At the
Citizen Hearing on Disclosure, Merrill Cook asked a question that, at the time
was confusing for those of us facing him and his former congressional buddies.
He wanted to know, as near as I can figure now, if anyone who claimed to have
seen the bodies of the alien creatures had mentioned it in 1947. We all
struggled with this as he kept talking about it and we thought of military men who
had seen the bodies but who had said nothing until years later. We didn’t think
of anyone who had talked about it in 1947, or how we could expect to find
anything about that now?
 |
| The committee listening to testimony at the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure in Washington, D.C., May 2013. |
Of
course, a letter or diary that was written at the time would be one way, but
the only diary I have ever found that was reliable was that of Ruth Barnett.
There was nothing in it to suggest that Barney Barnett had seen anything
unusual in 1947. Stan didn’t mention Gerald Anderson, I suspect because he was
flanked by Don and me and he believed we would challenge that. Besides,
Anderson had admitted to faking one document when confronted with the evidence
of that forgery.
I
looked at Don and he looked at me. We both thought of Edwin Easley, the provost
marshal, but I had nothing from him to suggest he had talked about the bodies
in 1947 to anyone. Sitting beside me was Jesse Marcel, Jr., but according to
him, his father had never said anything to him about bodies.
The
one person we didn’t think of at the time was Frankie Rowe. For this
discussion, it doesn’t matter what you think of her tale, and I don’t really want
to hear about Karl Pflock’s “evidence” that she wasn’t telling the truth. We
know that some of his evidence has been debunked.
 |
| Frankie Rowe |
Anyway,
according to Rowe, her father, a fire fighter with the Roswell Fire Department,
told her, and the family, that he had gone out to the crash site, and that he
had seen the bodies of the alien creatures. Rowe said that her father described
creatures as small and hairless.
This
would have answered the question for Cook. Someone who, in 1947, talked about
the alien creatures. One of the fire fighters, when interviewed several years
ago, also mentioned that Dwyer, Rowe’s father, had told him, in 1947, some of
what he had seen.
Granted,
this is testimony gathered years after the event. Granted, it is all second
hand. It does, however, answer the question as posed. Was there anyone who
talked of the alien creatures at the time, meaning in 1947? The answer is, “Yes.”
Sometimes,
we all get lost in the weeds. Neither Don nor I thought of Frankie Rowe in
front of that committee. It would have been nice to have her sitting at the
table to say, “Yes, my father told me about them that very night.” It would have
been a powerful moment.
One
that we lost.
I know you have your detractors and Roswell isn't a part of the UFO cannon that interests me very much. Nevertheless, I've been reading your blog for several years and respect the way you've become scrupulously balanced in the way you present your thinking.
ReplyDeleteYou might be kicking yourself about losing the moment, but you shouldn't. It could have felt like a personal victory and still have been lost in the overall 'noise' of reportage on the Citizens' Hearing.
Rightly, or wrongly, Rowe's account would remain as hearsay and you, I and anyone else must draw our own conclusions according to our personal standards.
This is why I think the Ramey memo, and developing the analytical techniques for testing it is potentially important. Your own work, Kevin, has shown how open to multiple interpretations much of it is, on a straightforward approach to reading it. DR's work around quite in depth analysis of specific words may well be a way forward, particularly if this could be quantified or automated in some way to reduce the subjectivity involved.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise it's a bit like the discussion of pre Arnold reports of disks...all the claims were actually made much later although the reports claim the presence of bodies at the time.
I thought Glenn Dennis also made this claim, about his nurse friend, whatever her name was, who saw the said bodies.
ReplyDeleteBut you could always have cited the MJ-12 documents. I'm surprised that Stan Friedman, who still fervently believes them to be authentic, didn't press this point. Why didn't he?
Ah, but Anthony, haven't you already decided that Rudiak is correct in his "analysis" of the memo and his "victims" claim is proven?
ReplyDeleteBy testing, do you simply mean finding other words around Rudiak's dubious claim that you already accept as written in stone.
This is the same kind of foundation that most UFO claims rest upon.
Lance
Just following up on an earlier post - part of the problem with Dr Randle's blog is that a number of parties don't answer the hard or maybe "awkward" questions...
ReplyDeleteCDA - You probably don't think anything happened at Roswell (LOL) but let me ask you two questions... if it could be proven that the word "victims" is the missing word (100% proven of course) in the Ramey memo - would that change your thinking in terms of the project mogel explanation?
Second question - If Project Mogel goes down - what would you next guess be for what happened in Roswell in 1947?
Lance - you can have a go at both questions too if you like...
Nitram Ang (is this an anagram ?):
ReplyDeleteThe word 'victims' NEVER WILL be proven to be the word DR claims it is, unless and until the original 'Ramey memo' is located (an infinitely improbable happening).
Nothing of significance happened at or near Roswell in July 1947. That does not mean nothing at all happened - just nothing important enough for umpteen researchers/authors over the last 32 years to have spent their time and energy on.
Hi Nitram,
ReplyDeleteI seems to me that the hard question is how to stifle laughter at the basic Roswell claim that a crashed saucer JUST HAPPENED to look just like foil paper and balsa wood sticks!
But to deal with your questions--a single word on a memo can't, among sane people, explain anything as complex as Roswell. The "victims" claim comes from committed conspiracists. It isn't confirmed, although you would never know that from reading the ham-handed and pseudoscientific puffery that comes attached to it. It's simply wishful believers looking into clouds and seeing castles.
The funniest thing is to read the supposed sentences tortured out of the memo by various UFO buffs (all of them different, of course but somehow all just as valid!) and pretend that these odd constructions approach English (even military English) communication.
I think skeptics have nailed the explanation of what was found on the ranch with Mogul. The explanation is falsifiable but thus far holds up. The objections to Mogul rely on conspiracy thinking only, some of which could be valid but none of which can be proven as valid.
Some of the anti-Mogul rhetoric is simply made up as when Rudiak regaled us with reams of learned prose about how long neoprene takes to decompose in the sun in New Mexico. While he was busy writing his elaborate multi-part "explanations" he didn't realize that we had actually done the experiment which showed without question that Rudiak's embarrassing posts were completely and hilariously wrong.
I suspect that much of his other work in this "field" is of the same quality as when the buffs claim that they can tell you precisely where a ballon will travel using imperfect and limited data.
You might ask them if they have confirmed their expertise by actually launching a balloon and successfully predicting its landing place. Yeah, not so much...
So, I hope that answers your questions at least from one skeptics viewpoint.
Lance
CDA said "The word 'victims' NEVER WILL be proven to be the word DR claims it is, unless and until the original 'Ramey memo' is located (an infinitely improbable happening)."
ReplyDeleteYou may well be correct, however you might like to re read my question slowly and carefully...
if it COULD (emphaisis added) be proven that the word "victims" is the missing word (100% proven of course) in the Ramey memo - would that change your thinking in terms of the project mogel explanation?
This is a yes or no question, but you will no doubt provide more info - but please start with a simple "yes" or "no" :)
Please note it is not that relevant where the proof comes from (lets just assume for the case of the question that we have universal acceptance that we have 100% proof) and please don;t ask what the proof is otherwise your simply dodging the question...
Secondly (and this is a little frustrating also is that you haven't answered the second question really at all which is
" If Project Mogel goes down - what would you next guess be for what happened in Roswell in 1947?"
Again, I don't have proof, but even the airforce in the lengthy report states Mogel is only the "probable" solution!
Hello Lance
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately you haven't really answered the questions like cda...
So, if you accept the word "victims" then you still "bet your life" on project mogel?!?
What if Mogel is rejected... even you have hinted at this possibility in earlier posts... and if I concede the "alien explanation" as a hoax then where does that leave us Lance?
Something crashed - but it has to be Mogel or can you offer something as an alternative?
So Mr. Randle,
ReplyDeleteDid any of the disclosure lectures address the Socorro find from about 4 years ago?:
http://paulingblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/linus-pauling-and-the-search-for-ufos/
Or was it only about more recent cases?
Lance, leading with his chin, wrote: (part 1 of 2)
ReplyDeleteI think skeptics have nailed the explanation of what was found on the ranch with Mogul. The explanation is falsifiable but thus far holds up. The objections to Mogul rely on conspiracy thinking only, some of which could be valid but none of which can be proven as valid.
