tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post3280217344974536181..comments2024-03-18T16:51:50.688-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Roswell and the World in 1947KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-9797808053157684062012-03-17T19:44:52.176-07:002012-03-17T19:44:52.176-07:00David, Anderson's GAO sources' comments co...<i>David, Anderson's GAO sources' comments comes close to my perspective on Roswell. Thanks for posting it. Unlike them, I have no reason to be touchy about ET, and don't exclude it might have been something Mogul-like (domestic, experimental).</i><br /><br />Just for the record, Anderson was on the Jeff Rense show about 10 years ago, and stated that Roswell had all the earmarks of a classic government cover-up. Anderson had been covering the Washington scene for about 50 years by then and had seen his fair share of cover-ups, even exposing a few himself, so he would likely know one when he saw one.<br /><br />His personal opinion was that Roswell was a flying saucer crash, but his mere opinion, of course, is no more valuable than anybody else's.<br /><br /><i>That a CIC special agent (possibly two) accompanied Marcel to the site would indicate something out of the ordinary, most often a crash. Basically, the intelligence officer is there to identify things, and the CIC agents are there to look for signs of espionage or sabotage.</i><br /><br />Blanchard sending out out his top two intelligence officers, one intel, the other counter-intel, would alone indicate something thought to be of considerable importance. Otherwise, you typically send out lower-ranking flunkies to take care of it, if you bother to investigate at all. <br /><br />Obvously they considered someting had happened definitely worth investigating.<br /><br /><i>What set this rolling -- a guess -- was something Brazel said to Marcel at the Sheriff's office.</i> <br /><br />That Marcel and Cavitt went in two separate vehicles likewise indicates they expected to find considerable debris, as Marcel said Brazel described to him at the time, one of the reasons they did investigate, another being the unusual properties of the debris that Brazel either described or showed by bringing samples.<br /><br />Marcel interviewed later never indicated that Brazel brought debris with him, but the Sheriff's family said he did. If the family is correct, then a little of that seemingly indestructible memory foil would certainly pique Marcel's interest, and then Blanchard's when Marcel reported back to him.<br /><br />All Marcel said about this is that he and Blanchard agreed that a craft of an unusual kind must have crashed. He told Marcel to take Cavitt with him to help him pick up as much debris as possible, since Brazel had indicated so much out there, hence Cavitt and the two vehicles.<br /><br />And if Frank Joyce was telling the truth, when he first went to the Sheriff's office, Brazel told him about finding badly decomposed bodies or body parts that weren't human. If that were the case, that would be a super-incentive to investigate with your two top intel people.<br /><br />Again, Marcel himself never mentioned anything about seeing or being told about bodies, though a few witnesses Carey and Schmitt found said Marcel did allude to them briefly. (They were pasty, rubbery, reminded him of Casper the Ghost)<br /><br />In his last interview with Linda Corley, Marcel may have hinted at this when he told her there were some things he was holding back and would never talk about "for the sake of my country." But that this meant bodies, of course, is just my speculation.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-6452700177946747692012-03-17T17:37:27.716-07:002012-03-17T17:37:27.716-07:00I accept that the Mogul explanation was never offi...<i>I accept that the Mogul explanation was never officially regarded as "proven". It was merely regarded as, shall we say, established to a reasonable degree of certainty.</i><br /><br />The lord giveth and then the lord taketh away, ehh cda?<br /><br />No, other than the AFOSI debunking "investigators" led by Col. Weaver who, shall we say, insinuated very strongly that Mogul was the conclusive explanation, no other government agency ever stated it was "established to a reasonable degree of certainty." <br /><br />Kneejerk civilian skeptics latched onto Mogul very strongly and uncritically (seem to love those military authority figures), along with most of the mainstream media (like the N.Y. Times), but never the "government" in general, certainly not the GAO which was charged by Congressman Schiff with digging up whatever documents they could on it. As far as they were concerned, Mogul was bunk, the A.F. was deliberately misleading them and Schiff, but something important did happen, they were sure of that.<br /><br />And then we get Weaver himself in his recent interview talking out of both sides of his mouth, claiming they never said they had proved Mogul, or that what was shown in Fort Worth was from Mogul or came from Roswell. He's right that they never came close to proving any of this, but, shall we say again, when he was writing the report 17 years ago insinuated most strongly they had proven it by carefully cherry picking the evidence, along with some deliberate lying. Remember, Weaver himself said it in the report: they were counterintelligence agents charged with keeping the nation's big military secrets.<br /><br /><i>On looking at the GAO report again, I notice that in an addendum on the Majestic-12 papers they do not explicitly say that these papers are forgeries either. The GAO merely indicate they have "found nothing in our work that contradicts the conclusions by these agencies". Several such agencies are named.<br /><br />But wait a minute: these agencies never explicitly say the documents are forgeries either. They merely say "there is no evidence...etc"</i><br /><br />Basically the GAO report says the searches by all these various agencies, like the FBI, the CIA, the Army, etc., turned up NO documents related to Roswell (except for the one already well-known FBI telegram of July 8 out of Dallas). This was true even of documents that should have existed, but couldn't be found or were deliberately destroyed, such as the Roswell base outgoing communications of that period. <br /><br />Another clearly missing document was the follow-up report that the Cincinnati FBI office was supposed to receive from Wright Field once they had examined the debris being sent there. And what happened to any internal documents from Wright Field? They would have written up something, but nothing has ever been found.