Saturday, December 06, 2025

The Project Mogul Conspiracy Destroyed by One Question... Well, Two

 

Here’s another conspiracy that can be destroyed by a single question. This conspiracy has been pushed by most in the media, by the military and the skeptics who are supposed to question everything but only that which suggests alien visitation.

“How can balloon Flight #4, which was cancelled, leave any sort of debris on the ranch managed by Mack Brazel?”

As I wrote that, I thought of another question. “How can a flight that was cancelled at dawn according to the documentation, actually been launched two or three hours earlier?”

Dr. Albert Crary, the man in charge of the New York University balloon project based in Alamogordo, kept comprehensive notes on the balloon flights. The first of those flights, which some have labeled as Project Mogul, was supposed to be Flight #4, but according to Crary’s field notes and diary entries, was cancelled at dawn because of clouds.

Dr. Albert Crary, the man in charge of the
balloon flights in New Mexico.
The rules under which they operated in New Mexico prohibited flights at night or in cloudy weather. The balloon arrays, which could reach 600 feet in length were a hazard to aerial navigation and would be invisible to air commerce at night or in cloudy weather. As dawn on June 4, 1947 broke, it was cloudy and the flight was cancelled. The next day, Flight #5 was launched and according to Crary’s records, was the first successful flight in New Mexico.

Yes, I know that Crary’s notes also mentioned a cluster of balloons that were flown on June 4 later in the day. But according to the records and reports, this was nothing like the full array. It was small, was not expected to leave the White Sands Missile Range and was not a hazard to aerial navigation. The winds aloft data suggested that it would not have flown anywhere near the ranch Brazel managed.

How do I know?

Charles Moore, an engine with the project in New Mexico and who provided the analysis of the winds aloft data told us that. Oh, not directly, but in his excuses for Flight #4.

Moore told us, and wrote, that his examination of the winds aloft data, including the records that I gave him, took the balloons in a different direction if they had been launched at dawn. The winds aloft data I received from the National Weather Service was good only to 20,000 feet and was sometimes incomplete. Moore found records from a station in Orogrande, New Mexico (on the highway between Alamogordo and El Paso), that had records that went up to 50,000 feet. According to those records and those I supplied, a front went through the area around Alamogordo about dawn. It changed the atmospheric dynamics which met that the balloon would not have flown to the northeast to fall on the Brazel ranch. Well, that’s not quite true. Moore said that his calculations put the balloon about 17 miles south of the ranch. Still close enough to suggest a legitimate culprit, if those calculations were accurate.

Charles Moore reviewing the winds aloft data that I
supplied to him.
Photo by Kevin Randle
However, that front that passed through the Alamogordo area, meant the balloons wouldn’t even have come that close to the ranch. However, if the balloons were launched early in the morning, at 2:30 or 3:30, the winds would have driven the balloons in the right direction. The solution, well, the balloons were launched before dawn, in violation of the regulations.

There is nothing in Crary’s documents to suggest that happened and you have to wonder how a balloon array launched hours earlier could be cancelled at dawn. This little problem is ignored by those who just can’t wrap their heads around the fact that Flight #4 never flew. And if it never flew, it left no wreckage on the ranch.

I could have mentioned that the pasture where the wreckage was found was one Brazel was in, if not every day, then every other day. That means he would have found the debris on June 5 or 6, and since there was quite a bit of it, that wreckage was a hazard to the operation of the ranch. The sheep refused to cross it to get at water. Brazel wanted to know who was going to clean up the mess, which was his motivation for driving into Roswell.

And here’s another little tidbit. Charles Moore told me that Flight #4 had been configured just like Flight #5. Since #4 was cancelled, we don’t have any schematic of it. However, #5, which was described as the first successful flight in New Mexico, contained no rawin targets. That raises the question of where did the metallic debris originate? Where did the rawin target displayed in General Ramey’s office originate? Certainly not with the mythical Flight #4.

The schematic for Flight # 5. 


I could ask additional questions such as if the debris fell on June 4, why did Brazel wait until July 6 to take samples into Roswell? Why couldn’t the officers of the 509th Bomb Group recognize the debris taken to the sheriff? Why did they arrange a special flight to Fort Worth Army Air Field and then send that material onto Washington, D.C.?

