TOP SECRET/MAJIC by Stanton Friedman

[Brian Zeiler]

Maury Markowitz wrote:

> > Second, if the motive was financial, the hoaxer didn't even
> > make any money!
>
> Neither did Gulf Stream. Still we KNOW this is a hoax Brian, even you
> have stated this. So guessing the person's motives is certainly
> interesting, but of little real concern at this time.

Gulf Breeze, you mean? No, I have never stated this was a hoax. In fact, do you
know how the "model" was found? After Walters moved, a "reporter" came to see
the new residents of the house and said "Say... did you happen to find any UFO
models laying around that the past resident might have forgotten in his move?"
Now, this is a perfectly rational question, because when UFO hoaxers move, they
tend to leave their models behind, right? Right. So, the new owner said "Yes,
we did find a model in a rather obvious place." Hint --> the model was planted.
It didn't even perfectly match the photographed model. Oh well.

> > And even if the hoaxer was somebody like Friedman (which is absurd)
>
> Why exactly? Seems like he had the most to gain.

Why would he even need to? He doesn't make his money off UFO research; he has a
real job. And he already had a well-earned reputation in UFO research before
the MJ-12 documents, having spoken to Congress on UFOs as early as 1968.

> > And it still requires somebody to research Menzel and then
> > magically and coincidentally discover Menzel's clearance
> > and association with Bush.
>
> Now THAT'S my point of disagreement. Until you brought his name into
> this I too was unaware of his involvement (it's been 7 long years since I
> last actually SAW the MJ-12 document so fogive me) and this seems to be
> the single bone of contention right?

Wrong. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Here are some more on Menzel,
followed by non-Menzel "coincidences":

* Menzel took frequent trips to New Mexico in 1947 and 1948 on government
expense.

* Menzel took leave suddenly in summer of 1947 to work an unspecified, "highly
classified matter".

* Closely connected with not only Bush, but also with Bronk and Berkner, two
other MJ-12 members.

* Attachment E of the MJ-12 document mentioned cryptological efforts; Menzel had
a strong specialty in cryptology (again unusual for an "astronomer"; he also had
a strong engineering orientation).

Other information:

* Twining, also an alleged MJ-12 member, had to cancel a long-planned trip the
week of the Roswell incident due to a "very important and sudden matter". So
where was he? He flew to Alamogordo AFB, NM, on July 7.

* The date September 24, 1947, given in the Truman-Forrestal memo of the MJ-12
documents, was the only date in last 8 months of 1947 when Bush met with Truman
with Forrestal also present.

* August 1, 1950, was when the MJ-12 documents said that Walter Bedell Smith was
inducted an MJ-12 member. This was the only date in the first 10 months of 1950
when Smith met with Truman. (Note that this not Wilbert Smith, of the "Smith
memo" that I discussed; similar name, different guy.)

* The MJ-12 briefing document, referring to Attachment D, mentioned a covert
analytical effort organized by Twining and Bush on executive order, which
concluded on September 19, 1947, that the disc was likely a short-range
reconnaissance craft. Sure enough, records show that Twining flew to DC on
Sept. 18 and returned Sept. 19, presumably to present this conclusion to the
President.

* The MJ-12 briefing for Eisenhower was supposedly on November 18, 1952.
Indeed, it was found that Eisenhower attended a highly classified briefing on
that very date, attended at least by alleged MJ-12 member Twining.

There are also many other previously unknown details that were discovered about
communications styles and other minutiae, but the most important details are
above.

> a) some of the people named in the document went on to work for public UFO
> groups

Yes, Hillenkoetter, but it was not "work". It was an infiltration of NICAP
along with three other CIA operatives, including the founder and chief of the
CIA's Psychological Warfare Staff, Col. Joseph Bryan... although it was not
known that Bryan was so affiliated until well after the demise of NICAP.
Hillenkoetter, MJ-12 member and former CIA director, told Congress that the USAF
was covering up the truth about UFOs, and he joined NICAP's Board of Governors
ostensibly as a good guy with the inside scoop. In reality, all he did was
spoon-feed them heaps of disinformation and divert their suspicion from the CIA
to the USAF.

> b) these members would be able to name the rest

Right, but he didn't.

> c) the document is a hoax

Your conclusion has absolutely no discernible relevance. First of all,
Hillenkoetter was dead when the MJ-12 papers were public anyway, just like the
other 11 members.

> It seems to me you're providing even more evidence that one of these
> people is the source of the forgery.

They were all dead.

> > Did you read my post carefully? What I showed was
> > that if it was hoaxed, then the hoaxer picked Menzel
> > due to his UFO debunking and Bush due to his mention by Smith.
>
> No, I would think the connection would be the other way around. Smith
> already talked about Bush right?

Right...

> So now all he needs to know is that at
> some time Bush and Menzel worked together (and they could get that
> ANYWHERE, a university yearbook for example) and presto.

No, it took extensive research to find this out, along with the fact that Menzel
was associated with Bronk and Berkner, two other MJ-12 members. It would be an
astounding coincidence that these people who would have been perfect for
selection by a hoaxer all magically knew each other very well professionally.
And then we have this astronomer/UFO-debunker who, magically, is also found to
have mega clearance, cryptology work, and engineering background. Pretty
interesting background for a Harvard astronomer.

> > Yet, coincidentally, it was found only AFTER
> > the documents were released that Menzel had super-high clearance; Menzel
> > associated with Bush professionally; Sarbacher of the R&DB implicated
> > Bush and a couple others before "drowning"
>
> Whoa, I'm confused, I thought it was Smith that did this.

Yes, but Smith didn't say that they had physical debris, because Sarbacher
didn't tell him that in the 1950 briefing. Sarbacher only said "a concentrated
effort is being made by a small group headed by Dr. Vannever Bush." It was
about 35 years later that Sarbacher admitted that the R&DB was basically the
"small group headed by Dr. Vannever Bush", and that they had physical debris.

Is Dr. Sarbacher's testimony that can be ignored? No, it is not. He is the
only major leak to have ever occurred, and he was "drowned" to set a stiff
example. They really didn't have a choice, because to not kill him on
unofficial grounds of high treason would be to implicitly allow such security
oath breaches (and they can't imprison him, since that would confirm his
violation).

But anyway, look who he is. He is the guy who the US government had responsible
for briefing Smith during his inquiry for Canada's UFO project. This isn't a
Lazar/Jarod2 type of story here. Sarbacher WAS responsible for a 1950 UFO
briefing, WAS with the R&DB along with Bush, and late in life when he didn't
care anymore, he told a little about the debris after being contacted by
investigators. He said he did "not know why this project has been given such
high order of classification" after investigator Steinman contacted him in 1983,
so clearly he didn't approve of the intense secrecy (and paid the price). Of
course, you can still maintain his drowning was an accident (though I doubt it,
considering the timing, only two days after he really started talking in a big
way), but considering his background, WHY WOULD HE LIE?? It's absurd to think
so, but of course you CAN if it makes you happy. Then you'd also have to
presume that Dr. Eric Walker was also lying in his old age when he
definitely acknowledged the project but refused to elaborate at all (half a
leak, I guess).

> > That's entirely different, as I have explained above. Not only are you
> > understating the entire Menzel/Bush connection, but you're ignoring the
> > dates of the Twining meetings, though I haven't explained those (but
> > I can if you want).
>
> Well then I have a favour to ask. Post a timeline. Or an URL to one.
> This will likely clear up a number of my questions without further
> inquiries.

Hopefully my little summary above helped.

> > You're not making sense. Menzel was THE top UFO debunker. After the MJ-12
> > documents, Menzel's personal archives at Harvard revealed that he had
> TS-ULTRA
> > clearance with NSA and CIA. Whether or not they were hoaxed, that's pretty
> > interesting. Why would an astronomer have such SUPER high clearances?
>
> I don't know, why would a quantum physicist like Feynman. Just about
> everyone worked on one secret project or another then, the Manhatten
> project is a veritable who's who in just about every branch of physics,
> chemistry, engineering, explosives, aerodynamics, pilots, bookkeepers,
> accountants, military men, housebuilders and just about anything else
> you'd like to name.

But we're talking about an astronomer with THE HIGHEST clearance with the NSA
and CIA, a cryptology and engineering background, and a consistent association
with the people who were EXTERNALLY implicated in UFO hardware analysis. In
fact, astronomers are the LEAST likely to be engaged in classified research out
of astronomers, chemists, engineers, and physicists.

> The point again is that we KNOW the document is a hoax. Or is this
> being debated without my realizing it?

No, we don't know it was a hoax. Some of the arguments may have merit, but they
are not watertight. Personally, I think it was a forgery by those in the US
intelligence community who wished to both discredit UFO research and also send
Roswell researchers on false leads. I think much of the substance is real, such
as the names of the people and the dates of briefings. What is probably not
real is the mention of other crashes (false leads).

> > Does the CIA have an interest in stellar evolution or neutron stars?
> > The correct answer is NO. What would they want from him?
>
> They have all sorts of interests in all sorts of things that none of us
> will ever live to learn about. But considering the timing, don't you
> think that the CIA's (and more properly the NSA's) interest in tracking
> Soviet rocket developments and satellite technology would be requiring the
> services of an astronomer?

No, that would probably be the domain of physicists. There's nothing
astronomical about high-altitude surveillance, I don't think.

> > Geez, didn't you read the post? Smith AND Sarbacher separately
> > implicated him as heading the UFO program at R&DB in the 1950 memo,
> > and Sarbacher, just before he "drowned" 30 years later, said Bush's
> > program also had physical debris... AFTER the MJ-12 documents were
> > released.
>
> This is not what you implied in the last letter, so I'll again ask you
> to post a timeline for me.

Well, if I implied differently, I was being vague, because the above quoted
paragraph is what I have intended to convey.

> > No, no proof.
>
> And yet you feel free to call me a mindless skeptic at will?

I only called you a skeptic, although the "mindlessness" does seem to come with
the membership card... although in your case, you are unaware of the evidence,
so you at least have an excuse (for now). I would recommend, however, that you
read the research literature before appealing to your skeptical authorities and
concluding it must be a hoax.

> > > And you say this is detailed in a now-public archived letter that is
> > > authenticated?
> >
> > Yes, the "Smith memo" from Canada.
>
> What's it's call number, I'll look it up.

There's a lot of chicken-scratch that's all fuzzy and vague, but you don't need
the call number to get it anyway. Just ask a Canadian friend to request, under
the Canadian Access to Information Act, the document from "Department of
Transport" (no longer exists) from November 21, 1950, from Wilbert Smith to
controller of telecommunications, with the subject "geo-magnetics". It was
originally top secret before being downgraded to confidential on Sep. 15, 1969.

Here is a key excerpt:

"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 United States authorities to be of
tremendous significance."

> > The Smith memo never mentioned MJ-12 at all.
>
> So only by inference does the group mentioned become MJ-12! This is
> EXACTLY what I'm talking about Brian! Someone writes a memo stating that
> someone else told him about a group of people. One of the people involved
> later says that this had to do with alien debrits (among other bizarre
> stories as you point out). THEN the MJ-12 document gets released and
> suddenly all these little bits of stories get collected into a single
> picture.

Your chronology and facts are entirely screwed up. First of all, Sarbacher's
name-dropping occurred before the MJ-12 documents, yet the overlap was minimal.
Sarbacher was only involved with the lab work and didn't know who the policy
people were in large part, though he did mention Bush -- who was mentioned by
Smith in 1950 due to his official Sarbacher meeting. It's interesting that you
call this "bizarre stories", when they are actually Sarbacher's official 1950
meeting with Smith and his interviews after 1983 that grew increasingly
revealing before he died, adding beyond the Smith memo both the name of the
group and the possession of the debris.

Basically, Sarbacher didn't know the names of all the MJ-12 members or he
withheld them from the interviews. And then we have to get back to the
information about how the "hoaxer" would have had to spend a MASSIVE amount of
time and money flying around to the National Archives and the archives at
Harvard and Princeton for Menzel and Forrestal, NEITHER of whom was even
mentioned by Sarbacher! So you think the hoaxer just yanked these names out of
thin air, went to investigate the appropriateness of including them, and voila,
they fit the profile through key associations and background work? This is
completely absurd.

> > This was Smith's account of Sarbacher's briefing of him about
> > the UFO situation in 1950, and that "a concentrated effort was
> > being led by a SMALL GROUP HEADED BY DR. VANNEVAR BUSH."
>
> Did it say what the effort was?

Yes, to figure out the "modus operandi" of the flying saucers, as I quoted above
-- to figure out how they work. Interesting, eh?

> Is that the memo that's in the public
> domain?

Yes.

> Does it specify that that group was working on alien debris?

No, of course not. They'd never release anything THAT revealing.

> If
> so then it's a heck of a lot more impressive than the MJ-12 document ever
> was even before it was

I agree. You don't need the MJ-12 controversy to recognize how POWERFUL the
evidence is from the Smith memo, the Sarbacher connection with the R&D Board,
and the R&D involvement as leaked by Sarbacher late in his life. Perhaps the
MJ-12 documents were also released at the time they were -- just after these
events unfolded -- because the intelligence community was deeply disturbed by
the release of the Smith memo from Canada and the loose lips of Sarbacher. So
they killed Sarbacher and drowned the valid information in a sea of controversy
by associating them with a hoax, all while discrediting UFO researchers and
giving them false leads as well. The outcome of the MJ-12 controversy was IDEAL
for the intelligence community.

But the point you made is valid. The best documented evidence of US possession
of physical debris has nothing to do with MJ-12, but is rather from the Smith
memo, the Sarbacher leaks, and the R&DB.

>
> > The point is that MJ-12 was a small group which included Dr. Vannevar
> > Bush, and 35 years after Sarbacher briefed Smith, he admitted to UFO
>
> No no no, we don't even know that a group called "MJ-12" existed because
> the only thing on paper that says they did is known to be faked.

What I basically said is that the Research and Development Board was the same as
MJ-12 in form and function, even if the MJ-12 documents are hoaxed.

> There's
> also no solid connection between the Smith statements (which I have not
> read and only have your posts to go on) and THIS group.

Smith and the R&DB? Yes, the connection is concrete: the small group headed by
Dr. Bush was trying to figure out flying saucer propulsion, according to the
Smith memo. And that's precisely what Sarbacher said in the mid 80s, but he
said they had some physical stuff to work with.

> Do you suggest
> this was the only thing Bush did in this time frame?

I have no idea, but it probably is. Either way, he's documented to have headed
the R&DB's efforts to figure out flying saucer propulsion. That's beyond
dispute. The dispute is whether or not they had physical debris to work with,
and the very credible Dr. Sarbacher and Dr. Walker say YES.

>
> > Yeah, that's not compelling enough, given that the briefing was by
> > Dr. Sarbacher, who said 35 years later that this group had physical debris?
>
> Yes, because it happened later.

What's your point? Sarbacher had loose lips in his old age. The fact that he
is documented as giving Smith the UFO information in 1950 is SIGNIFICANT because
it establishes a context of Sarbacher's clearance and capacities in which to
analyze his later claims in the 1980s that this group led by Bush actually had
physical debris.

> Or did Sarbacher specifically say that
> the group he mentioned to Smith was MJ-12?

No, he didn't. Probably because MJ-12 never existed by THAT NAME. The point
I've been making is that the R&DB's UFO research WAS the same as MJ-12's alleged
research in function and in form -- same people, goals, everything.

> > The context was obviously that of UFO research, but there was no mention of
> > physical debris.
>
> END OF STORY!

No. The link to physical debris is Sarbacher's mention 35 years later that the
group headed by Dr. Bush did have physical debris -- and Sarbacher was the one
who was charged with the task of responding to Smith's inquiries to the US
government about UFOs. Again, Sarbacher doesn't have the unproven
background of Lazar here; this is a serious, credible LEAK. Interestingly,
Sarbacher's claims are supported by the claims of Dr. Eric Walker, prominent
scientist who was one of the leaders of early sonar development. Dr. Walker was
at one time the head of the R&DB and also confirmed in several instances that
the R&DB (and himself) had been involved with the analysis of physical debris.

Oddly, yet predictably, you'll never find discussion of Walker and Sarbacher and
Smith in the pages of the pulp fiction sensationalistic skeptical rag Skeptical
Inquirer. Why is that? I sure don't know. They're pretty incompetent for
ignoring it, though. At least they can continue asking "Where are the leaks?"
if they ignore all of them.

> > The memo was a UFO memo, and Smith was head of the UFO research
> > for Canada (Project Magnet, like Bluebook for the USAF). The first
> > mention of actual *debris* (i.e. proof) was from Sarbacher, who
> > briefed Smith in the first place for his 1950 memo, but not until
> > the mid-1980s when he was old, creaky, and
> > didn't care about what happened to him.
>
> But you state that the 1950's briefing has no mention that there's any
> physical debris.

That's what I said above, that it wasn't admitted by Sarbacher until
the 1980s. Sarbacher didn't mention debris in his 1950 briefing for Smith,
probably because the US didn't want to even tell its allies at that time. Only
in 1983 did Sarbacher admit, very late in his life, that they did actually have
physical debris.

> > Well, given that Smith and Sarbacher are integral to MJ-12 research
> > and Roswell research, I'm somewhat shocked that you are such a skeptic
>
> I'm not a "skeptic", as I have mentioned on all too many occasions this
> is nothing more than a passing interest. In general I have only this
> forum and WWW to judge anything by, and if you wish to flame me because of
> my limited resources you only make yourself look silly.

By limited resources, do you mean financial resources or physical mobility
constraints? If not, then you should go to your nearest Borders or Barnes &
Noble and buy some Friedman research. Or, you can see photocopied versions of
the Smith memo and the Sarbacher letter to Steinman in Good's _Above Top Secret_
appendix.

>
> > familiarized yourself with this evidence. Skeptics, of course,
> > say that Sarbacher wsa wrong in 1950 and wrong now, case closed.
>
> You say I'm a skeptic, but I cannot say this because I admit not having
> heard of it. Please don't label me such.

Then educate yourself before being cynical. Skepticism requires evidence. In
this case, we have verified government documentation from Canada and highly
credible leakage from two TOP intelligence scientists who have absolutely no
motivation to lie so blatantly in their old age. And when you consider the
fall-out of the MJ-12 controversy, you see that the controversy masked these
developments in a sea of irrelevant bickering about typefaces and signatures.

>
> > Thanks for finally admitting that "they could not have been discovered
> > before, because no one else saw them". It's strange you call this a
> > "meaningless point".
> > Whoever drafted the MJ-12 documents knew about Menzel, Bush, and Twining.
>
> Uh huh. So? Does this in any way make them less of a hoax?

No. It makes them a hoax from a source with easy access to restricted/rare
information and with an aggressive agenda to pursue.

>
> > Whatever. Either way, it's ridiculous to think some clown just
> > whipped up these MJ-12 documents.
>
> Why is this ridiculous? Lots of pilots had fun doing something a lot
> more complex and dangerous in NY.

Hudson Valley? Please. You're debunking all the wrong cases here. The video
of the pilots and of the "UFO" are different, for one thing, and the witnesses
who saw both insist that they are different. And it's interesting that the
planes used in the hoaxes are exactly the same type of plane used by the CIA at
their facility in the USAF base nearby. It's called "counterintelligence".

> > Keep in mind that Roswell didn't surface until about 1978.
>
> Yes, but it seems quite clear that the Roswell incident is indeed
> involved in the testing of the top secret spy balloons.

See discussion in the UFO newsgroups. Mogul falls apart under scrutiny, unless
you think that an intelligence officer and his local superiors failed to
identify materials they already had seen before; the Wright-Patterson people
failed to identify the materials, leading to Twining telling Schulgen of their
construction, and then leading Schulgen to draft his late 1947 memo about how
flying saucers contain "foil-like" and "balsa-wood-like" materials -- exactly
what the Roswell witnesses described, but BEFORE the Schulgen memo was
declassified in 1985.

Furthermore, nobody -- not ONE witness -- mentioned the smell of neoprene
rubber; nobody found twine; the launch attributed to the debris was not listed
as an array flight, even though array flights WERE listed as arrays; the Mogul
debris was unclassified -- only the project's *existence* was classified, so
there was no reason for a military freak-out; the Mogul team at Alamogordo had
left debris out in the desert to disintegrate when it was in a hard-to-reach
place after an unsuccessful launch; the debris had been recovered by other
civilians and returned to the base with the ID tag without incident, yet this
time Brazel who found it was detained for a week while there were TWO clean-up
efforts; and the list goes on.

Whatever it was, it wasn't Mogul.

> The material in
> the famous photograph is almost certainly Mylar, and for the time that
> certainly would have been "out of this world".

Geez, you're really on a roll. According to the records supplied by the actual
head scientists of Mogul, aluminized mylar was not used for the radar
reflectors. At that time, they were still using boring, mundane aluminum foil.
I'm afraid that "aluminized mylar" is nothing more than an urban skeptic myth.

> > USAF and CIA were in a blind panic. They could either kill all the Roswell
> > researchers, which is implausible for obvious reasons, or they could simply
> > mislead, confuse, and discredit them. The MJ-12 documents did all of that.
>
> So you think the MJ-12 document is a CIA misinformation technique. Hmmm

Yes. Like I said, look how it discredited the researchers, discredited the
field, sent the Roswell researchers on wild goose chases, and had them bickering
over typefaces and date formats while the good stuff like Smith/Sarbacher/Walker
was being masked in a swirl of irrelevant debate.

--
Brian Zeiler

[Maury Markowitz]

In article <322FDA...@sprynet.com>, Brian Zeiler
<bdze...@sprynet.com> wrote:

> Gulf Breeze, you mean?

Yes, my fault.

> No, I have never stated this was a hoax.

Uh oh, my point was not to start a thread on Gulf Breeze. If those
AWFUL photographs with razor marks on them aren't enough to convince you
it was a fake nothing will. I personally could do way better in
PhotoShop.

> Why would he even need to? He doesn't make his money off UFO research;
> he has a real job. And he already had a well-earned reputation in
> UFO research before
> the MJ-12 documents, having spoken to Congress on UFOs as early as 1968.

So what? I'm not really saying I believe he did it, but you seem to be
all to willing to dismiss the possibility. If he found out the "Menzel"
link at some time, why not some time before that?

> Wrong. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Here are some more on Menzel,
> followed by non-Menzel "coincidences":

(lots snipped)

Again all of what you post suggests that the government was working on
highly secret scientific projects. In fact his involvement in an
engineering effort to track aerostats would seem quite plausable.

> Your conclusion has absolutely no discernible relevance.

That is the most increadible and close minded statement you've ever made
in this forum.

> No, it took extensive research to find this out

No, it took Friedman extensive research to work out. That has
absolutely no bearing on how hard it was for someone else, as I have
attempted to point out in every one of my letters in this thread.

> Yes, but Smith didn't say that they had physical debris, because
> Sarbacher didn't tell him that in the 1950 briefing. Sarbacher
> only said "a concentrated effort is being made by a small group
> headed by Dr. Vannever Bush."

That's the entire quote? Or a clip of it? This says nothing.

> about 35 years later that Sarbacher admitted that the R&DB was basically the
> "small group headed by Dr. Vannever Bush", and that they had physical debris.

Ok, fair enough, I understand the timing better now.

> Is Dr. Sarbacher's testimony that can be ignored? No, it is not. He is the
> only major leak to have ever occurred, and he was "drowned" to set a stiff
> example.

Or he's a crazy old coot spouting stories before he dies. I'm sure
that's a first!

> Lazar/Jarod2 type of story here. Sarbacher WAS responsible for a 1950 UFO
> briefing

According to your posts it could have been ANY briefing and it seems
Smith's memo cannon confirm anything other than that. Am I wrong. Again
I ask for the call number so I can get this paper myself.

> Hopefully my little summary above helped.

Yes, quite a bit.

> But we're talking about an astronomer with THE HIGHEST clearance with the NSA
> and CIA, a cryptology and engineering background, and a consistent
association
> with the people who were EXTERNALLY implicated in UFO hardware analysis.

No you did it again. He's linked with other people that may have been
working on SOME top secret project. There's no link other than and old
man and rumor that THAT project was to do with UFO's, and the only
document that shows a link is a hoax.

This IS starting to sound like a disinformation campaign, I'll give you that.

> No, we don't know it was a hoax. Some of the arguments may have merit

> but they are not watertight.

!!! The signature was photocopied onto the document from another one!

> No, that would probably be the domain of physicists. There's nothing
> astronomical about high-altitude surveillance, I don't think.

I'd suggest some reading on this then. The latest spy sats, KH-12 to be
specific, are basically smaller versions of Hubble with some amazing
dynamic optics to bend the mirror in realtime in order to remove
atmospheric distortions.

The aerostat program is well known now, at least outside the US. Many
overflights were conducted (sorry, the exact number is back home) starting
JUST after the Rosewell incident. The timing is too perfect.

> > > Geez, didn't you read the post? Smith AND Sarbacher separately
> > > implicated him as heading the UFO program at R&DB in the 1950 memo,
> > > and Sarbacher, just before he "drowned" 30 years later, said Bush's
> > > program also had physical debris... AFTER the MJ-12 documents were
> > > released.

Well I read it again, and this is NOT what you said. Smith said nothing
(or you've posted nothing on it) that has any bearing other than Sarbacher
briefing. It's Sarbacher all the way.

> > And yet you feel free to call me a mindless skeptic at will?
>
> I only called you a skeptic, although the "mindlessness" does seem
> to come with the membership card.

That's so helpful.

>. although in your case, you are unaware of the evidence,
> so you at least have an excuse (for now).

I'm honoured.

> > What's it's call number, I'll look it up.
>
> There's a lot of chicken-scratch that's all fuzzy and vague, but
> you don't need the call number to get it anyway. Just ask a Canadian
> friend to request

I am Candian and I know someone that worked in a provincial FAIA department.

> the Canadian Access to Information Act, the document from "Department of
> Transport" (no longer exists)

Sure it does, Transport and Communications. Sounds more technical I suppose.

> from November 21, 1950, from Wilbert Smith to
> controller of telecommunications, with the subject "geo-magnetics".

Fair enough.

