Carl Sagan? Who Cares?
DDavis8200
First of all Carl Sagan has had his days but his narrow little mind is
dangerous for one reason: People take him seriously because of his past
and therefore believe him when he has the NERVE to speak for the community
in saying the belief in extraterrestrial life is highly inprobable. Well,
if you could just go back in time and live with ancient humans, if you
were to tell them of things to come in the future of humans they would
would only have laughed at you with their limited outlook.....ooopppps
guess what kids!!! we are still in the human growth time line so
everything that seems outrageous to us will probably come to past. I have
learned to just tune out the unimaginative limited mind people who live in
a 5 minute span consciousness. Have we not learned that true science and
progress lies in the imagination of the mind? What is progress without
dream? What is theory without speculation? And whoever is passing around
the CRAP that the gulf breeze sightings is a
hoax has in the first place done NO personal research into the VOLUMES of
information and photos from NUMEROUS individuals in the area. This is just
the absolute tear jerking truth as to how absolutely succesfull the
de-bunkers have become. It also goes to show how fast the majority of
folks out there will join in on the believer -bashing. IF the Gulf Breezes
sightings dont convince you(when you do all of your homework) then you are
eternal doomed to zombie-hood. For the people in the know the logic behind
Alien existence is redicuosly obvious. The sad truth is if you dont get
it, you probably just never will. But your probably in for a big surprise.
ddavis8200
MikeTEACHR
This pilot's report was recently published in Phactum, the airline pilot
has approx. 12,000 hours flying time.
SIGHTINg 1
" Prior to takeoff several years ago, three of us spotted what could only
be described as a classic UFO. It was silvery and silent, about the size
of a Boeing 707 at jet altitude and manuevering like no aircraft on earth.
Accelerating to well beyond Mach 1, it suddenly stopped, backed up, and
flew off at an odd angle-impossible aerodynamically and certainly tough on
any occupants. "Thats got to be a UFO" We all agreed, watching it gyrate
towards the northwest horizon beyond the Golden Gate bridge."
SIGHTING 2
"Afew years late, flying over eastern canada on my way to London...when my
copilot suddenly pointed out something neither of us had ever seen before.
Out to out left, something big and fully engulfed in fire was climbing at
an amazing rate and rapidly overtaking us. We called Garden Center and
told the controller we had visual contact with an aircratf at nine oclock,
about the sizre of a 747, less than a mile away, and completely ablze. The
controller said he had nothing on radar, but told us that there were
reports coming in from other aircraft. We watched this thing for 45
seconds during which it climed to well over 60,000 feet. We learned that
several aircratf, some as far away as 600 miles to the west, had all
reported the same phenomenon."
Instead of just spilling the beans, I'll post what the pilots and/or
authorities learned of these two sightings soon. If youve read this, and
know the answer, why dont we all just keep it to ourselves for a bit. In
the meantime, any conjecture on what these were????? Mike
Feel free to email and Ill gve you the answers. miket...@aol.com
cluster user
>Well, help me out then. Please tell me where I can do research into the
>volumes of information you speak of (what are these publications, who
>wrote them, and who published them).
Well, start by reading all of Jacque Vallee's books. He made his career as a
scientist before studying UFOs full-time. Here's a link to some interviews
with him, for a quick feel of what he is about:
http://www.webcom.com/~conspire/val.html
> Your last couple of statements,
>though; it sounds like you just give up on those who don't agree with you.
You need to realize, most people who post to these groups are
self-proclaimed "Skeptics." This "Skepticism" more closely resembles
a kind of religious fanaticism than an attempt at true scientific
objectivity. Without naming the names, let me just point out that many of
these "Skeptics" post daily, and seem to lie-in-wait for the first chance to
put spin on anything posted here. This has the effect of deterring almost
any usefulness of this group (I speak of alt.paranet.ufo specifically).
Every discussion turns in to a screaming match. People new to this group (as
maybe you are) walk in to the middle of this bizarre set of exchanges, and
tend to walk right back out, never to go back to alt.paranet.ufo again. You
can't blame them, it looks insane, and all the posters appear to be raving
idiots. You have to go to one of the abortion, gun, or limbaugh newsgroups
to find a similar degree of insane argumentativeness. That is one thing I
can't completely understand, why the subject of UFOs inspires people to such
these extreme emotional polarities. Something about the subject makes people
put a large personal stake in the existence OR the non-existence of the
phenomenon.
And yes, Carl Sagan was a very inspirational man, Cosmos inspired a
generation of kids like me to go in to science. But the man seems to have
some sort of personality split when it comes to the subject of UFOs. I can't
explain it at all. On this subject his mind just closes down, all
objectivity vanishes, and he becomes a fanatic, a "Skeptic." Now, I am
skeptical of UFOs, but only because I want to know what the truth is, not be
predisposed either way. But Sagan is definitely on one side, and by his
public stance in the past decade, it would seem he
is using his public status to push the idea that there is nothing at all to
look in to, that it is a non-issue. This is very strange, if you know
anything about his ideas as a professor at Harvard. But then, everything
about his stand on UFOs is strange.
>Don't be like that; point out to me the "ridiculously obvious" logic
>behind alien existence. I'm all ears (or eyes, maybe?), and I promise
>that I will listen with an open mind. However, the evidence must be solid,
>and anecdotes and pictures don't pass the test (the former is unreliable at
>face value, and the latter are easily altered, particularly with the >current
>computer technology). I can't speak for anyone else, but I look forward
>to a rational, logical discussion with you on this topic. And I promise
>you that my attention span greatly exceeds 5 minutes! :)
>
>-MK
You sound sincere, that is very unusual in this newsgroup! Do go to the library and read all of Vallee's books. UFOs are not a simpl=
e subject, and it really isn't worth reading (at this stage of your understanding at least) books written by anyone with less than a=
decade of research in to it. You are right, pictures alone don't cut it, anectdotes alone don't either. The more you know about thi=
s subject, the stranger it gets, and in my case, at least, I "know" a lot LESS now that I did when I started- I mean that we all car=
ry a lot of assumptions about the subject, which are our biggest obstacle to trying to understand the phenomenon. I am far less sure=
what these "things" are now. But more certain of a phenomenon. And I think it is a very interesting, fruitful area of inquiry. If o=
ur culture is ready for it.
Cris Brown
Cris here. :)
[Mike Kohary writes:]
>I notice that this post is cross-posted (I'll leave it that way because
>it seems relevant to all the groups), but I am coming from sci.skeptic. I
>think that anyone who says UFOs are for a fact real is full of it. I also
>that that anyone who says UFOs are for a fact all hoaxes is just as full of
>it. From my own perspective, I have seen no solid evidence for the idea
>that extraterrestrial visitors have reached this planet or been seen by
>humans (or abducted or anything else).
If by "solid" you mean "conclusive," then I agree. If by "solid" you
mean "reliable," then I disagree. There is some *reliable* evidence
in favor of UFO visitations, abductions, and the like.
However, there are still *huge* holes in the case for UFO presence.
The general tendency is to see these huge holes, and devalue the
extant evidence. But I suggest that's poor reasoning. Assume, for
example, that you're a cop investigating a burglary. You find some
footprints in the back yard, and a tiny partial of a fingerprint on
the back window. A neighbor said she saw "a tall, dark figure" leave
the house, cross the back lawn, and enter a van in the back alley.
At this point, you *do* have some "solid" evidence. But you're
nowhere near making an arrest, and even further from getting a
conviction. There are *huge* holes in the case against any given
suspect. But those huge holes *don't* devalue the extant evidence
(the footprints, the partial fingerprint, and the witness' report).
They're still "solid" evidence.
This is roughly the situation we face with UFO phenomena. We have
*some* evidence, but nowhere near enough to justify a conclusion.
> However, I am open to any and all
>evidence pointing either way. When I see the evidence, I feel that it is
>my responsibility to evaluate it to the best of my ability, on it's own merits
>and NOT on the authority of others. Furthermore, when the evaluation process
>exceeds my abilities, it is my responsibility to turn to others more
>knowledgable than me, hear them out, and then evaluate what they say to the
>best of my ability. It is furthermore my responsibility to continue to
>upgrade my abilities through education (formal and self).
<applause>
Sincerely. Thank you for taking such a reasoned, responsible approach
to the situation. You're a credit to this discussion.
[Regarding Carl Sagan:]
>If you're refering to his past statements about how there is no current
>evidence of alien visitation, I happen to agree with him. As far as I
>can tell, there is no evidence of alien visitation, though I will con-
>tinue to read any new evidence suggested to me, such as your suggestion.
I hope you'll reevaluate this when you've read a bit more. I'll also
suggest you read Randle & Schmidt, UFO CRASH AT ROSWELL (1991), for an
excellent investigation into what I feel is the *strongest* case for a
UFO visitation.
>There are too many "scientists" who do the name of science
>a great injustice. A scientist who has respect for his field will go at it
>with an open mind. Again I quote Sagan, who said that there are two rules
>in science: the first is that all our assumptions must be critically
>examined (thus the basis of skepticism), and the second is that whatever is
>inconsistent with the facts (observable and experimental data) must be
>discarded or revised. I particularly appreciate the second rule, because it
>basically states that we must always be willing to change our minds. The
>inability to do this, both for skeptics and believers, is tragic.
Agreed, wholeheartedly.
>The cause of Science is to find the truth, and the truth is independant
>of our wishes. We must see the universe as it is, and not as we wish
>it to be.
This may be one of those assumptions we'll have to challenge. We
*assume* that a Universe exists independent of our consciousness(es);
this is known as the dualist-materialist ontology. However, there are
some emerging concepts in physics which seem to be incompatible with
dualism-materialism. These seem to require a pluralist, or perhaps
even constructivist ontology in order to reconcile with the rest of
what we believe about science. (Thumbnail: pluralism suggests there
are multiple, parallel universes; constructivism suggests that the
universe is a construct of consciousness, that "laws of nature" are
more properly viewed as "rules of construction" which enable us to
build more compatible intersubjective experiences.) Some of the
pluralist and constructivist ontologies are not only more consistent
with emerging modern physics, they are also more consistent with
reports of 'paranormal' phenomena which have defied traditional
scientific inquiry.
Yes, "all assumptions must be critically examined" ... including our
assumptions about the nature of existence itself.
Cris
"Every mighty oak was once a nut that stood its ground."
-- Anonymous
Unknown
==========Cris Brown, 1/13/96==========
Cris here. :)
<applause>
>Isn't it Sagan who is unable to change his mind? For about five years now
UFOs' have been seen by thousands of witnesses in Mexico. Including hundreds
of vidio tapes take by people at the same time from different areas who did
not know each other. Yet this is not enough! What is.... If one vidio of
O.J. commiting murder had surfaced, he would have been convicted.
Bob Tarantino
Vinnie
[SNIP]
>[Regarding Carl Sagan:]
>>If you're refering to his past statements about how there is no current
>>evidence of alien visitation, I happen to agree with him. As far as I
>>can tell, there is no evidence of alien visitation, though I will con-
>>tinue to read any new evidence suggested to me, such as your suggestion.
>I hope you'll reevaluate this when you've read a bit more. I'll also
>suggest you read Randle & Schmidt, UFO CRASH AT ROSWELL (1991), for an
>excellent investigation into what I feel is the *strongest* case for a
>UFO visitation.
Just curious about your interpretation of Roswell.
Have you read the GAO Report on Roswell? There was also an article
published in the Skeptical Enquirer about 6 months ago. They
interviewed people who had been involved with Project Mogul in the
'40s.
Project Mogul was a high altitude early-warning system for soviet
nuclear launches. It was a "black project." The evidence suggesting
the Roswell debris was part of that project seems to be at least as
strong as the evidence for an alien landing.
--Vinnie
Michael Higby
>Have you read the GAO Report on Roswell? There was also an article
>published in the Skeptical Enquirer about 6 months ago. They
>interviewed people who had been involved with Project Mogul in the
>'40s.
>Project Mogul was a high altitude early-warning system for soviet
>nuclear launches. It was a "black project." The evidence suggesting
>the Roswell debris was part of that project seems to be at least as
>strong as the evidence for an alien landing.
According to the Project Mogul records, since de-classified, there were no
tests of the system within days of the incident in Roswell. Also, those
involved with Project Mogul say that the debris shown in the photo with Major
Jesse (what was his last name?) was nothing like the material the Project
Mogul device was made of (the alleged debris that was photographed was mostly
tin foil and balsa wood.)
-----
Michael - MHi...@primenet.com
Join The BooZoo Comics Mailing List
World Wide Web: http://www.bolis.com/L/listinfo/boozoo
or E-mail me to subscribe
-----
punchie
> nsb...@IntNet.net (Cris Brown) wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
> >[Regarding Carl Sagan:]
> >>If you're refering to his past statements about how there is no current
> >>evidence of alien visitation, I happen to agree with him. As far as I
> >>can tell, there is no evidence of alien visitation, though I will con-
> >>tinue to read any new evidence suggested to me, such as your suggestion.
>
> >I hope you'll reevaluate this when you've read a bit more. I'll also
> >suggest you read Randle & Schmidt, UFO CRASH AT ROSWELL (1991), for an
> >excellent investigation into what I feel is the *strongest* case for a
> >UFO visitation.
>
> Just curious about your interpretation of Roswell.
>
> published in the Skeptical Enquirer about 6 months ago. They
> interviewed people who had been involved with Project Mogul in the
> '40s.
>
> Project Mogul was a high altitude early-warning system for soviet
> nuclear launches. It was a "black project." The evidence suggesting
> the Roswell debris was part of that project seems to be at least as
> strong as the evidence for an alien landing.
>
>
Cris Brown
Cris here. :)
[Regarding Carl Sagan, someone wrote:]
>>>If you're refering to his past statements about how there is no current
>>>evidence of alien visitation, I happen to agree with him. As far as I
>>>can tell, there is no evidence of alien visitation, though I will con-
>>>tinue to read any new evidence suggested to me, such as your suggestion.
