tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post5521523323438349706..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Mogul and NOTAMsKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger117125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-29021000923458530472013-08-02T19:02:09.365-07:002013-08-02T19:02:09.365-07:00Part 3
In either case, the strategy is to wait as ...Part 3<br />In either case, the strategy is to wait as long as you can for the weather to improve before scrubbing the launch. If the launch time slips far enough past the originally scheduled time (dawn), you eventually get to a point where there are not enough daylight hours left in the day to fill the balloons and conduct the flight. Every scientific balloon flight faces this same dynamic, it is not unique to the MOGUL flights. On any given day there is a certain time before which you cannot launch (usually dawn) and a certain time after which you can’t launch. Typically, this launch window is a few hours long. Once a balloon launch is scheduled, it is customary to wait until the launch window closes before the flight is formally scrubbed for the day, if weather is the cause of delay. <br /><br />So think about the morning of June 4, in that context. They started with a fully assembled and tested constant level balloon hardware string lying on the hangar floor. They had actually been working on it there for the previous 2 days. But they scrubbed the launch of that balloon string because of clouds to the East, probably around 8 or 9 AM. <br /><br />Then Moore comes along decades later and suggests that the second flight which Crary described as a cluster of balloons with a sonobouy and which probably occurred mid-morning (before noon) was actually a second, constant level balloon string which made it all the way to the Foster ranch. <br /><br />So the NYU team which had just spent the previous 10 hours or so assembling, testing and preparing for flight the hardware which—the following day—would become Flight #5, immediately turned around and planned, assembled, tested, and launched an entirely separate constant level flight in a couple of hours, starting from scratch?<br /><br />That's not even remotely possible. Any launch director who proposed such a thing would and should be fired for incompetence.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-40623179270551955972013-08-02T18:56:02.645-07:002013-08-02T18:56:02.645-07:00Part 2
Once the launch is scheduled, it takes appr...Part 2<br />Once the launch is scheduled, it takes approximately one 8-hour work period of the team to actually bring the flight system to readiness for launch. For my flights, in which dawn was around 8:00 AM, the first work crew arrived at the hangar to begin work at around T minus 8 (midnight). As the PI, I was not needed until T minus 4, or 4:00 AM. So when Crary wrote that he was up at 2:30, "ready to launch" that means he was on site to exercise his responsibilities as PI, but that does not mean that the balloon system was ready to release into the air at that time. <br /><br />The pre-launch work consists of first assembling the payload hardware and verifying that it is functional. For Flight #5 the payload hardware consisted of the dribbler and ballast mechanisms, a pressure switch assembly, a 15 lb unspecified payload (which we now know was to be the CIA’s secret microphone), a radiosonde, the parachutes, and the flight termination cannon. After the hardware is integrated and tested, it is carefully weighed so that the balloons can be inflated to the proper buoyancy. Balloon inflation itself takes time; I would estimate that for the 30 or so balloons that were on Flight #5, they would have begun inflation at T minus 2 or so.<br /><br />That means that when they got to within 2 hours of dawn, they would have checked the weather downrange to see if a balloon launch was allowed. On June 4, the weather over in the Roswell area was cloudy a few hours before dawn. At that point the launch director had a choice to make. He could decide to go ahead and fill the balloons on the chance that the weather would improve enough in 2 hours to allow a launch. However, as soon as the balloons are filled, they begin leaking and losing buoyancy. So, once the decision is made to fill them, there is a fixed time interval within which they must be either launched or discarded. If the weather at T minus 2 was below the minimums for visual flight, but improving, this could be a rational choice.<br /><br />Alternatively, the launch director could delay filling the balloons until there was a clear indication that the weather was improving. If the weather did improve, the team could inflate the balloons and launch within 2 hours. If the weather at T minus 2 was below the minimums for visual flight, but NOT improving, this would probably be the preferred choice. On June 4, this was the case—there was cloud cover in the Roswell area and it was not getting thinner. Personally, I don’t think they would even have started filling the balloons on June 3 or 4. But, there doesn’t seem to be any indication in Crary’s diary that would settle that one way or the other.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-13949998797518585282013-08-02T18:48:43.201-07:002013-08-02T18:48:43.201-07:00Part 1
On a further note......