The "explanation" was falsified 65+ years ago by the "conspiracists" who prepared the Mogul records. The records alone PROVE there never was any such Mogul balloon. The alleged missing Mogul #4 of June 4, 1947, which the AFOSI debunkers claimed caused the Roswell incident, was instead said to be cancelled because of cloudy weather, just like the attempted launch was the day before of another constant altitude balloon. (For aircraft safety and also for their own ability to carefully track the balloons and monitor their progress, the CAA forbade them from launching in cloudy weather.)
In Mogul records, this is also shown by the removal of #4 from the sequentially numbered Mogul sequence, just as the earlier #2 and #3 are NOT there because they too were cancelled because of high winds and equipment failure. (Despite this, the AFOSI resurrected these ghosts flights as well, creating a new table insinuating they too had flown, listing "landing sites" as "unknown" in order to bolster the existence of the equally nonexistent #4.)
Instead, Mogul records show Flight #5 from June 5 as the FIRST "successful" constant level flight in New Mexico. #5 is likewise listed as the FIRST New Mexico AF research balloon flight in NASA's history of flight and an official AF history. (So where is #4, which Mogul engineer Charles Moore claimed was at least as successful as #5 when he claimed winds were "exactly right" to get it "exactly" to the Foster ranch?)
Flight #6, 2 days later, was considered an unsuccessful flight because the altitude control equipment was damaged and the balloon went straight up to high altitude and came straight back down again after balloons started prematurely popping. As a result, it didn't travel very far.
It was a failed flight, but it is still in the flight summaries, unlike #4. Also, like #5, the schematic and the plot of the trajectory is in the project summaries. Why? Because the balloon actually went up with its equipment and was tracked from beginning to end. It was also recorded that they sent two guys out to recover the remains after rancher Sid West quickly reported it coming down on his ranch.
But "Flight #4?" Written out of the summaries, no trajectory, no schematic, no reported recovery or recovery site, no nothing. Same with #2, #3, and #9. Why? They were all cancelled flights. There is no data to record if nothing went up. (It's really pretty simple for people with real skeptical thinking abilities.)
So the entire Mogul hypothesis comes down to a documented cancelled flight and one sentence in the diary of project scientist Albert Crary that after cancelling the constant altitude flight, they used a cluster of balloons to carry a sonobuoy microphone to test reception of the mike from the ground and air.
This was NOT a constant altitude flight, carried no constant-altitude gear (which was the very definition of a Mogul flight and required by the AF debunkers to allegedly match debris at the Foster Ranch), and would not need to be tracked, therefore required no tracking gear, like a radiosonde and radar targets, which like the other cancelled flights would have been stripped off for reuse. Such a balloon would not have stayed up long nor gone too far (being more like the failed #6). Even this non-Mogul balloon flight could not have reached the Foster ranch. And even if it had, the debris or lack thereof (like the sonobuoy) would not have matched.
part 2 of 2 response to Lance on Mogul as an "explanation" for Roswell:
ReplyDeleteHowever, to point out these totally reasonable if not absolutely fatal criticisms of the Mogul Flight #4 hypothesis results in pseudoskeptics like Lance labeling such criticisms as "conspiracy thinking." That's all Lance has in the end is his insults, since he can't argue the actual FACTS. That and his magical thinking that a nonexistent balloon flight can explain anything.
CDA -
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of argument, let's say that the Ramey memo said, "Victims of the wreck." Let's say that there was no question about that, and everyone agreed on that interputation. What would be your response?
Lance -
Here's something I know for a fact. There was no flight no. 4. I know this because a NOTAM for the flights were required and there was no NOTAM for flight no. 4. What does that do to Mogul?
Dr. Rudiak,
ReplyDeleteI notice you didn't quite meet the character limit in your second post. You want to tell us all about neoprene in the New Mexico sun again?
==
Note that the "only" one sentence in Crary's diary that Rudiak mentions is precisely one sentence more of supporting contemporaneous evidence than the pro Roswell conspiracists can muster. As you see, the actual real evidence is an anathema to Roswell enthusiasts because every single piece of contemporaneous material: the photos, the newspaper accounts, the base records, etc. ALL wreck their mythology.
Note also the disingenuous way that Rudiak says #4 doesn't exist because it wasn't an official flight. Does #4 being an official flight mean anything in relation to the Mogul explanation Of course not. This is just more puffery. Call it whatever you like, the flight was the same kind of stuff that we see in the Fort Worth photos (confirmed by the star Roswell witness to be the same stuff picked up at the ranch).
Rudiak again regales us with his knowledge of how far a balloon will travel in the wind. And he does so the flying saucer way: by simply asserting it.
This is the same tactic that is used by UFO and conspiracy buffs everywhere. Their claims are crank science for many reasons but chief among them is the idea of unfalsifiability.
These guys have NO DOUBT about their claims. And this on the surface reveals why the general response amongst scientists and most any open minded person is, correctly. laughter.
A debate would make short work of this. It is easy to show the silliness of the Roswell myth to folks who haven't already made up their minds.
Lance
Kevin, do you have NOTAMs for every other flight?
ReplyDeleteThanks,
Lance
Lance & cda :
ReplyDeleteYou will note that my questions to you both, have been made very simple. Part of the reason is to avoid any immediate debate with your "friends" Dr Randle & Dr Rudiak, who may have quite strong views on the Roswell issue... (I can hear the laughter from here)
So, can we just keep it simple for now... "the important thing is to determine the truth not to define it" - perhaps we could all agree on this point.
So, Lance, maybe answer the question that KR put to cda
"For the sake of argument, let's say that the Ramey memo said, "Victims of the wreck." Let's say that there was no question about that, and everyone agreed on that interpretation. What would be your response?"
It would be much appreciated if you could answer my second question as well...if there is an answer!?
It's important if we are going to get anywhere to stay on course.
Nitram,
ReplyDeleteThe context of the phrase, as well as content itself would be important to provide an answer. For instance, Let's say the sentence read, "The "disc" was nothing more than foil paper and sticks so of course, there were no victims of the wreck."
You see the issue?
So again, asking my response to a disjointed phrase is meaningless. I don't have any problem with the phrase itself, the methodology used thus far to sell the phrase is what I am suggesting is erroneous.
As to the second question, we have a proposed solution that fits the data available. The idea that balloon and radar target debris is what was picked up at the ranch seems well established, I would be surprised if Mogul could be ruled out and I would hope that any such new information might answer more questions.
From my perspective, the stuff in the Ft. worth photos IS Roswell....Marcel confirmed this multiple times.
So whether the debris came from Mogul 4 is much less important than the idea that Roswell is sticks and foil paper.
Best,
Lance
Lance wrote:
ReplyDelete“I suspect that much of his other work in this "field" is of the same quality as when the buffs claim that they can tell you precisely where a ballon will travel using imperfect and limited data.”
No. Again, you’re not understanding the technical argument. No one I know of is claiming “that they can tell you precisely where a ballon [sic] will travel using imperfect and limited data” except Charles Moore.
What is possible to calculate, with reasonable probability, is where it won’t go. If you don’t think very deeply about the problem, you probably wouldn’t understand the distinction.
Let me give you an analogy you might understand. Suppose I go down to my local airport in Palo Alto, CA, and fuel up my Cessna 172 and file a flight plan to Honolulu, HI. I take off to the West, and 5 or 6 hours later, when I don’t show up in Honolulu, where does the Coast Guard send the C-130s to look for the wreckage? They don’t go to Hawaii which is maybe 3000 miles away. They go about 800 miles offshore and start flying a more or less circular search pattern. Why? Because they can (and do) compute that the likely range of a fully fueled C-172 is about 800 miles. That is a factor of between 3 and 4 too small to make it to Hawaii. They don’t know precisely where I did go down, but they do know with very high probability that is was not very close to Honolulu. The reason for this is that there was not enough energy on board the airplane to make it that far.
Similarly with the balloon train that was released on June 4, 1947. It did not stay high enough long enough (and therefore harvest enough of the wind energy) to make it all the way to the Foster Ranch. The reason we know that is that it did not contain a "level-flight" mechanism that would have been necessary for it to do so.
This argument relies on well-known principles of Physics (well, maybe not well-known to you) and has nothing whatsoever to do with “conspiracy thinking” or how long neoprene takes to decompose in the sun in New Mexico.