> No, of course not. They'd never release anything THAT revealing.

And yet it's such a secret but everyone in the world knows about it.
That's a strange effect no one's been able to explain to my satisfaction.

> But the point you made is valid. The best documented evidence of US
possession
> of physical debris has nothing to do with MJ-12, but is rather from the Smith
> memo, the Sarbacher leaks, and the R&DB.

Fair enough, so why the rabid defence of the MJ-12 document when we know
it's a fake and apparently has little importance anyway?

> No, he didn't. Probably because MJ-12 never existed by THAT NAME.

So then the document definitely must be a hoax, right? Whether or not
there's a grain of trust in there is not important, that piece of paper
itself is a fake. Yes or no?

> By limited resources, do you mean financial resources or physical mobility
> constraints?

Both. More time than anything else.

> Hudson Valley? Please. You're debunking all the wrong cases here. The
video
> of the pilots and of the "UFO" are different, for one thing, and the
witnesses
> who saw both insist that they are different.

Here we go again. Don't you believe ANYTHING is a hoaxed UFO?

> And it's interesting that the planes used in the hoaxes are exactly
> the same type of plane used by the CIA at
> their facility in the USAF base nearby. It's called "counterintelligence".

You mean C-150's? You mean I'm flying a CIA covert ops plane? Wow.

> Geez, you're really on a roll. According to the records supplied
> by the actual head scientists of Mogul, aluminized mylar was not
> used for the radar reflectors. At that time, they were still using
> boring, mundane aluminum foil.

Who said anything about radar reflectors? I'm talking about the balloon
itself, have you never been to a fairground? And the substance in the
picture looks EXACTLY like mylar.

More to the point, I didn't say "Mogul", I said "spy balloons". What
flew over the USSR was so shiny that the planes they built to shoot them
down used optical guidance systems.

> I'm afraid that "aluminized mylar" is nothing more than an urban
> skeptic myth.

So aluminized mylar doesn't exist?

Maury

[Dean Adams]

Maury Markowitz <ma...@softarc.com> wrote:
>In article <322FDA...@sprynet.com>, Brian Zeiler
><bdze...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> Gulf Breeze, you mean?
> Yes, my fault.
>> No, I have never stated this was a hoax.
>
> Uh oh, my point was not to start a thread on Gulf Breeze. If those
>AWFUL photographs with razor marks on them aren't enough to convince you
>it was a fake nothing will. I personally could do way better in
>PhotoShop.

I'd think even Brian would accept the fact that GB was a hoax.
Too bad, perhaps that just isn't politically correct for today's
hard-core UFO believers. Walters is as obvious a hoaxer as
you'd ever want to find.

[Maury Markowitz]

In article <dadamsDx...@netcom.com>, dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) wrote:

> I'd think even Brian would accept the fact that GB was a hoax.

He didn't seem to in his message!

Maury

[Michael Sebring]

NiceBrian Zeiler wrote:
>
> Maury Markowitz wrote:

--------------

Nice going guys! This type of post is exactly what the neswgroups
need more of. No money making scemes, no calling each other
"dickheads", just good intelligent conversation.

------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sebring
sebr...@osu.edu

Mike's UFO Connection
http://sloopy.ud.ohio-state.edu/~sebring/ufo_page.html
------------------------------------------------------------

[Tom Johnson]

<322D4C...@sprynet.com> <maury-04099...@194.125.100.1> <322E97...@sprynet.com> <maury-05099...@194.125.100.1> <322FDA...@sprynet.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Brian Zeiler (bdze...@sprynet.com) wrote:

<snip>

: > > mislead, confuse, and discredit them. The MJ-12 documents did all of

that.
: >
: > So you think the MJ-12 document is a CIA misinformation technique. Hmmm

: Yes. Like I said, look how it discredited the researchers, discredited the
: field, sent the Roswell researchers on wild goose chases, and had them
bickering
: over typefaces and date formats while the good stuff like
Smith/Sarbacher/Walker
: was being masked in a swirl of irrelevant debate.

: --
: Brian Zeiler

You do this on so many of your pet theories. You can't have diametrically
opposed argumments both supporting your hypothesis. You know this is a
logical fallacy.

MJ-12 = authentic then saucers exist
MJ-12 = hoax then saucers exits

It's a good way to win any debate, but is not science. Keep up the good work.

TJ

[rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu]

ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:

>> Geez, you're really on a roll. According to the records supplied
>> by the actual head scientists of Mogul, aluminized mylar was not
>> used for the radar reflectors. At that time, they were still using
>> boring, mundane aluminum foil.

> Who said anything about radar reflectors? I'm talking about the balloon
>itself, have you never been to a fairground? And the substance in the
>picture looks EXACTLY like mylar.

The substance in the pictures is from a radar reflector. That's why its
attached to those sticks. And the radar reflectors were made from aluminum foil,
sometimes backed with paper. Period!

And the balloons launched in June 1947 were all neoprene meteorological
balloons. The plastic Mogul balloon launches didn't begin until July 3, 1947,
and were made of CLEAR polyethylene. That is very clear from the extensive
Mogul documentation provided by the USAF in their 1000 page 1995 Roswell report.
The Mogul documentation also says that various plastics were considered, but
polyethylene and Seran were consideed to be the most suitable for high-altitude
balloons. Mylar was NEVER under consideration for the balloons.

> More to the point, I didn't say "Mogul", I said "spy balloons". What
>flew over the USSR was so shiny that the planes they built to shoot them
>down used optical guidance systems.

So which balloon project was this? The Air Force in their 1995 report said that
Mogul was the only one in N.M. at that time. Are you saying they're lying?
Where is your evidence?

>> I'm afraid that "aluminized mylar" is nothing more than an urban
>> skeptic myth.

> So aluminized mylar doesn't exist?

Not in June/July 1947 it didn't. Not on high altitude balloons it didn't. End
of story.

[Brian Zeiler]

Maury Markowitz wrote:

> > Lazar/Jarod2 type of story here. Sarbacher WAS responsible for a 1950 UFO
> > briefing
>
> According to your posts it could have been ANY briefing and it seems
> Smith's memo cannon confirm anything other than that. Am I wrong.

Yes, you're wrong. I explicitly quoted from the Smith document, and the
context was US flying saucer research. The entire document was about
UFOs, as I quoted... for instance, "Flying saucers are real" is one such
quote. Is this context explicit enough? Sarbacher told Smith for this
memo's preparation that Bush's group was working on figuring out the
"modus operandi" of the flying saucer. Some 35 years later, Sarbacher
told researchers one little tidbit that was left out in the memo -- they
were helped by possessing physical debris. If that's not a credible
leak, then there has never been a credible leak on the history of this
planet.

Complain all you want about the lack of physical proof, but that has
absolutely no bearing on this information.

> Again
> I ask for the call number so I can get this paper myself.

Again I reiterate that it has no discernible call number, but I gave you
sufficient information to retrieve it. Go to it. Even the career
debunkers know it's real.

> No you did it again. He's linked with other people that may have been
> working on SOME top secret project. There's no link other than and old
> man and rumor that THAT project was to do with UFO's, and the only
> document that shows a link is a hoax.

Once again, you are forgetting that I QUOTED FROM THE MEMO THAT THE GROUP
WAS WORKING ON UFOS. Why don't you understand this? The Smith memo said
he made "discreet inquiries" about UFOs, and that he found out that
"flying saucers are real" and that "their modus operandi is unknown but a
concentrated effort is being made by a small group headed by Dr. Vannevar
Bush." There is no dispute here: the group was trying to figure out
flying saucer "modus operandi", or propulsion. It explicitly uses the
words "flying saucer".

> Well I read it again, and this is NOT what you said. Smith said nothing
> (or you've posted nothing on it) that has any bearing other than Sarbacher
> briefing. It's Sarbacher all the way.

Um, Sarbacher told Smith in 1950 for the preparation of the memo that
Bush was heading a highly classified small group that was trying to
figure out the "modus operandi" of the "flying saucer". This has been
established as a documented fact directly and explicitly stated as I
quote. Somehow, however, you easily dismiss Sarbacher's comments 35
years later that this "small group headed by Dr. Vannevar Bush", that is,
the R&DB, had physical debris.

> > the Canadian Access to Information Act, the document from "Department of
> > Transport" (no longer exists)
>
> Sure it does, Transport and Communications. Sounds more technical I suppose.

I meant it no longer exists under that department name.

> > No, of course not. They'd never release anything THAT revealing.
>
> And yet it's such a secret but everyone in the world knows about it.
> That's a strange effect no one's been able to explain to my satisfaction.

The secret is out of the bag. It only lacks official confirmation. That
is, "plausible deniability" is the governing approach.

> Fair enough, so why the rabid defence of the MJ-12 document when we know
> it's a fake and apparently has little importance anyway?

Because it is a concerted disinformation campaign that is very
interesting and revealing of the agenda of those who control the
information flow.

> > No, he didn't. Probably because MJ-12 never existed by THAT NAME.
>
> So then the document definitely must be a hoax, right? Whether or not
> there's a grain of trust in there is not important, that piece of paper
> itself is a fake. Yes or no?

Probably. It was probably forged as a disinformation effort, as I said.

> More to the point, I didn't say "Mogul", I said "spy balloons".

Uh, Maury, the USAF contends that the "spy balloons" responsible for the
debris were Mogul balloons.

> > I'm afraid that "aluminized mylar" is nothing more than an urban
> > skeptic myth.
>
> So aluminized mylar doesn't exist?

Not in the Mogul balloons, no.

--
Brian Zeiler

[Brian Zeiler]

Tom Johnson wrote:

> You do this on so many of your pet theories. You can't have diametrically
> opposed argumments both supporting your hypothesis. You know this is a
> logical fallacy.

I have never done this before, nor now. The last time you suggested this, your
assertion was based on a wild misunderstanding that I swiftly corrected; sadly,
you have proven yourself quite hardy and immune to corrective measures.

Since I'm about to correct your latest fallacy, please provide an example of a
past incident in which I used "diametrically opposed arguments supporting [my]
hypothesis". Good luck and godspeed, Tom.

> MJ-12 = authentic then saucers exist
> MJ-12 = hoax then saucers exits

I guess a small step along the way eluded you with the usual level of simplicity
that we've grown accustomed to. No, a hoax does not mean "saucers exist". As I
have strained to explain in this thread which you obviously have not carefully
read, the MJ-12 papers appear to be forged by counterintelligence people in the
US government. I defended this conclusion by citing numerous bits of information
that were incredibly unlikely to have been accessed by a civilian.

When I see "skeptics" like yourself, I honestly wonder how you can manage to live
a self-sufficient life involving paying bills, wearing matching socks, and so on.

--
Brian Zeiler

[Inger Eriksson]

ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>
So you see know that this is an endless discussion? I don´t know what
to think about this MJ-12 story, but I´m a bit suprise that you
can not accept the theory that MJ-12 docs are parts of an insider-hoax.
You really think that your theory that the papers were created by one
or several people outside is more plausible?

Some of the information about Menzel, about the the briefings for
Eisenhower etc. wasn´t available at the National Archives until the 1980s.
So if the forger is an outsider, he (or she) must have done his research
not so long ago and nobody at the archives remembered anybody but
Friedman coming to ask them about these things. Yeah, of course the
"forger" could have been there when they all took a break , another
"coincidence". To look at the Menzel-papers, Friedman for instance had
to get written permission from the chairman of the astronomy
departmant and from Mrs. Menzel. The Menzel-Bush connection wasn´t
known to any historian, none of the Menzel Biographies mention his
association with Bush, CIA and NSA.

And don´t forget that the UFO-researcher Timothy Good admits that he
got the MJ-12 papers from a "CIA-source". And in "UFO cover-up live"
the military agents "Falcon" and "Condor" also gave a lot (dis?)-infor-
mation about the MJ-12 program.

You say you know the papers are fakes. Yes, you read Klass or Randles,
they say so, you read Friedman, he says they are not. You read Moore
and Shandera, they say the Truman Letter is probably a hoax, but the
Eisenhower-paper and the Cutler-Twining memo are probably authentic.
Klass and Randle believe in the Xerox-copy theory, Friedman says
the "Harry" and "Truman" have different stretches which makes no sense
for xeroxing. In any case:
The author of the book "Ouestioned documents", Albert
Osborne, wrote that identical signatures in fact can be found.
You choose who you want to believe.

The only thing I can say is that Friedman has done a lot of good
research and in my opinion his investigations show that the
MJ-12 papers are either authentic or parts of a well-done inside-hoax.
Maybe because CIA wanted to get the attention away from Sarbacher´s
statement and the Roswell-case.

About the top-scientists who confirmed the existence of a high-level
UFO-group headed by Vannevar Bush. You wrote that Dr. Sarbacher maybe
was just an old man who said crazy things. Well, the problem is that
he said the same things to Smith already back in the 1950s. Do you
mean he was crazy at that time too? Not very likely.I don´t think
Government or military people would let a lunatic deal with import-
ant defense projects at a very high level. When he gave his infor-
mation to the ufologists in the 1980s he was a boss at Washington
Institut of Technology. You think he could have had that job if he
was "just some crazy old man". Why these insults?
And as Brian Zeiler also wrote, Sarbacher isn´t the only one. Dr. Eric
Walker in a phone-conversation with researcher Steinman also con-
firmed the existence of such a high-level UFO-group.

We also have Edward Ruppelt. He headed the Air Forces´ UFO-research
in the 1950s and in his book "Report on UFOs" he wrote that some
cases were investigated by a group of scientists, nuclear-physicists,
security-experts and rocket-experts. That descreption fits Bush and his
team very well.

Yes, I know this doesn´t prove anything. I don´t think you can still say that
Sarbacher, Walker, and Ruppelt were all crazy guys. But of course they
#could# all three have been disinformed or they #could# have misunder-
stood the information they were given etc. But I must then agree with
Brian that it´s interesting that many people first say they don´t
believe in a UFO Cover up, because "there are no leaks". And then when
Government people, high-level scientists or militaries in fact make
official statements that there is a UFO-conspiracy, then these people
are just "lunatics" or "liars" etc. I say, let´s wait and see. We
don´t have to blindly believe them, but we don´t have to make personal
insults either.

About the Roswell-case: You admit you havn´t read all the relevant
books about this. Then why these certain claims about the Mogul-balloon?
The UFO-researchers Stan Friedman and Kevin Randle are sure the Mogul
explanation doesn´t make sense (probably the only thing these two agree
about).

Kevin Randle, for example, wrote in the newsgroups (21 Apr 1996):
"There was nothing disk like on the
Mogul arrays. The rawin targets, when folded together looked like a
triangle and when "deployed" looked like a diamond. The balloons used
by Mogul were not top secret. The equipment was normal equipment pulled
off the shelves for use in the project. There was nothing that
wasn´t easily identified as being a balloon. The air force didn´t
change their story, they merely changed the name of the balloons calling
them Mogul."
And by the way, it´s interesting that Dr. Lincoln La Paz was sent to
Roswell. He was a meteorite-expert, he also was sent to look at the
"green fireballs" in the 1950s. If it was a military balloon, why
did they send Dr. La Paz to Roswell?

Håkan Eriksson

[Tom Johnson]

Brian Zeiler (bdze...@sprynet.com) wrote:
: Tom Johnson wrote:

: > You do this on so many of your pet theories. You can't have diametrically
: > opposed argumments both supporting your hypothesis. You know this is a
: > logical fallacy.

: I have never done this before, nor now. The last time you suggested this, your
: assertion was based on a wild misunderstanding that I swiftly corrected; sadly,
: you have proven yourself quite hardy and immune to corrective measures.

: Since I'm about to correct your latest fallacy, please provide an example of a
: past incident in which I used "diametrically opposed arguments supporting [my]
: hypothesis". Good luck and godspeed, Tom.

: > MJ-12 = authentic then saucers exist
: > MJ-12 = hoax then saucers exits

: I guess a small step along the way eluded you with the usual level of simplicity
: that we've grown accustomed to. No, a hoax does not mean "saucers exist". As I
: have strained to explain in this thread which you obviously have not carefully
: read, the MJ-12 papers appear to be forged by counterintelligence people in the
: US government. I defended this conclusion by citing numerous bits of information
: that were incredibly unlikely to have been accessed by a civilian.

*Sigh* You are clearly implying that the guvmint may be attemtping a
disinformation scheme which they would have no reason to do unless they
were hiding something - such as the implied knowledge of saucers.

More clearly so you can understand:

MJ-12 = authentic, then saucers exist
MJ-12 = hoax, then disinformation scheme = goverment has interest in
hiding or confusing the issue becaseu - voila - saucers exist

Now splain it to me slowly so I know where I went wrong.

: When I see "skeptics" like yourself, I honestly wonder how you can manage to live

: a self-sufficient life involving paying bills, wearing matching socks, and so on.

: --
: Brian Zeiler

Your labels are tiring. No one is a believer nor a sceptic except on a
specific issue. You are slao a sceptic - so what? Is gullibility a badge of
honor?

TJ

[Brian Zeiler]

Tom Johnson wrote:

> *Sigh* You are clearly implying that the guvmint may be attemtping a
> disinformation scheme which they would have no reason to do unless they
> were hiding something - such as the implied knowledge of saucers.

Uh, yeah. Glad to see you finally catching on.

> More clearly so you can understand:
>
> MJ-12 = authentic, then saucers exist
> MJ-12 = hoax, then disinformation scheme = goverment has interest in
> hiding or confusing the issue becaseu - voila - saucers exist
>
> Now splain it to me slowly so I know where I went wrong.

Your reading comprehension skills must be so phenomenally poor that I'm
wondering whether you're trolling me for fun. I explained that a hoax does not
directly imply a "disinformation scheme". Instead, I showed that several
components of the documents strongly imply an inside job. Get it yet? If not,
then you very well may be the stupidest debunker I've yet debated.

> Your labels are tiring. No one is a believer nor a sceptic except on a
> specific issue. You are slao a sceptic - so what? Is gullibility a badge of
> honor?

In your particular instance, your gullibility for propaganda may as well be a
prominent tattoo on your skeptical forehead.

--
Brian Zeiler

[Maury Markowitz]

In article <50pqhs$f...@agate.berkeley.edu>, rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote:

> The substance in the pictures is from a radar reflector. That's why its
> attached to those sticks. And the radar reflectors were made from
> aluminum foil, sometimes backed with paper. Period!
>
> And the balloons launched in June 1947 were all neoprene meteorological
> balloons. The plastic Mogul balloon launches didn't begin until July 3,
> 1947, and were made of CLEAR polyethylene. That is very clear from the
> extensive Mogul documentation provided by the USAF in their 1000 page
> 1995 Roswell report. The Mogul documentation also says that various
> plastics were considered, but polyethylene and Seran were consideed to
> be the most suitable for high-altitude balloons. Mylar was NEVER under
> consideration for the balloons.

Thank's for someone FINALLY posting complete details of this story.

And after reading your post, it seems I was referring to Mogul after
all. What I didn't know was the dates, I thought Mogul would have had to
start earlier in order to be flying over the USSR in the early 1950's.

> So which balloon project was this? The Air Force in their 1995 report
> said that Mogul was the only one in N.M. at that time. Are you saying
> they're lying? Where is your evidence?

None whatsoever.

Maury

[Maury Markowitz]

In article <3230D2...@sprynet.com>, Brian Zeiler
<bdze...@sprynet.com> wrote:

> When I see "skeptics" like yourself, I honestly wonder how you can
> manage to live a self-sufficient life involving paying bills, wearing
> matching socks, and so on.

Sigh.

By the Brian, your newsreader is posting lines over 80 characters and it
arrives like this...

When I see "skeptics" like yourself, I honestly wonder how you can manage
to live
a self-sufficient life involving paying bills, wearing matching socks, and
so on.

Can you please fix it, it makes your posts hard to read.

Maury

[Maury Markowitz]

In article <3230E4...@sprynet.com>, Brian Zeiler
<bdze...@sprynet.com> wrote:

> Um, Sarbacher told Smith in 1950 for the preparation of the memo that
> Bush was heading a highly classified small group that was trying to
> figure out the "modus operandi" of the "flying saucer".

Exactly. "Sarbacher all the way".

> established as a documented fact directly and explicitly stated as I
> quote. Somehow, however, you easily dismiss Sarbacher's comments 35
> years later that this "small group headed by Dr. Vannevar Bush", that is,
> the R&DB, had physical debris.

No, he's the ONLY source of these comments according to your posts to
date. Smith was simply reiterating what Sarbacher told him.

> Because it is a concerted disinformation campaign that is very
> interesting and revealing of the agenda of those who control the
> information flow.

But when people assumed it to be real, the story was diametrically
opposite. "here's MJ-12, it proves the government knows about flying
saucers". Now it's "here's the hoax the CIA made called MJ-12, it proves
the government knows about flying saucers".

I have to agree with the other posters, this is exactly what you have
been telling me for the last week.

> Probably. It was probably forged as a disinformation effort, as I said.

What do you mean "probably"? Is the MJ-12 document a hoax or not? Yes or no?

> Uh, Maury, the USAF contends that the "spy balloons" responsible for the
> debris were Mogul balloons.

As another post here noted, that's not what they say.

Maury

[Maury Markowitz]

In article <323292...@sprynet.com>, Brian Zeiler <bdze...@sprynet.com>
wrote:

> Your reading comprehension skills must be so phenomenally poor that I'm

> wondering whether you're trolling me for fun. I explained that a hoax
> does not directly imply a "disinformation scheme". Instead, I showed
> that several components of the documents strongly imply an inside job.
> Get it yet? If not, then you very well may be the stupidest debunker
> I've yet debated.

That's exactly what Tom said. You have been telling me all last week
that the MJ-12 document was concocted by someone involved or very closly
involved with a REAL project that may or may not have been called MJ-12,
but that is absolutely did exist. Your THEORY is that it's a CIA
disinformation campaign, but you refuse the possibility that anyone could
have simply constructed it.

Thus as Tom noted...

> MJ-12 = authentic, then saucers exist
> MJ-12 = hoax, then disinformation scheme = goverment has interest in

> hiding or confusing the issue because - voila - saucers exist

The only possible correction is that the last line could possibly be...

> hiding or confusing the issue

Although you have not specifically said this and have mad several
comments that support Tom's contentions.

Don't make remarks about MY reading comprehension skills or you'll look
foolish. Not that your sophomoric insults don't make you look that way
now.

Maury

[Brian Zeiler]

Maury Markowitz wrote:

> > established as a documented fact directly and explicitly stated as I
> > quote. Somehow, however, you easily dismiss Sarbacher's comments 35
> > years later that this "small group headed by Dr. Vannevar Bush", that is,
> > the R&DB, had physical debris.
>

> No, he's the ONLY source of these comments according to your posts to
> date. Smith was simply reiterating what Sarbacher told him.

Uh, that's the point. Sarbacher is obviously a competent intelligence scientist
to have been directed to brief Smith on flying saucers in 1950, but in the
mid-1980s when he really spills the beans, nobody listens. Then the skeptics can
continue to whine about how there should be leaks, ignoring the ones they get
because there's no "physical evidence", as if all leaks will be accompanied by
dead aliens.

Of course, one wonders why the fanatical disinformation rag Skeptical Inquirer
never bothered to examine the Twining/Schulgen memos or the
Smith/Sarbacher/Walker situations and leaks.

> > Because it is a concerted disinformation campaign that is very
> > interesting and revealing of the agenda of those who control the
> > information flow.
>

> But when people assumed it to be real, the story was diametrically
> opposite. "here's MJ-12, it proves the government knows about flying
> saucers". Now it's "here's the hoax the CIA made called MJ-12, it proves
> the government knows about flying saucers".
>
> I have to agree with the other posters, this is exactly what you have
> been telling me for the last week.

NO, what I did was correct your erroneous statement that MJ-12 was proven a hoax,
because it has NOT been "proven" a hoax. It probably is a forgery, but I have
given ample justification for the contention that the inside information was far
too voluminous and difficult to access for a civilian hoaxer. I have also shown
that a group very much like MJ-12 really DID exist and probably DID have physical
debris, although like most "skeptics" you're going to ignore the credible leaks
because they weren't accompanied by dead aliens.

> > Probably. It was probably forged as a disinformation effort, as I said.
>

> What do you mean "probably"? Is the MJ-12 document a hoax or not? Yes or no?

Is your world so binary and bizarre? Read the above paragraph and figure it out.
Yes, it was probably forged as a disinformation effort; or didn't you read my
responses very well?

>
> > Uh, Maury, the USAF contends that the "spy balloons" responsible for the
> > debris were Mogul balloons.
>

> As another post here noted, that's not what they say.

Uh, Maury, your reading comprehension is atrocious. The USAF contends that the
Roswell debris was Project Mogul, a spy balloon project. Unfortunately, the
slightest degree of scrutiny exposes this as an amazingly lame cover story that
collapses under the weight of logic, yet the skeptical fringe has never, ever
critically reviewed the Mogul claim. They simply lapped it up uncritically.

--
Brian Zeiler

[Brian Zeiler]

Maury Markowitz wrote:
>
> In article <323292...@sprynet.com>, Brian Zeiler <bdze...@sprynet.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Your reading comprehension skills must be so phenomenally poor that I'm
> > wondering whether you're trolling me for fun. I explained that a hoax
> > does not directly imply a "disinformation scheme". Instead, I showed
> > that several components of the documents strongly imply an inside job.
> > Get it yet? If not, then you very well may be the stupidest debunker
> > I've yet debated.
>
> That's exactly what Tom said. You have been telling me all last week
> that the MJ-12 document was concocted by someone involved or very closly
> involved with a REAL project that may or may not have been called MJ-12,
> but that is absolutely did exist. Your THEORY is that it's a CIA
> disinformation campaign, but you refuse the possibility that anyone could
> have simply constructed it.

Because of the EVIDENCE, I "refuse the possibility that anyone could have
simply constructed it." EVIDENCE.