[I replied:]
>>I hope you'll reevaluate this when you've read a bit more. I'll also
>>suggest you read Randle & Schmidt, UFO CRASH AT ROSWELL (1991), for an
>>excellent investigation into what I feel is the *strongest* case for a
>>UFO visitation.
[Vinnie writes:]
>Just curious about your interpretation of Roswell.
I rate the Roswell Incident as a Q2 on my quantum of evidence scale.
That is, a UFO crash is "a substantial possibility," but I wouldn't
say it's "more likely than not" (a Q3 on my scale).
>Have you read the GAO Report on Roswell?
The GAO Report is more a non-report than a report. That is, it is
more an assertion of what the government *doesn't* have (or won't
admit that it has) than an explanation for what it *did* have.
>Project Mogul was a high altitude early-warning system for soviet
>nuclear launches. It was a "black project." The evidence suggesting
>the Roswell debris was part of that project seems to be at least as
>strong as the evidence for an alien landing.
The MOGUL hypothesis has two major Significant Negatives:
(1) There's no record of the launch which the MOGUL proponents say
produced the Roswell debris. While the MOGUL proponents claim that
failed launches weren't recorded, the records *do* included failed
launches, both before and after the Roswell Incident. So ... why
don't the records include THAT failed launch?
(2) MOGUL-produced debris is inconsistent with the reports of the
witnesses. For example, a MOGUL balloon does not have a metallic
substance which, when crumpled and released, spreads itself back out
without wrinkles. There are at least three witnesses who reported
such a substance, and neither MOGUL nor anything in the GAO report
would explain what that substance might be. (The skeptics' answer is
to claim that the witnesses are lying, or misremembering; while this
dismissal of the nonconforming data might be convenient, it's hardly
what I'd call "science.")
By contrast, the UFO hypothesis has only one Significant Negative --
the absence of accepted theory which would permit ET visitation. That
doesn't mean no such theory will ever exist; it merely means that we
haven't figured out how this could happen yet.
Note that the absence of physical evidence IS NOT a Significant
Negative in the Roswell case, because we *know* the Army Air Corps
scoured the area and carted everything away. This is confirmed by
countless witnesses, both government and civilian, as well as by
contemporary media reportage. We may not know *what* the AAC
recovered, but we *do* know that they came and took it. Thus, the
absence of physical evidence is cured by proof -- beyond and to the
exclusion of every reasonable doubt -- that the government confiscated
the evidence. Moreover, because we also *know* that the government
lied about whatever "it" was (the weather balloon story), I'm less
inclined to take the government's word for it now.
Given a sufficiently-grounded theory to explain ET visitation, or a
sufficiently-grounded cure for the absence of such a theory, I'd say
that the UFO hypothesis for the Roswell Incident would be "more likely
than not." Until we have such a theory, or a cure for the absence of
such a theory, it remains merely "a substantial possibility."
J.Wa...@stud.tue.nl
nsb...@IntNet.net (Cris Brown) wrote:
>By contrast, the UFO hypothesis has only one Significant Negative --
>the absence of accepted theory which would permit ET visitation. That
>doesn't mean no such theory will ever exist; it merely means that we
>haven't figured out how this could happen yet.
But Cris, what about Fermi's paradox? He suggested that ETs *should*
have gotten here by now.
Vinnie
> cgr...@gnn.com (Vinnie) writes:
>>Have you read the GAO Report on Roswell? There was also an article
>>published in the Skeptical Enquirer about 6 months ago. They
>>interviewed people who had been involved with Project Mogul in the
>>'40s.
>>Project Mogul was a high altitude early-warning system for soviet
>>nuclear launches. It was a "black project." The evidence suggesting
>>the Roswell debris was part of that project seems to be at least as
>>strong as the evidence for an alien landing.
>According to the Project Mogul records, since de-classified, there were no
>tests of the system within days of the incident in Roswell. Also, those
I don't think you've got your facts straight.
Project mogul had numerous balloon flights from Alamogoro Army Air
Field in New Mexico in June and early July of 1947. The test filght
NYU #4 lauched on June 4th, 1947 could very well have been the cause
of the debris that Mac Brazel reported as having appeared on his
property. It was never possible to determine the exact day the debis
fell to earth because Mac Brazel didn't happen to be in a rush to
report anything, and actually said he knew about the debris weeks
before he reported it. In fact Flight #4 was tracked as far as
Arabela, which is 17 miles from the location of the debris.
>involved with Project Mogul say that the debris shown in the photo with Major
>Jesse (what was his last name?) was nothing like the material the Project
>Mogul device was made of (the alleged debris that was photographed was mostly
>tin foil and balsa wood.)
Who in project Mogul are you referring to in regard to the army
photos? Charles B. Moore was one of only three surviving scientists
from the Mogul project that the Arir Force was able to interview. He
made statements that strongly suggest that the photos and descriptions
BOTH match the materials with which the Mogul lauches were
constructed.
In particular the "smelly, smoky gray, rubber-like material" mentioned
by Roswell witnesses, but (to my knowledge) never photographed, was
consitent with their neoprene balloons. Remember we are talking about
the 1940s, when plastics and many other synthetic materials were rare
and unfamiliar. Weather balloons were normally made of polyethylene at
that time.
From the oft repeated descriptions of the debris as light-weight and
having shiny unusual materials in it's makeup, the absence of any fire
or radiation, and even the stylized markings all seem to point toward
Mogul. Even wind data from the National Weather Service indicates that
Flight #4 probably ended up on the Foster Ranch.
I'm not saying that the crash was Mogul. I'm just saying that the
material evidence seems to support it. Focus on the material evidence,
and ignore all the various "testimony" for a moment. Doesn't the
sequence of events that took place AFTER the material was recovered
support the crash of a top-secret army project?
--Vinnie
Vinnie
>Upon first consideration of requests from Congress to present the doccuments
>on Roswell, the requests were answered with, "Those doccuments no longer
>exist, they were destroyed not long after the incident." When congress
>didn't buy it, and the requests were made again, the reply was, "Ok, the
>doccuments WERE destroyed, but we can tell you now that this was Project
>Mogul, a balloon designed to spy on the Russians."
>Herein lies the dispute. If the records were destroyed shortly after the
>incident, (oops some guy who didn't know what he was doing accidentally
>destroyed them - but we'll get to this in a minute) then where did the
>"Russian Mogul" story come from?
>Now, the doccuments. Firstly, why would Top Secret doccuments be destroyed?
>There are many doccuments with dates preceeding this event that remain on
>file.
>Okay, "some guy who made a mistake and did it by accident" did this. What
>was someone who didn't know what he was doing handling these doccuments to
>begin with?
I don't know the precise documents you are referring to as being
destroyed. However, there were about three YEARS worth of Roswell
Army Air Field Outgoing Teletype records that turned up missing.
To my knowledge there were no "destroyed" documents related to Project
Mogul. In fact I am lead to believe that Project Mogul was
declassified prior to 1992 because of the findings of UFO researcher
Robert Todd regarding the link between Mogul and the Roswell Debris.
> Only when they were pressed by Congress did they supply ANY
>answer at all, and this was after the doccuments had been destroyed some
>forty odd years before? Why can't people see through this transparent
>placation? Secondly, why did the government feel it necessary to stifle a
>Russian Mogul story for almost 50 years? It is a known fact WE have
>satellites in space to spy on them, and that they have satellites to spy on
>us. (Just take a look at the Russian - made satellite photo of Area 51.)
>The Russians knew about Area 51 before our Government has just admitted to
>it in the past year.
>This information was released in July or August of 1995, right before
>President Clinton made the decision that what was taking place at Area 51
>was indeed necessary to remain a secret in the interest of National
>Security.
What specific requests by congress are you refering to? I believe that
the requests by Rep. Steven Schiff were initially rebuffed, but were
ultimately answered by the 1994 Air Force report and the 1995 GAO
report. Both of which confirmed the conclusions that had already been
_independently_ reached by Robert Todd and Carl Pflock. You are
correct about the timing of the information release, it could have
been political, but don't forget the pubilicity that Rep. Schiff got
from the story.
Incidently, the minutes from meetings of the National Security Council
from 1947 which have been declassified make no mention of any UFO
wreckage. Don't you think that would classify as a national security
issue?
Anyway, I don't think the equation non-cooperation=conspiracy holds
true in this case. I think government indifference and inefficiency is
a more probable explanation.
I don't really see why you linked a discussion about an event in
Roswell NM in 1947 to Area 51and Russian spy satellites. If you are
talking about a general-purpose conspiracy theory, we could always
bring in the conspiracy to murder JFK.... :-)
Considering everything that has been said, and some of the
extraordinary claims (live aliens, a second crash site, etc.) that
have been made... the rational (yes, boring) explaination involving
Project Mogul seems the most "likely."
--Vinnie
Bill Peterson
>
>
>Who in project Mogul are you referring to in regard to the army
>photos? Charles B. Moore was one of only three surviving scientists
>from the Mogul project that the Arir Force was able to interview. He
>made statements that strongly suggest that the photos and descriptions
>BOTH match the materials with which the Mogul lauches were
>constructed.
>
>In particular the "smelly, smoky gray, rubber-like material" mentioned
>by Roswell witnesses, but (to my knowledge) never photographed, was
>consitent with their neoprene balloons. Remember we are talking about
>the 1940s, when plastics and many other synthetic materials were rare
>and unfamiliar. Weather balloons were normally made of polyethylene at
>that time.
>
>From the oft repeated descriptions of the debris as light-weight and
>having shiny unusual materials in it's makeup, the absence of any fire
>or radiation, and even the stylized markings all seem to point toward
>Mogul. Even wind data from the National Weather Service indicates that
>Flight #4 probably ended up on the Foster Ranch.
>
>I'm not saying that the crash was Mogul. I'm just saying that the
>material evidence seems to support it. Focus on the material evidence,
>and ignore all the various "testimony" for a moment. Doesn't the
>sequence of events that took place AFTER the material was recovered
>support the crash of a top-secret army project?
I agree with all of this. However, several nagging inconsistencies
linger:
1) the child-sized coffins. Why did the Roswell field suddenly need
4-5 child sized coffins right after the retrieval? Who died?
2) why did the AAF originally say "Flying Saucer" in the newspapers,
instead of saying "new super-weatherballoon"?
3) there was a good UFO sighting the day before, by one of the most
respected men in Roswell. No connection?
4) refresh my memory on Jesse Marcel's 1980's comments on Roswell
right before he died.
BP
--
Disclaimer: I'm gettin' old. I used to have thoughts, but now ...
Brian Zeiler
>Considering everything that has been said, and some of the
>extraordinary claims (live aliens, a second crash site, etc.) that
>have been made... the rational (yes, boring) explaination involving
>Project Mogul seems the most "likely."
The likelihood that it was Project Mogul hovers dangerously close to
zero, although that does not mean it was an extraterrestrial craft.
Numerous reasons have been pointed out by Kevin Randle and many others
that the Mogul hypothesis has glaring inconsistencies that do *not* have
anything to do with witness recollections. For instance, the launch in
question was recorded as a single balloon, not an array. It's difficult
to conceive of a situation in which a single balloon moving the same
speed as the wind could be spontaneously shredded into fragments covering
3/4 of a square mile. Does this sound logical to you? Even if it was an
array, a bunch of balloons aren't any more prone to spontaneous shredding
than a single balloon. A mylar balloon will NOT shred when it hits the
ground at 15 or 20 mph. Period. And an intelligence officer will be
able to identify a balloon with an equipment package.
It wasn't Project Mogul, and anybody that thinks it was has not thought
critically about it because they're in too big of a fanatical rush to
discredit the alien theory. If you're in a mad rush to discredit the
alien theory, you should be pressing Congress to launch a broad
investigation to get the USAF to reveal what really happened, since it
wasn't Mogul. My personal feeling is that the USAF doesn't know what
happened because there was no USAF at that time. The records and
documents were probably whisked away somewhere else.
--
Brian Zeiler
Brian Zeiler
>NYU flight #4 was never included in any of the Official Reports from
>Mogul, so no records about the configuration are available. However,
>NYU #2 was an array of about 32 radar targets and balloons. Testimony
>from Mogul participants indicates that NYU #4 was very similar.
Well, if the memories of the Roswell witnesses are so easily dismissed
because they're 50 years old, then how can you confidently state that #4
was an array, contrary to the flight log, just because the "Mogul
witnesses" say so? What makes you have more confidence in their memory
of one flight of many after 50 years if you're so quick to dismiss the
Roswell witnesses who insist that the material was like nothing they had
ever seen before or since?
>Does
>it make sense to think #2 would be 32 targets and balloons, but #4
>would be only one?
Certainly, because some flights were one balloon and some flights were
arrays. If your only reason for insisting that #4 was an array when it
was recorded as a single balloon is because the 50-year-old memories
insist it was the case, then you should lend a little more credibility to
the debris witnesses.
>I'm not saying that Mogul's neoprene balloon (which is different from
>the Mylar balloon you describe) would have had to spontaneously shred
>into pieces on impact. What other explanation could there be for
>debris scattered over a large area?
How about what the intelligence officer Marcel said it was?
>Remember that the debris was
>exposed to New Mexico's wind and sun for almost a month before the
>debris was investigated. That would have certainly expanded the wide
>area a balloon array would have covered.
I don't see how the sun and wind would necessarily decompose the balloon
and scatter it like that. Do you know whether the material was prone to
such deterioration, or do you just wish that it were?
>I won't be responding to you posts in the future if you decide to
>resort to personal attacks. I'm not in a *mad* rush to do anything. I
>don't think insults are going to advance your theories one bit.
I was referring to the whole Mogul crowd, not you.
--
Brian Zeiler
Vinnie
>>I'm not saying that the crash was Mogul. I'm just saying that the
>>material evidence seems to support it. Focus on the material evidence,
>>and ignore all the various "testimony" for a moment. Doesn't the
>>sequence of events that took place AFTER the material was recovered
>>support the crash of a top-secret army project?
>I agree with all of this. However, several nagging inconsistencies
>linger:
>1) the child-sized coffins. Why did the Roswell field suddenly need
> 4-5 child sized coffins right after the retrieval? Who died?