Lance wrote :
ReplyDelete"The context of the phrase, as well as content itself would be important to provide an answer. For instance, Let's say the sentence read, "The "disc" was nothing more than foil paper and sticks so of course, there were no victims of the wreck."
You see the issue?
So again, asking my response to a disjointed phrase is meaningless. I don't have any problem with the phrase itself, the methodology used thus far to sell the phrase is what I am suggesting is erroneous."
Lance, I think you are looking for problems rather than seeking solutions.
If the phase reads "victims of the wreck" then this seems to indicate something more than a simple crash of a mogel balloon does it not?
We would not expect there to be "victims" of a weather balloon crash and therefore you seem very reluctant to answer a simple question with a yes or no.
The word "victims" doesn't prove anything of course - but it seems to indicate that there is something more to the story.
OK Lance try these two questions - surely you can give me a yes or no answer.
Would you like to be proven wrong? - would you like it to be proven that the crash in Roswell 1947 was a spaceship from another world?
Would you be able to say to DR & KR - "you were right and I was wrong"?
Lets keep it simple - yes or no...
Lance wrote :
ReplyDelete"As to the second question, we have a proposed solution that fits the data available. The idea that balloon and radar target debris is what was picked up at the ranch seems well established, I would be surprised if Mogul could be ruled out"
Lance please forgive your surprise and let us accept for a moment that mogel is RULED out (however unlikely that may be) do you have an alternative and if so "what is it" please?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNitram,
ReplyDeleteOk.
Yes and a balloon from another source (perhaps a regular weather balloon rather than Mogul, again the evidence of a balloon is what we have in spades).
Larry,
One of the most obvious traits of a conspiracy theorist is an inability to see any problems with their elaborate ideas. They build unassailable edifices in their minds. I see the same in your pretense that the lousy weather data and the myriad of other unknown factors about this possible flight are known to you in perfect clarity.
It's hilarious that you are telling me all about the characteristics of a flight that Rudiak denies even existed!
Moore simply said that his track was a possible one. So you misrepresent what he said (typical of your fellow conspiracy buffs). What is the stated margin of error for Dr. Rudiak's work? I don't know but I would suspect that there isn't one.
Several other folks have done estimates that show the Foster ranch as a possibility. But these estimates have to be ignored because Moore, Tim Printy and others are evil liars and must be ignored.
Again, this lame argument comes from the same folks who insist that a crashed flying saucer JUST HAPPENED to look indistinquishable from foil paper and sticks!
Such a golden shining edifice...
Lance
Hello all...This could be quite a long post so it may end up split in to sections...
ReplyDeleteKevin...would you be able to expand on the NOTAM point you made - this isn't something I was aware of previously.
Lance - re: Ramey memo. Suspect this is just a semantic point. What I was thinking about was how to develop a methodology which could be applied generically to test fuzzy text (and therefore it's accuracy determined) which would then help a general reader assess the evidence regarding the Ramey memo without having to spend many hours doing detailed measurements etc themselves on it. As we've discussed outside this site it is possible to use the geometry and spacing of the characters (in a limited number of parts of the memo in my opinion) to identify, for example, characters with a left hand vertical such as a D, E or F etc, or central verticals such as an I, T etc. In places you can also detect a centrally position join of lines such as a V or Y. This then leads us to something very close to Dr Rudiak's analysis of the VICTIMS word in which the range of possible words can be severly constrained. Clearly from your perspective I could be either biases, making operator errors in my measurements or both. Hence my suggestion, which I didn't fully explain, that there could be advantage in attempting to automate or systematise such a process, if anyone has the relevant expertise.
Mogul hypothesis - now we get to the meat of it...I shall follow up in a separate post...
The Mogul Flight 4 hypothesis and Dr Moore's model...
ReplyDeleteFirst of all in terms of methodology there would appear to be some quite fundamental errors in some previous posts in this discussion.
We have a specific proposed model for the Flight 4 (I shall use the term for convenience) trajectory, developed by Dr Moore. Any model is a simplification of reality and will always contain assumptions. it is possible to test a specific model and to see if it is, in principle, both possible and conceptually valid. This later point is important. Anyone can come up with a set of calculations that get a curve to fit a certain set of points. My old research supervisor would disparagingly refer to this as 'curve fitting' and insist of challenging us young post-grads on the conceptual validity of our various attempts at modelling various phenomena.
If a specific model is shown to be falsified that does NOT mean that there are no ways to modify the assumptions in that model to produce the desired result. Any such modification must be conceptually valid, however.
in this case we are dealing with a situation in which we have some data (e.g. lower atmospheric winds) that is reasonably good and some moderate data (extrapolation of upper atmospheric winds from Flight 5 data the following day, for example), and some uncertainty such as the precise lauch time and precise specification of the balloon cluster launched. We also know precisely the regulations imposed on the project around launch conditions for the time period.
With this data we can assess if Dr Moore's model is, in principle, possible or not. We can then also make an assessment of if it possible to get a different set of assumptions to produce the desired result (TBC)
Testing the Moore model
ReplyDeleteThere are quite a range of assumptions in the model. I shall not consider all of the here, just those that appear significant.
a) Flight 4 was a constant level balloon flight and equipped as such. This is necessary as otherwise the balloon flight would be radically shorter
b) The flight was launched at around 2.30am. This is necessary to allow sufficient flight time in the stratosphere as the extensible balloons used at the time tended to burst from solar heating quite quickly.
c) The cluster ascended into the stratosphere - necessary to pick up stratospheric winds to bring the cluster back towards the west.
d) The ascent phase followed an idealised smooth trajectory. This is necessary to secure entry to the stratosphere early enough for the westerly leg of the journey to both long enough and avoid the cluster being taken to far to the NE by the strong upper tropospheric winds.
Comments:
a) A constant level balloon? Unlikely as cancelled flights were generally stripped of equipment for obvious reasons. Crary's diary describes something which sounds closer to Flight 8 in specification. This is clearly not precisely definable at this time and therefore the Moore model survives this test.
b) launch time - The available meteorological data strongly indicates cloudy skies at the launch site (all the data for this is on David Rudiak's site but I have also crossed checked all calculations personally for all of this. The data clearly indicates a clearing trend from 40% altostratus in the small hours to 'scattered cirrus' at the launch site by possibly as early as 5am (assuming the maximum windspeed credible from the relevant data for the relevant altitude bands) The project was restricted to launches only in clear skies and at least three miles visibility. A launch at 2.30 am would therefore have clearly breached the regulations for launches. In the 1946-47 period only one project launch occurred before dawn. this was Flight 8 which was unusually equipped and aimed to pick up the sounds of a V2 rocket test. This point essentially falsifies the Mogul hypothesis and fits more closely with Crary's diary (which implies a release after 6am if it was written chronologically). Is there a remote possibility that the project could have breached their own regulations - this must be considered an extremely remote possibility. The Mogul hypothesis would therefore normally be rejected at this stage but as we are dealing with 'extraordinary claims' lets push on and see if Moore's model is credible at later steps...
TBC
Testing the Moore model, part 2
ReplyDeletec) Ascent into the stratosphere.
The most successful (in the project's own evaluation) of the early flights which used the type of equipment we are discussing here was Flight 7. In this scenario a set of lifter balloons detached at 35,000 feet causing a loss of lift and a small descent before pressure variation led to a release of some ballast, causing a small ascent. Gradual loss of pressure in the balloons combined with periodic releases of ballast produced oscillations in altitude, all within the troposphere. If Flight 4 behaved in this technically perfect fashion it would have been carried far to the NE by tropospheric winds.
Flight 5 has two possible scenarios, one similar to that for Flight 7 but the project evaluation preferred the second scenario, given the recovery location, in which a premature release of ballast may have occurred so that the loss of lift when the lifters detached merely slowed the ascent but didn't actually stop it until the cluster entered the stratosphere. it is essential that we assume a similar minor malfunction for Flight 4 as the cluster had to get into the Stratopshere to be brought back towards the West (and slightly south) by the lower speed low stratospheric winds. This is of course a possibility.
d) Rapid and uniform rate of ascent. it is important that the flight gets up to the stratosphere quickly, as the upper tropospheric winds were quite strong and taking the cluster rapidly away from the desired location. Moore uses a uniform ascent rate that was achieved on later NYU / mogul flights that used different altitude control equipment (gas release valves) that gave a more uniform reduction in lift. This flight characteristic was never achieved (and if you read the project documentation was understood not to be expected) with the clusters of lifter balloons used up to Flight 7 as a stop gap measure until the valves were ready.