>
> Thus as Tom noted...
>
> > MJ-12 = authentic, then saucers exist
> > MJ-12 = hoax, then disinformation scheme = goverment has interest in
> > hiding or confusing the issue because - voila - saucers exist

What Tom said was intensely deceptive, because he made it sound like ANY
evidence for hoaxing would imply an inside job. As usual, Tom was being
extremely misleading and dishonest, because there was always the initial
possibility that some civilian idiot slapped these documents together.
But the EVIDENCE shows that IF it is a forgery, it highly likely was done
by somebody on the "inside" due to the enormous amount of hard to find
information that wasn't even public beforehand and due to the wild
coincidences involving Menzel that the debunkers love to ignore.

See? Tom said that I'm having two mutually exclusive outcomes imply one
conclusion, which is actually what debunkers do all the time with the
BBSR statistics and other evidence. But that's not what I'm doing,
because there was the initial possibility that a hoax implies nothing
more than a hoax; unfortunately for Tom, this implication is precluded
from consideration due to the evidence.

--
Brian Zeiler

[James Easton]

rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote:

>And the balloons launched in June 1947 were all neoprene meteorological
>balloons. The plastic Mogul balloon launches didn't begin until July
>3, 1947, and were made of CLEAR polyethylene. That is very clear from
>the extensive Mogul documentation provided by the USAF in their 1000
>page 1995 Roswell report.

>The Mogul documentation also says that various plastics were

>considered, but polyethylene and Seran were considered to be the most

>suitable for high-altitude balloons. Mylar was NEVER under
>consideration for the balloons.

Dave,

I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before, but the following may be of
interest:

...it was left to J. R. Whinfield and J. T. Dickson, working at the
Calico Printers Association in England, to discover the one polyester of
importance as a synthetic fibre, poly(ethylene terephthalate) (B.P. 578,
079), now of great importance in the manufacture of fibres, (e.g.
Terylene, Dacron) and films (e.g., Melinex, Mylar).

The fibres were first announced in 1941.

Poly(ethylene terephthalate) fibres marketed as Dacron (Du Pont) and
Terylene (I.C.I.) are widely used in both domestic and industrial
applications where their high strength, crease resistance and low water
absorption are of value.

Commercial poly(ethylene terephthalate) film is marketed as Melinex
(I.C.I.) and Mylar (Du Pont).

The crystalline melting point of poly(ethylene terephthalate) is 260
degrees C.

Source: PLASTICS MATERIALS, J.A. Brydon. ISBN [0 408 00142 9]

Mylar is a trade name and may not have existed in 1947. More
importantly, Poly(ethylene terephthalate) seems to have existed for some
years before ‘47 and was possibly available as a film by then.

Could references to polyethylene actually mean poly(ethylene
terephthalate)?

Is “Seran” a typo - should this be Saran?

In "Revelations", Jacques Vallee comments:

"The material recovered in the crash itself, while it remains
fascinating, was not necessarily beyond human technology in the late
Forties. Aluminized Saran, also known as Silvered Saran, came from
technology already available for laboratory work in 1948. It was
paper-thin, was not dented by a hammer blow, and was restored to a
smooth finish after crushing."

If both poly(ethylene terephthalate) and Aluminized Saran were available
at that time, it suggests there's no basis for any claims that the
reported debris materials could not possibly be of earthly origin.

One alloy seemingly in use by 1947 was Nitinol (Nickel Titanium Naval
Ordnance Laboratory).

Nitinol is a nickel-titanium alloy which resulted from a successful
research program intended to create a “high strength” metal, resistant
to corrosion by seawater. For a period, the United States Naval Surface
Weapons Centre was the sole supplier.

Nitinol is a "shape memory alloy", it’s associated characteristics
including "pseudoelasticity" or "superelasticity", strain, tensile,
compression and bending properties. "Thermoelastic behaviour" was first
discussed in 1938.

Nitinol was used in instrumentation as long ago as late 1945 and I
understand that the first rocket-borne use of Nitinol was in 1946, on a
high altitude, cosmic-ray sampling flight.

The U.S. Navy also used Nitinol in the construction of observation
balloons and of particular significance is that some high altitude,
automatically deployed sampling foils, designed to collect particles in
the upper stratosphere, were apparently backed onto Nitinol.

It’s my understanding that this is contemporary with the Mogul balloon
project.

One of the common actuation temperatures for Nitinol, i.e., the
temperature at which it utilises the shape memory effect, is body
temperature.

Against a background where "Flying Saucer" stories were still headline
news following Kenneth Arnold's recent report, it's easy to see why
something perhaps unusual could be perceived as unworldly.

It may not also be common knowledge that Dr Jesse Marcel had already
decided he had found the remnants of a "Flying Saucer", before he even
reached Roswell AAF with the debris.

In a interview conducted by a gentleman called Hans, possibly not a well
known interview, which I obtained permission to post and posted to
a.p.ufo almost 2 years ago, Dr Jesse Marcel Jnr. confirmed:

Marcel: You know this was in Roswell, New Mexico, my dad was stationed
at the airforce base, and, he was on the aircraft accident investigation
team as an intelligence officer. He was called because the sheriff got
a hold of the base commander saying they thought there was an aircraft
that had been downed somewhere on a ranch northwest of Roswell. He and
several people went out to investigate to see if it was a military
aircraft or what--see if there was any survivors, anything at all, but
when they got out there--according to the story I got from him--there
was a large debris field of rather nondescript pieces of wreckage, they
didn't know what it was--it wasn't an airplane, but they didn't know
what it was; something crashed--hit pretty hard out there.

He was at the debris field with a CIC agent by the name of Cavitt. The
CIC is now the CIA. These guys are into investigating very unusual
events. Now they pick up the debris, portions of it, they realize this
is not an aircraft or anything that could be recognized as such.

In 1947 that's when the term flying saucer first became popular, because
there's a man Mr. Arnold, I think, who was flying in Mt. Rainier
Washington state; saw what looked this thing was, the remnants of a
crashed flying saucer. So, they brought the debris in, and, as our
house happened to be between where they were coming from and the
airbase, so my dad swung by the house to show my mother and myself what
this looked like, and he said "this is a flying saucer, at least
portions of it".

Hans: So he actually said that to you?

Marcel: Yeah, this was about one or two o'clock in the morning, it was
kind of a late night that day.
[End]

Is there enough in all of this to see the Roswell case in a different
perspective - perhaps a large balloon train containing one or more
unusual materials and an over-enthusiastic desire to have found a flying
saucer?

Maybe, maybe not.

But what impression would be left on an 11 year-old boy whose father was
quite sincere in his belief that he had brought home some pieces from a
"Flying Saucer"?

Is there really _any_ evidence that it was?

As far as the "cover up" story goes, if Brazel had really been pressured
to change his story, how do we explain his comment that, "Considerable
Scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed on it had been used in
the construction"?

This is quite distinctive detail, only a couple of days after the story
broke. As you will appreciate, Charles Moore has confirmed such
materials were in fact used in the Mogul balloon's construction.

Was Brazel told to fabricate this detail and if so, why?

The only alternative seems to be that Brazel was simply recalling some
of the detail from the Mogul balloon wreckage which he had found.

James.

Internet; 10062...@compuserve.com
WWW; http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/

[Cam Bailey]

James Easton wrote:
>
> Was Brazel told to fabricate this detail and if so, why?
>

I remember reading or seeing on TV something about Brazel showing up
shortly after his detention with a new truck, and more money than a poor
rancher was likely to have. It is not above the government to bribe
people to get them to shut up.

Cam Bailey

[Brian Zeiler]

James Easton wrote:

> Against a background where "Flying Saucer" stories were still headline
> news following Kenneth Arnold's recent report, it's easy to see why
> something perhaps unusual could be perceived as unworldly.

The records still list the materials as basic aluminum foil. Nothing else was
experimented with until after the incident.

> In 1947 that's when the term flying saucer first became popular, because
> there's a man Mr. Arnold, I think, who was flying in Mt. Rainier
> Washington state; saw what looked this thing was, the remnants of a
> crashed flying saucer. So, they brought the debris in, and, as our
> house happened to be between where they were coming from and the
> airbase, so my dad swung by the house to show my mother and myself what
> this looked like, and he said "this is a flying saucer, at least
> portions of it".
>
> Hans: So he actually said that to you?
>
> Marcel: Yeah, this was about one or two o'clock in the morning, it was
> kind of a late night that day.
> [End]
>
> Is there enough in all of this to see the Roswell case in a different
> perspective - perhaps a large balloon train containing one or more
> unusual materials and an over-enthusiastic desire to have found a flying
> saucer?

I don't follow. You're suggesting that because people were already aware of
"flying saucers", therefore that casts doubt on the integrity of their analysis
of the debris and made them "eager" to think it was something besides a balloon?
That doesn't make sense. Why should awareness of the term taint their
objectivity by necessity? Besides, records show that it WAS aluminum foil,
according to the original Mogul team's documentation.

> As far as the "cover up" story goes, if Brazel had really been pressured
> to change his story, how do we explain his comment that, "Considerable
> Scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed on it had been used in
> the construction"?
>
> This is quite distinctive detail, only a couple of days after the story
> broke. As you will appreciate, Charles Moore has confirmed such
> materials were in fact used in the Mogul balloon's construction.

Uh, this was said AFTER Brazel was detained by the military. After being
released from detention, he rescinded all his earlier claims and then introduced
the above claims that were OBVIOUSLY meant to pattern after Mogul.

>
> Was Brazel told to fabricate this detail and if so, why?

Why do you think? All part of the Mogul cover story, eh? Tell me, then, why the
hell would he be detained as part of the crashed Mogul incident and then be told
to change his story to REFLECT THE ACTUAL MOGUL DEBRIS???

> The only alternative seems to be that Brazel was simply recalling some
> of the detail from the Mogul balloon wreckage which he had found.

Right, that almost makes sense. The guy finds crashed Mogul debris and gets
detained by the military because of this, and then emerges telling a different
story -- a description that fits Mogul. The Mogul counterintelligence squads
made him change his story from flying saucer debris to obvious Mogul debris.
That's *totally* illogical.

--
Brian Zeiler

[Mike Smith]

Lots of interesting fodder regarding the material aspects of the
recovered debris.........but what about the reported 'dead and one
alive little beings being recovered? The Mogul balloon project were
unmanned?!? And....many people have come forward just recently,
regarding all different aspects of this event, all shedding additional
insight from many different perspectives. The funeral parlor
worker...the nurses that assisted in the autopsies, and then came up
missing...and Jim Ragsdale and his girlfriend watched the whole
recovery from Boy Scout Mountain, unobserved by the military...the
recent GAO report saying that all records regarding the base have been
illegally destroyed or missing...

Smitty

[Maury Markowitz]

In article <323469...@sprynet.com>, Brian Zeiler
<bdze...@sprynet.com> wrote:

> Because of the EVIDENCE, I "refuse the possibility that anyone could have
> simply constructed it." EVIDENCE.

Ahhh, you mean that same evidence then when asked for by one of your
legions of "brain dead skeptics" can't be provided? That EVIDENCE?

> What Tom said was intensely deceptive, because he made it sound like ANY
> evidence for hoaxing would imply an inside job.

No, he didn't. I saw nothing of the sort, and I'd like to see Tom's
comments to that end (in a new letter that is).

> As usual, Tom was being
> extremely misleading and dishonest, because there was always the initial
> possibility that some civilian idiot slapped these documents together.

And as usual you're flaming away because someone dares not to agree with you.

> But the EVIDENCE shows that IF it is a forgery, it highly likely was done
> by somebody on the "inside" due to the enormous amount of hard to find
> information that wasn't even public beforehand and due to the wild
> coincidences involving Menzel that the debunkers love to ignore.

And thus it proves that someone in the govornment, the CIA in your
messages (did they even exist at the time?) did it for a reason, to
confuse and mislead the researchers from the real story.

Exactly what Tom said.

> See?

Very clear indeed.

> Tom said that I'm having two mutually exclusive outcomes imply one
> conclusion, which is actually what debunkers do all the time with the
> BBSR statistics and other evidence. But that's not what I'm doing,
> because there was the initial possibility that a hoax implies nothing
> more than a hoax; unfortunately for Tom, this implication is precluded
> from consideration due to the evidence.

No, I _said_ it was a hoax, to which you responded in a series of
letters telling me that if it is a hoax the person in question has to know
a lot about "the project".

So if it's a hoax it's by someone on the inside, if it's not a hoax it's
by someone on the inside. Exactly what Tom said.

Maury

[Maury Markowitz]

In article <323468...@sprynet.com>, Brian Zeiler
<bdze...@sprynet.com> wrote:

> NO, what I did was correct your erroneous statement that MJ-12 was
> proven a hoax, because it has NOT been "proven" a hoax. It probably is
> a forgery, but I have given ample justification for the contention that
> the inside information was far too voluminous and difficult to access
> for a civilian hoaxer.

You see that's not true at all. You have been quite specific in stating
that the paper itself is most likely a hoax, and went on to explain it was
most likely a CIA misinformation campaign. Do you deny this? It's "in
print". Regardless you failed to answer the point made...

> But when people assumed it to be real, the story was diametrically
> opposite. "here's MJ-12, it proves the government knows about flying
> saucers". Now it's "here's the hoax the CIA made called MJ-12, it proves
> the government knows about flying saucers".

And now you're attempting to sidestep the issue.

> Is your world so binary and bizarre? Read the above paragraph and
> figure it out. Yes, it was probably forged as a disinformation effort;
> or didn't you read my responses very well?

Right, and since the CIA faked it, it must be "real". That's religion Brian.

> Uh, Maury, your reading comprehension is atrocious.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Now you look like a complete idiot.

Maury

[Maury Markowitz]

In article <323497...@sprynet.com>, Brian Zeiler
<bdze...@sprynet.com> wrote:

> I don't follow. You're suggesting that because people were already
> aware of "flying saucers", therefore that casts doubt on the integrity
> of their analysis of the debris and made them "eager" to think it was
> something besides a balloon? That doesn't make sense. Why should
> awareness of the term taint their objectivity by necessity?

Are you REALLY that unaware of all science? This is so common they have
a name for it, the experimenter effect, and a method to combat it, the
double blind.

Geez.

Maury

[Unknown]

Maury Markowitz wrote:
>
> In article <323292...@sprynet.com>, Brian Zeiler <bdze...@sprynet.com>

> wrote:
>
> > Your reading comprehension skills must be so phenomenally poor that I'm
> > wondering whether you're trolling me for fun. I explained that a hoax
> > does not directly imply a "disinformation scheme". Instead, I showed
> > that several components of the documents strongly imply an inside job.
> > Get it yet? If not, then you very well may be the stupidest debunker
> > I've yet debated.
>
> That's exactly what Tom said. You have been telling me all last week
> that the MJ-12 document was concocted by someone involved or very closly
> involved with a REAL project that may or may not have been called MJ-12,
> but that is absolutely did exist. Your THEORY is that it's a CIA

> disinformation campaign, but you refuse the possibility that anyone could
> have simply constructed it.

Because of the EVIDENCE, I "refuse the possibility that anyone could have
simply constructed it." EVIDENCE.

>

> Thus as Tom noted...
>
> > MJ-12 = authentic, then saucers exist
> > MJ-12 = hoax, then disinformation scheme = goverment has interest in
> > hiding or confusing the issue because - voila - saucers exist

What Tom said was intensely deceptive, because he made it sound like ANY
evidence for hoaxing would imply an inside job. As usual, Tom was being

extremely misleading and dishonest, because there was always the initial
possibility that some civilian idiot slapped these documents together.

But the EVIDENCE shows that IF it is a forgery, it highly likely was done
by somebody on the "inside" due to the enormous amount of hard to find
information that wasn't even public beforehand and due to the wild
coincidences involving Menzel that the debunkers love to ignore.

See? Tom said that I'm having two mutually exclusive outcomes imply one

conclusion, which is actually what debunkers do all the time with the
BBSR statistics and other evidence. But that's not what I'm doing,
because there was the initial possibility that a hoax implies nothing
more than a hoax; unfortunately for Tom, this implication is precluded
from consideration due to the evidence.

--
Brian Zeiler

===========Bob Tarantino 9/10/96===========

I have not read the whole book yet, but one of the claims Stanton Freidman
makes in addition to Donald Menzels' education including engineering and a
knowledge of Japanese (which would be useful in understanding an alien
language like the one described by dozens of witnesses to the Roswell crash
debris), which is strange for an astronomer, would be that he had top secret
security clearance and that in a hearing in Washington to take this clearance
away, Dr. Vannevar Bush spoke on his behalf. I agree that this is strange but
is it conclusive? Can we say his debunking tactics were contrived in a
campaign to mislead the public without being accurately accused of paranoia?
I have to admit if this is true, it sounds fishy to me.

-bob

[Steven Kaeser]

In article <32341D...@ftn.net> Cam Bailey <bi...@ftn.net> writes:
>From: Cam Bailey <bi...@ftn.net>
>Subject: Re: TOP SECRET/MAJIC by Stanton Friedman
>Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 06:35:35 -0700

>James Easton wrote:
>>
>> Was Brazel told to fabricate this detail and if so, why?
>>

>I remember reading or seeing on TV something about Brazel showing up
>shortly after his detention with a new truck, and more money than a poor
>rancher was likely to have. It is not above the government to bribe
>people to get them to shut up.

This follows the scenerio as outlined by several researchers, but it is
annecdotal in nature and (as usual) there is no paper trail to prove that this
occured.

It appears that the decision of General Ramey to "kill" the crashed saucer
story began a series of events that are still unclear today. Brazel was
apparently held for several days and "questioned" about his discovery, and his
story changed after short stay with the military. To my knowledge he never
made any statements of note after he was released, and declined to speak about
the incident in public. Brazel was caught up in a situation that went well
beyond is normal reality, no matter what happened at Roswell. In the end he
probably did what he had to do and took as much advantage of the situation as
he could. He did state that if something else crashed and he found it, it
would be a cold day in hell before he would tell anyone about it.

On another note,

It was recently mentioned that the Air Force is working on another document
related to Roswell, with this document to deal with the alleged bodies that
were reported by many witnesses. My understanding is that it is based on a
lot of supposition and little or no paper trail, so it carries no more weight
than the Mogul document. It will likely add greatly to the debate, and little
to its substance.

[Brian Zeiler]

Maury Markowitz wrote:
>
> In article <323469...@sprynet.com>, Brian Zeiler

> <bdze...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> > Because of the EVIDENCE, I "refuse the possibility that anyone could have
> > simply constructed it." EVIDENCE.
>

> Ahhh, you mean that same evidence then when asked for by one of your
> legions of "brain dead skeptics" can't be provided? That EVIDENCE?

WHAT evidence that "can't be provided"? A dead alien? What are you
babbling about?

>
> > What Tom said was intensely deceptive, because he made it sound like ANY
> > evidence for hoaxing would imply an inside job.
>

> No, he didn't. I saw nothing of the sort, and I'd like to see Tom's
> comments to that end (in a new letter that is).

Then learn how to read, because he was trying to characterize this into some
grand point about ufology, saying that two mutually exclusive outcomes imply
the same thing: if it's real, then saucers are real, but if it's hoaxed,
then saucers are real. Obviously you don't have much experience with Tom's
dementia. I tried explaining to him that a hoax only implies saucer-reality
if it's an inside job, which I feel is sufficiently demonstrated, but he
keeps harping on his main point about how ufology loves have mutually
exclusive outcomes imply the same.

>
> > As usual, Tom was being
> > extremely misleading and dishonest, because there was always the initial
> > possibility that some civilian idiot slapped these documents together.
>

> And as usual you're flaming away because someone dares not to agree with you.

No, what I said in the above paragraph stands. Tom was dishonestly trying
to misrepresent my position by suggesting that ANY hoax implies saucer
reality, not just inside-job hoaxes. That is EXACTLY what he meant. What
else would be the point of ridiculing my position if he was observing that
either an inside job or a proven-real outcome for MJ-12 implied saucer
reality? That's obvious. His point, however, was that ANY evidence for
hoaxing implies saucer reality, not just inside-job hoaxing. Thus, a
dishonest post. Why the hell else would he bother to point it out? If
you've seen his past posts, you'd see he's prone to such behaviors.

>
> > But the EVIDENCE shows that IF it is a forgery, it highly likely was done
> > by somebody on the "inside" due to the enormous amount of hard to find
> > information that wasn't even public beforehand and due to the wild
> > coincidences involving Menzel that the debunkers love to ignore.
>

> And thus it proves that someone in the govornment, the CIA in your
> messages (did they even exist at the time?) did it for a reason, to
> confuse and mislead the researchers from the real story.

Uh, yeah, that's what I said. And yes, the CIA existed in the mid-1980s.
Thanks for admitting that you barely skimmed anything I wrote about it.

> Exactly what Tom said.

No, as explained above.

> > See?
>
> Very clear indeed.

Get a clue and stop annoying me.

> So if it's a hoax it's by someone on the inside, if it's not a hoax it's
> by someone on the inside. Exactly what Tom said.

No, Tom implied that any evidence for hoaxing would be presumed to be
inside for no good reason, thus making his point about mutually exclusive
outcomes. Your raging ignorance and AWFUL reading comprehension are really
growing tiresome.

--
Brian Zeiler

[Brian Zeiler]

Maury Markowitz wrote:
>
> In article <323468...@sprynet.com>, Brian Zeiler

> <bdze...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> > NO, what I did was correct your erroneous statement that MJ-12 was
> > proven a hoax, because it has NOT been "proven" a hoax. It probably is
> > a forgery, but I have given ample justification for the contention that
> > the inside information was far too voluminous and difficult to access
> > for a civilian hoaxer.
>
> You see that's not true at all.

As usual, I have no idea what you're blathering about.

> You have been quite specific in stating
> that the paper itself is most likely a hoax, and went on to explain it was
> most likely a CIA misinformation campaign. Do you deny this?

When did, and why would, I deny this? I said above that it wasn't PROVEN a
hoax, which it has not.

> It's "in
> print".

Can you speak clear English for once?

> Regardless you failed to answer the point made...
>
> > But when people assumed it to be real, the story was diametrically
> > opposite. "here's MJ-12, it proves the government knows about flying
> > saucers". Now it's "here's the hoax the CIA made called MJ-12, it proves
> > the government knows about flying saucers".
>
> And now you're attempting to sidestep the issue.

What issue? What point? Who says it proves anything? A disinformation effort
is plausibly deniable and it proves nothing. Authentic documentation is
entirely different.

> > Is your world so binary and bizarre? Read the above paragraph and
> > figure it out. Yes, it was probably forged as a disinformation effort;
> > or didn't you read my responses very well?
>
> Right, and since the CIA faked it, it must be "real".

What must be "real"? The whole UFO crash stuff? Right, unless you want to
entertain the bizarre delusion that the CIA pulls practical jokes.

> That's religion Brian.

Sure, whatever.

> > Uh, Maury, your reading comprehension is atrocious.
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
>
> Now you look like a complete idiot.

Oh yeah, I look like an idiot? I just explain to you in several posts not only
the history of the MJ-12 evidence, but the entire history of the R&DB as it
relates to UFOs and the credible leaks over the years, and only now you ask me
whether the CIA was around when MJ-12 happened, which was in about 1984.

--
Brian Zeiler

[rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu]

James Easton <10062...@compuserve.com> wrote:

>rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote:

>>And the balloons launched in June 1947 were all neoprene meteorological
>>balloons. The plastic Mogul balloon launches didn't begin until July
>>3, 1947, and were made of CLEAR polyethylene. That is very clear from
>>the extensive Mogul documentation provided by the USAF in their 1000
>>page 1995 Roswell report.

>>The Mogul documentation also says that various plastics were
>>considered, but polyethylene and Seran were considered to be the most
>>suitable for high-altitude balloons. Mylar was NEVER under
>>consideration for the balloons.

>I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before, but the following may be
>of interest:

Thank you for your well written and well-argued post.

>...it was left to J. R. Whinfield and J. T. Dickson, working at the
>Calico Printers Association in England, to discover the one
>polyester of importance as a synthetic fibre, poly(ethylene
>terephthalate) (B.P. 578, 079), now of great importance in the
>manufacture of fibres, (e.g. Terylene, Dacron) and films (e.g.,
>Melinex, Mylar).

>The fibres were first announced in 1941.

>Mylar is a trade name and may not have existed in 1947. More

>importantly, Poly(ethylene terephthalate) seems to have existed for
>some years before ‘47 and was possibly available as a film by then.

>Could references to polyethylene actually mean poly(ethylene
>terephthalate)?

I honestly don't know, but you raise a very good point. There are
other polyethylene polymers that aren't linked with terphthalic acid.
And mylar lacks the pliability of other plastics that I would think
would be desirable in a balloon.

But you may very possibly be correct, and my mistake in thumbling
through the Mogul documentation in search of mylar was in looking for
the more general term of polyester.

Of course the Air Force claims the Roswell Mogul balloon crash
occurred in June 1947, and the first polyethylene balloons weren't
used until July, 1947. So the point seems to be moot in any case.

>Poly(ethylene terephthalate) fibres marketed as Dacron (Du Pont) and
>Terylene (I.C.I.) are widely used in both domestic and industrial
>applications where their high strength, crease resistance and low
>water absorption are of value.

>Commercial poly(ethylene terephthalate) film is marketed as Melinex
>(I.C.I.) and Mylar (Du Pont).

>The crystalline melting point of poly(ethylene terephthalate) is 260
>degrees C.

>Source: PLASTICS MATERIALS, J.A. Brydon. ISBN [0 408 00142 9]

It should be noted, however, that pre-1953 polyethylene materials
were heat polymerized. My old organic chem book ("Organic
Chemistry," R.T. Morrison & R.M. Boyd) states that this produced
highly branched polyethylene molecules that fit together poorly and
randomly (low crystallinity), making them mechanically weak and
giving them low melting points. Modern polyethylenes using milder
catalyst techniques have higher melting points and are mechanically
strong.

>Is "Seran" a typo - should this be Saran?

Typo. I meant Saran.

>In "Revelations", Jacques Vallee comments:

>"The material recovered in the crash itself, while it remains
>fascinating, was not necessarily beyond human technology in the late
>Forties. Aluminized Saran, also known as Silvered Saran, came from
>technology already available for laboratory work in 1948. It was
>paper-thin, was not dented by a hammer blow, and was restored to a
>smooth finish after crushing."