I don't think there is any explanation for this. Although it is not a
particularly convincing piece of testimony. The army officer making
the call (to my knowledge) was never identified. Who's to say the call
wasn't a prank? In any event, I don't see why the army would need 4-5
child sized coffins to "bury" aliens. Wouldn't they use body bags and
larger sized boxes that were already on the army base? If alien bodies
were going into cold storage they wouldn't even need proper coffins.
>2) why did the AAF originally say "Flying Saucer" in the newspapers,
> instead of saying "new super-weatherballoon"?
Other than the fact that they initially thought it _might_ be a flying
saucer? It debris clearly wasn't even saucer shaped...
>3) there was a good UFO sighting the day before, by one of the most
> respected men in Roswell. No connection?
The day before what? The debis was announced on or about the beginning
of July. What day are you talking about?
>4) refresh my memory on Jesse Marcel's 1980's comments on Roswell
> right before he died.
I'm sorry, I don't know what he said.
I'm glad that you agree with the facts I presented in the first
posting, even though you may not share my interpretation. Keep in mind
that there are bound to be inconsistent reports on what happened
almost 50 years ago in Roswell. There are inconsistent statements
about Iran-Gate, WaterGate, Travel-Gate and OJ-Gate. I don't expect
anything less from Roswell-Gate :-)
--Vinnie
Vinnie
>cgr...@gnn.com (Vinnie) wrote:
>>Considering everything that has been said, and some of the
>>extraordinary claims (live aliens, a second crash site, etc.) that
>>have been made... the rational (yes, boring) explaination involving
>>Project Mogul seems the most "likely."
>The likelihood that it was Project Mogul hovers dangerously close to
>zero, although that does not mean it was an extraterrestrial craft.
>Numerous reasons have been pointed out by Kevin Randle and many others
>that the Mogul hypothesis has glaring inconsistencies that do *not* have
>anything to do with witness recollections. For instance, the launch in
>question was recorded as a single balloon, not an array. It's difficult
>to conceive of a situation in which a single balloon moving the same
>speed as the wind could be spontaneously shredded into fragments covering
>3/4 of a square mile. Does this sound logical to you? Even if it was an
>array, a bunch of balloons aren't any more prone to spontaneous shredding
>than a single balloon. A mylar balloon will NOT shred when it hits the
>ground at 15 or 20 mph. Period. And an intelligence officer will be
>able to identify a balloon with an equipment package.
How can you say the probability is close to zero? Charles B. Moore (a
Project Mogul scientist),Robert Todd (a UFO researcher) and Karl T.
Pflock all agree that it would be hard to rule-out Mogul as the source
for the Roswell debris.There are too many connections for it to be
coincidence.
NYU flight #4 was never included in any of the Official Reports from
Mogul, so no records about the configuration are available. However,
NYU #2 was an array of about 32 radar targets and balloons. Testimony
from Mogul participants indicates that NYU #4 was very similar. Does
it make sense to think #2 would be 32 targets and balloons, but #4
would be only one? Remember they were trying to track these things
with RADAR, one balloon and no radar targets would be _very_ hard to
track.
I'm not saying that Mogul's neoprene balloon (which is different from
the Mylar balloon you describe) would have had to spontaneously shred
into pieces on impact. What other explanation could there be for
debris scattered over a large area? Remember that the debris was
exposed to New Mexico's wind and sun for almost a month before the
debris was investigated. That would have certainly expanded the wide
area a balloon array would have covered.
>It wasn't Project Mogul, and anybody that thinks it was has not thought
>critically about it because they're in too big of a fanatical rush to
>discredit the alien theory. If you're in a mad rush to discredit the
>alien theory, you should be pressing Congress to launch a broad
>investigation to get the USAF to reveal what really happened, since it
>wasn't Mogul. My personal feeling is that the USAF doesn't know what
>happened because there was no USAF at that time. The records and
>documents were probably whisked away somewhere else.
I won't be responding to you posts in the future if you decide to
resort to personal attacks. I'm not in a *mad* rush to do anything. I
don't think insults are going to advance your theories one bit.
--Vinnie
Mark
MOGUL array by itself? And how large of an array are we talking about?
Pretty large I'd say.
I'm not a physics major, but alot of metal objects falling from altitude
say 80,000ft could probably scatter over 3/4 mile, plus be unrecognizable
to anyone who DID NOT know that MOGUL had went off-line.
Just thinking out loud.....
Mark Test A.K.A. (Thinlizzy #ufo)
Mark
> I agree with all of this. However, several nagging inconsistencies
> linger:
> 1) the child-sized coffins. Why did the Roswell field suddenly need
> 4-5 child sized coffins right after the retrieval? Who died?
> 2) why did the AAF originally say "Flying Saucer" in the newspapers,
> instead of saying "new super-weatherballoon"?
> 3) there was a good UFO sighting the day before, by one of the most
> respected men in Roswell. No connection?
> 4) refresh my memory on Jesse Marcel's 1980's comments on Roswell
> right before he died.
>
> BP
> --
> Disclaimer: I'm gettin' old. I used to have thoughts, but now ...
1) Coffins, this is unsupported testimony made by a funeral director years
after the incident and after ALOT of hype about a saucer. Can you believe
this "witness"? I can't.
2) Dis-information perhaps? Why advertise to the Soviets that you are
capable of spying on them via balloons. Perhaps the AAF knew that the public
hype would make it very difficult for the truth about MOGUL to get to Moscow.
3) No connection. And the "man" may have been well respected in Roswell but
does that make him a qualified observer?
4) Marcel never called it a "flying saucer", and he never mentioned any
bodies lying around. Nor did the original discover of the debris Mac Brezel,
ever claim to have seen aliens, dead or alive. Mr. Friedman added that
part-the corpus delicti. Marcel died in 1986.
Mark Test (A.K.A Thinlizzy on irc #ufo)
Brian Zeiler
>Uh Brian, Who says the balloon had to hit the earth? Why not just the
>MOGUL array by itself? And how large of an array are we talking about?
>Pretty large I'd say.
What are you talking about? There isn't an ounce of evidence that flight
#4 was anything more than a single balloon flight, and the log also shows
that it was a single balloon. There is nothing supporting the contention
that #4 was an array flight. Other than that, I don't follow your point.
Are you saying that perhaps the equipment package fell off the balloon?
That doesn't make sense, because the thin material was attributed to the
balloon. Surely there was no thin material in the equipment package.
>I'm not a physics major, but alot of metal objects falling from altitude
>say 80,000ft could probably scatter over 3/4 mile, plus be unrecognizable
>to anyone who DID NOT know that MOGUL had went off-line.
Sure... except for the fact that the whole Mogul theory depends heavily
on the balloon accounting for the debris along with the equipment
package. It is also faith-based since the Mogul log says the flight in
question was a single balloon, not an array.
Finally, to cover 3/4 of a square mile, the balloon AND equipment package
would have had to have been completely blown up in mid-air, rather high
in the air. A balloon and equipment package don't suddenly fall out of
the sky, hit the ground, and shred over 3/4 of a square mile. That's a
square area with each side .866 miles in length.
Do you know how a balloon and equipment package could cover such a large
area in finely shredded debris? By simply falling to the ground, you
say?
--
Brian Zeiler
Kjetil Kjernsmo
In article <4fhehk$7...@pentagon.io.com>, bi...@io.com (Bill Peterson) writes:
> 2) why did the AAF originally say "Flying Saucer" in the newspapers,
> instead of saying "new super-weatherballoon"?
a Mogul-balloon than with Marcels testimony...
Perhaps it would be fewer people on their backs back then if they said it
was a "Flying Saucer" than a "new super-weatherballoon"?
> 3) there was a good UFO sighting the day before, by one of the most
> respected men in Roswell. No connection?
> 4) refresh my memory on Jesse Marcel's 1980's comments on Roswell
> right before he died.
Something I didn't hear about... Anybody
Friendly Tiddely-pom,
Kjetil
--
Kjetil Kjernsmo
undergraduate astronomy-student University of Oslo, Norway
mail:kje...@ifi.uio.no WWW-homepage:http://www.fys.uio.no/~kjetikj/
HOMO LUDENS SUM; ERGO MOLES UNIVERSI CONSTANS EST
Bill Peterson
>bi...@io.com (Bill Peterson) wrote:
>
>
>>>I'm not saying that the crash was Mogul. I'm just saying that the
>>>material evidence seems to support it. Focus on the material evidence,
>>>and ignore all the various "testimony" for a moment. Doesn't the
>>>sequence of events that took place AFTER the material was recovered
>>>support the crash of a top-secret army project?
>
>>linger:
>>1) the child-sized coffins. Why did the Roswell field suddenly need
>> 4-5 child sized coffins right after the retrieval? Who died?
>
>particularly convincing piece of testimony. The army officer making
>the call (to my knowledge) was never identified. Who's to say the call
>wasn't a prank? In any event, I don't see why the army would need 4-5
>child sized coffins to "bury" aliens. Wouldn't they use body bags and
>larger sized boxes that were already on the army base? If alien bodies
>were going into cold storage they wouldn't even need proper coffins.
>
since the funeral director wasn't there, his young assistant went out
to the base. He was very rudely treated, and told to keep quiet. The
base kept the coffins, why?
>
>>2) why did the AAF originally say "Flying Saucer" in the newspapers,
>> instead of saying "new super-weatherballoon"?
>
>Other than the fact that they initially thought it _might_ be a flying
>saucer? It debris clearly wasn't even saucer shaped...
>
As has been pointed out before, Marcel was a highly-placed intellegence
officer. To say that he and his commander would release a headline
like that because they couldn't recognize a balloon (even Mogul), is
difficult to support. They must have actually thought it WAS a flying
saucer, IMHO.
>>3) there was a good UFO sighting the day before, by one of the most
>> respected men in Roswell. No connection?
>
>The day before what? The debis was announced on or about the beginning
>of July. What day are you talking about?
>
Wilmot's sighting reported after the story broke in Rsowell. His story
is also on the front page, with the headlines.
>>4) refresh my memory on Jesse Marcel's 1980's comments on Roswell
>> right before he died.
>
>I'm sorry, I don't know what he said.
>
Something to the effect that it was not a balloon, and he helped to
set up the cover story. Same story as William Haut's.
>I'm glad that you agree with the facts I presented in the first
>posting, even though you may not share my interpretation. Keep in mind
>that there are bound to be inconsistent reports on what happened
>almost 50 years ago in Roswell. There are inconsistent statements
>about Iran-Gate, WaterGate, Travel-Gate and OJ-Gate. I don't expect
>anything less from Roswell-Gate :-)
>
Oh no! Another gate! Arghhh, that metal plate in my head! :)
Mark
> Do you know how a balloon and equipment package could cover such a large
> area in finely shredded debris? By simply falling to the ground, you
> say?
> Brian Zeiler
Brian, yes, I did suggest that the array could have separated from
the balloon. The Air Force released documents support a MOGUL device.
Finally, as for the size of a MOGUL array and balloon I don't know it's
dimensions...do you?
Mark
~rob
Well, one thing to think about is the reason the balloon fell in the first
place. Coincidentally, I did some work many years ago in a research
facility on the material balloons were made of (a summer intern job at
Texas A&M in conjunction with the "balloon base" in Palestine, Tx). We
did a lot of testing of plastic balloons that had been stored on boxes
(very carefully) for many years. We also talked with a lot of people
about balloon material (generally, very thin plastic) and what can go
wrong with it.
One thing that they had learned was that very high alititude balloons were
exposed to very dry, cold air (obviously) with LOTS of UV radiation. The
plastic tended to outgas and degrade. Even plastic carefully boxed and
stored in environmentally controlled facilities tended to degrade over
time. High elevation and UV radiation tended to accelerate this aging.
The result was very thin plastic that was VERY brittle. You can see this
in plastic left out in the sun for a long time (eg, your dashboard).
I can't state it for a fact, but I would speculate that something like
this could easily happen to a balloon. It floats along and the plastic
becomes very brittle. The winds are very laminar at that altitude, so it
isn't subjected to very many forces. At some point a gust of some sort
comes along or the plastic reaches it's limit and rips open. As the
balloon falls, the now-brittle plastic ripples in the wind and shreds
easily.
Yep, it's not a stretch at all.
Al Grund
show...@well.com (~rob) wrote:
Yes, but why settle for such a mundane explanation when a much more
exciting and fantastic one is available. These sticks and bits of plastic
were part of an interstellar spaceship, and now it's up to reputable
scientists to prove that they weren't. Strange "logic", but not to the
minds of the UFO crackpots.
--
Alan D. Grund
agr...@biotechresources.com
Brian Zeiler
an investigator filing requests. After the release, he went to Smith's son,
who pulled up his dad's stuff and gave him a handwritten note on his meeting
with Sarbacher. It's a Q&A session with Sarbacher answering Smith's
questions, and since it's dated about 2 months before the other memo,
it seems to be "the" source of the "discreet inquiries" that Smith had
made. The handwriting was, of course, identical to Smith's handwriting, who
was long dead by this time.
The second memo you have is the late Sarbacher's letter to investigator
William Steinman. Stan Friedman got in touch with Sarbacher to verify
Steinman's letter from Sarbacher, and Sarbacher told him the same thing.
Dr. Maccabee also made inquiries with Sarbacher. And he was verified to
have been involved in government work all over the place, such as the
US Research and Development Board and his own laboratory that did some
government work. He was also the dean of the graduate school at Georgia
Tech.
I would suspect that any Canadian can get the Smith document from the
Canadian government at this point, since it's already been released.
Brian Zeiler
involved have been verified. Detailed treatment is given in
most of the research literature. Stanton Friedman, the well-known
researcher, participated in the verification, along with Dr. Bruce
Maccabee. Dr. Maccabee spoke with Dr. Sarbacher in 1985 just one year
before Dr. Sarbacher's death. Dr. Maccabee is a physicist with the
U.S. Navy and also heads the Fund for UFO Research, which is a nonprofit
research group comprised mostly of Ph.D.s.