There are three broad scenarios - the cluster detached and ballast worked correctly. This is as in Flight 7 - this doesn't work for the model though as discussed above. The second scenario is that the lifters fail (they did so several times probably due to cold affecting the electrical components). This always led to a rapid continuing ascent (good) to a very high altitude followed by catastrophic failure as balloons ruptured and an equally rapid descent with a short overall distance covered (total failure for the model in this scenario). The third scenario is that the lifters detached but a similar malfunction occurred in the ballast release as in Flight 5. This is possible and gets the cluster into level flight in the stratosphere as desired but does not allow for a uniform ascent. Lift must be reduced to get the cluster to level off at a sufficiently moderate altitude to avoid catastrophic failure and this therefore must lead to a slower ascent after 35000 feet. This blows Moore's model totally as there is no way around this one as far as I can see.
Moore's model is therefor falsified. Does this falsify the overall Mogul hypothesis? Not yet...we need to consider if any alternative set of assumptions (within with wide range of uncertainties in the data) could be applied that could work...
TBC
Redesigning the Flight 4 trajectory?
ReplyDeleteis it possible to adjust, within the limits of the available data and physics, the assumptions of the model?
For some aspects we could do some tweaking. We might slightly adjust relevant wind speeds etc (I think I'm right in saying Moore did include a 10% increase in stratospheric winds compared to flight 5 data already) but the possibilities are marginal for the tropospheric winds as they have the best data and are actually quite significant for whole model.
We might want to assume tight isobaric curvature, changing the tropospheric wind direction north of the launch site, but there is no evidence for this from the Flight 5 data the next day and if anything the curvature would be expected to be more the closer to the centre of the low pressure (as these winds were towards the NE the cetre of the low would have been to the NW and not have passed over by the following day, so if anything Flight 5 should have been the one to show this effect. No joy there...
Basically I can't think of how to rescue the model. A point to be aware of is that the various assumptions I've discussed (plus some other elements - see DR's site) are cumulative in effect, each one brings the estimated landing point closer to the Foster ranch. if we strip out the clearly incorrect launch time and ascent rate the gap we have to bridge becomes just too wide.
Therefore the Mogul hypothesis as a whole is falsified.
Does this prove that a 'flying saucer' crashed at Roswell? No, but I am running out of alternative ideas
Nitram:
ReplyDeleteShould it be proved (how?) that the word "victims" or even that the whole phrase "victims of the wreck", is indeed correct, I would consider that Ramey was more likely writing the draft of a SF novel than that it was a memo about a crashed spacecraft recovered from the NM desert.
The former would partly explain why he was holding the scrap of paper in his hand in front of the camera, and not keeping it strictly hidden (as ETHers insist everything was, and still is, top secret).
The alternative is that "victims of the wreck" refers to something else, i.e. an event that happened earlier that summer. There is no visible date on it, and nobody really can say to whom it is addressed or from whom it came. (Of course some people such as DR like to THINK they can decipher who and whom, etc).
As to what I would propose as the solution if Mogul was thoroughly disproven, there are other possible balloon launches (I do not know exactly where) accounting for the debris described at the time. It may even have been the debris of TWO separate launches, one of which landed very close to the other but on different days (or nights). Perhaps Mogul 4 accounts for part of the stuff and another launch for the rest.
The only reason ETs ever came into this tale is that Friedman/Moore/Berlitz proposed the idea in their book in the first place, 32 years afterwards. The witnesses themselves never said a thing about it in the intervening period. Then suddenly all hell broke loose with Marcel's 1979 'revelations', etc. Believe this if you wish.
It was also Moore/Berlitz who knew what Ramey's memo contained, WITHOUT needing any optical equipment. (Look at their book and see). He tells how the said memo was simply the script of Ramey's talk on radio, which followed shortly after.
Question: Is Bill Moore's eyesight the best of any human being who has ever lived?
I hope you now consider I have answered your questions; because if not, everyone is very bored with this constant bickering and endless repetition of the arguments, on both sides.
But I'll finish with repeating what I said: Nobody is EVER going to decipher this scrap of paper with certainty, so idea is laughable anyway.
CDA...
ReplyDeleteOne of things that has puzzled me for many years is the logic underlying the extreme sceptical view point which is that the Bayesian prior for the ETH is zero (in other words there is no possibility that any reported UFO sighting could be of extraterrestrial origin).
We know now that the number of potentially inhabitable worlds in our galaxy alone is into the billions. We know from the fact we exist that the probability that an advanced civilisation will emerge on one or more of those worlds is not zero (although it could well be very small indeed). We know that most (95%) of those worlds are older than earth by an average of 1.85 billion years, with some 5 billion years older (possibly even more given recent data). If any other advanced civilisations have emerged they are very likely to be very significantly older than ourselves therefore.
We also know that interstellar travel is very difficult, but appears not to be impossible (Projects Orion, Deadalus, Icarus etc.) Numerous studies have been made on Von Neumann probes, diffusion at sub-light speeds etc etc and of course theoretical possibilities exist and are being actively pursued at the moment for more exotic propulsion possibilities.
Nowhere can I see a factor that requires a Bayesian prior of zero. In any one case the prior probability that an event is actually a device of extraterrestrial origin is clearly very low...but zero...?
In terms of the Ramey memo it should be possible to develop an approach based on precise measurements of letter forms etc that can be measured against 'test' documents in terms of accuracy (one would need to be able to define the degree of clarity of the document in some way). That could in principle give a quantifiable analysis of the Ramey memo...quite beyond me technically but it may one day be possible?
Anthony Mugan:
ReplyDeleteThe problem is not so much the likelihood of interstellar travel nor the likelihood of an interstellar race visiting the earth. I am not talking about these.
The whole essence of the Roswell case, ET craft and alien bodies is not whether such an event COULD occur, but whether if it did occur the craft, bodies and documents relating thereto would still be classified top secret and withheld from science and the public for 65+ years. THAT is the inherent weakness of it all.
The ET proponents insist time and again that in no circumstances are we, the human race, 'ready' to receive this information. Nor are the academic and scientific fraternity. Hence the great cover-up. But it is merely a pathetic excuse these ET proponents use to promote their thesis (as per these recent US hearings). If the evidence aint there, someone high up has to be concealing it.
Do YOU subscribe to the idea of a long cover-up (65 years now!) of perhaps the greatest discovery of all time?
I have re-iterated this point over and over. So I rest my case.
Anthony:
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Wilbert Smith, of Project Magnet fame, was in the 1950s advocating the same 'official cover-up' ideas. He was besotted with this idea. Trouble is he went too far, claiming to have actually handled fragments from a crashed UFO in 1952 (as if he would ever have been allowed to!)
CDA
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary I think it would be very wise indeed for governments to minimise discussion of this topic. Personally my curiosity gets the better of my better judgement in terms of my own participation in this debate.
Haven't got through all the Smith stuff so I'll defer judgement for the moment on that one
They pick over endless, indeterminant and utterly inconsequential Roswell myth minutiae while ignoring the fact that "UFO" crash and conspiracy theories have been integral to the "UFO" collective delusion from its inception in 1896. And the fact that the Roswell narrative conforms to a folklore archetype and that "crashed spaceship" iterations existed in various locations prior to 1947 must be lost on those who would consider this paranoid nonsense seriously for even a moment.
ReplyDeleteRoswell means nothing or is laughable? No sorry,the fact is, when it is in relation to the military investigating it does matter. Do they investigate ALL weather balloons,if it was "nothing" would they bother to check it out. But i am not getting into a debate on Roswell's validity as pertains to ufo's. However there is so much now from our own improving technology,which will always be 2 steps ahead of what we are told if not more. Add in the radar operatives/private,commercial and military,pilots/police/multi site,multi person sightings. And the discovery of planets that are highly likely to house life. Add in ancient astronaut theories and related evidence, like old texts and old gods. There is vast amounts of evidence and logic that suggests alien life exists. Does it visit earth?,here the issue is that with certain objects observed in our skies, either it is secret vessels created by "an" nations military and vastly exceeds what we are led to believe. Or it is rebuilt spacecraft from found craft or from recently crashed craft. Either way there is "a" secret. If it is technologies way ahead of what we believe is available,why is it we can't even know they are earth made? If it is extra terrestrial, we all need to know now before it is too late.
