tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post7721902235401840390..comments2024-03-18T16:51:50.688-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: A Few Facts about Project MogulKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-23033535790151239652013-09-02T09:28:39.180-07:002013-09-02T09:28:39.180-07:00Tim Printy offers the skeptical side of much of th...Tim Printy offers the skeptical side of much of the above in the new issue of SUNlite:<br /><br />http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite5_5.pdf<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-8196734354515634292013-08-16T13:36:24.988-07:002013-08-16T13:36:24.988-07:00Rudiak: "There was obviously no real peer rev...Rudiak: "There was obviously no real peer review, which would have stopped the hoax in its tracks"<br /><br />Because all what Doctor Rudiak (and the DreamTeam) provides is peer-reviewed or you are part of some peer-review? <br />I ignored it... ;)<br />Gilles.Gilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-60428323409765153732013-08-16T04:52:04.889-07:002013-08-16T04:52:04.889-07:00"...the challenge now, as far as I see it, is..."...the challenge now, as far as I see it, is to develop an actual test, or set of tests, for the ETH."<br /><br />What the military collected in 1947 may not have been mogul debris but SOMETHING was taken. And conceivably, something was left behind. You didn't mention claims of unusual metal found in recent years at the sites. You think they're bogus? (You didn't mention trying to get disclosure of material from '47 either; IMO its practically hopeless).starmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09884942748644499035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-56263346373732388862013-08-16T01:56:54.814-07:002013-08-16T01:56:54.814-07:00Given that the debate on Mogul is effectively over...Given that the debate on Mogul is effectively over (bar the shouting, which may well continue, but is easily refuted) the challenge now, as far as I see it, is to develop an actual test, or set of tests, for the ETH.<br /><br />In terms of Roswell much of the evidence is witness based, which, whilst useful background, will not be sufficient.<br /><br />Not sure where the 'state of the art' is at in terms of reading fuzzy documents but my proposal for a test would be that, once the technology can be applied to read sections of the Ramey memo with high confidence, it will confirm the recovery of 'victims of the wreck' and discuss the 'disc'.<br /><br />Perhaps more realistically in the short term - as progressively more sophisticated techniques are applied my prediction is that the level of confidence in the reading of those specific phrases will increase.<br /><br />It may also be possible to develop quantitative tests in other areas of this phenomena. For example if CE4 events are sometimes genuine you would expect to find a statistically significantly higher incidence of UFO reports near the time and location of CE4 events. This appears to be the case (Mugan, 2011, Journal of Frontier Science) but this could also be consistent with Persinger's TSL hypothesis.<br /><br />It would also be interesting if we could develop a test based on the current best estimate of how some of these things may be operating, if they exist, (i.e. some of the thinking of Paul Hill). it may be possible to detect modifications to various physical parameters around such events...<br /><br />Anyway - going off topic I know, but we do seem to be at that point now.Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-55393517127941989552013-08-15T11:31:10.417-07:002013-08-15T11:31:10.417-07:00DR writes:
"Or maybe some agency added a lit...DR writes:<br /><br />"Or maybe some agency added a little bit to his [Moore's] government pension to debunk Roswell."<br /><br />How right DR is! Why not go further and tell us that General Ramey had a bit added to his pension for coordinating the whole magnificent cover-up act on July 8? (Not that it did him much good as he died before normal pension age.)<br /><br />What about Blanchard? Didn't he also cooperate in the 'big lie' and get a 'sweetener' for it?<br /><br />McAndrew and Weaver (both intelligence guys) likewise. In fact anyone and everyone involved in the grand deception was given a 'back hander' or a 'sweetener' to keep this absolutely ghastly otherworldly event a secret forever.<br /><br />Come to think of it, there was mention of a 'slush fund' in one of the Randle/Schmitt books, I believe.<br /><br />If any of the above persons were citizens of the UK or Commonwealth they would certainly get knighthoods and maybe even peerages for their contributions to scientific knowledge.<br /><br />As Gilles says, such is ufology. <br /><br />But we should stick to the topic - Mogul.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-29576798566245706882013-08-15T10:53:49.844-07:002013-08-15T10:53:49.844-07:00Anthony,