TOP SECRET
--------------
(downgraded to CONFIDENTIAL 15/9/69)
D E P A R T M E N T O F T R A N S P O R T
Intra-departmental Correspondence
OTTAWA, Ontario, November 21, 1950
Place date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
File | Subject | | Our File
| Geo-Magnetics | | (R.ST.)
| | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM TO THE CONTROLLER OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS:
--------------------------------------------------
For the past several years we have been engaged in the study of
various aspects of radio wave propagation. The vagaries of this
phenomenon have led us into the fields of aurora, cosmic radiation,
atmospheric radio-activity and geo-magnetism. In the case of geo-
magnetics our investigations have contributed little to our
knowledge of radio wave propagation as yet, but nevertheless have
indicated several avenues of investigation which may well be
explored with profit. For example, we are on the track of a means
whereby the potential energy of the earth's magnetic field may be
abstracted and used.
On the basis of theoretical considerations a small and very crude
experimental unit was constructed approximately a year ago and
tested in our Standards Laboratory. The tests were essentially
successful in that sufficient energy was abstracted from the
earth's field to operate a voltmeter, approximately 50 milliwatts.
Although this unit was far from being self-sustaining, it
nevertheless demonstrated the soundness of the basic principles in
a qualitative manner and provided useful data for the design of a
better unit.
The design has now been completed for a unit which should be self-
sustaining and in addition provide a small surplus of power. Such
a unit, in addition to functioning as a 'pilot power plant' should
be large enough to permit the study of the various reaction forces
which are expected to develop.
We believe that we are on the track of something which may well
prove to be the introduction to a new technology. The existence of
a different technology is borne out by the investigations which are
being carried on at the present time in relation to flying saucers.
While in Washington attending the NARB Conference, two books were
released one titled "Behind the Flying Saucer" by Frank Scully, and
the other "The Flying Saucers are Real" by Donald Keyhoe. Both
books dealt mostly with the sightings of unidentified objects and
both books claim that flying objects were of extra-terrestrial
origin and might well be space ships from another planet. Scully
claimed that the preliminary studies of one saucer which fell into
the hands of the United States Government indicated that they
operated on some hitherto unknown magnetic principles. It appeared
to me that our own work in geo-magnetics might well be the linkage
between our technology and the technology by which the saucers are
designed and operated. If it is assumed that our geo-magnetic
investigations are in the right direction, the theory of operation
of the saucers becomes quite straightforward, with all observed
features explained qualitatively and quantitatively.
I made discreet enquiries through the Canadian Embassy staff in
Washington who were able to obtain for me the following
information:
a. The matter is the most highly classified subject in the United
States Government, rating higher even than the H-bomb.
b. Flying saucers exist.
c. Their modus operandi is unknown but concentrated effort is
being made by a small group headed by Doctor Vannevar Bush.
d. The entire matter is considered by the United States
authorities to be of tremendous significance.
I was further informed that the United States authorities are
investigating along quite a number of lines which might possibly be
related to the saucers such as mental phenomena and I gather that
they are not doing too well since they indicated that if Canada is
doing anything at all in geo-magnetics they would welcome a
discussion with suitably accredited Canadians.
While I am not yet in a position to say that we have solved even
the first problems in geo-magnetic energy release, I feel that the
correlation between our basic theory and the available information
on saucers checks too closely to be mere coincidence. It is my
honest opinion that we are on the right track and are fairly close
to at least some of the answers.
Mr. Wright, Defence Research Board liaison officer at the
Canadian Embassy in Washington, was extremely anxious for me to get
in touch with Doctor Solandt, Chairman of the Defence Research
Board, to discuss with him future investigations along the line of
geo-magnetic energy release.
I do not feel that we have as yet sufficient data to place before
Defence Research Board which would enable a program to be initiated
within that organization, but I do feel that further research is
necessary and I would prefer to see it done within the frame work
of our own organization with, of course, full co-operation and
exchange of information with other interested bodies.
I discussed this matter fully with Doctor Solandt, Chairman of
Defence Research Board, on November 20th and placed before him as
much information as I have been able to gather to date. Doctor
Solandt agreed that work on geo-magnetic energy should go forward
as rapidly as possible and offered full co-operation of his Board
in providing laboratory facilities. Acquisition of necessary items
of equipment, and specialized personnel for incidental work in the
project. I indicated to Doctor Solandt that we would prefer to
keep the project within the Department of Transport for the time
being until we have obtained sufficient information to permit a
complete assessment of the value of the work.
It is therefore recommended that a PROJECT be set up within the
frame work of this Section to study this problem and that the work
be carried on a part time basis until such time as sufficient
tangible results can be seen to warrant more definitive action.
Cost of the program in its initial stages are expected to be less
than a few hundred dollars and can be carried by our Radio
Standards Lab appropriation.
Attached hereto is a draft of terms of reference for such a
project which, if authorized, will enable us to proceed with this
research work within our own organization.
(signed) W B S M I T H
(W.B. Smith)
Senior Radio Engineer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Washington Institute of Technology
Oceanographic and Physical Sciences
Dr. Robert I. Sarbacher
President and Chairman of Board
November 29, 1983
Mr. William Steinman
15043 Rosalita Drive
La Mirada, California 90638
Dear Mr. Steinman:
I am sorry I have taken so long in answering your letters. However,
I have moved my office and have had to make a number of extended
trips.
To answer your last question in your letter of October 14, 1983,
there is no particular reason I feel I shouldn't or couldn't answer
any and all of your questions. I am delighted to answer all of them
to the best of my ability.
You listed some of your questions in your letter of September 12th.
I will attempt to answer them as you had listed them.
1. Relating to my own experience regarding recovered
flying saucers, I had no association with any of the people involved
in the recovery and have no knowledge regarding the dates of the
recoveries. If I had I would send it to you.
2. Regarding verification that persons you list were
involved, I can say only this:
John von Neuman was definitely involved. Dr.
Vannever Bush was definitely involved, and I think Dr. Robert
Oppenheimer also.
My association with the Research and Development
Board under Doctor Compton during the the Eisenhower administration
was rather limited so that although I had been invited to participate
in several discussions associated with the reported recoveries, I
could not personally attend the meetings. I am sure that they would
have asked Dr. von Braun and the others that you listed were
probably asked and may or may not have attended. This is all I know
for sure.
500 Brazilian Avenue Palm Beach, Florida 33460 305-833-1116
<end of page 1>
Mr. William Steinman
November 29, 1983 - Page 2
3. I did receive some official reports when I was in my
office at the Pentagon but all of these were left there as as the
time we were never supposed to take them out of the office.
4. I do not recall receiving any photographs such as you
request so I am not in a position to answer.
5. I have to make the same reply as on No. 4.
I recall the interview with Dr. Brenner of the Canadian Embassy. I
think the answers I gave him were the ones you listed. Naturally, I
was more familiar with the subject matter under discussion, at that
time. Actually I would have been able to give more specific answers
had I attended the meetings concerning the subject. You must
understand that I took this assignment as a private contribution.
We were called "dollar-a-year men". My first responsibility was the
maintenance of my own business activity so that my participation was
limited.
About the only thing I remember at this time is that certain
materials reported to have come from flying saucer crashes were
extremely light and very tough. I am sure our laboratories analyzed
them very carefully.
There were reports that instruments or people operating these
machines were also of very light weight, sufficient to withstand the
tremendous deceleration and acceleration associated with their
machinery. I remember in talking with some of the people at the
office that I got the impression these "aliens" were constructed like
certain insects we have observed on earth, wherein because of the low
mass the inertial forces involved in operation of these instruments
would be quite low.
I still do not know why the high order of classification has been
given and why the denial of the existance of these devices.
I am sorry it has taken me so long to reply but I suggest you get in
touch with the others who may be more directly involved in this
program.
Sincerely Yours,
<signature>
Dr. Robert I. Sarbacher
P. S. It occurs to me that Bush's name is incorrect as you have it.
Please check the spelling.
Vinnie
>The facts are that the base requested 4-5 child-sized coffins, and
>since the funeral director wasn't there, his young assistant went out
>to the base. He was very rudely treated, and told to keep quiet. The
>base kept the coffins, why?
I don't know. Perhaps the whole thing was a misunderstanding. At the
time there was a huge amount of distress and confusion in town and at
the Army Base. It could account for alot.
Incidentally, I heard the story included a call-back "canceling" the
order. Just goes to show how oft-repeated stories change with time.
>As has been pointed out before, Marcel was a highly-placed intellegence
>officer. To say that he and his commander would release a headline
>like that because they couldn't recognize a balloon (even Mogul), is
>difficult to support. They must have actually thought it WAS a flying
>saucer, IMHO.
OK, but that does NOT mean it *was* a saucer, right? I have no idea
what sort of directives they would have had regarding press releases,
but you can be sure they didn't come up with the headline. The news
boys did that stuff.
>Wilmot's sighting reported after the story broke in Rsowell. His story
>is also on the front page, with the headlines.
Interesting how the newspaper appears to have fueled the furor. No
wonder the whole town was going a little crazy.
>Something to the effect that it was not a balloon, and he helped to
>set up the cover story. Same story as William Haut's.
It wasn't a weather balloon. That much we know. I'd also argree that
the Army covered up the whole incident (unill 1994) . It doesn't sound
like there is any contradiction to the Mogul hypothesis in Marcel's
testimony.
>Oh no! Another gate! Arghhh, that metal plate in my head! :)
Yeah! And lets see where the presidential candidates stand no these
issues! :-)
--Vinnie
Vinnie
>Well, if the memories of the Roswell witnesses are so easily dismissed
>because they're 50 years old, then how can you confidently state that #4
>was an array, contrary to the flight log, just because the "Mogul
>witnesses" say so? What makes you have more confidence in their memory
>of one flight of many after 50 years if you're so quick to dismiss the
>Roswell witnesses who insist that the material was like nothing they had
>ever seen before or since?
>>Does
>>it make sense to think #2 would be 32 targets and balloons, but #4
>>would be only one?
>Certainly, because some flights were one balloon and some flights were
>arrays. If your only reason for insisting that #4 was an array when it
>was recorded as a single balloon is because the 50-year-old memories
>insist it was the case, then you should lend a little more credibility to
>the debris witnesses.
I'd love to stick with the hard evidence - forget testimony:
Fact: the official reports on Mogul do not mention NYU #4. They do
cover launches of balloon arrays to high altitudes on the dates and
locations proximate to the discovery of debris on the Foster Ranch.
Fact: even if the experiment logs still existed (which they don't)
they would confirm that ALL of the flights consisted of multiple
balloons. The radar targets and equipment package were too heavy to be
lifted by a single balloon. A single balloon could never have gotten
the experiment off of the ground.
>>Remember that the debris was
>>exposed to New Mexico's wind and sun for almost a month before the
>>debris was investigated. That would have certainly expanded the wide
>>area a balloon array would have covered.
>I don't see how the sun and wind would necessarily decompose the balloon
>and scatter it like that. Do you know whether the material was prone to
>such deterioration, or do you just wish that it were?
This item has already been addressed by someone with more ballooning
experience than me. Suffice it to say I am not engaging in wishful
thinking.
>>I won't be responding to you posts in the future if you decide to
>>resort to personal attacks. I'm not in a *mad* rush to do anything. I
>>don't think insults are going to advance your theories one bit.
>I was referring to the whole Mogul crowd, not you.
Good. Maybe you can stick to reasoned arguments, weigh the evidence,
and come to a rational conclusion - without engaging in prejudiced
statements.
In the orignal posting I replied to, Cris Brown stated that Roswell
was one of the STRONGEST cases for an actual alien landing. The fact
that we are even discussing a strong agrument *against* alien
involvement is significant. Would you agree that Roswell is a
"textbook" alien landing case?
Most of the testimony about Roswell revolves around a government
coverup. The Mogul hypothesis explains why there was a coverup - it
does not dispute the fact that there was one.
--Vinnie
Brian Zeiler
>OK, but that does NOT mean it *was* a saucer, right? I have no idea
>what sort of directives they would have had regarding press releases,
>but you can be sure they didn't come up with the headline. The news
>boys did that stuff.
Only because the press release stated that a flying disk was recovered.
>It doesn't sound
>like there is any contradiction to the Mogul hypothesis in Marcel's
>testimony.
The contradiction is the fact that Marcel and others involved were
subsequently promoted. You'd think they'd have been demoted for fueling
"saucer" panics. Furthermore, you'd think the USAF would have told him
eventually, perhaps years later, that it was just a stupid balloon to
detect Soviet nuclear tests. There is nothing overwhelmingly secret
about that. Skeptics like to mumble about how the military is always
excessively secret, but not that secret. It's ridiculous to think that
something so mundane would have been kept secret from Marcel and the
others until they died; in fact, on the same day he found it they would
have said "It was Project Mogul, not a flying saucer. Just sign this
nondisclosure agreement as an already high-clearance intelligence officer
and don't talk about it anymore." Yeah, a balloon is so secret that
Brazel was detained for almost a week to change his story. It's even more
ridiculous to think such a mundane project would warrant such paranoid
treatment... not to mention the fact that Marcel would have recognized a
balloon and that nobody mentioned finding anything resembling a radar
equipment package.
Furthermore, it's interesting that the skeptics can't seem to respond to
the Schulgen memo posted here the other day by David Rudiak in which
Schulgen not only details flying saucer construction, but gives details
remarkably consistent with the testimony of the Roswell witnesses.
--
Brian Zeiler
Brian Zeiler
> Fact: even if the experiment logs still existed (which they don't)
>they would confirm that ALL of the flights consisted of multiple
>balloons. The radar targets and equipment package were too heavy to be
>lifted by a single balloon. A single balloon could never have gotten
>the experiment off of the ground.
I don't think this is correct. I hope Kevin Randle jumps in here,
because I'm sure I read that not all flights were arrays.
>In the orignal posting I replied to, Cris Brown stated that Roswell
>was one of the STRONGEST cases for an actual alien landing. The fact
>that we are even discussing a strong agrument *against* alien
>involvement is significant. Would you agree that Roswell is a
>"textbook" alien landing case?