ReplyDeleteBarry Mead,
ReplyDelete"Do they investigate ALL weather balloons,if it was "nothing" would they bother to check it out"
Perhaps not all weather balloons, but evidently the military was interested in Mogul balloons, and by the nature of Mogul's mission, the military would have been interested in "all" Mogul balloons. By mentioning "Mogul", I sense epileptic seizures emanating from certain quarters of the debate participants.
" And the discovery of planets that are highly likely to house life."
Highly Likely? Perhaps more accurately it's a distinct possibility based on certain conditions.
" There is vast amounts of evidence and logic that suggests alien life exists"
Again possibility vs. probability. The "vast amounts of evidence" tends to rest on the disjointed and at times that bordering on the absurd.
With the above said, it's all possible, but as of this current time period, it appears lacking of probability. Truth? Oh, the truth is out there, but whose truth?
Part1
ReplyDeleteLance, you’re just flinging feces around and hoping that some of it sticks.
To address your points, more or less in order:
“One of the most obvious traits of a conspiracy theorist is an inability to see any problems with their elaborate ideas. They build unassailable edifices in their minds.”
There was an obvious typo in your sentence. It should have read: “One of the most obvious traits of a DEBUNKER is an inability …….”
And,
“I see the same in your pretense that the lousy weather data and the myriad of other unknown factors about this possible flight are known to you in perfect clarity.”
I’m using the exact same “lousy weather data” that Charles Moore and--by extension, you--claim is good enough to have gotten the balloon train to the Foster Ranch. Why is the weather data acceptable when you think it confirms your prejudice but not OK when used to refute it?
“It's hilarious that you are telling me all about the characteristics of a flight that Rudiak denies even existed!”
You’re reading comprehension doesn’t appear to be very good. Rudiak as well as Crary—the guy who was the field project leader and wrote everything down in his diary—both say that there was a balloon train released on Jun 4, 1947. It just didn’t have one of the constant altitude devices on it. That’s why I specifically used the terminology, “the balloon train that was released on June 4, 1947” so that we don’t waste time on debating what to name that flight.
“Moore simply said that his track was a possible one. So you misrepresent what he said (typical of your fellow conspiracy buffs). “
And the idea that the track he worked out was a possible one is a falsifiable premise. And furthermore, if the balloon train that was released on June 4, 1947 did not have a constant altitude device on it, it is not only falsifiable, but actually false. See Anthony Mugan’s discussion.
“Several other folks have done estimates that show the Foster ranch as a possibility. But these estimates have to be ignored because Moore, Tim Printy and others are evil liars and must be ignored. “
Unlike you, I don’t give a crap whether they are evil or saintly; that makes no difference to the physics of the case. If they assumed the presence of a constant altitude device on the balloon train, then their results should not be ignored, but should be rejected as mistaken.
Part 2
ReplyDelete“What is the stated margin of error for Dr. Rudiak's work? I don't know but I would suspect that there isn't one.”
Actually, I haven’t seen an error analysis by anyone, including Charles Moore. This is one reason that Moore’s analysis would not have passed peer review, if it had been submitted for publication in a refereed journal. He made up one trajectory and on that basis claimed that it was possible the balloon could have made it from Holloman to the Foster Ranch. Somewhere along the line, without introducing any new data, the assessment went from “possible” to “probable” to, I suppose, 100% certain, in your mind.
The way this kind of analysis would be done professionally would be with a Monte Carlo simulation. In this model, the balloon train has a certain ascent rate, when released. The wind has a certain speed and direction, as a function of altitude. The balloon stays aloft for a certain time and then descends at a certain rate. Each of those physical processes has some amount of variability associated with it. (Again, see Anthony’s discussion on this point.) In a Monte Carlo simulation, values for each of those variables are varied around their mean values in a random fashion, and the trajectory corresponding to that set of variables is calculated. Each run of the simulation produces a dot on the map where the balloon would have landed if that set of variable values had been true. After maybe 1,000 runs, and with 1,000 points on the map, what you typically see is that, even though no two runs generate exactly the same landing site, all the dots will cluster around a single point (the centroid) of all the sites. It will be possible to draw an ellipse around 95% of the dots. The centroid is taken as the single most likely landing site and the ellipse is commonly taken to be the 3-sigma boundary for the likely landing site.
This kind of analysis requires a fair amount of work to set up and execute 1,000 or 10,000 runs. That’s the main reason I haven’t done it and--I would presume--the reason Moore didn’t do it. In the absence of that kind of analysis, you can’t go from “it possibly landed on the Foster Ranch” to “it probably landed on the Foster Ranch”.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteI am in the "possible" camp.
There is a difference between saying "this is a possible outcome" as Moore did and pretending that (considering all of the unknowns and unknowable variables) that a particular flight could not have happened.
Thanks,
Lance
By the way Larry, do you notice how you have gone from "there might not have been constant level capability" which is the best even committed conspiracists can claim to there absolutely were not constant level devices on board....
ReplyDeleteYou do this how?
By assertion, I submit,
Lance
Anthony Mugan said
ReplyDelete"One of things that has puzzled me for many years is the logic underlying the extreme sceptical view point which is that the Bayesian prior for the ETH is zero (in other words there is no possibility that any reported UFO sighting could be of extraterrestrial origin)."
Anthony - Good point, but should the word "sceptical" read instead as "debunking"?
cda & Lance - Another yes or no question for you both (please I only need a yes or no!)... Is is POSSIBLE that we (planet Earth) MIGHT HAVE BEEN visited by an interstellar race?
NOTE: This does not mean it happened in 1947 necessarily!
Just to remind cda and Lance (once again) - you just have to answer yes or no!
Nitram,
ReplyDeleteYes.
Good enough?
Now perhaps you might answer one for me. What is your point?
Lance
Perhaps Nitram may consider this yes or no question:
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that this planet has not been visited by an interstellar race?
Hi Lance
ReplyDeleteThank you for answering my question so promptly.
I am quite skeptical about the whole Roswell ET scenario.
But Mogel, quite frankly, doesn't work.
There are many problems with this.
(can I just leave it there for now without having to list them at the moment please?)
There are also problems with the ET explanation which even KR & DR and their team are prepared to concede - KR to his credit has helped dismiss some of the "evidence" e.g. Gerald Anderson & MJ12...
My point Lance, is that there are three possibilities for what happened in 1947:
a) Mogel
b) ET
c) neither a or b
All we talk about is a & b...
You have a good chance when you say "b" is incorrect. KR & DR believe "b" is the answer, but they could accept "c" (but nobody knows what "c" is!). The point is they dismiss "a" because it simply "doesn't work" (unless you consider KR & DR to be "drooling idiots" like the US military of 1947 that don't recognize tin foil and balsa wood when they see it)
I think they are right as far as option "a" goes - and if you rule out Mogel then you have to wonder why the airforce can't make up it's mind - unless there is something top secret that we still aren't allowed to know about - 65 years later... and that could only mean "something like" ET or a time traveler in other words Lance something truly EXTRAORDINARY!
If you rule out "a", where all we have left is "b" AT THE MOMENT - until someone suggests what 'c' might be...
Lance, wouldn't it be great if KR & DR were right? If you were ever going to be wrong about something, wouldn't you want Roswell to be it!?
Tim Herbert wrote:
ReplyDeletePerhaps Nitram may consider this yes or no question:
Is it possible that this planet has NOT (my emphasis) been visited by an interstellar race?
Fair question Tim.
Answer is yes - it's certainly possible we have NOT been visited. But I hope I'm wrong and would be delighted to be proven wrong :)
Nitram,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the answer.
As you can see we are dealing with possibilities on both side of the question.
Best Regards,
Tim
'zoamchomsky said...
ReplyDeleteThey pick over endless, indeterminant and utterly inconsequential Roswell myth minutiae while ignoring the fact that "UFO" crash and conspiracy theories have been integral to the "UFO" collective delusion from its inception in 1896....'
Somewhat true. We don't tend to see references to the 1950s/1960s contactees' interest in, or knowledge of UFO crashes. This is from George Adamski's third (mass-circulation) book, published 1961:
..Because they were unfamiliar with our terrain and atmosphere (we had been experimenting with atomic bombs and, not long before, had exploded some to end the war, thereby setting up an unnatural condition), or the strength of our planet's magnetic fields, there were more crashes than we realize. Frank Scully reported some of these in 1950 in his book Behind the Flying Saucers...