I suspect I'm ...Part 1<br />On a further note......<br /><br />I suspect I'm the only one on this blog post who has ever actually flown high-altitude balloons carrying large scientific payloads. In my professional career, I have served as Principal Investigator (PI) on 4 such flights. From that vantage point, it seems to me there are a few points that some people here are not understanding.<br /><br />First of all, getting a complex balloon flight off is--not surprisingly--a complex task. It takes probably a minimum of 10 or 12 professionals working in a highly coordinated manner to accomplish anything other than just wasting a lot of time and money.<br /><br />First, you start by defining the scientific objectives of the flight. That allows you to then specify and procure the exact hardware that will accomplish those objectives. This is all accomplished days, weeks, or months ahead of the flight. If, for some reason, there was a scientific justification for having a night flight, this is where it would appear. It is physically possible to have a night flight, but it requires the addition of a battery powered beacon light. That is an additional item that must be procured and it adds weight to the balloon train, so it must be planned for ahead of time.<br /><br />Sometime in the day before a launch attempt, the crew has to start assembling the balloon system in order to be ready at the agreed upon launch time. In this regard, it is just like a rocket launch, where a countdown clock is used.<br /><br />Every time I've flown a complex balloon, the launch window opened at dawn on flight day. There are a number of good reasons for this. If you are flying into civilian airspace it is the first moment you can legally do so, without a beacon light. It is also the first moment when there is enough light to see and avoid screwing up the balloon launch. The balloon launch itself requires a highly choreographed movement of all the actors on the ground to avoid simple problems like getting control lines snagged, or people tripping over each other, or ripping balloons apart because of too much pendulum motion, etc., etc. Dawn is usually the time at which the local surface wind is most calm. Planning for a launch at dawn gives you the most usable daylight hours to recover from a launch delay.<br /><br />As I said, it is physically possible to launch before sunrise, but there would have to be a damn good reason to incur the additional cost and risk. And if some scientifically justifiable reason was identified, it would have to be taken into account at the beginning of the planning process. What would absolutely NOT happen is to take a balloon flight that was planned for launch at dawn and then try to turn it into a night flight on the spur of the moment.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-23562451769973284442013-08-02T16:33:11.381-07:002013-08-02T16:33:11.381-07:00Larry wrote:
Gilles: "Flights of ... 29 may r...Larry wrote:<br /><i>Gilles: "Flights of ... 29 may remains good candidats for your sticks and foils"<br /><br />Larry: No it does not. On 29 May, the wind over in vicinity of Roswell was blowing from the East to the West, so could not have blown a balloon of any kind from Alamogordo to the Foster ranch.</i><br /><br />New information for me. Thanks. Not that it matters much, since items Larry gives below indicate this was just another small "service flight" testing out some small piece of equipment and not a constant-level flight. <br /><br /><i>Also, Crary's diary says that the May 29 launch was of a "test" balloon--does not mention a constant level balloon.</i> <br /><br />It was a constant level balloon if Gilles says so, or AFOSI McAndrew says so. It was McAndrew who originally claimed the May 29 "flight" was really "flight #3", another of those ghost flights that was really cancelled and eliminated from the records.<br /><br />At least Charles Moore realized that the May 8 attempt back east was the real attempt at Flight #3. Still both McAndrew and Moore tried to claim that cancelled constant-altitude flights #2 and #3 were real along with #4 in order to try to build a case that #4 explained Roswell. Just more shameful lying and word games that have been going on for almost 20 years now.<br /><br /><i>The rest of the NYU crew, who had the recording equipment needed to support a constant altitude flight would not even arrive in Alamogordo from the East coast until June 1.<br /><br />Whatever was launched by Mears and Hackman was obviously small enough to be launched by two men. Clearly not a 600 ft long balloon train.</i><br /><br />Yes, quite obvious to anyone who can read and think even halfway critically. Crary's diary also made it quite clear all they had was a skeleton advance crew there until June 1 when the main Mogul team finally flew in and immediately set about assembling the NM constant-level flights. The advance crew just was not large enough to assemble, wrangle, launch, and track a constant-altitude flight.<br /><br />But simple facts never seem to stand in the way of Gilles self-serving and ridiculous Mogul theories.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-80803510525086383742013-08-02T15:08:49.342-07:002013-08-02T15:08:49.342-07:00Gilles wrote:
"Flights of ... 29 may remains...Gilles wrote:<br /><br />"Flights of ... 29 may remains good candidats for your sticks and foils"<br /><br />No it does not. On 29 May, the wind over in vicinity of Roswell was blowing from the East to the West, so could not have blown a balloon of any kind from Alamogordo to the Foster ranch.<br /><br />Also, Crary's diary says that the May 29 launch was of a "test" balloon--does not mention a constant level balloon. The rest of the NYU crew, who had the recording equipment needed to support a constant altitude flight would not even arrive in Alamogordo from the East coast until June 1. <br /><br />Whatever was launched by Mears and Hackman was obviously small enough to be launched by two men. Clearly not a 600 ft long balloon train.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17922881368283006882013-08-01T22:13:24.590-07:002013-08-01T22:13:24.590-07:00Crary set off charges for fun, midnight to 6 AM, d...<i>Crary set off charges for fun, midnight to 6 AM, dear David ;)</i><br /><br />Dear Gilles,<br />Crary set off charges "for fun" June 3, 6am-12 noon, after another flight had been cancelled because of cloudy weather<br /><br />Crary set off charges "for fun" June 5, 12 noon to 6 pm AFTER Flight #5 that day had already crashed. (the REAL FIRST flight according to ALL OFFICIAL records) <br /><br />Crary set off charges three successive days June 18-20 when there was no Mogul launch team left in N.M.