>If both poly(ethylene terephthalate) and Aluminized Saran were
>available at that time, it suggests there's no basis for any claims
>that the reported debris materials could not possibly be of earthly
>origin.

Vallee is no crashed saucer believer, and seems to believe UFOs are
some sort of paranormal manifestation, interdimensional elves, or
some such thing. I have yet to see any evidence that he has done any
deep homework on the Roswell case. In any event, he seems to
conveniently leave out the debris descriptions that are inconsistent
with "Silvered Saran."

Saran and polyethylene are easily burned and cut, contrary to the
debris descriptions. Mogul engineer C. B. Moore and the USAF are
claiming the metal debris was nothing more than the aluminum foil
used on the radar reflectors, and aren't even advancing aluminized
Saran or mylar as a theory.

In addition aluminized Saran or Mylar forms a very shiny, specular,
metallic, finish. But the descriptions of the strange foil at
Roswell were almost universally of a dull gray metal more like lead
foil than shiny aluminum foil.

Please remember that you have to talk about materials in use during
the June/early July 1947 time frame of the Roswell crash. Mogul
records make no mention of aluminized plastic of any type being used
on the balloons. The polyethylene used on the balloons starting in
July 1947 was deliberately clear to give it "high transparency to
heat radiation." These were to be constant altitude balloons, and
the idea seems to have been to give the temperature of the helium in
the balloons an opportunity to quickly equilibrate with the outside
air temperature, preventing the balloons from radically climbing or
dropping in altitude. The neoprene rubber weather balloons used in
ALL of the June 1947 Mogul launches had exactly this problem, and was
one of the reasons for scrapping them in favor of the clear plastic
balloons.

A small amount of polyethylene also seems to have been used to wrap
the small black battery box (about 4 inches square), as shown in the
schematic diagrams for Mogul balloons #10 and #11 launched in July.
There is no mention of polyethylene in the June launches.

Vallee's book predates the Mogul theory by one year (Mogul was still
classified) and Vallee wasn't aware of the actually construction
materials of Mogul. Aluminized Saran or polyethylene seems to be
well ruled out.

>One alloy seemingly in use by 1947 was Nitinol (Nickel Titanium
>Naval Ordnance Laboratory).

>Nitinol is a nickel-titanium alloy which resulted from a successful
>research program intended to create a "high strength" metal,
>resistant to corrosion by seawater. For a period, the United States
>Naval Surface Weapons Centre was the sole supplier.

It is my understanding that Nitinol wasn't invented until 1962 and
was available initially only in wire form. It was also quite
expensive and hardly the material to be used for a modest radar
reflector whose useful lifetime was measured in hours.

>Nitinol is a "shape memory alloy", it’s associated characteristics
>including "pseudoelasticity" or "superelasticity", strain, tensile,
>compression and bending properties. "Thermoelastic behaviour" was
>first discussed in 1938.

It would be helpful if you could supply a reference or two for me to
look up.

>Nitinol was used in instrumentation as long ago as late 1945 and I
>understand that the first rocket-borne use of Nitinol was in 1946,
>on a high altitude, cosmic-ray sampling flight.

Again, this seems way to early. And I am unaware of any high
altitude, cosmic-ray V-2 rocket flights in 1946. Where are your
references on this?

>The U.S. Navy also used Nitinol in the construction of observation
>balloons and of particular significance is that some high altitude,
>automatically deployed sampling foils, designed to collect particles
>in the upper stratosphere, were apparently backed onto Nitinol.

>It’s my understanding that this is contemporary with the Mogul
>balloon project.

Again you need to provide a reference. The Air Force and C.B. Moore
claim Mogul was the ONLY balloon project in New Mexico at this time.
You seem to be proposing that there was some other secret balloon
project at this time that utilized exotic materials not used on the
Mogul Project, but I have seen zero documentation of this. I do know
that Mogul evolved into the Skyhook balloons, but these weren't used
to conduct high altitude research for another 2 years or so AFTER
Roswell.

The actual radar reflectors were made of aluminum foil backed with
paper. They were transported as hinged stacked, triangles that
unfolded during launch at ground level using nothing more exotic than
gravity, forming diamond or star-shaped corner reflectors. Where did
Nitinol get into all of this?

>One of the common actuation temperatures for Nitinol, i.e., the
>temperature at which it utilises the shape memory effect, is body
>temperature.

This is all very interesting, but what does this have to do with the
alleged Mogul crashed balloon which didn't have such a material?

>Against a background where "Flying Saucer" stories were still
>headline news following Kenneth Arnold's recent report, it's easy to
>see why something perhaps unusual could be perceived as unworldly.

Ah yes, back to your psychological flying saucer hysteria theory that
you proposed a year ago.

>It may not also be common knowledge that Dr Jesse Marcel had already
>decided he had found the remnants of a "Flying Saucer", before he
>even reached Roswell AAF with the debris.

Small point -- Jesse Marcel Sr. was the intelligence officer who
collected the debris and Dr. Marcel is his son. You obviously mean
Marcel Sr. thought he had found the remnants of a flying saucer.

As a matter of fact it is common knowledge that Marcel Sr. thought this, since
Dr. Marcel has consistently told the same story about his father since 1980.
And Marcel Sr. said pretty much the same thing himself -- the
properties of the materials were totally unlike anything he had ever
seen before (he was the senior air crash investigator at Roswell) and
he didn't think they were of this earth.

>Is there enough in all of this to see the Roswell case in a
>different perspective - perhaps a large balloon train containing one
>or more unusual materials and an over-enthusiastic desire to have
>found a flying saucer?

>Maybe, maybe not.

Maybe not. Unless you or someone else can present some sort of
documentation that "unusual materials" were on the Mogul balloons or
some other imaginary, hypothetical balloon. The Air Force, Mogul
people such as Moore, and more importantly the Mogul documentation
itself says no.

Marcel's belief that he the debris "was not of this earth" was based
on its unusual properties. His "illusion" seems to have been shared
by many who had handled or knew of the debris, both civilian and
military. The debris was seen by Marcel's intelligence staff [Lewis Rickett
with the CIC in Marcel's office backed up Marcel's story], and
it was the base commander, Col. Blanchard (later a four-star general
and USAF Vice Chief of Staff) who issued the actual press release
saying that Roswell had recovered a flying disc. Gen. Dubose said
the balloon story was just a cover for what was really brought to
Fort Worth and later transported to Washington and Wright Field (he
was there at the time and received the order to instigate a cover
story). Gen. Exon (C/0 of Wright-Patterson from 1964-1969) said the
debris analyzed at Wright Field was highly anomalous and it was the
consensus of opinion of those there that Roswell was the crash of an
extraterrestral craft.

Gen. Twining (Head of the Air Material Command at Wright Field, later
USAF Chief of Staff and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) would have been
in charge of any debris analysis and was in New Mexico during the
Roswell events from July 7-11 and in Roswell on July 16 with Gen.
Ramey. On July 17 he wrote a letter to the President of Boeing
Aircraft apologizing for cancelling a long planned visit to the
Boeing factory on July 8 "...due to very important and sudden matters
that developed here." On Sept. 23 he wrote his memo to Gen. Schulgen
[Head of Air Intelligence] saying the flying discs were real,
metallic, high-performance craft exhibiting intelligent control.
Thereafter his command supplied additional information to Schulgen
resulting in Schulgen's very interesting Oct. 28 intelligence memo
describing flying saucer materials and construction.

Isn't it amazing how all these A.F. generals were as deluded as
Marcel and misidentified common Mogul materials because of their
desire to believe in flying saucers?

>But what impression would be left on an 11 year-old boy whose father
>was quite sincere in his belief that he had brought home some pieces
>from a "Flying Saucer"?

What difference does it make? The Marcels weren't the only witnesses
to the debris -- and then there's the Schulgen memo...

>Is there really _any_ evidence that it was?

Try Gen. Schulgen's intelligence memo written less than 4 months
later, which says the flying saucers were real, high-performance
craft, possibily interplanetary, and made from foils and balsa wood-
like material of "extreme lightness and structural stability. This
is virtually the same description given Roswell debris by Marcel,
Loretta Proctor, Bill Brazel Sr. and Jr. (Brazel Sr. when he wasn't
being detained by the military), Louis Rickett, and others.

Schulgen received his information primarily from Gen. Twining at
Wright Field where at least some of the Roswell debris was taken for
examination. So I guess Twining's technical people were just as
confused as Marcel and misidentified ordinary balsa wood and tinfoil
for super-alien material.

>As far as the "cover up" story goes, if Brazel had really been
>pressured to change his story, how do we explain his comment that,
>"Considerable Scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed on it
>had been used in the construction"?

Marcel was in military custody at the time he made these statements
to the press. The press conference was obviously not his idea, and
at least half a dozen witnesses remember him having a military
escort. He remained involuntarily detained for another week and
repeatedly interrogated. [The Provost Marshall of Roswell base,
William Easley, later testified to this.] His press statements were
obviously coerced. Afterwards he refused to talk to anyone about the
details of what he had seen. But his son Bill managed to get some
information out of him in bits and pieces. One person claimed Brazel
allegedly told him toward the end of his life that the military had
threatened to kill him if he ever spoke about it. This is pretty
harsh and illegal treatment for somebody who had seen nothing more
than "considerable Scotch tape and some tape with flowers on it."

A few days prior to his military kidnapping, he had visited his
neighbors Floyd and Loretta Proctor and showed them a piece of the
balsa-wood like material, which Loretta Proctor said they couldn't
cut, mark, whittle, burn, or break. Brazel also described finding
other strange material including the metal that could be crumpled up
and unfold without wrinkling. And he did indeed describe finding
tape with purplish "figures" on it which he described to various
people as resembling Chinese or Japanese writing. His son Bill
interpreted "figures" to mean similar to nearby Indian petroglyphs
which his father also called "figures."

The important thing about the "tape" was that Brazel told the
Proctors that he couldn't cut or burn it. I have never heard of
"Scotch tape" with these properties. He reported the same properties
for the strange foil. According to the Proctors, Brazel, normally a
very reserved person, was very excited by what he had found, and
tried to get the Proctors to come to his ranch and see the rest of
the material. Brazel lived alone without a phone or electricity and
knew nothing about the flying saucer sightings throughout the
country. It was the Proctors who suggested that maybe he had found
the remains of one of those flying saucers they had been hearing
about. So Brazel's initial excitement wasn't due to flying saucer
mania, but instead was caused by the unusual nature of the debris.

>This is quite distinctive detail, only a couple of days after the
>story broke.

Brazel's press conference was within hours of Gen. Ramey displaying
the same balloon material for the press in Fort Worth. Brazel could
easily have been coached by the military to give a closely matching
description.

>As you will appreciate, Charles Moore has confirmed such materials
>were in fact used in the Mogul balloon's construction.

Tape with purplish patterns--yes. Uncuttable, unburnable tape, foil,
and balsa wood -- no. Foil that unfolds itself and doesn't wrinkle -
-no. Even Moore confesses to being puzzled by the witness debris
descriptions.

>Was Brazel told to fabricate this detail and if so, why?

I think this is pretty obvious. If Brazel had found pieces of a
flying saucer and Gen. Ramey was covering it up with a balloon story,
they would want Brazel and Ramey's story to be consistent. This
could be done very easily by coaching Brazel. They would have had a
few hours to do this after Ramey started putting out the weather
balloon story.

>The only alternative seems to be that Brazel was simply recalling
>some of the detail from the Mogul balloon wreckage which he had
>found.

This would be far more convincing if Brazel's statements were made of
his own free will and BEFORE Ramey put out his weather balloon story.
But Brazel's testimony while in custody is obviously very tainted.
It would be thrown out of court. What is more valid is what he
showed and described to the Proctors BEFORE the military grabbed him.

And many points of Brazel's newspaper description are actually
inconsistent with a Mogul crash. Brazel said that "no strings or
wires were to be found" but the Mogul balloon was held together with
several hundred yards of nylon fishing line and lobster twine which
should have been strewn all over the crash site.

Brazel described finding smoky gray rubber in strips scattered over
an area about 200 yards in diameter which he gathered up into a
bundle about "18 or 20 inches long and 8 inches thick." A bundle of
rubber similar to this was shown by Ramey to the press a few hours
before, but somehow the acrid smell of it was only noted in Fort
Worth and not by anyone, including Brazel, before Fort Worth.
Further, according to C. B. Moore, while the neoprene rubber would
have darkened in the sun as Brazel said, it also would have
deteriorated into brittle flakes or ash within a few days time. So
why did Brazel describe the rubber as being in strips and how was
Brazel supposed to gather up 9 acreas of flakes and roll them into a
bundle?

Brazel said the object "might have been as large as a table top"
(presumably referring to the "disc"). This is exactly what Ramey
showed the press a few hours before -- the remains of a single radar
reflector. [Another indication of coordination between Ramey and
Brazel's story.] But C.B. Moore claimed the alleged crashed Mogul
carried 3 to 5 radar reflectors.

Brazel said the "tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks made a bundle about
three feet long and 7 or 8 inches thick." But one of the sticks in
Fort Worth (shown in the photos taken there) was about 5 feet long.
The Air Force or their CIA photo analysts in the 1995 USAF report
actually shortened this stick on their schematic diagram of the
sticks and said it was only 3 feet long. Why did they do that? The longest
stick on a Mogul radar reflector, BTW, was 4 feet long, inconsistent
with the stick in Fort Worth.

Finally the newspaper story said that "Brazel said that he had
previously found two weather observation balloons on his ranch, but
that what he found this time did not in any way resemble any of
these. 'I am sure what I found ws not any weather observation
balloon.'" But the Air Force claims that the materials in the actual
Mogul balloons and radar reflectors were indistinguishable from
standard meteorological balloons + radar reflectors. That's why the
material displayed in Ramey's office looked exactly like a weather
balloon, because it was really from an indistinguishable Mogul
balloon, and Ramey and his weather officer Irving Newton innocently
misidentified it as such. That's their story -- no kidding!

[Brian Zeiler]

rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote:

> Holden's bank records show
> that he made a huge deposit of $4800 [like $50,000 today] to a Lubbock bank
> account one week after the Roswell story broke.

Now there's a coincidence.

> Also, his 1947 tax records are
> only ones missing out of 40 years.

Another astounding coincidence! Somebody should put together a
"Coincidence FAQ" for Roswell.

> Most likely. This rumor keeps surfacing and I wonder what it is based on? If
> it is true we probably will be told there was some top-secret plane crash that
> is just being revealed.

That should be pretty funny, since then they'll have to do it without
directly destroying their credibility for promoting Mogul. Maybe they'll
drum up some story about a top-secret plane having a mid-air collision
with the mega-black eyes-only Mogul project. Then we'll see Fun and
Rogers promoting the mid-air collision hypothesis and suddenly believing
the reports of bodies, since the USAF now says so. The USAF is SO much
more credible than average civilian witnesses.

--
Brian Zeiler

[rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu]

SKA...@nmaa.org (Steven Kaeser) wrote:

>In article <32341D...@ftn.net> Cam Bailey <bi...@ftn.net> writes:
>>From: Cam Bailey <bi...@ftn.net>
>>Subject: Re: TOP SECRET/MAJIC by Stanton Friedman
>>Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 06:35:35 -0700

>>James Easton wrote:
>>>
>>> Was Brazel told to fabricate this detail and if so, why?
>>>

>>I remember reading or seeing on TV something about Brazel showing up
>>shortly after his detention with a new truck, and more money than a poor
>>rancher was likely to have. It is not above the government to bribe
>>people to get them to shut up.

>This follows the scenerio as outlined by several researchers, but it is
>annecdotal in nature and (as usual) there is no paper trail to prove that this
>occured.

>It appears that the decision of General Ramey to "kill" the crashed saucer
>story began a series of events that are still unclear today. Brazel was
>apparently held for several days and "questioned" about his discovery, and his
>story changed after short stay with the military. To my knowledge he never
>made any statements of note after he was released, and declined to speak about
>the incident in public. Brazel was caught up in a situation that went well
>beyond is normal reality, no matter what happened at Roswell. In the end he
>probably did what he had to do and took as much advantage of the situation as
>he could. He did state that if something else crashed and he found it, it
>would be a cold day in hell before he would tell anyone about it.

That's about the size of it. Brazel's son Paul was very upset with the talk
that his father had taken a bribe and insisted that he didn't come suddenly into
the money, but had carefully saved it, and had even taken on a second job as a
bank guard to earn extra money. Nonetheless, a year a two later Brazel bought a
home in Tularosa where his family was and also set up a large commercial
refrigerated meat locker.

The are other stories of witnesses being paid off. According to Beverley Bean,
her father, Sgt. Melvin Brown, told her he saw bodies along with other MPs and
that they were paid off to stay quiet. A special trust account was established
for all the guards. Aside from story, however, no evidence has yet been found
that this special trust account exists.

There is better evidence in the case of Dr. W. Curry Holden, from Texas Tech,
and allegedly the leader of the archeological team that stumbled on the main
saucer crash site just before the military arrived. Holden's bank records show

that he made a huge deposit of $4800 [like $50,000 today] to a Lubbock bank

account one week after the Roswell story broke. Also, his 1947 tax records are
only ones missing out of 40 years. Roswell researcher Tom Carey first reported
this in the Jan/Feb 1994 IUR Journal.

>On another note,

>It was recently mentioned that the Air Force is working on another document
>related to Roswell, with this document to deal with the alleged bodies that
>were reported by many witnesses. My understanding is that it is based on a
>lot of supposition and little or no paper trail, so it carries no more weight
>than the Mogul document. It will likely add greatly to the debate, and little
>to its substance.

Most likely. This rumor keeps surfacing and I wonder what it is based on? If

[Maury Markowitz]

In article <3235B3...@sprynet.com>, Brian Zeiler
<bdze...@sprynet.com> wrote:

> WHAT evidence that "can't be provided"? A dead alien? What are you
> babbling about?

I'm babbling and you're the one posting in thre word sentences. I knew
this would happen sooner or later.

> Then learn how to read

Insulting my ability to read makes you look like an idiot.

> because he was trying to characterize this into some
> grand point about ufology, saying that two mutually exclusive outcomes imply
> the same thing: if it's real, then saucers are real, but if it's hoaxed,
> then saucers are real.

Exactly. You have implied much the same in your posts. No, you don't
claim the a hoaxed document implies the existence of saucers, but you
definitely imply that's the only "logical" outcome.

> Obviously you don't have much experience with Tom's dementia.

Sigh.

> I tried explaining to him that a hoax only implies saucer-reality
> if it's an inside job

Which is exactly what you've been implying in every message for the last week.

> which I feel is sufficiently demonstrated

So you agree with him, but he's wrong.

> keeps harping on his main point about how ufology loves have mutually
> exclusive outcomes imply the same.

In this case it does.

> No, what I said in the above paragraph stands. Tom was dishonestly trying
> to misrepresent my position by suggesting that ANY hoax implies saucer
> reality, not just inside-job hoaxes.

And in this case he's right. I didn't see him referring to any other
cases, just this one. So what exactly is your point?

> else would be the point of ridiculing my position if he was observing that
> either an inside job or a proven-real outcome for MJ-12 implied saucer
> reality? That's obvious.

Now that you come out and state this, it should be ridiculed. That's
religion Brian, plain and simple.

> Uh, yeah, that's what I said. And yes, the CIA existed in the mid-1980s.
> Thanks for admitting that you barely skimmed anything I wrote about it.

I never admitted anything of the sort.

> No, as explained above.

Exactly what Tom said in the specific.

> Get a clue and stop annoying me.

Brian, stop flaming people and maybe someday someone will take you
seriously. I give up. Goodbye.

Maury

[James Easton]

Brian Zeiler wrote:

>I don't follow. You're suggesting that because people were already aware of
>"flying saucers", therefore that casts doubt on the integrity of their
>analysis of the debris and made them "eager" to think it was something besides
>a balloon?

> That doesn't make sense.

It's human nature. If you don't think this is sensible, please explain why
Marcel Snr. believed he had brought home debris from a "flying saucer". Was he
qualified to make this determination? Had all other possibilities been
eliminated?

> > As far as the "cover up" story goes, if Brazel had really been pressured
> > to change his story, how do we explain his comment that, "Considerable
> > Scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed on it had been used in
> > the construction"?
> >
> > This is quite distinctive detail, only a couple of days after the story
> > broke. As you will appreciate, Charles Moore has confirmed such
> > materials were in fact used in the Mogul balloon's construction.
>

>Uh, this was said AFTER Brazel was detained by the military.

>After being released from detention, he rescinded all his earlier claims and
>then introduced the above claims that were OBVIOUSLY meant to pattern after
>Mogul.

If that were the case, there should be no mention by Brazel, before he was
detained, of Scotch tape or tape with flowers printed on it. There should be no
other witnesses who could corroborate this false detail.

Agreed?

"..."he said there was more stuff there, like a tape that had some sort of
figures on it..."

"...there was also something he described as tape which had printing on
it...the color of the printing was a kind of purple..."

"...he said it wasn't Japanese writing; from the way he described it, it
sounded like it resembled hieroglyphics..."

Loretta Proctor.

When was this reportedly said by Brazel, after his detention, or after he had
just found the wreckage and shown some of it to his neighbour?

"...it had some writing that looked like flowers on just one side..."

"..it had pink petals, centered like a flower and green mixed in, but you
couldn't make no leaves out of it, or nothing like that, but it was green in
between these flowers on that one side of this piece of wood..."

Charles Schmid.

"...some of the metal-foil pieces had a sort of tape stuck to them, and when
these were held to the light they showed what looked like pastel flowers or
designs..."

"...sticks, like kite sticks, were attached to some of the pieces with a
whitish tape it was very light in weight, but there sure was a lot of it..."

"...even though the stuff looked like tape, it would not be peeled off or
removed at all..."

"...the tape was about two or three inches wide and had flower-like designs on
it..."

"...the 'flowers' were faint, a variety of pastel colors, and reminded me of
Japanese paintings in which the flowers are not all connected..."

Bessie Brazel Schreiber.

Were Schmid and Brazel's daughter also detained by the military and forced to
falsify these details, or is this corroborate testimony?

If, as appears to be the case, Brazel's earliest description of the debris was
consistent with the subsequent quote that, "Considerable Scotch tape and some
tape with flowers printed on it had been used in the construction", this seems
to negate the claim that Brazel was forced to change his story.

If he didn't change his story, please tell me what type of technologically
advanced, non-terrestrial craft, uses Scotch tape in it's construction?

[James Easton]

Cam Bailey wrote:

>I remember reading or seeing on TV something about Brazel showing up
>shortly after his detention with a new truck, and more money than a
>poor rancher was likely to have.

Cam,

This claim is made in the video, "UFO Secret: The Roswell Crash" and
possibly has been repeated elsewhere.

It's implied that after Mac Brazel returned from his "detainment", he
came back with a new pick-up truck and as this was something he couldn't
possibly have been able to afford, it was given to him for his
"cooperation".

In Berlitz and Moore's early work, "The Roswell Incident", Brazel's son,
Bill, notes:

"I believe his original intention was to go to Roswell and buy a new
Jeep pickup truck - he certainly wouldn't have made that trip just on
account of the stuff he had found...it was about trading his pickup that
he went".

Somehow this very important point seems to have been overlooked in more
recent accounts.

[Unknown]

==========James Easton, 9/9/96==========

rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote:

Dave,

Maybe, maybe not.

James.

===========Bob Tarantino, 9/11/96==============

I fail to see how "the only alternative" is that it was a Mogul balloon when
over four dozen people have now testified, many on video tape which I have
seen, clearly stating that the material was as Jessy Marcel stated "not from
this world". In each instance recalling the same scenario in which metal
could be folded and then unfold itself. As Frankie Rowe has said the metal
looked like tin foil "but you could wad it up in a ball so small you could
hardly see it, and then drop it and it would spread out all over the table" .

None of this remotely sounds like anything you have described. Why would the
U.S. Army issue a statement to the press stating that "a flying disk has been
recovered near Roswell Air Field... and is being sent to Wright Air Field in
Ohio for further study"? The intelligence officer of the world's most secret
base along with another intelligence officer could not recognize a balloon?
Are you serious?

Do you think that when upon learning that he was dying of cancer, Jessy Marcel
had an ulterior motive for stating "we didn't know what it was" and "I was
familiar with all types of materials used at that time...it was not from this
world".

No Mojul balloon was ever lost according to the launch record which was
recovered! And quite conveniently, all records of the Roswell case were
destroyed as I've heard in a fire. This case stinks of cover-up from top to
bottom. Anyone reading the previous post should disregard it as total
pseudo-scientifically loaded skeptical denial of now well documented fact.

-bob

[rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu]

James Easton <10062...@compuserve.com> wrote:

>Brian Zeiler wrote:
>
>>I don't follow. You're suggesting that because people were already aware of
>>"flying saucers", therefore that casts doubt on the integrity of their
>>analysis of the debris and made them "eager" to think it was something besides
>>a balloon?

>> That doesn't make sense.

>It's human nature. If you don't think this is sensible, please explain why
>Marcel Snr. believed he had brought home debris from a "flying saucer". Was he
>qualified to make this determination? Had all other possibilities been
>eliminated?

What other possibilities were there? He said he considered whether it was some
sort of conventional craft like a rocket or airplane, but the material didn't
resemble anything conventional. [Marcel was the air crash investigator.] If it
was the crash of some top-secret project, nobody seemed to be out looking for
it. And the debris was strewn in a long narrow path which was thickest in the
northeast and flared out somewhat and thinned to the southwest, consistent with
an object traveling at high speed that had exploded in the air. [Brazel said he
had heard a loud explosion a few nights before.]

Marcel was certainly aware of the flying saucer reports, but according to him he
went to Brazel's place because he and Col. Blanchard "determined that a downed
aircraft of some unusual sort might be involved." [Berlitz & Moore, "The
Roswell Incident"]. It was the fact that the debris had physical properties
unlike any he had seen before that made him think the crash was from a flying
saucer.