<br /><br />And don't you think the Pentagon and Ramey would have wanted some sort of investigation if this really were some sort of colossal PR or base screw-up by key officers like Blanchard and Marcel? What happened with that, other than it never seems to have happened? No, instead, apparently, you leave people with very bad judgment in charge of delivering your A-bomb arsenal.<br /><br /><i>But by a well-known theorem, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.</i> <br /><br />Yep, do you really believe that the Army intelligence, Wright Field, the CIA, etc. really had nothing else on Roswell? There should have been some sort of minimal low-classification paper trail if it really were the nothing incident debunkers claim it to be. <br /><br />E.g., the FBI got a very detailed report back from Wright Field the next month on an obvious hoax disc they sent there for examination. Where was the promised equivalent for Roswell?David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-89348757359831787002012-03-17T17:11:23.435-07:002012-03-17T17:11:23.435-07:00CDA, About 15 years ago, Twitch was kind enough to...CDA, About 15 years ago, Twitch was kind enough to offer me some advice on how to read that kind of rhetoric. Since he appears to be of importance to some skeptics, I wonder why they haven't taken his advice. It was pretty good. <br /><br />I've got some bits of Twitch on language archived:<br /><br />[discussion about the RDR news story]<br /><br />Me "I can't conclude anything about what may or may not have really really objectively happened and who did or said what about it."<br /><br />Twitch: "I can clearly agree with that last sentence! What is the<br />most interesting thing about the press release is the lack<br />of passive voice, apparently, in parts of it. I cannot<br />imagine that Blanchard would let that get out. Yet it did.<br />But all communications until recently, and most of them,<br />were in passive voice. Anyone writing active was in for a<br />stern lecture."<br /><br />Twitch: "I still have trouble sometimes when writing fiction<br />remembering to avoid passive voice since I had to write that<br />way for so many years."<br /><br />I argued with him about passive voice, but he was right and I was wrong.<br /><br />Maybe I'll gather up all the quotes I can as a little Twitch Style Guide to Bureaucratese.<br /><br />I suggest, at least understanding the rhetoric of cya.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-62774202401194208212012-03-17T17:11:23.101-07:002012-03-17T17:11:23.101-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-86090808237206474672012-03-17T15:41:53.290-07:002012-03-17T15:41:53.290-07:00I accept that the Mogul explanation was never offi...I accept that the Mogul explanation was never officially regarded as "proven". It was merely regarded as, shall we say, established to a reasonable degree of certainty.<br /><br />On looking at the GAO report again, I notice that in an addendum on the Majestic-12 papers they do not explicitly say that these papers are forgeries either. The GAO merely indicate they have "found nothing in our work that contradicts the conclusions by these agencies". Several such agencies are named.<br /><br />But wait a minute: these agencies never explicitly say the documents are forgeries either. They merely say "there is no evidence...etc"<br /><br />But by a well-known theorem, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. <br /><br />Time to shut up.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-76055019686779503532012-03-17T13:18:15.050-07:002012-03-17T13:18:15.050-07:00David, Anderson's GAO sources' comments co...David, Anderson's GAO sources' comments comes close to my perspective on Roswell. Thanks for posting it. Unlike them, I have no reason to be touchy about ET, and don't exclude it might have been something Mogul-like (domestic, experimental).<br /><br />That a CIC special agent (possibly two) accompanied Marcel to the site would indicate something out of the ordinary, most often a crash. Basically, the intelligence officer is there to identify things, and the CIC agents are there to look for signs of espionage or sabotage. <br /><br /><br />What set this rolling -- a guess -- was something Brazel said to Marcel at the Sheriff's office. <br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-71875073328378283592012-03-17T12:15:56.469-07:002012-03-17T12:15:56.469-07:00For those wanting to read the June 1995 Jack Ander...For those wanting to read the June 1995 Jack Anderson/Michael Binstein article on the GAO's opinion of what the Air Force “investigators” were doing, it can be found at various newspapers on Google News, e.g., Norwalk CT “The Hour”:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/6wq8ppo <br /><br />Sample quotes:<br /><br />“[The Air Force] issued a short report last September [1994] claiming the debris was part of Project Mogul... <b>Though the GAO is not satisfied with the Air Force's explanation</b>, it has confirmed the existence of Project Mogul. <b>GAO officials add emphatically that no one involved in the audit believes the Air Force is covering up a UFO incident.”<br /><br />“'But we do believe that something did happen at Roswell,'</b> said one source close to the investigation. <b>'Something big.</b> We don't know if it was a plane that crashed with a nuclear device on it... or if it was some other experimental situation. But everything we've seen so far points to attempts on the part of the Air Force to lead anybody that looks at this down another track...'”<br /><br /><b>“'What we have found so far is that the Air Force has not told Schiff the whole truth.</b> But we aren't pursuing the truth, either. All our auditors have done is verify that some of the information given to Mr. Schiff was very wrong. But we may not call it that way in the end, depending on the way you look at it.'”