No, not in the slightest. It's just a different case because of the
crash and recovery components. It's hardly the core of my opinion on
UFOs; I'm impressed with radar-visual cases more than Roswell. But I do
think the Roswell evidence is strong, especially when taken in
conjunction with evidence that nearly 100% of all skeptics remain
ignorant of, which is the leak from Dr. Sarbacher, the Twining memo, and
the Schulgen memo -- all taken in conjunction with the obviously inside
information from the hoaxed MJ-12 documents. There was clearly too much
inside information in those documents, for one thing, and secondly, it
correlated well with the other abovementioned evidence. This isn't a
matter of me "wishing" that MJ-12 was real; rather, there WAS a pile of
information in those documents that make it almost impossible for some
private sector clown to hoax. Read Friedman's research into MJ-12,
Sarbacher, Twining, and Schulgen.
>Most of the testimony about Roswell revolves around a government
>coverup. The Mogul hypothesis explains why there was a coverup - it
>does not dispute the fact that there was one.
I have yet to see a skeptic even *admit* to one logical problem with
Mogul, problems I mentioned in my other reply today in this thread. Why
can't a skeptic just be honest and skeptically state "I don't accept that
it was an extraterrestrial craft, but I also don't accept Mogul because
of some problems with that as well."
Personally, I'd believe it was a horrible military experiment of another
variety before accepting Mogul over the ET hypothesis for that incident.
--
Brian Zeiler
Bill Peterson
Al Grund <agr...@biotechresources.com> wrote:
>
>Yes, but why settle for such a mundane explanation when a much more
>exciting and fantastic one is available. These sticks and bits of plastic
>were part of an interstellar spaceship, and now it's up to reputable
>scientists to prove that they weren't. Strange "logic", but not to the
>minds of the UFO crackpots.
>
In spite of your rude tone and slur towards "crackpots", I will respond.
The simple fact is that the UFO "crackpots" wouldn't think anything at all
about the Roswell crash except that the US Air Force, represented by the
base commander (a colonel) and the Intellegence officer (a captain) released
to the world press:
"Army Air Force Captures Flying Saucer On Ranch in Roswell Region"
"The intellegence office of the 509th Bombardment group at Roswell Army Air
Field announced at noon today, that the field has come into the possession
of a flying saucer."
Roswell Daily Record July 6, 1947.
Ok wiseguy, this is where the "crackpots" got interested. If the Air Force
had said "Big Balloon Found Crashed on Ranch" we "crackpots" wouldn't have
noticed. It is up to "reputable" scientists (are you one?) to show WHY
the Air Force was so wrong, and couldn't recognize their own balloon.
Do you think Colonel Blanchard and Captain Marcel, commanding officers of
the only nuclear-equipped base in the WORLD, are "crackpots"? Do you think
they thought about the effect of their announcement? Or did they just
suddenly go loony? I'm starting to think that you are the cracked pot.
BP
--
Disclaimer: ididn'tdoitnobodysawmeyoucan'tproveathing!
John Ritson
writes
>In article <agrund-1602...@204.95.204.103>,
>Al Grund <agr...@biotechresources.com> wrote:
>>
>>Yes, but why settle for such a mundane explanation when a much more
>>exciting and fantastic one is available. These sticks and bits of plastic
>>were part of an interstellar spaceship, and now it's up to reputable
>>scientists to prove that they weren't. Strange "logic", but not to the
>>minds of the UFO crackpots.
>>
>
>In spite of your rude tone and slur towards "crackpots", I will respond.
>The simple fact is that the UFO "crackpots" wouldn't think anything at all
>about the Roswell crash except that the US Air Force, represented by the
>base commander (a colonel) and the Intellegence officer (a captain) released
>to the world press:
>
>"Army Air Force Captures Flying Saucer On Ranch in Roswell Region"
>
>"The intellegence office of the 509th Bombardment group at Roswell Army Air
>Field announced at noon today, that the field has come into the possession
>of a flying saucer."
>Roswell Daily Record July 6, 1947.
>
>Ok wiseguy, this is where the "crackpots" got interested. If the Air Force
>had said "Big Balloon Found Crashed on Ranch" we "crackpots" wouldn't have
>noticed. It is up to "reputable" scientists (are you one?) to show WHY
>the Air Force was so wrong, and couldn't recognize their own balloon.
Wasn't it supposed to be an Army balloon?
>
>Do you think Colonel Blanchard and Captain Marcel, commanding officers of
>the only nuclear-equipped base in the WORLD, are "crackpots"? Do you think
>they thought about the effect of their announcement? Or did they just
>suddenly go loony? I'm starting to think that you are the cracked pot.
>
>BP
John
Bill Peterson
John Ritson <jo...@jritson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4g6g86$h...@pentagon.io.com>, Bill Peterson <bi...@io.com>
>writes
>>
>>
>>"The intellegence office of the 509th Bombardment group at Roswell Army Air
>>Field announced at noon today, that the field has come into the possession
>>of a flying saucer."
>>Roswell Daily Record July 6, 1947.
>>
>>Ok wiseguy, this is where the "crackpots" got interested. If the Air Force
>>had said "Big Balloon Found Crashed on Ranch" we "crackpots" wouldn't have
>>noticed. It is up to "reputable" scientists (are you one?) to show WHY
>>the Air Force was so wrong, and couldn't recognize their own balloon.
>
>Wasn't it supposed to be an Army balloon?
>
Force. Yes, it was supposed to be an Army balloon, and the Army was the
Air Force at the time. Hence, it was their own balloon.
BP
>>
>>Do you think Colonel Blanchard and Captain Marcel, commanding officers of
>>the only nuclear-equipped base in the WORLD, are "crackpots"? Do you think
>>they thought about the effect of their announcement? Or did they just
>>suddenly go loony? I'm starting to think that you are the cracked pot.
>>
>>BP
>
>John
Vinnie
>>It doesn't sound
>>like there is any contradiction to the Mogul hypothesis in Marcel's
>>testimony.
>The contradiction is the fact that Marcel and others involved were
>subsequently promoted. You'd think they'd have been demoted for fueling
>"saucer" panics. Furthermore, you'd think the USAF would have told him
>eventually, perhaps years later, that it was just a stupid balloon to
>detect Soviet nuclear tests. There is nothing overwhelmingly secret
>about that. Skeptics like to mumble about how the military is always
>excessively secret, but not that secret. It's ridiculous to think that
>something so mundane would have been kept secret from Marcel and the
>others until they died; in fact, on the same day he found it they would
>have said "It was Project Mogul, not a flying saucer. Just sign this
>nondisclosure agreement as an already high-clearance intelligence officer
>and don't talk about it anymore."
I'm more inclined to think that nobody at the USAF was aware of or
concerned about Marcel being in the dark. If he never got security
clearance for the project before it was declassified, then it is only
logical that he never told. The USAF is in the business of not-telling
secrets and to think they'd go out of their way to tell some old
retired guy about a project from 1947 is stretching the envelope.
>... not to mention the fact that Marcel would have recognized a
>balloon and that nobody mentioned finding anything resembling a radar
>equipment package.
I've already explained why none of the investigators at the scene
would have been able to identify neoprene balloon material in 1947.
I'm curious about your statement about a radar equipment package. What
do you mean? The Mogul arrays were PASSIVE radar targets. The Army DID
display a radar target to the media - in fact some of the testimony
from Brazel sounds exactly like a radar target.
>Furthermore, it's interesting that the skeptics can't seem to respond to
>the Schulgen memo posted here the other day by David Rudiak in which
>Schulgen not only details flying saucer construction, but gives details
>remarkably consistent with the testimony of the Roswell witnesses.
I don't feel qualified to comment on this guy's report. Otherwise I
would have. I'd say his report would have been even more significant
if it had pre-dated the Roswell debris.
--Vinnie
Vinnie
>cgr...@gnn.com (Vinnie) wrote:
>> Fact: even if the experiment logs still existed (which they don't)
>>they would confirm that ALL of the flights consisted of multiple
>>balloons. The radar targets and equipment package were too heavy to be
>>lifted by a single balloon. A single balloon could never have gotten
>>the experiment off of the ground.
>I don't think this is correct. I hope Kevin Randle jumps in here,
>because I'm sure I read that not all flights were arrays.
I have not seen a posting from Kevin; did I miss it?
>I have yet to see a skeptic even *admit* to one logical problem with
>Mogul, problems I mentioned in my other reply today in this thread. Why
>can't a skeptic just be honest and skeptically state "I don't accept that
>it was an extraterrestrial craft, but I also don't accept Mogul because
>of some problems with that as well."
I'll admit that all of the conflicting stories don't add up to a
complete picture. However, when weighing the evidence, skeptics tend
to place more weight on an ordinary explanation than an extraordinary
one. If we have equal amounts of material evidence on both sides - the
"secret balloon blown off course" explanation will ALWAYS win over the
"elusive aliens from a galaxay far-far-away" explanation.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
>Personally, I'd believe it was a horrible military experiment of another
>variety before accepting Mogul over the ET hypothesis for that incident.
Why horrible? I suppose this means you believe there were dead bodies
brought back to the base? Why connect it with the ET hypothesis at
all? You can't have it both ways. :-)
--Vinnie
Brian Zeiler
>I'm more inclined to think that nobody at the USAF was aware of or
>concerned about Marcel being in the dark.
I'm more inclined to think that the USAF would have told him what it was
rather than embark on a massive cover-up.
>I've already explained why none of the investigators at the scene
>would have been able to identify neoprene balloon material in 1947.
You've asserted this to be the case, sure...
>I don't feel qualified to comment on this guy's report. Otherwise I
>would have. I'd say his report would have been even more significant
>if it had pre-dated the Roswell debris.
It was written in October of 1947, only three months after the incident.
"This guy's report" is an internal memorandum involving the
correspondence with Twining.
--
Brian Zeiler
Brian Zeiler
>However, when weighing the evidence, skeptics tend
>to place more weight on an ordinary explanation than an extraordinary
>one.
Gee, really? I hadn't heard that mantra about extraordinarity before.
Besides, skeptics often have to hack, cleave, distort, and omit evidence
to stuff the observations into their tidy explanation, of which Roswell
is a fine example. It was a balloon, and all evidence to the contrary is
mere lying, speculation, faulty memories, intelligence incompetence,
etc., to an infeasible extent.
>Why horrible? I suppose this means you believe there were dead bodies
>brought back to the base? Why connect it with the ET hypothesis at
>all? You can't have it both ways. :-)
What are you talking about? Have *what* both ways, an ET hypothesis
with bodies? No need to answer, just a rhetorical question.
--
Brian Zeiler
Vinnie
>>It doesn't sound
>>like there is any contradiction to the Mogul hypothesis in Marcel's
>>testimony.
>The contradiction is the fact that Marcel and others involved were
>subsequently promoted. You'd think they'd have been demoted for fueling
>"saucer" panics. Furthermore, you'd think the USAF would have told him
>eventually, perhaps years later, that it was just a stupid balloon to
>detect Soviet nuclear tests. There is nothing overwhelmingly secret
>about that. Skeptics like to mumble about how the military is always
>excessively secret, but not that secret. It's ridiculous to think that
>something so mundane would have been kept secret from Marcel and the
>others until they died; in fact, on the same day he found it they would
>have said "It was Project Mogul, not a flying saucer. Just sign this
>nondisclosure agreement as an already high-clearance intelligence officer
>and don't talk about it anymore."
I'm more inclined to think that nobody at the USAF was aware of or
concerned about Marcel being in the dark. If he never got security
clearance for the project before it was declassified, then it is only
logical that he never told. The USAF is in the business of not-telling
secrets and to think they'd go out of their way to tell some old
retired guy about a project from 1947 is stretching the envelope.
>... not to mention the fact that Marcel would have recognized a
>balloon and that nobody mentioned finding anything resembling a radar
>equipment package.
I've already explained why none of the investigators at the scene
would have been able to identify neoprene balloon material in 1947.
I'm curious about your statement about a radar equipment package. What
do you mean? The Mogul arrays were PASSIVE radar targets. The Army DID
display a radar target to the media - in fact some of the testimony
from Brazel sounds exactly like a radar target.
>Furthermore, it's interesting that the skeptics can't seem to respond to
>the Schulgen memo posted here the other day by David Rudiak in which
>Schulgen not only details flying saucer construction, but gives details
>remarkably consistent with the testimony of the Roswell witnesses.
I don't feel qualified to comment on this guy's report. Otherwise I
would have. I'd say his report would have been even more significant
if it had pre-dated the Roswell debris.
--Vinnie
Vinnie
>cgr...@gnn.com (Vinnie) wrote:
>> Fact: even if the experiment logs still existed (which they don't)
>>they would confirm that ALL of the flights consisted of multiple
>>balloons. The radar targets and equipment package were too heavy to be
>>lifted by a single balloon. A single balloon could never have gotten
>>the experiment off of the ground.
>I don't think this is correct. I hope Kevin Randle jumps in here,
>because I'm sure I read that not all flights were arrays.
I have not seen a posting from Kevin; did I miss it?
>I have yet to see a skeptic even *admit* to one logical problem with
>Mogul, problems I mentioned in my other reply today in this thread. Why
>can't a skeptic just be honest and skeptically state "I don't accept that
>it was an extraterrestrial craft, but I also don't accept Mogul because
>of some problems with that as well."
I'll admit that all of the conflicting stories don't add up to a
complete picture. However, when weighing the evidence, skeptics tend
to place more weight on an ordinary explanation than an extraordinary
one. If we have equal amounts of material evidence on both sides - the
"secret balloon blown off course" explanation will ALWAYS win over the
"elusive aliens from a galaxay far-far-away" explanation.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
>Personally, I'd believe it was a horrible military experiment of another
>variety before accepting Mogul over the ET hypothesis for that incident.
Why horrible? I suppose this means you believe there were dead bodies
brought back to the base? Why connect it with the ET hypothesis at
all? You can't have it both ways. :-)
--Vinnie
Brian Zeiler
>I have not seen a posting from Kevin; did I miss it?
No.
>I'll admit that all of the conflicting stories don't add up to a
>complete picture. However, when weighing the evidence, skeptics tend
>to place more weight on an ordinary explanation than an extraordinary
>one.