<br /><br />Gilles conclusion: Since Crary set off charges June 4 12-6 am, they MUST HAVE launched a balloon at midnight and there was a "flight #4" that day/night.<br /><br />REALITY CHECK: There are multiple cases in Crary's diary when he was setting off charges when there were no balloon flights aloft. Setting off charges does NOT equal balloons aloft.<br /><br />Not even Moore claimed they launched at midnight, but 3:00 a.m. Even if that were true, Crary would have been setting off charges 12-3 with no airborne balloon.<br /><br />So, as usual, your argument has no merit as to whether they launched in the middle of the night, much less "soon after midnight".<br /><br />Still haven't heard your "explanation" as to how it would make any sense to have a night launch and not use three of their usual tracking systems (2 visual, the other the radiosonde found on every other launch), and rely solely on radar tracking that Moore said had been unreliable.<br /><br />Your comparison with the real #17 is not valid as they did NOT launch in the dark, but late afternoon, and tracked the progress for over 4 hours before full nightfall. That was already enough to determine that the balloon very successfully achieved constant-altitude flight.<br /><br />But why in the world would they launch at 3 am and not be able to visually track the balloon for over 2 hours until sunrise, and this with your very first attempted balloon flight? They wouldn't be able to determine whether the balloon's constant altitude control was working properly initially, the primary purpose of these "research flights". (Don't really expect a rational or logical response to any of these questions.)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-41526508228002468232013-07-31T22:43:13.236-07:002013-07-31T22:43:13.236-07:00Kevin:
Did you read my posting about 9 or 10 comm...Kevin:<br /><br />Did you read my posting about 9 or 10 comments back? I don't think people are understanding the significance of this.<br /><br />Crary wrote in his diary that the flights on June 3 and then again on June 4 were cancelled due to "clouds". But he doesn't say where the clouds were. Everyone seems to have assumed that he was referring to clouds at the launching site at Holloman. But that's almost certain to be wrong. <br /><br />I have reviewed the weather records at Holloman AFB for the first week of June for the 12-year period between 2002 to 2013. I looked at the surface observations within a 3 hour window centered around dawn. For ALL of the days in that sample for which weather was reported (78 days) ALL of them reported skies clear and visibility unlimited (CAVU). Within that sample, there were exactly ZERO days on which weather would have prevented releasing a free-flying unmanned balloon. On those few days (3 or 4) when weather of any kind (clouds, rain) was reported it was invariably later in the afternoon or evening and occurred as a result of the monsoonal weather pattern that starts moving into New Mexico<br />in early summer.<br /><br />It is very easy to see why Crary and his team selected the Hollloman area for their balloon launch campaign; you can always count on clear skies and calm winds around dawn, which is the natural time for large balloon launches. If the sample I looked at is representative, there is less than 1 chance in 78 that clouds in the Hollloman area would have prevented a balloon launch on, say, June 3, 1947. There is less than 1 chance in 78 squared (6084) that clouds there would have prevented a balloon launch two days in a row. So, clouds in the Hollloman area probably did not prevent the first balloon launch on June 4, 1947.<br /><br />So, if clouds at the launch site were non-existent at dawn on June 4, Crary could only have been referring to clouds somewhere else along the balloon’s flight path (to the East). Weather observations over in the Roswell area do, in fact, indicate cloudy conditions on the morning of June 4. <br /><br />So, on the morning of June 4, there was no substantial change in the weather at either Hollloman or Roswell. It was continuously clear at the launch site and continuously cloudy along the flight path.<br /><br />This means that a change in the weather was NOT the reason the NYU crew cancelled the constant level flight at dawn and NOT the reason they were permitted to release the cluster of balloons with a sonobouy later in the morning. They cancelled the constant level flight because it would have flown into cloudy conditions as it went East that would have violated Visual Flight Rules. They conducted the other flight only because they knew it would not violate those rules. The only way they could be sure that it would not violate those rules is if they knew it would stay in the local area. <br /><br />If it can be shown that the weather was clear at Hollloman on the morning of June 4, 1947, then it is certain that there was no balloon launched from there that could have made it to the Foster ranch.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-37796800628692555072013-07-31T18:10:37.512-07:002013-07-31T18:10:37.512-07:00Gilles -
You amaze me. It is clear that there wer...Gilles -<br /><br />You amaze me. It is clear that there were no flights launched at night. In June, these were prohibited by the CAA because these long arrays would be a hazard to aerial navigation. I do not understand how you cannot understand that. The Mogul flights in June were all launched after 5:00 a.m. That is documented fact.<br /><br />That the CAA prohibited the flights at night is also documented fact. There really is no room for discussion. The issue centers on that cluster of balloons that was launched sometime later in the day (June 4)... day.<br /><br />By the time you get to Flight No. 17, also launched in the daylight, the array trains were no longer 5, 6, or 700 feet long and the danger to aerial navigation not as great.<br /><br />For God's sake, man, read the documents...<br /><br />It is clear from the field notes and Crary's diary that the detonation of charges between midnight and six was done to test the capability of the listening equipment on the ground. This is documented fact, yet you come back saying that Crary did it for fun.<br /><br />Finally, the discussion here is about Mogul and has nothing to do with Don Schmitt and what he might have or might not have done with Walter Haut's affidavit.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-69039342709900131192013-07-31T16:57:49.377-07:002013-07-31T16:57:49.377-07:00BTW,