>> > As far as the "cover up" story goes, if Brazel had really been pressured
>> > to change his story, how do we explain his comment that, "Considerable
>> > Scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed on it had been used in
>> > the construction"?

>>Uh, this was said AFTER Brazel was detained by the military.

>>After being released from detention, he rescinded all his earlier claims and
>>then introduced the above claims that were OBVIOUSLY meant to pattern after
>>Mogul.

>If that were the case, there should be no mention by Brazel, before he was
>detained, of Scotch tape or tape with flowers printed on it. There should be no
>other witnesses who could corroborate this false detail.

>Agreed?

Note however, that the following witnesses never describe "Scotch tape" and only
Bessie Brazel Schreiber mentions anything about tape with purple flowers on it.

>"..."he said there was more stuff there, like a tape that had some sort of
>figures on it..."

>"...there was also something he described as tape which had printing on
>it...the color of the printing was a kind of purple..."

>"...he said it wasn't Japanese writing; from the way he described it, it
>sounded like it resembled hieroglyphics..."

>Loretta Proctor.

Note that Loretta Proctor said the tape had "figures" on it or something
resembling hieroglyphics. Bill Brazel said his father typically used "figures"
to refer to local Indian petroglyphic writing.

Here's what her husband Floyd Proctor said:

"He described the stuff as being very odd. He said whatever the junk was, it
had designs on it that reminded him of Chinese and Japanese designs. It wasn't
paper because **he couldn't cut it with his knife,** and the metal was different
from anything he had ever seen. He said the designes looked like the kind of
stuff you would find on firecracker wrappers ... some sort of figures all done
up in pastels, but not writing like we would do it."

Does anybody see any mention of anything resembling Scotch tape here or tape
with purples flowers? And what sort of tape did they use on Mogul that couldn't
be cut with a knife?

Here's what Brazel's sister Elaine Ferguson said:

"Mac was extremely reluctant to talk about it ... Whatever he found it was all
in pieces and some of it had some kind of unusual writing on it -- Mac said it
was like the kind of stuff you find all over Japanese and Chinese firecrackers;
not really writing, just wiggles and such."

Where are the flowers?

>When was this reportedly said by Brazel, after his detention, or after he had
>just found the wreckage and shown some of it to his neighbour?

The point is he never mentioned anything like Scotch tape, which is easily
recognizable and easily cut with a knife. And he never mentioned anything like
flower patterns in private.

>"...it had some writing that looked like flowers on just one side..."

>"..it had pink petals, centered like a flower and green mixed in, but you
>couldn't make no leaves out of it, or nothing like that, but it was green in
>between these flowers on that one side of this piece of wood..."

>Charles Schmid.

Nice quoting out of context James. Schmid was speaking about a "stick" or beam
that he found, not tape. Other witnesses such as Jesse Marcel Jr. said the
symbols on the stick were a part of the stick, not from tape stuck on the stick.

>"...some of the metal-foil pieces had a sort of tape stuck to them, and when
>these were held to the light they showed what looked like pastel flowers or
>designs..."

>"...sticks, like kite sticks, were attached to some of the pieces with a
>whitish tape it was very light in weight, but there sure was a lot of it..."

>"...even though the stuff looked like tape, it would not be peeled off or
>removed at all..."

>"...the tape was about two or three inches wide and had flower-like designs on
>it..."

>"...the 'flowers' were faint, a variety of pastel colors, and reminded me of
>Japanese paintings in which the flowers are not all connected..."

>Bessie Brazel Schreiber.

This is really the only independent mention of tape with flower-like patterns
and possibly the only direct tie-in between the crash and Mogul. But there are
problems. Schreiber can't be definitely placed out at the ranch. Loretta
Proctor, e.g., said the Mac Brazel lived alone and his children lived in
Tulerosa with their mother. Jesse Marcel stayed the night of July 6/7 at
Brazel's "shack" and said that Brazel lived alone and that his family was in
Tulerosa. Marcel spent the next day at the debris field. But then we have
Schreiber saying "Within a day or two [after her father went to report the crash
in Roswell, July 6], several military people came to the ranch. There may have
been as many as 15 of them. One or two officers spoke with dad and mom, while
the rest waited." So was Schreiber at the ranch when she said she was or wasn't
she?

>Were Schmid and Brazel's daughter also detained by the military and forced to
>falsify these details, or is this corroborate testimony?

Schmid, I believe, claims he was part of the cleanup crew, in which case he was
already part of the military. And Schreiber doesn't seem to have been there
when she said she was. It's possible that what she is recalling is the recovery
of another Mogul balloon that crashed 30 miles west of Roswell on July 7 not far
from the Brazel ranch, and which she and her family may have been taken to. AP
reporter Jason Kellahin, e.g., claims he was at a balloon crash site on July 8
"right off the highway" and saw Brazel and his family there. But Brazel's
ranch was about 30 or 40 miles from any highway and accessible only by dirt
roads. A trip there from Roswell reportedly took a minimum of 3 to 4 hours even
though the distance was only 75 miles. Kellahin had been dispatched to Roswell
from Alburquerque at around 1:30 p.m. on July 8, a distance of 200 miles. He
wouldn't have had time to drive to Roswell and take a side-trip to Brazel's
ranch and then interview Brazel in Roswell later that evening. So if Kellahin
did see balloon debris, it must have been "right off the main highway," just
like he said, but not at the Brazel ranch.

>If, as appears to be the case, Brazel's earliest description of the debris was
>consistent with the subsequent quote that, "Considerable Scotch tape and some
>tape with flowers printed on it had been used in the construction", this seems
>to negate the claim that Brazel was forced to change his story.

>If he didn't change his story, please tell me what type of technologically
>advanced, non-terrestrial craft, uses Scotch tape in it's construction?

Except for Brazel's coerced press statement, there is no mention by anyone of
finding Scotch tape. Please point out the particular quote where anyone
mentions it. This is a true strawman argument on James Easton's part. For
shame!

And what sort of advanced, terrestrial craft would use metal foils and
balsa-wood like material of "extreme structural stability?" But that's what
Gen. George Schulgen wrote flying saucers were constructed of in his
intelligence memo 3-1/2 months later. Funny how people like Marcel, Schmid
Loretta Proctor, Mac Brazel and Bill Brazel mentioned crash debris just like
that.

[Inger Eriksson]

taranr <> wrote:
>
>

>
> ===========Bob Tarantino 9/10/96===========
>
> I have not read the whole book yet, but one of the claims Stanton Freidman
> makes in addition to Donald Menzels' education including engineering and a
> knowledge of Japanese (which would be useful in understanding an alien
> language like the one described by dozens of witnesses to the Roswell crash
> debris), which is strange for an astronomer, would be that he had top secret
> security clearance and that in a hearing in Washington to take this clearance
> away, Dr. Vannevar Bush spoke on his behalf. I agree that this is strange but
> is it conclusive? Can we say his debunking tactics were contrived in a
> campaign to mislead the public without being accurately accused of paranoia?
> I have to admit if this is true, it sounds fishy to me.
>
> -bob

According to Friedman the people at the hearing didn´t know about Dr.
Donald Menzel´s top secret security clearance. They only knew about
his much lower Air Force´s secret clearance. He of course could have
saved himself all that hearing- trouble if he had mention his classified work
within the NSA and the CIA. But he didn´t and that together with Bush´s -
glowing review of his discretion with regard to classified
material shows that Menzel indeed was the right person to initiate in
all kinds of secret "black" programs.

No, we don´t have to say that Menzel´s anti-UFO books were disinformation.
We shouldn´t say that, because we can´t prove it. However, we have the
right to speculate.

The sceptics who read Friedman of course say: "How
typical that the UFO-believers in their imagination convict the most
famous UFO-debunker to a Guardian of the Ultimate Secret. This is just
the ufologists´revenge against Donald Menzel." But these sort of statements
are not fair. It´s not Menzel´s behaviour in itself that leads to this
disinformation-theory; a couple of years ago nobody would have said
anything like that; it´s all the new facts about the man that Friedman
found at the old archives. That Menzel did classified work for the CIA
and NSA is not enough to suspect he was a disinformator. But we know
from the document released through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act)
that the intelligence agencies, at least in the 1950s-60s, were very
interested in and also worried about the UFO-phenomenon. In one of these
documents the NSA discussed "UFO-hypothetis and survival questions". The
organization said: "A continuing high percentage of reports of unusual
aerial objects are being reported by people in responsible position in
science, government and industry. The sum of such evidence seems to
argue strongly against all UFOs being hallucinations. The fact that
UFO phenomenon have been witnessed all over the world from ancient
times... indicates rather strongly that UFOs are not all hoaxes."
(UFO-Magazine March/April 1996, read also "Clear intent")

The question
is: Wouldn´t Donald Menzel as NSA and CIA-consultant with Top Secret
security clearance have known about these UFO-documents and the fact
that the intelligence-agencies took the subject very seriously?
Menzel said in a letter to John Kennedy that he probably knew more
about what had been going on in the NSA than anybody else within it.
When we know this it´s a bit hard to believe that Menzel´s sneer at
the whole UFO-subject was his true opinion. Especially when we also
know that one of the organizations that he served, the CIA, after the
Robertson-Panel 1953 started their "UFO-debunking" program. Menzel´s
first debunking-book came out in 1953. A coincidence?

According to Menzel´s notebook listing his travel expenditures he made
frequent trips to New Mexico in the 1947-1948 on "Government business".
In the summer 1947, at the time the Roswell-incident occured, he left
his job in a hurry for a "highly classified matter".
He was a close friend of Vannevar Bush and Robert Oppenheimer, both
mentioned by sarbacher as being involved in a secret UFO-program. And
as noted above Bush often stressed Menzel´s total discretion.

Menzel was in the code-breaking team during the war and he was well
aware of disinformation as a standard technique used by Governments.
He knew that false information had to be put out in order to protect
important secrets.

#IF# there was (and still is) a UFO cover-up, then Dr. Menzel logically
would have been the first man that Bush initiated in the project.

But still: I agree that the Menzel- story looks like an episode of the
"X-files" or something like that. Here we have a man who is involved
in the flying saucer-conspiracy, he knows that a disc crashed in Roswell
and he has seen the alien-bodies. And at the same time he is playing
the roll of a total skeptic to mislead the public and keep other
scientists away from this secret. Are we to believe this?

Stanton Friedman asked that question to a Harvard professor who had known
Menzel very well for a couple of decades. The professor answered: He (Menzel)
would have loved it. He would have been in on the biggest story of the
century and he could show how smart he was by pulling the wool over
everybody´s eyes!"
And as Friedman also pointed out, extraordinary double-lives are well-
known in the history of the 20th century. For example, we have the three
Soviet spies, Burgess, Maclean and Philby who was etablished in the British
intelligence Service. They fooled their family,
friends and associates for moore than 15 years. And yet they were in a
much moore dangerous situation than Donald Menzel.

All the "old timers" such as World War generals and intelligence people
that Friedman talked to said: yes, secrets can be kept and there is
a lot of "dark projects" that the public propably never will know
anything about. They also agreed that people with high-level clearance of
course never tell their friends or families about what they are doing.
Menzel always kept his secret and his public life separated.

Friedman is almost convinced that Menzel´s anti-UFO books were disinformation.
He writes: "Menzel often claimed sightings were mirages or sun-dogs. Mc.Donald
, whose specialty was atmospheric physics, clearly demonstrated that
such explanations did´nt stand up to quantitive analysis of those well-
known phenomena (As you all probably have seen Brian Zeiler has also
posted Mc.Donald´s criticism of Menzel´s theories. My remark.). When you carefully examine the
data used by Menzel to justify certain conclusions about specific UFO-
cases, you find that it doesn´t stand up. And Menzel was too smart not
to know he was putting out nonsense." (TOP SECRET MAJIC by Stanton Friedman
page 33)

Even if Menzel´s statements were criticized by many people, his debunking
books nevertheless influenced many scientists all over the world and kept
them away from the subject of UFOs.

Look at the discovered facts about him and decide four yourself which
theory that seems most plausible. "Real" sceptic or disinformator? The
only thing we can say at this time is that Menzel indeed had the right
kind of knowledge, contacts and security clearance to be a member of
a high-level UFO-group. Friedman and others are continuing their works.
Maybe some day information turns up that finaly shows who Menze really was and
what sort of work he really did for the NSA and CIA. Until then we can
just speculate and guess.

Håkan Eriksson

[James Easton]

David Rudiak wrote:

>James Easton wrote to Brian Zeiler:

>>It's human nature. If you don't think this is sensible, please explain why
>>Marcel Snr. believed he had brought home debris from a "flying saucer". Was he
>>qualified to make this determination? Had all other possibilities been
>>eliminated?
>What other possibilities were there?
>He said he considered whether it was some sort of conventional craft like a rocket
>or airplane, but the material didn't resemble anything conventional.

Dave,

It may have been unconventional, but New Mexico was the location for a number of
classified projects. He had absolutely no way of knowing that the debris wasn't
from one of them.

>If it was the crash of some top-secret project, nobody seemed to be out looking
>for it.

Again, he couldn't possibly have known that a search wasn't taking place or had
taken place and was abandoned.

If you remove the "flying disc" hysteria in the US at that time, would Marcel Snr
have assumed the debris had to be from outer space?

>[Brazel said he had heard a loud explosion a few nights before.]

This is subjective at best. Isn't it the case that Brazel reportedly said he
thought he had heard a particularly loud "explosion" in the midst of a violent
thunderstorm?

> Note however, that the following witnesses never describe "Scotch tape" and only
> Bessie Brazel Schreiber mentions anything about tape with purple flowers on it.

Only?

How many times has only one witness's testimony been championed as positive
evidence?

Mac Brazel's daughter describes "a sort of tape" which, "when held to the
light...showed what looked like pastel flowers or designs", tape which was, "about
two or three inches wide and had flower-like designs on it". We now know that this
is consistent with the tape used in the construction of Mogul balloons.

The question's pretty straightforward; If this wasn't from a Mogul balloon, why
does it match that distinctive detail?

>"He said whatever the junk was, it had designs on it that reminded him of Chinese
>and Japanese designs. It wasn't paper because **he couldn't cut it with his

>knife,** ...".

>And what sort of tape did they use on Mogul that couldn't be cut with a knife?

There's no mention here of trying to cut any tape. <g>

>Here's what Brazel's sister Elaine Ferguson said:
>
>"Mac was extremely reluctant to talk about it ... Whatever he found it was all
>in pieces and some of it had some kind of unusual writing on it -- Mac said it
>was like the kind of stuff you find all over Japanese and Chinese firecrackers;
>not really writing, just wiggles and such."
>
>Where are the flowers?

Is it really so implausible that what Charles Moore describes as, "a stylized,
flower-like design", wouldn't explain this?

> Nice quoting out of context James. Schmid was speaking about a "stick" or beam
> that he found, not tape.

So, we have another witness who confirms that there was "...some writing that
looked like flowers on just one side...". If this relates to the debris, it's far
from being out of context.

>Other witnesses such as Jesse Marcel Jr. said the symbols on the stick were a part
>of the stick, not from tape stuck on the stick.

Jesse was an 11 year-old boy who had been woken up to be told that his father had
found pieces from a flying saucer. His recollections are welcome, but they're open
to question and seemingly not very consistent.

He has on a number of occasions described the "hieroglyphics" as being embossed,
but in last year's UK Channel 4 "Incident at Roswell" documentary, he appeared to
have changed his mind. Asked for his comments on the I-beams in the Ray Santilli
"debris" footage, he said the embossed symbols in that footage are different
because, "the ones I saw were not raised above the level of the beam".

Dennis Murphy, a fellow contibutor to the CompuServe MUFON forum, recently spoke to
Miller Johnson, who designed a "replica" I-beam with Marcel Jnr.

Dennis comments that, "I asked Miller Johnson if Jesse Marcel Jr. knew whether or
not the symbols were embossed into the I-beam. He stated that Jesse was not sure
if they were or not. The subject had come up though".

>>Bessie Brazel Schreiber.
>This is really the only independent mention of tape with flower-like patterns
>and possibly the only direct tie-in between the crash and Mogul.

But we have a number of descriptions of tape, sticks, material that looked like
wood, etc. and which featured pink/purple/violet markings. Bessie Schreiber's
description is hardly dissimilar.

Interesting detail re the possibility of another Mogul crash, thanks.

>It's possible that what she is recalling is the recovery of another Mogul balloon
>that crashed 30 miles west of Roswell on July 7 not far from the Brazel ranch, and
>which she and her family may have been taken to.

Let's assume that was the case. Bessie comments:

"...the foil-rubber material could not be torn like ordinary aluminium foil can
be torn...".

"...even though the stuff looked like tape, it would not be peeled off or removed
at all..."

I thought these were "strange" properties that Mogul debris wasn't supposed to
have?

The premise that it was a different type of debris clearly doesn't fit anyway.
Using you own excellent summary of the various descriptions, Bessie describes:

"...sticks, like kite sticks..."
"...a sort of aluminium-like foil..."
"...the pieces were small..."
"...it was very light in weight, but there sure was a lot of it..."
"...some of these pieces had something like numbers and lettering on them, but
there were no words we were able to make out..."

All of these features are present in other witness's descriptions.

For example, the "sort of aluminium-like foil":

"...something on the order of tinfoil..."
William Brazel Jr.

"...most of the debris consisted of metal foil..."
"...the material was foil-like stuff, very thin, metallic-like but not metal..."
"...it was kind of like a dull aluminium on each surface..."
Jesse Marcel Jr.

"...very much like lead foil in appearance..."
"...extremely light in weight..."
Walt Whitmore Jr.

"...there was some material that looked just like tinfoil..."
Charles Schmid.

"...about the thickness of aluminium foil..."
Frankie Dwyer Rowe.

"...foil, and because it didn't reflect the sun, it was hard to see..."
"...dull, like the back side of aluminium..."
M. Sgt. Lewis (Bill) Ricket.

"...the metal fragments varied in size up to six inches in length, but were the
thickness of tinfoil..."
"...it's so thin, it isn't any thicker than the tinfoil in a pack of cigarettes..."
Major Jesse Marcel

"...it was something like aluminium foil..."
Sally Strickland Tadolini.

It's easy to do exactly the same with other characteristics which Bessie recalls.
Consequently, it does seem to be the same type of debris.

>Except for Brazel's coerced press statement, there is no mention by anyone of
>finding Scotch tape. Please point out the particular quote where anyone
>mentions it. This is a true strawman argument on James Easton's part. For
>shame!

Not guilty!

Scotch tape or not, there's enough evidence which clearly indicates the debris was
almost certainly from a Mogul balloon.

Bottom line...

- Do you still disagree that Bessie Schrieber's recollections are consistent with
others?

- If not, and she clearly described tape with flowers, isn't it almost certainly
from Mogul balloon debris?

I haven't seen the Schulgen memo for a while and I'll have a look for the copy I
have. Schulgen's remarks do seem to be connected in some way with the Roswell case.

One final comment on a significant, and possibly not generally appreciated, point.

As you're likely to know, the photograph of Marcel Snr. holding the piece of "foil"
debris, is a shot of the actual debris which Marcel took to Carswell, Fort Worth.
In "The Roswell Incident", Marcel confirms that, "The stuff in that one photo was
pieces of the actual stuff we had found. It was not a staged photo".

It was subsequent to this, while the debris was apparently on its way to Wright
Field, that Marcel claims the weather balloon wreckage was produced for more
photographs to be taken, "just to get the press off our backs".

It doesn't really sound like a sinister cover-up.

[Brian Zeiler]

Inger Eriksson wrote:

> The question
> is: Wouldn´t Donald Menzel as NSA and CIA-consultant with Top Secret
> security clearance have known about these UFO-documents and the fact
> that the intelligence-agencies took the subject very seriously?
> Menzel said in a letter to John Kennedy that he probably knew more
> about what had been going on in the NSA than anybody else within it.
> When we know this it´s a bit hard to believe that Menzel´s sneer at
> the whole UFO-subject was his true opinion. Especially when we also
> know that one of the organizations that he served, the CIA, after the
> Robertson-Panel 1953 started their "UFO-debunking" program. Menzel´s
> first debunking-book came out in 1953. A coincidence?

Excellent post. The above paragraph sums it up nicely. And let's not
forget that Menzel actually served on the Robertson Panel with its
"debunking aim". I think the Robertson Panel was a big cover that only
two or three members knew about; the rest, like Hynek, were left in the
dark. The purpose was to create an excuse to saturate the media with
anti-UFO propaganda, since they can't do it as easily if their recorded
reasons are "because UFOs are real". So they have to concoct an excuse
whereby they conclude UFOs don't exist but are still somehow worthy of
media propaganda. And Menzel, like you said, sure did know better than
to promote his pseudoscientific explanations. That's why he was never
known to have defended them against McDonald.

--
Brian Zeiler

[rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu]

Inger Eriksson <inger.e...@mbox200.swipnet.se> wrote:

>The question
>is: Wouldn´t Donald Menzel as NSA and CIA-consultant with Top Secret
>security clearance have known about these UFO-documents and the fact
>that the intelligence-agencies took the subject very seriously?
>Menzel said in a letter to John Kennedy that he probably knew more
>about what had been going on in the NSA than anybody else within it.
>When we know this it´s a bit hard to believe that Menzel´s sneer at
>the whole UFO-subject was his true opinion. Especially when we also
>know that one of the organizations that he served, the CIA, after the
>Robertson-Panel 1953 started their "UFO-debunking" program. Menzel´s
>first debunking-book came out in 1953. A coincidence?

Excellent post!

According to Timothy Good in "Above Top Secret," p. 278, in a letter dated Oct.
16, 1953 to Maj. Gen. Samford, A.F. Director of Intelligence and later the
Director of NSA from 1956-1960, Menzel wrote, "I am planning to be in Washington
on government business ... October 22 and 23 [1953] . . .From various reports I
judge that some of my explanations of flying suacers have been misinterpreted or
misunderstood . . . I should be delighted to meet with as many members of ATIC
[Air Technical Intelligence Center, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio] as find
it convenient to come."

This should also be put in context of other events that occurred immediately
prior oe following the Jan. 1953 Robertson Panel of which Menzel was a member.
First, on Jan. 3, 1953, he 4602d Air Intelligence Squadron (AISS) was created by
Air Defense Command regulation 24-4, less than 2 weeks before the Robertson
Panel convened. In August (see below) they became the primary (but publicly
secret) UFO investigating group.

On August 12, 1953, Gen. Nathan Twining, now A.F. Chief of Staff signed A.F.
Regulation 200-2, which concludes under the heading "Release of Facts": "...It
is permissible to inform news media representatives ... when the object is
positively identified as a familiar object. For those objects which are not
explainable, only the fact that ATIC will analyze the data is worthy of release
due to the many unknowns involved." [ Howard Blum, "Out There"]

In addition, AFR 200-2 ordered that "A.F. activities must reduce the percentage
of unidentifieds to the minimum." This was to be accomplished by classifying
nearly everything as conventional objects despite any evidence to the
contrary. Public reportings of all A.F. UFO sightings were also forbidden.
A.F. personnel could be imprisoned for up to 10 years and fined $10,000 for
unauthorized release of UFO information to the public. On March 10, 1954,
JANAP 146, applied these same restrictions to civilian pilots.

Soon after AFR 200-2, Cpt. Edward J. Ruppelt departed Project Blue Book. Under
Blue Book, unidentifieds constituted 27% of reported Blue Book cases, as Ruppelt
himself told the Robertson Panel. But immediately following his departure, Blue
Book suddenly announced that the number of unidentifieds had suddenly dropped to
only 3%. The new Blue Book personnel were obviously just following orders and
carrying out the directive that "A.F. activities must reduce the percentage of
unidentifieds to the minimum." Menzel's meeting on Oct. 23 to seemingly brief
ATIC on some of his debunkery arguments may have played a part in this.

Finally, on Aug. 24, 1953 AFR 200-2 also set up the 4602d at Fort Belvoir,
Virginia as the primary UFO investigative group. All UFO reports within the
U.S. were now to be sent to the 4602d, which determined whether they were to be
forwarded to Project Blue Book, essentially stripping Blue Book of any serious
UFO investigative function, all the "hot cases" [as Alan Hynek later referred to
them] being intercepted by the AISS and kept away from public scrutiny. Blue
Book remained as a public relations device issuing public debunkery reports and
public proclamations that there was only a 3% residual of unexplained cases due
to better evaluation methods [read Menzelian methods].

Ruppelt briefly commented on the events swirling around him at this point in
time. ["Report on Unidentified Flying Objects"] He'd been trying to leave Blue
Book since December, 1952. And even though he'd been told by the Robertson
Panel to beef up Blue Book, he'd been stripped down to only one man. Ruppelt
managed to set up a liaison with the 4602d to conduct the field investigations.
If THEY decided it was an unknown, then Blue Book was to investigate. Under the
circumstances, Ruppelt said he welcomed the help.

The 4602d later became the 1127th USAF Activities Group in April 1963,
identified as Project UFO in Nov. 1963 in conjunction with Proj. MOON DUST
(foreign space object crash retrieval) and Proj. BLUE FLY (military logistic
support). Those interested can read more about the 4602d, Moon Dust, and Blue
Fly in "The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell" by Kevin Randle and Donald
Schmitt.

[Martin]

Finally, someone discusses the Roswell case in terms of the history of
materials science!

Incidentally, I asked Vallee for more data on aluminized saran, but have
received no reply. I've not tracked down any reference to this material
outside Vallee's book.

Your nitinol suggestion makes sense. I had heard of this material, but
never knew that its history could be traced back so far.

Could you help me out by giving me some further references for your
comments, particularly those concerning nitinol? I'm writing a book
which includes a chapter on the Roswell imbroglio. I tend to think that
Mogul is not the real culprit, although I strongly doubt that anything
extraterrestrial was involved.

Many thanks for your excellent post!

-- Martin Cannon

[James Easton]

Martin wrote:

>Your nitinol suggestion makes sense. I had heard of this material, but
>never knew that its history could be traced back so far.

Martin,

It's an aspect perhaps worth considering. The Mogul balloon explanation
fits a lot of the data, but there's still some things which don't quite
gel. Sampling foils backed up onto nitinol could possibly explain some of
the reported debris characteristics.

