the one of the 18 april, 3# the one of the 8 may and 4# the one of the 4 june. He was here in time and place, have decades of experience, so I'm more confident on Moore than any others (myself included^^).<br /><br />But as, already pointed by CDA here or myself in another thread on this excellent blog, the real and crucial points are not the numbering system or to label with a number the different flights and tests the historiographical sources show us. That's "secondary" imho.<br /><br />What it is important imho is that 29 may and 4 june,NYU apparatus have been launched at Alamogordo without any doubt. <br /><br />The drawing of the cluster number 2 shows us without doubt RADAR TARGETS on the assembly. There is no reason to stop their use when NYU/Watson Labs team came in Alamogordo from East Coast. <br /><br />And it is really and hightly reasonable, as Moore explained, that such flights, and probably the one of the 4 june, is the flight with which the team had learned that this technic is not possible here (cause the balloons passed out the range of the SR584) and then ML307 were no longer used in subsequent test flights in Alamorgordo, but radio-sondes. <br /><br />On that very reasonnable base, 4 june flight is an excellent candidat for Foster Ranch wreckage and debris testimoned in FWST and RDR Brazel interview newspapers. <br /><br />Best Regards,<br /><br />Gilles F.Gilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-51419274437557086152010-12-12T05:36:21.767-08:002010-12-12T05:36:21.767-08:00Further to the above, fear of the unknown must pla...Further to the above, fear of the unknown must play a part in this. It is easy to devise a set of rules governing secrecy and top secrecy when talking about events you know about, such as atomic energy and classified missile development. <br /><br />When you are dealing with an unknown phenomenon, what then? For example, would Gen. Ramey or Gen Blanchard really send out armed troops to guard a supposed ET crash site (which site?) when for all they knew several new ET craft and beings were already there trying to gather up the debris from the crash? <br /><br />You can almost envisage a 'Battle of Roswell', unique in the annals of warfare. <br /><br />Instead of a cool, calm and well planned secrecy campaign, I see a frantic, chaotic period in which the USAF would have been totally unprepared. Fear of Russia in '47? Yes indeed, and what about fear of ETs?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-40867955924308909872010-12-12T02:30:40.799-08:002010-12-12T02:30:40.799-08:00To Larry:
"Yes, but fortunately we don’t hav...To Larry:<br /><br />"Yes, but fortunately we don’t have to make up this reason, it is historical fact that this kind of secret can be kept by the US."<br /><br />Are you kidding? When did the US EVER keep "this kind of secret"? By this I mean a visit from an extraterrestrial civilisation. Are you seriously equating an ET visit<br />with the kind of secret you talk about in your post?<br /><br />Your further points are irrelevant, since the neither the US nor any other country has ever had "this kind of secret" to consider. If you doubt me, please provide the documentation to prove otherwise. And if you cannot locate such documentation, your answer will, I suppose, be because it is still top secret! <br /><br />There are secrets the US can control. There are secrets that certain other countries can control, but there are some that NO country can control, namely the visit (whether hostile or friendly)<br />of an ET civilisation. They cannot control meteorite falls, asteroid impacts or tsunamis either. <br /><br />You talk about the thermonuclear weapons affair in Spain in 1966. This is not a secret. If it were, how come you know about it? How come it ever got into the public domain?<br /><br />You are merely telling us of all the domestic secrets that could, or might possibly, be kept, for long periods. You are not looking at the broader picture, broader in the sense that it involves events and intelligent beings that science has no knowledge of.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-8951327483613065692010-12-11T22:37:15.284-08:002010-12-11T22:37:15.284-08:00Part 3.
I go into this level of detail to address ...Part 3.<br />I go into this level of detail to address the incredulity expressed by you and some others that the Roswell secret could 1) belong to only a select few individuals in one and only one country, 2) never be released, and 3) be withheld from presidents, for example. I simply point out that we know for an absolute fact that such a category of knowledge did exist in 1947 and continues to exist. If the US government had UFO related knowledge in 1947 and decided to handle it in the same way that sensitive Restricted Data has been for the last 63 years, then all those features you are so incredulous about would have happened automatically.<br /><br />You also said:…."So you think the country where another crash occurs...would let the US deal with it. Really?"<br /><br />Sure. Again, the handling of crashed, lost, or damaged nuclear weapons (so-called “Broken Arrow” incidents) provides an instructive analogy. When the US had an aircraft accident that deposited the scattered remains of two thermonuclear weapons over the village of Palomares, Spain in 1966, Spain did not try to displace the US from taking the lead in handling the emergency. Nor did they try to obtain the nuclear secrets (RD) that may have been contained in the objects that fell on their nation’s soil. Nor, for that matter, would the US have allowed that to happen.<br /><br />And by the way, this discussion only includes the two systems of secret information that are officially acknowledged in the US. I will leave discussion of the unofficial ones for a future post.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.com