I think you are being much too kind to M...Anthony,<br /><br />I think you are being much too kind to Moore. I used to respect him, but no longer, not after his long string of clear deceit on the topic of how his Mogul caused the Roswell incident. What he did went well beyond innocent confirmation bias or "curve fitting." <br /><br />What I see is very calculated lie and after lie, pretending to do one thing with the data but doing something else entirely, whether it was altering the Flight #5 trajectory map after claiming to copy it "without change" in order to distance #5 from Roswell base (caught by Brad Sparks, with Moore continuing to lie in a debate about how close #5 really came to the base), or using multiple hidden cheats in his "Flight #4" trajectory model, then claiming the winds were exactly right to carry it exactly to the Foster Ranch.<br /><br />Brad Sparks came up with other instances from Moore's past where he was screwing with people. According to Sparks, Moore also claimed to know all about the Thomas Mantell incident being caused by one of their Skyhook balloons because he was there at the launch. Lt. McAndrew, of USAF Roswell report infamy, actually checked out the story and discovered Moore hadn't arrived at the Skyhook team for several more weeks. So he wasn't there like he said. When confronted with this, Moore plead ancient memory problems, which maybe it was.<br /><br />Likewise Moore claimed that when he heard about Roswell in July 1947, he thought at the time that they had discovered one of his Mogul balloons.<br /><br />The point is Moore seemed to like inserting himself into historical events, whether it was the false Mantell "memory" or his nonexistent Mogul balloon explaining Roswell. Maybe he wanted to feel important in his old age. Or maybe some agency added a little bit to his government pension to debunk Roswell. (Moore used to have a top secret clearance with the CIA, e.g., in the 1950s. CDA will now immediately accuse me of "conspiracist" thinking.)<br /><br />I honestly don't know, other than he was deliberately deceiving the public in concert with AFOSI counterintelligence to try to sell the Mogul explanation, with his background giving it a scientific patina. AFOSI lied even worse than Moore in their report, such as resurrecting two other non-existent balloon flights (#2 and #3) in order to make a case for #4. <br /><br />Smithsonian Press published Moore's trajectory hoax in 1997 as part of the 50th anniversary debunkery book coauthored by Saler and Ziegler, again trying to give the debunkery a "scientific" aura. There was obviously no real peer review, which would have stopped the hoax in its tracks. Smithsonian has never printed a retraction even though the hoax was exposed over a decade ago and they are well aware of it.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-78609000782281605792013-08-15T10:48:43.029-07:002013-08-15T10:48:43.029-07:00Anthony wrote:
"...To be fair if you take it...Anthony wrote:<br /><br />"...To be fair if you take it as just the information he had originally then in a qualitative sense you can see how he could have come up with the idea..."<br /><br />I agree. His original hunch was not unreasonable. It was even falsifiable. It simply happens to actually be false.<br /><br />I don't cut the US Air Force as much slack. They put in extraordinary effort to go back and dig up all the MOGUL records (for which I suppose we should thank them) and then they proceed to systematically and actively misinterpret them in such a way as to confirm Moore's hypothesis, instead of treating it with scientific skepticisim. They were clearly not searching for the truth as much as they were trying to explain away the "Roswell Incident". Ultimately, the exact same records that the Air Force appealed to to substantiate Moore's hunch turn out to falsify it.<br /><br />By nature, I am not particularly suspicious of others' motives, but in the case of the Air Force, I am finding it harder and harder to interpret their actions as anything other than deliberate disinformation.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-7920868529002937822013-08-15T09:24:35.151-07:002013-08-15T09:24:35.151-07:00Hi Larry