Yes, I understand this quite well, Vinnie. What you don't understand is
that the Mogul explanation is, quite objectively, pure rubbish and total
crap, as you will discover when you read the post I attached to my last
message just now in this thread, the one posted by David Rudiak. If you
were honest with yourself, you would see that the Mogul explanation is
quite poorly unsubstantiated and has little credibility. Furthermore, it
shows that the skeptic clubs haven't done any analysis whatsoever,
because as usual, they're simply flocking sheep to any other debunker
with an explanation without critically examining it.
>>Personally, I'd believe it was a horrible military experiment of another
>>variety before accepting Mogul over the ET hypothesis for that incident.
>
>Why horrible? I suppose this means you believe there were dead bodies
>brought back to the base? Why connect it with the ET hypothesis at
>all? You can't have it both ways. :-)
You said this before, and I still have no idea what you're talking about,
unless you're saying the bodies were human. The bodies as described
hardly sounded human unless they were some super-secret experiment with
human mutants.
--
Brian Zeiler
JDeRuvo
Then, almost 50 years later, they said "Ok, it wasn't a weather balloon,
it was a ... weather balloon!"
Yeah, this makes sense. To SAGAN. Who wouldn't know solid evidence if it
flew up and hit him on the nose!
GMI - The difference between genius and insanity is a thin, blue line.
JDeRuvo
they are buying silence. Had they demoted them, they would then have had
top deal with disgruntled personnel with no extra motivation to keep
quiet. Telling them to keep quiet and then promoting them gives extra
leverage on them to keep quiet. It doesn't invalidate what he may have
seen. And besides, this was the ONLY nuclear bombing base in the country
at the time and Marcel didn't have the clearance? PLEASE! And he
couldn't tell a weather balloon, of the type they had been launching EVERY
DAY?
You're looking at this through rose colored glasses.
Mike McLarty
JDeRuvo (jde...@aol.com) writes:
> It's not suprising that they would be promoted than demoted. Remember,
> they are buying silence. Had they demoted them, they would then have had
From what I can tell this discussion is not a ufo sighting report and yet
has been cross-posted to everyone's favourite newsgroup ... alt.ufo.reports
WHY?
--
:) 73 de Mike, VE3VP E-:-)
twi...@hub.ofthe.net
#Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
#>>It doesn't sound
#>>like there is any contradiction to the Mogul hypothesis in Marcel's
#>>testimony.
#>The contradiction is the fact that Marcel and others involved were
#>subsequently promoted.
Hi Brian, and no I'm not trying to start a flame war (I try to do
those only with Mark Hines!)
But didn't the Vol 43 No 1 issue of Saucer Smear indicate that Marcel
had told a large number of untruths about his career? I'm doing this
from memory, but as I recall they indicated that he wasn't to be
trusted. I haven't done the work myself but again, as I recall, they
gave the info from his military files and it was considerably
different than he has boasted about. This would seem to make him less
than a credible witness, unless you have info that shows this report
incorrect.
Enjoy.
Twi...@hub.ofthe.net
Vinnie
>>I've already explained why none of the investigators at the scene
>>would have been able to identify neoprene balloon material in 1947.
>Sorry, but it's less than convincing to claim that nobody could identify
>neoprene.
Why is it less than convincing? We are talking about 1947 here. I
think anyone trying to identify the material at that time (given the
media reports) wouldn't have hesitated to say "wow, that's unlike
anything made on earth," when in fact it was a new synthetic material.
>>I'm curious about your statement about a radar equipment package. What
>>do you mean? The Mogul arrays were PASSIVE radar targets. The Army DID
>>display a radar target to the media - in fact some of the testimony
>>from Brazel sounds exactly like a radar target.
>See the attached file from David Rudiak. Skeptics have simply not done
>their homework in assessing the validity of the Mogul hypothesis.
I read the article. It is a very detailed attack on the Mogul
hypothesis. (I'd be interested in seeing the same zeal applied to
inconsistencies in the ET hypothesis). Interestingly enough it does
not talk about the "single balloon" launch you refered to in earlier
postings. What happened to that claim? Why did you drop it?
I will take issue with one item from the laborious posting:
>with computer-like precision, placing the balloon to within just a
>few miles of the debris field on Mac Brazel's ranch. This is simply
>not true. By PURE CHANCE, Moore might be right, but he is far more
>likely to be wrong!
I disagree. If we look at the data (read indisputable facts) related
to altitude and wind direction on the day NYU #4 was launched, we end
up with a strange object that DID IN **FACT** fall from the sky in
June on '47 *somewhere* in the area of Brazels farm. How close to the
farm may to open to some debate. This one simple fact leads rational
people to admit that Mogul cannot be ruled out as a possible
explanation.
Your detailed analysis takes issue with the weather simulation and the
presence/absence of radar reflectors. It does not dispute the *fact*
of the launch, the date or the location. Of course we'd have to
dismiss the testimony of Mac Brazel if we are to believe there was no
debris from a radar reflector. He practically describes one *verbatim*
in his testimony. But we wouldn't want to dismiss witness testimony
would we? :-)
>>I don't feel qualified to comment on this guy's report. Otherwise I
>>would have. I'd say his report would have been even more significant
>>if it had pre-dated the Roswell debris.
>Nonsense. The significance is that it was AFTER the Roswell debris
>because that's what he's referring to!
The reason I said this is to point out a fact we can both probably
agree on. The report seems to borrow from descriptions of the debris
found in Roswell. We cannot conclude, however, that this substantiates
the recovery of an extraplanetary alien spaceship. I think it is
actually a somewhat humorous mistake. The person who wrote the report
probably had no access to Project Mogul data. In fact, the program
itself was so secret that the people launching the balloons didn't
even know what the end product was going to do.
The report would be more telling if it had predated the "recovery" in
Roswell in my opinion.
Flame away!
--Vinnie
Vinnie
>>>Personally, I'd believe it was a horrible military experiment of another
>>>variety before accepting Mogul over the ET hypothesis for that incident.
>>
>>Why horrible? I suppose this means you believe there were dead bodies
>>brought back to the base? Why connect it with the ET hypothesis at
>>all? You can't have it both ways. :-)
>You said this before, and I still have no idea what you're talking about,
>unless you're saying the bodies were human. The bodies as described
>hardly sounded human unless they were some super-secret experiment with
>human mutants.
OK, now I'm confused. What did I say before? You'll have to be patient
with me, my medication is running low... :-)
I think I was asking why you would think it might be a "horrible"
millitary project. Surely the evidence for that explanation is
circumstancial. What would you be basing that explaination on?
I think the whole "alien bodies" thing is about as likely to be true
as the "Alien Autopsy" video documenting it.
--Vinnie
Unknown
>Personally, I'd believe it was a horrible military experiment of another
>variety before accepting Mogul over the ET hypothesis for that incident.
Why horrible? I suppose this means you believe there were dead bodies
brought back to the base? Why connect it with the ET hypothesis at
all? You can't have it both ways. :-)
--Vinnie
>I have heard that the Mogul project used tape with purplish flower-like
designs. This seems to explain hyroglyphics found on the wreckage?
-Bob Tarantino
Mike McCarty
I just saw Carl Sagan recently on a television program.
He looked absolutely awful, in regards to his physical
health.
Does anyone know if he is suffering from cancer or
something?
Or could it be a malignant form of dispair, in relation
to concerted effort to disuade others from believing
in abductions, alien visitors, etc.?
The poor man looks like death warmed over.
Brian Zeiler
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Roswell Questions
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 18:24:54 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Message-ID: <4hkl1j$b...@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <3137C2...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu>
"Chris Rathfoot, M.D." <Rat...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>The proported Roswell Autopsy Film has generated much debate regarding
>its authenticity. This aside, there still remains a great many
>questions left as to what exactly happened in Roswell in 1947.
>Available to browse are sworn statements from witnessess who claim the
>existance of U.F.O. debri, Air Force statements describing both
>weather balloons and project Mogul balloon trains as the source of the
>incident. Furthermore, a General Accounting Office statement has been
>published which fails to uncover any new information regarding the
>incident. The question then remains, what really happened!
>My particular intrest is the Air Force statements of the balloon train
>theory. It has been reported that what was found at Roswell was
>transported by aircraft to a destination believed to be Wright Army
>Air Base. Given Roswell AAFB was part of the newly formed nuclear air
>arm, its aircraft operated under the highest security. As with any
>secured operation, all details are accounted for. This includes the
>gas for the trucks to haul the debri, the payroll records of the
>troops deployed for the loading, the serail numbers and crews of the
>aircraft involved. Furthermore, the destination of any flights would
>similarly undo such scrutiny. The fact that routine records such as
>payroll, personnel, flights and departures to and from Roswell were
>not able to be found by the General Accounting Office (GAO) implies
>either inadequate research on the part of the GAO or purposeful
>withholding of information. Similarly, if the incident is indeed a
>failed Project Mogul mission, volumes of data would be available.
>Project Mogul was persued with the intensity of the early space
>missions, with every failure documented and analysed to find the fault
>of the system. Furthermore, Roswell and Alamgardo both has wideband
>search radar capable of tracking the Mogul ballon trains. Given the
>secrecy of Project Mogul, recovery teams would be enroute as soon as
>the balloons lifted off.
>My purpose of this post is focus the attention of the Roswell Film
>onto the Roswell incident in general. A great many theories exist, a
>few answers have been proposed. As of yet claimed witnessess who have
>come forwarded have been delt with with skepticism. Until more
>individuals come forward, lets continue to research the actual
>incident.
Excellent, intelligent post. I agree with every point. If a Mogul crash had
been the explanation, there should have been a mountain of paperwork generated.
But not a single scrap of paper has ever been found in Mogul or Air Force files
that in any way links Mogul with the Roswell crash. In fact, absolutely nothing
exists in Air Force files about any sort of crash at all. The Air Force at the
time (and now) publicly acknowledged a debris recovery, plane flights to Fort
Worth and Wright Field, and materials analysis at Wright Field. Yet no
paperwork about these events has been uncovered. This is virtually impossible
to explain unless one resorts to a cover-up theory.
The Mogul balloon would indeed have been tracked and its crash position known.
Mogul engineer C.B. Moore's own logbook of the flights from June 5, 1947 to July
5, 1947 shows four tracking systems in place: ground theodolite (surveyor's
telescope), radiosonde (radio beacon), aircraft observation, and radar.
Although the Air Force and people like Karl Pflock and C.B. Moore state that the
metallic foil debris described by witnesses was nothing more than aluminum foil
from the balloons radar reflector arrays, Moore's own log shows that ONLY Flight
#8 on July 3 was tracked by radars. Engineering diagrams from Flights #5, #7,
and #11 in Pflock's book and the Charles Berlitz/William Moore Roswell book show
NO radar reflector arrays.
Finally when the papers of another Mogul scientist, Albert P. Crary, were
examined by Kevin Randle, he discovered that Flight #4, the supposed C.B.
Moore/Air Force crash object, carried NO radar reflectors.
Flight #4 is conveniently missing from Moore's flight log. Moore has given
three different reasons as to why #4 was "logged out" of the records. In the
Air Force Report, Flight #4 was of no consequence and consisted entirely of
unclassified materials. Therefore no recovery attempt was made. In Pflock's
report, #4 suddely becomes highly classified. And finally in the Aug/July 1995
Skeptical Inquirer, Moore says they lost track of the balloon near the crash
site. Supposedly because the tracking was incomplete, data on #4 wasn't
included in records, including the engineering diagram!! Moore then uses this
incomplete tracking data, meteorolgical records, and flight data from previous
launches in Pennsylvania [!!] to demonstrate that the crash at Brazel's ranch
was "consistent" with the Mogul #4 hypothesis. Moore's testimony is full of
holes, yet he never gets any critical scrutiny from the Roswell skeptics.
> If anything needs debunking, it is the "official
>statements" regarding the Roswell Incident.
Absolutely. The Mogul hypothesis is complete rubbish. The Mogul proponents
can't tell a consistent story. There own documentation, or lack of it,
completely belies their "explanation." Nonexistent radar arrays are supposed
to explain foil debris. The foil debris descriptions given by eyewitnesses do
not match the physical properties of aluminum foil used on the nonexistent
arrays. And finally, there is the incredibly suspicious absense of paperwork
about a debris recovery.
Brian Zeiler
>I read the article. It is a very detailed attack on the Mogul
>hypothesis. (I'd be interested in seeing the same zeal applied to
>inconsistencies in the ET hypothesis). Interestingly enough it does
>not talk about the "single balloon" launch you refered to in earlier
>postings. What happened to that claim? Why did you drop it?
I didn't write that piece.
>I disagree. If we look at the data (read indisputable facts) related
>to altitude and wind direction on the day NYU #4 was launched, we end
>up with a strange object that DID IN **FACT** fall from the sky in
>June on '47 *somewhere* in the area of Brazels farm. How close to the
>farm may to open to some debate. This one simple fact leads rational
>people to admit that Mogul cannot be ruled out as a possible
>explanation.
But other analyses by engineers didn't place Mogul near the ranch by any
stretch. I'm attaching more Mogul information.
>>Nonsense. The significance is that it was AFTER the Roswell debris
>>because that's what he's referring to!
>
>The reason I said this is to point out a fact we can both probably
>agree on. The report seems to borrow from descriptions of the debris
>found in Roswell.
No. The memo was written in October, 1947, and was declassified in 1985.
In that time interval, debris descriptions from witnesses was made
public that matched the descriptions in this memo. It's IMPOSSIBLE for
the witnesses to have borrowed from the memo, and vice versa!
>The person who wrote the report
>probably had no access to Project Mogul data. In fact, the program
>itself was so secret that the people launching the balloons didn't
>even know what the end product was going to do.
Nonsense. The report by Schulgen was based on a memo from Twining, both
of whom EASILY were cleared to know about Mogul!
>The report would be more telling if it had predated the "recovery" in
>Roswell in my opinion.