<br /><br /><b>“While our sources say the Air Force has been less than forthcoming,</b> the GAO may not make the case in its upcoming report especially since it might imply that the GAO believes a UFO landed at Roswell. <b>'We will tend to err on the side of not fueling UFO theories,'</b> one GAO official explained.”<br /><br />So the GAO never accepted the Project Mogul theory, thought the Air Force was being less than candid and trying to mislead them and Schiff about what really happened, hiding something, “something big,” but not a UFO crash, also not Project Mogul, but something else. But they weren't going to on-the-record accuse the Air Force of doing this in their final report lest they fuel UFO theories.<br /><br />This does not exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of the Project Mogul theory, much less cda's claim that the “government” accepted it as “proven.” The GAO never endorsed anything, and even admitted to Anderson that they weren't trying to get at the truth either. But they did know that the Air Force was deceiving them and Congressman Schiff about what really happened.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-47445734240509056562012-03-17T11:24:50.272-07:002012-03-17T11:24:50.272-07:00cda wrote:
Sorry Don, but the Mogul theory IS offi...cda wrote:<br /><i>Sorry Don, but the Mogul theory IS officially proven (or established to USAF and government satisfaction anyway).</i><br /><br />Thanks for rewriting history again Christopher. If by the "government" you mean the GAO, which did the 1994/95 inquiry for Congressman Schiff, they never took any "official" position on what happened. They were tasked with finding any pertinent government documentation related to Roswell and basically drew a blank, except for the FBI telegram that was already well known in the UFO community.<br /><br />They printed the USAF OSI peoples opinion, but did NOT say that they agreed with it.<br /><br />About the only thing we ever got on the unofficial opinion of the GAO was an article by columnist Jack Anderson about 3 weeks before the GAO came out with their report. Anderson said the GAO told him the Air Force had been uncooperative and deceptive with them and seemed to be hiding "something big" that was still secret. They didn't think ET crash, but maybe a nuclear accident of some sort.<br /><br />As for the Air Force, head debunker Col. Richard Weaver (ret.) responded in a recent interview that they never said they had "proven" the Ramey photo debris came from Mogul, only that it was "consistent": <br /><br />http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/112957 <br /><br /><i>Q: Would you agree that this Affidavit [by Gen. Dubose] calls into question the use of the ‘Ramey Office photos’ as evidence?<br /> <br />RW--No--That's a trick question. <b>I don't think anybody ever said these photos were "evidence" of anything--other than what Ramey claimed was material recovered from the area near Roswell.</b> The only thing you can say about the photos is that they depict damaged material that is consistent with a Rawin reflector of the type which was used on Mogul flights--as well as weather flights, and also for other purposes. <b>Nobody I know claimed these definitively came from a Mogul flight, only that they were consistent with materials we learned were used on such flights that were known to have been in the area.</b></i><br /><br />Of course, this is a bunch of doubletalk from Weaver, an Air Force OSI counterintelligence agent, self-described to fellow counterintel agent Sheridan Cavitt as one of those people who kept the secrets, and a trained propagandist, but that is what he said. <br /><br />We all know the reality is they were very definitely claiming that the nonexistent, canceled Mogul Flight #4 accounted for the Roswell crash. So cda is right about that, even though Weaver in the present-day is disingenuously denying it.<br /><br />Weaver is right, as I myself keep pointing out, that a simple radar target and balloon by themselves cannot possibly prove Ramey's debris came from Mogul, because as he himself said, the exact same stuff was standard meteorological equipment. They were used on daily weather balloon flights at various places around he country. White Sands weather station used them before V-2 flights to chart upper atmospheric winds.<br /><br />So again, cda, point me to the debris that "proves" Ramey's photo debris came from Mogul, or anything in Brazel's descriptions as well. And I don't mean just a radar target and balloon that could indeed come from anywhere.<br /><br />What I see is the total absence of any debris in the descriptions or photos that would definitively point to a Mogul balloon, such as those hundreds of yards of missing balloon twine or a sonobuoy. As Ramey's weather officer then and in the present has said, that debris could have come from anywhere because it was just a typical rawin meteorological balloon (and personally he DOESN'T think what he saw did come from Mogul).<br /><br />Bottom line, there has NEVER been any "official" "government" acceptance that the Mogul "explanation" was "proven".David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-26840576608336571792012-03-17T09:44:24.754-07:002012-03-17T09:44:24.754-07:00CDA wrote:
"1. Do you think Marcel/Cavitt mo...CDA wrote:<br /><br />"1. Do you think Marcel/Cavitt more or less identified the debris at the ranch when they recovered it?<br />2. If they did not, did Blanchard later on?<br />3. Whether they did or didn'y, why was it necessary to make any kind of public statement (i.e. the press release)?"<br /><br />1. No<br />2. No<br />3. Concerns about espionage. To disinform.<br /><br />"The reason I ask no. 3 is that nobody knew of the discovery except one rancher & two kids"<br /><br />Well, there was Hollis Wilson. We don't know who he talked to about it. We don't know who the kids talked to about it (or had taken some debris to show). The press also says Mrs Brazel was there. Then there is the Chavez county sheriffs department. According to the Roswell Morning Dispatch, Wilcox was not the first sheriff Brazel talked to (his name is in the paper). We don't know who overheard Brazel's account there. Brazel had some contact with KGFL as well.<br /><br />Popping to post-1978, according to Bill Brazel, his mother wasn't at the ranch, but in Tularosa, and Mack drove the kids there before reporting to Wilcox. So, it is possible the story was known in Tularosa (a few miles north of Alamogordo). Bill also said Mack went to the weather bureau in Roswell...so whoever was there may have heard the story.<br /><br />Hypothesis: Brazel at least attempted to interest the Lincoln county sheriffs (it was their jurisdiction and were close by) in the matter.<br /><br />About 1 and 2. All I have is their behavior to go on. What it looks like to me is that everyone involved passed the buck to a higher authority, beginning with Brazel. Wilcox, Marcel, Blanchard, and possibly even Ramey. One does that when the matter is beyond one's ability to deal with or is outside of one's...let's say, one's job description, or area of expertise.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46970553791157461152012-03-17T08:59:31.391-07:002012-03-17T08:59:31.391-07:00Don:
You say you are not an ETHer and you are not...Don:<br /><br />You say you are not an ETHer and you are not a skeptic. I therefore put these to you:<br /><br />1. Do you think Marcel/Cavitt more or less identified the debris at the ranch when they recovered it?<br />2. If they did not, did Blanchard later on?<br />3. Whether they did or didn'y, why was it necessary to make any kind of public statement (i.e. the press release)?<br /><br />The reason I ask no. 3 is that nobody knew of the discovery except one rancher & two kids, and it was made 3 weeks before. There was no likelihood of the story getting out. Brazel had brought it into town but so what? The AF were called in but, again, so what? The public had no need to know about it. The people he spoke to in Corona had never seen the stuff.<br /><br />Therefore why was there any press release at all? Was it a gigantic PR cock-up?<br /><br />I'd like your response as this Haut PR thing is your field of interest.<br /><br />Sorry Don, but the Mogul theory IS officially proven (or established to USAF and government satisfaction anyway). Therefore DR does have to disprove it before he can begin to strengthen the ET theory. He has to destroy each and every possible terrestrial answer to establish ET, since neither ETs nor ET craft are known to science, either then or now.<br /><br />And yes, the stuff in the photos IS what Brazel found (whether Mogul or not) because the scenario DR proposes to counter this is just too preposterous to be credible.<br /><br />By all means, defend the embattled fort to the death.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-86307943570797563762012-03-17T08:15:40.949-07:002012-03-17T08:15:40.949-07:00CDA wrote: "DR tries desperately to disprove ...CDA wrote: "DR tries desperately to disprove the Mogul explanation (and bolster the ET one) by various means: the absence of string, no flight 4..."<br /><br />How devious of him to note the evidence or the absence of it. You should try doing so yourself sometime. There is no need to "disprove" Mogul because it was never proven. It is just another theory of no particular authority.<br /><br />Get a grip, Chris.<br /><br />This dispute, shouldn't be about Mogul or ET, but whether the material described and displayed in 1947 was what Brazel found. The evidence is so far on the side of it not being what he found.<br /><br />If so, the skeptics take a flesh-wound, but nothing serious. They've still got Mogul.<br /><br />Chris, not being convinced the "debris" displayed to be from the Brazel ranch is not the same thing as saying what he found was not Mogul.<br /><br />Both sides of the argument forget that sometimes.<br /><br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-84043933845706467382012-03-17T04:11:31.204-07:002012-03-17T04:11:31.204-07:00This is becoming a case of an "embattled trut...This is becoming a case of an "embattled truth", something defined in the Saler/Ziegler/Moore book. It means the ETHers try desperately to defend their cause as the 'embattlements' they have set up around the case collapse one by one.<br /><br />DR tries desperately to disprove the Mogul explanation (and bolster the ET one) by various means: the absence of string, no flight 4, photo-analysis of the debris, etc. then finds the ONLY way he can explain his case is to posit that TWO stage-managed scenarios were set up by the USAF on the same day in different locations, using two new but different radar targets, with only about 2 to 3 hours between them; and by virtually inserting words into the witnesses' mouths in each place. Absolutely mind boggling! <br /><br />Without this scenario his cause is hopelessly lost. With this scenario it is still alive (just) but is in an 'embattled' state. <br /><br />And he, and Kevin, have to back this up by preposterous claims that because the military can keep certain necessary national secrets for several decades they could easily keep this, very different, secret for 65 years from the scientific world and the general public. <br /><br />And still, I keep reminding these guys, NO hard evidence. None whatever.<br /><br />Dream on!cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-20075083506127325452012-03-16T22:00:04.374-07:002012-03-16T22:00:04.374-07:00Dr. Rudiak,
Thanks for the above. I'll try to...Dr. Rudiak,<br /><br />Thanks for the above. I'll try to consider it but I do see a pretty decent amount of rhetoric that is quite similar to the stuff we have passed back and forth many times with no discernable result.<br /><br />In reference to the analysis of the photos for signs of the tape, etc., what was the source material used for this analysis and is it available online or can it be shared?<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17126066491167579302012-03-16T18:05:04.406-07:002012-03-16T18:05:04.406-07:00(part 2 of 2 response to Lance)