Yes, I agree. To be fair if you take it ...Hi Larry<br /><br />Yes, I agree. To be fair if you take it as just the information he had originally then in a qualitative sense you can see how he could have come up with the idea...low level winds taking it NE, then stratospheric back to the west etc...<br />I can sympathise with him as by 1997 he may have been quite personally invested in the model. I can remember my old research supervisor rather disparagingly referring to 'curve fitting' as us (then) young post-grads attempted to save whatever model we'd come up with when it didn't fit the data, so I can sympathise!<br />Moore is someone I respect a lot, so the whole thing gives me no pleasure at all in that regard, but there we are.Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-40765302518008965042013-08-15T08:30:21.847-07:002013-08-15T08:30:21.847-07:00Anthony:
The only thing to add is that it's t...Anthony:<br /><br />The only thing to add is that it's too bad Moore led everyone on a wild goose chase for all these years.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-55525536229461284982013-08-15T08:21:11.331-07:002013-08-15T08:21:11.331-07:00Anthony Mugan wrote:
"I think we can say th...Anthony Mugan wrote:<br /><br /><br />"I think we can say that:<br /><br />a) the documentation establishes that no constant level balloon flight occurred on the 4th June....<br /><br />b) A cluster of balloons with a sono-buoy was released later in the day - exact timing unclear....<br /><br />c) Discussions of the possible trajectory of Flight 4 are therefore a bit academic (shame as I'd spent a lot of time on that!) but provide a 'belt and braces' position..."<br /><br />That about sums it up.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-16266410208347363812013-08-15T02:22:30.965-07:002013-08-15T02:22:30.965-07:00Thanks Larry
As an absolute minimum, ultra-conser...Thanks Larry<br /><br />As an absolute minimum, ultra-conservative position then I think we can say that:<br />a) the documentation establishes that no constant level balloon flight occurred on the 4th June (project reports, Crary's diary and the weather conditions at the launch site, with the significance of downrange conditions TBC but very possibly of significant).<br />b) A cluster of balloons with a sono-buoy was released later in the day - exact timing unclear<br />c) Discussions of the possible trajectory of Flight 4 are therefore a bit academic (shame as I'd spent a lot of time on that!) but provide a 'belt and braces' position as this establishes that Moore's trajectory is invalid in terms of the laws of physics (e.g the ascent phase could not have had that shape with a design using lifter balloons)<br /><br />Many thanks, again, Larry, always appreciate your extremely objective comments, well grounded in the real world.Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-14479114006818059842013-08-14T20:19:23.912-07:002013-08-14T20:19:23.912-07:00Part 2
When the FAA issues weather and visibility...Part 2<br /><br />When the FAA issues weather and visibility minimums for a particular type of flight (in this case, unmanned free balloon) those minimums are assumed to apply through all phases of the flight, from takeoff to termination. This is certainly the case, for example, in exercising the priveleges of Pilot-In-Command of an airplane. For flights outside the immediate vicinity of the launching airport, one is required to acquaint oneself will all of the available data relevant to that flight, including current and forecast weather along the expected route of flight. I can’t imagine the requirement would be any less for an unmanned free flying balloon. At the very least, they would have called up the Roswell control tower and asked, “How’s the weather over there?”<br /><br />When flying out of White Sands, they were launching from inside the military Danger Area. My conjecture is that as long as their balloons stayed inside the Danger Area there was no requirement to issue a NOTAM since any pilot wanting to transit the Danger Area was already forewarned that there could be hazards to flight there and was also required to contact the responsible agency (White Sands Test Range) before entering. As the letter dated Aug 27 makes clear, the original expectation was that the balloon trains would not make it out of the Danger Area, but this was shown not to be the case, probably with the June 5 flight, which landed East of Roswell. This point is not entirely clear, because there appears to me to be a small discontinuity in the documentation between the CAA and the NYU team. In March-April, when the team was still on the East Coast, they negotiated with the CAA and received approval to execute Phases I and II of their plan, both of which were to take place on the East Coast. The correspondence at that time also indicates that they had requested the CAA to consider their request to conduct balloon flights “along the lines of Phase II” out of White Sands. There is no written response to that request in the record and yet, in May the NYU team showed up at White Sands and promptly started flying balloons. Clearly, they had received permission to begin flights. My assumption would be that they had been approved to fly balloons during May, June, and July at White Sands, operating under a direct extension of the rules they had been using on the East Coast.