How could it? This makes NO sense. Is Schulgen supposed to be a
psychic, and supposed to know what the construction is BEFORE he sees the
debris? What are you trying to say? Here's a timeline so you
understand, because I don't think you understand:
June 1947 -- Crash
October 1947 -- Schulgen memo with intimate saucer construction details
~1980 -- Roswell witnesses give their descriptions
1985 -- Schulgen memo declassified, matches witness descriptions
See? That's why the memo and the witnesses gave corroborative
independent descriptions.
--
Brian Zeiler
Brian Zeiler
of the
Project Mogul Hypothesis
by Robert A. Galganski
(IUR, International UFO Reporter, March/April 1995, Volume 20, Number 2;
Copyright 1995 by the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies, 2457 West
Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659, published bimonthly with a
subscription rate of $25/yr.)
[Refer to the issue/article for mentioned Tables, Formulas, and Appendix]
The origin and composition of the allegedly unusual debris
recovered by the military from the Foster ranch near Roswell, New
Mexico, in early July 1947 is still a highly controversial issue. In a
report issued in September 1994, the U.S. Air Force concluded that this
material was the remains of the top-secret Project Mogul Flight 4, "a
multi-neoprene balloon train with multiple radar reflectors."
Independent researcher Karl Pflock reached a similar conclusion
in his monograph, Roswell in Perspective. Pflock, however, attributes
the debris to Mogul Flight 9, which utilized polyethylene (plastic)
rather than neoprene (rubber) balloons. He speculated that this array
may also have supported a multiple radar-reflector payload.
Two recently published articles in IUR examined the Project
Mogul hypothesis. In their review of the Air Force report, Mark
Rodeghier and Mark Chesney cited numerous internal and logical
inconsistencies in refuting the Air Force's claim that Mogul Flight 4
wreckage was recovered. In a subsequent article, Kevin Randle utilized
winds-aloft data and newly discovered Mogul documentation to posit that
Flight 9 could not possibly have landed on the debris field.
Even if Mogul Flight 9 did land there, however, a big question
still must be answered. Did this balloon array and its payload contain
enough polyethylene and other light-weight material to litter the field
to the extent reported? This article examines the issue from a
quantitative perspective.
METHODOLOGY FOR TESTING
THE MOGUL HYPOTHESIS
The approach used to evaluate Pflock's hypothesis was
straightforward: (1) calculate the surface area of the Mogul Flight 9
multiple-balloon polyethylene envelope and other possible thin-shell
material; (2) estimate the surface area of similar material at the
debris site; and (3) compare the results of these computations. In order
to carry out the second of these steps, mathematical models of the
debris field had to be developed. They were formulated in part using
information gleaned from _first-statement_ testimony of firsthand and
secondhand witnesses _who have allowed their names to be used_.
FLIGHT 9 BALLOON ENVELOPE
SURFACE AREA
The specifics of the balloon configuration used in Mogul Flight
9 are unknown. Consequently, quantitative information for Mogul Flights
8, 10, and 11 (which were launched within hours or at most several days
of the Flight 9 cluster) was examined in an effort to ascertain the
range of their total balloon envelope surface areas. Table 1 displays
the approximate values of this parameter for the balloon arrays of those
three well-documented launches. The balloon shape, quantity, volume, and
dimensional data used to calculate these areas were obtained from Karl
Pflock's report and Rodeghier and Chesney's IUR article.
The balloon envelope surface area of Mogul Flight 9 was assumed
to comprise 1800 ft2 of polyethylene, a reasonable yet liberal estimate
reflecting the Table 1 results. According to Kevin Randle, the diary of
Dr. Albert Crary noted that Flight 9 was launched with a dummy load.
Therefore the estimated Flight 9 envelope surface area did not have to
be increased to account for radar-reflecting targets that were sometimes
attached to Mogul arrays.
THE DEBRIS FIELD
One of the earliest documented descriptions of the Roswell
debris field size appeared in a December 8, 1979, interview of Major
Jesse Marcel by National Enquirer reporter Bob Pratt. Here is an extract
as it appears in Pflock's report:
Pratt: When you went out there that morning, you could see this
stuff scattered for quite a ways in the distance?
Marcel: Lord, yes, about as far as you could see -
three-quarters [of a] mile long and two hundred to three
hundred feet wide.
Marcel described the distribution of the wreckage as follows:
Pratt: Was it grouped or bunched together, or was it scattered?
Marcel: Scattered all over - just like you'd explode something
above the ground and [it would] just fall to the ground.
One thing I was impressed with was that it was obvious
you could just about determine which direction it came
from and which direction it was heading. It was
traveling from northeast to southwest. It was in that
pattern. You could tell where it started and where it
ended by how it thinned out. Although I did not cover
the entire area this stuff was in, I could tell that it
was thicker where we first started looking, and it was
thinning out as we went southwest.
Ranch hand Tommy Tyree stated that Mac Brazel had to drive the
sheep around the field to water because they would not cross through the
wreckage. This observation indicates that there was at least one
localized or more extensive area where the fragments were highly
concentrated.
Most of the debris retrieved from the Foster ranch consisted of
small pieces of extremely lightweight, shell-like material, that is,
material having a thin-gage, flat or curved sheetlike configuration.
(polyethylene, neoprene, and tinfoil are included in this general
classification.) The largest shell fragment reported was a ten-foot
diameter piece recovered by Mac Brazel near the far (southern) end of a
gouge. Several witnesses, including Bill Brazel and Walt Whitmore, Jr.,
reported seeing a narrow, shallow gouge in the ground aligned with the
long dimension of the field. Their gouge length estimates ranged between
400 and 500 feet. General Arthur Exon also saw gouges at both the debris
field and impact sites during an aerial survey several months after the
event.
DEBRIS FIELD MODELS
An assumed distribution of shell debris was formulated
consistent with witness descriptions. Equation 5, given in the appendix,
defines its mathematical form; Figure 1 is the corresponding visual
representation for a rectangular-shaped debris pattern of length a and
width 2b.
In Figure 1, the height of the mesh is proportional to the
relative ground-coverage density of thin-shell material at any given
point on the field. The higher the mesh, the more material present. The
peak of the hill is centered on the approximate location where the
largest reported piece of shell wreckage was found. The existence of
such a densely covered region is also consistent with Tyree's testimony
that the sheep refused to cross a portion of the field. Marcel's
observation regarding the direction of thinning debris (in the y or
apparent direction of crash-impelled debris) is also accounted for by
the assumed debris distribution.
Those parts of the actual field, especially far downfield and
well to both sides of the location of maximum material concentration,
were most likely virtually free of debris. Conversely, other regions
probably exhibited a very high percentage of ground coverage, e.g., the
area near where Brazel retrieved the large shell fragment. These
extremes were assumed to average out over the assumed conservative
fragment distribution.
Brian Zeiler
configuration, consistent with the shape implicit in Marcel's field size
estimate. Three other configurations were modeled: triangular,
parabolic, and half-elliptical. Each of the latter shapes is more
consistent with a fan-shaped debris pattern resulting from the impact of
a conventional aircraft with the ground. A plan view of all four models
is shown in Figure 2. The length (a = 4000 ft) and width (2b = 250 ft)
of the rectangle reflect the estimates given by Major Marcel.
MODEL-GENERATED RESULTS
The numerical value of the assumed shell distribution at any
point on the field is dependent on the value of a constant, p0. This
parameter, defined in Equation 2, represents the thin-shell material
average ground coverage density in a small-area region where the debris
is assumed to be most dense (i.e., the peak of the hill in Figure 1).
As an example, assume that p0 = 0.20 and that a 10ft x 10ft grid
is centered at that maximum-density location. This region contains more
thin-shell material than any other area of comparable size on the field
and is common to all four models. Using Equations 5 and 13 with (x,y) =
(0,400) feet and a 10ft x 10ft small-area region DA = 100ft2, we find
that the combined surface area of the individual shell fragments in this
zone is equal to 20.0ft2 (meaning that 20% of this small area would have
been covered by debris). If we could fit all these pieces together like
the parts of a jigsaw puzzle, they would be equivalent to a single,
4.5ft x 4.5ft (54 inches x 54 inches) square shell remnant located
somewhere in DA.
Figure 3 illustrates the size variation of equivalent square
shell pieces at selected points within the boundaries of the
parabolic-shaped debris pattern for P0 = 0.20. The amount of material
contained within any given 10ft x 10ft grid decreases rapidly away from
the center of maximum material concentration. Indeed, it can be shown
that approximately 62% of the shell fragments are clustered within 1000
feet of the northern edge of the field; more than 93% of them are
located within 2000 feet (half the field length) of this boundary.
Total on-ground shell surface area estimates for the entire
field were obtained for all four debris patterns using the integral
calculus approach detailed in the appendix. Algebraic expressions for
these predictions are given by Equations 9 through 12 as a function of
average ground coverage density, p0. Given the uncertainties about the
actual coverage density, this parameter was assumed to range between
0.20 and 0.35 in the analysis which follows.
Table 2 lists, for each model, the numerical value of the debris
field shell surface area AS in square feet and the corresponding number
of Project Mogul Flight 9 balloon trains that could be theoretically
pieced together from this material if it was actually polyethylene. The
latter number was calculated by dividing AS by the estimated Mogul
balloon envelope surface area (1800ft2).
The rectangular model generates the highest estimates because it
encompasses the entire material distribution shown in Figure 1. Since it
is not fan-shaped, it probably greatly overestimates the amount of
material on the field and the associated number of Mogul balloon trains.
Conversely, the triangular model provides the smallest estimates
because the extremely narrow part of its area (near the northern edge of
the field) excludes a substantial portion of the moderate-density
material distribution. It should be noted, however, that extremely
lightweight, crash-impelled debris would tend to scatter in more of a
curved pattern (i.e., bow outward) rather than remain within the
confines of two straight-line boundaries. Therefore the predictions
generated by the triangular model significantly underestimate the
on-ground thin-shell material and the corresponding number of Mogul
arrays.
Figure 2 shows that both the half ellipse and parabolic shapes
can be used to approximate curved-boundary, fan-shaped debris patterns.
The parabolic model, which predicts about 24% less shell-fragment area
than its half-ellipse counterpart (see Equations 11 and 12), was
selected as the most plausible, conservative approximation to the actual
Roswell debris field pattern.
Table 2 indicates that at the assumed minimum average ground
coverage density (p0 = 0.20), it would take nearly four Mogul Flight 9
trains to provide enough polyethylene fragments to match the
model-predicted surface area for a parabolic-shaped field.
As illustrated earlier, a p0 value of 0.20 means that only 20%
of the ground is covered with shell debris in the immediate vicinity
where this material is most highly concentrated. It therefore causes the
parabolic model to generate an extremely conservative estimate.
According to Table 2, even more Mogul balloon trains would be required
to serve as polyethylene sources if a slightly higher average ground
coverage density is used with the same model (e.g., nearly six arrays at
p0 = 0.30).
CONCLUSION
This research utilized available information and several
plausible assumptions to compute two surface areas: (1) a conservative
estimate of thin-shell material on the Roswell debris field, and (2) a
liberal estimate of the polyethylene multiple-balloon envelope
comprising project Mogul Flight 9. Comparison of these quantities
provides compelling, quantitative support for arguments which contend
that this balloon train was not responsible for the debris at the
Roswell site.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Galganski is an engineer who has worked in
transportation safety systems research for more than 20 years.
The author thanks his colleague, Kenneth N. Naab, for reviewing
this manuscript and for his many valuable comments and
suggestions throughout the course of this research.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Zeiler
Tell them that no documentation exists to prove that Mogul Flight No.
4, the culprit now mentioned by Karl, and the one selected by the Air
Force, contained an array train. According to the only documentation
available, Flight No. 4 was made up of a cluster of balloons and a
sonobuoy (microphone). That means there were no rawin targets to drop
metallic debris on the Brazel ranch.
Flight No. 5, launched the following day, was listed, by Dr. Albert
Crary, as having a full array. Crary is the source of the data on
Flight No. 4. Crary's diary eliminates Flight No. 4, a fact that the
skeptics overlook.
New witnesses who corroborate the tales told by others also eliminate
the Mogul theory. For example, if we look at the testimony of a number
of men including Edwin Easley and Lewis Rickett, we find they are at
odds with what Sheridan Cavitt said. Both men talked of a cordon of
military police yet Cavitt denies that the cordon existed.
Information to refute the Air Force report and claims has been
published by me in both books and by others, including Friedman. All we
have to do is keep hammering away with that data.
Kevin Randle
Garry Bryan
: I just saw Carl Sagan recently on a television program.
He had a rare blood disease that was treated with chemotherapy type drugs and
a marrow infusion. There was an indepth article in the weekly "PARADE" news
insert about a month ago. . .
Garry (%^{>
Jean Lyles
>> I just saw Carl Sagan recently on a television program.
>> He looked absolutely awful, in regards to his physical
>> health.
>> Does anyone know if he is suffering from cancer or
>> something?
I read in Parade within the last month that he does have some form of cancer.
Seems he was doing pretty well for a while but it has re-occured. I saw him
once when he must have been going through chemo-therapy. His hair had all
fallen out.
>> The poor man looks like death warmed over.
I get the feeling that he is very ill from the article. I am sure others read
it and can contribute to this thread.
--
Jean...
jea...@nando.net
W. Scott Gibson
>I'm more inclined to think that nobody at the USAF was aware of or
>concerned about Marcel being in the dark. If he never got security
>clearance for the project before it was declassified, then it is only
>logical that he never told.
Marcel was assigned to the Mogul project after he left Roswell.
Therefore, he was quite familiar with the Mogul balloon technology
when he said in 1979, on camera, "it was not like anything I had seen
before or have seen since".
>
>I've already explained why none of the investigators at the scene
>would have been able to identify neoprene balloon material in 1947.
>
The standard military weather balloon of the time was made of
neoprene. The early Mogul test flights, like #4, used clusters of
standard neoprene weather balloons. The later Mogul flights used new
technology polyethylene balloons. Maybe it's polyethylene you're
trying to insist Marcel would not have recognized in 1947?
>I'm curious about your statement about a radar equipment package. What
>do you mean? The Mogul arrays were PASSIVE radar targets. The Army DID
>display a radar target to the media - in fact some of the testimony
>from Brazel sounds exactly like a radar target.