Lance, refusing to admit he could possibly be wrong about anything, blusters: (part 1 of 2)
ReplyDeleteBy the way Larry, do you notice how you have gone from "there might not have been constant level capability" which is the best even committed conspiracists can claim to there absolutely were not constant level devices on board.... You do this how? By assertion, I submit,
No assertion needed since DOCUMENTED and PROVEN in how Mogul kept its records. ALL constant-altitude flights were permanently recorded IF THEY ACTUALLY FLEW, even if they were failures. The only ones not recorded were the cancelled ones that NEVER FLEW.
It’s really pretty simple, unless you are a fanatic, obtuse debunker who can’t face simple facts and must cling to the failed Mogul theory with religious fervor because you have nothing else to live for.
Now the proof. Flights #1 and #6 were failed flights but recorded because they flew, while Fights #2, #3, and #4 were not recorded because they were listed as cancelled and never went up. Altitude control equipment (and probably tracking equipment) was stripped off for later reuse, but already filled helium balloons cut loose or used to carry a piece of equipment for testing such as microphones (as was the case for the cancelled Flights #3 or #4).
Flight #2 (from “NYU Special Report #1, Constant Level Balloon, May 1947”, p. 27: Release was attempted on 18 April. Due to the high wind at 0830 EST... and due to malfunctioning of the Army receiver in the plane that was to follow, release was not made. The already-inflated balloons were cut free and equipment was brought back to NYU. It is expected that this equipment will be flown about 8 May.”
Now to demonstrate the degree of FLAGRANT LYING about Mogul that has taken place from the beginning, here is how Lt. James McAndrew spun this the AF Roswell Report: “[The technical reports including Report #1] do not fully account for all balloons FLOWN [sic] during the initial stages... Absent from the reports are service flight nos. 2, 3, and 4. Flight no. 2 WAS FLOWN [sic] on April 18, 1947, at Bethlehem, PA, in an attempt to obtain acoustical data from the explosion of 5000 tons of TNT by the British on the German island of Helgoland...”
So from the actual Report #1 of “release was not made” and “equipment was brought back to NYU”, McAndrew creates a new imaginary Mogul flight to listen for those explosions, when obviously the only thing that flew were the cut-loose balloons sans all equipment. This now becomes a full-fledged Mogul flight in DebunkerReality. And in the present, debunkers like Lance continue in this tradition of delusion or deliberate misrepresentation.
Now let’s go to the next attempt on May 8 (Flight #3), the fate of which was recorded in Albert Crary’s diary: “Scheduled balloon flight this morning at 730... Trouble with winds and instruments did not go up. [Personnel] with recording equipment on B-17 following balloons... B-29 started dropping bombs near Atlantic City about 8...”
So high winds, equipment removed, but a mike sent up with already-inflated balloons to test reception from air of detecting explosions on ground. Like #2, also cancelled because of high winds, #3 was never recorded in the permanent flight summaries because it never happened.
Same thing with attempted Flight #4, June 3 and June 4 in Alamogordo. Cancelled by cloudy weather, but another test flight of mike (sonobuoy) with already inflated balloons. Crary diary again:
Jun 3: “Up at 0230 am ready to fly balloon but abandoned due to cloudy skies. I went out to Tulerosa Range and fired charges from 6 on to 12...”
Jun 4. “Out to Tulerosa Range and fired charges between 00 and 06. No balloon flight again on account of clouds. Flew regular sono buoy [mike] up in cluster of balloons and had good luck with receiver on ground but poor on plane...”
Response to Lance, part 2 of 2:
ReplyDeleteNow again, Crary is very clearly indicating cancellation of the planned CONSTANT-ALTITUDE flight on two successive days because of cloudy weather, with only a mike test flight going up the second time. As in the cancelled #2 and #3, the constant-altitude equipment would have been removed along with tracking gear for later reuse. As for #2 and #3, #4 also is written out of the flight summaries, because IT NEVER FLEW.
Now here’s a final point that the obtuse Lance still doesn’t seem to get, the one Larry has been making. No constant-altitude flight, no way for even the sonobuoy test balloon flight to get to the Foster Ranch because it couldn’t stay up long enough to get there no matter what other assumptions you make. Charles Moore understood this even if Lance doesn’t. That is why he had to make up a phony constant-altitude flight.
Without constant-altitude control to stop rise, the balloon cluster would go to very high altitude, at which point you would have catastrophic popping of most of the balloons and what remained would come straight back down. This is what happened to the real flight #6 three days later because its altitude-control equipment was said to be damaged on launch. Straight up, straight down, and it didn’t get very far from Alamogordo. But failed flight #6 was still in the flight summaries because it ACTUALLY FLEW as an attempted constant-altitude flight with gear.
The Air Force debunkers also insisted that there had to be a constant-altitude flight to support Moore and also to allegedly account for all the debris descriptions. That is why liars like McAndrew insisted that Flights #2-#4 had all “flown” even though they clearly hadn’t. Bringing back the cancelled #2 and #3 from the dead was McAndrew’s way of trying to make a case for the equally aborted #4. Instead of using the real Mogul flight summary table with all these flights missing, McAndrew created his own table with a misleading column of “landing site” “unknown” for all three, again insinuating that they had actually flown.
Now maybe Lance can again try answer the question why his star witness Brazel stated that he found no balloon rigging of any kind? (Even McAndrew noticed this huge discrepancy in his interview with Moore, but dropped it like a hot potato when Moore couldn’t explain.) In the Real World, if Brazel had really found Lance’s “unofficial” Mogul flight he would have found hundreds of yards of it, used to string all the alleged balloons and radar targets together. It would have been snagged on the rocks and brush, intermingled with Brazel’s “rubber strips” and “foil and sticks”.
Occam’s razor solution: He didn’t find any rigging because Mogul records prove there never was such a flight.
Dr. Rudiak's trademark rant above uses all of the standard conspiracy buff techniques, the main one of which is of proclaiming that things ought to be this way just because he says they must.
ReplyDeleteAs I showed conclusively, Ruidak simply makes stuff up and tries to make it sound reasonable instead of nutty. Ask him to tell you about that deadly New Mexico sun!
Flight 4 (or whatever you want to call it) could have certainly been still equipped for constant altitude when released. Rudiak depends upon the lack of information to proffer his claims. This is the conspiracy buff's Stock-in-Trade.
We do not have any evidence that the prepared flight, which was ready to go, was painstakingly disassembled and reassembled to remove the constant level gear. Do the contemporaneous notes make this clear anywhere?
This is simply an interpretation of the paltry information we have at hand (and a new claim from the ever-evolving Roswell buffs--note how they never seem to come up with new actual evidence). It's an interpretation only. It could be correct. But it is not PROVEN to be correct.
Best,
Lance
Lance wrote
ReplyDelete"We do not have any evidence that the prepared flight, which was ready to go, was painstakingly disassembled and reassembled to remove the constant level gear. Do the contemporaneous notes make this clear anywhere?"
OK Lance, lets except for a moment that what crashed on the Foster ranch WAS mogel... then please answer the following yes or no questions...
Question 1. Do you consider it strange that the flight 4 or whatever we call it is not properly recorded?
Question 2. Do you consider it strange that calculations provided by intelligent individuals indicate it could not have arrived at the Foster ranch based on their projections?
Question 3. Do you consider it strange that the US Military Officer at the sight did not recognize the material for what it was?
Question 4. Do you consider it strange that Cavitt was the ONLY person who recognized it for what it was?
Question 5. Do you consider it strange that Cavitt failed to tell Marcel at the time that he recognized what is was?
Question 6. Do you consider it strange that the Army put out a press release which basically said they had recovered something "extremely unusual" when it was nothing of the sort?
Question 7. Do you consider it strange that shortly afterward they called a press conference saying that they were totally wrong?
Seven yes or no questions - should be easy to number them...provided we don't go of course
Martin, I'll be glad to engage you in discussion but I'm not going to answer list after list of yes no questions.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the basic (are you still beating your wife?) construction of some of the questions.
Thanks,
Lance
Lance wrote
ReplyDelete"Martin, I'll be glad to engage you in discussion but I'm not going to answer list after list of yes no questions."