<br /><br />In any case, WHATEVER the CAA-imposed sky coverage conditions that the NYU team was operating under on June 4, they met those conditions at the mid-morning balloon release and would not have not meet those conditions at the dawn release. Since cloud conditions at White Sands were almost certainly non-existent it has to have been the cloud conditions downrange that prevented the dawn release.<br /><br />It looks to me like the NYU team had to re-propose in August, to begin another campaign in September. At that point the CAA found it necessary to reconsider the groundrules. I think the main reasons for this is that the constant-level device was shown to work and yielded flight durations of up to 12 hours, and that the wind pattern had changed so that some of the flights were heading Southwest instead of East. The main airline traffic (El Paso) was off to the Southwest, so that represented a greater safety risk. In their letter of Sept 2, the CAA explicitly noted a few items of interest to this debate: “releases are usually made at dawn”, the flight terminates in an average of 8 hours time”, “balloons are tracked by VHF (Very High Frequency) DF (direction finding) stations at Alamogordo and Roswell”. Finally, in September, the NYU team got the CAA to relax the sky coverage condition for balloon flights from “cloudless” to not more than 4/10 coverage within a 60 mile radius.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-49396164950300030612013-08-14T20:14:10.025-07:002013-08-14T20:14:10.025-07:00Part 1
Anthony Mugan asked...
“I'm no expert o...Part 1<br />Anthony Mugan asked...<br />“I'm no expert on visibility at night but had the impression that this didn't prevent a night launch (such as for Flight 8). ..”<br /><br />I don’t think visibility by itself, would either prevent or allow night flight. When the FAA (and presumably the CAA) states the conditions that allow flight, the conditions are normally interpreted as being independent of each other. In the letter of April 17, 1947, Schneider, of the NYU team, requests permission “to fly balloons on days when there are no more than scattered clouds in thin layers up to 20,000 feet and visibility greater than 3 miles.” So, the conditions “day”, “scattered clouds” and “visibility greater than 3 miles” are all independent conditions. They all have to be met in order for the flight to be in compliance. In aviation parlance, “day” is not a 24 hour period; it is the period between sunrise and sunset (plus or minus a little bit). So, when the CAA came back and said that their request was approved EXCEPT that it would be restricted to “cloudless” days, the additional conditions of daytime operation with visibility at least 3 miles was understood. By the way, there is probably room to argue about exactly what a “cloudless” sky is. Obviously, a literal interpretation would be that an individual, standing on the ground, would not be able to see any clouds whatsoever, in any direction at any distance. However, if the term “cloudless” is considered to be synonymous with “clear”, it should be noted that the definition of “clear” skies allows up to 10% of the sky to be obscured by clouds.<br /><br />Also:<br />“I had always read the relevant regulations as requiring a completely clear sky at launch. Would it be normal practice to require teams launching such research balloon clusters to assess down range conditions? This must presumably involve some element of judgment as to the likely maximum range of the balloon flight and, in 1947, may have been a bit tricky in terms of accessing sufficient information in time.”