Mogul balloons did use passive radar arrays. According to the best
recorded evidence, Flight No. 4, a test flight, probably did not have
a radar reflector and was tracked only by the radiosonde it carried.
In any event, the radar reflector was also a standard part of a
weather balloon. Marcel would have recognized one.
Scott Gibson
Ken Johnson
In Article<NEWTNews.827272499.5056.mikem@Mike_McCarty.netmanage.com>, <mi...@netmanage.com> write:
> Path: news.bright.net!chi-news.cic.net!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!interramp.com!usenet
> From: Mike McCarty <mi...@netmanage.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.ufo.reports,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.paranet.abduct,alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research
> Subject: Carl Sagan
> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 96 13:52:28 PDT
> Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link
> Lines: 16
> Message-ID: <NEWTNews.827272499.5056.mikem@Mike_McCarty.netmanage.com>
> References: <4ifi7b$9...@news-e2a.gnn.com> <DoIxr...@avenger.daytonoh.attgis.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: mikem.netmanage.com
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon -- TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage
> Xref: news.bright.net sci.skeptic:159135 alt.ufo.reports:7636 alt.paranet.ufo:61700 alt.paranet.abduct:6981 alt.alien.visitors:129969 alt.alien.research:17724
>
>
>
> I just saw Carl Sagan recently on a television program.
>
> He looked absolutely awful, in regards to his physical
> health.
>
> Does anyone know if he is suffering from cancer or
> something?
>
> to concerted effort to disuade others from believing
> in abductions, alien visitors, etc.?
>
>
a bone marrow transplant for some rare blood disorder. While it was
apparently successful, it was also quite debilitating according to the
article.
Ken Johnson
twi...@hub.ofthe.net
#This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
#---------------------------------16173735016125
#Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
#Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
#twi...@hub.ofthe.net wrote:
#>But didn't the Vol 43 No 1 issue of Saucer Smear indicate that
Marcel
#>had told a large number of untruths about his career?
#You must have missed David Rudiak's post about this:
My ISP strikes again!
I hadn't seen it but his post has mistakes also. For instance, you
cannot log time spent as other than a pilot for these purposes, except
when you are a qualified pilot and acting as the eyes of someone
practicing under covers for IFR work. I know of no other case where
you can log time except as an instructor.
In addition, the author seems to be trying to distract rather than
illuminate about Marcel. The entire section of Project Mogul has
nothing to do with the SS article or whether Marcel lied or not. And,
IMHO, that is what the charge was in the SS article. And that is a
very serious charge.
Whether Marcel is a liar does not in and of itself mean much to
Roswell. But it certainly means that anything Marcel said cannot be
trusted unless there is excellent corroborating evidence. And, not
just eyewitness. (We've been over this before, Brian, and you know
my attitude about eyewitness testimony. And, I have never said that
these people are liars or crazy or anything like that. I base it
purely on False Memories, which have been shown to exist.)
<snip>
>
>Possibly the inconsistencies here are due to the fact that Marcel's
>official job was intelligence officer, not pilot. The hours he logged
as
>a private pilot before the war may not have been deemed relevant and
>would not necessarily show up in his military records.
During this period I understand that they were considered very
relevant, according to my pilot friends who flew in the war, and would
have been listed if documentation could be provided. A pilot's log
book is considered, for this and most other purposes, adequate
documentation.
However, in
>combat situations he may very well have done double duty,
particularly
>if other crew members were injured or killed. This was damn
dangerous
>work, casualty rates were high, and bomber crews were frequently
short-
>handed.
While this was damn damned dangerous, it has nothing to do with the
hours he had logged. These comments can have nothing to do with
whether or not Marcel is a liar! No one has ever logged 3000 hours
doing double duty in place of injured crew members.
>
>>[SS] Marcel claimed he was awarded five Air Medals for shooting down
five
>>enemy planes in combat. Actually he received two Air Medals, but
only for
>>having flown a sufficient number of hours on combat missions - as an
>>Intelligence officer, never as a pilot or gunner.
>
>COMMENT: Again, the fact that he isn't listed as either a pilot or
>gunner isn't surprising, since this wasn't his job designation. But
on
>occasion he may have acted in these capacities during combat
emergencies
>or in simple relief of other crew members. This wouldn't necessarily
>show up on his service record.
>
It is really streching reality to assume that he may have acted as
pilot when they were injured more than once or twice! And that would
only add a very few hours logged as a pilot.
>Marcel did claim five Air Medals for shooting down enemy planes as a
>waist gunner, and this seems to be a major discrepancy with his
service
>record. Possibly he did lie or exaggerate about this. However, I
don't
>believe anyone disputes that he did many hours of combat intelligence
>flying, which is as dangerous as any other job on a bomber. So he
only
>got two medals instead of five for repeatedly risking his life!
Picky,
>picky.
Catching him being dishonest about one thing isn't just being picky.
If he lied about that how can you trust him about anything else?
First it is described as a major discrepency and then the author
argues that the other person is being picky!
>
<snip>
>
>>SS: The item we like best is this one: Marcel once claimed to
>>an interviewer that in 1949 he "wrote the very report that President
>>Truman read on the air declaring that Russia had exploded an atomic
>>device". However, it turns out that NO such report was ever read on
>>the air by President Truman.
>
>COMMENT: The real question is whether Marcel wrote the report on
>which the public press release was based.
No. The real question is whether Marcel can be trusted to tell the
truth! If he has lied about several things, how can you trust what
else he says?
<snip>
>FINAL COMMENTS: The Saucer Smear article is full of distortions,
>cheap shots, nit-picking, smug sarcasm, and mostly unproven
>accusations. <snip>
But this author admits that he lied! What he calls nit-picking, he
also calls a major discrepency! Lying is not a nit-picking offense
when he asks people to belive him on other things. This author
clearly admits that Marcel lied about his record. All the absurdities
about how dangerous it was and assuming that he logged those hours
helping injured or dead pilots have nothing to do with it but to
obscure that Marcel did indeed lie!
When your defenders admit that you are a liar, you're in pretty bad
shape.
Greg Larson
> I just saw Carl Sagan recently on a television program.
> He looked absolutely awful, in regards to his physical
> health.
> Does anyone know if he is suffering from cancer or
> something?
> Or could it be a malignant form of dispair, in relation
> to concerted effort to disuade others from believing
> in abductions, alien visitors, etc.?
> The poor man looks like death warmed over.
He has cancer. That could be the reason why he's been reduced
the level of "UFO debunker" -- it's armchair work and he
still has plenty of followers.
John and Susan Hutchins
>Mike McCarty <mi...@netmanage.com> wrote:
snip
>> The poor man looks like death warmed over.
>He has cancer. That could be the reason why he's been reduced
>the level of "UFO debunker" -- it's armchair work and he
>still has plenty of followers.
Billions, and billions.....};>)
>--
> lars...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
mh...@freenet.vcu.edu
>>to altitude and wind direction on the day NYU #4 was launched, we end
>>up with a strange object that DID IN **FACT** fall from the sky in
>>June on '47 *somewhere* in the area of Brazels farm. How close to the
>>farm may to open to some debate. This one simple fact leads rational
>>people to admit that Mogul cannot be ruled out as a possible
>>explanation.
>
>But other analyses by engineers didn't place Mogul near the ranch by any
>stretch. I'm attaching more Mogul information.
Consider, if you will (I heard that somewhere), the possibility
that the crash WAS a balloon but NOT Mogul.
The immediate postwar period saw an explosion of odd and
fascinating projects.
I propose that the Roswell crash might have been a crash of a
secret balloon project of the military. We know that Mogul was
developed, ancd we know that the Navy was quite serious about
balloon stations at the edge of space. We ahve the CIA
admission that they had planned to fly on bolloons cameras over the
USSR. And we have the Governments' propensity to attempt
military projects in poor taste (note the 1960s work on LSD,
and the late 40s work on drug-induced personality changes).
What happens if the Government decided to lift some humans,
perhaps midgets based on what we've heard, to the edge of space as
the crew of a spy balloon. It crashes, killing all abord, and
a coverup MUST begin immediately.
Major Marcel talks with Brazel, who has reported the debris.
marcel, recalling the flying saucer tales, decides to cover it
up by reporting a saucer crash. Well, the personnel capsule
WAS shaped that way, he thinks, and no one would EVER believe a
tale about men from Mars....
No one, including Marcel, really knew what was there. EVen the
guys at Wright might have been confused at first. But the
story stood because no one wanted to change it.
And an urban legend is born.
Granted, now a project of that sort has to be found. But it's
more likely that there was such a project than it is likely
that everyone invloved in the Roswel incident was lying to us.
--
----------------------|------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Holt | All the survivors of the war had reached their homes
Richmond, Virginia | by now and so put the perils of battle and the sea
U.S.A. | behind them. -- Homer, "The Odyssey", line 1
----------------------|------------------------------------------------------
Kubla Khan
This is flawed for a number of reasons. First of all, the "assumption" that p0=0.20 is suspect. If the impact
was at a high velocity, you would be lucky to get 0.1 as a figure. The usage of the parabolic model was
correct, however, and is supported by physics. The real weakness of this analysis is the assumptions regarding
the relative densities of debris at various points in the field. The model used in the analysis is only valid
for low velocity impacts (which this was not) and is therefore incorrect. The density would be fairly low at
the point of impact (the vertex of the parabola) and increase some distance downrange determined by the
velocity. An accurate calculation would definitely require a reasonable estimate of impact velocity and less
importantly, the angle of impact. The angle of impact can actually be deduced fairly accurately from the exact
shape of the parabola and the debris pattern. The impact velocity is a more complicated matter as it involves
many more parameters to estimate nearly as accurately. I would suggest Mr. Galganski re-evaluate this
analysis. I don't dispute the method, but the assumptions. My primary disagreement is with the assumed
density (as given) and the low-velocity model used in the calculations.
:::tAchyOn:::
Unknown
FINAL COMMENTS: The Saucer Smear article is full of distortions,
cheap shots, nit-picking, smug sarcasm, and mostly unproven
Marcel's reputation by presenting Marcel's eight-year service record,
which shows he held many positions of responsiblity in Air Force
intelligence. He was, after all, the head intelligence officer at
Roswell, the atomic bomb division of the Air Force. Why was such a
fool and liar hand-chosen for this post? Why was he transferred to
an even more sensitive position after supposedly mistaking a balloon
for a saucer crash? Marcel is dead and can no longer speak for
himself, but why wasn't an attempt at least made to speak to his
family and get their side of it?
>Wasn't it Gen. Ramey Who OKed the press release given by Walter Haut that a
flying disk had been recovered. Was it Marcel alone who relayed the message
or did Sheridan Cavitt play a part or others also(no one knows)?
-Bob Tarantino
Vinnie
>Marcel was assigned to the Mogul project after he left Roswell.
>Therefore, he was quite familiar with the Mogul balloon technology
>when he said in 1979, on camera, "it was not like anything I had seen
>before or have seen since".
I've never heard that Marcel was assigned to Project Mogul. If this
were true, it would certainly cast some doubt on the Mogul
explanation. Can you give me a reference for this assignment?
>The standard military weather balloon of the time was made of
>neoprene. The early Mogul test flights, like #4, used clusters of
>standard neoprene weather balloons. The later Mogul flights used new
>technology polyethylene balloons. Maybe it's polyethylene you're
>trying to insist Marcel would not have recognized in 1947?
I was under the impression that "standard" balloons of that day were
made out of a different material, although I can't find the name at
this moment....
>Mogul balloons did use passive radar arrays. According to the best
>recorded evidence, Flight No. 4, a test flight, probably did not have
>a radar reflector and was tracked only by the radiosonde it carried.
>In any event, the radar reflector was also a standard part of a
>weather balloon. Marcel would have recognized one.
You are placing a lot of emphasis on Marcel. Have you read any of the
transcripts from interviews with Mac Brazel or his daughter? In the
interviews they describe what they saw. They make no serious attempt
to "explain" what the debris was, except to describe the component
parts. I don't know if you have ever tried to help someone solve a
problem over the phone, but the best witness/source is often someone
who has no preconcieved notions about what they are "supposed" to see.
I think the same thing is true when looking at old witness testimony.
Marcel was expected to be able to explain it, and when he couldn't, he
yielded to the Flying Saucer hypothesis.
I think the descriptions, minus the subjective interpretations, leads
to the conclusion that the debris was "unusual" but not
extraterrestrial.
--Vinnie
Vinnie
>>I have heard that the Mogul project used tape with purplish flower-like
>designs. This seems to explain hyroglyphics found on the wreckage?
Yes, the tape was manufactured by a toy company. It had an assortment
of flowery/geometric designs on it.
--Vinnie
John Rice Cole
: > I just saw Carl Sagan recently on a television program.
: > He looked absolutely awful, in regards to his physical
: > health.
: > Does anyone know if he is suffering from cancer or
: > something?
: > Or could it be a malignant form of dispair, in relation
: > to concerted effort to disuade others from believing
: > in abductions, alien visitors, etc.?
: > The poor man looks like death warmed over.
: He has cancer. That could be the reason why he's been reduced
: the level of "UFO debunker" -- it's armchair work and he
: still has plenty of followers.
: --
: lars...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
Well, obviously the V-chip hasn't been installed yet---totally cruel and
stupid posts dominate the bandwidth.
--John R. Cole
Michael
follow. Was Marcel totaly ignorant? I doubt it. Was he "qualified" to
comment on UFO's? By allowing these personal attacks to continue in this
forum You provide room for the very "personal smears" you profess to
dislike. Perhaps if you would join me in a call for stopping the
personal attacks and presenting evidence for reasonable debate we could
get intelligent conversations going on these newsgroups.
Sincerely, Michael
Brian Zeiler
> Perhaps if you would join me in a call for stopping the
> personal attacks and presenting evidence for reasonable debate we could
> get intelligent conversations going on these newsgroups.
Yeah, well, you seem to regard any evidence contradicting your opinion as
being a 'personal attack'.
--
Brian Zeiler