I didn't realise it had apparently been around for so long either, but it
seems that nitinol was used in instrumentation as far back as 1945.

> Could you help me out by giving me some further references for your
> comments, particularly those concerning nitinol?

I have an excellent source for this and it's being checked out, but it will
take 3-4 weeks before I (hopefully) have all the relevant details.

I'll certainly pass on the findings.

[rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu]

James Easton <10062...@compuserve.com> wrote:

>Martin wrote:

>>Your nitinol suggestion makes sense. I had heard of this material, but
>>never knew that its history could be traced back so far.

>Martin,

>It's an aspect perhaps worth considering. The Mogul balloon explanation
>fits a lot of the data, but there's still some things which don't quite
>gel. Sampling foils backed up onto nitinol could possibly explain some of
>the reported debris characteristics.

If James Easton is going to cling to the Mogul balloon explanation, then he is
going to have to demonstrate that nitinol and "sampling foils" were being used
on the balloons. He is going to spend a very long time doing this, because I've
been through the hundreds of pages of Mogul technical reports and schematics of
the equipment (in the 1995 USAF Roswell report) and there is simply nothing like
this in the June/early July 1947 Mogul balloons. There is also no indication of
it being on the later Moguls either.

The facts are that Mogul was an attempt to detect Soviet nuclear blasts by
listening for the noise that might be carried in the stratosphere. They were
not intended to sample for radioactive fallout, this being left for airplanes
sampling the air near the Soviet border. (In fact, this is exactly how the first
Soviet blast was detected in 1949, although it is claimed that one of the later
Moguls also detected it.)

The only foil described by the Mogul technical reports is aluminum foil on the
radar reflectors. This was sometimes backed with paper, not some imaginary,
very tough, very expensive, and totally unnecessary "nitinol foil."

The radar reflectors were made of hinged triangles that were stacked for
transport. They were unfolded at GROUND LEVEL during launch using nothing more
than that exotic force GRAVITY. It would have been rather pointless to use
something like nitinol to unfold them at higher altitudes since the radar
reflectors were there for tracking from the moment of launch.

>I didn't realise it had apparently been around for so long either, but it
>seems that nitinol was used in instrumentation as far back as 1945.

>> Could you help me out by giving me some further references for your
>> comments, particularly those concerning nitinol?

>I have an excellent source for this and it's being checked out, but it will
>take 3-4 weeks before I (hopefully) have all the relevant details.

>I'll certainly pass on the findings.

I am pleased that James Easton is digging into the history of nitinol, a very
worthwhile endeavor for this extremely interesting material, and I look forward
to his findings.

But what does this have to do with Mogul and Roswell?

[rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu]

Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.

[Martin]

>
> I am pleased that James Easton is digging into the history of nitinol, a very
> worthwhile endeavor for this extremely interesting material, and I look forward
> to his findings.
>
> But what does this have to do with Mogul and Roswell?

You are the one who insists on restricting the Roswell controversy to
Mogul. I don't think James Easton does so either.

Hint: Go to a good internet search engine and type in the words "Human
Radiation Experiments." When you get onto the HREX system, start nosing
around for info on atmospheric tests in New Mexico. Also look for
anything having to do with FLYING DRONES, especially circa 1947. And
double-check the Vallee cite. And read up on germ warfare, particularly
the military's staged attack on San Francisco in 1950, which some say
may yet spur legal sanction, even at this late date.

If my speculations eventually prove correct, we will know why the brass
treated the Brazel crash material as "special" (as opposed to the rather
cavalier treatment usually given Mogul balloon retrievals). My
hypothesis would also explain why no-one who touched the material --
including Jesse Marcel -- would ever be apprised of its true orirgin.

In 1947, the Supreme Court had yet to deliver the Feres decision --
which meant that it was still an open question as to whether a military
officer could sue the government for non-combat injuries sutained during
service. Injuries such as exposure to radioactivity or other toxins...?

[rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu]

Martin <mca...@instanet.com> wrote:

>>
>> I am pleased that James Easton is digging into the history of nitinol, a very
>> worthwhile endeavor for this extremely interesting material, and I look forward
>> to his findings.
>>
>> But what does this have to do with Mogul and Roswell?

>You are the one who insists on restricting the Roswell controversy to
>Mogul.

That's what the USAF and most debunkers are doing. I am simply pointing out
that what happened at Roswell is inconsistent in various ways with the crash of
a Mogul balloon.

The USAF says they checked all the other secret projects in N.M., and Mogul is
the ONLY one that could possibly explain the crash. You seem to be saying that
the AF is covering up some other project, not Mogul related. The problems with
such a theory are manyfold. Why was there no search for this highly sensitive
crash material of some unknown project? Instead it just sat out in the desert
for a number of days, before Brazel brought some of it to town. And why do the
descriptions of the material match so closely with the Schulgen memo 3-1/2
months later describing the construction materials of a flying saucer?

> I don't think James Easton does so either.

From everything I've read, James Easton is definitely defending the Mogul
hypothesis. I am merely pointing out that such explanations of the crash
material such as "aluminized mylar" and "nitinol foil" are inconsistent with the
hundreds of pages of Mogul technical reports published by the A.F. in their 1995
Roswell report.

>Hint: Go to a good internet search engine and type in the words "Human
>Radiation Experiments." When you get onto the HREX system, start nosing
>around for info on atmospheric tests in New Mexico. Also look for
>anything having to do with FLYING DRONES, especially circa 1947.

Why don't you make more explicit exactly what your theory is so we have
something concrete to discuss? What are you suggesting? That they were flying
drones carrying atom bombs around N.M. that they left sitting out in the desert
and somehow created tens of acres of wreckage?

> And
>double-check the Vallee cite.

I am very familiar with Vallee's theory in "Revelations" which came out a year
before the official Mogul theory. The only difference is he suggests a
hypothetical balloon made of "silvered Seran" for the strange "foil." It's no
better at explaining the debris descriptions or the Schulgen memo than
"aluminized mylar."

> And read up on germ warfare, particularly
>the military's staged attack on San Francisco in 1950, which some say
>may yet spur legal sanction, even at this late date.

So what was it? Germ warfare or human radiation experiments? And how did the
wreckage get there and why did it have unusual physical properties. Why did
these descriptions later appear in the Schulgen memo on flying saucers? And why
wasn't anybody out looking for this extraordinarily sensitive hypothetical lost
weapon or whatever?

>If my speculations eventually prove correct, we will know why the brass
>treated the Brazel crash material as "special" (as opposed to the rather
>cavalier treatment usually given Mogul balloon retrievals). My
>hypothesis would also explain why no-one who touched the material --
>including Jesse Marcel -- would ever be apprised of its true orirgin.

Jesse Marcel says the first thing he did was check out the debris with a geiger
counter, and there was no radiation. M/Sgt. Lewis Rickett of the CIC in
Marcel's office says he was also told that the material was checked for
radiation and there was none. And nobody who handled the debris seemed to drop
dead from any biological contamination. There is no mention by any of the
military witnesses of any anti-contamination precautions being taken, such as
the wearing of protective suits. Where's your evidence that anything like
radioactive contamination or biological warfare was involved. And how do you
explain the debris?

>In 1947, the Supreme Court had yet to deliver the Feres decision --
>which meant that it was still an open question as to whether a military
>officer could sue the government for non-combat injuries sutained during
>service. Injuries such as exposure to radioactivity or other toxins...?

Your vague theory seems to be that a radioactive or biological accident occurred
which the military is still covering up to protect its reputation and for
liability reasons. The debris (whatever that was supposed to be) was thoroughly
cleaned up as part of a decontamination procedure.

This theory has been trotted out now and then to explain what happened at
Roswell. According to Washington Post columnist Jack Anderson, even the GAO was
considering this idea. But to my knowledge, nobody has ever produced a single
piece of evidence that anything like this actually occurred.

[Martin]

I am posting this message, in part, as a response to a Roswell
researcher named "rudiak" at UC Berkeley. He, in turn, was responding
(displaying politeness unbecoming a ufologist) to my initial stab at an
alternative Roswell thesis. All of this occurred within the confines of
another, unrelated thread. Now's the time to start threading anew...

Most, although not all, of the objections raised to my tentative ideas
are answered in a piece on Roswell I wrote some months ago, heretofore
privately distributed. This piece -- which is still in a fairly rough
stage (and sans footnotes) has now found a home at the following site:

http://www.redshift.com/~wmason/lhreport/report.html#cannon

Let me reiterate: I'm making this piece available even though it is
still in a VERY rough state -- a "beta" version, if you will. I have
already found further documentation which could strengthen the ideas I
am suggesting. Eventually, a "final" version of this thesis will be
published formally.

I invite criticism, although please keep in mind the difference between
a criticism (which will be welcomed, even if harsh) and a mere flame
(which will be ignored). "That which does not destroy me, makes me
stronger," and all that.

I freely admit that this theory is backed by circumstantial evidence,
and relies to some degree -- but not, I hope, an unreasonable degree --
on inference. My intention is simply to get minds considering
alternative possibilities, not to present an engraved-in-stone solution.
And I will happily re-write as needed, based upon comments received.

The primary contribution I hope to make to the debate concerns a
troubling matter I call "The Problem of Marcel's Ignorance." After
reading my outline of this problem, some readers will, hopefully, be
good enough to share their ideas as to how it might be resolved. I know
that Kevin Randall has pondered this problem in private, but has always
preferred to keep mum about it in print. Showtime's "Roswell" film, and
at least one major documentary on the topic, have elided this problem by
playing unfair games with the chronology.

Hope my preliminary version of this article does not ruffle too many
feathers...

[Unknown]

>
> I am pleased that James Easton is digging into the history of nitinol, a
very
> worthwhile endeavor for this extremely interesting material, and I look
forward
> to his findings.
>
> But what does this have to do with Mogul and Roswell?

Martin wrote:

You are the one who insists on restricting the Roswell controversy to

Mogul. I don't think James Easton does so either.

Hint: Go to a good internet search engine and type in the words "Human
Radiation Experiments." When you get onto the HREX system, start nosing
around for info on atmospheric tests in New Mexico. Also look for

anything having to do with FLYING DRONES, especially circa 1947. And
double-check the Vallee cite. And read up on germ warfare, particularly

the military's staged attack on San Francisco in 1950, which some say
may yet spur legal sanction, even at this late date.

If my speculations eventually prove correct, we will know why the brass

treated the Brazel crash material as "special" (as opposed to the rather
cavalier treatment usually given Mogul balloon retrievals). My
hypothesis would also explain why no-one who touched the material --
including Jesse Marcel -- would ever be apprised of its true orirgin.

In 1947, the Supreme Court had yet to deliver the Feres decision --

which meant that it was still an open question as to whether a military
officer could sue the government for non-combat injuries sutained during
service. Injuries such as exposure to radioactivity or other toxins...?

==============Bob Tarantino, 9/26/96==============

Why would Blanchard tell Haut to release to the press "flying disk recovered
from ranch" if it was whatever you say it is?

-bob

[rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu]

Martin <mca...@instanet.com> wrote:

>I am posting this message, in part, as a response to a Roswell
>researcher named "rudiak" at UC Berkeley. He, in turn, was responding
>(displaying politeness unbecoming a ufologist) to my initial stab at an
>alternative Roswell thesis. All of this occurred within the confines of
>another, unrelated thread. Now's the time to start threading anew...

>Most, although not all, of the objections raised to my tentative ideas
>are answered in a piece on Roswell I wrote some months ago, heretofore
>privately distributed. This piece -- which is still in a fairly rough
>stage (and sans footnotes) has now found a home at the following site:

>http://www.redshift.com/~wmason/lhreport/report.html#cannon

It would be better if you posted it here to stimulate discussion. It's not that
long.

>Let me reiterate: I'm making this piece available even though it is
>still in a VERY rough state -- a "beta" version, if you will. I have
>already found further documentation which could strengthen the ideas I
>am suggesting. Eventually, a "final" version of this thesis will be
>published formally.

>I invite criticism, although please keep in mind the difference between
>a criticism (which will be welcomed, even if harsh) and a mere flame
>(which will be ignored). "That which does not destroy me, makes me
>stronger," and all that.

To begin with, there are a lot of factual errors and/or highly debatable points
in your Part 1 introduction and discussion of the Roswell case, but there is a
general attempt to lay out the case in a straightforward way, albeit from a
highly skeptical point of view. You have a general tendency to downplay the
anomalous debris descriptions, which have always been the heart of this case.
Many people, military and civilian, reported seeing or handling this stuff, and
their descriptions are very consistent. You have also ignored General
Schulgen's air intelligence memo written just 3-1/2 months later in which he
gives material descriptions for the construction of a flying saucer which are
identical to some of the materials described by the Roswell witnesses (extremely
tough metal foil and balsa-wood like beams).

>I freely admit that this theory is backed by circumstantial evidence,
>and relies to some degree -- but not, I hope, an unreasonable degree --
>on inference. My intention is simply to get minds considering
>alternative possibilities, not to present an engraved-in-stone solution.
>And I will happily re-write as needed, based upon comments received.

Your theory is basically that Roswell was the testing of a "drone" weapon,
perhaps some sort of large balloon or blimp, carrying radioactive materials such
as plutonium for dispersal, or some type of biological, or chemical warfare
weapon. The drone got lost, crashed on Brazel's ranch. and then lay there for
days, before Brazel went to Roswell and reported it. This theory, such as it
is, might explain the very heavy-handed military response to the crash, far too
extreme for a Mogul balloon crash, the very thorough clean-up operation, again
totally unnecessary for a Mogul crash, some people being cut out of the recovery
operation, and a continuing cover-up.

However, there are a number of very obvious major problems with such a theory
besides the obvious lack of documentation of such a project and the complete
absence of even a single witness to such a project.

1. Why was this incredibly sensitive drone/weapon not searched for? There is
no evidence of such a search going on. How did it get "lost" in the first
place? It woudl be extraordinarily easy to track by radar, radio transmitter,
and tag-along planes. This is what they did on Mogul, and you're proposing
something far bigger, perhaps even carrying human guinea pigs. This incredibly
sensitive project sat in the wide-open desert in complete view of any search
planes, yet it took Brazel bringing some of the debris to Roswell to get a
search and recovery operation going? This makes utterly no sense what-so-ever.

2. How do you explain the debris descriptions or the Schulgen memo? Just
saying that it was exotic new material won't do. What was it? Why doesn't it
exist now?

You even drag in Jacques Vallee's "silvered Saran" theory, which makes even less
sense than "aluminized mylar" to explain the strange unfolding foil that
couldn't be cut, burned, or creased. Saran is the same stuff our moms used to
wrap our lunch sandwiches in (Saran wrap). It is sticky and clings to itself
(not exactly a unfolding material), is easy to cut, and burns like hell. Clear
Saran was seriously considered for making the balloons used on Mogul, but
polyethylene won out.

3. Why issue a press release of a recovered flying disc as a cover story? This
is about the worst "cover story" imaginable, as it was guaranteed to attract
nationwide and worldwide attention. A much more mundane cover story probably
would have worked just as well, and garnished very little attention outside of
the immediate area.

>The primary contribution I hope to make to the debate concerns a
>troubling matter I call "The Problem of Marcel's Ignorance." After
>reading my outline of this problem, some readers will, hopefully, be
>good enough to share their ideas as to how it might be resolved. I know
>that Kevin Randall has pondered this problem in private, but has always
>preferred to keep mum about it in print.

Marcel wasn't the only one with ignorance problems if you accept the new
Randle/Schmitt chronology, that the primary saucer recovery occurred much closer
to Roswell, and the day before Mac Brazel sauntered into town with his find.
None of the alleged principals seem to be behaving as they were supposed to had
they been aware of a saucer recovery. Supposedly Sheriff Wilcox was involved,
but he didn't seem to make the connection between the debris Brazel brought and
the saucer he supposedly saw the day before. More importantly base commander
Col. Blanchard, also seemed to take a cavalier attitude to the whole thing
initially. If he was aware of a prior day saucer recover, I would think
Brazel's debris would have triggered an immediate large-scale recovery
operation. Instead, he sends just two men out to assess the situation: Marcel
and Cavitt.

> Showtime's "Roswell" film, and
>at least one major documentary on the topic, have elided this problem by
>playing unfair games with the chronology.

No, Showtime used the old Randle/Schmitt chronology which doesn't have this
problem. Nobody was aware of a crash until Brazel came to town. And Marcel was
cut out of further recovery operations because Blanchard sent him to Fort Worth
with initially covered debris and he remained there for the next day. By the
time he got back the next night, recovery was almost complete and in the hands
of some sort of special team.

>Hope my preliminary version of this article does not ruffle too many
>feathers...

Similar theories of some sort of still unknown secret project keep arising, but
they all suffer from the same defects outlined above. You need more than
speculation to make such a theory work. You need some sort of documentation, or
maybe a credible witness or two or has come forward and discussed knowing of
such a project. None of these things seem to exist.

[James Easton]

Dave Rudiak wrote to Martin Cannon:

>
> From everything I've read, James Easton is definitely defending the Mogul
> hypothesis. I am merely pointing out that such explanations of the crash
> material such as "aluminized mylar" and "nitinol foil" are inconsistent with the
> hundreds of pages of Mogul technical reports published by the A.F. in their 1995
> Roswell report.
>

Dave,

I couldn't begin to defend it if it didn't have some substance and that's really the
question, how much substance does it have?

It seems to explain some of the reported debris characteristics, but I'm well aware
that an ordinary balloon doesn't offer a complete explanation. And if it doesn't,
there must be something else involved. How much significance Nitinol or Mylar may have
had is questionable, but it's worth a close look. The technical reports may not be the
full picture, it was a long time ago.

>I honestly don't know, but you raise a very good point. There are
>other polyethylene polymers that aren't linked with terphthalic acid.
>And mylar lacks the pliability of other plastics that I would think
>would be desirable in a balloon.

>Of course the Air Force claims the Roswell Mogul balloon crash

>occurred in June 1947, and the first polyethylene balloons weren't
>used until July, 1947. So the point seems to be moot in any case.

Which goes back to the same point. I know someone who has technical documentation
relating to balloon flights at that time and it seems that Nitinol is documented in
the specification. There's possibly other materials which were used which would not
have been picked up on in the technical reports the Air Force refer to.

It might be of potential significance, it might not, but it would be helpful to
clarify this aspect and it may be possible to do so shortly.

>It is my understanding that Nitinol wasn't invented until 1962 and
>was available initially only in wire form. It was also quite
>expensive and hardly the material to be used for a modest radar
>reflector whose useful lifetime was measured in hours.

It seems it was definitely in use by 1945 and was used in rocket and balloon flights
during 1946 and 1947. Again, I hope this can all be clarified in detail shortly.

>>Nitinol is a "shape memory alloy", it’s associated characteristics
>>including "pseudoelasticity" or "superelasticity", strain, tensile,
>>compression and bending properties. "Thermoelastic behaviour" was
>>first discussed in 1938.

>It would be helpful if you could supply a reference or two for me to
>look up.

This came from the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. There's
information available from similar sources and some detailed information on Nitinol
can be found at the Shape Memory Applications site:

http://www.sma-inc.com/

I know that some of the historical references come from an old copy of "Review of
Scientific Instrumentation", but there's further information available on contemporary
balloon flights and that's what I'm trying to ascertain.

>>Against a background where "Flying Saucer" stories were still
>>headline news following Kenneth Arnold's recent report, it's easy to
>>see why something perhaps unusual could be perceived as unworldly.

>Ah yes, back to your psychological flying saucer hysteria theory that

>you proposed a year ago.

It's worth a look at the news items from the front pages of the papers the day before
the "flying disk" story broke. There's hardly an article which isn't about "flying
disks".

>>It may not also be common knowledge that Dr Jesse Marcel had already
>>decided he had found the remnants of a "Flying Saucer", before he
>>even reached Roswell AAF with the debris.

>Small point -- Jesse Marcel Sr. was the intelligence officer who

>collected the debris and Dr. Marcel is his son. You obviously mean

>Marcel Sr. thought he had found the remnants of a flying saucer.

Yes, I didn't mean to call him "Doctor". <g>

>As a matter of fact it is common knowledge that Marcel Sr. thought this, since
>Dr. Marcel has consistently told the same story about his father since 1980.

The point here is that Marcel Snr. had apparently made up his mind, he didn't think it
might be wreckage from a "flying saucer", he _knew_ it was:

"So, they brought the debris in, and, as our house happened to be between where they
were coming from and the airbase, so my dad swung by the house to show my mother and
myself what this looked like, and he said "this is a flying saucer, at least portions
of it"

So he actually said that to you?

"Yeah, this was about one or two o'clock in the morning...".

All he should have concluded is that the material was unusual, the leap in faith was
I'm sure due to the "flying saucer" hysteria at that time.

There's some other points you made which I'll get back to you on a.s.a.p.

[rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu]

James Easton <10062...@compuserve.com> wrote:

>Dave Rudiak wrote to Martin Cannon:

>> From everything I've read, James Easton is definitely defending the
>>Mogul hypothesis. I am merely pointing out that such explanations of
>>the crash material such as "aluminized mylar" and "nitinol foil" are
>>inconsistent with the hundreds of pages of Mogul technical reports
>>published by the A.F. in their 1995 Roswell report.

>It seems to explain some of the reported debris characteristics, but

>I'm well aware that an ordinary balloon doesn't offer a complete
>explanation. And if it doesn't, there must be something else involved.

How about it wasn't a balloon -- period? You still seem to be operating
on the assumption that if you can just tweak the Mogul explanation this
way or that, maybe you can get it to work. But picking and choosing
which debris descriptions you want to explain while ignoring others
seems to be the skeptical reductionalist way of trying to dismiss the
whole thing. You could also hypothesize lead foil or gray satin to try
to explain some characteristics of the debris described by some
witnesses. But were any such materials on a Mogul balloon, were they
consistent with all the various physical properties described, and can
they account for the large quantities of "foil" or other metal scattered
over acres of land?

> How much significance Nitinol or Mylar may have
>had is questionable, but it's worth a close look. The technical reports
>may not be the full picture, it was a long time ago.

<Sarcasm mode on> So now the technical reports have memory problems
along with the witnesses? <Sarcasm mode off>

These technical reports look pretty complete to me. There are detailed
schematics and photos of various components of the Mogul balloon trains,
including circuit diagrams of the radiosonde transmitter, schematics of
pressure sensors, ballast devices, balloon cutoff explosive charges,
radar reflectors, etc. Where does aluminized Mylar and Nitinol fit into
all this? How would it have been used and on what component? Why would
it be used in large quantities such that it would get scattered over
acres of land?

And besides the technical reports, we have the Mogul experience of
engineer Charles Moore. He was intimately familiar with the
construction of these balloons. If there was anything like a "memory
foil" on these balloons I'm sure he would have mentioned it by now.
Even he admits to being puzzled by the debris descriptions.

>Which goes back to the same point. I know someone who has technical
>documentation relating to balloon flights at that time and it seems
>that Nitinol is documented in the specification.

Which balloon flights and where? In New Mexico in June/July of 1947?
Why does the one of the references you provided below have the discovery
of Nitinol in 1962?

> There's possibly other materials which were used which would not
>have been picked up on in the technical reports the Air Force refer to.

What materials? How were they used? Why wouldn't they be included in
the technical reports? Where's your evidence?

>It might be of potential significance, it might not, but it would be
>helpful to clarify this aspect and it may be possible to do so shortly.

Although I'm being tough on you, I'm pleased that you are looking into
this angle. But I very seriously doubt it's going to lead anywhere or
provide a plausible conventional explanation for Roswell.

>>It is my understanding that Nitinol wasn't invented until 1962 and
>>was available initially only in wire form. It was also quite
>>expensive and hardly the material to be used for a modest radar
>>reflector whose useful lifetime was measured in hours.

>It seems it was definitely in use by 1945 and was used in rocket and
>balloon flights during 1946 and 1947. Again, I hope this can all be
>clarified in detail shortly.

Well, see the reference directly below. If this is true, then the
military held back on the existence of Nitinol for at least 17 years.
It's acknowledged discovery date is 1962.

>>>Nitinol is a "shape memory alloy", it’s associated characteristics
>>>including "pseudoelasticity" or "superelasticity", strain, tensile,
>>>compression and bending properties. "Thermoelastic behaviour" was
>>>first discussed in 1938.

>>It would be helpful if you could supply a reference or two for me to
>>look up.

>This came from the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.
>There's information available from similar sources and some detailed
>information on Nitinol can be found at the Shape Memory Applications
>site:

>http://www.sma-inc.com/

Thank you for the references. The Web page has an article by Hodgson,
Wu, and Biermann, giving a history of thermoelastic materials and
Nitinol:

"HISTORY
The first recorded observation of the shape memory transformation was by
Chang and Read in 1932 (Ref. 1). They noted the reversibility of the
transformation in AuCd by metallographic observations and resistivity
changes, and in 1951 the shape memory effect (SME) was observed in a
bent bar of AuCd. In 1938, the transformation was seen in brass (CuZn).
However, it was not until 1962, when Buehler and co-workers (Ref. 2)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
discovered the effect in equiatomic nickel-titanium (NiTi), that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

research into both the metallurgy and potential practical uses began in
earnest. Within 10 years, a number of commercial products were on the
market, and understanding of the effect was much advanced."

>I know that some of the historical references come from an old copy of
>"Review of Scientific Instrumentation", but there's further information
>available on contemporary balloon flights and that's what I'm trying to
>ascertain.

Contemporary balloon flights really don't matter. What matters is
whether the alleged material was on some New Mexico balloon and in large
quantities back in June/July 1947.

>>>Against a background where "Flying Saucer" stories were still
>>>headline news following Kenneth Arnold's recent report, it's easy to
>>>see why something perhaps unusual could be perceived as unworldly.

Since you have yet to demonstrate there was "unusual" material on the
Mogul balloons that could be confused with anything unworldly, you
really have no point here at all.

>It's worth a look at the news items from the front pages of the papers
>the day before the "flying disk" story broke. There's hardly an article
>which isn't about "flying disks".