<br /><br />Anthony: I don’t know what the CAA regs were in 1947—I’ve been trying all day (with no luck so far) to find an online searchable data base containing the Civil Aeronautics Administration regulations as they would have existed in 1947. If we can find them, we can answer all these questions authoritatively and conclusively. All the high altitude unmanned balloon flights I’ve been involved with were under FAA regs, since about 1995. <br /><br />However, I suspect the principles have stayed the same. As with any object flying through civil airspace, the prime directive is to see (other traffic) and avoid (a collision). The individual launching a balloon is the one responsible for operating it according to regulations and is the equivalent to the “pilot in command”. Since, in the case of an unmanned free balloon, the pilot in command is on the ground, the best that can be done as far as the see and avoid principle is concerned is to visually or otherwise track the balloon at all times and make its position known to other potential users of the airspace. For all the MOGUL flights conducted on the East Coast, the NYU team had a requirement to issue a NOTAM and keep the CAA informed of the position of the balloon at all times, for each flight. I assume that was because on the East Coast, ALL the airspace the balloons would be operating over was heavily trafficked. There also was a requirement for a flight termination device and a parachute or parachutes to keep all of the heavy equipment from simply plummeting to the ground after flight termination.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-55502086431127517602013-08-14T05:30:45.221-07:002013-08-14T05:30:45.221-07:00Sorry to be off-topic, but can anyone give me a li...Sorry to be off-topic, but can anyone give me a link to any document with original radar-data?299https://www.blogger.com/profile/08242620012714294883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-13570662792493943062013-08-14T04:00:55.488-07:002013-08-14T04:00:55.488-07:00Nitram:
You cite Melvin Brown. What did I say ab...Nitram:<br /><br />You cite Melvin Brown. What did I say about Easley? Multiply them by ten and you can apply my remarks to Brown also.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-22410526518798744872013-08-14T01:49:22.450-07:002013-08-14T01:49:22.450-07:00Nitram (Martin?):
In response, 9 out your list of...Nitram (Martin?):<br /><br />In response, 9 out your list of 12 were 'never there in the first place'. So as I said "most of whom..." You have, in effect, named most of these people. By 'never there' I meant were not present at the recovery site. Even Cavitt is a doubtful. <br /><br />Do you really think Easley is credible? Do you really think he qualifies as a reliable witness? It is laughable.<br /><br />And yes, I stand by my remarks about secrets, especially those of interest to the whole of the scientific community. Such a secret has NOT been kept for 65 years by a few top military personnel.<br /><br />You can judge for yourself why science has ignored the whole Roswell fantasy tale for this length of time. (And will continue to do so whatever the Dream Team comes up with). <br /><br />But wait; this was supposed to be about Mogul, wasn't it?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-67797692757462083422013-08-14T01:37:47.025-07:002013-08-14T01:37:47.025-07:00Larry
Can I just ask a question around the require...Larry<br />Can I just ask a question around the requirements for clear sky down range? I had always read the relevant regulations as requiring a completely clear sky at launch <br />Would it be normal practice to requires teams launching such research balloon clusters to assess down range conditions? This must presumably involve some element of judgement as to the likely maximum range of the balloon flight and, in 1947, may have been a bit tricky in terms of accessing sufficient information in time.<br />I'm no expert on this question... Wonder if you had access to any references or sources which might clarify that question? Conscious this again may be a bit academic in terms of the main question, as either way they couldn't launch in the relevant time period, but an interesting point...Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-43972964851692133262013-08-14T01:17:52.523-07:002013-08-14T01:17:52.523-07:00Hi Kevin
Just one question... My reading of the CA...Hi Kevin<br />Just one question... My reading of the CAA regs is similar to Larry's in that the cloud cover restriction was changed to require a totally clear sky. There was also a requirement for 3 miles visibility.<br />I'm no expert on visibility at night but had the impression that this didn't prevent a night launch ( such as for Flight 8). I could be wrong on that of course and note the different configuration and specific purpose of Flight 8... What do you think...?<br />Either way they wouldn't have been able to proceed with the actual launch until the clouds cleared, so just a detail really.Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-4832711083528835642013-08-13T18:56:55.710-07:002013-08-13T18:56:55.710-07:00Lance -