As to your “expla...(part 2 of 2 response to Lance)<br /><br />As to your “explanation” for the absence of hundreds of yards of Mogul twine, remember, the balloons were tied off the main line with high strength nylon line You would have to postulate one balloon, and one balloon only (to match Ramey's singular balloon), tore off the main line at the balloon neck where it was tied, as well as only one radar target that ripped loose, all the rest flew away, the balloons, the parachutes, the radiosonde, the sonobuoy, etc.<br /><br />How does a radar target rip away leaving no string behind unless the knots magically untie themselves or the eyelets where the string is tied to the target are ripped out? But, oops, Brazel described the eyelets, so they weren't ripped out. So where's the string? At the very least, that should still be there even assuming the rest of the improbable scenario of 99% of an already undocumented balloon flying off somewhere else.<br /><br />The best “match” you can come up with for the hundreds of yards of missing Mogul twine/string are represented by Bill Brazel's descriptions 30+ years later of tiny fragments of something resembling nylon fishing line, except he couldn't cut it with a knife. So it doesn't really match nylon fishing line and still doesn't account for 99.99% of the expected missing Mogul line. (I remember another debunker here, Gilles F., also tried to pass Brazel's Jr.s few fragments of “fiber optic material” as a suitable explanation for 100's of yards of missing Mogul line.)<br /><br />This is all rather amusing, since another standard skeptical refrain is that what allegedly “confused” people like Brazel and Marcel was the huge size of the Mogul balloon train. Now you are desperately trying to postulate hardly anything was left behind in order to try to resolve the enigmas of the missing twine and rest of the expected Mogul debris.<br /><br />So in the end, the “scientific” skeptics explain Roswell with a nonexistent Mogul balloon flight that confuses the principals with its huge size, but also simultaneously disappears with 99% of its configuration in order to account for the complete absence of expected debris from a real Mogul crash. Brilliant! Further, it is wrong for me to accuse you of trying to sweep everything under the rug that clearly contradicts a Mogul explanation. <br /><br />Clearly Air Force debunker Lt. McAndrew tried to sweep it under the rug, because he brought up the missing twine question with Charles Moore when he interviewed him. Moore couldn't come up with a reason why it might be missing, at which point McAndrew dropped the line of questioning like a hot potato. The issue was never brought up again by McAndrew or Col. Weaver in their summary statements, because it obviously conflicted with the Mogul debunkery explanation they were trying to sell to the American public. Likewise McAndrew lied about the existence of clearly documented canceled flights #2 and #3, in order to make a case for the equally canceled #4, which McAndrew and Weaver were trying to make into the Roswell crash object.<br /><br />So why the fanatical clinging to an “explanation” that cannot be?-- A nonexistent balloon flight leaving no telltale debris behind, yet in the debunking community, this still MUST be the answer.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17348032075491972322012-03-16T18:00:23.346-07:002012-03-16T18:00:23.346-07:00(part 1 of 2)
Continuing on with Lance's vario...(part 1 of 2)<br />Continuing on with Lance's various questions:<br /><i>Do you have a reference for hundreds of yards of twine or any reference for how the arrays were rigged. I am wondering if there were lots of different lengths of string etc.</i><br /><br />Using the Flight #2 schematic as a model (as Charles Moore did):<br /><br />http://www.csicop.org/uploads/images/si/ros_fig.gif<br /><br />...these early neoprene balloon trains consisted of a central high strength nylon line approximately 600' or 200 yards in length—each of about 2 dozen balloons was separated by 20' of main line and tied off the main line with 14' of secondary nylon line.,<br /><br />So right there you have about 300 yards of high-strength nylon line that was missing.<br /><br />Directly under the balloons and tied off it with string/twine of various lengths were all the other paraphenalia: 3-5 radar reflectors (sometimes, but only one documented N.M. flight in June/July 1947 carried them), all tied to the central line with string, multiple paper or silk parachutes, a radiosonde package for tracking, the main payload (usually a sonobuoy microphone), and finally suspended at the bottom was ballast/altitude control equipment, supposed to be cut off on descent (thus would be expected not to show up at a main crash site). All this adds up to a few more tens of yards of additional secondary line.<br /><br /><i>On the string, I didn't try to sweep it under the rug.</i><br /><br />Nonsensical theories of why it all disappeared, such as your own about it all flying off leaving none behind, are indeed a way of sweeping it under the rug.<br /><br /><i>I can and did mention a few possibilities (alog with CDA:<br /><br />1. That the string became deatched from the portion of debris that ended up on the ranch (only part of the full Mogul array).<br />2.That there was string, Jr. described what sounds like monofilament or wire.<br />3.Perhaps the newspaper account was imperfect or incomplete.</i><br /><br />So to summarize, first of all you skeptics can't produce a single shred of Mogul documentation that Mogul flight #4, the alleged crash object, even existed. There was one note that the planned flight was canceled because of cloud cover, and indeed there is a blank in the flight sequence, along with flights #2 & #3, which were also clearly noted as canceled and also written out of the flight summaries.<br /><br />But even assuming the nonexistent Mogul existed, there was ZERO expected distinctive Mogul debris described as found at the crash site, nor was there any in the Fort Worth photos. So how can the debunkers “know” Brazel was describing a Mogul balloon crash? Instead, we are treated to you and cda producing truly lame excuses why the expected Mogul debris isn't there in Brazel's reported descriptions or in the actual physical evidence, the photos, of which there are several taken at different angles and which can be scrutinized in agonizing detail—still no expected string or “flower tape”.<br /><br />The ONLY things shown in Fort Worth were Ramey's self-described singular balloon and radar target, which his own weather officer, Newton, said were widely used and could have come from anywhere. However, even here, the expected suspension string still tied the eyelets of the radar target seems to be missing. Ramey also denied any sort of instrumentation was found with the singular balloon and target, and Brazel and Marcel didn't describe any either.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-70850991072568867662012-03-16T16:11:39.070-07:002012-03-16T16:11:39.070-07:00Lance wrote:
One question that occurs to me, if I ...Lance wrote:<br /><i>One question that occurs to me, if I am understanding your scenario, is how, if Mogul is not involved, the guys in Roswell knew to go and get a Mogul target with the flowered tape? Isn't that a point against this idea.</i><br /><br />Once again, the "flowered tape" had nothing to do with the cover story. It was just one of several incidental details, like eyelets and Scotch tape, that Brazel described. The "flower tape" only got seized on in the present day by people like Charles Moore and the AFOSI debunkers who wrote the Roswell report. It was never part of the original cover story nor directly tied to the balloon launches at Alamogordo.<br /><br />The real cover story was the idea that radar targets and weather balloons in general explained not only Roswell but all the flying saucer reports. This is all summarized in the following telegram the night of July 9 over on the Project 1947 website:<br /><br />http://project1947.com/roswell/wkzo.htm<br /><br />"WAR DEPT INTELLIGENCE DIV WASHDC<br />SUGGEST SAUCERS ARE RADAR TARGET FOR WEATHER OBSERVATION"<br /><br />And then the debunking demonstrations by the Army and Navy using the radar targets began the next day, one being at Alamogordo, another at Fort Worth.<br /><br />It was only necessary for the guys in Roswell to have a radar target to show to Brazel so he could describe it. Again, the flower tape has nothing to do with. It was the radar target. It may simply have been happenstance, if they had no targets already at Roswell the nearest ones may have been at Alamogordo or the White Sands weather station at Orogrande, that also used them. It would be less than one hour's flight in a Piper Cub to get one to Roswell, and they would have had at least several hours to prep Brazel, whose interview was a full four hours or more after Ramey began putting out the weather balloon story.<br /><br />Did Ramey need to use the same radar target shown to Brazel? Why would he? Radar targets were plentiful. They were demonstrating one at Fort Worth AAF on July 10. If they didn't have one at FW on July 8, again this was the Air Force, and they could have quickly flown one in from a number of nearby places that did use them. <br /><br />At the Alamogordo debunking demo the next day, no mention was made of "flower tape". Instead they said the targets they used resembled the object described by the rancher, so it might have come from them since they had been using so many of them recently. They also claimed that the balloon "radar training" flights at Alamogordo might explain all the reported flying saucers in the region, just like other radar targets elsewhere might explain the saucer reports in those regions.<br /><br />The point was to debunk ALL the saucer reports, including Roswell, using radar targets. Ironically, they weren't trying to cover up the existence of the Mogul flights at all. Instead they were using them as part of this nationwide explanation for the flying saucers. The only Mogul cover story was their explanation that they were using the flights for radar tracking training, instead of their real purpose.<br /><br />There was never any secrecy regarding the existence of these flights, which couldn't possibly be concealed from view anyway. Nor was there anything classified in any of the equipment at the time. The only real secret they were hiding was the purpose of the flights, not the debris. (Hence the story about "radar training") Some rancher could not discern the secret purpose of the flights from the debris, so there was never any real concern about other civilians coming across the balloon debris. <br /><br />Most of these flights carried various ID tags for return, just in case civilians did find debris. An example recorded in Crary's diary was rancher Sid West who found the remains of Mogul Flight #6, launched June 7. He knew to report his find to Alamogordo. Crary's diary records they sent out two guys in a jeep to pick up the debris and bring it back to Alamogordo.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-73606759270051735812012-03-16T16:11:38.258-07:002012-03-16T16:11:38.258-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-41970022750090037612012-03-16T16:08:28.533-07:002012-03-16T16:08:28.533-07:00There is also the well-known Stanton Friedman theo...There is also the well-known Stanton Friedman theorem which states:<br /><br />"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".<br /><br />This means that the absence of flower-tape in the Ft Worth photos is not evidence that the flower tape was not there. It means one of two things:<br /><br />1. The flower-tape is there but is not discernable with the tools we have to examine the photos.<br /><br />2. The flower-tape is present in the debris but was not in the portion of debris shown in the photos (i.e. it is still on the B-29 or left in another room). <br /><br />Even if we could locate another witness who said he or she saw the said flower-tape, it could be refuted in the same way as myself, and other skeptics, do when refuting those witnesses who saw alien bodies. We reject all such claims, so why should ETHers accept as valid any supporting witness claim that he or she saw the flower-tape?<br /><br />See how the arguments go on and on fruitlessly?<br /><br />You need an advanced degree or PhD in crash-saucerology to get to the bottom of this, and even that may be insufficient.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-12600515254629990042012-03-16T15:02:07.020-07:002012-03-16T15:02:07.020-07:00Dr. Ruidak,
Again, in these last posts, I am tryi...Dr. Ruidak,<br /><br />Again, in these last posts, I am trying to sort out and work though exactly what skeptics are trying to suggest happened and I'm not stating definitively my position at this time.<br /><br />I'm also trying to sets aside the rhetorical part of our discussion for short break. We can be back at it like cats and dogs soon!<br /><br />One question that occurs to me, if I am understanding your scenario, is how, if Mogul is not involved, the guys in Roswell knew to go and get a Mogul target with the flowered tape? Isn't that a point against this idea.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-5742825784079505322012-03-16T14:54:20.819-07:002012-03-16T14:54:20.819-07:00Lance wrote:
Additionally the fact that now we hav...Lance wrote:<br /><i>Additionally the fact that now we have to add an additional false radar target (this one apparently with the flowered tape added to it!) to the conspiracy story should cause grave concerns in plausibility.<br /><br />Does it not seem to you that doing this is the very definition of multiplying entities that Occam warns against?</i><br /><br />Well Lance, quite independently in another post I just put up, I also invoked Occam's razor to demonstrate that my hypothesis of two separate fresh radar targets, one in Roswell for Brazel to describe, and another in Fort Worth for Ramey to display, directly and simply accounts for all the loose ends. Same with the the different balloon material described by Brazel in Roswell (also what would be expected for a month-old balloon crash laying in the sun) vs. what was actually shown in Fort Worth:<br /><br />1. Finding of string denied by Brazel and not visible in Fort Worth because fresh targets out of a box never had any string tied to them.<br /><br />2. Brazel describing flower tape, but no flower tape to be found in the Fort Worth photos.<br /><br />3. The pristine clean white paper backing in Fort Worth with no evidence of weathering.<br /><br />4. An intact, slightly weathered balloon in FW, vs. Brazel's "rubber strips", vs. Charles Moore's demonstrations of real neoprene balloons disintegrating to brittle black flakes after only 2-3 weeks exposure to sun.<br /><br />On the other hand, multiple, HIGHLY UNLIKELY assuptions have to be invoked to make a Mogul hypothesis work:<br /><br />1. A totally undocumented Mogul accounts for the crash;<br /><br />2. This undocumented Mogul left almost no debris behind to account for absence of expected debris in the descriptions by principals like Brazel and Marcel. (Your hypothesis Lance, not mine) Simultaneously, it was so large, it supposedly confused the same principles into thinking it was the remains of a flying disc. (standard debunking line of other skeptics, like Dave Thomas or Tim Printy)<br /><br />3. Brazel and Marcel describe the small quantity of debris being rolled into bundles. Yet somehow and for no logical discernible reason, these bundles were disentangled and sorted, such that exactly one radar target with no flower tape shows up in Fort Worth, likewise only an intact balloon and no rubber strips were shown there as well. (A more complete description of what it would take to make YOUR hypothesis work of why the debris in Fort Worth doesn't match Brazel's descriptions)<br /><br />If you think the skeptic's "explanation" is somehow more in line with Occam's razor, then either you don't understand Occam or you can't think logically.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63443499284455773972012-03-16T14:51:13.198-07:002012-03-16T14:51:13.198-07:00Dr. Rudiak,
Perhaps you might reread my narrative...Dr. Rudiak,<br /><br />Perhaps you might reread my narrative above to see that I have NOT made any claims, I just made suggestions...the things I am surmising above may well be wrong. <br /><br />Have you any resource that documents the hundreds of yards of string and the method in which the balloon arrays might have been rigged together?<br /><br />Several of the ideas that you mention above about Mogul flights are contested and I have yet to see a response from you that settles these matters. May I suggest that an attempt to remove some of the rhetoric might make your points more compelling? And yes, I am very aware of my own shortcomings in this area. And anyway we have both done the insults to death with little result!<br /><br />May I ask also where are the source scans of the photos used for your analysis. Do you mind sending them to me so that I can have a look also? I do recall someone claiming to have found some evidence of the flower symbols (Morill?, could that be the name?) but I have never seen good enough scans to make such any determination.<br /><br />Just trying to set some of baggage aside for a few posts!<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-69646621105130994332012-03-16T14:27:27.530-07:002012-03-16T14:27:27.530-07:00(Part 2 of 2)
I will now invoke a favorite overus...(Part 2 of 2)<br /><br />I will now invoke a favorite overused device of the debunkers—Occam's razor, namely if you have two hypotheses to explain something, then the simplest one or one with the fewest assumptions is most likely to be the correct one. Fresh targets out of the box accounts for everything very directly without resorting to any additional assumptions. It is also totally consistent with what primary witnesses like Marcel and Dubose told us what actually happened. In addition, we can thoroughly document that the military was running a debunkery campaign at the time using the radar targets as the catch-all explanation for the new flying saucers.<br /><br />In contrast, a radar target from a Mogul crash requires multiple highly improbable assumptions: <br /><br />1) A totally undocumented Mogul existed but was never recorded, contrary to all other real Mogul flights.<br /><br />2 ) That the undocumented Mogul flight must have mostly removed itself from the crash site in order to account for the absence of what would be expected at a real Mogul crash, such as hundreds of yards of twine and distinctive Mogul equipment, none of which was ever described, in fact denied as existing at the time by Brazel, Marcel, and Ramey.<br /><br />3) And finally, the debris left behind had to be mixed together to be consistent with Brazel and Marcel's accounts of collecting the debris into “bundles”, yet simultaneously carefully sorted into flower tape radar target debris and non-flower radar target debris, or intact, slightly weathered balloon in Fort Worth vs. Brazel's “rubber strips” and month-long weathered “balloon” at Roswell, Lance's “explanation” for why the Fort Worth photos don't match up with Brazel's description or what would really be expected from a Mogul crash.<br /><br />The skeptics also have to account in a LOGICAL way for why such a small quantity of debris would confuse anybody or create such a ruckus. Instead we are treated the logically inconsistent spectable of a huge balloon crash of a giant balloon to confuse the principals, but hardly anything left behind to account for the absence of expected debris. <br /><br />This is in a nutshell is the total absurdity of the skeptical “Mogul balloon” explanation and the desperate lengths they go to salvage it when the gross inconsistencies are pointed out to them.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-77744395210523061152012-03-16T14:23:12.216-07:002012-03-16T14:23:12.216-07:00(Part 1 of 2)