Part of the problem with making progress on Roswell is the tendancity to avoid the awkward questions... (I have asked tough questions to the pro ufo people in person, so, I ask you Lance as a "self proclaimed skeptic" - please don't think your coming in for any "special treatment")
I have tried to make my questions as simple as possible - although they do point in a certain direction, I will grant you that.
I could ask them one at a time, but I think you are getting the message, even if you think that answering the questions honestly might be conceding your "strong position" on the matter.
Roswell is a "complicated topic".
WITHOUT Mogel it becomes MUCH more unclear.
So Lance how would you like to continue the conversation?
The easiest way is to answer the questions - the pro UFO group have answered ALL of my questions in the past - even when they "don't fit" with their "proposed solution".
How about my post of 4:17pm care to comment?
To repeat, the pro UFO people who I have spoken with have answered the questions "precisely". They haven't played around with the words or looked for away out of answering the "hard questions".
cda wrote
ReplyDelete"Should it be proved (how?) that the word "victims" or even that the whole phrase "victims of the wreck", is indeed correct, I would consider that Ramey was more likely writing the draft of a SF novel than that it was a memo about a crashed spacecraft recovered from the NM desert."
It is this sort of statement that seriously effects your credibility in my opinion. Unless General Ramey had a history of writing SF novels and bringing them to work...
So Roswell is mogel and anybody thinking/hoping otherwise must be a lunatic?!
You want to try the "seven question yes or no test"? I bet you come up with an excuse not to, but I will concede I was wrong if you do answer all the questions!
Question 1. Do you consider it strange that flight 4 or whatever we call it is not properly recorded?
Question 2. Do you consider it strange that calculations provided by intelligent individuals indicate it could not have arrived at the Foster ranch based on their projections?
Question 3. Do you consider it strange that the US Military Officer at the site did not recognize the material for what it was?
Question 4. Do you consider it strange that Cavitt was the ONLY person who recognized it for what it was?
Question 5. Do you consider it strange that Cavitt failed to tell Marcel at the time that he recognized what it was?
Question 6. Do you consider it strange that the Army put out a press release which basically said they had recovered something "extremely unusual" when it was nothing of the sort?
Question 7. Do you consider it strange that shortly afterward they called a press conference saying that they were totally wrong?
It is curious that a number of people have commented that they still feel the Mogul model as proposed by Moore to be possible. The psychology of all this is fascinating.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to argue the case against an extraterrestrial interpretation of Roswell I would acknowledge that the Moore model as it stands doesn't work but:
a) highlight the wide range of classified technological projects underway in the general area - could one of these be the culprit?
b) highlight that regarding some debris as the remains of a 'flying disk' would not, in July 1947, mean that the person was thinking of an extraterrestrial origin. Unusual material of a clearly terrestrial origin could fit the bill also at that point in time.
c) Much of the official response to the flying disks is more consistent with 'organised confusion' than firm knowledge of the nature of the phenomena - although there are aspects that don't fit that interpretation too well.
Of course we would all then go off and argue about exactly it all actually could have been, but that can legitimately be considered unclear at this distance in time. What I struggle to understand is how anyone can regard the Moore model, with the assumptions in it as specified, as still being considered valid. Those assumptions explicitly, mathematically, don't work and by such a margin that it is frankly completely finished. It is not simply a case of allowing variables such as wind speeds and directions to move around a bit within tolerable limits - that doesn't get you anywhere near a solution. It can only be made to work by including several clearly falsifiable assumptions and other dubious one.
it was a good attempt, and a reasonable one by Moore for his first version where he had very little hard data to go on. Once that data became available, for the 1997 version, it became an exercise in curve fitting. it gives me no pleasure to say this as Moore was someone I have always respected considerably but facts are facts.
Lance wrote:
ReplyDelete"We do not have any evidence that the prepared flight, which was ready to go, was painstakingly disassembled and reassembled to remove the constant level gear..."
I think the constant level device was usually the last item on the bottom of the train. So, the "painstaking" effort may have consisted of either not attaching the device in the first place or simply cutting it off with a jack knife.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteHow interesting. Now I am beginning to understand where the statements you make as fact come from.
The constant altitude equipment in Mogul balloon trains as they have been described, consist of several components including ballast releases of various types (at the bottom) and explosive charges rigged at various levels in the train and well as other switches,etc.
I suppose now you will be able to tell me exactly what equipment was removed?
One of the functions of the constant level equipment was to insure that the train didn't stay in aircraft airspace long which may well be a reason to keep the already prepared train intact.
Do I know this is what happened? Of course not. Rational people can't make blanket statements about things for which there is so little evidence one way or the other.
Anxiously awaiting the next pronouncement of facts you have made up in your mind. Will it be a detailed inventory of exactly which components were included in Mogul 4?
Thanks,
Lance
Daniel Transit says, "We don't tend to see references to the 1950s/1960s contactees' interest in, or knowledge of UFO crashes."
ReplyDeleteFortunately, we're not limited to Contactees' knowledge of the "UFO" delusion.
One of the first airship hoaxes in 1896 began with the "crash" of a wagonload of metal junk dumped down a hillside behind a saloon in San Francisco. The newspaper that ran the crash hoax story and the saloon increased sales for the next week. So it's fairly obvious what really propels the "UFO" myth and collective delusion, and it's not element 115.
There were purported airship crashes or explosions in practically every state that experienced media-manufactured airship mania during 1896-97. A primitive circuit board, a ship's anchor, gears and other machine parts were presented as laughable "evidence" of the airships' actual existence. But there never were any airships at all.
Tall tales of crashed airships, dead alien crews, strange machinery and writing have been around since airship mania when the "UFO" myth and delusion began. These tales were repeated, enhanced and mutated in newspapers, magazines, saloons and liar's clubs for decades before 1947. The mature crashed-saucer myth exists in several variations; are we really to believe there could have been multiple saucer crashes in New Mexico in 1947?
Does placing the Roswell myth in its proper historical context as merely one version of a continuously evolving popular culture wish-fulfilling dragon-slaying fantasy prove that nothing out of the ordinary happened? No, but it does show that it's all too absurd to even begin to be true.
Invaluable old-time debunking paid believers in the "UFO" myth and collective delusion the compliment of rational opposition, Scientific realists know they're not even wrong.
Martin,
ReplyDeletePerhaps I might address your questions in general. The idea of the why of the press release and why didn't Marcel, etc recognize the debris for what it was are good ones.
I think they have to be understood in the context of what was happening in regards to the flying saucer wave and hysteria that had siezed the country,
The newspapers were full of "found" disks after Arnold's sighting ignited the UFO age. The "disks" that people found and reported were just as dubious as the stuff Marcel picked up and was photographed with (by his own testimony) in Fort Worth.
Indeed at least one of the found "discs" in Circleville, Ohio was essentially the same as Roswell, a radar target, etc.
My working hypothesis (which could be wrong, unlike the nutty conspiracy theories which are ALWAYS right!) is that the men collecting the debris knew that is wasn't anything exotic and certainly not anything interplanetary (that idea was still gestating) but due to several factors including the odd tape that has been discussed, the lack of identifying marks, and the excitement of the moment they still thought that the stuff could have been one of the "discs" that were all over the news,
In their minds, I suggest, the discs were a prank
or an odd hobbyist model aircraft (or something along those lines). Seeing many other folks including other military and civilian officials reporting or being part of reports of found discs, the press release was not supposed to become such a huge story. It was just sort of a "me, too" claim.
I think the first few sentences of the "press release" were ginned up by the media and not part of the real release.
Ok, I hope that explains it somewhat. Please forgive any typos, etc. I am typing this on my iPad and I wanted be sure to give Larry a chance to pedantically correct them.
Best,
Lance
Barry Mead begins, "Roswell means nothing or is laughable?" And after a long paragraph of sincere but completely typical ancient-astronaut, secret-technology, anecdotal sightings, exoplanetary and ETH "UFO" myth and delusion appeals, ends with "If it is extra terrestrial, we all need to know now before it is too late."
ReplyDeleteThe Pentagon responded to interest in the Roswell myth as a matter of public relations and nothing more. But as we've seen repeatedly, any attempt at genuinely explaining anything to the conspiracy-minded only feeds the bear.
Barry, here's the simple bottom line on this "UFO" non-issue: If there was even one bit of truth in any of over a century of "UFO" fairy tales and conspiracy myth creation, then there would be some obvious consequence in the world. But the reality is that it's all fiction, and the world is exactly the same with or without the entirety of the "UFO" myth and delusion, except for the subjective reality of the idea in the minds of believers and the volumes of paper wasted on the subject.