Flight No. 8 was launched at 303 MST on J...Lance -<br /><br />Flight No. 8 was launched at 303 MST on July 3. It was made of a cluster of balloons, a transmitter, and a plastic ballast reservoir and dribbler. It was under two hundred feet in length. It flew for 195 minutes and reached an altitude of 18,500 feet.<br /><br />More to follow...KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-21441653619548065582013-08-13T18:53:20.847-07:002013-08-13T18:53:20.847-07:00I wrote:
"This includes Moore's suddenly ...I wrote:<br />"This includes Moore's suddenly recovered 50-year-old "clear memory" of "flight #4" because it passed over exotically named small N.M. towns which no other flight did. Except that wasn't true either. That was the real flight #17 three months later."<br /><br />Gilles inanely responded:<br /><i>Realy? And how you have decided it? Because :<br /><br />1) Flight 17 was not followed/chased by a plane: so no "verbal reports" by the crew of the names of the city. But you claim or feel Moore heard about those unusual places during the balloons flight? Hey man, ground NYU team were looking/monitoring their instruments, not google map ;)</i><br /><br />Here's what Gilles left out. (Now why is that do you imagine? Hmmmm.) Four "exotic" small NM towns were indeed marked on the #17 plot: La Luz, White Tail, Hondo, and Escondido (the last of which I can't even find on a current map). <br /><br />So apparently the Mogul team DIDN'T need a chase plane to call out "exotic" small towns to them as the balloon drifted by. Instead, they obviously DID come equipped with detailed N.M. maps which they might remotely have considered useful for tracking purposes, like topo maps. What a surprise! The only drooling idiots left were at Roswell and present-day DebunkerLand.<br /><br /><i>2) The plots of Flight #17 including cities and names in the Journal of Meteorology co-redacted by Moore in 1948 (drafted december 1947) does NOT name/quote "Arabella" or "Bluewater" in my old reading.<br />In his book, it is "Arabela, Capitan Peak, Blue Water" which sounded "exotic" names for him in the Ziegler/Saler/Him book... Do you see such names in the Scientific Paper's plots ???</i><br /><br />Do you see such names in the plots for Flight #4? Oh, I forget; there are no such plots because the flight was cancelled. It's all Moore's 50-year-old memory, from a witness pushing a clear agenda and caught flagrantly lying in his handling of historical data to advance that agenda. (Gilles won't go into that, preferring to nitpick this stupid "exotic" name thing.) <br /><br />The only such plot for "flight #4" taking it near Bluewater, Arabella, and Capitan Peak was made up by Moore in his trajectory hoax. And the only reason his trajectory passed near these "exotic" towns is because he deliberately made it do so by cheating with his own model.<br /><br />If you remove Moore's cheats (1. his too fast rise time eliminating lifter balloon cutoff, and 2. calculating his table wrong to force an early turn towards Arabella, et al), the closest his model flight #4 came to these "exotic" locations would have been 15 miles as it flew rapidly past to the east while still ascending, not drifting slowly backward to the west over these locations.<br /><br />But if you overlay the REAL flight #17 trajectory on a N.M. map, amazingly it flew directly over Bluewater and within about 2 miles of Arabella and Capitan Pk. Map:<br /><br />http://www.roswellproof.com/files/flight17.gif<br /><br />I don't need a 50 year-old-memory to prove this or cheat with the data like Moore did. It's part of the old Mogul documentation. Flight #17 flew directly over these same landmarks that Moore said were exclusive to the nonexistent flight #4. We can document exactly what happened with #17, but what has Gilles got to document Moore's alleged memory of what happened to "#4"? <br /><br /><i>But Moore confused flight 17 and 4... Elemntar, my dear Rudiak. Tsss...</i><br /><br />Isn't this the same Gilles F. who never met a psycho-social argument he didn't like to debunk Roswell? Self-serving psycho-babble like 50-year-old memories are ALWAYS unreliable and witnesses were allegedly time-compressing crash test dummy tests from the next decade when reporting bodies.<br /><br />But with Moore we have a 50-year-old "memory" that sounds remarkably similar to a real event only 3 months later and Gilles' can only say "Tssss". Well argued Gilles!<br /><br />But that's DEBOONKERY!David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-64283902711604317502013-08-13T17:48:21.980-07:002013-08-13T17:48:21.980-07:00What time was Flight 8 launched? Just wondering?