Lance wrote:
Would the new radar ta...(Part 1 of 2)<br />Lance wrote:<br /><br /><i>Would the new radar target(s) you describe have flowered tape on them? Seems supremely unlikely.</i><br /><br />Question unclear, but I'm assuming Lance means the hypothetical radar target I've hypothesized they showed Mack Brazel to describe. If Mogul/White Sands had Moore's reinforced "flower tape" targets and they brought one over for Brazel to view (assuming no such targets at Roswell base), then yes, that could explain Brazel's "flower tape" description, without it being what Brazel actually found. <br /><br />And no, “flower tape” didn't have to be part of a cover story, any more than Brazel mentioning Scotch tape and eyelets on the target. The cover story for the recovered “flying disc” WAS the radar target itself, just like it was for Gen. Ramey in Fort Worth, and the multiple radar target saucer debunking demonstrations that followed in the next few days. The details of the radar targets didn't matter (other than them being “metallic” in order to explain away the saucers seemingly being metallic). See my essay on how the military debunked the saucers with radar targets during and after Roswell:<br /><br />roswellproof.com/militarydebunk.html<br /><br />That the military was running a debunkery campaign was openly admitted in the newspapers, as evidenced by the quotes I have from the papers at the beginning of the essay.<br /><br />The question the skeptics continue to dodge, was why would Brazel describe flower tape, yet no flower tape can be seen in the Fort Worth photos? Lance's claim that they hid away other radar target debris which did have the flower tape and showed only the target without tape is another desperate grasping at straws. <br /><br />For one, Brazel claimed he rolled all the shards of stick/foil debris into one bundle. (Marcel had a similar account in Fort Worth, only he had Brazel collecting the debris IMMEDIATELY, whereas Brazel claimed he was too busy and put it off for 3 weeks.) So if there were more than one target, they would now be all mixed together.<br /><br />But in Roswell and/or Fort Worth when they unrolled the bundle, they carefully separated out "flower tape" radar target debris from "non-flower tape" radar target debris? I've computer reconstructed that radar target in the photos and it adds up to one radar target, not fragments of multiple targets. This was exactly what Gen. Ramey and his weather officer represented—a singular balloon and radar target on display, and all that was recovered at Roswell.<br /><br />So then one has to postulate only one radar target left behind at the Foster Ranch, but then one also has to explain why Brazel describes flower tape on the singular target, but none can be found on the singular target in Fort Worth.<br /><br />Either that or the military carefully disentangled multiple targets, and then displaying only the one reconstructed target with no flower tape, which makes no sense. And all these incredible contortions of logic in order to try to account for the missing “flower tape” in Fort Worth.<br /><br />Now the much simpler explanation that accounts for everything—only one target with no string and “flower tape” in one instance (Brazel) and no flower tape or string and pristine clean white paper backing in the other (Fort Worth)--they took fresh targets out of a box, never tied any string to them, and had Brazel describe one in Roswell, and Ramey displayed another in Fort Worth. That explains everything very neatly, without resorting to drugs and/or magical thinking.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-25556240591074015582012-03-16T13:55:05.236-07:002012-03-16T13:55:05.236-07:00Lance:
How right you are.
The idea of two 's...Lance:<br /><br />How right you are.<br /><br />The idea of two 'stage shows' (as I called them) is so preposterous that further words fail me. But DR may have a response. Anything is possible with conspiracists. They HAVE to account for the total absence of hardware, somehow.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-7718526010778943792012-03-16T13:49:41.642-07:002012-03-16T13:49:41.642-07:00CDA wrote: "What do YOU think is the probabil...CDA wrote: "What do YOU think is the probability that the USAF discovered a crashed ET craft, identified it as such, hid all the hard evidence, and withheld the news from the scientific world, and the public, for 65 years?"<br /><br />I think the evidence points to something that was unidentifiable to those who saw and handled it.<br /><br />I understand why they'd cover-up ET, and I understand why they'd cover-up evidence of Mogul, especially if the bits and pieces of it were in the possession of an unknown number of people in several counties.<br /><br />But to guess at what was or was not shown in Fort Worth, or what was found and what was not there to find on the ranch, is as much speculation as anything you replied to (although I do have some experience route finding in the high desert backcountry).<br /><br />My point is that both the skeptics and ET advocates can accept the debris described in the news stories was not what came down on Brazel's ranch without doing any violence to their belief it was Mogul or ET. But I understand why the skeptics want to hold on to all that balloon and kite material. If I were a skeptic, I'd hold onto it, too.<br /><br />But I'm not, and my interest goes to why the US Army Air Forces would cover-up whatever it was. So, that's another conclusion of mine, that the evidence indicates they did cover-up.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.com