>>>It may not also be common knowledge that Dr Jesse Marcel had already
>>>decided he had found the remnants of a "Flying Saucer", before he
>>>even reached Roswell AAF with the debris.

>>As a matter of fact it is common knowledge that Marcel Sr. thought

>>this, since Dr. Marcel has consistently told the same story about his
>>father since 1980.

>The point here is that Marcel Snr. had apparently made up his mind, he
>didn't think it might be wreckage from a "flying saucer", he _knew_ it
>was:

Since he was the senior Roswell air crash investigator and could not
recognize ANY of the materials (not just one or two) as being of human
manufacture because of their unusual lightness, strength, and resistance
to damage, this would seem to be a pretty reasonable conclusion.

The point is, neither you nor anyone else has ever demonstrated that
these exotic materials of alleged human manufacture matched anything on
a Mogul balloon or any other human flying craft in New Mexico in
June/July 1947.

And Marcel wasn't the only witness to these materials. Colonel
Blanchard, the base commander who issued the crashed disk press release,
privately confided afterwards to various people that he believed his men
had found something highly unusual, which at first he thought might be
Russian. His second wife Anne when first interviewed in 1979, said her
husband knew the debris wasn't from a balloon and not made by us.
Blanchard's first wife Ethyl made similar remarks. Art McQuiddy of the
Roswell Morning Dispatch and Maj. Gen. Woodrow Swancutt, both good
friends of Blanchard, said that Blanchard told them his men had
retrieved something very unusual and significant. Blanchard told
McQuiddy several months later, "The stuff I saw, I've never seen
anyplace else in my life." Swancutt, who in July 1947 was assistant
Roswell operations officer, said Blanchard "was convinced he had
something very important at first."

Throw in other people like Bill Brazel Jr., Loretta Proctor, Louis
Rickett (out of Marcel's office), Sally Strickland Tadolini, Charles
Schmid, and others and you start to get a compelling picture that
something highly unusual was found. Now throw in the Schulgen memo
three months later where the Head of Air Intelligence suggests materials
sounding very, very similar to those being described by the Roswell
debris witness as being used in the construction of flying saucers. And
Schulgen obtained much of the information in his memo from Gen. Twining
and the technical labs of the Air Technical Intelligence Center at
Wright Field where some Roswell debris is known to have been taken. Do
you really think Twining's people confused your alleged balloon
"alumized mylar" or "Nitinol" with something from a flying saucer?

>All he should have concluded is that the material was unusual, the leap
>in faith was I'm sure due to the "flying saucer" hysteria at that time.

All you should have concluded is that you have a theory with no
supporting evidence. Your leap in faith is assuming that this unusual
material NECESSARILY came from a crashed balloon, and not giving people
like Marcel and Blanchard credit for having any brains.

[Jawaid Khalid]

In article <32496C...@instanet.com>, mca...@instanet.com says...

>
>I am posting this message, in part, as a response to a Roswell
>researcher named "rudiak" at UC Berkeley. He, in turn, was responding
>(displaying politeness unbecoming a ufologist) to my initial stab at an
>alternative Roswell thesis. All of this occurred within the confines of
>another, unrelated thread. Now's the time to start threading anew...
>
>Most, although not all, of the objections raised to my tentative ideas
>are answered in a piece on Roswell I wrote some months ago, heretofore
>privately distributed. This piece -- which is still in a fairly rough
>stage (and sans footnotes) has now found a home at the following site:
>
>http://www.redshift.com/~wmason/lhreport/report.html#cannon
>

>Let me reiterate: I'm making this piece available even though it is
>still in a VERY rough state -- a "beta" version, if you will. I have
>already found further documentation which could strengthen the ideas I
>am suggesting. Eventually, a "final" version of this thesis will be
>published formally.
>
>I invite criticism, although please keep in mind the difference between
>a criticism (which will be welcomed, even if harsh) and a mere flame
>(which will be ignored). "That which does not destroy me, makes me
>stronger," and all that.
>

>I freely admit that this theory is backed by circumstantial evidence,
>and relies to some degree -- but not, I hope, an unreasonable degree --
>on inference. My intention is simply to get minds considering
>alternative possibilities, not to present an engraved-in-stone solution.
>And I will happily re-write as needed, based upon comments received.
>

>The primary contribution I hope to make to the debate concerns a
>troubling matter I call "The Problem of Marcel's Ignorance." After
>reading my outline of this problem, some readers will, hopefully, be
>good enough to share their ideas as to how it might be resolved. I know
>that Kevin Randall has pondered this problem in private, but has always

>preferred to keep mum about it in print. Showtime's "Roswell" film, and

>at least one major documentary on the topic, have elided this problem by
>playing unfair games with the chronology.
>

>Hope my preliminary version of this article does not ruffle too many
>feathers...
>

>incoming message: i am flargan gloopoton
my brother ian was killed in roswell in 1943
he had big eyes and a wee body
if you want to get in tuch e-mail me on
WWW.planetvenus.com

or send letters to:

THE MOON!

so long earthlings!

[Troy Dawson]

rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote:
>
> >All he should have concluded is that the material was unusual, the leap
> >in faith was I'm sure due to the "flying saucer" hysteria at that time.
>
> All you should have concluded is that you have a theory with no
> supporting evidence. Your leap in faith is assuming that this unusual
> material NECESSARILY came from a crashed balloon, and not giving people
> like Marcel and Blanchard credit for having any brains.

<dean adams mode on>

heh! like YOU have any brains!

<dam off>

Seriously, just fell into this Roswell thing yesterday.

(Dejanews is a very serious threat to obfuscators, btw)

I previously thought that most/all UFO sightings were either
atmospheric or spooky abduction tales, but this Roswell thing
has got me stumped.

Aside from Mr. Easton's postings here I've seen damn precious
little intelligent argument from the debunking crew; what I
have seen is suspiciously akin to psychological *you're crazy!*
attacks or subtle disinformation campaigns (like the 2nd day
Roswell news stories inserting the totally absurd pie-plate
guy tale to discredit the whole episode).

To Messrs Rudiak & Zeiler:

keep up the fight, you're winning.

=td=

[Ne...@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk]

Simple point, and not mine originally, but if it was a Mogul flight,

? Why didn't the AAF return it to Charles Moore ?

After all it would have been his hardware...

Neil..

Neil Morris. /101101101 Virtual Bumper Stickers Inc 10110101010\
Dept of Physics. 1 1
University of Manchester. 0 0
Schuster Labs. 1 Computer Programmers DO IT with BITS of BYTES 1
Brunswick St. 0 0
Manchester. 1 1
UK. \0101010110010110110010110101101011011110101011010/
G8KOQ

E-mail: ne...@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk Roswell Archive-> http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/

* New Dave Willetts Home Page-> http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/dave_willetts/ *

[James Easton]

Dave Rudiak wrote:

>>It seems to explain some of the reported debris characteristics, but
>>I'm well aware that an ordinary balloon doesn't offer a complete
>>explanation. And if it doesn't, there must be something else involved.

>How about it wasn't a balloon -- period? You still seem to be operating
>on the assumption that if you can just tweak the Mogul explanation this
>way or that, maybe you can get it to work.

Dave,

Nothing's assumed, either the debris can be shown to be relatively consistent
with the Mogul explanation or it can't.

>But picking and choosing which debris descriptions you want to explain while

>ignoring others...

As highlighted, some of the descriptions seem to be consistent, particularly the
distinctive flowered tape. Far from ignoring any descriptions, I had hoped to
consider their possible explanations.

>These technical reports look pretty complete to me. There are detailed
>schematics and photos of various components of the Mogul balloon trains,
>including circuit diagrams of the radiosonde transmitter, schematics of
>pressure sensors, ballast devices, balloon cutoff explosive charges,
>radar reflectors, etc. Where does aluminized Mylar and Nitinol fit into
> all this? How would it have been used and on what component?

I can't answer this in detail just yet, but there are indications we may not have
seen all of the relevant data. Again, that's what I hope to clarify, but it will
take a while.

Basically it comes down to this; having been aware that Nitinol was apparently in
use in 1947, I learned from an entirely separate and highly knowledgeable source
that it could perhaps be directly linked with the Mogul balloon flights.

In discussions of contemporary 1947 balloon fights, this was first mentioned as
an aside:

"One other tidbit - the sampling foils were backed onto Nitinol- a titanium alloy
that has shape memory. Brand new stuff back then, and none too common even
today".

Discussing this further, the informed opinion offered was:

"Nitinol was certainly used in instrumentation as early as late 1945. I have
to dig out the papers - unfortunately stored under (literally) 3 tons of old
books, documents and sensor designs to find the precise date.

As far as Mogul goes, the balloon train devices were proof flights for the
system - not the actual long duration balloons. I don't know the package
design for the individual flights, but *do* know that the first rocket-borne
use of Nitinol was in 1946 on a high altitude cosmic-ray sampling flight.
I'll have to dig out my notebooks to find a paper reference on the
instrumentation design.

In conclusion - it's probable that Nitinol was used in Mogul".

I'm leaving a lot of material out here, this is simply an indication of the
basis for considering some possibilities further.

It was also mentioned by someone else that their son, "says they had a lab
earlier this year where a titanium alloy was displayed. He relates that the
metal had awesome "memory". By this I mean it can be crumpled and will with the
application of body heat regain it's former state".

This titanium alloy is almost certainly Nitinol.

Was it used in any flight which might account for the debris which Brazel found,
was it used in a sheet form, what quantities were used...

These are some of the questions to which answers would be welcome.

There's also another issue:

"There really *was* a Mogul incident around the right time frame - and the
particular balloon was Mylar - not a neoprene string as has commonly been
reported.

...I'm going to double check on that. One source I have says Mylar, another
says a composite sandwich of several materials, none of which are neoprene -
but I don't want to list them without having the construction table to hand".

Double checking is what's underway.

Is this information is available, it has to be considered. There may be nothing
of relevance in any of this and if that's the case, I'm sure you would be happy
to have that confirmed.

>And besides the technical reports, we have the Mogul experience of
>engineer Charles Moore. He was intimately familiar with the
>construction of these balloons. If there was anything like a "memory
>foil" on these balloons I'm sure he would have mentioned it by now.
>Even he admits to being puzzled by the debris descriptions.

I suppose the question is whether Moore would be aware of Nitinol at all. He
didn't know the project name until Robert Todd told him!

There was a lot of compartmented information and he was only a graduate student
at that time.

It's a question I would very much like to put to him.

>Well, see the reference directly below. If this is true, then the military held
>back on the existence of Nitinol for at least 17 years. It's acknowledged
>discovery date is 1962.

>"In 1938, the transformation was seen in brass (CuZn). However, it was not until
>1962, when Buehler and co-workers (Ref. 2) discovered the effect in equiatomic
>nickel-titanium (NiTi)..."

The _effect_ wasn't discovered until then...

"In 1961, Nitinol, which stands for Nickel Titanium Naval Ordnance Laboratory,
was discovered to possess the unique property of having shape memory. William J.
Buehler, a researcher at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory in White Oak, Maryland,
was the one to discover this shape memory alloy. The actual discovery of the
shape memory property of Nitinol came about by accident. At a laboratory
management meeting, a strip of Nitinol was presented that was bent out of shape
many times. One of the people present, Dr. David S. Muzzey, heated it with his
pipe lighter, and surprisingly, the strip stretched back to its original form".

From: Shape Memory Alloys and Their Applications
By Richard Lin

http://www.uni.uiuc.edu/~richlin/chem.html

>Contemporary balloon flights really don't matter. What matters is
>whether the alleged material was on some New Mexico balloon and in large
>quantities back in June/July 1947.

Sorry, Dave, that was contemporary with 1947, not the present day.

I'll get back to you on the points re Marcel, etc. and the Schulgen memo.

In the meantime, hopefully this will help put some of the balloon construction
issues in perspective.

[rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu]

James Easton <10062...@compuserve.com> wrote:

>Dave Rudiak wrote:

>Nothing's assumed, either the debris can be shown to be relatively consistent
>with the Mogul explanation or it can't.

>>But picking and choosing which debris descriptions you want to explain while
>>ignoring others...

>As highlighted, some of the descriptions seem to be consistent, particularly the
>distinctive flowered tape. Far from ignoring any descriptions, I had hoped to
>consider their possible explanations.

>>These technical reports look pretty complete to me. There are detailed
>>schematics and photos of various components of the Mogul balloon trains,
>>including circuit diagrams of the radiosonde transmitter, schematics of
>>pressure sensors, ballast devices, balloon cutoff explosive charges,
>>radar reflectors, etc. Where does aluminized Mylar and Nitinol fit into
>> all this? How would it have been used and on what component?

>I can't answer this in detail just yet, but there are indications we may not have
>seen all of the relevant data.

What indications? I have seen nothing but conjecture on your part and not ONE
single scrap of real evidence. Why would any of these alleged Mogul materials
have been left out of the lengthy and detailed Mogul reports already made
public?

>Again, that's what I hope to clarify, but it will take a while.

>Basically it comes down to this; having been aware that Nitinol was apparently in
>use in 1947,

You have yet to provide any REAL evience for this. It is still nothing more
than one of your unsupported assertions. The references in my previous post and
the one you give below say that the memory properties of Nitinol weren't noticed
until 1961 or 1962. So if they weren't aware of its memory properties in1947,
why would they use it back then instead of some less exotic, more readily
avaible, and much cheaper metal?

> I learned from an entirely separate and highly knowledgeable source

So, would you mind sharing the identity of Mr. X with us? Why is he so
supposedly knowledgeable about all this?

>that it could perhaps be directly linked with the Mogul balloon flights.

Perhaps? Where's the evidence? There's no mention of anything like this in the
published Mogul technical reports.

>In discussions of contemporary 1947 balloon fights, this was first mentioned as
>an aside:

>"One other tidbit - the sampling foils were backed onto Nitinol- a titanium alloy
>that has shape memory. Brand new stuff back then, and none too common even
>today".

You keep mentioning "sampling foils." But the Moguls of June/early July 1947
were early experimental varieties designed to develop the technology of constant
level balloons, test the tracking systems, and test the basic concept that
sensitive listening devices could detect distant explosions in the upper
atmosphere. There is NO indication at all that "sampling foils" were a part of
these early flights. Air sampling for radioactive fallout was done near Soviet
borders by airplanes. So what was this "sampling foil?" What was it supposedly
used for? Why isn't it detailed in the Mogul reports and schematic diagrams?

>Discussing this further, the informed opinion offered was:

>"Nitinol was certainly used in instrumentation as early as late 1945. I have
>to dig out the papers - unfortunately stored under (literally) 3 tons of old
>books, documents and sensor designs to find the precise date.

So why did they supposedly use it to back "sampling foils" if the shape-memory
property wasn't known for another 15 years?

>As far as Mogul goes, the balloon train devices were proof flights for the
>system - not the actual long duration balloons. I don't know the package
>design for the individual flights, but *do* know that the first rocket-borne
>use of Nitinol was in 1946 on a high altitude cosmic-ray sampling flight.
>I'll have to dig out my notebooks to find a paper reference on the
>instrumentation design.

How convenient. I seriously doubt if we will ever know who Mr X is or see a
single scrap of this alleged documentation.

>In conclusion - it's probable that Nitinol was used in Mogul".

From zero evidence of its use to "probable?" How do you manage that?

>I'm leaving a lot of material out here, this is simply an indication of the
>basis for considering some possibilities further.

What material? All we have is a quote from an anonymous source.

>It was also mentioned by someone else

Mr. Y?

> that their son,

Mr. Z?

>"says they had a lab
>earlier this year where a titanium alloy was displayed. He relates that the
>metal had awesome "memory". By this I mean it can be crumpled and will with the
>application of body heat regain it's former state".

Oh big deal! You can go down to an eyeglass store and see the same
demonstration on a pair of eyeglass frames.

>This titanium alloy is almost certainly Nitinol.

What the hell has this got to do with 1947, Mogul, and the Roswell crash? From
some guy's son seeing a demonstration of Nitinol and some anonymous source
claiming to have notebooks under 3 tons of stuff, we're supposed to infer that
it was "probable" that Nitinol was on Mogul.

>Was it used in any flight which might account for the debris which Brazel found,

Extremely unlikely, since there's no mention of it anywhere in the REAL
documentation. Instead I see diagrams and technical descriptions of things
like automatic ballast valves, ballast release assemblies, mercury pressure
switches, electric motor driven pressure modulators, radiosonde electric circuit
diagrams, battery cases, sonophones, silk parachutes, nylon twine, and of course
neoprene weather balloons, polyethylene balloons, and radar reflectors made of
tinfoil and balsa wood sticks. But Nitinol foil, or foil backed by Nitinol?
Nope, nothing like that. There's no mention of anything titanium in any of the
equipment anywhere.

>was it used in a sheet form,

Extremely unlikely, even if it was in use back then. Nitinol in foil form would
have been extremely expensive, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to use
it. More likely a WIRE framework would have been used to unfold cheaper, more
readily available, and easier to manufacture sheets of something else, like
aluminum foil.

>what quantities were used...

Probably next to nothing, even if it was used -- at best a framework. This
still would hardly account for the reports that the metal foil couldn't be cut.
It wouldn't account for this physical property even if the foil were pure
Nitinol. And it doesn't account for the Schulgen memo, which describes thin
metal foils, possibly composites or laminated and of "extreme structural
stability" being used in flying saucer construction.

>These are some of the questions to which answers would be welcome.

They certainly would be. All I've seen so far is a lot of conjecture and no
substance. You're going to have to do an awful lot of research and present some
real documentation if you want to make some sort of believable case here.
Quotes from anonymous sources don't help the credibility of your case.

>There's also another issue:

>"There really *was* a Mogul incident around the right time frame - and the
>particular balloon was Mylar - not a neoprene string as has commonly been
>reported.

More nonsense. The first polyethylene Mogul launch, Mogul #8, didn't occur
until the afternoon of July 3, 1947. ALL prior Mogul launches used neoprene
rubber meteorological balloons. The only polyethylene balloon launch in the
Roswell crash time frame that was unaccounted for was Mogul #9. This was
supposed to be launched in coordination with a V-2 flight carrying explosives.
But the V-2 flight was aborted at 7:30 p.m. and the already inflated balloons
were cut loose from the instrument package according to reviews of Mogul logs.

Karl Pflock has tried to make a case that it was Mogul #9 that crashed on
Brazel's ranch, but the time frame is at best barely possible, and conflicts
with a number of other FACTS. For one thing, review of meteorological records
by Kevin Randle indicate that #9 would have been blown in a completely different
direction. These balloons were also CLEAR plastic, whereas any hope of plastic
balloon material explaining the anomalous foil description would depend on them
being aluminized or metallic coated in some way. But they WEREN'T-- period.
And, of course, .001 polyethylene would be extremely easy to cut with a knife
and would burn like hell -- not the characteristics of the reported metal foil.

And of course this runs completely contrary to other debunking accounts, such as
that put forth by the A.F. They point to Brazel's newspaper story in which he
said he found the debris on June 14 -- only neoprene balloons were used then --
and his report of finding rubber strips. And of course, they like to point to
the photos taken in Gen. Ramey's office of a wrinkled aluminum foil radar
reflector attached to some sort of sticks, and stinky, rolled up rubber debris
on the floor. So if some undocumented "aluminized mylar" or "Nitinol foil" was
the explanation, then of course Brazel's newspaper story was all staged, wasn't
it, and the Air Force is still lying about "aluminized mylar" or "Nitinol foil"
for reasons completely incomprehensible to me.

Of course, we could also believe Major Marcel and General Dubose who were in
Ramey's office and said the real debris was swapped with a weather balloon and
the photos were all staged as well. But that might imply that the material was
really was as strange as Marcel and others said it was, wouldn't it?

>...I'm going to double check on that. One source I have says Mylar, another
>says a composite sandwich of several materials, none of which are neoprene -
>but I don't want to list them without having the construction table to hand".

Well, here is what the ACTUAL, already published Mogul records say a dozen times
over. Neoprene rubber balloons were used for all balloon launches prior to
July. The first polyethylene launches didn't begin until July 3. Composite
materials were considered, but NONE were actually used in the Roswell time
frame. In fact, looking at the Mogul flight logs sitting right in front of me,
ALL the balloons used during the Summer of 1947 were neoprene or polyethylene --
no composites at all. After June, they were almost exclusively polyethylene.
The only balloons remotely composite were neoprene balloons shrouded with nylon,
first launched on Sept. 12, 1947.

>Double checking is what's underway.

Good luck. From the actual documentation I've seen, you're anonymous friend's
story is a bunch of garbage.

>Is this information is available, it has to be considered. There may be nothing
>of relevance in any of this and if that's the case, I'm sure you would be happy
>to have that confirmed.

>>And besides the technical reports, we have the Mogul experience of
>>engineer Charles Moore. He was intimately familiar with the
>>construction of these balloons. If there was anything like a "memory
>>foil" on these balloons I'm sure he would have mentioned it by now.
>>Even he admits to being puzzled by the debris descriptions.

>I suppose the question is whether Moore would be aware of Nitinol at all. He
>didn't know the project name until Robert Todd told him!

What's this got to do with anything? He physically assembled hundreds of these
balloons and their payloads piece by piece. If anything like "aluminized
mylar"or "Nitinol foil" had passed through his hands I'm sure he would have
noticed.

>There was a lot of compartmented information and he was only a graduate student
>at that time.

Totally irrelevant, since he extensively handled everything on the balloons.

>It's a question I would very much like to put to him.

Moore in his Air Force interview stated he thinks the "foil" was the aluminum
foil backed with paper on the radar reflectors. He has never mentioned
mysterious Nitinol foils or aluminized mylar. As to the questions of why
various witnesses have attributed strange physical properties to ordinary
aluminum foil, he says this has him completely puzzled. He doesn't understand
it, but he doesn't totally discount it either.

>>Well, see the reference directly below. If this is true, then the military held
>>back on the existence of Nitinol for at least 17 years. It's acknowledged
>>discovery date is 1962.

>>"In 1938, the transformation was seen in brass (CuZn). However, it was not until
>>1962, when Buehler and co-workers (Ref. 2) discovered the effect in equiatomic
>>nickel-titanium (NiTi)..."

>The _effect_ wasn't discovered until then...

>"In 1961, Nitinol, which stands for Nickel Titanium Naval Ordnance Laboratory,

>was discovered to possess the unique property of having shape memory.....

>From: Shape Memory Alloys and Their Applications
>By Richard Lin

>http://www.uni.uiuc.edu/~richlin/chem.html

So if the memory effect wasn't discovered until 1961 or 1962, what was Nitinol
allegedly doing in this military equipment in the late 1940s?

>>Contemporary balloon flights really don't matter. What matters is
>>whether the alleged material was on some New Mexico balloon and in large
>>quantities back in June/July 1947.

>Sorry, Dave, that was contemporary with 1947, not the present day.

Again all we seem to have his Mr. X's alleged say-so. How about some REAL
documentation to back up your tale? You're beginning to sound more and more
like Philip Klass pulling anonymous sources out of the woodwork to debunk UFO
cases.

>I'll get back to you on the points re Marcel, etc. and the Schulgen memo.

>In the meantime, hopefully this will help put some of the balloon construction
>issues in perspective.

I'm sorry, but I see nothing of value or substance here. All you've presented
is some story from an anonymous source. All the REAL Mogul documentation I've
read says your source's story is a bunch of nonsense.

[Troy Dawson]

rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote:
>
> Karl Pflock has tried to make a case that it was Mogul #9 that crashed on
> Brazel's ranch, but the time frame is at best barely possible, and conflicts
> with a number of other FACTS. For one thing, review of meteorological records
> by Kevin Randle indicate that #9 would have been blown in a completely different
> direction. These balloons were also CLEAR plastic,

Aha! That explains everything...

It's obvious to me that a lightweight 4-lgm* 'flitter' collided at about
Mach 3 with the clear plastic balloon, causing the craft to spin out of control,
impact the ground at Brazel's ranch, then finally crash somewhere in the
distance...

> So if the memory effect wasn't discovered until 1961 or 1962, what was Nitinol
> allegedly doing in this military equipment in the late 1940s?
>

Because it was *really really* lightweight?

=td=

*little green man for the ufology-impaired

[Unknown]

James Easton <10062...@compuserve.com> wrote:

>Dave Rudiak wrote:

>consider their possible explanations.

Mr. Y?

> that their son,

Mr. Z?

>what quantities were used...

>http://www.uni.uiuc.edu/~richlin/chem.html

rudiak wrote:

I'm sorry, but I see nothing of value or substance here. All you've
presented
is some story from an anonymous source. All the REAL Mogul documentation
I've
read says your source's story is a bunch of nonsense.

===============Bob Tarantino, 10/2/96===============

I seem to remember an interview with Pflock and Freidman on FOX before the
Government response to the Roswell debate in which Pflock stated that he
understood that there were bodies involved, yet belived that they were related
to a secret project probably involving monkeys. I'm I now to believe that he
is embracing the Mogul project to explain the Roswell incident in which no
animals were used? I suppose one explaination is as good as another.

But what does this nitinol material have to do with Gen. Dubose stating that a
sample was encased in a lead container that had to be cut open with a torch,
and it was his duty to see to it that it was delievered to Washington. Should
I suppose that this material was this puzzling back in 1947 and that top
military intelligence at the world's most secret base would mistake it for a
flying saucer! Perhaps, I should also regard the corroborating testimony of
dozens of people including Jessy Marcel who stated " I was familiar with all
types of material used in aircraft...we didn't know what it was." and a
friend of Col. Blanchard who stated that years later he would tell him that it
was the dammedest thing he'd ever seen.

If it was a balloon, they why have hundreds of people come forth with
testimony showing that it was a saucer that was found? The Roswell Police
Chief himself said years later that he wished he never called the army. And
countless descriptions depict metal that would unfold itself and could not be
damaged according to many people including Marcel and Gen. Exon.

It seems to me that the first report was the true one.