...What time was Flight 8 launched? Just wondering?<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-51876895875549607452013-08-13T17:08:32.630-07:002013-08-13T17:08:32.630-07:00Part 2
Another assumption of minor consequence tha...Part 2<br />Another assumption of minor consequence that I make is that Crary’s practice of entering information into his diary on June 4 was exactly the same practice he followed for the 6 months prior and the 6 months after that day. In other words, to Crary, June 4 was not a special day in any manner and he did not change his usual practices. If you look at a year’s worth of his diary entries, you will see that his standard practice was to summarize a day’s events in chronological order. A typical entry is: “I got up at time X. In the morning I did Y. At mid-day I did Z. In the afternoon (often abbreviated pm) I met with P. In the evening I travelled to Q” and so on.<br /><br />So it is with June 4. He was out to Tularosa between midnight and (approximately) dawn (6:00 am). The balloon flight “A” which was scheduled for approximately dawn was cancelled. Next, balloon flight “B” was sent up. Next, he was out with Thompson in the PM, or after noon. This implies that balloon flight “B” went up sometime between dawn and noon, on June 4.<br /><br />So why was it OK to launch a balloon at, say, 9:00 am but it was not OK to launch a balloon at 6:00 am, from the very same launch site? Crary says the reason it was not OK at 6:00 am is because of “clouds”. Does that mean that there were clouds at 6:00 am but not at 9:00 am? Where is the location of the clouds he’s referring to? He can only have meant clouds out in civilian airspace in the direction of Roswell, where the balloon was expected to drift, because that’s the only place the CAA had authority. <br /><br />But the cloud cover over in the direction of Roswell did NOT change between dawn and noon on June 4. Check out the following url, which gives the surface observations from Roswell, and you will see that there was cloud cover up until 5:00 pm.:<br /><br />http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KROW/1947/6/4/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Roswell&req_state=NM&req_statename=New+Mexico<br /><br />By contrast, if you go look at the weather the next day, you will see that Roswell was clear at 6:00 am. That’s when they launched Flight #5.<br /><br />So if there was no change in the cloud cover between dawn and noon on June 4, why was it OK to launch a balloon? It can only be because they had no intention of letting the balloon out of the Danger area. Following this line of argument, it actually does not even matter if balloon “B” had a constant level device on it or not. Whether it did or did not, the NYU team would have terminated its flight before letting it into CAA airspace.<br /><br />Of course, given that it would necessarily have been a short flight, there would have been no good reason to waste a constant level device on such a flight.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-16538849110905319042013-08-13T17:05:04.258-07:002013-08-13T17:05:04.258-07:00Part 1
Kevin:
I will address points 8a and 8b tha...Part 1<br />Kevin:<br /><br />I will address points 8a and 8b that you raised in your post.<br /><br />Crary’s diary for June 4 explicitly says “no balloon launch again on account of clouds” and “flew regular sono bouy up in cluster of balloons”. I don’t see how anyone can seriously dispute the veracity or interpretation of those statements, as far as they go. He is saying that there was one balloon flight—call it flight “A”—that was planned but did not take place and another flight—call it “B”—that did take place. In order for flight B to make it to the Foster ranch, it would have to have had constant level equipment on it AND it would have to have been allowed to proceed in that direction. <br /><br />In addition to what Crary’s diary explicitly stated, I think we can make some reasonable assumptions. (I’m sure these assumptions will be questioned, but I’m going to go ahead and state them.) You have already made one assumption, and that is that the NYU group were law-abiding and operated within the constraints that had been negotiated with the CAA. You stated that:<br /><br />“Restriction on the project is the Civil Aeronautics Authority (forerunner to the FAA) requirement that balloon flights be made only on days that are cloudless up to 20,000 feet.”