What Kevin thinks about Don Schmitt and his...BTW, <br /><br />What Kevin thinks about Don Schmitt and his team (The so-called DreamTeam?) of investigators - sic - to have redacted themselves Haut last affidavit, Haut signed?<br /><br />It is a scientific method you are promoting and defending, Kevin?<br />Or that's ufology?<br /><br />Just curious...<br /><br />GillesGilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-22337260474301122162013-07-31T16:03:42.643-07:002013-07-31T16:03:42.643-07:00When you want David, to open a thread about your p...When you want David, to open a thread about your pseudo Psycho-Social hypothesis Moore have confused Flight 17 and 4 in his memories...<br />Never read such absurb hypothesis to have your sticks and foils spacecraft. <br />Of course, Your english will defeat mine, but well, when you want...<br /><br />GillesGilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-91682716949488347662013-07-31T15:57:31.754-07:002013-07-31T15:57:31.754-07:00Crary set off charges for fun, midnight to 6 AM, d...Crary set off charges for fun, midnight to 6 AM, dear David ;)<br />None NYU flight was scheduled to be launched when he did it on these interval times... <br />That's Ufology!Gilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-66045140899075783842013-07-31T15:55:58.037-07:002013-07-31T15:55:58.037-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Gilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-18920101651932164722013-07-31T15:32:57.944-07:002013-07-31T15:32:57.944-07:00Typical Gilles. Grossly distorts the records and ...Typical Gilles. Grossly distorts the records and because he can't respond to actual facts and points raised in rebuttal launches into his usual well-rehearsed unimaginative ridicule. (Though he did leave out "conspiracist" this time--must be slipping.) <br /><br />E.g. Gilles cited as "evidence" that there was a "scheduled" "soon after midnight" "flight #4" Crary's diary saying he set off charges from 12 to 6 am. Not only is there zero documentation of any such "scheduled" flight at this time, I pointed out NUMEROUS instances of Crary setting off charges when there was not only no balloon flight but no balloon team to send one up. No response from Gilles on this.<br /><br />Of course I went into detail to document this. It takes someone like Gilles a few words to tell a whopper but a whole lot more to show why the argument is bogus.<br /><br />Charles Moore has been caught in all sorts of lies and doubletalk. I and others have also pointed this out. No real rebuttal from Gilles except to try to change the subject. <br /><br />Way to go Gilles! I'll take your typical inane ridicule to deflect away from your inability to respond to points as your tacit admission of defeat.<br /><br />But that's DEBOONKERY!David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46562601322678518392013-07-31T14:34:39.644-07:002013-07-31T14:34:39.644-07:00I’ll give Gilles credit for finding one flight tha...<i>I’ll give Gilles credit for finding one flight that lasted through the night</i><br /><br />There is NO flight launched in dark times, David ;) It is well known in the Gospels! Too dangerous for civilian air trafic! <br />Despite flight 17 flowns 5 or 6 hours, and have reached Kansas..<br />Well, this flight never existed and was cancelled too ;)<br />After all, we have none NOTAM too, so it never existed!<br />Gilles<br /><br />Gilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-22005146608297583182013-07-31T14:19:42.880-07:002013-07-31T14:19:42.880-07:00Amusing me too, supra-Ophtalmo but "blindy&qu...<br /><br />Amusing me too, supra-Ophtalmo but "blindy" David Rudiak, to read your pseudo Psycho-social analysis of Moore confusing Flight 17 and 4 hypothesis.<br />It have been already debunked, Dear Man of sticks and foils...<br /><br />You can continue your walls of texts as if you are responding to someone (your own mirror?)...<br /><br />Post/send your pseudo-theory to Universities or your National Academy of Science, dear Doctor.<br />Waht are you waiting for?<br /><br />Flights of the 4 june and 29 may remains good candidats for your sticks and foils super-spacecraft and your Chimera...<br /><br />Good continuation, David Rudiak, the sticks and foils spacecraft proponent guy ;)<br /><br />Let me say and write that your alien spacecraft tuning rocks! Whooo!<br /><br />Well, that's ufology ;)<br /><br /><br />GillesGilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-37214051069843797792013-07-31T14:16:07.527-07:002013-07-31T14:16:07.527-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Gilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-53927685817387091192013-07-31T11:59:57.896-07:002013-07-31T11:59:57.896-07:00Response to Gilles (2 of 2)
KEVIN: “Or, in other w...Response to Gilles (2 of 2)<br /><i>KEVIN: “Or, in other words, they couldn’t launch the balloons in the dark for the same reason they couldn’t launch them into the clouds. They posed a risk to aerial navigation.”<br /><br />GILLES: Hum, I dont think so and think you are not correct, Kevin (that NYU balloons cant fly when Dark, cause posing a risk to aerial navigation).<br /><br />Take the example of the "well" documented Flight#17.<br />It was launched late in the evening (1647 MST), 3 monthes later (9 september 1947) and recovered 530 miles distant in Kansas(around 6 hours of flight duration in my memories)...</i><br /><br />Amusing that Gilles would mention Flight #17, the flight that went along a similar trajectory and passed exactly over the same “exotic” NM towns that Moore said ONLY “Flight #4” had done. Those “exotically” named towns were the reason Moore claimed to have a “distinct memory” of “Flight #4”. Since Gilles loves psycho-social theories for everything, maybe he might consider that after around 100 Mogul-like launches and 50 years later, Moore might simply be confusing the real #17 with the nonexistent #4, for which there is not one shred of documentation that it ever existed. This may have been the one and only REAL Mogul flight that came anywhere near the Foster Ranch. Again see:<br /><br />http://www.roswellproof.com/Flight4_Addendums.html#anchor_3666<br /><br />I’ll give Gilles credit for finding one flight that lasted through the night. What Gilles omitted (Gilles always omits the stuff he doesn’t like) is that the flight was still launched in full daylight, but in the late afternoon. Sunset was little over an hour later, but the balloon was already up at maximum constant-altitude (39,000 feet), above flight lanes. They were still able to track it for over another 3 hours and lost it in the same area that Moore ascribes to “Flight #4”. Coincidence? We think not.