-bob

[Jonathan D. Long]

Troy Dawson wrote:

>
> rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote:
> >
> > >All he should have concluded is that the material was unusual, the leap
> > >in faith was I'm sure due to the "flying saucer" hysteria at that time.
> >
> > All you should have concluded is that you have a theory with no
> > supporting evidence. Your leap in faith is assuming that this unusual
> > material NECESSARILY came from a crashed balloon, and not giving people
> > like Marcel and Blanchard credit for having any brains.
>

> <dean adams mode on>
>
> heh! like YOU have any brains!
>
> <dam off>
>
> Seriously, just fell into this Roswell thing yesterday.
>
> (Dejanews is a very serious threat to obfuscators, btw)
>
> I previously thought that most/all UFO sightings were either
> atmospheric or spooky abduction tales, but this Roswell thing
> has got me stumped.
>
> Aside from Mr. Easton's postings here I've seen damn precious
> little intelligent argument from the debunking crew; what I
> have seen is suspiciously akin to psychological *you're crazy!*
> attacks or subtle disinformation campaigns (like the 2nd day
> Roswell news stories inserting the totally absurd pie-plate
> guy tale to discredit the whole episode).
>
> To Messrs Rudiak & Zeiler:
>
> keep up the fight, you're winning.
>
> =td=

Good to see someone else who can spot all the BS spouted out by the
debunkers around this group. Promoting rational, logical *non-emotional*
thought is not something most of these people seem to be capable of.

Looks more like name calling and cheap attacks than any real attempt at
productive communication! But, what can you expect in an unmoderated
newsgroup??!? Especially when the whole area is open for those roaming
spooks out there (Dean are you listening?)

Keep paying attention to Zeiler and Rudiak, they ARE winning the battle.
Sometimes the truth can be a real bitch, eh Dean?

Jon

[James Easton]

Dave Rudiak wrote:

[Deleted]

Dave,

I thought I had made it clear that I was only mentioning the basis for
looking at the possibilities and that it would take a while before I
could, hopefully, clarify whether it may be relevant or not.

> So, would you mind sharing the identity of Mr. X with us? Why is he so
> supposedly knowledgeable about all this?

He is a gentleman who has a detailed historical and technical knowledge
of the issues and also has access to invaluable archive documentation.

> I seriously doubt if we will ever know who Mr X is or see a single scrap of this > alleged documentation.

You mean Tom Genereaux? I have mentioned his name before, it's not a
secret.

Neither is Tom's expertise. Tom is one of the most knowledgeable and
intelligent contributors on CompuServe.

Again, I did say that I had left a lot of detail out for the moment:

>I'm leaving a lot of material out here, this is simply an indication of the basis for >considering some possibilities further.

Incidentally, Nelson Pacheco also mentioned nitinol on the newsgroups a
while back:

"The project Mogul targets were not the usual rawin targets, and were
especially constructed to be more durable for the basic reason that they
had
to remain aloft for long periods of time under atmospheric turbulence.
As
Roswell shows, they were still not sufficiently durable and in fact did
tear
when they fell and were dragged along the ground by wind. Nonetheless,
if
you want to find out about some other materials that were compatible
with
Mogul constructions, check out Nitinol...".

I don't know Nelson's sources, but he seems to have found something
which also indicates Nitinol and Mogul were contemporary.

> >Double checking is what's underway.

> Good luck. From the actual documentation I've seen, you're anonymous friend's
> story is a bunch of garbage.

If you appreciated the degree of knowledge Tom has on this particular
subject, which many people are aware of, you might feel somewhat
embarrassed.

> I'm sorry, but I see nothing of value or substance here. All you've presented
> is some story from an anonymous source. All the REAL Mogul documentation I've
> read says your source's story is a bunch of nonsense.

Maybe there's a lot more information available than you've read.

Be patient and we might find out.

[rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu]

James Easton <10062...@compuserve.com> wrote:

>Dave Rudiak wrote:

>I thought I had made it clear that I was only mentioning the basis for
>looking at the possibilities and that it would take a while before I
>could, hopefully, clarify whether it may be relevant or not.

On the contrary, you have been asserting that the existence of aluminized mylar
or nitinol foil on Mogul is a virtual fact, citing your Mr. X (Tom Genereaux) as
a reference. That's one reason I posted Mogul engineer Charles Moore's
interview statements in another thread that there was no mylar of any kind on
Mogul. And the polyethylene balloons used by Mogul were a different plastic
than mylar, even though they are in the same chemical family. The polyethylene
material stretched and wasn't completely clear, whereas mylar is nonextensible,
and transparent. Moore said mylar was such a new material that they didn't
begin using it until 1950 or 1951 in any of their balloon flights for General
Mills.

And I strongly suspect "Nitinol foil" will turn out to be the same sort of
nonsense as aluminized mylar. There is NOTHING like this on any of the Mogul
schematics of the equipment anywhere. The radar reflectors were made of plain
old aluminum foil.

>> So, would you mind sharing the identity of Mr. X with us? Why is he so
>> supposedly knowledgeable about all this?

>He is a gentleman who has a detailed historical and technical knowledge

>of the issues and also has access to invaluable archive documentation.

>> I seriously doubt if we will ever know who Mr X is or see a single scrap of this > alleged documentation.

>You mean Tom Genereaux? I have mentioned his name before, it's not a
>secret.\

Thank you. Now we have a name.

>Neither is Tom's expertise. Tom is one of the most knowledgeable and
>intelligent contributors on CompuServe.

But what's his connection to Mogul? How come he supposedly has access to
documents allegedly demonstrating the existence of mylar and/or nitinol on Mogul
when people like Moore or Air Force investigators don't?

>Again, I did say that I had left a lot of detail out for the moment:

>>I'm leaving a lot of material out here, this is simply an indication of the basis for
>considering some possibilities further.

You didn't have any details, just a lot of unsupported assertions. If there's
anything to this, why not get the documentation first, before making sweeping
statements that it is true?

>Incidentally, Nelson Pacheco also mentioned nitinol on the newsgroups a
>while back:

I'm not impressed. Other people have also mentioned nitinol without any
supporting evidence. I've seen conjecture about this going back 2 years, ever
since the Air Force first issued their pre-emptive strike Roswell report back in
Sept. 1994.

>"The project Mogul targets were not the usual rawin targets, and were
>especially constructed to be more durable for the basic reason that they
>had>to remain aloft for long periods of time under atmospheric turbulence.

Translate "long periods of time" into a few hours, which is the longest they
could track these things. The aluminum foil was sometimes reinforced on the
back with paper. Diagrams of the radar reflector show that the foil was glued
onto the balsa wood stick framework. Since the foil had a tendency to tear at
the joint, the joint was later reinforced with acetate (Scotch) or cloth tape,
the infamous tape with purple flowers. This seems to be the extent of the
reinforcement on these radar reflectors. Do you see anything here about exotic
nitinol foil?

Further, there was no need for any material with shape memory. These were RADAR
tracking devices, that were unfolded and deployed at GROUND level during launch.
Their purpose was allow radar tracking from the MOMENT of launch, not to be
deployed at high altitude using some shape memory property.

>As Roswell shows, they were still not sufficiently durable and in fact did

>tear when they fell and were dragged along the ground by wind. Nonetheless,
>if you want to find out about some other materials that were compatible
>with Mogul constructions, check out Nitinol...".

>I don't know Nelson's sources, but he seems to have found something
>which also indicates Nitinol and Mogul were contemporary.

Sources, what sources? The guy's just talking off the top of his head. He's
obviously referring to the well-known property that Nitinol has shape memory,
and various Roswell witnesses described a thin metal foil with memory. This
doesn't mean that Nitinol was used on Mogul.

But from this you leap to the conclusion that Pacheco's unsupported statements
"indicate Nitinol and Mogul were contemporary."

>> >Double checking is what's underway.
>
>> Good luck. From the actual documentation I've seen, you're anonymous friend's
>> story is a bunch of garbage.

>If you appreciated the degree of knowledge Tom has on this particular

>subject, which many people are aware of, you might feel somewhat
>embarrassed.

If you actually turn up anything of substance I'll apologize. But I'm not
holding my breath.

>
>> I'm sorry, but I see nothing of value or substance here. All you've presented
>> is some story from an anonymous source. All the REAL Mogul documentation I've
>> read says your source's story is a bunch of nonsense.

>Maybe there's a lot more information available than you've read.

>Be patient and we might find out.

My patience wears thin when you continue to make a lot of unsupported assertions
as if they were established fact. Try practicing a little restraint and gather
some REAL facts first before accusing me of impatience.

[Jim Rogers]

rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote:
> James Easton <10062...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >Dave Rudiak wrote:

....

> And I strongly suspect "Nitinol foil" will turn out to be the same sort of
> nonsense as aluminized mylar. There is NOTHING like this on any of the Mogul
> schematics of the equipment anywhere. The radar reflectors were made of plain
> old aluminum foil.

"Aluminum" foil? How sure are you? Some earlier posts I saw here said
"tin" foil, which is about as much "tin" as a "tin" can is-- i.e., a
sort of generic term for a number of alloys. It seems reasonable to me
that "nitinol foil," if it existed and was used, might have been called
"tin foil."

....

> >>I'm leaving a lot of material out here, this is simply an indication of the basis for
> >considering some possibilities further.
>
> You didn't have any details, just a lot of unsupported assertions. If there's
> anything to this, why not get the documentation first, before making sweeping
> statements that it is true?

How come you and Brian can't tolerate a reasonable conjecture without
treating it like an assertion to rigorously defend?

....

> >"The project Mogul targets were not the usual rawin targets, and were
> >especially constructed to be more durable for the basic reason that they
> >had>to remain aloft for long periods of time under atmospheric turbulence.
>
> Translate "long periods of time" into a few hours, which is the longest they
> could track these things. The aluminum foil was sometimes reinforced on the
> back with paper. Diagrams of the radar reflector show that the foil was glued
> onto the balsa wood stick framework. Since the foil had a tendency to tear at
> the joint, the joint was later reinforced with acetate (Scotch) or cloth tape,
> the infamous tape with purple flowers. This seems to be the extent of the
> reinforcement on these radar reflectors. Do you see anything here about exotic
> nitinol foil?

Is the chemical make-up of the foil specified at all?

> Further, there was no need for any material with shape memory. These were RADAR
> tracking devices, that were unfolded and deployed at GROUND level during launch.
> Their purpose was allow radar tracking from the MOMENT of launch, not to be
> deployed at high altitude using some shape memory property.

Straw man-- nitinol was available, but they didn't discover the
shape-memory feature until much later.

....

> >> >Double checking is what's underway.
> >
> >> Good luck. From the actual documentation I've seen, you're anonymous friend's
> >> story is a bunch of garbage.
>
> >If you appreciated the degree of knowledge Tom has on this particular
> >subject, which many people are aware of, you might feel somewhat
> >embarrassed.
>
> If you actually turn up anything of substance I'll apologize. But I'm not
> holding my breath.

....

Seems not to have stopped you from launching into attack mode.

Jim

[rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu]

Jim Rogers <"jfr"@[RemoveThis/NoJunkMail]fc.hp.com> wrote:

>rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote:
>> James Easton <10062...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>> >Dave Rudiak wrote:

>....

>> And I strongly suspect "Nitinol foil" will turn out to be the same sort of
>> nonsense as aluminized mylar. There is NOTHING like this on any of the Mogul
>> schematics of the equipment anywhere. The radar reflectors were made of plain
>> old aluminum foil.

>"Aluminum" foil? How sure are you? Some earlier posts I saw here said

>"tin" foil, which is about as much "tin" as a "tin" can is-- i.e., a
>sort of generic term for a number of alloys. It seems reasonable to me
>that "nitinol foil," if it existed and was used, might have been called
>"tin foil."

The dictionary defines "tinfoil" as a foil of tin alloyed with some other metal,
usually lead. In modern day common parlance, "tin foil" is usually used
interchangeably with aluminum foil. The Mogul schematics, project technical
reports, the authors of the Air Force Report on Roswell, and Mogul engineer
Charles Moore, and weather officer Irving Newton [who identified the radar
reflector in Gen. Ramey's office] have all said these radar reflectors were made
with thin aluminum foil, sometimes backed with paper or cloth to add strength.
End of story.

>....

>> >>I'm leaving a lot of material out here, this is simply an indication of the basis for
>> >considering some possibilities further.
>>
>> You didn't have any details, just a lot of unsupported assertions. If there's
>> anything to this, why not get the documentation first, before making sweeping
>> statements that it is true?

>How come you and Brian can't tolerate a reasonable conjecture without

>treating it like an assertion to rigorously defend?

When something goes beyond conjecture and is asserted as fact without evidence,
as Easton has repeatedly done, and you do below, then I think you guys should be
called on it.
>....

>> >"The project Mogul targets were not the usual rawin targets, and were
>> >especially constructed to be more durable for the basic reason that they
>> >had>to remain aloft for long periods of time under atmospheric turbulence.
>>
>> Translate "long periods of time" into a few hours, which is the longest they
>> could track these things. The aluminum foil was sometimes reinforced on the
>> back with paper. Diagrams of the radar reflector show that the foil was glued
>> onto the balsa wood stick framework. Since the foil had a tendency to tear at
>> the joint, the joint was later reinforced with acetate (Scotch) or cloth tape,
>> the infamous tape with purple flowers. This seems to be the extent of the
>> reinforcement on these radar reflectors. Do you see anything here about exotic
>> nitinol foil?

>Is the chemical make-up of the foil specified at all?

Yes, it was aluminum foil -- lightweight, readily available, and cheap. Why not
use it? The radar reflectors were made by a New York City toy company.

>> Further, there was no need for any material with shape memory. These were RADAR
>> tracking devices, that were unfolded and deployed at GROUND level during launch.
>> Their purpose was allow radar tracking from the MOMENT of launch, not to be
>> deployed at high altitude using some shape memory property.

>Straw man-- nitinol was available,

NO evidence has yet been presented that nitinol WAS available, nor has any
sensible reason given why it would be used if the shape memory property wasn't
known.. Here's one of those sweeping assertions of fact without evidence that I
was talking about. But I'm the one guilty of presenting straw man arguments.
Sheesh!

> but they didn't discover the
>shape-memory feature until much later.

Even if this was true, why use very expensive, difficult to obtain
nickel-titanium foil when cheap, available aluminum foil will do just as well
for reflecting radar waves?

>....

>> >> >Double checking is what's underway.
>> >
>> >> Good luck. From the actual documentation I've seen, you're anonymous friend's
>> >> story is a bunch of garbage.
>>
>> >If you appreciated the degree of knowledge Tom has on this particular
>> >subject, which many people are aware of, you might feel somewhat
>> >embarrassed.
>>
>> If you actually turn up anything of substance I'll apologize. But I'm not
>> holding my breath.

>....

>Seems not to have stopped you from launching into attack mode.

The pot calling the kettle black. All I've seen lately from Jim Rogers is
knee-jerk criticism and debunkery that never seems to be grounded in any
knowledge of the actual evidence or facts. For example, wiitness his latest
round of nonsense that the Twining memo had no backing of a scientific team,
when the FIRST paragraph of the memo specificially mentions the various
technical, intelligence, and engineering divisions of the Air Materiel Command
that contributed to the memo, and that the contents of the memo were the opinion
of his command. And this is after I have previously responded twice to him,
quoting the memo chapter and verse about what Twining REALLY said.

[twitch]

rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote in article
<53f75b$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...

> Jim Rogers <"jfr"@[RemoveThis/NoJunkMail]fc.hp.com>
wrote:
>
> >rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote:
>

> The dictionary <snip>

There is no 'the dictionary'! There are many dictionaries
some of which differ from others on many words. I have
about 20 dictionaries, and checked and there were several
different definitions of the words 'tin foil'.

[Jim Rogers]

rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote:
> Jim Rogers <"jfr"@[RemoveThis/NoJunkMail]fc.hp.com> wrote:
> >rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote:
> >> James Easton <10062...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >> >Dave Rudiak wrote:
> >....
> >> And I strongly suspect "Nitinol foil" will turn out to be the same sort of
> >> nonsense as aluminized mylar. There is NOTHING like this on any of the Mogul
> >> schematics of the equipment anywhere. The radar reflectors were made of plain
> >> old aluminum foil.
>
> >"Aluminum" foil? How sure are you? Some earlier posts I saw here said
> >"tin" foil, which is about as much "tin" as a "tin" can is-- i.e., a
> >sort of generic term for a number of alloys. It seems reasonable to me
> >that "nitinol foil," if it existed and was used, might have been called
> >"tin foil."
>
> The dictionary defines "tinfoil" as a foil of tin alloyed with some other metal,
> usually lead. In modern day common parlance, "tin foil" is usually used
> interchangeably with aluminum foil.

"Common parlance" is what I'm talking about.

> The Mogul schematics, project technical
> reports, the authors of the Air Force Report on Roswell, and Mogul engineer
> Charles Moore, and weather officer Irving Newton [who identified the radar
> reflector in Gen. Ramey's office] have all said these radar reflectors were made
> with thin aluminum foil, sometimes backed with paper or cloth to add strength.
> End of story.

Not quite the end; documented technical specs would be preferred to
testimony.

> >....
> >> >>I'm leaving a lot of material out here, this is simply an indication of the basis for
> >> >considering some possibilities further.
> >>
> >> You didn't have any details, just a lot of unsupported assertions. If there's
> >> anything to this, why not get the documentation first, before making sweeping
> >> statements that it is true?
>
> >How come you and Brian can't tolerate a reasonable conjecture without
> >treating it like an assertion to rigorously defend?
>
> When something goes beyond conjecture and is asserted as fact without evidence,
> as Easton has repeatedly done, and you do below, then I think you guys should be
> called on it.

Sure, but Easton made it quite clear that he was offering conjecture.

....

> >Is the chemical make-up of the foil specified at all?
>
> Yes, it was aluminum foil -- lightweight, readily available, and cheap. Why not
> use it? The radar reflectors were made by a New York City toy company.

You're asserting this from testimony, however, and not from technical
specs.

> >> Further, there was no need for any material with shape memory. These were RADAR
> >> tracking devices, that were unfolded and deployed at GROUND level during launch.
> >> Their purpose was allow radar tracking from the MOMENT of launch, not to be
> >> deployed at high altitude using some shape memory property.
>
> >Straw man-- nitinol was available,
>
> NO evidence has yet been presented that nitinol WAS available, nor has any
> sensible reason given why it would be used if the shape memory property wasn't
> known.. Here's one of those sweeping assertions of fact without evidence that I
> was talking about. But I'm the one guilty of presenting straw man arguments.
> Sheesh!

The "straw man" is that the unfolding property would be desired. Other
recent posts cited the early development of nitinol, contemporaneous
with the Mogul program.

> > but they didn't discover the
> >shape-memory feature until much later.
>
> Even if this was true, why use very expensive, difficult to obtain
> nickel-titanium foil when cheap, available aluminum foil will do just as well
> for reflecting radar waves?

Why? Perhaps durability.

> >....
> >> >> >Double checking is what's underway.
> >> >
> >> >> Good luck. From the actual documentation I've seen, you're anonymous friend's
> >> >> story is a bunch of garbage.
> >>
> >> >If you appreciated the degree of knowledge Tom has on this particular
> >> >subject, which many people are aware of, you might feel somewhat
> >> >embarrassed.
> >>
> >> If you actually turn up anything of substance I'll apologize. But I'm not
> >> holding my breath.
> >....
>
> >Seems not to have stopped you from launching into attack mode.
>
> The pot calling the kettle black. All I've seen lately from Jim Rogers is
> knee-jerk criticism and debunkery that never seems to be grounded in any
> knowledge of the actual evidence or facts. For example, wiitness his latest
> round of nonsense that the Twining memo had no backing of a scientific team,
> when the FIRST paragraph of the memo specificially mentions the various
> technical, intelligence, and engineering divisions of the Air Materiel Command
> that contributed to the memo, and that the contents of the memo were the opinion
> of his command. And this is after I have previously responded twice to him,
> quoting the memo chapter and verse about what Twining REALLY said.

What BRIAN said about these memos, to which I was directly responding,
was:

...Naturally, this is impossible, since Schulgen's descriptions
of saucer materials being made of "foil-like" and "balsa-like"
material were the same as those given by the Roswell witnesses....
...The final stake through the blackened heart of skepticism,
though, is the fact that Schulgen got his info from Twining and
the team at Air Materiel Command at Wright Field, where FOIA
documentation also shows that the "Mogul" debris was analyzed by
scientists.

"Mogul debris was analyzed by scientists." Get it? WHICH scientists?
WHERE is this documented? Where is the connection between the Twining
and Schulgen memos and Roswell debris explicated? It wasn't that a
"scientific staff" was involved in the Twining memo that I was
challenging, it was that a "scientific staff" was involved with Roswell
debris and their specific analyses led to these memos. Brian goes on:

No skeptic can explain how ordinary aluminum foil, neoprene
rubber, and balsa wood can lead to the Schulgen memo unless they
maintain that these totally ordinary materials fooled the
scientific staff... which is contradicted by Twining's eventual
promotion.

AGAIN the insinuation that there is direct evidence that a "scientific
staff" analyzed the Mogul debris, and that this analysis led to the
Twining and Schulgen memos. Where's the documentation to that effect? In
Brian's imagination.

Jim

[Brian Zeiler]

Jim Rogers wrote:

> AGAIN the insinuation that there is direct evidence that a "scientific
> staff" analyzed the Mogul debris, and that this analysis led to the
> Twining and Schulgen memos. Where's the documentation to that effect? In
> Brian's imagination.

See the thread entitled "Rogers can't face the facts" for a rebuttal to
your bizarre Mogul fantasies.

--
Brian Zeiler

[Jim Rogers]

Brian Zeiler wrote:

> Jim Rogers wrote:
>
> > AGAIN the insinuation that there is direct evidence that a "scientific
> > staff" analyzed the Mogul debris, and that this analysis led to the
> > Twining and Schulgen memos. Where's the documentation to that effect? In
> > Brian's imagination.
>

> See the thread entitled "Rogers can't face the facts" for a rebuttal to
> your bizarre Mogul fantasies.

"Bizarre" is your calling your read-between-the-lines fabrication of
scientific teams analyzing the Roswell debris and spawning the Twining
memo a "fact."

Jim

[rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu]

"twitch" <twi...@hub.ofthe.net> wrote:

>> >rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote:
>>
>> The dictionary <snip>

>There is no 'the dictionary'! There are many dictionaries
>some of which differ from others on many words. I have
>about 20 dictionaries, and checked and there were several
>different definitions of the words 'tin foil'.

Oh brother! I can see that Twitch is going to be in my face about absolutely
EVERYTHING from now on after I took him to task last week about his repeated
vapid posts lacking in substance. So what does he do? Post another vapid post
lacking all substance.

OK Twitch. You want to play the skeptical semantic nitpicking game? Please
tell us which of those 20 dictionaries disagree in substance to the definitions
I gave for "tin foil," to wit: 1) A metal foil made of tin, commonly alloyed
with some other metal, usually lead (usage dates back to at least the 15th
Century) ; or 2) a modern-day synonym for aluminum foil.

After you're done with that, please tell us which of those 20 dictionaries
defines "tin foil" as a metal foil made from that new debunker urban legend,
Nitinol. Thank you, and good night!

[Jim Rogers]

rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote:
....

> After you're done with that, please tell us which of those 20 dictionaries
> defines "tin foil" as a metal foil made from that new debunker urban legend,
> Nitinol. Thank you, and good night!

Don't get your shorts all in a bunch over this, I was only pointing out
that "tin," while *defined* as a chemical element, and also *defined* as
an alloy of tin and primarily lead, has been so casually used it's even
applied to substances (such as Aluminum) containing no tin, or merely
tin-plated (steel cans)-- both of which are backed up by "dictionaries."
Nitinol is not an Urban Legend; whether it was, in the 40's, made into a
thin foil and casually called "tin foil" is no more than an interesting
conjecture, and was never offered as more than that.

For the record, I rather doubt the scenario that the Mogul radar
reflectors were made out of nitinol foil, but my reasons don't include
that those involved called it "tin foil" or even "aluminum foil." I
don't understand why you are so averse to exploring possibilities
arising from imprecise terminology.

Jim

[James Easton]

rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote:

> But what's his connection to Mogul? How come he supposedly has access to
> documents allegedly demonstrating the existence of mylar and/or nitinol on Mogul
> when people like Moore or Air Force investigators don't?

Dave,

On this point for the moment...

Tom is a _very_ learned gentleman, forever "digging out" old papers
which are part of his "three tons" of documents. On Berlyn Brixner,
responsible for the filming and photographing of the Trinity test:

"I dug out several old AEC reports I had buried, and he *is* credited as
being "Photographic Unit Personnel, Trinity".

His forte is aerospace technology:

"Kodak produced, and still produces, high resolution film used in
photorecon systems, and produced the electro-optic film/video system
used in early (and some not-so-early) recon satellites".

He also has a detailed knowledge of relevant aspects relating to the
history of that time:

"If this was at Roswell, then the room was used for the initial prep of
the fissile components of the nuclear devices. The practice in those
days was to keep the fissile components and lenses separate, then
assemble at the last possible moment before loading onto the aircraft".

And his father was an eminent scientist:

"I'm not aware of any radio-biology labs around the area in that
time-frame, but that's not to say there *wasn't* one there, either... my
father did the original radio-tracer gel electrophoresis work with
Pierre Grabar - perhaps there might be something in those old papers.
(He also did medical evaluations and radio-assay work at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki...)

That's why Tom is an invaluable source and worth hearing out.

He has offered to help clarify this issue, but he's been away for a few
weeks, hence the delay.

I can assure you, I'm as keen as you are to establish some facts.
Hopefully soon.

[Love Lies Squealing]

On Fri, 04 Oct 1996 19:06:25 +0100, James Easton <10062...@compuserve.com>
pithily pencilled:

<snip>

>You mean Tom Genereaux? I have mentioned his name before, it's not a
>secret.
>

>Neither is Tom's expertise. Tom is one of the most knowledgeable and
>intelligent contributors on CompuServe.

Seconded. And he's tall.

-_) Love Lies Squealing (_-

The melting snow
Cold image, much larger than life.