The point here, is that there is no current terrestrial explanation for what Brazel found and the soldiers in the 509th recovered in that field. I am astonished that the news media insists on telling us that a Project Mogul balloon was responsible for the debris, yet all the documentation tells us otherwise. We can point to the pictures taken in Fort Worth of a weather balloon and rawin radar target in General Ramey’s off and ask where that material originated. Two of the officers in those pictures, Colonel Thomas DuBose, then the chief of staff at the Eighth Air Force Headquarters and Major Jesse Marcel, Sr. said that what was photographed was NOT the material recovered in New Mexico.

Jesse Marcel with the fake debris in
General Ramey's office.



I’ll let this go here. There are several other points that rule out Flight #4 but I believe the case is made. There was no Flight #4, and without it, the last of the terrestrial explanations is eliminated. You decide for yourselves what the answer to that question is.

8 comments:

Nitram said...

Hi Kevin

I know this will annoy you - but if the stuff Marcel is holding in the photos was the stuff recovered on the ranch then the material was simply from some flight "not accounted for" in someone's diary... (ridiculous as this is, it seems much more likely that the "other" explanation).

Best wishes for the festive season...

KRandle said...

Martin -

Marcel told reporter Johnny Mann of WWL-TV in New Orleans that stuff in that photograph was NOT the stuff he had brought from Roswell. Thomas DuBose, the Eighth Air Force Chief of Staff (a very high-level position) that the stuff in the photographs (and he's in two of them) was switched. It wasn't the real debris.

BTW, which flight do you think was left out of the listings? Flight #4 and Flight #9 are the only two possible culprits. Flight #9 was to be launched on July 3, but was cancelled because of an accident at White Sands, and Flight #4 was cancelled because of clouds. What this means is that all flights, including those not listed in the official records were accounted for.

I really hope that I don't have to explain this again because there is both testimony and documentation to back this up. Your speculation just adds to the unnecessary confusion.

Gilles Fernandez said...

Greetings from France,

Concerning your sooooooo destroying questions.

"How can balloon Flight #4, which was cancelled, leave any sort of debris on the ranch managed by Mack Brazel?”"

Yourselve, is labelling the flight as #4! Read again Technical Report Number 1 or my blog.

In other words, it is not because a flight is not present in the table summary that it was canceled or never existed, but because:
Or no attempt or no materials to control/record the altitude were made.
Or because special gear or technic tested.
Or due to different failures on ground or during the flight.

"why did Brazel wait until July 6 to take samples into Roswell? "
Cause the reward, read my blog or my book in French.

Etc. And for each your soooo destroying questions^^

It seems the Roswell myth seems currently in your current belief, and You, Kevin, still insisting.

I respect belief or Religion. But after all, FACTS and not (your) FICTION.

Well, that's ufology, after all.

Happy new year 2026.

Gilles Fernandez

Gilles Fernandez said...

Eya again, Kevin,

Concerning the so-called "Johnny Mann's interview" :
You can provide us such an interview and record? A link, PLEASE? And then the audio source, we can or not? ^^

Or, it is a part of the Roswell Myth, too?

Gilles Fernandez

KRandle said...

Gilles -

I don't understand your first point. Are you suggesting that I have invented the Flight #4 problem... That I have somehow co-opted that name? Let me quote from the Colonel Richard Weaver interview of Charles Moore. Moore said, "To answer your question, there are three flights that are missing here -- two, three and four. I've identified Flight 4. Flight 4 was a flight we made, and you don't have it there, but Flight 4 we made in Alamogordo something like June 2nd or 3rd of 1947. The reason I have identified it is I have Albert Crary's diary."

If you read more of, well, Moore, you'll find him qualifying his statements to Weaver. For example, he said, "So I think we tried the radar targets, as I remember, our contact who was a Captain Larry Dyvad found they weren't able to track our flights at all."

I would think that a proper skeptic would look at all of Moore's contradictory statements and wonder about the veracity of his testimony rather than just cherry pick the pieces that fit the narrative.

Oh, and one of the things that I've learned is that Brazel had no radio or newspaper service at the ranch and most of the stories that appeared in the newspapers about rewards either noted they had expired or Brazel would not have seen them... therefore, his motivation to go to Roswell was not the alleged rewards, but something else.