<br /><br />This was a plastic balloon flight, with the plastic balloons maintaining altitude much better than the early rubber weather balloons. Throughout the tracking period, the balloon maintained a constant altitude, which as I noted before, was above flight lanes.<br /><br />Most of the later plastic balloons would leave the range area and even leave the state. One got all the way to eastern Canada. It is possible the CAA later eased the flight restrictions and requirement for NOTAMs (I honestly don’t know), but early on in the program there was concern about these large balloon flights being hazards to aviation when they passed through flight lanes on the way down.<br /><br />So yes, LATER, flights during the night when they had gained more experience and had more reliable balloons, but again ZERO evidence of night flights in any of the early flights. It was potentially more dangerous and also made absolutely no sense from a tracking and research perspective. Visual tracking, especially from the ground, but also from the air, was one of their most reliable tracking systems to know where their flights were and how they were performing. So you just throw it out on your very first flight? (Moore, Gilles, and other debunkers’ claim) That would be crazy stupid. But EVERYTHING about the Mogul “Flight #4” theory is crazy stupid, starting with the fact that the flight was actually cancelled and thus omitted from ALL subsequent records, like other cancelled flights.<br /><br />Moore’s “night flight” is another of his incredibly outrageous assumptions to try to get his model to work. At least he was open about it, unlike a number of his other assumptions which he buried in his table and are at direct odds with his stated assumptions. E.g., his assumption the “Flight #4” was basically a perfect flight with equipment that worked even better than the real successful Flight #5 the next day, contradicts how he really treated the flight on rise and fall, greatly shortening the rise and fall times compared to #5 in order to greatly shorten the trajectory. (Else the model flight would greatly overshoot the target.)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-74655164446316839472013-07-31T11:56:25.352-07:002013-07-31T11:56:25.352-07:00Gilles wrote (mop-up time, part 1 of 2)
”And what ...Gilles wrote (mop-up time, part 1 of 2)<br /><i>”And what makes you think that the balloon arrays were launched in the dark?”<br /><br />No, I stated the launch was scheduled to be launched at "night" times, closed after midnight. Crary fired charges from midnight to 6am at the Tularosa range.</i><br /><br />What Gilles edited out: Crary then followed immediately with the statement "no flight AGAIN on account of clouds." THEN the statement about the balloon clusters with sonobuoy sent up instead, followed by next entry of more charges being set off 1800 to 2400 when there was obviously no balloon of any kind in the air. Crary was probably just testing ground receivers.<br /><br />In fact, there are multiple entries by Crary of setting off charges when there were clearly no balloons flying, such as June 3, again the cancelled flight because of clouds, with Crary then saying "fired charges from 6 on to 12." <br /><br />Or June 5, when he says he was setting off charges 1200 to 1800. Problem was the very real flight #5 from early that morning had already crashed before noon east of Roswell. Why was Crary only setting off charges AFTER the flight was down? I don't know. Maybe he just liked to blow up crap.<br /><br />Crary was setting off charges even when there wasn't a Mogul team in New Mexico to send up a flight, such as the series of tests he conducted June 18-20 and May 22/23.<br /><br />So the setting off of charges by Crary does NOT somehow automatically equal a balloon flight being in the air at the time.<br /><br />Similarly Gilles’ bogus claim that there were launches in June 1947 planned "close after midnight". This is just more if his endless nonsense and a repeat of another of Charles Moore's many, many lies.<br /><br />Gilles statement that the launch was “scheduled” at night is more made-up nonsense. In his book, Moore changed Crary's June 3 entry of “up at 230 ready to fly balloon but abandoned due to cloudy skies” to mean ” Crary's diary shows that he was ready for the launching <i>soon after midnight</i> on 3 June.” Thus more word games by Moore. 2:30 am has now become “soon after midnight” (or Gilles’ “close after midnight”). <br /><br />Further this does not mean they could have instantly launched at 2:30. They had to inflate balloons, tie them together, attach the equipment, etc. All RECORDED flights June/July instead went up around dawn, or soon after 5:00 am, not “soon after midnight,” so probably after several hours of preparation. That is how I interpret Crary’s entry of “up at 230 ready to fly...”<br /><br />There were similar Moore word games in his Sci Fi Channel interview in 1997. There he claimed, as if it was indisputable fact, that “Flight #4” was launched at "about" 3:00 AM, when there is ZERO documentation of when any flight went up. Then he compounded it by adding that it was launched "about the same time of the day" as Flight #5 the next day, which actually went up at 5:17 am.<br /><br />Thus in Moore DebunkerDoubleTalk, 2:30 am is both simultaneously “soon after midnight” and after 5:00 am. Further Moore had previously assumed that IF there was a #4, it had gone up at dawn like the other flights. But that was before he created his hoax trajectory model and realized he couldn’t rationalize the overly long stratospheric drift westward toward the Foster Ranch (critical to his model) unless he could get rid of the sun that deteriorated the neoprene balloons for at least another 2 hours. Simple! Now just assert they launched in the middle of the night instead of dawn. Hopefully nobody will ask why they would launch blind like that on their very first launch, throwing out optical tracking from the ground and air and also radiosonde tracking, relying solely on radar target tracking, which Moore said hadn’t been reliable<br /><br />So, Gilles, your Jedi mind tricks will not work here. Those only work on the skeptical feeble-minded. There are too many intelligent people here who actually read the documentation instead of deliberately misinterpreting it, which you almost always seem to do.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-54729335052115447902013-07-30T13:07:01.992-07:002013-07-30T13:07:01.992-07:00David:
Kevin asked, “Oh, and the important point....David:<br /><br />Kevin asked, “Oh, and the important point... Flight No. 4 was cancelled because of the cloud cover... think about that.” So I have been thinking about that; the puzzle is why one flight would be cancelled but another allowed to go ahead. A reasonable conjecture would be that there was cloud cover at the launching site that burned off sometime after dawn. While that would be reasonable, it’s probably not correct, as a matter of fact.<br /><br />One of my favorite websites for researching historical weather conditions is the Weather Underground http://www.wunderground.com/<br /><br />Anyone can go to that website and select the “Weather” button and then select Airport Weather History and pull up weather records from 1945 up to today for any airport that has been in continuous operation.<br /><br />If you pull up the records for Roswell between June 3 and June 5, 1947, you can see the history of hourly reports for RAAF. The synopsis for that period is pretty easy to understand. By 5:00 AM on June 3 there was a very humid air mass (relative humidity around 75%) over that part of New Mexico that was responsible for clouds and general reduced visibility. It stayed that way through at least 5:00 AM on June 4. By 5:00 AM on June 5, the humidity had plummeted to about half that value and continued going down. By 5:00 PM on June 5, the Roswell area was reported as “clear”.<br /><br />The Weather Underground records for Holloman AFB do not go back to 1947, so I currently do not have an explicit report of what the weather was doing at the MOGUL launch site between June 3 and June 5, 1947. However, it is not too difficult to make an educated guess. If you look at the Holloman hourly reports for June 3 for all of the years for which we do have records (more or less the last 15 years) you will see that the pattern is exactly the same. The winds are calm and the sky is clear—perfect flying weather. That’s why White Sands Test Range was put where it was. It is very unlikely that the constant altitude flights of June 3 and 4 1947 were cancelled because of weather at the launch site. However, I’m still trying to find records that would prove that one way or another. Do you know of any?<br /><br />I suggest that it was the weather 40 or 50 miles to the East of Alamogordo (i.e., in the Roswell vicinity) on June 3 and 4 that prevented the launch of any large balloon that might make it that far and therefore intrude into civilian air lanes. This means that whatever balloon cluster was launched on June 4, it was not expected or planned for it to make it out of the immediate vicinity of the launch area.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-80995266423253221002013-07-30T12:36:51.395-07:002013-07-30T12:36:51.395-07:00cda wrote:
"Unfortunately Larry, and I'm ...cda wrote:<br /><i>"Unfortunately Larry, and I'm surprised that cda and Lance haven't jumped on this, the chance of an alien spaceship landing on the Foster ranch would be say, a million to one! Therefore Mogul is a far more 'logical explanation'."<br /><br />How right you are!<br /><br />However, I must point out that your 'million to one' is pure guesswork, nothing else. I am certain that Stan Friedman would give a vastly different, very much lower, figure.<br /><br />And the 850 to 1 (or 4250 to 1) for Mogul that you quote is again pure guesswork and completely useless to science.</i><br /><br />Your basic argument: "It might have been Mogul if you ignore the documented facts that the alleged Mogul was said to be cancelled, it is totally absent from all Mogul summaries like the other stated cancelled Moguls, and Mogul docs plus official government histories of flight clearly state that the flight the next day (#5) was the actual FIRST NM Mogul flight"<br /><br />...might also be considered pure guesswork and not even remotely logical much less "scientific", not to put too fine a point on the odds...<br /><br />...whereas Larry was simply stating that Moore's trajectory model based on wind data used numerous hidden assumptions (i.e. cheating) of low probability of ALL being true (regardless of the true probability, which is fuzzy as true scientific estimates often are, but nonetheless very LOW)...<br /><br />...And you could add in that Mogul records of some 50+ REAL flights indicate that only 2 even remotely passed near the Foster Ranch, i.e. off in a roughly northerly to northeasterly trajectory, meaning the odds of them even launching in wind conditions that might work were on the order of maybe 4% to begin with...<br /><br />Add that all together, and you may well have odds of crudely one in a million that the totally undocumented, almost certainly nonexistent "flight #4" even hypothetically launched in unfavorable wind conditions accounted for the Roswell crash.<br /><br />The fact that Moore employed numerous and hidden highly questionable assumptions (or simple cheats) to make his constant-altitude balloon model trajectory work means he deliberately cheated and he knew the winds weren't right (hence the cheating).<br /><br />The fact that both McAndrew and Moore lied about the similar existence of other very clearly cancelled flights also missing from Mogul records, also shows they knew there was never a "flight #4".<br /><br />But the debunker mentality is that flying saucers cannot possibly exist much less crash (or some all-knowing "scientific" ZERO probability), therefore any conventional "explanation", no matter how stupid or impossible is considered more probable.<br /><br />But that's DEBOONKERY!David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-51556457177899894432013-07-29T02:30:50.926-07:002013-07-29T02:30:50.926-07:00Nitram (or Martin):
You wrote:
"Unfortunate...Nitram (or Martin):<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br />"Unfortunately Larry, and I'm surprised that cda and Lance haven't jumped on this, the chance of an alien spaceship landing on the Foster ranch would be say, a million to one! Therefore Mogul is a far more 'logical explanation'."<br /><br />How right you are!<br /><br />However, I must point out that your 'million to one' is pure guesswork, nothing else. I am certain that Stan Friedman would give a vastly different, very much lower, figure.<br /><br />And the 850 to 1 (or 4250 to 1) for Mogul that you quote is again pure guesswork and completely useless to science.<br /><br />So folks we are back at square one, or possibly square two.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-52612054393913050642013-07-28T22:29:13.895-07:002013-07-28T22:29:13.895-07:00Lance wrote
"Is the Moore letter to Schiff a...Lance wrote<br /><br />"Is the Moore letter to Schiff available somewhere for reference?"<br /><br />Lance - I respectively suggest you forgot to use the "magic" word. <br /><br />You also haven't answered my question - have you seen "Roswell" the movie?<br /><br />cda wrote<br /><br />"However there is evidence that a flight OF SOME KIND was launched the same morning that flight 4 was cancelled."<br /><br />That's not bad cda - you have a point here.<br /><br />"Now I shall do what Dr.Rudiak so frequently does to me and others - throws in counter arguments and counter questions:"<br /><br />That is rather funny coming from you cda.<br /><br />"Is there any hard evidence that an ET craft crashed to earth that day in summer '47?"<br /><br />No, I guess the dream team don't have the bodies or the craft in their possession and I think, ASSUMING that the event is ET, your being a bit unreasonable expecting them to produce that.<br /><br />"If not, then why not? You have had 66 years to produce it. Don't you think it is about time you did?"<br /><br />They have not been working on this for 66 years - but this is not the point. If the evidence has been hidden away, how to you suggest they go about getting their hands on this? If this was a debate, of course it would be far easier to argue against ET - but your not being reasonable.... It can be shown with a very high probability that it is not Mogul.<br /><br />Larry wrote:<br /><br />"What is the expectation value that Moore’s explanation is correct? It’s all those probabilities multiplied together, or about 0.0011 (1 part in about 850). My estimate of the probability of his explanation being wrong is therefore slightly more than 99.8%. As I said, everyone can plug their own numbers in and see what they get, but even if each assumption is a 50-50 proposition, the probability of his explanation being correct never rises above about 3%. Moore’s happy horseshit would never have passed peer review."<br /><br />Like Anthony, I like the way your thinking - I would be surprised if DR and Kevin will give Mogul 1 in 850 chance though! I think you also need to factor in the fact of the Army not recognising it... according to cda that would be only 20% therefore the 1/850 becomes 1/4250 (please forgive me if the math ain't quite right - but you will see the point...)<br /><br />Unfortunately Larry, and I'm surprised that cda and Lance haven't jumped on this, the chance of an alien spaceship landing on the Foster ranch would be say, a million to one! Therefore Mogul is a far more "logical explanation".<br /><br />But, just to remind you again cda, Mogul fails, but it don't prove ET.Nitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-62471584358907814622013-07-28T15:33:58.242-07:002013-07-28T15:33:58.242-07:00Response to Lance (2 of 2):
But (with the evidence...Response to Lance (2 of 2):<br /><i>But (with the evidence we have) I'm not sure that we can deduce much and certainly the statements made by the chief conspiracist, Rudiak, are unwarranted.</i><br /><br />Yes, by all means let us review the "evidence we have" and let's see exactly what a "conspiracist" deduces from it vs. our vaunted “critical thinker” Lance.<br /><br />Of the early flights permanently missing from the records, ALL were indicated as cancelled for various reasons: #2 & #3 because of winds, #4 cancelled "again" because of cloudy weather, and #9 because of the cancellation of an accompanying V-2 flight.<br /><br />ALL these flights are indicated as cancelled either in Crary's diary and/or Mogul progress reports.<br /><br />IN ADDITION are the following indisputable FACTS:<br /><br />1. These same cancelled constant-altitude flights are totally missing from the Mogul flight summary tables. (With my “conspiracist thinking” I conclude that this is because they WERE cancelled. Duhhh!)<br /><br />2. In the same table, Flight #5, June 5, 1947, is called "the first successful flight carrying a heavy load." With my “conspiracist thinking”, I ask, “What happened to Charles Moore even more successful ‘flight #4’ carrying a heavy load?” <br /><br />3. Mogul progress reports (2 of which I cited) ALL show Flight #5, June 5, not a "Flight #4" June 4 as the FIRST New Mexico flight, complete with engineering schematic, ground trajectory, time-altitude profile, etc. (All other non-cancelled flights are similarly documented.) From this my “conspiracist” mentality concludes that is because #5 WAS the first such flight.<br /><br />4. Official military/government histories again show the flight on June 5 (#5) as the FIRST such "research flight", not a flight on June 4. I've given references for three of them: Cambridge Labs history (who ran the Mogul project), NASA history of flight, and an official USAF history published in 2005 by real Air Force historians (not AFOSI counterintelligence agents). <br /><br />So in my capacity as "chief conspiracist", I conclude that ALL REAL documentation shows that no constant-altitude "flight #4" ever existed since there is NO RECORD OF IT ANYWHERE and the REAL FIRST such flight was clearly Flight #5, which six official sources I’ve cited record as the FIRST CA flight starting in June 1947.<br /><br />But Lance, with his keen "non-conspiracist" skeptical critical thinking skills, concludes that "the evidence at hand", i.e. a COMPLETE ABSENCE OF RECORDS supporting a CA flight June 4, along with the single word "cluster" in Crary's diary (ignoring previous sentence of "NO flight AGAIN on account of clouds") is all it takes to demonstrate that there really was a CA "Flight #4".<br /><br />Somewhere along the line of this "non-conspiracist" "critical thinking", Lance forgot to tell us why they failed to record this wonderfully successful CA flight before the one they only thought was the first successful one, #5 the next day. <br /><br />Perhaps they forgot to record it because of the wild drinking party celebrating the incredible success of "#4". Maybe Crary's dog ate the flight records. I'm sure Lance is up to the "critical thinking" task of explaining the mysterious missing records for “Flight #4”.<br /><br />Maybe Lance could just set it all down in a book titled "Skeptical Critical Thinking Skills 4 DUMMIES". "Conspiracists" need not read.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-38911271636384474932013-07-28T15:28:40.713-07:002013-07-28T15:28:40.713-07:00Lance wrote (part 1 of 2)