That is the Null hypothesis of "UFO" reports. Nothing extraordinary, much less otherworldly, is required to explain the entire history of reports composing the "UFO" myth. There's a much better explanation for it all and more in its context.
There is no secret, there is no "UFO" mystery. Nothing will ever come of any of this "UFO" nonsense, so your appeal to urgency on this matter is not justified. There is no "UFO" studies department at Caltec or MIT, no "UFO" research at JPL/NASA, and no "UFO" departments in the President's cabinet or Pentagon. And the reason is simple: there are no real "UFOs" of any kind and never were.
Nitram Ang,
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that you are, in so many words, repeatedly asking and suggesting readers consider, 'if the circumstances were not what they are and if there were some established facts which there are not, would it change any of your opinions,' don't you?
Does that seem like a productive line of discussion?
Those are 'yes or no' questions, by the way.
All -
ReplyDeleteThis has moved off into a realm that is now counter productive with all sides saying the same things again. If you wish to comment on the original post, so be it... if you wish to take off farther into the weeds, I will delete the posts.
part 1 of 2
ReplyDeleteWell (upon Kevin’s command), to get back to the original topic about extraterrestrial evidence from 1947, including bodies, there is some circumstantial evidence from the newspapers originating from the Army AF itself. This, at the very least, indicates that they were anxious to ridicule or kill the idea that the flying saucers were ET or "space ships" or "men from Mars":
1. Much speculation in the newspapers from the beginning after the Kenneth Arnold sighting about the origins of the "flying discs", including the possibility that they might be ET. Arnold himself was raising this possibility, if they weren't a secret military project, and indicating many in the public who had written him or he had confronted in person were of this opinion as well. E.g., only 3 days after his sighting was a story where Arnold related how a hysterical women in a coffee shop recognized him and screamed he was the one who saw the men from Mars, then ran home to be with her children.
http://www.roswellproof.com/ETH-in-1947.html
http://www.roswellproof.com/ETH-in-1947-2.html
2. Only 5 days after the Arnold sighting, 10 days BEFORE Roswell, THE Gen. Ramey and his intelligence chief Col. Kalberer where out ridiculing the saucer sightings, including Arnold's, saying they liked the "Buck Rogers stuff" but they weren't men from Mars, probably "heat waves" or jet planes. Why are they out there raising, debunking and denying the ET angle so early on?
http://www.roswellproof.com/ramey_and_kalberer.html
3. On the afternoon of July 7, acting AAF chief of staff Gen. Vandenberg was personally taking calls from newsmen about the flying discs (something PR people and aides would normally do), trying to kill a crashed disc story out of Houston, then cancelled a dental appointment to personally pick up AAF Secretary Symington at the airport, strongly suggesting something very urgent had come up that couldn't wait. Gen. Exon would later state Roswell was an ET crash and people like Symington and Vandenberg would have been in on it up to their eyeballs. Roswell PIO Walter Haut would later say the afternoon of July 7 was when he learned of the main disc crash site with alien bodies.
4. The morning of July 8, simultaneous with the Roswell general staff meeting, Vandenberg cancelled one meeting to replace it with another of the Joint Research and Development Board, implicated three years later as harboring a top secret group (2 levels above the H-bomb) looking into the saucers.
5. Soon after this meeting, prior to the Roswell press release of having a flying disc, the AAF at the Pentagon issued a press release saying they were absolutely sure there were 3 things the saucers were NOT, which included "space ships". Again the AAF raised the ET specter in order to deny it. In the same article, one of the JRDB members who had just attended that sudden meeting made debunking statements about the saucers.
http://www.roswellproof.com/Flying-Saucers-NOT-spaceships.html
6. Then came the Roswell press release, about 4:30 pm EST. About an hour later, Gen. Ramey was being quoted saying (in communications with Vandenberg in the AAF Pentagon press room) the "disc" would have been about 25 feet across if reconstructed but was more like a flimsy box-kite incapable of high speed or capable of carrying a crew. So evidently there HAD been some sort of public or news chatter about whether there was some sort of crew on the recovered Roswell flying disc that Ramey felt obliged to deny, otherwise why even bring it up if all they found was the weather balloon and balsa wood/foil radar target in the photos? And where did the “25 feet” come from? The actual radar target he displayed is only 4 feet across. Intelligence officer Marcel was quoted in 1947 saying debris was scattered over a “square mile”, a bit much for even an entire Mogul balloon crash.
part 2 of 2
ReplyDelete7. The Army and the Navy followed up on Ramey’s debunkery with several days of follow-up debunkery, including staging multiple radar target demonstrations, saying these explained the flying discs. That they were running a debunkery campaign was explicitly stated in the Roswell stories of July 9 by UP and INS. A few days later, Scripps-Howard newspapers ran a column with the following: "Army Playing Saucer Joke? Don't laugh too hard at those flying disc stories. There's considerable evidence of [an] organized Army campaign to make you laugh. And not all that's known on them has been printed."
http://www.roswellproof.com/militarydebunk.html
Now, of course, this doesn't by itself prove there was a crew or bodies or "victims" or a real ET flying saucer crash, but the need for constant denial and debunking of the ET angle by the AAF is interesting, meaning the subject must have been raised back then about the saucers in general and Roswell in particular. They were at the absolute very least very concerned about how the public was reacting to them, including a rising level of anxiety (also mentioned in some newspaper articles).
Naturally I believe the Ramey memo DOES say "the VICTIMS of the wreck" and also definitely says "IN THE 'DISC'". The big word here isn't even "disc", which Roswell base used for the object they found and Ramey and the military were busy trying to equate with radar targets to debunk the base press release, but the word "IN". There was something of importance "IN"side the object called a "disc" that (strong consensus read) was being sent or shipped somewhere.
Now radar targets have no "inside" to them, unless you think balsa wood sticks and sheets of foil-paper could have insides hiding some great secret something worth shipping. There is more to the Ramey memo than just "victims", including words like "weather balloons" (even hard core debunkers agree THOSE words are there). This message was clearly, 100% about Roswell.
So Lance's and CDA's ridiculous musings that maybe Ramey was a science fiction writer or the message was about something else, maybe some other "wreck" is a good example of Lance's "facts" made up in one's mind. Lance is the expert at that.
I don't know whether DR's latest blast is what Kevin wants in this discussion, but I can refute at least one of DR's assertions - no. 4.
ReplyDelete"4. The morning of July 8, simultaneous with the Roswell general staff meeting, Vandenberg cancelled one meeting to replace it with another of the Joint Research and Development Board, implicated three years later as harboring a top secret group (2 levels above the H-bomb) looking into the saucers."
And just how does DR know that the JRDB is the group indicated by Wilbert Smith in his infamous memo 3 years later? Smith wrote that a small group (in 1950) under Vannevar Bush was looking into the 'modus operandi' of the saucers.
So DR assumes it was the (inaugural) meeting of THIS group that Vandenberg, etc attended on the morning of July 8, even when the subject matter is unknown! Was Bush still chairman of the said JRDB in 1950, when Smith wrote his famous words? Or was Bush merely leading a small totally different group (of scientists) to try and unravel the propulsion methodology? Was Smith even a reliable reporter? Judging from the junk science he wrote in later years I say emphatically NO.
So a false conclusion by DR, and completely unjustified.
To get back to the bodies being mentioned in 1947, will either DR or Kevin, or anyone else, please produce an authentic statement known to have been made in July 1947 (preferably documented) that any bodies ever existed at one of the crash sites or the RAAF base.
No reported second- or third-hand statements made 40+ years afterwards are permissible, at least not by my standards. So, please, none of these.
My tongue-in-cheek reference to Ramey writing the draft for a SF novel was made for one reason only - to say that this was a bit more likely than that his memo was describing the crash landing of an ET vehicle in the NM desert. (Nobody can prove the memo was from him anyway, can they?).
Here’s another witness who talked about the Roswell bodies in 1947, but only by implication (which is maybe why Kevin and previous commenters didn’t include him)—Mack Brazel when he told Frank Joyce, “No, they weren't green."
ReplyDelete>> "No, they weren't green." <<
ReplyDeleteA multi-hand anecdote floated decades after 1947 of someone's deathbed utterance that most probably never even occurred.
Try again.