Much of the fiction here is the claims that the New York University experiments were highly classified and that those who worked on it didn't even know the Mogul... except that name appears in Dr. Crary's unclassified notes several times.

As you say, "Well, that's skepticism, after all."

KRandle said...

Not sure what Johnny Mann interview you wish to have a link to. I interviewed him in his home in Amarillo, Texas, talked on the telephone to him, and provided, in the books, the source and reference. Do you have a specific question about the veracity of those interviews? However, if I know, specifically what you are after, I might be able to help... I will note that the information from Mann was checked against what Jesse Marcel, Jr. had said, and, I think if I understand what you want, by others.

Gilles Fernandez said...

Dear Kevin,

My point is that yourself wrote "How can balloon Flight #4, which was cancelled, leave any sort of debris on the ranch managed by Mack Brazel?"
Your OWN sentence may introduce or may to think to the reader that the flight in question was cancelled, therefore a flight NEVER existing.

You are wrong and somehow "betraying" your readers: Technical report 1 PROOVES it flaw. It is simply not recorded and absent in the tables
If this flight is not reported and/or recorded in the tables, it is for what I wrote, than in my blog or in my book:
*** is not present in the table summary that it was canceled or never existed, but because:
Or no attempt or no materials to control/record the altitude were made.
Or because special gear or technic tested.
Or due to different failures on ground or during the flight.

You wrote: "that are missing HERE" (the caps lock are mines) in this interview. You well know the original question (it was concerning the tables and the absence or missing flights in the tables); therefore why some flights are missing in the tables.
"you don't have it there" : "there" = in the tables.

You wrote: "So I think we tried the radar targets, as I remember, our contact who was a Captain Larry Dyvad found they weren't able to track our flights at all.", Moore said.
Yes, cause not a flight tracked, it was absent of the tables. Failure, then not in the table, it have flew.

"Brazel had no radio or newspaper service at the ranch and most of the stories that appeared in the newspapers about rewards either noted they had expired or Brazel would not have seen them..."
You well know better sthan me (or there is a serious problem) that it was his neightboors (the Proctor) who have radio and newspaper who told him about the reward! Seriously, Kevin...

You wrote: "Much of the fiction here is the claims that the New York University experiments were highly classified and that those who worked on it didn't even know the Mogul... except that name appears in Dr. Crary's unclassified notes several times.é
Again, it is a pure fiction you are narrating for decades now and again betraying in some parts your readers. Your only argument is the name "Mogul" appears in a Crary's Diary. And? What a point and your final one, destroying all?!?
What was really classified concerning the project when you read USAAF report or AMC contract n° W28-099-ac- 241, and more) ? The goal and the dataes.

Well, I doubt you will renounce on several your books which have made your renown and the modern myth you fabricated: It is an human reflex, after all....

Gilles Fernandez

Gilles Fernandez said...

Kevin,

Concerning the Johnny Mann interview:

In your blog, you wrote "When Marcel looked at those pictures decades later, in the company of TV reporter Johnny Mann, Marcel said that wasn’t the stuff he had taken to Fort Worth.". It was in 2009 at your blog and recorded in my book.

You wrote: "Marcel told reporter Johnny Mann of WWL-TV in New Orleans that stuff in that photograph was NOT the stuff he had brought from Roswell."

It is more simply than that, why are you so complicating again a case you are the so-called expert?

I asked you to provide us a direct link of the DIRECT interview and Marcel telling it to Johnny Mann. Let me explain the lack here for your readers:
I well know and you normaly too, that this interview was NOT recorded.
For your memories, and if you need some, the credibility of this interview is due to Julian Krajewski, who testimoned to have been a witness of this interview.

More, in this interview, Mann showed the two CROPPED pictures of the debris, according to the testimonies. AKA the ones of the Berlitz and Moore book (there were no more pictures at the time)... Therefore, such two pictures/photographs have not the kite-like debris, rawin-targets, it make perfect sens he have a problem here.

Maybe, you will next point to me Linday Corley 1981 tapes. Please, dont do this, I know how Stanton Friedman "recorded" this again.

Regards,

Gilles Fernandez