Actually my thought is t...Lance wrote (part 1 of 2)<br /><i>Actually my thought is that the diary entry is slightly likely to address the composition of the flight at all--in other words, it may have nothing to do with what equipment was strung together. If"cluster" means anything, maybe it means the full constant level equipment (since other CL flights had the same designation). </i><br /><br />The other constant-altitude flights (let's call them CA, not CL) with the "cluster" designation (from July 1947) had multiple balloons tied to the same common point, like a child's "cluster" of balloon. See the engineering schematics for Flight's #7 (rubber balloons), #8 and #11 (plastic). <br /><br />#9 is missing from Mogul records (like #2, #3, & "#4"), with Crary noting only "sent up CLUSTER with dummy load."<br /><br />Oooh, says Lance clapping his hands together with glee, another unrecorded "CL flight" called a "cluster". Case closed!<br /><br />But note that Crary adds "dummy load", meaning no equipment of any kind. We also know what happened that day. First there was Flight #8 (a plastic balloon "cluster", i.e. tied at one point) which went up early, which was supposed to co-ordinate with a high-altitude V-2 flight. But that was delayed by technical problems. So Mogul quickly put together a makeshift CA rubber balloon array (perhaps using the new "cluster" configuration as the prior rubber #7), but then the V-2 launch was called off permanently. So no reason to send up a CA flight. Flight cancelled, even if Crary wasn't specific about it. That's why the "dummy load" and #9 missing from records, just like #2, #3, and--ahemm--"#4", all clearly indicated as cancelled for one reason or another, but Lance still doesn't, or refuses to "get it."<br /><br />As for the June rubber CA balloon flights (#5, #6), Crary calls neither one a "cluster" and we know from the schematics they were long linear arrays of balloons instead of being tied together at one point. Also, the Mogul CA numbered flight summary table notes that #1, #5, and #6 (all rubber balloons) were configured as a "long cosmic ray TRAIN" (not "cluster"). (The cancelled #2 schematic shows the same thing.)<br /><br />Instead, Crary refers to #5/6 as a "balloon flight" or "balloon train" (#5: "Up at 4 to shoot 2 charges for BALLOON FLIGHT"; #6: "BALLOON FLIGHT off about 530; "Rancher Sid West found BALLOON TRAIN..." ). Even more specifically, Crary refers to #5 as an "assembly of CONSTANT-ALTITUDE balloons". <br /><br />For the recovery of #5, Crary mentions them bringing back equipment from the Roswell area, and for #6 from Sid West's ranch, is very specific about the equipment recovered, again leaving no doubt this was another CA flight.<br /><br />And, of course, you can find detailed permanent records of these flights in Mogul documentation, such as balloon schematics showing the "long cosmic ray train", ground trajectories, time/altitude profiles, other details of flight, equipment, and tracking in flight table summaries and Mogul progress reports.<br /><br />But NOTHING in ANY of the records for #2, #3, #4, and #9, other than they were clearly cancelled for one reason or another. Hmmm, why no records? Maybe Lance can take a wild guess with his vaunted skeptical critical thinking skills.<br /><br />But Crary used "cluster" (not "train") for the balloons with sonobuoy that went up on June 4, and "cluster" for a very different balloon configuration (all tied to together at a point) on CA flights in July and from that Lance infers this as some sort of “evidence” that the "flight" on June 4 was a CA flight.<br /><br />Wow! Talk about grasping at straws!David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-47227857612913372013-07-28T14:32:13.622-07:002013-07-28T14:32:13.622-07:00Larry's estimates of probabilities of this &am...Larry's estimates of probabilities of this & that, and hence his overall probability that Moore's explanation is correct, is useless as science. There are too many arbitrarily chosen variables, there is no way we can say if they are truly independent variables (in which case multiplying the probabilities together is meaningless), and there are very likely other variables that are excluded. <br /><br />The ONLY certain thing is that a flight of some kind was launched that morning.<br /><br />Larry's final estimate has no practical value at all and, as he says, people can plug in other probability values and turn up a completely different final answer. <br /><br />It is, in effect, like saying: Here are five unexplained UFO cases. Each one has been examined and thoroughly investigated by a panel of experts beforehand and categorised as an 'unknown', and therefore we assume that the probability that ONE of these, picked at random, is explainable is, say, only 10%.<br /><br />Therefore the probability of all five such cases being explainable is only 1 in 100,000. Hence there is a 99.999% chance that at least one is a true unknown UFO case. Fantastic? No, completely false.<br /><br />Anyone can see the fallacy here. The estimates are just that - subject to wide error, and the multiplication of probabilities does not apply, since if the methodology of determining a case to be an unknown has the slightest error, this will likely apply to every case, not just one, offsetting the final result so much as to be meaningless. <br /><br />A simple question: can anyone possibly say that the WHOLE of the balloon array came down at, or near, one location? Can anyone even say it was all spread out over say, 1/4 of a square mile? Of course not. There is simply not the data to prove or disprove this. Even a small change in wind speed or direction would offset the result. As would atmospheric pressure changes.<br /><br />Think of all the umpteen (many thousands) of abductions the world over. What probability would you assign to there being, out of all that data, at least ONE true ET abduction? You only need one to prove ETs are here!cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.com