<br /><br />Actually, the requirement was more stringent than that. In the (undated) memo from the CAA subsequent to the one on April 17 that you refer to, C.J. Stork conveyed to C.S. Schindler of NYU, that the ceiling restriction of 20,000 ft was inadequate and that the CAA required “cloudless” skies for daytime flight in CAA controlled airspace. From what I can tell, the CAA did not exercise control in the military airspace that was enclosed by the boundaries of the White Sands Proving Ground. That was referred to as a Danger area. As long as a balloon flight was conducted entirely within the Danger area, the matter was between the NYU team and the WSPG base commander.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-56153790220424739422013-08-13T15:13:29.644-07:002013-08-13T15:13:29.644-07:00cda without a thought in the world wrote:
"D...cda without a thought in the world wrote:<br /><br />"DR will not accept that the WHOLE ET idea depends solely on testimony gathered between 30 and 50 years afterwards, from assorted people, most of whom were never there in the first place."<br /><br />Ok cda - can you name, say, 12 people who were NEVER there in the first place, but testified differently? I will name 12 just quickly who I believe were there in Roswell (or had something to do with the events) at the time:<br /><br />Blanchard<br />Marcel (Senior)<br />Marcel (Junior)<br />Cavett<br />Walter Haut<br />Roger Ramey<br />Glenn Dennis<br />Frankie Rowe<br />Melvin Brown<br />Edwin Easley<br />Mac Brazel<br />Sheriff Wilcox<br /><br />This is off topic with "Mogul", but cda always jumps from topic to topic usually reverting back to his time honored "how could the Government have kept this quiet for 60 plus years" and his other classic "the testimony has only been offered 30-50 years after the event..."<br /><br />I think cda your quite lucky that DR & KR even bother replying to most of your posts...which are off topic and nonsensical.Nitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-50934893334058692882013-08-13T13:58:17.294-07:002013-08-13T13:58:17.294-07:00Kevin,
When Rudiak attacks Moore memory with stra...Kevin,<br /><br />When Rudiak attacks Moore memory with strange and non-sens arguments, it is relevant to the discussion and not off-topic. When I reply as I can, it is not relevant and off-topic... Janis effect?<br /><br />As, I dont share your different "debunkery" points concerning your attempt one NYU flight of end of may/june cant be the candidat for the Roswell debris. A cluster of balloons was launched june the 4th, as May the 29th... Will not point again and again the same things already discussed, that's sterile.<br /><br />You are too much engaged now, and cant go back...<br /><br />Marcel tried to construct a kite with your Alien spacecraft debris, but it cant be corner-reflectors... A contrario, I think that if he did it, it is because the remains/debris were enough "indicating/pointing/suggesting" to such a structure as a kite... Corner-reflector have this "kite" structure, but a coincidence of course, with a alien spacecraft debris, or part of the cover-up by the USAF in the newspapers...<br /><br />you wrote too "Rawin radar targets were not included in many of the flights until later because they were having poor luck with the radars."<br /><br />So there was none test in New Mexico with corner-reflector to experiment they have poor luck with the radar(s) ? They decided it without tests/experiments...<br />And the launch(es?) having conduced to this experience and "conclusion" of bad luck with radar and corner-reflectors cant have been launched in N.M. in May/June 1947... Hum...<br /><br />Recently, your acharnement in your blog to "debunk" NYU hypothesis as responsible of the debris is not convincing for me.<br /><br />You have none "agnostic" behavior despite to have claimed to "re-investigate" the case, creating the so-called dreamteam. It is exactly as before, with the same persons/methodology who have construct the myth in the 90's (You, Carey, Schmitt adding Rudiak - hoo well what an agnostic concerning the case !). <br /><br />Sorry to be franck. OK, I stop with my off-topics which are not when coming from your friend. Will continue to read, and discute it in another places.<br /><br />Gilles.Gilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.com